If Government IT requirements are not driving the tech train, what can be done?

Not too long ago, the government drove the information technology (IT) narrative for computing and telecommunicaitons.  There are many examples:

• Lease and use of the Hollerith punchcard system for the Cenus of the United States of America.  This legitimized the use of technology to improve business activities.
• The “first” all-electronic computer (albeit without stored programs) the ENIAC.  Funded by the government to speed ballistics calculations.  This mainstreamed the idea of digital computation
• The purchase of the first Univac computer for the US Census Bureau (one of the first commercial computers).  Again, legitimized the use of computers for business processes
• Development of the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) system.  An interconnected set of fault-tolerant computer and Radar systems to protect United States airspace.  Paved the way for networked computers to solve real-time transaction-based needs, such as airline reservations
• Development of one of the first (if not the first) computers to use Integrated Circuits.  The Apollo Guidance Computer not only put a complete computer in a one cubit foot box but is was also the first Digital Autopilot.  Virtually every plane and ship uses technology pioneered by the Apollo program
• Development of the Internet.  DARPA, National Science Foundation, etc.  The network that changed the world
• Development of Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) and the start of the telecommunications revolution (to support that Internet thing)

I am sure that I missing many significant events.  However, today the narrative is changing.  At one point, not too long ago the US government had (at least to the first order):

• The most total computing cycles and largest storage systems in the world
• The largest and highest capacity corporate networks in the world

Network Usage Growth -  Cisco Visual Networking Index – Forecast, 2009-2012

Now, this is certainly not the case.  Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and others have huge computing and storage platforms that are growing in “government sized” increments nearly every month or so.  Consumer oriented use of the Internet has dwarfed all other uses of the Internet.

The question now remains, how does the government drive technology for its specfic needs and do it cost effectively.   The problem is that companies, who at one time saw the government as it biggest potential client may no longer have that view.  Products that sell in the millions of units are not easily influenced even by the largest customer.  The government will likely get a cold sholder from Apple for requested changes in the iPad or iOS.  Why?  Not because Apple is unpatriotic, but because when you are trying to keep up demand for tens of millions of units, a special order for tens of thousands does not make business sense.

This extends into the networking world as well.  At one time, the government was a large purchaser of domestic and international bandwidth.  With the rise of Google, Netflix, Cable Internet, FiOS, and 3G/4G wireless, and the international financial markets, the bandwidth demand from consumers and businesses has skyrocketed.  The government is still  big customer - but it is now just another big customer.

Because of this, the government has to stop thinking that it is so special.  One of my customers indicated that Verizon did not need security on its public network like the government needed.  When I pointed out that the threat surface for Verizon’s network was from about a billion people and that the customer’s closed internal network had only tens of thousands, it still did not resonate.  You have to face it, Verizon (and all Internet Service Providers) suffers attacks from “bot” infected consumer computers and thousands of worldwide hackers every day.  In many cases, I suspect that commercial security and monitoring is more sophiticated and comprehensive than the government’s, in spite requirements that drive layers of processes, documentation, and reviews.

Clearly, the government does have special needs and it contracts to build those systems that are not commercially obtainable.  From combat vehicles to airplanes and satellites, the government spends a lot to get distinct capabilities.  But just like the trend when the Census Bureau bought the first Univac computer, leveraging the commercial marketplace for what is or will become a commodity, is essential.

All is not lost, however, for special IT systems tailored to a government specific requirement.  The explosion of consumer devices and other structural changes in manufacuring supply chains has led to the creation of hundreds of contract manufacturers.  These companies build to their customer’s specification, and because of necessary business model, they are able to rapidly adapt their production lines to changes in customer’s demands.  The reason why this is important is that it may enable a more cost effective customization from an initially very cost effective consumer or business oriented devices (e.g., the development of a “pad” computer with special security features).

There are several challenges with this approach.   First, the government and its technical support contractors must understand this environment fully.  This includes both the capabilities and limitations of tailored production requests, as well as the how to develop realisitic specifications to get the right product and the right oversight to make the whole process work.

Second, many of these contract manufacturers are foreign companies.  This makes incorporating special security-related features problematic.

So, even though the government may not be able to drive the much larger IT train of today, some of the structural changes in industry may mean that the government may be able to get customized IT hardware solutions within economic sensibilities.  The real question is that for a vast majority of requirements, does the government really need special solutions?

One special area has traditionally been information security.  Here the government has and needs to control information that is termed “classified”.   This is information that if released can cause harm to the security of the country or its people.

In this light, a couple of ideas to consider:

• Strong mobile device data security, on mobile device types that have become commonplace.  This include how to handle encryption engines, keys, and potential tampering to unlock classified data contained on a device as well as the use of the “Cloud” for user application services.  Of course, the combination must  improve government operations possibly even allow these devices to enter and leave secure government spaces
• Enabling wireless communications within secure government spaces for WiFi as well as building specific 3G/4G wireless networks.  Again, the devices that leverage wireless must provide services that are recognizable to the user.  Can this capability, combined with the right mobile device, and Cloud applications services might even allow a single device to be used in and out of government spaces

The approaches will likely be derivatives of commercial systems and services that are needed to protect the confidentiality of business information or personal information (such as health records).  Imagination, determination, and some changes in government culture will be needed to deliver this types of capabilities for sensitive government needs.

I'll follow-up with some thoughts on technology investments that the government has, is, and could make in a subsequent post.

A little "What is Old is New Again"

We think that today’s business model with services combined with cool handheld devices is new.  Moreover, these services may be performed by people, systems, or manner unknown by the customer.  Email on your iPhone, Android, and Blackberry powered by the Cloud.  A marketing phrase could be something like “You press the virtual keys and Google will do all the rest”.

However, this is really a case of what is Old is New again.  George Eastman of Kodak fame coined the marketing slogan “You press the button and we do all the rest” when he introduced the Kodak camera in 1888.  

Pre-loaded with Film and Processing

His camera included the camera, the film, and processing, providing a customer pictures after they pressed the button.   All you had to do was buy the camera, take the picture, drop off the camera, and then a bit later pick up your pictures and your camera refreshed with new film.

The iPhone of 100 years ago

This type of complete ecosystem is being revised with a vengeance.   Today, the fight is on between Apple, Google, Amazon, and now Barnes & Noble for providing a very similar experience.   You buy an iPhone, Android, Kindle, or Nook (Blackberry is trying, but that is about all) and you have a device that has very much the same experience.  From these devices you press a virtual button and the device performs the function, including taking a picture. Like the Kodak model, another button press (assuming you did not just press the button for your pictures to be published on Facebook) starts an application that moves the picture to a processing center in the Cloud and within days, your pictures show up at your door.

This the technology of vertical integration is not the only what is Old is New again.  No great business is built without someone trying to take a piece or trying to “level the playing field”.  In 1954 Kodak developed perhaps us most famous product, Kodacolor.  Kodak was both the only producer of color film and had the only process to develop the film.  So, when Kodak sold a roll, they included a fee for processing as Kodak was the only company capable of processing the film.  Kodak was eventually forced, based on the U.S. Sherman Anti-Trust act to un-bundle the film from the processing and license other companies the process to develop the film.

Apple’s iTunes integration with their “i” devices have also raised similar anti-trust claims:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-22/apple-s-jobs-must-answer-questions-in-itunes-antitrust-dispute.html

Even when companies figure out a way to break the Apple closed ecosystem, Apple response by closing the holes.

Finally, we look Steve Jobs and the culture he built at Apple and somehow we think that it is unique.  I think that this quote from George Eastman over 100 year ago is something we could believe would come from Mr. Jobs:

“Nothing is more important than the value of our name and the quality it stands for.  We must make quality our fighting argument”.

COOP: Some are Probably Lovin' Cloud Computing Right Now

The aftermath of an unusual winter storm in late Fall left initially almost three million customers in the North East with out power.  Power companies are estimating that it could take days for power to be restored.  This affects not only residential customers, but also thousands of business both large and small.

Just a little while ago, there was a great uproar over the uncertain availability of Cloud computing and storage systems to meet the needs of consumer and corporate customers.  With day long outages at Amazon, Apple, and others, pundits rose significant concerns about the Cloud:

http://kaplowtech.blogspot.com/2011/05/excuse-me-you-are-talking-like-idiot.html

However, I am sure that there are now thousands of businesses that moved to Google Apps, Microsoft 365 (as well as the millions of customers that use Gmail, Hotmail, AOL, Yahoo, etc.), or moved their private corporate systems to Cloud service providers that are up and running in the middle of these massive power outages.  Getting their workers back on-line using 3G wireless, finding an Internet cafe, or alternate business location with Internet access.

Companies with critical business IT systems in buildings that are not true Data Centers are probably a bit out of luck.  Some believe that it is great to be able to hug their IT hardware, right now they need a hug from their "significant other" as the CEO is probably non-too-pleased.

As usual, it is all about risk management.  In this case, the potential of days of interrupted IT for your business against fear of moving some critical business resources into more shared environment.

It will be interesting to see there are Cloud marketing campaigns that make these points.

It Hits the RIM and Bounces Out…

When you have an older service model, problems just seem to build and build:

http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/industry-insights/technology/blackberry-breakdown-is-death-sentence

Update in Bloomberg Businessweek: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9QC2MF80.htm

The latest outage and performance issues with the Blackberry service is another indication that the executives at RIM have not moved with the times.  This has nothing to do with the quality of the network and server equipment or software that RIM employs to provide their service.  I am confident that they have updated their network and systems numerous times over the last several years to keep up with what they fooled themselves into believe would be never ending growth.

What has changed, or really dramatically improved, is the Internet services model that is the foundation of the competition between the major wireless carriers.  The “3G” wars have moved into “4G” and it is becoming about Mbps of LTE services and how many Gigabytes per month before you are sent to the penalty box (or, a very expensive bill).  These Internet services are the “Cloud” services that people are demanding.  With fully capable Internet Web-browsers on smartphones, the days of needing the Blackberry servers (in Canada) translating Web pages and serving a limited capability on Blackberry device are long gone.  The same is true for email.  Most people get their mail from a provider that is fully happy to provide IMAP or POP3 access to their servers (or, in some cases a proprietary phone App) directly over an Internet connection.  The need to go through a centralized email server complex (again through Canada?) just does not exist anymore.

Update: Along with my comparison with DEC (and below with the darkest times at Apple), here is another very good analysis:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/96f52cf4-f5c5-11e0-bcc2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1ake0JZ6r

The article in the Financial Times points out that RIM's focus on "the email application" is a "hard-wired attitude" that is very much like Wang Laboratories was with dedicated Word Processing systems.  In addition, the article points out that RIM has some stability as an important portion of its customer base are the slow moving government and legal sectors.  My comments is that this is exactly the problem, reinforcing the focus on simple messaging.

From an economic and technical standpoint, RIM has built a structure that is a real challenge for their continued success:

• People want their Gmail, Google Apps Services, Hotmail, and other similar capabilities.  The complex of Blackberry servers and network provides zero value to a customer and only additional cost to RIM
• RIMs costs for developing and maintaining several operating systems again only adds additional cost
• Application developers see a much larger platform space with Android and iOS.   What value does the Blackberry App World have long-term for developers?
• Blackberry was originally perceived as a strong business-class tool set which included both devices and services, including the Blackberry Enterprise Server (BES).  Again, RIM has to provide support for something that business will more and more determine adds little or no value to their IT environment.  Lower revenue for RIM and more cost to spread across the business

With the passing of Steve Jobs, the Blackberry product line today reminds me of Apple before Steve returned to Apple.  My first comparison was to DEC, back in April 2011:

http://kaplowtech.blogspot.com/2011/04/rim-goes-way-of-dec.html

Before his return, Apple was teetering on the edge of complete failure.  There were a succession of Macs that were at once all the same, different, and unremarkable. In addition there was the famed (infamous) operating system failure called Copeland.  Before that there was “Pink” and “Taligent” all tremendous wastes of time and effort.  Eventually, it was the NeXTSTEP operating system, from that Steve Jobs company NeXT that eventually saved the day.  And, of course it was the man himself returning to Apple and re-inventing Apple back into the company that develops “Insanely Great” products.

Without someone executive at RIM that is going to develop a Laser focus culture on differentiating their products and making them at least “Great”, making apologies for service outages will be the least of their worries.

The Business and Consumer Market: The Race for Relevance

There is a lot of activity in marketplace right now.  Much focus has been placed on “Cloud” services on side and tablet or portable hardware on the other.  I have found it hard to really put all of this in context and understand what companies are doing to leverage technology and make significant impacts in the marketplace.

To get a bigger picture of a company’s direction in a particular service or product area, I came up with a two element view of a technology or product.  The first part is an assessment of the capability of the service or product, and the second is a view of market share momentum.  Examples of this are shown below:

Applied to some interesting technology areas and companies, I come up with this admittedly subjective view of the current marketplace:

• Google has developed a wide range of infrastructure elements that cover both consumer and business needs.  Its mobile platform (i.e., Andriod) is becoming dominant, and it application environment (i.e., Google Apps) covers both desktop and mobile applications for home and business.

• Amazon is following suit, with a targeted set of capabilities focused on enabling businesses and providing wide scale consumer services including rich content.  Their “pad” (i.e., Kindle Fire) entry is completely tied to their existing and expanding consumer content model.  Not tied to a single vendor's set of devices (i.e., the Apple model), Amazon has a larger set of potential customers.

• Apple is tailored much more to the consumer, enabling rich messaging, content, and a full range of desktop to mobile applications.  Excelling at the user experience, Apple is the standard by which new devices and environments are measured.  In fact, I made a late update to the cart that reflect that Apple has now committed to a Cloud-oriented environment for the storage of user music, videos, etc.  It will be interesting to see how Amazon and Apple differentiate their services.  

• RIM, once dominant in the mobile market, is going sideways in the application environment, loosing traction in messaging, and not making an impact content distribution.  As a second tier player in the App landscape and with only a rumored music and video sales environment, there is not likely to be much market impact.  The launch of their pad (i.e., PlayBook) focused on the fact that is runs Adobe Flash (as opposed to Apple that is opposed to Flash).  Hoping to stir the wishes of the consumer market, this alone was hardly a reason to run out to buy.  In addition, they failed to take advantage of their strong business messaging position.  Without at least 3G connectivity to corporate email, contact, and calendaring, how is a business going to justify the expense.  Their previous market differentiation, Blackberry email service, is now an anachronistic method of email distribution – does all email have to cycle through Canada?

• Barnes & Noble is clearly focused on books and magazine subscription content on their mobile device (the “Nook”).  The main purpose initially is to sell electronic books.  However the Nook device is based on Android enables other provider’s content.

• HP.  Clearly, their attempt at a “pad” was not going to be anchored with content desired by consumers.  Without the draw of applications and content (see Apple iPad and iPhone commercials for what to do right) their entry was doomed.

The bottom line is that you can pretty easily see that the players that focused on integrated service delivery and content are the ones that are likely to have a continued to make new markets and have lasting market impact.

Post Office Future Redux

In late 2009 at a “Tea” discussion of the D.C. Chapter of the Internet Society, Michael Nelson, others, and I discussed what the “’Net” was likely to be in the year 2020.  One of the specific areas was what was to become of the U.S. Postal Service.  Following-up, I wrote this blog entry in October of 2009:

http://kaplowtech.blogspot.com/2009/10/net-2020-and-whither-post-office.html

What I tried to point out was that the Postal Service has specific and unique capabilities that can map to problems that appear in the electronic frontier.  With imagination the Postal Service could still be relevant.

With the looming partial shutdown of the Postal system without additional Federal dollars, the system continues to fail to grasp new opportunities that do not necessarily revolve around Saturday delivery of mail (or the clearly below cost delivery of bulk mail enabling enterprises such as NetFlix to flourish).

Let’s try on a 20^th century idea for the Postal Service:

Create a by-law recognized official and legal communication mechanism by electronic mail.  Legal documents delivered by Certified mail are just that.  Current email does not have the non-repudiation, and other characteristics necessary for Certified delivery.  The Postal Service could setup a “Certified” mailbox upon request by anyone.  There are several technical approaches, but the Postal Service accrediting one or more approaches is the point .

So, how are you sure that you have the right person?  There are hundreds of thousands of letter carriers that visit every home and business multiple times every week.  This is the workforce necessary to perform Public Key exchanges (or another form of validation).  The Postal Service could provide and deliver USB-type keys to be used to sign official documents to the government, financial institutions, and businesses.  For over 200 years we trusted the Postal Department (and not the Postal Service) to handle our most critical and personal matters.

And there is more.  Today, fraud in email is handled by local law enforcement and the FBI.  However, with a Postal Service provided capability – whether hosted by the Postal Service, a public service provider, or local to a business – we could start enforcing Postal regulations for the use of these services.  Interfering with this type of email delivery, either by spammers or by hackers, would immediately be a Federal crime with the enforcement starting with the Postal Inspector.

The government has a Constitutional responsibility for providing for the Post.  This purpose was to ensure the operation of Commerce and Law.  The only future for the Postal Service is for it to leverage its unique legal position and explore ways to improve commerce.

Currently, the only talk is about reducing delivery schedules and closing post offices.  Is there anyone out there that has any imagination?

My Recollection from a Decade Ago and How it Impacts Me Today

No one that knows me well will ever accuse me of having a great memory.  But, like so many other people, my personal experiences on September 11, 2011 are forever frozen vividly in my mind.  Moreover, the experience guides my actions today.

It all starts off with what appears to be the most common collective experience – an absolutely beautiful day with the most striking blue sky.   I first noticed the sky as I drove on the George Washington Parkway right near CIA complex on my way to my office in the then Qwest building in the Ballston area of Fairfax.

It is pretty blank from that moment to the moment that Amy, my wife, called me in a bit of a panic.  With tremendous concern she told me that a plane had hit one of the World Trade Center towers.  My first thoughts, apparently the same as the President of the United States of America, were that a small plan accidently hit the building.  I started surfing the Web for more information.  A bit later, she called me back and her voice had a disturbing tone and panicky quavers - the second plane hit WTC Tower 2.  That was the moment when we all knew that something was much more terribly amiss.

I left my office and entered the small conference room associated with my boss, James F. X. Payne.  There was a meeting going on, but I do not remember the others in the room.  I told them that there was something going on, and turned on the television in the room.  The confusion and impact of the intrusion faded as the world-wide coverage of the event has already started.   We watched the fires and smoke rise from the buildings.

I remember thinking and discussing the damage to the buildings.  As people also know about me, I am an eternal optimist.  If the glass if half-full, the other half is full of humidity.  My non-professional assessment was that the structural damage to the building would not cause the buildings to fail, and that eventually the buildings would be restored.  I was right about the structure but completely wrong about the impact of the fires.  The fate of the building and over two thousand people was already sealed.

While all the events in New York were unfolding, there was a news report on the TV that a loud noise was heard near the Pentagon.   There was little known, except that it started the mass exodus of people from their place of work to their homes.

I had a meeting setup with Jim Johnson from Time Warner Telecom (now tw telecom).  It seems a bit ridiculous that we kept the meeting.  Traffic in the area around Ballston was in gridlock, so going home immediately was not an option.  I left my office building and walked across the street to the outdoor seating area in front of a building where Jim was waiting.  Luckily, I was able to call Amy on my mobile phone, and she told me that all flights have been grounded but that there was at least one other plane that was thought to be in hijackers controls.  I can only assume that this was Flight 93.  Every now and then, I searched the sky, but by that time there were no planes anywhere to be seen.  I do not remember at all what Jim and I talked about, but I am sure that we discussed the day’s events as we best knew them, some business, and thoughts about how to get back to normalcy.

An hour or so later, I started my trek home, north on Glebe Road towards the Chain Bridge.  Traffic was horrible, but it moved.  I wanted to get over the Potomac as quickly as possible, so when I had the decision to go on Chain Bridge Road to the George Washington Parkway and then onto the American Legion Bridge or take the Chain Bridge into the District, I chose to cross the Chain Bridge. 

Going over the bridge, there is only a single legal option.  That is to make a right turn onto Canal Road – or more specifically for me, the wrong direction.  In an uncharacteristic act of traffic defiance – I took the opportunity to make an illegal left turn, onto an essentially empty Clara Barton Parkway and then quickly home.

After that my memory has faded.  I only wanted to know that my family was safe at home.  I had significant difficulty calling my mother due to the impact of the Towers destroying the Verizon Central Office near Ground Zero.

Home, I remember firing-off an email that outlined my impression that radical Islam had replaced Communism as the new rallying cry of the despot looking to achieve power and overthrow civilization.  Living near Washington, D.C., periodically, military jets noisily swooshed over my neighborhood.   I now pass a Patriot Missile Battery nearly every day on my way to work.

A somewhat humorous event happened the next day.   All the schools were closed, and Amy arranged for Seth to have a play date with someone from school.   The house was in Avenel, a beautiful and upscale community near our home.  In fact, it was in “the” Avenel house.  The play date was uneventful, but Seth came home and asked two questions.  First, “Daddy, why don’t we have a fountain in the driveway”, and the second “Why doesn’t our house have an elevator”?

Here are some final recollections of the days after the event.  The first was that I was glad that my father, Howard J. Kaplow of Blessed Memory was not in a condition to fully understand what had happened.  As a veteran of World War II, he did not have to add to his memories of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the violence he experienced as a soldier in Europe. 

Next, the Qwest building in Ballston has a glass wall that rises from the 13^th to the 14^th floor facing north.  On a normal day, a plane every 30 seconds or so would pass on their way to Regan National Airport.  With air traffic grounded, I remember looking out and wondering when the planes would fly again.

Finally, I recall was that for several nights I went to sleep praying and hoping that somehow I had the capability to change events.

Alas, changing events of the past is impossible.  The passing of a great man and friend two weeks ago reinforced what we all must do.  Live every day as it is the most important day of our lives, focusing our energy on our family and friends.  For so many families, the events of 10 years ago cannot be changed, and for them and the thousands of Service Men and Women that keep us safe, their families will never be the same.

The impact of the event, and its consequences drove into me something that guides my actions at work, particularly since most of my effort is to support the government, generally in the area of national defense.   I believe that for every action taken, for every dollar spent, and for every process followed you have to ask two questions:

• Is what we are doing protecting the United States of America?
• Is what we are doing to help us protect our soldiers and help them get the bad guys?

Everything else is a waste and jeopardizes our country and its people.

God Bless You.  And God Bless America.

More Usage, Same Cost - Boom!

This is the next in the installment of home bandwidth usage here at chez Kaplow.

In http://kaplowtech.blogspot.com/2011/02/other-countdownthe-consumer-usage-bomb.html, I took a first look at the bandwidth utilization trend in my house.  I was concerned that I was on the path of being an “excessive” bandwidth user.

Next, in http://kaplowtech.blogspot.com/2011/04/other-countdown-is-back.html, the trend continued it is appeared that in just a few months the bandwidth police from Comcast was going to raid my house to turn off my bandwidth hogging toys.

So, where do I stand today?

As the graph shows, my usage has varied significantly since my last posting on this topic.  The suspicious drops in April and May could possibly be attributed to my oldest Son preparing for final examinations at school, with the rebound in June as my Sons and I return to Netflix and Xbox Live.

Even with these dips is it clear that in the first six months of the above period the average usage was approximately 70 GBytes transferred per month and in the succeeding six months this average rose to 120 GBytes transferred, a 70% increase.  So, at the very least, even though I did not reach the 250 GByte limit, I certainly represent an increase in demand on the Comcast distribution network and of course the Internet itself.

The Least Squares fit of the data currently predicts that in June of 2012, I should expect that knock on my Internet door for excessive use.

So far, Comcast has not increased the price of my Internet service.   However, as it is less likely (as it is for others) for me to order additional cable-based video on-demand services or premium channels (due to Netflix and other Internet-based content services), a service provider like Comcast would appear to be in a bind.  To keep the same earnings and profit margin with revenue capped or declining and competition for Internet services increasing (both from wireline and wireless providers) a provider has to either reduce their costs (e.g., efficiency) or increase prices.

For many 3G and now 4G wireless customers, much smaller bandwidth quotes with significant overage fees are de rigor.  Any predictions on price increases or other service changes for wired Internet service?

Blessing or Curse? The emergence of dominant designs

Another entry in the competitive Tablet and mobile device operating system market will quickly fade away:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/hp-punts-on-webos-discontinues-touchpad-cuts-outlook/55386

The once promising Palm (remember that this was probably the first successful Personal Data Assistant, PDA) introduced by US Robotics in 1997.  Not quite a touch screen device, it used a gesture-based stylus input called graffiti to enter text.  Clearly, a forerunner of today’s finger-based control and input for smart phones and tablets alike (no I did not forget the Apple Newton).

Sold to 3Com and then spun-off and then purchased by HP, the linage from those humble early days of PDAs to the WiFi, 3G, 4G, platform of today is essentially unbroken.  However, as many other early leaders in the field, this Operating System (OS) line may have just stopped with the announcement from HP.

Once a viable competitor to the RIM Blackberry environment (Palm introduced a PDA Smartphone, as best I can tell around 2002), Palm OS lost traction to RIM OS and Symbian, and then to Apple iOS and Google Android.  Valiant efforts in pushing cool devices such as the Palm pixi, etc. never had any market impact.

Without significant traction in the competitive consumer marketplace (or in the business market), there is a whole list of environments that have essentially come to a screaming halt once a new set of   dominant designs emerge (an interesting question is how many can a market support?).

Examples include:

• GONE: DEC – VAX VMS was the engineering environment development of choice.  Killed with Unix and Windows products. (VMS is still supported, but has no significant impact on the marketplace)
• GONE: Atari, Amiga, and a host of other personal computers.  Killed by Apple (although after some significant stumbles) and most assuredly by the IBM PC.
• GONE: CP/M, GEM, and a host of other operating systems.  Killed by the Windows juggernaut.
• GONE: Symbian.  Once the darling of the mobile device world, Nokia has stopped development.
• GONE: WebOS.  Well, maybe not gone (that was not what the announcement said) but HP is killing the mobile devices that use HP WebOS.
• GOING?: Blackberry OS.  RIM has to continue the development and support for a platform (really multiple platforms) that runs only on RIM devices.  With a significant shift to iOS and Android, how long will this last?
• GOING?: Windows Mobile.  Although there are several committed manufacturers (Nokia being one of them) market share is scant, so the future is a bit uncertain.
• MAKE IT AS A NEW DOMINANT DESIGN?: Windows 8.  A clear push by Microsoft to change the paradigm of the desktop (and I assume tablet as well) to a presumption of connection to the Internet for collaboration, interaction, and services.

There is no easy answer to how a dominant design emerges.  In some cases, an open platform that can be used my multiple hardware providers works well.  This is the Android and Windows model.  In other cases, it still looks like a closed, proprietary environment like Apple iOS.

However, there are some clear items we can identify:

• You have to have an excellent customer experience.  This is an Apple trademark.
•  The device has to have a full range of value.  In general, customers do not care about the platform, they care about it doing what they want reliably in a way that feels good (that look and feel thing).  iTunes brought huge value, to customers (I can get the music I want right now), to developers (I can sell something to a customer right now), and businesses (I can differentiate my business to a customer right now).
• You can not let the platform go stale.  This has two parts.  First, make them feed on the next cool device (again, Apple).  Second, the guts of the system need to keep up.  Windows plays catch-up with Apple OS, and RIM let their OS lag and now has a fragmented environment driving customers and developers to go nuts.
• Feed the ecosystem.  Apple is the best at this.  This includes software developers (see the above issue with RIM) and the companies that make add-ons to the iPhone and iPad.

Soon up, a look at dominant design in other emerging services, such as Cloud processing, storage, and applications as well as a look at the growing three-way (and maybe four way) battle in the IT landscape (Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon).

The Market Keeps Shifting – Where do you find stability and growth?

So, apparently CenturyLink will not buy Sprint for their wireless network and services.  The CFO of CentryLink says that it is much more important to continue to integrate their recent acquisitions (i.e., Qwest and Savvis) than to continue their buying spree:

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/centurylink-wont-buy-sprint-will-focus-business-broadband-opportunities/2011-08-11

This is probably good news for local customers as CenturyLink will have to improve their broadband Internet service offerings to attract new customers.  With a drive to higher speeds and IPTV services, what could go wrong?

Well, in this economy and the shifts in technology and social activity, there are a couple I can think of immediately:

1. Adding new areas to the broadband footprint is expensive
2.  Subscribers to Pay TV services took their largest decline in history.

In the above Fierce Telecom article, Qwest was quoted that it added only 12,000 net broadband subscribers for all of second quarter 2011.  I am pretty confident that there were many more traditional voice (read POTS) customers that cut the cord completely.

As for adding IPTV Pay services, competition, new Internet-based services, broadband wireless, new Internet-based social activities, and the economy are causing record number of customers to leave Cable and Satellite TV services:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/pay-tv-faces-toxic-mix-as-subscribers-cancel-in-record-numbers/2011/08/10/gIQAH6Vk7I_story.html

So, for traditional telecom companies that do not have wireless services, the pressure is on to find the formula to stabilize revenue and find customer and revenue growth:

1. Wireless 4G services.  A few more customers that cut the cord at home,
2. Streaming and Downloaded Internet Video.  Even if it does not kill wired to the home video, it certainly reduces the likely revenue per customer (i.e., fewer OnDemand and premium channel purchases)
3. Price Competition.  Satellite TV may continue to drive to very competitive and tailored packages.  Hard to fund wired infrastructure builds in an area where you can get the right share to make the numbers work.
4. It’s the economy, stupid.  We are all starting to cut back.  People are apparently much more likely to trade Pay TV, POTS, and maybe even wired broadband services to keep their ever increasing in capability mobile device.
5. Business Services.  Customers are using the Internet-based VPN services as opposed to MPLS/VPN services to save dollars (reduced dedicated access costs, more competitive pricing, etc.).

So, can these traditional telecom companies find stability without wireless services?   If I can figure something out, it will be the topic of a future post.

Government Data Center Consolidation - The Wrong Metric?

A recent article in Information Week Government : Federal IT Pros Question Data Center Consolidation Benefits indicates that data from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) says that agencies are expecting to close 195 data centers this year and a total of 800 or more by 2015.

Wow, this is quite amazing, but what the heck is a "data center" in this context.  Could it be that agencies are finding the proverbial "server under someone's desk" and moving that into a more consolidated infrastructure and calling that the elimination of a "data center"?

Statistics can lie, but so can definitions.  Does anyone really think that there are 195 data center buildings that are going to close this year?  Does GSA have a fire-sale going on for leased data center space that is no longer being used?

The problem here is that the directive and OMB are measuring the wrong thing.  By measuring data center closures as a measure of success, I am pretty confident that agencies are taking a good deal of liberty in the definition and their resulting activities to make the numbers look pretty.  A better measure might be to measure IT overhead in an organization and measure it against a benchmark of commercial companies for like services.

The drive for IT efficiency is not going to be arrived at by shuffling "data centers" and consolidating into fewer rooms.  Common infrastructure at an agency, managed by an Infrastructure Service Provider (ISP), drives two essential behaviors:

• It stops IT development organizations from running out and buying a new set of hardware and software every time they deploy a new application
• It drives efficiency in the operations of the ISP 

There are many facets it getting an ISP really operating (maybe a subject of future posts), but there are several essential elements that the CIO of an agency must drive:

• The ISP must be efficiently run, very responsive to its customer set, and provide highly available services
• The developers (which in many cases are contractors), must have in their contracts that they are developing applications for execution within the ISP environment and not a new standalone "data center"

This first step will consolidate within an agency, but it also sets the stage for multiple agencies to start thinking about sharing and consolidating their ISP infrastructure.  This is there the real savings will develop.

The good news, is that there are government CIOs that see this big picture.  Wouldn't it be great if we had a metric that talked about efficiency and sharing rather than some artificial count of data centers?

Early Adopters Don’t Always Win (e.g., Sprint can’t catch a break) - redux

I wrote previously that Sprint could not catch a break trying to differentiate their service (Early Adopters Don’t Always Win).  So from a network technology perspective, Sprint first made a deal with ClearWire for 4G services using WiMAX technology (Sprint-ClearWire).  This $14.5B deal in 1998 was supposed to seal Sprint’s future and leadership in 4G services - ClearWire brings the technology and Sprint brings the spectrum.  So, there are many curious elements – what the heck is going on?  We now find that ClearWire is experimenting and may be moving towards LTE (ClearWire LTE), with very successful field trials.  However, that is not the end of a potential change from WiMAX to LTE or strategy associated with getting 4G network capacity.

Sprint has now signed an over $10B deal with LightSquared for Sprint to host LightSquared’s network.  This leads to the clear (no pun intended) customer confusion and vendor confusion on where to place their emphasis – on WiMAX or LTE.  It also means that Sprint again has multiple networks, something that they have not shown themselves to be too adroit at doing.  If you remember, they bought NexTel which used the Motorola proprietary iDen system that provided a market differentiating “push to talk” capability.  Sprint was not able to manage the capacity growth on their two parallel systems, and the iDen network started getting bad word-of-mouth.  Today it is hardly the marketing or company building differentiator it once was.

At the same time that Sprint was probably negotiating their deal, the results of the commission created by the FCC to determine the impact of LightSquared’s LTE network on the GPS system were starting to become clear.  The results were not good in the extreme.  In fact, LightSquard has essentially admitted that they really do not have a plan to use their allocated frequencies for their LTE build-out (potentially using less than half their specturum), and floated the idea of using spectrum from another sources. 

Sprint says that is now has the ability to trade between its organic network, ClearWire’s WiMAX (and eventually LTE?), and LightSquared.  Stay tuned, Sprint is going to unveil their LTE plans on October 7^th.  It seems to me, that what Sprint was really after was a cash infusion from the investors in LightSquared – which if LightSquared can use only half their spectrum (if they can use any at all) may be in jeopardy.

So, while AT&T and Verizon Wireless are moving rapidly and definitively on their LTE deployments, Sprint again is moving in a bit in circles trying to move from WiMAX to LTE.  They have found that their early adoption of technical differentiators may actually turn out to be burdens (as they have to support three and then four networks – EVDO, iDEN, WiMAX, and LTE) and they really have not been able to take advantage to attract a substantial number of new customers.

Goin' a Mile Wide and an Inch Deep: Thoughts on sustaining success- Part 1

Successful companies grow. They grow in terms of revenue, market share, customers, technology portfolio, and more. This is a good thing. However, companies approach growth in many ways and some don’t result in sustainable growth. The real question is “How do successful companies confront these issues and stay successful?”

There seems to be a trend for some technology companies that cause them to expand their product lines and services to what I would describe as “Mile Wide”.  Not content with the product areas where they’ve demonstrated success, they stray into new area.  The exemplar goes something like this:

1)      Company starts and grows with an initial product set that lights the market on fire generating lots of cash for the company through increased investor participation and, possibly, revenue

2)      Corporate leadership and technical staff become confident of their unique ability to develop technology, creating new groups to develop new products (this is a continuing process until re-aligned by items 6 and 7)

3)      In addition, corporate diversification strategies starts a series of acquisitions of other companies to reduce the risk of being too dependent on a single product line or market

4)      Different cultures and groups brought together from the different companies start internal-based competition, bringing out additional products that are poorly differentiated from each other and often have significant feature overlap

5)      As corporate structure becomes more complicated, and product line scope creeps wider and wider, the company becomes increasingly introspective rather than customer focused

6)      Short-term, or even medium-term, success masks the inward focus and increasingly diluted direction of the company

7)      Company starts sputtering in the market as other companies with better focus snap up customers

8)      Inevitable massive change at the company starts.  This can be a cancellation of product lines even recently acquired, divestment or break-up into multiple companies, or cause the failure or acquisition of the company or its parts to other companies

The recent significant layoffs and reorganization a Cisco, as well as their dropping some product lines (e.g., the Flip) is just one example of this phenomenon.   Without being exhaustive, Cisco’s history, according to my items above goes something like this:

1)      The Router business goes nuts and Cisco is on the leading edge of products for the new Internet ecosystem resulting in massive volumes of cash from a 40% profit margin and one of the largest Initial Public Offerings in the “.com” boom.

2)      Lots of different internal vertically oriented organizations are created to build product lines complimentary to the routers (such as servers or optical transport solutions), which also begin building new routers because they know better (this is only speculation), as well as addressing specific markets (like government or service provider segments).

3)      Cisco bought a series of companies (such as Catalyst and Cerent) to fill on holes in the company, as well as new ventures such as WebEx, Linksys, Scientific Atlanta, etc.

4)      Overlapping capabilities start with product that may even have started with similar bases are now remote cousins (e.g., the 6500 and 7600 products).  In addition, new products are developed (e.g., the Nexus) and introduced to the market that again introduce overlap and incompatibility.  Overlap in LinkSys and other router and VoIP products also causes some confusion (where does the “Flip” fit? Do I buy Cisco or LinkSys VoIP phones?).  Getting into the data center server market without significant differentiation.

5)      Cisco was and is making a good profit, but not a lot of financial excitement.  Plans for unifying operating systems and rationalization may not have had the urgency as it would if the company was short on cash or cash flow.

6)      Competitors with better focus and cost basis start pulling at the base, and many of the new but “Inch” deep products do not really make a meaningful market impact (e.g., portable HD video cameras being replaced by smart phones).

7)      Cisco announced significant organizational changes and staffing reductions.

Cisco is not unique as there are other companies that have gone down this path.  Some have failed, some have navigated successfully, and some are a story that is unfolding.  Some examples and associated very brief summaries include: 

DEC (Fail) Digital Equipment Corporation started with great minicomputers, expanded into multiple overlapping computer products.  Let old products linger.  Fell in love with its own success.  Developed wonderful networking and printer products.   The love blinded them to significant market shifts.   Other more focused companies exploited weaknesses.  DEC is disassembled and pieces sold to other companies (some eventually to HP via Compaq)

 HP (Success).  Interesting here as the company looked a lot like DEC but was able to maneuver, change, and make strategic divestments and investments that have helped the company through significant changes in the marketplace and remain a major competitor in a commoditized market.  When HP realized that the advanced technology testing equipment business was significantly different than the desired growth direction, they spun it off.   The contrast with DEC (from which HP acquired customers, technology, people, and Intellectual Property) is stark. 

RIM (Hmmm…).  Lack of focus and reading of the marketplace.  I have written about this previously, but a Mile-Wide set of products with different operating systems and customer marketing messages will continue impact RIM.  The Blackberry is a business-oriented device or a device that competes with the iPhone for the cool factor?  The Playbook is a tool for business or is it cooler than an iPad because its runs Flash?   Now they are rumored to have a home video box and may try to launch an Apple TV or NetFlix type of service.  Good luck in sorting this out.  Some additional comments at RIM goes the way of DEC.

Comments on Sprint Early Adopters Don't Alway Win.  Based on another shift in approach at Sprint Sprint/LightSquared Deal - The Shift from WiMAX,  a new entry to the above summary is in the making.

Part 2, will discuss the "Kaplow-Goeringer Rules for Sustained Business Growth".

Tremendous thanks to Steve Goeringer who made significant contributions of ideas, content, and edits.

You can see more about my company at www.polarstarconsulting.com.

Getting Innovation Right for Government Organizaitons

A recent article in Information Week outlined 4 Steps To Spark Innovation.  In summary they are:

1. Foster Openness To Innovation
2.  Expand The Pipeline Of New Ideas
3.  Triage The Most Promising Ideas
4. Adopt A ‘Test And Learn’ Approach

Assuming that these are relevant and mostly correct, what do these mean in the context of a typical government IT organization?  What are the limiting factors?  What other approaches can be used to improve innovative thinking and action?  I will address each one in turn.

Fostering openness is a difficult challenge in many organizations, but it can be especially difficult for a government organization.  There are several factors:

1. Many government organizations have a mix of government and contractor staffs, with the contractor staff potentially being separated into several of groups based on function and associated contracts.   This fragmentation does not necessarily enable good communication of ideas and can make competing groups with conflicts of interest.
2. Contractor staff may have a good idea, but the structure of the environment may not have a mechanism for these ideas to come to attention to the appropriate government leadership for action.  For example, the contractor may report to one part of the organization, but not to the leadership that could take action.
3.  The government executes IT as programs.  In general, programs get scoped, awarded for execution, and then execute as planned.  However, when compared to the rate of changes in IT technology and approaches, what gets delivered by the program may already be pushing obsolescence.  Government program managers and their contractors are generally on the hook for delivering against the program and expending funds.  Changes jeopardize both.

Solution: Organizational leadership has to set goals for government program managers correctly.  New ideas that could improve IT functions, increase customer satisfaction, reduce costs need to be part of each program.  Programs have to be measured on a periodic basis on what feedback and new ideas have been incorporated into the program’s execution.

Expanding the pipeline of new ideas is critical, but again both in the government and in commercial enterprises, this can be an organizational challenge.

1.  Most internal organizations do not see their IT environment as a set of services managed as a portfolio by a set of portfolio managers.  Many ideas may be generated, but there may be no focal point for the reception of the new ideas from users or developers, or a mechanism to begin the process of incorporating these ideas into new service releases.
2.  Left to operations or even an engineering group, ideas are generally not welcome as they deviate from documented procedures or from the already reviewed and agreed upon system requirements.   In many cases the pipeline is crushed before the ideas can flow to someone that can take action (assuming there is such a person).

Solution: Create a technology forum that represents itself as a brainstorming session.  Here no ideas are incorrect and all inputs are initially treated as equal regardless of the sources (e.g., contractor, vendor, government).

Triaging the good ideas is important, assuming that the pipeline generated some ideas and there was a person, set of persons, or an organization that is able to take the ideas and perform some preliminary analysis.  Again, in my experience, the introduction of new capabilities or technology to solve a problem can meet significant pushback.  Many ideas affect a series of people where the following occurs:

1.  Who put this list together?  I don’t agree?  I would have prioritized it differently, etc.
2.  If we do that, then my organization will have to re-train people.
3.  If we fix that, then my organization will not need as many people.
4.  That was not invented here.  We are the engineering group and we decide how to implement.

I have written previously about organizational ideas to foster innovation.  The concept there reflects that organizations generally have some significant pressures to resist change (i.e., there is either leadership or responsibility dysfunction in the organization) and that a compensating organizational structural approach may help.

Solution: As proposed in my previous blog, organizations need a focal point for new ideas.  This group needs to help create and functionally support the idea brainstorming environment and needs to be competent in both the technical aspects and business aspects needed to make independent benefit analysis as well as cost and program impact assessments.  One realization of this is to create a CTO’s group with enough non-conflicted staff to be able to make the assessments and then authority to drive changes into program activities.

The Test and Learn approach is ultimately the right approach.  Being able to try ideas quickly in a lab environment and quickly get a stable test version for field evaluation is critical.  However, this needs to be a strategic capability and expectation of the organization.  

1. An ad hoc approach to this will only lead to frustration as the implementation of these ideas will be seen in an engineering group as a change to requirements and the operations group as a change of procedure.  By the time the idea makes its way to the end-user the whole concept may be overcome by other events.
2.  It’s great to believe that the organization will take risks, but ultimately the fear of risk, whether it is performance, security, or cost, has driven government IT organizations and their approach to delivering services to be a requirements-based, heavily-reviewed set of processes.

Solution:  Realized by a CTO group, rapid proof-of-concept work is essential.  By reducing risk of new ideas, preliminary testing and learning will occur without constant disruption to executing programs (which will eventually cause program managers to do everything they can do to ignore new ideas).  Leading by example helps get rid of bad ideas and helps organizational executive leadership to see the value of a new concept and the program managers in charge have a better context in which to understand the benefits and impacts to their programs.

What some people, including I, may have been missing about the Microsoft Skypedeal

Buried on page 97 of the Skype S-1 filing March 4, 2011 is the little tidbit of where Skype currently gets its revenue. 

Right now, Skype revenues are approximately $900 million per year.  The average revenue of $100 per paying customer represents around 9 million paying customers, which is nothing to write home about.   This revenue is virtually 100% from customers that use SkypeOut minutes (that is minutes of voice non-Skype termination).   Although not exactly representative, Vonage’s revenue for 2010 was approximately $890 million with an average $360 annual revenue per customer.

So, what is the difference?  More than 83% of Skype’s revenue is from sources outside of the USA.  This may be the target that Microsoft was actually looking to capture.  International customers are apparently trying to reduce their cost for international calls, using Skype as a mechanism.

Microsoft could be trying to exploit this in one of several ways (some of which have been discussed elsewhere).  Here are a couple of ideas:

• Drive international Xbox sales and Xbox-Live:  My kids use Xbox-Live to chat with their friends.  Being able to impulse call their friends’ phone numbers when they are not online will drive up the number of Xbox-Live points purchased.
• Continue the Services Push: Use Skype drive into the international audio, video, and Web conferencing business.  Make this seamless on mobile devices, Xbox, smart TVs, desktop, and Microsoft 365.
• Unified Communications: Push Skype as the best method to connect business communication systems to the public voice network (PSTN doesn’t seem to be the right acronym anymore) and integrate into mobile device directories.  The idea is that a company could contract with Skype for all international voice services in the countries where it operates without having to deal with multiple service providers.

All combined, Microsoft could use this to make a set of integrated international services.  By Skype for:

• Voice termination for a company’s VoIP environment, in virtually any country
• Audio and video conferencing, and Web collaboration
• Seamless directory services between corporate VoIP and employee mobile devices
• Expand the capabilities of Microsoft “Cloud”-based offering to tie communications with applications

However, even with the rosiest estimates of paying subscriber growth, Microsoft will lose billions of dollars simply because of the cost of money used to by Skype.  The upside is going to have to be pretty substantial to eventually recover this cost as well as the initial investment and additional investment in development, integration, and marketing.

On another topic, this is another analysis (albeit from Macworld) on the state of RIM and Blackberry is here.  It is very much consistent on my previous post on this issue.