February 10, 2008   Sign In |  About ebizQ |  Contact Us |  Join ebizQ Gold Club
David Linthicum
Dave Linthicum's Podcast Channel
Industry expert Dave Linthicum's musings on the integration industry, delivered once a week.

« SOA Expert Podcast Show 38...Connecting to the Global SOA Talk | Main | Thoughts on Orchestration »

May 23, 2006
Programming coming back to Integration - Not Good!


I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who is looking to connect their existing enterprise accounting system to an ERP service provider, an SaaS. They are using a consulting organization who told my friend that he had a “very simple integration issue” and that they could “program the connections for about $50 K.” Thus, “he did not need an integration product.” Arrrrrg!

Okay, I’m very sensitive about this because I wrote a book about this about 10 years ago, and still people miss the larger points, and are indeed making the same mistakes today. It’s almost like the 1980s are making a comeback, so much so I’m looking for the mullet haircuts. The fact is the rise of SaaS means that integration is a new issue with many smaller and more naive enterprises, and many are making poor decisions about integration.

Here we go again:

Say you need to connect your existing ERP systems up to your SaaS CRM system; both have well defined interfaces, either proprietary or Web services, for instance. While you can certainly pay a couple of guys for a couple of weeks to program the interaction with the interfaces, and the movement of the information from one system to another, and it may indeed work (at first), you’ll find the approach is fundamentally flawed. Why?

The core issue is that the volatility of the integration can not be addressed in a single domain, but they do it with code, at the point. Thus, as semantics change, interfaces change, systems are added and deleted, than it’s a reprogramming and testing job each an every time. Integration should be a configuration exercise, not a programming exercise, especially when considered in the context of a SOA.

The end result when you try to program to success is an ongoing maintenance programming exercise that ends up costing many times the cost of the first programming effort, thus why consulting firms like to sell integration programming. Moreover, lacking core integration tools such as transformation, routing, adapters, flow control, transactions, etc., means that your programming solution won’t be a complete solution, and thus not effective in the long term. In fact, could cost you more than money, such as customers that leave after you drop their orders 3 or 4 times due to bad integration.

So, just say no to programming. It’s always a dumb idea, and those consultants out there selling programming for integration should be ashamed of themselves, and the SaaS providers need to know better as well.

As for those that need integration, and consider programming as a viable solution, there should be some sort of intervention that needs to occur before they toss good money after bad, or worse, it cost them customers.

Posted by davel at 05:36 PM in | Digg This | Add to del.icio.us

Comments

"Integration should be a configuration exercise, not a programming exercise, especially when considered in the context of a SOA." This is one of the best quotes I've seen recently on SOA. Anyone implementing an SOA needs to give a lot of consideration to what things they want their developers to be doing, and what things should be done by an operations team as a configuration exercise.

Posted by: Todd Biske at May 24, 2006 11:39 PM

I´m just back from Gartner´s symposium in Barcelona. Talk about SOA was in many of the presentations. With some suggestions for SOA 2.0!

A presentation from IBM - who were heavily pushing SOA - added more confusion to this debate. They were presenting a SOA benefit as being that an end user could re-configure the steps of a business process on the fly.
I disagree.

At play here we have:- Coding, Configuration but also Workflow.
Yes SOA should bring the benefits of less coding and a move to more flexible config - but are we really suggesting that end users do config? What about the compliance and auditability issues?

If a business process needs to alter, an authorised config person would surely make the change? If in a specific occurrence of a business process - say processing an order - there needs to be some flexibility then that should be an allowable over-ride to a workflow and yes an end-user could do that.

When there is confusion over exactly what SOA is and is not - then it gets hard to convince businesses that they need to adopt it

Posted by: Peter Robertshaw at May 25, 2006 11:56 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?



We ask that you type your code (displayed below) in the text box.This code is an image that cannot be read by a machine. It prevents automated programs from submitting comments.


Code:



Most Recent ebizQ Blog Entries
ADVERTISEMENT
RSS Subscription

Categories
Blog Roll
This Work
Accountability:The opinions expressed in this blog are solely representative of the blog's author, and not of ebizQ

Subscribe to our Newsletters
ebizQ Weekly Gold Club Update
Live Webinar Updates
Updates from ebizQ Partners
ebizQ SOA Update
ebizQ BPM Update
ebizQ Security Update
ebizQ BI Update
ebizQ Open Source Software Update
Virtual Show Newsletter
Your E-mail Address:
BAM: The Killer App for CEP
Date: Feb 12, 2008
Time: 12:00 PM ET
(17:00 GMT)

I WANT TO ATTEND
Event Processing Market Pulse
Date: Feb 14, 2008
Time: 12:00 PM ET
(17:00 GMT)

I WANT TO ATTEND
Archived Webinars | Upcoming Webinars

Marketing Solutions | Feedback | About ebizQ | Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy | Site Map