Neeraj Nathani Smartbridge Trading Solutions Pvt Ltd Picking Winners In Big Data

Picking Winners In Big Data

Big data solutions are picking up speed in the IT industry. There’s a Cambrian explosion of interesting start-ups, and all the database and business intelligence incumbents have moved to create big data offerings, or rebrand into the new universe.

The key to seeing the value of big data is understanding that it’s a business problem, not a matter of picking the right tools and waiting for the magic to happen. That said, technology choices still need to be made in an increasingly crowded and confused market.

The biggest question for anybody wanting to invest or adopt technology in this area is how to pick the winner? Glancing through marketing materials will do little to help you: everybody claims relevance to big data.

As I am often asked my opinion about big data companies, I thought I’d share some of the principles I use to help me think about the industry.

Where’s the value?

We need to understand where the actual value is in the data world. For the most part, this value doesn’t lie purely in the software. Over the past decade we have seen a rising tide of commoditization of the software stack: from operating system, to relational databases, to Hadoop itself. In fact, without this, we wouldn’t have the big data revolution as we know it.

As Hadoop has become a de facto standard, so has the notion of building on top of it with open source. There is some advantage in software innovation, but it is momentary. Once something is known to be possible, there are enough smart programmers out there that reproducing it becomes straightforward. (Because of this, I gloomily predict no shortage of patent battles in the not-too-distant future.)

Despite the flux in the software world, two things about big data remain constant: the need for compute and storage, and data itself. It’s ultimately to ownership of one or both of these factors that IT industry value will gravitate.

Compute and storage

The ever growing need for computing power and storage bodes well for companies providing the basics. These fall into two categories: hardware manufacturers, and cloud infrastructure providers. Not that these two markets are immune to their own fluctuations, thanks to standardization and commoditization, but fundamentally, getting paid for use of metal is the name of the game.

In this respect, it’s not too much of a mystery why storage company EMC has plowed so early and so deep into the big data world. Neither is it hard to see the reasoning behind Intel creating its own optimized Hadoop distribution.

Data

Value resting in data is the more subtle of the two axes of big data success.

Big data is ultimately about the smart use of data to drive a business. There are two kinds of data: data about your business, and data external to your business that you can create value from.

It’s easy to see who might get success from the latter, external data. We can expect that massive data owners such as Google, Facebook, Thomson Reuters, Bloomberg will experience ongoing success for as long as they are able to create product from their data.

Who owns your data, though? The obvious answer, you, isn’t the only answer. In fact, your data is locked up inside the platform choices you make, at both the hardware and software level. If your systems are based on Oracle, Microsoft, you are very unlikely to move in a hurry. Data likes to stay where it is, and tends to attract more data as you build systems around it. Production systems are expensive to replace.

So, the vendors of your software platforms of choice also get long term value from your data. For this reason, it’s hard to bet against existing enterprise application platform incumbents in the big data world. Big data, for most of today’s organizations, is an additive phenomenon, not a challenge to the core of IT.

We’ll see more large platforms ensuring nobody needs to move away. Examples include SAP adding HANA, in order to enable their existing customers for big data, or Amazon Web Services’ addition of their data warehouse Redshift, to ensure that the entire data needs of a company can be met on their platform.

Finally, it would be lunacy to bet against either Oracle, who have been portentously quiet in the big data world over the last year, or Microsoft, who in Excel have the world’s most popular data manipulation environment.

It is all business as usual?

I’m not saying there is no new opportunity in the big data industry. What I am saying is that, as an additive technology, big data is unlikely to enable anybody to challenge Oracle or Microsoft for the throne.

There will be change, though, and it will bring both winners and losers.

The area of value we haven’t yet looked at yet is the point where data interacts with the actual mechanism of a business. That’s where it transfers value to you and enables you to leverage data to get ahead. This breaks down into several areas of opportunity for big data innovators.

• Domain specific: tools that enable the manipulation and exploitation of data in a way that’s specific to a business segment. We see initial evidence of this market opportunity in the evolution of web and customer analytics products.
• Machine learning: more data means more to understand, and the only way an organization can realistically do this is with the aid of computers. Machine learning helps automate many parts of the data wrangling process. Furthermore, cross-company data sharing can significantly boost the effectiveness of machine-learning, creating the opportunity for companies gaining early market share. A recent example of this is Sift Science, a fraud detection application.
• Tools for exploration: human interaction with data is a requirement that’s hard to abstract away. Tableau has a head start in this market for big data, filling the role of “Microsoft Office for Data”, but the field is ripe for new innovation, especially with the increasing power of graphical capabilities and new device formats.
• Data agility: speed-to-decision is a critical factor in business competitiveness. Any solution that removes laborious steps has an advantage: a particularly problematic area here is data integration, the loading of both internal and external data sources ready for analytics. Most of today’s big data solutions are frankensteined combinations of layers: there’s a great opportunity for vertically integrated solutions that removes needless impedance to data manipulation.

Move up http://i.forbesimg.com t Move down

Areas of risk

What are those riskier big data options? If a solution isn’t scoring high in the categories above, it’s not likely to be around for the long run.

The biggest risk is with solutions that address only a single horizontal part of the data architecture. Time is against companies in this game. By selling just part of a complete solution, they’re working against the rising tide of commoditization. Customers will demand standardization (e.g. Hadoop compatibility) in order to feel safe adopting such solutions, but that prevents the lock-in that will protect that business. It’s not Oracle’s relational database that cements their position: it’s their vertical position up and down the application stack.

Therefore, it’s not surprising to see the pure Hadoop distribution companies making partnerships, and branching out into other vertical layers. In the long term, it’s a tough road they’ve chosen.

One company working actively to solve this problem is DataStax, who have pivoted from being seen as the corporate backer for the Cassandra NoSQL database—a risky horizontal play—to selling an integrated stack of Cassandra, Hadoop and Solr, intended as a complete platform for building enterprise applications. They’re going after some of the platform business: being involved in the actual use of data to drive business value.

For some start-ups, not having long term big data viability might be just fine as a strategy. As the bigger enterprise companies lumber into the arena, they’ll prove handy acquisitions. But given the crowded space and progressive commoditization, this isn’t a certain future. And certainly for their customers, the risks are growing.

More controversially, another area at risk is that of traditional ETL. Or in its broader sense, data integration. This is a hard, hard, problem. It’s not easy to integrate data retrospectively, and it’s not all certain that the integration players from the data warehouse world will be able to translate that success into the big data world. Many early adopters of Hadoop were motivated by the fact that existing ETL solutions couldn’t meet their needs.

In the long term, data integration is likely to be best served by entire new architectures that don’t try to separate and tame the data in the first place. It’s a lot easier to build truly integrated data infrastructure as greenfield.

For those who crack the integration problem, the potential rewards are high. But so is the risk.

Conclusion

In the long term, the additive nature of big data, combined with inertia, makes it a safe bet that current enterprise IT incumbents will continue their reign, as long as they move to embrace big data in their architectures.

There is plenty of opportunity though, especially in greenfield and cloud scenarios. Expect to see increasing returns for those who provide integrated solutions and do a good job of equipping human decision makers.

There’s long term value in metal, and value in data. About everything else, it’s worth thinking carefully.

Source: Wikipedia./Forbes

Neeraj Nathani SmartBridge Trading Soutions Pvt Ltd

Category management

Category management is a retailing and purchasing concept in which the range of products purchased by a business organization or sold by a retailer is broken down into discrete groups of similar or related products; these groups are known as product categories (examples of grocery categories might be: tinned fish, washing detergent, toothpastes). It is a systematic, disciplined approach to managing a product category as a strategic business unit.^[1] The phrase "category management" was coined by Brian F. Harris.^{[n/a 1]}

Category management in a retail context

Each category is run as a "mini business" (business unit) in its own right, with its own set of turnover and/or profitability targets and strategies. Introduction of Category Management in a business tends to alter the relationship between retailer and supplier: instead of the traditional adversarial relationship, the relationship moves to one of collaboration, with exchange of information, sharing of data and joint business building.

The focus of all supplier negotiations is the effect on turnover of the category as whole, not just the sales of individual products. Suppliers are expected, indeed in many cases mandated, to only suggest new product introductions, a new planogram or promotional activity if it is expected to have a beneficial effect on the turnover or profit of the total category and be beneficial to the shoppers of that category.

The concept originated in grocery (mass merchandising) retailing, and has since expanded to other retail sectors such as DIY, cash and carry, pharmacy, and book retailing.^[2]

Definition of category management (retail)

Category management lacks a single definition thus leading to some ambiguity even among industry professionals as to its exact function. Three comparative mainstream definitions are as follows:
Category management is a process that involves managing product categories as business units and customizing them [on a store by store basis] to satisfy customer needs. (Nielsen)^[3]
The strategic management of product groups through trade partnerships which aims to maximize sales and profit by satisfying consumer and shopper needs (Institute of Grocery Distribution)^[4]
.. marketing strategy in which a full line of products (instead of the individual products or brands) is managed as a strategic business unit (SBU). (Business Dictionary)^[5]
The Nielsen definition, published in 1992, was a little ahead of its time in that customising product offerings on a store by store basis is logistically difficult and is now not considered a necessary part of category management; it is a concept now referred to as micromarketing. Nevertheless, most grocery retailers will segment stores at least by size, and select product assortments accordingly. Wal*Mart's Store of the Community, implemented in North America is one of the few examples of where product offerings are tailored right down to the specific store.^[6]

Definition of a category

The Nielsen definition of a category, used as the basic definition across the industry is that the products should meet a similar consumer need, or that the products should be inter-related or substitutable.^[8] The Nielsen definition also includes a provision that products placed together in the same category should be logistically manageable in store (for example there may be issues in having room-temperature and chilled products together in the same category even though the initial two conditions are met).

However, this definition does not explain how the process often works in practical retailing situations, where demographic or marketing considerations take precedence.

The category management 8-step process (retail)

The category management 8-step process

The industry standard model for category management in retail is the 8-step process, or 8-step cycle developed by the Partnering Group.^[9] The eight steps are shown in the diagram on the right; they are :

1. Define the category (i.e. what products are included/excluded).
2. Define the role of the category within the retailer.
3. Assess the current performance.
4. Set objectives and targets for the category.
5. Devise an overall Strategy.
6. Devise specific tactics.
7. Implementation.
8. The eighth step is one of review which takes us back to step 1.

The 8-step process, whilst being very comprehensive and thorough has been criticized for being rather too unwieldy and time-consuming in today's fast-moving sales environment; in one survey only 9% of supplier companies stated they used the full 8-step process.^[10] The current industry trend is for supplier companies to use the standard process as a basis to develop their own more streamlined processes, tailored to their own particular products^[11]

Market research company Nielsen has a similar process based on only 5 steps : reviewing the category, targeting consumers, planning merchandising, implementing strategy, evaluating results

Category captains

It is commonplace for one particular supplier into a category to be nominated by the retailer as a category captain. The category captain will be expected to have the closest and most regular contact with the retailer and will also be expected to invest time, effort, and often financial investment into the strategic development of the category within the retailer.
In return, the supplier will gain a more influential voice with the retailer. The category captain is often the supplier with the largest turnover in the category. Traditionally the job of category captain is given to a brand supplier, but in recent times the role has also gone to particularly switched-on private label suppliers.^[12]
In order to do the job effectively, the supplier may be granted access to a greater wealth of data-sharing, e.g. more access to an internal sales database such as Walmart's Retail Link

Category management in purchasing

Category management can also be applied to purchasing within an organisation. Although the term is the same and there are many similarities with elements of retail category management including the use of similar tools and techniques applied in reverse, the methodology is fundamentally different. Applying Category Management in purchasing benefits organisations by providing an approach to reduce the cost of buying goods and services, reduce risk in the supply chain, increase overall value from the supply base and gain access to more innovation from suppliers. It is a strategic approach that focuses on the vast majority of organisational spend. If applied effectively throughout an entire organisation the results can be significantly greater than traditional transactional based purchasing negotiations.

The concept of Category Management in purchasing originated in the late 80's. There is no single founder or originator but the methodology first appeared in the automotive sector and has since been developed and adopted by organisations worldwide. Today Category Management is considered by many global companies as an essential strategic purchasing approach. Category Management has been defined as “an evolving methodology that drives sourcing strategy in progressive organisations today”.^[15]

The Chartered Institute of Purchasing & Supply defines Category Management as:

"organising the resources of the procurement team in such a way as to focus externally onto the supply markets of an organisation (as against having a focus on the internal customers or on internal Procurement departmental functions) in order to fully leverage purchasing decisions”.^[16]

Jonathan O'Brien, author of Category Management in Purchasing, defines Category Management as:

"the practice of segmenting the main areas of organisational spend on bought-in goods and services into discrete groups of products and services according to the function of those goods or services and, most importantly, to mirror how individual marketplaces are organised. Using this segmentation organisations work cross functionally on individual categories, examining the entire category spend, how the organisation uses the products or services within the category, the marketplace and individual suppliers.",^[17]

Peter Hunt, partner at ADR International, writes

“the term category management can mean different things to different people, so a working definition is needed. A ‘category’ is the logical grouping of similar expenditure items, such as spend on advertising agency services or IT hardware. Category management is the sourcing process used to manage these categories to satisfy business needs while maximising the value delivered from the supply base”.^[18]

Many public sector organisations have recently adopted category management as a strategic transformation tool. Sir Philip Green, in his “Efficiency Review” of UK government spending, recommended that “centralised procurement [should be] mandated for common categories to leverage this buying power and achieve best practice”.^[19]

Source: Wikipedia.