Alex, Thanks for saving me the hassle of explaining. Now I get to just +1 your response.
JP On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Alexander Johannesen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 05:31, Nick Gall <[email protected]> wrote: >> My point is that in common usage, "integration" is rarely pejorative and >> usually connotes the concept of being designed to work together from the >> start -- NOT retrofitting the ability to work together. > > As someone who's spent 14 years in companies doing integration, I'd > say you live in a fantasy world. :) Integration projects are often > very messy things, so even if the pipe-dream of everything being > designed to work together from the get go is there, it is very far > from reality. Besides, are you trusting sales materials from BMW more > than integration practitioners? > >> Rather than expect >> everyone to intuit your interpretation of "integration", why not just >> modify >> it with an adjective like "ad hoc" or "post hoc" to be clear, ie "ad hoc >> integration". > > Because it ain't used that way? :) Whenever anyone say "we need to > integrate our system with this other system" people shiver and sweat > and hope that they're not part of that project, because down that path > lies madness, ad-hoc or not. > > Perhaps a bit overstated, but "integration" is not a feel-good word > (in my world of enterprise consultancy services). > > regards, > > Alex > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps > ------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ -------- >
