Recently in In My Humble Opinion... Category

Granted we have had many blows to the integrity of the financial services industry to date but the newly disclosed actions of John Thain go way beyond simple greed, corruption and questionable judgment.

Let's start with this: Thain should have known better. After all, he replaced a CEO who embodied the corruption and excesses of the time - Richard Grasso. Grasso, you may remember, got the boot because he approved his stunning pay package - a whopping $187.5 million a year.

But Thain did him one better. In December, before Bank of America could complete its acquisition of Merrill Lynch, Thain hurriedly pushed through gigantic bonuses (somewhere around $4 BILLION!) for himself and his executive cronies. The bonuses are usually paid in January but he forced them to be paid in December. Why before the BofA acquisition? One can only speculate that BofA probably would not have approved of them, given their shock at the fact that the brokerage had lost $15 BILLION in the fourth quarter and more that $27 Billion for the year.

Perhaps it was Thain's end-of-year vacation in Vail that got people up in arms even as his soon-to-be boss at BofA, Ken Lewis, recommended against it.

But no, the icing on the cake? Thain's decision to spend $1.2 MILLION decorating his Manhattan office -- this as Merrill Lynch was hemorrhaging money and layoffs were pending. How nice that he has volunteered to pay for these extravagances, stating, "They were a mistake in the light of the world we live in today. I will therefore reimburse the company for all of the costs incurred."  Ya think???

The era of entitlement at financial companies must change if we are to see any real change for the better. If not, I fear we will read more stories similar to this one. And to Mr. Thain, all I can say is:

 May you rot in an exceptionally hot place.

 Yours in better times in 2009.

 Claudia

Here are some of the key findings from the survey:

1. Ten percent of boards relegate IT matters to a board committee. Geesh -- you mean they don't even talk about these matters in the actual Board meetings? Guess not -- see the next bullet...

2. Only 11 percent of boards even discuss IT at every meeting. Something as critical at IT infrastructure, direction, funding, etc., gets ignored almost 90% of the time?

3. Fourteen percent of the directors say that their boards are "completely and actively involved" in IT strategy. Let's hear it for these intelligent Boards and their repective companies. I wish I knew who they were.

4. At least those that report effectiveness in executing IT strategy admit that it correlates to better financial performance. Perhaps the other 86% of the respondents should sit up and listen.

5. According the the survey, 52% of the respondents say their board will NOT be spending any more time on IT over the next three years than it currently does.

6. Interestingly enough, the results indicated that when the CEO leads the discussion, boards are more involved in IT. The CEO gets it -- even if the rest of the directors don't...

This in the face of overwhelming evidence that there is a significant correlation between the attention paid to IT and corporate performance. Shame, shame!

Kenneth Porrello, a principal with Deloitte Consulting, states "...a gap exists between the emphasis the board appears to place on IT and the steps they are taking to address it. Many directors and senior executives blame this gap on the number of things that have been hitting the board's agenda and a resulting lack of time". Yeah, right -- like excessive executive pay, for example? Maybe investigations into compliance issues?

Mr. Porrello continues "...this excuse is becoming less credible given the growing importance of IT". Yes, indeed, it is important. According to T.K. Kerstetter, President and CEO of Corporate Board Member, "...technology and IT are key business strategies and typically are accompanied by capital budgets reaching as high as a billion dollars in larger companies. The days of not understanding IT in the boardroom are gone, and I expect we will see more CIOs and CTOs invited to serve as board members in the years ahead".

I can only hope his prediction comes true.

Yours in BI (and Board attention) success.

Claudia

OK -- I admit it -- I am not a great fan of either the Bears or the Colts. And the game was a slog fest in pouring rain. The fans must have wished they were home watching it in a warm, dry room with a 52 inch TV... So what was the high point? The ads, of course. For what they paid for these ads, you had better hope the companies got attention. Here are my favs and raves...

The runaway best ad was run before the first 2 minutes of the game were even played. Many people missed it because it was so early in the game. It was the ad for Blockbuster. If you missed the rabbit and gerbil (hamster?), you missed a truly funny ad. I still laugh every time I view it. Congrats to whatever ad agency came up with that one.

My sentimental favorites? The GM Robot and the Budweiser Dalmatian. Awwwww -- just too cute... The Sprint Broadband and Coke Assembly line were right up there too.

My least favorites? GoDaddy.com gets my vote for worst ad. Runner ups for worst ads are the Sierra Mist and Emerald Nuts ads. Just not funny...

Most controversial or maybe just strangest? Gotta be the Snickers ad (OK, guys, what was your opinion?)

Most disappointing -- most of the Coke ads. They are usually so clever, funny, heart-warming or something. This year, the majority were just hohum...

You can see all the ads by clicking here.

Wanna see the winners and losers from years gone by? CIO Magazine has an article rating the 10 best and worst over the years. Makes for fond memories... Remember Mean Joe Green?

OK -- now it is your turn. Which ones did you love or hate? Cast your vote in the comments area. Can't wait to see what you think.

Yours in BI success.

Claudia

Technorati Tags: Super Bowl, Super Bowl Ads, Best and Worst Super Bowl Ads

There is a very short article in January's Wired Magazine about the US State Department's decision to include the tags in all passports to make it easier for officials to get all your personal information -- name, address, birth date, and so on -- lots of statistics that would be very useful in the hands of the wrong people. These new passports will have a distinctive logo on the front and the RFID tag embedded in the back cover. So -- don't want your information broadcasting throughout the world? Think twice before you decide to tamper with your passport. Be forewarned that this act is punishable by 25 years in prison (and I bet you get a tag implanted in your body there!).

However, if you are still determined to rid yourself of this tag, here are some suggestions from the magazine:

1. You could "accidently" leave your passport in your pants pocket when you launder them. The washer will disable the tag but unfortunately it will also probably ruin your passport too. They are paper-based still.

2. You could nuke your passport in the microwave. That would certainly disable the tag but, the article points out, the tag might burst into flames. A scorched patch on the back of your passport is a telltale sign that is just about guaranteed to get you a "special" customs search -- with rubber gloves...

3. The best approach they say? Grab a hammer and smash the thing. Yep, hitting the chip with a blunt object should disable it and not leave obvious tampering marks. A nonfunctional RFID tag does not invalidate your passport so it is still usable. However, again I would bet that you would be more likely to be selected for that extra scrutiny by our government folks...

I dunno -- which is worse -- having your personal information stolen and used in nefarious ways or going through the TSA searches every time you travel internationally? Or worse -- risking 25 years at a government-sponsored "vacation resort"?

There's just gotta be a better way... Wish me luck as I renew my passport!

Yours in BI success.

Claudia

Technorati Tags: RFID, RFID passports, security breach

Why was the ODS declared dead? Because many people mistakenly believe that the ODS is a staging area for the data warehouse. Whether or not you need a staging area for the raw data coming into a data warehouse is another discussion altogether but let’s stick with the ODS for this blog.

OK – the basics. What is an ODS? In the mid-1990’s, the ODS was introduced by Bill Inmon and myself in our book, “Building the Operational Data Store”. In it, we defined the ODS as a “subject-oriented, integrated, current, volatile collection of data used to support the tactical decision-making process for the enterprise.”

Let’s go through it slowly to make sure everyone gets the definition:

1. Subject-oriented – The ODS is built similarly to the data warehouse in that its data content is focused about different data subjects. Examples of data subjects are customer, product, and order data.

2. Integrated – the data from each subject area is fully integrated – again much like the data in the data warehouse. It is cleaned up as much as is technologically and humanly possible during the ETL process before it is populated into the store.

3. Current – the data in the ODS is as current as we can technologically make it – a significant difference from a traditional data warehouse. Current as in as close to “real time” as we can get. The data probably won’t be synchronous with the operational system source because of the latencies inherent with integration but it will be close.

4. Volatile – major differentiator from a data warehouse. The new or changed data flowing into the ODS updates the appropriate records or fields exactly like you would update a record in an OLTP operational system. For example, when a new customer address is brought in, the old customer address is overwritten. An audit trail is created to trace the change but the old data is gone. If you want the history of the customer’s moves, you will have to either go to the audit trail or the data warehouse where history is preserved in snapshots.

It is this last aspect of the ODS that differentiates it significantly from a data warehouse and puts it in the camp of operational systems. Because of this feature, referential integrity must be fully implemented. Cascading updates and deletes, complete edit checks, and so on are needed just as they are in operational systems.

I just don’t get it. Does this sound like a holding area for extracts from operational systems? Don’t think so… In fact, it sounds an awful lot like the newly invented customer hub (CDI fame) if that hub contains only current customer data. However, the ODS was originally developed to integrate both current master data and current transactional data – the latter inclusion making it broader in purpose than the CDI hub. In any case, it was NEVER defined as a staging area for the data warehouse. I suggest that those calling their staging areas an ODS start calling those components by their rightful name. That would certainly help clear up the confusion.

The ODS’ purpose ranges from producing operational reports to propagating operational data for downstream operational systems to supporting the migration of legacy systems. And, of course, like any other operational database – it can be a source of data for the data warehouse. Perhaps it was ahead of its time when we first introduced it but to malign such a useful component in your arsenal of integration capabilities is just a shame.

Hopefully this short tutorial on what an ODS is has helped dispel the incorrect notions floating around. I feel like Mark Twain who said “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated…” The ODS is not dead – it is alive and kicking more than ever helping companies integrate their operational data for operational BI and master data management.

If you are interested in a white paper I wrote on the ODS (lots more detail about what it is, how to build one, its uses, and how to get going), just send an email at CImhoff@IntelSols.com. I'll be happy to send it to you.

Long live the ODS!

Yours in BI (and ODS) success,

Claudia

Mr. Soat cites the following examples as a lack of innovation raging through our country:

1. A popular movie -- Superman Returns -- gives us one more view for the 70-year old comic book character. OK, he has a good point. Not exactly a new theme here, and the style of the movie is described as "retro" in its approach. I haven't seen it yet and am leaning toward renting it rather than coughing up the $9 bucks to see it on the big screen.

2. DaimlerChrysler has announced that it will be manufacturing a "new" version of a 1970s muscle car -- the Dodge Challenger -- shades of Daisy Duke, y'all.! The car will feature the long hood, short deck, wide stance and two-door coupe body style that distinguished the Challengers of the 1970s. According to the President of Chrysler: "We drew on the rich heritage of the Dodge Challenger, but with contemporary forms and technologies. It's not just a re-creation; it's a reinterpretation." Uh huh... They are really pushing the frontiers -- pushing them back to 1970!

3. Mr Soat even takes issue with calling the iconic iPod innovative. He considers it is just a digital version of the Sony Walkman. At least he does see Apple's iTunes business model as truly innovative. It must be -- look at how all the media companies are trying to shut it down.

As if these examples aren't enough, Information Week recently did a survey of companies throughout the globe regarding their desire to adopt new technologies. Only 6% of US companies said they wanted to lead; China was way ahead with 19% of its companies ready and willing to embrace new technologies. OK -- so we don't like change. That's not necessarily bad -- I have always preferred evolution to revolution. It may take a bit longer but the changes are less drastic and disruptive.

What do you think? Should we throw caution to the wind or take the more cautious route?

Yours in BI Success.

Claudia

The following is an excerpt from a newsletter written by Joseph Rodenberg, Managing Partner of Rodenberg Tillman & Associates, and Benelux consultancy. I have no idea, nor does he reference where he got his numbers from so they may be suspect. Mr. Rodenberg states the reasons for a lack of US innovation are:

"1. Growth in investments in R&D outside the US and Europe. The ratio of the investments domestic/foreign for some countries currently is: US 1:3, Germany 1:2, France 1:3, UK 1:4 and the Netherlands 1:6.

2. The start again of the mergers & acquisitions mania. According to research of KPMG the year 2000 has been the top with a total of US$ 1.400 billion. In 2005 the amount has been US$ 520 billion and just in the first quarter 2006 US$ 310 billion with a decrease in estimated shareholders value of US$ 80 billion! Numerous research studies confirm again and again that two third of all mergers & acquisitions fail. Does management forget to learn from the past? Should we not become more critical to top management with improved intelligence based insights and foresights?

3. Arrogance and self complacency. One of the objectives of competitive intelligence is to fight the arrogance and complacency of management. A nice example of arrogance is the following statement: “I see no scenario whatsoever where Toyota will pass us in share” by Dieter Zetsche, CEO of DaimlerChrysler US in February 2002. At that time DaimlerChrysler had the number three position in automotive in the US. In 2006 Toyota probably will become the number one. "

Yeow -- he certainly doesn't think very highly of our innovative capabilities. I must say though, he does have a point. We must be ever vigilant and ever encouraging of the creative process. Having a teenager in a public school, I am very sensitive to the math and science skills being taught. Reading is another hot button for me. I worry that these skills are languishing with the advent of video games, and other distractions. But I will save that for another blog...

On the positive side, I see some terrific innovation in unexpected places. Microsoft and Google seem to be leading the way with some of their latest creations. Microsoft is currently working on new applications for doing searches. The company is experimenting on technology that would make it possible to take a picture of an object with a camera phone, and then use the image to do a search of a Web-based database for more information. The example they give for its usage? Take a picture of a product in a store, and then do a price-comparison search while standing in front of the product. The only cloud I see is that the technology is being investigated by the Web Search and Mining group within Microsoft Research Asia, according to a company blog. OK -- so it is not in the US; it is a Chinese facility...

Google, a long time innovative Internet search company, has upped the ante with its OneBox for Enterprise offering. The company plans to announce a new enterprise developer program, new enterprise partnerships, and new enterprise search hardware that offers secure, real-time access to corporate data stores. They call it a search appliance that will extend the all too familiar Google keyword search box to a much broader spectrum of information.

"It's not just looking through Web pages," says Dave Girouard, general manager of Google's enterprise business. "It's actually a front door to business applications."

According to the article, OneBox enables the insertion of real-time business data into search results. Think about it. This means that OneBox allows Google's enterprise hardware to search virtually all content and business data such as rapidly changing transactional data; structured data like organized information in a BI environment; or unstructured data, like Web pages or documents on a file server.

Here are a couple of examples given in the InformationWeek newsletter: "A business user could view financial data in Oracle Financials through a query entered into the Google search box. A user of Cisco's MeetingPlace Express conferencing system could access information from the conferencing system, such as contact and presence information."

The article quotes Keith Collins, CTO of SAS, saying that his company partnered with Google to help make business intelligence more accessible for customers. He believes that the search box will improve information access for business users. "It's about a simple interface that allows you to search across multiple types of information and get it all back as a collection," he says.

A word of caution -- obviously an easy to use search mechanism is part of the solution, but it is certainly not all of it. "Search doesn't help you with workflow or process," Collins stated. Right on. Nor does it solve all the onerous issues surrounding data integration and quality. You still have to lay the foundation for the Google search to use.

So -- what do you think? Are we losing our innovative edge or are we just starting another wave of creative thinking.

I hope the latter but I would like to hear from you.

Yours in BI success,

Claudia

From reading the press release, I am encouraged that IBM sees the portal technology as another piece of their SOA architectural framework rather than as a replacement for a source of truly integrated data. The company states that "Bowstreet will help further IBM's strategy around service oriented architectures (SOA). SOA, as you may know, is a standards-based framework that enables an enterprise to generate a view of the business in which the business rules or delivery of services are "decoupled" from the applications or systems that provide these services. The key to the architecture is the physical separation of the business services or rules from the transport layer or plumbing that delivers them. The application or business process itself becomes a coordinated set of services as well (e.g., processing a customer order, allocating inventory, managing data quality and so on). If interested in more information, please read an article I wrote on this subject by clicking here.

How you physically implement this architecture is, of course, up to you. You must decide what technologies or plumbing must be in place to deliver either business intelligence or business services. And this is where Bowstreet will play. Will you have bundled services called by multiple applications or separate services called independently by the various applications in your SOA? Your choice...

I can only hope that IBM does a better job of understanding that no matter what technology you throw at a problem, you must understand and treat the underlying disease (in many cases, the unintegrated nature of the various sources of data) rather than ignore it and simply treat the symptoms.

Yours in BI success,

Claudia

The article starts out by stating “You’ve worked hard for your money. Now it’s time to enjoy it.” I could suggest that a sizable donation to the Red Cross or UNICEF might make a much more lasting impression but I’d be booed out of the blog world…

So, what’s hot this year? Here are the magazine’s car picks for work and play, along with a short blurb about why. The blurbs are just amazing – I swear I am not making them up. I also include the price tag for each little gem, in case you are ready to shop.

Work:

First on the list was the Audi A8 L. Not sure why it is important for a work car but they state that the car will go from 0-60 mph in 6.3 seconds. Guess it becomes mandatory if you have to run from the government if you are not in compliance. The blurb? “A seductive sedan with a superior user interface. Great creature comforts (!) … deliver a great ride.” BI tool vendors, take heed. Not only should you deliver a good user interface but it had better be sexy and contain a porta-potty. $72.090.

Next was the Cadillac CTS-V. Yes, Cadillac, the car my old man wanted all his life. This one is a lot different from the urban assault vehicle of the past. It takes this rocket on wheels only 4.6 seconds to reach 60 mph! And this is for work? You will never be late for meetings ever again. The authors say “Appropriate to drive with customers or business guests…” Only if you want to scare them silly. $53,000

Last car suggested for work is the BMW 330i which will get you to 60 in somewhere between 6.1 and 6.2 seconds. “Really a 5 Series in disguise. [Why the disguise?] Great performance and a solid value. More room makes it practical for business.” Sounds pretty boooooring… $42,865

Now for the really good part of the article: the top 7 cars for CEOs to play with.

Play Sedans

Mercedes CLS 55 which reaches 60 mph in 4.5 seconds. “The CLS is more curvaceous than the typical Mercedes. The supercharged version is the quickest Benz yet, but still fits four comfortably.” Is this a car they are describing or a supermodel off her attention deficit drugs? All that for $85,000.

Bentley Flying Spur – the name alone leaves me giggling. “Yeah, I own a flying spur and it only cost me a mere $185,000…” What the heck is a flying spur – help me out here if you know. The write-up is priceless – “The accent is decidedly upper-class British [for the snobs in the audience]. Offers top speed of 195 mph for the daring… a combination of lordly might and opulent luxury.” OK – this gets the prize from me. 195 mph? Where in the US are you going to try that out? Lordly might and opulent luxury? I give up.

Play Sports cars

Ferrari F430 Spider – now we’re talking! 0-60 in 4 seconds. (I think I left my teeth back in the garage.) “An almost otherworldly experience, with an intoxicating exhaust note…” These guys have been breathing a bit too much of that note, me thinks. And with a price tag of $180,785, you better have more than smoke in your wallet.

Ford GT – my word, a lowly Ford in the rarified air of the Ferrari! And it will beat the socks off the Ferrari (and anything else on the road) by reaching 60 in a mere 3.6 seconds. “This is good old-fashioned American muscle, not Euro refinement. Essentially two seats strapped to an engine, and drop-dead gorgeous, to boot.” I am not making this up. They make it sound like trailer trash finally won the lottery. How much? $153,345 – yeow!

Play Convertibles

Cadillac again! In this category, it is the Cadillac XLR with a 0-60 mph speed of 5.8 seconds and a price tag of $76,650. The write-up states “Beautiful inside and outside, Cadillac got the emotionality and attitude right.” Not sure exactly what emotion or attitude they are talking about – just copping a ‘tude , man…

Porsche 911 Cabriolet Carrera S – “Exotic car performance combined with everyday functionality” Uh huh. Just like my everyday car… 0 to 60 in 4.8 seconds and price tag? $79,100.

OK – last one is the Aston Martin DB9 – a measly $155,000 and getting to 60 in less than 5 seconds. “A four-wheeled work of art with sumptuous hand-stitched leather cabin. Top speed approaches 185 mph…” Perhaps we should just leave it on its pedestal.

There you have it, folks. So now it’s our turn. I want you to help me come up with the top 10 cars for IT. Here’s a suggestion to get you thinking:

IT Car:

Volkswagen Bug: This unassuming vehicle is reliable and trustworthy. Needs minimal maintenance – just add oil and gas and this baby just keeps going and going. Gets to 60 mph sometime today and won’t break your budget.

How’s that?

Can’t wait to read your suggestions for IT cars. The funniest one gets a prize!

Yours in BI Success,

Claudia

The letter did not mince words -- in it, Mr. Schwegman states:

"I'll start by saying that the vast majority of system problems we have are problems related to updates... At the end of the day, all of these problems boil down to Overstock's failure (read, my failure) to architect a system that can handle real-time updates promptly."

The updates involved a new set of Oracle applications and "the ability to send small files containing inventory updates, orders, image data, status changes, etc., back and forth" between the Oracle database and a Vcommerce database -- basically message processing between the two databases. According to the CIO's letter, "The 'fire and forget' approach is killing us. In reality, a file might not send properly, become corrupted in transfer or produce errors when the receiving system attempts to process it... The architecture is horribly architected."

Haven't we been saying for years that the architecture is everything...? But that is an aside. The story goes on.

Needless to say, the five week delay due to the technical glitches had major business implications. Wall Street analysts immediately downgraded Overstock's stock upon hearing of the missed sales figures. The stock was trading around $41/share on the time of the first article containing the CIO's mea culpa. Today it closed at $34.21. Pretty substantial drop.

What does Schwegman say he would do differently if he could do it over again? Start the effort earlier. According to him, you should never underestimate how long it will take to successfully complete a software implementation. "The more you put into the front of a process, the easier the end of that process is." Truer words were never spoken.

As always, I welcome your comments. Should the CIO have issued his letter? What responsibility does IT have to warn its partners of troublesome internal systems? And what will happen to Overstock now that the (hopefully) worst is over?

Yours in BI success,

Claudia