Note: This is the second post in my Freedom within a Framework series, which is about enabling the coexistence of enterprise and opportunistic applications. You can read the introductory post here.

As I stated in my introductory post, I believe that it is possible to achieve a balance between the need for stability in enterprise applications, and the need for quick and agile innovation in opportunistic applications. They key to this balance lies is in determining where the domain of control for IT can safely transition into a environment of open access to information. This is a “line of demarcation” that allows for a clean separation of certain types of applications. The best way to picture this concept is to imagine a line on an X-axis, with control of technology at the left side, and anarchy at the right. “Command and Control IT” typically lives as close to the left as is possible, while the world of “consumer-driven IT” lives quite far to the right. There are opposed to be sure, but it is possible for IT to reconcile these differences and foster both sides by creating a shared understanding around which classes applications should be enterprise-class and which can and should be treated as opportunistic.

Another way to visualize this concept is with the “Long Tail,” which is depicted in Figure 1 below. The “Long Tail” was a term coined by Chris Anderson in Wired Magazine to describe how the business models of companies like Amazon or Netflix enables them to profitably offer a wider range of goods and services than traditional organizations. The concept (also referred to as a heavy-tail or Pareto distribution) is a well-known statistical occurrence where a high-frequency population (depicted by the region in green below) is followed by a very long low-frequency population that gradually diminishes in area (or “tails off”). In many cases, the long tail portion of the graph, colored in yellow below, can actually represent the majority of the area under the line in the graph, even though the frequency is lower along that portion of the line than it is in the green area.

Figure 1 - The Long Tail

When applied to Amazon and Netflix, this concept is used to illustrate that organizations with powerful distribution channels can make just as much or more selling ten copies each of 10,000 obscure books as they could selling 100,000 copies of one best-selling book. The application to many organizations is just as powerful when information is the product. Assume for a moment that the green portion of the graph represents enterprise-class applications with a large internal user base and the “long tail” or yellow portion represents opportunistic applications with a much smaller number of users. This is depicted in figure 2 below.

Figure 2 - The Long Tail for Applications

In this scenario, the “long tail” theory argues that an organization could serve more users with several hundred opportunistic applications than it does with a small number of enterprise-class applications, but at a much lower cost. Thus, a “long tail” model can enable an information-driven organization to serve its customer base effectively without greatly increasing the cost of software delivery. Such a model does so by enabling the kinds of opportunistic development which most IT organizations would likely never have the bandwidth or justification to pursue because they are applications which are tactical in nature and which may only serve a small number of users.

While a “Long Tail” mindset enables us to create a clear line of demarcation, simply classifying one type of application or information set as enterprise and another as opportunistic isn’t enough. It is entirely possible for IT to pursue this demarcation with good intentions, and then stifle innovation by requiring that all applications, including opportunistic ones, be developed using only one type of platform or programming language. Thus, another key to creating “Freedom within a Framework” is that IT must give up as much control as is possible, while at the same time recognizing the assets and information over which the enterprise should retain control. In my next post, I’ll discuss the concept of an IFaP architecture which, I believe, provides a powerful architecture for enabling open innovation while, at the same time, providing IT with a framework to manage its information assets.

For the past several weeks, we’ve been working on creating a viewpoint of our future-state architecture that enables a greater degree of low-hurdle innovation with technology than we currently enable. The goal is to enable anyone across the globe, inside of the organization or out, to make use of public information we provide to create applications of value, even if that value is only seen by a single individual. Call it Web 2.0; Call it Enterprise 2.0. Call it what you will. We’re calling it either Freedom within a Framework or the Framework for Rapid and Empowering Development (FRED) depending on to whom we’re currently pitching the idea. The latter is our EA marketing savvy at work…

The idea is simple: We want to create an environment when enterprise applications can be created and managed in an enterprise way, and opportunistic applications (i.e. ad-hoc process applications and mashups) can be created freely and with little to no involvement from the IT organization. IT does what it does best, but explicitly steps back from “owning” all information and technology in an organization. From concept to implementation, I believe that one way to foster such an environment is to allow the world of WS-* and the world of REST to co-exist within the enterprise. Rather than an either/or decision, we want enable and encourage both styles for certain types of situations.

The culmination of our work around this idea was a paper published internally at the end of November, along with a demo that provides an example RESTful interface (which depends on our existing SOA) and a couple of applications which consume information presented by those interfaces.

Over the next few weeks, I plan to post excerpts from this paper and some of the meat from the demos. My intent in doing so is twofold:

1) To posit an alternative to the REST vs. WS-* debate. I am certainly not the first to argue for cohabitation of these styles. I only wish to add my voice and provide another perspective.

2) To obtain feedback from Enterprise and SOA Architects who have either already considered, are considering, or have implemented a similar design. I’d love to hear feedback in the coming weeks from anyone wanting to way in on any of the topics below.

I’ll publish the first post tomorrow, and the subsequent ones every couple of days after that. Here are the topics I plan to post about, in order:

• Embracing the Long Tail
• IFaPs: Enabling the Long Tail and Protecting the Enterprise
• REST: The Entry Point for Innovation
• Benefits of a RESTful Interface
• REST and Security
• A Demo RESTful Interface
• Demo Opportunistic Applications

As I add posts, I’ll return to this post and add the hyperlinks.

Looking forward to the discussion!

…and I’ll charge you an arm and a leg to make it better. Looks like IBM is starting up a dysfunctional SOA practice. Not surprising really. Consider this quote: “Some organizations may not be happy with their service oriented architectures (SOAs). They may have “unhealthy” SOAs as a consequence of partnering with inexperienced system integrators. They may have proprietary SOA technology in the mix, and it may be difficult to scale operations.”

They will probably make a killing since no one agrees on what SOA really means and all IBM has to do is figure out what you think it is, then convince a few key executives that that’s the wrong idea, thus rendering them instantly unhappy. It was bad enough when selling the buzzword ruled the day, but selling the band-aid will be worse, I fear. This, my friends, is why we never should have let our executives hear “SOA” in the first place. 

Here’s a question: what happens if an organization worked with IBM as their Systems integrator in the first place and is now unhappy with what they got? Would IBM ride in to rescue that organization too? <unrealistic>Maybe for the sake of good-will and a case-study, they’d do it for free.</unrealistic> I wonder how IBM would sell that engagement? Probably by blaming your internal management.

I can’t help but think that this is a case of selling me poison, then following that up by telling me I have a deadly poison in my system and that you just so happen to have the antidote. Not that I am calling SOA poison in any way. Conceptually, it’s just the opposite.

Maybe I’m overreacting or being too negative here. Any one care to chime in with excitement about this announcement?

From December 3-7, Gartner will be holding two back-to-back summits on Application Architecture, Development and Integration and Enterprise Architecture at the Rio in Last Vegas. It looks to be a informative week with some valuable sessions and insight. Todd Biske will be there in two panel discussions and I am looking forward to both of those, along with a number of others currently on the agenda.

Aside from the sessions, I’ve found that I gain the most value from these events when I have a chance to interact with other attendees. Are any other folks reading this planning to attend? If so, drop me a line in the comment section or via email at bsatrom at gmail dot com and we can try to connect during the week. I am always looking to gain the perspective of others in the opportunities and challenges that my EA group faces, as well as hear about the exciting and innovative things that other enterprises are doing. Hope to see you there!

Last week, Jean-Jacques Dubray published an article on InfoQ regarding Microsoft’s recent announcement of Oslo, a strategy designed to “…take composite applications to the mainstream.” Rather than revolving around a single product, Oslo sets strategic direction for Visual Studio, BizTalk, the .Net Framework, Microsoft System Center and a new product called BizTalk Services. On a side note: Arnon Rotem-Gal-Oz hopes that this final project’s association with BizTalk is more about branding than actual product similarity, a sentiment I share.

After posting this article, Jean-Jacques sent me an email and asked me to share some of my thoughts on Olso for a follow-up article to be published at InfoQ. I sent my thoughts along on Friday, but thought that I would post them here as well.

When we developed a long-term strategy for Composite Applications at my organization, it was obvious that while Microsoft technologies would have a major role to play in many areas of our future-state architecture, there were several vital pieces missing in the Microsoft stack that we would likely need to find elsewhere. I’ve always felt that we weren’t alone in that sentiment, and the Oslo announcement suggests that Microsoft is also well aware of the gaps in their current offerings. While products like Dynamics CRM and MOSS 2007 offer composition scenarios which I regularly point to as examples of end-user and/ or business analyst composition, Microsoft has long been missing the technologies to unify these experiences under a common framework. Though missing in the products themselves, the Composite Applications vision is one that I have seen preached by Microsoft Architects and blogger’s like Mike Walker and others who seem to have a good grasp on the long-term potential of composite applications. The good news about the Oslo announcement is that those individuals are no  longer in the minority. With Oslo, I believe Microsoft has unveiled merely the beginning of a unification strategy that enables composite applications. I believe that this bodes well for clients and non-clients of Microsoft alike.

That being said, There are two reasons why I’m a bit skeptical about the Oslo announcement: For starters, I believe that Microsoft’s stated vision for Composite Applications is too narrow. While the Software + Services and SOA visions are needed, I believe that the end goal of any Composite Applications strategy should be to gradually enable composition up the stack toward the end-user. This is done first by providing a SOA which enables true service and process composition, then by extending those principles to developers of customer applications, business analysts and, ultimately, end users. Oslo speaks well to the former, but the latter is auspiciously missing. I actually don’t believe that such a goal is absent in the halls of Microsoft, but I do believe that it hasn’t permeated across the organization and thus, isn’t given a place in the conversation yet.

The second reason I am hesitant to praise Microsoft for the Oslo vision is because their announcement is related to technologies which are anywhere from 1 year to 3 years or more away from release. Most of the tool updates are two releases away. Microsoft is correct when they say in their press releases that 21st century business is moving faster than IT can deliver, but that statement is true today. Organizations need solutions today, not announcements of solutions coming tomorrow. My organization, for example, cannot wait for a repository to manage models, metadata and services (one of the gaps we knew about in our strategy) when our ability to manage all three is already beyond our control. I honestly believe that Microsoft’s vision for Oslo is a good one, but they are just now announcing plans to provide functionality that most organizations already know they need, which puts them at a disadvantage with those organizations. I can see a day in my company where many of the pieces in the Oslo stack make their way into our architecture, but today we need to keep moving. Of course, the good news is that when SOA and composite applications are done right, vendor lock-in is reduced and organizations can focus on delivering for the business today instead of waiting for the remaining puzzle pieces to fall in place tomorrow.

Back in September, I published a couple of excerpts from an internal paper I wrote on Composite Applications (you can read them here, here and here). At the end of my second post, (which I probably should have broken up into 2-3 posts at least) I discussed the four types of Application Composers. If you missed that section, (which would be proof that I should have broken them up) here’s a recap:

1) Business Service Developers - These are IT developers focused on providing value-added common business services to all customer solutions teams. Their technical depth is high and a CAF targeted at these users would be similar to what is provided by SOA today.

2) Customer Solution Developers - These are IT developers focused on creating customer-centric solutions by leveraging software infrastructure. Their technical depth is moderate to high and a CAF targeted at these users would need to abstract away service creation and assembly.

3) Business Analysts - These are customer consultants focused on helping customers determine which business needs are best met with technology. Their technical depth is moderate and a CAF targeted at these users would draw many features from current BPM platforms.

4) End Users - These are the users of the solutions created by customer solutions teams. Their technical depth is low and a CAF targeted at these users would need to abstract away nearly all of the technical aspects of application creation and should provide very intuitive context- and metadata-driven methods for application assembly and customization.

While these still make sense to me, I think I completely missed number five on this list. It’s a bit of a wildcard, and it may not apply to every organization, but I think it will apply to more and more organization in the coming years. Here it is:

5) External Developers - These are developers who reside outside of one’s own IT organization, but who have development expertise that they wish to leverage to create value-added services that benefit your organization. Their primary interest is in consuming available organizational data and recombining this data with external data or services to create new composites not offered or envisioned by the organization itself.

Now I think that the reason I missed this was because I was thinking internal only when laying out a strategy for Composite Applications in my organization. However, my fearless leader and I have been talking at length about creating a framework by which certain subsets of our information (the right information, of course) could be made available to anyone with the wherewithal to create useful services that we never thought of. Thus, our framework for Composite Applications now has another persona to enable.

So what do you think? Is this a valid addition, or did I have it encompassed in another one of the four? Furthermore, is just one more enough? That fifth category encompasses a ton of people, so do I need another for the technically savvy end user who doesn’t write code, but who screams at creating inventive Yahoo! Pipes applications. I suspect that #4 could represent this individual with a slight modification, but what do you think?

Saw this post from Brady Forest on O’Reilly Radar, which points to the official announcement on the AWS blog. This may not mean as much to many of you who have been using S3 for a while now, but it’s big news for a guy like me because I know better than to bring technologies like S3, EC2 and Mechanical Turk into any serious internal conversation unless I can say “yes” to that SLA question. Looks like AWS is getting ready for prime time. And why not? Most of us have been expecting this for a while now.

I will echo Arthur’s request for more to the SLA, specifically for stats on uptime and availability. I think that all services should provide information like this to be as clear as possible in letting you know what you are getting by consuming said service (and our internal guidelines say as much), but this kind of information is especially vital with services in the cloud. I’m confident that they’ll get there, but in the meantime, I’ll echo that feature request.

On another note, why the heck is O’Reilly charging $149 for a glorified whitepaper on developing applications for Facebook? I use Facebook. I like Facebook. I think there is something to be said about developing applications for it… in certain situations. But could we just take a moment to breathe here before they hype train carries us all away?

• SOA: Sometimes it IS about the technology - Both Nick’s post and Andrew McAfee’s original are worth a read and right on. I think the pearl of wisdom is for all of us to stop advocating one extreme or the other (”x is about technology” vs “x is not”) all the time and start using wisdom, common sense and a willingness to either talk about technology (when the situation calls for it, as Nick describes when one must know which “… goals are realistically achievable given current technology trends”) or leave technology out of the discussion (when the situation calls for us to convey to the business that we truly get their business need and aren’t simply looking for a way to implement the cool new technology).
• Why Microsoft Should Not Support SCA - Bottom line as I read this: Microsoft doesn’t benefit and neither does anyone else. It makes sense, but David certainly makes SCA seem like less of a “big deal” standard than others want us to believe. Not sure what I think yet, but  I would highly recommend David’s Introducing SCA article. It’s a good read and provides a good overview of some big technology movements outside of the Microsoft world.

• Green Datacenter Initiative - The idea of “Green IT” is becoming a bigger and bigger deal as more organizations realize that Global Warming is not a joke (it never was) and that the measure corporate ethics and responsibility will increasingly include the impact of their IT organization on the environment. As Simon says, the measurement technology isn’t there yet, but why not start grassroots with your own PC. Downloaded the LocalCooling app Simon links to and get an idea of how little things we all do as individuals does have an impact.

I published v1 of my Composite Applications Framework document last Thursday and am pretty pleased with the result. As with all things, it will evolve and improve over time, but I think it was a decent first salvo. I am indebted to Mike Walker and Todd Biske for their input. My favorite part about blogging is being able to have access to and input from such brilliant people.

As I worked back through the draft of the document, I realized that some key visuals were missing in relation to the various composition terms I wrote about in my last post, as well as a view of the CAF architecture. I don’t have time to go into these in detail, but I’ll post them here. Feel free to refer back to my previous two posts for more context. As always, I’d love any feedback that anyone is willing to throw my way.

This first image was designed to depict the relationship between some of the composition terms I used in my last post.

The second image expands on the first, but includes example tiers, containers and assets. Many of these examples are specific to the Microsoft universe, specifically MOSS 2007, while others are generic.

The final image depicts many of the technologies that I believe play a key role in a CAF. This is not meant to be an end-all-be-all list, or even the best depiction available. Just food for thought.

So there you have it.

On a personal note, I’m off for a two week computer-less vacation this afternoon, so the blog will be silent during that time. I’ll be back in the swing of things on September 22nd and hopefully I won’t be so buried in the blogs I read that I’ll have a moment to write a thing or two that weekend.

In my last post, I posted an except from a strategy document I am working on around the creation of a Composite Application Framework (CAF). The section I posted dealt specifically with the need for application composition within IT. Soon after I posted, Mike Walker, an Architect with Microsoft’s Architecture Strategy team, posted a response with some thoughts of his own. As I said in the comment section of that post, I think Mike’s additions were right on and plan to incorporate some of his thoughts and comments as I revise that section in the final publication. 

In the first section of his post, Mike took a moment to define the term “composite applications” using definitions from Gartner, BEA, IBM and pointed to Chris Keyser’s Architecture Journal paper from January, “Composite Applications: The New Paradigm.” The last was a key piece of my research and I highly recommend reading it as it discusses composition from a broader view than just SOA, which is contrary to the focus of most first generation thinking on composite applications.

Mike’s definition aligns with what I included in the second section of my research paper, which I am posting here. This section shifts the focus from justifying the need to understanding all of the terms in the CA universe as we’ve defined it. Thus, it includes a bit more than just defining Composite Applications. Mike, I’d be interested in further thoughts or feedback you might have on this section. Same goes for anyone who wants to jump in. Here’s section two:

Composition: Assembling Assets into Applications

In order to create a Composite Applications Framework (CAF), one must first understand the vocabulary of composition and composite applications. This section introduces several terms and concepts important to the creation of a CAF. They are:

1. Composition

2. Composite Assets

3. Composite Applications

4. Composition Tiers, Composite Types and Containers

5. Composers

Composition

According to Wiktionary, composition is the combining of different parts to make a whole. In the context of technology, composition is the combining of technology assets to create an application or solution which provides value to the business. According to Keyser, the term itself is a “… shift in computing from brittle, monolithic, developer-centric applications solving one particular problem, to agile, contextual, user-driven applications to support a particular business process.” (2006, p. 5) In addition to agile and user-driven applications, composition also “… includes personalization and customization abilities, so that users can easily and quickly modify specific functionality in the solution.” (Banerjee, What are Composite Applications?, 2006) In essence, composition is the assembly of assets into applications which can be created and/ or modified quickly and are user-driven in nature. Thus, enabling composition of assets into applications is the key and ultimate goal of a CAF.

Composite Assets

Within the realm of Composite Applications, a composite asset is a discrete object with standalone value and functionality which can be combined with other objects to create an application of greater value than the sum of the individual objects. Typically, this combination is in support of a business process or set of user goals. Within a CAF, the following objects can be considered assets for composition (Adapted from Banerjee, Building Office Business Applications, 2006 and What are Composite Applications?, 2006):

Documents	Dashboards
Business Activities	Portal Sites
Business Rules	Portal/ Web Pages
Schemas	Data Connections
Metrics	Authorizations
Web Parts	Reports
Web Services	UI Screens

It should be obvious from this list that the creation of composite applications goes far beyond the assembly of WebParts on a screen to create a single interface. In fact, composite applications span all of these types and all of the traditional application tiers. To create a successful CAF, IT should create a CAF that allows most, if not all, of the assets listed above to be used in the creation of Composite applications.

Composite Applications

The term “composite applications” evokes many different meanings in the current landscape of information technology. A few examples are:

• Applications created via the assembly of SOA services;
• The Business user’s equivalent of Web 2.0 “mashups;” (Keyser, 2006)
• Another form of integration and application development; (Frye, 2005)

While these are all valid interpretations, they are also nearly all tied to first generation ideas around the meaning and intent of composite applications. Core to that idea was that the only useful assets for composition were either Web Services or entire User Interfaces. Thus, much of the current writing and thinking around composite applications centers on either the composition of fine-grained SOA services into “right-sized” business services, which are then wrapped in a UI and delivered to the user, or the creation of Web Parts which are dragged onto a portal screen, skinned and placed wherever the user desires.

While we still hold the first generation thinking around composite applications to be true, we believe that composition is more than simple service composition or the creation of WebParts. Furthermore, composition is a reality for all of the assets listed above and also at every tier of an application and for each major type of composite application. Thus, a candidate definition of a composite application is “… a collection of software assets that have been assembled to provide a business capability. These assets are artifacts that can be deployed independently, enable composition, and leverage specific platform capabilities.” (Banerjee, What are Composite Applications?, 2006, p. 12)

Composition Tiers, Composite Types and Containers

Because a CAF should support more than service and WebPart composition, it is important to understand the tiers of composite applications, types of composite applications and the containers available at each tier. An understanding of each enables solution teams to determine the appropriate placement for a composite application.

Composition Tiers are application layers that provide services to composite applications.

Composite Types are categories of composite applications which map to each composition tier.

Containers are shells which can host any or all of the assets that make up a composite application.

Presentation Tier - UI Composites

The primary function of the presentation tier is to present business information to knowledge workers and actions to perform on said information. Composition at this tier is called composition “at the glass.” (Sholler, 2006) UI Composition is one of the most common forms of composition and is often assumed to be the only tier at which composition takes place because of its broad use and visibility. However, this misconception often causes organizations to attempt to create a CAF simply by creating a “whole cloth” UI through which all applications must be surfaced. The result is a single interface (instead of a unified User Experience) which ends up constraining business users and diminishes the value of a CAF.

Instead of a one-size fits all CAF with exclusive UI composition, organizations maximize the value of a CAF by leveraging composition at the level where it is the most appropriate option for a given composite application. In the case of UI composites, these are most appropriate when the resulting composite application should describe the sequence of interactions the end user will need to follow in order to use the application. (Sholler, 2006) In addition to sequenced composites, UI composites are also appropriate for “informal and unintended compositions.” (Keyser, 2006, p. 3) In both cases, an Enterprise Portal environment is the ideal host for these types of composite applications.

Application Tier - Service/ Integration Composites

Composition at the application tier typically involves the creation of new services from existing services to enable a business process or set of user goals. Composites created from existing services are new services themselves which may also be candidates for composition. These services are usually managed by an integration/ orchestration engine such as Microsoft BizTalk Server. Similar to Presentation Tier composites, these composites can have UI elements and trigger user interactions, but the key difference is that the actual composition takes place at the service level. These types of composites are most appropriate when the composition describes automated business activities or a subset of an automated business process. (Sholler, 2006)

Data Tier - Data/ Information Composites

Composition at the Data Tier consists of creating services for managing the content and relationships of a business entity. These services are designed to be the building blocks for the creation of other services and are typically not surfaced to a UI. Data Tier composites are most appropriate for consolidating views of shared reference information and are usually the foundation for SOA. Key to the success of Data Tier composition is the establishment of Enterprise Information Management (EIM) processes and practices in an organization. EIM practices, especially those targeted at Master Data Management (MDM) go a long way toward addressing many of the entity aggregation and information integration issues which typically plague SOA and CAF implementations.

Productivity Tier - Ad-hoc Composites

Productivity Tier composites are composites used to manage the “rhythm of the business:” those ad-hoc interactions, collaborations and processes which all knowledge workers rely on to accomplish their goals. While discussions around SOA, Enterprise Service Buses (ESBs) and open standards like WS-* and Service Component Architecture (SCA) are valuable, they are all focused on managing and exposing structured business logic. However, the greatest business value for composition can be found at the Productivity tier. (Keyser, 2006) Furthermore, the very idea of composition begs for a framework which supports ad-hoc processes. According to Banerjee, “By their very nature, composite applications presume that composition of solutions can occur after assets have been built and deployed-and so need to explicitly account for people-to-people interactions among information workers that are essential to complete any business process. Usually these interactions are not captured by structured processes or traditional business applications.” (Banerjee, Building Office Business Applications, 2006, pp. 12, 13) These types of composites are most appropriate when processes either cannot or need not be defined, or when the business requires a solution that works “in between the boxes” of defined processes.

Each of these tiers and types provides a set of containers within which assets can be hosted. Examples of containers at each tier are:

• Presentation - Outlook, Excel, InfoPath, WSS WebParts
• Application - Web Services, LOB Systems
• Data - Analysis Services, Data Warehouse, EIM services
• Productivity - MOSS Document Libraries, Excel Services, Workflows, Business Data Catalog

Composers

One of the key questions related to the creation of composite applications and a CAF is “Who composes?” That is to say, “What roles would be involved in the assembly of composite applications?” Organizations have several options when determining the primary composers of composite applications and the choice has implications on the design of both a CAF and the experience in creating composite applications. Some likely composers of composite applications are:

Business Service Developers

These are IT developers focused on providing value-added common business services to all customer solutions teams. Their technical depth is high and a CAF targeted at these users would be similar to what is provided by SOA today.

Customer Solution Developers

These are IT developers focused on creating customer-centric solutions by leveraging software infrastructure. Their technical depth is moderate to high and a CAF targeted at these users would need to abstract away service creation and assembly.

Business Analysts

These are customer consultants focused on helping customers determine which business needs are best met with technology. Their technical depth is moderate and a CAF targeted at these users would draw many features from current leading BPM platforms.

End Users

These are the users of the solutions created by customer solutions teams. Their technical depth is low and a CAF targeted at these users would need to abstract away nearly all of the technical aspects of application creation and should provide very intuitive context- and metadata-driven methods for application assembly and customization.

For many organizations, it would be advisable for a first generation CAF target Customer Solution Developers as the primary composers of applications, with some configuration, customization and personalization provided to business analysts and end users. Once the CAF is in place, the framework should evolve over the long term to push composition out to Business Analysts and eventually to end users.

References

Banerjee, A. (2006). Building Office Business Applications. The Architecture Journal, (10) 12-19.

Banerjee, A. (2006, December). What are Composite Applications? Retrieved August 20, 2007, from MSDN Architecture Center: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/architecture/bb220803.aspx

Banerjee, A., Moinuddin, M., & Walker, M. J. (2006). Office Business Applications: Building Composite Applications Using the Microsoft Platform. Redmond: Microsoft.

Frye, C. (2005, July 20). The role of composite applications in an SOA. Retrieved August 20, 2007, from SearchWebServices.com: http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/qna/0,289202,sid26_gci1109080,00.html

Keyser, C. (2006). Composite Applications - The New Paradigm. The Architecture Journal , (10) 2-5.

Phifer, G. e. (2007, July 13). Hype Cycle for Web and User Interaction Technologies, 2007. Retrieved August 20, 2007, from Gartner

Sholler, D. (2006, December 12). Three Approaches to Building Composite Applications. Retrieved August 13, 2007, from Gartner