Pondering Platform Pros and Cons

Pondering Platform Pros and ConsThis ChapterUnderstanding the benefits and drawbacks of platform standardizationSolving problems with standardizationComparing open source and closed source standardsSeeing beyond standards to business requirementsStandardizing Your PlatformApproved hardware platformsOperating systemsProgramming environments (languages and development tools)Database management systemsDesktop and server configurationsMobile technology solutionsInformation worker software suitesRecognizing the benefits of standardizationEconomy of scaleAllows organization to take advantage of bulk discounts when purchasing both hardware and software licenses.Ease of integrationAllows applications to be integrated more easily due to the commonality provided through specificationWhatever platform or standards you select, ensure that enough compatible vendor or third-party solutions are available to allow your organization to implement emergent technologies easily.Improved efficiencyUsers and technical staff can obtain greater knowledge and proficiency with a smaller number of solutions, thereby increasing efficiency. Improved efficiency can reduce both training and staffing needs.Recognizing the benefits of standardization (cont.)Greater support optionsSelecting commonly used platforms provides your organization with a greater level of community support, that is valuable when troubleshooting technical or user issues. Support resources include community, vendor and developer Web sites, user forums, and customer support options.Simplification of future controlInitially, a great deal of effort goes into the platform selection process as you research and evaluate various platformsAfter setting a standards, future selections are much easier because only need to evaluate solutions available within the standard platform. Remember to include potential future needs when selecting a standard platform in order to ensure a variety of choices for future purchasesOvercoming challenges in standardizationCostReplacing existing, working systems is often difficult to justify and may also be prohibitively expensive for some organizationsOpposition to changeFor whatever reasons, some people may refuse to accept the new specification, and opposition is more likely to occur when the new specificationdiffers greatly from the platform currently in useReliance on existing technologyApplications may rely on a specific operating system or dbmsBusiness functionality may rely on legacy hardware, such as older fax or video processing cards that only work with specific computing hardware.Automation and equipment control systems may rely on embedded technologyOvercoming challenges in standardization (cont.)Risk of falling behind the change curveChanges in both hardware and software technology come quickly, and new options are always being offered.Educational systems, governmental agencies with complex bureaucracy are vulnerable to this hurdle, due to complex procurement regulationsEven smaller organizations may need to wait until the next fiscal year for funds to become available. The best selection at the time of specification may no longer be the best at the time of purchase.Differing partner standardsWhen partner organizations dont follow the same standards, difficulties in interoperation between the organizations can arise.Difficulties may also occur even if similar platforms are used, but with a different upgrade cycleIntegration of noncompatible platforms has the potential to cause disruptions in service as well as incur significant expense in trying to remedy the problemDiffering scales of needThe scale of need may vary widely within an organization, and a one-size-fits-all platform specification may not be appropriate for the needs of some business units. For example, A small business unit may find that a personal or workgroup database management solution (such as MS Access /MS FoxPro) is most appropriate because its database needs are limited and enterprise-level features are unnecessary. Upgrading this unit into enterprise level relational database management solution (Oracle, MS SQL, Sybase) requires creation of a user interface in addition to migration of the data. Conversely, requires additional administrative overhead in supporting both solutions.Software Choice:Open Source or Closed SourceCommercial open-source (like SUSE Linux) or free open-source software (FOSS)The source code is available for review and modification.Commercial-off-the-Shelf (CotS) softwareThe source code is not provided by the vendor Generally is not easily modified in its most basic functionsClosed SourceOpen SourceCommercial SourceFree SourceSuse LinuxWindows???GarudaDebian LinuxThe upside of open sourceMany FOSS packages have no licensing fees or have low up-front costs.Many useful tools and utilities have been released into the open source community, particularly in the areas of security, server management, and application development.Your organization may want to shift software-related costs from capital expenses to operational expenses, and paying for support as opposed to licenses accomplishes this goal.The downside of open sourceMore difficult to manage an open source platform than a closed source platform.Because multiple developers or groups may work on different parts of an application, the user interface may lack a consistent look and feel.Users of accessibility technologies such as screen readers or Braille displays may not find some FOSS solutions accessible.Global organizations may find that some FOSS software isnt fully compatible with the international character sets in use in their organization.FOSS solutions may suffer sudden and unexpected end of life when a primary developer is lost or the development team moves on to other projects.Developed by many (if not hundreds) of different developers, there may be a great deal of effort and cost required to integrate the products.The downside of open source (cont.)Malicious material injected into community-created code may also play a role in long-term softening of enterprise security.Some organizations, whether by legal, regulatory, or operational mandate, are required to identify all intellectual property in use.Integration and unexpected end-of-life issues may be addressed by modifying the source code in-house and maintaining the result as a custom application. You can even recode and recompile the base operating system if sufficient manpower, time, and technical expertise are available.Even when sharing common labels, the lack of standardization extends throughout the open-source space. More than 700 variants of the Linux operating system exist, and even the more common applications fork into different product lines. The upside of closed sourceCommercial technologies generally follow accessibility guidelines, making them more compatible with assistive devices.In the event of a disaster, recovery and equipment replacement may be easier for large enterprises that can buy computers with well-supported and documented device drivers.The interface for user and administrative applications is more likely to be standardized by product than by customer, which makes it easier to train new hires with previous experience in that technology.Because organizations cant modify the source code to customize commercial software, many commercial software solutions are highly configurable, allowing users to add custom fields, logos, and content from within the applications configuration module.Large commercial software vendors typically try to provide a clear upgrade path for their customers. Easy upgrades encourage organizations to move to the latest versions of software, which allows them to take advantage of new features and increased compatibility with new hardware.Commercial software may have more robust user manuals and easier access to vendor support services.The downside of closed sourceOrganizations may get locked into a particular vendors products and find it so difficult or costly to migrate to another solution that they stay with the original vendor.Customizing commercial software may require more effort or may involve hiring the vendor or the vendors partner to perform the customization. When a closed source product is no longer supported, organizations typically cant continue internal development. Security vulnerabilities may go unpatchedBusiness functionality may be curtailed due to a lack of new software features after a commercial product has reached end of life. Working with Open StandardsThe term open standard has been characterized in various ways by governments and industries around the worldGenerally defined as being approved in some fashion by one or more standards organizations (for example, ISO)Published in sufficient detail to support interoperability and portability, and available to the general publicExamplesHypertext Markup Language (HTML)Portable Network Graphics (PNG)Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)Anyone can use these standards to develop solutions that are interoperable with others of the same typeAllow modern software to be backward-compatible with older versions and allow for competing software to have a common file format that can be sharedLooking Past Specifications to Business NeedsEnterprise architecture isnt solely about platform specificationYou must also consider the requirements for many constraints of an enterprise network and its business environment, including : Business functionalityTechnology integrationSpecific applicationsCommunicationsReporting requirementsSupport requirementsScale and scopeRegulatory and legal mandatesGuidelines to platform selectionPlatform standards must align with strategic business goals.Specifications should be based on user and business requirements.Negative effects on end users should be minimized