Enterprises - do they need to "let go"?

📅 03 October 2006 in: web-20-course-sites

A blog post from the company JackBE, apparently by a guy called Mike Wagner tries to make the argument about why the term Rich Internet Applications (RIA - applications built with new style web interface technologies, e.g. Ajax etc) needs to be extended/enhanced to Rich Enterprise Applications (REAs).

If I were really cynical I could argue that this is a ploy by a commercial company to push their wares. JackBE coined the REA term.

Putting that bit of cynicism aside, my real interest in the post is the apparently unsupported contention that enterprises need something extra that the rest of the user population don't. They need "governance".

The post argues that ad hoc RIAs/mashups are fine for someone playing around but an enterprise needs "governance and security and commercial-grade reliability". The post posits this is the difference between Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 and applies to RIAs and REAs.

Do enterprises really need anything different?

I'm not so sure. Services like Google have create an expectation amongst consumers. In the years that I've been using Google it has always been available, I can remember only two or three glitches that forced me to do a refresh and its services have been incredibly easy and effective. I expect all the sites I use to meet this same expectation and I believe many others also do.

So when I use or design a mashup, a RIA or a bit of Web 2.0 I want to ensure I meet that expectation.

Would any enterprise system be unhappy if it met the Google expectation level? Almost all of the enterprise systems I've experienced are nowhere near achieving this level. Enterprise systems within CQU are generally 9-to-5 systems. If that. The various online banking systems I use are kludgy and have been unavailable a number of times.

To me this covers, security and reliability. So all that is left is "governance". What is actually meant by governance. The Wikipedia defintion

Corporate governance aims to:

  • align the actions of the individual parts of an organisation toward aggregate mutual benefit
  • provide the means by which each individual part of the organisation can trust that the other parts each make their contribution to the mutual benefit of the organisation and that none gain unfairly at the expense of others
  • provide a means by which information can quickly flow between the various stakeholders to ensure that the changing nature of both the stakeholder needs and desires and the environment in which the organisation operates get effectively factored into decision processes

The articles proposal that "REAs = RIAs + governance" seems to be harking back to the bad old days of command and control. We can only achieve these aims if we control how they do it.

It seems to me that this breaks many of the ideas of Web 2.0.

So, I don't think that there's much point in the new acronym. I'm also wondering if there is an argument to be made against the use of "Enterprise 2.0"? To be considered.

5 Comments

  • Mike (the guy) 📅 2006-10-04 11:31:11 #

    Hello there, saw an incoming link from your site. I hope you don't think I was hoping for "the bad old days" in fact just the opposite. I can only go into so much detail about a subject in a blog. People kept asking me about Enteprise 2.0 and RIAs so I was trying to explain the both while comparing both. I more importantly wanted to convey that enterprises have all this data (now being exposed as services) and can empower users and create new user-centered, grainular situational appl. But, my experience has been that although enterprises wnat to do this they have to govern there assets in some matter. The question is where. Some RIA advocates say this can be left up to the browser, and it can, but not to the degree enterprises would feel comfortable with their data. The governance at its simplest form requires authentication and authorization. After the SOA SUN Micro guys came on board here at JackBe they said that it can't be done this was. They tried for years. It has to reside on the server. That doesn't mean command and control though if one has the proper authority to say... build a situaltional composite app showing regional sales data from one org and mashed up with demographic data from a trusted partner. Both sides are going to want to ensure the user of that data has the proper authority. This is obviously different from simply mashing up freely accessable public APIs like Google Maps.

    As far as the REA, we had to use that for lack of any other term. I even remember when a Gartner analyst was in and said we were OK with it simply becasue the market hasn't decided upon a term for this new Mashup, composite app, situaltional app, Ajax SOA services type of application that I think companies are moving towards. Like Oracle with Fusion, Tibco with Matrix, BEA with 360, etc... We were struggling for lack of a better name while still trying to convey that we unlike the above, are agnostic and have designed Presto to consume any service no matter what the backend or middle where in place.

    Wow that's a mouth full, but do appreciate the feedback, its always good. Believe me I got a lot of challenges in response to this post when I started comparing the 2.0s. Knew I would too with all the buzz flying around it means passionate people as well. I believe people are still trying to make heads and tails of it all. But what an exciting time. I'm curious your thoughts so feel free to drop me a line anytime. By the way I see from the URL you’re from down under. I was at Macquarie Uni for a Semester back in the day on a study abroad. Loved it, didn’t want to leave and stayed to the last day my visa let me.

    Cheers
    Mike

  • d.jones 📅 2006-10-04 12:26:48 #

    G'day Mike,

    Thanks for the comment.

    My post probably has more to do with me struggling with my own ideas around enterprise systems, how the end up being implemented and my attempts to catch up with the enterprise 2.0 meme than anything meaningful or critical about the detail of your original post.

    I really liked your post because it generated some thoughts I need to follow through. Many of these aren't directly related to the technical requirements of implementing some of these new ideas.

    I'm working my way through this and find myself asking what are the drivers, impacts, benefits and drawbacks of this on-going need in IT related fields to come up with new buzz words. Is this on-going buzz word generation creating problems between IT and the business folk? Are there better ways of achieving change?

    What is the need for this on-going buzz word generation process? Is it a limitation caused by IT folk latching onto a buzz word, becoming so enamoured of it that they end up not being responsive enough to business needs to recognise a need to move. e.g. the VMS guys that never made the move to UNIX, who never made the move to Windows server products etc.

    Good luck with it. Will be interestingn to see if REAs catch on as a meme.

    Macquarie is a nice campus. Been there a couple of times. Pity it's located in Sydney - not one of my favourite cities.

    David.

  • Susan Scrupski 📅 2006-10-10 00:32:00 #

    Hi David. What I've been struggling with is when will enterprises truly embrace Enterprise 2.0 applications? Do you get a feel from your readers or IT friends that they are willing to try web alternatives to "old school" enterprise products?

    And when you speak of command and control, I hear you. I've been harping on my blog that something on the order of "revolution" or user revolt is simmering in the cubes. Are you sensing this as well?

    Thanks,
    Susan

  • d.jones 📅 2006-10-10 10:33:42 #

    G'day Susan,

    Some really good questions. Sparked off lots of thoughts. Decided they wouldn't fit in a comment so move it to a new post.

    My experience has shown that the end-users are more than happy to use web-based alternatives if they are easier and more useful than enterprise products. And with most of the very generic, client-server based enterprise systems this isn't a hard thing to achieve. Getting acceptance from management is another question.

    As for the revolt. Yes, it is happening. The mention I give in my post to shadow systems is one symptom of this revolt. And it sounds like it is very much the sort of thing you are talking about with respect to self-help applications.

    One trouble is that the nature of organisations is such that the senior/line managers don't even know it is happening.

    Thank you for the spark and your blog - it's been added to my list.

    David.

  • David's WebLog 📅 2007-09-03 12:23:54 #

    When will enterprises truly embrace Enterprise 2.0 applications?...

    The following reflection (you may prefer drivel, but each to their own) has been sparked by a comment by Susan Scrupski on a previous post. It’s also been driven along by some of the reading I’ve been doing in the blogosphere in the last w...