Skip to content
January 23, 2012 / berniespang

In today’s economy, budgets are for rapid value, not misleading hype

I read and heard a few seemingly unrelated items this week that led me to the title of this week’s post.    First were the IBM 4Q and 2011 results and our CFO’s presentation and Q&A with financial analysts, next an analysis of these results in context of other technology providers, and finally was Conor O’Mahony’s analysis of recent Oracle benchmarks.

Positive results

IBM results were positive and accompanied by other encouraging indicators of IT demand, while Oracle had recently suggested that its latest disappointing results were  largely due to a general market slowdown.   I was particularly happy to hear IBM CFO Mark Loughridge say:

“Information Management grew 9 percent and again gained share. Our Distributed Database grew double digits led by strong performances from our Netezza offerings, which were up nearly 70 percent. …. For the quarter, almost a third of the transactions were with new Netezza clients.  Since acquiring Netezza, IBM has expanded its customer base by over 40 percent. And when we go head-to-head against competition in Proof of Concepts we had a win rate of over 80 percent this quarter. Our business analytics software offerings, most of which are part of Information Management, continue to outpace the market with double-digit growth.”

But it was an answer he gave to an analyst question that really stuck with me.   An analyst asked something along the lines of do you see a general tightening of CIO budgets?   Mark’s reply included a point that clients are focusing their spending on things that will rapidly deliver value to the business.   And that IBM results reflect our ability to bring that value to our clients.  (You can find a replay of the call at the link above).

Business Value vs. misleading hype

I thought of Mark’s answer as I read Conor’s analysis of the Oracle marketing spin on its benchmark results.  A 3x faster claim is based on a meaningless comparison of its current offering with IBM results from 2007,  and a claim of 60% faster is based on a comparison with a more current IBM system that used half the number of processors.   When you look at the apple to apples comparison that matters – current price for performance – IBM is 39% less expensive.   This is the real business value that we see our clients paying close attention to these days.

The bottom line is that most organizations are demanding a smarter use of their IT investments.   They no longer accept business as usual as the automatic answer.  It is true among solution architects and developers who are considering NoSQL / Big Data management systems in addition to relational database systems; and among IT leaders who are seriously evaluating the most effective and cost efficient systems for their business.

January 14, 2012 / berniespang

I forgot to make my 2012 predicition: Growth of operational analytics

Recently I explained operation analytics to a colleague who suggested I write more about it.  Thinking about it made me recall an article by Philip Russom, Senior manager of TDWI Research, in which he captured a collection of 25 tweets he had recently shared explaining operational data warehousing.

Real-time does not equal operational

Too often I have heard people equate the idea of operational warehousing or operational analytics with real-time loading of data into a warehouse.  While that can be one attribute, the more important aspect is real-time access to the data and the insights generated within a data warehouse, by the applications that support business operations.  The use of these insights during  operations such as sales, service and customer support – at the point of each business transaction – can dramatically elevate an organization’s performance.

100’s or even 1000’s of answers per second

A data warehouse system that supports such operational applications must not only be able to handle complex analytics, it must also support concurrent access rates that can be in the 1000’s per second.   I know of one client that uses the IBM Smart Analytics System (powered by InfoSphere Warehouse software) to support operational analytics for a solution that executes over 10,000 transactions per second.  This is a great example of using a system that is both designed for data and tuned for the task.

Organizations and technology are both now ready

Today, analytics applied directly in operations with a large number of concurrent users is in the minority of analytic applications.   But based on data like those cited by Philip, and feedback over the last 6 months from colleagues who work on solutions with clients around the world, I believe we will see recognition in 2012 that operational analytics growth is accelerating.  And that organizations which have realized the power of using information for competitive advantage, will pull further away from the pack by achieving that advantage in many more aspects of their business operations.

January 14, 2012 / berniespang

Is Quality of Service as important as Qualities of Service?

I had the opportunity this week to talk to Laura Didio after reading her article at E-Commerce Times: Oracle’s Downward Spiral.   I’ll save specific comment on the results of a recent ITIC survey re: Database Reliability and Deployment Trends until after the report is published.  However, the article and our discussion reminded me of an important add to the “workload optimized” concepts I wrote about in earlier posts.

In addition to most cost efficiently optimizing a system to meet a solution’s required Qualities of Service (Performance, reliability, security..),  organizations also need to cost efficiently optimize the Quality of Service required of their technology partner(s).    As I wrote earlier,  when considering the old axiom “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it,” you need to think about the total cost you are spending as well as the function and qualities of services.    While the latter 2 may be fine, if you are paying a lot more to deliver that service than you could be paying using alternatives… then it is “broken.”

Quality of Service is a factor in Cost Efficiency

As the ITIC survey indicates, clients are increasingly aware of the imbalance between the price they are paying and the value they are receiving – especially as they are experiencing declining value of service and support.     Those in the IT game can easily imagine the high costs added to operations when expensive human intervention and poor performing workarounds are required to keep business solutions running until proper support, fixes and updates are delivered by a technology provider.

So obviously I believe the answer my question is:  “Yes, Quality of service is as important.”

Anyone think otherwise and up for a debate?

January 9, 2012 / berniespang

Have we entered a new era of data management? I believe so.

I recently read a TechTarget article based on an interview with Michael Stonebraker, a computer scientist who has been in the database software game for some time.  While the title of the article (“Michael Stonebraker predicts trouble for relational databases in 2012”) serves as a provocative attention grabber, I do not agree it is the correct, substantive conclusion.   As my earlier posts outline, I agree with the substance of Michael’s points – that we are no longer in an era where solution developers believe “the answer to all data challenges is a relational database.”   But that only means trouble for providers of relational database management software, if they do not recognize this reality and offer the market a broader set of capabilities for the new generation of solutions.

NoSQL, Big Data and Cloud, while each important to the new generation of solutions, are likewise not the answer to all needs – individually or collectively.  And as Micheal points out in his interview, ACID [atomicity, consistency, isolation, durability] qualities of service can be just as important when using these technologies as they are for business critical data best managed in a relational database.  In this new era of data management it is critical that we  optimize for both functional and qualities of service requirements.

The Information Management team at IBM certainly recognizes this market need.  We offered an Hadoop-based “Big Data” management system, InfoSphere BigInsights, in both a no-charge Basic Edition as well as a more robust Enterprise Edition –  just as we do with DB2 and Informix relational data systems.  Contrary to how I read Oracle’s introduction of its Big Data system, IBM does not consider Hadoop as merely a mechanism for filtering data into a relation database system for subsequent analysis.  Sure that is a valid use case, but perhaps more so is the use of such a system itself for information analysis.  Most client engagements we have seen involve a very complementary integration of the 2 types of systems – each supporting the analysis it does best and sharing the resulting insights appropriately with the other for use in further analysis.  The same complementary relationship is true when InfoSphere Streams is used for analyzing information as it flows in greater volume and/or velocity than can be cost effectively stored.  Or when Informix TimeSeries is being used to save and analyze instrumentation data with greater performance and efficiency than a relational database system can.

The growth of something new does not mean the death of something old

In the late 80’s/early 90’s the death of the mainframe was predicted because of the new era of  “distributed computing.”  In reality, the new types of systems opened new uses of computing to drive business growth, while the volume of business computing best done on the System z “mainframe” also continued to grow.  IBM recognized this reality and is the leader in business computing servers because it offers leading products across Power System (POWER/Unix), x (x86/Linux) and z (z/OS) system lines.

I believe this new era of data management similarly does not mean the “death of the relational database.”  It is fair to say, however, that it could mean trouble for software providers that ignore this new wave of data management needs, and instead tell customers to fit the new square pegs into their existing round hole.  I can assure you that IBM is not one of those.

January 9, 2012 / berniespang

My Christmas presents from Steve Jobs

I have to offer my thanks to Steve Jobs for my favorite gifts this Christmas.

First, for my new iPhone.  A very exciting change from my 4 year old “other device.”    My hat’s off to Steve and the team at Apple for creating such a great product.

But more importantly, I am thankful for the gift of his biography.  While it was bought and wrapped for me by my daughter, this gift started with Steve’s decision to share his story with all of us while he was able to contribute to it personally.

Reading it over the holiday break was not only entertaining, it gave me several insights and a renewed inspiration for my role at IBM.  It is that last part for which I am most grateful.    It is a heck of gift as we start the new year.

Assuming there is no off switch…  Thank you, Steve

December 16, 2011 / berniespang

Social media has changed the game for marketing profressionals

Data management software and systems

I’m several posts into this new blog now and it feels like I am overdue on a statement to clarify what the blog is about and why I started it.  This purpose of this blog is to share my perspectives about data management software and systems – both generally and specifically about the IBM portfolio.   I will not be making general sales pitches about IBM products with no broader context.  But I will also not be  apologizing for writing about them or trying to cleverly hide them within an “industry generic” perspective.

Which brings me to the topic on my mind this week… why I started this blog.

Bringing your audience to you… or going to them?

I have been in the business software marketing game for more than 10 years – and it has changed quite a bit.  The difference between the early days of the Internet – initial product websites and traditional media publishing articles online – and today’s use of social media, is dramatic.  Those early days were about extending the reach of traditional models.  That meant attracting the audience to a place where we could share information that we wanted them to know – a site, a publication, an event, etc.    The hasn’t gone away, of course.   But with the evolution of social media, there is a new wrinkle that requires us to reverse the thinking.

We now have the opportunity – and frankly the imperative – to bring our message to where our audience is already engaged on topics that matter to them.  And to bring our messages into their community in a way that is helpful to their discussions.  Done well, this can make us helpful members of the community where our information adds value.

Connecting to developer communities

I had an interesting discussion about this just yesterday with Stephen O’Grady from Redmonk.   Building on a discussion we started at the Information on Demand conference this year, he has really helped me see the importance of this point with respect to introducing the value of our portfolio to application developers.  There are various developer communities that are increasingly aware that data management choices for their needs go well beyond “the answer = Relational Database system only.”

What I plan on doing is to have this blog serve as a source of information about the IBM portfolio and its strategic direction that is helpful to the many communities where our clients and future clients are already engaged.

December 9, 2011 / berniespang

Workload Optimized Systems need to be optimized for required qualities of service, too

I really, really was planing to get onto a different topic for this week’s post.  But I was fortunate to be invited to a consulting session this week with a group of analysts that focus on the server market (among other things).    The discussion helped expand my thinking re:  Workload Optimized Systems.

Achieving simplicity and cost efficiency by using systems optimized for each type and mix of workload means considering required qualities of service along with functional and information characteristics of the workload.  For example, the functional and information characteristics of a workload could be the same – but the qualities of service needed are likely different for running it in a research sandbox, a development environment, a test environment, or a production environment.   Different requirements on performance, reliability, security, scalability, etc. affect your choice of server – even if the software function and information structures remains consistent.

For those of you who have ever asked why IBM offers 3 different server lines – System x, Power Systems and System z – the above is one way to answer that question.  IBM systems offer a range of qualities of service levels so that our clients can meet their service level needs – from modest to the most extreme – without overpaying for more than is needed.  In fact, I just recalled a discussion with a client that standardized on DB2 database software so they could use System x in development, deploy initially on Power Systems and then move workload to System z when ready to expand to their global deployment.

Anyone disagree with this expanded view of workload optimization – or have an additional dimension we should also consider?