Open Framework, Information Management Strategy & Collaborative Governance | Data & Social Methodology - MIKE2.0 Methodology
Members
Collapse Expand Close

To join, please contact us.

Improve MIKE 2.0
Collapse Expand Close
Need somewhere to start? How about the most wanted pages; or the pages we know need more work; or even the stub that somebody else has started, but hasn't been able to finish. Or create a ticket for any issues you have found.

Archive for May, 2012

by: Robert.hillard
26  May  2012

The evolution of information standards

Anyone who has ever tried to negotiate a standard for data storage or communication will confirm that it is difficult to get agreement and even harder to gain adoption.  Decades of debate over both analogue and digital communications standards for radio, television and telecommunications have been used as evidence by the information technology sector that there must be a better way.

In the 1990s there was a great desire to avoid having the internet break into the type of divides that saw the television world split into NTSC and PAL (television) camps.  If the newly commercial Internet was to be open and connected then it was assumed that everyone needed to speak the same technical standard language.  One of the first examples of this was HTML and the creation of the W3C to govern it as a standard.

Moving beyond the rendering of web pages, it was argued that communication of information needed to be open and subject to specifications and standards.  XML was born of this push to an open, systematic approach to data specifications.  A quick review of XML-based standards shows how many groups have taken this ambition to heart.

XML is meant to be different.  By providing a generic umbrella with standardised technology, theoretically any information can be encoded.  From documents to financial statements.

The big question is whether standards-based specifications work or at least whether they are as important as they once were.

In an era when technologies were deployed and then static, such as traditional televisions, telephones or radio, the approach to information decoding was fixed at the time of manufacture.  A decision on information formats needed to be made before sending large numbers of devices out to the public, otherwise no two telephones could talk and television stations would have had to broadcast in a myriad of formats (assuming they could find enough spectrum to do so).  In such a world, it was up to government and major industry bodies to decide on standards, which is why they tended to differ by country.  Today, the last remaining bastion of this era is the division of spectrum which continues to lead to frustrating differences in the deployment of mobile technology between countries.

At the very time that the internet was pushing for adoption of standards, the user community seemed to be voting with their feet (or at least fingers) by adopting some of the least standardised formats in the market.  A good example is the rapid adoption of Adobe’s PDF format for rendered documents.  The PDF format breaks all of the rules that W3C hoped to set with XML and yet it met a very real business and consumer need – an accurate and efficient onscreen rendering of paper documents.

As much as Adobe used the PDF format to its commercial advantage, it was ultimately only able to sustain its position by handing it over as an open standard.  In this case, standards have followed commercial evolution rather than the other way around.

Despite appearances, HTML has followed a similar pattern with the dominant browser of the time effectively defining extensions to the format which have then have ultimately been adopted as part of the standard.  Attempts to drive HTML in the opposite direction, through initiatives such as the semantic web seem to fail on both agreement and even more importantly adoption.

The internet is fundamentally different as a vehicle for communication to anything that has preceded it.  Very few devices are locked-down, with even connected televisions being provided constant software updates.  Browsers, word processors, spreadsheets, reporting tools and a myriad of other products used for reading and authoring files support “add-ins” which allow for new file formats to be supported.

The ability for products to rapidly adopt formats and allow for relatively seamless information interchange has been highly evident with the take-up of mobile devices spawning a wide range of software products supporting traditional office documents.  It is unthinkable today that you wouldn’t be able to read and update your MS Word document on your iPad using your tool of choice and then send it on to someone else’s Android tablet.

Clearly standards are still important, but our assumptions on drivers and sequencing might need to change.  Standard formats need to benefit all parties involved in a way that they can immediately see.  The only alternative is for them to be mandated by the party that benefits (such as government or regulatory data submissions).  If a standard is to develop and leverage innovation across a sector, it cannot rely on regulation alone.

At the same time, there is less need to be afraid of having several different approaches to communication in play at the same time.  Because the internet is “always on”, the market will ensure that those that benefit from translators will have access to them.  The market will also naturally encourage convergence over time.

The future of information standards is perhaps to encourage the right markets and economic motivations rather than rely on regulation and expert committees.

Tags:
Category: Information Governance, Information Management
No Comments »

by: Bsomich
26  May  2012

Weekly IM Update.

 
 
 logo.jpg

Feedback Request: Do you have a MIKE2.0 Success Story to Share? 

For the past few years, our team at MIKE2.0 has been actively soliciting, compiling and promoting best practices for enterprise information development. And this year, we want to hear from you!

Have you successfully used or applied MIKE2.0 concepts  in a business or educational setting? This could include using any of our open source methodologies, how-to guides, open source solutions, supporting assets, or blog advice in an effort to improve information management. 

If so, please share your experience with us in the comment section below, or email us at mike2@openmethodology.org. Community respondents will have a chance to be featured as a case study in future MIKE2.0 knowledge publications, so this is a great opportunity for exposure and to help make an impact improving enterprise information management across the globe.

Sincerely,

MIKE2.0 Community

 
Popular Content

Did you know that the following wiki articles are most popular on Google? Check them out, and feel free to edit or expand them!

What is MIKE2.0?
Deliverable Templates
The 5 Phases of MIKE2.0
Overall Task List
Business Assessment Blueprint
SAFE Architecture
Information Governance Solution

Contribute to MIKE:

Start a new article, help with articles under construction or look for other ways to contribute.

Update your personal profile to advertise yourself to the community and interact with other members.

Useful Links:
Home Page
Login
Content Model
FAQs
MIKE2.0 Governance

Join Us on
42.gif

Follow Us on
43 copy.jpg

 Join Us on images.jpg

 

This Week’s Food for Thought:

Mobile BI: A New Frontier?

For years, the idea was greater than the execution. Then a product came along that changed the game and unleashed a flurry of apps and development activity.

Yes, I’m talking about the effect of the iPad on mobile BI, a subject I broached on this very blog a few weeks ago. And I’m not the only one noticing this trend. Nicole Laskowski recently wrote an interesting TechTarget piece on the adoption of mobile BI in the enterprise. According to Laskowski, “mobile BI is enjoying a surge in popularity. According to Gartner, 33% of the 1,364 organizations using BI tools it surveyed are planning to deploy mobile BI this year. That’s in addition to the 8% already using the technology.”

Read more.

The Value of Decommissioning Legacy Systems

Most organisations reward their project managers for achieving scope, within a given timeframe for a specified budget.  While scope is usually measured in terms of user functions most projects usually include the decommissioning of legacy systems.  Unfortunately it is the decommissioning step which is most often compromised in the final stages of any project.

Read more.

How to Build an Analytical Culture

The key to building an analytical culture is to make analytics easy to use, understand, and accessible.  The easiest way to do this is to develop an analytical portal.  The purpose of the analytical portal is to allow everyone in your organization to know, examine, and use the numbers without having to contact the accounting and information technology departments every time a report or numbers are needed.  Your analytical portal should allow people to have access to 5 business intelligence tools.

Read more.

 

 

Category: Information Development
No Comments »

by: Phil Simon
21  May  2012

Mobile BI: A New Frontier?

Summary: Mobile BI isn’t so much a new technology as it as new platform for an existing technology.

For years, the idea was greater than the execution. Then a product came along that changed the game and unleashed a flurry of apps and development activity.

Yes, I’m talking about the effect of the iPad on mobile BI, a subject I broached on this very blog a few weeks ago. And I’m not the only one noticing this trend. Nicole Laskowski recently wrote an interesting TechTarget piece on the adoption of mobile BI in the enterprise. According to Laskowski, “mobile BI is enjoying a surge in popularity. According to Gartner, 33% of the 1,364 organizations using BI tools it surveyed are planning to deploy mobile BI this year. That’s in addition to the 8% already using the technology.”

No doubt that the iPad (and its apps) are collectively driving the mobilization of BI. While iPads are inherently cool, they aren’t cool enough by themselves to compel CIOs to write really big checks. Yes, directors and other senior managers still have to make the business case that mobile BI is actually needed. In Laskowski’s words:

The BICC (BI Competency Center) can help determine a company’s BI blueprint and how mobile fits into the overall strategy. [F]or a BICC to be effective, it will need executive sponsorship.

Mobile BI, alone, will still be a hard sell. Businesses should construct a plan that will eventually encompass more use cases and more functionality across the enterprise and beyond BI.

So, much like any other technology, it’s imperative to make the business case. To this end, mobile BI is no different than many other enterprise technologies, especially “non-critical” ones. After all, try CRM and ERP systems are probably higher up on the totem poll for many organizations.

Mobile: A New Platform, The Same Challenges

I’d bet you a Coke that most large organizations dipping their toes into the mobile BI pool have seen this movie before. That is, they’ve probably tried BI in the past–and probably more than once. As a result, mobile BI isn’t so much a new technology as it the deployment of an existing technology on new platform. And the sooner that most organizations understand that, the better.

To be sure, mobile BI deployment may be quicker an much easier than traditional, on-premise projects (especially if done via private app stores). However, don’t mistake easier for easy. The old rules still apply. Failure rates are typically high and ROI is often low or negative. My friend, IT project failure expert Michael Krigsman, believes that “BI is challenging because it really sits between business and IT. Of course, the technical deployment belongs to IT, however, without business engagement the likelihood is low that the deployment will be successful.”

Truer words have never been uttered.

Simon Says

Whether the processing is performed on a mainframe, server, or smartphone, BI is BI. For instance, the pernicious effects of incomplete or inaccurate data exist irrespective of platform. Ditto dysfunctional cultures, IT-business chasms, and other thorny organizational issues. Mobility and apps aren’t silver BI bullets.

Feedback

What say you?

Tags: ,
Category: Business Intelligence
2 Comments »

by: Phil Simon
15  May  2012

The MDM Myth

MDM is exclusively for large, complex organizations strewn across the globe. MDM projects require large budgets and extensive timelines and organizations will only see benefits years down the road.

At least that’s the pervasive MDM myth. But is it true?

On a recent Informatica postJakki Geiger writes about many common traits shared among organizations using MDM applications and technologies. They include:

1) Company size is $500M+

2) Experiencing rapid company growth, likely due to mergers and acquisitions

3) Facing a compelling event such as a new regulation (examples include WEEE in Manufacturing, Basel III in Financial Services,Sunshine Act in Pharmaceuticals) or a change in business dynamics that results in a drop in revenue or profit,  triggering a renewed focus on efficiency and cost savings

For the entire list, check out the post.

While reading the list, I was struck my how many of these traits are big company-specific. That is, someone in a mid-market or mid-sized organization might not appreciate the need for MDM. That doesn’t mean, though, that such a need doesn’t exist.

Size Matters

Without a doubt, not every organization needs to embrace MDM. For instance, the small businesses profiled in The New Small (my third book) run far too few systems to make MDM truly necessary. Indeed, there’s nary a mention of MDM in that book. Growing companies in multiple locations and/or countries, however, are a vastly different story. While there’s no magic number of revenue, employees, or customers to make MDM viable, at some point many organizations cross the MDM chasm–the point at which MDM just plain makes sense. Beyond size, when many people think of MDM projects, they conjure up images of 18-month marathons with uncertain payoffs at the end.

Simon Says

Today, is MDM still primarily just a big company thing? Sure, and that won’t change tomorrow or next week. Increasingly, though, many are coming to understand that MDM certainly can benefit growing companies (read: those not quite at the half-billion mark).

Sure, most small companies and even mid-sized organizations haven’t jumped on the MDM train just yet. In my view, though, that’s starting to change, especially with the increasing array of available open-source MDM alternatives. Talend’s Open Studio for MDM is just one of many legitimate options for organizations loathe to drop hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) on an traditional software license.

For those worried about long, drawn-out implementations with no end game, fear not. I find the increasingly adoption of Agile methods (even in the MDM world) to be a generally positive development.

Feedback

What say you?

Tags: ,
Category: Master Data Management
1 Comment »

by: Bsomich
12  May  2012

Weekly IM Update.

 
 
 logo.jpg

University Collaboration with MIKE 2.0
At MIKE2.0, we strongly believe that there is a great opportunity to increase collaboration of IM practitioners with acadmic institutions. One can imagine collaboration at several levels, all for the benefit of the participants, the discipline of IM and ultimately customers and organisations.
We would like to establish the following cooperations:

  • Undergraduate and graduate student team projects
  • Individual master and PhD thesis projects
  • Research collaboration with academic staff

Take a look at our list of current and past activities. If you have any questions or suggestions on how this program can fit in with your local school, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
 

Sincerely,
 

MIKE2.0 Community

 
Popular Content

Did you know that the following wiki articles are most popular on Google? Check them out, and feel free to edit or expand them!

What is MIKE2.0?
Deliverable Templates
The 5 Phases of MIKE2.0
Overall Task List
Business Assessment Blueprint
SAFE Architecture
Information Governance Solution

Contribute to MIKE:

Start a new article, help with articles under construction or look for other ways to contribute.

Update your personal profile to advertise yourself to the community and interact with other members.

Useful Links:
Home Page
Login
Content Model
FAQs
MIKE2.0 Governance

Join Us on
42.gif

Follow Us on
43 copy.jpg

 Join Us on images.jpg

 

 

This Week’s Blogs for Thought:

What Could Derail Apple’s Charge in the Enterprise?

For a wide variety of reasons, not every enterprise is ready to embrace Applefication. Beyond the cost of buying and deploying new technologies, significant issues still to be addressed. As I look toward the future, consider a few things that may hinder Apple’s growth in the enterprise.

First, Apple may well nowhere to go but down. What’s more, the company might have a hard time meeting demand for its products, especially when natural disasters take place (read: Thailand) Beyond that, in a sense nothing has changed: Organizations that insist upon superfluous complexity will certainly have it. Buying iPads doesn’t fix broken companies.

Read more.

Data Virtualization: Going Beyond Traditional Data Integration to Achieve Business Agility 

Judith R. Davis and Robert Eve have come together to put a definitive word out there on the emerging field of data virtualization. This is the first book ever on data virtualization. Data virtualization brings value to the seams of our enterprise – those gaps between the data warehouses, data marts, operational databases, master data hubs, big data hubs and query tools. It’s an empowering approach that is defined as “a data integration technique that provides complete, high-quality and actionable information through virtual integration of data across multiple, disparate internal and external data sources.

Read more.

CIOs Need to Measure the Right Things

If you’re a Chief Information Officer (CIO) there are three things that your organization expects of you: 1) keep everything running; 2) add new capabilities; and 3) do it all as cheaply as possible.  The metrics that CIOs typically use to measure these things include keeping a count of the number of outages, number of projects delivered and budget variances.  The problem with this approach is that it fails to take account of complexity.

Read more.
 

Forward to a Friend!

Know someone who might be interested in joining the Mike2.0 Community? Forward this to a friend 

Questions?

If you have any questions, please email us at mike2@openmethodology.org.

 

Category: Information Development
No Comments »

by: Phil Simon
09  May  2012

The Applefication of the Enterprise, Part VI: Looking Towards the Future

In Part V of this series, I provided an example of an organization in dire need of some Applefication. In this concluding part, I look at what could derail Apple’s charge in the enteprise.

Challenges and the Future

For a wide variety of reasons, not every enterprise is ready to embrace Applefication. Beyond the cost of buying and deploying new technologies, significant issues still to be addressed. As I look toward the future, consider a few things that may hinder Apple’s growth in the enterprise.

First, Apple may well nowhere to go but down. What’s more, the company might have a hard time meeting demand for its products, especially when natural disasters take place (read: Thailand) Beyond that, in a sense nothing has changed: Organizations that insist upon superfluous complexity will certainly have it. Buying iPads doesn’t fix broken companies.

More generally, as others have pointed out, culture eats strategy for lunch. It isn’t easy to convince  old-school IT employees and departments that simple is better—when their jobs depend upon complex. And not every organization has the budget for pricier (if superior) iProducts. Sometimes, good enough is exactly that, particularly in cash-strapped and low-margin industries.

And let’s not forget forthcoming product introductions from companies like Microsoft. Now that Apple has led the way with tablets and smart phones, expect forthcoming improvements from more traditional enterprise vendors.

Platforms Guarantee Nothing

Perhaps the most significant challenge to Apple is Apple itself–specifically, the tendency for successful companies do the following:

  • become complacent
  • ignore The Innovator’s Dilemma
  • misunderstand its ecosystem.

These first two have been well studied and documented. With respect to the third, Ron Adner recently wrote an excellent piece in HBR. To me, the key piece is this:

In the rush to match the pieces, most of Apple’s rivals have missed the critical connections that draw the entire ecosystem together into a coherent whole.

What if Apple loses touch with its ecosystem? Likely? No. Possible. You better believe it. Look at RIM. Some claim that RIM has really done nothing wrong; it has merely been surpassed. Today, its smartphone market share has dropped to 12 percent (although it’s probably much higher with enterprises.) More alarming, that number may plummet further.

Even if RIM develops sleek new product, the company’s apps are anything but cutting edge. Ecosystems are arguably just as important as the products they support.

Final Thoughts

As discussed in this series, Apple is firing on all cylinders these days. It clearly understands the power of its platform and ecosystem , the consumerization of IT, and the criticality of an optimal end-user experience.

The platform business model fundamentally differs from other, more internally based business models. A company can do everything “right” (read: strategy and execution) and still fall from grace because its ecosystem changes. To guarantee Apple’s continued success in the enterprise would be the acme of foolishness. In at least the short and mid terms, however, expect more large organizations to go Apple.

 

Tags: ,
Category: Information Development
1 Comment »

by: Wmcknight
05  May  2012

Hype, Henry and Ginger

The house was quiet before Henry (foreground) arrived. Ginger (background) would rarely bark. Now, when Henry hears something even the slightest bit unfamiliar, he will utter a soft grrrrr. Ginger then follows with a louder grrrrrrrrrr. Then, Henry barks softly. Then, Ginger barks. Within a matter of 5 seconds, they’re both going ballistic.

Now, I can handle it and I will go Dog Whisperer on them, but I was thinking that this is how frenzies get created in all walks of life. Including information management. Analysts, bloggers, vendors and the media alike don’t want to get left behind so the ante continually gets upped. Does big data affect your life? The 2-word phrase has almost lost its meaning with so many vendors claiming it for so many different things.

I like MIKE and one of the reasons is that it’s written by practitioners. You don’t see a lot of “survey says” here. You see a lot of 1-1 experiences being shared. You can determine the hype level better that way.

Now, excuse me while I see what the fuss is about in the other room. Probably nothing.

Category: Information Management, MIKE2.0
No Comments »

by: Phil Simon
01  May  2012

The Applefication of the Enterprise, Part V: Apple’s Ecosystem

In Part IV of this series, I provided an example of an organization in dire need of some Applefication. In this concluding part, I look at Apple’s ecosystem.

Think about what has happened over the last five years in the technology world. In a word, the developments have been amazing. Trends and events that we are only beginning to comprehend include:

  • The consumerization of IT has changed the game. Period.
  • iPhones are replacing Blackberries, even in many conservative organizations.
  • Apple stores have redefined retail, bringing unprecedented levels of energy to malls.
  • iTunes’ one-click purchasing saved the music industry–and iBooks is on track to do the same thing with college textbooks.
  • 3-year olds use iPads.
  • iPads are replacing traditional laptops for many employees.
  • Private app stores are emerging.

We’ve seen the start of an important emerging trend: the Applefication of the enteprise. And if you think that Applefication is confined to knowledge and white-collar workers, think again. Even blue collar workers are increasingly using iPads and iPhones in the workplace.

How Apple is Conquering the Enterprise

While more expensive than their alternatives, Apple products are worth a premium in the eyes of many consumers. Credit their ease of use and popularity and elegant design. And it is this very popularity that should ensure the continued development and support of new and existing apps. Translation: Apple’s ecosystem is stronger than ever, something hardly lost on technology decision makers in large organizations.

This is critical. Imagine the horror of CIOs that bought HP TouchPads en masse in July of 2011, only to find out weeks later that HP was effectively killing the device.

Whoops.

Apple’s penetration of the enterprise stems from many factors. Exhibit A: Its ecosystem. The strength of Apple’s ecosystem means that enterprise apps will continue to be developed for its products–and probably at an increasing rate. Force.com and Jive software are but two examples.

Apple’s ecosystem includes–and, in fact, may center upon–the rapid deployment of apps. While apps don’t really work for complex ERP and CRM apps (yet), the AppStore model better is clearly a superior one. Launching apps requires far less IT involvement and cost relative to traditional deployments. While initially proven in the consumer space, companies like Genentech are adapting it to the enteprise world.

And the model just makes sense, especially among talented, in-demand employees–many of whom who have left jobs because they were forced to use deficient technologies.

Finally, while not a major factor, Steve Jobs’ death shed light on his genius. Today, it’s just plain hip to be associated with Apple.

Competitor Missteps

As brilliantly as Apple has executed, that alone doesn’t explain the whole story. No, we have to look outward. Apple can credit a number of other external factors for its increasing enterprise penetration, including:

  • End user and IT frustration with existing applications, infrastructure.
  • Too many chiefs. Many IT departments are fed up with attempting to navigate complex EULAs, OEM agreements, and support issues among a cadre of vendors such as Microsoft and PC manufacturers like Lenovo.
  • Disappointment with ROI on past IT projects.
  • A new breed of CIOs and IT heads. These folks are less conservative and more open to new ways of doing things.
  • Microsoft has fumbled the ball a few times. Vista bombed (look at its adoption rate in big companies) and the company failed to embrace cloud computing early on.
  • HP hemmed and hawed on its PC business.

Of course, with respect to the tablet, until recently the iPad until recently faced no legitimate alternative. While that has changed with the success of Amazon’s Kindle Fire, the iPad is clearly a superior—if more expensive—device.

In the next part of the series, I’ll take a look at the future.

Tags: , , , ,
Category: Enterprise2.0
No Comments »

Calendar
Collapse Expand Close
TODAY: Mon, April 24, 2017
May2012
SMTWTFS
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Archives
Collapse Expand Close
Recent Comments
Collapse Expand Close