Measuring simple in a conference like #SapphireNow

As I was walking around the SapphireNow event and interacting with attendees, I began to really look at where they were from. A significant percentage didn’t really have money to spend on their own, they were service and support organizations needed to help others.

Yesterday, I mentioned the surprise I encountered with the philosophy shift embedded in the approach of SAP’s new online store. One of the likely outcomes of this approach is less hand-holding and more empowered employees actually generating value for their business using the new capabilities.

One measurement to watch over-time is the mix and background of the attendees. If the utilization is truly becoming simple there will be less ‘facilitators’ and more people with money to spend and value to generate directly in the business.

I remember back in 1989-1991, I worked as the technical architect of an emergency response system and corporation to react to oil spills, after the Exxon Valdez. One thing we had to do was make the entire interface simple to use and operate. There was definitely complexity behind the scenes – it was just that in an emergency any unnecessary distraction is costly. We knew that most of the people who would use the system would not have the option of training. We had to target the needs of the consumer of the system.

If SAP’s systems are really becoming simple, the attendee mix should reflect their ability to consume solutions directly. But that might be just my perspective.

I survived my first day at SAP #SapphireNow

The one area that both surprised and interested me most on the first day had little to do with the analytics or IoT space (although I did have some interesting discussions in those areas too). It was the SAP approach to their on-line store.

They have had many on-line stores in the past but now they are taking a different more ‘digital’ approach that is focused on selling direct to the consumer. This will change the relationship with the user and the enterprise based on consumption. This could disrupt their traditional buyer, the SAP sales force as well as their partners that perform system integration and consulting. It will be interesting to see if this level of change can take place without too much disruption.

By selling tools like Lumira with a free version, then a low friction purchase option with a credit card a business could easily see this tool enter into its portfolio of resources without their knowledge. They have implemented the purchase process so that if a feature of a premium version is needed you are dropped into the store. Anyone who has done on-line gaming recently has likely run into this behavior. This kind of stealth selling is inevitable and will accelerate the kind of shadow IT has been discussed for years.

I asked the people at the booth about what happens when someone buys it on their own version and the company purchases a master agreement. The answers varied a bit but the individual has a choice to roll into the agreement or continue to pay on their own. Look to the terms and conditions (that no one reads typically) for the details.

There is also the concern about who will support anything that gets created once the business becomes addicted. Everyone likely remembers the years of Excel Hell. Hopefully that will not happen but I am still checking into how change management elements can be put in place for end user developed elements.

My greatest concerns is that the traditional command and control IT organization will be very frustrated by this, while the digital purists will be confused by the resistance – it may be just outside their contextual understanding. SAP stated they will be opening these capabilities up for 3^rd parties to sell their capabilities and that will have its own problems. Service providers usually sell apps as a mechanism to facilitate up-sell into consulting and integration. SAP is trying to ensure what gets into the store is valuable on its own. Some of the service providers will likely have a hard time understanding these implications as well.

It was stated (many times) in the first day that business models are changing and SAP seems to be doing its part to be disruptive, even if most of its customers haven’t internalized the implications.

And not Or

I was in an exchange the other day with some folks talking about their perspective that all companies need to be using cloud computing. I agree, but my view is slightly different. My perspective is that depending on the company’s size, needs and applications they will likely continue to have in house systems. It’s not a choice between things, but a choice among things and an acceptance of the way things are and one answer doesn’t meet everyone’s needs. You can’t look at it as: clouds the answer, now what’s the question?

Mobile computing is similar. It is the future interface of the enterprise, not really something special anymore. Embracing mobile devices and cloud computing will have a game changing effect, but it is not about the infrastructure but what we do with them and people want to do those things everywhere.

There are a number of other trends taking place like the IoT that are also shifting how organizations think about computing. It is interesting how this term is changing and how various organizations are trying to name it. It used to be ubiquitous computing, some call it ambient computing, but most still use the Internet of Things.

In any case the aggregation of sensors, devices, intelligence, and agents will shift how organizations generate value and shift IT to focus on systems of action.

Internet of Things Units Installed Base by Category (in Millions)

Category	2013	2014	2015	2020
Automotive	96.0	189.6	372.3	3,511.1
Consumer	1,842.1	2,244.5	2.874.9	13,172.5
Generic Business	395.2	479.4	623.9	5,158.6
Vertical Business	698.7	836.5	1,009.4	3,164.4
Grand Total	3,032.0	3,750.0	4,880.6	25,006.6

Source: Gartner (November 2014)

Many still look at these opportunities primarily from an infrastructure perspective, but I definitely do not. It is about the business and the hardware side is a small (but necessary) part. Organizations that will compete effectively in the coming years are going to shift their thinking to “and” and not “or” foundation. It is not all about IT, but IT has a role in enabling this flexibility.

By the way the output of the And not Or logic circuit illustration is always a one –> true.

When will 5G arrive?

Recently came across this interesting post on what 5G will mean for Consumers. In summary:

• Significantly faster data speeds: 10 Gbps, compared to one gigabit per second (max) with 4G.
• Low latency (time to send a packet): one millisecond vs. 50 ms with 4G — great for those chatty applications being developed
• The foundation for a more “connected world”: The Internet of Things (smart appliances, connected cars, wearables) will need a network that can accommodate billions of connected devices.

The most optimistic targets would see the first commercial network up and running by 2020, but even that may be too optimistic. As with LTE, it will take years for the network to become widespread.

What it will mean for businesses is the possibility for finer granularity across a wider geographic area. Hopefully, everyone is getting ready for IoT.

It does make me wonder about the future of relatively low speeds that many regions have as their entry level broad band for the consumer.

7 Questions to Help Look Strategically at IoT

There are still many people who view the Internet of Things as focused on ‘the things’ and not the data they provide. Granted there are definitely some issues with the thing itself, but there are also concerns for enterprise, like the need to monitor the flow of information coming from these things, especially as we begin to automate the enterprise response to events.

A holistic perspective is needed and these are the top issues I believe an organization needs to think through when digging into their IoT strategy:

1. What business value do the devices provide – independent of the data they collect?
   Having said that it is not really about the devices, it remains true that the devices should be delivering value in themselves – the data may be just a side effect of this role. Understanding those functions will increase the reliability and usefulness of the data over the long haul. No one wants to put an approach consuming a data stream just to have it dry up.
2. What access will the devices have to the enterprise?
   Is it bi-directional? If it is the security risk of the devices is significantly higher than those that just provide raw data. If a positive feedback loop exists, it needs to be reinforced and secure. If the data flow is too narrow for this level of security, the need for bi-directional information flow needs to be scrutinized – if the interaction is that valuable, it really needs to be protected. Think about the issue of automotive data bus attacks, as an example.
3. If attacked, how can the devices be updated?
   Does the devices support dynamic software updates and additions, if so how can those be delivered, by whom? Users of devices may download applications that contain malware, since it can be disguised as a game, security patch, utility, or other useful application. It is difficult for most to tell the difference between a legitimate application and one containing malware. For example, an application could be repackaged with malware and a consumer could inadvertently download it onto a device that is part of your IoT environment. Not all IoT devices are limited SCADA solutions, they may be smartphones, TVs… pretty much anything in our environment in the future.
4. How will the data provided be monitored?
   Wireless data can be easily intercepted. When a wireless transmission is not encrypted, data can be easily intercepted by eavesdroppers, who may gain unauthorized access to sensitive information or derived behaviors. The same may be true of even a wired connection. Understanding the frequency of updates and shifts in data provided is usually an essential part of IoT’s value, and it should be part of the security approach as well.
5. Can any personal or enterprise contextual information leak from the device connection?
   I blogged a while back about the issue of passive oversharing. As we enable more devices to provide information, we need to understand how that data flow can inadvertently build a contextual understanding about the business or the personnel and their behavior for other than the intended use.
6. Is the device’s role in collecting information well-known and understood?
   No one like the thought of ‘big brother’ looking over their shoulder. People can easily feel offended or manipulated if a device enters their work environment and provides data they feel is ‘about them’ without their knowing this is taking place. A solid communications plan that keeps up with the changes in how the data is used will be a good investment.
7. Who are all the entities that consume this data?
   As IoT data is used to provide a deeper contextual understanding of the environment, the contextual understanding may be shared with suppliers, partners and customers. These data flows need to be understood and tracked, like any consumer relationship, otherwise they may easily turn into a string of dominoes that enable unexpected shifts in results as they change. Awareness of enterprise context management will be growing in importance over the coming years – note that was not content management but context management.

All these issues are common to IT systems, but with an IoT deployment, the normal IT organization may only be able to influence how they are addressed.