The disconnect comes from context. The word "integration" in the non-IT world is a warm and fuzzy thing. But the word has a very different meaning and generates extreme angst in the IT world. It refers to force-fitting things together that were never intended to get along.
Anne On 1/7/09, JP Morgenthal <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ >> -------- >> >
