The podcast discusses how cloud and SaaS are transforming integration and middleware, emphasizing the need to rethink traditional approaches to accommodate new business processes. David Clarke from Workday explains that integration is being designed upfront in applications, allowing non-technical users to facilitate data connections more intuitively. The conversation highlights the evolution of integration technology towards a user-friendly model embedded within applications and the implications for the traditional middleware market.

1. Cloud and SaaS Force a Rethinking of Integration and
Middleware as Services -- of, by, and for Services
Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast of the role of cloud and SaaS in the changing landscape
of 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 you're
listening 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 of
BriefingsDirect podcasts.]
Here to explore the new era of integration-as-a-service and what it means for the future is David
Clarke, 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 the
platforms, applications, and data of the past forced a certain approach to integration, and why is
that 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 couldn't 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 we're starting
to see, and what we are certainly hopeful of seeing in this generation built around cloud, is that
those 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 essentially
easier for it to plug into.
One third variable might be that customers historically also discounted or underestimated the
likely impact or complexity of doing integration. They tended to come to them as an afterthought
and then struggled with them. This time around, to some extent, they've been burned by previous
generations. So, they're more wary, and are additionally including integration more in their
upfront planning.
Gardner: We're not necessarily talking about throwing the baby out with the bath water here.
We're still going to be doing integrations in the traditional way. It's just that we need to add
another category, and it seems that there is a benefit in that. We can use many of the tools, many
of the underlying technologies that supported traditional middleware, and extend that into this
services environment.
Clarke: Correct. There’s nothing fundamentally new, in some sense. I've worked in several
generations of integration and middleware technology, and each one is a refinement of the past,
and you're standing on the shoulders of giants, to badly paraphrase Newton.
Packaged and presented
A lot of the underlying technology you're using for integration, a lot of the underlying concepts,
are not that new. It's just the way that they're being packaged and presented. In some cases, it's
the protocols that we're using, and certainly some of the use models, but the ways you're
accessing 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 we're
addressing has changed. How has it changed? Perhaps this would be an opportunity for you as
well to explain what Workday is, what it does, and how you came to be a part of the Workday
team.
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, they
found a need to integrate them and connect them together. So, they would license middleware
and use that to achieve that.
There have been a couple of generations of middleware technology companies that have helped
customers do this. They shared some of the characteristics around certain generations of
technology.
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 and
application 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 quite
divorced 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,
you're trying to solve essentially any and every problem. To draw on the Eclipse Foundation's
motto: middleware is a general-purpose platform that can do everything or nothing. In many
cases, people ended up spending a lot of money on this general-purpose middleware and
essentially achieving nothing, which was frustrating.
Workday is an applications company. We're an on-demand apps company and we build and serve
human capital management (HCM) and financials enterprise resource planning (ERP) application
suites.
Cape Clear, which was my former company, was acquired by Workday about three years ago. We
were partners, but as Workday’s business expanded significantly, they saw that providing a
compelling and a differentiated integration experience in the context of this new cloud
architecture was going to be something that was very important to them. So, they acquired Cape
Clear 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 difficult
essentially to explain what we did. You couldn't really go to your grandmother and describe
middleware technology, whereas you could at least go and explain financial systems or HCM
systems.
Overarching context
That then flowed all the way down through to how we positioned, thought about, described, and
marketed the technology. It has certainly been my experience that it's a lot easier to describe,
position, plan, and explain integration technology when you have this overarching context of an
application domain.
That's been very instructive and has interesting implications in the future for the nature, or
indeed the existence, of a stand-alone in the middleware market. That might be an interesting
topic we could talk about later.
The other observation is that the consistency of these use cases make our jobs somewhat easier.
What's also been interesting is the nature of the load and the scale profiles that we're seeing.
A lot of middleware applications that we used to see were technically complex to achieve, but
were often relatively low volume or relatively low scale. But, in large-scale companies, when
you're dealing with their core systems of record around financials and HCM, you're looking at
very large data sets, with very significant scalability requirements, and very significant
performance constraints. That has interesting implications for how you think about and
implement your middleware solutions.

4. Gardner: So there seem to be two fundamental things going on here. One, is taking integration
to the on-demand or SaaS domain, but second, there is also this embedding integration
functionality into the application.
People, when they use Workday, whether they are human resources professionals or employees
in these organizations, whether they're partners or suppliers to these enterprises that are using
Workday, they're not thinking about integration. They're thinking about human resources,
benefits, payroll, and insurance.
Tell me how this shift to on-demand, as well as embedding into the application, changes the
requirements. How does someone like yourself who is crafting the middleware integration
capabilities need to shift their thinking in order to go “to the cloud,” but also become part and
parcel of the application?
Clarke: One of the perpetual holy grails of the middleware industry, when it was a stand-alone
undertaking was to find a way to express and expose middleware and integration concepts in a
way that they could be used by mere mortals, by business analysts, by people who weren't
necessarily very deep technologists with deep technology expertise.
In my experience, the middleware industry never achieved that. So, they didn't really ever find a
metaphor or a use model that enabled less skilled, but nonetheless technically savvy people to
use their products.
As you observe in the applications game, you absolutely have to get there, because
fundamentally what you're doing here is you are enabling companies and individuals to solve
business problems and application problems. The integration arises as a necessity of that or as a
consequence of that. In and of itself, it isn't useful.
Designing applications
The most specific thing that we've seen is how we build, manipulate, and use extremely
sophisticated integration technology. We spend a lot of our time thinking about how to design
that into the application, so that it can be experienced and consumed by users of the application
who 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 people
getting data, perhaps from our system, doing something with it, a simple transformation, and
then delivering it or putting it somewhere else, perhaps into our system.
That model of "get, transform, and put" is intuitively straightforward, but historically that has
always been realized in a complicated way in the middleware stack. We've built a very simple
tool inside our application, and it's now the most heavily used integration component in our
system.

5. Business analysts can very easily and visually define what they are getting and putting it in terms
of the business concepts and the business objects they understand. They can define very simple
transformations, for example, going from a payroll input to a check, or going from a report of
absences by departments to a payroll input.
So, they're consuming and using integration technologies in a very natural way in the context of
their day-to-day working in the web layer in these systems. They're not programmers. They're
not developers. They're not thinking about it that way. It's quite empowering for the teams that
we have had working on this technology to see if it's usable in that way by the business analysts
here. It's the closest I've seen people get to capturing this unicorn of enabling integration
technology 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 this
something that mere mortals can adjust and operate, you've also done a lot of heavy lifting on the
connections side. You recognized that in order to be successful with an integration platform, you
had 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 you've done, not only on the usability, but on the
applicability across a growing universe of connection points?
Clarke: That’s another interesting area. As you say, there are thousands or millions of different
types of endpoints out there. This being software, it can map any data format to any other data
format, but that’s a trivial and uninformative statement, because it doesn’t help you get a specific
job done.
Essentially what we've been trying to do is identify categories of target systems and target
processes 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 from
benefit systems for 401(k), healthcare, dental, visual plans and so forth. So, it's an extremely
common use case. But, there is still a wide diversity of benefits providers and a wide variety of
formats that they use.
We've studied the multiple hundreds of those benefits providers that we've experienced by
working with our customers and we've abstracted out the most common format scenarios, data
structures, and so forth, and we have built that into our integration layer.
Configure your dataset
You can very easily and rapidly and without programming configure your specific dataset, so
that it can be mapped into and out of your specific set of benefits providers, without needing to
write any code or build a custom integration.
We've done that domain analysis in a variety of areas, including but not limited to benefits. We've
done it for payroll and for certain kinds of financial categories as well. That's what's enabling us
to 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." It's just not a good experience
for the users.
Gardner: David, you mentioned that Cape Clear was acquired by Workday about three years
ago, and Workday has been growing very rapidly. Have you been surprised by the adoption rate
and pattern around SaaS, and now we're talking about cloud and hybrid cloud? Did this happen
faster 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, we
were doing some sort of product planning and strategic thinking about how we were going to
integrate the product lines and position them going forward. One of the things we had in our
roadmap 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 it's like a long way off. We
think that it's some years off."
For that reason, we articulated and embarked on a path of offering what we were calling an
appliance, which essentially would have been an on-premise component to the integration stack
or of the integration stack that would be deployed at customer sites. We thought the world wasn’t
going 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 just
became clearer and clearer to us that there was an appetite and a willingness in our customer and
prospect base to use this technology in the cloud.
We never really went ahead with that appliance concept, it didn’t get productized. We never used
it. 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 or
challenge, 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-oriented
architecture (SOA) and kept waiting for that to get traction, and were a little bit distressed that it
wasn’t catching on. Then, lo and behold, this concept of SaaS and cloud leapfrogs and catches on
much 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 the
enterprise to work as well and in the same manner as it does for their personal lives. How does
that shift the thinking of an enterprise architect, and then we will revisit how that shift perhaps
relates to integration?
Clarke: Superficially, enterprise architects are under a lot of pressure to, as you say, to present
technologies in ways that are more familiar to customers from their personal lives. The most
specific example of that is the embrace of mobile technologies. This isn't a huge surprise. It's
been a pretty consistent pattern over a number of years that workforce mobility is a major
influencer of products requirements.

7. Mobile devices
We've seen that very significant proportions of access to our system is via mobile devices. That
informs our planning and our system architecture. We're invested heavily in mobile technologies
-- iPad, Android, BlackBerry and other clients. In my experience, that’s something that's new,
with the customer enterprise architects. This is something they have to articulate, defend, and
embrace.
Historically, they would have been more concerned with the core issues of scalability, reliability,
and availability. Now, they've got more time to think about these things, because we as SaaS
vendors 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 and
reliability 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 operate
themselves, 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 pain
that they used to have away from them.
Gardner: I suppose that as implications pan out around these issues, there will be a shift in
economics as well, whereby you would pay separately and perhaps on a capital and then
operating basis for integration.
If integration by folks like Workday becomes part and parcel of the application services, and you
pay for it on an operating basis only, how do traditional business models and economics around
middleware and integration survive? How do you see this transition working, not only for the
functionality and the architecture, but in dollars and cents?
Clarke: I'd certainly hate to be out there trying to sell middleware offerings stand-alone right
now, and clearly there have been visible consolidations in this space. I mentioned BEA earlier as
being the standard bearer of the enterprise Java generation of middleware that’s been acquired by
Oracle.
They are essentially part of the application stack, and I'm sure they still sell and license stand-
alone middleware. Obviously, the Oracle solutions are all on-premise, so they're still doing on-
premise stuff at that level. But, I would imagine that the economics of the BEA offering is folded
very much into the economics of the Oracle application offering.
In the web services generation of middleware and integration, which essentially came after the
enterprise 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 in
play.

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 was
already starting to happen.
Open source pressure
So, even before the advent of the cloud and the clear economic pressure that put on stand-alone
integration, there was already a separate pressure that was originating from open source. Those
two things together have, in my view, made it pretty difficult to sustain or to conceive a
sustainable integration model.
A lot of the investment dollars that have gone into something like integration market are now
going elsewhere in infrastructure. They're going into storage. They're going into availability.
They're going certainly to cloud platforms. It would need to be a brave venture capitalist now
who would write a check to a company coming in with a bright idea for a new on-premise
middleware stack. So that business is gone.
Gardner: We're also seeing some investment around taking open source middleware and
integration capabilities and extending them to the cloud. It's not as difficult for an open source
company, because their monetization has been around maintenance and support, more of an
operating expense. We certainly haven’t seen too much in the way of a general-purpose
integration 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 really
be a service, a cloud service, and perhaps it will evolve to be a community approach. Those
people who need to be connected to one another will either structurally move towards some
standardization or, perhaps in a more ad hoc or organic way, provide the means by which they
could more easily play well together?
Clarke: There are a couple of things that we see happening here. I'll make two main
observations in this area.
First, at the risk of losing half our audience with the jargon, there is an important difference
between a general-purpose platform or integration platform and then a more specific one, which
is centered around a particular application domain. Workday is about the latter.
We're building a very powerful set of cloud technologies, including an integration cloud or an
integration platform in the cloud, but it’s very focused on connecting essentially to and from
Workday, and making that very easy from a variety of places and to a variety of places.
What we're not trying to create is a general-purpose platform, an associated marketplace, in the
way that maybe somebody like Salesforce.com is doing with AppExchange or Google with App
Engine for app development. In a sense, our scope is narrower in that way, and that’s just how

9. we're choosing to prosecute the opportunity, because it’s harder to establish a very horizontal
platform and it’s just difficult to do.
I referred earlier to the problem that middleware companies traditionally have of doing
everything and nothing. When you have a purely horizontal platform that can offer any
integration or any application, it’s difficult to see exactly which ones are going to be the ones that
get it going.
The way we're doing this is therefore more specific. We have a similar set of technologies and so
on, but we're really basing it very much around the use case that we see for Workday. It’s very
grounded in benefits integrations, payroll integrations, financial integrations, payment
integrations. And every one of our deployments has tens, dozens, hundreds of these integrations.
We're constantly building very significant volume, very significant usage, and very significant
experience.
Developing marketplace
I can see that developing into a marketplace in a limited way around some of those key areas
and possibly broadening from there.
That's one of the interesting areas of distinction between the strategies of the platform vendors as
to how expansive their vision is. Obviously expansive visions are interesting and creating
horizontal 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 in
the community. I referred earlier to this idea that we're focusing on these key use cases. What’s
arising from those key use cases is a relatively small set of documents and document formats that
are common to these problem areas.
Lately, I've been reading, or rereading, some of the RosettaNet stuff. RosettaNet has been around
forever. It was originally created in the early '80s. As you know, it was essentially a set of
documents, standard documents, interchange formats for the semiconductor or the technology
manufacturing industry, and it has been very successful, not very prominent or popular, but very
successful.
What we see is something similar to RosettaNet starting to happen in the application domain
where, when you are dealing with payroll providers, there is a certain core set of data that gets
sent around. We have integrated to many dozens of them and we have abstracted that into a core
documentary that reflects the set of information and how it needs to be formatted and how it
needs to be processed.
In fact, we now have a couple of payroll partners who are directly consuming that payroll format
from us. So, in the same way that there are certain HR XML standards for benefits data, we can
see other ones emerging in other areas of the application space.

10. These are very good vectors for cooperation and for collaboration around integrations, and
they're a good locus around which communities can develop standardized document, which is
the basis for integration. That’s intriguing to me, because it all derives from that very specific set
of 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 are
proposing, 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.
It's sort of a derivative of Metcalfe's Law, but at the business process level, which is quite
different than trying to corral an integration community around a specific platform with the intent
of getting more people on that platform and having a long-term flow of license revenue as a
result.
So, if we make this shift to a Metcalfe's law type of "the more participants, the more valuable it
is to all of those participants," shouldn’t we expect a little bit of a different world around
integration in the next few years?
Business process
Clarke: That’s right, because of the distinction you mentioned. We don’t really see or envisage
this very transactional marketplace, where you just have people buying a round of maps or
integrations 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 many
integration points in that business process -- background checking, provisioning of security
cards, and creation of email accounts. There is a whole set of integration points. We're
increasingly looking to enable third parties to easily plug-in into those integration points in a
small way, for provisioning an email account, or in a big way, like managing a whole payroll
process.
It’s that idea of these integrations as being just touch points and jumping-off points from an
overall business process, which is quite a different vision from writing cool, stand-alone apps
that 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 customers
can collaborate very easily, and not just at install time or provisioning time, but also when these
processes 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 rapidly
diagnose and correct these errors when they arise. Then, they have a feeling of being in a
consistent 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 the
context within the same business process. We're 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 a
value chain of some sort to make integration work, so perhaps there is an incentive towards
cooperation in ways that we hadn’t seen before. I am thinking of, at least in the human resources
field, where it’s in my best interest as an insurance company or as a payroll benefits provider to
work 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 let's say for learning management or
something -- if we integrate, or if multiple people integrate to us or from us, then customers
already are starting to expect that those integrations exist. Now they're starting to ask about how
good they are, what's the nature of them, what SLAs can they expect here? The customers are
presuming that an integration, certainly between Workday and some other cloud-based service,
either exists already or is very easy and doable.
But, they're looking through that, because they're taking the integration technology level
questions for granted. They're saying, "Given that I can make such an integration work, how is it
really going to work, what's the SLA, what happens if things go wrong, what happens when
things fail?"
What's really interesting to me is that customers are increasingly sophisticated about exploring
the edge cases, which they have seen happen before and have heard about them before. They're
coming to us upfront and saying, "What happens if I have issues when my payroll runs? Who do
I go to? How do you manage that? How do you guys work with each other?"
Consistent information
We, therefore, are learning from our customers and we're going to our ISV and services
partners, like our payroll partners, our learning management partners, our background checking
partners and saying, "Here is the contract that our customers expect. Here is the service that they
expect." They're going to ask us and we want to be able to say that this partner tests against every
single update and every single revision of the Workday software. They will handle a seamless
support 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 asking
about what is my experience going to be and actually using this day-to-day across 50
geographies 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 take
that 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 integration
systems 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 here
about that one throat to choke, if you will. When you have a massive, complex, integration
landscape, does it makes sense to focus on the application provider as that point of responsibility
and authority, or does it have to be federated?
Have you seen any models emerge, something that we probably couldn't have predicted but
needs to happen on its own, in a real world setting that indicates how that issue of trust and
authority might pan out?
Clarke: What we are gradually feeling our way towards here is that for us that’s the central
concept of this federation of companies,. We think obviously of Workday being in the middle of
that. It depends on what your perspective is, but you have this federation of companies
collaborating to provide the service ultimately, and the question is, where do they choke?
And it's not realistic to say that you can always come to Workday, because if we are integrating
to a payroll system on behalf of somebody else, and we correctly start off and run the payroll or
send the payroll requests, and then there is an error at the other end, the error is happening
ultimately in the other payroll engine. We can't debug that. We can't look at what happened. We
don't 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 a
very consistent set of diagnostics, reporting, metrics, error handling, error tracking that is
generated and that's 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 of
the overall Workday support process.
For us, it’s really a way of building this extended and consistent network of support capability
and of trust. Where customers have consistent experiences, they have consistent expectations
around how and when they get support.
The most frustrating thing is when you are calling one company and they're telling you to call the
other company, and there isn’t any consistency or it’s hard to get to the bottom of that. We're
hopeful that enlightened integrations around business processes, between collaborating
companies, 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 the
winner in cloud integration won't be necessarily the one with the biggest, baddest platform,
although that's certainly important, but the one that demonstrates the trust, the SLA response, and
maintenance, and generally who becomes a good partner in a diverse and expanding ecosystem.

13. Clarke: That's right. The technology is important, but it's not enough. People just don't just want
technology. They want well-intentioned and an honest collaboration between their vendors to
help them do the stuff efficiently.
Gardner: Very good. Thanks. You've been listening to a sponsored BriefingsDirect podcast on
how major trends around cloud, mobile, and SaaS are dramatically changing requirements and
benefits of integration. For more information on Workday's 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 of
Integration at Workday. Thanks so much, David.
Clarke: Thanks, Dana.
Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. Thanks again for
listening, 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 landscape
of 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