December 19, 2008
A couple of weeks ago our book about Enterprise Architecture was published by Springer. The book has been written in close collaboration between Capgemini and the Radboud University and it was quite some experience to write such a book. I'm Claudia Steghuis and a guest writer on this blog. Of course, I would like to convince you all to read this book, but I'm also interested in professionalizing the Enterprise Architecture field and I hope that we succeeded just a bit in that by publicizing this book. In our book we also indicate many research opportunities within enterprise architecture, like principles, competences and tasks, etc. I would like to encourage everyone to participate in researching these opportunities.
Twenty years after the first publications and books on enterprise architecture, the domain is evolving from a technology-driven towards a more business-driven approach, thus empowering decision makers to adapt and transform an enterprise in order to keep up with changing business needs. The authors aim to provide an overview of enterprise architecture including the process of creating, applying and maintaining it, taking into account the perspectives of CxOs, business managers, enterprise architects, solution architects, designers and engineers. Covering both theoretical foundations and practical use, and written in close collaboration between industry professionals and academic lecturers, Enterprise Architecture offers an ideal introduction for students in areas like business information systems or management science, as well as guidance and background for professionals.
Do you want more information? Please visit http://www.springer.com/business/business+information+systems/book/978-3-540-85231-5 or email me at claudia.steghuis [at] capgemini.com
December 16, 2008
It seems that the economic crisis will impact many companies. Thinking you can escape seems naive. Or is it? The following interespting presentation on Google's strategy does have something to say about this interesting subject.
December 5, 2008
A little while ago I read an interesting article that suggested that Microsoft should give windows 7 away for free, which lead to a rather heated (technical) debate in the comments section. In this post I'm trying to make some sense of what's going on.
First let's look at the industry Microsoft is in: the software industry. This industry has several big players in key segments. Some are more traditional (IBM, SAP, Microsoft, Apple) and some are relatively new (Yahoo, Google). Then there's a bunch of smaller companies who 've found a comfortable niche. Sounds like healthy competition.
In the past Microsoft was definately a rule maker in this industry. However, with the rise Web this advantage slowly faded. First there was the infamous browser war, now there is the battle around search and advertisements. It also seems that the old growth strategy of buying companies doesn't seem to work anymore (the most prominent example, in my opinion, is the fact that Yahoo tried to rush into Google's arms to be able to stay away from Microsoft).
Another interesting aspect is the fact that these days there is much more software to chose from, both for consumers and for firms. Microsoft made a smart move in the 1980's : ship as much new PC's with MS-DOS (later Windows). This gave them a huge market share and made it hard for competitors to get onto the desktop. Once you had windows, it was only a matter of time before you also started using Office (rather than good old WP). Some 20 years later, we do have a choice. The Mac seems more popular than ever (it's even considered to be a fashion accessory) and Linux is also growing on the desktop. Micorosft's Office suit is also available on the Mac, but OpenOffice is a true cross-platform office suit. Even more, it seems that cloud computing has the future which makes GoogleDocs an interesting contender.
Let's look at this from another perspective. Ignoring some of its lesser activities (such as it's new initiative with respect to telephony), Microsoft seems to be in two businesses: the business of
selling software licenses and the business relating to online activities (where the revenue model mostly hinges on selling advertisements).
The figure shows some of the product offerings that go with each business. It seems that Microsoft is able to leverage considerable synergies at the resource base level (i.e., human capital!). To a lesser extent this also holds for its activity system and product offerings. An example of the latter is the fact that once you use Internet Explorer - the default browser on your freshly installed PC - it immediately prompts you with a question whether you would like to make MSN Live Search your default search provider. These synergies are a good thing, they make life more pleasant as they account for a lot of added value.
Should windows 7 be free?
So far this post has been about Microsoft as a company. I will now circle back to the question of whether windows 7 should be free or not. Giving away Windows for free would be radical to say the least. After all, Microsoft has made a lot of money by selling licences for Windows (and other software) over the last decades. However, the present situation does call for drastic measures. Some facts:
- Microsoft is under heavy attack from all sides. It is still the dominant player in terms of desktop software, but that seems to be eroding slowly. Windows is being attacked by Apple and the Linux community, and the flagship Office suite is being attacked by Star Office, it's free sibbling Open Office and several cloud computing initiatives such as Google Docs.
- Microsoft has had a lousy reputation where it comes to the Web. Sure, Internet Explorer is pretty big (see the browser statistics pages by the W3C) its market share is decreasing steadily. Firefox/mozilla is a big competitor and Google's new browser (Chrome) is gaining market share slowly.
- Microsoft has fought many lawsuits over the last few years, many of which evolved around the question whether or not Microsoft is a monopolist and whether it can ship certain products together or not. Several (if not most) of these cases were lost.
- Most companies don't like being locked into a single vender. Government's seem to like it even less as several have announced recently that they are migrating to an open source platform. Usually this follows the lines of migrating to an office suit that adopts a an open standard (e.g. ODF) followed by a subsequent switch to Linux. In the Netherlands, the reference architecture for government institutions (NORA) also favors open standards.
December 1, 2008
Last week dr. Casper van der Veen launched a new blog called Group Strategy. The central theme of the blog is as follows:
Group strategy, or corporate-level strategy, deals with the way a corporation manages its set of businesses. Key areas are corporate synergies, roles of the HQ, the strategic logic behind M&As and strategic portfolio management.
Casper posted a short announcement of his dissertation called "where you sit is where you stand". This is one of the first dissertations in the field of strategic management that I've read in over 5 years (I read a few while I was studying at the University of Tilburg) and is definately a good read.