StrAIT Blogging

I was recently at a SIM (Society for Information Management) dinner. The speaker was Jim Stikeleather, CTO of Dell Services (formerly Perot Systems). The title of his presentation was “Next Generation Computing”. I’m not going to try to repeat the presentation here, he did a much better job than I could do (it was a good presentation). I will focus on a few of the points he made. They relate to my last post, “A Consulting Ecosystem“. In that post, I warned you that there would be more on the topic. Well, here is the next installment.

I have included three slides from his presentation. All of these images are linked to full size versions, so click on them if you want to see the details of the slides. I have also included a PDF version of the full presentation here. The presentation includes some specific information about Dell Services that may be of interest to you as well.

In my last post I discussed the idea of the “Hollywood” business model and what it meant for small consulting companies. This presentation provided some of the inspiration for those views. I believe what I liked most about it was that our views of the future were so similar. Obviously, if he agrees with me he must be right on target. In the above slide he identified the trends and drivers in play. The point here is that as computing functionality becomes more available and less expensive, it can be more widely used. It also makes it less of a differentiator for individual companies. I have long believed that computing power has no intrinsic value. Its only value comes from those business capabilities that are enabled by its use. I’m sure that view is not well received by much of the IT community but my experience proved to me long ago that this is true.

I think another interesting point is show in the slide covering the evolution of cloud computing. In this slide, he provides a vision for the evolution toward the federation of cloud resources and applications. In this context, a “federation” means using multiple cloud applications together to meet a business goal or goals. What this means to me is that we should see more and more “specialist” applications being mashed-up and used together. This idea is some time away but I believe it is a reasonable expectation since we’re seeing it today to some extent. As standards mature this trend should accelerate.

Some of the slides in this presentation offer a specific timeline with forecasts by year. While these forecasts seem reasonable, I am a little nervous about forecasting specifics far into the future. However, I do agree with the overall trends. I do believe our comfort level with the use of cloud-based applications will grow steadily over time. I believe that standards will continue to mature. I do believe that more and more organizations will want someone else to provide the computing infrastructure. I believe that cloud-based applications will become more capable over time. I believe that the physical infrastructure of the cloud will become more capable and reliable over time.

The presentation document speaks to business process outsourcing, or BPO, more that the speaker actually did. The presentation was very interactive and so it was hard to get to everything. As a disclaimer, I must mention that my business does not include BPO but does include the analysis of business processes. The two are separate but the analysis work is often part of a larger consulting engagement for BPO firms. The question here is very personal for each BPO customer. Essentially, it boils down to whether a prospective customer is comfortable with their business process living outside their firewall. The data that I’ve seen implies that small to midsize businesses (SMB) are signing up quickly but larger businesses are taking more time to decide. It’s basically a cost reduction decision with some business simplification thrown in to the mix.

I can’t say that I’m as enthusiastic about this as the other topics of the presentation. Besides that, I can’t find a consistent definition of what BPO “2.0″ means. I’m going to assume in this post that it means more pervasive use of BPO than “1.0″ versions and includes the idea of federated BPO providers. Having run many manufacturing business processes over the years, I struggle with the idea of my business processes living outside the firewall. I’m sure I’ll get there eventually. The closer an application lives to my company’s P&L, the closer I like it to be to me. I just worry about the exposure to cloud-centric risks like a patch or upgrade to the application coming as a surprise.

In conclusion, I think this presentation was valuable in that it collects insight from various sources, not just Dell/Perot. It did include some Dell/Perot sales material but that’s to be expected and wasn’t emphasized by the speaker. I encourage you to take a harder look at the presentation. It has some valuable nuggets of information. It does support the notion that the technology world is evolving in a direction which will allow smaller consulting companies to be far more scalable and effective than ever before (good news for us!).

Thanks for stopping by.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I recently attended a dinner meeting addressing, among other things, the future of work. That reminded me of a book that I read a long time ago in which the same thing was discussed. That book is titled “The Future of Work”. An image of that book cover is shown here (click on it to see that book on Amazon.com). I’m not going to attempt to do a book review here. I will address one of the points made in the book and what it means to the consulting business.

In Grantham’s book he describes the “Hollywood Model”. That business model is based on the movie making business in Hollywood where teams of independent, self-supporting specialists group together for a project. At the completion of the project, these teams disband. These specialist entities may be individuals, small organizations, larger organizations or yet another small team of specialists. As this idea evolves we start to envision a network of entities that begin to look like a complex molecule.

Maybe it would be more meaningful to refer to a molecular consulting ecosystem. Just for kicks I did a Google search for “molecular consulting ecosystem” and got no hits. I think I’ll include that phrase in my keywords for this post. Or not. Back to a serious note, the notion of comparing coordinated groups of independent entities for some common purpose to something like a molecule is not a new idea. Actually, if you think about it, we are talking about a fairly structured collection of entities focusing on very specific goals or projects. I think the best analogy is a crystal. Crystals are composed of atoms in a very specific structure. They tend to be stronger and more predictable than more typical organic molecules. They also tend to last a long time. Maybe naming such a business model after a crystalline structure is a good idea.

So what should be done to actually use this idea in a more general purpose consulting environment? Let’s think about a few more details and specific goals of such an arrangement. So what are the basic goals for the group?

• The entities (individuals or small groups) must be knowledgeable.
  
• The entities (individuals or small groups) must be perceived as knowledgeable by the group’s clients.
  
• The entities (individuals or small groups) must be safe to do business with.
  
• The entities (individuals or small groups) must be perceived as safe to do business with by the group’s clients.
  
• The group must have a means of generating new opportunities.
  
• The group must have a means of presenting a unified presence to the marketplace.
  
• The group must have an accepted means of distributing revenue among the entities.
  
• The group must have an accepted means of distributing operating costs among the entities.
  
• The group must have an accepted means of distributing liability among the entities or centralizing it as appropriate.
  
• The group must have an accepted means of recruiting and vetting new entities.
• The group must have an accepted means of allocating rights and access to any intellectual property generated by the group during an engagement and not the exclusive property of the client.
  
• The group must have access to systems to support collaboration among the entities for skills exchange and training.
  
• The group must not be constrained by national boundaries.
  
• The group must have access to systems to allow the collaboration on work product documents and proposals.
  
• The group must be able to scale to perform various sizes of engagements.
  
• The group must be able to include external entities as necessary for specific engagements.
  
• The group must be able to include clients as appropriate.
  

Basically, the group must be able to function very much like a company but maintain the ability to expand and contract as needed. It strikes me that what the group needs is an infrastructure that looks much like a PMO, or Project Management Office. That PMO must have some of the attributes of a business and not just a department within a larger organization. Going back to our crystal analogy, there must be a seed crystal around which other crystals form or connect. That seed crystal becomes the key to making everything else stable and effective. The seed crystal contains the PMO.

Maybe I’ll just call this the “Crystal Consulting Model”. Google doesn’t have anything for that phrase either. Anyway, consider this a part of an upcoming series of posts. I don’t know how many or when they will appear but this topic is important to our business so defining it more clearly is very important to us.

Thanks for stopping by. Any comments would be much appreciated. See you next time…

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I recently viewed a webinar on Exploration and Production (E&P) Technology Trends (link here ; registration is required). It was hosted by Hart Energy Publishing. The presenters were Halliburton (Landmark) and NetApp. The intent of the presentation was to promote Landmark’s software and services as well as NetApp’s offerings in data storage and data management. While both companies have impressive credentials in their own right, neither are analysts (as in taking subscription money from clients for vendor neutral, informed opinions). The presentation was interesting and credible in supporting their respective offerings. However, I believe that some interesting points were glossed over. I am not implying that they were misleading, just that the points that jumped out at me were not major points for them given their goals for this presentation.
 

 Maturity
 

 They presented the maturity model shown below. I have seen similar ones from analysts like Gartner and Forrester and this one is relatively consistent with those. A little later a Domain Specific – Data Management Maturity Assessment, shown below, was provided. While I find the maturity assessment diagram to be a little vague (the difference between the hexigon, square and circle shapes was never clarified), I assumed that each symbol represented an E&P company. The point the presenters made was that the E&P world needed help in managing and storing their Drilling and Engineering data (Landmark software generates Petabytes of data while NetApp can provide and manage the subsequent storage requirements). From the discussion this diagram it was implied that red is bad, yellow is marginal and green is good although that was not said specifically.
 The point that was not mentioned is that the maturity assessment diagram implies that the “surface” domains, i.e., Operations and Business are in marginal or good shape. I believe their data implies something else. Later in the presentation we see the Production Data Management Challenges slide. There are three bullet points shown on that slide. All are big problems. The first two, Fragmented Solutions and Variations in Workflow, are huge. Those of us who have spend years managing operations and business organizations understand just how huge.
  

 Spending

That brings us to another slide. The Data Management (DM) Investments in 1 to 3 Years. I have provided an image of the entire slide as well as a larger image of the graph portion. The larger image is to make the information easier to read and the entire slide is to provide context. In this slide the Landmark data tells us that in the 64 customers surveyed four of the top five budget items over the next three years address business and operations needs.

Conclusion
 

 My point is actually very simple. It’s easy for E&P companies to focus on the downhole stuff. Just don’t loose site of where your competition is placing their bets for the near term. While that downhole technology is vitally important, getting the business and operations technology right can be a game changer too. It’s been the ugly stepchild of the E&P world for years. Now it’s time to let it out of it’s back room and let it join the party.
 

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Well I’m back on a social media post. I know, I know, I promised the last post on social media was my last post on social media. So shoot me (just kidding). I just attended a webinar put on by HubSpot and the American Marketing Association. It reminded me of one of my blogging hot buttons. One of the recommended best practices in blogging is to specify keywords in the metadata, i.e., data describing the post but not visible in the post that you can see. Then the author uses them as much as possible in the body of the post. This is supposedly a good thing for search engines to see in the post. I suppose that it tells them that the author is talking about what he claims he’s going to talk about. When I do that, my wording sounds forced and artificial. Some people can write that way and it sounds natural. I suppose that when I’m writing that way I feel artificial, so that’s the way it comes out. Excessive wordsmithing can be a bad thing.

Raisin Bran

The presentation also included some interesting ways to categorize blog posts. I have included some of the slides from the presentation. The first category is Rasin Bran. This metaphor speaks to the most basic form of blog post. The presenter told us that they are typically small but useful posts, typically providing “how to” type information. While I don’t write as many of these as the presenter recommends, I do try to make mine useful. The slide tells us to be able to “whip these out”. To be honest, it’s unlikely that I pop out posts as quickly as this slide would imply. I have to catagorize my posts as more of a cup of rasin bran than a bowl.

Spinach

This category of posts are intended to be more thoughtful and be intended to establish a reputation as a thought leader for the author. I confess that is one of my goals. My goal is not so much to be an academic wizard on the technology but to be a practical voice for the use of technology to derive real business benefits. I do spend quite a bit of time thinking about a subject, mapping the major points back to my own experience and applying some common sense in my recommendations. The slide tells me to not do too many of them. Well, this category has been my bread and butter (no pun intended) since I started my blog. I guess that gives me a dinner plate full of spinach or a smaller plate if it’s steamed.

Roasts

This category implies a post that is more like a whitepaper or some other more serious academic work. While I don’t think this is my style, some of my posts have drifted in this direction. Typically, if I feel strongly about a topic and feel that my experience is particularly valuable, I may generate more words than normal. This is fairly rare but they are definitely here. It is impractical to make this the norm because they are more work, especially if I have to create diagrams or illustrations. These topics tend to focus on managing people, organizational communications and aligning technology to the needs of its customers. These are core issues in the successful alignment of technology to business process and aligning those business processes to a clients business goals (“alignment” is one of my keywords but maybe I’ll get credit for “aligning” as well).

Tobasco and Chocolate Cake

I’ve grouped these last two together since I don’t intentionally do many of either of these. The Tobasco category implies making inflamitory statements that promote a lot of comments. I suppose I should do more of these type of posts but I’ve never been one to say inflamitory things just to get a rise out of people. That’s never seemed like a useful thing to do. I seem to be able to be mildly inflamitory without even trying and the purpose of this blog is to be a useful reference for my viewers.

I think that this post is probably as close to Chocolate Cake as any post I’ve written. It has nothing to do with any type of alignment (there’s that keyword again) and probably isn’t that useful in running an organization. The Chocolate Cake slide recommends using video and images. Well these slides are images and videos of raw food doesn’t sound like the thing to do. However, I must admit that I am having fun writing this and I’m not being all that serious. I guess that means this post is mostly Chocolate Cake with a side of Spinach. If you like thise slides here is a link to more HubSpot presentations.

The presentation also said that a good post should be between 500 and 800 words. This one is slightly over 800 words, so it’s time to shut it down before the blog police come for me. I hope this post was a good mix of Chocolate Cake and Spinach for you. See you next time…

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I attended a dinner this week which had an interesting presentation. It was the monthly dinner meeting of the Society for Information Management here in Houston. The presentation revolved around the usefulness of IT leadership surveying their customers and doing some amount of statistical analysis on the results to understand customer satisfaction levels. I agree with the speaker that this is very useful and can provide IT leadership with insight on the perceptions of their customers.

The idea of IT leadership maintaining a clear understanding of their customer base is a big deal to me. However, statistics can’t do it all. During my tour of duty in IT leadership, I spent a non-trivial amount of time trying to understand how our customers saw us and our value to them. In my case, I spent more time talking with them directly than doing surveys (a luxury of a mid-size manufacturing company). What I concluded is that many problems are just communications and perception problems. I’m sure you’ve heard that before but it’s really true. In the world of IT operations it really boils down to vocabularies. In many cases, the business customer doesn’t have the IT vocabulary to articulate their problems to the IT support staff trying to help them. Conversely, the IT support staff often doesn’t have the business vocabulary to articulate their thoughts to the business customer. Communications suffer and customer satisfaction can go in the tank.

The customer shouldn’t be required to have an IT vocabulary (although it sure helps a lot). One solution to this dilemma is that the IT support group either needs each IT support person to have both vocabularies (very rare) or have a few “Translators” on staff to translate business speak to IT speak, as shown in the diagram on the right. The effect is that your IT support staff only needs sufficient business vocabulary to communicate with the Translator and the Translator only needs sufficient IT vocabulary to communicate with your IT staff. I would articulate this with a bridge metaphor, like to one implied by the diagram on the right. The simple idea was that half a bridge doesn’t get the job done.

When I added the staff to actually deliver on this idea, the results were dramatic. In larger IT organizations, such staff additions are becoming the norm but in mid-size companies resources are much leaner. Adding semi-technical staff to those IT organizations is a much bigger deal. I suggest to those of you in such organizations is that it’s worth the effort and will pay huge dividends. The idea of complementary skills is addressed in an earlier post called Alignment to the Core. It highlights that there are different frames of mind or paradigms that need to be bridged. The basic idea is that there is the paradigm where it tools (IT hardware and software) is the primary focus and there is the paradigm where the application of the tools (business uses, workflow, etc.) is the focus. As with the bridge metaphor these overlapping paradigms must communicate with each other as well.

As you can tell, I am a big fan of overlapping, complementary skills inventory in IT organizations. It’s the best way to align the IT function with the business requirements and people. I hope I have increased your interest as well.

Thanks for stopping by. Until next time…

Bookmark It

Hide Sites