System iNetwork

I had a PC in my house years before the AS/400 came out. PCs are old technology.

John,

It is NOT the System i that is perceived as "old." It is the AS/400 that people think is out of date.

Telling people about the System i affords us an opportunity to BRAG about how great the platform is, and how far it has come since the good "old" AS/400 days!

Trevor

As it has been used in context, one of the definitions of application modernization is moving from my existing iSeries-centric app to one of the "well-known brand" apps. Some of those run on iSeries, but not all, and "everybody" knows they run on Windows or Unix.
Therefore the perception seems to be that even if it does run on iSeries, that when the vendor has to choose where to spend maintenance or upgrade effort the priority order will be 1)windows, 2)unix, 3)any other supported platforms, 4) iseries - if there's time.
So in many cases it seems like application modernization is just a code phrase for "move this app to windows..."

Executives and techies talk about their troubles to each other. The successes are short periods of euphoria. The AS/400, iSeries, and System i are boring. No troubles... Sits in the back room... feed it a tape daily... Upgrade the OS and run the same Vendor application.... Backwards compatabilities... this stuff is boring. No heroes are created.
Great for ROI for those that take the time to calculate... Will not do everything, though. Will do very much to integrate and simplify the environment.

I am in my third consecutive position where the "AS/400" is perceived as antiquated technology and due for retirement/replacement. I am constantly arguing that the AS/400 is antiquated technology as they replaced it with the iSeries and now System i some time ago.

The problem is that these companies have come to believe that the only UI available with this box is "green screen" and that's the main reason it needs to go and then stop investing in these applications. Unfortunately I've witnessed, on more than one occasion, these tried and true apps being replaced by enterprise apps written in C, VB, or JAVA that are actually slower, more difficult to use, and less stable than what was replaced and ultimately more expensive to maintain. The old rules regarding the replacement of software no longer seem to apply. These being that you need to replace an app when it no longer meets your functional requirements, has performance problems, or resides on outdated technology.

I think the word that needs to be communicated to executive management is that the tools needed to be successful exist on System i technology and that continuous improvement should be the driving force.

My current job is riding the iSeries into the sunset. The decision was made years ago, by the incoming CEO because he wanted a specific software suite. Nevertheless, the enterprise is large enough to use the iSeries in several other jobs. It will never be considered for the following reasons.

1. No one knows what the platform can do. The application suite to be retired was written in RPG III, and didn't get modernized until after the 2003 version. The system operators aren't certified, and don't even know that there is an "iSeries Navigator." The last RPG programmer preferred RPG III and had never used CODE400 or WDSc. I added an e-mail notification to an application, and everyone in the department was amazed.

2. The box costs too much. The VIP program is an "IF" structure. IF you don't have to pay a platform surcharge, because the application was already written for i5/OS, AND IF the application is database intensive so the included DB2 replaces purchasing a database, AND IF there are enough additional applications that can be installed that will result in removing existing hardware or forcasted hardware requirements, AND IF enough applications are ported to the i5, so that the i5 system support uses fewer job positions than the replaced platforms, AND IF all of the above doesn't push the i5 into a higher processor group that eats up any savings, THEN an i5 is cost justified. TCO is not static, and neither is availability. Improvements in both in other platforms has removed a lot of the cost justification in paying extra for an i5.

3. A major portion of the IT world hates the i5. There is an entire generation of IT workers whose education and experience would be discounted were the i5 to grow in any significant manner.

I personally own a i5 520. I love it, but when I went to integrate applications with Lotus Notes I ran into the same cost problems sited above. It was cheaper even with TCO to use another server for Domino, than to upgrade the 520.

John,

I agree with your views completely. "Application Modernization" has become an overused term used by sales people to push their existing solutions or products to customers. So whatever they have in their arsenal: a tool to replace green screen with GUI, or an ESB-like middleware product, or a language migration tool to Java, it's sold as an application modernization solution.

There is a growing suspicion in the minds of CIOs towards solutions coined as "modernization solutions", mainly because these are all pushed solutions.


My feeling is that in order to improve credibility of such solutions and success rate of such projects, the following are necessary:

1. Vendors need to have a better understanding and appreciation of customer needs and must align their existing solutions towards these needs

2. A good roIe model is required to check the cost benefit of each modernization activity to the customers

3. Sharing of lessons learnt and best practices in the form of case studies



Naru

It's interesting that much of what is said about 'modernization' concerns perceptions. The AS/400 is linked with the System i because the same old 'green screen' applications are running, so it's wrongly perceived as the same product. Most System i developers would like to transform all their applications to have a GUI interface - just to get away from the legacy stigma if nothing else.

What's the problem, then? I think it's a failure by IBM to provide a coherent path in that direction. I may be the only one who thinks this, but what would have been wrong with a truly (and not just windows and menu bars) graphical extension to the 5250 protocol? Probably not a full solution, but what something like this would have achieved is to buy time for the natural product replacement programs to evolve at a healthy pace (rather than the panic you often see).

And this would place System i back where the AS/400 used to be (and the System 38 before it perhaps), which is as a platform that was quick and efficient to develop on, and safe and reliable to operate thereafter. Now THAT would be modern!

The beauty of the SOA concept, in my eyes, is not as a "bunch of Web Services" but the idea that we can detach the physical application/DB from the user and the GUI / UI. This way of thinking is great for System i, since it enables us to concentrate back on the core of this environment – reliable, trusted, extremely functional one, and to stop these arguments about feasibility and ease of use.
Use SOA to create any – and I mean ANY - kind of interface you would like in your organization – make it Web based or C/S windows based… re-use your good old trusted logic and data stored safely in your System i machine (s). Sometimes it is as simple as querying for data, presenting a file, or calling on a program. Sometimes you will find the need to generate a Web Service around it.
It enables all of us to go back to the good old fashion design concept of separating data, logic and presentation – only in a modern fashion. It gives us the ability to move quickly ahead while dealing with changes ranging from an introduction of PDA to an introduction of a new application in our environment.

If the 5250 data stream automatically translated to a browser, without HATS, WDSC or JAVA - would System i, iSeries, AS/400 or System/38 (whatever) be old? Or would it be the most modern and easy to use system in the world?
Add SOA, Web services and all the other "standards" and it seems you've got a very very modern box.

How "modern" the System i is is totally irrelevent if it doesn't have a sizeable development community willing and able to keep up with the times. Most of the RPG programmers I've met in 20 years on the platform are hopelessly clinging to RPG III and have no idea how to use the system APIs. Many are hoping they can retire without having to learn anything new. I've moved on to the Linux platform, which has a very lively development community.

I think modernization has more to do with the existing applications. The newer products are themselves modern !!

I feel not enough has been done on System i to be portrayed as one of the modern platforms. Although there are a lot of features (like operation navigator, WDSC, etc.) available, most of the IT community still hates System i.

And the reason is that dedicated effort to make people aware of System i has not been done.

I own 2 System i and I love it. And I say "scope of modernization" will be there only where legacy applications (not platforms) are there. BUT at the same time the platform should also be viewed as a modern platform !!

People continue with legacy applications on modern platforms but modernized applications on (percieved as) legacy platforms is hardly accepted ...

Nitin

Natural 5250 to graphic without extra pay/charge is what System i needs.

We have HATS, which is too expensive for many organizations and works badly.

We have WebFacing, which works better though has many bugs and now since Wdsc7 there's a mandatory payment via WDHT runtime.

IBM is cutting off its own leg by trying to get too much money out of modernization, which is vital to the life of System i. Staying "greenscreen" means slow death. IBM knows this but still it seems to me that it wants every bit money it can get from those loyal customers which have stayed on System i.

Instead of giving cheap tools to ISVs IBM should be able to sell 'cheap-enough' solutions to (new) SMB customers with a modern look and feel.
WDHT w WebFacing and WebQuery with mandatory replacement (new costs to customers) of Query/400 are only 2 examples. And yes, I do understand the need of IBM to fund its own actions but that should be done via growth, not taking more from the existing customer base via mandatory payments, which will only lead those customers to other platforms.

Chimera

Maybe a name change every year or so gives us the opportunity to move the system to a new level as it opens the opportunity to educate the masses that there's a 'new' system out there. As my brother Trevor Perry said "we've moved on from the 'old' AS/400"

Maybe a name change every year or so gives us the opportunity to move the system to a new level as it opens the opportunity to educate the masses that there's a 'new' system out there. As my brother Trevor Perry said "we've moved on from the 'old' AS/400"

The System i marketing approach and focus (though much better in recent past than the earlier history of the platform) is primarily focused on the new customer. As many posters to this article have indicated, the loss of existing customers is formidable.

The System i marketing campaign lacks one very strategic element -- continuously communicating the business value of i5/OS technology to the existing customer base. Without this resounding message the platform will slowly wither and fade from the enterprise as replacement applications are implemented on alternative platforms. The fate of the System i is largely due to the restricted and almost non-existent marketing effort over the history of the system. For example, a CIO and their staff will not consume a System i specific publication (unless the System i is the only or primary computing environment in the enterprise), but instead look to enterprise publications for information. The virtues of the System i are notably absent in those enterprise publications. Direct, personal marketing of the System i by IBM has all but been forsaken. Instead the business partner that in most cases cannot convey the business value of the platform to executive management has taken the task. Value inherent in any system is only valuable if the individuals making the decisions know of that value and how that value yields benefit to the endeavor of the enterprise. Perception is reality.

Another element contributing to the displacement of the System i is a case of guilt by association. Some software vendors in the early days of the platform developed products on small budgets. These products would perform the necessary tasks, but perhaps not with performance, scalability and maintainability in mind. Certainly, this practice is not unique in the software industry to the System i. However, when those products began to flourish in the marketplace, the products were not revamped to better the code and leverage new function. In some cases new product development perpetuated the earlier problems of the product. Altogether, this practice has garnished the System i with the reputation as the source of products conceived through less-than-desirable programming practice. Again, admittedly, this situation is not unique to the System i, but the absence of offsetting propaganda regrettably leaves the negative message to form the perception of the platform.

Often through proof-of-concept and testing, the skeptical technical community can be sold on the wonderment of the System i. Yet even the best of technical talent encounter difficulty when attempting to carry the System i message with credibility. A prophet cannot prophesy in their own country. The end result is CIOs and CTOs will never know the System i is in Gartner's "Magic Quadrant" and other positive facts revealing the value of the System i.

Enterprises invest in known technology posing the least risk with the highest perceived return. The System i is "the best business computer a business can buy," but the platform has a significant mind share deficit to overcome.

From John Ghrist "Is there some point on this feature scale at which we should stop calling it 'modernization' and instead be thinking of it as part of the required baseline for any app?"

Not a required baseline for every app, but it seems that a browser user interface is becoming a required baseline in many contexts. However it also seems that people will stop viewing Webfacing technologies as modern in the near future, and will be looking for a user interface that was designed from the ground up with the browser in mind, rather than being bound to an application that was designed for 5250 clients.

From John C. "So in many cases it seems like application modernization is just a code phrase for 'move this app to windows...'"

That's really sad, and something that a few of us are trying to change.

Avison wrote "Most System i developers would like to transform all their applications to have a GUI interface - just to get away from the legacy stigma if nothing else. What's the problem, then? I think it's a failure by IBM to provide a coherent path in that direction."

Man, I've heard that thought expressed by a lot of people. The answer for me was to create templates of RPG, CSS, HTML, and JavaScript code which can be adapted to a lot of different Web applications.