© 2011 IBM Corporation

Improving Reliability and Making Things Cheaper to Run

Tuesday 20th September

James Linsell-Fraser, Senior Architect & Client Technical Advisor

September 2011

© 2011 IBM Corporation2

Why am I here?

Background

Challenge

Approach / Plan

Opportunities

© 2011 IBM Corporation3

Background

My Background

– Complex systems integration programmes in financial services and public sector

– Trusted advisor - driving value out of IBM products and services

– Not here talk specifically about IBM and what it is and does – will answer what I can!

IBMs technical community

– I am a representative of IBMs technical leadership capability in UK and Ireland

– Day job versus eminence – exploiting IBMs technical council, shared values

– Innovation drives value in front of the client: technology and service orientated

– We represent a significant influence in the market and clients expect the best

– A services world, consuming IT services (SOA, Cloud) – helping define the standards

© 2011 IBM Corporation4

Challenge

“Complex Systems Integration” – a process that adopts service based patterns

– For me, the hardest part of what we do in IT delivery

– Integration of disparate technologies, current & legacy

– Integrating technology with business – service orientated architecture

– But, because it is hard, we don’t always get it right! (but we need to learn)

What can we learn from other industries about improving our effectiveness?

– Team of 6 started an initiative to compare and contract the IT and Automotive Industries

– The challenge is – where do you start and what do you compare?

– Problem is, we are not intellects / experts in Automotive manufacturing….

– …..but there must be some synergies in method and process?

© 2011 IBM Corporation5

Approach – Auto manufacture example

Technology Architecture

Functional Architecture

Integration Architecture

Operational Architecture

• Tried and tested principles and best practice• Based on assets, products and design patterns• Could be shared amongst different business units• Best of breed materials and components, affordable

• Based on design principles and best practice• Legacy components• Custom design components• Shared asset components• 3rd party vendor components

• Based on design principles and best practice• Define the relationships between the components• Complex interactions required, modelled and understood• Multiple layers of complexity to integrate

•Needs to be: • reliable and perform to customer expectations• dependable • realistic total cost of ownership/support• economic to run and decommission

e.g. Shared chassis, drive train and engine between group

members. Heritage and brand.

e.g. SatNav, Bluetooth, Aircon are from 3rd party vendors. Engine might

be shared amongst models and partners. Body panels bespoke

e.g. Electrical, entertainment, mechanical, user interface, etc sub

systems to integrate

Sounds just like IT…Manufacturer and supplier

ecosystem

© 2011 IBM Corporation6

Problem Statement

“Complex SI in the 2010s is more about component integration than “blank sheet” engineering”

How can we make complex IT integration projects more reliable and cheaper to run?

© 2011 IBM Corporation7

Compare & Contrast the two industries

IT

IT is a relatively new industry which has grown dramatically both in

business impact and in technology.

IT is a competitive and global industry with an increasingly complex

supplier ecosystem.

There are established global brands for which service quality is a

fundamental requirement.

AUTO

The lifecycle of automotive delivery is well established to control change and maximise profit.

It is a highly competitive, global industry with a complex supplier

ecosystem.

There are established global brands for which product quality is

a fundamental requirement.

© 2011 IBM Corporation8

What we want to achieve

STUDY GOALS Compare the lifecycle of Auto production and maintenance

Understand how Delivery Excellence affects our business and is contained

Identify engineering influences that can be translated into IT process improvement

RESULTS FROM THE STUDY Recommendations on how the IT Services business could change its delivery models

A model of the transformation effort and investment required

A model of the IT return on the potential Delivery Excellence improvement

© 2011 IBM Corporation9

Using hypothesis to focus on the problem – “Service Patterns”

“Due to an accurate estimating method and

automated build processes the motor industry is able to invest more on the design phase and design for run”

“The motor manufacturing process has mastered core engineering

principles that are common throughout the industry and used to

drive down cost and improve reliability”

“The motor industry is more adept at managing change

than the IT industry”

“The motor industry has overcome the equivalent of the

Business-IT-IT gap in efficiently managing the

transition from requirements to build to run”

“The motor industry has adopted and matured testing processes using accurate input data to improve quality and optimise manufacturing. The IT industry has not yet reached a similar level of maturity”

© 2011 IBM Corporation10

The plan is to undertake research using a variety of sources to evidence the hypotheses and identify if there are relevant improvements that we could adopt into IT design and delivery capabilities

Consult academia to identify relevant

studies/sources

Refer to published industry research

e.g. Gartner

Leverage relationships with

auto manufacturers e.g. JLR

Compare and contrast

processes, metrics and outcomes

Work with innovative bodies such as the NoAE

Reference case studies from both

IT and Auto projects

NoAE: Network of Automotive Excellence

© 2011 IBM Corporation11

Opportunities for IBM and Manchester Business School

What could the Academic community / business school do for us? Help identify research, assets or experiences that we could study

Introduce us to bodies, communities, knowledge or leaders in this this area

What we could do to thank you for that Share our analysis and results with you, perhaps an opportunity to collaborate?

Understand how our work could contribute to your work

Build relationships with IBM so that you could leverage R&D, capability and industry leadership

(our) Timescales End of Q411 – identify the sources of input and collaboration End of Q112 – outline business case, review early recommendations End of Q212 – finalise work, publish Remember – we are doing this voluntarily in time we make around our day jobs !

© 2011 IBM Corporation12

Questions?