only game in town. It reminds me of the Jim Carrey film "Yes man" (by the way, I relate all my work to Jim Carrey films -- please no "Dumb and Dumber "references ;-) where he takes part in a program to change his life by answering "Yes" to any question or opportunity. He learns, it doesn't apply to all situations but just trying to force people to see a different perspective by opening up to a new way of approaching situations.
I relate my work in OSLC and Linked Data work in a similar way. It is not the only solution but thinking this way, apart from some traditional ways of thinking about integrations, helps to find alternative solutions that could end up being more loosely-coupled, scale better and are more resilient to upgrades. Other benefits are that it allows the data to stay where it can be properly protected via access-control and updated as needed.
Often people and companies are so passionate about a technology or solution, they often answer the customer's question before they ever fully hear what the problem is. There are varying degrees of this, of course if your job is to sell a product then that is then it is hard to imagine that you'd recommend an alternative solution. Though I think if you worked with the customer to determine it isn't the right fit or the trade-offs, they would be more willing to continue to attempt to business with you.
There are so many factors on deciding what is the right integration solution for your current integration problem. It would be fantastic if I could clearly define a concise decision tree that fit on a cocktail napkin and handled 90% of the cases...unfortunately, it is not that easy (and a group of integration consultants might hunt me down). I've worked with a number of customers to identify possible solutions to either simple 1-to-1 integration problems to defining a corporate integration architecture/approach and plan.
Here's some factors that I typically consider to drive a recommendation:
- problem statement & user stories, including any other constraints
- # of tools
- anticipated growth or consolidation
- integration technology already available in tools landscape
- ability to develop integrations
- timeframe and ownership
As I come up with more, I will add to the list but I'd be interested to hear what other considerations people have when tackling integration problems. I'd like to elaborate more on each of these points and weight them compared to each other as well.