The Importance of Standards to the Industry: An Interview with Barry Rudolph, Vice President of Stack Integration and Strategy, IBM

To shed light on why our members find their SNIA participation valuable, FarSighted recently interviewed Barry Rudolph, Vice President of Stack Integration and Strategy, IBM. His comments speak to the heart of why standards are important across the industry, to both large and small vendors, as well as end users.

FS: Why did your company feel it was important to join the SNIA and invest initially?

BR: Our view is not only to join but to lead. We have a very strong view that creating standards and adhering to them across the industry is not an option, it's an absolute requirement for the industry to thrive. Without this, there are huge inhibitors for our clients, and as a result for the industry, to be successful. There are lots of examples - not just in storage, but in other areas as well.

Without industry cooperation, clients are forced to make decisions that, once made, lock them in. It creates a lack of choice, and restricts a user's ability to optimize their environment. Some have argued that standards impede innovation, but we believe exactly the opposite. It is the absence of standards that thwarts innovation - it removes choice, makes it harder to change vendors, and therefore there is less motivation within the industry to create innovative solutions..

We are huge believers in standardization and cooperation, since we like to think of it from the client view in, rather than the industry view out - and SNIA has done a good job of that. If the SNIA was absent, you would end up with these interesting coalitions that occur, which sometimes are the right thing to do but typically are not long-term sustainable.

FS: You saw a lack of standards prior to the SNIA - did that directly affect your company?

BR: It affected the entire industry, and this wasn't limited to the storage industry. A lack of standards means clients have to make decisions that are very difficult to undo once they have been made. If you look at the client view, this is a bad thing and it stifles innovation.

Companies better serve their clients when they view their needs in an outward-facing direction. If the industry doesn't move in this direction aggressively, there is a risk that smaller players never enter, since they don't have the freedom of entry. The result of this is that the market consolidates around one or two big players, and the client doesn't have choices. Clients are locked in while the 1-2 big players duke it out. This is not good for any industry.

FS: Why is the SNIA and its standards work important?

BR: If there never was a SNIA, there would be no standardization or ability to interoperate, and no ability to communicate. Our organization might look at a new area and say, "let's not invest there, because there's this huge dominant player." The market economics drive almost a monopolistic behavior. In the absence of SNIA, the impact to IBM would be potentially a lack of financial desire to invest in certain areas based on demographics and share positions, etc. I'm sure other companies would feel the same.

If the SNIA existed, but our company did not join it, our view of the market and what is right for our clients would not be part of the agenda, so there's a risk that our point of view would not be articulated in the standards, and therefore we would be disadvantaged in the marketplace.

Even though it's only been a decade, I can't imagine the absence of the SNIA, and I can't imagine the absence of our participation. We pride ourselves in being close to our clients and understanding what they want. The SNIA allows us to represent that point of view in a way that has influence on the industry at large. So our membership is a good thing for everyone. It's a good thing for our company, it's good for our customers, it's good for the industry at large. Our participation means our client's concerns are part of the agenda.

If a company said, why would we want to cooperate - this is our innovation, why would we want to share it? Without participating, then they enter the market where the other players are cooperating and giving client's choice. They may find that they have limited opportunities, because the clients are demanding standards compliance. As a result, this company's innovation must have a tremendous value proposition that is significant enough to overcome the negatives of not being compliant with what is standard in the industry. If what you're innovating on are things that limit client choice, then ultimately you're innovating in the wrong place, because that is not sustainable.

I would submit that a startup company should participate in the SNIA, even if purely for the benefit of the knowledge you gain by taking part in the committees. We have seen the benefits for both large and small companies alike, and the ultimate winner is the end user.

Barry Rudolph was interviewed by Lesley Bakker, SNIA Director of Marketing.