Par for the Workload

Posted in Cloud computing, Information Management, Virtualization, Workload Optimization on June 22nd, 2010 by DStodder – Be the first to comment

When Graeme McDowell tapped home his putt to seal a championship at the U.S. Open on Sunday (June 20), spectators who packed the stands and stood shoulder-to-shoulder around the green roared their approval. Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson, the Open’s superstars, were humbled by the Pebble Beach course and its famously changeable weather. The little-known McDowell “survived,” as several commentators put it. But that doesn’t really give him enough credit. He played a smart, safe game that adapted well to course conditions. Graeme McDowell

(Photo credit: Lance Iversen, The Chronicle)

The same might be said about IBM’s technology operations, which in partnership with the U.S. Golf Association’s Digital Media team stood the test of a massive number of virtual fans visiting online and mobile U.S. Open sites. IBM and the USGA said that over four million visitors came to the U.S. Open’s Web site, about 8 percent more than last year. This was the first big year for the mobile site, which had nearly two million visits. A major attraction was the “Playtracker” application, which enabled users to fly over the course and get visualizations of how the course was playing through heat maps based on scoring feeds. You can imagine the potential for future data-driven visualizations based on historical data about courses, players, pin positions on the greens and much more.

IBM’s technology management of the U.S. Open site offered a case example of how virtualization and workload management are becoming the essential ingredients of scalability, availability and agility, certainly for consumer Web sites like the Open’s. The USGA is no stranger to IBM’s virtualization technology; IBM has a close services partnership with the USGA, which includes running a variety of cloud services for the Association from its data center in North Carolina. When I visited the trailer near the Pebble Beach course where Web site and scoring services technicians were holed up, I couldn’t help but be amazed at the simplicity of the dashboards that offered real-time views of workload performance on a virtual platform of servers located across the country.

As John J. Kent, IBM Program Manager for Worldwide Sponsorship Marketing explained, virtualization is critical to utilization efficiency, enabling IBM to combine several workloads onto a single platform. “Virtualization basically makes the distributed environment into a mainframe, which has had this virtualization capability forever,” he said. Kent heads up IBM’s technology partnerships with other events, including this week’s Wimbledon Championships tennis event. Kent said that tennis is actually the more data-rich game, with fans already interested in analysis of “all the potential data points – such as unforced errors and rally counts – that can help you understand the strength of a player’s performance.”

In distributed environments, scaling up has always meant adding more hardware; with virtualization and cloud computing, organizations can avoid the long “cap x” procurement process and simply request more of what they need, and it can be made available rapidly over the network. What’s key, then, is to understand and monitor their workloads so that they can be optimized as demand rises and falls; then, organizations don’t have to spend on procuring enough servers to match peak workloads – but otherwise let them sit idle.

The other performance throttle IBM needed during the Open was to regulate content flow. Bandwidth is now the chief bottleneck; the explosion of advanced mobile devices in particular has moved users ahead of what networking providers are able to offer. IBM and the USGA’s Digital Media team needed the ability to make dynamic decisions about regulating content flow. “We needed to understand content demand well,” said Kent. “We were able to slow scoring updates, for example, if we were reaching a threshold in demand for content access and live streaming.” Thus, workload intelligence is critical to managing unstructured content as much as it is for data.

The USGA needs to provide a rich virtual experience on mobile devices to capture a younger demographic, which is important not only for the continued success of professional golf but also for attracting advertising on its Web site. However, as fans grow more dependent on the experience delivered by their mobile devices, it will be interesting to see if the USGA responds to pressure to allow those who attend the Open to bring them, which they are currently prohibited from doing. While there are good reasons not to have onsite fans working their mobile devices and interrupting the lovely hush before a player takes a swing, I wonder if the USGA will have to bow to the inevitable. Otherwise, fans might prefer to stay outside, where they can enjoy a rich, virtual experience.

But in any case, from an IT perspective, the key to victory in the U.S. Open and similar high performance events is clear: Know the workload and optimize it through the virtualized infrastructure. The victorious Graeme McDowell set a good example.

RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Add to Del.icio.us Stumble It! Submit to Slashdot Submit to Buzz! Digg It!
© Submit to Any - jjtcomputing.co.uk

The Imperfect Game

Posted in Life on June 4th, 2010 by DStodder – Be the first to comment

By now, I’m sure few have missed the amazing baseball story this week about Armando Galarraga’s perfect game* for the Detroit Tigers against the Cleveland Indians. What’s amazing is that this story is probably going to be more famous in baseball history as “the Imperfect Game” than it even would have been as the 20th perfect game in history, and third of the 2010 season! John U. Bacon of The Detroit News captures it well here. The princely behavior of the the wronged pitcher, the stand-up behavior of the umpire and the very honorable conduct of most of the Detroit Tigers’ fans still can make a grown baseball fan tighten up. (*A perfect game is 27 outs, no walk or errors; this game had 27 outs, no walks or errors but one blown call by the umpire.)

Nearly every newspaper in the country has weighed in on what Major League Baseball should do. I think as time goes by, it gets harder for MLB to do anything as radical as reversing the call. I originally thought MLB should reverse it. It was the last out, and the pitcher got the next guy out on an even easier play, so the play in doubt had no effect on the outcome of the game. But now it has become a piece of history, part of the story of the game. Making a change now would almost be a different story line - it would be about MLB’s knuckling  under to nationwide pressure to reverse a call.

What the incident highlighted – and perhaps what made people so emotional about it – is baseball’s humanity. The game’s core judgment is based on human umpires; it has somehow avoided the intrusion of instant replay and other high technology that might “perfect” decisions about whether a player is safe or out, whether a pitch is a ball or a strike and so on. Not that MLB is anti-technology: There’s no way a game that piles up this much data could ever be without advanced analytics in the year 2010, as Michael Lewis wrote about so well in Moneyball.

And so, it is almost a religiously cleansing experience to watch the end of the game and take in the aftermath. It requires an acceptance of human fallibility, and a love of how graceful we can be in accepting that reality.

 The Imperfect Ending to a Perfect Game (YouTube)

RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Add to Del.icio.us Stumble It! Submit to Slashdot Submit to Buzz! Digg It!
© Submit to Any - jjtcomputing.co.uk

San Antonio Cloud

Posted in Cloud computing, Enterprise Applications on May 10th, 2010 by DStodder – Be the first to comment

I wrote a column, linked here, for Intelligent Enterprise – InformationWeek, reporting on developments at Lawson Software’s CUE-10 in San Antonio, Texas.

It was a very interesting conference, although my movements were limited by the fact that I’d thrown out my back not long before I headed out. I appreciate everyone’s concern and patience at the event regarding my hobbling around rather slowly. I did get to see a bit of the River Walk area of San Antonio, thanks to a nice dinner with Lawson executives and industry analysts, and it looked like the locale for a lot of fun. I wonder how many people fall into the San Antonio River though; I nearly did a couple of times!

RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Add to Del.icio.us Stumble It! Submit to Slashdot Submit to Buzz! Digg It!
© Submit to Any - jjtcomputing.co.uk

It’s the Workload, Stupid

Posted in BI and Analytics, Information Management on May 6th, 2010 by admin – Be the first to comment

Oracle’s acquisition of Sun Microsystems continues to reshape the competitive landscape in the software and IT industry. Perhaps nowhere else is this more apparent than in the long-running battle between Oracle and IBM. By packaging together database software and systems in Exadata – especially with storage and server technology from Sun, which was already an arch IBM competitor – Oracle has ignited a “stack” war with Big Blue. Pick up the Financial Times or other business press, and you are likely to see one of Oracle’s trademark no-frills advertisements claiming Exadata’s benchmark performance superiority to IBM database systems.

IBM has hardly taken Oracle’s jabs lightly; for example, it has responded recently with benchmark results that assert lower overall database system costs compared with Oracle/Sun systems. I’m not going to write about benchmark wars here, but I will say that as stacks turn into pre-configured appliances, apples-to-apples comparisons of price and performance get tougher. It is important to examine closely the specifics of what the marketed benchmark results are reporting: in other words, whether the price-performance numbers account for all software and hardware costs, just hardware or whatever. This is especially true for organizations evaluating database appliances that offer pre-configured systems that integrate software, storage and server technology.

My focus here is on how IBM, with its recent software and systems announcements to support its “smarter systems for a smarter planet” strategy, is aimed at changing the basis of competition. To be sure, IBM has been traveling in this direction for a lot longer than just since Oracle’s acquisition of Sun. However, at the launch event (April 7, IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose), you could feel the temperature in the room rise whenever Oracle came up. IBM needed to respond to Oracle, but there’s a lot more going on than a battle of database machines.

The April announcements brought technology substance to IBM’s long-running campaign to educate the market about why “the planet” needs to be smarter. In short, the context IBM has been articulating is that public and private organizations in all industries are growing increasingly dependent on the flow of data for everything they do. This includes the data tsunami arriving in the form of sensor data, online clicks and comments, surveillance and more. If they wish to improve processes, performance, customer service, market intelligence and innovation, they need to use data effectively and be “smarter.” This must happen with all information activities, including analytics and transaction processing.

The significance from a technology perspective is that software and systems can’t be part of the problem. Organizations need technology that does not simply add to the headaches of poorly integrated information silos, no “end-to-end” view of performance and prohibitive costs for scalability and speed. It’s not good enough just to deliver a souped-up database machine; the technology must offer something more, so that the organization can become smarter, not dumber.

Each of the announced systems (preconfigured for x86, Unix/Linux and System Z platforms) has distinctive features; those based on the POWER7 processor were the most impressive. However, the unifying theme for all was workload optimization. Arvind Krishna, general manager for Information Management in the IBM Software Group contrasted “closed” appliances with IBM’s workload optimized systems, which he said are designed to take on additional capabilities and flex to the workload demand so that the system remains efficient, cost-effective and scalable. IBM Research’s Bijan Davari, IBM Fellow and vice president for Next Generation Computing touted IBM’s workload optimization leadership “spanning decades,” particularly in mainframes, and described ongoing research. IBM demonstrated how the DB2 pureScale Application systems optimize workloads for transaction-intensive systems, and the Smart Analytics systems do so for BI and analytics.

Pardon me for using political consultant James Carville’s ugly phrase, but to have smarter systems, it’s the workload, stupid. Organizations must understand their current and anticipated workload, and then choose the technology platform (or external service) appropriately. They must ensure that the systems they choose enable continuous analysis, management and optimization of workloads from the end-to-end, user experience perspective, so that as demand intensifies and more data flows through, performance does not suffer and costs don’t skyrocket. Move over, speeds and feeds: workload is what matters.

RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Add to Del.icio.us Stumble It! Submit to Slashdot Submit to Buzz! Digg It!
© Submit to Any - jjtcomputing.co.uk

Beyond the Brain

Posted in Brain Science & Perception on March 10th, 2010 by DStodder – Be the first to comment

I keep forgetting to mention that I named my firm “Perceptive…” because I have an interest in what is one of the great quests of our time: that is, to increase our understanding of consciousness, cognition, the brain, perception, neuroscience and more. I am also interested in connecting this topic area with the software world of decision support, business  intelligence and other information management issues. Of course, AI and data mining are part of it.

This interview/discussion by Michael Krasny of two authors of recent works was quite interesting. You can find it as well by tooling around www.kqed.org. From KQED’s Web site, here are descriptions of the authors interviewed:

  • Alva Noe, writer, philosopher, professor in the Department of Philosophy at UC Berkeley and author of “Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain and Other Lessons From the Biology of Consciousness”
  • Rick Hanson, neuropsychologist, author of “Buddha’s Brain: The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love and Wisdom,” co-founder of the Wellspring Institute for Neuroscience and Contemplative Wisdom and former boardmember of Spirit Rock Meditation Center

\”Beyond the Brain,\” Forum, Hosted by Michael Krasny, KQED radio

(Note: It looks like the link above to the audio is not working; I must need a widget! Here is the URL.)

RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Add to Del.icio.us Stumble It! Submit to Slashdot Submit to Buzz! Digg It!
© Submit to Any - jjtcomputing.co.uk

Informatica and the Identity Opportunity

Posted in BI and Analytics, Data Governance & Policy, Information Management on March 8th, 2010 by admin – Be the first to comment

As we move further into our information-rich age of multiple sales and service channels, social media and surveillance, identity is becoming a hot topic. First, there’s identity theft: According to a recent study by the Ponemon Institute (sponsored by Experian’s ProtectMyID.com and reported by The Medical News), “nearly 1.5 million Americans have been victims of medical identity theft.” Credit fraud, reputation fraud and more are additional negative results of having sensitive information about ourselves spread across the information ecosphere.

Then, there’s identity surveillance. Law enforcement and intelligence services must deal every day with identity confusion as they try to work within legal constraints to find wanted criminals and potential terrorists. Adding complexity, law enforcement will need to determine identity not just from traditional data but multimedia as well; an example is this current caper reported by the Tallahassee (Florida) Democrat.

Identity surveillance and watch lists are rising as political and policy challenges. Canada and the United States are in the news here and here, tussling over implementation of Secure Flight, the plan to collect more passenger data for watch lists that will be implemented by the Transportation Security Administration of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. See this Intelligent Enterprise blog from last June by Rajan Chandras for some background.

In the middle of all of this are software providers, primarily IBM InfoSphere Identity Insight Solutions, Infoglide (which is providing software for the DHS) and Informatica. In February, I attended the Informatica Analyst Conference and had a chance to talk to execs there about the Informatica Identity Resolution (IIR) solution and how it fits with other solutions and technologies such as master data management (MDM). I came away with a strong sense of how IIR is opening doors to new business opportunities for Informatica in government, but also potentially in areas where Informatica has greater market strength but where identity recognition and resolution software has not traditionally been applied.

Identity recognition and resolution systems enable organizations to use data matches to gain a better understanding of identity across multiple systems. This could include not just individual identities but also networks and relationships: that is, who people know and how they are connected. The tools generally apply algorithms and rules engines to automate and systematize steps that would obviously take gumshoe detectives far longer as they seek clues, patterns and a risk assessment about possible terrorists, fraudsters, money launderers and regulatory violators.

When Informatica acquired Identity Systems from Nokia in the spring of 2008, it looked like simply a smart addition to the company’s data quality toolbox. However, it is clear now that the acquisition was one of a series of decisive steps that have turned Informatica into a more broadly relevant information management (IM) solutions provider. The Identity Systems deal was followed in 2009 by the acquisition of AddressDoctor GmbH, a tool for postal address cleansing and verification. And of course, Informatica recently made its biggest move early this year by acquiring Siperian, a provider of MDM tools.

IIR is an important component of Informatica’s complete MDM solution, and will help organizations implementing MDM gain the much-sought single view of identities (customers, patients, criminals and more) across multiple data sources. A key capability to look for in identity recognition and resolution tools is functionality in multiple languages and countries. Combined with AddressDoctor, Informatica has tools for locating and matching identities around the world. And thinking beyond law enforcement uses, global corporations with diverse markets need better tools for identity network analysis to improve marketing, billing, service and more, especially in this age of social media.

IIR can also help internally, given that data is often hidden in applications and obscure databases. A healthcare firm at the Analyst conference described how it is using IIR for operations between its mainframes and users’ 30,000 Microsoft Access databases. Finally, one of the more interesting technology pairings I learned about at the conference was the real-time application of IIR for “identity-aware” event processing using Informatica’s CEP engine Agent Logic. Watch lists and other espionage uses are an obvious application of this combination, but it could also be applied in systems for financial services, healthcare, retail and other industries.

In the olden days, identity might have seemed a simpler, more innocent matter, although viewing film noir and reading detective novels from the ‘40s and ‘50s might make you wonder. Today, however, there’s no question that identity is a complex topic that includes sensitive political and privacy ramifications. Software providers such as Informatica should be in for a wild ride.

RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Add to Del.icio.us Stumble It! Submit to Slashdot Submit to Buzz! Digg It!
© Submit to Any - jjtcomputing.co.uk

You Had to Tweet There

Posted in BI and Analytics, Information Management, Social Media & Behavior on March 5th, 2010 by admin – Be the first to comment

Tweeting has become a fact of life at industry analyst briefings, and at perhaps more social events than I’m even aware of. Cocktail parties have become tweetups. People get married, break up and live together tweeting. If Archie and Edith Bunker were still on television, we would watch them tweeting.

Up until the last two weeks, I had not been much of a tweeter – and felt guilty about it. I had Twitter followers and followed people. I even wrote about Twitter and its impact; but frankly, it had had very little impact on me. With my infrequent participation, I felt unworthy of followship. And when I did go to Twitter, it was joining conversations in progress and I couldn’t flow with it.

My Twitter awakening took place at the Informatica Analyst Conference, held on February 9 and 10. I attended this event – I was there in person, listening to many fine presentations from Informatica executives. As has been my habit for two decades, I opened up my computer and started to take notes, listening and watching carefully. However, it wasn’t until I logged onto Twitter and checked in on the hash tag (#infaanalyst) that I was really there.

Or not there: It was hard to decide whether being involved in the Twitter conversation was a distraction or an enhancement. It was sort of exhilarating, kind of like surfing, with a mass of water moving below your feet, or in this case, my fingertips. Yet, Informatica people were watching the tweets carefully, and while they did not join the stream, they were responding to tweets during their presentations. Sohaib Abbasi, Informatica chairman and CEO, even picked up my tweet about the role of the CIO and offered insights during his remarks.

Convinced that Twitter was important, I made a point of following tweets from the SAS industry analyst conference earlier this past week (#sassb), since I was not physically there. Many of the same analysts who were at the Informatica conference were tweeting from this event. Some tweets were matter-of-fact restatements of what SAS was presenting, as if reporting to the outside world. These offered narrative value, but given Twitter’s character limit, they couldn’t provide much beyond headlines. Sometimes the NDA (nondisclosure) curtain would fall and there would be silence. Most other tweets were a combination of opinions, humorous asides, kudos, complaints and half-formed questions. An ensemble narrative it was not; since I was having trouble following the thread, I finally logged off and turned to other matters. My conclusion: You had to be there.

Then today, I had a third type of Twitter experience. I participated in the Boulder BI Brain Trust meeting with Hewlett Packard’s Business Intelligence Solutions group, represented by John Santaferraro, senior director of Marketing Communications and Industry Marketing. This time, while not physically there, I was dialed in by phone – and was on Twitter (#bbbt). This tweet stream was more like a parallel reality; HP did not really respond to tweets as Informatica had, but the flow seemed more sensible because I was hearing the presentation in real time, alongside the real-time tweet stream. Of course, tweet streams are real time and nothing else; when I go back and review the presentation and my notes later, the stream won’t be there (maybe I could hunt it down, but I won’t).

In the analyst business these days, tweeting is obligatory, as it is for marketing and public relations. I’m initiated now, and will tweet more. But, are the tweets of any use to anyone not physically there, or part of the tight community of tweeters? I think the jury is out on that. Can you follow a hash tag and “be there”?  No, at least not yet. It’s more like archeology, where you piece together disparate pieces and try to form a narrative. In real time.

RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Add to Del.icio.us Stumble It! Submit to Slashdot Submit to Buzz! Digg It!
© Submit to Any - jjtcomputing.co.uk

Pivot Me Up, Scotty

Posted in BI and Analytics, Business and the Economy, Information Management on January 31st, 2010 by DStodder – Be the first to comment

Walking down the street in San Francisco, I passed a newspaper box – something that in our increasingly digital age may someday be found only at the Smithsonian Museum. “Obama Pivots to Job Creation,” the San Francisco Chronicle headline announced. Wow, there it is again, I thought to myself, the word “pivot.”  All week, in vendor briefings, in my research, on TV during talking-head discussions of Obama’s strategy and now on the front page of a newspaper, I had been encountering this word. So, I took a picture of the box.

The verb form of the word came from its use as a noun, which means “a shaft or pin on which something turns” (Merriam-Webster’s). The implicit meaning of the headline, appearing the day after Obama’s State of the Union speech, was that the Obama Administration was going to turn its attention away from the now-stalled healthcare reform effort and toward the economic problem of creating jobs. This “pivot” would be quick and complete, like a machine would do it. No angst or mess: Done.

However, given that journalists and opinion-makers seemed to have picked up the word directly from Obama’s strategists, I wonder if the strategists’ use of the word comes more from basketball. Obama is as we know a major fan, and he plays the game. In basketball, once you set your pivot foot, you can spin around, but you cannot move that foot or else you’ll be called for traveling. I found a good explanation (and coaching tip, in case you need it) on YouTube. So, maybe it means that Obama has set his pivot foot – perhaps he did so on the day he took office – but he has the ability to spin around to pass or put up a (job creation) “shot” when opportunity or necessity presents itself. However, he cannot move his pivot foot or else he’ll be called for traveling. The whistle will blow, and he’ll have to turn the ball over.

In the world of business intelligence, online analytical processing (OLAP) and analysis using spreadsheets such as Microsoft Office Excel, “pivot” makes you think of pivot tables, or as Wikipedia defines them:

A pivot table is a data summarization tool found in data visualization programs such as spreadsheets. Pivot tables were created in 1979 by Paul Spinks. Among other functions, they can automatically sort, count, and total the data stored in one table or spreadsheet and create a second table displaying the summarized data. Pivot tables are also useful for creating cross tabs. The user sets up and changes the summary’s structure by dragging and dropping fields graphically. This “rotation” or pivoting of the summary table gives the concept its name. The term pivot table is a generic phrase used by multiple vendors. However, the specific form PivotTable is a trademark of the Microsoft Corporation.

Research surveys often show that spreadsheet users do not make full use of pivot tables because they don’t know how to use them effectively and are afraid of making errors. However, pivot tables are obviously incredibly powerful for seeing data from different perspectives and uncovering patterns that may not have been obvious when analyzing the data in a more limited fashion. Microsoft has introduced PowerPivot for Excel 2010 (and for SharePoint 2010); I found this blog, which does a great job of explaining PowerPivot, so I won’t go into it here. However, I will chime in to say that it is perhaps the most important development in BI this year thus far. PowerPivot begins to bring together the worlds of BI and spreadsheets: or, put differently, it enables users to have some of the major benefits of BI while remaining spreadsheet users.

“Pivot” was an important topic during my briefing last week with Visual Mining, the producer of NetCharts, a tool for developing BI dashboards and data visualization. The focus of the briefing was NetCharts Performance Dashboards V2, which the company says adds “Excel-like” table and reporting functionality. In the demo, I was impressed by the ease and flexibility with which you could work with pivot tables and the data to see different views – and not just simple views but glorious, graphical data visualizations. “We want to enable CFOs to move beyond being record keeping to being more in control,” said Tristan Ziegler, president and CEO. While the challenges faced by the office of Finance are a major focus for Visual Mining, the product is useful for other scenarios, such as contact centers, where there are many data sources and users who may be used to spreadsheets but are not expert data analysts.

Could the Obama Administration’s decision makers benefit from having more views of their data? No doubt. It might help them discover correlations between issues such as job creation and health care that weren’t apparent when they were totally focused on one topic or the other. And I don’t think you can be called for traveling.

RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Add to Del.icio.us Stumble It! Submit to Slashdot Submit to Buzz! Digg It!
© Submit to Any - jjtcomputing.co.uk

Fixing the Crisis: Strategies for a Connected World

Posted in Business and the Economy, Social Media & Behavior on January 19th, 2010 by admin – Be the first to comment

“Crisis” would be the appropriate word to describe the troubled state of the economy in recent years. But what is the crisis, exactly?

To pull out of difficult times, public and private institutions need to be careful in how they define the crisis so that they respond appropriately and avoid repeating mistakes that may have worsened the difficulties. They also need to adjust to long-term trends driven by the global adoption of the digital infrastructure rather than simply respond to the short-term pressure of meeting quarterly numbers. These views and more were expressed by panelists at the opening plenary session on Day Two of the Supernova conference held in December in San Francisco. The panel featured a range of expert views on how organizations need to redefine themselves and develop strategies to meet the challenges of a connected world.

 

Supernova is an annual technology strategy event hosted and produced by Kevin Werbach, assistant professor of legal studies and business ethics at The Wharton School, which serves as partner. Werbach moderated the panel session, which addressed a variety of topic threads, including the impact and potential of social networks.

 
If the panelists were in agreement about one thing, it was that organizations run the risk of becoming so set in their ways that they see only the threats posed by major changes such as networking and social media and miss opportunities to leverage their full potential. Telecommunications companies, for example, largely missed the opportunity to extend customer relationships by creating applications that could integrate communications, scheduling and contact directories. Software providers such as Microsoft beat them to the punch.

 
By hunkering down in protective mode, many organizations do not employ new technology effectively to achieve a critical but often ignored measure of overall success: a high rate of return on assets. Panelist John Hagel III, co-chairman of the Deloitte Center for the Edge and author of several best-selling books on technology and business strategy zeroed in on this point during his remarks. “We are in the middle of a profound shift in terms of how we do business,” said Hagel. “However, the metrics we typically use to understand the economy and business performance do very little to shed light on long-term changes. Return on assets (ROA) is the best bottom-line measure of how companies are doing over the long term.”

 
Deteriorating ROA: Indicator of Crisis
During the plenary session, Hagel discussed key points from “The Shift Index,” a major research report released in 2009 by the Center for the Edge. The report was written by Hagel, John Seely Brown, Lang Davison and their research team at Deloitte. The Shift Index assesses long-term public company performance trends using three indices and 25 metrics, including ROA; however, what is garnering the most attention is the report’s analysis of ROA trends since 1965. The ROA rate offers a view of how successfully companies are earning money from assets and investments. Hagel noted that the research discovered “an overall sustained and significant deterioration of [ROA] performance of 75 percent” over the course of 40 plus years, with even the top performing companies just barely hanging on. “This is the real crisis: and there is no evidence that the deterioration is leveling off or that there will be a turnaround any time soon.”

 
Companies in the technology, telecommunications, media and automotive industries are under the most extreme corporate performance pressure, according to the report; they are experiencing both increases in competitive intensity and declines in asset profitability. “These three industries are closest to the changing digital infrastructure that is emerging around us,” Hagel explained. At the other end of the spectrum, companies in the health care, aerospace and defense industries are the most stable in terms of ROA erosion. The heavily regulated nature of these industries could be a major reason for their relative stability, Hagel noted.

 
Panelist JP Rangaswami, chief scientist of BT Group and chairman of BT’s recent acquisition, Ribbit, described how the turbulence is impacting telcos. “Infrastructure is at the same time both commoditizing and changing,” he said. “Your infrastructure is no longer something that’s going to differentiate you, even though you have to continue to invest in improving it.” Rangaswami said that BT had to look elsewhere in its traditional three-layer model of infrastructure, enabling technologies and services on top. “The economics of managing a telco have become much more complex, requiring us to work a lot harder on the enabling technologies layer of our model. The choice we made was to create the enabling environment as a multi-sided platform; we threw caution to the wind and put APIs in place that allow people to create and derive value over the top of our services. We have had to learn the ‘pull’ aspects of our environment, where power of choice has really passed to the customer.”

 
To improve performance, many organizations focus on labor productivity. But can increasing productivity improve companies’ ROA? Evidently not, in Hagel’s view. “There is absolutely no correlation between labor productivity and ROA; some of the industries that have shown the most dramatic improvements in productivity have suffered the most severe deterioration of ROA.” What about innovation? “At least as defined as product, process and service innovation,” Hagel said the report discovered that “it is not sufficient” to reverse ROA deterioration.

 
One of the report’s key insights – and one which may help companies see a way out of the downturn – focused on the competitive intensity metric. While debate continues in economics circles about how to define this metric, Hagel noted that standard concentration ratios used miss “the real action, which is that customers are becoming your competitors. They are extracting more value out of companies at lower costs to satisfy their needs.” The other constituency benefiting is creative talent – “knowledge workers” – who have significantly increased their total cash compensation since 1965.

 
These new competitive intensity pressures are forcing corporate performance to withstand “a pincer move,” Hagel said. “On one side, customers are getting more powerful and are pulling out value; on the other side is creative talent, also pulling out value. Companies do not want to pull back that value. So, the challenge is to rethink the institutional environment; companies must rethink their rationale – their reason for being.”

 
The Big Shift: Source of Instability
Such a rethinking is imperative because of what Hagel and his Deloitte colleagues have termed, “The Big Shift.” The panelists discussed many aspects of this shift, including the move from static knowledge to a flow of knowledge, and from discrete transactional interactions with customers to fuller, more extended and trusted relationships. “But how do we value relationship information?” asked Rangaswami. “This crisis shows that we don’t know how to value the right things. In the telco industry, we are just beginning to grasp the importance of things that could be of value going forward, such as relationships, conversation, information flow and tacit human knowledge.”

 
Panelist Umair Haque, director of the Havas Media Lab and strategic advisor to investors, entrepreneurs and other organizations, said the problem was that “our building blocks are not fit for a networked world; they weren’t built for it.” He offered examples how this mismatch brought about consequences such as the tremendous trade imbalance between the U.S. and China and instability caused by the largely unregulated explosion in securities day trading. “Our institutions have been built on economics suited for a non-networked world. We don’t know how to build economics for a hyper-connected world. Just as a radical example, if we had the right building blocks that could fuel perfect trust among us, there would be very little need for money. We don’t have that.”

 
Hagel noted that in other eras, revolutionary infrastructure changes in electricity, telephony or steam power brought bursts of innovation that were followed rapidly by stabilization. “This is not happening with the digital infrastructure. We need a different way of thinking about how to organize and access resources and to connect with people to draw them out as needed.”

 
Social Networks: The New Platform
Could social networks begin to provide a degree of stability amid such change? Panelist Ellen Levy, vice president of Corporate Development and Strategy at LinkedIn, described the company’s professional network of “53 million self-registered individuals” as a way for people to build long-term relationships even as the institutions they work for change. “When you look at crowdsourcing, malleable boundaries and other models of how the world is changing, they all rely on a set of assumptions that should be called out,” Levy said. “You have to be able to find out about people outside your organization. You have to believe that the information is accurate, authentic and valid. You have to be able to trust reputations. And finally, the person on the receiving end has to be interested in receiving your inquiry. When the floodgates are open and everyone can reach out to everyone, there has to be a model for why you start to do business with someone you haven’t known before.”

 
This makes context important, Levy noted. She described how the professional context of LinkedIn makes it different from a purely social network, and how that context can become the basis for filtering information so that overload is not a barrier to building relationships. “With filters, I can make inferences based on hypotheses about people around you who are part of your professional relationships or express similar goals and objectives,” Levy explained. LinkedIn could then fill out the context and even provide recommendations not only about people but also about things like books to buy because of what is known about professionals in the network who share your interests. “This is how we are trying to build the underpinnings of a connected world,” Levy said.

 
A member of the audience voiced some concern that “if you introduce any kind of monetization to a relationship, it can sully that relationship.” Levy agreed that LinkedIn and other networks have to be careful. “Motivations can’t be ignored,” she said. “However, our founders’ vision is of a system that is not transactional; you are not getting anything from it except relationship capital, which is the asset we should be measuring.”

 
Unleashing the Passion
Hagel offered that the best way for organizations to build value and break the downward trend is to locate and connect to passionate people. “Too often, organizations keep creative, passionate people behind closed doors; they shove a pizza under the door every once in a while, but don’t expose them to senior management – and senior management is usually not very passionate.” Haque agreed: “What we need today is a purpose and a passion.” He saw these as critical to creating value that can offset or counterbalance the negative effects that networking brings to institutions not built for a connected world and in the process of adjusting to it.

 
To Levy, connecting passionate people is a key value of social and professional networks, both inside and outside of organizations. “All of a sudden, the passion of people in charge of their own professional life can be harnessed, utilized and built into the story of a company,” she said. She noted that companies such as Best Buy use social networks to harness ideas and collaboration to improve how the company works. Rangaswami noted that with network platforms, “for the first time, in an environment where collaboration is real, its value can be measured and quantified.” Panelists agreed that the valuation can happen both inside and outside organizations, such as among partners.

 
With the collaborative potential of networks growing, Hagel suggested that it was time for executives and managers to ask themselves, “Do I have a long-term, trust-based relationship with the 20 smartest people not just in my organization, but in my industry?” With the connected infrastructure evolving through social and professional networks, it is possible, perhaps as never before, to develop those relationships – and spark the passion and creativity to drive economic growth.

[Note: I wrote this report for The Wharton School.]

RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Add to Del.icio.us Stumble It! Submit to Slashdot Submit to Buzz! Digg It!
© Submit to Any - jjtcomputing.co.uk

Surviving the Swan Dive

Posted in Business and the Economy on September 16th, 2009 by admin – Be the first to comment

This week I have been attending the annual IBM Cognos Industry Analyst Summit in Ottawa, Ontario Canada. Although I’m in meetings most of the time, I enjoy coming to Ottawa. The green colors, blue canals, rivers and lakes and crisp hints of fall in the air offer a nice change from the dry brown of California in September. On this trip, however, I couldn’t help but be thrown back to a year ago, when headlines from across the border screamed panic on Wall Street, in Washington and in the financial services industry. Like many, I stood mouth agape every morning as I read and watched the news. It looked like The Big One: the economic cataclysm we hoped we’d never see in our lifetimes. In sheer size, reach and complexity, it had every chance of dwarfing the Great Depression.

One year later, are we out of the woods? Did the brave if not desperate moves of Paulson, Geithner and Bernancke stave off disaster? Not according to Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (Random House, 2007). I caught an interview with him by Margaret Wente in this past Monday’s in The Globe and Mail. Here’s a snippet:

Margaret Wente: Happy days are here again. The central bankers say the recession is over. The markets are buoyant. Can we relax?

Nassim Taleb: Not at all. Central bankers have no clue. In the first place, the financial crisis was not a black swan. It was perfectly predictable. They ignored the phenomenal buildup in leverage since 1980. They acted like airline pilots who’d never heard of hurricanes.

After finishing The Black Swan, I realized there was a cancer. The cancer was a huge buildup of risk-taking based on the lack of understanding of reality. The second problem is the hidden risk with new financial products. And the third is the interdependence among financial institutions.

Taleb carries no water for the wizards currently trying to sort out this mess:

MW: Are you saying the U.S. shouldn’t have done all those bailouts? What was the alternative?

NT: Blood , sweat and tears. A lot of the growth of the past few years was fake growth from debt. So swallow the losses, be dignified and move on. Suck it up. I gather you’re not too impressed with the folks in Washington who are handling this crisis.

Ben Bernanke saved nothing! He shouldn’t be allowed in Washington. He’s like a doctor who misses the metastatic tumour and says the patient is doing very well. The first thing I would tell Chinese officials is, how can you buy U.S. bonds as long as Larry Summers is there? He’s a textbook case of overconfidence. Look what happened to Harvard’s finances. They took a lot of risk they didn’t understand, and it was a disaster. That’s the Larry Summers mentality.

And, he is gloomy as a gathering winter storm about the future:

MW: So if everyone is still on the wrong track, what’s the right track?

NT: My whole idea is to lower risk in society by developing a system that can resist human error, rather than one where human error rules. The first step is to make sure that no financial institution is too big to fail. Next, make sure governments don’t favour big companies. Governments should also decrease the role of economists – they’re no more reliable than astrologers, and they do more damage.

Feeling myself to be but a tiny rowboat on a roiling ocean, I am too vulnerable to give in to the pessimism of Taleb. The human in me has to believe that as we live through this debacle, we will learn how to use the tools at our disposal to climb to safety and adapt to the new reality. However, I share his concern that the problems have not gone away. They have only shifted and changed – and have become joined at the hip with the US government’s inability to control deficit spending.

Taleb would probably find the Marsh advertisement I saw on a placard at Chicago O’Hare International Airport both ironic and alarming. Written across a fine-grained, Avedon-style close-up of a human face was the proclamation, “I Risk, Therefore I am.”

I will be blogging about what I learned at the Summit at Intelligent Enterprise and Ventana Research. But, since my battery is about to go, I’ll have to get those done when I’m back on land and can charge up.

RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Add to Del.icio.us Stumble It! Submit to Slashdot Submit to Buzz! Digg It!
© Submit to Any - jjtcomputing.co.uk