I've previously blogged about how meta-products and services (and the meta-vendors who sell them) are encouraged by N=1 and R=G. What's the business climate for such products and services? How fast will they be adopted by, and start penetrating, the business community? What are the impediments, and how will they be overcome?

In my previous blog entries, I contrasted what I called "point solutions" with what I called "meta-products" (and services). A point solution product or service is dedicated to solving a well-specified problem and has little or no flexibility to accommodate variations or even totally different problems. A meta-product or service, by contrast, is not "bound" to a specific problem; it addresses a whole domain of problems, and can be "bound" by the customer to satisfy that customer's specific needs.

As the creator and vendor of a powerful meta-tool for automating software engineering, we very frequently hear from customers (and indirectly from their customers) that they want a black box so they can just "turn the crank." This desire is born of a number of factors in their business climate:

>> They are risk-averse, and regard anything but a proven black box as just too much of a risk.

>> They don't want to incur the cost and time needed for the training a meta-product or service requires.

>> They fear (perhaps correctly) that they don't have the caliber of employees needed to successfully deploy such a sophisticated approach to solving their problems.

>> They haven't seen a meta-product or service deployed, and they fear the unknown. (It's not "the way we've always done it.")

>> They're so old-fashioned and technologically illiterate that they can't understand a meta-product or service in the first place.

So companies have traditionally favored point solutions, and still do. However, over time, competitive pressure will force companies to seek more powerful approaches to filling their needs. Why? Because:

>> A meta-product can be "bound" to become a point solution much more quickly, and at much lower cost, than a traditional point solution can be created.

>> The superior caliber of employees needed to deploy meta-products and services gives the company a far more powerful team, especially as leveraged by the built-in power of the meta-product.

>> Given the proper caliber of employees and appropriate training, a high-quality meta-product or service is actually less risky than a point solution that is basically a one-trick pony.

What does this mean for a company's strategic and tactical position?

>> A company deploying meta-products and services can respond much more quickly to changing market needs.

>> Such a company can diversify its product (and maybe service) offerings more easily, so a downturn in a single market segment won't kill them.

>> With a meta-product, the company is less dependent on the vendor, avoiding the potential delay and risk such dependency implies.

I foresee a gradual initial uptake of meta-products and services, followed by an acceleration in that uptake as companies begin to see and believe in the N=1 and R=G benefits that such meta-products and services enable.

As companies begin to take on more and more meta-products and services, I also foresee a disintermediation in the software market, as "middleman" vendors become less and less needed.

Stephen Heffner is the president of Pennington Sysems Inc. www.Pennington.com