Dapper has a lot of promise, but boy can it be annoying!

I haven't done a review in a while, so I thought I'd get back into it, starting with Dapper. I came across them in a Hinchcliffe blog entry about the most promising mashup tools. He had Dapper on the list, along with other more well-known tools such as JackBe, who still won't let me test their product.

Dapper allows developers to pull content from websites and expose them using various APIs. There is nothing new about this. Nearly all the products I've reviewed have this capability. Dapper differentiates itself with the number of different APIs it supports, which I'll get to later. The list is very impressive, but doesn't include SOAP.

Too bad about SOAP, but I understand. SOAP is overkill for screen scraped content. You don't need transactional integrity or security (not that SOAP has that problem licked) if you're just pulling read-only content from a page. Still, it does mean I can't use the content in something like a BPEL orchestration. Clearly that use isn't something Dapper has in mind. Then again, neither did Intel MashMaker or Kapow.

For consistency with my other reviews, I attempted to create a feed from the news page on the Serena website. No luck. Dapper couldn't load the page. So next I went to Digg to add recent news items. While Dapper loaded the page, it scrambled the page elements. I couldn't pull the top news stories from digg/science or digg/technology.

Next I went to my own blog to see if I could pull my content into a feed. I know, everyone can already get a blog as a feed, but this was an experiment. The instructions for Dapper say its selection algorithm will work better with multiple similar pages, so I added the links for my most recent three posts and went to the next step, selecting the contents to scrape.

Unlike other screen scraping technologies I've played with, Dapper has some smarts built in. Their algorithm supposedly helps mashers select the right content to pull into the API without having to mess around with Xpath. Well, certainly there is an algorithm in place, but I found it much more of an annoyance than a help. I couldn't get selections to work correctly, and when I tried to de-select manually, I got a page script error and the interface stopped in its tracks. I couldn't interact with the application at all, and had to reload the entire page with a new URL.

I went back to the start and tried it again, and got similar results, except that I didn't even try manually de-selecting page elements. Instead I wondered if I should not give Dapper multiple pages to work with. I selected 'Back' in the interface to return to the page where I selected my inputs, intending to remove all but the latest blog entry. And guess what?

Right! I got an error on the page again. The 'Back' link didn't work either. At least this time the interface didn't freeze up.

After a while I defined something close to the selections I wanted. (I never did get the exact content.) And now for the reason Dapper is different. The reason I kept playing with Dapper despite its many flaws: I could expose the content as POX, RSS, Filtered RSS, HTML, a Google gadget, a Netvibes module, a PageFlake, a Google map, an image loop, an iCalendar, Atom, CSV, JSON, XSL, YAML or even as an email. True, a lot of these formats don't make sense for blog content, but it's nice to have the option.

I especially liked the preview that let me take a look at the content before finalizing my output format choice. That was sweet.

Bottom line. I wouldn't use Dapper today for production mashups. It just isn't ready. However, when Dapper fixes their algorithm so it isn't annoying, when they do some serious debugging, when they fix their performance issues and when they otherwise clean up their usability, it will be one killer application for creating mashable content.

The reports of IT's death are greatly exagerated. Or are they?

It’s been a while since I wrote in this blog. I’ve had a lot of things happen, so I hope you will all forgive me. First, Marketing decided they couldn’t afford a pet nerd any more, so I had to find another job. I can’t blame them. They’ve let me run wild for a year, reading and writing and playing with software. How many people get to do their dream job for even a year?

Serena’s professional services department has taken me on to do for a fee what I used to do for free: give advice to customers about best practices with respect to ALM, SOA Governance, Agile development, Web 2.0 and mashups. I’ll still have the chance to read and write, and I’ll get involved with customers earlier in our relationship. In all, a very fair trade.

I also took a vacation before hitting the ground in services. I’ve been a skier for 20 years or so, but decided to put them aside for the week and learn to board. Why? I had become complacent and was no longer progressing or pushing myself. I wanted something new, and decided to try the board. Having heard from other skiers that it’s very hard to switch, especially at my age, I deliberately left my skis at home.

A week later I had a bruised tailbone, a wrenched shoulder, a twisted knee, possibly a broken thumb and a couple of very sore wrists. I also can ride. Not well. Not nearly as well as I skied. But even though I’m back on the greens, I’ve progressed.

I’m back now and I’d like to talk about a post by ZD Net blogger Michael Krigsman. In his recent post he talks about the very real possibility that IT will become an endangered species, going the way of the steno pool, vast accounting departments keeping the books with adding machines, and company cars. The article was interesting, citing the now dusty ‘IT as commodity’ argument as well as a number of others. Not quite as interesting as the article are the comments. Except for a very few insightful posts, they fall into three categories.

• IT sucks and deserves to die.
• Tech illiterate users suck and will beg IT for mercy when their systems crash.
• IT isn’t going away, it’s just evolving into a new life form.

They remind me of what poses as political debate on slashdot. “Democrats suck.” “No! Republicans suck!” “No! Democrats suck.” And so on. I keep reading because once in a while I come across some creative invective that makes it all worthwhile. In case you were wondering, there wasn't any noteworthy invective in the comments.

When I first read the article I believed Krigsman was being deliberately provocative. I thought, "He’s picking a fight. I know it, he knows it and I bet everyone else knows it too." Once I started considering his points, however, I wasn't so sure. In fact, I think all three conclusions posted by Krigsman's readers have some truth. In some cases IT does deserve to die, in some cases users will still rely heavily on IT, and in some cases IT will survive, just not in it's current form.

Krigsman bases his predictions on seven trends, but I think there are really only three: IT is a commodity, IT isn’t in tune with the business, and the world is changing around IT.

IT is a commodity. Krigsman cites three different examples of IT as a commodity. First, IT has become defensive rather than offensive as applications such as email become as necessary to everyone as electricity. This is the argument Carr made in his post dot-com article about why IT doesn’t matter. Second, applications that used to be differentiators, such as CRM, are now so standard they can be offered as a service, completely bypassing the need for IT support. Salesforce.com is the poster child for SaaS, but many others exist, and even venerable enterprise app vendors such as SAP are planning to offer their software through subscription services. Third, software vendors are volume pricing their offerings, pushing IT organizations to make single-vendor deals. In other words, vendors such as Microsoft and IBM are pricing their offerings as commodities.

But is it a valid argument that IT as a commodity means IT is doomed to extinction? Most IT professionals would say, “No.” Older, established capabilities such as file servers, email, and enterprise apps may move outside of the firewall, but there will always be the need for newer and better capabilities that haven’t yet been commoditized.

I’m not sure either position is correct. If all a company needs is vanilla IT, then it doesn’t make sense to maintain an internal IT organization. If all you need is standard power, would you bother generating your own, or would you buy it from the grid? In some cases, however, innovative IT is a strategic weapon, not merely a defensive necessity. Wal-Mart, Google, eBay and Amazon have shown that IT can be such a weapon. Businesses that differentiate based on innovative customer interaction, a hyper-lean supply chain or platform as a service, are going to need their own IT.

The bottom line is that commoditized IT will put some, but not all, internal IT departments out of business.

IT is out of touch with the business. Krigsman discusses two manifestations of this root cause: IT leadership is alienated from corporate senior management, and corporate senior management doesn’t understand how IT can be a strategic asset.

Both of these points have the ring of truth. Where IT is a provider of services rather than a business partner, IT is nothing but a defensive necessity and the CIO merely a cost cutter, probably reporting to the CFO. Under those circumstances, why would senior leadership pay attention? Would the CEO reserve a place on the board for the person responsible for ordering the most cost effective paper clips? A corollary would be that senior leadership also won’t understand how IT can be a strategic asset rather than a cost center.

But does this signal the end of IT? Again, not necessarily. Let’s consider Wal-Mart versus K-Mart. K-Mart didn’t care about IT and didn’t consider IT as a strategic asset. Wal-Mart did, and put in place a supply chain system that drove K-Mart into bankruptcy. K-Mart's IT definitely took a hit then, although I bet is has rebounded since, and not merely as a provider of email. In the Darwinian business world, organizations win when they make the best use of their strategic assets. They lose when they don’t.

So the bottom line is similar. Where the IT/business divide is strong, it will put some internal IT organizations out of business.

The world is changing, lessening the need for IT. We won’t need IT because we can get everything we need from enterprise-ready consumer-inspired apps. These apps are getting to market faster and better fueled by VC investments.

This is a hotly debated topic, very much tied up with Enterprise 2.0 and mashup debates. The business wishes that it were true, IT knows it isn’t. The reality is somewhere in between. I already use Facebook and LinkedIn as much as corporate email for business correspondence. I don’t need an intranet to share content. We happen to have a wiki set up for internal use, not supported by IT by the way, but if it wasn’t there I’d use pbwiki. I can share presentations on Facebook, documents on Google and important links on del.icio.us. Mashup tools such as Serena Business Mashups (OK, you knew I had to work self-promotion in someshere.) will soon be good enough to enable end users to construct their own non-critical applications.

But these apps, because they are available for everyone to use, won't be strategic differentiators. At least not for long. And as for building my own applications, I may be able to use mashup tools, but I need a SOA infrastructure in place to provide the services that I'll mash. There is a place for IT, even in companies that rely heavily on readily available consumer-oriented applications. Just not the same IT.

And the bottom line is the same. Some internal IT will go under, but not all.

What does it all mean? Statistics tells us that the probability of combined events may approach zero even if the individual probabilities of the events are nowhere near zero. So while none of these three trends will take IT down, their combined influences will take a toll.

I’m bullish about IT professionals, but bearish about the current structure of internal IT organizations. Can we assume that IT professionals will continue to concentrate on keeping the LAN operational, providing desktop support, email and file servers? I wouldn't make that assumption. Will internal app dev departments continue to build applications that take years to create and months to modify? I'm not sure how much longer the business will be willing to fund such an organization.

Will there be a place for IT professionals who keep their skills fresh, engage with the business and provide input on how IT can become a strategic weapon? That's a bet I'd make. But it requires that we IT workers change the way we do business. We've got to learn new skills, keep fresh, bounce around new ideas even if someone tells us why we can't do it that way.

It’s time to leave the skis at home, endure the bumps and bruises and the ignomy of being back on the greens, and move forward.

IT run-around crowd can't bypass the need for 'real' web services

I just finished reading a post by Patty Seybold in her Outside Innovation blog. In this post she bemoans the looming mashup hype, but notes that it's about time mashups enter the mainstream.

Too true.

Seybold goes on to say that mashup vendors are trying to convince potential customers that they don't need IT. In Seybold's words, these vendors are saying,

You don't have to wait for your IT department to wrap your back-end application functionality into real Web Services, you can "cheat" by extracting data in the form of reports and turning them into RSS feeds, which you can mash up with graphical user interfaces and tools.

She is implying, although she doesn't come out and say it outright, that this view of mashups is flawed. In this I completely agree.

Consider the sort of 'application' you can create with this approach. You can pull together data, you can bring in interesting visual elements, you can consolidate information, and you can look at it in a unified GUI. But you can't do anything. The data and visual elements aren't in the context of a business activity.

Clearly these mashups aren't going to be the killer apps Hinchcliffe notes are necessary for mashups to become a valuable enterprise tool.

Sorry, IT run-around crowd (Seybold's term) but any mashup vendor saying you can bypass IT and get what you need through RSS feeds, screen scraping and widgets isn't considering that you will need access to back-end enterprise services to get the most out of your mashup investment.

Let's consider an example. Let's say your sales manager wants to keep track of important news cross-referenced to either existing accounts, or opportunities in the pipeline. This could be put together by mashing up CRM data, available through reports and screen scraping, with RSS news feeds, all without the help of IT. That would give the manager some great data, but he can't do anything with it unless he hops out of the mashup and into the CRM system.

The real killer application would allow the sales manager to action the data within the mashup. So, for example, if the manager sees that a company in his pipeline just hired a new COO, the manager could push a button to create a TODO item in the CRM system requesting the account manager arrange an introductory call with the new executive. That sort of interaction isn't enabled by RSS feeds. It is enabled by services connected to back-end systems controlled and managed by IT.

What mashup platforms will do is reduce your dependence on IT to construct new applications. IT can take on the role of a trusted partner rather than gatekeeper, but you still need them. Any mashup vendor who says otherwise doesn't understand your business.

More 2008 predictions from the 'unnamed analyst'

Let me start out by congratulating Encanvas. They have joined JackBe in the illustrious group of mashup vendors who won’t let me review their mashup tools for this blog. Here’s what they had to say when I asked.

As Serena is a close competitor to Encanvas I’m not sure that would be appropriate but we have the greatest admiration for any organization that is encouraging agile computing and it’s great to have competition - so keep doing good things.

The funny thing is that as far as I can tell, Serena’s never been in a deal against Encanvas. Competition. It’s all in the mind.

And now for something completely different…

The 2008 prediction machines are still at it, although I assume now that we are into February we will see them less often. One leading analyst firm, whose name I can’t give you since they would require I run this post through their vendor relations department, has made Web 2.0 predictions for 2008. Hint: They aren’t Gartner. As in the past, I’ll just call them the Unknown Analyst. (UA)

Here’s their 2008 mashup predictions.

• Mashup vendors will start seeing a return on their investment in 2008, but at the expense of other Web 2.0 technologies.

Bloomberg at ZapThink already made a similar prediction. And just as I did before, I must disagree. 2009 will be the year of mashups rather than 2008. I hope to be wrong, but I don’t think I will be. Web 2.0 is just emerging into the enterprise, and mashups will be at the tail end of Web 2.0 spending. RSS, wikis, blogs and social networks are all going to be on the short list for 2008, with mashups entering the list in a big way in 2009.

• Enterprise mashups will come out of the closet, and the vendors who influence standards boards and best articulate mashup value will set market expectations.

My take is that standards boards aren’t going to make a big difference. If mashups were stressing technology to IT customers, then standards would be important. But we need to remember that mashup customers will likely come from the business side of the house. Business users don’t give a hoot about mashup standards for security, widgets, REST contracts, etc. These are vendor problems the vendors need to solve.

However, while I disagree with the notion that standards board leadership will make much of a difference in market leadership, I completely agree that articulating mashup value will make a difference. If I can convince you that mashups will help you leverage your SOA investments to build those applications now languishing at the bottom of IT’s priority list, then I will likely get your business. If I can't convince you, then I won't.

• Vendors from adjacent markets such as EAI and portals will enter the mashup fray in 2008. Pure-play Web 2.0 vendors will be the losers because big players like Microsoft, IBM, Oracle and HP will Web 2.0-enable their current offerings.

This is a very interesting prediction. In effect it says that stand-alone Web 2.0 technologies don’t matter as much as Web 2.0 technologies in the context of existing business problems. So will I need a social network solution in my company if my BI vendor puts one in the reporting portal? Do I need a stand-alone enterprise RSS solution if my existing reporting tools, Sharepoint and CRM vendors add the ability to export notifications as RSS or Atom feeds?

I think, for the most part, the answer is ‘no.’ Enterprises will be able to make do with Web 2.0 features added to existing vendor offereings. At least when combined with open source readers, wikis and blogs.

But mashups? I don’t think so.

Consider a scenario. Assume you want to pull your financial information together with lead data from CRM, marketing program plans from MRM and historical statistical information from BI. You also want to wrap a process around these data to calculate whether a program will generate the number of leads necessary, and alert Marketing to take action when it looks like a program will not meet expectations. If you were depending on one or the other of these tools to provide a mashup platform, you wouldn’t have a unified end-user experience, your process would be dictated by the host tool you happened to choose, and you would end up with the same point-to-point integration problems that have been causing headaches since the dawn of applications development.

In other words, you would have an integration, not a mashup.

So while I agree that some Web 2.0 technologies such as social networking, wikis and blogs may not be good long-term product strategies for independent pure-play vendors, I think mashups have a chance.

Right up to the point where they are purchased by one of those big guys, something not predicted by UA.

What would George Carlin say about the Ten Mistakes Companies Make When Implementing SOA?

In Paul Callahan’s recent eWeek article he lists ten mistakes companies make when they implement SOA Projects. It’s a pretty good list, and I’ll summarize it here, but I’d like to do some tweaking.

Do you remember George Carlin explaining how the Ten Commandments could be boiled down to two, with another added for good measure? If not go take a look. That’s what I think about this list. It isn’t bad, but it needs some tweaking.

Let’s take a quick look at the ten first, and then I’ll discuss how I would consolidate.

1. Taking a Shotgun Approach. That is, SOA-enable everything, regardless of whether there is a business need for the resulting services. LogicLibrary’s Brent Carlson likes to call this A Bunch of Services. (ABOS) and is one of the most common pitfalls of Big SOA.


2. Failing to Involve Business Analysts. Technologists tend to think of SOA as a technology initiative rather than a business initiative. When that happens, not only do the wrong things get built, but it is unlikely the organization will ever see the sort of ROI promised by these technologists.


3. Spending More Time on SOA Products Than SOA Planning. Given lack of business direction, IT will tend to think that SOA is something that you buy rather than something you do.


4. Tackling the Largest Projects First. Sure it is inviting to make a big splash with your SOA initiative. But isn’t it better to try to walk before you run?


5. Forgetting that SOA is a Business Problem. It’s not about the technology; it’s about the solution to a problem.


6. Treating Identity as an afterthought. Readers of this blog will know that this is one I take very seriously. Security and identity are the soft underbellies of SOA, and we need to build for security and identity up front.


7. Buying New Products When Existing Investments Suffice. This is a special case of thinking of SOA as a technology rather than a business solution. You don’t always need to buy new stuff, no matter how much you are told to do so by vendors.


8. Misunderstanding Company Key Players. We live in a world of silos, and if you want to play in a sandbox belonging to someone else, you’d better ask first. Don’t assume you will be allowed to SOA-enable legacy systems, deploy to servers or install clients. Find out first, ask, and then get to work.


9. Expecting the SOA Project to Spread Quickly. This isn’t just an issue for SOA, but for any enterprise project where the success or failure of a project is tied to ‘the enterprise’ rather than to a specific project.


10. Lacking Necessary Elements. Embarking on Big SOA without Big SOA resources.

Here’s how I would rework the list. Numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 are actually different manifestations of the same problem: Treating your SOA rollout as a technical rather than a business problem. If you focus on your business issue, you won’t have ABOS, you will include business in the discussions, you won’t try to ‘buy SOA’ rather than solve your problem, you won’t think it’s a necessity to buy new stuff, you will tie the success of your SOA rollout to a specific business problem and you won’t go down the Big SOA path if you won’t be able to carry through with it.

So now we have four remaining issues.

Numbers 4 and 8 belong together as well. Both are saying the same thing: Start small. Organizations that start small won’t try to tackle the big, high-profile problems first. They also won’t run into the problem of stepping on somebody’s toes. Or at least the likelihood will be much less.

That leaves number 6, treating identity as an afterthought. I’d like to expand this a bit and say that treating scalability, security and identity management as an afterthought is the real mistake.

I’d also like to add an additional mistake. Forgetting your consumers. Effective SOAs will have multiple consumers, and multiple types of consumers. Design your SOA so it can be used by composite applications developers, BPM process gurus, portal programmers and mashers. Then you will be able to get the ROI you need to make your SOA investment an unqualified success.

So like George, I’d like to restate the items in a positive light.

1. Always remember that you are solving a business problem.


2. Start small and scale up as you learn.


3. Design for scalability, security and identity management up-front.


4. Remember your consumers.

Of course, if I really wanted to be true to George I’d add a 5th to the effect that I should keep my &^%$# opinions about SOA to myself.

Linthicum on Mashup Governance...over the top?

I usually agree with David Linthicum of ZapThink when he writes about SOA. He understands the problems faced by organizations moving to SOA-based applications development. He gets that organizations need to put governance in place to avoid SOA turning into merely A Bunch of Services. (ABOS) I'm a fan.

But I think his recent article on mashup governance in the SOA Institute newsletter was off the mark. Not completely, but I think he's making the mistake that many of us make in thinking that mashups need the same level of governance, the same rigor, as composite applications developed within IT.

Here's my take: Not only don't they need the same level of governance, they won't get it.

So let's take a look at what Linthicum has to say. He's right when he says that mashups blur the line between the web-at-large and the behind-the-firewall enterprise. In his words, "...We could find that we soon live in a world where it's difficult to determine where the enterprise stops and the web begins. Now that's scary and exciting at the same time."

I completely agree.

Next he talks about how organizations need to prepare for mashups. Linthicum says that organizations need to design their SOA with mashups in mind, and on this point we also agree. Although SOA has come to be synonymous with the WS-* standards, it need not be. In fact, early SOAs were completely custom, and even today there are a number of competing SOA standards. Yes SOAs need to be designed around standards, but not just any standards. They need standards that make the services and widgets usable by many different SOA consumers.

Let's consider an example. I happen to know of a company that created SOAP-based services to expose some of their products capabilities. However, these services were built in the image of their old API. When it came time to use these services in a BPEL orchestration, never mind within a mashup, it was extremely difficult. These services weren't built with their end use in mind. More services by techies and for techies.

When it comes time to adopt your SOA standards, keep in mind that you will have many different SOA consumers. Not just by coders in VS .NET or Eclipse, but portals, BPM, and even mashups. And when it comes time to implement your SOA, remember that you may have multiple consumers about which you know little to nothing. So architect for flexibility, scalability and security.

Linthicum goes on to discuss mashup governance in some detail, and I'm afraid here is where he and I disagree. Readers will recall I've written about mashup governance before. I believe mashup governance is necessary. Mashers need version control. Mashers need some form of feedback loop to manage defects and enhancements. Mashers need to practice safe scraping and need to be aware of the provenance of the data they use in their mashups.

However, Linthicum believes mashups should be governed with the same rigor as Big Applications developed by R&D.

"So, what do you need to do to prepare for mashups? It’s a matter of addressing the following areas: Requirements, Design, Governance, Security, Deployment, and Testing. In essence, these are core architectural activities that are required to get you to the Promised Land of mashups on top of your existing activities when you create a SOA."

Nice in theory, but impractical in practice. Mashups are to be built by subject-matter experts, not IT professionals. Think Ultra-Agile rather than Waterfall when putting together a framework for mashup governance.

Requirements? How about "build it," "try it," and, "change it." In Big Applications this may be a license for creep. The on-ramp to disaster. But for mashups, inherently smaller and more agile applications, formal Requirements Management is nothing but unnecessary overhead.

Design? Those of us with Big Applications pedigrees, myself included, will cringe, but a formal design process for mashups seems like overkill. If it works, it's probably good enough. If it stops working, then fix it. Will some mashups be inefficient? Perhaps some mashups will be slow. So what? If the mashup is going to be mission critical, if it will service a large number of transactions, then it will likely be developed by IT, not as a mashup. If it's being assembled by a subject-matter expert, it's likely that inefficiencies won't be a problem. When you bet, figure pot odds.

Governance I've already talked about, as well as security. While Linthicum and I may disagree about governance, we completely agree about security. If an organization is going to over-govern any aspect of mashups, my choice would be security. Unlike SOA's notorious performance issues, security breaches have the potential to materially harm organizations. Jail time? Wall Street disfavor? Stockholder uproar? All these have resulted from IT security problems. 'Nuf said.

Deployment is an interesting issue because it should be easy, but can be difficult. After all, what's the harm in allowing a masher to put a mashup into production? A mashup can't hurt the operational environment, right?

Clearly some governance is necessary. I suggest IT provide mashers with a secure and stable deployment platform, distinct from any mission-critical applications, and then leave mashup deployment to the mashers. IT should not attempt to require the same deployment gates for mashups that they do for SAP upgrades, changes to the financial system, or updates to eCommerce. Once the secure and stable environment is in place, leave mashers to mash.

Testing, testing, testing. I think testing falls into the same category as requirements. Should mashers test all possible configurations, scenarios and error conditions? Sure. Will they? Hardly. Putting gates in place to force mashers to test will only put mashers in an awkward position. Should they ignore the testing gates, or falsify the documentation? Darwin and sheer embarrassment will take care of quality control in the long run. That may not be optimal, but quality control will be more effective if it is instituted as a bottom-up rather than a top-down requirement.

My take-away is that mashers need to develop their own governance practices. Trying to force-feed Big Application lessons to mashers will only result in resentment and eye-rolling. Just as with Agile teams, let mashers define their own rules, and let them modify these rules as they learn, discover and create.

ZapThink Predictions for 2008

Continuing in my series on the 2008 mashup predictions made by others, I'd like to talk about a recent ZapThink article by Jason Bloomberg. He makes several predictions about the future of SOA in 2008, to include the sale of ZapThink itself. I won't comment on the acquisition discussion except to say that it seems a bit odd for ZapThink to tack up a For Sale sign like that. I can only guess they are already in the final stages of negotiation and want to boost their price with a little self-promotion, or perhaps want to get an idea of how their current clients will react to the sale.

Whatever the reason, good luck with it.

In addition to ZapThink’s future, Bloomberg makes some straightforward predictions about SOA and mashups. To summarize: The economic downturn in 2008 may cause some businesses to slow down or cancel their SOA initiatives, especially if they are struggling with ways to define the ROI. This will be good for businesses that have already turned the corner on SOA, but bad for the businesses that cancel.
"...For those organizations, we do predict cancellations of SOA projects and deferments of SOA spending, to their detriment. Because after all, their competition might very well be leveraging SOA to be more successful during a downturn, leaving the unsuccessful companies out in the cold."

I agree with both points...to a point. In difficult economic times, businesses will tend to cut back on strategic spending, especially if the ROI is a bit ephemeral, as it can be in Big SOA initiatives. So yes, I suspect we will se a number of SOA initiatives delayed or cancelled.

However, I think this only applies to Big SOA, not to Guerrilla SOA. Guerrilla SOA projects will likely continue forward because their ROI is tied to the success of a specific business initiative, not to some hard-to-define measure of enterprise IT effectiveness. Organizations with Guerrilla SOA projects in the works will still be able to leverage their investment, "...leaving the unsuccessful companies out in the cold." See my previous post on the subject, as well as predictions made by Hinchcliffe and Chappell.

Later in his post, Bloomberg defines a mashup as a "...governed, managed composition of loosely coupled Services within the context of a rich, collaborative, Internet-based environment." Except for the fact that he left out human interaction, that's a pretty good definition. He goes on to say that "...enterprise mashups are what organizations actually do with SOA."

Spot on.

Organizations leverage their SOA investments in many ways. Old-style programmers can boot up Eclipse or VS .NET and use java, C# or other languages to build applications. When used this way the services available in the context of a SOA are really just another API. I'm sure to get hate mail for this, but for an organization trying to maximize their SOA investment, relying on old-style programmers won’t do the trick.

What about portals? Once the portal framework is in place, end-users can customize at will, without depending on expensive IT resources. Making use of a SOA infrastructure will help increase an organization’s SOA ROI. Unfortunately, portals don’t scale as well. Most people want one portal, or if necessary, two or three, but only under duress. See Oracle’s comments on portals. Portal proliferation is a problem that needs to be solved, so trying to increase your SOA investment's ROI by increasing the number of portals is a losing bet.

Another way to leverage SOA investments is through BPM initiatives. BPM and SOA have been joined at the hip for several years. Before SOA, BPM tools could define a process, but executing the process was something else. With integrated SOA BPM end-user could do their jobs while actually in the BPM tool. No more application-hopping. Additionally, with SOA the BPM vendors had a workable standard for integrations. Not every install had to have a unique set of adaptors built specifically to integrate the BPM tool with back-end systems. No more introspecting DLLs to figure out how to talk to home-grown applications. Give the BPM system a WSDL and it could move the world.

As with portals, BPM solutions don’t scale. They are big systems, mostly behind the firewall, built for process gurus to build big supply-chain-type solutions. BPM practitioners need to have training, they need Big IT support and they need to spend a lot of money to install and maintain BPM systems. So while BPM does help businesses get a bit closer to the sort of ROI the EA team promised as a result of Big SOA, it isn't enough.

Now let's talk about mashups. Specifically, business mashups. Mashups are easy to assemble. They are easy to deploy. They scale down beautifully, but scale to the enterprise as well. With new mashup platforms coming on the market, anyone with enough tech savvy to build Excel macros or administer a wiki can build a mashup. Better yet, mashups can take advantage not only of the SOA, but of the WOA as well, opening up the entire world to mashers. Best of all, business mashups put the aggregated data and display elements into the context of an actual business activity. You have the data you need, when you need it, and can take action on the data without having to jump from application to application.

So when Bloomberg says that enterprise mashups will become the killer use-case for SOA in 2008, I want to agree, I really do. But I don’t. First, I think business mashups are actually the killer app, not enterprise mashups. This isn't just a war over verbiage. Enterprise mashups don't include human workflow, but human workflow is a vital part of most applications. Maybe 2008 will be the year that the term 'enterprise mashup' starts to include human processes. If so, then I'll stop harping on business mashups. Until then I'll continue to make the distinction. Second, I think 2008 will be the year mashups get mindshare outside of IT. However, the business won't actually start cranking out mashups until 2009.

I hope I'm wrong and Bloomberg is right.

Good luck, ZapThink, on your pending sale. And thanks, Bloomberg, for your 2008 predictions