Legacy System Anti-Patterns and a Pattern-Oriented Migration Response

  • A. Lauder
  • S. Kent

Abstract

Mature information systems grow old disgracefully as successive waves of hacking result in accidental architectures which resist the reflection of ongoing business process change. Such petrified systems are termed legacy systems. Legacy systems are simultaneously business assets and business liabilities. Their hard-won dependability and accurate reflection of tacit business knowledge prevent us from undertaking green-field development of replacement systems. Their resistance to the reflection of business process change prevents us from retaining them. Consequently, we are drawn in this paper to a controlled pattern-oriented legacy system migration strategy. Legacy systems exhibit six undesirable anti-patterns. A legacy system migration strategy must focus upon the controlled elimination of these anti-patterns by the step-wise application of six corresponding desirable patterns. Adherence to this migration strategy results in adaptive systems reflecting purposeful architectures open to the ongoing reflection of business process change. Without such a strategy there is a very real danger that legacy system migration will occur all too literally. That is, the old legacy system will be migrated to a new legacy system albeit it one using the latest buzzword-compliant technology.

Keywords

Business Process Legacy System Gold Mining Business Asset Replacement Information System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brodie, M.L. and Stonebraker, M. (1995). Migrating Legacy Systems: Gateways, Interfaces, and the Incremental Approach. Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  2. Ehn, P. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. PhD thesis, Almquist & Wiksell International, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  3. Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. and Vlissides, J. (1995a). Façade. In Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. and Vlissides, J. (eds), Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. and Vlissides, J. (1995b). Observer. In Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. and Vlissides, J. (eds), Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. and Vlissides, J. (1995c). Adapter. In Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. and Vlissides, J. (eds), Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  6. Goldkuhl, G. (1996). Generic business frameworks and action modelling. In Proceedings of Language/Action Perspective ‘86. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Goldkuhl, G. (1998). The six phases of business processes: communication and the exchange of value. In Proceedings of Twelfth Biennial ITS Conference, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  8. Goldkuhl, G. and Röstlinger, A. (1993). Joint elicitation of problems: an important aspect of change analysis. In Proceedings of IFIP w.g. 8.2 Working Conference on Information Systems Development: Human, Social, and Organizational Aspects, Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  9. Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M. and Seigerroth, U. (1998). The language action perspective on communication modelling. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop, Jonkoping International Business School.Google Scholar
  10. Harel, D. and Politi, M. (1998). Modeling Reaction Systems with Statecharts. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Henning, M. and Vinoski, S. (1999). Advanced CORBA Programming with C++. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  12. Lauder, A. (1999). EventPorts. In PhDOOS Workshop, ECOOP ‘89, Lisbon.Google Scholar
  13. Lauder, A. and Kent, S. (1999). EventPorts: flexible protocol reflection. Submitted to EDOC ‘89.Google Scholar
  14. Lauder, A. and Lind, M. (1999). Legacy systems: assets or liabilities? Submitted to LAP ‘89, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  15. Morgan, G. (1996). Organizations as organisms. In Images of Organizations, Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Riehle, D. (1996). The event notification pattern: integrating implicit invocation with object-orientation. Theory and Practice of Object Systems, 2, 1.Google Scholar
  17. Schmidt, D. (1995). Reactor: an object behavioral pattern for concurrent event multiplexing and event handler dispatching. In Coplien, J.O. and Schmidt, D. (eds), Pattern Languages of Program Design. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  18. Schmidt, D. (1999). The ADAPTIVE communication environment, http://www.cs.wustLedu/~schmidt/ Google Scholar
  19. Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.Google Scholar
  20. SoftWired AG (1999). iBus, http://www.softwired-inc.com Google Scholar
  21. Talarian (1999). SmartSockets, http://www.talarian.com Google Scholar
  22. Tibco (1999). Rendezvous Information Bus, http://www.tibco.com Google Scholar
  23. Uschold, M. and Gruninger, M. (1996). Ontologies: principles, methods, and applications. Knowledge Engineering Review, 11, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vlissides, J. (1997). Multicast. C++ Report, September. SIGS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Lauder
  • S. Kent

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations