Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Recent Thoughts on BPM
Late Monday night, a VP at work (Hi John) who is highly technical and doesn't practice Management by Magazine got me fired up on the topic of BPM and I figured I would share my thoughts publicly on this subject...
There is no shortage of vendors who believe they have "solutions" to our problems and constantly blow up my phone. Some would argue that BPM in 2005 is analogous to the CASE tools in the early 90's, object-oriented programming in the late 90's and so on. While they aren't using the term "silver bullet" in their chock-a-block eye candy powerpoint presentations, their sales pitches sure make it feel this way.
The timeless phrase of a fool with a tool is still a fool applies even more to the BPM space than other hype cycles of the past. BPM or any other individual approach cannot nor should be counted on the resolve enterprise level challenges. The problem of course is bigger than management by magazine or hype created by industry analysts and can be summarized into two different problem spaces. The first is lack of real enterprise architecture and the second the lack of cultural change within the corridors of most enterprises.
Let's deal with the second point first. Simply, an enterprise cannot deal with significant problems it faces and hope to solve them at the same level of thinking that was used with the problem was first created. The practice of doing more of the same is fundamental to the problem space of why enterprises never really get aligned.
A well-respected blogger, David Lithicum advises enterprises that the main thing to look at is how enterprise applications can gain the most value from each other. The thinking can then be classified against two primary patterns. The first is information-oriented and the other is service-oriented. Service-oriented can be thought of as a hybrid of behavior and information whereas information-oriented deals with simple information.
In both cases, you need to look at transformation, routing and flow control to account for the differences in application semantics. At the same time, you have to understand how behavior is known and exposed outside the applications and how information is bound to that behavior. You should also look at security to make sure you're extending and mediating the different security models of these systems.
BPM doesn't really help capture semantics, bridging of security models or other hard problems and in many cases simply becomes a mechanism for chaining together sub-optimally designed services. BPM definetely doesn't help one deal with cultural change which is required in order to not reinvent the problems of the past.
IT executives have been assigned with conceiving ideas that will drive an enterprises towards increased profitability, reduced cost and industry leadership. The pressure on executives to deliver innovation (will blog on this topic next week) is increasing. Many IT executives simply aren't capable of real innovation which leads to a plethora of half-baked hairbrained ideas. Of course, enterprise culture discourages folks from questioning this fact...
This week, I blogged on the notion of enterprise architecture and courage and now have realized that there is a better term that should be used. Going forward I will refer to it as intelligent disobedience.
This is where the concept of intelligent disobedience comes into play. Intelligent disobedience is a trait clearly illustrated by guide dogs for the blind: At an intersection, based on traffic sounds and a general sense of safety, the blind person initiates the move to cross the street, giving a signal to the dog. If traffic is blocking the crosswalk, however, the guide dog will disobey the move-forward command. In guide-dog training lingo, intelligent disobedience is the dog's response when it senses that the path ahead is dangerous. It disobeys even though the owner wants to proceed.
I was reading the blog of Phil Gilbert who is CTO of Lombardi Software and his recommendation of a Chief Process Officer and wonder why he is encouraging yet another ivory tower role be created within the enterprise. Curious if he doesn't think that this is already covered by folks who practice real enterprise architecture? If I were a vendor though, I too would encourage creation of such a role as it makes it a lot easier for me to identify whom to sell to...
The one blogger that I think is onto something is Bruce Silver who has observed the important distiction between workflow architecture and service oriented orchestration architecture (SOOA - Gartner, make this a new hype acronym). I love the following phrase:
Maybe folks in these enterprises that have drank the BPM kool-aid will be well served by reading Craig Schiff's blog on Smart Companies, foolish choices? And while they are reading blogs, they would be equally well-served to understand how Vendor Frameworks exploit gaps in BPEL. Maybe we could ask the folks at Gartner and/or the Burton Group to produce a report on exactly how vendors do this in painful detail?
Speaking of analysts, I haven't figured out why Fuego isn't showing up more in quadrants. Are they not paying analysts enough money? There is a lot of hype in the marketplace surrounding the combination of BPM and Six Sigma. What comes to mind for me is yet another opportunity for insultancies to come in and recommend useless strategy along with the analysts further oversimplifying the problem causing more enterprises to get it wrong, only that they don't know it yet.
It seems to me that Fuego is onto something that others haven't jumped on. Recently, in eWeek they talked about usage of Neural Nets in their BPM product. A neural network works through a decision activity capability that lets users define a set of variables that can be analyzed for process improvement. Feels like this is a better approach that Six Sigma. Wonder if this can be modeled in BPEL? The notion of cognitive modeling is powerful and should be studied by enterprise architects everywhere.
This blog entry is getting kinda long so I figured I will wrap it up with one last rant. Vendors absolutely, positively do not call me and tell me about your interoperability tests and how portable BPEL is as I really don't care. It would be more interesting for us to understand what BPEL doesn't do so that I can understand when and how I will be locked into your tool. After all, I don't want to be a fool...
| | View blog reactionsThere is no shortage of vendors who believe they have "solutions" to our problems and constantly blow up my phone. Some would argue that BPM in 2005 is analogous to the CASE tools in the early 90's, object-oriented programming in the late 90's and so on. While they aren't using the term "silver bullet" in their chock-a-block eye candy powerpoint presentations, their sales pitches sure make it feel this way.
The timeless phrase of a fool with a tool is still a fool applies even more to the BPM space than other hype cycles of the past. BPM or any other individual approach cannot nor should be counted on the resolve enterprise level challenges. The problem of course is bigger than management by magazine or hype created by industry analysts and can be summarized into two different problem spaces. The first is lack of real enterprise architecture and the second the lack of cultural change within the corridors of most enterprises.
Let's deal with the second point first. Simply, an enterprise cannot deal with significant problems it faces and hope to solve them at the same level of thinking that was used with the problem was first created. The practice of doing more of the same is fundamental to the problem space of why enterprises never really get aligned.
A well-respected blogger, David Lithicum advises enterprises that the main thing to look at is how enterprise applications can gain the most value from each other. The thinking can then be classified against two primary patterns. The first is information-oriented and the other is service-oriented. Service-oriented can be thought of as a hybrid of behavior and information whereas information-oriented deals with simple information.
In both cases, you need to look at transformation, routing and flow control to account for the differences in application semantics. At the same time, you have to understand how behavior is known and exposed outside the applications and how information is bound to that behavior. You should also look at security to make sure you're extending and mediating the different security models of these systems.
BPM doesn't really help capture semantics, bridging of security models or other hard problems and in many cases simply becomes a mechanism for chaining together sub-optimally designed services. BPM definetely doesn't help one deal with cultural change which is required in order to not reinvent the problems of the past.
IT executives have been assigned with conceiving ideas that will drive an enterprises towards increased profitability, reduced cost and industry leadership. The pressure on executives to deliver innovation (will blog on this topic next week) is increasing. Many IT executives simply aren't capable of real innovation which leads to a plethora of half-baked hairbrained ideas. Of course, enterprise culture discourages folks from questioning this fact...
This week, I blogged on the notion of enterprise architecture and courage and now have realized that there is a better term that should be used. Going forward I will refer to it as intelligent disobedience.
This is where the concept of intelligent disobedience comes into play. Intelligent disobedience is a trait clearly illustrated by guide dogs for the blind: At an intersection, based on traffic sounds and a general sense of safety, the blind person initiates the move to cross the street, giving a signal to the dog. If traffic is blocking the crosswalk, however, the guide dog will disobey the move-forward command. In guide-dog training lingo, intelligent disobedience is the dog's response when it senses that the path ahead is dangerous. It disobeys even though the owner wants to proceed.
I was reading the blog of Phil Gilbert who is CTO of Lombardi Software and his recommendation of a Chief Process Officer and wonder why he is encouraging yet another ivory tower role be created within the enterprise. Curious if he doesn't think that this is already covered by folks who practice real enterprise architecture? If I were a vendor though, I too would encourage creation of such a role as it makes it a lot easier for me to identify whom to sell to...
The one blogger that I think is onto something is Bruce Silver who has observed the important distiction between workflow architecture and service oriented orchestration architecture (SOOA - Gartner, make this a new hype acronym). I love the following phrase:
If you went to a workflow conference or trade show, any vendor could show you how to build a workflow in 30 minutes using no programming, just graphical drag-and-drop design. So once you bought the technology, why did it take six to twelve months to design and deploy real-world workflows?
Maybe folks in these enterprises that have drank the BPM kool-aid will be well served by reading Craig Schiff's blog on Smart Companies, foolish choices? And while they are reading blogs, they would be equally well-served to understand how Vendor Frameworks exploit gaps in BPEL. Maybe we could ask the folks at Gartner and/or the Burton Group to produce a report on exactly how vendors do this in painful detail?
Speaking of analysts, I haven't figured out why Fuego isn't showing up more in quadrants. Are they not paying analysts enough money? There is a lot of hype in the marketplace surrounding the combination of BPM and Six Sigma. What comes to mind for me is yet another opportunity for insultancies to come in and recommend useless strategy along with the analysts further oversimplifying the problem causing more enterprises to get it wrong, only that they don't know it yet.
It seems to me that Fuego is onto something that others haven't jumped on. Recently, in eWeek they talked about usage of Neural Nets in their BPM product. A neural network works through a decision activity capability that lets users define a set of variables that can be analyzed for process improvement. Feels like this is a better approach that Six Sigma. Wonder if this can be modeled in BPEL? The notion of cognitive modeling is powerful and should be studied by enterprise architects everywhere.
This blog entry is getting kinda long so I figured I will wrap it up with one last rant. Vendors absolutely, positively do not call me and tell me about your interoperability tests and how portable BPEL is as I really don't care. It would be more interesting for us to understand what BPEL doesn't do so that I can understand when and how I will be locked into your tool. After all, I don't want to be a fool...
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Enterprise Architecture and Fear
In a previous blog entry, I discussed the neccessary ingredient to enterprise architecture being courage. Lack of courage causes fear which is today's topic...
Professor Deming, in his Fourteen Points for Management and Theory of Profound Knowledge noted the importance of driving fear out of the enterprise. Savagely eliminating fear out of the enterprise is so crucial to the functional (as opposed to dysfunctional, non-functional, status quo, SNAFU, etc) effectiveness of the daily lives of its citizens.
When fear is eliminated quality has the potential of increasing ten-fold. David Anderson in his blog has a great entry on Quality as a Competitive Weapon. Sometimes EAs participate in creation of their own fear by allowing non-believing individuals to share the famous sobriquet of the state of Missouri: "Show Me". Maybe part of the fear is actually encouraged by the folks over in human resources who allow this type of behavior to become pervasive.
Other EA's create fear by staying exclusively focused on meeting service-level agreements which misses the whole point. In the past I have stated that Government Enterprise Architecture is a big fat joke! but do believe that there are some things the corporate sector can learn from Uncle Sam.
In 1996, the Clinger-Cohen Act mandated enterprise architecture for all government entities. Fear was driven out of the government in terms of EA by an act of congress. This particular act demanded a systematic process and ensuing output occur to ensure consistent IT investments for the government. Maybe EAs should be using their own form of congress (it's called executive row) to use the same tactic.
The hurdle for organizations seeking to engage in EA is contentment with the status quo. Sponsorship and commitment to EA begins with, at , the CIO. Complacent cultures with few performance standards and the absence of visible crises, in the perception of those who lead the organization, are the death knell to any change in IT practices.
Now for some brutal honesty. I too am guilty of encouraging fear. In thinking about my own behavior, fear is sometimes created by me using tactics based on what other enterprises are doing which is simply wrong. Real world enterprise architecture must be based on the needs of the enterprise; not on "everyone else is doing it"...
| | View blog reactionsProfessor Deming, in his Fourteen Points for Management and Theory of Profound Knowledge noted the importance of driving fear out of the enterprise. Savagely eliminating fear out of the enterprise is so crucial to the functional (as opposed to dysfunctional, non-functional, status quo, SNAFU, etc) effectiveness of the daily lives of its citizens.
When fear is eliminated quality has the potential of increasing ten-fold. David Anderson in his blog has a great entry on Quality as a Competitive Weapon. Sometimes EAs participate in creation of their own fear by allowing non-believing individuals to share the famous sobriquet of the state of Missouri: "Show Me". Maybe part of the fear is actually encouraged by the folks over in human resources who allow this type of behavior to become pervasive.
Other EA's create fear by staying exclusively focused on meeting service-level agreements which misses the whole point. In the past I have stated that Government Enterprise Architecture is a big fat joke! but do believe that there are some things the corporate sector can learn from Uncle Sam.
In 1996, the Clinger-Cohen Act mandated enterprise architecture for all government entities. Fear was driven out of the government in terms of EA by an act of congress. This particular act demanded a systematic process and ensuing output occur to ensure consistent IT investments for the government. Maybe EAs should be using their own form of congress (it's called executive row) to use the same tactic.
The hurdle for organizations seeking to engage in EA is contentment with the status quo. Sponsorship and commitment to EA begins with, at , the CIO. Complacent cultures with few performance standards and the absence of visible crises, in the perception of those who lead the organization, are the death knell to any change in IT practices.
Now for some brutal honesty. I too am guilty of encouraging fear. In thinking about my own behavior, fear is sometimes created by me using tactics based on what other enterprises are doing which is simply wrong. Real world enterprise architecture must be based on the needs of the enterprise; not on "everyone else is doing it"...
Monday, November 28, 2005
Enterprise Architecture and Courage
Throughout many of my blogs, I have used the phrase strong technical leadership assuming that many folks understood my intent. Figured it was time to break down this phrase into the attributes and characteristics it represents...
Whenever I refer to the phrase strong technical leadership in context of enterprise architecture, I hope to make a point that EA cannot be done simply by managing your way through a process. The folks who have attempted to manage their way through processes and have failed all have very similar backgrounds. Usually the common criteria for failure is in choosing someone from the management ranks who has barely ever written a line of code in their life.
In the same way, that a 18 year old private goes into battle with a Sargeant who has done it before, enterprise architecture requires leadership not just management. Imagine if your town hired a police chief that was a good administrator but didn't know how to arrest a criminal or fire a gun? Do you really think the recommendations made by this chief no matter how sound they are will be followed?
While I advocate that every enterprise architect do their part to encourage strong technical leadership amongst their ranks, I think it all really boils down to one word: courage. One could do Zachman frameworks and other forms of comprehensive documentation all day but in order to do real enterprise architecture, it requires practice and hard work. Courage is required of individuals as failure is almost guaranteed, especially early on.
Hopefully though, you will apply principles of the Agile Manifesto to your enterprise architecture efforts which your failures will be limited in scope to a couple of weeks, at which time you can reevaluate the situation and adjust accordingly.
Successful EA requires lots of iterations. Some of these iterations are for learning and adjusting while other iterations bring stability. One gets good at EA by practicing EA. Enterprise Architecture requires interfacing not to just each other (aka ivory tower building) but talking with business folk, the myriad of project teams, insultancies, human resources and even other enterprises.
Strong technical leadership requires the confidence to step up and be savage in the desire to enact positive change in the face of tradition. This is the ultimate in risk management (one's own career) but when done well it can be hugely rewarding and incredibly valuable to the enterprise and the individual.
Hopefully, next week I intend to blog on incorporating information protection into enterprise architecture practices. In other words, enterprise architecture requires courage...
| | View blog reactionsWhenever I refer to the phrase strong technical leadership in context of enterprise architecture, I hope to make a point that EA cannot be done simply by managing your way through a process. The folks who have attempted to manage their way through processes and have failed all have very similar backgrounds. Usually the common criteria for failure is in choosing someone from the management ranks who has barely ever written a line of code in their life.
In the same way, that a 18 year old private goes into battle with a Sargeant who has done it before, enterprise architecture requires leadership not just management. Imagine if your town hired a police chief that was a good administrator but didn't know how to arrest a criminal or fire a gun? Do you really think the recommendations made by this chief no matter how sound they are will be followed?
While I advocate that every enterprise architect do their part to encourage strong technical leadership amongst their ranks, I think it all really boils down to one word: courage. One could do Zachman frameworks and other forms of comprehensive documentation all day but in order to do real enterprise architecture, it requires practice and hard work. Courage is required of individuals as failure is almost guaranteed, especially early on.
Hopefully though, you will apply principles of the Agile Manifesto to your enterprise architecture efforts which your failures will be limited in scope to a couple of weeks, at which time you can reevaluate the situation and adjust accordingly.
Successful EA requires lots of iterations. Some of these iterations are for learning and adjusting while other iterations bring stability. One gets good at EA by practicing EA. Enterprise Architecture requires interfacing not to just each other (aka ivory tower building) but talking with business folk, the myriad of project teams, insultancies, human resources and even other enterprises.
Strong technical leadership requires the confidence to step up and be savage in the desire to enact positive change in the face of tradition. This is the ultimate in risk management (one's own career) but when done well it can be hugely rewarding and incredibly valuable to the enterprise and the individual.
Hopefully, next week I intend to blog on incorporating information protection into enterprise architecture practices. In other words, enterprise architecture requires courage...
Enterprise Architecture and the Venture Capital Community
Awhile back I wrote a post on why enterprise architects should talk with the VC community. Figured it was long overdue to post an update...
Some VC's such as Dan Gordon and Ed Sim got it while others totally missed the point. Even some folks overseas appreciated the ideas I am attempting to represent.
Anyway, there are two new thoughts that I would love to share today regarding Enterprise Architect's in Fortune 100 enterprises and the Venture Capital community. First, being that the discipline of enterprise architecture requires ensuring that money spent on technology is properly targeted. Many Fortune 100 enterprises have their own VC arms which are usually targeted at investments within their own industry vertical. In my travels I haven't ran across any EAs that even seem to talk to their own internal VCs.
In additional to EA's not talking to their own internal VC's, the internal VC's don't ever seem to talk with external VC's. I wonder if the folks from Mayfield, Valhalla, Kleiner Perkers, and others have called up the VC arm of my own company? Maybe we should get a dialog going around not just using EA's for one's research but to also figure out how to break down historical VC borders.
I would think that external VC's need the corporate VC's badly. Well, maybe not yet, but they will. My hypothesis states that with opportunities for investing in operating systems, J2EE application Servers, Rules Engines, CRM, and ECM being pretty much commotitized, the only thing left to pursue that can make any real money will be chasing industry vertical solutions. Wise VCs understand this and are jumping at the opportunity to get in the heads of Enterprise Architects so they can get ahead of their peers who are still doing status quo investing.
For the VC community, imagine the possibility of being the first firm to invest in open source software targeted at the financial services vertical and having an IPO that would rival salesforce.com or Siebel? The only possibility of being successful once this day comes is to start talking with us enterprise architects...
| | View blog reactionsSome VC's such as Dan Gordon and Ed Sim got it while others totally missed the point. Even some folks overseas appreciated the ideas I am attempting to represent.
Anyway, there are two new thoughts that I would love to share today regarding Enterprise Architect's in Fortune 100 enterprises and the Venture Capital community. First, being that the discipline of enterprise architecture requires ensuring that money spent on technology is properly targeted. Many Fortune 100 enterprises have their own VC arms which are usually targeted at investments within their own industry vertical. In my travels I haven't ran across any EAs that even seem to talk to their own internal VCs.
In additional to EA's not talking to their own internal VC's, the internal VC's don't ever seem to talk with external VC's. I wonder if the folks from Mayfield, Valhalla, Kleiner Perkers, and others have called up the VC arm of my own company? Maybe we should get a dialog going around not just using EA's for one's research but to also figure out how to break down historical VC borders.
I would think that external VC's need the corporate VC's badly. Well, maybe not yet, but they will. My hypothesis states that with opportunities for investing in operating systems, J2EE application Servers, Rules Engines, CRM, and ECM being pretty much commotitized, the only thing left to pursue that can make any real money will be chasing industry vertical solutions. Wise VCs understand this and are jumping at the opportunity to get in the heads of Enterprise Architects so they can get ahead of their peers who are still doing status quo investing.
For the VC community, imagine the possibility of being the first firm to invest in open source software targeted at the financial services vertical and having an IPO that would rival salesforce.com or Siebel? The only possibility of being successful once this day comes is to start talking with us enterprise architects...
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Bloomfield High School Class Reunion
Yesterday, I attended my high school class reunion. It has been a long twenty years. Oh boy do I feel like an old man...
There were approximately 230 folks that graduated in 1985. Our class president Jackie hasn't aged a day. She was able to track down the addresses of about 140 people of which 50 attended. With folks getting married, moving all over the country and so on, she did a wonderful job of tracking down folks.
It has been a long time since I have seen many of my classmates which made me realize that I need to do a better job of keeping in touch. Our particular class was unique in that we were not just an integrated school in terms of statistics but also in terms of personal interaction. I am the person I have become because I have been touched by so many people of different beliefs, economic backgrounds, races and religion.
Some people still look the same while others have dramatically changed. As for me, I think I am on the radically different side of the coin. The one thing that I noticed is that we had lots of babes in our class and pretty much all of them got better with age. Still trying to figure out what was I thinking about in high school?
The one thing that does hit hard is to know that we lost a classmate. I guess there is some relief in knowing that it is only one but as we get older the count will increase.
It was good to see that we had a mix of professions from our class including several IT folks, several doctors, a couple of lawyers, machinists and other noble occupations.
Anyway, the one way that I will do better in keeping up with fellow classmates is by building our website so those who weren't able to attend can at least see photos of all of us. Hopefully, I will also get a list of all the classmates and attach them to this website so that on the remote chance they ever google for their own names, they may be brought to the site. I hope to have the site fully functional by Thursday.
To my classmates, I wish you success in all your undertakings...
| | View blog reactionsThere were approximately 230 folks that graduated in 1985. Our class president Jackie hasn't aged a day. She was able to track down the addresses of about 140 people of which 50 attended. With folks getting married, moving all over the country and so on, she did a wonderful job of tracking down folks.
It has been a long time since I have seen many of my classmates which made me realize that I need to do a better job of keeping in touch. Our particular class was unique in that we were not just an integrated school in terms of statistics but also in terms of personal interaction. I am the person I have become because I have been touched by so many people of different beliefs, economic backgrounds, races and religion.
Some people still look the same while others have dramatically changed. As for me, I think I am on the radically different side of the coin. The one thing that I noticed is that we had lots of babes in our class and pretty much all of them got better with age. Still trying to figure out what was I thinking about in high school?
The one thing that does hit hard is to know that we lost a classmate. I guess there is some relief in knowing that it is only one but as we get older the count will increase.
It was good to see that we had a mix of professions from our class including several IT folks, several doctors, a couple of lawyers, machinists and other noble occupations.
Anyway, the one way that I will do better in keeping up with fellow classmates is by building our website so those who weren't able to attend can at least see photos of all of us. Hopefully, I will also get a list of all the classmates and attach them to this website so that on the remote chance they ever google for their own names, they may be brought to the site. I hope to have the site fully functional by Thursday.
To my classmates, I wish you success in all your undertakings...
EA and the United Nations $100 PC
The United Nations and the MIT Media Lab have announced a new research initiative to develop a $100 laptop. I wonder if industry analysts will do their part to make this successful?
The first thing that industry analysts and folks like Jon Udell of Infoworld can do is to start talking positively about this initiative. Some folks in the media of course will see yet another attempt to bash Microsoft which misses the point. These folk who practice bashing should be taken out and shot.
Some will be of the belief that creating hundreds of millions of laptops running Linux may be the death of Microsoft. After all, the question is begged as to how can any vendor make a profit on a $100 PC with an operating system such as Windows that costs more than the PC itself.
Steve Ballmer is a smart individual and has publicly stated the need for a $100 PC before the hype cycle on this topic even started. Check out this article.
As you are aware from reading my various blog entries that I am a big fan of open source and free software but not of GNU Linux for which this laptop will run. I predict that spammers, malware writers, etc will come out of the woodwork developing nasty programs for this devices that turn them into BotNets or other sinister acts.
This in turn, will actually create an opportunity for Microsoft, as folks will migrate to a more secure platform. If the platforms do not come with firewalls, anti-virus protection, etc, then it will more than likely fail.
Likewise, I am of the belief that Linux is not a done deal for this platform. Imagine if Microsoft decided to make a charitable gift of the Windows operating system with anti-virus software to the United Nations for this purpose, they could serve to make a ton of money. They wouldn't need to make money off Windows but could make money by considering it a charitable contribution at tax time and claiming full list price for their software. Microsoft could not only not pay taxes by being charitable, they could be inline to further increase their profit margins.
This is making me think that I should go out and buy more Microsoft stock. Oops, I am off topic, so lets get back to the media and industry analysts. The first thing that I would love for them to consider is in getting corporate America to participate in this undertaking. After all, if you have generations of folks growing up on Information Technology, your IT costs can drop considerably.
For American's, we should also support this initiative as it will prevent more jobs from going to India. Contribution from corporate America for this undertaking shouldn't be simply in the form of cash, but should also include sabbaticals for enterprise architects such that they can travel to distant lands to show these folks how to make them work. Maybe I could teach schoolchildren in Brazil how to use them during Carnaval?
Likewise, there is a nation of bloggers that would volunteer their efforts to assist in this regard, if we only told how we can help. Maybe the folks over at MIT could drop a note to Jon Udell of Infoworld who will not only blog about the need but also ensure it gets a couple of pages dedicated to it in an upcoming issue?
In all seriousness, I would gladly volunteer my own time and services to assist those in Trinidad (my adopted country) to learn how to use computers. Maybe Bill and Linda Gates would consider adopting Biche Trinidad as the first pilot location that's international?
| | View blog reactionsThe first thing that industry analysts and folks like Jon Udell of Infoworld can do is to start talking positively about this initiative. Some folks in the media of course will see yet another attempt to bash Microsoft which misses the point. These folk who practice bashing should be taken out and shot.
Some will be of the belief that creating hundreds of millions of laptops running Linux may be the death of Microsoft. After all, the question is begged as to how can any vendor make a profit on a $100 PC with an operating system such as Windows that costs more than the PC itself.
Steve Ballmer is a smart individual and has publicly stated the need for a $100 PC before the hype cycle on this topic even started. Check out this article.
As you are aware from reading my various blog entries that I am a big fan of open source and free software but not of GNU Linux for which this laptop will run. I predict that spammers, malware writers, etc will come out of the woodwork developing nasty programs for this devices that turn them into BotNets or other sinister acts.
This in turn, will actually create an opportunity for Microsoft, as folks will migrate to a more secure platform. If the platforms do not come with firewalls, anti-virus protection, etc, then it will more than likely fail.
Likewise, I am of the belief that Linux is not a done deal for this platform. Imagine if Microsoft decided to make a charitable gift of the Windows operating system with anti-virus software to the United Nations for this purpose, they could serve to make a ton of money. They wouldn't need to make money off Windows but could make money by considering it a charitable contribution at tax time and claiming full list price for their software. Microsoft could not only not pay taxes by being charitable, they could be inline to further increase their profit margins.
This is making me think that I should go out and buy more Microsoft stock. Oops, I am off topic, so lets get back to the media and industry analysts. The first thing that I would love for them to consider is in getting corporate America to participate in this undertaking. After all, if you have generations of folks growing up on Information Technology, your IT costs can drop considerably.
For American's, we should also support this initiative as it will prevent more jobs from going to India. Contribution from corporate America for this undertaking shouldn't be simply in the form of cash, but should also include sabbaticals for enterprise architects such that they can travel to distant lands to show these folks how to make them work. Maybe I could teach schoolchildren in Brazil how to use them during Carnaval?
Likewise, there is a nation of bloggers that would volunteer their efforts to assist in this regard, if we only told how we can help. Maybe the folks over at MIT could drop a note to Jon Udell of Infoworld who will not only blog about the need but also ensure it gets a couple of pages dedicated to it in an upcoming issue?
In all seriousness, I would gladly volunteer my own time and services to assist those in Trinidad (my adopted country) to learn how to use computers. Maybe Bill and Linda Gates would consider adopting Biche Trinidad as the first pilot location that's international?
Saturday, November 26, 2005
IT Industry Analysis Myths
| | View blog reactions
Enterprise Architecture and Anti-metaphors
David Snowden came up with several anti-metaphors that highly applicable to enterprise architecture. In my travels, I have found that good ole American's understand analogies pretty well but that they don't translate well to folks from India and China. Maybe there is something to learn...
Anyway, David's anti-metaphor was all about why humans are not like ants (NOTE: my own thoughts on are italics next to the metaphor):
Before I get into RUP trashing, I should at least point you to a couple of blogs that provide support for my perspective...
| | View blog reactionsAnyway, David's anti-metaphor was all about why humans are not like ants (NOTE: my own thoughts on are italics next to the metaphor):
- We never make rational decisions unless we're autistic.
How many IT systems are based on rational thought and design? I beg to differ that many so-called designs used tools such as Irrational Rose and may have even used a variant of RUP. I was always curious if Grady Booch were to walk the hallways of enterprises who practice RUP, would he even recognize it? Maybe RUP is like FUBAR. Maybe that's why so few systems that IT folk develop actually work and come in under budget. - We have multiple identities and roles.
Maybe this is the reason that most SoX efforts employ large insultancies to provide guidance on IAM - We impute intentionality where none exists.
Sometimes a pile of X is just a pile of X. - We evolve to become malicious gossips.
Which stories spread quickest? Successes or failures? Before you answer this, acknowledge that there is a difference between what Infoworld and Industry Analysts spread and what is spread in the hallways of corporate America - We have free will.
Of course we would love to belief that we are in charge of our own destiny. God is at the foundation of all success but to screw up royally. Our alignment efforts are not analogous to getting your ducks in a row...
Before I get into RUP trashing, I should at least point you to a couple of blogs that provide support for my perspective...
- Ready, set, Scrum!
- The Notion of Architecture
- Unit testing is a waste of time?
- On IBM open sourcing RUP
- Designing software architectures
- How to Produce Good Software
- Life-cycle developments fail security
- Declarative vs procedural language
- Secrets of Agile Teamwork
- How to fail with RUP
- Enterprise Banger and Mash Ups
- Browser Based Applications in the Enterprise
Anyway, RUP isn't all that bad. After all, RUP has now been donated to open source...
Friday, November 25, 2005
Agile Software Development for Fortune 100 Enterprises
Several months ago, I went on a quest to identify individuals who are currently employed in a full-time capacity (read, no insultants) that have hands-on experience with agile development. Sadly, my quest resulted in failure. Of course it was easy to find agilists in large shops such as IBM, Motorola, Yahoo and other technology oriented places but couldn't identify much in the way of corporations whose primary business wasn't in technology.
CIO magazine recently did a feature on Capital One. Finally, the notion of being agile is starting to make it into the mainstream. I was previously of the belief that my peers were the only ones in a large corporation doing it. Glad to see that we are not alone in this world. Only if we could start getting those industry analyst types to start talking about agile methods, corporations could start addressing their real problems with aligning IT with the business and stop sending our jobs offshore.
Over the past several months and wise architect and Marine with the same initials as mines assembled a team to explore our own beliefs on being agile. Of course these types of discussions need to be tempered with political correctness and certain things simply can't be said, at least publicly.
Since the CIO magazine article has been released, pretty much every other CIO who practices Management by Magazine will start taking interest. Figured this is an opportunity, not to talk about an overview on agile but things that enterprises need to seriously consider to making agile work.
The iterative nature of agile software development requires strong project management and even stronger technical leadership. Many enterprises are filled with project managers who have never written a single line of code in their life! There is a possibility that some of these folks can bring other skills to the table that are useful but for the most part, the vast majority of this demographic may need to be moved other roles.
Likewise, enterprise architecture is vital to the long term success of agile methods because one needs to take a wider perspective. Both business folk and technologists nowadays understand the value of building enterprise service oriented architectures. Both of these audiences will appreciate the need to drive specific value through rapid deployments and take advantage of opportunistic moments. The danger though is that the business may develop something so fragmented and limited in scope (albeit adding short term business value) that over time the kinds of confusion you're going to see in the future may not yet be apparent.
It is my personal recommendation that EA's embrace agile software development approaches minimally for the following reasons:
Many EA initiatives tend to limit their thinking on agile software development to just methodology (aka process). Good EA understands that people, process and tools in that order guarantee success. Ignore the order and you will get burnt. Success is in the mix.
In order to have the right mix, you need to first have the right people on the team. A good process will only take you so far. Teams need to include experienced (folks with at least ten years of experience not folks with one years of experience ten times) and highly talented developers, as well as architects who can ensure that a coherent underlying architecture is built.
The most important element is the relationship with business managers. Getting the right balance between tactical objectives and strategic overview is just as important for executive decision-makers as it is for developers.
Here are several blog entries that provide a perspective that you should seriously consider:
| | View blog reactionsCIO magazine recently did a feature on Capital One. Finally, the notion of being agile is starting to make it into the mainstream. I was previously of the belief that my peers were the only ones in a large corporation doing it. Glad to see that we are not alone in this world. Only if we could start getting those industry analyst types to start talking about agile methods, corporations could start addressing their real problems with aligning IT with the business and stop sending our jobs offshore.
Over the past several months and wise architect and Marine with the same initials as mines assembled a team to explore our own beliefs on being agile. Of course these types of discussions need to be tempered with political correctness and certain things simply can't be said, at least publicly.
Since the CIO magazine article has been released, pretty much every other CIO who practices Management by Magazine will start taking interest. Figured this is an opportunity, not to talk about an overview on agile but things that enterprises need to seriously consider to making agile work.
The iterative nature of agile software development requires strong project management and even stronger technical leadership. Many enterprises are filled with project managers who have never written a single line of code in their life! There is a possibility that some of these folks can bring other skills to the table that are useful but for the most part, the vast majority of this demographic may need to be moved other roles.
Likewise, enterprise architecture is vital to the long term success of agile methods because one needs to take a wider perspective. Both business folk and technologists nowadays understand the value of building enterprise service oriented architectures. Both of these audiences will appreciate the need to drive specific value through rapid deployments and take advantage of opportunistic moments. The danger though is that the business may develop something so fragmented and limited in scope (albeit adding short term business value) that over time the kinds of confusion you're going to see in the future may not yet be apparent.
It is my personal recommendation that EA's embrace agile software development approaches minimally for the following reasons:
- Early, frequent delivery of valuable working software
- The opportunity to actually integrate closer with business drivers
- Increased visibility into projects
- Greater ability to adapt to changing requirements
Many EA initiatives tend to limit their thinking on agile software development to just methodology (aka process). Good EA understands that people, process and tools in that order guarantee success. Ignore the order and you will get burnt. Success is in the mix.
In order to have the right mix, you need to first have the right people on the team. A good process will only take you so far. Teams need to include experienced (folks with at least ten years of experience not folks with one years of experience ten times) and highly talented developers, as well as architects who can ensure that a coherent underlying architecture is built.
The most important element is the relationship with business managers. Getting the right balance between tactical objectives and strategic overview is just as important for executive decision-makers as it is for developers.
Here are several blog entries that provide a perspective that you should seriously consider:
- Requirements Gathering : Why Context Matters
- Facilitative Leadership: the alternative to command and control
- Cynicism, Apathy and Agile
- Experience is King
- Hacking and Refactoring
- The Catch Blog
- Carnival of Agilists
- Agile methods and fixed bids
- James Higg's Blog
- Quality without a name
- What Project Management is Not
It is becoming apparent that I haven't updated my blogroll in awhile. Need to get these folks onto it. Anyway, over the next week, I hope to post additional thoughts on agile software development here...
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Thoughts on the WISE 2005 Conference
On Monday, I attended the WISE 2005 conference in New York City where I had the opportunity to serve on a panel with industry thought leaders from Fair Isaac, IBM, Metastorm and MValent. There were several outstanding presentations that I wanted to enlighten you on...
There were several topics that were interesting to me. The one presentation that I wish I had the opportunity to go deeper into was on the subject of text mining. Corporations are starting to get very creative in their usage and desire to understand unstructured data. Using a text mining solution can assist them with this problem space. Would love to receive papers from academia on folks working in this space and will assist in applying a corporate view to their research.
I had the opportunity to sit in one presentation on how services could collaborate with each other. The speaker talked with passion and had some pretty good thinking on SOA. He even created an implementation of his idea. I didn't get the opportunity to ask him whether he would consider porting some of his thinking into what is becoming my new favorite enterprise service bus (ESB): ServiceMix. NOTE: I also like Mule but am torn.
Note to myself, need to make sure that Gartner includes both open source projects into their magic quadrants...
Anyway, back to the panel. Since the conference was filled with folks from academia, I of course couldn't miss out on the opportunity to share my own thinking on things they should be spending time researching. It has always bothered me that academia is so excited about the semantic web yet I cannot find a single enterprise architect in a Fortune enterprise that has even spent one iota of time noodling it. This to me indicates a fundamental disconnect between academia and corporate America.
If I were King of all universities and the computer science programs that they host, I would task researchers to start thinking even deeper on the following subject areas:
| | View blog reactionsThere were several topics that were interesting to me. The one presentation that I wish I had the opportunity to go deeper into was on the subject of text mining. Corporations are starting to get very creative in their usage and desire to understand unstructured data. Using a text mining solution can assist them with this problem space. Would love to receive papers from academia on folks working in this space and will assist in applying a corporate view to their research.
I had the opportunity to sit in one presentation on how services could collaborate with each other. The speaker talked with passion and had some pretty good thinking on SOA. He even created an implementation of his idea. I didn't get the opportunity to ask him whether he would consider porting some of his thinking into what is becoming my new favorite enterprise service bus (ESB): ServiceMix. NOTE: I also like Mule but am torn.
Anyway, back to the panel. Since the conference was filled with folks from academia, I of course couldn't miss out on the opportunity to share my own thinking on things they should be spending time researching. It has always bothered me that academia is so excited about the semantic web yet I cannot find a single enterprise architect in a Fortune enterprise that has even spent one iota of time noodling it. This to me indicates a fundamental disconnect between academia and corporate America.
If I were King of all universities and the computer science programs that they host, I would task researchers to start thinking even deeper on the following subject areas:
- Service Oriented Architectures: Figure out how to connect business to IT not just defining new methods for connectivity or specifying how services should communicate with each other
- Enterprise Architecture: Many folks in other enterprises are headed in the wrong direction as they approach this subject in terms of a process. Likewise, industry analysts and the folks at various magazines talk only of tools. Need to get folks to understand that people, process and tools in that order is how EA should be approached.
- Social Networking: It has occured to me that an enterprise can learn from the Internet about emerging trends but no one has tied it all together. The notion of six degrees of separation is great and has been successfully implemented by the folks over at LinkedIn but hasn't been connected to other sources of information such as blogs. I not only am interested in who knows who but what they are talking about...
- Federated Identity: Suroop Mohan Chandran and James Joshi did present a good paper on incorporating location and time-based RBAC models but didn't connect it to the real-world problems that corporations face. Would love to see them take their research deeper and integrate it with the thinking of the folks over at the Burton Group. I wonder if Jamie Lewis would be game to share Burton Group research with academia?
- Business Rules: Folks have done enough research on reuse from the perspective of components, objects and even services but no one has published anything of quality on reuse of business rules. Everyone in the business rules community is clamoring for it yet the so-called thought leaders in this space don't know much about architecture. There are tons of opportunities for researchers to dive deeper into this space.
Thoughts on why Universities are failing America
Awhile back, I asked the question Should universities teach enterprise architecture which concluded that universities are failing to teach America anything relevant. Now I have learned that one university near my home has gone out of its way to not only teach things that help us compete in a global society, they went out of their way to distort the minds of our children (the future) while raping the wallets of their parents. This post is yet another rant session...
Hope Weissman, a women's studies professor, teaches the course Pornography: Writing of Prostitutes at Wesleyan University.
We know that the Catholic church has been struggling with the notion of how gay should a gay priest be, but never figured this type of thing would swing over to other religions.
It is amazing that this comes from a respected educational institution with a Methodist heritage.
Another big fat surprise is that the course is run by a female feminist. Hasn't it been the position of the feminist movement that practically all sex, and especially pornography, was part of the patriarchal oppression and denigration of women? Is pornography a worthy enterprise for women if they are "on top"?
Being a parent of two wonderful boys, I ask myself and others, do you want to send your children to a university where pornography is a legitimate subject? Why isn't Larry Flynt the department head?
In researching this particular university, bet you didn't know that they also have the naked dorm, the transgender dorm, the queer prom and other distortions of being normal. I wonder if Michael Savage ever thought that liberalism could be taken to such an extreme. After all, I do give him credit for acknowledging that liberalism is a mental disorder.
Universities such as Wesleyan University, San Francisco State University, the University of California-Berkeley, New York University, and the University of California-Santa Cruz, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Chapman University, and Northwestern University, have all made their own contributions toward this trend. These universities also teach gay and lesbian studies.
I suspect that international students who come from other countries such as China and India aren't in any of these classes. I wonder if a nation of bloggers who are interested in not seeing more of their good jobs going offshore would start talking about real conversations in the blogosphere.
I wonder if we could enlist the help of folks like SecurityMonkey to help find holes in the university's IT systems and somehow make things simply disappear? No, I am not suggesting he commit a crime as this would be wrong. It would be amusing though if he took a peek around, noted some deficiencies and just happened to leave his notes on a public server located in the Middle East?
Maybe we could outsource the teaching of this course to the folks in India?
| | View blog reactionsHope Weissman, a women's studies professor, teaches the course Pornography: Writing of Prostitutes at Wesleyan University.
We know that the Catholic church has been struggling with the notion of how gay should a gay priest be, but never figured this type of thing would swing over to other religions.
It is amazing that this comes from a respected educational institution with a Methodist heritage.
Another big fat surprise is that the course is run by a female feminist. Hasn't it been the position of the feminist movement that practically all sex, and especially pornography, was part of the patriarchal oppression and denigration of women? Is pornography a worthy enterprise for women if they are "on top"?
Being a parent of two wonderful boys, I ask myself and others, do you want to send your children to a university where pornography is a legitimate subject? Why isn't Larry Flynt the department head?
In researching this particular university, bet you didn't know that they also have the naked dorm, the transgender dorm, the queer prom and other distortions of being normal. I wonder if Michael Savage ever thought that liberalism could be taken to such an extreme. After all, I do give him credit for acknowledging that liberalism is a mental disorder.
Universities such as Wesleyan University, San Francisco State University, the University of California-Berkeley, New York University, and the University of California-Santa Cruz, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Chapman University, and Northwestern University, have all made their own contributions toward this trend. These universities also teach gay and lesbian studies.
I suspect that international students who come from other countries such as China and India aren't in any of these classes. I wonder if a nation of bloggers who are interested in not seeing more of their good jobs going offshore would start talking about real conversations in the blogosphere.
I wonder if we could enlist the help of folks like SecurityMonkey to help find holes in the university's IT systems and somehow make things simply disappear? No, I am not suggesting he commit a crime as this would be wrong. It would be amusing though if he took a peek around, noted some deficiencies and just happened to leave his notes on a public server located in the Middle East?
Maybe we could outsource the teaching of this course to the folks in India?
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Thoughts on Universities and Information Technology
I recently had the opportunity to present at Rensallaer to a Master's level class on modern perspectives on architecture within corporations. My thesis was based on the fact that history demands rising levels of abstraction.
My very first slide in a subtle way hinted that all the folks in the room weren't really computer science majors but in all reality history majors since universities don't do a great job of keeping up with modern practices such as service-oriented architectures, agile methods for software development and open source.
Anyway, my presentation attempted to convince folks that the practice of architecture is not a science. Some people understood the points I was attempting to make but none 100% consumed it. It is my current thought that I have to start talking about this particular belief more in my blog so as to have a remote chance of ensuring that when my two sons attend college in 2019 and 2021 respectively, they will have the opportunity to follow in their father's footsteps, something that may be lost if we continue on the current path.
I did want to acknowledge though that one university got it right by putting information technology as part of its liberal arts program. Check out this link...
| | View blog reactionsMy very first slide in a subtle way hinted that all the folks in the room weren't really computer science majors but in all reality history majors since universities don't do a great job of keeping up with modern practices such as service-oriented architectures, agile methods for software development and open source.
Anyway, my presentation attempted to convince folks that the practice of architecture is not a science. Some people understood the points I was attempting to make but none 100% consumed it. It is my current thought that I have to start talking about this particular belief more in my blog so as to have a remote chance of ensuring that when my two sons attend college in 2019 and 2021 respectively, they will have the opportunity to follow in their father's footsteps, something that may be lost if we continue on the current path.
I did want to acknowledge though that one university got it right by putting information technology as part of its liberal arts program. Check out this link...
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Thoughts on others who blog about Enterprise Architecture
There is lots of good information in the blogosphere on the discipline of enterprise architecture. Likewise, there is more bad useless information than good. Figured I would critique several blogs in hopes of guiding my peers in the industry in the right direction...
Before we start this discussion, it is best to separate the good from the bad. I have done so via headings.
Hopefully you have developed a better understanding of what is good information on the discipline of enterprise architecture and what stuff you should ignore!
For other bloggers that have alternative thoughts, feel free to trackback this conversation...
| | View blog reactionsBefore we start this discussion, it is best to separate the good from the bad. I have done so via headings.
Good Blogs
- Enterprise Design Strategy: Many consultants in this space don't provide value, only consulting products but I can say that Jurgens is different. I think folks would be well-served by reading his blog and hiring him to solve problems they face...
- Service Oriented Enterprise Architecture: Many folks know that I advocate deep understanding of service-oriented architectures as part of an EA agenda. Others within the community have stated with passion that if you don't do EA, you can't do SOA! Nothing could be further from the truth. The real question that remains to be answered is how to integrate EA and SOA. SOA will change how IT will integrate the enterprise (business and technical) and this blog attempts to answer this question...
- Musings and Ruminations on Building Great Systems: Simply, Dion gets it. He is not pumping up his opportunities for consulting nor pushing a tool but instead attempting to teach folks who have an interest in building great software how to think correctly.
- ERP4IT: Charles is an enterprise architect for a Fortune 100 enterprise and understands EA very deeply. He is not selling anything but simply communicating what he has learned in the trenches. Many of his postings contains gems and should be carefully read and re-read. As I understand, he is also working on a book. I would be honored to provide an endorsement for the back cover.
- The Boris Files: He talks deeply about the secrets of successful CIOs in the human voice with no bullshit. He is a straight shooter filled with integrity. I would love to hire him for our EA team.
- Ramblin Gamblin discusses his perspective of enterprise architecture from the perspective of a software engineer. Need to hear more about the consumers of our work effort
Bad Blogs
Enterprise Architecture in Government: It is a shame that the folks in the federal government think that EA is all about process. There is no notion whatsoever about any business process or building an extended enterprise. The government in their architecture only talk about interoperability amongst themselves and other forms of < > but nothing on collaboration. Maybe they should seriously consider dropping all EA efforts and the expensive consultants who sap taxpayer dollars creating them and simply start from scratch. EA is not about conformance of contractors... Martin Fowler: He is stepping way beyond his bounds in understanding the value that EA brings. I would like to think that the reason he speaks about it isn't because his consulting firm hasn't figured out how to sell it? He is correct in the need to achieve balance, but this is only relevant to those shops who use the term enterprise architecture to describe the practice of building ivory towers. For the real practitioners, his advice is somewhat questionable... Making EA Work: Seems to be all about pushing tools. Real practitioners understand that people, process and tools (in that order) are how things should be approached. Maybe if they started talking about things relevant to people, it would be more credible. SOA and Enterprise Architecture Conferences: Supporter of conferences that cause lots of advertising dollars to be generated but not of useful exchanges of information in the community. The real leaders don't work for software vendors who present at conferences as they are too busy adding value to their own enterprise. Dana Dolan's Technology Watch: The media perspective on this subject is interesting. Doesn't seem like Dana actually talks with real EA's but instead gets information from other sources of questionable ethic such as government entities, other magazines, software vendors and industry analysts. Maybe Dana would be better served by talking with real practitioners.
Hopefully you have developed a better understanding of what is good information on the discipline of enterprise architecture and what stuff you should ignore!
For other bloggers that have alternative thoughts, feel free to trackback this conversation...
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Thoughts on why I love spam!
I am one of the few folks that actually spend time reading spam as I find it amusing. Figured I would post one that made me laugh...
Now for the best part...
Sometimes, I need to be amused...
| | View blog reactions
Dear Husband:
I'm writing you this letter to tell you that I'm leaving you for good. I've been a good woman to you for seven years and I have nothing to show for it.These last two weeks have been hell. Your boss called to tell me that you had quit your job today and that was the last straw. Last week, you came home and didn't notice that I had gotten my hair and nails done, cooked your favorite meal and even wore a brand new negligee. You came home and ate in two minutes, and went straight to sleep after watching the game. You don't tell me you love me anymore, you don't touch me or anything. Either you're cheating or you don't love me anymore, what ever the case is, I'm gone.
P.S.
If you're trying to find me, don't. Your BROTHER and I are moving away to West Virginia together! Have a great life!
>Your EX-Wife
Now for the best part...
Dear Ex-Wife
Nothing has made my day more than receiving your letter. It's true that you and I have been married for seven years, although a good woman is a far cry from what you've been. I watch sports so much to try to drown out your constant nagging. Too bad that doesn't work. I did notice when you cut off all of your hair last week, the first thing that came to mind was "You look just like a man!" My mother raised me to not say anything if you can't say anything nice. When you cooked my favorite meal, you must have gotten me confused with MY BROTHER, because I stopped eating pork seven years ago. I went to sleep on you when you had on that new negligee because the price tag was still on it. I prayed that it was a coincidence that my brother had
just borrowed fifty dollars from me that morning and your negligee was $49.99. After all of this, I still loved you and felt that we could work it out. So when I discovered that I had hit the lotto for ten million dollars, I quit my job and bought us two tickets to Jamaica. But when I got home you were gone. Everything happens for a reason I guess. I hope you have the filling life you always wanted. My lawyer said with your letter that you wrote, you won't get a dime from me. So take care.
P.S.
I don't know if I ever told you this but Carl, my brother was born Carla. I hope that's not a problem.
Signed Rich As Hell and Free!
Sometimes, I need to be amused...
