Apply today for a FREE subscription to CIO Magazine!
Mon, Jan 29, 2007 20:31 EST

|
Posted by: Bernard Golden Blog: The Open Source
Current Rating: |
I found the comments about my recent posting "Why CIOs Don't Care About Open Source" pretty interesting. Several of them dismissed the importance of open source because the authors were too busy delivering "business benefit," which seemed to be wrapped up in implementing packaged apps. Open source was cited as too much RTFM and not enough ... business benefit. In other words, because open source isn't enough like packaged apps from Microsoft and Oracle, there isn't any point for CIOs to consider using it.
If there was ever a time for CIOs to think of their job as taking the latest release from Gigantic Enterprise Vendor and figuring out how to spend gobs of money in installing, configuring, and integrating it, that day has passed. Today, businesses are being turned inside out by digitized work processes, automated supply chains, ad-hoc coalitions of organizations that come together to aggressively address nascent markets, and more.
Every one of these centers around information technology and demands CIOs be ready to help create new business offerings. And guess what -- performing the same old packaged app shuffle is a recipe for irrelevance. Simply put, the eye-wateringly expensive packaged app game was fine for a time when IT meant centralized execution of easily standardized processes, but today's economic environment calls for a much less expensive way and much more responsive way to create IT-enabled business functions.
Feebly offering up the mantra of "business benefit" as a shield to avoid confronting technology trends won't protect you from other parts of the business demanding new IT-enabled market offerings. Refusing to countenance open source as part of your solution portfolio is like a marketing person, circa 1995, rejecting the new-fangled Internet, citing his or her need to focus on "business benefit" marketing programs like TV spots and direct postal mail. Judging open source as a kind of second-rate enterprise app and concluding it falls short of the standard misses the point.
In a world where IT is central to how businesses run, implementing packaged apps to standardize your functioning by definition consigns you to middle of the pack -- because packaged apps are designed to cover one standard deviation from the center of the bell curve: that's how software companies make money -- delivering middle-of-the-road applications. Being as good as the rest of the pack was OK when IT meant support for the real business of the company, but is a death threat in today's economy.
I found this discussion of the "long tail of enterprise applications" particularly germane to the future of IT, which is why I discussed the theory of long tails in my last posting. The posting argues that following the traditional IT rules and process makes IT organizations unable to recognize or respond to real end user IT needs. The specific analogy the poster uses is the rise of the PC, in which end users smuggled the puny, RTFM, unapproved machines into the enterprise in order to take advantage of their powerful utility. It's no accident I used that example in my posting -- it provides the most vivid evidence of what happens when unstoppable end user demand confronts unbending IT resistance. End users always win in this battle.
In a world where digitization and information processing is pervasive, information technology has to get less expensive. If you don't consider evaluating open source as an option to drive down costs, you are neglecting your charter as head of technology. InfoWorld just released the results of a survey they did which showed that 36% of respondents using one or more open source products used it in mission-critical applications; for those respondents with 100 or more open soruce products in use, the number using open source in mission-critical applications rose to 61%. What do they know that you don't?
Bernard,
Good 2nd posting. Since I'm so far in this camp, I'm not sure what to say. I concur.
For 100% focused MSFT shops, check out "dotnetnuke" as open source like add-ons to your ASP 2.0 or ASP 3.0 code base.
This can be a gentle foray into the brave new world, which with 100% certainty is here today. Software costs all-in will do what hardware and flat panel costs have done over the past 10 years.
There is no doubt about this.
Another aspect to CIOs' indecision around Open Source is Security. Which is better? Open vs. closed? I came across an intelligent article on this subject in ACM Queue by Richard Ford, Florida Institute Of Technology:
http://www.acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=453&page=It covers all the key factors for CIOs to consider.
Today's news story, "Novell, Microsoft Outline Virtual Collaboration" at http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3659331, could be the basis of a good entry for CIOs into Open Source.
I'm currently living with an inherited series of systems that are DOS based. And, guess what ... there's nothing out there that will cleanly interface with any of them. Simple interfaces to an open-source system take weeks, sometimes months to implement properly. Legacy systems are imbedded into the culture of most enterprises. The old "... if it's not broke, don't fix it." mentality. As most of you know…IT cultural change is one of the hardest issues that a CIO must face … at some time in ones career. In my experience the culture must change at the top of the organization, first. CIO’s must convince enterprise executives of the importance of this change and somehow get the point across that this will benefit the enterprise by improving productivity, response times, and most importantly … ROI. From there Departmental managers must be given the opportunity to “see the light†so to speak. This is done by going through the traditional RFP/RFI process to replace their “legendary†system that they currently can’t live without. This is not an overnight process. The analogy is like turning an aircraft carrier … you don’t turn an aircraft carrier 90 degrees really fast (it will literally fall over if you do)… you have to plot where you want to go very early in the process, then gradually make the turn. In order to move to open source systems … a CIO must drive the turn of that aircraft carrier 1 degree at a time.
Larry, I appreciate your thoughts on the challenges IT managers face in turning the aircraft carrier that is a large IT organization. One thing of note is your comment on change occurring through the RFI/RFP process -- generally speaking, open source companies (much less open source projects) do not participate in RFP-type procurements, as they do not have an economic model that allows for extensive pre-sales activity. This is an example of the sort of thing that I continue to address -- the economics of open source force process change on user organizations -- and don't think complaining that open source companies "ought" to do so, or that they will someday: the economics don't allow it. And, more to the point, the practices of open source will inevitably diffuse into the proprietary world as proprietary economics change due to open source competition.
But I was really struck by your opening statement. You've got DOS programs and you are having a hard time integrating them with open source. Can this be any better with proprietary software? DOS programs, generally speaking, were never designed for an integration capability. There's always flat file output, but I wouldn't hold my breath for any current product, open source or proprietary, integrating with DOS-based programs.