Gervas. I think we are saying the same thing. I quote chapter and verse on missed oppourtunities, as I am sure we all can. The point is that, as Todd suggests, we perhaps should be suggesting novel solutions but I would add when it is appropriate to do so. Appropriateness is a many variabled entity, comprising risk (will the vendor be in business in 3 years, will the technology gain adoption and so on), cost (how much will it cost both now and in the future) as well as the curve for return on investment (which of course must include the value to the business and not the technologies novelty).
There is, at least from my own observations, a tendency to go with the most common denominator (hence the phrase "no one gets fired for buying ....."). But if we simply continued down this route the only new things would come from large corporates (Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, BEA etc etc) that are protecting legacy and are not really focussed on more effective and efficient ways of building and maintaining solutions. If analysts were not paid by large vendors do we think we might get a different solution from them? I cannot answer it because I am not one. But I have worked with many before and do so even today. What does seem to be the case is that they have a fairly conventional view of technology rather than an innovative one. And innovation can be as much about IT in support of new business practices as it can be about new technology. The combination of the two is the sweet spot that I hope we all aim for. Delivering value is always and will always be the key. It is a question of making sure the consumers are properly and fairly briefed as to what their options really are. That I would contend is something that happens all too infrequently - but then I am a risk taker. Cheers Steve T On 8 Apr 2006, at 13:35, Gervas Douglas wrote: > --- In [email protected], Steve > Ross-Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Steven, > > Perhaps there is some misunderstanding here: I don't know anyone who > would contend that inertia and sticking to the status quo would lead > to innovation and out-of-the-box thinking! I do however think that > when dealing with customers one should be very much aware of the these > factors and the customer's perspective in general. This does not of > course preclude one's efforts to overcome these barriers and propose a > novel solution. In my experience one is far more likely to succeed > in this aim if one respects the customer's perspective and above all > is seen to respect it! > > Gervas > > > > > On 8 Apr 2006, at 11:14, Gervas Douglas wrote: > > > > > Thanks, Anne - I would not have known how to begin to approach > those > > > technical points as you well know. > > > > > > Gregg, in whatever commercial work I do, I tend to have contact > with a > > > lot of people and a lot of companies, sometimes from cold with no > > > minimal preconceptions on my part. This forces me to look at > things > > > from the customer's point of you. To use my own hackeyed > expression > > > "I put myself behind the user's eyeballs." BTW I then look > outwards! > > > However objective one's arguments appear you can never ignore > > > subjective perceptions when it comes to decision-making. > > > > > > As Anne, who also has a lot of customer contact, says, politics > > > happen. It is not just a matter of relations between > colleagues. > > > People tend to like what they know and can understand and master. > > > Your technical arguments might seem unassailable to you as an > > > experienced engineer. However, like it or not, not everyone > will be > > > convinced to adopt your recommendations, partly because the > merits of > > > the latter notwithstanding, they want to avoid the consequent > > > disruption of their environment which is as it is for better or > worse > > > because of past decisions. The inertia of the status quo in > terms of > > > operating environments, existing skills, available support, need > for > > > training, relationships with influential suppliers (e.g. > Microsoft), > > > the comfort that comes with familiarity etc. should never be > > > underestimated. > > > > One might assert that politics of this nature happen because we as > > architects > > and we as analysts allow it to happen. `i don't buy intertia it does > > not lead to > > innovation and out-of-the-box thinking. I am sure that better > > architectures than > > those proffered by large vendors will come to the fore and some > will be > > seen to > > have helped this and some will be laggards. This is just the cycle > of > > culteral > > lockin and innovation that has always occurred. > > > > So I guess I agree with Dan but I also understand Anne's point of > view > > even if > > I don't agree with the status-quo in terms of innovation that it > alas > > promotes. > > > > > > > > One of the ways Java advocates sometimes arouse resentment is by > being > > > perceived as trying to impose their language and environment, and > only > > > theirs, on others, however distorted that perception may be. A > > > corollary of course is when MS advocates are seen to impose > Windows > > > and .NET to the exclusion of other platforms on others. > > > > > > When one is recommending what seems unassailably correct, its > > > rejection might seem desperately unfair and illogical - that is > the > > > reality of human nature that commercial people have to deal with > every > > > day. > > > > > > Gervas > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Anne > Thomas > > > Manes" <atmanes@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Gregg, > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, the market frequently isn't especially concerned > > > with the > > > > best technical solution. Politics happen. > > > > > > > > I know the JERI enables interoperability with non-Java > > > environments, but > > > > Jini/JS still has a hard dependency on Java, and that will > always > > > cause > > > > political resistence, limiting its potential adoption rates. > > > > > > > > btw -- this comment isn't quite accurate: > > > > > > > > "In WS-* applications the conversion from native data types to > SOAP > > > or some > > > > other wire or invocation layer representation is done smack in > the > > > middle of > > > > the application. What difference does it make where that > > > conversion is > > > > done?" > > > > > > > > Typically when using a SOAP framework, such as .NET, Apache > Axis, > > > WebSphere, > > > > WebLogic, SAP NetWeaver, SOAP:Lite, PEAR SOAP, Ruby SOAP, etc, > the > > > > application doesn't need to perform conversions from native > types to > > > XML. > > > > The conversions are performed automatically by the middleware. > In > > > the Java > > > > toolkits, a service is implemented as a POJO, and clients > simply > > > invoke > > > > operations on proxy objects. It feels very much like RMI, > although > > > it's a > > > > document exchange system rather than a distributed object > system. > > > Developers > > > > should be aware of that subtle distinction (although many > aren't -- > > > leading > > > > to a variety of bad practices). > > > > > > > > Anne > > > > > > > > On 4/8/06, Gregg Wonderly <gergg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Gervas Douglas wrote: > > > > > > Yes, Gregg, but like it or not, there are some people who > do not > > > want > > > > > > to use Java. I believe some of them work in a town called > > > Redmond. I > > > > > > guess that it is as much a political issue as a technical > one. > > > > > > > > > > Right, but how would one make another Linda implementation > that > > > swallowed > > > > > XML > > > > > directly, any less controversial :-) At some point it > would be > > > written in > > > > > some > > > > > language with some features associated with the transport of > data > > > into and > > > > > out > > > > > of it. Those features would either be enabling or confining > for a > > > > > specific set > > > > > of use cases involving other languages/platforms. So what > would > > > be the > > > > > advantage? > > > > > > > > > > I know I am arguing technically about a political point. > I'm just > > > trying > > > > > to > > > > > push hard enough to get more than an emotional response from > those > > > that > > > > > want to > > > > > argue about the political points of Java and Jini. > > > > > > > > > > If we could all just get to the technical issues... My feet > are > > > not > > > > > feeling any > > > > > colder though, so we probably still have a ways to go... > > > > > > > > > > Gregg Wonderly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > > > â–ª  Visit your group > "service-orientated-architecture" on the web. > > >  > > > â–ª  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email > to: > > >  [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >  > > > â–ª  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the > Yahoo! Terms of > > > Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > ▪ Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web. > > ▪ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ▪ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
