Stop Asking for Crap You Don’t Need and Won’t Use

I recently had a conversation with a vendor about a particular feature in their product: Me: “So you just added XZY to the product?” Them: “Yep.” Me: “You know that no one uses it.” Them: “Yep.” Me: “But it’s on all the RFPs, isn’t it?” Them: “Yep.” I hear this scenario time and time again. Users ask for features they will never really use in RFPs, simply because they saw it on a competitor’s marketing brochure, or because “it sounds like it could be cool.” The vendors are then forced to either build it in, or just have their sales folks lie about it (it isn’t like you’ll notice). And then users complain about how bloated the products are. This is a vicious, abusive loop of a relationship. It usually starts when one VERY LARGE client asks for something (which they may or may not use), or a VERY LARGE potential partner asks for some interoperability. It never works right because no one really tests it outside the lab, and almost no one uses it anyway. But it’s on every damn RFP so all the other vendors sigh in frustration and mock up their own versions. My favorite is DLP/DRM integration. Sure, I’m a firm believer that someday it will be extremely useful. But right now? A bunch of management dudes are throwing it into every RFP, probably after reading something from Jericho, and I’m not sure I know of a single production deployment. Tired of bloat in your products? Ask for what you need and then buy it. Stop building RFPs with cut and paste. Don’t order the 7 course meal when you only want PB&J. A nice, fulfilling, yummy PB&J that gets the job done. (No, this doesn’t excuse vendors when the important stuff doesn’t work, but seriously… if you’re going to bitch about bloat, stop demanding it!) Share:

Read Post

Incite 6/15/2011: Shortcut to Hypocrisy

I’m not a big basketball fan. I like the NCAA tournament. I may watch a game or two of the NBA playoffs/finals, but I don’t follow them. It seems nothing can get our nation to rise up like a common enemy. That enemy was the Miami Heat. My Tweeter exploded last night with all sorts of venom against the Heat, as they were losing to the Mavs. I could only laugh. Because it was a great example of the hypocrisy of so many sports fans. The Heat draws the ire of basically everyone because the top 3 free agents last year decided to play in Miami. The big 3 each took a $10-20MM financial hit in order to win championships. Sure, I see how fans of other teams can feel put out. Especially the fans in Cleveland who ended up holding the bag when LeBron left. But folks in LA? Folks in Boston? Folks in NYC? C’mon, man! How is what those teams do any different than what the Heat did? Except maybe the Heat did a better job – they landed the free agent whales. It seems like Boston fans have managed to forget Danny Ainge betting the ranch to bring in Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen to join Paul Pierce. And they delivered a championship. But that was different, right, Celtics fans? The Knicks signed A’mare and then traded pretty much everything else to get Carmelo Anthony. How is that different, especially after a first round exit in the playoffs? They talk about short cuts and in some of these pro leagues an owner willing to bet the ranch can assemble a very competitive team right now. How about baseball? The Yankees and Red Sox have been doing this forever. The Phillies joined the club this year as well, paying through the nose for Cliff Lee. And would it surprise anyone to see these teams playing in late October? What’s more surprising was last year, when teams like San Francisco and Texas got to play in the World Series. That gets my the point: folks are really pissed merely because their teams couldn’t get those guys. Basically they are jealous and complaining someone else did a better job – hypocrites. Maybe the sorest guy about this whole thing is the dude that owns the Cavs – Dan Gilbert. He was kind enough to tweet about the fact there are no shortcuts, which is a load of crap. There may not be a shortcut directly to winning the championship, but there are certainly shortcuts to make a team very competitive. And if you aren’t competitive, I’m pretty sure you won’t be playing in the championship. Photo credits: “Hypocrisy” originally uploaded by satosphere Incite 4 U On the “budget less” CISO: Raf Los seems to be hell-bent on antagonizing pretty much every CISO out there, advocating a divorce of the CISO from the security budget. The thing is, he’s advocating taking away something that was never really there in the first place. Sure, every company (of scale anyway) has a security budget, but that’s not our money. That’s the money the business has allocated as a cost of doing business. Maybe it’s to meet compliance needs. Maybe it’s to provide a minimum level of security. You can be sure the CFO will be trying to minimize this cost. Raf talks about a very Pragmatic approach to working with the business, in order to get them ultimately to buy into better controls. I have long believed that persuasion is the CISO’s most important skill – you must make the case to protect against an unknown attacker, using an unknown attack, going after data that may or may not be important. – MR ePayment pie: The fight for mobile payment supremacy is in full swing. And why not? Person to person commerce – with every mobile device able to be a point of sale terminal – offers huge potential revenue. The credit card providers love the concept of Square and Mophie Marketplace. It’s a win-win – for the banks anyway. Not only does more money move through the credit card system, but it gets close to removing cash from commerce altogether by making credit and pre-pay cards the de facto currency, with 2-3% transaction fees. Tons of smaller virtual currency providers are popping up to support people who want to pay in different ways, for everything from social networking to porn. You know it’s a big deal when the political lobbyists are going after other forms of virtual currency – like Bitcoin and Live Gamer – positioning their competition as unstable and only for online gaming and buying illegal drugs. Each virtual currency has its ideal application, and each has benefits for security, privacy, anonymity, and/or financial protection. So we will see plenty of FUD as all the players fight for a bigger slice of the revenue. – AL Passwords still suck: No, not the actual concept of passwords. Those are fine, as Adrian points out when pushing password managers. But only if you use them. The LulzSec folks continue to wreak havoc, so we might as well learn something from them. Troy Hunt does a great analysis of the passwords posted as a result of one Sony breach. Lots of pie charts and even a comparison to the file of Gawker passwords posted last year. The results are predictable, and sad. Well, they are sad if you want to improve the world. You can be happy if you are just hoping to not get pwned personally. Given the sheer number of weak passwords out there, if you use something a little less weak, you have a good chance of being over the threshold of what’s worthwhile for the bad guys. And lord knows, they are still all about the path of least resistance. – MR Zero knowledge pulpit: There is absolutely no reason to believe you can’t securely house PCI data in a cloud or virtualized environment. Ellen Messmer’s article questioning

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.