Research Beat

This post has been prompted by a piece over at comparethecloud.net, in which Luke Wheeler responds to a concern, particularly from within the financial community, that IBM’s cloud strategy is a “Disaster in the Making”.

Luke lists some of the criticisms levied at IBM, and talks through the reality behind each. I largely agree with his analysis of the specifics, and his implicit overarching conclusion that IBM is actually very capable when it comes to the provision of relevant solutions in the cloud computing arena.

My own view is a bit broader, however, as IBM is one of the companies I track as an analyst across the whole spectrum of its business. Based on this, I would say that IBM arguably has the most comprehensive portfolio of products and services available to help large and midsized organisations with any type of IT delivery, cloud or otherwise. It’s certainly not perfect, with gaps and misalignments in many areas, and I am still not convinced about its indirect channel reach and its apparent obsession with MSPs as the primary way to fix this. Generally, however, IBM does better than its peers in covering the breadth and depth of enterprise IT requirements from an inherent capability perspective.

The problem, though, is that IBM so often confuses the hell of people with disjointed marketing and PR. Sure, there is a high level pitch around Smarter Planet that few can argue with, even though they might not understand how it is relevant to them. But below this, each product group and service practice tends to promote its own view of the world. And, quite frankly, when I listen to some of the idealistic and simplistic claims and positioning peddled at that level, it’s often quite insulting to the intelligence, and really does make IBM sound out of touch with reality.

If I took everything literally that IBM pitched at me, on any given day I would believe that the one true priority for transforming IT and business performance was managed hosting, or commodity hosting, or horizontal cloud middleware, or tightly integrated system stacks, or the mainframe, or big data, or HPC, or mobile apps and services, or …

And when it comes to who is supposedly calling the shots in enterprise IT now, depending on who in IBM is pitching and which campaigns are running, it’s the CEO, or the CMO, or the CFO, or the CISO, or the developers, or … and the role of the CIO may or may not be secure in the future.

Most senior IBMers know full well that we don’t live in a world of OR but one of AND, and when the field teams get engaged, they fully acknowledge the complexity and richness of the IT and business landscape. So it’s not about strategy or execution, the confusion that often arises stems from uncoordinated and often conflicting messaging.

This is obvious to someone in my position who hears all the stories and takes a lot of it (typically the first third of any PowerPoint presentation) with a large pinch of salt. But if you happen to latch onto just one group’s rhetoric and take it as indication of the company’s overall market view and strategy, you could easily get the impression that IBM doesn’t understand what’s going on out there in the broader sense.

Against this background, I would urge any IBM exec reading this to take time out and listen to some of the pitches being delivered at a product and practice level. I guarantee it won’t be long before you hear IBMers appearing to contradict each other.

Personally, I think there’s a need for some kind of contextual messaging that sits between the abstract Smarter Planet positioning and the offerings being sold at the sharp end of the business. This would provide a frame of reference to avoid some of the apparent conflicts. In a company the size of IBM, though, with the market evolving so rapidly in many areas, I guess that’s easier said than done.

‘Desktop virtualisation’ is a collective term used to refer to a family of related technologies and techniques for centralising the management and/or execution of various elements of the traditional (typically Wintel) desktop. When the right mix of options is implemented in the right way, operational overheads can be reduced, security tightened, and user flexibility enhanced.

I won’t go into detail here, but the key to understanding what’s going on in this space is to appreciate that virtualisation can be applied separately to different desktop elements.

At the operating system level, for example, we have the ‘session based’ approach (a.k.a. terminal services), and a couple of different forms of Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI). We can then virtualise ‘local’ data storage (e.g. the ‘Documents’ directory) and user settings (e.g. preferences) using redirection techniques.

If you are interested in a structured walk-through of the options, and the scenarios in which they are and aren’t appropriate, there are a couple of really good eBook primers on our website you might want to take a look at:

Desktop Virtualisation: Aligning options with user and business requirements
User Virtualisation: Beyond device-centric computing

The first of these also covers the area of Application Virtualisation, which is based on techniques for running applications in ‘containers’ rather than natively. The idea is to minimise dependencies on the host operating system, but also to prevent conflicts with other applications the user might be running at the same time. This has advantages in terms of deployment efficiency, desktop stability, ease of support, and (potentially) user convenience, which the eBook covers in more detail.

If the application is running directly in the user’s desktop environment the term ‘application streaming’ is typically used. If it’s running on another machine, but with the appearance of running locally, then the term used is ‘remote application’. Either way, the user can’t tell the difference between a virtualised application and one installed directly into their desktop – it’s launched in the same way, cut and paste between applications works as normal, and directories, network shares, and other resources can be accessed in the familiar manner.

The beauty of application virtualisation is that it can be used in conjunction with both traditional physical desktops and virtual session-based or VDI environments. With application streaming, even though management is centralised, the application executes locally, which means it can also be applied to Windows notebooks and tablets that are often used in disconnected mode or on low-speed/high-latency networks.

I have personally been a big fan of application virtualisation since the technology started maturing to become truly ‘enterprise ready’ two or three years ago. Until recently, though, our research showed that uptake was significantly behind other desktop virtualisation approaches. I was therefore pleased to see from a study we ran last month that activity is picking up, at least in relation to delivering office and other productivity solutions.

The data we are looking at here was gathered via an online survey of IT pros, so please don’t take the numbers literally (the absolute level of activity will be exaggerated because of the self-selection effect, and we are only picking up SMBs that have IT skills in house). What’s significant about this picture is that application virtualisation is now the most commonly used technique in the broader desktop virtualisation arena, which suggests that more people are ‘getting’ the idea that you can virtualise selectively.

Why does this matter? Well, with the high number of aged desktop estates out there, and the prospect of Windows XP being end-of-lifed in the not too distant future, we anticipate a lot of refresh and migration activity over the coming year or two.

So, if you are considering a desktop modernisation exercise in your organisation, it is well worth exploring the alternative desktop delivery options I have mentioned, and remembering that desktop virtualisation doesn’t mean you have to centralise everything.

RELATED MATERIAL
Desktop Virtualisation: Aligning options with user and business requirements
User Virtualisation: Beyond device-centric computing
Office 365 in Context (research report based on the study mentioned in this post)

End user computing must be thought about holistically

Ask anyone in the industry about the future of end user computing and the chances are that the response will major heavily on smartphones and tablets, and perhaps BYOD in relation to these. This is perfectly understandable as mobile technology is both seductive and fast moving, and many IT departments haven’t yet got things under control in this space. Everyone is therefore interested in discussions about how usage patterns are going to develop, and how best to manage the proliferation of mobile end-points, particularly when the business may not own some of them.

We then have an ongoing line of coverage in the press to do with the so called ‘post-PC era’, fuelled by market numbers showing a decline in PC shipments while sales of mobile devices continue to climb. You would get the impression from many of the stories that reliance on the desktop PC, and even laptops and notebooks, is dwindling, with these ‘old-fashioned’ form-factors destined to die out in the not too distant future.

In all this excitement and speculation, the danger is that we lose sight of the continuing importance of desktops and laptops. The truth is that mobile workers are in the minority in most workforces, and this isn’t going to change in a hurry, so traditional fixed desktop computing still needs to be taken care of:

The other important observation from this chart is that a significant number of mobile and field-based workers fall into the ‘knowledge worker’ category, which basically means they have a need to create, consume, manipulate and distribute documents and other information as part of their job. It isn’t the kind of activity that can be done comfortably or efficiently on a limited function pure touch mobile device. This is why smartphones and tablets used by mobile information workers today typically complement a full function PC, which is most likely to be an x86 Windows machine:

Of course the exact form-factor of the fully functional device is likely to change over time, with various ‘convertible’ and ‘transformer’ style options finding their place, as well as tablets such as Microsoft’s Surface Pro which have a clip-on keyboard that doubles up as a cover. Those who are only partly mobile may be content with a less portable machine that remains at their desk while they are out and about with their iPad or similar.

The point is that end-user computing is not a zero-sum game. Just because people are adopting smartphones and tablets, and hooking them into corporate systems, doesn’t mean they are no longer reliant on a full desktop experience for a significant part of their work. When you consider this alongside the sizable part of the employee population that will always work from fixed location, it’s clear that mice, keyboards and large/multiple displays, along with access to a reasonable degree of processing power and storage capacity, will remain a critical part of business computing for the foreseeable future.

The trouble is that a lot of organisations have been ‘sweating their assets’ in relation to PC software and hardware. There’s a lot of Windows XP out there running on ageing equipment that is not only behind the curve in terms of functionality and user experience, but is also becoming even more expensive to manage as it gets older. With XP’s end-of-life looming, something has to be done in the near future,

However, before jumping into that next desktop refresh/migration project, we would advise taking a step back and considering your end-user computing strategy holistically. As the lines blur between different classes of device, there is a strong case to be made for putting policy, process and technology in place in a coordinated way to deal with requirements across the whole fixed-mobile spectrum of activity. The anchor points for this are the user at one end, and the information or service at the other, with an assumption that the bit in the middle (i.e. devices and networks) will be variable.

Easier said than done, perhaps, but some have already created a headache for themselves by trying to tackle application delivery, security and management separately for company mobile devices, personal devices, corporate PCs, home PCs, Apple Macs, and so on. In future discussions, we’ll therefore be looking at solutions, including various forms of desktop virtualisation, for example, that can potentially help across the board.

In the meantime, the imperative is not to fall into the trap of neglecting your desktop estate. Your business will undoubtedly start to hurt if you let it fall into disrepair, while investment in modernisation will yield tangible business benefits.

RELATED MATERIAL
Freedom without Anarchy (Research Report)
Is BYOD an indicator of need rather than a need in itself? (Blog Post)
Windows 8 and the CIO’s secret wish (Blog Post)
The Consumerisation of IT (Research Report)

As speculation about the demise or resurrection of BlackBerry continues, many are arguing that the success of the recently released Z10 and Q10 devices will provide an indicator of the company’s future. Against this background, I am going to share some personal views of the latest BlackBerries based on using them in a work context.

Setting the Scene

Let me say up front that I have been a long time BlackBerry user; indeed I have a drawer full of old BB’s spanning about 6 generations. Over recent years I have tried various alternatives, including iPhones and Android devices, but until about 12 months ago, I had always gone back to a BlackBerry as my primary work device because I could handle all of my core communications stuff much more quickly and efficiently.

It was the arrival of the Samsung Galaxy S3 that broke the pattern. I found it to be such a powerful, customisable and easy to use piece of kit that I stuck with it as my main handset for business use. Having said that, I never really ditched the BlackBerry Bold 9900 because even though the S3 (with the 3rd party SwiftKey keyboard installed) was OK for data entry, it was still no match for a physical keyboard. I therefore carried the 9900 as a companion device for intense periods of rapid-fire email and social media activity while out and about.

Enter the BlackBerry Z10

When the Z10 was released, I was interested in how good a job BlackBerry had done with the new OS. With the claims of this touch-only device sporting the best soft-keyboard on the market, I was also curious to see whether it would provide something approaching that classic BB typing experience.

I spent two weeks working with the Z10 as my main device, and to begin with it took a bit of getting into, mainly because the UI works differently to most other smartphones. I won’t go into detail on the specific functionality here because so many in-depth reviews have described all that in great detail.

Suffice it to say that once I got used to the ‘Hub’ (which is basically a unified inbox into which various applications are tightly integrated) and the swipe-centric approach to navigation, I found the device extremely easy and efficient to use. To my eyes, the screen was sharper than the S3, and the sound quality through the speaker and the headset was far superior (sound has always been my biggest complaint with the S3).

All the basics were there in terms of the apps I use for business, and hooking up to my Office 365 account over ActiveSync worked exactly as you would expect. Disappointingly, however, I didn’t find the Z10 keyboard easier to use than SwiftKey on the S3. In fact, unlike the S3, I could not find a way of enabling haptic feedback (where a short vibration is produced each time you hit a key), which is something I like to have switched on. My typing accuracy suffered a bit as a result, and the clever word suggestion/correction didn’t make up for that.

One of the things that surprised me while trialling the Z10 was how much I had previously taken the larger S3 screen for granted. With my 50 something eyes, it was the difference between being able to read some websites comfortably and either squinting or having to don my specs. The other thing I missed was the range of leisure apps you get with Android. BlackBerry has done a respectable job of making sure most of the obvious productivity stuff is available, but the apps side of things is still a work in progress for the BlackBerry developer community. The last thing I’ll mention is battery life, which is respectable on the Z10, but unlike the S3, you are on the edge after a day of heavy use.

The Q10 Alternative

So what about the Q10, the sibling of the Z10 which runs the latest BlackBerry OS and has a physical QWERTY keyboard? Well I picked up one of these a few days ago and I absolutely love it.

At first it felt a bit weird compared to the Bold 9900 because it doesn’t have a track-pad and the physical call, hang-up, menu and back buttons, but you soon get used to the soft-keys. I was already comfortable with the gestures for more general navigation (which is the same as on the Z10), but I guess there would be a learning curve there too for most new users (though worth it once you get there).

The physical keyboard feels marginally better than the 9900, perhaps because it is a straight-line rather than curved layout, but the difference is not huge. The sound quality is superb, I would say even better than the Z10 (though I haven’t done an objective comparison), and there are few more apps available because the Q10 runs version 10.1 of the operating system (which at the time of writing, isn’t yet available for the Z10). The battery life also seems more comparable to the S3, though I need to use the device for another week or two to get a real feel for that.

The big compromise is obviously on the size of the screen, which is effectively about half the size of Z10 with a 1:1 aspect ratio. For messaging and social media, this doesn’t matter at all, and with the physical keyboard this is where the Q10 really comes into its own. Whether it’s email, text, Skype, Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin, I have found the experience hugely liberating compared to any pure touch device. Having EverNote embedded natively into the device (through the Reminders app) is also really useful if you are into that service.

The Q10 is a lot more limited for media consumption and web browsing though. While I would quite happily sit on the train watching videos on an S3 or Z10, I can’t see me doing this with the Q10. The browsing side of things is manageable for me, however, as most of my web use is concerned with news sites. The saviour here is the ‘Reader’ mode, which extracts the main text pane from the page you are on and renders it properly word-wrapped in the font-size of your choice. It’s a couple more taps than on the S3, but that’s not a big deal.

I would sum up the Q10 as a being the best work communication and social media smartphone I have ever used because it combines a modern UI with a superb physical keyboard. Beyond music, though, even once the app catalogue has been built out, the Q10 is always going to be a compromise on other stuff simply because of the limited screen real-estate. And, of course, it’s a pointless option if you either don’t do much typing or are particularly fast and accurate on a soft keyboard – you’d be better off getting a device with a bigger screen.

The Broader Context

Zooming out to the question of whether BlackBerry is going to remain relevant as the mobile market continues to evolve, I would not like to bet one way or the other at the moment.

While I think the Q10 is great, I am not sure how big a market segment is represented by people like me. I have used BlackBerry devices for 12 years, and my usage patterns are very messaging-centric, so I am not typical of the broader population. I am also happy carrying around more than one device so I don’t have to compromise on the things I do frequently, e.g. the Q10 will be used alongside an iPad for business and travel purposes, and I maintain the S3 as my personal device for ‘off duty’ use.

The one thing I haven’t mentioned is ‘BlackBerry Balance’, which allows your work and personal stuff to be managed separately if you are hooked up to fully managed BlackBerry back-end. This may help BlackBerry in the business sector as organisations look for ways to deal with various aspects of consumerisation.

Meanwhile, I do hope BlackBerry bounces back. Apart from my selfish needs being fulfilled by devices like the Q10, which only BlackBerry seems to be taking seriously at the moment, greater competition in the market is obviously good from an innovation, choice and cost perspective.

RELATED MATERIAL
Freedom without Anarchy – empowering your users while keeping control
User-driven IT adoption – Problem or opportunity?
Is BYOD an indicator of need rather than a need in itself?
The Consumerisation of IT

There’s a live chat taking place on the The Register on Friday 15th March entitled: “BYOD: Bring Your Own Device – or Bring Your Own Disaster?”. A line in the promo article stood out to me as being rather assumptive, so I posted the following comment:

Whoa – massive unsubstantiated assumption here

I realise the covering piece is there to provoke a reaction, but this phrase is extremely assumptive:

“But some organisations have decided to trust the user and claim big savings in productivity by deploying BYOD”

The implication is that productivity gains are a given if you can overcome some of the risks and practicalities associated with BYOD. There are arguments and experiences that go both ways on this. The first point of order is that just because a user ‘feels’ they are more productive with their non-standard personal device doesn’t mean they actually are. People tend to accentuate the positives and conveniently forget the hassle factor of working around inconsistencies and incompatibilities. Even if they are somehow more ‘productive’, the lack of cohesion if you have too much diversity within a team or workgroup means lots of time reinventing the wheel, dealing with round trip document editing issues (when different editors are used), and so on. Productivity at an aggregate level is rarely considered in the BYOD discussion, but it should be.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it is all bad, just that even if you overcome the risk and support related challenges, it’s not necessarily all good either from a productivity perspective.

In my experience, when people start quoting the benefits of BYOD, most (if not all) of what they tell you are benefits of mobile computing. I guess if you can’t afford the cost of deploying mobile technology in a fully supported manner, then the two are essentially the same. My feeling from having talked to a lot of people on this, however, is that you are generally going to get a better result by giving people what they need to do their job. There are enough good devices out there that are enterprise ready and very desirable, so it’s no longer a case of business phone must be crap and personal phone sexy.

Sure, BYOD is here, and it probably makes sense to look for ways to accommodate it, e.g. for borderline cases or VIP users wanting to connect up their optional bling. But if a mobile device is really going to have a big productivity impact, wouldn’t you be better to supply as an essential tool and make sure it all hangs together at a team, workgroup and company level?

Bottom line is that I would like to see the following discussion point added to the agenda for the live chat:

“Are productivity benefits really a given with BYOD?”

Cheers
Dale

Get on over there and add your thoughts, or sign up to to participate on Friday.

RELATED MATERIAL
Freedom without Anarchy (Research Report)
Is BYOD an indicator of need rather than a need in itself? (Blog Post)
Windows 8 and the CIO’s secret wish (Blog Post)
The Consumerisation of IT (Research Report)