Keystones and Rivets

SAP and annual maintenance - a defence

If you are a regular reader of some of the popular IT industry bloggers, during the past year you will have noticed a backlash against SAP, caused in the main by its decision to increase its maintenance costs.

Two things have amazed me as the situation has unfolded.  Firstly, to my mind SAP hasn’t done a very good job of defending the validity of its decision and as a result its reputation is suffering.  Secondly, why have so few people placed those increased costs within the context of what SAP delivers for their enterprise?

Ah, but wait.  Most of the people castigating SAP don’t actually use the software.  Unlike the SAP users who they try to whip into a frenzy, their business model doesn’t rely on SAP at all!

Auditing IT systems

“Yip, I’ve been promoted and I’m off to New York in a few weeks”, said Big D.

The other day I was chatting online with a former colleague who now works for a business process outsourcing company specialising in corporate information solutions.  He told me he is going to be a new Director for the US, focussing on Strategic Solutions for the Americas.

I made the critical mistake of shouting this news down the corridor to my business partner Fergus.

“Start spreeeeading the nyoooosss, Haaam leevin’ tooodaaaaaayyy...”, he wailed.

Throughout my career, in each office or location, there has always been at least one person who was convinced, despite the reactions of their ‘audience’, that they are a good singer.

Fergus is very convinced.  And very loud. 

The window in my office was open.  Outside, I could see squirrels throwing themselves off the oak trees.

The Pebble grimaced, and, above the racket, cried that it sounded like, “someone smothering a crow with a whoopee cushion.”  Mercifully, he forced shut a couple of doors and calm was restored.

“The guys say ‘well done Big D’”, I typed back.  Our chat continued.

“Thanks to all...what are you up to today...when’s the next blog coming out, what’s it going to be about?”

“I’m working on it now.  It’s about systems... how traditional functional systems don’t fit with the business process view of an organisation.”

“Really?  I was just in a meeting about that very subject.  We take a look from the business process perspective, and it always spans lots of IT systems. The boundaries round processes are completely different to the demarcation between IT Systems...So why are you doing that one?”

I went on to explain that I’d been following a series of posts by bloggers Dennis Howlett and Francine McKenna about IT systems, auditing and the Big Four…

The HP consolidation

Hewlett Packard (HP) has been pursuing an aggressive campaign to reduce the number of applications used internally to operate its business.

The project, which has been gathering momentum since it was kicked off in July 2005, seems to be entering it’s final phases, and there have been quite a few articles written of late about how the project is progressing.

The consolidation majors on reducing the application count from 6,000 to about 1780, and reducing the number of HP data centres from 85 global centres down to just 3 pairs based in the USA.

Governance and Government

We weren’t sure whose chin hit the floor first.

“He did say 25 million, didn’t he?” asked The Pebble.

“Yip”, I replied.

We had just begun watching a news broadcast about the latest data security breach by a British government department, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

25 million personal records, including the banking information for every family in the UK with a child under the age of 16, had been written with only password protection onto two CDs which were subsequently “lost in transit”.

The UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said that the security breach was down to “Failure in implementing the proper procedures.”

He went on to explain that:

1. “Only authorised staff should have access to protectively marked information”
2. “Information must not be removed without appropriate authorisation”
3. “Encryption should be used whenever information is being sent”

Enterprise Applications and User Interfaces

Nick Carr recently made reference to an article by Khoi Vinh, Design Director at the New York Times, about “the user-unfriendliness of enterprise apps”.

Khoi made an interesting point, that “...enterprise software rarely gets critiqued the way even a US$30 piece of shareware will.”  His basic premise is that the $30 software reaches a larger audience than an enterprise application, an audience which is more vocal and that helps shape the User Interface (UI) and software’s future development.  In contrast, an enterprise application doesn’t receive the same level of feedback therefore it remains an unfriendly application.

But to me that’s like saying that because the affordable Volkswagon Golf is the most used car in Europe, with lots of feedback through the dealer network, it is easier to drive than a 6.6L V12 660bhp Lamborghini Reventón.

Understanding Enterprise Architecture complexity

Nick Malik of Microsoft posted recently that

“For years, we've been living with Zachman and now TOGAF as commercially available EA frameworks, but honestly, they don't address the problems faced by large organizations with respect to complexity.”

This got me thinking about some of the pros, cons and limitations of the traditional frameworks used in Enterprise Architecture (EA).

This isn’t a comprehensive review but I’m going to briefly discuss three frameworks and their limitations in this blog, before I talk a little about OBASHI™ - my company’s own framework for capturing Business and IT related information.  Each framework details how information can be categorised, organised and presented to form the basis for governance and change.  The three traditional frameworks have some key differences which I’ll highlight below. 

Alignment? We need the big picture

Computing Business editor Mark Samuels asked an important question recently:

“It's just a shame that after years of writing about the need for integration between IT and business, alignment is still at the critical - rather than the taken-for-granted - stage. Who's fault is that - the IT department or the business?”

The answer is straightforward – neither.

Why?   Because traditionally Business and IT have not had a way of talking the same language.   And if they can’t speak the same language, and therefore understand each other, then alignment just isn’t going to happen.