From VMworld, NYSE Euronext on hybrid cloud vision and strategy behind the Capital Markets Community Platform vertical cloud

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Read a full transcript or download a copy. Sponsor: VMware.

When we hear about cloud, especially public clouds, we often encounter one-size-fits-all services. Advanced adapters of cloud delivery models are now quickly creating more specialized hybrid clouds for certain industries. And they're looking to them as both major sources of new business, and the means to bring much higher IT efficiency to their clients.

We'll learn here about how the NYSE Euronext recently unveiled one such vertical offering, their Capital Markets Community Platform. We’ll see how they built the cloud, which amounts to a Wall Street IT services destination, what it does, and how it’s different from other cloud offerings.

This story comes as part of a special BriefingsDirect podcast series from the VMworld 2011 Conference in Las Vegas the week of August 29. The series explores the latest in cloud computing and virtualization infrastructure developments.

Here to tell us about how specialized clouds are changing the IT game in such vertical industries as finance is Steve Rubinow, Executive Vice-President and Chief Information Officer at NYSE Euronext. The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: VMware is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: I’d like to hear more about how you put your cloud together. You're supporting these services both inside your cloud as well as your clients'. Why have you done it this way?

Rubinow: It’s the convergence of a couple of trends and also things that our customer started to tell us. Like a lot of companies, we started to use cloud technology within our own company to service our own internal needs for the reasons that many people do -- lower cost, more flexibility, more rapid spin up, those kinds of things, and we found, of course, that was very useful to us.

At the same time, we've talked to a lot of our customers via our commercial division, which we call NYSE Technologies. By virtue of all the turbulence that's happened in the world, especially in the financial markets in the last couple of years, a lot of our customers -- big ones, small ones, banks, brokerages, and everyone in between -- said the infrastructure that we traditionally have supported within our own companies, is a new model that we could adapt, given these technologies that are available, and given that we NYSE Technologies wants to provide these services. We asked if we should take a different look at what we are doing and see if we should pursue some of these things.

What it comes down right down to is that many of these companies said that maintaining their own infrastructure is not a competitive advantage for them. It’s really a cost of doing business like telephones and office furniture. It would be better if someone else helped them with it, maybe not 100 percent, but like we propose to do, and everyone wins. They get lower cost and they get to offload a burden that wasn’t particularly strategic to them.

We say we can do it with good service and at a good price, and everybody comes away a winner. So we launched this program this summer, with one offering called Compute on Demand, which has a number of attributes that make it different than your run-of-the-mill public cloud.

Higher Requirements

In the capital markets community, we have some attributes of infrastructure, a higher requirement, that most companies wouldn’t care so much about, but in our industry they are very, very critical. We have a higher level of security than an average company would probably pay attention to.

And reliability, as you can imagine. The markets need to be up all the time when they are supposed to be open. A few seconds makes a big difference. So we want to make sure that we pay extra attention to reliability.

Another thing is performance. Our industry is very performance-sensitive. Many of the executions are measured in micro-seconds. Any customer of ours, including ourselves, are sensitive to make sure that any infrastructure that we would depend on has the ability to make sure that transactions happen. You don’t find that in the run-of-the-mill public cloud because there just isn’t a need for the average company to do that.

For that reason, we thought our private offering, our community cloud, was a good idea. By the way, our customers seem to be nodding their heads a lot to the idea as well.

Gardner: Why have it as a hybrid model?

We're a very rich source of market data, as one might imagine. We generate a lot of market data ourselves because of the large marketplace we are.

Rubinow: In the spirit of trying to accommodate all the needs that people will have, for many of the cloud services, you get the most leverage out of them, if you as a customer are situated in the data center with us.

Many customers choose to do that for the simple reason of speed-of-light issues. The longer the network is between Point A and Point B, the longer it takes a message to get across it. In an industry where latency is so important, people want to minimize that distance, and so they co-locate there. Then, they have high-speed access to everything that's available in the data center.

Of course, customers outside the data center certainly can have access to those services as well. We have a dedicated network that we call SFTI, Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure. That was designed to support high speed, high reliability, and high resiliency, things that you would expect from a prominent financial services network. Our customers come to our data centers over that network, and they can avail themselves of the services that we have there too.

Historical data

We have historical data that lot of our customers would like to take a look at and analyze, rather than having to store the data themselves. We have it all here for them. We have applications like risk management and other services that we intend to offer in the future that customers would be hard-pressed to find somewhere else, or if they could find it somewhere else, they probably won't find it in as efficient a manner. So it makes sense for them to come to us to take a look at it and see how they can take advantage of it here.

Gardner: Tell us about your organization, your global nature, and where you expect to deliver these cloud services over time.

Rubinow: The full name of the company is NYSE Euronext, and that reflects the fact that we are a collection of markets not only in the United States but also in Europe. We operate a number of cash and derivative exchanges in Europe as well. So we talk about the whole family being part of NYSE Euronext.

We segment our business into three segments. There is the cash business, which is global. There is the derivatives business, which is global, and those are the things that people would have normally associated our company with, because the thing we've been doing for many years.

The newest piece of our business is the piece that I've referred to earlier and that's our commercial technology business, which we call NYSE Technologies. Through that segment of the business, we offer all these services, whether it be software products we might develop that our customers take advantage of or services as we've already referenced.

Over the years, we've been offering these services to our customers, and then a couple of years ago we decided to do it in a much bigger way, because we realized the need was there.

In a small way, over the years, we've been offering these services to our customers, and then a couple of years ago we decided to do it in a much bigger way, because we realized the need was there. Our customers told us that they would take advantage of these services. So we made a bigger effort in that regard. Right now, the commercial part of our business is several hundred million dollars a year in terms of revenue.

Question of latency

I have to add one note in terms of latency. For people who aren't familiar with our obsession with latency, the true textbook cloud profile means that one could execute cloud-like services. If we had 20 data centers across the world, they could be executed across any of those data centers and transparent to the customer as long as they get done.

In ours latency-sensitive world, we are a little bit constrained with some of the services that we offer. We can't afford to be moving things around from data center to data center, because those network differences, when you're measuring things in micro-seconds, are very noticeable to our customers. So some of our services could be distributed across the world, but some of our services are very tied to a physical location to make sure we get the maximum performance.

To add further to that, one of the cornerstone technologies, as we all know, of cloud computing is virtualization. That gives you a lot of flexibility to make sure that you get maximum utilization of your compute resources.

Some of the services we offer can't use virtualization. They have to be tied to a physical device. It doesn't mean that we can't use a lot of other offerings that VMware provides to help manage that process, but some are tied to physical devices, because virtualization in some cases introduces an overhead. Again, when you're measuring in micro-seconds, it's noticeable. Many other of our services where virtualization is key to what we do to offer the flexibility in cost to our customers.

So we have kind of a mixed bag of unique provisioning that's designed for the low-latency portion of our business, and then more general cloud technologies that we use for everything else in our business. You put the two of them together and we have a unique offering that no one else that we know of in the world offers, because we think we're the first, it’s not among the first, to do this.

You put the two of them together and we have a unique offering that no one else that we know of in the world offers.

Gardner: So this is a rather big business undertaking for you. This cloud is really an instrument for your business in a major way.

Rubinow: That's right. Sometimes we think the core of our business is trading. That is the core. That's our legacy That's the core of what we do. It's a very important source of our business, and it generates a lot of the things that we've been talking about. Without our core business we wouldn’t have the market data to offer to our customers in a variety of formats.

The technologies that we used to make sure that we were the leader in the marketplace in terms of trading technology and all the infrastructure to support that, that's also what we're offering our customers. What we're trying to do is cover all the bases in the capital markets community, and not only trading services, which of course is the center of what we do and it's core to everything that we do.

All the things that surround that our customers can use to support their traditional trading activities and then other things that they didn't used to look to us to do. These are things like extensive calculations that they would not have asked the NYSE to do, but today they do it, because we provide the infrastructure there for them.

Gardner: What are some of the underlying numbers perhaps of how this works economically?

Rubinow: From a metrics standpoint, it's probably too early to provide metrics, but I can tell you, qualitatively speaking, the few customers that we have that were early adopters are happy to get on stage with us and give great testimonials about their experience so far. So that’s a really good leading indicator.

Again, without offering numbers, our pipeline of people wanting these services globally has been filling very nicely. So we know we've hit a responsive chord. We expect that we will fulfill the promises that we’re offering and that our customers will be happy. It’s too early, though, to say, "Here's three case studies that show, our customers are saying how it’s gone, because they haven’t been in it long enough to deliver those metrics.

Many of the things needed to be done from scratch, because we didn’t have models to look for that we could copy in a marketplace.

When we were putting together our cloud architecture and thinking about the special needs that we had -- and I keep on saying it’s not run-of-the-mill cloud architecture -- we we’re trying to make sure that we did it in a way that would give us the flexibility, facilities, and cost that we needed. Many of the things needed to be done from scratch, because we didn’t have models to look for that we could copy in a marketplace.

And we also realized that we couldn’t do it ourselves; we have a lot of smart people here, but we don’t have all the smart people we need. So we had to turn to vendors. We were talking to everyone that had a cloud solution. Lots of vendors have lots of solutions. Some are robust, and some are not so robust.

When it came down to it, there were only a couple of vendors that we felt were smart enough, able enough, and real enough to deliver the things to us that we felt we needed to get started. I'm sure we will progress over time, and there will be other people who will include the picture.

Top of the list

But VMware was at the top of that list of technologies that we have been using internally for several years, been very happy with. Based on our historical relationship with VMware and the offerings that VMware have in the traditional VMware space, plus the cloud offerings, things like Cloud Director and other things, that we felt that those were good cornerstone technologies to make sure we have the greatest chance of success with few surprises.

And we needed partners to push the envelope, because we view ourselves as being innovative and groundbreaking, and we want to do things that are first in the industry. In order to do those with better certainty of outcome, you have to have good partners, and I think that’s what we found at VMware.

Gardner: What did you learn? Is there any 20-20 hindsight or Monday morning quarterback types of insights that you could offer to others who are considering such cloud and/or vertical specialty cloud implementations?

Rubinow: It goes back to the comments I just made in terms of choosing your partners carefully. You can’t afford to have a whole host of partners, dozens of them, because it would get very confusing. There's a lot of hype in the marketplace in terms of what can be done. You need people that have abilities, can deliver them, can service them, and can back them up.

You can’t afford to have a whole host of partners, dozens of them, because it would get very confusing.

Every one of us who’s trying to do something a little bit different than the mainstream, because we have a specific need that we’re trying to service, has to go into it with a careful eye towards who we’re working with.

So I would say to make sure that you ask the right questions. Make sure you kick the tires quite a bit. Make sure that you can count on what you’re going to implement and acquire. It’s like implementing any new technology It’s not unique to cloud.

If you're leading the charge, you still want to be aggressive but it’s a risk management issue You have to be careful what you’re doing internally. You have to be careful who you’re working with. Make sure that you dot your I’s and cross your T’s. Do it as quickly as you can to get to market, but just make sure that you keep your wits about you.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Read a full transcript or download a copy. Sponsor: VMware.

You may also be interested in:

• VMware's vSphere 5 Hits the Streets
• VMware Launches a Developer Edition for Cloud Service
• Webinar: Analysts Plumb Desktop as a Service as the Catalyst for Cloud Computing Value for Enterprises and Telcos
• IT Financial Management Provides Required Visibility into Operations to Reduce Total IT Costs
• Want Client Virtualization? Time Then to Get your Back-End Infrastructure Act Together

Priming the private cloud pump, HP releases VirtualSystem for VMware at VMworld

HP is taking full advantage of the VMworld conference in Las Vegas this week to make a series of major announcements around its virtualization and cloud computing products. One of the most important is the announcement of HP VirtualSystem for VMware.

While there is growing adoption of cloud computing, many organizations find the cloud to be a hard thing to grab hold of. HP is promising to help simplify and speed the process of implementation with the new releases. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

HP is tackling the problem with three different products within the HP VirtualSystem suite – HP Converged Storage, HP BladeSystem Servers, and HP Insight software. Taken together, HP hopes to be offering “best in class, at every level of the rack,” according to Tom Joyce, vice president of marketing, strategy and operations at HP StorageWorks.

Joyce took the opportunity to discuss the features and importance of the VirtualSystem release in a pre-VWworld briefing, along with Mike Banic, vice president of global marketing, and Michael Nielson, director of product solutions, both at HP Networking.

VirtualSystem has been three years in the works, according to Joyce. And it comes in response to struggles that many organizations have had with migration toward cloud computing. VirtualSystem for VMware is being promoted as “a highly optimized, turnkey solution that gives organizations a virtualized infrastructure that speeds implementation and provides a foundation for cloud computing.”

As virtualization has gained adoption, multi-tier network architectures, virtual sprawl, inflexible storage, unpredictable workloads and security concerns have increased complexity and limited broad deployment.

“As virtualization has gained adoption, multi-tier network architectures, virtual sprawl, inflexible storage, unpredictable workloads and security concerns have increased complexity and limited broad deployment,” an HP spokesperson says.

Specifically, VirtualSystem for VMware suite aims to help:

• Accelerate virtual machine mobility by up to 40 percent, while doubling throughput and reducing network recovery time by more than 500 times. It does this using the new HP FlexFabric virtualized networking solution.

• Cut capacity requirements by 50 percent, double virtual machine density, and speed deployment, all using HP LeftHand and HP 3PAR Storage Systems.

Remote trouble shooting

Using HP Insight Control for VMware vCenter Server, the new system also allows for remote trouble shooting and management, which should help improve virtual server operations. IT administrators should like this feature, since complexity is currently one of the loudest complaints of virtualization.

Despite virtualization becoming main stream for some organizations, there are still obstacles to many for a smooth deployment, notes Paul Miller, vice president, systems and solutions, at the Enterprise Servers, Storage and Networking division of HP. With HP VirtualSystem for VMware, organizations will be able to scale up in their cloud computing efforts as they add more desktops to the system, or as they combine private and public clouds.

This should come as welcome news for IT managers struggling with ever-changing deployment needs. Also welcome news is that VirtualSystem can be customized with HP Virtualization Smart Bundles.

HP clearly sees the new release as part of an umbrella strategy toward seemless and scalable deployment, but also one that provides strategic advantage for the client.

At VMworld the synergy between private cloud infrastructure and desktop virtualization infrastructure (VDI) deployments is a major theme.

Indeed, here at VMworld the synergy between private cloud infrastructure and desktop virtualization infrastructure (VDI) deployments is a major theme. We're seeing a lot of VDI news and thin client news from the likes of Wyse. And VMware is expected to make some big View VDI product news as well.

On the business side, the new HP system is being heralded as helping organizations “align virtualization strategy and investments to business goals with consulting, planning, pre-integration, deployment and support services from HP Technology Services and HP ServiceONE partners,” the HP spokesperson notes.

VirtualSystem for VMware is available now from HP, with pricing starting at $167,300. This includes HP Converged Infrastructure, factory integration and three years of HP Support Plus 24 service.

(BriefingsDirect contributor David Weldon added research and reporting to this post. He can be reached via LinkedIn.)

You may also be interested in:

• HP delivers applications appliance solutions that leverage converged infrastructure for virtualization, data management
• HP delivers NMC 9.1 as new demands on network management require secure, integrated, and automated response
  
• New HP Service Manager tackles time and cost associated with help desk productivity
• HP's IT Performance Suite empowers IT leaders with unified view into total operations, costs
  
• HP takes plunge on dual cloud bursting: public and-or private apps support comes of age
  
• HP rolls out EcoPOD modular data center, provides high-density converged infrastructure with extreme energy efficiency

HP's Liz Roche on why enterprise technology strategy must move beyond the 'professional' and 'consumer' split

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Read a full transcript or download a copy. Sponsor: HP.

The past several years have ushered in a changing set of expectations from users as they engage with technology and services as both consumers and workers. The sense is that they want to get as much ease of use and productivity from enterprise technology as from their smartphones, social networks, tablets, and cloud-based offerings.

These deep rumblings of change mean that IT needs to rethink things a bit, to develop a "prosumer" strategy, whereby both the applications and services they provide to internal employees and their end-user customers increasingly bear the hallmarks of modern consumer services.

Their applications may need to behave more like apps. Their provisioning may need to be more like app stores. And self-service and intuitive adoption of new features need to be built in as primary requirements. Ease in social collaboration has become a must.

So how can IT adjust to this shift? What must they do differently, or more importantly, how must they think differently? This is the type of problem that a product or technology itself cannot address. It requires a comprehensive and methodological perspective, one that impacts consumers, business goals, and behaviors around technology use and adoption.

We're here now with an innovator and leader in HP’s Technology Consulting group to learn how enterprises can tackle and exploit such complex challenges as developing a prosumer strategy. The discussion with Liz Roche, a Director in the HP Technology Consulting organization, is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: It seems that the adoption of technology now seems to be moving at the volition of the savvy consumer, not the IT director.

Roche: If we look at some of the economic trends, you'll start to see that folks who went to college 20 or 30 years ago got out of school with the expectation of working their way up a corporate ladder and adopting technology and tools that were provided by the corporation. The folks who are coming up these days have been weaned on technology.

A really big mega-trend is that our workers of today and tomorrow, not us who are already in the workplace, those folks coming up, are going to not just demand technology that will enable their work and their life, but they will expect it and indeed may not be able to function as well without it.

Mega-trends include the consumerization of IT. At HP, we're calling it the Instant-On Enterprise, where everything and everyone is connected. Immediate gratification and instantaneous results are mandatory. There is this notion of 24×7, always-on commerce. We could go on and on, but I think the big trends are in that general category, at least as pertains to the prosumer. [To connect further with Liz Roche, visit her at her micro site.]

Gardner: How do you see the economics of this shifting and pushing the adoption patterns that enterprises need to try to catch up to?

Roche: It's funny, because in many ways it has become a numbers game. Some of these applications or businesses price their products at low or no cost -- with the objective being conversion to paid, either subscriptions or paid services and advertising, but also the value of the connection, the value of the social network as part of the business model.

Shared knowledge

Organizations or enterprises today are going to be taking philosophies like that and applying it to more traditional goods and services in the marketplace, where the value isn't necessarily on the initial transactions. It’s not about a 99-cent Angry Birds [app]. It's about what happens once you're using the technology, the product, the service, the relationships that you form, the advertising, and the knowledge that can be shared.

Gardner: So we have this cauldron of bubbling and churning change. What is it that you think organizations need to try to do in order to be on that advantageous side of shifts, rather than find themselves at a disadvantage?

Roche: A bunch of things. Let's start with the big picture. Organizations that are truly instant-on enterprises are those that serve their constituents, customers, employees, partners with whatever they want and need instantly, at any point in time, through any channel. So organizations that are instant-on, and those are the kinds of organizations that we need to evolve to, are going to explore better ways to run business and government by designing new process and methods, by building flexible systems that interact with greater personalization.

I think back to 10 or 15 years ago, when we were talking about mass customization and the science fiction world that was all about personalization of every transaction and every purchase. Companies are going there. I think companies will also need to look at frameworks for transacting efficiently and securely.

Creating a framework for this instant-on enterprise will enable this whole idea of everybody on, and the prosumer, the professional, and the consumer coming together as one person, one view, with two different sides to them, two worlds.

Governance is going to become ever more important. There are certainly legal and ethical goals and constraints. Creating a framework for this instant-on enterprise will enable this whole idea of everybody on, and the prosumer, the professional, and the consumer coming together as one person, one view, with two different sides to them, two worlds. That's going to have to be where organizations move to support.

Gardner: Help me understand about how you at HP are looking at this. It seems to be a terrific opportunity.

Roche: HP has a long, very cool history of being really innovative, but at HP today, our vision is to provide seamless and context-aware experiences for this connected world.

We're in a particularly interesting time and place to provide this to our customers, because we are going through it ourselves, both internally -- as an employee I can see it -- but also in how we interact with our customers, our partners, and all our constituents. [To connect further with Liz Roche, visit her at her micro site.]

Not just about prosumers

Just by way of example, at HP it's not just about prosumers, folks like me doing personal activities during work hours and work during personal hours. It's about these personal activities evolving into becoming work activities.

I'm not just messing around on YouTube because I like looking at the latest videos. I'm working You Tube, because that's where our HP Channel is. It’s one of the places where our HP Channel lives and it's one of the ways that I communicate with my clients. The same thing with Twitter and Facebook, and indeed even this podcast, speaking with you. These are prime examples of things that we at HP place a very high value on and our technology infrastructure has been overhauled to support that.

The other interesting thing about HP being well-positioned to do this is that we have a depth and breadth of both services and products that meet almost every requirement of this new instant-on enterprise.

Certainly, we would never expect to see an HP-only environment. We are very, very focused on what's right for our clients and our customers. But, the fact that I can reach back into my toolkit of HP brain power and HP Labs and our various products and service units and gain access to the information and the mind share that my clients need, is a hugely valuable tool to have at my disposal.

Gardner: What about the technology consulting organization?

The way our services are structured, we're designed to meet the various needs of transforming to an instant-on enterprise.

Roche: Let's talk a little bit about what all clients should look for in a consulting organization.

The way our services are structured, we're designed to meet the various needs of transforming to an instant-on enterprise, I mean that is the entire backbone of how we have structured ourselves.

If you look at our Converged Infrastructure team, for example, we have folks who are not only designing services to support a converged infrastructure, but we have folks who are looking at helping organizations create a transformation vision for what it means, how to get there, what your roadmaps need to look like, or how mature are you as an organization.

One of the things that we like to do a lot and, in fact, anyone considering working with a consulting partner should look for this as well, is to help folks understand their own maturity. I'm not talking about the traditional capability maturity model. We certainly we can do that, but we like to look at things in a slightly different way. We like to look at organizational culture and the risk profile of that organization. That’s unique to how we work at HP.

If I look at an organizational maturity model, we're looking at where culturally folks are going to be placed in terms of how they want to take a risk. Are they a science-fiction type organization where they're comfortable being on the bleeding edge, extremely early adopter organizations.

I've got this taxonomy in my brain from way back when I was an industry analyst and we used to talk about future organizations, which are these early adopter IT organizations, not bleeding edge, but willing to be early adopters.

Broker of services

There are the folks that are in the mainstream, and then there are the stalled IT organizations that look to deliver IT support, rather than moving to enable the business with IT and to have a seat at the table and to be not just a provider but an actual broker of services.

When you're a broker of IT services, which is what we teach our clients to be, you are providing not just IT support, but you're also providing new cost models for business process enablement. You're looking at things like service delivery in one of three ways: traditional, which is in-house or outsourced, private cloud, public cloud.

At HP Consulting, we believe that you're driving to create a service portfolio that drives a value chain. And the value chain delivers these services to the consumer, customer, citizen, via whatever channel is most appropriate -- web, chat, IM, etc.

Gardner: When you focus this problem set through a consultative solution or methodology, it’s really experiential, a tribal knowledge. It seems to me that the consultative function is perhaps more important when we come into this period of change.

We've been working really hard to make sure that we share our experiences, and to capture that tribal knowledge, to systematically input it into places where others can access it.

Roche: It’s one of the things that is pervasive throughout HP Consulting, that it really takes a village to deliver services and top-notch innovation to our clients.

Every time I walk into a client site with a team of consultants, it’s not just one of us working independently in our area of specialty. It’s about all of us working together. It’s about that tribal knowledge.

We've been working really hard to leverage the innovation in the field. So we need a really strong knowledge management capability. We've been working really hard to make sure that we share our experiences, and as you say, through tribal knowledge, to capture that tribal knowledge, to systematically input it into places where others can access it. And, of course, all while respecting the privacy and the non-disclosures we have with our clients.

When I walk into a healthcare organization to start working on a digital hospital activity, let's say, I've got the knowledge of all the folks who have come before me, including our long history of innovations.

The bottom line is that if someone says to me, what's very different and special about your team walking in versus someone else's team walking in, I'm going to say it is the depth and breadth of HP that's behind me, including the way that we work with our customers and partner with our clients to bring the depth and breadth of HP to bear in every engagement.

Gardner: So we're crossing chasm of consumer to business. You really need to have almost a behavioral, empathetic, sympathetic approach to bringing people into change. It's not easy to change.

Resistance to change

Roche: No, it's not. And while it may seem a little trite to say it, if anything is going to derail a project, it's going to be resistance to change, lack of a good change management strategy, and lack of executive support and governance.

The cool thing about this whole instant-on enterprise approach that we are taking is that we do actually have a taxonomy for change, and the taxonomy is both social and technology, and it basically is a way to connect all these different constituents to meet their needs.

The taxonomy itself says, if you're going to transform to an instant-on enterprise, the first level of the taxonomy is looking at the business and government requirements. Within IT, the best practice today seems to be all about alignment, business IT alignment.

We think that it's really not about alignment, but it's about taking that next step towards empowerment and empowering the business with IT. That means becoming a strategic service broker. That's the third level of this taxonomy.

To be a strategic service broker, you need to look at disciplines like converged infrastructure, security, information optimization, application and infrastructure transformation, and look to deliver those through those three service delivery mechanisms we spoke of earlier -- public cloud, private cloud, or traditional delivery, which includes outsourcing. Build those up into a service portfolio and roll it out in terms of services that are delivered.

We do actually have a taxonomy for change, and the taxonomy is both social and technology.

If you group this whole thing together, you're looking at a hybrid delivery capability, where there is no one-size-fits-all for every organization, but the taxonomy acts as a map and a rallying point to get to this idea of everybody on and supporting the prosumer. [To connect further with Liz Roche, visit her at her micro site.]

Gardner: How about some examples of how this can work when it's pulled together properly, when you have the alignment of services, consulting, technology, business buy-in, and so forth?

Roche: We actually have several great success stories with clients and I'm going to start with one client, Black & Veatch. We worked with them recently to deploy a unified communications solution from Microsoft that, for them, is going to pay for itself in 18 months, which is pretty amazing when you consider that we did this, basically creating a virtual environment to help Black & Veatch solve their client’s problems.

We worked with the client to design a unified communications solution and configure the architecture. We set up an infrastructure, including servers and load balancers and the like. We tested our Unified Communications software and voice, and we obviously are using voice over IP (VoIP).

We did all sorts of enhanced service desk and helpdesk implementations. And we also provided our own helpdesk -- or we set one up for them that was staff by HP to resolve issues during the cut-over. We did lots of training to help the users adapt to the new systems.

Reduced risk

After we put in place new converged technologies like IM and Mobile Access and desktop sharing, we replaced their phone system, and we gave them integrated fax and voicemail and email. We ended up reducing the risk of their outages through lots of built-in redundancies. We did this all in about 20 weeks.

As I said, they expect this project will pay for itself in 18 months, and essentially we gave Black & Veatch the ability to communicate and collaborate internally and with their customers around the world.

We worked with another client recently as well to provide them digital healthcare and digital hospital capabilities, that included things like video, telemedicine, that included the converged infrastructure to support voice and IM and other things like that.

We also worked with them to provide automated client case-management technology. I'm speculating a little bit, because some of the decisions haven’t totally been made, but imagine nurses walking into patient rooms carrying HP TouchPads, for example, rather than lugging the big heavy carts that nurses today do when they are doing automated medical records. It's really cool stuff like that, but again speaks to the whole nature of the prosumer.

We're working with education, a couple of education organizations, and in one instance working with some speech therapists to use tablet devices and handheld devices to help students with speech problems throughout their therapy. Rather than use flash cards, they're using specially built software that students can touch and listen to and things like that. Again, it's this integration of consumer and professional capabilities.

The idea that you have is provisioning that might look like app stores. Applications might look like apps on your device.

Gardner: One of the big things of course with the economy still being tough in many regions is how to do more with less. Is there a continuing economic incentive or I suppose even an engine of adoption that we should expect in the future, Liz?

Roche: Absolutely. In fact, I might even go so far as to call it an economic imperative. You talk about a harbinger of things to come, and I would say look at this whole reemergence of this prosumer trend. When I say reemergence, I'm talking about back in the '80s when Alvin Toffler first made up the idea that there is a convergence. He wasn’t calling it a professional, but he was calling it a producer and a consumer.

If we take that and look at how it has evolved into this notion that one person with a separate consumer and professional life is over and that we are looking for convergence, that’s the harbinger. The idea that you have, as you said in your introduction, provisioning that might look like app stores. Applications might look like apps on your device.

But as we see technology continue to increase in its velocity, as we see more and more technology adopted into our homes earlier and more deeply embedded into everything we do. That’s where we are going to see the future go.

Tight integration

Just think for a minute about our pets. We're embedding our pets with microchips that have not just their name and their address, but maybe if they have got some medical risks, they are on there.

I think we are going to start seeing things like that, that tight integration, maybe not embedded in our bodies, but certainly medical records, certainly integrated payment devices, the idea that paper money goes away and we have one card that does every thing. Organizations that aren’t at least thinking in that direction are really going to miss the boat.

To connect further with Liz Roche, visit her at her micro site.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Read a full transcript or download a copy. Sponsor: HP.

You may also be interested in:

• HP's eye on Autonomy means it sidesteps RDB and middleware in favor of enterprise information infrastructure
  
• HP Discover Interview: Security Evangelist Rafal Los on Balancing Risk and Reward Amid Consumerization of IT
  
• HP delivers applications appliance solutions that leverage converged infrastructure for virtualization, data management
• HP takes plunge on dual cloud bursting: public and-or private apps support comes of age
  
• HP rolls out EcoPOD modular data center, provides high-density converged infrastructure with extreme energy efficiency

HP does a 180 -- Now it's Apotheker's company

This guest post comes courtesy of Tony Baer’s OnStrategies blog. Tony is a senior analyst at Ovum.

By Tony Baer

HP chose the occasion of its Q3 earnings call to drop the bomb. The company that under Mike Hurd’s watch focused on Converged Infrastructure, spending almost $7 billion to buy Palm, 3COM, and 3PAR, is now pulling a 180 in ditching both the PC and Palm hardware business, and making an offer to buy Autonomy, one of the last major independent enterprise content management players, for roughly $11 billion. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

At first glance, the deal makes perfect sense, given Leo Apotheker’s enterprise software orientation. From that standpoint, Apotheker has made some shrewd moves, putting aging enterprise data warehouse brand Neoview out of its misery, following up weeks later with the acquisition of Advanced SQL analytics platform provider Vertica. During the Q3 earnings call, Apotheker stated the obvious as to his comfort factor with Autonomy: “I have spent my entire professional life in software and it is a world that I know well. Autonomy is very complementary.”

There is potential synergy between Autonomy and Vertica, with Autonomy CEO Mike Lynch (who will stay on as head of the unit, reporting to Apotheker) that Autonomy’s user screens provide the long missing front end to Vertica, and that both would be bound by a common “information layer.” Of course, the acquisition not being final, he did not give details on what that layer is, but for now we’d assume that integration will be at presentation and reporting layer. There is clearly a lot more potential here — Vertica for now only holds structured data while Autonomy’s IDOL system holds everything else. In the long run we’d love to see federated metadata and also an extension of Vertical to handle unstructured data, just as Advanced SQL rivals like Teradata’s Aster Data already do.

Autonomy is clearly a gem, but HP paid dearly for it.

Autonomy, according to my ovum colleague Mike Davis who has tracked the company for years, is one of only three ECM providers that have mastered the universal document viewer – Oracle’s Stellent and an Australian open source player being the others. In contrast to HP (more about that in a moment), Autonomy is quite healthy with the latest quarterly revenues up 16 percent year over year, operating margins in the mid 40 percent range, and a run rate that will take the company to its first billion dollar year.

Autonomy is clearly a gem, but HP paid dearly for it. During Q&A on the earnings call, a Wall street analyst took matter back down to earth, asking whether HP got such a good deal, given that it was paying roughly 15 percent of its market cap for a company that will only add about 15 to its revenues.

Not doing well

Great, expensive acquisition aside, HP’s not doing so well these days. Excluding a few bright spots, such as its Fortify security software business, most of HP’s units are running behind last year. Q3 net revenue of $31.2 billion was up only 1 percent over last year, but down 2 percent when adjusted for constant currency. By contrast, IBM’s most recent results were up 12 percent and 5 percent when currency adjusted. Dennis Howlett tweeted that it was now HP’s turn to undergo IBM’s near-death experience.

More specifically, HP Software was the bright spot with 20 percent growth year over year and 19.4 percent operating margin. By contrast, the printer and ink business – long HP’s cash cow – dropped 1 percent year over year with the economy dampening demand from the commercial side, not to mention supply chain disruptions from the Japanese tsunami.

As HP tries aiming higher up the software and services food chain, it deals with a market that has longer sales cycles and long-term customer relationships that prize stability.

By contrast, services grew only 4 percent, and is about to kick in yet another round of transformation. John Visenten, who ran HP’s Enterprise services in the Americas region, comes in to succeed Ann Livermore. The problem is, as Ovum colleague John Madden states it, HP’s services “has been in a constant state of transformation” that is making some customers’ patience wear thin. Ever since acquiring EDS, HP has been trying – and trying – to raise the legacy outsourcing business higher up the value chain, with its sights literally set in the cloud.

The trick is that as HP tries aiming higher up the software and services food chain, it deals with a market that has longer sales cycles and long-term customer relationships that prize stability. Admittedly, when Apotheker was named CEO last fall, along with enterprise software veteran Ray Lane to the board, the conventional wisdom was that HP would train its focus on enterprise software. So to that extent, HP’s strategy over the past 9 months has been almost consistent – save for earlier pronouncements on the strategic role of the tablet and WebOS business inherited with Palm.

Longer perspective

But HP has been around for much longer than 9 months, and its latest shifts in strategy must be viewed with a longer perspective. Traditionally an engineering company, HP grew into a motley assortment of businesses. Before spinning off its geeky Agilent unit in 1999, HP consisted of test instruments, midrange servers and PCs, a token software business, and lest we forget, that printer business. Since then:

• The 2001 acquisition of Compaq that cost a cool $25 billion, under Carly Fiorina’s watch. That pitted it against Dell and caused HP to assume an even more schizoid personality as consumer and enterprise brand.
  
• Under Mark Hurd’s reign, software might have grown a bit (they did purchase Mercury after unwittingly not killed off their OpenView business), but the focus was directed at infrastructure – storage, switches, and mobile devices as part of the Converged Infrastructure initiative.
  
• In the interim, HP swallowed EDS, succeeding at what it failed to do with its earlier ill-fated pitch for PwC.

Then (1) Hurd gets tossed out and (2) almost immediately lands at Oracle; (3) Oracle pulls support for HP Itanium servers, (4) HP sues Oracle, and (5) its Itanium business sinks through the floor.

Logical moves, but it’s fair to ask, what is an HP? Given HP’s twists, turns, and about-faces, a difficult one to answer.

That sets the scene for today’s announcements that HP is “evaluating a range of options” (code speak for likely divestment) for its PC and tablet business – although it will keep WebOS on life support as its last gasp in the mobile arena. A real long shot: HP’s only hope for WebOS might be Android OEMs not exactly tickled pink about Google’s going into the handset business by buying Motorola’s mobile unit.

There are logical rationale for dropping those businesses – PCs have always been a low margin business in both sales and service, in spite of what it claimed to be an extremely efficient supply chain. Although a third of its business, PCs were only 13 percent of HP’s profits, and have been declining in revenue for several years. PCs were big enough to provide a distraction and low enough margin to become a drain. And with Palm, HP gained an eloquent OS, but with a damaged brand that was too late to become the iOS alternative – Google had a 5-year headstart. Another one bites the dust.

Logical moves, but it’s fair to ask, what is an HP? Given HP’s twists, turns, and about-faces, a difficult one to answer. OK, HP is shedding its consumer businesses – except printers and ink because in normal times they are too lucrative – but HP still has all this infrastructure business. It hopes to rationalize all this in becoming a provider of cloud infrastructure and related services, with a focus on information management solutions.

As mentioned above, enterprises crave stability, yet HP’s track record over the past decade has been anything but. To be an enterprise provider, technology providers must demonstrate that they have a consistent strategy and staying power because enterprise clients don’t want to be left with orphaned technologies. To its credit, today’s announcements show the fruition of Apotheker’s enterprise software-focused strategy. But HP’s enterprise software customers and prospects need the assurance that HP won’t pull another about face when it comes time for Apotheker’s successor.

This guest post comes courtesy of Tony Baer’s OnStrategies blog. Tony is a senior analyst at Ovum.

You may also be interested in:

• Big data consolidation enters home stretch as Teradata buys Aster Data
• HP delivers applications appliance solutions that leverage converged infrastructure for virtualization, data management
• HP delivers NMC 9.1 as new demands on network management require secure, integrated, and automated response
  
• New HP Service Manager tackles time and cost associated with help desk productivity
• HP's IT Performance Suite empowers IT leaders with unified view into total operations, costs
  
• HP takes plunge on dual cloud bursting: public and-or private apps support comes of age
  
• HP rolls out EcoPOD modular data center, provides high-density converged infrastructure with extreme energy efficiency

Why data and information management remain elusive after decades of deployments and how to fix it

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Read a full transcript or download a copy. Sponsor: The Open Group.

Why is it still difficult for businesses to get the information they want in the way they can use? Why has this been a persistent problem for decades?

We recently conducted a panel discussion, held in conjunction with the recent Open Group Conference in Austin, Texas, to explore these questions and examine the state of data and information management strategies. The discussion centers on the latest in the framework approach to information and data, and takes a fresh look at how an information architect can make a big difference.

To help better understand the role and impact of the information architect, and also how to implement a successful data information strategy, please welcome the panel: Robert Weisman, CEO of Build The Vision Inc.; Eugene Imbamba, Information Management Architect in IBM's Software Group, and Mei Selvage, the Lead in the IBM Community of Information Architects. The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: The Open Group is a Sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: Tell me, Robert, why it is that it's so hard for IT to deliver information access in the way that businesses really want.

Weisman: It's the general insensitivity to information management concerns within the industry itself, which is very much becoming much more technology and tool-driven with the actual information not being taken into consideration.

As a consequence, a lot of the solutions might work, but they don’t last, and they don’t, generally speaking, get the right information to the right person at the right time. Within The Open Group, we recognized this split about four years ago and that’s one reason that in TOGAF 9 we redefined that information technology as “The lifecycle management of information and related technology within an organization.” We didn’t want to see an IM/IT split in organizations. We wanted to make sure that the architecture addressed the needs of the entire community, especially those requiring information and knowledge.

Gardner: Eugene, do you think if we focus more on the lifecycle management of information and the architecture frameworks like TOGAF, that we'll get more to this requirement that business has that single view of reality?

Imbamba: Definitely, focusing on reference architecture methodologies are a good way to get going in the right direction. I don’t think it's the end of all means to getting there. But, in terms of leveraging what's been done, some of the architectures that have been developed, whether it's TOGAF or some of the other artifacts out there, would help organizations, instead of spinning their wheels and reinventing the wheel, start building some of the foundational capabilities needed to have an enterprise information architecture.

Getting to the finish line

As a result, we’re seeing that each year with information management, projects starting up and projects collapsing for various reasons, whether it's cost or just the process or people in place. Leveraging some of these artifacts, methods, and reference architectures is a way to help get started, and of course employing other areas of the information management disciplines to help get to the finish line.

Gardner: Mei, when it comes to learning from those that have done this well, what do we know about what works when it comes to data and information management?

Selvage: Eugene and I had a long debate over how we know that we've delivered a successful information architecture. Our conclusion comes out three plus one. The first piece is just like any strategy roadmap. You need to have a vision and strategy. To have a successful information architecture vision you really have to understand your business problem and your business vision. Then, you use applicable, proven referenced architecture and methodology to support that.

Once you have vision, then you come to the execution. How do you leverage your existing IT environments, integrates with them, keep good communication, and use the best practices? Finally, you have to get implemented on time and on schedule within the budget -- and the end-user is satisfied.

Those are three parts. Then, the plus part is data governance, not just one time project delivery. You’ll have to make sure that data governance is getting consistently implemented across the projects.

Gardner: How about in the direction of this organizational definition of what works and what doesn’t work?

Weisman: The information architect will soon be called the knowledge architect to start realizing some of the promise that was seen in the 1980s and in the 1990s. The information architect’s role is essentially is to harmonize all manner of information and make sure it's properly managed and accessible to the people who are authorized to see it.

It's not just the information architect. He has to be a team player, working closely with technology, because more and more information will be not just machine-readable, but machine-processable and interpretable. So he has to work with the people not only in technology, but with those developing applications, and especially those dealing with security because we’re creating more homogenous enterprise information-sharing environments with consolidated information holdings.

The paradigm is going to be changing. It's going to be much more information centric. The object-oriented paradigm, from a technical perspective, meant the encapsulation of the information. It's happened, but at the process level.

Gardner: How do you see the role of the information architect as important in solidifying people’s thinking about this at that higher level, and as Robert said, being an advocate for the information across these other disciplines?

Imbamba: It's inevitable that this role will definitely emerge and is going to take a higher-level position within organizations. Back to my earlier comment about information really becoming an issue, we have lots of information. We have variety of information and varied velocity of information requirements.

We don’t have enough folks today who are really involved in this discipline and some of the projections we have are within the next 20 years, we’re going to have a lot more information that needs to be managed. We need folks who are engaged in this space, folks who understand the space and really can think outside the box, but also understand what the business users want, what they are trying to drive to, and be able to provide solutions that really not only look at the business problem at hand but also what is the organization trying to do.

The role is definitely emerging, and within the next couple of years, as Robert said, the term might change from information architects to knowledge architects, based on where information is and what information provides to business.

A lot of new folks come from data modeling backgrounds. They really have to understand business language, business process, and their roles.

Gardner: Please update us on what took place at the Austin Conference.

Weisman: We had some super presentations, in particular the one that Eugene and Mei gave that addressed information architecture and various associated processes and different types of sub-architectures/frameworks as well.

The Information Architecture Working Group, which is winding down after two years, has created a series of whitepapers. The first one addressed the concerns of the data management architecture and maps the data management body of knowledge processes to The Open Group Architecture Framework. That whitepaper went through final review in the Information Architecture Working Group in Austin.

We have an Information Architecture Vision paper, which is an overall rethinking of how information within an organization is going to be addressed in a holistic manner, incorporating what we’d like to think as all of the modern trends, all types of information, and figure out some sort of holistic way that we can represent that in an architecture.

The vision paper is right now in the final review. Following that, we're preparing a consolidated request for change to the TOGAF 9 specification. The whitepapers should be ready and available within the next three months for public consultation. This work should address many significant concerns in the domain of information architecture and management. I'm really confident the work that working group has done has been very productive.

Gardner: Now, you mentioned that Mei and Eugene delivered a presentation. I wonder if we can get an overview, a quick summary of the main points?

Selvage: Essentially, we need to understand what it means to have a successful solution information architecture. We need to leverage all those best practices, which come in a form of either a proven reference architecture or methodology, and use that to achieve alignment within the business.

Eugene, do you have anything you want to specifically point out in our presentation?

Three keys

Imbamba: No, just to add to what you said. The three keys that we brought were the alignment of business and IT, using and leveraging reference architectures to successfully implement information architectures, and last was the adoption of proven methodology.

In our presentation, we defined these constructs, or topics, based on our understanding and to make sure that the audience had a common understanding of what these components meant. Then, we gave examples and actually gave some use cases of where we’ve seen this actually happen in organizations, and where there has been some success in developing successful projects through the implementation of these methods. That's some of what we touched on.

Weisman: Just as a postscript from The Open Group we’re coming with an Information Architecture and Planning Model. We have a comprehensive definition of data and information and knowledge; We've come up with a good generic lifecycle that can be used by all organizations. And, we addressed all the issues associated with them in a holistic way with respect to the information management functions of governance, planning, operations, decision support and business intelligence, records and archiving, and accessibility and privacy.

This is one of the main contributions that these whitepapers are going to provide is a good planning basis for the holistic management of all manner of information in the form of a complete model.

Gardner: Why will the data and information management professionalization, this role of the information architect be more important based on some of the trends that we expect?

Weisman: Right now, it's competitive advantage upon which companies may rise and fall. Harvard Business School Press, Davenport in particular, has produced some excellent books on competitive analytics and the like, with good case studies. For example, a factory halfway through construction is stopped because they didn’t have timely access to the their information indicating the factory didn’t even need to be constructed. This speaks of information quality.

In the new service-based rather than industry-based economic paradigm, information will become absolutely key. With respect to the projected increase of information available, I actually see a decrease in information holdings within the enterprise itself.

This will be achieved through a) information management techniques, you will actually get rid of information; b) you will consolidate information; and c) with paradigms such as cloud, you don’t necessarily have to have information within the organization itself.

More with less

So you will be dealing with information holdings, that are accessible by the enterprise, and not necessarily just those that are held by the enterprise. There will also be further issues such as knowledge representation and the like, that will become absolutely key, especially with demographics as it stands now. We have to do more with less.

The training and professionalization of information architecture, or knowledge architecture, I anticipate will become key. However, knowledge architects cannot be educated totally in a silo, they also have to have a good understanding of the other architecture domains. A successful enterprise architect must understand all the the other architecture domains.

Gardner: Eugene, how about you, in terms of future trends that impact the increased importance of this role in this perspective on information?

Imbamba: From an IBM perspective, we’ve seen over the last 20 years organizations focusing on what I call an "application agenda," really trying to implement enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, supply chain management systems, and these systems have been very valuable for various reasons, reducing cost, bringing efficiencies within the business.

But, as you know, over the last 20 years, a lot of companies now have these systems in place, so the competitive advantage has been lost. So what we’re seeing right now is companies focusing on an information agenda, and the reason is that each organization has information about its customers, its products, its accounts like no other business would have.

Where I see a lot of trends is that many outsource basic database administration, kind of a commodity or activity out to a third-party where they keep the information architects in-house. That’s where we can add in the value.

So, what we're seeing today is leveraging that information for competitive advantage, trying to optimize your business, gleaning the information that you have so that you can understand the relationships between your customers, between your partners, your suppliers, and optimize that to deliver the kinds of services and needs, the business wants and the customer’s needs.

It's a focus from application agenda to an information agenda to try and push what’s going on in that space.

Gardner: Mei, last word to you, future trends and why would they increase the need for the information architecture role?

Selvage: I like to see that from two perspectives. One is from the vendor perspective, just taking IBM as an example. The information management brand is the one that has the largest software products, which reflects market needs and the market demands. So there are needs to have information architects who are able to look over all those different software offerings in IBM and other major vendors too.

From the customer perspective, where I see a lot of trends is that many outsource basic database administration, kind of a commodity or activity out to a third-party where they keep the information architects in-house. That’s where we can add in the value. We can talk to the business. We can talk to the other components of IT, and really brings things together. That’s a trend I see more organizations are adopting.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Read a full transcript or download a copy. Sponsor: The Open Group.

You may also be interested in:

• Standards effort points to automation via common markup language O-ACEML for improved IT compliance, security
• Enterprise Architects Increasingly Leverage Advanced TOGAF 9 for Innovation, Market Response, and Governance Benefits
• Open Group Cloud Panel Forecasts Cloud as Spurring Useful Transition Phase for Enterprise Architecture
• The Open Group's Cloud Work Group Advances Understanding of Cloud-Use Benefits for Enterprises
• Exploring the Role and Impact of the Open Trusted Technology Forum to Ensure Secure IT Products in Global Supply Chains
• Architect Certification Increasingly Impacts Professionalization of IT in Cloud Era