Thursday, January 20, 2011

IBM Moves into Enterprise Application Integration

"SOMERS, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 2000--IBM announced new software that helps companies integrate their IT infrastructures so they can transform into e-businesses.

Business integration, or enterprise application integration (EAI), is required for companies that want to engage in corporate mergers and acquisitions, electronic commerce, and business-to-business (B2B) partnerships. Companies are integrating and automating their business processes to increase efficiency, maintain competitive advantage, and strengthen customer relationships.

A new version of IBM's MQSeries(a) Integrator software helps companies streamline their business-to-consumer, business-to-business, and application-to-application computing environments regardless of platform or geography. MQSeries Integrator Version 2 links, integrates and automates companies' IT infrastructures quickly and easily.

The new software strengthens IBM's leadership position in the burgeoning EAI market, which is expected to total $2.5 billion this year, according to Aberdeen Group.

British Telecom is using MQSeries Integrator Version 1, and beta testing MQSeries Integrator Version 2. "MQSeries Integrator Version 1 helps us transform legacy data so that it can be understood by other applications, this is very important for our company, it has saved us from having to do transformations manually," said Jon Calladine, Systems Interconnect Consultant, British Telecom. "We believe that the new tooling in MQSeries Integrator Version 2 will reduce the amount of hand coding required for transformations even further, making our IT architecture more flexible for future changes."

MQSeries Integrator Version 2 features a new visual tool that makes it easy for non-programmers to create business rules and transformations without writing complex code. This new tool provides a major advance in productivity, enabling companies to react quickly to change and opportunities.

"MQSeries Integrator already helps large companies integrate and transform into e-businesses," said Bill Reedy, Vice President of Marketing, Business Integration, IBM Software. "The new features we've announced today make it a lot easier and faster to implement changes."

MQSeries Integrator Version 2 also features new Extensible Markup Language (XML) support, making it possible for companies to automatically transform messages from existing applications into useable data for XML-based applications. The reverse is also true, MQSeries Integrator Version 2 can transform XML-formatted messages into useable data for existing applications.

MQSeries Integrator Version 2 builds on the power of MQSeries Integrator Version 1. MQSeries Integrator Version 1 - which was developed by IBM and NEON together - is completely upward compatible. MQSeries Integrator Version 2 is an extension of IBM and NEON's partnership.

"By working together, NEON and IBM are creating the gorilla of e-business integration", said Rick Adam, CEO of NEON, IBM's development partner for MQSeries Integrator Version 2. "Most market researchers have us 1-2 or 2-1 in market share."

MQSeries Integrator Version 2 will provide the integration capabilities for IBM's recently announced WebSphere B2B Integrator software, which helps businesses quickly connect to customers, suppliers, business partners, and e-marketplaces. WebSphere B2B Integrator is also built on IBM's WebSphere application server, and XML technology for the exchange of e-contracts called tpaML.

WebSphere B2B Integrator complements offerings from IBM business partners. For example, in November 1999, IBM announced an agreement to resell and market Extricity's AllianceSeries B2B e-commerce software.

IBM made several other MQSeries family-related announcements this month. A new stand-alone adapter offering, MQSeries Adapter Offering Version 1, complements adapter offerings provided by IBM business partners. New support for HTTP helps MQSeries data pass through firewalls more effectively, and new platform support for MQSeries allows companies to integrate more applications on new platforms.

A Bigger Role for the Industry's Leading Message Broker MQSeries Integrator Version 2 was designed to be an open framework that combines the hub-based rules and formatting capabilities of MQSeries Integrator Version 1 - created by NEON and IBM - with a new architecture based on processor nodes. A built-in library of processing components can be linked with those from third-party software vendors, enabling the exploitation of enterprise resources to achieve business integration.

Graphical tools allow visual representation of processor nodes and the connections between them, making it easy to define how business events and critical data are handled. The sequence in which the functions are processed dynamically manipulates and routes messages. Further it can combine them with data from corporate databases, warehouse messages for auditing and analysis, and also distribute information efficiently to subscribing applications.

Fully utilizing and complying with such industry standards as Structured Query Language (SQL) and XML, MQSeries Integrator Version 2, compatible with the MQSeries based publish/subscribe functions allows users to define message formats through a message dictionary - either the one supplied with MQSeries Integrator, or by a third party. Subscribers can register their interest based on topic and content of messages. Security is also enhanced with multiple levels of authorization.

MQSeries Integrator Version 2 is available immediately on the Windows NT platform. Pricing varies, starting at $100,000 (U.S.). Other platforms including Sun Solaris and AIX will become available later this year."


IBM will be a strong competitor in the Enterprise Application Integration market. Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) is a crucial component of EAI, and IBM's MQSeries is the strongest product offering in the MOM arena. This gives IBM a strong leg up on the competition. In addition, their partnerships with NEON and Extricity make this product offering a powerful contender.

Any software that reduces the necessity for custom programming at the middleware layer will be well received by customers. In addition, the presence of XML support, additional security layers, and publish/subscribe capabilities are going to give IBM immediate presence in the EAI market.


Customers evaluating Enterprise Application Integration solutions should include IBM's MQSeries Integrator Version 2 on a short list of candidates. However, if UNIX platform support is required, they should delay the decision until the product comes into general availability. Support for the product on Windows NT is available now. Reference sites using the product in production should be contacted before any decision is made.

http://www.technologyevaluation.com/research/articles/ibm-moves-into-enterprise-application-integration-15696/

SAP Weaves Microsoft .NET And IBM WebSphere Into Its ESA Tapestry Part Two: Market Impact

SAP AG (NYSE: SAP) announced its Enterprise Services Architecture (ESA), the blueprint for complete, services-based architecture business solutions, which should eventually allow companies to drive additional business value from existing increasingly legacy-status technology investments, and enabling, possibly for the first time, enterprise-scale usage of Web services. The announcement included a new product SAP NetWeaver, the first enabler of the Enterprise Services Architecture. SAP NetWeaver is an immediately available, services-oriented platform for all SAP solutions, which should allow organizations to integrate people, information, and business processes across technologies and organizations. (See Part One for details).

Having embarked on a long (and likely a never-ending) journey to keep abreast of cutting-edge enterprise infrastructure platform requirements, while, at the same time, not leaving technologically laggard customers in the lurch, SAP continues to slowly but surely simplify its overwhelmingly piled up maze of tools, frameworks, methodologies, applications, and what not, with ever-changing naming conventions. SAP has been incrementally executing what it committed to way back at SAPPHIRE 2001 when it first unveiled product architecture as the modern technical underpinnings of its broadly functional applications (see SAP - A Humble Giant From The Reality Land?).

If those announcements sounded grandstanding and bedazzling at that time, then the latest announcements, although still slightly mind-numbing, would be the next iterative fleshing out of the vision. Having the largest market share and the broadest offering among enterprise application providers inevitably represents a double-edged sword, as it also brings with it a major challenge of new technology introduction and new application deployment, while ensuring that it spare existing customers from any shock-therapy-like changes. SAP indeed seems to have been dedicated to it, with some initial signs of a success.

While some may jump to the criticism that NetWeaver is a spruced up and more astutely renamed (i.e., now having a real product association) collection of long-existing technology tidbits that was previously less-compellingly marketed as mySAP Technology, the true importance lies in the fact that SAP might have finally seen the light at the end of the awfully long tunnel of developing its future platform upon which all new modules will be built. As seen in the Event Summary, NetWeaver features SAP Enterprise Portal, SAP Business Intelligence (BI), SAP Business Information Warehouse (BW), SAP Exchange Infrastructure (XI), and SAP Web Application Server (WAS), which have all also been outlined within mySAP Technology at the end of 2001.

This is Part Two of a three-part note.

Part One detailed the SAP announcement.

Part Three will cover Challenges and make User Recommendations.

SAP Web Application Server

The SAP Web Application Server (WAS) still provides Web services through platform-independent, maintainable business Web applications and technologies, which encompass J2EE and ABAP, and newly embraced connectivity with other unavoidable technologies such as .NET. In addition, with Web Dynpro, the WAS provides a Web development tool and runtime environment via a presentation layer technology that should allow device-independent user interfaces (UIs) to be rendered in either Java or ABAP environments, and again, with the future support for .NET environments. The product uses smart' forms to replace SAP original scripts, by which SAP hopes to greatly reduce nearly 2,000 less-compellingly looking forms in its applications.

The portal infrastructure still provides user-centric collaboration based on data unification and role management capabilities that deliver relevant information to users, easing navigation and allowing people to work smarter. With a common, seamless point of entry across disparate systems and information sources including any back-end system the user will be presented with only relevant personalized information and should therefore make the best decisions based on previously invisible informational relationships.

Last but not least, the exchange infrastructure provides process-centric collaboration based on shared business knowledge for designing, configuring, changing and executing collaborative business processes. Its realm of operation is in tying together processes across multiple applications.

SAP has since spent time enhancing these former mySAP Technology products, by delivering the 5.0 version of its portal, the 3.0 version of BW, and the 1.0 version of the XI. The products have even reportedly gained momentum in the market, with SAP reporting over 500 new portal customers in the last year.

One of the more exciting products preceding NetWeaver (i.e., its MDM part) was the Collaborative Master Data Management (CMDM), which ties the notion of cleansing all of the data in many dispersed systems of record. This means not only having one unified copy of the customer, supplier, employee, or item master (rather than dozens), but also understanding the context in which, e.g., items are linked to products, stock item or spare parts record. The fact that SAP has been developing this initiative with several prominent corporate customers, including Dow, Motorola, and Nokia, might give some vindication to Oracle's long-touted notion of a single database with a single data model underlying all business applications, creating a so-called "single version of the truth" for all enterprise data (see Stalled Oracle Fumbling For A Jump-Start Kit).

Competitive Strategy

While SAP has not been known for speed, its holistic and meticulous approach to new product delivery this time again may give customers some breathing space between adopting new software standards and solutions, while at the same time upgrading and maintaining custom legacy environments. Oracle, J.D. Edwards and PeopleSoft, on the other hand, while gaining market shares with their respective groundbreaking technologies a few years ago, have felt the displeasure of client bases that were far from being ready to make a significant technological leap. As a result, these vendors had to backpedal and rethink their older product releases discontinuation strategies.

We believe that with NetWeaver and ESA, customers should benefit from both the strong heritage of SAP and its recent acceptance of the open integration reality, since its traditional strengths of scalability, broad functionality and mission-critical performance are now extended to both J2EE and .NET. Like its predecessor mySAP Technology, NetWeaver is envisioned to reduce the pain of abrupt, disruptive shifts in technology with continuous, evolutionary improvement.

As a result of this evolutionary approach, customers should be able to modify, enhance and adapt individual Web services without changing other services, mitigating the need for the huge technology platform shifts and upgrades of the past disruptive technology advents. This should in principle allow companies to protect existing investments and add new functionality that can be reasonably easily designed, built, deployed, accessed and combined with existing Web services and syndicated across division, company and geographic boundaries.

The NetWeaver platform should eventually give SAP a strong foundation for bridging its existing predominantly ABAP-written applications and the rapidly expanding collection of Web standard-based applications. Without having to rewrite its existing applications in Java or .NET, SAP users should now be able to play in both worlds. Once they have deployed the new application server to run their SAP applications, users will be able to develop their own custom applications in more pervasive programming languages and Web services without necessarily having to purchase, deploy, or maintain an application-independent proprietary third-party application server.

SAP hereby maintains its focus on solving down-to-earth' business problems and on positioning itself as a strategic partner to its customers. Particularly during these times of risk-averse customers, SAP's aura of a stalwart vendor and its prudent approaches to solving customers' business problems have become even more attractive and assuring both to its huge customer base and to new prospects. SAP's current posture is also the result of several years of a painstaking effort to radically change its business philosophy, to reinvent itself into a more nimble setup, and to reverse bad market perception.

The company has by and large made the right strategic decisions it has embarked on making its proverbially unwieldy R/3 product more granular and open, and it has delivered attractive ERP-adjacent components that harness its latest technology foundations, given the demand has been moving from the center to the outskirts of any enterprise, and interest in solutions that promote collaborative communication throughout the entire value chain is ever-rising.

SAP has to that end been pursuing the right avenues to technologically keep its product abreast of the latest market trends. Its recently unveiled Internet-based product architecture roadmap that includes Web services, portals, exchanges, BI, BPM and Web Application Server (WAS) bundled with its knowledge of business processes should bode well for promoting it into one of a few vendors that will be able to provide applications infrastructure foundation (an enterprise-level equivalent of operational systems upon which other applications would be able to be grafted). SAP is by no means the only vendor trying to oblige enterprises in their mindset of increasingly seeking business process-oriented interoperable applications.

Competitive Analysis

Oracle with its 9i Applications Server (9iAS) Enterprise Edition, PeopleSoft with its AppConnect, J.D. Edwards with its eXternal Process Integration (XPI)/eXternal Business Process (XBP), Invensys/Baan with its ArchestrA/OpenWorldX, IFS with its IFS Connect (see IFS To Be At Customers' (Web) Service) and Siebel Systems with its Universal Applications Network (UAN) (see Siebel Rallies Its Integration Alliance Troops) have all laid out pieces of their enterprise platform roadmaps. However, hardly any of the above can, at this stage, claim the content and multi-layer comprehensiveness of NetWeaver/ESA, nor the ability to wholeheartedly embrace both .NET and J2EE frameworks at all the above levels of integration.

The battle for ownership of the collaborative infrastructure platform has been raging for some time now (see The Application Server War Escalates), with increasingly blurred demarcation lines between network, database, middleware and application components. SAP's introduction of its WAS back in 2001 was a noteworthy move, as it had long been the remaining major piece of the puzzle for its integration platform offering (given it has conceded Microsoft's supremacy on the desktop, and Oracle's/IBM's supremacy in the database realm).

The company had thereby made a major shift from providing points of integration' solutions through its data access engine called Business Applications Programming Interfaces (BAPIs) running over a proprietary remote procedure call (RPC) protocol called RFC (Remote Function Call). SAP WAS would consequently provide a strategic integration platform for its customers, allowing SAP to more elegantly offer possibly a complete collaborative solution even when some of the component applications are not natively provided by SAP (that was possible via multiple BAPIs though, but in quite a cumbersome way).

Furthermore, its Exchange Integration superseded SAP's proprietary enterprise applications integration (EAI) architecture called Application Link Enabling (ALE) that was mainly suited for asynchronous transaction process needs, as a triggering mechanism to set again proprietary SAP IDocs (Intermediate Documents) in motion as a means of data flow between SAP modules and/or to third-party modules. Consequently, at first sight, NetWeaver addresses the major infrastructure requirements of an exchange platform, including internal integration within a single company and external between companies, business process workflow across applications, identity/role management, and content management. The power users' (rather than programmers' per se) ability to dynamically write business process rules and to share them internally and externally, might give other vendors pause and force them to come up with their equivalent solutions.

Given the leadership position and the consequent influence, SAP's decision on any technology carries significant specific weight. To that end, having a company with the stature of SAP supporting componentized Web Services technology is likely to increase the concept's awareness and speed up its still fledgling adoption. SAP's endorsement of Web Services technology might help it make up for its latency of endorsing the component (object oriented) technology several years ago. Web Servicces have a potential of becoming the latest evolution of application integration technology and/or a revolutionary new application design model by enabling developers to create or enhance applications by connecting granular components that are accessed via platform-independent Web protocols. With SAP NetWeaver and the Enterprise Services Architecture, SAP will have delivered the blueprint for turning Web services from a concept into business reality of uniting hardware, information, and software platforms & applications.

While Web services leverage the aged concept of objects' reusability, they may finally offer that extra mile by adherence to standards that are taking hold (see The SOAP Opera Progresses - Helping XML to Rule the World). Further, they tend to be simpler in their nature, partly owing to the above collaborative Internet standards, and they also tend to be higher-level abstractions, which implies more likely platform independence and "mixing and matching" opportunity by developers. Furthermore, the strategy will help SAP further open and/or componentize its product, as standards like eXtensible Markup Language (XML) and eXtensible Stylesheet Language (XSL) make it possible to share data and have a common look-and-feel across an application, without necessarily dreadfully digging in the source code.

SAP's decision to support more open standards from popular programming languages like Java, Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) and C++/C# to its support for evolving standards such as XML, Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration (UDDI), Web Services Description Language (WSDL), and Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) should give some homework to many enterprise application vendors. Moreover, SAP's initial open preference for Java over the Microsoft's .NET counterpart, and a consequent strained relationship between SAP and Microsoft of late might have been hereby defused. Still, although SAP WAS remains Java-centric (i.e., J2EE will be supported natively, while .NET will have to settle only for a support through a number of adapters/connectors), Microsoft gains some vindication via SAP's investment to integrate NetWeaver with .NET at the levels of development tools, integration platforms, office components, content management and portal. This should be a good enough endorsement for Microsoft to live with (given IBM WebSpehere's similar treatment) and abandon any more open hostility towards SAP.

While it is also not very likely SAP will use this technology outline to aggressively pursue application server or EAI markets, it will certainly make the respective niche vendors' jobs of selling into fertile SAP client base very difficult down the track. SAP might have conceded to the fact that its customers might not necessarily accept the one-size-fits-all mantra when it comes to its functional applications, but SAP hopes they may likely opt for that approach when it comes to the enterprise integration and infrastructure.

Nevertheless, given the nascence of the offering, in the short term, it will not affect nor lessen the value proposition of independent EAI vendors such as SeeBeyond, Tibco Software, Vitria, Mercator or webMethods, or vendors that provide generic application servers, such as IBM, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Microsoft and BEA Systems. In the long term, however, these will have to devise an answer to SAP's superior business process level of integration and modeling within NetWeaver, in addition to their EAI offerings' mere immaculate transactional performance. Given that SAP expects its users to not only run SAP applications on NetWeaver, but to also be able to run third-party applications and custom applications on it, one might expect to see the commoditization of the infrastructure market down the track. Although integration servers may reduce the disparate applications integration complexity to a degree because all the applications plug into a central hub, the EAI servers themselves tend to be proprietary and non-standard.

xApps

Customers are increasingly desiring to do away with point-to-point integration approaches at that data level (with extensive lists of custom Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and connectors/adapters) and to replace it with more inter-enterprise ranging integrations, based on business processes that extend beyond the traditional definitional boundaries of a single application suite. NetWeaver seems to fit the description at least within SAP shops, owing to a number of envisioned built-in connections (hooks) in xApps for accessing various legacy databases, drawings, documents or so, and thereby avoid the need for unwieldy point-to-point connections.

The importance of NetWeaver might particularly lie in the fact that it enables SAP and its partners to create the cross-applications from a variety of existing SAP and external systems leveraging SAP's newly delivered tools, frameworks, rules and methodologies. SAP might thereby be able to extend the reach of its core ERP functional modules with a series of xApps, a new combined middleware-application layer that can either sit atop of a heterogeneous applications' concoction or simply be used to overlay and extend an existing SAP infrastructure. They will supposedly feature the following characteristics: 1) being cross-functional, 2) being collaborative, 3) being built with reusable components, and 4) will use SAP's NetWeaver technology stack.

Since xApps will be built on SAP middleware technology, the underlying applications do not necessarily have to be SAP applications, since SAP XI can be used to integrate the different applications and their associated data, while the business process logic not found in existing applications can be incorporated into the xApp by developing on the SAP Web Application Server in either Java. .NET or ABAP.

Whereas the traditional ERP in 1990s superseded many planning, financials, and logistics software islands of information, xApps harness the users' crying need to leverage existing ERP and other legacy applications. Typical enterprise applications are built around functional lonely islands, such as financials/accounting, manufacturing, logistics or Human Resources (HR), and xApps are devised to let users tie together pieces of these different enterprise applications to support a complex business process. For example, a xApp could be built to support a field service customer relationship management (CRM) component that uses service workers' skill information stored in an HR system, parts inventory information stored in the inventory application, and service cars information stored in fleet management to coordinate the deployment of field workers and parts to a repair site.

Since there is not much enthusiasm for another round of excruciating big-bang ERP implementations, pulling existing functional applications together into new xApps should offer companies ways to incrementally improve business processes and fix some functional gaps in order management (or logistics, supply chain, product development/engineering, supplier management, or any other area for that matter). SAP on the other hand will gladly allocate its R&D funds to leverage its existing stacks with newer technologies rather than to develop brand new prepackaged applications. To that end, built into the SAP xApps infrastructure is also the ability to use business analytics and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure the impact of the newly automated business processes, which borders on BPM. xApps promises companies the ability to innovate and continually improve business processes, leveraging the applications they have long installed. This should sound like music to both sides' ears, as users want more functionality delivered through portals that tie disparate applications and functions together, in a visually seamless manner, whereas SAP certainly has the technical assets to oblige.


http://www.technologyevaluation.com/research/articles/sap-weaves-microsoft-.net-and-ibm-websphere-into-its-esa-tapestry-part-two-market-impact-16895/

The Future of Secure Remote Password (SRP) Part Two: Overcoming Obstacles to Success

A smart' client is required to carry out the computations on the shared secret and to manage the handshake with the server. This requires software to be installed on the client machine. This has the biggest impact on the most prevalent channel, HTML over HTTP. SRP authentication for web clients is only viable from a Java applet. There is a further complication for mobile channels in that memory and CPU usage on these devices is very valuable, however, the footprint for SRP authentication is considerably smaller than that required for a smart card token and its associated libraries. The need for client software is by no means a show stopper, but rather a potential stumbling block since it requires more work than just basic authentication, the evil path of least resistance.

Underlying Network Protocol
The very thing that makes SRP appealing is also what makes it difficult to embrace. Including SRP in the protocol makes it easy to use from a client perspective, however requires a lot of work upfront to change the network protocol, which could take months if not years given industry standards and legacy systems. As mentioned before, there are a growing number of Telnet, FTP, and SSH applications that use SRP, it is in the realm of Internet protocols that this change is most necessary.

Ideally, in order to globally enable SRP authentication for web users, the HTTP protocol needs to include a new authentication scheme for SRP type and a new attribute for the session key. The browsers would need to be on board as well and provide support for the multi-step SRP handshake, thereby requiring a change to HTML. This new' HTML tag would trigger the browser to perform the SRP calculations and manage the handshakes between the server and the browser until the authentication was complete. At such time, control would be returned to the browser user and all subsequent requests to the server would include the SRP session key in the request/response pair. Obviously, this situation requires a lot of cooperation from competing browser vendors as well as standard bodies and as such makes it difficult to foresee these changes being easily adopted.

Marketing
Believe it or not, the largest obstacle to acceptance of SRP is the belief that the current authentication mechanism is sufficient. Password-based authentication is the most popular and yet the most insecure, giving users a false sense of security. This is true for several reasons. The ease of use and simplicity for a username/password scheme is unbeatable. Software projects are always under tight deadlines and as a result, security is one of the first requirements to be compromised it is simply too easy to claim that it will be addressed in a future release. Until the market demands a more robust authentication mechanism, companies will continue to pay the price for weak authentication. Furthermore, companies need to embrace the multi-channel market and take responsibility for strong authentication in these insecure channels. Other than market changes which are not tangible, there are a number of changes that would help accelerate acceptance of the SRP protocol as outlined in the next section.

This is Part Two of a two-part article. Part One detailed the advantages of SRP.

This part discusses the obstacles to be overcome for it to succeed.

Suggestions To Guarantee Acceptance

The functionality and security of the SRP protocol is exceptionally robust. Since it evolved from the original SPEKE protocol, shortcomings, both from a functional and performance perspective have been addressed, making it a mature protocol despite its young age. Having said that, there are a number of marketing tasks and suggestions that will help secure its overall success, some of which have already been started.

First of all, a patent for SRP-4 has already been acquired by Phoenix Technologies. There is a patent application pending for SRP-3 from Stanford University. It seems prudent that ownership of the protocol be transferred from the university to a suitable vendor to provide financial support and market influence. This transfer of ownership has already begun with Phoenix. Technologies.

The following are suggestions on ways to market SRP to the different audiences. Essentially, SRP authentication can either be embedded in a network protocol or can be used at the higher application level enabling proprietary applications to incorporate it. We have seen examples of both usage patterns the plethora of Telnet and FTP applications and the inclusion of SRP into the JBossSX framework. The following sections address both usage patterns, in an attempt to reach all interested parties.

Make It A Standard
This is already in progress by Phoenix Technologies and Thomas Wu among others. Currently, the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.) has been targeted P1363.2 is a draft version of "Standard Specifications for Password-Based Public-Key Cryptographic Techniques" which includes the following submissions and presentations.

SPEKE: Presented to IEEE in September 1996

The SRP Protocol: Presented to IEEE in August 1997

SRP-4: Presented to IEEE in May 2002
Continued work needs to be done in this area to ensure that SRP is one of the leading password-based authentication technologies.

Submit Protocol Specification Change Proposals
As mentioned several times earlier in this article, there are many open-source and commercial implementations of FTP and Telnet available that include SRP. Now SRP should be included by default when FTP and Telnet are installed on new machines.

The bigger concern with protocol specification changes is with HTTP, the de-facto standard for web, web services, voice, cell phone and PDA traffic. For SRP to be easily accessible to all of these channels, the actual protocol needs to be updated. This was touched on briefly in an earlier section. This requires acceptance by W3C Consortium, which will not happen overnight. However, it is paramount if SRP is to be an effective means of authentication for HTTP clients. As mentioned earlier, this requires at a minimum modifications to include a new auth-scheme type and to add the SRP session key to the HTTP header in each request/response pair. This is merely a suggestion much more detailed work is required to research what is required and whether or not it is achievable within the stateless HTTP protocol.

Create XML Specification for the SRP Handshake
An XML specification that defines the structure for transporting SRP data back and forth between a client and a server needs to be defined. Currently, there is a clear definition of the processing required on both the client and server side, however the transfer of data between the two is not defined and as such is left up to each implementation of SRP. This is a waste of effort, requiring people to continually reinvent the wheel. Why not make it a collaborative effort and learn from the mistakes of people who have already achieved this to determine the best way to represent these handshakes in an XML document. A specification/standard that filled this need would greatly increase the chances of success for SRP within the application layer.

Target Mobile Device Manufacturers
The creators of SRP envisioned it being used by small, resource-constrained devices. In keeping with this vision, libraries that provide client SRP processing (in native language and/or Java) should be created for the major mobile device manufacturers. Assuming that modifications to the HTTP specification are accepted and implemented, a modified HTTP network library could be included. This would allow for a consistent interface to SRP on these disparate devices. Obviously, these libraries would need to be developed in close conjunction with the manufacturers.

Target Application Server Vendors
One of the leading application server vendors, JBoss, has already included an implementation of SRP in its security framework. It is now pertinent to target other leading vendors, such as BEA WebLogic (www.weblogic.com) and IBM WebSphere (www.ibm.com) to include SRP implementation in their frameworks as well. Ideally, these application server vendors need to provide three features to fully support SRP.

Java API for the server verification processing

Java API for the persistence of verifiers

Java API for client processing

Support incoming SRP authentication requests from different network protocols (currently only FTP/TELNET, but hopefully to include HTTP in the future based on other recommendations in this article). This feature is a future item and not as critical as the first three for initial adaptation.
Get Sun On Board
To attract the audiences interested in using SRP to authenticate users at the application level, it is important to get Sun Microsystems involved in the effort. A standard Java API for SRP authentication should be proposed. Hopefully it will quickly be accepted and incorporated into the Java Security package, making it easier for application developers to use SRP authentication mechanism in their applications.

Summary

For success, SRP authentication must meet two basic requirements. It must provide a strong alternative to the current password-based authentication mechanism in place and it must be readily available. It most definitely meets the first requirement, as stated earlier with its defense against dictionary attacks, use of temporary session keys, and non-transport of the password. However, there remains plenty of work to fulfill the second requirement. The previous section highlighted a large number of suggestions and tasks to help advertise SRP and these suggestions are by no means simple nor short-lived, but with perseverance and determination, can be achieved.

The area in which SRP holds true promise, as identified by its founding fathers, is in the realm of mobile, or disconnected devices cell phones, set top boxes, diskless workstations, roaming users, kiosk users, etc. The list of applications will continue to grow. Due to its proliferation in the market, the web channel could really benefit from SRP, although it was not originally identified as a potential candidate due to difficulties in supplying a smart' client.

All in all, Phoenix Technologies and Stanford University are taking the right steps to acquire patents and include SRP in various network protocols. Unfortunately, I fear that until the market acknowledges the need for strong password-based authentication, all these efforts will be in vain unless the founding fathers have the will to persevere and see SRP to its rightful home in the spotlight of password-based authentication schemes.

http://www.technologyevaluation.com/research/articles/the-future-of-secure-remote-password-srp-part-two-overcoming-obstacles-to-success-16893/

nNEON Systems Moves Further into Enterprise Application Integration

"SUGAR LAND, TX -- NEON Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: NESY), a leading provider of Enterprise Access and Integration software products, today announced it has signed an agreement for the development and worldwide distribution rights to Sterling Software, Inc.'s (NYSE: SSW) SOLVE:Diplomat product. Terms of the agreement included a $3.5 million payment by NEON Systems. NEON Systems has the option to acquire full ownership of the intellectual property rights associated with the product for an additional payment. Historically, Diplomat was utilized to integrate disparate Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and Call Center systems. NEON Systems intends to increase the scope of the Diplomat product, which will evolve it into a single, unified EAI product line encompassing major computing platforms and applications. This key expansion of the NEON Systems product family will provide a comprehensive EAI solution. In addition to the distribution rights, NEON has been granted a source code license and has hired the Cary, North Carolina-based software development lab dedicated to the Diplomat product.

"Diplomat was first deployed at a customer site in 1993. The technology has developed into a proven and established product that is highly complementary to our System/390 Enterprise Access and Integration products. The extensible software base, along with the key development talent, will allow NEON Systems to extend mission critical access and integration solutions to UNIX and Windows platforms to support front-office CRM, ERP, Call Center, and other high-value EAI initiatives," said Joe Backer, president and CEO, NEON Systems. "We plan to provide excellent support for existing Diplomat customers and continue, without interruption, the ongoing sale of the product. In the future, we will extend the product with intelligent adapters for a variety of applications. Our superior support of the System/390 platform will make NEON Systems EAI products the clear choice for customers who are looking for true enterprise-class business integration."

Diplomat offers bi-directional sharing of customer information across multiple systems with different interfaces, databases, and data models, creating synergy among dissimilar environments. By providing legacy, client/server, and enterprise management platform integration, without the cost of replacing existing applications or re-training personnel, Diplomat enhances communication between different business units to deliver better service to the customer."

The market for EAI products is getting very hot, with vendors such as Active Software, BEA Systems, CrossWorlds Software, Extricity, IBM, NEON (New Era of Networks), Oberon Software, Tempest Software, Tibco, and Tempest Software vying for market share. Given that this market is still nascent, customers will have a difficult time separating the wheat from the chaff, and the full impact of this announcement will not be known for some time. We believe that EAI will have a strong influence on Information Technology in the next two to three years, but the technology will need to mature before it's full impact can be known. NEON's proven expertise in Extract/Transform/Load tools (specifically gateways) should make their transition to an EAI vendor much easier. However, NEON's lack of proven expertise in message oriented middleware (necessary to allow applications to communicate with each other and far more complicated than data movement) and business process modeling will be a challenge for them. These types of integration strategies are integral to EAI.

Customers evaluating Enterprise Application Integration products should be very careful in determining the vendor's actual expertise in this area. They must be mindful of the fact that there is no pure "out of box" solution. Consulting and programming assistance will be necessary to truly integrate the various data sources, and the vendor should be questioned about the experience of their consulting staff, unless the customer is choosing to do the integration themselves. Until the market and products are more mature, potential customers should be very careful about committing to a solution. In addition, until NEON has fully absorbed the code base for the SOLVE:Diplomat product and trained their consulting force, caution is recommended.

http://www.technologyevaluation.com/research/articles/neon-systems-moves-further-into-enterprise-application-integration-15451/

NEON Systems Moves Further into Enterprise Application Integration

"SUGAR LAND, TX -- NEON Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: NESY), a leading provider of Enterprise Access and Integration software products, today announced it has signed an agreement for the development and worldwide distribution rights to Sterling Software, Inc.'s (NYSE: SSW) SOLVE:Diplomat product. Terms of the agreement included a $3.5 million payment by NEON Systems. NEON Systems has the option to acquire full ownership of the intellectual property rights associated with the product for an additional payment. Historically, Diplomat was utilized to integrate disparate Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and Call Center systems. NEON Systems intends to increase the scope of the Diplomat product, which will evolve it into a single, unified EAI product line encompassing major computing platforms and applications. This key expansion of the NEON Systems product family will provide a comprehensive EAI solution. In addition to the distribution rights, NEON has been granted a source code license and has hired the Cary, North Carolina-based software development lab dedicated to the Diplomat product.

"Diplomat was first deployed at a customer site in 1993. The technology has developed into a proven and established product that is highly complementary to our System/390 Enterprise Access and Integration products. The extensible software base, along with the key development talent, will allow NEON Systems to extend mission critical access and integration solutions to UNIX and Windows platforms to support front-office CRM, ERP, Call Center, and other high-value EAI initiatives," said Joe Backer, president and CEO, NEON Systems. "We plan to provide excellent support for existing Diplomat customers and continue, without interruption, the ongoing sale of the product. In the future, we will extend the product with intelligent adapters for a variety of applications. Our superior support of the System/390 platform will make NEON Systems EAI products the clear choice for customers who are looking for true enterprise-class business integration."

Diplomat offers bi-directional sharing of customer information across multiple systems with different interfaces, databases, and data models, creating synergy among dissimilar environments. By providing legacy, client/server, and enterprise management platform integration, without the cost of replacing existing applications or re-training personnel, Diplomat enhances communication between different business units to deliver better service to the customer."

Market Impact

The market for EAI products is getting very hot, with vendors such as Active Software, BEA Systems, CrossWorlds Software, Extricity, IBM, NEON (New Era of Networks), Oberon Software, Tempest Software, Tibco, and Tempest Software vying for market share. Given that this market is still nascent, customers will have a difficult time separating the wheat from the chaff, and the full impact of this announcement will not be known for some time. We believe that EAI will have a strong influence on Information Technology in the next two to three years, but the technology will need to mature before it's full impact can be known. NEON's proven expertise in Extract/Transform/Load tools (specifically gateways) should make their transition to an EAI vendor much easier. However, NEON's lack of proven expertise in message oriented middleware (necessary to allow applications to communicate with each other and far more complicated than data movement) and business process modeling will be a challenge for them. These types of integration strategies are integral to EAI.

User Recommendations

Customers evaluating Enterprise Application Integration products should be very careful in determining the vendor's actual expertise in this area. They must be mindful of the fact that there is no pure "out of box" solution. Consulting and programming assistance will be necessary to truly integrate the various data sources, and the vendor should be questioned about the experience of their consulting staff, unless the customer is choosing to do the integration themselves. Until the market and products are more mature, potential customers should be very careful about committing to a solution. In addition, until NEON has fully absorbed the code base for the SOLVE:Diplomat product and trained their consulting force, caution is recommended.


http://www.technologyevaluation.com/research/articles/neon-systems-moves-further-into-enterprise-application-integration-15451/

SAP Weaves Microsoft .NET And IBM WebSphere Into Its ESA Tapestry Part Three: Challenges and User Recommendations

In January SAP AG (NYSE: SAP) announced its Enterprise Services Architecture (ESA), the blueprint for complete, services-based architecture business solutions, which should eventually allow companies to drive additional business value from existing increasingly legacy-status technology investments, and enabling, possibly for the first time, enterprise-scale usage of Web services. The announcement included a new product SAP NetWeaver, the first enabler of the Enterprise Services Architecture. SAP NetWeaver is an immediately available, services-oriented platform for all SAP solutions, which should allow organizations to integrate people, information, and business processes across technologies and organizations. (See Part One for details).

The importance of NetWeaver might particularly lie in the fact that it enables SAP and its partners to create the cross-applications from a variety of existing SAP and external systems leveraging SAP's newly delivered tools, frameworks, rules and methodologies. SAP might thereby be able to extend the reach of its core ERP functional modules with a series of xApps, a new combined middleware-application layer that can either sit atop of a heterogeneous applications' concoction or simply be used to overlay and extend an existing SAP infrastructure. (See Part Two for details).

However, building xApps has not been an easy feat as shown by only a few of them developed so far. Most of them are still a figment of someone's imagination and will require too much of custom work until becoming tried-and-true and reusable. Each individual cross-application will involve sophisticated process modeling and process-level, data-level, and UI integration, and often it will involve creating and supporting a system of record that comprises data from multiple systems (i.e., MDM). Even after all that effort beforehand, the wide variety of technologies and formats of various independent software vendors' legacy solutions one can encounter in any new application for some xApp, will inevitably mean some tweaking anew.

Most likely, therefore, SAP will develop integration capabilities internally only for selected most widespread alien' applications in the SAP-controlled environment, such as Siebel in CRM, i2 in supply chain management (SCM), Ariba in e-sourcing, Indus International in enterprise asset management (EAM), or PTC in product lifecycle management (PLM) areas. Although the new architecture blueprint provides SAP with a more open approach to integrating its applications with others, it is also reinforcing SAP's ability to maintain account control in these multi-products environments. That might feed some skeptics' belief that "a wolf may loose its teeth but not its nature" and their conviction in SAP's ulterior mode for developing these (i.e., to regain its exiled customer base by incrementally selling add-on functionality to, e.g., Siebel's or Manugistics' modules). By delivering xApps also as the bridge between mySAP Business Suite applications, e.g., linking order management module within mySAP CRM to SAP Advanced Planning and Optimization product (mySAP APO), for global Available-to-Promise (ATP) functionality, might alleviate the above doubts.

Then again, one has to be careful to prevent xApps from becoming an internal competitor with the core product suite development. At the moment, SAP is not clear about which mechanism will, for example, prevent the core CRM or PLM teams from developing functionality as part of its application suite that might compete, duplicate or even cancel out work done in a xApps delivered either by SAP or a SI/ISV partner. Although the concept is plausible, time will only tell how SAP will execute and whether it can promote the idea among partners and customers given some xAPPs developed by partners will be only higher level integrations while others will have to invest a great deal in re-implementing major product functions on NetWeaver, which are a business and risk consideration.

SAP's endeavor to encourage its partners will additionally require development of new business process modeling tools and software development kits, exposing additional application programming interfaces, and a lot of market education. Yet another challenge will be in managing relationships with each system integration provider, given a broader SAP portfolio scope places many integration problems in SAP's camp, even when the domain knowledge resides in the partner's organization. To that end, SAP should promptly articulate how, for example, problem reporting and escalation will work and who will be in charge/owner of which part of the solution. Given a number of conceited competing firms in case, one should expect a contest for the most favored system integration partner in this arrangement. In order to diffuse consternation and SI's attempts to embed their proprietary technology as to create dependency on their product (which would defeat the purpose of touted universality), SAP might want to select a preferred provider for each specified industry or a certain product line.

SAP's NetWeaver/EAS approach will by no means become a real product easily and quickly, given it has taken several thousands developers only to lay down the concept. One should dare to do the math of a mere volume of the imminent work that is ahead of SAP and its partners to offer almost out-of-the-box' integrated functionality in shape of a pre-built library of business processes. Now, at least by the above mind boggling announcement and description of ESA, it may be clearer how complex, e.g., CRM integration is so that a client can obtain an enterprise wide view of customers and share it accurately across all channels and divisions. One should imagine how humongous the job of delivering plug-and-play packaged middleware components for a number of other disparate applications SAP will attempt to enshroud in its xApps will be. In practice, the drawbacks of heterogeneous environment will not be eliminated while communication between disparate applications will be eased, matching the business model across these remains the challenge and remains subject to individuals' business acumen.

The caveat also remains that in the guts of the applications much of SAP technology will continue to be implemented in its proprietary ABAP/4 technology, but the provision of XML and Java interfaces and publishing applications as Web services should ease the integration effort for SAP customers notwithstanding. However, the litmus test of the NetWeaver's collaborative innovativeness will be in whether users can integrate J2EE/.NET-based applications into their SAP environment without tweaking it again in ABAP. Otherwise, this will be regarded as yet another sugarcoating of a proprietary unwieldy architecture.

It might be very likely that users will opt to exploit Java or .NET for presentation components and ABAP for data-centric components. Again, NetWeaver does not provide direct interoperability between J2EE and .NET, but rather only connections, which means SAP will continue to compete with these vendors on many fronts (including the application server), while the customers will remain bamboozled by the choices' nuances and will often have to customize the delicate fabric between separate platforms, with ESA and NetWeaver in between. It might not be in SAP's interest to completely commoditize packaged applications either should all systems be equally accessible and the same function is available from multiple different enterprise applications vendors, while the integration is basically the same, then users might prefer to entrust themselves to EAI/middleware vendors rather than to less experienced likes of SAP.

Marketing Challenges

SAP's challenge will also be the articulation of business benefits of its latest technological infrastructure. There is still lingering market confusion over mySAP Business Suite's (that very recently supplanted the mySAP.com moniker) value proposition to both existing and potential customers. As the market leader continues to evolve from functionally broad ERP-centric processes and closed monolithic architecture, to processes that encompass the entire value chain, with open architecture, it is of paramount importance for it not to fall in the trap of yet again confusing the market with a jumbled message.

In addition to an ongoing confusion due to frequent product renaming, complex licensing scenarios and module interdependencies, SAP's professional service personnel and its SI partners have lately been further aggravating the problem by referring to almost every product as xApps. While indisputably a compelling proposition, the ESA is based on still moving-target' technologies, with lesser market awareness. The terminology and message simplification for average customers still remains wide-open game.

Still, challenges notwithstanding, SAP has at least begun to tackle them, whereas its competitors will only be faced with these integration platform needlepoint' conundrums the fabric, the picture schema, and the strings colors some time in the future. The blueprint is a positive first step toward greater interoperability in a multi-vendor world. While the xApps concept might not have the complexity of quantum physics, the delivery of applicable products certainly has. SAP's competitors should moreover realize that devising a counterpart strategy will not happen that easily, or overnight, unless they want to risk it looking like an obvious me too' value proposition.

User Recommendations

This is by all means good news for SAP's existing customers, particularly for the large corporations that need to integrate their internal applications with applications from other vendors and/or who need to exchange information with their business partners that are not SAP shops. Still, while SAP's new technology blueprint is impressive, the market has often in the past witnessed how long the road is between the vision and execution, SAP's huge resources notwithstanding.

Details about the services-oriented architecture are indeed still vague, but SAP seems poised to build all of its future products on the NetWeaver technology stack and have all future products comply with the architecture. SAP has not announced specific dates about when existing products will be moved to the ESA and NetWeaver technology stack, but mySAP CRM 3.2 and my SAP R/3 Enterprise run on pieces of NetWeaver today. Also, the newly released xApps and portals are built on the NetWeaver components.

Yet, the architecture will not benefit SAP customers until products built on it begin to appear en mass. Therefore, potential and current SAP customers with hefty integration requirements should not depart from their short-term IT investment strategies. They should also consider third-party EAI alternatives, particularly if the large corporation is looking to build integrating middleware standard corporate-wide and in the long term. Moreover, users should question SAP's delivery fulfillment of its strategy and appreciate that migrating older instances of SAP R/3 to R/3 Enterprise and/or integrating mySAP Business Suite components to other software will remain painstaking for some time to come, despite SAP's commendable initiative in easing that.

Participation in SAP's industry interest groups or so, as to provide ideas/feedback to xApps development is highly encouraged. NetWeaver should eventually provide for all the integration the enterprise might require with existing and emerging IT requirements, with full IBM WebSphere (i.e., J2EE) and Microsoft .NET interoperability.

Users anticipating projects only in a year time framework should examine the announced technologies bearing in mind the maturity factor. They should also comparison shop with other renowned available products.

Early adopters should observe the J2EE/.NET-based components performance compared to their ABAP-based counterparts. While the coexistence of Java, .NET and ABAP is comforting for existing users, they should consider the appropriate skill-sets of their developers. Though other languages can be used with great results, particularly Java with its synchronous communications support, ABAP/4 still is unrivaled for flexibility and convenience in customizing SAP applications. To really excel at SAP application development, one needs to acquire the mindset behind SAP's structuring and accessing of data, and become familiar with its infrastructure and specific programming conventions, which ABAP certainly embodies the most.

Further, although the widespread acceptance of Web services implementations will not happen any time soon, all enterprises should start learning the new protocols, standards and technologies in order to grasp the underlying business advantage of Web services, and to shift away from the software-centric mindset of largely outgoing client/server perspective. Since SAP ESA should become the standard for SAP's own solutions and, with the prospect of enterprise scale usage of Web services, that might be a sound roadmap for avant-garde SAP users.

SOURCE:http://www.technologyevaluation.com/research/articles/sap-weaves-microsoft-.net-and-ibm-websphere-into-its-esa-tapestry-part-three-challenges-and-user-recommendations-16896/

SAP Weaves Microsoft .NET And IBM WebSphere Into Its ESA Tapestry Part Three: Challenges and User Recommendations

In January SAP AG (NYSE: SAP) announced its Enterprise Services Architecture (ESA), the blueprint for complete, services-based architecture business solutions, which should eventually allow companies to drive additional business value from existing increasingly legacy-status technology investments, and enabling, possibly for the first time, enterprise-scale usage of Web services. The announcement included a new product SAP NetWeaver, the first enabler of the Enterprise Services Architecture. SAP NetWeaver is an immediately available, services-oriented platform for all SAP solutions, which should allow organizations to integrate people, information, and business processes across technologies and organizations. (See Part One for details).

The importance of NetWeaver might particularly lie in the fact that it enables SAP and its partners to create the cross-applications from a variety of existing SAP and external systems leveraging SAP's newly delivered tools, frameworks, rules and methodologies. SAP might thereby be able to extend the reach of its core ERP functional modules with a series of xApps, a new combined middleware-application layer that can either sit atop of a heterogeneous applications' concoction or simply be used to overlay and extend an existing SAP infrastructure. (See Part Two for details).

However, building xApps has not been an easy feat as shown by only a few of them developed so far. Most of them are still a figment of someone's imagination and will require too much of custom work until becoming tried-and-true and reusable. Each individual cross-application will involve sophisticated process modeling and process-level, data-level, and UI integration, and often it will involve creating and supporting a system of record that comprises data from multiple systems (i.e., MDM). Even after all that effort beforehand, the wide variety of technologies and formats of various independent software vendors' legacy solutions one can encounter in any new application for some xApp, will inevitably mean some tweaking anew.

Most likely, therefore, SAP will develop integration capabilities internally only for selected most widespread alien' applications in the SAP-controlled environment, such as Siebel in CRM, i2 in supply chain management (SCM), Ariba in e-sourcing, Indus International in enterprise asset management (EAM), or PTC in product lifecycle management (PLM) areas. Although the new architecture blueprint provides SAP with a more open approach to integrating its applications with others, it is also reinforcing SAP's ability to maintain account control in these multi-products environments. That might feed some skeptics' belief that "a wolf may loose its teeth but not its nature" and their conviction in SAP's ulterior mode for developing these (i.e., to regain its exiled customer base by incrementally selling add-on functionality to, e.g., Siebel's or Manugistics' modules). By delivering xApps also as the bridge between mySAP Business Suite applications, e.g., linking order management module within mySAP CRM to SAP Advanced Planning and Optimization product (mySAP APO), for global Available-to-Promise (ATP) functionality, might alleviate the above doubts.

Then again, one has to be careful to prevent xApps from becoming an internal competitor with the core product suite development. At the moment, SAP is not clear about which mechanism will, for example, prevent the core CRM or PLM teams from developing functionality as part of its application suite that might compete, duplicate or even cancel out work done in a xApps delivered either by SAP or a SI/ISV partner. Although the concept is plausible, time will only tell how SAP will execute and whether it can promote the idea among partners and customers given some xAPPs developed by partners will be only higher level integrations while others will have to invest a great deal in re-implementing major product functions on NetWeaver, which are a business and risk consideration.

SAP's endeavor to encourage its partners will additionally require development of new business process modeling tools and software development kits, exposing additional application programming interfaces, and a lot of market education. Yet another challenge will be in managing relationships with each system integration provider, given a broader SAP portfolio scope places many integration problems in SAP's camp, even when the domain knowledge resides in the partner's organization. To that end, SAP should promptly articulate how, for example, problem reporting and escalation will work and who will be in charge/owner of which part of the solution. Given a number of conceited competing firms in case, one should expect a contest for the most favored system integration partner in this arrangement. In order to diffuse consternation and SI's attempts to embed their proprietary technology as to create dependency on their product (which would defeat the purpose of touted universality), SAP might want to select a preferred provider for each specified industry or a certain product line.

SAP's NetWeaver/EAS approach will by no means become a real product easily and quickly, given it has taken several thousands developers only to lay down the concept. One should dare to do the math of a mere volume of the imminent work that is ahead of SAP and its partners to offer almost out-of-the-box' integrated functionality in shape of a pre-built library of business processes. Now, at least by the above mind boggling announcement and description of ESA, it may be clearer how complex, e.g., CRM integration is so that a client can obtain an enterprise wide view of customers and share it accurately across all channels and divisions. One should imagine how humongous the job of delivering plug-and-play packaged middleware components for a number of other disparate applications SAP will attempt to enshroud in its xApps will be. In practice, the drawbacks of heterogeneous environment will not be eliminated while communication between disparate applications will be eased, matching the business model across these remains the challenge and remains subject to individuals' business acumen.

The caveat also remains that in the guts of the applications much of SAP technology will continue to be implemented in its proprietary ABAP/4 technology, but the provision of XML and Java interfaces and publishing applications as Web services should ease the integration effort for SAP customers notwithstanding. However, the litmus test of the NetWeaver's collaborative innovativeness will be in whether users can integrate J2EE/.NET-based applications into their SAP environment without tweaking it again in ABAP. Otherwise, this will be regarded as yet another sugarcoating of a proprietary unwieldy architecture.

It might be very likely that users will opt to exploit Java or .NET for presentation components and ABAP for data-centric components. Again, NetWeaver does not provide direct interoperability between J2EE and .NET, but rather only connections, which means SAP will continue to compete with these vendors on many fronts (including the application server), while the customers will remain bamboozled by the choices' nuances and will often have to customize the delicate fabric between separate platforms, with ESA and NetWeaver in between. It might not be in SAP's interest to completely commoditize packaged applications either should all systems be equally accessible and the same function is available from multiple different enterprise applications vendors, while the integration is basically the same, then users might prefer to entrust themselves to EAI/middleware vendors rather than to less experienced likes of SAP.

Marketing Challenges

SAP's challenge will also be the articulation of business benefits of its latest technological infrastructure. There is still lingering market confusion over mySAP Business Suite's (that very recently supplanted the mySAP.com moniker) value proposition to both existing and potential customers. As the market leader continues to evolve from functionally broad ERP-centric processes and closed monolithic architecture, to processes that encompass the entire value chain, with open architecture, it is of paramount importance for it not to fall in the trap of yet again confusing the market with a jumbled message.

In addition to an ongoing confusion due to frequent product renaming, complex licensing scenarios and module interdependencies, SAP's professional service personnel and its SI partners have lately been further aggravating the problem by referring to almost every product as xApps. While indisputably a compelling proposition, the ESA is based on still moving-target' technologies, with lesser market awareness. The terminology and message simplification for average customers still remains wide-open game.

Still, challenges notwithstanding, SAP has at least begun to tackle them, whereas its competitors will only be faced with these integration platform needlepoint' conundrums the fabric, the picture schema, and the strings colors some time in the future. The blueprint is a positive first step toward greater interoperability in a multi-vendor world. While the xApps concept might not have the complexity of quantum physics, the delivery of applicable products certainly has. SAP's competitors should moreover realize that devising a counterpart strategy will not happen that easily, or overnight, unless they want to risk it looking like an obvious me too' value proposition.

User Recommendations

This is by all means good news for SAP's existing customers, particularly for the large corporations that need to integrate their internal applications with applications from other vendors and/or who need to exchange information with their business partners that are not SAP shops. Still, while SAP's new technology blueprint is impressive, the market has often in the past witnessed how long the road is between the vision and execution, SAP's huge resources notwithstanding.

Details about the services-oriented architecture are indeed still vague, but SAP seems poised to build all of its future products on the NetWeaver technology stack and have all future products comply with the architecture. SAP has not announced specific dates about when existing products will be moved to the ESA and NetWeaver technology stack, but mySAP CRM 3.2 and my SAP R/3 Enterprise run on pieces of NetWeaver today. Also, the newly released xApps and portals are built on the NetWeaver components.

Yet, the architecture will not benefit SAP customers until products built on it begin to appear en mass. Therefore, potential and current SAP customers with hefty integration requirements should not depart from their short-term IT investment strategies. They should also consider third-party EAI alternatives, particularly if the large corporation is looking to build integrating middleware standard corporate-wide and in the long term. Moreover, users should question SAP's delivery fulfillment of its strategy and appreciate that migrating older instances of SAP R/3 to R/3 Enterprise and/or integrating mySAP Business Suite components to other software will remain painstaking for some time to come, despite SAP's commendable initiative in easing that.

Participation in SAP's industry interest groups or so, as to provide ideas/feedback to xApps development is highly encouraged. NetWeaver should eventually provide for all the integration the enterprise might require with existing and emerging IT requirements, with full IBM WebSphere (i.e., J2EE) and Microsoft .NET interoperability.

Users anticipating projects only in a year time framework should examine the announced technologies bearing in mind the maturity factor. They should also comparison shop with other renowned available products.

Early adopters should observe the J2EE/.NET-based components performance compared to their ABAP-based counterparts. While the coexistence of Java, .NET and ABAP is comforting for existing users, they should consider the appropriate skill-sets of their developers. Though other languages can be used with great results, particularly Java with its synchronous communications support, ABAP/4 still is unrivaled for flexibility and convenience in customizing SAP applications. To really excel at SAP application development, one needs to acquire the mindset behind SAP's structuring and accessing of data, and become familiar with its infrastructure and specific programming conventions, which ABAP certainly embodies the most.

Further, although the widespread acceptance of Web services implementations will not happen any time soon, all enterprises should start learning the new protocols, standards and technologies in order to grasp the underlying business advantage of Web services, and to shift away from the software-centric mindset of largely outgoing client/server perspective. Since SAP ESA should become the standard for SAP's own solutions and, with the prospect of enterprise scale usage of Web services, that might be a sound roadmap for avant-garde SAP users.

SOURCE:http://www.technologyevaluation.com/research/articles/sap-weaves-microsoft-.net-and-ibm-websphere-into-its-esa-tapestry-part-three-challenges-and-user-recommendations-16896/

IBI + IBM = EAI

Information Builders (IBI), has announced support for IBM's (NYSE: IBM) MQSeries Integrator Version 2 via IBI's "Enterprise Connector for MQSeries Integrator" product. The combination of the two products provides application support on over 35 different platforms and over 120 relational, non-relational, transaction, and application sources.

"Information Builders has worked with IBM to provide rapid integration solutions for more than 12 years," said John Senor, vice president, Information Builders' Middleware Technology Group. "As IBM's capabilities have grown to include MQSeries, MQSeries Everyplace, MQSeries Adapter Offering, MQSeries Integrator, MQSeries Workflow, and WebSphere Application Server, our capabilities to complement IBM solutions by providing 'out-of-the-box' integration capabilities have also grown substantially. We're proud to provide back-end integration support working with IBM."

"Companies want to develop rapid, reliable, scalable solutions, but the integration issues they face are much greater than they have ever been, largely due to legacy and closed systems," said Rob Lamb, director, Business Integration, IBM. "MQSeries Integrator is developed to work on open platforms and runs with a wide range of ERP and legacy systems. We are pleased to see Information Builders' support for the MQSI open node architecture."

In addition, IBI has announced support for IBM's WebSphere Application Server, Advanced Edition 3.5. According to Mr. Senor, Enterprise Connector will provide WebSphere with "'out of the box' rapid integration capabilities for data transactions and applications that require writing custom code".

"The accessibility to crucial information is essential to any company's e-business success," said Paraic Sweeney, vice president of marketing, WebSphere software platform, IBM. "WebSphere Application Server working with Information Builders' solution will help business effectively obtain this critical data for e-business success."


The addition of MQSI Version 2.0 support to the Enterprise Connector product will have a similar effect on the market to that caused by the WebSphere integration. The sheer breadth of data access interfaces will make this product difficult to compete with (when the customer has a heterogeneous environment). According to IBI, the integrated product simplifies the process of developing message flows, and can reduce the time, effort, and cost associated with creating message flows by as much as 40-80 percent. If these numbers can be backed up, other vendors will have to scramble even harder to integrate with MQSIV2 and make their products developer friendly (especially in the area of speed of development), or they will not survive in the highly competitive EAI marketplace.

In the area of WebSphere integration, Information Builders' product offering already supports access to more than 120 relational, non-relational, and application sources. The latter category includes popular relational database management systems, legacy DBMSs, and file systems, as well as CICS and IMS/TM transaction systems, MQSeries and MQSeries Integrator-based messaging applications, SAP R/3, PeopleSoft and J.D. Edwards application environments, and custom-developed applications written in COBOL, RPG, C, C++ or other callable languages. The combination of IBM WebSphere and IBI will give the WebSphere offering an even stronger position in the market, especially in the area of integrating legacy systems with e-business initiatives. No other vendor has the depth or breadth of platform and data source support that this product does.

Customers evaluating business initiatives that will have back-end data stored in legacy formats, flat files, or other non-relational formats should strongly consider the IBI Enterprise Data Access (EDA) product, with the MQSIV2 connector. Additionally, IBM/IBI's WebSphere Application Server, Advanced Edition 3.5 offering should be considered for legacy integration with e-business initiatives. In both cases, enhanced platform support and the ability to use SQL to query non-relational datasources will enhance programmer productivity and increase return on investment in a shorter timeframe.

SOURCE:http://www.technologyevaluation.com/research/articles/ibi-%2B-ibm-%3D-eai-16254/

Stalled Oracle Fumbling For A Jump-Start Kit Part 2: Event Summary Continued

In its quest to further embellish its E-Enterprise suite, Oracle will bolster a new portal, wireless capabilities, business intelligence (BI), workflow features, new Business Objects for Java, and improved support for industry standards and competitive offerings. Oracle plans to introduce Wireless Internet self-service applications for non-PC devices in an upcoming release of its 11i Suite that will enable customers to receive B2B exchange information, handle urgent approvals and receive alerts. It also plans to enable the use of industry standard tools such as Dreamweaver to code self-service pages and build common reusable components as it evolves the suite into an object-oriented programming platform. Oracle also plans to implement a common application architecture based on Java Server Pages (JSPs) as the successor to its own PL/SQL application architecture. One Business Component for Java (employee benefits) has already made its way into 11i suite.

Oracle also unveiled a new portal development kit at JavaOne show at the end of March that aims to blur the line between portlets and emerging Web services. The developer kit, which works with the portal framework built into Oracle's 9i Application Server, should allow users build portlets out of existing Java Server Pages (JSPs) or Web services. This convergence of Web services and portlet standards, should let Java developers build portlets based on the SOAP and XML architecture they are using to build Web services. The new architecture uses Java and J2EE for core business logic, and XML infrastructure to deliver the app to the end user-whether they are portlets, Web services, or wireless content. In addition to the portal product, Oracle is rolling a new "micro" edition of its J2EE developer tools focused on wireless applications. Oracle is also making a preview version of its Oracle 9i Application Server supporting J2EE 1.3 available to developers at the show.

This is Part 2 of a 4-part note on recent developments at Oracle.
Part 1 began the summary of recent events.
Part 3 begins a discussion of the Market Impact.
Part 4 makes User Recommendations.

Addressing the AS Market

Having faced stiff competition in the database market Oracle has also set its sights on the prosperous application server (AS) market. It was the only bright spot in the last quarter, as this part of business grew 35%. Although late to market, the recent 9iAS enhancements in terms of Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE) compliance, Web Services support, and integration to other Oracle products, should increase Oracle's opportunity, especially in its database shops. Also, Oracle's strategy of providing tools and support to members of its development network as free downloads, may promote its applications server sales.

As Oracle has long needed to embrace more closely the emerging Web services in order to close the gap behind IBM and Microsoft, and to use it as an advantage to further open its applications, the next release of Oracle9i Application Server will fully embrace such Web standards as XML, UDDI, and SOAP. It will also support ebXML and RosettaNet, the supply chain integration schema, but for multi-solutions communications, applications might require more multi-step processes. Therefore, Oracle will support interoperability between services developed with its technology and .NET services using Microsoft's framework, but only up to a point. Oracle will call out to .NET services and, vice versa, .NET can call into Oracle's, but Oracle will not support consumer-oriented services like Microsoft's promulgates HailStorm services and Passport authentication. Also, Oracle sanctions Java and does not support Microsoft's C#. However, Oracle does support WSDL for building applications and wrapping them in interfaces.

Oracle ASP

Oracle's endeavor to deliver "software as a service" through its application service providers (ASP) has recently been bolstered by a management service provider (MSP) option, where Oracle will host customers' servers and manage the entire infrastructure. On March 20, the idea was revisited yet again in Oracle's attempt to breathe new life into its strategy of renting software to customers over Web. Oracle hopes to build annual revenue from hosting business from ~$50 million now to $1 billion by 2006. Oracle made its first foray into hosted software when it launched its Business Online division at the end of 1998. The unit was renamed Oracle.com and renamed again recently as Oracle E-Business Suite (OEBS) Online.

So far, Oracle reportedly has 200 companies renting its software over the Web. The aim is to convert 25% of its 12,000 applications customers over to the service in the next 5 years. This month (April), the company will also announce plans to offer its database software over the Web in the same way. Although the program has challenges such as Oracle's well-known unwillingness to integrate with other software products, very limited customizations tolerance, and a likely channel conflict with other Oracle ASPs, as well as with SI partners, Oracle might become a fearsome player in the ASP market. Oracle has the advantage of intimate knowledge of its own application in comparison with other ASPs, its infrastructure capabilities, and corporate viability, all stumbling blocks for other ASPs.

Oracle's new plan to save businesses 5% each year on their IT budget by converting to outsourcing solution delivered by Oracl, is an intriguing new twist. The company will take over a business's entire IT operation for 5 years with pricing based on whatever its current IT budget is, less 5% for each year. Customers opting for the program will have their applications migrated to Oracle at no extra charge and will become users of the ASP service, OEBS Online. Without a need for an immediate investment and with the ability to plan the IT budget 5 years into the future, plus savings and the migration to an integrated environment, the proposal is seen to tickle prospects' fantasy.

New Pricing Model

Finally, in its Sisyphus attempt to simplify its admittedly traditionally jumbled pricing model, Oracle has been throwing many new pricing at the interested user and analyst constituency. Unfortunately, these have not mitigated the market's confusion and non-clarity given that many concurrent pricing models remain (per processor/CPU, per named user, per concurrent user, per module, per order line, per $ amount of goods sold, etc.).

The new pricing model unveiled in January at Oracle AppsWorld in Amsterdam, applies only to the E-Business Suite and is based on two fixed-price metrics: Professional User at $4,000 and Self-Service User at $400. However, the caveat remains that specific-vertical applications are not included in the E-Business Suite, nor are any component products not specifically identified as part of the E-Business Suite. These applications will still need to be licensed in the original component-based pricing model. The fact that the pricing model is only applicable to the E-Business Suite might indicate that pricing modification is about wider adoption within existing Oracle accounts and not necessarily about new business.

Oracle has set a minimum list licensing requirement of $250,000 with the minimum number of Professional Users and Self-Service User licenses of 10% each, of the total employee population. For customers who want to migrate to the new pricing model, Oracle offers to credit the previous application purchases. While it is a no-brainer that Oracle is trying to entice its customers to spend more money on its applications and extend the use of them throughout the entire organization, Oracle still seems to be denying that there is a multi-vendor world out there.

Having not still been able to stay away from controversy, Oracle has possibly even pushed the envelope and caused strong reactions from some users and analysts on March 20, by reportedly trying to impose some extraneous license fees to its database users. It was alleged that Oracle's sales force would like to trick users to pay for extra named users for data transferred from an Oracle database into a data warehouse, either Oracle's or a third-party one.

The issue escalated around Oracle's new creative definition of "multiplexing", which means using some software, either Internet-based or coming from internal data source, that utilizes a shared group of connections to the ERP database and disguises the actual number of connected users. It was alleged that Oracle is now changing the definition of multiplexing to include batch feeds from non-Oracle applications into Oracle databases, which would particularly impact Oracle customers using data warehousing applications that are utilizing reams of information collected from a variety of source applications. Regardless of which side is correct in their claims, Oracle will likely be scrutinized under a negative spotlight, which is not going to help its endeavor to turn the tide of declining revenues.

This concludes Part 2 of a 4-part note on recent developments at Oracle.

SOURCE:http://www.technologyevaluation.com/articles/stalled-oracle-fumbling-for-a-jump-start-kit-part-2-event-summary-continued-16634/

Is Your Enterprise Application on a Road to Nowhere?

Your business changes continuously. You add and drop service or product lines. Your customers demand new and challenging levels of flexibility or integration with their operations. New laws and regulations require that you track more and more data on your operations in highly specific formats. And there is the relentless demand to increase operational efficiency and product quality year after year while reducing costs. How do you keep up with these demands?

If your enterprise application cannot change as fast as, or faster than, your business, it actually hinders you from achieving your goals. This means that your application vendor must, like you, continue to make changes and improvements. Yet because of recent developments in the enterprise applications market, your application vendor may no longer be investing in the product it sold you, or it may be making changes and improvements too slowly to help you remain competitive.

Two market forces are affecting the enterprise applications market: consolidation and inertia. Consolidation among application vendors has left some vendors with a large number of products that cannot all survive. That means most or all of these products may not receive further investment in research and development. Other application vendors have invested heavily in their existing technology, and inertia may be keeping them from updating and evolving their applications.

Consolidation is a well-documented trend and is to be expected in a maturing market such as the market for enterprise applications. In its wake, many products may be widowed or orphaned, having been purchased by conglomerates that may not intend to continue investing in research and development. Other enterprise application products have been purchased by vendors that plan to replace them entirely with a new platform, but may not have a reliable timeline for doing so.

The ownership of other enterprise applications may still be in the hands of the companies that developed them, but how do you know whether the owner intends to invest the necessary dollars to move the product forward, adding new functionality and adapting to changing technology? If a vendor has made extensive investments in its old technology and has a substantial user base, it may be especially reluctant to make the changes necessary to truly evolve the product. This article traces the evolution of the enterprise software market, focusing particularly on the much-publicized and truly revolutionary technology known as service-oriented architecture (SOA). It concludes by outlining the key questions you should ask application vendors about their future plans for the products they are marketing.

The SOA Revolution

Wholesale change in the enterprise applications market has taken place in fits and starts, driven by leaps forward in technology. In the 1980s, there was a technological leap from enterprise applications built on character- and terminal-based systems to those built on a client-server models with graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Today, there is a similar revolution taking place, as these client-server applications are, or are about to be, replaced by applications built on SOA.

SOA implies an application architecture made up of loosely coupled "services" (for example, the various software features used in creating and processing a customer order), and service "consumers" (for example, the users and applications that need to create customer orders). Most business software applications can create customer orders. But a business application made up of services enables you to easily connect the processes needed to create customer orders, and then configure the steps that must be taken to create them. The loosely coupled nature of SOA services also means it is relatively easy to substitute the components that implement each step in the process. This process tends to be rigid in non-SOA applications, which is a major factor behind SOA's popularity.

An SOA-based architecture works in much the same way as your Web browser when you access functionality through the Internet. Regardless of whether you are using Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox, or Opera, and no matter which version of the browser you are using, you can access information and interact with systems on the Web. The relationship between your browser and web sites, databases, applets, and other executable files on the Internet is loosely defined. Web site functionality may change without affecting the rest of the Web or your browser.

Similarly, the various features in an SOA-based application environment are relatively self-contained and are not overly reliant on the entire system. This functional autonomy allows individual portions of an application to be changed or updated more easily and less expensively than would be the case with an application built on monolithic blocks of code.

The modular design of an SOA-based application means it can be implemented or upgraded in phases, with minimal disruption to the end user. In contrast, a traditional monolithic application must be implemented in its entirety, and if portions of the system are not used right away, they are "switched off." This increases the complexity of the implementation. From a development standpoint, an SOA-based application is well suited for rapid, continuous change.

This new system architecture philosophy enables application users to open up their applications by exposing the individual pieces of functionality as services, and to configure and reconfigure these services through a standard interface using technologies such as business process execution language (BPEL).

This is the way that the industry is going. But moving in this direction requires a reengineering of the application that is much more complex than the transformation from a character-based to a GUI-based system.

Most applications on the market have not been through the transition to components, which is necessary for users to take full advantage of SOA. In some cases, application vendors have opened "plug points" into their applications where services can be exposed. These services tend to cover the types of processes handled for the past twenty years by electronic data interchange (EDI). Data for processes such as order taking, order response, invoicing, and currency exchange is available as services through these plug points.

SAP, Oracle, IBM, and other vendors are offering a variety of SOA middleware products, and they're getting better and better. Nevertheless, these applications do not offer the exposed services necessary to take advantage of these tools outside EDI-type processes. A company may have the budget to pay an application vendor or a system integrator to build new services that expose the functionality to its needs, but as its needs change and new services need to be exposed, the company may end up going far over budget. What the company really needs is an application that already has all its functionality exposed as services so it can freely and easily reconfigure the application to meet its changing needs—without incurring major, unanticipated expenses at every turn.

Other Drivers to Change

Although SOA is the primary trend in enterprise applications, other technology and functionality will be important in the years ahead. Some of these features, which users are already demanding, will require extensive investment.

One such feature is the type of text-based, deep search functionality made popular by search engines such as Google. Deep search enables application users to search all the data within their enterprise applications using specific keywords or phrases. Developing a deep search tool for an application is a daunting task. But it is even more challenging for a vendor that markets more than one product. Each product has its own architecture, and a vendor with ten products must engineer a deep search tool ten times, taking into account the way information is stored and managed in each application. This is why many software vendors cannot afford to add deep search functionality—or for that matter, make any investments in their diverse product portfolios.

Another investment that many application vendors plan to make is integration between their enterprise applications and office suites such as Microsoft Office. Most people spend a great deal of time working in both the enterprise suite and their word processors, spreadsheet applications, and other productivity tools. Bringing word processing, spreadsheets, and other documents together adds value. When you are e-mailing and chatting in a program outside your enterprise application, you likely are discussing a product or project and would like to be able to tie those communications into the appropriate activities within your enterprise application. The Excel spreadsheet you are working on may contain the quarterly budget forecast, or it might relate to the marketing plan. It would be nice to be able to import that information seamlessly back into the enterprise application. In fact, wouldn't it be better if the enterprise application also kept track of the spreadsheet so you wouldn't need to worry about where the latest revision is or who may have access to it? To get the most value from the loosely coupled communications outside the enterprise application, you need to keep more information within the broader business context that the enterprise application provides.

Enterprise applications are also becoming more vertical in their orientations. Although most enterprise applications offer functionality suitable for a variety of industries, some software providers are adding more and more industry-specific functionality. Over time, these industry extensions, as they are called, make the application a better fit for companies in certain industries. A vendor with several disparate products has a hard time investing in each product and may not be willing to deepen its relationship with customers in specific industries.

Because there are different types of application vendors in the market, there are different questions you should ask of each. For convenience, we will divide the enterprise software market into two types of vendors: collectors and unified technology companies.

Questions for Collectors

Collectors are enterprise software companies that are growing rapidly through acquisition. Oracle and Infor Global Solutions are good examples. Oracle became the number-two enterprise applications vendor behind SAP with the 2003 purchase of JD Edwards and PeopleSoft. The company's plans to replace both products with the SOA-based Fusion platform have been well-publicized, but some analysts have questioned whether Oracle has made significant progress in this regard. In the meantime, Oracle has aggressively launched various Fusion middleware products.

Infor Global Solutions became the number-three enterprise application vendor behind SAP and Oracle in 2006 with the purchase of SSA Global and Systems Union Group. Infor, a Virgin Islands (US)-based company owned by a San Francisco, California (US)-based private equity group, now owns a broad spectrum of disparate products, including Marcam, EXE Technologies, Infinium, Baan, Elevon, Ironside Technologies, Computer Associates' interBiz, MAX International, MANMAN, MAPICS, Frontstep, Mercia Software, Clarus, D&B Software, Anael, and Extensity. The company has not announced specific plans to upgrade or replace these platforms with an SOA-based product.

Here are key questions to ask collectors:

How do you plan to evolve this product to accommodate major market trends, including SOA?
If an entirely new product is being promised, when will it be available? What will the process be to migrate from the old to the new platform, and how much will this cost?
When will you have a standards-based search engine within the product, and how will this be accomplished?
How are you adapting this application to my specific industry?
How have you invested in this application? Discount the upgrade history of previous owners of the product. The current owner likely will have a much different posture toward the product than did the visionaries who first created and marketed it.
To what extent is this application built with industry-standard technologies, including Java and .NET? Proprietary programming languages, middleware, and development tools will be harder to support as the market evolves away from them.
Questions for Unified Technology Companies

Unified technology companies provide enterprise applications based on a single integrated platform. Examples include SAP and IFS.

Here are key questions to ask unified technology companies:

How can this application be evolved to meet my needs as they change?
If you have not already done so, what are your plans to break down this product into many independent, granular components to create a fully functional SOA?
To what extent are the features and functionality you are promoting represent products that have not yet been launched or demonstrated effective in the market?
How are you adapting this application to my specific industry?
Can you provide examples of companies using your enterprise application that have dramatically changed their businesses, and then explain how the product has accommodated these changes? How much of a reimplementation process is necessary to allow for business process change?
Conclusion

Selecting an enterprise application is not a lifetime commitment, but it is a commitment that will last ten years or longer. Given the degree of product complexity and pressure vendors feel to sell new licenses, caveat emptor—or buyer beware—has never been better advice for software purchasers.

You can count on vendors to tell you what you want to hear about whatever products they are trying to sell you. They will claim either that their products meet your needs today or that the software will do so somewhere down the road, in a subsequent release.

It is important to keep in mind that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Vendors tend to announce their plans to release new products well in advance. Perhaps the best way to tell whether an application vendor will make good on its promises is to look at the promises it has made in the past, either in public or to individual customers. Did the company keep these promises? Did development timelines slide? Or did product roadmaps disappear entirely?

Don't be afraid to ask tough questions, because the answers are critical to your selection of an enterprise application.

SOURCE:http://www.technologyevaluation.com/research/articles/is-your-enterprise-application-on-a-road-to-nowhere-19400/