• Home
• About
• Writers
• Landscape
• Wizards Index
• Fraud
• Wanna Be Like Larry?

Accenture Pitches Corked Balls about Open Source Software

Accenture threw a corked ball at me this afternoon. A reader sent me a link to a Computer World story I ignored last week. The reader wanted to know my views of open source software. I focus on search and content processing, so I have my Overflight system slogging in the bits and bytes generated by the open source search vendors. One of my favorites is Tesuji.eu, whose owners I know. This company supports some of my programming needs, and I know that these engineers understand open source as well as traditional commercial systems.

The Computer World story was “Commercial Open Source Is Essential to Enterprise IT”. The article reminded me of some Booz, Allen & Hamilton tasks dumped on my desk in the late 1970s. The idea in my boss’s mind was that BAH could sell consulting by becoming “thought leaders” in specific and largely unknown issues. The write ups were designed to create uncertainty in the mind of the reader. BAH would then follow up with a method and expertise to  reduce that uncertainty and put the issue, for which BAH was the thought leader, in context.

The author of this Computer World story was Alex Wied, clearly identified as a “senior manager at Accenture and head of its Innovation Centre for Open Source.” The story is an artful combination of fact, references to what’s hot in management circles today, and public relations / marketing.

I worked through the write up and identified some points that seemed to me to warrant a comment.

First, Accenture wants open source to become more like traditional enterprise software. That makes sense to a consulting firm. These high end outfits are set up to sell a range of services around a traditional software procurement. Some of the consulting firms charge vendors to be included in a dog and pony show or placed in a graphic. The enterprise client sees the recommendations of the consulting firm as objective. Some are but many of these services are not objective. The goal is to use information to generate an engagement, often at seven figure rates. The worse the economic problems facing an organization, the greater the appeal of a high end consultant who can offer a light to illuminate the darkness. Open source, therefore, needs to be more like IBM, Oracle, or SAP. If this seems somewhat peculiar, you just need more Kool Aide. I find the  argument self serving and one that would have easy for my cross exam debate partner in college to knock down. Traditional software and open source software are different. Making them equivalent with the requirements ploy is not a rock solid argument in my opinion. Software contributed by individuals so other individuals can enhance, support, or fix that software is * not * how enterprise software companies operate in my experience.

Second, the requirements for open source software in the enterprise disconnected from the information technology methods used by some of the poster kids for successful Internet-centric outfits. If the requirements for open source are the same requirements for enterprise software, Accenture can apply its  business consulting recipes. The client, therefore, sees the “new” approaches through the black frame, 1950s glasses that some high end consulting firms wear. Turning the new into the old means that the consultants can recycle their business school thinking. The approach may cut off information that may help an organization in need of change. The client becomes more vulnerable and risk goes up. Nice outcome for the consulting firm client if I am on the money.

Third, communities are important in open source. As I read this, the communities that will be most useful will be those for which the open source software matches the Accenture author’s requirements. Communities for non compliant open source software are excluded. After all, if you don’t meet requirements, you can’t join our country club. Accenture’s voice in this article is saying to me, “We know better.” Intellectual apartheid in my opinion .

What I find interesting is:

• The up market consulting firms are showing awareness that open source software is of interest to some of their corporate clients. Jumping on the bandwagon may generate some consulting engagements and by defining the requirements for open source as the same as the requirements for traditional enterprise software, the analysis is not going to make an MBA or subject matter expert burn the midnight oil.
• The traditional enterprise software systems have put many organizations in jail. The degrees of freedom are restricted, and, in may organizations, the software vendors and their partners call the shots. Open source provides an alternate path. I don’t think the Fortune 50 will dump Oracle for an open source data management system. So Mr. Wied’s analysis is reassuring and makes the traditional approach the “right” approach. The problem is that the competitors who will challenge many established companies may view open source in a different way. Since the Accenture clients cannot see this use, Accenture’s approach limits their clients’ vision and may make these firms more vulnerable.
• The business model for some open source firms (I won’t name any names so relax) is a traditional enterprise software model. The principal differences in my opinion boil down to elimination or reduction in software license fees. The other costs remain and may be just as tough to control as the costs for traditional enterprise software.

To close, figuring out what is public relations and marketing and what is solid analysis is getting more difficult for me. Consulting firms are good sources of low cost content provided by consultants who have  billability targets to hit. Open source is not traditional software. Making traditional enterprise software and open source software equivalent makes me honk.

Stephen Arnold, August 18, 2009

Comments

Copyright © 2008 Beyond Search · ArnoldIT.com · Disclaimer · Revolution News theme by Brian Gardner · Log in