I saw a great documentary on the plane the other day. It was called The Lightbulb Conspiracy and provided a telling glimpse into the economic philosophy of planned obsolescence. As its name suggests planned obsolescence is the design approach that builds in the time of failure at the point of production. The doco used the thread of modern day printers that are pre-designed to seize upon reaching a counted page limit – say 5,000 – to tell the backstory.

The concept of planned obsolescence takes its origins from economic theory before being applied in the early decades of the 20th century. The story begins where engineers increased the functioning life of the commercial light bulb from the 1,000 hours established by Thomas Edison, into the tens of thousands of hours. There is even a light bulb still illuminating a fire station in the US that has been burning continuously for over 100 years.

At the point the light bulb manufacturers realised that they were designing themselves out of business, and faced with the possibility of having to sell far fewer units than would be sustainable for the industry, a cartel of international companies including Philips, OSRAM and others agreed to secretly reverse engineer their light bulbs all the way back to the 1,000 hours of useful life to ensure steady product turnover inperpetuity. A great story, but what can it tell us about business?

Well the beauty of the light bulb of course is that it is a low-cost technology that allows everyone to not have to sit in the dark (it was one of the greatest catalysts for astronomical growth in industrial production). Not only that, but it is simple to manage and maintain and therefore provides a wonderful analogy for the accessibility of technology to the modern business. Even more than that, when you understand the whole backstory of the light bulb, it brilliantly illuminates the position that “low-entry high-quality” is nothing but a myth.

When it comes to just about any kind of technology today, the barrier to entry into anything is very low and it is just getting lower and lower. Compared to even 2005, the availability of technology and related services is remarkably high in 2012 thanks to the fast maturity of cloud and the accessibility of internet connectivity. When combined with the self-aware, DIY, or BYOD technology trends, the effects are significantly multiplied. This is of course all wonderful for the start-up or small business but its real impact on determining future success for companies with any greater vision can be significant.

The thing is, while the barrier to entry may be low, the barrier to maturity in terms of technology, its strategic application, and its broad ranging functional utility remains remarkably high. IMHO the term “You get what you pay for” is pushed aside far too readily today. This is true whether viewed through the lens of required knowledge, required effort and required dollars.

Whether talking about websites or business software or hardware and devices, the fact is that businesses can get “in” really cheaply but all cheap technology services have a ceiling. They have their own style of planned obsolescence and, if not thought through at the point of purchase with the same planned and careful consideration as enterprise IT, will inhibit many small-to-medium businesses in making the transition.

We observe this a fair bit in the work that we do. Whether it is smaller businesses that think and act like consumers when it comes to technologies or companies that simply get to a certain size and then go pop; part of the challenge is that they can’t transition either from a skills perspective (i.e. can’t think big) or more frequently from a technology perspective – still can’t afford to “go big” – or try to without the right technologies.

If you know what to look for it is easily observable in most tech trends and bubbles. Take the e-Book phenomenon for example. This trend was initially held up to be a low barrier to entry breakthrough for anyone to publish anything. But the fact is that the bog standard eBook model will only get you so far without the strategy, skills or desire to make the technology platform work for you beyond point of entry. Take the Apple version, iBooks.

For the average punter it is clearly a low barrier to entry bubble, but in this case it has sufficiently higher barriers to maturity that will ensure it is a game changer for the right businesses. Businesses or individuals can publish anything at a low level (and comparative low quality) but to do it right company’s would benefit from a US Tax ID, they may consider a longer term approach to sourcing an ISBN for every publication, they will be comfortable in committing to partner revenue thresholds, and design considerations will be paramount to brand longevity. While there are cheap and free versions to help companies along (like various flavours of Lulu) they are not necessarily ideal as a business model for scale.

Cheap technology does not, and will not ever replace great business and IT strategy. Conversely great strategy will always tell businesses exactly when it will be time to replace cheap technology well ahead of the point of failure, and the ultimate planned obsolesence of the business. Businesses simply must plan to replace low barrier to entry technology – or become obsolete.

 

It seems that the Aussie spirit of “Can-do” and “She’ll be right mate” are alive and well in the Aussie cloud stratosphere.
I have just completed a mammoth 3 month study of the top 45 IaaS cloud vendors in the country (started with 170 vendors), over 600 man hours of research, RFIs, interviews and demos resulting in a 72 page report to be released today (Report Link here). I would have to say that there are parts of the Australian IaaS cloud that are truly impressive, and there were parts that appeared to be fairly ordinary and more of a work in progress.
The study confirms that there can still be big risks with some clouds, probably much higher than most would care to consider. But even these risks are probably no higher than the risks often seen in some in-house IT functions.

Read more ...
 

In Queensland, past government executives including Ministers, Directors General, Executive Directors, and on down the bureaucratic chain have achieved world beating outcomes in polarising the ICT industry. There have always been camps, huddles, and factions. The long-running Grierson camp, the Industry Working Group camp, Ministerial camps through the various advisory groups, the AIIA camp, the Software Queensland camp; and so it goes. The underlying message has always been if you are not with us you must be against us. While we could spend years debating where it all began, the same amount of time need not be spent recording what it has achieved.

When it comes to choosing there is always a cost of crossing over inherent in any kind of gut-wrenching decision. Whether that cost is payable immediately, or exacted slowly over time, in many cases it comes at a significant cost. The Government has top-dressed polarising responses in the industry for years and like it or not, companies have risen and fallen in Queensland based on the dependency of affiliations. The collective Government machine, they themselves a pawn, have forced us to choose. Yet while people have had plenty of opportunity to be polarised by the new QGCIO, and the landscape in which he enters the fray is one of disunity, the appointment of Peter Grant presents the Queensland ICT Industry with an opportunity to not choose sides. It is in fact the most clear and present opportunity to not choose sides. It is the gauntlet thrown at the foot of industry.

At the recent industry lunch where Peter addressed the industry for the first time it became clear that whether or not the QGCIO role has changed, the vision for the new CIO is no less monumental than it has always been: transformational improvements, “step change thru innovation”, and improving the industry brand. There was no talk of the practical cornerstones of Government ICT such as the CTO or the QGEA but I don’t believe that we need to talk about them to expect that they are key success factors for the role whether by decree or association.

But the new QGCIO should be given a chance to deliver what has been publically declared – a very ambitious agenda. If it can be achieved then the Queensland Government would truly reach significant levels of positive international notoriety. Perhaps even time locked away from the distractions of industry would help the office achieve the development of the metric frameworks, dashboards, and useful information on the technical condition and business value of individual applications within the portfolio – for use by the industry. That would break a huge barrier that is currently protected by Queensland’s still restrictive RTI legislation concerning ICT.

The bottom line is that everyone has a history. The QGCIO’s just happens to have been publicly reinforced a lot lately. While many may not like that history or the old analogies, and while many will always question in whose best interest the Microsoft licensing deal was recast, or how past affiliations with Health, Transport, Gartner, consulting companies, and various universities will impact decision making today, the opportunity that Peter presents the industry is simply not to choose sides any longer. A show of faith in the QGCIO office today in many ways represent the ultimate show of faith after years of conflict. Peter is intrinsically tied to the past of Queensland Government ICT and it is a past with which the industry must reconcile in order to move ahead.

I do absolutely believe that there is an opportunity to not associate the new role with that history. I would go even further to say that there is an opportunity for unification in Queensland Government’s ICT market that cannot be placed upon the shoulders of the QGCIO. It is not the type of unification that Beattie spruiked in 2005 when he ordered the ICT industry to collect themselves and then come and talk to the Government; that’s like saying all retail is the same, or that the mining industry can be equally represented by the coal lobby. And it is certainly not the unification of that unachievable “one government” or “whole of government” delusion. Attempting that will fail to bring agency ICT into play.

The opportunity for unification, whether that comes now or begins in 6-weeks in Queensland, is simply the opportunity to acknowledge the past and no longer be forced to choose sides.

Follow me on Twitter: @petercarrceo

 

I was asked by SYS-CON cloud computing legend Jeremy Geelan to contribute to the lead up to this years Cloud Computing Expo in Santa Clara with my list of five (5) cloud predictions for 2012.

Read all the predictions here: <link> with responses from some of the industry greats such as Peter Coffee,William Toll, Mark Hinkle, Larry Carvalho, Michael Sheehan, John Treadway,

Here are my predictions:

Read more ...
 

It has been a long time since a blog update but during the blog hiatus there has been so much research and report writing under-way in the Longhaus camp. Seventeen new reports have been added in the past few weeks to bolster the Longhaus research library. And just to prove that we have been busy! Here is a list of the reports that have been most recently added:

Read more ...
 

The cloud outages of recent times highlight just how import vendor and SLA management will become and also having the right legal frameworks to support these efforts. I have reviewed a number of agreements that vendors have handed to clients and have been somewhat concerned with the standard of some of the contracts and clauses. It seems in some cases that there has been such a focus on getting cloud product ready for market on the technical front that the legal side has been left underinvested.

Read more ...
 

It was reported last week by ZDNet that the global head of CSC’s cloud business came out saying that AGIMO were aloof on cloud computing. The folk at AGIMO seem to be soft targets as it is not the first time there have been reports of vendor criticism of AGIMO, last time the headlines had CSC and Telstra saying the AGIMO cloud vision lacked strategy.

Read more ...