What’s in a Name?

When CA announced last week that it would drastically simplify product branding, our first reaction was, “What, are you crazy?”

It’s the latest in a spate of changes intended to demonstrate that this is not your father’s CA, and definitely not the one that blindly consumed companies for their maintenance streams and typically emphasized marketing over product development. Consequently, you’ll no longer see reruns of product names like “CA Unicenter TNG,” which modestly stood for “The Next Generation.”

A new decade and a major accounting scandal later, the company has been trying to shed that identity with a more focused acquisition strategy targeting, for the most part, startups that could add synergy and new IP to the company. It’s been the bright spot in what have been several years of financial pain.

And so the branding simplification could be viewed as the latest example of an effort to clarify just what CA is. So in the new CA, the CA Wily Introscope product, that monitors J2EE application performance, will probably be called something like CA Introscope, while CA Unicenter Service Desk will likely be renamed CA Service Desk.

But there are several risks. The first is that CA might wind up confusing its installed base, although in actuality, that risk will vary by product. For most of the recent acquisitions, such as startups like Wily Technologies that had brands that weren’t exactly indelible, the risk should be pretty low. For the well-established lines, like Unicenter or the IDMS legacy database, it might be another story.

The Unicenter case is especially interesting. Ingrained for 15 years as CA’s management framework for distributed systems, the unitary branding implied unitary product.

Under the new scheme of things, the Unicenter brand will be dropped. Sounds like a dumb move until you realize that, excluding IBM (which is retaining the Tivoli brand), each of CA’s major rivals are doing the same. For HP after the Mercury acquisition, it’s goodbye “OpenView,” hello “Business Technology Optimization,” and for BMC, it’s goodbye “Patrol,” hello “Business Service Management.”

(What’s even more amazing is that HP, Mercury, and CA – which uses the moniker “Business Service Optimization” – will now have brand names that sound like virtual clones of one another. Our first reaction was, couldn’t any of these guys come up with something more original and memorable? But we digress…)

Why are the systems management folks dropping the familiar brand names? One word: ITIL. With the ITIL framework stipulating use of a Configuration Management Database (CMDB), the prime result is that each vendor in this space is reengineering its products to incorporate one. More to the point, the emergence of the CMDB has revealed the ugly truth that systems management products have never been as unified as their common brandings implied – thereby rendering the old brand names rather meaningless.

Indeed, the real risk to CA is the degree of effort it must invest to change more than 1000 product names. In the wake of the announcement, it published a 34-page, single-spaced PDF listing the entire catalog, estimating it would take 12 – 18 months to change all the names. That’s a process that will soak up significant marketing resources to change websites, collaterals, and craft new campaigns. Maybe the new branding may help CA burnish its new identity, but given that the company’s earnings have remained fairly flat over the past year, is it an investment that it can afford?

The “G” Word

Mention the term “governance” these days, and you’ll probably draw lots of nervous stares because the term means many things to so many people. Narrow that to SOA governance, and those expressions often turn blank.

The challenge is that governance itself is a loaded term, and when it comes to SOA, the definition of what to govern is at this point somewhat fluid.

Looking the term itself, in an age of SOX, governance not only implies fiscal responsibility, but legal as well. And while SOX isn’t specifically aimed at IT directly, as steward of corporate data, IT is on the firing line when it comes to ensuring that the CEO stays out of jail. One CIO of a major consumer goods company once related to us that SOX efforts tied up her staff for the equivalent of 90 days over the previous year.

And when you compare the objectives of SOX and SOA, you’ll inevitably confront a disconnect. While SOX is intended to prevent bad things from happening to data, if SOA is implemented properly, it provides new ways of exposing data.

Now let’s ratchet up the equation. With traditional software development, once you got past the requirements stage, the business typically threw most responsibility for the application over the wall to IT. By contrast, the SOA lifecycle can involve multiple masters through the life cycle, because new or reused services can be composed and shared on an ongoing basis. In most organizations, responsibilities for creating and maintaining a service over its life cycle have yet to be fully defined.

Consequently, if you’re going to formally govern SOA, that implies that there is some formal IT governance exercised as well to govern the rules of engagement, and set the context for how IT contracts with the business to expose and manage services from creation to deployment, modification, reuse, and retirement. And, given that reuse relies on a robust architecture (without one, you’d be hard-pressed to repurpose services if their semantics or technical designs are incompatible), that implies that the organization should have a somewhat codified software development lifecycle as well. And as we’ve maintained previously, the enforcement of service contracts specifying service level agreements means that there is an infrastructure management aspect as well.

Not surprisingly, when we convened a panel of experts on SOA governance at the Open Group’s Enterprise Architecture Practitioners conference last week, responses to the question of what SOA governance entails were all over the map. We’ll drill down more into that discussion in coming weeks.

But given that the goals of SOA are hardly modest, it’s no wonder that we’re still dancing around the “G” word.