Maxed Out

Because the System i can run at redline speed all day long . . .

February 4, 2008

Lock-In Legacy or Lasting Growth: Today's Defining Moment

Today the System i world is poised in a defining moment: IBM is reorganizing, blades represent a radical new way of deploying i5/OS (Where's the "system"?), and IBM's Rational Application Development Tools division has more power than ever over the direction of -- for good and bad -- System i application development. Plus, there's V6R1, which comes with some seriously great features. There's opportunity here both given and stolen by IBM.

First, IBM can only do so much to foster the success of the System i. Whether the company has done enough is a question we can leave for another day. Market pressures and trends have certainly shaped our landscape, sometimes against the will of System i pros who have been fighting back an ever-creeping desert in the face of sandy winds. Sometimes, though, System i pros have been accidentally culpable in the changes.

I want to share an excerpt from an Industry Report I wrote, "Sharks or Margaritas? Exploring the App-Dev Solution Decision", which appeared in last month's issue of System iNEWS magazine:

The Seven Steps to a Lock-in Legacy

The biggest risk lies in the chance of becoming obsolete due to inaction. Here's how dormancy is shaking out in some organizations:


  1. Line-of-business applications (ERP and homegrown) are run on the System i.
  2. System i managers/programmers fail to upgrade their skills and/or buy third-party tools to develop GUI-based front ends and new, modern-looking applications — portals, BI, B2B, or even just specific applications, rich client or otherwise, for basic business needs.
  3. Upper-management officials see a history of green-screen applications and little else coming out of the System i group.
  4. Upper-management leaders believe that neither the System i nor the "i" development team is capable of operating modern GUI apps well.
  5. Windows-based applications seem inexpensive enough, and the Windows side of the IT group is ready and willing to expand its level of responsibility . . . or a Windows job is contracted out.
  6. At some point, the organization becomes split between the System i group and, for example, the .NET group.
  7. System i professionals support and maintain legacy code while other app-dev professionals build new applications.

In these scenarios, the inaction of programmers and System i managers leads to a legacy lock-in that's hard to break. This is bad for System i enthusiasts, and it's terrible for the System i ecosystem.

The reason I bring this up again is that because i5/OS can now live on an IBM BladeCenter rather than on a System i, this fact may show up in long-time System i-based organizations. When it does, will it be to simply house a workload that will never change or will it be strategic? Will it better enable and empower the System i pro to say, "Hey, we're playing on the same field again with AIX, Linux, and Windows . . . here's what we can do with i5/OS and our applications."

The legendary power of the "integrated system" will likely be subsumed by the BladeCenter model . . . and I wonder how i5/OS and System i-based applications will fare and whether System i pros around the world can seize the day?

Posted by cmaxcer at February 4, 2008 7:17 AM

Comments

Chris,

When I present my session called "How to be an IT survivor", I talk about upgrading skillsets. Are you an RPG programmer, or are you a Developer? If you are the former, you probably are experiencing stagnancy and, as you call it, dormancy. My feedback is that the majority of i5/OS companies are simply that - stagnant and dormant - in regard to using i5/OS.

When I push people to make an effort to call the platform by a common name (the current one being i5/OS), I get some horrific pushback. I think it is human nature to resist change, and while the RPG programmers continue to say "keep your hands off my AS/400", I think we have a gloomy future.

Trevor

Posted by: Trevor at February 4, 2008 11:43 AM

Great article and comments.

Posted by: Paul Lambert at February 4, 2008 11:44 AM

We're on the (very) Small end of the SMB continuum. BladeCenters in which any OS platform configuration can exist are very appealing to us. Theoretically we could migrate all our computing resources (i5/OS, Windows Server 2003, and Red Hat Linux, currently mapped onto about a half-dozen physical servers) into one BladeCenter.

The biggest SMB stumbling block for "buying IBM" is cost. IBM stands for many things, but from a SMB perspective, "It's Big Money" seems apropos. If BladeCenters became seriously competitive pricewise, existing and wannabe SMB i5 shops (most of which are multi-platformed) would be seriously remiss to not consider them.

Posted by: John Davis at February 4, 2008 12:26 PM

Will a consulting firm, who may have recommended a Windows server now recommend a System i blade server?

Will system i blades cause the industry to adopt a one-server, one-application mentality for System i applications? I certainly think this could be a boon to small development houses that could package their System i killer-app in a cost effective wrapper.

Doesn't it also, to some degree, still depend on the adoption of a single (effective and popular) interface to be presented from a System i server? In V6R1 with RDi, does IBM set the stage to finally address the issue of the web/GUI interface? I'm still not clear how that topic has been resolved.

Posted by: Rick at February 4, 2008 12:28 PM

You cant blame the programmers or DP managers for the legacyness of their applications. Obviously, shops could do a lot better and, true, there are loads of software technologies that i5/OS professionals are blissfully unaware of.

But ... it is IBM ( and the trade publications ) which set the tone and more. Look at the enhancements to RPG in V6R1. Local file specs, larger fields, threading support, can use a DS with EXFMT. All very nice. and very legacy.

Missing from V6R1 and the new Power6 systems:
pricing parity with the system p,
an RPG that interops with Java ( or a Java that works with i5/OS ),
OOP constructs in RPG,
much needed ILE improvements ( support for managed code and reflection ),
better integration of SQL procedures in ILE.

Arguably, the investments IBM is making in i5/OS are intended to better enable legacy applications to run as is on the system p.

Posted by: Steve Richter at February 5, 2008 11:01 AM

Rick has a good point about a single (effective and popular) interface for System i server. A user-friendly and appealing Web/GUI interface is important if System i wants to target the SMB. For multi-billion enterprises, the top executives are unlikely to wander into the back offices and see the green screen. These executives are probably not even interested in getting involved in IT investment that cost a few million dollars. However, this is not the case for SMB. A few hundred thousand dollars investment is a great deal and SMB's executives will want to be intimately involved in the whole process. A dummy-unfriendly and perceived to be outdated interface will likely be detrimental to the deal.

Posted by: Keng Siau at February 5, 2008 11:45 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Acceptable Use Policy

Chris Maxcer
Blog Feed

December 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

Blog Policy

We welcome your comments and opinions and encourage lively debate on the issues. However, Penton Media reserves the right to delete or move any content that it may determine, in its sole discretion, violates or may violate its Terms of Use or is otherwise unacceptable. For more information, see Penton Media's Terms of Use.

ProVIP Sponsors