--- In [email protected], "Anne Thomas Manes" <atma...@...> wrote: > > 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.
This also frequently applies to politics, businesses, product lines and society in general, so we shouldn't be surprised if it applies to IT. Many years ago IT people in banks explained to me that one of the biggest challenges with bank mergers was the integration of the different banks' systems. In fact RBS discovered as they went on a major acquisition trail, that it was usually simpler to rip out the target banks' systems and impose their own. RBS might have screwed up big time as bankers but their IT systems did work pretty well on the whole. Gervas > > Anne > > On 1/7/09, JP Morgenthal <jpmorgent...@...> 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 > > <alexander.johanne...@...> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 05:31, Nick Gall <nick.g...@...> 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/ > >> -------- > >> > > >
