I had a real Cheech and Chong moment with this one. Ahem, here goes…
I saw this article at InfoWorld where they interview Roger Sessions, CTO of ObjectWatch. Sessions claims that complex systems are not typically built correctly, and the bigger (more complex) they are, the more likely they are to fail.
Now what I find most interesting isn’t this startlingly obvious point, but that the definition of “complexity” in his examples (all of them that I could tell) is based on project cost, not other metrics such as, say, number of lines of code. The problem, Sessions continues, is that we are using technological approaches like SOA that are inherently mathematical, but we’re not doing the math very well. We just don’t find that sweet spot between complexity and functionality. And breaking the systems down into smaller components won’t help, he says, because as the number of components increases, the number of inter-component dependencies increases accordingly, and you have no net gain. In short, there’s no way to win.
However, through his patented Simple Iterative Partitions (SIP) technology, he can find the perfect balance between complexity and functionality. Your projects are now safe. Nothing to see here. Just hire Object Watch and all will be well. No more huge failures (or at least fewer of them).
Since the “complexity” of a project is its cost, Object Watch doesn’t waste time with the small projects. The genius of the the-bigger-your-project-is-the-more-you-really-really-need-us approach is that it’s not insulting to the small projects (“Hey, you don’t need us, you’re more likely to succeed by virtue of your small cost, er, size!”), and has the scare factor that makes big companies open their wallets.
This sales pitch has a familiar aroma to it.
What do you think?