Despite Larry Ellison's attempts in the past, it is now safe to say that JBoss will not be Fusion-ized: today the news was announced that RedHat has acquired the open source application server producer for 350 million dollar.
When
Ellison attempted to buy JBoss earlier this year, they boldly stated
they were not for sale. However, RedHat succeeded in acquiring the open
source company.
I think this news will create some disruption in the open source world, as RedHat competitor Novell
uses JBoss database software in its Linux distribution Suse, a key
competitor for the RedHat Linux distribution. However, as JBoss is open
source of course Novell will still be able to use it, but the open
source model sure can create some peculiar situations, especially as at
some points a product / project is acquired by a vendor.
So it is now up to RedHat to make a tasty fusion of RedHat and JBoss capabilities. And Oracle will probably target Zend even more after failing to acquire JBoss.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Friday, April 7, 2006
Taylorism in IT
Recently Gartner started a blog named Unconventional Thinking, and I was particularly triggered by a posting by Richard Hunter. He expects that although the concept of scientific management
dates from the early 20th century, there is great potential in it for
IT to change how executives run the show. He thinks the next big wave is
automation that changes the way managers, not frontline employees,
work.
Personally, I do not think this is going to happen because, in fact, it already is happening. Like with so many changes that involve IT, our IT organizations show the first signs of such a type of Taylorism. The most eminent example of the practical application of scientific management or Taylorism has always been the assembly line. And what have we done the past years in IT departments? Exactly, we have created assembly lines.
What do we want when managing IT departments? Speed and predictability. Exactly the same keywords that most are used throughout scientific management.
This of course applies particularly to the operational processes of IT (some might argue that this applies for the people that do the real work). However, at the tactical and strategic level there has also been an increase in Tayloristic management principles. Corporate Performance Management (CPM) and increased data mining capabilities fuel the more quantitative way in which departments are run. Managers and their superiors agree upon key performance indicators (KPIs), and are increasingly evaluated against those.
I think technology areas such as business intelligence and service-oriented applications will benefit greatly from this evolvement, as it relies heavily on having the right information at the right time.
The increased transparency in organizations and processes allow an increased emphasis on delivering results at the highest possible level of efficiency. This will not only be for the normal workers, but also for management.
However, one of the founding fathers of this approach (actually the synonym was named after him) Frederick Taylor does not have the best of perceptions of mankind:
Now one of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type.
All I can say is that for some reason I feel that this perception of people does not fit very well with the current culture in most organizations. Also, transparency has an undeniable other effect on organizations: there is no longer an information monopoly for top management, in fact there are numerous examples where the people on the work floor outsmart the executives, because they are better informed. So my prediction is that scientific management will certainly become an increasingly popular concept in IT, but the technology it needs for further expansion, will also limit its impact, as the mirror has two faces.
Personally, I do not think this is going to happen because, in fact, it already is happening. Like with so many changes that involve IT, our IT organizations show the first signs of such a type of Taylorism. The most eminent example of the practical application of scientific management or Taylorism has always been the assembly line. And what have we done the past years in IT departments? Exactly, we have created assembly lines.
What do we want when managing IT departments? Speed and predictability. Exactly the same keywords that most are used throughout scientific management.
This of course applies particularly to the operational processes of IT (some might argue that this applies for the people that do the real work). However, at the tactical and strategic level there has also been an increase in Tayloristic management principles. Corporate Performance Management (CPM) and increased data mining capabilities fuel the more quantitative way in which departments are run. Managers and their superiors agree upon key performance indicators (KPIs), and are increasingly evaluated against those.
I think technology areas such as business intelligence and service-oriented applications will benefit greatly from this evolvement, as it relies heavily on having the right information at the right time.
The increased transparency in organizations and processes allow an increased emphasis on delivering results at the highest possible level of efficiency. This will not only be for the normal workers, but also for management.
However, one of the founding fathers of this approach (actually the synonym was named after him) Frederick Taylor does not have the best of perceptions of mankind:
Now one of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type.
All I can say is that for some reason I feel that this perception of people does not fit very well with the current culture in most organizations. Also, transparency has an undeniable other effect on organizations: there is no longer an information monopoly for top management, in fact there are numerous examples where the people on the work floor outsmart the executives, because they are better informed. So my prediction is that scientific management will certainly become an increasingly popular concept in IT, but the technology it needs for further expansion, will also limit its impact, as the mirror has two faces.
Monday, April 3, 2006
ajaxWrite, LimeWire and the digital divide
First there was the news last week that the much talked about web-based word editor ajaxWrite
has nothing to do with Ajax as it is fully written in
Firefox-proprietary language XUL (the fact that it only runs in Firefox
should have raised some suspicion...). Typical case of randomly
selecting a hyped term and incorporating it in the name of your product.
The web service tooling arena has suffered from this before, when every
small vendor incorporated the term SOA in the name of its products, and
now it is time for Ajax to suffer from these effects.
Then this morning when I was stuck for 2 hours in a traffic jam, I heard the news on the radio that a Dutch newspaper took the test, and searched on the Internet for confidential information people by accident had put on the web through file sharing programs such as LimeWire. It was shocking what they found within the hour: passwords, tax declarations, application letters, resumes, passport scans and even proposals for the Dutch national security agency and the Ministry of Justice and Defense. All this by just searching for the term "confidential" (but then the Dutch word for it of course).
These two news items, that do not seem to have much in common, show that a lot of people have no clue what they are doing or what they are dealing with. As with the Ajax case, a lot of (techie) people will think they have a cool Ajax app running, while in fact it is just as proprietary as MSFTs Word for instance. The results of the ignorance of the file sharing capabilities are worse however. I am sure that all those persons put their confidential data on the web, just thought that it would be cool too if they could download the latest music or movies just like their neighbor kid, and they never intended to throw half of their private life on the net.
Everytime when I hear such news, I get the feeling that maybe in some aspects we are too far ahead in IT with our newest technology stuff. A lot of people are having trouble catching up with the latest evolvements, and because sometimes they are not fully aware of the possibilities and power of technology (as with the file sharing item), the results can be quite bad. I wrote about this before, and not only within IT we can find the problem of a divide between the front runners and a large group that has trouble catching up, but this is also the case on a macro level, in society. This is often called the digital divide, and with the increasing consumerization of IT, which will be driven by a young group of very tech-savvy consumers, I think this divide will become even greater. The results will be likewise.
Then this morning when I was stuck for 2 hours in a traffic jam, I heard the news on the radio that a Dutch newspaper took the test, and searched on the Internet for confidential information people by accident had put on the web through file sharing programs such as LimeWire. It was shocking what they found within the hour: passwords, tax declarations, application letters, resumes, passport scans and even proposals for the Dutch national security agency and the Ministry of Justice and Defense. All this by just searching for the term "confidential" (but then the Dutch word for it of course).
These two news items, that do not seem to have much in common, show that a lot of people have no clue what they are doing or what they are dealing with. As with the Ajax case, a lot of (techie) people will think they have a cool Ajax app running, while in fact it is just as proprietary as MSFTs Word for instance. The results of the ignorance of the file sharing capabilities are worse however. I am sure that all those persons put their confidential data on the web, just thought that it would be cool too if they could download the latest music or movies just like their neighbor kid, and they never intended to throw half of their private life on the net.
Everytime when I hear such news, I get the feeling that maybe in some aspects we are too far ahead in IT with our newest technology stuff. A lot of people are having trouble catching up with the latest evolvements, and because sometimes they are not fully aware of the possibilities and power of technology (as with the file sharing item), the results can be quite bad. I wrote about this before, and not only within IT we can find the problem of a divide between the front runners and a large group that has trouble catching up, but this is also the case on a macro level, in society. This is often called the digital divide, and with the increasing consumerization of IT, which will be driven by a young group of very tech-savvy consumers, I think this divide will become even greater. The results will be likewise.
Wednesday, January 4, 2006
2006 prediction #2: consumerization comes in most unexpected areas
Gartner
has recently published some research on how consumer technologies fuel
innovation. Former META (which has been acquired by Gartner last year)
CEO Dale Kutnick for instance has published a podcast
on the power shift resulting from consumerization. Consumerization is
everywhere! Web 2.0 is just a container term for all kinds of
innovations / concepts / technologies that are a result of this
consumerization. Very often the results are very surprising, and the
idea of mashup
even adds to these surprises. Major innovation does not only come from
R&D departments of large organizations (either commercial or
academic), but also from clever and unexpected usage from consumers. By
combining (this is what mashup is about!) concepts and technologies new
tools, concepts and technologies evolve.
Take this article (in Dutch) in a major Dutch newspaper for instance, about how the Nintendo Gameboy can be used to increase the engine power of scooters. It writes about how some clevers kids and mechanics found out, that with a Nintendo Gameboy you can easily read and manipulate the software and chips inside scooters. This makes it possible to erase the speed limitation which is set within the software, so that scooters can go way faster than the legally allowed 50 km/hour (in fact they can go as fast as 90 km/hour).
That's not all: not only kids and mechanics are taking advantage of this, but it has also gained the attention of scooter manufacturers, who are now developing and selling special cartridges for the Gameboy to read the scooter's technical data. They also provide special cables to attach the Gameboy to the scooter.
The above Gameboy anecdote is just an example to show how consumerization works, and that the results of the evolution can be found in the most unexpected areas. So this is my second prediction for 2006: we will see that consumerization will continue to drive innovation, and the results will be very surprising.
Take this article (in Dutch) in a major Dutch newspaper for instance, about how the Nintendo Gameboy can be used to increase the engine power of scooters. It writes about how some clevers kids and mechanics found out, that with a Nintendo Gameboy you can easily read and manipulate the software and chips inside scooters. This makes it possible to erase the speed limitation which is set within the software, so that scooters can go way faster than the legally allowed 50 km/hour (in fact they can go as fast as 90 km/hour).
That's not all: not only kids and mechanics are taking advantage of this, but it has also gained the attention of scooter manufacturers, who are now developing and selling special cartridges for the Gameboy to read the scooter's technical data. They also provide special cables to attach the Gameboy to the scooter.
The above Gameboy anecdote is just an example to show how consumerization works, and that the results of the evolution can be found in the most unexpected areas. So this is my second prediction for 2006: we will see that consumerization will continue to drive innovation, and the results will be very surprising.
Is Web 2.0 amoral?
Nicholas Carr has written a quite influential piece
on Web 2.0, already back in October 2005. The article is titled "The
amorality of Web 2.0", and Nicholas saves the beef of his article for
the last part. His point is the following (please read the full article
too, it's well worth it!):
The Internet is changing the economics of creative work - or, to put it more broadly, the economics of culture - and it's doing it in a way that may well restrict rather than expand our choices. Wikipedia might be a pale shadow of the Britannica, but because it's created by amateurs rather than professionals, it's free. And free trumps quality all the time. So what happens to those poor saps who write encyclopedias for a living? They wither and die. The same thing happens when blogs and other free on-line content go up against old-fashioned newspapers and magazines. Of course the mainstream media sees the blogosphere as a competitor. It is a competitor. And, given the economics of the competition, it may well turn out to be a superior competitor. The layoffs we've recently seen at major newspapers may just be the beginning, and those layoffs should be cause not for self-satisfied snickering but for despair. Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur. I for one can't imagine anything more frightening.
In "We Are the Web," Kelly writes that "because of the ease of creation and dissemination, online culture is *the* culture." I hope he's wrong, but I fear he's right - or will come to be right.
This last part of his point, is what sociologists call cultural generalization. This is one of the aspects of modernization or modernism, along with structural differentiation (a long-winded way of saying that the world around is is becoming more complex). Sociologists have been writing about this modernization process for decades, and from the works of Marx, Weber, heck even Ritzer (author of the bestseller The McDonaldization of Society), we can only conclude that modernization and its consequences are inevitable. Considered from this view point, it is safe to say that Web 2.0 does not cause this cultural generalization, but only accelerates it. So is Web 2.0 amoral? Nah, not more than other forces driving modernization.
The Internet is changing the economics of creative work - or, to put it more broadly, the economics of culture - and it's doing it in a way that may well restrict rather than expand our choices. Wikipedia might be a pale shadow of the Britannica, but because it's created by amateurs rather than professionals, it's free. And free trumps quality all the time. So what happens to those poor saps who write encyclopedias for a living? They wither and die. The same thing happens when blogs and other free on-line content go up against old-fashioned newspapers and magazines. Of course the mainstream media sees the blogosphere as a competitor. It is a competitor. And, given the economics of the competition, it may well turn out to be a superior competitor. The layoffs we've recently seen at major newspapers may just be the beginning, and those layoffs should be cause not for self-satisfied snickering but for despair. Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur. I for one can't imagine anything more frightening.
In "We Are the Web," Kelly writes that "because of the ease of creation and dissemination, online culture is *the* culture." I hope he's wrong, but I fear he's right - or will come to be right.
This last part of his point, is what sociologists call cultural generalization. This is one of the aspects of modernization or modernism, along with structural differentiation (a long-winded way of saying that the world around is is becoming more complex). Sociologists have been writing about this modernization process for decades, and from the works of Marx, Weber, heck even Ritzer (author of the bestseller The McDonaldization of Society), we can only conclude that modernization and its consequences are inevitable. Considered from this view point, it is safe to say that Web 2.0 does not cause this cultural generalization, but only accelerates it. So is Web 2.0 amoral? Nah, not more than other forces driving modernization.
Tuesday, January 3, 2006
Movie stars and SOA
This morning I read on the sys-con website that in the Harrison Ford movie "Firewall" the main character is a security expert who reads SOA/Web Services Journal. As sys-con proudly writes on their web site:
In "Firewall" SOA Web Services Journal is Jack Stanfield's favorite trade magazine where you see Harrison Ford reading the magazine in one scene and on the coffee table in his office, in two other scenes.
SYS-CON Media granted permission to Warner Brothers approximately one year ago for the studio to have Harrison Ford's character to appear with the magazine in the movie.
"Firewall" will open in movie theaters on February 10, 2006.
Two questions for all of you:
In "Firewall" SOA Web Services Journal is Jack Stanfield's favorite trade magazine where you see Harrison Ford reading the magazine in one scene and on the coffee table in his office, in two other scenes.
SYS-CON Media granted permission to Warner Brothers approximately one year ago for the studio to have Harrison Ford's character to appear with the magazine in the movie.
"Firewall" will open in movie theaters on February 10, 2006.
Two questions for all of you:
- Do security experts really read Web Services Journal (WSJ) from a professional point of view, or just for fun / leisure. I like WSJ, but quite frankly to me it is not famous for its articles on security.
- Can anyone confirm that Harrison is reading the issue which has my article on BizTalk 2004 in it? That would be quite something for me and a great start of 2006, knowing that Indiana Jones had a look at my BizTalk decision tree ;-).
Monday, January 2, 2006
2006 prediction #1: web service standards
Back in September I wrote
that web services appeared to move away from WS-* protocols and
standards. Looking back now I was partly right. It is certainly so that,
especially with the emergence of Ajax and Web 2.0 in the second half of
2005, other non WS-* protocols have gained attention and are used more
widely. In fact, both Ajax and Web 2.0 rely more on POX (Plain Old XML)
and REST,
than on WS-Security, WS-Transaction or WS-I and the like. What will
further happen with web service protocols and standards in 2006?
The WS-* and more lightweight standards like POX, REST and Ajax will peacefully co-exist. As being part of an SOA and featuring heavily in the attempts by major vendors to improve their SOBA's and make them future-proof, we will need a robust framework for web services. The further elaboration of the WS-* stack can provide this, so for inter-application, inter-organization and any other service-oriented application, the WS-* will still be the best pick.
However, for services that are primarily user-centric, the best pick will be REST/POX/Ajax. Use these technologies for presenting the information that is being processed using protocols and standards from the WS-* stack.
My prediction is that both the WS-* stack and its lightweight counterpart will continue to evolve and mature, and that we will learn that these are not rival standards, but rather complementary standards that will feature heavily in organizations pursuing SOA / Web 2.0 success. Whether we like it or not, Ajax and Web 2.0 concepts are here to stay, and they provide an attractive alternative for presentation functions for which WS-* is over-bloated.
My second prediction is that the WS-* stack will be start to be consolidated in 2006, and the numbers of standards for web services will rather decrease, than increase. New joint efforts from vendors and standard bodies will be started to unify competing standards. Also, standards that overlap heavily, will be slammed together to increase the simplicity of the WS-* protocols.
Still the golden rule for WS-* standards applies: use SDKs and generators as much as possible, and do not go about adopting and implementing all WS-* standards out there. Do not even attempt to grasp all of them.
The WS-* and more lightweight standards like POX, REST and Ajax will peacefully co-exist. As being part of an SOA and featuring heavily in the attempts by major vendors to improve their SOBA's and make them future-proof, we will need a robust framework for web services. The further elaboration of the WS-* stack can provide this, so for inter-application, inter-organization and any other service-oriented application, the WS-* will still be the best pick.
However, for services that are primarily user-centric, the best pick will be REST/POX/Ajax. Use these technologies for presenting the information that is being processed using protocols and standards from the WS-* stack.
My prediction is that both the WS-* stack and its lightweight counterpart will continue to evolve and mature, and that we will learn that these are not rival standards, but rather complementary standards that will feature heavily in organizations pursuing SOA / Web 2.0 success. Whether we like it or not, Ajax and Web 2.0 concepts are here to stay, and they provide an attractive alternative for presentation functions for which WS-* is over-bloated.
My second prediction is that the WS-* stack will be start to be consolidated in 2006, and the numbers of standards for web services will rather decrease, than increase. New joint efforts from vendors and standard bodies will be started to unify competing standards. Also, standards that overlap heavily, will be slammed together to increase the simplicity of the WS-* protocols.
Still the golden rule for WS-* standards applies: use SDKs and generators as much as possible, and do not go about adopting and implementing all WS-* standards out there. Do not even attempt to grasp all of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)