So it's BT now - not IT is it ?

In the UK BT has long stood for shocking service, over-charging & obstruction of business & technology.

This is the same type of model that Teradata used to grab sales in the DW marketplace. More specifically, TDAT consultants would perform assessments of a customer's warehouse and model strategy against a "standard" industry model, point out where it could be improved, and back the whole thing up with a session in the demo room (the Benchmark Lab) where they could bring a couple of terabytes of real data and see it dance in an environment that mirrored what they could purchase.

The strategy worked well: if a customer made it to Benchmark, there was about a 90%+ chance of a sale closing.

The truth of the whole "BT" thing is that an integrated methodology for creating an information infrastructure - be it a data warehouse or a complete IT/BT department - is not just a key to success, but is almost a slam-dunk to accomplishing it. Using a set of standard "templates" for operational areas, field-developed strategy and techniques for actual implementation, and integrated services for deployment and training provides an almost unbeatable machine for delivering success to customers.

HP's concentration on several well-established IT hot-spots - Exchange, SAP and Oracle - gives it all the pieces to build a successful offering in these areas. These are, of course, the "low-hanging fruit": most potential clients have "painted themselves into a corner" in higgeldy-piggeldy deployment of these technologies over time, and, with much of their business hinging on getting data out of these tools, are ripe for having someone provide a clean roadmap - and do the dirty work - of cleaning out the rubbish and getting a "new" implementation up and running.

The only problem is being able to say "NO!" when you have a customer that doesn't fit or want to take advantage of this assembly-line implementation. Too often sales will out-sell the capabilities of a carefully crafted solution with the promise of even greater margins. Once the first successes are past, it becomes much more difficult to deliver a one-off that is not-quite a match for the service offering. We shall see if HP succumbs to this revenue-stuffing temptation.

Please don't get me wrong on this: what HP is offering, while it seems "fluffy" actually DOES work - if done properly. I've been part of developing, delivering and tuning these types of methodologies over the past 10 years, and have had a higher percentage of successes when using a detailed, pre-designed tactical plan than "winging" it to what a customer tells you they need. HP has the resources and the business drive - especially from their senior leadership - to put this together and deploy it.

If you fit into the parameters HP is defining for this type of deployment, certainly go see them and get a good assessment of your needs. However, if you don't fit the model 90%, do yourself a favor and don't take ANY vendor's word that "it's OK, we'll make it work". Use the information HP or IBM or Teradata gives you as your starting point, and finish the job for yourself, using their templates but reworking it with your architects and management.

My nickel's worth. I hope this helps.

Geez - They'll wreak havoc on the acronym users....

BT'ing the hand that feeds IT?

"“We are saying that business technology is an evolution from the Adaptive Enterprise, which was all about synchronizing business and IT,” Nelson said. “We are beyond that. We are to a point where technology is powering business and where we need to be held accountable at the same level as other parts of the business.”"

How you can be "beyond" synchronising business and IT is ... beyond me :-)

Is it about anticipating business ? Please Admiral Nelson, explain how you require budget for that, and more than that, obtain it ? And not be fired for unacceptable levels of bollocks ?

Next HP marketing campaign will surely be full of terms like "prescience", "spice", "fremens" and other Franck Herbert stuff.

A rose by any other name is still a pain in the thumb if you aren't careful.

What, really, do they think they're going to accomplish by changing the acronym?

This sounds like someone couldn't find anything better to do.