Hi Nick,
you are not confused....
The vendors have never, in the history of our industry, shown any significant perchant to co-operate with other vendors because it is not in
their short term interest.....
(For those who don't know...a small piece of history...pointin g to our
future...)
The closest we got was IBM with SAA/DRDA and AD/Cycle.....and al most no-one here will know what those things mean......
IBM released a 'grand plan' of how other hardware/software could join into
the 'IBM IT Ecosystem' and it failed.....the 'IBM IT Ecosystem'
fragmented
into the 'IT Ecosystem' in large corporates and the mess we have now in IT
is a direct result of G2000 companies to take the longer term view and go for 'IBMs view of the world'....
And, of course, IBMs view of the world would have been much more expensive
from a purely technology acquisition point of view......but I seriously doubt that it would have been more expensive from a TCO of IT year after year point of view....we will never know....(yes, yes, I d o know the many criticisms of SAA/DRDA and AD/Cycle...I heard them all in the early
90s...)
From IBMs failure in Hardware/Software has sprung IBMs most stunning success in services. It is interesting to note that IBM now makes more money from looking after the IT mess the G2000 has created than it EVER made from Mainframe hardware and software combined......it's a n interesting point.....in the space of 11 years IBM went from zero to USD44B+ in outsourced service revenue per year......
So...the future....
The only company who could have possibly solved the problem of making all IT 'stuff' work together smoothly failed and now has a vested interest in that NOT EVER HAPPENING.
We will forever more have systems that are not able to effectively work together. All this talk of Java, web services, SOAP etc and how systems will be so much more interoperable in the future?
Not in my (working) lifetime....
The G2000 had their chance and they decided to 'buy cheap' either not realising or not wanting to recognise that by 'buying cheap' in the early 90s they would forever pay a price......The mess we have today was created in the early 90s and we are not going to get out of this mess in the next 20 years.
And yes, I was one of the guys explaining to G2000 companies that should they go with distrubuted disparate systems they could expect issues/problems for many, many years to come.....and funnily enough.....even the advent of ERPs has barely scratched the surf ace of solving the interoperability/data integration problem...
And of IBMs failure we have now a huge and rapidly growing industry called
'data integration'......which keeps me gainfully employed..
. :-)
The future is....the vendors will not co-operate.....no vendor now has the capacity or will to make systems interoperable to any significant extent.....
And business managers will still need a 'single version of the truth' from
which to run their companies....and they are going to be most insi stent since SOX says they might get an orange jump suite if they do not...
.
Long live data integration! ;-)
Best Regards
Peter
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Nick Galemmo via dw-select dw-select@Groups.ITtoolbox.com
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:56:20 GMT
To: peter@peternolan.com
Subject: RE:[dw-select] RE: ETL vs. ELT ... what's out there?
I'm confused...
Are you saying poor or little product interoperability was a trend???
I
thought that was standard procedure from the beginning... it is not trending there, it always was and always will be.
---------------Original Message---------------
> This is disturbing industry trend. The soup to nuts solution from eac
h
>
>vendor but future potential little interoperability between vendor
>products. Undoubtly the biggest vendors will push what they did as th
>e standard with companies force to choose a compromised total solution
>and hope for minimal version update chatter.