Technorati Profile Blog Flux Local IT Transformation with SOA
>

Friday, April 10, 2009

The Drivers for Transformation

Let’s face it, everything turns into a legacy pretty much the moment it goes into production. Systems deteriorate or eventually become obsolete due their inability to meet new objectives. The world changes, new problems emerge, new discoveries are made, disaster strikes, people are mortal and new generations bearing new ideas and fresh visions ultimately take over.

But this still leaves the open these questions: what precisely is it that should be changed? And what drives what?

I’m thinking of the old age debate about whether it is technology or the needs and wants of the business discourse that ultimately drive technology. My own view is that technology’s impact on business and business’s impact on technology are dialectic in nature. Oftentimes it is “business” that drives technology (the 1960’s NASA Moon-shot comes to mind), but sometimes it is technology that drives business by opening previously untapped revenue-generation areas. Take the video-game industry; a direct result of the invention of the micro-processor which was spearheaded to meet the requirements of an electronic calculator manufacturer.

The initial driver sometimes kicks up other drivers in a feedback-loop manner. For example, new satellite communication technology encouraged globalization. International broadcasts of sporting events have become common, so that people in Brazil can now watch the same soccer match as people in England. On the other hand, globalization in communications also drove the need for significantly higher bandwidth and for shortened propagation delays than those from satellites. This encouraged development of more bandwidth capable fiber-optics, which led to new uses of that bandwidth, and well, you get the picture.

Business and Technology are but two of the key transformation drivers. I suggest that Competition and the internal dynamics of your company are another two. To me the list of drivers for change can then be narrowed to these four:

Business Drivers. Ultimately, if you are going to justify a new project to remedy problems with an aging infrastructure, or need to introduce a new reporting system, or, frankly, anything that requires a purchase order, you are going to have to justify the results in business terms. Rarely will the business directly request you to change the technology. Do not expect your CEO to come up to you and say, “Hey Joe, here’s a budget for us to move to SOA”. Truth of the matter is that you will be asked to deliver a specific list of business functionalities and capabilities, and you will then be expected to do so with a much reduced budget and tightened timeframes (“need this by yesterday”). Your challenge, should you decide to accept it, is to explain why satisfaction of these requirements merit the necessary funding and patience to launch an IT transformation effort.

Technology Drivers. So, often, it’s not a business requirement that drives change, but rather the pure fact that new technologies emerge with breakthrough functionalities, lower costs, or novel usages, and your refusal to adopt them would rightly place you and your company in the nomination awards list of the International Luddites Association (forget about Googling them; they don’t believe in having a Web site). Still, when the driver is technology alone (not the competition and not the business), it is usually wisest to introduce the change in line with normal replacement lifecycles. Take for instance the recent popularity of flat screen monitors. At first, executives drove their adoption (sign-of-status is a business driver, right?), then the artist-types demanded them with legitimate request to live in a flicker-free world, and soon after, the senior technical staff acquired them (how come those folks at graphic design have those monitors and we don’t?), until they eventually became cheap and prevalent enough to be the natural replacement technology for everyone with an outdated CRT monitor.

Ignore the forces presented by technology drivers at your own peril. Failure to change with the advent of transformational technologies is perhaps one of the biggest reasons that previously secure companies have tumbled down precipitously. The list of examples can be quite long, but suffice to note that Polaroid’s misread of the digital technology, and Wang’s failure to understand the ability of the PC to be used as a word processor show how serious is the need to understand the impact of new technologies on our businesses.

Your Competition. The world would be a much better place without those damn competitors. Alas, they do exist, and they sometimes introduce products and services that challenge your business. Back in the earlier 60s, American Airlines revolutionized the way travel was booked by allowing travel agencies direct access to its central reservations system (SABRE). Competing airlines had no choice but to react, and to react quickly, lest they face the prospect of a quick and painful death. After all, travel agencies using the SABRE system were more likely to book flights in American Airlines than in other competitor. Being the earliest to use automated travel reservations gave AA a tremendous boost in market share and in reduced distribution costs.

Your Organization. That is: you and your organization. You are that competitor who is the first at introducing a new feature or capability. Someone from inside your R&D group may come up with that one game-changing idea that truly deserves support. A new business process is identified that cries out for use within your system to effectively reduce costs now and into the future. Perhaps your company has acquired another concern, or there’s been a merger; or simply process and control inefficiencies are preventing scaling up the system.

Planning for your IT transformation involves assessing the future for each of these drivers. Next week, I'll talk about some techniques useful in prognosticating what's yet to be. . .


Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, March 27, 2009

The Need for Change

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
Mario Andretti—Race Car Driver

Change is a curious word and one that often makes for clichéd slogans, political or otherwise. It’s certainly one of the most overused words of the PowerPoint generation, but the fact is that the need for change is real.

Change happens—whether we like it or not. In the end, staying the same in business as in technology is a surefire way to be left behind.

Transformations take place right before our very eyes without our even noticing it. Look at any major modern city and make a quick survey of the kinds of cars you see on the road. Now compare that view with a flashback of the types of cars roaming around in the seventies. Yes, some cars today are pure vintage, thanks to hobbyists, but a look at the landscape today versus twenty or thirty years ago easily demonstrates that car lines have been updated dynamically in a steady process of sun-setting and replacement. Indeed, the median age for cars in the US is about eight years (creeping up to ten years as people are deferring new car purchases due to the recession).

Look at the same city landscape and observe its buildings. If you are in the downtown area, chances are you will find a number of classic buildings, renovated at great expense if the city has gone through downtown revival; decrepit if the city economic center has shifted to the suburbs. IT systems have become more like the buildings than the cars, and frankly, finding renovated IT systems is rare, most legacy IT systems resemble more a decrepit downtown.

Wouldn’t it be ideal if we were able to get to the point where IT systems can be revamped the way car models get renewed every few years? Well, new technology like the Internet and SOA can help here.

The Internet has been a game changer. Its full impact is still undetermined, but it is certainly forcing a closer look at original IT architectures. Legacy systems were designed around less agile service and maintenance models. Back in the days when it was fashionable to hate IBM (before it was fashionable to hate Microsoft and then to hate Google), centralized mainframe environments closely controlled by the glass-house priesthood forced processes that made it difficult to satisfy user demands and presented serviceability bottlenecks.

The need to overcome existing system deficiencies is not new. In fact, addressing ongoing customer demands has been the lifeline of IT organizations for decades. There has always been a need to transform the original systems, and there has always been the desire to replace the legacy with any available emerging technology. However, legacy technologies were not, and are not, easily replaceable, and the irony is that in every successive generation, the new systems were incorporated, but the old system was never actually retired.

Next week I will analyze in more detail the prototypical data center of today. I believe most large corporations have arrived at a common computing system pattern that must be understood if we are to extricate the system from their current complexity.

For now, don't you agree that the picture above is representative of today’s IT legacy systems?


Labels: , , , ,