IBM reinforces its Appliance strategy with acquisition of Netezza
When IBM acquired DataPower’s range of appliances in 2005, it caused some raised eyebrows; was IBM really serious about getting into the appliances game?. Subsequently the silence from IBM was deafening, and people were starting to wonder whether IBM’s foray into the appliances market had fizzled out. However 2010 has been the year when IBM has made its strategic intent around appliances abundantly clear.
First it acquired Cast Iron, the leading provider of appliances for use in Cloud Computing, and now it is buying Netezza, one of the top suppliers of data warehouse appliances. Netezza has built up an impressive market presence in a very short time, dramatically accelerating time to value for data analytics and business intelligence applications. In addition, it has continued to extend its DataPower range, with the addition of a caching appliance and the particularly interesting ‘ESB-in-a-box’ integration appliance in a blade form factor. For any doubters, IBM has clearly stated its intentions of making appliances a key element of its strategic business plans.
This just leaves the question of why. Of course the cynical answer is because IBM must see itself making a lot of money from appliances, but behind this is the fact that this must indicate that appliances are doing something really useful for users. The interesting thing is that the key benefits are not necessarily the ones you might expect. In the early days of appliances such as firewalls and internet gateways, one key benefit was the security of a hardened device, particularly outside the firewall. The other was commonly performance, with the ability in an appliance to customize hardware and software to deliver a single piece of functionality, for example in low-latency messaging appliances. But the most common driver for appliances today is much broader – appliances reduce complexity. An appliance typically comes preloaded, and can replace numer0us different instances of code running in several machines. You bring in an appliance, cable it up and turn it on. It offers a level of uniformity. In short, it makes operations simpler and therefore cheaper to manage and less susceptible to human error.
Perhaps it is this simplicity argument and its harmonization with current user needs that is the REAL driving force behind IBM’s strategic interest in Appliances.
IBM acquires Cast Iron
I am currently at IBM’s IMPACT show in Las Vegas, where the WebSphere brand gets to flaunt its wares, and of course one of the big stories was IBM’s announcement that is has acquired Cast Iron.
While Cast Iron may only be a small company, the acquisition has major implications. Over the past few years, Cast Iron has established itself as the prime provider of Cloud to Cloud and Cloud to on-premise integration, with a strong position in the growing Cloud ecosystem of suppliers. Cast Iron has partnerships with a huge number of players in the Cloud and application packages spaces, including companies such as Salesforce.com, SAP and Microsoft, and so IBM is not just getting powerful technology but also in one move it is taking control of the linkage between Cloud and anything else.
On the product front, the killer feature of Cast Iron’s offering is its extensive range of pre-built integration templates covering many of the major Cloud and on-premise environments. So, for example, if an organization wants to link invoice information in its SAP system with the Salesforce.com sales force environment, then the Cast Iron offering includes prepared templates for the required definitions and configurations. The result is that the integration can be set up in a matter of hours rather than weeks.
So why is this so important? Well, for one, most people have already realized that Cloud usage must work hand-in-hand with on-premise applications, based on such things as security needs and prior investments. On top of this, different clouds will serve different needs. So integration between clouds and applications is going to be a fact of life. IBM’s acquisition leaps it into the forefront of this area, in both technology and partner terms. But there is a more strategic impact of this acquisition too. Noone knows what the future holds, and how the Cloud market will develop. Think of the situation of mainframes and distributed solutions. As the attractions of distributed systems grew, doomsayers were quick to predict the end of the mainframe. However, IBM developed a powerful range of integration solutions in order to allow organizations to leverage the advantages of both worlds WITHOUT having to choose one from the other. This situation almost feels like a repeat – Cloud has a lot of advantages, and some misguided ‘experts’ think that Cloud is the start of the end for on-premise systems. However, whether you believe this or not, IBM has once again ensured that it has got a running start in providing integration options to ensure that users can continue to gain value from both cloud and on-premise investments.
Steve
Unlocking more value from legacy CICS applications
IBM’s acquisition of ILOG has resulted in a great new opportunity to unlock the business value of CICS applications by turning the COBOL logic into easy-to-read/edit ‘business rules’.
IBM has taken the ILOG JRules Business Rules Management System (BRMS) and made it part of the WebSphere family. But even better for CICS users, IBM has made this business rules capability available for CICS applications too. This whole subject is discussed in more detail in a new and free Lustratus Report, downloadable from the Lustratus web store, entitled “Using business rules with CICS for greater flexibility and control”. But why is this capability of interest?
The answer is that many of the key business applications in the corporate world are still CICS COBOL mainframe applications, and although these applications are highly effective and reliable, they sometimes lack in terms of flexibility and adaptability. Not unreasonably, companies are loath to go to the expense and risk of rewriting these essential programs, but are instead looking for some technology-based answer to their needs for greater agility and control. The BRMS idea provides just that. Basically, the logic implementing the business decisions in the operational CICS applications is extracted and turned into plain-speaking, non-technical business rules, such as ‘If this partner has achieved GOLD certification, then apply a 10% discount to all transactions’. This has a number of benefits:
- It becomes easy for rules to be changed
- It becomes easy for a business user to verify the rules are correctly implemented
- If desired, business users can edit operational rules directly
While BRMS is a technology with a lot to offer in many scenarios, it seems particularly well suited to legacy environments, providing a way to unlock increased potential and value from existing investments.
Steve
Posted in BRMS, IBM, Industry trends, legacy systems, Mainframe modernization | 
BRMS, Business rules, CICS, IBM, ILOG, JRules, Legacy, mainframeIBM acquires Lombardi to reinforce its BPM solutions
IBM has agreed an acqusition of Lomardi, one of the few remaining pure-play BPM suppliers, with target of closing the deal in 2010.
IBM has reaffirmed its position of strength in the burgeoning Business Process Management (BPM) space with this acquisition. Lombardi has three assets that IBM is particularly interested in; its human-centric BPM capabilities, its extensive professional services resources and its reputation and success with BPM at the departmental level.
For the uninitiated, business processes tend to span some or all of three distinct areas of usage – human-oriented processes, document-oriented processes and prorgram-oriented processes. Human processes involve such aspects as task lists that people use as they carry out their assigned tasks, document processes upgrade traditional paper-oriented models and program-based processes involve the dynamic interaction of applications. IBM has always been most experienced at dealing with program-to-program interaction, delivering its own WebSphere BPM offering. A few years ago it also acquired FileNet, a major player in document-based processing that had document-related BPM products. Now it is making the Lombardi acquisition to strengthen its human interaction BPM capabilities.
This is an exciting acquisition, closing out the weakest areas of IBM’s BPM solutions. However, the challenge for IBM will be to properly integrate the new product set with its existing BPM offerings. Frankly, IBM has not done a good job to date on this with its previous BPM acquisition of FileNet – IBM marketing collateral exhibits confusion over what are essentially two differnent product solutions that both claim to be BPM. Hopefully it will handle the Lombardi acquisition better.
Steve
Mico Focus ReUZE misses the point
Micro Focus announced its latest mainframe migration tool, ReUZE yesterday – and once again it has completely missed the point.
The background is that for companies looking to move off the IBM mainframe, Micro Focus has been offering solutions for a number of different target platforms, but in each case the solutions have been based around the old emulation concept. Once again, it seems the company has fallen into the same trap. As the press release states
Unlike other solutions which insist on rewriting mainframe application data sources for SQL Server, or removing mainframe syntax from programs, the Micro Focus solution typically leaves the source code unchanged, thereby reducing costs, risk, and delivering the highest levels of performance and reliability.
The highlighted end to this statement is where I have a problem. Micro Focus seems to think that by offering an emulated environment for mainframe applications, it is reducing risk and delivering the best possible performance and reliability. But this is a load of rubbish. Think about it from the point of view of the mainframe user that has decided to move away from the mainframe – in this case to a Microsoft environment. This is a big step, and the company concerned must be pretty damn sure this is what it wants to do. It has obviously decided that the Microsoft environment is where it wants to be, and as such surely this will include moving to a Microsoft skills set, Microsoft products and tools – database, security, and all the rest. So why settle for an emulation option?
The point Micro Focus has missed is that emulation is a way of propagating the old. After all, it originally stemmed from terminal emulation, where the object was to make sure that end users still saw the same environment even when their workstation technology changed. This was very sensible, becuase it focused on the right priority – don’t force the end users to have to retrain. But let’s be clear – emulation costs. It provides an extra layer of software, affecting performance and scalability, and puts future development in a straightjacket because it propogates the old way of doing things. However, in this case the cost of retraining end users would far outweight these implications.
But in the situation where a user is moving off the mainframe to a Microsoft world, why would the user want to propogate the old? Yes, the user wants to reuse the investments in application logic and data structure and content, but surely the user wants to get to the destination – not be stuck in purgatory, neither in one place nor the other. Why restrict the power of .NET by forcing the user to operate through an insulating emulation environment? Why hold the user back from moving into the native .NET database system of SQL Server and thereby leveraging the combined power of the operating system, database and hardware to maximum effect? Why force the user to have to maintain a skills set in the mainframe applications when one of the reasons for moving may well have been to get to a single, available and cheaper one?
Yes, the Micro Focus approach may end up reducing the risk of the porting process itself, since it tries to leave mainframe code unchanged, but that is a long way from reducing the risk of moving from one world to the other. And as for the comments on leaving everything unchanged to ’deliver the highest levels of performance and reliability, that is just laughable. What makes Micro Focus think that the way an application is designed for the mainframe will deliver optimal performance and reliability in a .NET environment? The two environments are completely different with totally unlike characteristics. And when has an emulation layer EVER improved performance/reliability?
I see this ReUZE play as like offering someone drugs. If you’ve decided you want to move off the mainframe to .NET, I have a drug here that will reduce the pain. You will feel better …. honest. But the result is you will be left hooked on the drug, and wont actually get where you want to be. If you have decided this migration is for you, don;t try to cut corners and fall for the drug – do the job properly and focus on the end goal rather than the false appeal of an easy journey. Just Say No.
Steve
Posted in .NET, IBM, Imported, Industry trends, legacy systems, Mainframe migration, Mainframe modernization, microsoftSOA success, and what causes it
I was recently pointed to an article in Mainframe Executive magazine written by David Linthicum on the subject of “Mainframe SOA: When SOA Works/When SOA fails”.
I think the friend who suggested I read it was making mischief, knowing my views on the subject of SOA and guessing (correctly) that this article would wind me up.
In summary, the article says that SOA is a large and complex change to your core architecture and working practices and procedures, and that the success or failure is dictated by questions such as executive buy-in/resourcing/funding/skills, and not technology selection.
The truth about success with SOA is that it has little to do with the technology you want to drag into the enterprise to make SOA work, and more to do with the commitment to the architectural changes that need to occur
I have two problems with the opinions stated in this article. The first is to do with changing attitudes to SOA, and the second with the technology comments.
Let me first state that I am well aware that if a company wants to adopt an enterprise-wide SOA strategy designed to take maximum long-term benefit from this new way of leveraging IT investments, then this requires all ofthe areas brought up in the article to be addressed – skills, management buy-in, political will, funding and a strategic vision coupled with a tactical roadmap. I have no beef with any of this.
But I would contend that the world has changed from two years ago. The financial constraints all companies are experiencing have more or less forced the long-term strategic play onto the back burner for many. Some analysts actually like to claim that SOA is dead, a statement designed to be controversial enough to gain attention but to some extent grounded in the fact that a lot of companies are pulling back from the popular SOA-based business transformation strategies of the past. In fact, SOA is absolutely not dead, but it has changed. Companies are using SOA principles to implement more tactical projects designed to deliver immediate benefits, with the vague thought of one day pulling these projects together under a wider strategic, enterprise-wide SOA banner.
So, as an example, today a company might look at a particular business service such as ‘Create Customer’, or ‘Generate Invoice’, and decide to replace the 27 versions of the service that exist in its silos today with a single shared service. The company might decide to use SOA principles and tools to achieve this, but the planning horizon is definitely on the short term – deliver a new level of functionality that will benefit all users, and help to reduce ongoing cost of ownership. While it would have been valid a few years ago to counsel this company to deliver this as part of an overarching shift to an SOA-oriented style of operations, today most companies will say that although this sounds sensible, current circumstances dictate that focus must remain on the near term.
The other issue I have with this article is the suggestion that SOA success is little to do with the technology choice. Given that the topic here was not just SOA but mainframe SOA, I take particular exception to this. There are a wide range of SOA tools available, but in the mainframe arena the quality and coverage of the tools vary widely. For example, although many SOA tools claim mainframe support, this may in actuality simply be anMQ adapter ‘for getting at the mainframe’. Anyone taking this route is more than likely to fail with SOA, regardless of how well it has taken on the non-technical issues of SOA. Even for those SOA tools with specific mainframe support, some of these offer environments alien to mainframe developers, thereby causing considerable problems in terms of skills utilization. It is critical that whatever technology IS chosen, itcan be used by CICS or IMS-knowledgable folk as well as just disributed specialists. Then there is the question of how intuitive the tools are. Retraining costs can destroy an SOA project before it even gets going.
For anyone interested, there is a free Lustratus report on selecting mainframe SOA tools available from the Lustratus store. However, I can assure companies that, particularly for mainframe SOA, technology selection absolutely IS a key factor for success, and that while all the other transformational aspects of SOA are indeed key to longer term, enterprise-wide SOA there are still benefits to be gained with a more short-term view that is more appropriate in today’s economic climate.
Steve
Posted in best practices, CICS, enterprise architecture, IBM, Imported, Industry trends, Integration, legacy systems, SOAIBM 1Q09 results implications
When I posted last week on looking ahead to the IBM first quarter results, I put my head on the block by stating that I felt the results would hold up pretty well.
The formal results were announced yesterday, and I am pleased to say I live to look into my crystal ball another day, at least when discounting the effects of swinging currency markets.
Firstly, I had suggested that the IBM services arm would probably benefit from users wanting to cut costs and looking for help to do it. In fact, IBM claims that overall signings were up 10% at constant currency, and up 27% in the larger projects category. This bodes well for future revenue recognition as these projects flow through. I had also pointed to the desire for quick hit benefitsdriving the IBM WebSphere-based SOA offerings such as BPM, and indeed while overall IBM software was down 6% (up 2% at constant currency), WebSphere revenues grew 5% (14% at constant currency). My forecast was that hardware would take a bit of a hit, but that this shouldn;t damage the overall numbers too much. Once again this seems to be borne out in the IBM announcements, pointing to a 23% drop (18% at constant currency) of its Systems and Technology segment where the hardware products live. However, overall this had little adverse impact on IBM’s overall figures as predicted because IBM has swung its business model much more heavily in favour of software and services now.
Looking ahead, these results can only be good news for IBM, even though revenue at common currency was down 4%. From a global market perspective this should also prove encouraging to other IT vendors, particularly those with investments in the high-growth enterprise middleware area and those providing advisory professional services. However, companies reliant on hardware revenues will probably suffer most.
The final interesting point was that IBM claims it is sitting on $12B cash in hand….I wonder what it plans to do with all that money at a time when assets are cheap and it has just missed out on SUN….
Steve
Looking ahead to IBM 1Q09 results
IT market watchers are eagerly awaiting IBM’s 1Q09 results, to be announced in the next few days, anxious to see how IBM is finding the current global market conditions.
Putting my own neck on the block, I suspect the results will look pretty good despite the economic downturn. There are a number of reasons for this.
Firstly, Lustratus is seeing a lot of users looking for professional services assistance in reducing IT costs and increasing flexibility and agility. This is pretty natural in a downturn. Doing more with less is obvious, but also companies are looking to expand their customer bases into new markets with new offerings as quickly as possible to shore revenues up, driving the need for better agility and adaptability. This plays into IBM’s hands with its extensive services experience, so services revenue could well hold up OK.
Secondly, one thing users ARE looking for at the moment seems to be quick hits – do something that isn’t too costly and is not a major architectural shift to get a fast return. As I have blogged about before, BPM (Business Process Management) and Business Events processing offer two areas that fit beautifully with this need – and note this is not the BPM where a company sets about rewriting all its processes, but instead BPM targeted on fast return, pragmatic sweet spots. Both BPM and Events will tend to drag in SOA requirements (although again at the pragmatic rather than ’change the world’ level) which is another strong area for IBM. Although other companies such as Oracle and SAP offer technology in these areas, the advantage of being able to link the products to services engagements from IBM’s massive services arm to help aim the investment most effectively is a big one for IBM. Given that IBM also has a large portion of software revenue on ‘contract’ basis, this means the software revenues should hold up well too.
Hardware may have taken a bit of a ding in 1Q09, but this is unlikely to do too much damage to the overall numbers.
So, a reasonable set of results to come from IBM? We shall see…..
Steve
Ultramatics works with IBM to defuse SOA security threat
Ultramatics has just announced SOA SafeGuard product, which is designed to shut one of the major SOA security holes – the opportunity to inject virus and other malware threats through XML file sharing.
This is good news for SOA implementers, but also introduces an interesting new stress point for IBM. Back in 2007 I was on a podcast where I identified the five SOA security traps, one of which was the XML problem. To summarize, most virus and other threat detection solutions look at the datastreams coming into the system and identify threat signatures that indicate the presence of some noxious code, but unfortunately they cannot see inside the XML wrapper, so to all intents and purposes the contents of any attached XML file are invisible. This offers the opportunity for malicious agencies to pop in some nasty code into the XML content and smuggle it through the security gates to the enterprise. Of course, it is not immediately obvious how this would help, in that getting this code executed might not be so easy, but hackers are smart….therefore it is best to close this exposure.
One way to close the window is simply to forbid any XML file sharing, but since industries such as healthcare now more or less rely on this to conform to industry standards and regulations, this is not really practical. The new Ultramatics product claims to be able to protect from these types of intruders. It runs on the IBM DataPower XI50 Integration Appliance, providing a hardware-based shield that can see into the XML files and weed out anything unpleasant. This solution will be very valuable to many SOA companies worried about security.
But there is something else interesting in the product details. The datasheet for the product says it can be used (in conjunction with IBM’s MQSeries) to:
Create a SOA ESB that can perform routing, transformation and protocol mediation functions
This is intriguing. Of course, the idea of an ESB appliance is not new, but the interesting point is that IBM is supplying this capability through the Ultramatics product…..I wonder if the other IBM ESBs, WebSphere ESB and WebSphere Message Broker, see this is encroachment?
Steve
Posted in Appliances, Business risk, enterprise service bus, esb, IBM, Imported, Security, SOA, Vendor newsVendors like to back standards – as long is it is in their interests!
I was reading Danny Goodall’s post on his strategic marketing blog about standards-based marketing…
….and it brilliantly illustrated a point that I think is often experienced in the software marketplace – some vendors rush to back standards and push them, but only to the point that they fit with their own goals.
The example Danny discusses is Sonic Software, part of software vendor Progress. Sonic is well known as the first software vendor to use the ESB acronym (Enterprise Service Bus), and did indeed peddle the standards message hard asDanny, the marketing guru behind Sonic’s early success, remembers:
All the while I was creating marketing programs that stressed Sonic’s commitment to standards and, by implication, I was de-positioning other vendors’ technologies as being the Devil’s spawn due to their reliance on proprietary features. “How,” we asked “would organisations ensure interoperability between their, and their trading partners’ infrastructures if they didn’t conform to the emerging standards?
Of course the standards message is very attractive to users. Buyers are keen to be able to ensure that not only can components interoperate without a lot of extra work, but also that vendor lock-in is weakened through the ability to substitute components from different suppliers, bringing prices down and reducing risk. Therefore, vendors that preach standards may come across initially as ‘good guys’. However, it pays to look more closely to find out how serious the vendor REALLY is about standards. In the Sonic case, while it talked a great story, the mystery was that its own ESB product was unable to run over any standard JMS-based messaging pipe for years. Instead, it used a proprietary interface that ensured Sonic ESB would only work over SonicMQ, the Sonic messaging pipe. This was a real problem for many prospects, because IBM’s WebSphereMQowns around 80% of the messaging pipe business and therefore prospects interested in an ESB were frequently looking to run it over their existing software. This restriction was arguably one of the key reasons Sonic lost its leadership position in the ESB market.
So why did Sonic take this line? Obviously, only Sonic knows, but a cynic would argue that it consistently refused to support the JMS standard in the early years to ensure that it could force the sale of its own messaging pipe. No matter that this meant the user often had to buy another one on top of the incumbent solution.
I am not picking on Sonic here – this is only one of many examples where vendors claim to be standards-based while not shrinking from proprietary solutions when in their own interests. And of course, it is entirely understandable – after all, software vendors are businesses too. To me, the important thing is that users keep away from the rose-colored spectacles. Standards are valuable, and vendors do provide important support, but there will always be compromises.
Steve