The Long View

Business logic in information systems

There are a number of things you can use to get an interesting (and sometimes heated) discussion going amongst technical professionals. One of them is the issue of where to store business logic in an information system.

Some advocate for storing business logic is in the database. The argument is that business logic is enforced without regard to, and independently of the front-end application used to interact with the data. The opposing argument wants to place business logic solely in the application code. The argument here is that more complex business logic can be implemented in program code, and that program code is more easily maintained than database structures, relationships and constraints.

The best discussions on this topic recognize two important and overriding facts. First is that the answer to this question (as is the case for most technical and business questions) is "it depends". The second fact is that for better or worse, some business logic is stored in a database, even if it's only the association of business concepts by placing columns to represent them into a common table.

Many business and technical decisions represent trade-offs of risks/costs and benefits, and this issue is no exception. Relying primarily (or in some extreme cases almost exclusively) on program code to enforce business logic places a much greater burden on development resources. In addition, this burden increases over time as the system becomes more complex in response to user or client demands and changing business requirements. The result is increased development costs, longer timeframes to implement changes and enhancements, longer testing cycles and increased error rates.

Placing more logic into the database requires more time and effort to create a database that accurately reflects the business processes being modeled. Such a database is capable of accomodating the continual change that most informations systems endure. This requires more resources to collect requirements and do proper data modeling, as well as more time to bring the initial release of the system on-line.

Clearly the two approaches differ qualitatively in terms of their costs and benefits. However, in the business context the long-term benefits of placing more logic into the database are realized in the ability of the company to maintain a competitive advantage through reduced maintenance costs and the ability to quickly respond to changing client/customer/user requirements and changing business conditions and processes.

The business decision should come down on the side of a greater investment up-front in the system - particularly in the data modeling - to avoid eventual vulnerability to competitors who don't have the accumulated issues that arise from relying solely on program code and programming resources to keep up with business requirements.

Why be great?

I attended a business forum a few months ago at which a panel was sharing their recommendations on good business books. One of the panelists made an observation with which I readily agree. He said that many of the great business books he'd read simply organize and articulate what we know from our own experience to be true.

I have just finished reading Jim Collins' book, Good to Great. I would classify this as one of the truly outstanding books on the science and art of business management, not just because of the truths that it presents, but because of the way it is presented. The observations are not simply the author's personal opinions, but the result of a five-year research study that identifies the factors that allow a company to make the transition from being a "good" company, to being a "great" company.

At the book's conclusion, Collins relates a story about a former student asking him "why be great? what's wrong with just being successful?" His response was as insightful as the rest of the book, and though not supported by research, is again something that I know to be true. He said that it is just as easy to be great as it is to be good, and that in fact in most cases it's easier and a lot more fun to be great.

How true, and how hard it is to convince people of this fact.

I recall that when I was a practicing software developer, I continuously tried, through my writing, my speaking and my leadership of other programmers, to convince them that good coding and adherence to principles of good design and other "best practices" made life so much easier. I knew this, because I had learned the hard way the price to be paid from sloppy coding, and quick-and-dirty application construction.

It seemed that some of the programmers I worked with "got it", and my efforts were, like a good business book, a way of helping them to more clearly see what they knew to be better way of doing things. The vast majority, however, persisted in taking what they thought to be "short cuts", and pursued a less rigorous, and (in their minds) "easier" way of doing things. No amount of persuasion on my part would ever convince them of the wisdom of trying to step up to a higher level of professionalism in their craft.

The truth, I finally realized, is that most people just don't give a damn. Their job is just their job, and don't try to make them see it as a profession or a career.

I think this is true in the case of business practices. Most people are in business by default - it's just where they ended up. They have no particular love for business - no passion, no thrill. These folks would no more bother to read a book on business practices than they'd fly without benefit of aircraft. Even if they did, their reaction would be "so what?" and never internalize anything they may have read.

Which brings me to the first principle in Jim Collins' book. In transforming a business from "good" to "great", the first order of business is to get (as he puts it) the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the people that are on the bus into the right seats. Even though he suggests that any company can make this transition, the brutal truth is that only about 10% of people in business have any passion for being great. Collins also points out that motivation of the "wrong" people is a fools errand, and a poor use of energy and effort, so you basically have what you have.

If your company can get itself staffed by people from that 10%, you can let your competitors have the dregs, and you'll kick butt.

Choosing the right communications channel

Has it really been that long since I've posted? March?!?! <sheesh>

Assuming there's anyone really reading this, my apologies.

I have been hit smack in the face with the subject of this post on a number of occasions. I've come up against this so often, that I'm going to state the observation as Sawyer's First Law:

While conflict can be initiated by email, it can never be resolved by email.

In fact, the very thing that often drives us to use email in many cases - the ability to apply cool professionalism to a situation that has a potential to carry some emotional baggage - can often backfire.

Cool professionalism in the context of an email can easily be mis-interpreted -as cold condescension by subordinates or brown-nosing by co-workers. Cool professionalism can even be seen as a threat by superiors. Cool professionalism can even initiate an unexpected emotional response, especially when one unintentionally steps over turf or other real or perceived domain boundaries.

In any case, the remedy is to not continue with email but to elevate the issue to a "broadband" face-to-face exchange. Here, tone-of-voice, body language and facial expression as well as immediate feedback provide a much clearer, less ambiguous communication channel. This yields a much better chance at a prompt resolution of the conflict.

Stealing WiFi

I've seen several pieces in the last few days about people "piggybacking" on others' WiFi connections. The most recent was a NY Times article.

I've been guilty of this myself. I was working with a client on an extended out-of-town contract, and always stayed at the same hotel. For some reason this hotel's wireless router was often unavailable, depending on what room I was in. However, the router at the Fairfield Inn just across the parking lot would come in fine, and since it wasn't secured, I'd go ahead and use that.

I got a real chuckle when I was at a business breakfast recently, and one of the speakers - a very nice, straight-up kind of lady - admitted getting in her car and driving through neighborhoods near her hotel to find an open WiFi connection to check her email when the hotel didn't provide that service! The image I had of this lady (who really looks like someone you'd meet in church) "war-driving" around a neighborhood was priceless.

First, I'm appalled that any business-friendly hotel would not have this service. Second, it goes to show how we can all be pushed to marginal behaviors by necessity.