This column is sponsored by ESRI
It’s been interesting to see the varying vendor approaches to the geospatial marketplace, and to note distinct differences in how they package and market their products. There’s generally a constant corporate personality for a company, but the marketing messages and product approach can change considerably over time.
There have been several structural changes at companies, where divisions and product lines have been realigned, that have greatly altered how they approach the market. I’ll stick to generalities here that relate to many companies as it’s not important to get specific. Changes in approach speak to how geospatial perceptions have evolved, and of course to the competition in the marketplace.
Platforms
Many geospatial vendors adhere to a platform approach, with the platform providing core functionality and a recognizable interface that is molded and updated through time. The general tasks of the software platform remain true, with tools or extensions added to tackle changing market needs.
The delivery of the software functionality has evolved over time, based on the means available for distribution. The operating systems that the software runs on have changed, but stability in that market have led to few added computer foundations beyond the standard Windows and Linux operating systems. Geospatial software platforms have jumped from workstations, to PC, to server-side enterprise systems, and thin clients delivered online. There’s continuing evolution in this space, with the emergence of “cloud computing”, and service oriented architecture (SOA) that take a web-centric approach.
The term platform has expanded to include increasingly broader definitions. It used to be centered entirely on software delivered on individual machines, but now there are database-centric platforms or Internet-centric platforms that encompass far more users in a distributed setting. There’s also the increasing importance of mobile platforms that bring specific functionalities to the field. In each instance, the core concepts of the platform remain true, but are being adapted to encompass a wider user base.
Solutions
The platform provides a structure on which to build other functionalities that are tailored to specific tasks or to job-centric workflows. Instead of one standard core set of tools that all users utilize, some companies have taken the approach to tailor their software for specific users, creating software solutions instead of a platform.
The solutions approach has proven lucrative for several vendors, particularly in markets where geospatial functionality extends existing tools rather than ecompassing the core needs of a market. Geospatial-oriented companies have benefited by adding geospatial tools to new markets, and have sometimes created entirely new tool categories. This is true in such areas as emergency response, computer-aided dispatch, water management, and in electric transmission and distribution.
Increasingly, there’s an interest in adding geospatial technologies to enterprise-wide systems. This category has been deemed “location intelligence” and the tools often take more of a “dashboard” approach rather that mapmaking or geospatial analysis. There are many markets where customized solutions are appealing, particularly in businesses where a full-time GIS analyst wouldn’t make much sense.
Aligned or Not
Multi-tool vendors in the computer-aided design (CAD) space have over time aligned their geospatial tools with civil engineering applications. GIS and CAD for engineering purposes have a great deal in common, civil engineers are generally dealing with projects of larger geographies that are inherently geospatial in nature. Their projects require the intake of geospatial data in order to correctly reference themselves to broader systems, yet the tools and workflows tend to be CAD-centric based on the training and familiarity that engineers have with the CAD toolset.
While the alignment of civil engineering applications with GIS tools seems to be a natural progression, there’s still a friction between the two that will take some time and better integrated toolsets to resolve. It seems logical that a model-based approach will resolve any disconnects between GIS and CAD practitioners, and increasing ease of large-scale model building will accelerate the resolution of any conflicts.
Whether a company aligns civil engineering products with geospatial tools has broad implications for how they market and communicate benefits of their technology. It’s not possible currently to market your tools as geospatial tools and appeal to engineers or to market your tools as CAD tools and appeal to geospatial professionals. Until there’s more integration between CAD and GIS, there will be a need to appeal to both camps with different messages.
Response to Competition
There are a lot of ways to differentiate software products from the competition, and a need to continually evolve the toolsets in order to stay different. Geospatial functionality is based on visualization, databases and analysis, and all three core functionalities must continue to be aligned while evolving separately. The complexity of this three-tiered system approach raises a rather large barrier for any new entries into the space. While there have been new players in ancillary markets, there have not been any new platform players, and that’s likely to remain true given the large investments that would require.
As vendors tweak their products to appeal to their existing customer base and to new prospects, it’s an ongoing challenge to show how their products outperform their competitors. There are so many areas where geospatial software needs to perform in terms of integration with other packages, ease of use, speed and performance, analysis capabilities, map rendering tools, visualization, simulation, design, communication, mobility, etc.
The complexity of the differentiation challenge will necessitate a continuing need for creative marketing and communication approaches that may be based on the underlying structure of the business or that may drive change of the underlying structure of the business. It all comes down to the performance of the business and the evolution of the marketplace.
Read what Jeff Thurston has to say on this subject here.
{ 1 trackback }