Business @ the speed of thought
-
Actually both Hesselbring and I would agree with you that if standardized messages were used, integration would be a lot simpler. Unfortunately thats not the case for most cases. Let me give you an example of what "Business @ the speed of thought" really means. Imagine if I had the thought "I wonder how many 1969 Camaros there are selling around the world for < $10,000" That thought took milliseconds, but how quickly could it be actioned? It would require data mining many auctioning sites to achieve the thought, that would not be something you could achieve in a matter of moments
Beefcake 5000 wrote:
Let me give you an example of what "Business @ the speed of thought" really means.
Better - real example. In the 90's I worked for a telephone company. They needed to account for different tariff systems in Europe. I was working on a team that had a generic framework used for a different product of which two developers took exactly two days to come up with a new product (with the framework) that would present a simple, very simple, visual interface to a user to allow them to change handling immediately. This was presented to some sort of committee which had a person who was responsible for delivering that solution. That person's solution involved a new project group with probably like 15 people and a year delivery time. So 15 people and year to produce exactly the same thing that our group was already demoing. Guess which one won?
-
Beefcake 5000 wrote:
we still have not come anywhere near "business @ the speed of thought" the vision of Bill gates and co.
So a marketing blurb hasn't actually met expectations, not even close, and that is a surprise?
-
In what way do you think the business scenario I stated is not business related ? Competitive analysis, strategic analysis, SWOT analysis, Inventory Management the list goes on, and all would be supplied by data from the scenario I have stated. Regarding speed, you're still missing the point. Speed of the network is important (I never said it wasn't) but it is the easiest integration factor to achieve. We have fibre optic, the network is fast. What is difficult is getting it to the point where data can be published, distributed, consumed and controlled equally as fast. Integration most definitely is a highly complex part of information and computer science, you have stated: "Yes, different companies will save their employee-info in different table-structures that are not compatible, but if they wanted to exchange that info (which they usually don't, regardless of claims that management makes) than it is simply a matter of communicating a formalized structure. " Lets say you share data with 100 companies, it is statistically improbably that all 100 companies would support the same data structure. When the next company (101) comes along and wants to share the data and finds that they do not support the model, one of the parties is going to have to change, if the first company changes their data, then 101 companies need to change data (including themselves). So you would suggest the new company change their structure, unfortunately they also have 200 companies working with their model. Change Management is a big part of the problem and is covered with Hesselbring's "Heterogeneity" problem dimension. Sorry mate, its not as simple as you think
Beefcake 5000 wrote:
In what way do you think the business scenario I stated is not business related
In the sense that the resulting information is useless, incomplete and incorrect - it is a useless academic example. It would require each seller to register and have a fixed price. Would also require to have access to each sellers' database. Yeah, sounds very likely to happen.
Beefcake 5000 wrote:
it is the easiest integration factor to achieve
Perhaps you should have omitted the words "speed" and "business" from the topic and used the word "integration".
Beefcake 5000 wrote:
Sorry mate, its not as simple as you think
It is, until you can convince me otherwise. Taking your example, the worst thing you can do is to suggest that the problem is their different structure. It doesn't matter how you save your emails locally, what matters is the format in which it is exchanged. As is being educated in schools, it would not require any of those 300 companies to change their structure - what matters is the common interface.
Beefcake 5000 wrote:
Change Management is a big part of the problem
I am a rather simple person, so yes, we might be talking about totally different things. AFAIK, change management is simply part of the software lifecycle and something one anticipates. ..which is often simply neglected completely - but that is not a problem either :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Are you suggesting that Bill Gates wasn't a visionary, and/or that the vision is unrealistic ?
Beefcake 5000 wrote:
Are you suggesting that Bill Gates wasn't a visionar
No one is a "visionary". Of the incredible vast array of things that people predict about the future a very few come true. Some come true because when you shoot a shotgun (a very large shotgun) at a small target one pellet might still hit.
Beefcake 5000 wrote:
and/or that the vision is unrealistic
If you want to be specific about exactly what technologies you think that marketing blurb meant I am willing to address the realism of those. But in broad terms it is not only unrealistic but impossible. Note again that is very broad.
-
Beefcake 5000 wrote:
Are you suggesting that Bill Gates wasn't a visionar
No one is a "visionary". Of the incredible vast array of things that people predict about the future a very few come true. Some come true because when you shoot a shotgun (a very large shotgun) at a small target one pellet might still hit.
Beefcake 5000 wrote:
and/or that the vision is unrealistic
If you want to be specific about exactly what technologies you think that marketing blurb meant I am willing to address the realism of those. But in broad terms it is not only unrealistic but impossible. Note again that is very broad.
-
-
Beefcake 5000 wrote:
Its a sad world you live in.
Because I keep realism and fantasy separate? Again if you provide something specific as to what you think that marketing blurb meant I will provide some actual commentary on the technology involved.
Please don't take this the wrong way, I do not mean to be insulting, however you are not equipped to have the discussion. I know this because the terminology you use is all wrong. You refer to integration as "technology" as I've said a number of times on this thread, technology is a very small part of integration but unless you've actually implemented end to end integration projects, you won't understand that. Also, You state there are no visionaries because its a matter of chance, that enough fired shots, someone will hit the mark. This is a flaw in logic. If one person fired a million shots and hit I would agree that is a matter of chance, however, in this scenario there are many people firing shots and some people are hitting and some not. Its the ones that hit who are visionary as they saw something that others did not. I'd be happy to have a discussion with someone who had the experience but disagreed, or with someone who was open minded with no experience, but life is too short to have discussions with people who are inexperienced and close minded, sorry.
-
Please don't take this the wrong way, I do not mean to be insulting, however you are not equipped to have the discussion. I know this because the terminology you use is all wrong. You refer to integration as "technology" as I've said a number of times on this thread, technology is a very small part of integration but unless you've actually implemented end to end integration projects, you won't understand that. Also, You state there are no visionaries because its a matter of chance, that enough fired shots, someone will hit the mark. This is a flaw in logic. If one person fired a million shots and hit I would agree that is a matter of chance, however, in this scenario there are many people firing shots and some people are hitting and some not. Its the ones that hit who are visionary as they saw something that others did not. I'd be happy to have a discussion with someone who had the experience but disagreed, or with someone who was open minded with no experience, but life is too short to have discussions with people who are inexperienced and close minded, sorry.
Beefcake 5000 wrote:
I know this because the terminology you use is all wrong. You refer to integration as "technology" as I've said a number of times on this thread, technology is a very small part of integration but unless you've actually implemented end to end integration projects, you won't understand that.
You of course have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else.
Beefcake 5000 wrote:
f one person fired a million shots and hit I would agree that is a matter of chance, however, in this scenario there are many people firing shots and some people are hitting and some not. Its the ones that hit who are visionary as they saw something that others did not.
I see. So how often do you have your horoscope done? How often do you have a Tarot reading?
Beefcake 5000 wrote:
I'd be happy to have a discussion with someone who had the experience but disagreed,
You have no idea what my background is.