Public Eye Blog: The Changing Role of Distribution
So the question is, are these distributors entering their customers' territory? They say no, that the intention is not to compete with customers, but rather help them win opportunities. Some solution providers I've spoken with, however, worry. Even Barb Miller, director of Tech Data's government and technical services divisions, sees it as risky, and says she has no intention of going in that direction.
My thinking is that if Synnex and Ingram play these initiatives right, they could end up being the best services available through distribution. In the former's case, solution providers will have access to an immediate team member who can provide whatever supplemental services are needed to land the deal, and theoretically at a lower cost given the barter scenario.
And in the case of the latter, solution providers can hand off the contracting piece that eats up so much time and resources to a huge company with deep pockets and focus on the customer.
In other markets, there would be little reason for distribution to play a direct role in winning opportunities. But in government, contracts are won and lost on a unique value add that sets a bid apart, and on the ability to respond flawlessly to a request for proposal. Solution providers -- particularly small ones -- often have a hard time managing to meet all of the requirements on their own, so why not turn to their distributor? In the public sector market, the role of distribution goes way beyond pick, pack and ship anyway.
That said, success rides on whether Synnex and Ingram keep their priorities straight. If the cost associated with the services offers no advantage beyond putting money in the distributors' pockets, the channel won't waste any time crying foul.
Prevent Tragedy With Technology
April 17, 2007
Yesterday's tragedy at Virginia Tech has a lot of people talking. First and foremost, the outcome was devastating. As the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history, at least 33 are dead and more than 20 injured. The fact that Virginia Tech sits nestled in a relatively remote area outside of Roanoke makes the incident all the more shocking.
Other talk relates to the question of how this ever managed to get so far. As you likely know by now, the incident involved two shootings that took place a couple of hours apart, one in a dormitory, the another in classrooms. Because university officials thought the first incident was a domestic one, students were not put on alert -- a decision that some believe put more students in harm's way.
Hindsight is always 20/20. But I wonder how this incident could have been detected or handled differently to minimize the number of casualties. A lot of that involves proper use of technology. Physical security solutions, for example, could track the comings and goings of individuals -- even in dorms -- and detect the presence of a gun. Or campus alerting systems could notify students when a dangerous incident is taking place and provide safety instructions.
Virginia Tech did send e-mail to students, but not until 9:26 a.m., while the second shooting was taking place. Another email was sent 20 minutes later asking students to stay put because a gunman was on the loose.
Had campus and local security had access to better surveillance, the content of the notifications could have been more accurate, thorough and timely. Had a campuswide alerting system been in place, word of the incident would have spread more quickly. Plenty of audio systems, including a couple offered by Sarasota, Fla.-based MadahCom, are capable of broadcasting safety sirens, live and recorded voice messages, and visual alerts via secure networks. An emergency notification system automatically contacts people by phone, pager, fax and e-mail, and delivers incident-specific information and instruction.
No good could possibly come from this tragedy. But certainly, a shockwave has been sent through all university communities that they should take a hard look at their own emergency prevention and response and be proactive to avoid another incident like this down the road.
What's In A Name?
April 12, 2007
Ask me what the biggest challenges are for solution providers targeting government and I could give you many responses -- long sales cycles, reduced margin, contract administration ... the list goes on. The answer I wouldn't think to give is a company's name, but a group of solution providers made me realize that can actually be a deciding factor in contract awards.
Actually, it's not so much the name a solution provider does have, but the name a solution provider doesn't have, as in the top five to 10 systems integrators that arguably own the market. Lorne Shakelford, director of sales at Insight Public Sector calls them the "IT insurance companies."
There is a lot of truth in that, and not because the Northrop Grummans and Lockheed Martins of the world aren't good at what they do; they didn't become synonymous with government IT contracting without reason. Those companies evoke confidence in government customers, at times without the benefit of both parties actually working together. That leaves nameless, small solution providers with more to prove.
Naturally, all markets have their major players. But government -- particularly federal, though these days more often at the state and local level as well -- glaringly can play favorites based on trust, not a proposal. Is that fair? Not really, though sometimes it can work in reverse: Some public-sector customers, particularly in local government and education, will pass over a big name if it means the chance to get more personalized attention and perhaps avoid a drawn-out state-funded procurements.
This is still a market built on relationships. Present a reality that eliminates the preconceived notions.
'Tis the Season...For Conferences
April 10, 2007
It's that time of year again, when the onslaught of conferences and events leave companies, government representatives and members of the media scrambling to keep up with their schedules. Take mine, for example. Last month I was in New York for a trade journalism event and in Chicago for the Synnex government conference. This month I'm in Orlando for Tech Data's TechEDG show -- then back just in time to prepare myself for our own XChange Government Integrator event in a couple of weeks.
This, of course, is only compounded by the standard government events that constantly take place in the Beltway, offering ample opportunity to have breakfast, lunch and dinner provided five workdays a week, should one so choose.
So here's the question: How valuable are these events, and what drives people to attend? This is not a rhetorical question; anyone who can offer an answer, please send me an e-mail. In this market, of course, the presence of a high-ranking government official is sure to lead to a significant uptick in attendance for any event. I say that from experience. But beyond that, I still wonder.
For me, events that focus on the public-sector market and bring vendors, solution providers and perhaps a few public-sector customers and industry gurus into the same room will win out. That explains why distributors' events (as well as our own) take priority. But with invitations flowing on a near-daily basis from a whole slew of other hosts, I find it difficult to decide what's worth my time. To anyone with words of wisdom, I'm all ears.
More Talk of Teleworking
April 6, 2007
I have a confession to make. I'm sick of telecommuting. Not the act of telecommuting mind you, which I've come to very much appreciate, but the topic of telecommuting of government employees.
Teleworking gets a lot of coverage. There is the far-reaching marketing campaign from Juniper Networks that shows frustrated employees battling the daily commute around the Beltway (admittedly clever), and the reports that flood my inbox from the Telework Coalition, CDW Government and others. Certainly, I understand why the market is putting so much dollars and resources behind it -- telework is indeed an important topic that, if widely adopted, would drive a lot of IT implementation.
But so far, that's remained a pretty big 'if.'
I understand the percentage of federal employees that telework is growing. According to a survey released by CDW-G, forty-four percent of federal employee respondents indicate that they have the option to telework - up 6 percent from 2006, and increasing at a faster rate than the private sector. However, the Washington Post reported that federal personnel data showed only 19 percent actually work from home or a nearby telework center a minimum of one day a week. So, while they theoretically can telework, they often don't do it. Reports have shown that this is at least partially due to managers that feel security and productivity could be impacted. Not a big surprise.
This could change, however. Two senators introduced a bill recently that would make nearly all government employees in the executive, legislative and judicial branches eligible to telecommute. That's a change from the current policy, which assumes employees are ineligible unless their agencies hand-pick them to telecommute.
Whether this bill passes and offers the nudge employees need to actually make the change to teleworking remains to be seen. I remain skeptical -- as cultural changes require a lot more than technology or even some piece of legislation. But if it does, CDW-G, Juniper and all other proponents can and should say, "We told you so."
Changes at Presidio Make Sense
March 30, 2007
Watching a company make some major structural changes can be fascinating to watch. Often the decisions reflect a desire to cut costs, while also keeping in step with the demands of a changing market -- which perhaps is why so many government contractors are re-evaluating how they do business. The latest company to make significant changes is Greenbelt, Md.-based Presidio -- now Presidio Networked Solutions -- which recently combined with solution providers Network Information Systems and Solarcom to form one of three subsidiaries that make up Presidio, Inc. (formerly known as Integrated Solutions, Inc.)
I recently spoke with Rudy Casasola, president of Presidio Networked Solutions. With the recent changes, Casasola told me that the solution provider is really pushing the concept of lifecycle management -- providing end-to-end solutions by leveraging the capabilities of the three parts that now make up the whole.
On paper it seems to make sense -- particularly for the government business. For one thing, this provides Presidio with some major market dominance, now the third largest Cisco partner as far as advanced technologies is concerned, Casasola told me. Throw in traditional switching and routing, and its the eighth largest. Access to the other subsidiaries -- Atlantix Global Systems and Solarcom Capital -- expands the portfolio to include midrange servers and provides a bank facility with up to $260 million in equity. So, Presidio can provide government customers with integration and engineering capabilities, the ability to decommission old equipment and finance the whole deal, and of course ongoing maintenance and support. That's attractive -- and falls in lockstep with how agencies want to buy.
I also give them credit for how they rolled out the changes -- engaging with industry analysts and media sources (myself included) before the news became official to figure out how it might be received and what approach would be best for communicating the move to customers and partners. I suspect that helped avoid the need for any damage control that can sometimes result from misinterpretation. And so far so good -- while news of the restructuring is too recent to have played any role in revenues, Presidio Networked Solutions did announced year-over-year growth of 37% in the delivery of Advanced Technology solutions; if the company can keep the positive buzz going, 2007 could prove an even more lucrative year.
Does Refurbished Equipment Have A Place In The Public Sector?
March 30, 2007
Wandering the expo floor at a recent government IT conference, my editor and I came upon a company that sells refurbished equipment. From the look of it, Network Hardware Resale's (NHR) inventory covered the gamut of hardware -- I saw Cisco switches on display, as well as an array of network hardware from top-brand suppliers. Apparently, the company had just hired a person to head up federal sales.
Let me preface this by saying I have nothing against used, preowned or refurbished computer equipment. When handled appropriately, this segment of the IT market serves a very valuable purpose and can be incredibly lucrative -- the company we came across, in fact, claimed revenue that would likely land it firmly in the VARBusiness 500 ranking of top resellers.
But what puzzles me is where refurbished hardware fits in the federal space -- or, more specifically, whether it's a fit for the federal space at all.
The federal government can buy preowned equipment. In fact, NHR was awarded a GSA contract to provide preowned, refurbished and used Cisco networking equipment to the U.S. government, including all federal, state and local agencies.
But the question is, how often do agencies actually buy it?
Like or it not, fears that used equipment don't carry the necessary support and warranties, that it'll be less productive or could introduce security risks are pretty widespread in the federal market. That's not to say any of that is true, but with arguably more at risk, no one can blame the government for airing on the side of caution.
And yet, refurbished equipment resellers will not be discounted. Every time GovernmentVAR runs a story about the risks of selling gray market items into government accounts (for example, read Exposed: Dangers of the Gray Market), I get a flurry of e-mail arguing that refurbished equipment is not a dirty phrase. No doubt this blog will generate a similar response. No argument from me; perhaps the federal market will overcome its skepticism, much in the way it has come to embrace open source. I just wonder, in the meantime, whether time, resources and dollars might be better spent targeting other markets.
Almost Time For XGI
March 27, 2007
For those of you that haven't heard already, the third annual XChange Government Integrator (XGI) event kicks off on April 25, and promises to be the best one yet.
The tried-and-true formula that makes XChange events so unique remains the same: Solution providers get to sit down face-to-face with vendors to discuss how both sides can work together to best meet market demands. They attend valuable sessions that provide insight into the needs and expectations of the customer. They get sneak peaks of what vendors have to offer partners targeting the public sector space.
But this year, XGI takes that winning formula to the next level, delivering content for the channel that other market events can't touch. For keynote speakers, we are bringing some of the most sought-after IT leaders in government, including Teri Takai, State of Michigan CIO, director of the Michigan Department of Information Technology and president of the National Association of State CIOs; Jovita Carranza, deputy administrator of the SBA; and Lurita Alexis Doan, administrator of the GSA.
Concurrent sessions cover key topics in all segments of the public sector, including strategies from the CIO of George Washington University on helping colleges and universities secure their campuses, best practices for leveraging distribution programs, and advice on how to win small business opportunities.
And once again, the GovernmentVAR Awards will recognize channel companies that have overcome market challenges to succeed in the various segments of pthe ublic sector, as well as vendors that demonstrate true loyalty to the channel through dedicated support and resources.
Whether you're a regular at the XChange events or a newbie, don't miss out. For more information, go to www.cmpxchange.com/xgi07. Hope to see you there.
The Power Play For Our School Systems
March 23, 2007
I'm confused. How can it be so easy to yank control from a whole board of elected officials? That's what is happening in cities across the country, as mayor after mayor take over their respective public school systems (typically with approval of city councils, of course) in an attempt to improve student achievement and maintain a more solid workforce.
The latest attempt comes from D.C.'s Mayor M. Fenty, whose plan is now under review and will likely get the green light any day now. Similar takeovers happened in Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Philadelphia ... the list goes on.
It's hard to deny some positive results that have come from those decisions. USA Today recently reported that in the five years after the takeover in Chicago, the percentage of children in grades three through eight performing at or above national norms on standard tests went from 26 percent to 44 percent in reading, and from 30 percent to 47 percent in math. And from 2000 to 2005, students in New York City performing at a proficient level on assessments jumped 12 percent in fourth-grade english, 32 percent in fourth-grade math and 18 percent in eighth grade math (New York City's takeover happened in 2002).
But judging success only by how students perform on tests is very deceiving. In situations where the takeover gives oversight of the school superintendent and the system's management and budget -- which is typically the case and will be the case for D.C. -- what else takes priority?
More specifically, where does this leave technology?
Rarely do mayors key into the topic of IT in K-12 education; it's just not as politically advantageous as talking about reading and math scores and improving the teacher-to-student ratio. And even if a particular mayor happened to be a gearhead in a previous life (no examples come to mind), the process of winning IT contracts will no doubt be strewn with bureaucratic red tape if dollars and management are ultimately under their thumbs. Solution providers are already challenged by the trend toward the centralization of IT across districts for that very reason; this will be more of the same, but tenfold.
As a resident of D.C., I see the city school system is in sorry shape and needs a change fast. But shifting power from the hands of one group (that we as a city elected) to one individual doesn't seem like the kind of change that will make a significant difference in the long run. Instead, school districts need to invest resources in reviews of processes -- both in operations and teaching methodologies -- and roll out plans that mandate changes at the granular level. In some cases that will involve more strategic implementation of technology. But at least the state of education won't be left in the hands of one official who inevitably has his own set of interests in mind.
More On E-Voting
March 19, 2007
Mention any issue that can be tied to civil liberties and you are sure to get a big response. Such was the case with my March 16 blog on electronic voting machines. It seems there's a widespread mistrust of government and computers, which makes people reluctant to place their votes with either. I can't say I blame them.
A flood of e-mail ensued from readers who either agreed and disagreed with almost all of my points: that legislative action for a paper trail -- regardless of whether you're for or against it -- was taking far too long; that improvements to the touch-screen machines should be a higher priority; and that the tunnel vision pushing for paper ballots as the single best solution is the wrong approach.
So what was the one consensus among the comments received? There wasn't one. But suggested alternatives to the standard e-voting machines were compelling. One person described a system where voters could evaluate candidates on a home computer, make their picks, and print out a scannable bar code that they'd take with them to the voting location to be read and filed.
Another thought was to have voters sign the results as correct after they were input, though a counter response said such receipts provided nothing more than a false sense of security.
Another reader said the best solution is to have an electronic trail of the votes recorded and to move them from the voting machines into secure databases.
Then, of course, a whole other crop of responses asserted that e-voting machines in any form introduce the risk of hacking; elections are one example of when technology is not necessarily the answer for that reason, some said.
Who's right? That's anyone's guess. And perhaps that's exactly why the said legislation is taking so long to move through Congress. But if the goal is to find a flawless solution, government and citizens alike are setting themselves up for failure.
Backward March In Voting Processes
March 16, 2007
About a year ago, I interviewed Harris Miller. The former president of the ITAA was running for Senate, and one of his campaign's biggest concerns was recovering from statements made about electronic voting machines. In promoting their use in elections, apparently Miller had given people the impression that a paper trail wasn't necessary (a statement he later retracted). Some would argue it hurt his chances at election.
And now, with the midterm elections over and done and the 2008 elections more than a year-and-a-half away, Congress is still talking about the topic.
Led by Sen. Dianne Feignstein (D-Calif.), folks on the Hill are pushing to introduce a bill that would require electronic touch-screen voting machines used in federal elections to provide paper trails.
I understand. Ever since the debacle in Florida over hanging chads, America is cognizant of accuracy in vote tallies. What I don't understand is why Congress has decided to translate "accuracy" into hard-copy ballots alone. Couldn't the machines be improved? Probably -- touch-screens have a relatively high margin of error. I think the legislation should focus as much on improving the technology as developing a back up.
Florida, for example, wants to replace touch-screen machines with optical-scan devices, which read paper ballots. Virginia and Maryland are considering similar moves. That, to me, makes sense. Augment imperfect technology, but don't take a big leap backward and call it a solution.
What To Expect From Google
March 14, 2007
Google has received mixed reviews concerning its support of the channel. The company launched a partner program for developers, consultants and ISVs a year-and-a-half ago, but it hasn't really convinced anyone that the VAR community will play a significant role in its commercial strategy for taking over the world.
But perhaps those that sell to government are in luck.
According to The Washington Post, Google held a two-day sales meeting last month that attracted nearly 200 federal contractors, engineers and members of the military. Lockheed Martin even gave a presentation to the crowd. Google is starting slow with its government strategy, focusing on three enhanced versions of its products for the government market: Google Earth, which agencies already use to merge data about a region; search engines for internal use; and a new suite of e-mail, document and spreadsheet products offered as an alternative to Microsoft Office.
It stands to reason that Google would tap into partners as it targets the government. The company has sold to the government for only a few years, with less than a dozen engineers and sales reps currently located in the Beltway. Even if that number doubles by year's end as planned, resources will be strapped, and experience with procurement processes limited.
The size and complexity of the government market alone could lead Google to solution providers and systems integrators. Perhaps Google will take its cue from Dell, limiting support of the channel in the commercial space, but engaging partners in its efforts to win government contracts. Or, perhaps channel support in the government market will trickle into its commercial strategy. Time will tell.
And then there's education. Google Apps for Education includes e-mail, instant messaging and a calendar; it's already being implemented by hundreds of schools. Arizona State University provides the integrated applications to its 65,000 students. More recently, Egypt's Ministries of Education and Higher Education made them available to more than 11 million students. For now, Apps for Education is free, but it stands to reason that Google would consider enhancing the program (similar to what it did for the government) and charge a fee.
Will that mean opportunity for the channel, or will the company be like Apple and keep the education business all to itself? Again, time will tell.
Security Training Not Good Enough In DoD And DHS
March 12, 2007
If the many security breaches that have plagued the government in the past year share one thing in common, it's that employees or contractors did not follow proper procedures to safeguard data -- bringing laptops home, saving data on the hard drive, and so on.
The most obvious solution is to better enforce security policies through employment training and education. The Office of Management and Budget is trying to enforce exactly that with requirements of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA).
So how are they doing? Pretty well for the most part. According to the 2006 Report to Congress on Implementation of FISMA that was released early this month, all but three agencies reported at least 90 percent of employees have received IT security awareness training; some reported near or at 100 percent, in fact.
Now here's what's surprising: Along with the Small Business Administration, which reported that 74 percent of employees received the training, the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security are the two agencies to fall below the governmentwide standard. The former reported that 88 percent of employees received the training, and the latter 75 percent of employees. That adds up to more than 2 million DoD employees and 155,212 DHS employees.
Now, obviously, this is a glass half-full or empty scenario. Most would consider 75 percent and above to be pretty solid, particularly when you consider the size of these agencies. But the fact remains that DoD and DHS have some of the most sensitive information contained on government systems, making them the most targeted by people that fully intend to do a lot of damage. Whether they receive extra funding to bring in the necessary resources to get the job done, or revert resources from other efforts, history taught us all that this has to be a top-line priority.
More On Open Source -- A Matter of Choice
March 9, 2007
On March 5, I wrote about new legislation in California that will make open document format (ODF) a mandatory requirement for agencies when acquiring software; I said it's time for the channel to get on-board or miss the bus.
The blog got a fair amount of reaction -- enough to warrant a follow-up. One person pointed to Microsoft Office 2007 as a loophole for California agencies, given support of its Office Open XML document format. That actually won't meet the standards set by the California bill, however.
Putting the technical specifics aside, the comments essentially said this: Regardless of anyone's stance on open source, is legislation that forces government's hand the way to go? One solution provider adamantly says no -- particularly when it forces some agencies to redo their infrastructures at an arguably minimal amount of savings.
And does it make channel companies indispensable by incorporating customized solutions so that no one else can work on them, as one reader argued? It's an interesting point and, for the agencies that don't maintain control over their own IT environments, a real possibility.
While I see no harm in incorporating open source into the government environment -- and even mandating that agencies consider it on a level playing field as is the case on the federal side -- I can't argue that eliminating choice is ever a positive strategy. CompTIA has been actively working to stop such mandates for the past five years, arguing that if the purchasing methods aren't broken, why should legislation try to fix them, and that agencies need the authority to make their own technological choices. They can make a free choice now.
As for the channel, CompTIA's Mike Wendy says solution providers "aren't dinosaurs, sitting on their hands, waiting for the market to serve them. Most have a proprietary orientation, but many have hybrid practices. And this is clearly growing."
No arguments here. But I still believe that if those with the proprietary orientation don't at least sharpen their open-source expertise, agencies might look elsewhere -- fair or not. And mandates or no mandates, that need for options could be exactly why.
Defining Progress In K-12
March 7, 2007
In the world of public sector IT, K-12 education has long trailed painfully behind. While there are exceptions, most classrooms today still revolve around the chalkboard, pencil and paper, with filing cabinets that store tests materials and assignments. Point to budget constraints and limited resources as explanations if you want, but the whole lack of progress strikes me as bizarre.
News clips here and there seem to show things improving in certain areas. Virtual schools are popping up more and more -- offering Internet courses for K-12 students who want or need advanced, technical and specialized education often unavailable in smaller schools. The latest in Indiana joins 15 other statewide virtual statewide public virtual schools as one broad education program. It's ambitious -- and the perfect example of leveraging technology to provide more with less.
And Toshiba is celebrating the 10-year annivesary of its Notebooks for Schools program that provides specially priced computers to faculty and students. The program helped to kickstart the one-to-one learning movement that allows students to move ahead if they are doing well or concentrate longer on areas they haven't mastered through specialized computer applications.
Those are good examples of progress. But here's what doesn't make sense: While technology is improving how students learn, it isn't being leveraged nearly enough to advance how instructors teach. That's not a criticism of public school teachers; old habits die hard.
In my Feb. 26 blog, I reflected on Apple CIO Steve Job's theory that K-12 education should be treated more like a business. Well, maybe in addition the channel needs to educate the educators about how technology can help them do their jobs better, so that they will in turn go to the district level and demand access to products and offerings. Otherwise, the chalkboards and filing cabinets aren't going anywhere.
Open Source Or Bust
March 5, 2007
It was bound to happen. When the Department of Defense endorses anything -- including open source -- every other federal agency and eventually every segment of government takes notice. So it comes as no surprise that California introduced a bill to make open document format (ODF) a mandatory requirement for agencies when acquiring software.
And California is not the first state to do this; Texas and Minnesota have introduced similar legislation. No doubt more states will follow. That has to get the attention of Linux distributors, particularly Red Hat, which has been making an aggressive play for the public-sector market for the past year or two. The timing couldn't be better, as Microsoft struggles to get the kinks worked out of Vista.
But what about the channel? Despite all of the attention open source has received from government in the past few years, a relatively small percentage of solution providers seem to regard it as a serious strategy for winning federal or state and local business. Or perhaps they can't let go of the perception that open source equates to little or no revenue -- no matter how untrue that perception actually is. Regardless, it's time to get over it and strike while the iron's hot. And that means real investment in training and resources.
Agencies will look hard at their systems and search for alternatives. Companies able to give them what they want stand to win opportunity after opportunity. Companies that can't will kick themselves.
It's Not Easy Going Green
March 2, 2007
Everything seems to be "going green." On a trip to England, I stayed with a friend in her "green" apartment, which as far as I could tell was no different than any other apartment except for the solar heating. And then there's Wal-Mart, which a year-and-a-half ago pledged to revert to only renewable energy sources and produce zero waste. CEO Lee Scott says the company will invest $500 million a year to increase fuel efficiency in Wal-Mart's truck fleet, reduce greenhouse gases and energy use, and cut solid waste from U.S. stores and Sam's Clubs by 25 percent.
That's a lot of money. But these days, it's good marketing to be green -- just ask Al Gore, whose popularity has soared with his Academy Award winning documentary on global warming.
So maybe that's why President Bush has jumped on the bandwagon, releasing an Executive Order a couple of months ago that requires 95 percent of federal computers to meet the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) Computer Standard. A good thing -- of course -- but potentially a challenge for manufacturers and solution providers alike, as the former tries to replace inventory with approved products and the latter faces potential delays in fulfillment, both through distribution and direct.
Most of the major vendors support the standard, though meeting requirements takes time. According to the EPEAT Web site, 386 products total (that includes desktops, integrated systems, monitors and notebooks) have earned at least bronze status. HP, Dell, Lenovo and Sony seem to be the most on the ball, with smaller players more gradually contributing to the repository of EPEAT offerings. Some, no doubt, will pick and choose which offerings from their portfolios to bother registering. After all, there is an expense involved.
But for all the potential waiting that solution providers might have to do, there are loads of dollars to be made. The Green Electronics Council says that $42 billion in federal contracts reference the standard. And this is just the beginning; EPEAT requirements are expected to expand. What's next? I wouldn't be surprised if networking technology, handheld devices, printers and copiers all face the same requirements soon enough -- any piece of hardware that consumes energy, really. Vendors would be smart to get ahead of the game, changing design processes now to be ready for the windfall.
Spring Forward For Opportunities
Feb. 28, 2007
News that daylight-savings time will start early this year has been receiving a lot of attention. For those who don't already know, we will "spring forward" an hour on March 11, rather than the first Sunday in April, then back on Nov. 4, rather than the last Sunday in October. The point, obviously, is to further conserve energy with longer days.
Now here's what's really odd: No one in IT seemed to notice. According to a brief released by the National Association of State CIOs (NASCIO), many applications and systems are still programmed to adjust in April. Apparently, manufacturers received little warning about the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which included the provision regarding daylight-savings time. The result has been a scramble to install patches -- reminiscent of the alarm sounded by Y2K.
Just the other day, a friend of mine who works at Fannie Mae said people have been pulled from projects to take care of coding that will prepare systems for the time change. I'm sure government agencies are dedicating their own resources as well.
Whether you lay blame with the federal government for not alerting industry of the provision, or manufacturers for not staying in tune with legislation on the Hill, this certainly should have been dealt with a long time ago. But who's complaining; what we have here is an oversight that's left a lot of demand for maintenance services among government agencies -- and a deadline to instill some sense of urgency and force them to move. And don't forget about schools and universities, where every aspect of student and faculty life involves schedules.
I wouldn't call this bad news for the channel.
The Business of K-12
Feb. 26, 2007
How often does this happen: Steve Jobs and Michael Dell are sharing a stage, commenting on the role of technology in preparing school students for their future. But it happened in Texas about a week ago.
The two CEOs of battling computer companies spoke at a summit on Feb. 16. Jobs spoke about textbook-free schools that rely on online resources, while Dell spoke about the importance of information and communication technology. (The water-cooler conversations that followed likely focused on Jobs, who made surprising comments against teachers' unions. "This unionization and lifetime employment of K-12 teachers is off-the-charts crazy," he said, among other things.)
Regardless of where you stand on that issue specifically, Jobs' ultimate argument was an interesting one: to run K-12 schools more like businesses. State and local government is often credited for doing so, partially due to the fact that they don't have the standards and mandates that dictate processes.
The same really can't be said for school districts, which struggle with many contingencies tied to funding. That challenge trickles to the channel, which is competing for fewer dollars and struggling through the red tape right along with the districts. But incorporating more of a business approach could be a good strategy for solution providers; improve efficiency and save dollars by helping schools on the back end to consolidate networks and applications across district. And all the while, push technology as a means for improving operations and cutting costs. Throw out terms like ROI more. There's a chance that could free up dollars more than an innovative education software package, e-portal that can provide curriculum materials customized to the individual student or touch-screen applications in the classrooms.
It's unfortunate, but in K-12 education, those are a tough sell.
Of course, it doesn't help when the two leading computer companies that target education -- Dell and Apple -- don't support the channel.
But that's another topic.
The IBM Shuffle Continues
Feb. 23, 2007
Another day, another executive shift at Big Blue. The latest: public sector channel chief Alex Gogh shifts gears to the SystemsTechnology Group, back with his former boss Bob Samson, who left his role as general manager of IBM's Global Public Sector group less than a year ago. The former channel chief of IBM's Software Group, Pam Kaplan, takes Gogh's place, under Emilie McCabe, who took Samson's. It's can very hard to keep up.
Gogh moved to the public sector about two years ago; I know this because he started in the role within weeks of me starting in mine at GovernmentVAR, and we met for lunch to discuss what we were getting ourselves into. We've maintained a close working relationship since.
The question becomes whether any executive can make a difference in that amount of time.
In Gogh's case, I say yes. Mid-2005, IBM launched Public Sector Edge, an acknowledgment that partners targeting government and education faced distinct challenges. The program was among the first from a vendor to initiate teaming between ISVs and solution providers for the purpose of better serving customer needs.
A year later, Gogh promoted enhancements to the program that included new financial incentives, and enhanced sales and marketing support. Obviously, these efforts reflect a seriousness about the market from IBM as a company, but Gogh, no doubt, played a key role in relaying the demands of partners.
But who's to say Gogh's positive impact isn't an anomaly? While the strategy of moving executives between groups has worked surprisingly well for IBM in most markets, I'm not convinced it makes sense for its public-sector business, where the learning curve is incredibly high. Kaplan touts channel experience, which will certainly help, but I hope Big Blue gives her a chance to dig in her heels and rise to the occasion.
Lesson Learned -- Avoid Shortcuts
Feb. 21, 2007
We all have our embarrassing stories. Here's mine.
Recently, I reached out to a CIO and his assistant at the Department of Defense, neither of whom I'd worked with before. Instinctively, I addressed both the same way in the initial line of an e-mail: "To Mr. So-in-So..."
To me, the use of "Mr." was an acknowledgement that I was not on a first-name basis with either gentleman and therefore owed them both the formality. But that's not close to good enough when addressing a three-star general and colonel -- their rankings, I soon learned.
In fairness, I found their contact information -- "Mr." included with both -- on the membership directory of an IT organization of some sort. There was no mention of such rankings. But to not figure as much given these were officials with the DoD was silly on my part. Hindsight is 20/20.
The colonel in question politely informed me that the use of "Mr." to refer to an officer is considered a slight; it denotes the lowest rank of the Officer Corps -- a W1 or warrant. Rather, he said, it's best to refer to an officer by rank. I, in response, apologized profusely, feeling mildly humiliated. In a market that has a lot to do with who you know, this was not an ideal first impression.
So what good could be pulled from the experience? Beyond humbling, it stands as an interesting lesson for federal contracting: Devil's in the details. And in government, those details go way beyond IT specs or whether to wear a business suit or sports jacket and Dockers to an event. Knowing customer requirements and expectations wins contracts, and that can only come from doing your homework -- thoroughly.
Playing With Fire
Feb. 16, 2007
Federal contracts aren't won on popularity -- or not entirely anyway. So when a solution provider referred to the recent small business awards made to GTSI and World Wide Technology (WWT) as a "mockery" and "joke," I figured neither company minded such negative sentiment all that much.
I mean, they just landed a piece of the Army's Information Technology Enterprise Solutions 2 Hardware contract, worth a possible $5 billion over five years. But it does make me wonder whether it could come back to haunt them.
Obviously, this is nothing new. GTSI, in particular, is often under fire for winning small business contracts, and most recently was recommended for disbarment from federal contracting by the Inspector General at the SBA.
But in fairness, people draw a lot of conclusions that aren't all together true. Neither GTSI nor WWT nor the dozens of other companies working the system to their advantage are doing anything that the federal government hasn't OKed one way or another. Some might argue that the companies complaining are foolish to not take advantage of an arguably flawed program themselves.
But for many others, that's not easy to swallow when the companies in question reported $886 million and $499 million in revenue, respectively, in 2006. So -- again -- why should these companies care? Because the solution providers crying foul have long memories. GTSI, WWT and other companies like them can argue sour grapes on the part of their naysayers. But in a market that thrives through strategic partnerships among peers, burning bridges can cost a solution provider a lot of contract dollars and -- eventually -- the proverbial farm.
Big Blue's Buying Spree
Feb. 14, 2007
It's laughable to say that IBM is making a play for the public sector; the company is already a force in all segments of government, health care and education. But even as someone whose eyes glaze over at the sight of one more acquisition announcement, I couldn't help but notice the flurry of purchases by IBM of small IT companies around the Beltway.
Most recently, Big Blue grabbed Vienna, Va.-based Softek Storage Solutions, a data availability software company. This comes less than a month after the purchase of Consul Risk Management, a compliance and security software company. Prior to that, IBM acquired name-recognition software developer Language Analysis Systems and intrusion prevention company Internet Security Systems (ISS).
All of these firms are located in Northern Virginia, the central locale for federal contracting, and all tout government as a target vertical. Statements from IBM reps confirm that the acquisitions are expected to grow public-sector business.
The announcements are interesting for a couple of reasons. First, all of the buyouts are software companies. Large federal integrators frequently gobble up solution providers to bolster resources, but growing a portfolio through acquisition rather than reinventing the wheel is a strategy that has become more popular recently. And IBM seems to be leading the charge.
Second, despite being software companies, Softek and ISS will become subsidiaries of IBM Global Services, the $47 billion group that's No. 1 on the VARBusiness 500. A shrewd move, no doubt meant to bolster revenue for the services group that reported flat growth in 2006. The other two acquired companies will fall under the software division, an area of business that has received loads of attention from Big Blue in recent years.
So, the big gets bigger and -- in public sector -- the need for subcontractors that offer unique differentiators in terms of capabilities gets smaller.
There's lots of talk of government contracting as a shrinking industry, so I suppose it should come as no surprise that IBM would be among those to go on a serious feeding frenzy. Whether that translates to major growth remains to be seen. One would think that at some point, a company that plays in every IT market would reach a point of diminishing return -- even IBM.