If there’s one thing you can rely on in the world of IT, its choice. No matter what the question, there are always multiple possible answers. This is no different with the hardware platforms themselves, even when you take into account the heavy consolidation this market has undergone in the past 10 years.

Platform proliferation is a fact of life, and I think most of us recognise that this is not going to change any time soon. Application vendors now typically face the requirement to support upwards of 40 widely-used platforms, with new variants appearing each year to add to the complexity. Many if not most enterprises now have a disparate, heterogeneous platform environment, which is being further complicated by tactical investment programmes, the desire to lower total cost of ownership (TCO) and the wish not to be locked into a single platform vendor. Whatever the organizational platform footprint, there will be considerable scrutiny in the overall TCO figures, including both the initial investment charges, but also the recurring annual hardware and software maintenance. The conundrum for the IT organization is to figure out how to maximise ongoing value, while at the same time removing cost and platform complexity.

The reasons for platform proliferation within enterprises are complex and varied. Ultimately, however, it comes down to the fact that end users want choice when it comes to platform selection. Real choice has, for the first time, been delivered by continued increases in processor power and hardware commoditisation, which means enterprises now have a far wider range of realistic platforms to choose from. Many businesses are looking at exploiting this choice to lower their total cost of ownership (TCO), and platform selection is now often much more closely aligned to business dynamics. Thus a company that is risk averse, has a huge throughput of data, a major security requirement, large numbers of customers and is conservative in terms of change might sensibly select a mainframe-based solution. On the other hand, a younger, more nimble enterprise which might not have quite so many customers or lower throughput might consider an entirely different platform – such as Windows, UNIX or Linux. But importantly, processor speeds and reduced hardware cost means the lines of demarcation between such options have become blurred almost beyond recognition. The result is that software vendors now have to make their applications available on a much wider range of platforms, as their customers will choose an application based not just on its functionality but also on the platform(s) supported, user requirement, skills profiles, supply-chain guidance, plus a whole host of other factors. For a supplier to assume anything about their clients’ platform preferences is a very dangerous game to play, and their conundrum is how to provide choice while at the same time limiting the development overheads and cost-of-sale.   

The need for breadth of support for application vendors is compounded by market dynamics of key vertical industries. In the telecoms vertical, for example, telecoms service providers need to lower their cost base, but also to leverage more ROI from their existing IT investment and preserve the differentiation they have gained from IT. Being able to cost-effectively propagate this regardless of platform selection is a major driving force. In financial services, the USP is also deeply entrenched in application code, so being able to re-use and harness this value is imperative. But with compliance challenges (such as the EU’s MiFID Directive and the US’s Sarbanes-Oxley Act) and the desire to improve resource and “consumption” management, major banks and other institutions face additional considerations regarding platform choice.

These types of end user requirements and business dynamics have a direct impact on the supplier community and the application providers. If an application provider’s market is broader than a single platform, then they have to ensure that their application works consistently across all the platforms their customers wish to deploy, in order to deliver a uniform process and user interface. This requirement also translates into increased support and development costs, and slower development cycles. These side effects of multi-platform support benefit no-one. Application providers quite rightly want to focus the majority of their efforts on developing and enhancing their own products and market differentiation, not on ensuring that these work on an idiosyncratic platform choice. Value and uniqueness are as important to the application providers as they are to the industries they serve.

The good news is that this is an area where Micro Focus can assist. One of our core principles has been to assist our customers in making their applications work across multiple platforms. We have a market-leading and proven solution that enables application providers to deliver against their customers’ requirements, which we will discuss with readers in the next part of this article in the next issue of In Focus. This will include looking at Micro Focus’ unique technology, the role of service oriented architecture and Web Services, and will provide examples of how the platform proliferation conundrum can be addressed. In Focus readers are invited to send their comments on these issues in the interim, by emailing feedback@microfocus.com.