Dynamic model is the one of the most important innovations that come out of EMC/Smarts since codebook correlation and ICIM, yet very few people know about it, and even fewer people use it. From outside it appears as if EMC/Smarts is afraid of its creation, regrets ever developing it, and hopes it simply fades away.
Why could this be? Why on earth EMC would let such key enabler technology fade away, rather than leveraging it to demolish many of the objections that prevent customers and integrators from embracing Smarts solutions? It is hard to say, but one can speculate that it's about control. Smarts corporate culture always had the control meme and it seems like control meme has survived even after the EMC acquisition. Smarts has always striven to have a “finished” ready-to-use product and succeeded in this goal more than any of its competitors.
But it turns out a finished product is not always what customers want. To be more clear, customers certainly do want finished products but they want it finished the way they like it. This is where it becomes an uphill battle for EMC/Smarts. Let's use the house buying experience as an analogy. To buy a house one may have the following options:
-
Get a builder build the house from ground up the way you like it. This is equivalent to custom developed solutions in software area. This approach is less and less desired by customers due to high risk and high cost of development and maintenance, yet there are still companies following this model like France Telecom, etc.
-
Buy a house that is already built. This is what most customers may say they want if you asked them at least in theory, but if you show them a house, they complain about specific inadequacies. It may not have enough rooms, big enough garage, yard, etc. Same goes with software, customers do want off the shelf, but they also want a software that meet their specific needs and work the way they want.
-
Buy an unfinished house and finish/renovate yourself. This approach seems like a compromise, there is a base, so you're not starting from scratch and have an idea what you may end up with. The risk is still somewhat high, since the cost can be unpredictable, it may take a long time before you can use the solution/house.
-
Buy a house from a builder that offers several models and customizable components. This also seems like a compromise, but closer to the second (finished) approach. You don't get to decide everything, buy have some room to pick and choose to come up with something as close to your needs as possible.
As stated above, Smarts has striven to provide the 3rd option to the customers, which is commendable (and appreciated!). Yet many customers think that something about the solution is just not right for them. And they cannot modify it, at least not easily (unless they are builders themselves).
The typical reaction to this obstacle has been trying to “convince” the customers that they really don't need a two car garage. Not so easy. Another difficulty they face is that (parting from the house analogy), software products are very rarely “finished”, certainly not in the management tools market. As a result, customers can be quite skeptical, and rightly so since many vendors claim they have a finished product when they have nothing of the sort.
Another problem Smarts has always faced is that when you say you're selling a finished product and state “no assembly is required”, the “assembler” (system integrators, consulting companies, contractors, etc.) have no incentive to promote your product. On the contrary, they see your products as a threat to their business. This is not a good way to make friends and gain brain share in this industry. And without brain share, gaining tractions is very difficult, as Smarts experience shows, despite having very high quality products.
Ironically, vendors that do not have a finished product (not necessarily by choice!) as explained in the 3rd option above, have done significantly better in the marketplace with less innovative products. Vendors like Micromuse, and HP have managed to turn the shortcomings of their products into a strategic advantage by allowing third parties to fill the gaps, and customize the products the way customers want. The ecosystem that has developed around the products of these vendors are the most important strategic asset they have (some of the vendors are not necessarily aware of this but that's a topic for another post).
To expand its customer base, EMC/Smarts needs to move from 3rd to the 4th approach described above. This requires letting go of some of the control. The dynamic model represents an opening, a chance to move in the right direction. Whether EMC will take advantage of this technology remains to be seen, but so far wheels seem to be turning in the opposite direction. Instead of promoting this technology to ensure the market embraces it and understands the potential, bureaucratic obstacles have been put together to prevent people from using it.
It turns out, EMC/Smarts may be experiencing Frankenstein's dilemma. Dynamic model is truly a powerful technology, so much that EMC/Smarts folks are concerned that without oversight customers/integrators may break Smarts products with it, creating a support nightmare for them. As well intentioned as this may sound, it's terribly misguided, patronizing, and mostly false. Dynamic model has many uses, most of them are very straight forward and does not require advanced skills to take advantage of it. There are of course much
more sophisticated applications, and EMC should move to support anyone willing to invest in learning the technology rather than trying to prevent people from using it.
The faith of dynamic model can be seen as a litmus test for the future of Smarts. Will EMC move to make Smarts a solution that is embraced by a wide customer base or let it stay as a niche product? I certainly hope that EMC will let this “Monster” loose, and reap the benefits.
