Pentagon Plans New Arm to Wage Wars in Cyberspace

May 29, 2009

By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon plans to create a new military command for cyberspace, administration officials said Thursday, stepping up preparations by the armed forces to conduct both offensive and defensive computer warfare.

The military command would complement a civilian effort to be announced by President Obama on Friday that would overhaul the way the United States safeguards its computer networks.

Mr. Obama, officials said, will announce the creation of a White House office — reporting to both the National Security Council and the National Economic Council — that will coordinate a multibillion-dollar effort to restrict access to government computers and protect systems that run the stock exchanges, clear global banking transactions and manage the air traffic control system.

White House officials say Mr. Obama has not yet been formally presented with the Pentagon plan. They said he would not discuss it Friday when he announced the creation of a White House office responsible for coordinating private-sector and government defenses against the thousands of cyberattacks mounted against the United States — largely by hackers but sometimes by foreign governments — every day.

But he is expected to sign a classified order in coming weeks that will create the military cybercommand, officials said. It is a recognition that the United States already has a growing number of computer weapons in its arsenal and must prepare strategies for their use — as a deterrent or alongside conventional weapons — in a wide variety of possible future conflicts.

The White House office will be run by a “cyberczar,” but because the position will not have direct access to the president, some experts said it was not high-level enough to end a series of bureaucratic wars that have broken out as billions of dollars have suddenly been allocated to protect against the computer threats.

The main dispute has been over whether the Pentagon or the National Security Agency should take the lead in preparing for and fighting cyberbattles. Under one proposal still being debated, parts of the N.S.A. would be integrated into the military command so they could operate jointly.

Officials said that in addition to the unclassified strategy paper to be released by Mr. Obama on Friday, a classified set of presidential directives is expected to lay out the military’s new responsibilities and how it coordinates its mission with that of the N.S.A., where most of the expertise on digital warfare resides today.

The decision to create a cybercommand is a major step beyond the actions taken by the Bush administration, which authorized several computer-based attacks but never resolved the question of how the government would prepare for a new era of warfare fought over digital networks.

It is still unclear whether the military’s new command or the N.S.A. — or both — will actually conduct this new kind of offensive cyberoperations.

The White House has never said whether Mr. Obama embraces the idea that the United States should use cyberweapons, and the public announcement on Friday is expected to focus solely on defensive steps and the government’s acknowledgment that it needs to be better organized to face the threat from foes attacking military, government and commercial online systems.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has pushed for the Pentagon to become better organized to address the security threat.

Initially at least, the new command would focus on organizing the various components and capabilities now scattered across the four armed services.

Officials declined to describe potential offensive operations, but said they now viewed cyberspace as comparable to more traditional battlefields.

“We are not comfortable discussing the question of offensive cyberoperations, but we consider cyberspace a war-fighting domain,“ said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. “We need to be able to operate within that domain just like on any battlefield, which includes protecting our freedom of movement and preserving our capability to perform in that environment.”

Although Pentagon civilian officials and military officers said the new command was expected to initially be a subordinate headquarters under the military’s Strategic Command, which controls nuclear operations as well as cyberdefenses, it could eventually become an independent command.

“No decision has been made,” said Lt. Col. Eric Butterbaugh, a Pentagon spokesman. “Just as the White House has completed its 60-day review of cyberspace policy, likewise, we are looking at how the department can best organize itself to fill our role in implementing the administration’s cyberpolicy.”

The creation of the cyberczar’s office inside the White House appears to be part of a significant expansion of the role of the national security apparatus there. A separate group overseeing domestic security, created by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks, now resides within the National Security Council. A senior White House official responsible for countering the proliferation of nuclear and unconventional weapons has been given broader authority. Now, cybersecurity will also rank as one of the key threats that Mr. Obama is seeking to coordinate from the White House.

The strategy review Mr. Obama will discuss on Friday was completed weeks ago, but delayed because of continuing arguments over the authority of the White House office, and the budgets for the entire effort.

It was kept separate from the military debate over whether the Pentagon or the N.S.A. is best equipped to engage in offensive operations. Part of that debate hinges on the question of how much control should be given to American spy agencies, since they are prohibited from acting on American soil.

“It’s the domestic spying problem writ large,” one senior intelligence official said recently. “These attacks start in other countries, but they know no borders. So how do you fight them if you can’t act both inside and outside the United States?”

AT&T will roll out LTE ini 2011

May 28, 2009
By Phil Goldstein, FierceWireless

AT&T Mobility will begin upgrading its HSPA network to allow for theoretical peak downlink speeds of 7.2 Mbps starting later this year, and expects to complete the work by 2011.

It has also brought forward its LTE rollout plan, testing to start in 2010 and deployment in 2011.

The carrier said it would double the amount of 850 MHz wireless spectrum used for its 3G network in most metropolitan areas, and will offer multiple HSPA 7.2 Mbps-compatible laptop cards and smartphones starting later this year.

In addition, it will add more cell sites - 2,100 across the United States - and increase bandwidth in its cell sites by adding fiber-optic connections between the sites and its IP backbone network.

The company also said it will begin trialling 3G microcell offerings, which use femtocells to enhance in-building wireless coverage.

All of these projects fit within AT&T's previously outlined capital expenditure plan of $17 billion to $18 billion for the year, AT&T said.

Despite the positive tone of the company's announcement - and the wide range of coverage the news is sure to get - AT&T did not provide a number of important specifics, including how many people and miles its upgrade will cover, what real-world speeds will be like, what vendors will deploy the upgrade, and how much it will cost.

Digital Divide is caused by Lack of Demand and Complex Interface

May 28, 2009
By Charlie Davies/Ovum

Digital divides in developed economies are less about limited broadband availability and more about a lack of broadband demand and complex interfaces. These are some of the key conclusions to drawn in the report from Ovum, entitled Bridging the broadband divide: challenges and solutions.

There has been significant focus on the limited availability of broadband as the main factor in creating digital divides whereas Ovum and other consumer surveys and studies, have shown other factors such as a lack of demand as being a more significant barrier.

Globally, overwhelming evidence that broadband is ‘good for the economy and good for the nation’, has made connecting society via broadband Internet a major government goal. In many developed markets, broadband penetration is now well over 50%; however, overall broadband growth is slowing despite the fact that broadband availability is at an all-time high.This is due to either a significant minority of people not being interested in taking up broadband or them facing significant barriers in doing so.Ovum recommends a number of strategies that will help to bridge the digital divides:

First of all, less emphasis on technology: many people without broadband or the Internet are put off by overly complex devices and interfaces that cater for the technically literate and users with disabilities are largely under-served. Inclusive design needs to play a much greater role through the adoption of design standards and principles, shared R&D and increased collaboration between commercial companies, not-for-profit organisations and public agencies.

Secondly, broadband could be embedded in social and economic programmes including education, employment, care and others designed to empower the socially excluded.

Thirdly broadband providers need to pay attention to community relevance, from marketing to grassroots activity. In most cases, operators will play a key role in broadband inclusion activity, but this will be in partnership with other commercial companies, public agencies, NGOs and user groups. For example, efforts to target elderly people can involve old-age charities, targeted media coverage, local care agencies and companies specialising in solutions designed for elderly users.

Companies in the ICT sector, including broadband providers and consumer electronic companies, face the double challenge of reduced consumer spending and saturation of their core customer bases (early adopters and the mass market).

The growth opportunities that lie in serving this last 10–30% of the market globally are there, although they are the most challenging segments to sell to, with higher acquisition costs and lower returns. However service providers with the finances, acumen and resources to pursue these segments in partnership with others, can reap benefits that go beyond additional incremental revenue and Corporate Social Responsibility fulfilment, including building strength in inclusive design and additional brand value.

ERP vs Business Performance Management

Organizations are constantly looking for ways to maintain their competitive advantage and increase sales while lowering costs. Analytics helps organizations identify whether they are getting the most out of their resources. Is the money they spend going to good use? Are they proactively identifying ways to cut costs while maximizing resources?

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) solutions for manufacturers have analytics embedded within them. But do these systems actually give organizations the depth and breadth of analytics required to sustain a competitive advantage? Or is business intelligence (BI) for manufacturing the better solution?

In some cases, ERP analytics will be enough to meet an organization’s needs. But what about those organizations that aren’t lowering production costs, improving sales, or managing their supply chains effectively through the use of their current systems? In this case, BI for manufacturing may be the better way to meet and exceed an organization’s strategic goals. Let’s explore both options to help you determine which type of analytics is more beneficial to your organization.

Organizations using an ERP solution should ask themselves whether their ERP system helps them

• determine which customers are most profitable
• understand their company’s inventory worth
• track which items have remained in inventory for too long
• identify what products have the best margin growth
• recognize how company profits are developing

Organizations implementing an ERP solution need to have a continual view of the organization’s operational status, have access to business indicators that influence the organization, and have a visualization feature that provides management with constant access to business strategy. ERP analytics allows organizations to address these issues through financial, operations, and workforce-based analytics. But what does this really mean for the organization? Why are these analytics important as an enhancement for an ERP system?

Components of ERP Analytics

Aside from tracking order processing, getting products to the right place at the right time, and creating accurate sales forecasting, ERP analytics allow organizations to hone in on financial, operations, and workforce-based analytics to move beyond a traditional ERP solution and thus create and sustain a competitive advantage.

ERP analytics includes the following:

• Financial analytics, which help the organization develop business plans and budgets, and track performance during execution. Financial analytics includes financial and management reporting, planning, budgeting and forecasting, scorecards, working capital and cash flow management, and payment behavior analysis.
• Operations analytics, which help the organization optimize its supply chain, improve revenues, and increase customer satisfaction.
• Workforce analytics, which help the organization understand workforce trends, measure workforce processes and benchmark results against what is happening in the market, align business activities with the strategic goals of the organization, and measure the success of employee compensation programs.

How BI Differs

Organizations that want to move beyond the limited scope of ERP analytics and manage performance on an organization-wide level should consider a BI solution. This will help them move toward an inclusive approach to setting metrics, collaborating on tasks, and tying initiatives to the organization’s overall goals. By focusing on organization-wide business issues, a more cohesive view of the organization is created.

For manufacturers, the added value of implementing a BI solution includes

• Increase in profitability
  • Gain visibility into demand and sales trends to minimize inventory investment.
  • Analyze cost components and drivers to reduce the cost of goods sold.
• Improvement in sales performance
  • Analyze sales trends and customer buying behavior.
  • Monitor key sales, marketing, and revenue metrics.
  • Analyze pipeline and performance by brand, product, customer, channel, and geography.
• Improvement of operational effectiveness
  • Monitor key operational metrics.
  • Identify and analyze excess, obsolete, or slow-moving inventory that can be scrapped or repurposed.
  • Receive timely notification of events, such as late supplier delivery, changes in customer demand, or production stoppages.
• Optimization of the supply chain
  • Evaluate supplier performance in terms of quality, delivery, and price.
  • Monitor and analyze freight costs.

Conclusion

Manufacturers need to identify which approach works best for them. Do built-in ERP analytics meet business requirements and help manage organizational performance, or should manufacturers take advantage of the additional benefits of a full BI solution? Organizations may be using their current set of ERP analytics, and it may provide sufficient benefit to the organization.

Click here for your free custom comparison of ERP solutions.

If not, BI solutions can create an organization-wide approach to managing performance and gaining competitive advantage that goes beyond ERP analytics.

Business Performance Management

Factors Inhibiting the Widespread Adoption of Business Performance Management Lyndsay Wise - May 16, 2007 Although business performance management (BPM) offers outstanding benefits, such as helping organizations align their performances to their business processes and their overall organizational strategies, widespread adoption has been slow at best. BPM vendors need to ask themselves why this has been the case, and what they can do to increase their market penetration. A step in the right direction would be to identify BPM's competitors within the overall business intelligence (BI) market, analyze the market penetration that BI solutions have sustained, and determine how BPM can reposition itself to increase its competitive edge. Identifying Vendor Differences Identifying the way vendors are positioning themselves in the market may help users find the vendors that most closely meet their requirements. Although there is a great deal of feature and functionality crossover, vendors market their differences aggressively. This may create confusion for user organizations. Differentiators among vendors are generally seen in business benefits, market positioning, and organizational uses, which often translates into how solutions are adopted and used. BPM Vendors Leading BPM vendors include Applix, Cartesis, CorVu, Clarity Systems, Actuate, and Hyperion. Analysts forecast that the BPM market will reach roughly $1 billion (USD) by 2011. While BPM vendors provide similar features as their BI counterparts, they primarily focus on planning, budgeting, forecasting, consolidation activities, etc. that center on an organization's financial performance. This can include sales and marketing efforts, human resources management, and vertical market solutions. Traditional BI Vendors Traditional BI vendors include Cognos, Business Objects, Information Builders, and MicroStrategy. In 2005, analyst consensus placed the overall BI market between $4 billion and $6 billion (USD) with high growth rates for subsequent years. BI vendors provide users with the ability to create and leverage data from within a data warehouse, and extract, transform, and load (ETL) functionality that pools data from across various applications to create a centralized data repository. Additionally, reporting, online analytical processing (OLAP), analysis, scorecard, and dashboard functionality provide the user with interface and front-end analysis tools. Lastly, many BI vendors develop solutions based on various vertical markets, or business functions, to meet the general needs of organizations out of the box, and increase their usage across the organization by providing specialized solutions. Crossover Vendors In addition to vendors with a strong presence in either BPM or BI markets, several vendors have expanded their product offerings and marketing strategies to compete in both spaces. Included in this list are Actuate and Hyperion, which have crossed over from BPM to include BI. Within the BI space, Cognos and Business Objects are examples of vendors positioning themselves in both markets. These crossovers give users more flexibility. For BI vendors, their expansion into the BPM market gives their customers the advantage of a BI platform, vendor viability, and features and functionality. Additionally, many customers that implement BPM solutions do so as expansions within their BI frameworks. Operational BI Vendors Operational business intelligence (OBI) has emerged to provide organizations the forward-looking analysis and real-time decision-making ability lacking in traditional BI. Operational BPM and BI use similar tools to measure and define an organization's performance, and to compare those defined measurements to identified metrics. However, the focus of each market differs slightly. BPM focuses on the departmental management of metrics, or key performance indicators (KPIs), to manage the application of strategic planning. OBI leverages the use of BI to embed those tools within organizational processes. OBI includes the development of analytics and dashboards to monitor various metrics and provide collaboration tools to interface with various departments. OBI tends to appeal more to operations users and lines of business (LOB) managers, while performance management tools appeal to financial applications users. Factors Inhibiting the Widespread Adoption of BPM Aside from market size and current market penetration, the perception of BPM is that it has less presence than its BI counterpart. In reality, BPM and BI each play to a different audience in terms of usage within the organization. BPM's main focus is financials, including budgeting, consolidations, planning, and so on. However, BPM vendors may offer some similar features and functionality as BI vendors. BI vendors focus on the breadth of their product offerings, which include data warehousing, OLAP, reporting, usage of dashboards, etc. This means that BPM vendors might have to fight to get their "foot in the door," because BI plays to a wider market. Installed Base BPM vendors compete in a skewed market where they are immediately disadvantaged. Why? BI has a large installed base. BI vendors use aggressive marketing campaigns to target their current customer bases and to increase standardization within organizations. This presence often creates a roadblock for BPM vendors. A BI vendor's installation base and crossover strategy makes the vendor a natural contender for growth within user organizations. BI vendors have greater success because it is easier to sell to a current, satisfied customer than to find new customers. Additionally, many BI vendors develop crossover strategies or market their BI functionality to meet an organization's BPM needs. Platform Standardization Standardization on a single platform by the information technology (IT) department represents a significant obstacle to BPM vendors. One of IT's goals is the creation of a stable and manageable environment. BI standardization involves the use of a common BI platform to meet the needs of an entire organization. It also allows BI vendors the advantage of expanding their installed bases to generate more revenue and to align themselves more closely with the IT department. This means that once a BI environment stabilizes, the expansion of that environment may be seen as the easiest route to achieve both IT and business satisfaction. Vendors that try to enter these organizations may encounter resistance due to the additional time and resources necessary to install, maintain, and integrate the new tools within the current environment. Similarly, organizations have been gravitating toward standardization on an overall IT platform—that is, Microsoft, IBM, SAP, and Oracle (MISO). Therefore, organizations are more likely to look to these vendors first for BPM or BI solutions. Although most BPM vendors can integrate within these environments, the seamless transition and the use of a single platform create more ease for the IT department. Also, the products offered from the MISO vendors are built specifically for these platforms to make, in theory, the job of the IT department easier. Whether other BPM suites are better suited to the organization's needs becomes inconsequential, as the short-term benefits of an easy integration and general functionality may outweigh the payback of a full-scale project to evaluate other options. Financial Resources BPM vendors have another obstacle—the financial strength of BI vendors. With their substantial revenues and profits, many BI vendors have an advantage over BPM vendors in their ability to grow functionality or sales channels either organically through internal efforts, or inorganically through the acquisition of smaller vendors. The development of BPM functionality allows users to use their current platforms with minimum integration or training issues. This provides inherent value to current customers and allows them to take advantage of a vendor's far reach. BI vendors that become crossover vendors through organic growth can increase their installed bases and focus on platform standardization. Alternatively, many BI vendors choose to acquire smaller, best-of-breed BPM vendors to broaden their market shares. A recent example is Business Objects' acquisition of ALG Software. Such acquisitions give larger vendors an automatic inroad into the BPM market. Additionally, by buying out BPM vendors, BI vendors increase their market penetration, customer bases, and overall presence. Once BI vendors do this on a large enough scale, they could dominate the market by default, making it difficult for best-of-breed BPM vendors to compete or to expand their market presence. Learning Curve BPM vendors are missing the boat by arguing ease of use against BI tools. User-friendliness occurs due to familiarity with the tool, and not because of its perceived intuitiveness. Training initiatives are required to get users "up to speed" (accustomed to) on whatever tools they will use. Their comfort using the installed applications creates an ease of use that cannot always be duplicated by a new system. Basically, the unfortunate reality for BPM vendors is that BI is already in the organization. Even if the learning curve for a BPM tool is not as steep, it may not matter. The result is that BI's use within organizations creates its ease of use over time. For BPM vendors, arguing that they have an advantage in this respect may be a losing battle. A better strategy would be to focus marketing messages on addressing perceptions of BI instead of focusing on a point BPM vendors are not likely to win. How BPM Vendors Can Accelerate User Adoption BPM vendors and their messages of aligning corporate strategy and business processes to drive profit have gained momentum within organizations. However, the subsequent actualization of BPM's strengths has been adopted at a slower rate than its BI counterparts. BPM vendors need to identify and focus their market strategies on differentiating themselves further from BI and on using their key strengths to further penetrate the market. Vertical Markets BPM vendors could accelerate user adoption by expanding into key vertical markets. These markets include finance, banking, and government. BPM's strengths are within budgeting, planning, activity-based costing, and so on. Focusing on these areas may provide BPM vendors with the ability to show user organizations the inherent value of their software in a way that does not compete directly with their BI counterparts. Also, by providing these features out of the box, and because they require less customization, the implementation times are lessened, thus adding to users' perceived value. In addition to a vertical focus, the features that BPM solutions provide to target these specific markets could give BPM vendors the edge in relation to more horizontal implementations. Once a vendor becomes known as a leader within a specific sector, its expansion across departments within organizations may be an easier transition. Additionally, based on a BPM vendor's strengths, it can partner with BI vendors that already have a strong foothold within the industry, but whose functionality may not include BPM. This would deliver benefits to both vendors, and enable BPM to extend its presence within organizations. Seeing IT as an Ally, Not a Detractor To ensure successful BPM, the IT department and business unit need to work together. Many BPM vendors abandon the sales effort if IT is involved in the decision-making process. In reality, these vendors may be "kicking themselves." In many cases the business unit may drive the process and choose the tool. However, the IT department provides the back end support and maintains the platform. Due to its overall structure, such as being built using a data warehouse and ETL processes, IT's involvement in BI is great. The expansion of many BI projects is based on IT's buy-in to support the infrastructure. Because BPM appeals to financial departments, business units that manage metrics, and C-level managers, the involvement of IT might not seem as intuitive. Vendors positioning themselves solely for business units may be missing the boat. IT's involvement, and bridging the gap between IT and business units, can help guarantee a vendor's positive perception by the organization. Alternatively, if buy-in from the IT department is not attained, the internal expertise to keep the system up and running may be lacking, and expansion throughout the organization will most likely not occur. Tying Key Differentiators to Return on Investment Within the BPM and BI markets, return on investment (ROI) seems elusive. These two markets have an overlap of various features and marketing messages, but the overall advantages and how to measure them are not straightforward. Common ROI measurements that reflect hardware and software costs do not provide the full picture, as BPM advantages tie in directly to the organization's strategy. Examples include an increase in sales, lower customer turnover, successful financial consolidations, and so on. BI can provide the same advantages, where its focus aligns with that of a BPM initiative. This means that although BI can be measured in time versus cost savings, the additional ROI measurements attached to BPM only work if the solution is aligned with organizational strategy. Vendors can use ROI calculators to develop an ROI methodology that highlights their alignment to an organization's overall strategy to further differentiate themselves from their BI competitors. Conclusion The focus of BPM and BI vendors overlaps as BI vendors enter the BPM landscape and vie for domination within the market. Due to their current market presence, BI vendors have a perceived advantage over their BPM counterparts. BPM vendors can learn from BI's past successes to expand their presence in the marketplace. Additionally, they can leverage their key differentiators to make more inroads into expanding their customer base and to build upon their inherent advantages.

Balancing Learning & Safety with Web 2.0 in schools

Welcome to the first issue of School Network Advisor, the new monthly newsletter from Lightspeed Systems. We are excited to bring you news about important school networking issues and technologies!

It seems like talk about Web 2.0 technologies is everywhere you turn these days. From social networking to video sharing and blogging, Web 2.0 has transformed the Internet, and has the power to transform education.

On his web site Tim O’Reilly defines Web 2.0 as:

Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them.

By definition, Web 2.0 technologies are collaborative and social. They encourage discussion and sharing. All of these things make them well-suited to an active, rather than passive, learning environment. But while the use of Web 2.0 technologies in schools can enhance learning and help students develop essential 21st-century skills, concerns about safety, security, bandwidth, and more prevent many schools from utilizing these resources.

Lightspeed is committed to helping schools balance learning and safety in a Web 2.0 environment.

> Learn about the new Educational Video Library (part of Web Access Manager), which lets teachers safely share approved YouTube videos with students
> Check out the Web 2.0 resources in the Lightspeed Wiki for more information, including results from a recent survey on Web 2.0 in schools, a Tech & Learning webinar, blogs, and more.

(Joel Heinrichs, CEO, Lightspeed Systems)

EU: INTEL to pay $1.45 Billion fine in Anti-Trust Case

The EU has decided to fine chip giant Intel a massive $1.45 billion (€1.06 billion for the Europeans out there) for allegedly locking AMD out of the chip market by giving large OEMs discounts on chips.

The EU ruled that Intel had illegally used hidden rebates to lock rivals out of the CPU market. In a statement issued by European Union Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes she said:

Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years.

Intel has been ordered to cease the illegal practices and the company has three months to pay.

Intel has already issued a statement that indicates that the company plans to appeal the decision:

Intel takes strong exception to this decision. We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace – characterized by constant innovation, improved product performance and lower prices. There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers. Intel will appeal.

The record fine dwarfs the €497 million that was initially levied against Microsoft by the EU. Intel can count itself lucky as it could have faced a file of as much as 10% of its global turnover – which would have added up to a whopping $3.7 billion.

(Source: Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, ZD-net)