Skip to main content

CIO: Changing Sourcing Strategies

Sourcing strategies are evolving rapidly. CIOs have to handle this shift, where innovation isn't coming from the usual vendors. There is a clear movement toward those who can facilitate the most critical agendas to enable digital business. New organizational structures are required that allow for a culture of innovation and experimentation. In order to innovate, teams that typically consist of larger, slower-moving units must transform into small, startup-type or project-based units.

AppDynamics CEO, Jyoti Bansal, often speaks about his methodology for creating a startup within a startup. Many new product initiatives begin with a small team of two-to-four engineers and product managers tasked with building a minimum viable product. In this model startup teams are augmented with small acquisitions which come with talent. This new talent provides new perspectives, skills, and core intellectual property allowing the acquirer to meet customer needs quickly. This is similar to the model employed at Google, Facebook, Yahoo, or Twitter allowing for incubation and experimentation with new, unorthodox ideas. At Google, some of these new ideas become winners like Gmail and Google Apps for business, while many fail. Some of these new products take several iterations before they can be productized. Google Talk is one example that was allowed to “sunset” but was reborn as Google Hangouts, which has had rampant adoption with its second iteration and integration of other services. Google Hangouts on Android has over 500 million installations.

This is the new pace of innovation, something CIOs must now replicate in their own operations. A Gartner headline says, "Digital Business Economy is Resulting in Every Business Unit Becoming a Technology Startup." What this means is if you do not evolve your organization, thinking, and sourcing, you will be unable to compete. The furious and often large acquisition strategy, results in non-integrated technologies which fail to compete in a time where technology becomes a major advantage in digital transformations.
Within IT operations management, an area I've studied and tracked for over two decades, we saw many large acquisitions over the years from HP, IBM, BMC, and CA. These acquisitions provided growth and breadth, by adding new capabilities that were slotted into a portfolio. That growth strategy though, which had once been effective, ended up creating too much complexity. The complexity required services, which in turn led to challenges in staying current.

This technology debt and lag do not meet the needs of today's technology buyers. The large acquisition strategy has slowly fallen off; meanwhile, these big players have had major challenges making the transition to organic innovation. Gartner predicts that "By 2017, at least two of the "big four" IT operations management vendors will cease to be viable strategic partners for 60 percent of I&O organizations." We've already seen this play out with the privatization of yesterday's innovators and ongoing execution issues with others.
New innovative upstarts in ITOM run at a different speeds, allowing them to create, build, and provide the value customers want, without the heavy services, consulting, and integration burdens. These new vendors have highly differentiated strategies and approaches that keep them innovative and give them a competitive advantage.  
The question remains for CIOs: Of these innovative vendors, which will be able to continue down the innovation path as they move from being medium-sized companies to become large companies? As revenues of these innovative vendors continue to increase substantially, innovation at scale remains an open question. But at AppDynamics, we're focused on culture and strategy to enable and retain our innovation as we build the next generation ITOM technology for software-defined businesses.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dynatrace Growth Misinformation

For my valued readers: I wanted to point out some issues I’ve recently seen in the public domain. As a Gartner analyst, I heard many claims about 200% growth, and all kind of data points which have little basis in fact. When those vendors are asked what actual numbers they are basing those growth claims on, often the questions are dodged. Dynatrace, recently used the Gartner name and brand in a press release. In Its First Year as an Independent Company, Gartner Ranks Dynatrace #1 in APM Market http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/06/prweb12773790.htm I want to clarify the issues in their statements based on the actual Gartner facts published by Gartner in its Market Share data: Dynatrace says in their press release: “expand globally with more than three times the revenue of other new generation APM vendors” First, let’s look at how new the various technologies are: Dynatrace Data Center RUM (DCRUM) is based on the Adlex technology acquired in 2005, but was cr...

Misunderstanding "Open Tracing" for the Enterprise

When first hearing of the OpenTracing project in 2016 there was excitement, finally an open standard for tracing. First, what is a trace? A trace is following a transaction from different services to build an end to end picture. The latency of each transaction segment is captured to determine which is slow, or causing performance issues. The trace may also include metadata such as metrics and logs, more on that later. Great, so if this is open this will solve all interoperability issues we have, and allow me to use multiple APM and tracing tools at once? It will help avoid vendor or project lock-in, unlock cloud services which are opaque or invisible? Nope! Why not? Today there are so many different implementations of tracing providing end to end transaction monitoring, and the reason why is that each project or vendor has different capabilities and use cases for the traces. Most tool users don't need to know the implementation details, but when manually instrumenting wi...

IBM Pulse 2008 - Review

I spent Monday-Wednesday at IBM Pulse in Orlando. It was a good show, but quite a few of the sessions were full when I arrived. It was frustrating because they didn't offer them more than once. The morning sessions were mostly pie in the sky, and not very useful to me. I got to spend a lot of time with senior people in engineering, architecture, and acquisitions/strategy. I also got to meet people I knew from online or other dealings with IBM. Overall, the show was a good use of my time, and I found it enjoyable. Here are some of my highlights: ITM 6.2.1 improvements including agentless capabilities and such. New reporting framework based on BIRT which will be rolling forward. New UI which is being pushed and was on display from TBSM 4.2. Hearing about what other customers are up to (mostly bad decisions from what I've seen). Affirmation of ITNM (Precision) as a best of breed tool, with a excellent roadmap. Some things which are bad and make no sense: Focus on manufactur...