It concerns me that IT executives rank "Cost of Implementation" as the number one criteria for choosing integration solutions. This is the conclusion of the "2011 Application Connection Priorities" study.
Choosing Integration Solutions - Not Desktop Printers
That's akin to choosing a printer based on acquisition cost. Based on that, one would buy a $39.00 inkjet printer, rather than a $200 laser printer. Only to find out 2 years later, that you've spent $3000 on short-lived and expensive inkjet cartridges, endured many "printer down" situations as a result of not having a replacement cartridge, and wasted time with emergency visits to Office Depot - and put up with slow print speeds to boot.
CTO's and CIO's are smart people - smarter than that. I can only imagine that it is some sort of corporate budgetary or finance straitjacket that forces them down this path. Similar to the situation mentioned by Dave Linthicum - where the US Federal Government in many cases chooses more expensive computing solutions, rather than Cloud solutions, even though all parties agree that the Cloud solutions would be significantly less expensive.
Integration Does Four Things
Some years ago, I put together a framework and methodology with Chris Barbin, now CEO of Appirio, for doing "value analysis" for integration. It was a rather detailed framework with a lot of "value levers", but to simplify it down to its core points, integration does four things:
1) It costs money to:
a. acquire (hardware, software, etc.)
b. implement (internal resources, training, external consultants)
c. maintain, enhance, extend.
2) It generates "opportunity value" (e.g. more time for internal staff to work on other important projects, derives more value from existing IT assets/investments).
3) It saves money by eliminating the need to spend in other areas (e.g. reduces inefficiencies in areas like inventory).
4) It generates real value (e.g. reduces time-to-market for new products, improves accuracy and speed of executive decision-making).
The flaw in IT Executive reasoning, per the GatePoint Research/SnapLogic survey, is that the #1 criteria for integration is a mere sub-set of one of the four things that Integration does.
Biggest Avoidable Mistakes
1) Not thinking about long-term integration needs.
The cost to buy and implement an integration solution to integrate two or three data sources is potentially only a small fraction of the 3-5 year cost of that solution.
Some integration solutions are more flexible, adaptable and scalable than others. A solution that appears to be fine for 3 integration end-points may turn out to be a nightmare when 4 years down the road you find yourself with 33, or if you have ever-changing integration needs.
2) Focusing on price (or price + implementation costs) only.
How much value is created? A good integration project should deliver returns of several hundred percent over 3 years - minimum.
I've seen companies choose integration software solely based on price - when the price of the product was perhaps 5% of the total integration "bill", and represented about 1% of the potential returns.
Truly the tail wagging the dog. We're talking about a tens of thousands of dollars in license fees savings vs. hundreds of thousands of dollars in 3 year costs, and millions of dollars in benefits.
It's a bit like choosing a surgeon because his or her fees are a bit less than some other competing surgeon.
3) Not thinking about "time to value".
Time to value is important. Some products are more difficult to implement than others. Some are more adaptable/reusable than others.
Although the cost of that is implicit in #1 above, what is left out of the equation is that a longer development cycle means that the VALUE delivered by integration is pushed out.
Not just once, but it's compounded every time the integration "network" is extended when new end-points are added or integration functionality is changed.
Typically, it's not additive, it's worse than that. Things don't get easier as you add more end-points, they get harder. The choice of an integration solution that's "just a little more difficult to implement" or "just a little less flexible" may save you $10,000 now, but cost your company 100 or more times that in the near future in increased costs and in lost value to the company.
Leave a comment