<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=1907245749562386&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Event_bg

The Leonardo Blog

All Posts

Is Efficient, Cost-Effective Integration Possible?

16_delivery_intergratio.jpg

An analysis on the next major paradigm shift.

The goal of most business is to grow revenue, whilst reducing costs and increasing profits - sounds simple enough.  

The problem is, we often have to invest a substantial amount of capital in the business only to get a return on that investment over a number of years.  It is this investment that is usually an inhibiter to a business adopting a best of breed approach resulting in sub-par solutions full of technical debt which is then difficult to maintain.  The business gets bound to key staff, infrastructure that becomes obsolete, software that requires constant upgrades and excessive ongoing ’business-as-usual’ costs.  

As modern businesses attempt to become more efficient through the use of technology, they sometimes hedge due to the risk/ROI ratio that includes a large ticket price and a moderate time to market.  

They essentially see the benefits like opening up their ‘digital channel’, or making their core systems more cohesive and the business more efficient.  However, they can’t justify the unguaranteed ROI over a multi-year return period. 

It’s a problem faced by Tier-n companies as they are constantly under pressure to reduce IT costs and until now their options have been limited to some form of outsourcing.  Anyone who has worked in the industry knows that it does not work and quality is the victim.  It’s a strategy mostly enforced by short term thinkers who need to hit short term KPI’s and who create a problem for the next person to fix.  It’s time for a paradigm shift in thinking how we can reduce cost and maintain quality and even improve it.  

Let’s look at this considering an analysis of 4 different models. 

We’ll assume that a company or business has decided it can achieve process improvement through systems integration, or they just need to reduce IT costs, and that includes the yearly integration bill.  It might seem odd to bundle these two opposing motivations into the same motivation for change – but in essence they are the same: Positive IT outcomes that help improve the business at a reasonable cost.

What options do these organizations have:

  • Enterprise Integration Software - Mature, fully featured established integration platforms which are the preferred option, however the higher license costs make these an expensive option
  • Opensource software - Whilst this option is appealing due to the lower license fee (opensource rarely means ‘free’), the business will most likely spend the majority of any license costs savings on building the appropriate framework and establishing a platform 
  • A Custom Solution - Many tier 2 or 3 organizations feel they can get away with developing a custom solution to suit their needs.  What often happens is the final solution is barely functional and lacks the inherent platform functionality often required to meet minimal requirements or regulatory requirements 
  • Managed Integration Delivery as a Service (MiDaaS) - The paradigm shift. A complete subscription based managed service.  This option gives you the full feature stack of the Enterprise Software at an affordable price, lower overheads and a quicker time to market.

Let’s take a look at where each of these options may work:

Enterprise

Traditional approach with large overheads, establishment costs, large license and support fees, and are generally tied to larger transformation projects.  This results in maintaining staff and capability over a longer period.

Opensource

The perception that opensource is freeware is a misconception.  These platforms do have a licensing component, and there is also the issue of resourcing with skilled people, and the software itself having the inherent frameworks of the Enterprise software.  This may result in cheaper licensing costs, however, it will most likely result in a more expensive development cost.  It also does not solve the issue of maintaining capability, staff and infrastructure overheads.

Custom Solutions

From the seeds of a custom solution, I give you technical debt and key resource reliability and constraint.  Custom solutions are good if you are tweaking your spreadsheet, or writing a small piece of code to make you irritating daily task easier to do, but in the realm of system integration, there is always a techie who thinks they can build their own integration platform. 

This is OK if you have 2 systems doing point to point and 1 or 2 integrations and you don’t want to expose those systems for consumption elsewhere.  All custom solutions very quickly outgrow their use as they soon discover that logging, message affinity, auditing etc., are pretty important things.  What seemed like a quick time to market at the time soon becomes a functionally limited highly customized piece of software that 1 person knows how to fix…

Managed Integration Delivery as a Service (MiDaaS)

  • Has the horsepower of the Enterprise software
  • Lower Total Cost of Ownership
  • Makes the organization technology agnostic
  • No technical debt will be carried by the business
  • Key resources/Capability maintenance/Staff overheads are no longer a problem
  • Subscription based pricing includes all infrastructure, design, build, test, maintenance, monitoring and alerting are all included
  • Reduces yearly cost of integration by a significant amount
  • Local account presence
  • Quality assured and consistency of service
  • Upgrades, maintenance, monitoring and alerting are all included 

Summary

In today’s world we are seeing a shift to the cloud and a form of managed services that see organizations infrastructure being managed by 3rd parties, but the actual work being done on the applications on that infrastructure is still managed in-house.  What I’m talking about is managing the complete Integration service from Design to BAU.  Sure all of the other approaches have their place for the moment because existing systems, teams, IT managers etc. are all in place and can’t see how to make the move to a fully managed service.  However, if we can make the move to the cloud, it shouldn’t take much to nudge us further along.

We are already seeing companies move to this model as they can see the immediate benefits and cost savings they can realize for their business.  This shift will continue at an increased pace once other companies see the benefits being realized by their competitors.

The paradigm shift is here.

New Call-to-action 

Adam Mutton
Adam Mutton
Working in the IT industry locally and overseas for over 25 years on IT projects has provided Adam with the experience and skills to deliver complex solutions. He is now focusing those skills and experience in managing a successful Delivery business specialising in BPM, Integration and Project Delivery Services. Adam's focus is always on getting the right result and ensuring there is a clear understanding around expectations, outcomes and fostering a team environment.

Related Posts

Buying-in to process-based management

One of the most difficult aspects of creating a climate of process-based management is achieving the required level of buy-in. It’s tempting to say “executive buy-in” but we need buy-in across the whole organization—having support only at the c-level is not enough to make sustained change. Getting the right people on board at the right time, and keeping them there, is often a serious challenge. Everyone is busy. Changing to a process-based management approach sounds more like a problem than a solution. In addition, we are often working in an environment where the organization is reasonably successful, so what problem are we trying to fix?

The Primacy of Process

As we start this new year I want to revisit the basic premise of my involvement in business process management and improvement — to explain it to you, to reassess it for myself, and to seek your feedback. My working life revolves around the certainty that organizations need to be fully committed to both continuous process management and continuous process improvement. Why is this so? In brief, it's the principle of the primacy of process. Let's unpack that and see if I can convince you of its pre-eminence — and, yes, I appreciate that, as this paper is originally published in the Business Rules Journal, that may not be easy! Do you want a simple, but effective, practical, but well-grounded, explanation of the role of business processes in management? After many years working on this question in organizations of many sizes and types, in different national and organizational cultures, I believe I can help you with a simple, effective, practical, and well-grounded meta-model of management.

Are We Too Good at Fixing Process Problems?

Arriving at your destination airport to discover that your checked-in bags are somewhere else is a sufficiently common occurrence to have travelers staring anxiously at the stationary carousel, then fixedly watching the point where bags are first seen, and then breathing a sigh of relief on seeing their bags finally appear. SITA reports1 that 4 billion passengers checked in 4.5 billion bags last year. While only about six bags per thousand passengers get lost, lost bags (more gently termed by the airline industry ‘mishandled baggage’) is a significant problem for airlines, airport owners and managers, and their customers. SITA further reports2 that in 2016 alone, baggage mishandling cost the industry US$2.1 billion, and in the period 2007-2016, the industry cost was a staggering US$27 Billion. The problem is easing3 with the use of new technology, but millions of pieces of luggage are still being ‘lost’ each year, costing the airlines significant amounts, and causing considerable aggravation for travelers.4