A few years ago, IKEA released a VERY hilarious commercial to promote its own and clean furniture line to organize a home or office space. In short, the commercial opened with an attractive couple, in a rather unattractive and untidy room, sharing a single spaghetti The female - with eyes closed, head to plate, mesmerizing her partner with her technique - was so engrossed in her sensual display that she accidently mistook as another noodle her boyfriend which is of course, the taste of his even filthier sneakers. The commercial faded out and ended with a silent, but poignant reminder: "Tidy Up".
Just like with an untidy room, a spaghetti integration (or star integration) may take months, even years, to get to the point of being disorderly. Traditionally, each department in an organization may use independent systems to meet their own needs so so they are autonomous and easier to manage internally. as, as an organization grows, as inter-departmental communication more more, point-to-point interfaces develop to tie each autonomous system together - hence, a poorly-planned "spaghetti" of systems arises.
So, what & # 39; s wrong with that, you say? Here are my top 3 cons:
1. Taking the most expedient, quick-and-dirty, route to integration is a sign of a collective system management efforts. This lack of foresight leads to complications and problems in the long run ... see # 2.
2. Making changes to a single application or database in a star integration can be costly. Sure, it & # 39; s easier to make quick changes in a single system, giving the organization the appearance of agility. a collection of functionality that is technically not reusable and buggy, the cost of maintaining that new functionality will rise exponentially as your system grows.
3. It is a spaghetti integration is more difficult to consolidate into a single and useful data-mart. This makes it harder to paint a clear picture, whether it be analytical or operational, of the But it is not as rigid, there is an advantage of flexibility. in deployment.
