Category Archives: Technology

Who’s Going to Upset the Market in 2011?

The best predictor of a paradigm shift’s success long-term is how upset it makes people.
Stephen Wolfram, Interview with Christopher Meyer

I just realized something. A whole year has gone by and there has been nothing upsetting in the space. It’s been (well) over a year since I’ve seen anything that made me say “this is going to change things”. Sure, a lot of platforms have gotten better this year. For example, a number of e-Procurement and Supplier Relationship Management platforms have improved greatly in term of features, usability, or both, but there’s nothing fundamentally new on the market. And while a couple of platforms have embraced mobile computing, the functionality offered is minimal and not much beyond the information that can be sent in e-mail alerts (or approvals).

I shouldn’t be surprised, because many companies cranked back on R&D, or put it on hold, when the recession hit full swing. As a result, many companies haven’t been doing much R&D. However, some companies were smart enough to realize that a recession is an opportunity to be great, and kept going full steam ahead, but when you look at what they did, they just improved upon what they had. I really haven’t seen any new ideas in almost two years. As a result, there’s not much for me to be excited about, or much for the market to get upset about.

Now that the recovery, albeit a jobless one, is in full swing, hopefully things will turn around. But we also have to contend with the reality that some companies released great products and platforms in 2008/2009 that still haven’t reached their potential because many companies just stopped buying. In fact, in a few cases, at the current rate of market adoption, these companies are still about five years ahead. While I know a few of them will keep improving and keep innovating, what incentive do they have to release something entirely new if the market still hasn’t understood and adopted the powerful solutions they still have? One area where this is the case is decision optimization. Many companies still have not even tried this technology, even though it’s one of only two technologies repeatedly found to deliver double-digit percentage returns (with the other being spend analysis). And many companies who have are still not using it at its full potential. This is probably why, of the six true providers of strategic-sourcing decision optimization, only three appear to be moving forward with the technology, and, in my view, only two appear to be making real progress. What’s the incentive to move forward if the market won’t keep up with you?

But if 2011 doesn’t bring some new offerings that upset the market, I fear that the market will start to languish. And considering only half of CPOs have a seat at the table, we can’t afford this. So who’s going to upset the market in 2011?

Share This on Linked In

Finally An Article That Demonstrates That The Cloud Is Filled With Hail!

StorefrontBacktalk recently ran a great article on how “it’s not so soft in the cloud after all”. On December 5th, the web site of U.K. grocery giant Tesco ground to a halt after a surge of customers tried to take advantage of a new loyalty-card promotion. This was AFTER Tesco had announced that Akamai would be offloading 90% of the load to make sure nothing would go wrong.

And, of course, once the site went down, the call centre got overloaded too. And what happened when the failure was investigated? Akamai blamed the failure on a part of the Tesco site that was not being supported by Akamai’s cloud services, passing the buck.

And if all transactions eventually have to pass through, or be recorded in your systems, the bottleneck will still be there and all the cloud will do is accelerate your failure.

That’s why I’ve warned you again and again and again that the cloud is not a fluffy magic box.

Share This on Linked In

It’s Not Risk Management If You Just Trade One Risk for Another!

Especially if the second risk is just as risky, or, even worse, more risky than the first.

After reading a number of articles that claim IT Outsourcing reduces cost AND risk, including this recent piece over on Global Services on “Operational Risk, IT, and Outsourcing”, I am getting nervous about the mad dash to the cloud that these articles are directly or indirectly promoting.

While SaaS is often the best choice for many SMEs and large scale industries without a lot of technical know-how, it’s not always the best choice, and some systems are a lot safer to outsource than others. It’s one thing to outsource an ERP/MRP, especially if you don’t store your bank account access information in the ERP/MRP, but another thing to outsource user account management if such management contains credit card information and/or detailed financial profiles that are sufficient for an average criminal to commit identify fraud in his sleep. In the first case, just about any SaaS provider will do. In the latter, you need one who not only hosts in a secure data centre, but understands security and built security (and encryption) into the application (and database) from the ground up — especially if they are hosting in a shared data centre that uses a true multi-tenant architecture. Otherwise, a hacker could break in through a weakness in the application layer, dump the database, and get unencrypted credit card numbers, bank account numbers, SINs, etc. if the application wasn’t designed right from the bottom up. This could be financially devastating to you and your customers (who, for starters, would never buy from you again and who would probably take you to court).

The requirements for outsourcing and maintaining financial systems are much greater than for Supply Chain and Inventory Management. So what if they get your inventory database. Unless you’re storing nuclear material, who cares if they know for sure that you have 250 outdated PCs, 100 rolls of steel, and a warehouse full of binders. If they were doing a competitive intelligence project and really wanted to know that much about you, they’d check one of the import/export trade data monitoring services (or just watch what went in and out of your warehouse from across the street) and know it anyway.

Before you outsource financial systems, you have to be sure that the provider and the hosted application is at least as secure as the applications and environment you’d build in house, or the outsourcing effort will come at the expense of increased risk. And if risk increases, the decrease in cost may be inconsequential.

And if you don’t have the technical savvy to make a fully informed decision, bring in a consultant who has that knowledge. Trust me when I say it will be one of the best investments you ever make.

Share This on Linked In

Is MDM A Pipe Dream for the Average Organization?

With few exceptions, the most notable one being Oracle (which is the only IT organization I know of that eats its own premium dog food and never varies from the menu), MDM (Master Data Management) is a bigger myth in the modern enterprise than the Lost City of Atlantis (which never existed, by the way, and if you did your research you’d know it was a fictional metropolis introduced by Plato so that Socrates would have something to say). It’s been a problem ever since the first enterprise used one system for accounting and a second system for inventory, and it has only worsened over time. And now that we’re cloud-crazy, it’s only going to get even worse.

Instead of having data residing in dozens of databases accessed by dozens and dozens of applications in your server room, you’ll now have data residing in dozens of internal databases and in dozens of external databases on half a dozen different clouds, which is physically distributing and replicating these database instances over a few dozen instances for fault tolerance and reliability. Your data is now everywhere and nowhere at the same time. It’s more global than you are. And thanks to dynamic routing (and IP hacking and spoofing), it’s seamlessly crossing borders that you can’t. How can you ever hope to get a handle on it?

Well, according to this recent article in Information Week, you can start by following “three guidelines for implementing MDM”. These guidelines are a good way to wrap your mind around the problem, but they don’t really solve it.

Consider the guidelines:

  • Primary business drivers determine the methods of use.
    Well, duh! This should be the case for every system you use, not just MDM. If there is no business need, why do you have a system? Considering that all systems require hardware, software, and technical resources to maintain them, it’s just dumb to have systems you don’t need.
  • Data volatility determines the implementation styles.
    This is fairly obvious too. If you have a database that only updates once a week, and your MDM approach is to dump replicate all of your data in all of your disparate databases into one central database for MDM-driven BI, then you’re only going to have to update the central database once a week. If you have a database that updates every second, then you’ll need to grab updated data as often as you need it for analysis.
  • Scope determines the number of domains.
    This was the only really useful guideline. MDM doesn’t always mean centralizing all of the data into one central repository accessed through one domain. MDM is about gathering all of the related and relevant data into one schema, which may or may not be in one database, that permits the analyses the organization needs to run.

And now we get to the heart of the problem. Where and how should the data be stored, and how should it be accessed for the analytics that the MDM system is to support. (There’s no need for MDM if you’re not doing analytics!)

To this end, the article suggests you look at three types of MDM — Collaborative (CMDM), Operational (OMDM), and Analytical (AMDM) — and three styles — registry, coexistence, and transaction — but the first doesn’t solve the problem at all (as it just helps you figure out what you need to include under MDM, not how you represent it) and the second only deals with what data is managed and how often it is refreshed.

The fundamental problem is that of architecture — what is the schema, where is the data stored, and how is it federated? And what do you do if some of the data is not accessible when you need it? If you have terabytes of data distributed between internal databases and external clouds, then to centralize it you will need terabytes of storage and some big internet pipes to handle the petabytes of data that will need to be sent back and forth over the course of a year to keep the central data store up to date. So centralization is not the answer in this scenario. You need to keep the data in its home location and simply access what you need when you need it. But if an application is down, or inaccessible because of a temporary internet-related failure, the data won’t be accessible. So what do you do? Do you run the analysis without that data? Do you use the most recently cached data? Do you estimate the missing data based on time-series projections? Do you run a partial analysis, return a partial report, queue the remainder of the request and then run the remaining analysis when the data source becomes available again? Until you can answer these questions, architect a distributed, fault-tolerant, robust MDM solution, and implement it — which is where even the best organizations tend to fail and give up before the effort is complete — you don’t have MDM.

So is MDM a pipe dream for the average organization? Or will next generation technology deliver us a solution. It’s an important question, because you’ll never have true BI (Business Intelligence) if your data is out of control.

Share This on Linked In