“The utter complexity of huge, standardized software systems also explains the death of big software. Enormous whole-company projects are often beyond the capabilities of even the most experienced project and program managers – especially when there’s never 100% consensus about the need for such a draconian project in the first place.
The cloud has also killed big software. Years ago, companies would implement huge ERP software systems in their own data centers. Armies of programmers would work with armies and navies of consultants to bring the system to life. Some years later the software would “launch” with a global “switch” that – according to the data – usually failed (at least the first time). So the armies and navies would go back to work to get it right (until they got it right).”
Steve Andriol on Forbes.
The article above mirrors my feelings about big OSS. whilst big OSS are still being built, and many more are still being maintained, the OSS of the future can not look like these behemoths. The failure rates, the lack of flexibility, the bloat and more generally, the complexity, doesn’t allow the host organisation to stay nimble enough.
As discussed in The Triple Constraint of OSS, the more complexity, the more likely the OSS will break apart at the seams.
To accommodate flexibility in the host business, the components of an OSS need to be smaller, more modular and have less baked-in functionality rather than more. But big CSPs have complex workflows for the OSS to facilitate. The slight difference is rather than having the OSS performing the heavy processing of workflow management, there will be a more distributed approach with the modules contributing more to workflow intelligence. In the words of Tom Nolle, “The literati think we’ve focused so much on “orchestration” we’ve forgotten to make things orchestrable.”
Smart contracts potentially represent the ability to build and adapt complex workflows, taking away some of the integration tax. We’re definitely not there yet, but there is great promise.