CharlieShen

- 上门考试的服务程序

企业组织内部人员参加TOEIC(托业)考试,如果时间和地点方便, 可以按照公开考试的程序和要求,报考公开考试; 也可以申请上门服务. 针对企业或培训/院校团体提供的托业考试上门服务, 充分展现了托业考试灵活、方便、快捷的优质服务风格， 为广大企业和其它团体客户所青睐和称赞。 上门服务的操作程序和规则如下:

中新网11月2日电  国家发改委经济运行局副局长朱宏任介绍称，关于油价上涨带来市场的波动，我想这个波动在沿海地区反映的可能比较突出。

　　11月2日上午，国家发改委召开2007年第三季度经济运行新闻发布会，朱宏任是在会上作出上述表示的。朱宏任强调，我想再明确地讲一下，就成品油供应的基本态势来说，供需状况没有一个基本面的改变，供需情况还是保持基本稳定的。

　　朱宏任称，关于具体哪个城市，我想已经有不少城市都出现了成品油波动引起的供应紧张的情况，可能要看一下最近的报纸和网上，这些方面反映的比较多，我们也在观察价格调整以后，是不是紧张的状况会有所缓和。但是可以肯定的保证，成品油供需的基本态势不会改变，国家会积极保证成品油供应。

　　朱宏任还表示，关于煤炭的供求情况，今年以来煤炭的产需都保持了比较快速的增长。从煤炭的生产情况来看，1—9月份，规模以上煤炭企业产量保持在11%以上的增长。另外，煤炭的需求在今年以来也是比较旺盛。应该说，煤炭供应的总体态势还是良好的。

　　从全国来看，煤炭的供需总体基本保持平衡。但是，随着冬季取暖季节的到来，像部分地区还受到运输瓶颈的限制，这方面可能还要及早做准备，保证冬季取暖。 (本文

海证券报11月2日报道  在成品油价格宣布上调之后，国家发改委表示，天然气调价措施将于近期实施。

　　发改委相关部门负责人表示，为抑制工业项目用气过快增长和汽车用油改用气的盲目发展，逐步缩小天然气价格与可替代能源价格差距，这次随成品油价格调整，国家还决定适当提高化肥以外工业用天然气出厂价格和车用天然气销售价格。

　　该负责人表示，我国国内天然气价格目前“严重偏低”，导致供求矛盾十分突出。

　　专家指出，为了“缩小天然气价格与可替代能源价格差距”，即将实施的上调的幅度应该不低于成品油的上调幅度，预计在10%左右。 (本文来源：上海证券报 作者：李雁争)

人民网11月2日电 国民党“考纪会”本周中常会提报2008年中心任务时，略掉了2007年所列的“国统纲领”与“九二共识”等文字，引发政治联想与深蓝反弹。国民党2008参选人马英九与党主席吴伯雄11月1日日强力消毒；下周中常会也将再次讨论，国民党内高层透露，将恢复“九二共识”文字。

据台湾《中国时报》报道，吴伯雄亲自开记者会澄清，强调年度中心任务没有列举的，并不表示就要删除，党章和党纲都还存在这些文字，希望外界不要误解。马英九也呼应说，年度性的文件位阶不及党章、党纲，有时列有时不列，没什么好大惊小怪。

苏起不满

马英九核心幕僚、最先提出“九二共识”的国民党“立委”苏起不满表示，他事先不知情，国民党和马英九需要的“本土化”是中道理性、多和民众接触，而不是丢掉“九二共识”这把两岸政策的钥匙，“想动它（‘九二共识’）的人不懂，有些人是搞过头了；这次风波过后，以后更没有人敢动它！”

吴伯雄解释，本周中常会因时间冗长，“考纪会”提出的讨论案，根本没时间好好讨论，他还表示下周中常会再看看大家的意见后做出决定，并没有定案。如果有人认为略掉“九二共识”文字不宜且造成误解，也可以再补回去后完整处理。

马英九第一时间也强调，“九二共识”一直是他的政策，从来没有改变；以后也会继续讲“九二共识”，“‘一个中国’、各自表述，‘一个中国’就是‘中华民国’”。

身为马营头号两岸政策幕僚的苏起表示，“国统纲领”在明年选后若有需要，或许可以检讨；但“九二共识”不管是选前或选后，都不宜删除变动，两者层次有别。

苏起说，国民党的“国统纲领”地位和民进党的“台独”党纲相当，同属于宗教层次的政治信仰，“要说它是神主牌也可以，反正它就是挂在那边，彼此尊重就好”；但“九二共识”则属于实际层次的政治手段，是两岸重启对话、直航、开放大陆游客观光等问题的钥匙。

幕僚误删“九二”掀波澜马吴一肚火

国民党要删除“九二共识”与废除“国统纲领”？“考纪会”年度中心任务提案在不到廿四小时内的转弯，意外擦枪走火，引爆国民党内路线争议风暴。其实整件事情的缘由，是来自于一个无心的新闻操作，党务高层气得直说吃了闷亏，但也只得委屈往肚里吞。

党务核心透露，由“考纪会”提报的2008年中心任务，是年度例行性“行礼如仪”的文件。10月29日在党务高层工作会报时，“考纪会”提报的内容几乎完全是依去年的中心任务内容“照表操课”，包括排序、内容也几乎没有什么出入。

而最重要的是，当日“考纪会”提出的年度中心任务内容中，并没有略掉“国统纲领”、“九二共识”等字样。

党务高层透露，当时工作会报，这份文件根本没有引起任何党务主管注意，会后也不觉得有什么特别重要之处。

媒体质疑靠向深蓝幕僚乱方寸

某媒体记者获悉文件内容依旧，向党内某高层质疑：“你们国民党不是要走‘本土保台路线’吗？怎么年度工作会报中，关于两岸议题还出现“国统纲领”与“九二共识”的内容？是不是受到深蓝压力，态度有所转变？”

在媒体提出这样的质疑后，消息立即传到马阵营发言人苏俊宾的耳中，苏担心若外界藉这一份在党内无关紧要的文件，大肆炒作国民党因担心深蓝基本盘松动，而决定调整本土路线，反而让马英九陷入进退失据的窘境，非常不利。

于是，苏俊宾当下立即决定，必须快刀斩乱麻，不要让外界有所误解，经过向马英九身旁某位极核心幕僚请示后，转而向党秘书长吴敦义报告，“考纪会”所提中心任务的内容，若没有调整“国统纲领”、“九二共识”等字眼，很可能会被外界作文章。

中山会报未提吴伯雄也不知道

当马阵营松一口气，认为“考纪会”从善如流，将“国统纲领”、“九二共识”等字眼拿掉，没有让媒体有机会在国民党本土路线是否松动大做文章时，党务高层却万万没想到，隔天媒体竟然大幅报道国民党“去统、删除九二共识”，引发党内罕见的内讧，让党务高层对此懊恼不已，直呼“根本是被当鱼钓！”

党务高层透露，马英九为了此事，一整天心情都很闷，吴伯雄也气得说不出话来，直问“党要删除‘九二共识’？怎么我党主席都不知道？”在连战发出措辞空前强硬的声明后，吴伯雄在连系人马出身的新任办公室主任李建荣强烈建议下，决定亲自进行危机处理。

吴伯雄亲自对媒体讲明，“九二共识”是党章、党纲的规定，能说删就删吗？“全代会”才刚开过不久，国民党怎可能此时有动作？党内高层随即也释出，下周中常会将会重

中共中央办公厅中共中央对外联络部公告

在中国共产党召开期间和胡锦涛同志当选为中共中央总书记后，许多国家政党、政府、民间团体及其领导人，驻华使节、友好人士以及旅居国外的华侨华人，香港特别行政区、澳门特别行政区同胞和台湾同胞等向大会、向中共中央、向新当选的领导人发来贺电贺函，表示热烈祝贺和良好祝愿。

中共中央办公厅、中共中央对外联络部受中共中央和胡锦涛总书记的委托，谨表示衷心的感谢。

新华网10月30日报道：中共中央政治局常委、全国政协主席贾庆林30日出席党外人士学习贯彻中共十七大精神座谈会并讲话。他强调，学习贯彻中共十七大精神，是当前和今后一个时期全党全国各族人民的首要政治任务，也是统一战线的首要政治任务。我们要迅速掀起学习贯彻十七大精神的热潮，用十七大精神武装头脑、指导实践、推动工作，努力把统一战线广大成员的思想统一到十七大精神上来，把力量凝聚到实现十七大确定的各项任务上来，为夺取全面建设小康社会新胜利作出新贡献。

贾庆林指出，统一战线学习贯彻十七大精神，必须牢牢把握中国特色社会主义的方向，坚持中国特色社会主义道路，坚持中国特色社会主义理论体系，坚持中国共产党的领导，把统一战线广大成员紧密团结在中国共产党的周围，共同推进中国特色社会主义事业。必须深刻把握科学发展观的科学内涵、精神实质和根本要求，坚持把发展作为统一战线广大成员团结奋斗的第一要务，坚持把最广大人民的根本利益作为一切工作的根本出发点和落脚点，统筹推进统一战线各领域工作。必须准确把握实现全面建设小康社会奋斗目标的新要求，为促进社会主义经济、政治、文化、社会建设作出新贡献。

贾庆林强调，十七大报告对党的统一战线工作方针政策进行了深入阐述，充分反映了十六大以来我们党统一战线理论创新和实践发展的重要成果。我们要在全面学习十七大精神的基础上，认真学习这些新论述、新要求，把学习十七大精神同深入贯彻落实第20次全国统战工作会议精神结合起来，认真研究解决统战工作中出现的新情况，特别是要研究当前迫切需要解决的各种问题，不断增强工作的预见性、主动性和有效性，扎扎实实地把十七大对统战工作的要求落到实处。

贾庆林希望各民主党派认真开好全国代表大会，遵循参政党建设的目标和原则，以政治交接为主线，全面加强思想、组织和制度建设，不断提高政治把握能力、组织协调能力、参政议政能力、合作共事能力，不断巩固和发展中国和谐的社会主义政党关系。希望工商联切实发挥好桥梁纽带和助手作用，引导非公有制经济人士自觉承担爱国报国、发展企业、遵纪守法、公益慈善、道德自律的社会责任，做合格的中国特色社会主义事业建设者。希望无党派人士把加强自身建设摆在突出位置，不断提高政治、思想和业务素质，始终与中国共产党风雨同舟、团结奋斗，更好地适应中国统一战线和多党合作事业的需要。

座谈会上，民革中央主席何鲁丽、民盟中央主席蒋树声、民建中央主席成思危、民进中央主席许嘉璐、农工党中央主席蒋正华、致公党中央主席罗豪才、九三学社中央主席韩启德、台盟中央主席林文漪、全国工商联主席黄孟复、无党派人士陈章良先后发言。他们畅谈了学习中共十七大精神的体会，高度评价了十六大以来中国改革开放和现代化建设取得的巨大成就，表示要认真学习贯彻好中共十七大精神，自觉接受中国共产党的领导，进一步履行参政议政和民主监督职能，坚持走中国特色社会主义政治发展道路，为夺取全面建设小康社会新胜利而奋斗。

中新网塔什干11月2日电  中国总理温家宝当地时间二日中午乘坐专机抵达乌兹别克斯坦首都塔什干。

这是时隔十三年后中国总理再次访问乌兹别克斯坦。一九九四年四月，时任中国总理的李鹏曾应邀对乌兹别克斯坦进行了正式访问。

温家宝总理今天将在塔什干出席上海合作组织成员国总理第六次会议。

 每个应用只需创建一个ReportEngine的实例

l         ReportEngine的构造函数要传入一个EngineConfig作为参数，如果参数为null，则一个默认值的ReportEngine被创建。

l         退出时，应用应该调用destroy()来卸载外挂以及删除临时文件

l         使用report engine有以下几个主要步骤：

a)         创建一个EngineConfig来设置report engine的选项

b)        创建一个ReportEngine类的实例

c)        你可以用这个对象去进行多种任务

d)        使用ReportEngine的一个openReport( )方法来打开一个report design文件

e)         使用IgetParameterDefinitionTask来获得report参数的信息

f)         使用IrunAndRenderReportTask运行并转换一个report到一个输出格式

g)        调用你的report engine的destroy( )方法

l         EngineConfig：The EngineConfig class wraps configuration settings for a report engine. It allows a developer to specify where to look for engine plug-ins and data drivers, and to add an application-wide scriptable object.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

l         IReportRunnable：为了使用report engine，你必须首先调用openDesign( )方法来打开report设计文件，这些方法返回一个IreportRunnable实例来代表report设计文件的engine’s view。使用IreportRunnable做以下任务：

a)         Get parameter data

b)        Get report title

c)        Get report author.

d)        Get images embedded within the report design

e)         Run the report

l         IEngineTask：该类提供一个管理脚本上下文以及report locales的框架，它从ReportEngine的工厂方法中创建，需要参数：IreportRunnable对象、a scripting context, and a locale。

- 帮助拉法基构建水泥王国
在全世界范围内，拉法基已经成为国际领先的建筑材料与水泥原料的生产商。作为在全球拥有65000余人的跨国公司,拉法基必须拥有高效的商务运作交流工具以保证日常业务运转。基于英语已经成为全世界广泛运用的商业交流标准语言，拉法基自公司总部制定了一系列的语言使用规章。整个公司依照以下的原则来实施： 在全球化商务运作环境中，英语是最基本的工具之一。 在各地，尊重当地人士的母语使用。 在巴黎总部,拉法基则充分运用法语作为公司文化的一部分.     由此，拉法基公司高层人士意识到：在现代社会中，英语已经作为必不可少的工作语言。同时，虽然公司超过25%的员工以法语为母语，但是公司仍将英语作为官方的语言之一。对于管理层的各级主管就要求必须通晓英语与法语，以便能够参加国际性的交流活动。在有分支机构的各个国家，拉法基要求员工尽可能多地使用当地的语言，同时也鼓励外籍员工学习本地语言。     面对全球有超过2/3的员工并非以英语为母语，拉法基需要解决的最迫切的问题是：在全球数十个国家中，公司人力资源部门如何建立考察英语能力的有效标准。答案早已找到，并收到了良好的效果，它就是：the Test of English for International Communication，也就是大家熟知的托业（TOEIC）考试。     拉法基巴黎总部培训经理Philippe Michaud对于TOEIC考试评价道：“在我们看来，托业考试是唯一能够简便使用的最有效的测评工具。它已经在我们公司全球的分支机构得到应用并收到良好的效果。”     经过几年的使用，拉法基已经建立起一整套使用TOEIC测试的经验与公司内部政策。例如，如果员工需要参加以英语为授课语言的技术培训，其英语能力必须达到TOEIC总分为800分。对于那些不能达到此项标准的员工，拉法基将启动内部语言培训项目来敦促员工达标。从而，拉法基公司的人力资源部门能够确保，接受培训的员工能够从以英语为授课语言的技术课程中获得巨大的收益。     另一方面，TOEIC测试在衡量员工英语学习进步的工作中也起到了至关重要的作用。据了解，1998年1月，在加拿大Montreal省，一个18人的拉法基团队接受了TOEIC测试。随后他们进行了为期四个月的英语培训。当六月他们在法国接受再次测试时，他们的平均成绩由775分提升为840分，达到了预期的效果。     至此，我们可以看到TOEIC帮助拉法基在全球的发展进程中起到了至关重要的作用。因为，拉法基的员工分布在波兰、缅甸、捷克、中国、法国、德国、葡萄牙以及俄罗斯等，通过使用TOEIC这个全球化的标准建立的一个有效、简便以及实用的衡量方法，帮助公司建立起一整套行之有效的内部人力资源管理政策。在加拿大拉法基分公司的培训经理Sylvain Castonguay介绍说："客观地讲, 使用TOEIC标准使我们能够掌握应试者英语交流能力的真正提高。”     除了法国和加拿大，拉法基在全球各地——土耳其、委内瑞拉、波兰以及中国实行TOEIC测试。在中国四川省，拉法基投资超过1.5亿美元建立一个大型的水泥厂。3月17日，在四川省都江堰的这个工厂，拉法基的员工们参加了一次由美国思而文公司管理的TOEIC标准测试.     拉法基高层经理表示，在拉法基全球化的进程中，会充分使用TOEIC测评标准来保证其员工能够方便有效地使用英语进行交流。     TOEIC测试体系帮助“拉法基(Lafarge)”建立了全球水泥王国。

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

SAP TechEd '07: Las Vegas vs. Munich
Vladimir Pavlov
Business Card
Company: SAP
Posted on Oct. 31, 2007 09:32 PM in Beyond SAP, Business Process Expert, Community Day, SAP Developer Network, SAP

TechEd
URL: http://www.sapteched.com/
  Subscribe
 Print
 Permalink
 

OK, it's been more than a week since the second TechEd '07 - the one in Munich - also closed. Many have already

shared their experiences, impressions and take-aways from this year's premier SAP educational conference. There have

been blogs about everything - lecture sessions, hands-on workshops, keynotes, Demo Jam, communities, Community Day,

Community Clubhouse, people, connections, evening events, food, beer, coffee, latte... But nobody has tried to

compare the events in Las Vegas and Munich (or at least I could not find it). So I just thought it might be

interesting for those who attended one of the conferences - or for those who missed them both (don't make the same

mistake again next year!), or even for those who attended both ;-) - to share my observations and impressions from a

comparison point of view.

Well, the key phrase here is "my observations and impressions", I don't pretend this to be complete in any sense,

neither accurate to the full extent - it's just how I saw and felt about it. Another point is that of course both

events have much in common and I'll not cover that (as I said you can find plenty of information here in the SDN

blogs area as well as on the official SAP TechEd site). I'll just try to summarize (some of) the differences. To

start with the obvious:

TechEd Las Vegas went for 4 days while in Munich it was 3 - plus one day for pre-conference programs like Community

Day at both locations
More than 6,000 attendees in Vegas vs. 4,000+ in Munich (both records setting I think)
Over 1000 hours of sessions in total in Vegas vs. 500 hours in Munich
All sessions scheduled twice in Las Vegas while some sessions scheduled twice (most hands-on workshops) in Munich
OK, these are just numbers and they're not that important or interesting I guess, I'll not bore you with them

further. Instead, let's give you an idea of how I saw the things happening. But first I should have told you that I

was at both events as I was presenting two sessions about Java EE 5 there - CE102 and CE152. (Otherwise, if you're

just attending, usually you won't probably go to both - although you're more than welcome ;-)

So, to continue with the comparisons based on my personal experience:

Munich was much easier to get to for me - a less than 2 hours direct flight from Sofia to Munich and you land at

almost the same time you take off, because of the time difference. ;-) Hmm, to get to Las Vegas was almost like a

whole day adventure - Sofia - Frankfurt - San Francisco - Las Vegas. And in the end you don't know what time it is -

should you go to bed or is it time for breakfast... (OK, in Las Vegas it's never time for bed - so this helps a bit

to decide...)
The TechEd in Las Vegas took place at Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is part of the same huge thing (I would

not call that building - maybe complex?) as the hotel (and casinos, restaurants, etc.) we were staying at. So for

almost four days we did not get out and if it were not the windows we wouldn't be able to tell what's the weather

like outside. In Munich, to the contrary, the Congress Center was somewhere outside the city, although there was a

super convenient connection from my hotel with the underground (U-Bahn).
I attended Community Day in Munich and I missed the one in Vegas - what I terribly regret! It cannot be described

easily, you really should have been there to feel it yourself. And I would strongly recommend it to anyone going to

TechEd next year!
My sessions: There were more attendees in Munich in all of them, probably partly because the lecture was scheduled

only once, and also hands-on rooms were bigger - although it turned out still not enough for one of the workshops.

Or maybe Java is still not that popular at SAP in the US. Which I'm quite confident will change with the release of

SAP NetWeaver Composition Environment. ;-) BTW, 2300+ CE 7.1 SP1 trial DVDs were handed out in Las Vegas - that's

more than 1/3 of all attendees!
Questions: There were a lot of questions in both Las Vegas and Munich. I remember talking with one guy for like 20-

25 minutes after one of my workshops. I don't know if that's generally valid, but from my own experience I can tell

that I got more deeply technical and lower level questions in Munich, and those in Vegas were more about the whole

picture, how and where things fit together. Well, I don't want to say that ones are "better" than the others.
Demo Jam: Wow, another awesome event in its own! In Munich the winner was Regina Sheynblat with "Widgetize Your SAP

Data" while in Las Vegas Brian Yarnell rocked the crowd with "Supporting Data-Driven Presentation Needs of a Sales

Force with XP3 and SAP NetWeaver BI". But you'd better watch the full recordings here and here.
Keynotes: Peter Zencke and Vishal Sikka in Las Vegas. And also Tim O'Reilly speaking on what's Web 2.0. Henning

Kagermann and Klaus Kreplin gave the one in Munich. Again, full recordings are available: Las Vegas, Munich.
...
I suppose the list can be extended over and over. Probably those others who were at both places can share different

views or might not agree with all my points. And that's also the charm of SAP TechEd - different people, different

expectations, different views, different cultures... But still, there's quite a lot for everyone! So I guess

everybody already can't wait till next year... Hope to meet you there again ;-)

 

Vladimir Pavlov is a senior software developer, part of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java development team.

 

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please extend the list if you were there too. Or just let us know what you think about it...
Comment on this weblog
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Titles Only  Main Topics  Oldest First 

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 07:09:12 Mark Yolton  Business Card [Reply]

Thank you, Vladimir, for these perspectives.

I, too, am struck by the differences and by the similarities of these "same" TechEd events in two locations just a

couple of weeks apart from each other. Alot of the content was similar in the lectures and hands-on sessions, yet

the other things you mentioned -- Demo Jam, Community Day hot topics, executive keynotes... -- were very different.

I was also struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich ... I expected that in Las Vegas, but not as much in

supposedly-reserved Europe, and yet the Munich Community Day and Demo Jam (as examples) were very active, engaged,

collaborative ... people were not reserved or quiet (which is good; we want them loud and participating, not just

watching and observing).

I'm traveling from California to Shanghai TechEd this weekend (talk about a long flight and disorienting

timezones...) to participate in TechEd Shanghai next week. We expected maybe 700 people in there, but have more than

1000 registered already and are trying to find enough meeting space to expand and include even more.

Then in the end of November, it's off to TechEd Bangalore (travel note: it took me 26 hours last year to get from

the front door of my house to my hotel room). It will be very interesting to me to see how the Shanghai and

Bangalore events and people are alike and different from our friends and colleagues at the events in the U.S. and

Europe. (Bangalore last year was fantastic, high energy, enthusiastic people hungry for learning and active

involvement in SAP and our SDN and BPX communities ... I hope to get to know more of them at Community Day there

this year.)

It's rewarding to note, as you did, that we're setting records for attendance all over the world this year (again,

on top of record-breaking TechEd events in 2006). And to see the enthusiasm and high level of interest and active

engagement from developers, business process experts, enterprise architects, sys admins, SAP product managers, and

all the others. TechEd is an energizing and educational happening focused on technology and innovation, and yet it's

also a cultural and relationship-building education and opportunity like nothing else I've experienced.

Thanks for sharing your observations.

Regards,

Mark Yolton

Differences ... Similarities ...
2007-11-01 09:35:29 Vladimir Pavlov  Business Card [Reply]

Hi Mark,

Nice to hear from you, too.

If you were "struck by the very highly engaged crowd in Munich" you should try to have a TechEd in some southern

European country (maybe even Bulgaria? ;-) ) - I guess you would be astounded then.

I'm sure Shanghai and Bangalore will be another success stories and wish you and everyone best of all there! It was

really a pleasure to meet you in Vegas and Munich.

Cheers,
-- Vlado

 

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

Srinivas Reddy is a Developer in the Business User, Framework development team at SAP in Walldorf.

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

IT, Export Control and Information Security: Learning to Speak the Same Language

By Magnus Bjorendahl

I believe that there is a gap between IT organizations and export control managers-and that this is just an old

story repeating itself in another area.

The story is the one where IT and business managers do not always understand each other or know the best way to

support each other. Businesspeople-in this discussion, the export control managers-often don't know what IT

solutions exist to solve a specific business problem, or understand the cost, effort and technical challenge

involved in delivering such solutions. Meanwhile, the IT organization typically doesn't appreciate the broad scope

and complexities of business needs-in this case, U.S. export and re-export requirements.

These problems are exacerbated by the fundamental communication barriers between the two groups. IT folks tend to

have a technically oriented, "Bachelor of Science" way of talking and thinking, and the export control managers tend

to have a business-oriented "Bachelor of Arts" way of talking and thinking. The only real way to address this

problem is to overcome those communication barriers. Fortunately, the IT industry is working toward doing just that

in a critical area-information security.

The Two Sides of Information Security

When I say information security, there are two types of security that I refer to. The first has to do with keeping

vital information from leaking to foreign countries-an especially significant concern in the Aerospace & Defense

industry. Regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), establish rules requiring

companies to obtain licenses and clearance before distributing information classified as ITAR-relevant to foreign

nationals and foreign countries. Severe punishments in terms of fines and even imprisonment can be given to

violators of those rules.

The second type focuses on protecting the company from the leakage of information to competitors; this is typically

referred to as protecting your intellectual property (IP). These days, IP is a vital business asset, and often a key

differentiator in the marketplace. The loss of such information to a competitor can do significant harm to a

company. The reason I bring up the protection of IP here is because the challenges around it are in many ways the

same, and a potential solution should be able to protect information from being illegally exported to foreign

countries and from being leaked to competitors.

Today, simply managing the growing amount of information flowing through a company is a challenge in and of itself-

and managing the security of that information is even worse. By itself, IT is not really equipped to manage these

security issues; IT professionals usually don't have a solid enough grasp of which business policies should be

applied to what sensitive information-especially when it comes to the complexities of export control. Ideally,

export control managers should be able to define the rules they need right in the system. They need a business

language that works with IT.

Overcoming the Language Barrier

NextLabs, [http://www.nextlabs.com] an SAP software partner and developer of information risk management enterprise

software, has created such a language-the Active Control Policy Language [http://www.nextlabs.com/products/acpl.htm]

(ACPL). ACPL was designed to let users, such as export managers, develop information security rules and information

-handling procedures with relative ease. Those users can assemble "components"-that is, familiar business terms-

which are then automatically translated into a computer program language. For example, for the handling of ITAR

technical data, export managers could define various types of rules in fairly straightforward language.

For access control, they might write:

Allow only ITAR-certified users to access ITAR technical data from ITAR certified systems
Notify when non-certified users attempt to access ITAR Project Info
For leakage prevention, they might write:

Deny duplication or distribution of ITAR technical data outside of ITAR controlled project areas
Deny duplication of ITAR technical data to removable storage devices
For data mobility, they might write:

Deny user not in US Locations access to ITAR technical data
Log when any laptop users duplicate ITAR project info
Deny mobile or disconnected computers printing ITAR technical data
For export control, they might write:

When licensed technical data is exported encrypt ITAR technical data
When licensed technical data is exported, send export transaction to SAP Global Trade Services
Basically, with ACPL, export managers and policy experts can define information security rules and information-

handling procedures on their own, without a lot of technical help. At the same time, NextLabs' Compliant Enterprise

solution can incorporate those rules and enforce them consistently across servers, document management systems,

email servers, and endpoints such as desktops and laptops. For its part, IT only needs to define how the building

blocks of the language-the component business terms-should be interpreted. For example, IT might need to determine

where the ITAR technical data is to be stored, or the type of encryption program to be used when exporting ITAR

technical data.

I would argue that without ACPL or some other automated common language, and the ability to automatically enforce

defined policies, the information security issue around exports will always be a problem. IT and export control

managers need to understand each other, and that means speaking the same language. Now, software can bridge that

gap, and that will help us bring greater consistency and effectiveness to information security.

This is still not the complete story, as software such as NextLabs' does not manage export licenses. If you would

like to know more about how SAP, NextLabs, and IBM have worked together to built an end-to-end solution for managing

exports of information, please read the whitepaper, "Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution for

Information Export Control." [https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a050483b-3365-

2a10-99b1-d98b0044cff6]

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace and Defense at SAP. In this role, he is currently in

the lead for building out the partner ecosystem (IVN) for Aerospace and Defense. Over the past couple of years, he

has been working closely with partners such as IBM, BearingPoint, MCA Solutions, TechniData, NextLabs, and Lockheed

Martin. Prior to his 8 years at SAP, he was an IT consultant for a consulting company in Stockholm. He holds a M.Sc.

in Computer Science and Engineering from Linkoping's Institute of Technology and is currently studying business

part-time at Wharton Business School.

Magnus Bjorendahl is an Industry Solution Manager for Aerospace & Defense at SAP

Srinivas Reddy is a Developer in the Business User, Framework development team at SAP in Walldorf.

Off late I am trying to understand process technology and the changes it's going through. I would like to share my current understanding.  Historically process automation has been at the heart of most information systems (enterprise systems in particular).  In early times, application infrastructures included 'workflow engines' which ensured 'work flowed' digitally between human user and system as efficiently as possible. Example: when a new employee is hired a series of workflow processes are started like for allotting equipment, training, salary payment... The system ensured that the work is pushed to the right person and the process gets completed.  With the increasing digital nature of work (ex: connecting with vendor systems, employee self services, performance KPI's, regulatory compliance...) more process steps got automated. Process technology which existed in a single component system (ERP systems for example) increasingly needed to interact with multiple internal and external systems. 

While one aspect of process technology needed to interface with human users the other needed exchanging messages with other systems  On one hand 'task management engines' where built which are a kind of abstraction on top of different 'process/workflow engines' and provide a 'universal work inbox' to human end users. On the other hand we see many 'messaging middleware / enterprise service bus' addressing process automation across component systems. Two recent developments of particular interest here are 'Service oriented architecture (SOA)' and business process standards such as 'Business process execution language (BPEL)'.  SOA ensures that component systems expose functionality as (web) services. This is a precondition to compose composite services/process in a flexible way.  BPEL and related standards help to standardize the way we model business process and the related execution runtime.

Process technology has a important role to play in increasing end user productivity and driving innovation. Seamless integration of process steps into end user interfaces be it office clients (as in the case of Duet), web based collaboration portals (such as Enterprise 2.0 applications) or custom widgets are part of this productivity enhancers. Innovation needs adaptive systems for creating next generation business processes. How do we design adaptive systems?  It has a lot to do about having a process technology, which enables flexible 'model driven' process composition. As we transition from 'component based'  to 'service based' systems its important to understand that both technologies are complementary. What's new is the ability to create business process on the fly, which are executed collaboratively and leverage the predictive capabilities of the huge data warehouses we are building.  The four key building blocks for this as I see are 'process engine', 'analytical engine', 'transactional engine' and 'collaboration engine'. I see here the role of process engine to leverage the other three engines to create the next generation 'process technology'.  This process technology will come in different flavors ( be it Workflow foundation as Microsoft would call it or many flavors of  Event driven middleware),  but at the end its about how 'well designed' the different components work together. If there is one thing consumer apps can learn from enterprise apps it's about better using process technology. Consumerisation of enterprise apps on the other hand is posing new challenges to process technology. Hopefully we will see more advances in this space in the near future.

To do this;

Open the ejb project, double click on the web service configurations, create to configuration by clicking the add button.

First one was standard, named Config1, and it was added when we first create the web service.

The second will be used for reaching the web service via basic authentication with username and password. Create the new configuration by clicking web service configurations, click the web service name and click the add button. After creating the configuration choose security; select HTTP Authentication for Authentication mechanism and Basic Use SAP Logon Ticket from below. Choose operations(your ejb methods) for web service and save. Save it and your configurations look like the below one :

Translation Collision
This collision occurs when SAP and customer translate the same development object separately. The following steps describe the scenario.
1. SAP creates a development object and transports it to the customer repository.
2. Customer does a translation into German.
3. SAP also does a translation of the same development object into German.
4. When the customer receives the new development object, Mobile Application Studio reports a collision.

Imported Deleted Notification Collision
This collision occurs when SAP deletes an development object which has been modified by the customer. The following steps describe the scenario.
1. SAP creates a development object and transports it to the customer repository.
2. Based on customer specific requirements, a technical consultant enhances the original version of the development object. This is done in a side branch since SAP owns the development object.
3. SAP deletes the original development object by placing it in a changelist for deletion.
4. When SAP's delete changelist is transported, a collision occurs because the development object has been modified by the customer and Mobile Application Studio displays a notification of deletion

Ownership Transfer Collision
This collision occurs when customer enhances a development object and SAP tries to transfer ownership of the development object to customer repository. The following steps describe the scenario.
1. SAP creates a development object and transports it to the customer repository.
2. Based on customer specific requirements, a technical consultant enhances the original version of the development object. This is done in a side branch since SAP owns the development object.
3. SAP tries to transfer the ownership of the development object to the customer repository.
4. When customer changes are released, Mobile Application Studio reports a collision because the baseline version cannot reside on a side branch.

This collision occurs when SAP and customer enhance the same development object and customer tries to release his changelist after importing SAP's changes. The following steps describe the scenario.
1. SAP creates a development object and transports it to the customer repository.
2. Based on customer specific requirements, a technical consultant enhances the original version of the development object. This is done in a side branch since SAP owns the development object.
3. SAP also enhances the original version of the development object and transports it to the customer repository.
4. When customer changes are released, Mobile Application Studio reports a collision between the version transported by SAP and customer's own enhanced version.