A bit of meat to go with the whine

Yesterday, I posted a rather whiny entry about rude customers (and Bob McIlree was kind enough to give me a comforting pat on the shoulder, virtually speaking — thanks Bob!) so today I decided to get a bit more productive. Moving from whine to wine, I finally made my first cut of a Squidoo lens about Australian Wine in Toronto (yes, I’m a geek and this is how I spent part of my Sunday). Sort of a niche topic, true, but that’s what Squidoo lenses are all about: it allows you to quickly build a one-page portal with links to other sites, Amazon products, eBay, RSS feeds, and a number of other kinds of information. Since it’s all on the web, you can update it anywhere, which is why I’ve moved quite a bit of information about both wine and BPM from my websites to my two Squidoo lenses.

I want to add a bit of meat to this post to offset the whine of yesterday, and coincidentally (before I saw his comment), I was reading Bob’s post on SOA and Data Issues and the need to maintain a source system of record (SSoR) for data. In particular, he discusses a conversation that was passed along to him from another organization:

A, the SOA implementer, argues that application-specific databases have no need to retain SSoR data at all since applications can invoke services at any time to receive data. He further opined that the SOA approach will eliminate application silos as his primary argument in the thread.

B, the applications development manager, is worried that he won’t get the ‘correct’ value from A’s services and that he has to retain what he receives from SSoRs to reconcile aggregations and calculated values at any point in time.

Since I’m usually working on customer projects that involve the intersection of legacy systems, operational databases, BPMS and analytical databases, I see this problem a lot. In addition to B’s argument about getting the “correct” value, I also hear the efficiency argument, which usually manifests as “we have to replicate [source data] into [target system] because it’s too slow to invoke the call to the source system at runtime”. If you have to screen-scrape data from a legacy CICS screen and reformat it at every call, I might go for the argument to replicate the mainframe data into an operational database for faster access. However, if you’re pulling data from an operational database and merging it with data from your BPMS, I’m going to find it harder to accept efficiency as a valid reason for replicating the data into the BPMS. I know, it’s easier to do it that way, but it’s just not right.

When data is replicated between systems, the notion of the SSoR, or “golden copy”, of the data is often lost, the most common problem being when the replicated data is updated and never synchronized back to the original source. This is exacerbated by synchronization applications that attempt to update the source but were written by someone who didn’t understand their responsibility in creating what is effectively a heterogeneous two-phase commit — if the update on the SSoR fails, no effective action is taken to either rollback the change to the replicated data or raise a big red flag before anyone starts making further decisions based on either of the data sources. Furthermore, what if two developers each take the same approach against the same SSoR data, replicating it to application-specific databases, updating it, then trying to synchronize the changes back to the source?

I’m definitely in the A camp: services eliminate (or greatly reduce) the need to replicate data between systems, and create a much cleaner and safer data environment. In the days before services ruled the earth, you could be forgiven for that little data replication transgression. In today’s SOA world, however, there are virtually no excuses to hide behind any more.

Customers that I’d like to fire

I’ve had two “inconsiderate customer” incidents this week; actually, both are customers who I’ve done quite a bit of work for in the past but have been inactive for some time.

With customer #1, I contracted in as their business and application architect for several months; even though they didn’t really get what enterprise architecture is all about, I spent most of a year trying to do some internal education on the necessity for EA to help sort out the legacy linguine that was rampant in their organization, as well as the lack of business-IT alignment. A while after leaving, on April 29th 2005 to be exact, I dropped my key contact there an email about the (then) new report from BPTrends on EA tools, saying the following:

…there’s a new report out from BPTrends on enterprise architecture that you can download for free. I gave it a quick review on my business blog, which includes a link to the report. Although the product information in the report is nothing that you can’t get from the vendor’s sites, the first 25 or so pages are a great overview of enterprise architecture, process modelling and simulation tools that provide good background material if you’re ever promoting a related project. I did an earlier post on their report on BPM suites that you might also find interesting.

Usually this type of email at least gets a “thanks”, or “hey, it’s been a while, let’s meet for coffee”, but nothing came back from this. No big deal, customer #1 is a busy person. Then on Tuesday of this week, 340 days after my original email, it arrives:

With customer #2, I did the architecture and design of their original BPM system, and they now need some analysis and design assistance to further increase efficiencies (which presumably would more than pay for my engagement there). Their internal IT architect contacted me in November 2005, we chatted on the phone and by email, then he connected me with the project manager. Long pauses in the conversation ensued, punctuated by several emails and voice mails from me to the PM. Responses took as long as six weeks, or never came at all. Finally, they made a request to have me fly to their site this coming week — the week leading up to Easter, with Friday a holiday here in Canada, and Saturday being when 13 members of my family will be descending on my home for Easter dinner. That, of course, is my problem, so I said yes. Turns out that no one had the funding approved, however, so I received an email two weeks ago saying that the trip was off. I immediately responded with some suggestions on how to restructure the project to reduce the funding issues while still providing value. Their response? Silence, so far.

The thing that frustrates me is that I’m not an unknown salesperson cold-calling these people, I’m a geeky engineer type who worked on site as part of the in-house team with both of these customers for several months and did significant amounts of work that were well-received. Are they just snowed under with the amount of email that they receive, and ignoring all of their business contacts equally, even if they were the one to initiate the conversation? Or, because I’m a contractor/consultant, don’t they consider it worth their time to reply to my email (or even open it for almost a year)? At least I’m pretty sure that they’re not reading this blog entry…

Gender blogging

I realize that women bloggers in Toronto aren’t exactly my main reader demographic, so you guys in Nebraska and Bangalore can just skip this, but there’s interest brewing in having a BlogHer North in Toronto. Spurred on by a post from Elisa Camahort (cofounder of Blogher) about how the upcoming web 2.0 conference in Toronto, mesh, couldn’t manage to find more than 6 women out of 50 speakers, Kate posted about the potential for a BlogHer North.

Count me in. If you’re interested, add a comment to Kate’s post or send her an email.

Who’s the dinosaur now?

Do you hate the Microsoft “dinosaur” commercials as much as I do? If so, you’ll love the skewering that they receive at the hands of the Economist‘s illustrator this week, accompanying an article entitled Spot the dinosaur (paid subscription required):

The article, of course, discusses the world of online software and what Microsoft is doing — quite late in the game — to join the party.

James Taylor blogging on ebizQ

I really hate that the bloggers that I read daily are making me work by changing my RSS feeds 🙂

James Taylor, who I have referenced in posts about business rules, is now blogging on ebizQ, although it’s not clear if he also intends to keep his old blog going as well. Personally, I have trouble enough keeping up with writing one business blog, and my wine blogging has suffered for it lately.

Read my blog

Several months ago, I ordered some of Hugh MacLeod‘s Blogcards, which I hand out regularly in place of my regular corporate-looking business card to people who I meet in more casual situations. In particular, I ordered the “Read My Blog” card, because I often find myself referring people to my blog for more information on something that we’re discussing.

What I really need to do, however, is start handing them to people that I have known for years.

Yesterday, I had the occasion to meet or telephone three friends. All of them work in technology. At one point, we used to all work for the same BPM technology company (during my brief hiatus in corporate-land). Two of them (both very technical) still work there, and the third works for a company that provides aggregated business analysis content through RSS feeds, among other methods.

None of them read my blog, although the two who still work for the BPM technology company could undoubtedly learn something about their market, their customers, or even their own company by reading it. In fact, all three of them don’t read any blogs on a regular basis, and don’t know how to use an RSS reader — even the one who now sells content via RSS to businesses.

I only have one thing to say: read my blog.

Passion in entrepreneurship

I went to a literary reading last night that paid tribute to author Barbara Gowdy, who read from her novel in progress after we heard readings from five other great authors about their views and experiences of Gowdy. Catherine Graham, one of the other authors who spoke, made the most amazing statement in her short piece “It Chooses You”: she said that if you write, you should write about what obsesses you. I’m a huge believer in being passionate about my work, and definitely do my best work when it’s something that I just can’t put down, so that really resonated with me.

This morning, I saw these entrepreneurial proverbs (for geeks) by Marc Hedlund on O’Reilly Radar (via Boing Boing), which included basically the same advice as Graham offers: “pay attention to the idea that won’t leave you alone”.

Eventful mashup hits Boing Boing

Before I went to Mashup Camp, I exchanged emails with Chris Radcliff of EVDB/Eventful, and it was great to meet him face-to-face at camp. EVDB makes an API for managing event, venue, and calendar data, and Eventful uses that API in an events/calendaring/social networking mashup of events submitted directly to Eventful plus those grabbed from other event sites.

Today, I see that Eventful was covered on Boing Boing, which should bring it a huge amount of well-deserved attention. Congrats!

Toronto bloggers dinner wrapup

I attended the bloggers’ dinner in Toronto on Monday (photographic evidence here), and had the chance to meet Shel Israel, Alec Saunders (who helped to arrange the event and blogged about it here) and his business partner Howard Thaw, and a lot of other bloggers who I have previously met only via RSS. Something that I found interesting: every one of the people with whom I exchanged cards also uses LinkedIn (the professional networking site), although a couple of them have a dismally small number of connections. My usual practice is to check for each new contact on LinkedIn and invite them to connect immediately, before we both forget why our conversation was important.

I had a lengthy chat with Peter Flaschner and Lucia Mancuso from The Blog Studio about how they design and consult on corporate blogging for small businesses, which I found interesting considering all of my friends with small businesses who I’ve been nagging to start blogging. I use my blog as my primary marketing vehicle, and Peter and Lucia are trying to bring that same sensibility to other small businesses.

Also had interesting conversations with Mike Bowler from Gargoyle Software, who helps companies to improve their (web) software development procesess through the introduction of XP/Agile concepts; Shelley McKay and Michael Bodalski from Cricket Marketing and PR, whose home page of their corporate site is actually in blog format (!); and Peter Dawson, with whom I discussed the relative merits of using the term “landscaping” versus “architecture” as applied to business, IT and enterprise architecture.

I also met Timothy Li, an eager young engineering student at University of Waterloo who, when I told him that I graduated Waterloo engineering in 1984, rather untactfully pointed out that that was the year that he was born (he also said that he didn’t realize that the Systems Design Engineering program was “that old”). Tim followed up our exchange by posting a comment to my blog, so I checked out his blog and almost fell off my chair laughing at his retelling of a conversation where I was present. I passed it on to Rick Segal (coincidentally, the only person at the event who I actually knew face-to-face), although I’m not sure he laughed as much of the description of him as “mid aged” and obviously striking terror in the heart of younger men. 🙂

Although dinner never materialized, it was a great get-together for Toronto bloggers. Coming from a closet introvert who cringes at the thought of business networking events, that’s high praise.

Very personal banking

Almost a year ago, I wrote about a borrowing and lending exchange called Zopa that had just launched in the U.K. — a sort of peer-to-peer lending service where individuals participate directly with each other rather than through a bank or other financial institution. Since most of my clients are financial institutions, I found this an interesting bit of disintermediation, except for once it was the big guys (the banks) being disintermediated out of the supply chain.

The Economist just published news of a similar exchange (paid subscription required to read article) opening in the U.S.: Prosper. There are a few differences in how they operate (Zopa always spreads a loan across at least 50 lenders, whereas Prosper allows the higher-risk scenario of one lender to assume an entire loan), but they both take on much of the administration work around the loan — credit scoring, collection agencies in the case of a borrower defaulting — for a fee of 1% of the loan amount taken from the borrower. Prosper also allows borrowers to form social networking-type groups, such as alumni from a particular university, where the loan repayment track record of the group can have a positive reflection on the members, and therefore lower the expected interest rate. In addition to reduced interest rates, the Economist also discusses the warm-and-fuzzy part of the equation:

There is a psychic pay-off, too. Users on Zopa have said that they like lending and borrowing within a community of ““real”” people, rather than through a faceless bank. Mr Duvall [Zopa’s CEO] notes that affinity credit cards (ie, those linked to an activity or membership) tend to have lower default rates than traditional credit cards. “The sense of community matters,”” he says.

It will be interesting to see if this technique that’s proving successful in the British marketplace can make inroads with Americans.