Tom Barnett on what the big consulting companies are doing:
Now we're into a world where asking companies to pay you millions for a massive PPT slide deck that says, "This is your company now and this is what your company should look like tomorrow," is simply a non-starter. So while the tech-heavy firms like Accenture and Cap Gemini do well at the bottom and the high-end starts like the Monitor Group do well at the top of the pyramid, a lot of mid-range, standard cookie-cutter management consulting firms are seeing their market decline. Everyone wants the super-integrated solution now that combines compliance, security, systems-integration, performance metrics—and they want it delivered in a service-oriented architecture that frees companies up to evolve in ways commensurate with globalization's many demands and opportunities.
I see efforts in all the compliance, security, systems-integration, performance metrics, and SOA rabbit holes. I don't see very much unification. In my swamp - SOA security. I do see a lot of starter efforts where companies build out services, but forget the security - and then either an auditor comes asks "so how are you doing authN and authZ for your web services" or a security event happens, or a diligent director comes along and asks variant of the auditor question. Then some things start to happen, usually a purchase of a XML gateway, but Data Power, Vordel and Cisco can't help you if its just shelfware.
Integration is inherently difficult and messy. Information security groups need to get good at engaging with development and architecture in a proactive way to deiver these security services to the system. I call it "playing offense", infosec spends most of its time defending against bad guys, and that is ok, it is a huge part of infosec's job, but sometimes you need to go on offense and raise the bar. Make the bad guys' job harder, build security in.
Comments