Sunday, April 15, 2007

Using Technology for Competitive Differentiation

Recently I was talking to the client regarding the use of web 2.0 technologies in the eCommerce Portal.

Immediately, the client asked me to list down the business value the client would get by using those technologies.

This has always been the case. Whenever new technologies need to be used in the solution, there is always a question towards BVI. Business Value Index.

My point is that if new technologies are used for competitive differentiation, How long is it going to take for other companies to replicate the same thing?

If we go by BVI, its always possible for the competitor to use the same new technologies innovatively to beat / bring a new competetive differentiation.

Anything that is measurable / quantifiable in benefits is 'repeatable' too. It obviates the competive differerentiation in medium/longer term.

So what is the solution?. The solution is to look for technologies that would build intangible benefits...

Sounding little ambiguous...?..that is how it is..! We cannot measure the benefits like customer loyalty, user experience, brand value, accessability/usability. But these are the key drivers that make a solution unique.

Although its possible to put together a framework around these intangibe benefits to make them quantifiable, the metrics will not be accurate as other tangible benefits like performance, availability, scalability, etc.

But, inherently, the technologies themselves will not be directly addressing these intangible benefits. It is the method/way in which those technologies are used for a particular customer and problem context will determine those benefits and make the solution unique and 'non repeatable'.

Using Technology for Business Value

Recently I was talking to the client regarding the use of web 2.0 technologies in the eCommerce Portal.

Immediately, the client asked me to list down the business value the client would get by using those technologies.

This has always been the case. Whenever new technologies need to be used in the solution, there is always a question towards BVI. Business Value Index.

My point is that if new technologies are used for competitive differentiation, How long is it going to take for other companies to replicate the same thing?

If we go by BVI, its always possible for the competitor to use the same new technologies innovatively to beat / bring a new competetive differentiation.

Anything that is measurable / quantifiable in benefits is 'repeatable' too. It obviates the competive differerentiation in medium/longer term.

So what is the solution?. The solution is to look for technologies that would build intangible benefits...

Sounding little ambiguous...?..that is how it is..! We cannot measure the benefits like customer loyalty, user experience, brand value, accessability/usability. But these are the key drivers that make a solution unique.

Although its possible to put together a framework around these intangibe benefits to make them quantifiable, the metrics will not be accurate as other tangible benefits like performance, availability, scalability, etc.

But, inherently, the technologies themselves will not be directly addressing these intangible benefits. It is the method/way in which those technologies are used for a particular customer and problem context will determine those benefits and make the solution unique and 'non repeatable'.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Changing Role of Enterprise Architects

Being an Enterprise Architect, I always thought what value can I bring to the table to the organization?. I always have questions, Architect - as a position, How can it add value and command the business case for survival and growth?

There are lot of disruptors arising in the industry that influences the role of Architect, especially, the Enterprise Architect.

The key difference is, its not any more technology factor alone that can influence enterprise Architecture. Nowadays, there are lot of other non-technical factors as well trying to influence the role of EA.

Some of them are:

1. Changing Business Models because of Open Source, SaaS.
Companies are evaluating Open Source, SaaS not necessarily because of technical advantages but on economical advantages.

2. Offshoring/Outsourcing
Again, yet another economical factor, where the complete technical solution is outsourced / offshored to an external vendor. Some of the solutions are even contracted for longer-term for economical reasons. These solutions are typically out-and-out managed by the third-party vendor rather than an in-house EA.

3. Industrialization of IT
The big IT vendors are working on the lines of Software Factories/MDA/MDD to industrialize the software development. During my college days, in one of the workshops, I remember reading a poster that says "In future - there is no Programmer". Its mostly becoming true. Now, when I went to SFDC site, it says "There is no Software". Stunning, but a practical viewpoint.

If there is no software, what is the need for EA?. This might look like silly. But It certainly has implications.

In such cases, where the need of a software is more determined by the economical reasons, the technology takes a back seat. Every new technology that comes to the market, need to sell itself, needs to market itself, why it is so cool. The hard truth is - its is business that comes first and Technology comes behind. But, the scenario every EA and CIO want to hear is 'Business and IT comes together always'.

4. Innovation
The Innovation is no longer a fancy word. Its becoming survival in the hypercompetive world. you will have to be innovative in the way you are using solutions as well.

Some of these pressures apply to management positions as well. In the changing world, the managers always need to ensure there are ways to reduce cost and ensure growth.

The conclusion is, the EAs / Architects need to constantly look for new ways to grow their career path considering the above factors.

Composite Applications in SaaS

This is an intersting observation.

I was thinking that SaaS always works in a platform based model. There is no client software that needs to be installed/or on-premise software to be purchased.

It is not always be the case. While SFDC provides a platform based SaaS model, there are other vendors who provide other models of SaaS.

For example, the vendor TwinField provides a Microsoft excel based add-on. This add-on needs to be installed on your desktop to perform extensive analysis on the financial data that is maintained by the TwinField services. The add-on interacts with the TwinField Services platform to retrieve the relevant data.

This is basically a hybrid model where you have little bit of on-premise and a lot of platform based services.

And this is absolutely the same architecture model that 'Composite Applications' follow. Its just that the TwinField does not implement this model in a Business Process/Flow context. Otherwise, it is very identical.

What I see is that, its not just the 'Services' that have the potential to be hosted in SaaS platform. Its also the 'Composite Applications' or some elements of 'Composite Applications' can also be hosted in the SaaS platform.