ESBs and common industry issues

One of my key tasks this year is to take a look at our Smart SOA Connectivity & Integration marketing from an Industry perspective. Something I have been keen to do for a number of years to ensure that our sales reps can always provide the best and most relevent information to our clients about the solutions we have on offer. To start to do this I have been looking at some of the hundreds of references and case studies of IBM clients using our offerings – specifically for now those references that include WebSphere MQ, WebSphere Message Broker, WebSphere ESB and WebSphere DataPower.

Now you can easily review some of the references – or as they are described on the IBM website – Success Stories – for yourself, but as I have been going through them, industry by industry, some common themes seem to be jumping out.  I have to say that one of the most common motivators for our clients choosing to deploy solutions that include ESB Messaging and Enrichment is the need to be able to quickly add new or change existing offerings to rapidly address new market opportunities.

This makes a lot of sense to me – there seems to be a tremendous amount of evidence that without selecting messaging and ESB solutions for Connectivity, then infrastructure becomes highly complex, slow to change and costly to maintain. None of these results are good for businesses looking to save money, and respond quickly to changes. It follows then that a key reason to implement WebSphere solutions for ESB and Messaging Enrichment will be to address these – and a good business case to justify funding will be a new business opportunity to require these changes.

In many customer engagements in the current economic climate we are seeing it become harder for clients to justify any expense – maybe we should get them to discuss this problem with some of the UK Members of Parliament? 🙂 But on a more serious note, with businesses feeling the pinch they need to have clear justification that the costs associated with acquiring and deploying IBM solutions will deliver the expected return, and thus a demonstration that other similar problems have been soloed – and that IBM has the skills required to assist can be a major assistance to making that business case. It also helps that WebSphere MQ itself has a fairly strong cost justification anyway as opposed to hand-crafted point-to-point interfaces or standard FTP. You can read more about this cost justification and the risks of not using WebSphere MQ at this link.

Next week I hope to write another entry looking at some of the industry content in more detail – but it is friday night now, so that will do for this entry.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: