Web 2.0 Mashups Almost Ready For Enterprise 69
Dion Hinchcliffe, in a blog post over at ZDNet, talks about the increasing business value of 'Mashup' projects. Some of these, he believes, may soon or already be ready for use in an enterprise environment. He demonstrates one of these upcoming projects, showing off IBM's QEDWiki in a Flash demonstration. The software allows users to create their own mashups from canned widgets, turning data into simple applications with fairly straightforward functionality. From the article: "The motivations for mashups are quite different inside of organizations, where application backlogs and demand for more software that will improve collaboration and productivity are often rampant. If this state of affairs is true, far from having too much software, most enterprises don't have enough to satisfy demand, despite the prevalence of mountains of existing enterprise systems, many of which are underutilized. The arguments for letting users self-service themselves with end-user application tools and getting IT out of the critical path for the backlog of simpler applications are extensive." How important do you think 'self-made' software will be in the future?
welcome to the 90's, 80's (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not going to ax for extra credit or anything but, I wrote mashups in the 80's. FTA:
I would claim this specific notion (mashups) not only originated from the enterprise and trickled into internet consciousness, enterprise "mashups" existed many years ago. I know, I wrote them. It was (or at least we called it) surround technology.
We took vital pieces of different applications and wrote wrappers which allowed users with very simple interfaces to access more data more accurately more quickly. One example was a service order writing routine for small business that routinely took over 30 minutes... using our "mashup", we accessed the necessary enterprise applications and melded into a single app presentation and shortened the 30 minute process to less than 5.
I could go on, there were at least three other major applications we wrote (small team of 2, sometimes 3), that were "mashups". The advent of browser technology simply gave us another presentation tool, the notion and mechanics of mashing was still there.
I've played with Google "mashups", and Amazon "mashups", they're really nothing new.
There was a (don't know if they're still there) a Strategic Computing Consortium based in Boston, Ma, and they were huge advocates of surround technology and not only taught techniques and reasons for approaching solutions this way (I won't go into it -- it was a six-week class). And they provided and sold tools and consulting for putting these new applications together... the CEO (I believe) was John Donovan, author of a few college texts on OSes, and another major contributor was Stewart Madnick, one of the original authors of CMS (IBM's Conversational Monitoring System).
I'm won't claim they were the "founders" of mashups, but what they espoused and taught was mashup technology, and they were teaching it in 1986 (that's when I attended the consortium). The more things change, the more they stay the same.
(Also, as an aside, the article implies this new magic allows for "easy" creation of new applications. This is hardly so. All the care and due diligence of putting an application are still required. The effort can still be significant... There is certainly time saved if a team leverages existing critical applications but to toss this out as magical and easy for any end user community to leverage is probably glib and misleading.)
That comes up every few years. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, we see that every few years. Strangely enough, it coincides with the latest new "paradigm".
I blame Star Trek. People want technology to be magically easy to configure and re-purpose. But it isn't. Computers don't "think" like people do and it takes a lot of work for a person to think the way a computer does.
Being pretty much accurate for most of the data most of the time is what you get when the untrained person attempts it.
Building a better Luddite (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't.
"People want technology to be magically easy to configure and re-purpose. But it isn't."
Let's ignore the faction that benefits from the status-quo.
"Computers don't "think" like people do and it takes a lot of work for a person to think the way a computer does."
It's easier to change computers than it is to change people.
"Being pretty much accurate for most of the data most of the time is what you get when the untrained person attempts it."
They're usually better domain experts than
Car analogy time! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, let's look at cars. The heavy equipment that usually takes a new driver a few months to "master".
And yet tens of thousands of people are KILLED while operating these every year. And I'm not even talking about crippling injuries, non-crippling injuries or property damage.
The fact is that even when their LIFE IS AT RISK people fail to handle the technology they have correctly. Even after being trained on it.
So why would they spend more time and effort learning how to program effectively?
Re: (Score:2)
"Eight out of 10 automobile accidents are preventable [ossa.com], according to a study put out by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute."
So for the 80% that are preventable, what else other than carelessness is there?
Re: (Score:2)
So for the 80% that are preventable, what else other than carelessness is there?
There's a lot more than carelessness involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PEBKAC (Score:2)
> Let's ignore the faction that benefits from the status-quo.
While you can make good technology that works well, ultimately it does rely on a user who knows what they're doing. There are plenty of untrained users who can't figure out anything beyond the wall plug. You can make up new meanings for words like "faction" all you want, but it won't change the fact that I know these people and I answer their illo
Re: (Score:2)
"Being pretty much accurate for most of the data most of the time is what you get when the untrained person attempts it."
They're usually better domain experts than the turf-protecting programmers.
You don't actually work in an a large company do you? They may be experts at their 'domain', but they are almost always incapable of translating that knowledge into database tables, data structures or algorithms that make for good software. The art of enterprise programming is to accurately gauge what funct
Re: (Score:2)
The techniques may be the same or similar. The difference is the vast amount of information and software available on the internet today, along with the power and variety of tools available on any random pc to work with it. Just about any question an individual has can be
"Mashups" are "the Unix way" (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Importance? (Score:4, Insightful)
hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
The company I am contracting at is trying to do something like this with an enterprise rules engine by TIBCO. Others provide various kinds of APIs that hide the gory details of the database or application interface, whether it is SAS, SAP ABAPs, etc.
It might work in a general sense, but it will still involve developers at some point to bridge the gap between functional experts (i.e., accountants) and the application, in order to fit the application to the business, and not the other way around.
Re: (Score:1)
Mashups such as described is simply another way for intelligent superusers to get out of their depth and, subsequently, call in the cavalry (that would be you and me, hehehe) when the real world hits their application.
Mind you, this is not a bad thing, just another variation of an age-old trend
Re: (Score:2)
Those same manager folks would, even if there was plenty of budget for software development, staunchly insist that their million-column spreadsheets are working fine, while forcing underlings to spend half (literally, half, I counted) their time maintaining and updating disparate copies of the same d
Re: (Score:2)
Databases exist so you don't have to write macros to move cells around in Excel. Learn to use them.
Re: (Score:2)
As well as having separate sheets for each of the hundreds of rooms containing the hundreds of individual assets in each he also had sheets for every type of asset with the purchase order details, further sheets for when the assets were delivered and yet more to track when they w
what i really want to see (Score:1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4UIJTt-vdU [youtube.com]
let it die (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a perfectly cromulent word (n/t) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to shatter the illusion... (Score:1)
Isn't that the point of XML, WSDL, REST, etc? (Score:2, Insightful)
You make a public stateless web service. RSS feeds of content. Internet enabled APIs. Mashups are the logical result of being able to pull in data from anywhere, control it and use XSLT etc to change the l
Self Made Software (Score:2)
About as important as it's been up until now. The vast majority of people who have to use computers are totally incapable of using them beyond launching applications with them. In an era where people have to be trained on specific keypresses and mouse clicks for specific applications, there is exactly zero chance of these people developing any kind of software, using any kind of environment, to solve any kind of business problem.
There
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it will. It means that the ones who prioritise financial rewards above job satisfaction will be able to make a lot of money supporting businesses when their mashed up web apps that they've managed to incorporate into their business critical process go horribly wrong.
It also means that low-paid people in IT departments will start bringing large knives to work. It's already bad enough being asked to fix issues in the random excel or access 'applications' business people have built up.
Mashup? (Score:2)
A mashup is a music term, meaning a song made up from the parts of other songs.
Re: (Score:2)
A mashup is a music term, meaning a song made up from the parts of other songs.
Re: (Score:1)
W00T! (Score:2)
Wait, how is this different than before?
Wow - before we seen anything web 2.0 widely yet, (Score:2)
web 2.0 is all over (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, tbh i think that post 1998 success on the internet is similar to success (!) in lottery. its little different from fate.
well, ajax is in fact a goodly bit about reducing server side loads. You, instead of allowing repeated requests from a web interface, just bundle the whole data and send it to the client, but the data wont get displayed until the visitor does something to display it. hence, the neatness of the in
Get a designer! (Score:2)
You can instantly see that the icons (cool green colors) are made a by a graphics designer, but the rest of the website looks like it could be made by any of the millions myspace users. Horrific!
It uses 6 or 7 shades of blue that don't match...
Err.. yes, I'll stop nagging like a woman now.
I hate this buzzword (Score:5, Insightful)
First it sounds like "an amalgamation of multiple different components into one" but when I look at all of the sites/services that are referred to as "mashups" none of them fit this description. QEDWiki is a wiki, it doesn't appear to be "a wiki with a calendar attached" and it certainly doesn't appear to be built from 10 different components or easily integrated.
the article mentions zillow, which is an online real estate directory.... It has no "mashy-ness" about it at all.
Anyway, its a stupid word that doesn't mean anything
Nausea (Score:3, Insightful)
What a disgusting, vapid headline
That is all.
Good grief... Again. (Score:4, Funny)
Situational Application: Come on people, WHAT fucking application on the planet is NOT situational? I've NEVER used an application that was NOT situational - be it a game (entertainment), word processor (solving a business need), or anything else for that matter.
My other favorite:
Data driven application: As opposed to what?!? A bullshit driven application? Ah yes, that is officially MY new buzzword: Bullshit driven application. You heard it here first folks....
Data driven apps != bullshit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A change in the data is not an event how? I can understand your logic in drawing a distinction between user-driven and automated. However, read TFA before attacking people's comments. The person giving the de
Serious Issues With This Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
And the arguments AGAINST it are very serious and extensive as well.
Look at all the crap Excel spreadsheet "systems" and badly-designed Access database "applications" that exist in every company.
This stuff is under no one's control except one or two employees. It is sometimes used for mission-critical decisions. And the reliability and accuracy of the application is not controlled by anybody, let alone the issue of whether proper backups, data vetting and security are being done in such "end user developed" applications.
This has proven to be bad news in the past for many companies, and will be proven so again, I suspect.
Applications that aren't that important for a business, such as applications that merely improve the productivity of an employee's personal use of their computer, aren't that bad. But applications that are important for the CORRECT performance of the employee's JOB should be developed by people that have some clue about the issues that surround application development (assuming such people exist in your IT department - which isn't always the case, unfortunately.)
Just what we don't need... (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a reason that companies have an IT department. There is a reason that they hire computer experts. The simple fact of the matter is that every Tom Dick and Harry doesn't have the necessary skill set to develop and MAINTAIN their own applications. Companies need to ensure that they have data integrity and ensure that everyone is working with the same dataset. When you start giving users control over something as mission critical as data applications you are looking for a headache. At the end of the day, you are going to have a bunch of pissed off users and a bunch of pissed off IT guys. The users are going to be pissed because their applications break. The IT guys are going to be pissed because they are expected to support applications that they didn't even develop in the first place.
If you need to give users access to data, give them a copy of Crystal Reports and send them off to class to learn how to use it. I haven't come across a single situation where a non-technical person needed data out of any system that couldn't be presented to them with Crystal Reports.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The internal IT department for our company was a different entity altogether and spent its entire time and effort in endless in fighting amongst its various departments and was absolutely totally useless. For example the company policy was for every team to have a website and share their knowledge to rep
Nothing new... (Score:2)
Stop it with the "mashup" b.s. (Score:2, Interesting)
Users creating stuff? Not happening where I work.. (Score:1)
My answer... (Score:1)
Not very.
'self-made' software (Score:1)
Only as important as the poor IT d00ds who have to support the whole mess once the fly-by-night "finance manager" has left the company
(for "finance manager" substitute any role in the company