So much industry buzz has been on the consumerization of IT that vendors have lost sight of the criticality of mobile solutions specifically focused on enterprise requirements.  Instead of riding in the wake of Apple – that is, designing solution just to achieve the “coolness factor” – mobile vendors should be focusing on the vacuum left behind in the wake of BlackBerry market share loss.  With the rapid evolution of enterprise mobile device use, it’s easy to forget that it all really started in 2002 when BlackBerry introduced phones that had the unique ability to access email, and large businesses adopted the devices en mass along with the BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES) management platform in order to replace antiquated pager systems.  According to EMA primary research, as recent as last year, BlackBerry owned the enterprise market space with 70% of all devices deployed in large organizations (those with greater than 10,000 employees).  In 2012, that number is expected to plummet to a mere 30% and will continue to disintegrate into 2013.

More commonly acknowledged, however, is the mobile revolution that began with the introduction of the iPhone in 2007 that has been driven by consumerized devices purchased and brought into business environments principally by end users.  In the wake of BlackBerry’s rapid demise, however, large enterprises can be expected to initiate the acquisition of massive numbers of mobile devices, shifting the focus of purchase considerations more towards meeting business requirements.  This offers a huge opportunity for mobile platforms to establish a dominant positioning in the enterprise space.  Realistically, there are only three contenders that can achieve this role:

• iOS – Currently the most likely platform positioned to dominate the mobile space (at least in the tablet market) being driven by consumer preference and strongly advantaged by a lack of high-performance competition.  From the enterprise perspective, however, there are significant problems.  iOS is only offered on hardware platforms from a single vendor, keeping prices relatively high through lack of competition.  Apple has also traditionally never had an enterprise program – they do not market to businesses, they have no enterprise support program, and they do not offer enterprise discounts.  Even worse, application development is difficult on iOS platforms due to Apple’s restrictive policies, making it difficult for businesses to create proprietary software for performing specific business tasks.
• Android –As an open source platform, application development on the Android platform is simplified, allowing local agents to be created for improving performance and reliability.  However, Google has made little effort to promote Android as an enterprise solution, leaving the marketing responsibility to the various hardware manufacturers.  Additionally, there is a reasonable concern that the open nature of the Android platform increases risk in organizations requiring more stringent security controls, such as in financial and government institutions.
• Windows 8 – Although not yet generally available and not recognized as a leading mobile platform, Microsoft’s latest attempt at expanding into the mobile space offers key advantages that might make it more attractive specifically to the enterprise market.  The Windows 8 architecture is standardized across the mobile, desktop, and server (Windows Server 2012) implementations.  This means applications developed for one platform will operate on them all.  In this way, enterprises only need to develop and maintain software on a single architecture regardless of the endpoint (no porting or rebuilding required).  Also, Microsoft has already established a strong enterprise marketing program that can substantially support hardware partners (like Dell) that will be promoting the new devices to the enterprise market space.

Despite the advantages, it’s an uphill battle for Windows 8.  Microsoft’s big challenge is timing.  Windows 8 is not scheduled for release until later this year, and even then, it will take time for hardware manufactures to
introduce new mobile devices and convince enterprises of the value of the solution.  Organizations transitioning off of BlackBerry devices may not be patient enough to wait for the environment availability or even recognize it as a viable alternative before committing to existing iOS and Android platforms.  Messaging is also critical for Microsoft.  If they focus only on the consumer market in an attempt to follow the Apple model, they will lose.  That’s not to say consumers should be ignored in the messaging – it’s essential that business professionals want to use Windows 8 devices – but the strong enterprise value case must also be clearly elaborated.

It’s the bottom of the 9^th in the mobile game.  Microsoft has two strikes (Windows Phone and Windows Mobile).  Will they strike out on the final swing or hit a home run?  Microsoft’s success will be dependent on a combination of strategic partnerships with mobile hardware providers like Dell and a commitment to supporting enterprise requirements without compromising on end user satisfaction.  Here comes the pitch…

First there was the file share

In the beginning there was the simple network file share. We connected to our network drives via VPN and it was generally good. But then, we started producing terabytes of data and it was “very hard to find the latest version of that proposal” or the “correctly customized version of the presentation.” You know what I’m talking about, and from a data center point of view this also soon turned into a nightmare, as more and more expensive tier 1 storage was consumed by “bloodsucking” file shares. Obviously, file shares do not support essential features, such as versioning, search, sharing, synchronization with mobile devices, browser-based access, and the list goes on.

Then there was FileNet, Documentum and finally … Microsoft SharePoint

In response to these shortcomings, true enterprise content management (ECM) systems were adopted, mostly by larger organizations. These systems often turned into gigantic behemoths that would disrupt business processes and slow down operations in ever new ways. As there was no real alternative, ECM was seen as a “necessary evil”, instead of the “promised land”. This is one of the great examples where a solution sounds so much better on paper than it actually works in real life. I mean, who wouldn’t want full text search, unlimited versioning, access from anywhere, or easy client collaboration?

After the first wave of ECM, Microsoft came along with its SharePoint product, making document management more accessible for everyone. SharePoint has been tremendously successful from version 2007 and adopted by almost every government agency, business, and non-profit organization. So everything was great and we were living happily ever after.

But something still wasn’t quite right…

Using SharePoint is not all that simple for end users, so they started adopting cloud storage services like Dropbox, and Box in droves, placing all kinds of personal and business documents into one unsecure location. It is just too tempting to place a document into a folder on my Mac or PC that is directly replicated to my iPad, iPhone and home machines. All of a sudden, the enterprise had lost control over its documents. A lost and unmanaged tablet or cellphone could expose confidential files, without the company even knowing about the threat.

The new wave: HyperDrive, OwnCloud, etc.

To eliminate the security threat that comes with replicated personal drives, the enterprise has to take charge of managing these drives. We are currently at the early beginning of the age of a new generation of enterprise-grade file synchronization and sharing solutions, such as RES Software‘s HyperDrive, ownCloud Enterprise Edition, Egnyte, and Oxygen Cloud. I have covered HyperDrive in a recent EMA Impact Brief, which is why I would like to talk briefly about ownCloud Enterprise Edition, which was launched on April 3, 2012. ownCloud Enterprise Edition is based on the ownCloud.org open source project, with currently over 400,000 users and almost 50 active contributors. The idea behind ownCloud is to address the issue of employees using non-enterprise grade solutions, such as Dropbox, by offering Dropbox-quality tablet and mobile phone apps. ownCloud allows the enterprise to roll almost any type of internal and cloud storage, including Amazon AWS and Dropbox, into an ownCloud drive that can be accessed from any device. At the same time, the administrator controls all user accounts, ensuring compliance and data protection. ownCloud Enterprise adds 12 x 7 support and an advanced management console to the open source version, making ownCloud a viable enterprise solution.

What the future holds

Working on tablets, cellphones, and ultraportable laptops has become a way-of-life, and will spread from early adopters to the entire enterprise. To ensure governance, IT must offer users a way to securely access and share files, personal and business related, from any device. Companies like RESSoftware, and ownCloud are at the leading edge of this development. The more traditional software vendors will join the party soon.

Conclusion of the plane story

So the reason why I couldn’t access the white paper on the plane wasn’t really the fault of Dropbox, but more related to the limitations of the iPad’s file system. However, we have certainly come a long way from needing a VPN connection to access files on a shared drive. All I would really have had to do was press the “favorites” button while I was still online. Obviously, I could have easily synched all the confidential documents on my work computer the same way. All it takes is me forgetting or leaving my iPad with the flight magazine and security flier in the seat pocket, and the lucky finder will not only enjoy playing Angry Birds on the big screen, but can also read and disseminate my most intimate company secrets…

• Cost-Effectiveness – The larger the management platform the more expensive it will be to implement (infrastructure costs and product licenses) and support (staff and maintenance costs).  Although organizations will be paying for a large number of features, they may actually only use a few of the capabilities, so the value in the investment is greatly diminished.
• Quality of Solutions – Let’s face it, no single vendor offers the best solutions in
  every management category.  They may lead the pack in some areas (i.e. endpoint management, security, service desk, virtualization support, configuration management, etc.), but appear lacking in others.  When organizations adopt an all-in-one platform, they get a mixed bag of outstanding and mediocre product sets, averaging out to a modicum of adequacy.
• Vendor Lock-In – Once an organization has invested heavily in an all-in-one solution, it’s very difficult for it to switch to an alternative platform if it proves inadequate.  Since the solution impacts multiple support organizations and services, a consensus on the product replacement will be necessary to justify the expenses involved and anyone who’s dealt with a group of IT managers knows how challenging it is to get them to agree on anything(including where they should go out for lunch!).   Although one management team may require better automation tools, another may be wholeheartedly resistant to change.

Now – just to be clear – there’s nothing wrong with the basic concept of a unified management solution.  The problem is with relying on a single vendor for all management capabilities.  To gain true value in an automated IT management investment, a modular approach should be employed where best-of-breed product sets are adopted that fully integrate to provide a unified management experience.  Full integration implies the solutions are accessed via a common management interface and utilize common resources (such as agents, logs, and data repositories).  In this way, organizations can choose which solutions are optimal for their operations and need only purchase those capabilities they require.  Solutions may come from one vendor or multiple vendors as long as they are directly integrated.  Should one product set prove inadequate, it can be replaced without affecting other IT management processes.

Of course, the key to all this is enabling integration and many of the most popular IT management solution vendors have acknowledged this by enabling strong integration with partners.  If direct integration is not available, indirect integration through a federated CMDB or CMS system can also provide a unified management experience without committing to a single vendor.

The important lesson here is to look for integration options when investigating a management platform.  Even if those integrated capabilities are not required today, they may be needed as business requirements expand, so having the flexibility to grow support capabilities with solution choices from multiple vendors should not be underestimated.  Buy what you need, no what a single vendor tells you you need.

Vendors are greatly encouraged to develop partnerships with solution providers that will compliment and extend the value of their product sets, and many have done so with great success (wink to Microsoft).  Although this does present a challenge for vendors that may need to partner with competitors to provide integration options, the result will be better products and more flexible solutions sets.  If indeed vendors are serious about enabling a unified management platform that is business focused, then they must get past the tempting desire to control it all and acknowledge there is room for multiple players and solution diversity. (I sure hope VMware is reading this.)

The purchase aligns well with Oracles recent announcements relating to unstructured data integration.  Specifically, the press release states:

“combination of Oracle and Endeca is expected to create a comprehensive technology platform to process, store, manage, search and analyze structured and unstructured information together.”

While significant sections of the Oracle announcement and the external discussion focuses on the technology integration aspects of  the acquisition, I like the contributions by the Endeca solution(s) to Oracle’s Customer Experience Management (CEM) offerings more than the technological possibilities.

Customer Experience Management represents a challenging area for many customer-centric organizations or at least those claiming to be customer-centric.  Bringing Endeca’s experience with ( and technology supporting ) CEM to the Oracle solution portfolio, enables Oracle to increase maturity of their offering as well as counter past strategic acquisitions by HP (2011) and Microsoft (2008) in this same space.

Related articles

• Oracle Buys Endeca for Unstructured Information Search Technology (pcworld.com)
• With Endeca Buyout, Oracle Edges Closer to Embracing Unstructured Data(readwriteweb.com)

Last week HP laid the foundation for its new strategy when it announced its partnership with Microsoft to deliver appliance style solutions that in most ways over shadowed HP’s own Neoview appliance. Last year HP and Microsoft announced a $250 million partnership nicknamed “Frontline” designed to create a pool of resources to support product innovations by both companies. From the Microsoft perspective this is a great deal; they have HP in the same spot that Oracle did with their Exadata line which worked for HP right up until Oracle purchased Sun and kicked HP to the curb. I don’t have an issue with the HP/Microsoft partnership its the best way for HP to participate in the BI space at this point. HP is a hardware and services company so supporting Microsoft will fit within there core competencies.

The problems at HP run deep and are probably too numerous to list here but as I mentioned above it’s a meltdown of epic proportions.

• The 2006 phone tapping scandal – This project cost Patricia Dunn her Chairman’s position and allowed Mark Hurd to ascend to the top of HP. Tapping reporters phones in a “witch hunt” to locate a rogue Board member who was leaking information.
• Hurd’s management style – no one will debate that Mark managed by the P&L and during his reign HP set records for layoffs and reduced their investment in R&D hobbling the innovation that HP was once respected for. Many HP watchers expected the BI Group to flourish under Hurd but it was mired in ever changing strategies and uninteresting technology.
• Hurd Scandal – The details on what exactly happened continue to leak out of HP but the bottom line is policies appear to have been broken and its been reported that Hurd was not forthcoming with the Board. In the end another leader bites the dust and instability resumed. To add injury to insult Hurd took the Co-Presidents position at HP’s biggest competitor Oracle.
• NeoView - HP hung on way too long. It was clear early that Neoview was having difficulty competing on both price and performance some estimates show that HP sold less than 100 of these solutions. Positioned as the cornerstone of their BI strategy HP failed across the board with Neoview
• Messaging and communication – HP dropped the ball on all fronts with BI messaging. The exodus of talented executives was difficult to track and it seemed that every time I met with HP a new message and executive were in place. It was clear that many of the brightest and dedicated were early to exit the group.
• The Knightsbridge Acquisition – Tactically a good thing and it seemed that the purchase of the biggest BI/DW firm in the US would make an excellent foundation for HP’s BI initiatives but in the end they failed to leverage the 750+ consultants and lost many of them to the competition over the past several years.

It will be interesting to see what comes next from HP, clearly their only remaining play in the business intelligence space is that of a partner to more innovative firms. New CEO Leo’ Apotheker has been at his post since November 1, 2010 and is just now starting to make his intentions known so it will be a while before we all get to see whats in store for HP.

Related articles

• Does HP’s deal with Microsoft signal the death of Neoview? (infoworld.com)
• HP lays Neoview BI platform to rest (infoworld.com)
• HP to phase out Neoview data warehousing product: sources (reuters.com)
• HP to phase out Neoview data warehousing product -sources (reuters.com)