New Eclipse-Based Tools Offer Developers More Choices, Migrations and Paths to IBM WebSphere

Transcript of BriefingsDirect podcast on Eclipse-based tool choices for IBM WebSphere shops.

Listen to the podcast here. Sponsor: Genuitec.

Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and you’re listening to BriefingsDirect. Today, a sponsored podcast discussion about choices developers have when facing significant changes or upgrades to deployment environments. We'll be looking at one of the largest global installed bases of application servers, the IBM WebSphere platform.

Eclipse-oriented developers and other developers will be faced with some big decisions, as their enterprise architects and operators begin to adjust to the arrival of the WebSphere Application Server 6.1. That has implications for tooling and infrastructure in general.

The platform depends largely on the Rational Application Developer (RAD), formerly known as the WebSphere Studio Application Developer. This recent release is designed to ease implementations into Services Oriented Architecture (SOA) and improve speed for Web services.

However, the new Rational toolset comes with a significant price tag and some significant adjustments. Into this changeable environment, Genuitec, the company behind the MyEclipse IDE, is offering a stepping-stone approach to help with this WebSphere environment tools transition.

The MyEclipse Blue Edition arrives on March 15, after a lengthy beta run, and may be of interest to developers and architects in WebSphere shops as they move and adjust to the WebSphere Application Server 6.1.

To help us understand this transition, the market, and the products we are joined by Maher Masri, president of Genuitec. Welcome to the show, Maher.

Maher Masri: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: Also, James Governor, a co-founder and industry analyst at RedMonk. Welcome, James.

James Governor: Hi, Dana.

Gardner: James, let’s start with you. We’re looking at a pretty dynamic marketplace around tools. There are certainly lots of different frameworks and approaches floating around. Folks are dealing with SOA, with Software as a Service (SaaS), with agile development. They are dealing with mashups and Enterprise 2.0 issues. We’re seeing increased use of REST and SOAP. This is just a big, fluid, dynamic environment.

On the other hand, we’re also seeing some consolidation around runtimes. Organizations looking to cut cost and infrastructure and trying to bring their data centers under as few runtime environments as possible. So, we’re left with somewhat of a conundrum, and into this market IBM is introducing a major upgrade.

Maybe you could paint a picture for us of what you see from the enterprises and developers you speak to on how they deal with, on one hand, choice and, on the other hand, consolidation.

Governor: It's a great question. In this industry we can expect continuing change. If anything is certain, it's that. When we look at this marketplace, if we go back a couple of years into the late 1990s, there was a truism that you could not make money as a tools company. The only way you could really sustain a business would be connected to, and interwoven with, the application server and the deployment environment. So it's interesting that now, sometime later, we’re beginning to rethink that.

If you look at a business like Genuitec, the economics are somewhat different. The Eclipse economics, in terms of open source and the change there, where there is a code based being worked on, have meant that it's actually easier to maintain yourself as an independent and work on a specific set of problems.

In terms of your question about Web 2.0, agile development, and so on, there are an awful lot of changes going on. That does create some opportunities for the third parties. Frankly, when you look at the very largest firms, it's actually quite difficult for them to maintain the sorts of innovation that we’re seeing from some of the smaller players.

In terms of the new development environments, it might be something like the fact that we’re seeing more Ruby on Rails. P scripting languages continue to be used in the enterprise. So, supporting those is really important, and you are not always going to get that from the lead vendors.

I'll leave it up to Genuitec to pitch what they do, but one of the interesting things they did, which you certainly wouldn’t have seen from IBM, was a while back, when they bridged the Eclipse world with the NetBeans ’ Matisse GUI building application development set.

Crossing some of those boundaries and being able to deal with that complexity and work on the customer problems, it's not surprising to me that we’ve seen this decoupling, largely driven by open source. Open source is re-enabling companies to focus on one thing, rather than saying, "Okay, we've got to be end-to-end."

Gardner: So, we've got a dynamic environment. We have some amazing uptake in Eclipse over the past several years becoming a dominant job oriented IDE. We have WebSphere as the dominant deployment platform.

As you pointed out, the economics around tools have shifted dramatically. It seems that the value add is not so much in the IDE now, but in building bridges across environments, making framework choices easier for developers, and finding ways of mitigating some of these complexity issues, when it comes to the transition on the platform side.

Let’s go to Maher. Tell me a little bit about why Eclipse has been so successful, and do you agree that it's the value add to the IDE where things are at right now?

Masri: Let me echo James’ point regarding the tools environment, and software companies not being able to make money at that. I think that was based on some perceived notion that people refuse to pay money for software. In fact, what we've found is that people don’t mind paying for value, and perceived value, when it’s provided at their own convenience and at their own price point.

That’s why we set the price for the MyEclipse Enterprise Workbench at such a low point that it could be purchased anywhere in the world without a series of internal financial company decisions, or even a heartbreaking personal decision.

Although the product was just the JSP editor when it was first launched, today it's a fully integrated development environment that rivals any Tier 1 product. It's that continuity of adding value continually with every release, multiple releases within the same year, to make sure that, a) we listen to our customer base, and b) they get the value that they perceive they need to compensate for the cost that we charge them.

Eclipse obviously has become the default standard for the development environment and for building tools on top of it. I don’t think you need to go very far to find the numbers that support those kinds of claims, and those numbers continue to increase on a year-to-year basis around the globe.

When it started, it started not as a one-company project, but a true consortium model, a foundation that includes companies that compete against each other and companies in different spaces, growing in the number of projects and trying to maintain a level of quality that people can build upon to provide software on top of it from a tools standpoint.

A lot of people forget that Eclipse is not just a tools platform. It's actually an application framework. So it could be, as we describe it internally, a floor wax and a dessert topping.

The ability for it to become that mother board for applications in the future makes it possible for it to move above and beyond a tools platform into what a lot of companies already use it for -- a runtime equation.

The next Ganymede 3.4 and the 4.0 extension of Eclipse is pushing it in exactly that direction. The OSGi adoption is making a lot of people reconsider their thought in terms of, "What application do I write for productivity applications internally, for tools that I provide to my internal and external customers, for which client implementations?"

It's forcing quite a bit of rethinking in terms of the traditional client/server models, or the Web-only application model, because of productivity requirements and so on.

IBM was the company that led the way for all of the IBM WebSphere implementation and many of their internal implementations. A lot of technologies are now based on Eclipse and based on Eclipse runtime.

Gardner: So, we have this big bear, Eclipse, in the market and we have this big bear, WebSphere, in the market. Why is there a need for someone like you to come in between and help developers?

Masri: The story that we hear internally from our own customers is pretty consistent, and it starts with the following. "We love you guys. You provide great values, great features, great support, except I cannot use you beyond a certain point." Companies for whatever internal reasons, from a vendor standpoint, are making the choices today to move forward with WebSphere 6.1, and that’s really the story we keep hearing.

"I am moving into 6.1, and the reason for that is I am re-implementing or have a revival internally for Web services, SOA, Rich-net applications, and data persistence requirements that are evolving out of the evolution of the technology in the broader space, and specifically as implemented into the new technology for 6.1."

Gardner: They need to modernize it.

Masri: But their challenge is similar. Every one of them tells us exactly the same story. "I cannot use your Web service implementation because, a) I have to use this web services within WebSphere or I lose support, and b) I have invested quite a bit of money in my previous tools like WebSphere Application Developer (WSAD), and that is no longer supported now.

"I have to transition into, not only a runtime requirement, but also a tools requirement." With that comes a very nice price tag that not only requires them to retool their development and their engineers, but also reinvest into that technology.

But the killer for almost all of them is, "I have to start from scratch, in the sense that every project that I have created historically, my legacy model. I can no longer support that because of the different project model that’s inside."

For example, Rational 7.0 is only one of the few versions of WebSphere that supports 6.1 and supports all of the standards for Web services, for AJAX support, for persistence requirements that they need to modernize. They have to implement it, but cannot take, for example, an existing WSAD project, import it into Rational 7.0, and continue development. They pretty much start from scratch.

Gardner: Let’s go to James for a moment. James, you’re familiar with the IBM stack and their road map. Why are they doing this? It seems to me that there is an application lifecycle management (ALM) set of benefits that the Rational toolset and platform bring that IBM is trying to encourage people to take advantage of. It does require transition, but they have a larger goal in mind. Perhaps we should address this ALM, or do you have other thoughts about this transition?

Governor: From an IBM perspective, it’s a classic case of kind of running ahead of the stack. If you see the commoditization further down the stack, you want to move on up. So IBM looks at the application developer role and the application development function and thinks to itself, "Hang on a second. We really need to be moving up in terms of the value, so we can charge a fair amount of money for our software," or what they see is a fair amount of money.

From an IBM standpoint, I think they really looked at players such as Genuitec, looked at where Eclipse was going, and they thought, "Wait a second. We really do need to be moving forward with this notion of software development."

If you talk to a lot of developers, they don’t really think of the world that way, but many of their managers do. So, the idea of moving to situation where there is better integration of the different datasets, where you've got one repository of metadata moving forward with that kind of stuff, that’s certainly the approach they are taking.

The idea is you've got "auditability," as you build applications. You’re going from a classic distributed development, but you’re doing a better job of centralizing, managing, and maintaining all the data that’s associated with that.

The fact that IBM is making that change is indicative of the fact that when they look at the market more broadly, they think to themselves, "Well, where is our margin coming from?"

IBM’s strategy is very much to look at business process as opposed to the focus on just a technical innovation. That certainly explains some of the change that's being made. They want to drive an inflection point. They can't afford to see orders-of-magnitude cheaper software doing the same thing that their products do.

Gardner: As we mentioned earlier, there are so many complexities involved in decision making now, different approaches to creating services, that the operators and the vice presidents of engineering are saying, “Wow, we need to manage this complexity.”

They are looking for life cycle approaches, ways of bridging design time and runtime. IBM is addressing some of these needs, but, as you point out, developers are often saying, "Hey, I just want my tool. I want to stick with what I know." So we’re left with a little bit of a disconnect.

I’m assuming, Maher, that this is where you’re stepping in and saying, "Aha, perhaps we can let the developers have it their way for a time to mitigate the pain of the transition, at the same time recognizing that these vice presidents of engineering and development are going to need to look at a much more holistic life-cycle approach. So, perhaps we can play a role in satisfying both." Am I reading too much into that?

Masri: No. We understand internally that different technologies have different adoption life cycle behind them. ALM is no different. It’s going to take a number of years for it to become the standard throughout the industry, and it is the right direction that almost every company is going to have to face at some time in the future.

The challenge for everybody, us and IBM, is the bottom-up sale process, to provide the tools and the capabilities for companies to embrace, for people to embrace those technologies, and, at the same time, putting the infrastructure in place for managers to be able to continue to manage projects into success.

Our decision is very simple. We looked at the market. Our customers looked back at us and basically gave us the same input. If you provide us this delta of functionalities, specifically speaking, if you’re able to make my life a little easier in terms of importing projects that exist inside of WebSphere Application Developer into your tool environment, if you can support the web services standard that’s provided by WebSphere.

If you can integrate better with ClearCase from a code management standpoint, and if you could provide a richer deployment model into WebSphere so my developers could feel as if they’re deploying it from within the IBM toolset, I don’t have the need to move outside of your toolset. I can continue to deploy, develop and run all my applications from a developer's standpoint, not from an administrator's.

Obviously if you are an administrator and have one to three people within the company that maintain a runtime version of WebSphere, you will need specific tools for that. We’re not targeting those one to three people. We’re targeting the 10 to 500 developers internally that need to build those applications. That’s really where Blue is coming from.

Governor: Maher, can you be a little bit more specific about it. You just used the top-down bottom-up or top-down in terms of your argument. Can you talk a little bit more to sort of that and your sales staff?

Certainly, from RedMonk’s standpoint, we do tend to be more aligned with the bottom-up, just in terms of our customer and community base. But, in terms of what you’re seeing and saying, how is what you do different from IBM? I didn’t quite get that from your last comments.

Masri: I'll give you a very simple example. Just take the experience of a developer installing MyEclipse or installing RAD from ground zero. MyEclipse, you can install in a two-megabyte root install. It installs a 600-megabyte version on your desktop that contains all the tools. You no longer need to buy additional tools from somewhere else. If you need to do UML development, if you need to do UI design, all that is included as one bundle within MyEclipse.

If you install RAD, you need a multi-DVD, six or seven gigabytes, I understand, in order just to begin the installation. The configuration is a nightmare. Everyone is telling us that it's a very difficult configuration process just get started.

MyEclipse is part of a very rich, simple profile that a user can download directly through the MyEclipse site or through our managed application environment inside of Pulse. You can be up and running with tools, with runtime configurations, and with examples, literally within minutes, as opposed to within hours or days beyond that.

On the issue of simplicity, the feedback that we keep getting is that our response level in terms of request for features, request for innovations, request in the technologies, we can deliver within months, as opposed to years or multi-months, when looking at the competition. All of that becomes internalized from the developer standpoint into, "I like this better, if it can bridge that gap that I now have to use this technology, in order to satisfy my business requirements."

Gardner: Perhaps another way of asking a similar question is: you are in beta now. You’re going to be coming out on March 15 with MyEclipse Blue Edition. What's the difference between MyEclipse and MyEclipse Blue Edition?

Masri: Excellent point. MyEclipse Blue Edition is inclusive of all MyEclipse professional features. It’s roughly on the order of 1,000 to 1,500 features above and beyond what the Eclipse platform provides, as well as the highly targeted functionalities that I mentioned. It can import and manage an existing project that you had previously inside WebSphere application developer and can develop to the Web services SOA standards that are specified into the WebSphere runtime.

It has much better integration into IBM code management, ClearCase technology, and almost an identical implementation of what you possibly could see inside Rational for deployment model and the ability to debug an existing project or a new project into the runtime environment.

Gardner: Developers, of course, are hard to come by in a lot of regions around the globe. There’s a lot of competition. Organizations like to keep their developers happy and productive. At the same time, they need to deal with some of the complexity issues of moving to SOA. If they're WebSphere shops, they know that they are going to be tied into that for some period of time. It does sound like you are trying to give both of these parties something to be a little bit cheery about.

Governor: The one of the things that I think is important about open source and understanding open source in the enterprise, but also more broadly. Sometimes you think about open source as a personal trainer for proprietary software companies. You've got these fat, flabby toys and they need to get a life. They need to get on the treadmill. They need to get thinner and more agile. They need to get more effective. Frankly, it was ever thus with IBM. IBM is a pretty big beast.

Let me go back to the old mainframe times to think about Amdahl as a third party. When the IBM salesperson came in, you always made sure you had an Amdahl mug on the desk, right in front of the salesperson. Obviously, we’re a few years on now, but that dynamic remains important. As much as organizations balance BEA WebLogic and WebSphere against one another, or WebLogic and JBoss Application Server against one another, you would also want a balance in your toolsets.

One interesting thing here is that because you've got the specificity around WebSphere, and the sort of value prop the third party is putting forward, you're able to start that balance, that conversation to drive innovation, to drive price down. That’s one of the really useful things that Eclipse has enabled and delivered in the marketplace. It helps to keep some of the bigger vendors honest.

Gardner: So, the need to support heterogeneity is going to remain in both tools and runtime, but we’re also facing the time when heterogeneity isn’t going to include hybrid approaches to deployment. And so, we’re seeing more people interested, particularly if they are ISVs or perhaps small- to medium-size businesses in taking advantage of some of these cloud-computing options. I'm thinking of course of Amazon and some others. Tell us, Maher, how this choice in tool and heterogeneity plays into some of these hybrid approaches of deployment in a cloud of some sort.

Masri: Let me expand on James’ point and then I’ll add to it. I just want to make sure that we’re not trying to present MyEclipse Blue as if we are trying to compete with IBM, which is really could be easily perceived there. What we see is an under-served market and people that are trying to make the decision, but cannot afford to make that decision.

There are companies that are always going to be a pure IBM shop and no one is going to be able to change their mind. The ability to provide choice is very important for those that need to make that decisions going forward, but they need some form of affordability to make that decision possible. I believe we provide that choice in spades in our current pricing model and our ability to continue to support without the additional premium above that.

Going forward, I fully agree with you that the hybrid model is very interesting, and we see it in the way that companies come back to us with very specific feedback on either MyEclipse or our Pulse product. There's quite a bit of confusion out there, in terms of how Web 2.0, Rich Internet Application (RIA), and Rich Client Application are designed and geared to provide and all the underlying technology to support that in terms of runtime.

There seems to be a dichotomy. I could go in the Web 2.0 world and provide a very rich, all Web enabled, all Web centric technologies for my end-users because I need to control my environment. The other side of that is the rich client application, where I have to have some form of a rich client implementation with full productivity applications for certain people, and I have to divorce the two because there is no way I can either rely on the Web or rely on the technologies or rely on anything else.

Everyone that we’ve talked to so far has a problem with that model. They have to have some form of very strong, rich implementation of not necessarily a very fat client, but some form of a client on the end-user’s desktop. They need to be able to control that, whether you are using very specific implementation of Web Services, talking to somebody else’s Web services, need to use a very specific persistent architecture, or have to integrate with other specific architectures. It gets very dicey very quickly.

That’s really where we saw the future of the market. This is probably not the right time to talk about this specifically, since the topic is Blue, but that’s why we also moved into the managed-application space and into our other product line called Pulse. This is for end-users who are using Eclipse-based technology right now, and in the future far more than that. They'll be able to assemble, share, deploy and manage a stack of applications, regardless of where those applications reside and regardless of the form of technology itself.

Take, for example, a rich-client runtime of Eclipse running on someone’s desktop. All of a sudden, you have a version of software that’s you can deploy and manage, but it already has an interface into a browser. You can provide other Web 2.0 and RIA models, as well as other rich Internet technology, such as a Flex and Flash. These technologies are merging very quickly, and companies have to be right there to make sure they meet those growing demands.

Gardner: It sounds like you're really talking about risk mitigation, trying to find some focal point that allows you to support your legacy, move to the rich-client and SOA activities, as well as be ready to go to what some people call Web Oriented Architecture, and take advantage of these new hybrid deployment options. Does that sound like what you're doing?

Masri: That's a fair statement.

Gardner: James, is this something that we can expect to shake out soon, or are companies going to be dealing with heterogeneity -- not just in terms of technology, but in approaches -- for some time?

Governor: We actually see an acceleration in this area -- tools and apps that span clients and the Web. I’ve taken to calling it the "synchronized Web." How can you have two different sets of services talk to one another? In terms of how you develop in that environment, you’ve got to develop conversationally. It’s about message passing. Because of that, we all are going to see some changes around the language choices.

We're seeing some interest in terms of some interesting new development languages, such as Erlang and Haskell. We are certainly seeing interest from developers in those areas.

It's like enterprise software companies not having an open-source strategy. Basically, you need one. From an economic standpoint, you just don't have a choice. Any software company that doesn’t have a thorough-going strategy for understanding and developing both for Web modes and offline modes is really missing the point.

Whether we're thinking of our clients that come from Google Gears, whether we are thinking about offline clients using an environment like Adobe's Apollo Integrated Runtime (AIR), we're already thinking about spanning clients and websites.

From an enterprise standpoint, the same choices need to be made. User expectations now are that, they are going to be able to have some of those benefits and centralization, but they are also going to be able to have rich experiences that they're used to on desktop clients.

This is a very important transition and, whether it’s Pulse or any number of the Web apps we're seeing this from, we are definitely seeing this in enterprise Web development. It's really important for us to be thinking about the implications, in terms of the language support and in terms of runtime. We've already mentioned the Amazon Web services back end. We're going to be seeing more and more of that stuff.

There’s a little company called Coghead, and it’s really focused on these kinds of areas and it’s now excellent. They've chosen Amazon Web services as a back end and they've chosen Derby Flex as a front-end to give that interactivity. The Amazon model teaches, or should teach, a lot of software companies some important lessons. When I look at developers, certainly grassroots developers, it has almost become a badge of honor that you're getting, "This is what Amazon charged me this week."

The notion of the back end in the cloud is growing in importance again. That’s probably why IBM just announced yet another one of its, "Hey, we're going to take a billion dollars and move it towards cloud-computing" kind of initiatives.

Gardner: Right. We’ve obviously seen a lot of change in the market. Organizations and enterprises that depend on an ongoing evolution on a single-stack approach need to try to come up with the tooling and framework and environment that allow them to accomplish what they need from the backwards-compatibility perspective. They also need to put themselves into as low a risk position as possible for taking advantage of these dynamic environments and the change in the economics and the landscape.

We've been talking about the transition to WebSphere Application Server 6.1 and the implications for tooling, the pending arrival of MyEclipse Blue Edition from Genuitec, helping companies find some additional choices to manage these transitions.

Helping us weed through some of this -- and I have enjoyed the conversation -- we have been joined by Maher Masri, president of Genuitec. Any last words, Maher?

Masri: Just a reminder that the Blue Edition first milestone releases will be available in February. There will be a number of milestone releases that will be available for immediate access and we encourage people to download and try it.

Gardner: Very good. And, also James Governor, co-founder and industry analyst at RedMonk. What's your parting shot on this one, James?

Governor: Let’s get specific again. Some of this has been a little bit blue sky. I think it’s very interesting that IBM is has posted a pretty good set of financial results today.

Gardner: They're not going away, are they?

Governor: They are not going away. That’s exactly right. It used to be said that IBM is not the competition; it is the environment in which you compete. It seems to me that Genuitec and many others are probably a pretty good example of that. That was well put by you. IBM isn't going away.

Gardner: Well, thanks. This is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions. You’ve been listening to a sponsored BriefingsDirect podcast. Thanks, and come again next time.

Listen to the podcast here. Sponsor: Genuitec.

Transcript of BriefingsDirect podcast on tool choices for WebSphere shops. Copyright Interbarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2008. All rights reserved.

New Ways Emerge to Improve IT Operational Performance While Heading Off Future Datacenter Reliability Problems

Transcript of BriefingsDirect podcast on IT operational performance using Integrien Alive.

Listen to podcast here. Sponsor: Integrien.

Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and you’re listening to BriefingsDirect.

Today, a sponsored podcast discussion about new ways to improve IT operational performance, based on real-time analytics and the ability to effectively compare data-center performance from a normal state to something that is going to be a problem. We’re going to look at the ability to get a “heads-up” that something is about to go wrong, rather than going into firefighting mode.

Today’s complexity in IT systems is making previous error prevention approaches for operators inefficient and costly. IT staffs are expensive to retain, and are increasingly hard to find. So even when operators have a sufficient staff, a quality staff, it simply takes too long to interpret and resolve IT failures and glitches, given the complexity of distributed systems.

There is also insufficient information about what’s going on in the context of an entire systems setup, and operators are using manual processes -- in firefighting mode -- to maintain critical service levels.

IT executives are therefore seeking more automated approaches to not only remediate problems, but also to get earlier detection. These same operators don’t want to replace their systems management investments, they want to better use them in a cohesive manner to learn more from them, and to better extract the information that these systems emit.

To help us better understand the problems and some of the new solutions and approaches to remediation and detection of IT issues, we’re joined by Steve Henning, the Vice President of Products for Integrien. Welcome to the show, Steve.

Steve Henning: Thanks a lot, Dana.

Gardner: Let’s take a look at some of the real-life issues that are affecting IT operators, drill down into them a bit, look at some of the solutions and benefits, and perhaps some examples of what these bring in terms of relief and increased savings of time and energy.

Tell me a little bit about complexity and problems. How do you view the current state of affairs in the datacenter operations field?

Henning: It’s a dichotomous situation for the vice president of IT operations at this point. On one hand, they're working at growing companies. They need to manage more things in their environment -- devices and resources. Also, given the changes and how people are deploying applications today, they are dealing with more complexity as well.

Service oriented architecture (SOA) and virtualization increase the management problem by at least a factor of three. So you can see that this is a more complex and challenging environment to manage.

On the other side of this equation is the fact that IT operations is being told to either keep their budgets static or to reduce them. Traditionally, the way that the vice president of IT operations has been able to keep the problems from occurring in these environments has been by throwing more people at it. We now see 70-plus-percent of the IT operations budget spent on labor costs.

Just the other day, I was talking to the vice president of IT operations of a large online financial company. He told me that he had 10 people on staff just to understand the normal behavior of their systems. They are literally cutting out graphs and holding them up to the light to compare them against what they have seen in previous incarnations of the system, trying to see when the behavior of this system is normal.

He told me that this is just not scalable. There is no way -- given the fact that he has to scale his infrastructure by a factor of three over the next two years -- that he can possibly hire the people that he would need to support that. Even if he had the budget, he couldn’t find the people today.

So it’s a very troubling environment these days. It’s really what’s pushing people toward looking at different approaches, of taking more of a probabilistic look, measuring variables, and looking at probable outcomes -- rather than trying to do things in a deterministic way, measuring every possible variable, looking at it as quickly as possible, and hoping that problems just don’t slip by.

Gardner: It seems as if we're looking at both a quality and a quantity issue here. We've got a quantity of outputs from these different systems, many times in different formats, but what we really need to do is find that “needle in the haystack” to detect the true issue that’s going to create a failure.

Do you agree that we are dealing with both quality and quantity issues?

Henning: Absolutely. If you look at most of the companies that we talk to today, they are mired in these monitoring events. Most of the companies we talk to have multiple monitoring tools, and they're siloed. You've got the network guys using one tool. You've got the OS and hardware guys using another. The app guys and database guys have their tools, and there is no place where all of this data is analyzed holistically.

Each system emits sets of events typically based on arbitrary hard thresholds that have been set in the environment. There's this massive manual effort of looking at these individual events that are coming from these systems and trying to determine whether they are the actual precursors to real problems, or if they're just a normal behavior of the system that can be ignored. It’s very difficult to keep your hands around that.

Gardner: I suppose it wasn’t that long ago where you could have specialists that would oversee different specific aspects of the IT infrastructure, and they would just be responsible for maintaining that particular part. But, as you mentioned, we have SOA, virtualization, datacenter consolidation, and finding ways of reducing total costs that, in effect, accelerate the interdependencies. I suppose we need more specialization, but -- at the same time -- those specialists need to communicate with the rest of the environment, or the people running it.

Henning: If you look at the applications that are being delivered today, monitoring everything from a silo standpoint and hoping to be able to solve problems in that environment is absolutely impossible. There has to be some way for all of the data to be analyzed in a holistic fashion, understanding the normal behaviors of each of the metrics that are being collected by these monitoring systems. Once you have that normal behavior, you’re alerting only to abnormal behaviors that are the real precursors to problems. That’s where Integrien comes in.

Gardner: You mentioned that you've got reams and reams of events pouring in, and that, in many cases, people are sifting through these manually, charting them, and then comparing them in sort of a haphazard way. What sort of solutions or alternatives are there?

Henning: One of the alternatives is separating the wheat from the chaff and learning the normal behavior of the system. If you look at Integrien Alive, we use sophisticated, dynamic thresholding algorithms. We have multiple algorithms looking at the data to determine that normal behavior and then alerting only to abnormal precursors of problems.

It’s really the hard-threshold-based monitoring that’s the issue here, because hard-threshold-based monitoring does two things. One, it results in alert storms for perfectly normal behavior. Two, it masks real problem behavior that you just can't catch with hard thresholds.

For example, let’s say that at 9 p. m. some online system's normal behavior is a set of servers it would be at 10 percent CPU utilization. But let’s say that it’s at 60 percent utilization. If you have your hard threshold set at 80 percent, you've got a pending problem that you have no idea about. That’s why it’s so important to have an adaptive learning mechanism for determining behavior and when something is important enough to raise to an operator.

Gardner: When you're able to do this comparison on the basis of, "Hey, this is deviating from a pattern," rather than a binary-basis, on-off problem, what kind of benefits can people derive?

Henning: Well, you're automating this massive manual effort that I was talking about. If you look at that vice president of IT operations of the online financial company I talked about earlier, he has 10 guys who are sitting around doing nothing but analyzing this data all day.

Now, that data analysis can be completely automated with sophisticated dynamic thresholding. These 10 guys are freed up to do real problem solving, rather than just looking at these event storms, trying to figure out what’s important and what’s not, when the company is having an issue with one of their mission-critical systems.

Gardner: Do you have any examples of how effective this has been for companies, if they start to take that manpower and focus it where it's most effective? What kind of paybacks are we talking about?

Henning: We see up to a 95 percent reduction in this manual effort around setting thresholds and dealing with events. So it’s a huge reduction in time. We see up to a 50 percent reduction in the time it takes to solve problems, because this kind of information, and the fact that we consolidate alerts based on topology, which makes it much quicker to get down to where the root cause of the problem is, and to focus efforts there.

Gardner: You mentioned getting this “normal state,” of gathering enough information and putting it in the context of use scenarios. How do operators do that? How do they know what’s going to lead to problems by virtue of detecting baseline?

Henning: If you look at most IT environments today, the IT people will tell you that three or four minutes before a problem occurs, they will start to understand that little pattern of events that lead to the problem.

But most of the people that I speak to tell me that’s too late. By the time they identify the pattern that repeats and leads to a particular problem -- for example, a slowdown of a particular critical transaction -- it’s too late. Either the system goes down or the slowdown is such that they are losing business.

We found these abnormal behaviors are the earliest precursors to problems in the IT environment -- either slowdowns or applications actually going down. Once you've learned the normal behavior of the system, these abnormal behaviors far downstream of where the problem actually occurs are the earliest precursors to these problems. We can pick up that these problems are going to occur, sometimes an hour before the problem actually happens.

If you think about a typical IT environment, you're talking about tens of thousands of servers and hundreds of thousands, even millions, of metrics to correlate all that data and understand the relationships between different metrics and which lead up to problems. It’s really a humanly unsolvable problem. That’s where this ability to “connect the dots” -- this ability to model problems when they occur -- is a really important capability.

Gardner: I suppose we’re talking about some fairly large libraries of models to compare and contrast -- something that is far beyond the scale of 5 or 10 people.

Henning: Yes, but these models are learned based on the environment, understanding the normal behaviors of all the metrics in a particular IT operation, and understanding what the key indicators of business performance are.

For example, you might say that if this transaction ever takes more than five seconds, then I know I have a problem. Or you could say that if this database metric, open cursors, goes above 1,000, I know I have a problem. Once you understand what those key indicators are, you can set them. And when you have those, you can actually capture a model of what this problem looks like when that key indicator is exceeded.

That’s the key thing, building this model, having the analytic capability to be able to connect the dots and understand what the precursors that lead up to problems, even an hour before the problem occurs. That’s one of the things that Integrien Alive can do.

Gardner: What sort of benefits do we get from this deeper correlation of what’s good, what’s bad, and what’s gray and that could become bad? Are we talking about minutes or days? What sort of impact does this have on the business?

Henning: We see a couple of things. One is that it’s solving this massive data correlation issue that right now is very limited in the IT operations that we go into. There are just a few highly trained experts who have “tribal knowledge” of the application, and who know even the beginnings of what these correlations are. With a product like Integrien Alive you can solve that kind of massive data correlation issue.

The second benefit of it is that the first time a problem occurs, the capture of a model of the problem, with all the abnormal behaviors that led up to it, can often target for you the places in the applications that are performing abnormally and are likely to be the causes of the problem.

For example, you might find that a particular problem is showing abnormal behavior in the application server tier and the database tier. Now, there's no reason to get on the phone with the network guy, the Web server guy, and other people who can't contribute to the resolution of that problem. By targeting and understanding which metrics are behaving abnormally, can get you to a much quicker mean-time to identify and repair the problem. As I said, we see up to 50 percent reduction in the time it takes to resolve problems.

The final thing is the ability to get predictive alerts, and that’s kind of the nirvana of IT operations. Once you’ve captured models of the recurring problems in the IT environment, a product like Integrien Alive can see the incoming stream of real-time data and compare that against the models in the library.

If it sees a match with a high enough probability it can let you know ahead of time, up to an hour ahead of time, that you are going to have a particular problem that has previously occurred. You can also record exactly what you did to solve the problem, and how you have diagnosed it, so that you can solve it.

Gardner: Then, you can share that. Now, you mentioned “tribal knowledge.” It sounds like we are taking what used to reside in wetware -- in people’s minds and experience. Instead of having to throw those people at a problem without knowing the depth of the problem, or even losing that knowledge if they walk out the door, we're saying, "Enough of that. Let’s go and instantiate this knowledge into the systems and become less dependent on individual experienced people."

Henning: The way I look at it is that we're actually enhancing the expertise of these folks. You're always going to need experts in there. You’re always going to need the folks who have the tribal knowledge of the application. What we are doing, though, is enabling them to do their job better with earlier understanding of where the problems are occurring by adding and solving this massive data correlation issue when a problem occurs.

Even the tribal experts will tell you that just a few minutes before a problem occurs they can start to see the problem. We are offering them a solution that allows them to see this problem forming up to an hour ahead of time, notifying them of abnormal behavior and patterns of behavior that would be seemingly unrelated to them based on their current knowledge of the application.

Gardner: When you do resolve a problem and capture that and make that available for future use, that sounds more like a collaboration issue. How do we deal with so many inputs, so much information, not only on the receiving end, but on the outgoing end, after a resolution?

Henning: This is what we were talking about before. You’ve got all of the siloed sources of monitoring data and alerts, and there's currently no way to consolidate that data for holistic problem solving. So, it’s very important that any kind of solution can integrate a wide variety of monitoring tools, so that all the data can be in one place and available for this kind of collaborative problem solving.

For example, in one environment that we went into we had an alert that went to an application server administrator. He happened to notice that there was a prediction that a database key indicator was going out of its normal range, which would have caused a crash of the database with 85 percent probability in 15 minutes. Armed with that information, he got the alert over to the database administrator who was made able to make some configuration changes that staved off the problem.

Being able to analyze this data holistically and being able to share the data that’s typically been in the siloed monitoring solutions allows quicker and more collaborative problem resolution. We're really talking about centralizing and automating data analysis across the silos of IT.

Gardner: It also reminds me, conceptually, of SOA, where you want to transform the information into a form that can be used generally. It sounds like you are doing that and applying it to this whole notion of IT management and remediation.

Henning: Very much so. There are seemingly unrelated things happening within an application infrastructure that can result in a problem. The fact that all the data is analyzed in a single place holistically through these statistical algorithms, allows us to provide an interface where people can work together and collaborate. This makes the team more effective and makes it much easier for people to solve problems quickly.

Gardner: So, we standardize gathering and managing the information. We also standardize the way in which people can access it and use it, so that they are not fixing the same broken wheel over and over again at different times. It can recognize when they are going to need to do it and have it fixed ready to go. This sounds like a real big saver when it comes to labor and lowering costs for your staff, but also gets that root saving around no downtime or reduced downtime.

Henning: Right. When we typically work with customers, most of the IT operations folks that we talk to are really concerned with reducing the labor costs and reducing the time to identify and resolve the problem. In truth, the real benefit to the business is really removing downtime and removing slowdowns of the applications that cause you to lose or reduce business.

So although we see major benefits of real-time analytic solutions in providing reduction in labor costs, we also say that it’s a very big boon to the business, in terms of keeping the applications effectively generating revenue.

Gardner: Another current trend is the ability to gather interface views, graphical views of the system. There are a lot of dashboards out there for business issues. What do we get in terms of visibility for end-to-end operations, even in a real-time or close to real-time setting from the Integrien Alive that you are describing?

Henning: Once again, it’s still a real issue when you have siloed monitoring tools. Even though a lot of companies have a manager of managers, that’s typically used by the level-one operations folks to filter through the alerts and determine who they need to be passed off to, who can actually take a look at them and resolve them. But, we find that most of the companies that we talk to don’t have any tools that allow them to be efficient in role-based problem solving.

One of the things that Integrien Alive provides is this idea of customizable role-based dashboards, this library of custom analysis widgets that allows people to slice and dice the data in whatever way is most effective for that particular individual in problem solving. We talked earlier about the holistic data analysis that was really enabling effective teamwork. When we talk about role-based dashboards for problem solving showing the database administrator exactly what they need, we are really talking about making each team member more effective.

That’s one of the benefits of the role-based dashboards. The other thing is giving visibility all the way up to the CIO and the vice president of operations who are concerned with much different views. They want it filtered in a much different way, because they are more concerned about business performance than any individual server or resource problems that might be occurring in the environment.

Gardner: What sort of views do those business folks prefer over what the outputs of some of these monitoring tools might be?

Henning: You want to look at things from a business-service perspective, how are my critical business services performing? If I have an investment banking solution, and I’ve got a couple of other mission-critical applications that are outward facing, I want to know how those are performing right now, in terms of the critical transaction performance.

I want to be able to accommodate business data as well. So, if I see that from an IT performance level the transaction seemed to be performing well and I can see that I am also processing a consistent number of transactions that are enabling my business, I have a good view that things are going well in my operation at this point. So, it’s really a higher level view.

I am going to be much more concerned with any kind of alerts that are affecting my entire business service. If we see an alert that’s been consolidated all the way up to the investment banking business-service level, that’s going to be something that’s very important for the VP of IT operations, because he’s got a problem now that’s actually affecting his business.

Gardner: I suppose from the IT side the more that we can show and tell to the business folks about how well we are doing the better. It makes us seem less like we are firefighters and that we're proactive and on top of things. If there are any decisions several months or years out about outsourcing, we have a nice trail, a cookie-crumb trail, if you will, of how well things are going and how costs are being managed.

Henning: That’s absolutely true. I was talking to the CIO of a large university the other day. One thing that was very frustrating for him was that he was in a meeting with the president of the university, and the president was saying that it seemed like the applications were and some of the critical applications were down a lot.

This CIO was very frustrated, because he knew that wasn’t the case, but he didn’t have effective reporting tools to show that it was not the case. That was one of the things that he was very excited about, when he took a look at our product.

Gardner: We know that complexity is substantial. It’s pretty clear that that complexity is going to continue as we see organizations move toward SOA and software as a service, and hybrid issues, where a holistic business process could be supported by your systems, partner systems, or perhaps third-party systems.

I can just imagine there is going to be finger pointing when things go wrong. You’re going to want to be able to say, "Hey, not my problem, but I am ready, willing and able to help you fix it. In fact, I've got more insight into your systems than you do."

Henning: That’s absolutely the case.

Gardner: Give me a sense of where Integrien and Alive, as a product set, are going in the future, I know you can't pre-announce things, but as these new complexities in terms of permeable organizational boundaries kick in and virtualization kicks in, what might we expect in the future?

Henning: One of the things that you’re going to see from us is a comprehensive solution around the virtualized environment. Several other companies claim to have solutions in this space, but from what we have been able to see so far, the issue of motion of virtual machines (VM), moving them between different servers, is still an issue for all of these solutions.

We’re working extremely diligently to solve the issue of how to deal with performance monitoring in a virtualized environment, where you have got the individual VMs moving all over the place, based on changes in capacity, and things like that. So, look out for that solution coming from Integrien in the coming months.

Gardner: So we're talking about instances of entire stacks, provisioning and moving dynamically among systems. That sounds like a whole other level of complexity that we are adding to an already difficult situation.

Henning: Yes, it’s a big math problem. You can also compound that with the fact that when a VM moves from one physical server to another, it might be allocated a different percentage of resources. So, when you think about this whole hard-threshold based monitoring paradigm that IT is in now, what does a hard-threshold really mean in an environment like that? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

If you don’t have some way to understand the normal behavior, to provide context, and to quickly learn and adapt to changes in the environment, managing the virtualized environment is going to be an absolute nightmare. Based on spending some time with the folks over at VMware, and attending the VMWorld show this year, you could certainly see in their customers this concern about how to deal with this complex management problem.

Gardner: The old manual wetware approaches just aren’t going to cut it in that environment?

Henning: That’s correct.

Gardner: I appreciate your candor and I look forward to seeing some of these newer solutions focused on virtualization.

We have been talking about remediation and ability to get in front of problems for IT operators using predictive and analytic algorithmic approaches. To help us understand this, we have been joined by Steve Henning, the Vice President of Products at Integrien. Thank you, Steve.

Henning: Thank you very much, Dana.

Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions. You have been listening to BriefingsDirect. Thanks and come back next time.

Listen to podcast here. Sponsor: Integrien.

Transcript of BriefingsDirect podcast on IT operational performance using Integrien Alive with Integrien's Steve Henning. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2008. All rights reserved.

Enterprises Seek Ways to Exploit Web Application Mashups and Lightweight Data Presentation Techniques

Transcript of BriefingsDirect podcast on data mashups with IBM and Kapow.

Listen to the podcast here. Sponsor: Kapow Technologies.

Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and you’re listening to BriefingsDirect. Today, a sponsored podcast discussion about the state of choice in the modern enterprise around development and deployment technologies.

These days, developers, architects and even line-of-business managers have many choices. This includes things like Web applications, software-as-a-service (SaaS), Services Oriented Architecture (SOA), RESTful applications, mashups, pure services off the Web, and pure services from within an Intranet or even the extended enterprise. We’re talking about RSS and Atom feeds, and, of course, there is a traditional .NET and Java going on.

We also see people experimenting with Ruby and a lot of use around PHP and scripting. The good news is that there are a lot of choices. The bad news is also that there are a lot of choices.

Some of these activities are taking place outside the purview of IT managers. People are being innovative and creative, which is good, but perhaps not always in the way that IT would like in terms of security and access control. These newer activities may not align with some of the larger activities that IT needs to manage -- which many times these days includes consolidation, unification, and modernization of legacy applications.

To help us weed through some of the agony and ecstasy of the choices facing application development and deployment in the enterprise, we have on the call, Rod Smith. Rod is Vice President of Internet Emerging Technologies at IBM. Welcome to the show, Rod.

Rod Smith: Thank you very much. It’s nice to be here.

Gardner: We also have Stefan Andreasen, the Founder and CTO of Kapow Technologies. Welcome to the show, Stefan.

Stefan Andreasen: Thank you.

Gardner: Let’s go first to Rod. We spoke last spring about these choices and how there are, in effect, myriad cultures that are now involved with development. In past years, development was more in a closed environment, where people were under control … white coats, raised floors, and glass rooms come to mind. But now it’s more like the Wild West. What have you been finding in the field, and do you see this as chaos or opportunity?

Smith: A little of both. In times of innovation you get some definite chaos coming through, but IT, in particular, and line of businesses see this as a big opportunity. Because of SOA and the other technologies you mentioned, information is available, and line of business is very interested in capturing new business opportunities.

Time to market is getting shorter, and getting squeezed all the time. So you’re seeing line of business and IT coming together around what they have to do to drive more innovation and move it up a couple of notches, from a business perspective.

Open standards now are very important to IT. Line of business, with mashups in particular, can use those types of services to get the information and create solutions they couldn’t do in the labs, when the propeller heads and others had to be involved five or 10 years ago.

Gardner: So we have dual or maybe multiple tracks going on. I suppose what’s missing is methodological and technical management. That’s an area where IBM has been involved for some time. Does IBM look at this as an opportunity?

Smith: A big opportunity. And you hit it on the head. The methodology here is very different from the development methodology we’ve been brought up to do. It’s much more collaborative, if you’re line of business, and it’s much more than a set of specifications.

Here is where we’re seeing people talk about building mashups. Usually they have a really good idea that comes to mind or something that they think will help with a new business opportunity.

Often the second question -- and we’ve seen a pattern with this -- is “Where is the data? How do we get to the data? Can IT open it up for us? Do line-of-business people have it in spreadsheets?” Typically, when it’s valuable to the business, they want to catalog it and put it together, so other people can share it. Finally, they do a mashup.

So methodology is one of the things we call a self-service business pattern. It starts with the idea, from a developer standpoint. "I really need to understand the business. I need to understand the time to market and the partnerships, and how information can be exposed." Then, they get down into some of the details. "I've got to do it quickly."

What we are seeing from an opportunity standpoint is that many businesses, when they see an opportunity, want a vendor to respond in 30 days or less, [and do more] within six months down the road. So that’s a challenge, and it is an opportunity. We think about tooling and middleware and services. How can we help the customer?

Gardner: Let’s go to Stefan. When you see these activities in the enterprise around mashups, SOAP, REST, HTML and XML, there’s an opportunity for bridging the chaos, but I suppose there’s also a whole new type of development around situational applications.

That is to say that, an opportunity exists to access content that hadn’t really been brought into an application development activity in the past. Can you tell us a little bit about what you’re seeing in the enterprise and how these new types of development are manifesting themselves?

Andreasen: Let me comment on the chaos thing a little bit. It’s important to understand the history here. At first, central IT worked with all their big systems. Line of business really didn’t have any access to IT or tools themselves, until recently when they got desktop tools like Excel.

This current wave is really driven by line of business getting IT in their own hands. They’ve started using it, and that’s created the chaos, but chaos is created because there is a need.

Now, with the Web 2.0 and the mashup wave, there is an acknowledgement of a big need here, as Rod also said. So it’s necessary to understand why this is happening and why it is something that’s very important.

Gardner: These end-users, power users, these line of business folks, they’ve been using whatever tools have been available to them, even if it’s an Excel spreadsheet. I suppose that gives them some productivity, but it also leaves these assets, data and content, lying around on hard drives in a fairly unmanaged perspective.

Can we knock two birds down with one stone in terms of managing this chaos in terms of the data, but also bring together some interface and application development benefits?

Andreasen: The worst thing would be to shut it down, of course. The best thing that’s happening now is acknowledging that line-of-business people need to do their own thing. We need to give them the tools, environments and infrastructure so they can do it in a controlled way -- in an acceptable, secured way -- so that your laptop with all of your customer data doesn't get stolen at the airport.

When we talk about customer data, we leap back to your earlier question about data. What are line-of-business people working with? Well, they’re working with data, analyzing data, and finding intelligence in that data, drawing conclusions out of the data, or inventing new products with the data. So the center of the universe here for this IT work is really dealing with data.

Gardner: SOA is one of the things that sits in the middle between the traditional IT approaches and IT development and then these newer activities around data, access, and UIs and using Web protocols.

I wonder if you think that that’s where these things meet. Is there a way to use an enterprise service bus (ESB) for checking in and out of provisioned or governed services? Is there a way that mashups and the ERP applications meet up?

Smith: The answer is yes. Without SOA we probably wouldn't have gotten to a place where we can think about mashable content or remixable content.

What you are seeing from customers is the need to take internal information and transform it into XML or RESTful services. There’s a good match between ESB things … [and] thinking about security and other pieces of it, and then building the Rich Internet Application (RIA) type of applications.

The part you touched on before is interesting, too. And I think Stefan would agree with me. One thing we learned as we opened up this content is that it isn't just about IT managing or controlling it. It’s really a partnership now.

One thing Stefan has with Kapow that really got us talking early was the fact that for Stefan’s content they have a freshness style. We found that same thing is very important. The line of business wants to be involved when information is available and published. That’s a very different blending of responsibility than we've seen before on this.

So thinking forward you can imagine that while you are publishing this, you might be putting it into a catalog repository or into services. But it also has to available for line of business now to be able to look at those assets and work with IT on when they should be available to business partners, customers and others.

Gardner: It’s interesting you mentioned the word "publish," and it’s almost as if we are interchanging the words "publishing" and "application development" in the sense that they are munging or overlapping.

Does that fit with what Kapow has been seeing, Stefan, that publishing and syndication are now a function of application development?

Andreasen: There are several sides to this question of which data you need, how to access it, how it is published, etc. One thing you are talking about is line of business publishing their data so other people can use it.

I split data into several groups. One is what I call core data, the data that is generally available to everybody in the company and probably sits in your big systems. It’s something everybody has. It’s probably something that's service-oriented or is going to be very soon.

Then there is the more specialized data that’s sitting out in line of business. There's a tendency now to publish those in standard formats like RSS, RESTful services, etc.

There's is a third group, which I call intelligence data. That's hard to find, but gives you that extra insight, extra intelligence, to let you draw a conclusion which is different from -- and hopefully better than -- your competitors’.

That’s data that’s probably not accessible in any standard way, but will be accessible on the Web in a browser. This is exactly what our product does. It allows you to turn any Web-based data into standard format, so you can access what I call intelligence data in a standard fashion.

Gardner: This is the type of data that had not been brought into use with applications in the past?

Andreasen: That is correct. There is a lot of information that’s out there, both on the public Web and on the private Web, which is really meant to be human-readable information. You can just think about something as simple as going to U.S. Geological Service and looking at fault lines of earthquakes and there isn't any programmatic API to access this data.

This kind of data might be very important. If I am building a factory in an earthquake area, I don’t want to buy a lot that is right on the top of a fault line. So I can turn this data into a standard API, and then use that as part of my intelligence to find the best property for my new factory.

Smith: When we talk of line of business, it’s just not internal information they want. It's external information, and we really are empowering these content developers now. The types of applications that people are putting together are much more like dashboards of information, both internally and externally over the Internet, that businesses use to really drive their business. Before, the access costs were high.

Now the access costs are continuing to drop very low, and people do say, "Let’s go ahead and publish this information, so it can be consumed and remixed by business partners and others,” rather than thinking about just a set of APIs at a low level, like we did in the past with Java.

Gardner: How do we bring these differing orbits into alignment? We've got people who are focused on content and the human knowledge dimension -- recognizing that more and more great information is being made available openly through the Web.

At the same time, we have this group that is API-minded. I guess we need to find a way of bringing an API to those folks who need that sort of interface to work with this data, but we also need for these people to take this data and make it available in such a way that a developer might agree with it or use it.

How does Kapow work between these constituencies and make one amenable to the other? We're looking for a way to bind together traditional IT development with some of these “mashupable” services, be it internal content or data or external services off of the Web.

I wonder what Kapow brings to the table in terms of helping these two different types of data and content to come together -- APIs versus content?

Andreasen: If you want to have automatic access to data or content, you need to be able to access it in a standard way. What is happening now with Web Oriented Architecture (WOA) is that we're focusing on a few standard formats like RESTful services and on feeds like RSS and Atom.

So first you need to be able to access your data that way. This is exactly what we do. Our customers turn data they work with in an application into these standard APIs and feeds, so they can work with them in an automated way.

It hadn’t been so much of a problem earlier, maybe because there wasn’t so much data, and people could basically cut and paste the data. But with the explosion of information out there, there's a realization that having the right data at the right time is getting more and more important. There is a huge need for getting access in an automated way.

How do line-of-business people work with the data? Well, they work with the data in the application interface. What if the application interface today is your browser?

Kapow allows the line-of-business people to automatically access data the way they worked with it in their Web browser.

That’s a very powerful way of accessing data, because you don't have to have an extra level of IT personnel. You don't have to first explain, "Well, this is the data I need. Go find it for me." And then, maybe you get the wrong data. Now, you are actually getting the data that you see the way you want.

Gardner: Another aspect to this is the popularity of social networking and what's known as the "wisdom of crowds" and wikis. A lot of contributions can be brought into play with this sort of gray area between content and publishing, different content feeds, and exposure and access and the traditional IT function.

Wikis have come into play, and they have quite a bit of exposure. Maybe you have a sense of how these worlds can be bridged, using some of what's been known as social networking?

Smith: Software development now is much more of a social networking activity than an engineering activity. At IBM, we have Blog and Wiki Central, where people use wikis to get their thoughts down and collectively bring an idea about.

Also at IBM, we have Innovation Jam, which we hold every year, and which brings in hundreds of thousands of people now. It used to be just IBM, but we’ve opened it up this last year to everyone, friends and family alike, to come up with ideas.

That part is great on the front end. You then can have a much better idea of what the expectations are, and what a user group wants. They're usually very motivated to stay in the loop to give you feedback as you do development.

The big part here is when it comes to doing mashups. It's the idea that you can produce something relatively quickly. With IBM’s QEDWiki, we like the idea that someone could assemble an application, wire it together in the browser, and it has the wiki characteristics. That is, it's stored on the server, it’s versioned as to enterprise characteristics, and it’s sharable.

It’s a key aspect that it has to be immediately deployable and immediately accessible by the folks that you are networking with.

That relates to what Stefan was saying and what you were asking about on how to bridge the two worlds of APIs and content. We're seeing now that as you think about the social networking side, people want the apps built into dashboards.

The more forward-thinking people in IT departments realize that the faster they can put together publishable data content, they can get a deeper understanding in a very short time about what their customers want.

They can then go back and decide the best way to open up that data. Is it through syndication feeds, XML, or programmatic API? Before, IT had to guess usage and how many folks might be touching it, and then build it once and make it scalable.

We’re doing things much more Agile-wise and building it that way, and then, as a flip, building the app that’s probably 80 percent there. Then IT can figure out how they could open up the right interfaces and content to make it available broadly.

Gardner: Stefan, could you give us some examples of user scenarios, where Kapow has been brought in and has helped mitigate some of the issues of access to content and then made it available to traditional development? Is there a way for those folks who are perhaps SOA-minded, to become a bit more open to what some people refer to as Web-Oriented Architecture?

Andreasen: One example that was mentioned in The Wall Street Journal recently in an article on mashups. It was on Audi in Germany. They are using our product to allow line of business to repurpose existing Intranets.

Let’s say that a group of people want to take what’s already there, but tweak it, combine it, and maybe expose it as a mobile application. With our tool, they can now do that in a self-service way, and then, of course, they can share that. What’s important is that they published this mini-mashup into their WebSphere portal and shared it with other people.

Some of them might just be for individual use. One important thing about a mashup is that an individual often creates it. Then it either stops there, because only that individual needs it – or it can also grow into company-wide use and eventually be taken over by central IT, as a great new way to improve performance in the entire company. So that shows one of the benefits.

Other examples have a lot to do with external data -- for example, in pricing comparisons. Let’s say I'm an online retailer and suddenly Amazon enters the market and starts taking a lot of market share, and I really don’t understand why. You can use our product to go out and harvest, let’s say, all the data from digital cameras from Amazon and from your own website.

You can quickly find out that whenever I have the lowest price, my product is out of stock -- and whenever I have a price that's too high, I don’t sell anything. Being able to constantly monitor that and optimize my prices is another example.

Another very interesting piece of information you can get is vendor pricing. You can know your own profit margin. Maybe it’s very low on Nikon cameras. You see that eBay is offering the Nikon cameras below even your cost as the vendor. You know for sure that buyers are getting a better deal with Nikon than you can offer. I call this using data to create intelligence and improve your business.

Gardner: All this real-time, updated content and data on the Web can be brought into many aspects of what enterprises do -- business processes, purchasing, evaluation, and research.

I suppose a small amount of effort from a mashup could end up saving a significant amount of money, because you’re bringing real-time information to those people making decisions.

How about you on your side, Rod? Any examples of how these two worlds -- the peanut butter and chocolate, if you will -- come together for a little better snack?

Smith: I’ll give you a good one. It’s an interesting one we did as a technology preview with Reuters and AccuWeather. Think about this again from the business perspective, where two business folks met at a conference and chit-chatted a bit.

AccuWeather was talking about how they offer different types of services, and the Reuters CTO said, "You know, we have this commodity-shipping dashboard, and folks can watch the cargo go from one place to another. It’s odd that we don’t have any weather information in there.” And the question came up very quickly: "I wonder how hard it would be to mash in some weather information."

We took one of their folks, one of mine, and the person from AccuWeather. They sat down over about three or four hours, figured out the scenario that Reuters was interested in and where the data came from, and they put it together. It took them about two weeks, but altogether 17 hours -- and that’s over a beer.

So it was chocolate and nuts and beer. I was in pretty good shape at that point. The interesting thing came after that. When we showed it to Reuters, they were very thrilled with the idea that you have that re-mixibility of content. They said that weather probably would be interesting, but piracy is a lot more interesting. "And, by the way" -- and this is from the line of business person -- "I know where to get that information."

Gardner: Now when you say "piracy," you mean the high seas and the Jolly Roger flying up on the mast -- that kind of thing?

Smith: That’s it. I didn’t even know it existed anymore. In 2006, there were 6,000 piracy events.

Gardner: Hijackings at sea?

Smith: Yes.

Gardner: Wow!

Smith: I had no idea. It turned out that the information was a syndication feed. So we pulled it in and could put it on a map, so you could look at the different events.

It took about two hours, but that’s that kind of dynamic now. The line-of-business person says, "Boy, if that only took you that much time, then I have a lot of ideas, which I’ve really not talked about before. I always knew that if I mentioned one more feature or function, IT would tell me, it takes six more months to do."

We've seen a huge flip now. Work is commensurate with some results that come quickly. Now we will see more collaboration coming from IT on information and partnerships.

Gardner: This networking-collaboration or social interaction is really what’s crafting the new level of requirements. Instead of getting in line behind 18 six-month projects, 12 to 20 hours can be devoted by people who are perhaps on the periphery of IT.

They're still under the auspices of what’s condoned under IT and make these mashups happen, so that it’s users close to the issues, close to where the creativity can begin that create a requirement, and then binds these two worlds together.

Smith: That’s correct, and what is interesting about it is, if you think about what I just described -- where we mashed in some data with AccuWeather -- if that had been an old SOA project of nine or 18 months, that would have been a significant investment for us, and would have been hard to justify.

Now, if that takes a couple of weeks and hours to do -- even if it fails or doesn’t hit the right spot -- it was a great tool for learning what the other requirements were, and other things that we try as a business.

That’s what a lot of this Web 2.0 and mashups are about -- new avenues for communication, where you can be engaged and you can look at information and how you can put things together. And it has the right costs associated with it -- inexpensive.

If I were going to sum up a lot of Web 2.0 and mashups, the magnitude of drop in “customization cost” is phenomenal.

Gardner: And that spells high return on value, right?

Smith: That’s right.

Gardner: How do you see this panning out in the future? Let’s look in our crystal ball. How do you see this ability of taking intelligence, as you call it, around the content, and then the line-of-business people coming in and making decisions about requirements, and how they want to tune or see the freshness of the content?

What’s going to happen in two or three years, now that we are bringing these things together?

Andreasen: There will be a lot more of what Rod just described. What Rod just mentioned is an early move, and a lot of companies aren't even thinking along these lines yet. Over the next one or two years, more people will realize the opportunity and the possibility here, and start doing it more. Eventually, it’s going to explode.

People will realize that getting the right data and the right content at the right time, and using that to create more intelligence is one thing. The other thing they’ll realize is that by networking with peers and colleagues, they'll get ideas and references to new data. All of these aspects -- the social aspects, the data aspect and the mashup aspect -- will be much more realized. I think it’s going to explode in usage.

Gardner: Any last thoughts, Rod, from where you see these things going?

Smith: Well, as we see in other technologies moving through from an SOA perspective, this is a great deal about cultural change within companies, and the technology barriers are coming down dramatically.

You don’t have to be a Java expert or a C# expert. I'm scary enough to be able to put together or find solutions for my own needs. It’s creating a way that line-of-business people are empowered and they can see business results quickly.

That also helps IT, because if the line of business is happy, then IT can justify the necessary middleware. That’s a fundamental shift. It's no longer an IT world, where they can promise a solution to the line of business 12 to 18 months down the road.

It’s much more of, "Show me something quickly. When I’ve got the results in my hand -- the dashboard -- then you can explain what I need to do for IT investments and other things."

It’s more collaboration at that point, and makes a lot of sense on governance, security, and other things. I can see the value of my app, and I can actually start using that to bring value to my company.

Gardner: I suppose another important aspect culturally is that part of SOA’s value is around reuse. These mashups and using this content in association with other different activities, in a sense promotes the notion of reuse.

You're thinking about, "How can I reuse this mashup? How can I extend this content, either off the Web or internally, into new activities?" That, in a sense, greases the skids toward more SOA, which I think is probably where IT is going to be heading anyway.

Smith: Well, what’s fun about this, and I think Stefan will agree, is that when I go to a customer, I don’t take PowerPoint charts anymore. I look on their website and I see if they have some syndication feeds or some REST interfaces or something.

Then I look around and I see if I can create a mashup of their material with other material that hadn’t been built with before. That’s compelling.

People look and they start to get excited because, as you just said, they see business patterns in that. "If you could do that, could you grab this other information from so-and-so?"

It’s almost like a jam session at that point, where people come up with ideas. That’s where we will see more of these examples. Actually, a lot of our stuff is on YouTube, where we had a retail store that wanted to see their stores on Google Maps and then see the weather, because weather is an important factor in terms of their businesses.

In fact, it’s one of the most important factors. What we didn’t realize is that very simple pattern -- from a technology standpoint it didn’t take much -- held up over and over again. If it wasn’t a store, it was banking location. If it wasn’t banking locations, it was ships. There were combinations in here that you could talk to your businessperson about.

Then you could say to the technologist or a developer, "What do I have to do to help them achieve that?" They don’t have to learn XML, Web objects, or anything else, because you have these SOA interfaces. It helps IT expand that whole nature of SOA into their enterprise.

Andreasen: One thing that's going to happen is that line-of-business people are getting a lot of great ideas. If I am working with business problems, I constantly get ideas about how to solve things. Usually, I just brush it away and say, "Well, it will be cool to have this, but it’s impossible."

They just don’t understand that the time from idea to implementation is dramatically going to go down. When they start realizing this, there is hidden potential out on the edge of the business that will now be cut loose and create a lot of value. It’s going to be extremely interesting to see.

Smith: One of the insights we have from customers is that mashups and this type of technology help them to visualize their SOA investments. You can’t see middleware. Your IT shop tells you what’s good, they tell you they get flexibility, but they want to be shown results -- and mashups help do that.

The second part is people say it completes the "last mile" for SOA. It starts to make a lot of sense for your IT shop to be able to show how the middleware can be used in ways it wasn’t necessarily planned for.

The big comment we hear is, "I want my content to be mashable or re-mixable." We figured out that it’s very much a SOA value. They want things to be used in ways they weren't planned for originally. Show me that aggressive new business opportunity, and you make me a very happy person.

Andreasen: Probably one thing we will see in companies is some resistance from the technologists, from central IT, because they are afraid they will lose control. They are afraid of the security issues etc., but it will probably be like what we've seen with company wikis.

They're coming in the back door in line of business and eventually the companies buy the company-wide wiki. I think we'll see the same thing with mashups. It will be starting out in line of business, and eventually the whole company understands, "Well, we have to have infrastructure that solves this problem in a controlled way."

Some companies have very strict policy today. They don’t even allow their line-of-business pros to write macros in Excel. Those companies are probably the ones that will be the last ones discovering the huge potential in mashups.

I really hope they also start opening their eyes that there are other roles for IT, rather than just the big, central system that run your business.

Gardner: Well, great -- thanks very much for your insights. This has really helped me understand better how these things relate and really what the payoff is. It sounds compelling from the examples that you provided.

To help us understand how enterprises are using Web applications, mashups, and lightweight data presentation, we’ve been chatting today with Rod Smith, Vice President of Internet Emerging Technologies at IBM. I really appreciate your time, Rod.

Smith: Thank you.

Gardner: And Stefan Andreasen, the Founder and CTO of Kapow Technologies. Thanks for joining, Stefan.

Andreasen: It’s been a pleasure, Dana.

Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and you've been listening to a BriefingsDirect. Thanks for listening and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast here. Sponsor: Kapow Technologies.

Transcript of BriefingsDirect podcast on data mashups with IBM and Kapow. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2008. All rights reserved.