Todd Biske: Outside the Box

Archive for the ‘IT’ Category

While doing my thinking outside the box, I ran across Joe McKendrick’s post discussing whether SOA can be boxed. Joe provided commentary on a blog entry from Jack van Hoof who called out that the major ERP-vendors could potentially deliver “SOA in a box.” He points out:

SAP offers a service bus, service registry, events registry, canonical data management, business processes, services deployments (!), business monitoring, business process management, security… out-of-the-box. Yes, of course the implementation must be tuned and configured. But it’s all there, out-of-the-box.

There’s a certain amount of truth to this statement. It’s probably better stated as services in a box, because after all, it’s a box. We have no idea what the underlying architecture of SAP is. While it may be the case that SAP or any other large ERP system could constitute the bulk of your infrastructure, that doesn’t mean that you’re suddenly purchasing an SOA. If new business needs come along, it’s now up to your ERP system to provide those capabilities. If they’re new, then it’s the ERP vendor who must figure out how to quickly make the changes necessary, if they even choose to do so, since it would have to be something with broad customer applicability to make financial sense for them. It’s certainly possible to build custom code on top of the ERP system, but you’re always going to have that dependency. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, you just have to choose wisely on where to leverage the ERP system.

I’d like to pick on one comment Joe made in his commentary. He stated:

…the idea of buying all SOA from one vendor flies in the face of the ultimate meaning and purpose of SOA — the ability to pick and choose tools, applications and services from any and all vendors. SOA is supposed to mean the end of vendor lock-in.

I don’t agree with this opinion. While services can be used to create an abstraction layer from vendor products, I don’t think it needs to be a goal. The factors that influence whether an organization leverages one vendor, lots of vendors, or no vendors really doesn’t come into play at all. What SOA should do is assist you in making appropriate vendor decisions. Just as I commented some time ago that SOA should neither increase nor decrease outsourcing, but instead ensure increase the chance that outsourcing efforts are successful, the same holds true for choosing vendors. By breaking the problem domain down to a finer-grained level (services rather than applications), I can make better decisions on the vendor products I choose. If they don’t expose services for the capabilities I need, I’m going to look elsewhere. The only thing that could start leading toward better insulation from vendor lock-in will be more standards in the vertical domains. There’s plenty of standards out there, but there’s probably far more spaces that are not standardized.

So, what’s my advice? I don’t think you can buy “SOA in a box,” you can only buy “services in a box.” Your enterprise architects need to be the ones defining the architecture, and then leveraging the architecture to ensure that not only your home grown systems, but also your vendor systems, whether from one or many, adhere to it.

Neil Ward-Dutton of Macehiter Ward-Dutton had a post recently entitled “Rethinking IT projects? Think service, not product, focus.” He called out a frequent mantra of mine, which is that we need to get away from the typical project-based mentality and toward a product-based mentality. While Neil agrees that we need to get away from the project-based mentality, he questioned whether a product-based mentality is the right approach either. Instead, he advocates a service-based focus, where “service” in this case is more akin to its use in ITIL and IT Service Management (my interpretation, not his).

If you dig into his post, and if you’ve been following my own posts, I think you’ll find that we’re essentially saying the same thing, but perhaps using different terminology. Neil states:

The trouble is that taking too literal a view of IT delivery through the lens of product management can prevent you from reflecting reality the way that “customers” (regular business people in your organisation, and quite possibly those external customers that ultimately pay all the salaries) see it.

I couldn’t agree more. I’m a huge advocate for usability, user centered design, etc., so anything that involves assumptions on what the user needs rather than going out and actually involving the customer is definitely red flag in my book. Personally, I don’t even like to use the term customer when talking about IT delivering solutions to the business where the business is the end user. The business and IT should be partners in the effort, not a customer/supplier relationship.

Futher in the post, Neil makes the comment:

If you take too much of a product management centric view, the danger is that you focus all your energy creating the right kind of development and deployment capabilities, without thinking of the broader service experience that customers need and expect over the lifecycle of a long-term commitment. IT operations is where the rubber meets the road, and where customer expectations are met or dashed. Too simplistic a focus on product-style management for IT delivery perpetuates the development-operations divide and squanders a great opportunity.

Personally, I don’t view what Neil describes as good product management. If your definition of product management is simply a chained sequence of development activities, you’re missing the boat. Only through excellent operational management and customer interaction can you make appropriate decisions on what those subsequent activities should be. It’s not all about development. I think this point was made very well by Dr. Paul Brown in his book, “Succeeding with SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture” which I was fortunate enough to review with Dana Gardner. He made very clear that projects are only successful when they deliver the promised business value. This value doesn’t come when the software is deployed into production. It comes after it. It may be one month, it may be one year. I’ve been involved with a number of projects that defined the project mission statement in terms of “delivering something by such-and-such date for $$$.” While meetings dates and budget are very important, they don’t define success. Delivering business value defines success, and the effort needs to continue to ensure that happens even if there are no development activities occurring. This brings in Neil’s notion of service, and it is absolutely a critical component to success.

I had the opportunity to do a review of a book, and then discuss it in a podcast with the author and Dana Gardner. The book is entitled, “Succeeding with SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture” and is written by Dr. Paul Brown of TIBCO Software.

You can view a transcript here, listen to the podcast here, or I’ve also added it as an enclosure on this entry.

I enjoyed this book quite a bit, and have to point out that it’s not your typical technology-focused SOA book. It presents many of the cultural and organization aspects behind SOA, and does a pretty good job. It tries to offer guidance that works within the typical project-based structures of many IT organizations. While I personally would like to see some of these project-based cultures broken down, this book offers practical advice that can be used today and eventually lead to the cultural changes necessary. Overall, I recommend the book. I found myself thinking, “Boy, if I were writing a book on SOA, these are things that I’d want to cover.” Give the podcast a listen, and check out the book if you’re interested.

Full disclosure: Outside of receiving a copy of the book to review, I did not receive any payment or other compensation for doing the review or participating in the podcast.

One of my pet peeves when it comes to discussing services is when an organization gets into debates over whether a particular service is an “enterprise service” or not. These discussions always drive me nuts. My first question usually is what difference does it make? Will you suddenly change the way you construct something? It shouldn’t. More often than not, this conversation comes up when a project team wants to take a shortcut and avoid doing the full analysis that it will take to determine the expected number of consumers, appropriate scoping, etc. Instead, they want to focus exclusively on the project at hand and do only as much as necessary to satisfy that project’s needs. My advice is to always assume that a service is going to be used by the entire enterprise, and if time tells us that it’s only used by one consumer, that’s okay. Unfortunately, it seems that most organizations like to make the opposite assumption: assume that a service will only be used by the particular consumer in mind at that moment unless proven otherwise. This is far easier to swallow in the typical project-based culture of IT today, because odds are the service development team and the service consumer team are most likely the same group all working on the same project.

The natural argument against assuming that all services are “enterprise” services is that all of our services will be horribly over-engineered with a bunch of stuff thrown in because someone said, “What if?” The problem with over-engineering a service (or anything else) doesn’t stem from assuming that a service will have enterprise value, it stems from someone coming up with “what if” scenarios in place of analysis techniques to deeply understand the “right” capabilities that a service needs to provide. Analysis isn’t easy, and there’s no magic bullet that will ensure the right questions are asked to uncover this information, but I think many efforts today are not done to the best of our ability. As a result, people make design decisions based on a best guess, which can lead to either over or under-engineering.

I believe that if you are adopting SOA at an enterprise level, it will result in a fundamental change in the way IT operates and solutions are constructed. Requiring someone to prove that a service is an “enterprise” service before treating it as a service with appropriate processes and hygiene to manage the service lifecycle does nothing to promote this culture change, and in fact, is an inhibitor to that culture change. Will assuming that all services are enterprise services result in higher short term costs? Probably. Building something for use by a broader audience is more expensive, plenty of studies have shown that. On the other hand, assuming that all services are enterprise services will position you far better to achieve cost reduction in the long term as advocated by SOA.

I received a press release in email from Xignite entitled “Partnership Delivers Financial Professionals Responsiveness, Collaboration Via Timely Earnings Data.” In this release Xignite announced their partnership with Wall Street Horizon, a provider of earnings event and calendar information to the investment industry. Xignite will redistribute Horizon’s earnings and events calendar content as part of its street-event driven series on-demand financial web service.

While I normally don’t try to be a recycler of press releases from vendors, as I’d much rather comment on things more directly associated with work as a practicing architect, I’d be very happy to see more and more of these types of releases. Why? In the past, I’ve talked about the importance of events, such as this post. One of the challenges, however, is that I don’t really feel that there are good sources of events, especially ones that come in from outside of the enterprise (although there are times that I think that outside sources are more likely that internal sources…). Here’s a press release that shows that external sources are appearing and through partnerships, trying to increase their audience. It would be great if some of the industry consortiums for specific verticals would develop some standards in the event space.

Another Briefings Direct SOA Insights podcast has been posted by Dana Gardner in which I’m a panelist. In this edition, Dana, myself, Joe McKendrick, and indepdent blogger Barb Darrow discussed the role of RIA and rich media with SOA and the impact of associated technologies, such as Flash, AJAX, and Silverlight on the space. You can find a full transcript here or listen to it here. You can also subscribe via iTunes.

Okay, well maybe not the “High Life”, but I’ve had that Steve Winwood song in my head. On Monday, I am returning back to corporate life after nearly a year with MomentumSI. In a nutshell, a year as a consultant has shown me that the corporate world is where I am most comfortable, and best suited for my career goals. MomentumSI treated me very well, and I’m very impressed with their team and their offerings. I learned a lot from the excellent team that they have, and do plan on keeping in touch with them, offering insight from the corporate practitioner’s perspective as they continue their success. I certainly thank Jeff, Alex, Tom, and the rest of the MomentumSI team for the opportunity.

I’m not going to reveal where I’m going, other than to say that it’s a Fortune 500 company in the St. Louis Metro area where I reside, and I’m not returning to A.G. Edwards/Wachovia (AGE isn’t a Fortune 500 company, anyway). I’ll be an enterprise architect, involved with SOA, and other cool architecture topics. While I’m sure people will figure out where I’m working, this blog represents my own personal thoughts and opinions, and not that of my employer or anyone else (and there’s a disclaimer on the right hand side of the blog that states exactly that). I’m very happy that I’m going somewhere that doesn’t mind that I’m a blogger, and I fully intend on adhering to their policies regarding it. So, it’s back to the world of big IT and corporate politics for me, and I’m looking forward to it. While my colleague James McGovern has lamented about the lack of corporate EA bloggers in the past, he can add me back to the list!

Courtesy of Nick Gall, this post from Andrew McAfee was brought to my attention. Andrew discusses a phrase which many of us have either heard or used, especially in discussions about SOA: “It’s not about the technology.” He premises that there are two meanings behind this statement:

1. “The correct-but-bland meaning is ‘It’s not about the technology alone.’ In other words a piece of technology will not spontaneously or independently start delivering value, generating benefits, and doing precisely what its deployers want it to do.”
2. “The other meaning … is ‘The details of this technology can be ignored for the purposes of this discussion.’ If true, this is great news for every generalist, because it means that they don’t need to take time to familiarize themselves with any aspect of the technology in question. They can just treat it as a black box that will convert specified inputs into specified outputs if installed correctly.”

In his post, Nick Gall states that discussions that are operating around the second meaning are “‘aspirational’ — the entire focus is on architectural goals without the slightest consideration of whether such goals are realistically achievable given current technology trends. However, if you try to shift the conversation from aspirations to how to achieve them, then you will inevitably hear the mantra ‘SOA is not about technology.'”

So is SOA about the technology or not? Nick mentions the Yahoo SOA group, of which I’m a member. The list is known for many debates on WS-* versus REST and even some Jini discussions. I don’t normally jump into some of these technology debates not because the technology doesn’t matter, but because I view these as implementation decisions that must be chosen based upon your desired capabilities and the relative priorities of those capabilities. Anne Thomas Manes makes a similar point in her response to these blogs.

As an example, back in 2006, the debate around SOA technology was centered squarely on the ESB. I gave a presentation on the subject of SOA infrastructure at Burton Group’s Catalyst conference that summer which discussed the overlapping product domains for “in the middle” infrastructure, which included ESBs. I specifically crafted my message to get people to think about the capabilities and operational model first, determining what your priorities are, and then go about picking your technology. If your desired capabilities are focused in the run-time operations (as opposed to a development activity like Orchestration) space, and if you developers are heavily involved with the run-time operations of your systems, technologies that are very developer-focused, such as most ESBs, may be your best option. If your developers are removed from run-time operations, you may want a more operations focused tool, such as a WSM or XML appliance product.

This is just one example, but I think it illustrates the message. Clearly, making statements that flat our ignore the technology is fraught with risk. Likewise, going deep on the technology without a clear understanding of the organization’s needs and culture is equally risky. You need to have balance. If your enterprise architects fall into Nick’s “aspirational” category, they need to get off their high horse and work with the engineers that are involved with the technology to understand what things are possible today, and what things aren’t. They need to be involved with the inevitable trade-offs that arise with technology decisions. If you don’t have enterprise architects, and have engineers with deep technical knowledge trying to push technology solutions into the enterprise, they need to be challenged to justify those solutions, beginning with a discussion on the capabilities provided, not on the technology providing them. Only after agreement on the capabilities can we now (and should) enter a discussion on why a particular technology is the right one.

Brandon Satrom posted some of his thoughts on the need for a composite application framework, or CAF, on his blog and specifically called me out as someone from which he’d like to hear a response. I’ll certainly oblige, as inter-blog conversations are one of the reasons I do this.

Brandon’s posted two excerpts from the document he’s working on, here and here. The first document tries to frame up the need for composition, while the second document goes far deeper into the discussion around what a composite application is in the first place.

I’m not going to focus on the need for composition for one very simple reason. If we look at the definition presented in the second post, as well as articulated by Mike Walker in his followup post, composite applications are ones which leverage functionality from other applications or services. If this is the case, shouldn’t every application we build be a composite application? There are vendors out there who market “Composite Application Builders” which can largely be described as EAI tools focused on the presentation tier. They contain some form of adapter for third party applications, legacy systems, that allow functionality to be accessed from a presentation tier, rather than as a general purpose service enablement tool. Certainly, there are enterprises that have a need for such a tool. My own opinion, however, is that this type of an approach is a tactical band-aid. By jumping to the presentation tier, there’s a risk that these integrations are all done from a tactical perspective, rather than taking a step back and figuring out what services need to be exposed by your existing applications, completely separate from the construction of any particular user-facing application.

So, if you agree with me that all applications will be composite applications, then what we need is not a Composite Application Framework, but a Composition Framework. It’s a subtle difference, but it gets us away from the notion of tactical application integration and toward the strategic notion of composition simply being part of how we build new user-facing systems. When I think about this, I still wind up breaking it into two domains. The first is how to easily allow user-facing applications to easily consume services. Again, in my opinion, there’s not much different here than the things you need to do to make services easily consumable, regardless of whether or not the consumer is user-facing or not. The assumption needs to be that a consumer is likely to be using more than one service, and that they’ll have a need to share some amount of data across those services. If the data is represented differently in those services, we create work for the consumer. The consumer must translate and transform the data from one representation to one or more additional representations. If this is a common pattern for all consumers, this logic will be repeated over and over. If our services all expose their information in a consistent manner, we can minimize the amount of translation and transformation logic in the consumer, and implement it once in the provider. Great concept, but also a very difficult problem. That’s why I use the term consistent, rather than standard. A single messaging schema for all data is a standard, and by definition consistent, but I don’t think I’ll get too many arguments that coming up with that one standard is an extremely difficult, and some might say impossible, task.

Beyond this, what other needs are there that are specific to user-facing consumers? Certainly, there are technology decisions that must be considered. What’s the framework you use for building user-facing systems? Are you leveraging portal technology? Is everything web-based? Are you using AJAX? Flash? Is everything desktop-based using .NET and Windows Presentation Foundation? All of these things have an impact on how your services that are targeted for use by the presentation tier must be exposed, and therefore must be factored into your composition framework. Beyond this, however, it really comes down to an understanding of how applications are going to be used. I discussed this a bit in my Integration at the Desktop posts (here and here). The key question is whether or not you want a framework that facilitates inter-application communication on the desktop, or whether you want to deal with things in a point-to-point manner as they arise. The only way to know is to understand your users, not through a one-time analysis, but through continuous communication, so you can know whether or not a need exists today, and whether or not a need is coming in the near future. Any framework we put in place is largely about building infrastructure. Building infrastructure is not easy. You want to build it in advance of need, but sometimes gauging that need is difficult. Case in point: Lambert St. Louis International Airport has a brand new runway that essentially sits unused. Between the time the project was funded and completed, TWA was purchased by American Airlines, half of the flights in and out were cut, Sept. 11th happened, etc. The needs changed. They have great infrastructure, but no one to use it. Building an extensive composition framework at the presentation tier must factor in the applications that your users currently leverage, the increased use of collaboration and workflow technology, the things that the users do on their own through Excel, web-based tools, and anything else they can find, how their job function is changing according to business needs and goals, and much more.

So, my recommendations in this space would be:

1. Start with consistency of data representations. This has benefits for both service-to-service integration, as well as UI-to-service integration.
2. Understand the technologies used to build user-facing applications, and ensure that your services are easily consumable by those technologies.
3. Understand your users and continually assess the need for a generalized inter-application communication framework. Be sure you know how you’ll go from a standard way of supporting point-to-point communication to a broader communication framework if and when the need becomes concrete.

Beth Gold-Bernstein had a great post entitled, “The Second S in Saas” that outlined her experience in trying to get a backup restored from an online survey site.

This is clearly important when you’re dealing with external service providers, but I’d like to add that it is equally important for the services that you build in house. The typical large enterprise today is rife with politics, with various organizations battling for control, whether they realize it or not. SOA strikes fear into the heart of many a project manager because the success of their effort is now dependent on some other team. Ultimately, however, success is not defined by getting the project done on time and on budget, success can only be determined by meeting the business goals that justified the project in the first place. If something goes wrong, what’s the easiest course of action? Point the finger at the elements that were outside of your control.

I experienced this many times over when rolling out some new web service infrastructure at an organization. Teams building services were required to use it, and whenever something went wrong, it was the first thing that was blamed, usually without any root cause analysis. Fortunately, I knew that in order to provide good service for the teams that were leveraging this new infrastructure, I needed to be on top of it. I usually knew about problems with services before they did, and because the infrastructure put in place increased visibility, it was very easy to show that it wasn’t the new infrastructure, and in fact, the new infrastructure provided the information necessary to point to where the problem really was. Interestingly, this infrastructure was in the middle, between the consumer and the provider. Arguably, the teams responsible for the services should be looking at the same information I was, and be on top of these problems before some user calls up and says it’s broken.

If you simply put services into production and ignore it until the fire alarm goes off, you’re going to continue to struggle in achieving higher levels of success with SOA adoption, whether you’re a SaaS provider or a service developer inside the enterprise.

A conversation that I’ve seen in many organizations is around the notion of an “enterprise” service. Personally, I think these conversations tend to be a fruitless exercise and are more indicative of a resistance to change. I thought I’d expound on this here and see what others think.

My arguments against trying to distinguish between “enterprise” services and “non-enterprise” services are this:

Classifications are based upon knowledge at hand. Invariably, discussions around this topic always come back to someone saying, “My application is the only one that will use this service.” The correct statement is, “My application is the only one I know of today that will use this service.” The natural followup then is whether or not the team has actually tried to figure out whether anyone else will use that service or not. Odds are they haven’t, because the bulk of projects are still driven from a user-facing application and are constrained from the get-go to only think about what occurs within the boundary of that particular solution. So, in the absence of information that could actually lead to an informed decision, it’s very unlikely that anything will be deemed “enterprise.”

What difference will make? To someone that makes the claim that their service is not enterprise, does it really give them tacit permission to do whatever they want? A theme around SOA is that it approaches things with a “design for change” rather than a “design to last” philosophy. If we follow this philosophy, it shouldn’t matter whether we have one known consumer or ten known consumers. I think that good architecture and design practices should lead to the same solution, regardless of whether something is classified as “enterprise” or “not enterprise.” Does it really make sense to put a service into production without the ability to capture key usage metrics just because we only know of one consumer? I can point to many projects that struggled when a problem occurred because it was a big black box without visibility into what was going on. If there’s no difference in the desired end result, then these classifications only serve to create debate on when someone can bend or break the rules.

What I’ve always recommended is that organizations should assume that all services are enterprise services, and design them as such. If it turns out a service only has one consumer, so what? You won’t incur any rework if only one consumers uses it. The increased visibility through standard management, and the potential cost reductions associated with maintaining consistency across services will provide benefits. If you assume the opposite, and require justification, then you’re at risk of more work than necessary when consumer number two comes along.

It’s certainly true that some analysis of the application portfolio can help create a services blueprint and can lead to a higher degree of confidence in the number of consumers a service might have. This can be an expensive process, however, and projects will still be occurring while the analysis takes place. Ultimately, the only thing that will definitively answer whether a service is “enterprise” or not is time. I’d rather set my organization up for potential success from the very beginning than operate in a reactionary mode when it’s definitive that a service has multiple consumers. What do others think?

Richard Monson-Haefel announced an upcoming telebriefing from the Burton Group that will ask the question, “Is the iPhone ready for the Enterprise?” I think this is going to be a very interesting discussion, and hopefully Richard will post a summary of the discussion after the fact for those of us that aren’t able to listen. It should be a great conversation, as they’re bringing analysts in from various services for the discussion.

Interestingly, with all of this talk about the iPhone and the enterprise, I actually think we’re asking the wrong question. It’s not about the iPhone, rather, it’s about how connected, mobile devices should be leveraged in the enterprise. Certainly, there are plenty of industries where mobile devices already play a key role. Just look at the technology associated with any company in the logistics industry for examples. The real discussion, however, is for those industries where the use of connected, mobile devices may not be immediately apparent. There are many enterprises that still have desktop machines for all employees and are just beginning to look at whether laptops should be issued, let alone consider something like the iPhone. Therefore, there is potential for a disruption in this space, something that could have a fundamental difference in how we go about our tasks.

The reason this discussion is gaining such momentum now, in my opinion, has everything to do with the full-browser capabilities of the iPhone. While I didn’t own a smartphone before getting an iPhone, I did have some experience with a Blackberry (before they had phone capabilities), and made extensive use of the WAP browser on my old Motorola V360. Email and access from the Blackberry was great, but that’s about it. Now, we’ve got this full web browser that can run a variety of web based applications (although not all, my kids can’t play with Webkinz on it due to no Flash, which is probably a good thing, at least as far as playing Webkinz goes). There’s a whole range of applications out there, as Richard calls out, the real potential is in applications developed specifically for the iPhone. Is this any better than some of the custom apps for one of the other smart phones? I’ve never written a mobile app, and I don’t know what limitations they have when the phone doesn’t have full web capabilities. I can only suspect that the recent hype on this subject is an indicator that only now have the doors really been opened. Connectivity is critical to these devices, otherwise they just become a PDA, which has certainly faded away. The question is whether connectivity + small form factor equals disruption. While I use the iPhone Facebook application, I’d hardly call it disruptive. There’s a killer app out there waiting to be written.

While I’m sure the conversation will focus more on the technical details around the iPhone in the enterprise, hopefully it will expand into the potential for mobile devices in the enterprise, whether it’s through a laptop with WiFi or wireless broadband or an device like the iPhone. Ultimately, this is what will decide whether it gets a place in the enterprise versus just being yet another way of getting to the corporate email and calendar.

In addition to commenting on my blog, Francis Carden, CEO of OpenSpan, also was kind enough to give me a short demo of their product. In my previous post, I introduced the concept of a “Desktop Service Bus” and wondered if the product would behave in this fashion. One of the interesting things I hadn’t thought of, however, is exactly what a desktop service bus should behave like? For that matter, what’s the right model of working with an enterprise service bus? More on that in a second.

Francis did a nice little demonstration for me that showed how custom integrations could be built quickly, first by interrogating existing applications (desktop or web-based) and grabbing possible integration points (virtually any UI element on the screen), and then by using a visual editor to connect up components in a pipeline-like manner. If you’re familiar with server-side application integration technologies, think of this tool as providing an orchestration environment, as well as the ability to build adaptors on the fly through interrogation.

Clearly, this is a step in the right direction. Francis made a great comment to me, which was, “People stopped thinking about this [desktop integration] because they’d long forgotten it was possible.” He’s right about this. With the advent of web-based applications, many people stopped talking about OLE and other desktop application integration techniques. The need hasn’t gone away, however. Again, using the iPhone as an example, many people complain about its lack of cut-and-paste capabilities.

Bringing this back to my concept of a desktop service bus, there clearly is a long way to go. When I see tools like OpenSpan or Apple’s Automator, it’s clear that they’re targeted at when a need to integrate is determined after the fact. You have two systems that no one had thought of integrating previously, but now there is a need to do so. This is no different than integration on the server side, except that you’re much more likely to hear the term “silo” used. When I think about the concept of a desktop service bus, or even an enterprise service bus for that matter, the reason a usage metaphor doesn’t immediately come to mind is that it’s not the way we’ve traditionally done things. When we’re building a new solution, the collection of services available should simply be there. There’s a huge challenge in trying to organize them, but if we can organize all of the classes in the Java API’s and all of the variety of extensions through intelligent code completion, why can’t we do the same with services, whether available through a network interaction or through desktop integration? It will take a while before this becomes the norm, but thankfully, I think the connectivity of the web is actually helping in this regard. Users of sites like Flickr, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and the like expect the ability to mash and integrate, whether with their mobile phones, their desktop machines, other web sites, and more. Integration as the norm will be a requirement going forward.

Richard Monson-Haefel posted a great piece on his blog on widgets and gadgets (also posted on the Burton Group APS blog here). It serves as a good introduction to them. After a thorough definition, he primarily focuses on their use in a consumer setting. As a followup, I’d like to see him post more on their role in the enterprise. It’s something I’ve commented on, as well as Om Malik. As I’ve stated previously, I really think they have a potential role in workflow-based solutions as a vehicle for providing lightweight interfaces that are single-purpose in nature, that is, they provide an interface for doing exactly the task that needs to be done, nothing more, nothing less. They start up quickly and they go away quickly. Hopefully Richard will take the bait.

Back in February, Jason Bloomberg of ZapThink posted a ZapFlash entitled “Competitive SOA.” I didn’t blog about it at the time, but this topic was brought back to the forefront of my mind by this post from Ian Thomas, with some follow-on commentary from Joe McKendrick.

While I’m not one to take one side or the other strongly, I must admit that I have significant reservations about a competition model, whether it is internal competition as suggested in the initial ZapThink article, or it is competition between IT and outside providers of services. First, let’s get the easy part of this out of the way. Part of Ian’s article is about simply running IT as a business and having good cost accounting. I’m certainly not going to argue about this. This being said, there’s a big difference between being a division or department of a company versus a supplier to a company.

I believe strongly that a customer/supplier relationship between IT and the end users of IT in the business is a bad thing, in most cases. If IT moves to exclusively to that model, the business leaders should clearly always be considering outsourcing IT completely. In doing so, it definitely sends a clear message that technology usage is not going to be a competitive advantage for this company. I believe that outsourcing can make sense for horizontal domains, where cost management is the most important concern.

The right model, in my opinion, is to have IT be part of the business, not a supplier to the business. To be part of a business, you need to be a partner, not a supplier. Brenda Michelson posted some excerpts from a Wall Street Journal interview with three CIO’s: Meg McCarthy of Aetna, Inc., Frank Modruson of Accenture Ltd., and Steve Squeri of American Express Co. Some great quotes from this:

Ms. McCarthy: At Aenta, the IT Organization is critical to enabling the implementation of our business strategy. I report to the chairman of our company and I am a member of the executive committee. In that capacity, I participate in all of the key business conversations/decisions that impact the company strategy and the technology strategy.

Mr. Squeri: I believe that over the next 10 years, the CIO will get more involved in the overall business strategy of the company and see their role expand in importance. The CIO will be increasingly called upon not only to translate business strategies into capabilities but to become even more forward-looking to determine what capabilities the business will need in the future.

The days of tech leaders as relationship managers and “order takers” will go by the wayside and they will be called upon to create and drive technology strategies that drive business capabilities.

It’s great to hear these leaders calling out how IT is becoming a partner, rather than a supplier. While our business leaders are certainly more tech-savvy than they have been in the past, there is still significant value in having people that specialize in technology adoption and utilization on your leadership team, just as you have people who specialize in sales, marketing, operations, etc.

Ian suggests letting “self interest flourish within the bounds set by the organisational context as long as it delivers cost-effective services but punish it by outsourcing where it doesn’t.” Cost reduction is just one factor in a complex decision. Holding the threat of outsourcing over IT may certainly in a more efficient operation, but applying those principles to areas where the decision shouldn’t be based on cost efficiency, but strategic impact to the business is a risky proposition. Let the business, which includes IT, decide what’s right to outsource and what isn’t. It shouldn’t be a threat or a punishment, but a decision that all parties involved agree makes good business sense.