Cloud and SaaS Force a Rethinking of Integration and Middleware as Services -- of, by, and for Services
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Cloud and SaaS Force a Rethinking of Integration and Middleware as Services -- of, by, and for Services

  • 791 views
Uploaded on

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast of the role of cloud and SaaS in the changing landscape of application integration.

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast of the role of cloud and SaaS in the changing landscape of application integration.

More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
791
On Slideshare
791
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Cloud and SaaS Force a Rethinking of Integration andMiddleware as Services -- of, by, and for ServicesTranscript of a BriefingsDirect podcast of the role of cloud and SaaS in the changing landscapeof application integration.Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Sponsor: Workday.Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and yourelistening to BriefingsDirect. Today, we present a sponsored podcast discussion on how major trends around cloud, mobile, and software as a service (SaaS) are dramatically changing the requirements and benefits of integration. In many respects, the emphasis now on building hybrid business processes from a variety of far-flung sources forces a rethinking of integration and middleware. Integration capabilities themselves often need to be services in order to support a growing universe of internal and external constituent business process component services. [Disclosure: Workday is a sponsor ofBriefingsDirect podcasts.]Here to explore the new era of integration-as-a-service and what it means for the future is DavidClarke, Director of Integration at SaaS ERP provider Workday, and who is based in Dublin.Welcome, David. [Disclosure: Workday is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]David Clarke: Hi, Dana. Good to be here.Gardner: As I said, the past is necessarily prologue, when it comes to integration. Why have theplatforms, applications, and data of the past forced a certain approach to integration, and why isthat ill-suited to what we are expecting and seeing more of every day with cloud and SaaS?Clarke: One thing is that historically applications were built, structured, and architected in very different ways. When you tried to knit those things together, there was quite a diverse set of requirements, which needed to be addressed. And, there was a very wide variation in their architectures. So, that implied a very general- purpose middleware that had to cope with many different and very diverse scenarios. That was one factor. A second factor was that the middleware and the integration tended to come as an afterthought. So, it couldnt really influence or inform the way that the application platforms themselves were designed.Those two things together made it more difficult than it needed to be. Then, what were startingto see, and what we are certainly hopeful of seeing in this generation built around cloud, is thatthose two things aren’t necessarily the case. So, we can benefit more from having integration
  • 2. designed in upfront, and having a more consistent overall architecture, so that it’s essentiallyeasier for it to plug into.One third variable might be that customers historically also discounted or underestimated thelikely impact or complexity of doing integration. They tended to come to them as an afterthoughtand then struggled with them. This time around, to some extent, theyve been burned by previousgenerations. So, theyre more wary, and are additionally including integration more in theirupfront planning.Gardner: Were not necessarily talking about throwing the baby out with the bath water here.Were still going to be doing integrations in the traditional way. Its just that we need to addanother category, and it seems that there is a benefit in that. We can use many of the tools, manyof the underlying technologies that supported traditional middleware, and extend that into thisservices environment.Clarke: Correct. There’s nothing fundamentally new, in some sense. Ive worked in severalgenerations of integration and middleware technology, and each one is a refinement of the past,and youre standing on the shoulders of giants, to badly paraphrase Newton.Packaged and presentedA lot of the underlying technology youre using for integration, a lot of the underlying concepts,are not that new. Its just the way that theyre being packaged and presented. In some cases, itsthe protocols that were using, and certainly some of the use models, but the ways youreaccessing them and consuming them are different. So, it is in that sense, evolutionary.Gardner: What has probably changed the most are the requirements. The problem set that wereaddressing has changed. How has it changed? Perhaps this would be an opportunity for you aswell to explain what Workday is, what it does, and how you came to be a part of the Workdayteam.Clarke: Historically, integration technology was sold as a stand-alone and on-premise offering.Companies would buy or build applications, and then, as their business processes evolved, theyfound a need to integrate them and connect them together. So, they would license middlewareand use that to achieve that.There have been a couple of generations of middleware technology companies that have helpedcustomers do this. They shared some of the characteristics around certain generations oftechnology.So you had companies like TIBCO Software in the early days, folks from the financial sectors.Then you had companies like BEA Systems focused on the Java generation of middleware andapplication servers. And then, you had more XML and web services centric companies.
  • 3. You had those three generations, but what was common to them all was that they were quitedivorced from the application experience. And that was my background in pure middleware,building and selling that technology.A strength and a weakness of that was that it was very general purpose. As a middleware vendor,youre trying to solve essentially any and every problem. To draw on the Eclipse Foundationsmotto: middleware is a general-purpose platform that can do everything or nothing. In manycases, people ended up spending a lot of money on this general-purpose middleware andessentially achieving nothing, which was frustrating.Workday is an applications company. Were an on-demand apps company and we build and servehuman capital management (HCM) and financials enterprise resource planning (ERP) applicationsuites.Cape Clear, which was my former company, was acquired by Workday about three years ago. Wewere partners, but as Workday’s business expanded significantly, they saw that providing acompelling and a differentiated integration experience in the context of this new cloudarchitecture was going to be something that was very important to them. So, they acquired CapeClear and we became part of the overall Workday organization.The first surprise to me was that I had always worked for companies where it was difficultessentially to explain what we did. You couldnt really go to your grandmother and describemiddleware technology, whereas you could at least go and explain financial systems or HCMsystems.Overarching contextThat then flowed all the way down through to how we positioned, thought about, described, andmarketed the technology. It has certainly been my experience that its a lot easier to describe,position, plan, and explain integration technology when you have this overarching context of anapplication domain.Thats been very instructive and has interesting implications in the future for the nature, orindeed the existence, of a stand-alone in the middleware market. That might be an interestingtopic we could talk about later.The other observation is that the consistency of these use cases make our jobs somewhat easier.Whats also been interesting is the nature of the load and the scale profiles that were seeing.A lot of middleware applications that we used to see were technically complex to achieve, butwere often relatively low volume or relatively low scale. But, in large-scale companies, whenyoure dealing with their core systems of record around financials and HCM, youre looking atvery large data sets, with very significant scalability requirements, and very significantperformance constraints. That has interesting implications for how you think about andimplement your middleware solutions.
  • 4. Gardner: So there seem to be two fundamental things going on here. One, is taking integrationto the on-demand or SaaS domain, but second, there is also this embedding integrationfunctionality into the application.People, when they use Workday, whether they are human resources professionals or employeesin these organizations, whether theyre partners or suppliers to these enterprises that are usingWorkday, theyre not thinking about integration. Theyre thinking about human resources,benefits, payroll, and insurance.Tell me how this shift to on-demand, as well as embedding into the application, changes therequirements. How does someone like yourself who is crafting the middleware integrationcapabilities need to shift their thinking in order to go “to the cloud,” but also become part andparcel of the application?Clarke: One of the perpetual holy grails of the middleware industry, when it was a stand-aloneundertaking was to find a way to express and expose middleware and integration concepts in away that they could be used by mere mortals, by business analysts, by people who werentnecessarily very deep technologists with deep technology expertise.In my experience, the middleware industry never achieved that. So, they didnt really ever find ametaphor or a use model that enabled less skilled, but nonetheless technically savvy people touse their products.As you observe in the applications game, you absolutely have to get there, becausefundamentally what youre doing here is you are enabling companies and individuals to solvebusiness problems and application problems. The integration arises as a necessity of that or as aconsequence of that. In and of itself, it isnt useful.Designing applicationsThe most specific thing that weve seen is how we build, manipulate, and use extremelysophisticated integration technology. We spend a lot of our time thinking about how to designthat into the application, so that it can be experienced and consumed by users of the applicationwho don’t know anything about XML, Java, web protocols, or anything like that.To give you one very simple example, the most common use case of all probably is peoplegetting data, perhaps from our system, doing something with it, a simple transformation, andthen delivering it or putting it somewhere else, perhaps into our system.That model of "get, transform, and put" is intuitively straightforward, but historically that hasalways been realized in a complicated way in the middleware stack. Weve built a very simpletool inside our application, and its now the most heavily used integration component in oursystem.
  • 5. Business analysts can very easily and visually define what they are getting and putting it in termsof the business concepts and the business objects they understand. They can define very simpletransformations, for example, going from a payroll input to a check, or going from a report ofabsences by departments to a payroll input.So, theyre consuming and using integration technologies in a very natural way in the context oftheir day-to-day working in the web layer in these systems. Theyre not programmers. Theyrenot developers. Theyre not thinking about it that way. Its quite empowering for the teams thatwe have had working on this technology to see if its usable in that way by the business analystshere. Its the closest Ive seen people get to capturing this unicorn of enabling integrationtechnology to be actually used by business people.Gardner: While you have put quite a bit of emphasis on the tool side in order to make thissomething that mere mortals can adjust and operate, youve also done a lot of heavy lifting on theconnections side. You recognized that in order to be successful with an integration platform, youhad to find the means in which to integrate to a vast variety of different types of technologies,services, data, and so forth. Tell me what youve done, not only on the usability, but on theapplicability across a growing universe of connection points?Clarke: That’s another interesting area. As you say, there are thousands or millions of differenttypes of endpoints out there. This being software, it can map any data format to any other dataformat, but that’s a trivial and uninformative statement, because it doesn’t help you get a specificjob done.Essentially what weve been trying to do is identify categories of target systems and targetprocesses that we need to integrate with and try to optimize and focus our efforts on that.For example, pretty much the majority of our customers have a need to integrate to and frombenefit systems for 401(k), healthcare, dental, visual plans and so forth. So, its an extremelycommon use case. But, there is still a wide diversity of benefits providers and a wide variety offormats that they use.Weve studied the multiple hundreds of those benefits providers that weve experienced byworking with our customers and weve abstracted out the most common format scenarios, datastructures, and so forth, and we have built that into our integration layer.Configure your datasetYou can very easily and rapidly and without programming configure your specific dataset, sothat it can be mapped into and out of your specific set of benefits providers, without needing towrite any code or build a custom integration.Weve done that domain analysis in a variety of areas, including but not limited to benefits. Wevedone it for payroll and for certain kinds of financial categories as well. Thats whats enabling usto do this in a scalable and repeatable way, because we don’t want to just give people a raw set of
  • 6. tools and say, "Here, use these to map anything to anything else." Its just not a good experiencefor the users.Gardner: David, you mentioned that Cape Clear was acquired by Workday about three yearsago, and Workday has been growing very rapidly. Have you been surprised by the adoption rateand pattern around SaaS, and now were talking about cloud and hybrid cloud? Did this happenfaster than you were expecting, because it certainly caught me by surprise?Clarke: Totally. I remember when we originally became part of Workday several years ago, wewere doing some sort of product planning and strategic thinking about how we were going tointegrate the product lines and position them going forward. One of the things we had in ourroadmap at the time was this idea of an appliance. So we said, "Look, we can envision the future,where all the integration is done in the cloud, but we frankly think its like a long way off. Wethink that its some years off."For that reason, we articulated and embarked on a path of offering what we were calling anappliance, which essentially would have been an on-premise component to the integration stackor of the integration stack that would be deployed at customer sites. We thought the world wasn’tgoing to be ready soon enough to put the integration technology and stack in the cloud as well.Happily that turned out to have been incorrect. Over the course of the ensuing 12 months, it justbecame clearer and clearer to us that there was an appetite and a willingness in our customer andprospect base to use this technology in the cloud.We never really went ahead with that appliance concept, it didn’t get productized. We never usedit. We don’t need to use it. And now, as I have conversations with customers and with prospects,it just is not an issue. In terms of it being any kind of philosophical or in principle difficulty orchallenge, it has just gone away. It totally surprised me, as well, because I expected it to happen,but thought it would take a lot longer to get to where it has got to already.Gardner: There is a certain irony, because we were all involved with service-orientedarchitecture (SOA) and kept waiting for that to get traction, and were a little bit distressed that itwasn’t catching on. Then, lo and behold, this concept of SaaS and cloud leapfrogs and catches onmuch faster than we thought. So, it is an interesting time.When we go back to enterprises, we recognize that this “consumerization” of IT is taking place,where the end-users, the zeitgeist of expectations, is now at the point where they want IT in theenterprise to work as well and in the same manner as it does for their personal lives. How doesthat shift the thinking of an enterprise architect, and then we will revisit how that shift perhapsrelates to integration?Clarke: Superficially, enterprise architects are under a lot of pressure to, as you say, to presenttechnologies in ways that are more familiar to customers from their personal lives. The mostspecific example of that is the embrace of mobile technologies. This isnt a huge surprise. Itsbeen a pretty consistent pattern over a number of years that workforce mobility is a majorinfluencer of products requirements.
  • 7. Mobile devicesWeve seen that very significant proportions of access to our system is via mobile devices. Thatinforms our planning and our system architecture. Were invested heavily in mobile technologies-- iPad, Android, BlackBerry and other clients. In my experience, that’s something thats new,with the customer enterprise architects. This is something they have to articulate, defend, andembrace.Historically, they would have been more concerned with the core issues of scalability, reliability,and availability. Now, theyve got more time to think about these things, because we as SaaSvendors have taken a lot of things that they used to do off their plates.Historically, a lot of time was spent by enterprise architects worrying about the scalability andreliability of the enterprise application deployments that they had, and now that’s gone away.They get a much higher service level agreement (SLA) than they ever managed to operatethemselves, when they run their own systems.So, while they have different and new things to think about because of the cloud and mobility,they also have more headspace or latitude to do that, because we have taken some of the painthat they used to have away from them.Gardner: I suppose that as implications pan out around these issues, there will be a shift ineconomics as well, whereby you would pay separately and perhaps on a capital and thenoperating basis for integration.If integration by folks like Workday becomes part and parcel of the application services, and youpay for it on an operating basis only, how do traditional business models and economics aroundmiddleware and integration survive? How do you see this transition working, not only for thefunctionality and the architecture, but in dollars and cents?Clarke: Id certainly hate to be out there trying to sell middleware offerings stand-alone rightnow, and clearly there have been visible consolidations in this space. I mentioned BEA earlier asbeing the standard bearer of the enterprise Java generation of middleware that’s been acquired byOracle.They are essentially part of the application stack, and Im sure they still sell and license stand-alone middleware. Obviously, the Oracle solutions are all on-premise, so theyre still doing on-premise stuff at that level. But, I would imagine that the economics of the BEA offering is foldedvery much into the economics of the Oracle application offering.In the web services generation of middleware and integration, which essentially came after theenterprise Java tier, and then before the SOA tier, there was a pretty rapid commoditization. So,this phenomenon was already starting to happen, even before the cloud economics were fully inplay.
  • 8. Then, there was essentially an increased dependence or relevance of open source technologies --Spring, JackBe, free stacks -- that enabled integration to happen. That commoditization wasalready starting to happen.Open source pressureSo, even before the advent of the cloud and the clear economic pressure that put on stand-aloneintegration, there was already a separate pressure that was originating from open source. Thosetwo things together have, in my view, made it pretty difficult to sustain or to conceive asustainable integration model.A lot of the investment dollars that have gone into something like integration market are nowgoing elsewhere in infrastructure. Theyre going into storage. Theyre going into availability.Theyre going certainly to cloud platforms. It would need to be a brave venture capitalist nowwho would write a check to a company coming in with a bright idea for a new on-premisemiddleware stack. So that business is gone.Gardner: Were also seeing some investment around taking open source middleware andintegration capabilities and extending them to the cloud. Its not as difficult for an open sourcecompany, because their monetization has been around maintenance and support, more of anoperating expense. We certainly haven’t seen too much in the way of a general-purposeintegration cloud from any of the traditional on-premises middleware vendors.Do you think in 10 years, or maybe 5, we won’t even be thinking about integration. It will reallybe a service, a cloud service, and perhaps it will evolve to be a community approach. Thosepeople who need to be connected to one another will either structurally move towards somestandardization or, perhaps in a more ad hoc or organic way, provide the means by which theycould more easily play well together?Clarke: There are a couple of things that we see happening here. Ill make two mainobservations in this area.First, at the risk of losing half our audience with the jargon, there is an important differencebetween a general-purpose platform or integration platform and then a more specific one, whichis centered around a particular application domain. Workday is about the latter.Were building a very powerful set of cloud technologies, including an integration cloud or anintegration platform in the cloud, but it’s very focused on connecting essentially to and fromWorkday, and making that very easy from a variety of places and to a variety of places.What were not trying to create is a general-purpose platform, an associated marketplace, in theway that maybe somebody like Salesforce.com is doing with AppExchange or Google with AppEngine for app development. In a sense, our scope is narrower in that way, and that’s just how
  • 9. were choosing to prosecute the opportunity, because it’s harder to establish a very horizontalplatform and it’s just difficult to do.I referred earlier to the problem that middleware companies traditionally have of doingeverything and nothing. When you have a purely horizontal platform that can offer anyintegration or any application, it’s difficult to see exactly which ones are going to be the ones thatget it going.The way were doing this is therefore more specific. We have a similar set of technologies and soon, but were really basing it very much around the use case that we see for Workday. It’s verygrounded in benefits integrations, payroll integrations, financial integrations, paymentintegrations. And every one of our deployments has tens, dozens, hundreds of these integrations.Were constantly building very significant volume, very significant usage, and very significantexperience.Developing marketplaceI can see that developing into a marketplace in a limited way around some of those key areasand possibly broadening from there.Thats one of the interesting areas of distinction between the strategies of the platform vendors asto how expansive their vision is. Obviously expansive visions are interesting and creatinghorizontal platforms is interesting, but it’s more speculative, it’s riskier, and it takes a long time,.We are more on the specific side of that.You mentioned collaborating and how this area of business processes and people collaborating inthe community. I referred earlier to this idea that were focusing on these key use cases. What’sarising from those key use cases is a relatively small set of documents and document formats thatare common to these problem areas.Lately, Ive been reading, or rereading, some of the RosettaNet stuff. RosettaNet has been aroundforever. It was originally created in the early 80s. As you know, it was essentially a set ofdocuments, standard documents, interchange formats for the semiconductor or the technologymanufacturing industry, and it has been very successful, not very prominent or popular, but verysuccessful.What we see is something similar to RosettaNet starting to happen in the application domainwhere, when you are dealing with payroll providers, there is a certain core set of data that getssent around. We have integrated to many dozens of them and we have abstracted that into a coredocumentary that reflects the set of information and how it needs to be formatted and how itneeds to be processed.In fact, we now have a couple of payroll partners who are directly consuming that payroll formatfrom us. So, in the same way that there are certain HR XML standards for benefits data, we cansee other ones emerging in other areas of the application space.
  • 10. These are very good vectors for cooperation and for collaboration around integrations, andtheyre a good locus around which communities can develop standardized document, which isthe basis for integration. That’s intriguing to me, because it all derives from that very specific setof use cases that I just never really saw as a general-purpose integration vendor.Gardner: Getting back to adoption patterns and economics, it seems as if what you areproposing, and what Workday is supporting, is this application-level benefit. A business process,like a network, is perhaps more valuable as the number of participants in the process increases,and become able to participate with a fairly low level of complexity and friction.Its sort of a derivative of Metcalfes Law, but at the business process level, which is quitedifferent than trying to corral an integration community around a specific platform with the intentof getting more people on that platform and having a long-term flow of license revenue as aresult.So, if we make this shift to a Metcalfes law type of "the more participants, the more valuable itis to all of those participants," shouldn’t we expect a little bit of a different world aroundintegration in the next few years?Business processClarke: That’s right, because of the distinction you mentioned. We don’t really see or envisagethis very transactional marketplace, where you just have people buying a round of maps orintegrations and installing them. We see it happening in the context of a business process.For example, hiring. As somebody hires somebody into Workday, there are typically manyintegration points in that business process -- background checking, provisioning of securitycards, and creation of email accounts. There is a whole set of integration points. Wereincreasingly looking to enable third parties to easily plug-in into those integration points in asmall way, for provisioning an email account, or in a big way, like managing a whole payrollprocess.It’s that idea of these integrations as being just touch points and jumping-off points from anoverall business process, which is quite a different vision from writing cool, stand-alone appsthat you can then find and store from inside of our platform marketplace.It’s that idea of an extended business process where the partners and partner ISVs and customerscan collaborate very easily, and not just at install time or provisioning time, but also when theseprocesses are running and things go wrong, if things fail or errors arise.You also need a very integrated exception handling process, so that customers can rapidlydiagnose and correct these errors when they arise. Then, they have a feeling of being in aconsistent environment and not like a feeling of having 20 or 30 totally unrelated applications
  • 11. executing that don’t collaborate and don’t know about each other and aren’t executing thecontext within the same business process. Were keen to make that experience seamless.Gardner: I can also see where there is a high incentive for the participants in a supply chain or avalue chain of some sort to make integration work, so perhaps there is an incentive towardscooperation in ways that we hadn’t seen before. I am thinking of, at least in the human resourcesfield, where it’s in my best interest as an insurance company or as a payroll benefits provider towork with the SaaS or cloud provider in this regard to the betterment of our mutual end users.Do you already see that the perception of cooperation for integration is at a different plane?Where do you expect that to go?Clarke: Totally, already. Increasingly -- pick an area, but lets say for learning management orsomething -- if we integrate, or if multiple people integrate to us or from us, then customersalready are starting to expect that those integrations exist. Now theyre starting to ask about howgood they are, whats the nature of them, what SLAs can they expect here? The customers arepresuming that an integration, certainly between Workday and some other cloud-based service,either exists already or is very easy and doable.But, theyre looking through that, because theyre taking the integration technology levelquestions for granted. Theyre saying, "Given that I can make such an integration work, how is itreally going to work, whats the SLA, what happens if things go wrong, what happens whenthings fail?"Whats really interesting to me is that customers are increasingly sophisticated about exploringthe edge cases, which they have seen happen before and have heard about them before. Theyrecoming to us upfront and saying, "What happens if I have issues when my payroll runs? Who doI go to? How do you manage that? How do you guys work with each other?"Consistent informationWe, therefore, are learning from our customers and were going to our ISV and servicespartners, like our payroll partners, our learning management partners, our background checkingpartners and saying, "Here is the contract that our customers expect. Here is the service that theyexpect." Theyre going to ask us and we want to be able to say that this partner tests against everysingle update and every single revision of the Workday software. They will handle a seamlesssupport process where you call one number and you get a consistent set of information.Customers are really looking through the mere fact of a technical integration existing and askingabout what is my experience going to be and actually using this day-to-day across 50geographies and across population of 20,000 employees. I want that to be easy.It’s a testament to the increasing sophistication of the integration technology that people can takethat for granted. But as I say, it’s having these increasingly interesting and downstream effects in
  • 12. terms of what people are expecting from the business experience of using these integrationsystems in the context of a composite business process that extend beyond just one company.Gardner: Moving towards closing up our conversation, David, you have raised the issue hereabout that one throat to choke, if you will. When you have a massive, complex, integrationlandscape, does it makes sense to focus on the application provider as that point of responsibilityand authority, or does it have to be federated?Have you seen any models emerge, something that we probably couldnt have predicted butneeds to happen on its own, in a real world setting that indicates how that issue of trust andauthority might pan out?Clarke: What we are gradually feeling our way towards here is that for us that’s the centralconcept of this federation of companies,. We think obviously of Workday being in the middle ofthat. It depends on what your perspective is, but you have this federation of companiescollaborating to provide the service ultimately, and the question is, where do they choke?And its not realistic to say that you can always come to Workday, because if we are integratingto a payroll system on behalf of somebody else, and we correctly start off and run the payroll orsend the payroll requests, and then there is an error at the other end, the error is happeningultimately in the other payroll engine. We cant debug that. We cant look at what happened. Wedont necessarily even know what the data is.We need a consistent experience for the customer and how that gets supported and diagnosed.Specifically, what it means for us today is that, as we run any integration in our cloud, there is avery consistent set of diagnostics, reporting, metrics, error handling, error tracking that isgenerated and thats consistent across the many types of integrations that we run.Again, as our partners become more savvy at working with us, and they know more about that,they can then more consistently offer resolution and support to the customers in the context ofthe overall Workday support process.For us, it’s really a way of building this extended and consistent network of support capabilityand of trust. Where customers have consistent experiences, they have consistent expectationsaround how and when they get support.The most frustrating thing is when you are calling one company and theyre telling you to call theother company, and there isn’t any consistency or it’s hard to get to the bottom of that. Werehopeful that enlightened integrations around business processes, between collaboratingcompanies, as I have described, will help me to get some of that.Gardner: It certainly sounds like in the coming years the determining factors of who will be thewinner in cloud integration wont be necessarily the one with the biggest, baddest platform,although thats certainly important, but the one that demonstrates the trust, the SLA response, andmaintenance, and generally who becomes a good partner in a diverse and expanding ecosystem.
  • 13. Clarke: Thats right. The technology is important, but its not enough. People just dont just wanttechnology. They want well-intentioned and an honest collaboration between their vendors tohelp them do the stuff efficiently.Gardner: Very good. Thanks. Youve been listening to a sponsored BriefingsDirect podcast onhow major trends around cloud, mobile, and SaaS are dramatically changing requirements andbenefits of integration. For more information on Workdays integration as a service, go to http://www.workday.com/solutions/technology/integration_cloud.php.I would like to thank our guest. We have been here with David Clarke. He is Director ofIntegration at Workday. Thanks so much, David.Clarke: Thanks, Dana.Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. Thanks again forlistening, and come back next time.Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Sponsor: Workday.Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast of the role of cloud and SaaS in the changing landscapeof application integration. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2011. All rights reserved.You may also be interested in: • Workday Integration Cloud Debut Raises Bar on Integration as Service, Deeply Ingrains Integration as Apps Function • Case Study: How Fairchild Semiconductor Leverages the Workday Integration Cloud • Workday Builds Out SaaS Bellwether for Human Capital Management Services and Cost Controls • Delivering Data Analytics Through Workday SaaS ERP Apps Empower Business Managers at Actual Decision Points