Geac Swallowed by the Golden Gate (Infor)
7 November 2005 by Adam Cuothe
Agilisys (in name), MAPICS, Lilly, and now Geac. Infor is swallowing peers with the same voracity of SSA Global (nevermind the incestuous activities of Oracle). According to Geac’s press release:
…As part of the reorganization, Infor, an existing Golden Gate Capital funded company, will acquire Geac’s ERP software products including System21, Runtime, RatioPlan, Streamline, and Management Data and the employees who support them will move to Infor…
Which puts Infor in a stronger global position for the discrete, process, distribution, and other ERP industries. It doesn’t end here though, look for some new financial solutions to be named soon (as a result of the Golden Gate Gutting Co’s activities).
…Geac’s financial applications and the Industry Specific Applications (ISA) will become the two business groups under a newly formed Golden Gate Capital funded company, which will be named prior to the transaction closing…
Wonder how the Geac employees will fare? Interesting since hearing recent announcements on the low Canadian unemployment rate “the unemployment rate dipped 0.1 percentage points to 6.6%, the lowest in three decades.” according to Statistics Canada.
Buying a Record of Reality–Corporate Content Tyrants Ready to Abuse
4 November 2005 by Adam Cuothe
Mark Hatchman at ExtremeDRM reports on US legislation regarding the “analog hole”:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has unearthed a proposed bill that would regulate any analog recording device, allowing content providers to encode rights restrictions inside the content itself… The Analog Content Security Preservation Act of 2005 is scheduled to be debated in a U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property on Thursday.
Scary stuff… What a bad idea to put rights on everything that happens within the tangible reality of society. Not to mention that the notion of forcing all analog media into digital formats is plain stupid. And that is of course how they’re attempting to enforce “rights”. Check out what Chief Technical Obfuscator, Brad Hunt (MPAA) says:
“Sometimes I think that people feel that the MPAA is a bunch of Luddites… In this case, we are trying to incent the consumer to embrace the digital conversion, the digital connection…and that’s why we need to drive this technology forward.”
He doublespeaks his way into making it sound like their plan is to help the “consumer” but the sole goal is to control the distribution of all meatspace recorded activity… if they can control it the can forcibly suck money of the populace to access it. These parasites, the MPAA–don’t they know parasites end up killing their hosts? How would it work?
The bill would essentially require all analog devices, such as televisions, to either re-encode a signal into a digital form, complete with rights restrictions, or to encode the rights restrictions into the analog stream itself. Manufacturers would also be forbidden to develop a product that would remove those restrictions. Exectives at Veil Interactive, the developer of the VRAM technology at the heart of the legislation, described the technology as one that would not be noticeable by consumers.
A) This cannot work–it’s way hard to enforce and prevent circumvention of a forced analog-to-digital scheme
B) people have many legitimate reasons to prefer analog, a simple one being quality.
C) STUPID STUPID STUPID, to force all kinds of records into one ephemeral format that has no (and can have no) definite or proven ability to withstand millenia of preservation. If we can get anything from history it is because bits of it have been preserved and for all the wealth of knowledge and learning we gain from our past, we will definitely lose this by not permitting our present to be well documented and survive into the unimaginably distant future. To create an ongoing history that works to our benefit, we ought to have as many different modes of recorded preservation as possible–to insure against the fallibility of one. DRM is a mistake!
Sneak On! The Trojan USB Horse Technoia
4 November 2005 by Adam Cuothe
Lorraine Cosgrove Ware of CIO Magazine points out some interesting tidbits from the zine’s recent survey.
…technologies are becoming available that end users can use without the IT department’s knowledge, such as USB drives, inexpensive Web services and camera-equipped cell phones. These technologies can expose your organization to intentional or unintentional loss (i.e., theft or misplacement) of proprietary enterprise information.
Aside from the fact that the article doesn’t mention neural ticker-tape pods, she pretty much covers the important gadgets. I’ll say I’m a bit peeved that this is another article tossing around the phrase “intellectual property” when nobody has really ever proven that such a concept even makes sense much less can really exist. It’s as though the existence of something called “intellectual property” is now a given. Bull. It just adds up to more paranoia for the CIO to pressure the already over-burdened IT department.
On to my real point… An employee does not need a camera-equipped cell phone to capture and communicate sensitive internal company information, and you can bet there are reams of competitive intelligence-providing firms that have already successfully figured this out. I propose a better way to ensure your corporate intelligentsia stays put is to make your workplace a good one, filled with employees that feel comfortable in their employer’s trust and respect for their work. Foment a pleasant workplace in which employees don’t feel used, constantly scared for their jobs, or taken advantage of, and the standard employee will have little desire to betray you. I’m not saying don’t be careful to protect against viruses and trojans, etc. I’m saying enough with the ridiculous paranoia, especially every time a new gadget (digital or physical) worms its way into your fellows’ hearts or lustspots.
(P.S. I think I’ll make a new category so that I can start listing articles or press releases or whatnot that refer to “intellectual property” as a real given, without offering any justification for its use or existence.)
The Long Schwanz for SAP
29 October 2005 by Adam Cuothe
Shai Agassi, SAP’s product and technology group president, had this to say to AlwaysOn regarding SAP gettin’ some tail.
…The problem is that nobody could have built it before. To build the long tail before would have required building the whole infrastructure. We’re opening up the opportunity for people now to address the long tail with a significantly cheaper mode of distribution, if you will, or platforming. But to do it, you need a significant investment, and you need a ubiquitous platform underneath, and we’re the only player that has made the investment so far.
He continues to share how SAP is the only company among IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle, to develop something called an applistructure (combination infrastructure with applications), and how SAP is trying to open itself up to community processes. The point being, if I understand correctly, that SAP will ask the multitude of lonely little guys to suck its big schwanz. Seems SAP’s caught on to the notion that there’s money to be had if it can just get its software to address the unique special needs of a really vast range of small potential clients. This of course, is talk, in relation to the notion put forward by Chris Anderson, in his article, The Long Tail. But it’s something else as well. You see Agassi, in an effort to hype SAP’s hip quotient, is posturing about community. He’s connected (probably rightly so) an idea of how the immensely varied and wide-ranging open source community might address the problem of the long tail. Unfortunately SAP is one of the many companies that mostly pays lip service to open source models, tries to make itself sound like it’s on the band wagon but really isn’t. Let’s get specific.
Look at open source, for example… Most customers… gain is innovation by community. They gain the ability for thousands of innovators to leverage that same core, and build extensions to that core. And then they can combine the core, and by joint central maintenance of that core, they get the value of faster growth.
So SAP thinks it can do the same thing without subscribing to the Free/Libre or open source ideologies/practices/etc. Here is the give-away. Agassi like every corporate poseur, extolls the virtue of open source then immediately says his company will reap the same rewards by being “open” but not open source.
If you look at where SAP is today, we’re basically saying that we have a core that is extremely strong. And what we’re doing now is opening it up. We’re creating—not a software service, but a software interface and services. And the interface level is the most important thing.
See? He just smoothely switches the subject by using the word “open” by itself and saying how the company will let other people work with it. No, in fact the company retain’s strict controls, which fly in the face of Free software ideology. Be wary of this doublespeak strategy, a lot of companies are using it. It’s an, if A is A, then A is A that SAP, in its inability to de-stodgify, will be unable to attract the unique suckers of its potential johnpool. Its unexpected competitors are the ones that will get it–providing a real pounding to poor, misunderstood, Pareto.
Forrester Pins the Tail on the Millenials
26 October 2005 by Adam Cuothe
Forrester sent out an e-mail of nonsense bits on Friday. It’s quite entertaining, not as good as Edward Lear, but a fun read. I particularly liked the informative bit on millenials. Millenials are what some have penned the generation after X–Forrester latched on. Here’s a sample, I quote
The “Millennials” — born between 1980 and 2000 — have an innate ability to use technology, are comfortable multitasking while using a diverse range of digital media, and literally demand interactivity as they construct knowledge. Millennials lack the workaholic drive of their burned-out predecessors, but they compensate by using many technologies — often simultaneously — to get the job done quickly and have a personal life as well.
They demand interactivity as they construct knowledge! I’d like that expanded. Knowledge construction is a weighty pasttime, might they also be capable of managing it? Probably not yet because they require some experience in life. We’re told to respect what presumably will amount to their ideas on constructing knowledge, because they really do need respect. If you must have a personal life, interactivity is useful. Actually upon further reading,
Forrester’s data shows that they like social networking tools and learning online (for example, blogs, IM, Friendster-type sites, and eLearning), which mean jobs must connect people with each other and to the Web.
It’s explained. Because an employee likes blogs and instant messaging and social networks, it follows in this extraordinary leap, that the workplace must connect people with each other. I wonder if they meant by “connect” that the workplace connect people using those same internet sizzling pans of gadgetry they called out. Because if they only meant people need to “connect” like, “I’m totally connected to my cubemate, we have this intense reciprocal understanding of when to tell marketing to twiddle their dodils.” People in the workplace need to connect just via the regular course of the workday, if you cannot communicate, you’re probably not going to be able to work very effectively–that’s true even for jobs that require intense alone time, at some point you’ve got to divulge your work or talk to people. Here I am blogging, and I’ll tell you straight up, it’s not really something that does a lot to connect you with other people. It does a little. Rutting does a lot.
The American Bar Association has a similar reading on some of this, with its quick guide published on mentoring millenials.
Mentoring Do’s: Structured, supportive work environment, personalized work, interactive relationship, be prepared for demands, high expectations
Note the “interactive relationship” part.
I found Generations at Work‘s excerpt from a Claire Raines piece more informative though corroborating the general ideas.
Let me work with friends. Millennials say they want to work with people they click with. They like being friends with coworkers. Employers who provide for the social aspects of work will find those efforts well rewarded by this newest cohort. Some companies are even interviewing and hiring groups of friends.
It’s nice to work with people whose company you enjoy. I suppose that is subtly different than working with friends outright. Still it’s interesting, can a company harness the creative energy of a group of friends that already are a proven collaborative unit? There is a sinister side to this: can the tribe be subverted to the will of the corporation? Lastly,
Be flexible. The busiest generation ever isn’t going to give up its activities just because of jobs. A rigid schedule is a sure-fire way to lose your Millennial employees.
I’ll say but it’s not just the millenials–why does anyone think it’s ok to submit one’s own life to the workplace? Except for a few, most of us would much rather pursue our lives with less slavery. If the millenials can do nothing else (a name improvement wouldn’t hurt but that’s usually not up to the be-labeled generation), maybe they can spread this mindset among the employer, dictator, and despot classes (also known as the C-level). Maybe the Forrester writers need some friends to interact with, their e-mail missives might multitask as more than mollusk maquillage.
Do not Pass Unica, Go Directly to the DMA
19 October 2005 by Adam Cuothe
Unica CEO, Yuchun Lee, has a few extra things to do–presumably not tapping out hours plugged to a call center cubicle though. October 17th marks his ascent to the board of the Direct Marketing Association (DMA). No longer just a behind the scenes kind of guy, at top enterprise marketing management (EMM) company, Unica, he’s going to be approving intense fibs, err strategies. Actually Unica says that over 300 customer-focused companies use their products, which is a relief because you wouldn’t think Unica would do very well with non-customer-focused companies. What does customer-focused mean, is it to the customer’s wellfare? Is to the company’s?
Anyway, let’s get to the meat of the matter–I mean Mr. Lee’s insightful quote from the press release. He said
The DMA helps shape the way that businesses apply data-driven marketing methods . . . I am very honored to be elected to serve on the board of such a committed and influential organization within our industry…”
So I suppose the answer to customer-focusedness might be found within the realm of the DMA and that is where we must look. What exactly is the DMA committed to? Let’s examine its strategy (pdf), which is available from its web site.
Enter vision! “The DMA will represent the entire Direct Marketing Community across the complete, end-to-end, Direct Marketing Process, in order to create the most attractive market space for all participants.” I ask, who are “all participants” if not the marketers and the marketees? It’s a good question to ask, because according to the DMA’s response, it is “…concerned about the welfare of anyone who uses DM techniques or makes purchases or donations in response to them.” That clearly includes customers.
The next statement in its strategy is the jello star salve on a business slur savvyman. Pull out your scotch, lunchmates: “The Mission of The DMA is to expand the convergence zone of the Direct Marketing market space in order to maximize the long-term economic interests of its members.” That convergence sweetness is where suppliers and customers meet, they say. Well let’s examine what the DMA does to “maximize the long-term economic interests of its members.” I think it’s clear for the supply-side, but what about the consumer-side? I looked. I really did. After all, I want to maximize my long-term economic interests. I tried to see what I’d get if I could find some way to join an organization “…dedicated to helping members increase their effectiveness and profitability…”
But if you’re just some duddy on the other end of convergence (a customer type) the DMA doesn’t actually offer anything to maximize your long term economic interests. According to the DMA’s web site on joining “Membership in DMA is corporate which means that companies join DMA, and individual employees of those companies enjoy the benefits of membership. Annual dues begin at $1,250…” and look who the members are.
The DMA says “Our mission is to encourage the education, growth and profitability of our members and their adherence to high ethical standards.” but isn’t an honest statement of intentions part of adhering to high ethical standards? If so, I believe the DMA should revise its vision and strategy statement to bring it in-line with the fact that its real intentions have nothing to do with the long-term economic interest of the entire convergence zone. Just a select few participants–and especially those that fork over upwards of 12 hundred (USD). Maybe if the DMA had just stuck with its fifth strategic goal “Increased Direct Marketing in all Intensity Segments” it would ring true, even if Mr. Lee hasn’t a clue what an intensity segment is.
Google Gazes at Sun Dribble, where's the Sizzle?
5 October 2005 by Adam Cuothe
It was on every IT-related web site today, the shining promise of a blossoming net scrotum, which would lift web searchers to the next level of connectedness and force Bill to install some solar heating panels at the Gates’s pad. But it didn’t (and I tend to like Googlestuff) . Everyone speculated on a Google/Sun/OpenOffice.org related Web-based office app. Everyone thought that was the big announcement and well, it was just barely hinted at as a maybe sort of something kinda’ remotely related possibility. That’s a relief.
The Internet is great for a lot of stuff and maybe it has its place for many types of applications, but STOP WITH THE ON-LINE app hope already. Recreating an entire office suite as a Web-based app, really has dubious merit. It was accomplished rather well a long time ago (ThinkFree Office), it’s not new, and it sorta’ works well, but sorta’ not well enough when you can just download the fantastic, flyingfish of feature fidelity, OpenOffice.org. People keep saying, year after year, that all these apps ought to be web-based. But why? It’s not the best solution for everything. How many musicians are going find their specialized music composition, sound sculpting, and mixing apps to be tied to a flaky (even if it is up 99.9% of the time on Linux servers, the individual’s Internet connection may not be) web site? How about your company’s graphic designer? Is it useful to have a web-based Gimp (or Photoshop or Flash design app?) Not now… but “maybe someday” is often the response.
It’s not that straight-forward and most of the time pure and totalitarian web-based proponents (though unclear in what they want) they mostly are speaking about just business apps (so forget the musician mentioned above). One of the greatest things about the personal computer is how it opened up so many different new avenues of possibility, empowing individuals (in marketing-speak that is) for his/her own empowerment at creativity and DIYness (that’s do-it-yourselfness if you never experienced punk-rock in your youth). Desktop publish! Personal accounting! Logo design! (and that’s just part of what made-over the business world). How about the many other things available to the morays of personal eels (userland)? Print your own greeting card, remix your favourite song? What I’m saying is, the mandate to make everything web-based is based in great potential but in the unintelligent babblehead approach (à la Ellison NC-style) is possibly an even bigger threat to freedom if the computer manufacturers go along with that idea, than proprietary software was when the manufacturers agreed, both in writing and deed, to slather the MS joybulb.
Where is the Free Software Foundation? Because surely, a combination of network-only computers spreading forth to adopt the web-only based apps means users losing their freedom to do what they want with their computers. That is the true problem with pure Web apps. But that’s overstating it… that’s an overhyped dystopic vision that surely won’t happen. Though, I wouldn’t mind choice, innovative web-apps existing alongside full PC-installed ones, and that is where Google/Sun would be better served and can better serve you and I.
There’s a wealth of useful things I could envision doing with an OpenOffice.org suite, which seemlessly integrated its lookup, spellcheck, fact-checking, translation (CAT and trans memories), STORAGE, e-mail, mail-merge, RSS stat/analysis aggregation, real time business intelligence, and such with all the Google networked capabilities (gmail, search, etc.). That would be useful, and it would be more in-line with using personal computers to the best advantage and the web to an even better advantage, without eliminating personal freedom. Network computing is just a stupid idea by itself but integrated with the PC, it’s a great thing.
Google and Sun are smart. Their release caught a lot of attention, but gave dead dry ostrich bones to the pressanalyst jackals.
(PS: what’s with the Java and Google toolbar? Nothing exciting there, it’s a nothing announcement… all it will do is maybe generate a bit more traffic for Google, and Google buys a few more Sun servers, big deal–something else in the works but an ominous force stopped Schmidt/McNealy from talking)
The Crummy Awards
27 September 2005 by Adam Cuothe
CRM Magazine has pulled off what it calls, its 2005 CRM Leader Awards. I’d like to recommend they make use of the jargon, sound it out, C-R-M, yes that would be The Crummies. The statue might not be made that well but think of the press. Actually let’s look at what their winners said about it. Sage Software (as they’re known in North America) notes its products won a few awards and then, gleaming like a sagacious goat climbing its way across uneven lattices of rock, talks about CEO, Ron Verni’s, award as an influential industry leader. Now what makes Mr. Verni so influential? From the Crummy Awards Article, it’s based on
an individual’s potential influence on the market due to recent management changes, product line restructuring, or a merger or acquisition.
Sage has done its share of acquiring, in fact it recently restructured its product line to take some of that into account, but also to clink the crystal of its corporate name change from Best to Sage. The one thing I find curious is how Sage PR spins this little badge of net honour, Sage titled the press release
Sage Software Receives Multiple Market Leadership Awards For Entire CRM Product Portfolio And CEO’s Strategic Vision
What part of the Sage acquisitions was visionary? Maybe it wasn’t the buying so much as the naming! After all, naming is an important process… even since the beginning of Christian time. Is “influential” really the same as “visionary?” Wise guy, that Verni, wise.
Spring Forward Springdoo
24 September 2005 by Adam Cuothe
Found in Email, again with feeling by New Zealand IDG’s Chris Bell, this bit of info about Springdoo. Not only should the parent company be charged with grotesque severity of child abuse in naming the little one, Springdoo, but Springdoo will be dodging a lifelong dillemna of disappearing dough (I predict). It has drained millions to deliver voice e-mail to the world. It’s system does sound like its well-done. I get to record a voice message, have it delivered as an e-mail link to my recipient, who then gets to hear it at any time without having their mailboxes cluttered with MBs of sound. But what is this really useful for? The article suggests communicating emotion in quick messages… fair enough, but I don’t see that being a huge selling point. E-mail is convenient, it let’s me quickly scan messages and save them for later review. Voice mail is perhaps useful though often annoying with its total lack of easy (time efficient) scannability, and difficult navigation techniques. I can’t see why I’d like to receive a voice-based e-mail. It would annoy me. I can see it possibly being useful for someone to say, deliver a speech to a subscribed audience, or maybe a memo that somehow requires voice intonation. Maybe they should market it more in that direction than as another form of e-mail service.
Deploy the Hummingbird ECM
15 September 2005 by Adam Cuothe
Hummingbird, that company known once for its doodadery, then its nascent portal (as in 1998 or so, those seemed like they might make a bang), and finally ECM, has been chosen by the US Missile Defense Agency for its document management and records prowess.
the United States Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is successfully deploying Hummingbird Enterprise™ for its electronic document and records management system (EDRMS). The fully integrated document and records management and e-mail management solution provides the MDA users with a flexible and secure environment, within the familiar Outlook application, to safely capture, share and manage all their electronic data, forms and e-mails, enhancing operational efficiencies across the Agency.
Wait, they said Outlook? Oh yes, because Outlook is that well-known, trusted application, with a wholesome bowl of security features and robust reliability. To be fair, let’s assume the safety and security are actually what Hummingbird brings to the stronghold. By the way, ever notice that the bad guys are reported as having compounds, while the good guys are reported as having, maybe a command post, base, etc.? Wouldn’t it be grim if the agency had a missile called the Hummingbird (the closest I found was a helicopter named Hummingbird Warrior? The press release could have been much more interesting, talking about the Missile Defense launching its Hummingbird deployment, with the naughty hackers hiding in their compounds unable to penetrate the safety of Outlook.
Last interesting tidbit, back in 2001, Raytheon grabbed a Hummingbird product in its development of an imaging and doc management system for the Maine Dept of Transportation. Raytheon develops missile defense.
How Doth Thou Love Oracle, Mr. Siebel?
14 September 2005 by Adam Cuothe
In the recent news Oracle buys Siebel (not news anymore) but take a look at this link from the Siebel homepage. Just go to the Siebel.com web site, scroll down a little under the “Learn More” heading until you see the second link, which says “Considering PeopleSoft/Oracle? We can help you decide. See what the experts are saying.” click it. You’ll arrive on this page. Well if they happen to remove it as I expect they will soon, here’s an excerpt of what it says:
“It’s been a confusing few years for PeopleSoft/JD Edwards customers. And now, with Oracle’s acquisition of PeopleSoft complete, the future is more uncertain than ever.”
And, let’s say that’s not enough, here’s a screenshot
Grin. There was a time, when people left Oracle and built their own fancy fiefdoms. Ellison must have loved giving Siebel and PeopleSoft their shortlived run for the kingdom and then jerking the rope that realed them back to the fold with an armful of “satisfied” revenue streams. But here we see Siebel putting a decent amount of effort into discrediting the future of PeopleSoft (err JD Edwards?) customers with Oracle. In fact on the page I referenced above they collected quite a nice assortment of quotes from industry analysts like Meta, to build their case for the uncertain future PeopleSoft customers were to destined face. As if they could be a siren in the corporate internaut’s ear–that this is the time to CHOOSE SIEBEL. But if you’d taken too long to choose, well, I guess it just wouldn’t matter because Siebel decided to sell its revenue streams’, err, customers’ futures to Oracle as well.
One need look only so far as the press release to get the most direct confusion on the situation from the founder’s mouth.
“Today is a great day for Siebel Systems’ customers, partners, shareholders, and employees,” said Thomas M. Siebel, Chairman of Siebel Systems. “The combination of Siebel applications with the development capacity of Oracle to enhance our CRM product set assures our customers continuing success. This is a very beneficial business combination that will allow us to be even more effective in delivering high quality, leading edge solutions into the hands of satisfied customers.”
Don’t let this be a one sided issue though, what did Mr. Ellison have to say in the same press release? “In a single step, Oracle becomes the number one CRM applications company in the world…” Is Larry trying to satisfy… the end user customer? How about the shareholder?
All Hail the Community
25 July 2005 by Adam Cuothe
So the team over at Technology Evaluation Centers is running a series of articles on the community (in open source sense).
Labeled a disruptive technology, it’s changing the landscape of enterprise software development, distribution, and consumption. Open source software is grounded in the strength of its communities. This report and interview series examine how to engage and successfully maintain such communities.
I’d like to start by pointing out, the community, is kind of creepy. Everytime I read an article about Free or Open Source software, I see the community mentioned. Nowadays I can’t read that phrase without hearing some sort of dark and foreboding music in the background, like something out of an early black and white film. Or maybe it’s the chant of the circus freaks in Tod Browning’s aptly title film, Freaks, endlessly repeating “Gooble-gobble, gooble-gobble, We will make her one of us.”
Fortunately there is meaning behind this open source community. It’s not simply propaganda and that’s why I think this is an interesting read. Instead of just chanting over and over, the community, it attempts to explain what this community is and it does so with insight into how it’s changing things in the enterprise software industry. Something most community-chanting articles miss. Especially pertinent is at the end of the article, when the author points out how it’s the community that is the really significant thing about the whole open source software phenomenon. Things are changing, disrupting they say, so we’d better not pout, and we’d better not give naughty vendors the time of day when they tell us they’ll give us the source code under a non-disclosure agreement.
Read on for the next few days, he promises interviews with well-known community leaders Jeff Bates (from Slashdot), Karl Fogel (on the development end of things from the Subversion project), and Louis Suárez-Potts, who heads-up the OpenOffice.org project. All of whom, I’d expect have interesting points to make and the experience to back it up.
