FileMaker in the Enterprise

WHITE PAPER brought to you by FMPug.com

FileMaker Pro - Suitability as a Platform for Enterprise Applications

2© 2011 - John Stubbs (Author) • FMPug.com (Publisher) White Paper: FileMaker in the Enterprise • brought to you by FMPug.com

Brought to you by DnG Design & Development Inc. -- the creative team behind FMPug.com & FindFileMakerDevelopers.com

Notice of Liability

The information included in this white paper was compiled by the authors from a variety of publicly available sources and is presented here expressly for the purposes of reference/education. The information in this paper is distributed on an “as is” basis, without warranty. At the time of publication, every precaution was made during the preparation of this paper to ensure the information listed be reliable, complete and accurate. However, the currency and completeness of the information reported herein is subject to change and cannot be guaranteed. The authors and/or contributors of this white paper make no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. Neither FMPug.com, DnG-inc.com, their legal owners and/or affiliates, contributors, shall be held liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained in this guide. Any sale of this guide, in whole or in part, is prohibited except by written permission by the publisher.

Inquiries, updates and comments are welcome and should be directed to the FMPug team at [email protected]

Notice of Rights

All rights are reserved. The content in this white paper is provided solely for the use of informational reference and education. It shall not be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted or distributed without the express written permission of the copyright owners. You shall not reproduce in any manner any of the content from this guide on any other web site, online service, networked computer environment or stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, except in the case of brief quotations cited in critical articles or reviews.

Notice of Trademarks, Copyrights & Other Intellectual Property Rights

Throughout this white paper trademark names and icons are used. Rather than indicating every occurrence of a trademarked name as such, this white paper uses the names only in an editorial fashion and to the benefit of the trademark owner with no intention of infringement of the trademark. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Notice of Support

The information published in this white paper is expressly for the purposes of education; the authors and/or contributors do not provide authorized support for any of the hardware and/or software products discussed, except where noted.



About the author

Mr. Stubbs is the founder and president of Columbia Flyers LLC and has invested in, and worked with, several startup ventures, including Popcorn Home Entertainment, Flight Partners, and 3alityDigital. He is also an independent FileMaker developer.

For four years, Mr. Stubbs was the Chief Information Officer for Sony Pictures Entertainment – a $7 billion global entertainment company with 6,500 employees. During this time, Sony Pictures

implemented global SAP Financials, consolidated its data centers, and deployed over 300 applications supporting motion picture distribution, home entertainment supply-chain, television syndication, and world-wide distribution of film elements. Mr. Stubbs was also a member of the Sony Corporate IT Management Committee – framing global IT strategy for the $70 billion conglomerate.

Mr. Stubbs served the entertainment industry for 17 years with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) where he was the global leader of PwC’s Content Management and Digital Rights Management initiatives advising clients on exploitation and management of digital content and related issues in electronic commerce. Mr. Stubbs has wide-ranging experience in technology consulting including systems integration, strategic systems planning, multimedia development and strategic management issues relating to rights management and security in large-scale media repositories. He served as the firm’s representative at the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI), Entertainment Technology Center (ETC) and participates in other standards organizations focused on Digital Rights Management and distribution of secure content over the Internet.

Mr. Stubbs holds a BS degree in Physics from St. Mary’s College, California; MBA from University of California at Los Angeles, and a JD from Loyola Law School. He is a Certified Public Accountant, a member of the California State Bar, and FileMaker 11 Certified Developer. He served five years as a naval aviator, with 73 combat missions in Vietnam, flying the A-6 Intruder deployed aboard USS Midway.



“The inquiry herein attempts to deal with FileMaker

suitability by addressing two issues. Does the FileMaker

platform meet criteria for enterprise systems? What

standards and development methodology should be

used to ensure FileMaker applications become good

corporate citizens? “

OverviewThe FileMaker Platform is a suite of tools designed for rapid development of flexible database solutions for deployment on Windows and Macin-tosh computers, iPads - and extension of them to the Web. FileMaker integrates data structure, business logic, and interface into one package enabling the rapid development of robust and feature-rich applications.

Historically, large Information Technology (IT) organizations have viewed FileMaker as a gadget used to build small desktop-centric rolodex ap-plications for a single user. This viewpoint is partly due to the product’s longevity, or more accurately, its early history as one of several non-SQL PC data managers like dBase, FoxBase, Clipper, Access, etc. As a general rule, none of these products, including FileMaker, have been taken seri-ously by IT managers for enterprise systems.

But in 2004 FileMaker introduced Version 7, a comprehensive product redesign, providing significant capacity enhancements, relational data model, multiple windows, relationship graph, enhanced server, and a rich scripting language with hundreds of built-in calculations. Version 7 represented a quantum leap in sophistication and capability and started the inevitable repositioning of FileMaker as a large work-group or enter-prise platform.

Notwithstanding the significant improvements in the FileMaker platform, it continues to be application non grata in many IT organizations - not

considered suitable for enterprise applications. Certainly a reason for this is the significant bias toward the vast array of interlocking Microsoft and or IBM enterprise products which have become the de facto standard in just about every large organization. Additionally, Oracle databases have a virtual monopoly for large global applications, such as SAP Financial and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems.

Further, FileMaker is often labeled as a “workgroup” development tool. What does this mean? Its not clear, but to many professional IT manag-ers it is a derogatory term connoting: limited importance to the business, small number of users, no interfaces with other enterprise applications, limited functionality, amateur developers, home-grown technology infrastructure, disguised funding surreptitious buried in Departmental budgets, etc.

Another issue is the way FileMaker proponents tout its real-time, visual, point-and-click, drag-and-drop metaphor for software development. The clear implication, if not outright assertion, is that once given the tools1, anyone (including users) can create FileMaker applications. The idea of users making arbitrary modifications on an enterprise application, or worse, spawning a viral epidemic of amateur applications, will alienate IT professionals and confirm any negative predisposition to FileMaker. This is especially true where they anticipate having to come in later and clean up a huge mess.

No one familiar with FileMaker can doubt the effectiveness of its inte-grated tools enabling Agile or rapid application development. But for IT organizations, that’s not the issue. What is important is what’s left after the application is developed. Will it be a stable and manageable compo-nent in the enterprise system portfolio? Will it perform under increasing load of simultaneous users and data volume?

1 FileMaker is not a compiled language and every user with FileMaker Pro on the desktop computer can potentially create or modify FileMaker applications.



As a general rule, large enterprise systems are extremely expensive to design and build. They typically involve multiple technologies in distinct layers (user interface, business logic, transaction processing, secure mes-saging, Web services, database, report generation, etc.) - each requiring its own highly skilled specialists. While programming and integration can be extremely demanding, a large portion of the life-cycle cost, often under-budgeted, will be testing, quality control, training, documentation, and on-going support. Increasingly the only way to develop and main-tain these labor intensive systems is outsourcing to large consulting firms utilizing an army of offshore resources or in-sourcing the development to specialized but silo-ed departments or divisions increasing the distance between the business and the developers.. And once these firms take control of the critical applications, they never seem to go away.

Clearly there are corporate information requirements that are best served by specialized mission-critical2 systems utilizing a complex multi-layer technology stack on top of a commercial database (e.g., Oracle, DB2, MS SQL Server). Or package suites, such as SAP, utilizing similar tech-nology to provide global integration across a vast array of functions. But what about the many other the enterprise and departmental applications that don’t exhibit the mission-critical attributes? Is FileMaker a proper platform for any of these?

In most companies, there are three stakeholder groups involved in the acquisition of new systems: users, finance, and IT. Users want a func-tional system that meets their needs. Finance is looking for an adequate return on investment (ROI). IT wants a system that plays well in their environment and won’t be a headache. And its usually IT that creates the proposal to management, and in so doing estimates cost, evaluates risk, and makes a recommendation on the approach for acquiring and deploying the new system. Accordingly, the challenge is to make IT professionals comfortable that FileMaker applications are a good fit in

2 High capacity, continuous, and fault-tolerant operation capable of handling massive number of transactions and data volume - supporting a critical business process.

the overall systems portfolio - as well as being a cost-effective solution for the business.

The inquiry herein attempts to deal with FileMaker suitability by address-ing two issues. Does the FileMaker platform meet criteria for enterprise systems? What standards and development methodology should be used to ensure FileMaker applications become good corporate citizens?

Enterprise CriteriaTo be a viable candidate as an enterprise platform, a system should ex-hibit the following attributes:

• utilize standard technologies and processes familiar to IT staff and administrators

• maintain a high level of data confidentiality, integrity, and availability

• be scalable - deliver good performance from one to hundreds of users

• integrate with other enterprise applications

• address complex application requirements

• adapt to changing business requirements over time

• deliver significantly lower life-cycle cost of ownership.

How FileMaker rates against each of these criteria is discussed further in pages 6 - 16.



Criteria: Utilize standard technologies and processes familiar to IT staff and administrators

The heart of a FileMaker system is its server environment. FileMaker Server can run under Windows or Macintosh operating systems, but does not run natively on Linux. The preferred platform for most enterprise installations is Windows Server 2008 Standard Edition SP2 or Windows Server 2008 R2 - running in 32bit mode1. Further, where there is signifi-cant Web activity it is recommended to deploy FileMaker components on two servers as shown on the diagram on the following page.

Many, if not most, IT shops are implementing virtual machines to im-prove component utilization and reduce cost. FileMaker Server can run just fine in a virtual environment sharing processor time, memory, network interfaces, and disks. As such, it is as susceptible as any other service to the inabilities of a stressed virtualized environment to provide adequate performance. Therefore, when implementing FileMaker Server within a virtualized environment it is crucial to provide the recom-mended hardware resources and monitor the machine(s) to determine the stress being placed upon the physical hardware. Adjustments can be made to the primary sub-systems of disk, processor, network, and memory based on the information gained through monitoring.

There are a few caveats to be aware of when operating a FileMaker Server environment:

• whether using virtual or stand-alone machines, FileMaker components should be isolated from other applications - i.e., don’t run a mail server, or any other application, on the same machine as FileMaker Server

• ensure the BIOS and drivers are up-to-date

1 FM server can be configured to run on a 64 bit machine, but the native installation with the current version, FileMaker 11, is 32 bit. Even on a 64 bit system, it runs in 32 bit mode. Its widely rumored that the next version (12) of FileMaker Server will operate natively in a 64bit environment.

• never touch live FileMaker files with utilities such as virus scanners, backups, disk indexing, defrag, or shadow copies2

• assure that the virtual machine has adequate RAM (4 GB for most configurations) and disk drive capacity.

Widows performance monitoring is typically accomplished with Perfmon using properly configured data collectors. FileMaker specific functions, such as disk read/write, network in/out, remote calls in progress, and cli-ent statistics, can be monitored with FileMaker Server’s Admin Console3.

Users can authenticate against accounts housed in Microsoft Active Directory, thus leveraging IT security assets already in place and enforc-ing company password protocols. It also supports single-sign-on from Windows OS workstations to Windows OS FileMaker Server machines and allows additional controls on what account is allowed to connect from a specific workstation through Active Directory policies.

In conclusion, FileMaker Server hardware configuration and software installation should be straight-forward and conform to standard policies and procedures for the vast majority of corporate IT shops or correspond-ing outsourced service providers. Or viewed another way, FileMaker should easily fit into existing virtual infrastructures found in profession-ally managed data centers.

2 The only way to safely and reliably backup a FileMaker file is with the server’s included utility for scheduled backups. Once the initial backup is created by FileMaker on the lo-cal drive, any of the many commercial backup utilities can be used to archive the files as appropriate.

3 Java program that can run on any network computer.



Criteria: Utilize standard technologies and processes familiar to IT staff and administrators, continued...

See Appendix 2 (page 21) for hardware specification for a suitable database server.

See Appendix 2 (page 22) for hardware specification for a suitable Web server.



Criteria: Maintain a high level of data confidentiality, integrity, and availability

FileMaker has an Advanced Security System which specifically addresses data confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The system is Account based and relies on authentication of user credentials1 to allow access to the system with a designated set of privileges. It is best practice to issue a unique account to each physical user of the system. Each Account is associated with one Privilege Set.

Privilege Sets are at the heart of the security enforcement schema of FileMaker Pro. They determine what actions and rights a user has within the respective file and to all the tables contained in that file. They enforce the role-based security model that is at the heart of FileMaker database security. A Privilege Set provides significant granularity in restricting or controlling access, editing or deletes to layout objects, scripts, tables, rows, and individual fields. Menus and objects on the user interface can be customized to restrict or control access or enforce business rules.

In simple terms, the Account determines who you are and that you actu-ally are who you claim to be. The Privilege Set determines what you can do in the application. FileMaker Server keeps a separate access log (what account, what privilege opened what files from what computer) which can be useful in troubleshooting and usage audits.

FileMaker Server has an option to encrypt data traffic between FileMaker Pro clients and the server database. It also encrypts data traffic between FileMaker Server and the Web Publishing Engine2 (see diagram on previ-ous page).

Maintaining the physical security of the computer running FileMaker Server is very important - fortunately a core competency of professionally run data centers. Such precautions as turning off OS level file–sharing,

1 Credentials consist of an account name and password - or if authenticating against Active Directory, a group name. FileMaker stores user credentials in a strongly encrypted format.

2 Encrypting traffic between the Web Server and individual browsers requires a 3rd party solution.

keeping the CPUs in a locked and secured environment, and properly securing and accounting for the location of all back–up copies of the files can contribute to enhanced security. Additionally, FileMaker Server has extensive monitoring and logging capabilities, both for itself and for its hosted files, with email issue notification to the administrator.

FileMaker Server has a robust system for creating backups of operational files on a schedule defined by the Administrator. It is critical that File-Maker Server create initial backup files3. But thereafter, its best practice to implement a comprehensive regimen of off-site backups conforming to the IT department’s standard processes. Additionally, when initial backups are made, FileMaker can verify the integrity of the file and send an automatic email notification to the administrator if any abnormalities are detected. In the unlikely event there is an issue, FileMaker provides utilities to recover damaged data and/or database structure elements.

FileMaker is a real-time system. As such, the typical database is being constantly updated by multiple users. Once a change is committed to the database, the old or previous state is lost forever. Likewise, deleted re-cords are also lost4. However by using a 3rd party plug-in, an authorita-tive and immutable record of creates, edits, and deletes can be preserved for important data. This external log can be used to roll-forward from a previous backup, or roll-back to a point before extraneous or incorrect data entered the system. Further, maintenance of a clear audit trail of database changes is necessary to conform to some Sarbanes-Oxley or HIPAA regulations.

With a well maintained and monitored hardware environment, a File-Maker system should exhibit a high level of accessibility. But make no

3 As mentioned previously, only FileMaker Server should make a backup of an open or operational file.

4 The only option for data recovery is to go to a backup. But this can be time consuming and may not address related data required to maintain system integrity - e.g., recovering an Order, but loosing the linked line items.



Criteria: Maintain a high level of data confidentiality, integrity, and availability, continued...

mistake, FileMaker Server is not designed as, nor promoted as, a high-availability transaction processing system. It does not support clusters with load balancing and failover capability, active or passive database replication, or traditional transaction processing (e.g., two-phase com-mit). Accordingly, where a high level of fault-tolerance or large volume transaction processing (TP) is required, a traditional TP Monitor (e.g., WebLogic, WebSphere...) on top of Oracle, DB2, SQL Server, or even open source MySQL, are typically deployed for these mission-critical systems.

In summary, FileMaker maintains:

• data confidentiality with a highly functional security system which utilizes role-based access controls with granularity down to the field level.

• data integrity with

• broad array of tools allowing developers and IT staff to deploy a robust file backup process

• logs to monitor database health and on-line activity

• an independent repository of database changes with roll-forward, and roll-back capability5

• data availability by isolating FileMaker components on their own high quality hardware, and good data center management.

5 Using a 3rd party plug-in and additional development effort.



Criteria: Be scalable - deliver good performance from one to hundreds of users

Scalability is the ability of a system, network, or process, to handle grow-ing amounts of work in a graceful manner. This means its ability to be enlarged to accommodate that growth. In commercial applications, it typically relates to the ability to increase the number of on-line users, the size of the database, or both.

FileMaker server based systems deliver excellent on-line performance. However, its important to establish realistic expectations. At high vol-umes (millions of records), FileMaker will never be as fast as a finely tuned Oracle or MS SQL Server database. But FileMaker has a sweet spot where it can hold its own against competing technologies: from few doz-en to a hundred concurrent users; data tables with thousands of records. No doubt, a FileMaker system has practical limits, but the vast majority of applications fall nicely within its rather large envelop of capabilities.

In any client-server system, the main component influencing scalability is usually the server as it arbitrates requests from many contending users and digs up large volumes of data as directed by those users. In general, FileMaker scales nicely as more users are added - assuming a robust network and hardware upgraded appropriately to support the additional load.

Developer decisions and techniques have a major impact on how well FileMaker deals with large datasets. Often, actions to increase perfor-mance (indexing) will also increase the size of the file - but with lower cost disk systems, that is usually an easy trade-off to make. As with all systems, developers must be cognizant of potential multiuser contention issues (e.g., releasing record locks) and deal with them appropriately.

FileMaker has a rigorous developer certification program where develop-ers can earn an industry-recognized credential recognizing expertise in the FileMaker product line and the full range of developer techniques and skills.

In summary, FileMaker performs quite well from one to several hundred users - as long as the hardware environment adequately supports the in-creasing volume. And with proper coding techniques, it will competently handle databases with large tables (thousands of records per table) and complex relationships.

It should be noted that any installation of a large SQL database will also require extensive tuning to realize acceptable performance. And the need for tuning is often only discovered once the application is in production. FileMaker systems tend to be easier to tune (add indices to appropriate fields) and stress test such that performance issues can be addressed before deployment.

Product SpecificationsFor all practical purposes, FileMaker doesn’t impose technical limits on the size of normal commercial applications.

• unlimited FileMaker Pro clients1

• 100 simultaneous Web connections2

• pool of 50 concurrent ODBC/JDBC connections

• file size - 8 terabytes

• number of tables per file - 1 million

• number of records per table - 64 quadrillion

• number of fields (columns) per record - 256 million.

1 Networked computers with a FileMaker Pro client connected to the server.2 Server connections using a variety of APIs (PHP, .NET, Ruby, Flash/Flex) allowing the

company’s Web site to extract data from the FileMaker database. Essentially, Web pub-lishing can be done with any technology that can consume XML.



Criteria: Integrate with other enterprise applications

Most large companies, especially those which have been around for a long time, have dozens of legacy systems utilizing a plethora of technol-ogies. Many contain data-of-record1. One of the strengths of FileMaker is its ability to share data with other applications. Through various tech-niques, it can access data stored in external systems as well as make data from the FileMaker database available to other applications.

FileMaker has the ability to import and export data in a variety of for-mats, including common interchange formats such as comma-separated values (CSV), tab-delimited files, Microsoft Excel files, Acrobat pdf files, and other common desktop formats.

Additionally, it supports one-way import data from just about any Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) data source. FileMaker can act as a JDBC data source to Java programs requiring data from the FileMaker applica-tion. ODBC/JDBC connectivity can be useful for acquiring or synchro-nizing data from an external system-of-record.

Equally significant is FileMaker’s ability to import and export eXtensible Markup Language (XML) data from online XML data sources, and using parsing via eXtensible Style Language Transformation (XSLT) style sheets. This provides broad-based support for data exchange and interoperability using Web Services.

With a more advanced feature, known as External SQL Sources (ESS), FileMaker can integrate SQL data sources directly into a FileMaker ap-plication. Currently these external sources include Oracle2, Microsoft SQL Server3, and MySQL4. Subject to a few restrictions, a developer can

1 For example, the Human Resource system probably has the official “data-of-record” information on corporate personnel, an ERP system would have the definitive products list, etc.

2 Oracle database 9, 10g, and 11g3 Microsoft SQL Server 2000, 2005 and 20084 MySQL Community Edition 5 and 5.1

incorporate table(s) from these sources directly into a FileMaker applica-tion allowing a FileMaker user to access the data and even make updates directly to the external database. For example, selected data from the company’s SAP financial system could be exposed as a table inside the FileMaker system, and where appropriate, the FileMaker users could add and/or edit data in the SAP application. Exactly what data are exposed are completely under the control of the SAP administrator - working with the FileMaker developer.

Additionally, 3rd party developers enhance connectivity with FileMaker plug-ins allowing the application to:

• export FileMaker records to FTP servers

• integrate real-time Web content with your database

• enable Web Services

• grab real-time stock quotes, currency rates, ...

• get images directly from cameras or other devices

• integrate with QuickBooks

• provide BlowFish and A.E.S. encryption

• enable one-way, bi-directional or multi-hub data replication/synchronization between FileMaker Pro and any combination of external databases (MySQL, MS SQL Server, Oracle and Sybase)

• and much more....

In summary, one of FileMaker’s strengths is the ability to utilize or exchange data with almost any external data repository. As such, a FileMaker application can play a significant role in the enterprise while ensuring the use, where appropriate, of corporate data maintained in other systems-of-record. Interfaces with legacy systems should not be an issue with FileMaker.



Criteria: Address complex application requirements

A major distinction between FileMaker and other complex multi-layer systems using SQL databases is that FileMaker provides a seamless envi-ronment where the application (interface, business logic...) is integrated with the database engine that provides structure and data storage to the solution. For developers, FileMaker has an innovative graphical tool to create comprehensive relationships among tables and custom data views1. FileMaker comes with a powerful yet straight-forward calcula-tion engine providing over 250 functions2 each capable of accomplish-ing a specific range of objectives. And functions can be combined in compound calculation expressions to solve a wide range of problems. Developers can also create, and share, custom functions to solve elabo-rate operations with a single function call.

FileMaker uses a robust scripting language to implement complex busi-ness logic. Scripts can be triggered in a myriad of ways based on actions or events in the user interface. One minor drawback compared with other database systems is that scripts cannot be tied directly to data such that changes in the data directly trigger the script logic.

FileMaker is available in multiple languages and supports multilingual functionality using Unicode as the basis for character sets. Text values can be indexed according to the conventions of more than 26 languages and variants, and techniques are available to create multilingual inter-faces within a single solution.

FileMaker applications are cross-platform without modification - seam-lessly running on either the Macintosh or Windows3. Application con-trols, menus, dialogs, and features are consistent between platforms. Macintosh, Windows and iPad clients can co-exist in a mixed environ-ment served by a single FileMaker instance on a server.

1 Known as Table Occurances in FileMaker nomenclature.2 A function is a predefined, named formula that performs a specific calculation and

returns a single, specific value.3 iPad interface does require additional development effort.

All things considered, its difficult to imagine any business logic that can-not be readily implemented by a combination of FileMaker’s relational data structure, custom data views, calculations and scripts. The tools are available for skilled developers to build elegant and highly functional applications that exactly meet the needs of the users. FileMaker ap-plications generally exhibit an exceptional degree of usability - in stark contrast to some popular package systems (e.g., SAP).

Another important factor enhancing productivity is the global commu-nity of FileMaker developers and consultants - providing mutual support, techniques and expertise in a diverse range of industries. This group gives tirelessly on well organized electronic forums to assist others in solving problems and sharing new techniques. Many have created innovative diagnostic and development tools to significantly increase developer productivity. FileMaker also has a worldwide developer certification pro-gram providing a uniform indication of skills and credentials of profes-sionals working in the field.

Complexity of business rules will rarely be a valid reason not to consider FileMaker. More likely, the comparison will be between a package ap-plication and a custom solution in FileMaker. At the concept stage, the package can be demonstrated while the custom solution cannot (i.e., hasn’t been built yet) - thus creating the illusion of a disparity in capabili-ties. However, users considering a package should keep in mind that the package is probably built using a complex technology stack, is difficult to modify, and may force users to change business practices to fit the software. And, as demonstrated below, the package will probably be sig-nificantly more expensive than a FileMaker custom application - which provides users exactly want they want.



Criteria: Adapt to changing business requirements over time

Even if a system initially meets business requirements, there is still a criti-cal question whether it can be modified or adapted to changing require-ments over time. Its not really uncommon to see applications hanging around for 20 years. The older these systems get, the more difficult and expensive they are to change.

Its difficult to generalize about “enterprise applications,” but many are noteworthy in that they utilize multiple technology layers sitting on top of a large commercial database systems (e.g., Oracle, DB2, MS SQL Server...). Each layer has a specialized function, such as transaction processing, messaging, Web service, user interface, etc. and typically use different technologies or language constructs (Java, C, C++, C#, Visual Basic, COBOL, Lasso, .Net, Ajax, Java Script, PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby, SQL, PL/SQL, HTML, XML, etc.). Taken as a whole the overall system can be exceedingly complex, involving many different technologies, and requiring different people who have expertise in each. And the pool of original developers will certainly dissipate over time (i.e., move to differ-ent company, promotion to management, career change, etc.). Talented programmers are in high demand and consequently very mobile making turnover an issue - especially in the largest offshore consulting compa-nies.

Further, some of the core technologies will be replaced or superseded over time - often with cheaper open source1 equivalents. And many of these are not backward compatible with the technology they replace. Accordingly, the passage of time will inevitably induce a significant obstacle to efficient and cost-effective enhancement of complex legacy applications.

1 A main principle and practice of open source software development is peer production by bartering and collaboration, with the end-product, source-material, “blueprints,” and documentation available at no cost to the public.

Often the only practical way out is to hire a large consulting firm with extensive offshore resources And if the modifications are substantial, the only sensible answer is often to scrap the old system and start over.

Package software vendors often update, or even completely rewrite, their applications every few years. More often than not, these “upgrades” involve a completely new implementation. A good example is the Siebel Customer Management System (purchased by Oracle in 2006). This product has undergone a complete rewrite and will be incorporated into a new Oracle product line called Fusion. No doubt Fusion will be a significantly better product for many customers, but for existing Siebel customers, conversion won’t be easy - or cheap (notwithstanding well orchestrated marketing claims to the contrary). And if conversion is too costly, a company will be saddled with the old system which will not be adequately supported. An interesting predicament.

FileMaker enhances its product line with a major new release approxi-mately every 16 months. As mentioned below, the FileMaker product underwent a major redesign in 2004 with the advent of version 7. Since then, releases have added features, functionality, and performance, but the basic file format has remained unchanged. With minor excep-tions, FileMaker applications developed with version 7 and above work just fine on version 11, the latest release. Changing technology has not forced major upgrades for version 7 FileMaker customers - other than the temptation to take advantage new features. The basic platform is stable and FileMaker developers today generally have little trouble maintain-ing or enhancing code written years before by someone else - especially when using sophisticated 3rd party tools to document the application parameters and code.



Criteria: Deliver significantly lower life-cycle cost of ownership

OverviewIt is important to restate that not all enterprise applications are suitable candidates for custom development in FileMaker, specifically mission-critical, high volume, fault-tolerant, transaction processing systems.

But that leaves many other applications in the typical enterprise portfolio, especially those with unique requirements, that should be considered for FileMaker development.

The assertion herein is that there is a significant cost saving, over the useful life of an application, by custom development with FileMaker versus traditional system acquisition methods. The discussion below will attempt to provide a high-level view of the life cycle cost differential and some pros and cons of each approach.

The cost components for application life-cycle analysis include:

• analyze acquisition alternatives and select vendor (as required)

• determine target ROI and gain budget approval for project

• determine objectives and design application

• establish hardware, system software and network infrastructure

• create application or install package

• document, train users, test, and deploy application

• provide on-going support.

To look into life cycle costs, we consider implementing a hypotheti-cal Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system available to 200 named users. The application’s life span in this example is seven years. Estimating life cycle costs of any hypothetical involves numerous as-sumptions and estimates fraught with potential pitfalls. Acknowledging this, the intent is to provide an order-of-magnitude cost comparison of the alternatives as opposed to precise numbers for a budget.

A CRM system should be a good candidate for comparison. It is data centric and typically involves a large volume of on-line users researching issues (searching through the data) and entering/updating records. And there are many competitive package offerings. Additionally, there are offerings using a relatively new phenomenon know as Software as a Ser-vice1 (SaaS). Probably the best, or most popular CRM package, is Siebel CRM2. And the companion SaaS offering Oracle’s CRM On-Demand.

The three acquisition options are: package, SaaS, and custom. Pros and cons with each are discussed below.

PackagePackage software is often an appealing option. Primarily because it ex-ists and presumably has been battle tested on many other customers. Further, many customers believe a mature package application repre-sents best practices relative to the industry specific processes and work flows it automates. Or the software may dictate a particular work flow forcing the users to change their processes. Either way, new package software is often a catalyst for process reengineering. And of course, the consulting services required for implementation.

And most importantly, there is a common belief that packages are less expensive since the development cost is essentially spread across many different customers.

1 Sometimes referred to as “software on demand,” is software that is deployed from a “cloud” environment over the internet to users anywhere. With SaaS, a provider licenses an application to customers either as a service on demand, through a subscription, per-user, or a “pay-as-you-go” model. This approach to application delivery is part of the utility computing model where all of the technology is in the “cloud” accessed over the Internet as a service.

2 Seibel was purchased by Oracle in 2006 and currently offered as a stand-alone product in Oracle’s application suite. Seibel CRM functionality will soon be incorporated into Fusion, Oracle’s next generation of integrated applications.



Criteria: Deliver significantly lower life-cycle cost of ownership, continued...

However, a contrarian view is that some packaged software - designed for a broad market - consists of a large code base representing all con-ceivable features and functions anyone would ever want. To enhance sales opportunities, the application is highly modularized and each one is priced separately. Customers will purchase the modules they need, retaining the option of adding more as their business needs dictate - or budget allows.

Many customers unflattering describe these monolithic package systems as “bloatware,” especially when the customer must install the entire program regardless of how many modules are actually used. Over the product’s life cycle, mandatory updates are often required. But these can be onerous when the code being updated involves a module that isn’t used by the customer. Or the flip side, which is possibly even worse, customers may go off on their own and modify or enhance key modules, thereby effectively precluding any further updates of the package.

Another common misconception with package software is that once installed, it runs flawlessly. Like any system, there must be a design phase to clearly understand the requirements of each user group. Fur-ther, reports (almost always custom) must be developed, data migrated, interfaces developed, the package configured, processes modified and documented, and users trained. This front end consulting can be a major effort involving high priced consultants3. And once the system is opera-tional, there is the inevitable tuning (i.e., optimizing SQL commands) to achieve acceptable performance.

Interestingly, the cost of the actual software package is often less than a quarter of the total life cycle cost.

3 For estimating purposes, Oracle estimates the front-end consulting to be 1-3 times the cost of the package application and related system software.

Software as a Service (SaaS)SaaS is a hot topic in the world of software applications. Its appeal is a relatively low variable cost with access any time, anywhere. For example, Oracle’s On-Demand is priced at $70/user per month (plus optional add-ons, such as mobile, advanced marketing functionality, or extensions supplied by partners). And its accessible to named user with a connec-tion to the Internet.

However there are several major issues with SaaS which will inhibit its growth. First, everyone is tethered to the cloud via the Internet - which can be sluggish and unreliable. Also, applications using a browser as the front end must interact with the host application (located in the cloud) using a slow, often clunky, request-response metaphor. The user interface is less functional than found with typical package using two or three tier architecture where part of the application actually runs on the user’s PC. And the SaaS version of an offering my have a limited feature set com-pared to its package cousin4. And there is no opportunity to change or enhance the SaaS application.

There may be a security issue, or at least a concern, about who has access to the company’s data up in the cloud. Is it safe from hackers? WikiLeaks?

Like the package alternative, a SaaS implementation will require a pre-liminary consulting project addressing requirements, configuration, data migration, training, testing, change management, etc. And there will be on-going support services during the product’s full life cycle.

4 See http://www.online-crm.com/oralceondemand.htm




CustomCustom software has a compelling benefit - the company gets exactly what it wants (and presumably needs). But that presumes:

• a core of knowledgeable managers/users able to articulate requirements which conform to best practice and support the company’s business strategy

• developers able to translate the requirements into a robust system.

Like package software, the custom option has the same cost components. The main difference is the increased effort to design and build the actual application. Another issue is risk. A package solutions is deemed safe - because its working at many other sites already. Custom development with a complex technical stack requires labor intensive development given the different specialized technologies involved. With a custom development and traditional waterfall approach5, users won’t really know if the new system is successful until it is in production handling normal operational volume - possibly years after the initial request. The conven-tional wisdom is to steer clear of custom development unless there is a compelling system requirement that cannot be addressed any other way.

But as will be pointed out below, developing with FileMaker can turn conventional wisdom on its head.

FileMaker provides a seamless environment where the application (user interface, business logic) is tightly integrated with the database engine. Development is accomplished by a small team responsible for design and creation of all aspects of the solution. Virtually all projects use rapid iterative development where the application grows and matures as a series of releases delivered in weeks, not years. Typically there is an in-tensive period of design and development during the first several months

5 The waterfall model is a sequential design process, often used in software development processes, in which progress is seen as flowing steadily downwards (like a waterfall) through the phases of Conception, Initiation, Analysis, Design, Construction, Testing, Production/Implementation and Maintenance.

which tapers off as the application goes through stabilization then settles into mature operation.

FileMaker projects can go much faster because the small teams are experts in the use a single highly productive tool - FileMaker. This is a significant departure from other custom development projects using mul-tiple technology stacks, each requiring specialized expertise.

Life Cycle Costs6

The assertion herein is that many enterprise applications could be devel-oped using FileMaker at a significant cost savings over traditional system acquisition methods. The immediate questions are how much saving? And at what risk?

The life cycle costs to deploy a basic CRM system using the three alterna-tives discussed above are estimated at (details on page 17):

• Package (Siebel CRM - base functionality) - $6.7 million

• SaaS (Oracle CRM On-Demand) - $3.6 million

• FileMaker custom development - $1.8 million

So why is the full life cycle cost of the FileMaker solution a quarter of the package? Really several reasons. Oracle system and application software is expensive. Also the front end consulting to get the package configured and implemented is expensive - typically a lot more than many custom-ers realize. Comparable FileMaker system components are available at a much lower price point. But the main reason is creating the essential feature-set quickly using RAD methodology, enabled by FileMaker.

6 Cost to design, implement, and support an application over its full life. This includes re-quirements analysis, design, configuring or developing the system, integration with other legacy systems, testing, documentation, training, upgrades, and general on-going support.




But what about risk? Many custom development efforts have gone seri-ously over budget, or failed altogether. Factors contributing to project disruption or failure include:

• complexity of the technologies being employed

• scope creep as new requirements are discovered during the development process

• poor communications between users and offshore developers - aggravated by the chosen development methodology (waterfall) and the physical distance, language and cultural differences between users and developers

• personnel turnover (users and/or developers).

Again, a FileMaker enabled iterative and spiral development methodol-ogy can go a long way to mitigating these potential issues. There is no bewildering labyrinth of a developer’s tools and techniques, common in the open source world, because a comprehensive suite of FileMaker tools is contained in the product7. FileMaker runs on commodity hard-ware which should well understood and supported by the IT department. Scope creep is to some degree expected and new requirements and features are introduced in each iteration of the application - released every couple weeks. Virtually all FileMaker developers are local, living and working alongside the users they serve. The typical communication issues experienced with offshore developers simply don’t exist. Person-nel turnover is a constant problem with all projects, especially when the project loses one or more of the principle users or project sponsors. It can also be an issue with developers. Its especially prevalent with off-shore consulting firms where there is a robust market for top talent. On the other hand, FileMaker developers tend to be clustered in small local firms where the chief developer is also the owner.

7 FileMaker Pro Advanced.



Standards and Methodology for FileMaker developmentIts a serious misconception to believe that full featured robust enterprise applications can be developed by amateurs (i.e., users). Notwithstanding the power and integration of the FileMaker tools, it still requires skilled developers using a proven methodology to consistently create quality software. Experience, hard work and close cooperation with key user are mandatory elements in creating a solid data model and related use cases - the cornerstone of any successful system design. FileMaker, as with all developer tools, provides several ways of implementing any given feature or function. Some are good and efficient, others are bad. Professional FileMaker developers know the difference and use best practice tech-niques to create the optimal outcome.

A formal methodology, among other things, should clearly address:

• roles and responsibilities of management, users, developers, and support personnel

• definition of company objectives, user requirements, and design

• processes utilized in rapid application development (including documentation, testing, training and deployment)

• acceptance of deliverables

• resolution of issues

• project management protocols.

FileMaker, being an interpreted system, allows changes to scripts, lay-outs, triggers, data structures in live production systems. Accordingly, its important to acknowledge the legitimate concern regarding amateurs modifying FileMaker enterprise software. Fortunately with FileMaker’s Advanced Security, the application can be effectively locked down re-stricting modification to authorized developers. The methodology, as well as best practice, should specify that all modifications and enhancements should be made in an off-line development environment and thoroughly documented and tested before promoting to production. There are excel-lent 3rd party tools to facilitate this process.

Virtually all professional FileMaker developers utilize some form of rapid application development (RAD) and spiral development - characterized by frequent deliverables and continuous user involvement in the devel-opment process. Enabling RAD is a key advantage of using FileMaker and a significant factor in lowering the cost and risk of custom software development.

Risk MitigationConsider this hypothetical. Diligent executives visualize a significant market opportunity which must be exploited - quickly. A key enabler is a focused software application with a significant supporting IT infrastruc-ture. Early in the planning process, nobody really knows how big the opportunity will be, but zealous advocates believe its BIG and will be a game changer. Influenced by the euphoria of the moment, and possibly the sense that money is no object, the IT project grows in complexity and capacity to take advantage of anything that could possibly come along. Consequently, one thing is absolutely certain, the new “silver bullet” system will be very expensive. Which may be a huge problem, if not a career impediment, if it later turns out the opportunity wasn’t quite as large or lucrative as originally envisioned.

So what does this have to do with FileMaker development?

When faced with an uncertain business opportunity requiring immedi-ate system support, a prudent and risk adverse strategy would be to build the application in FileMaker. It would rapidly facilitate a thorough understanding of the requirements and corresponding business logic. If the “golden opportunity” really materializes such that size and volumes increase dramatically, then consider the FileMaker development effort as a prototype and build the application with all the available high-capacity and high-availability bells and whistles. No time would be lost as proto-typing is often an important step in traditional waterfall software develop-ment. However, the amount of money that could be saved in case things didn’t quite pan out with the business opportunity could be significant.



ConclusionThe initial question raised was whether FileMaker is a suitable platform for enterprise applications. The answer is a resounding yes, subject to some common sense qualifications. FileMaker is an integrated develop-ment environment where a small team of developers can create a full featured application - quickly. But to ensure success and maintain the active assistance of the company’s IT professionals, the following steps must be taken:

• host FileMaker Server on robust and reliable hardware - isolated from other applications

• authenticate the FileMaker application with the enterprise’s Active Directory

• adopt and use a formal methodology that clearly articulates the roles and responsibilities of corporate IT and the developer team - and the related communication protocols

• deploy the application with security restrictions preventing unauthorized modifications by users (i.e., lock it down)

• implement a comprehensive data backup process that dove-tails into the overall IT backup regimen

• provide IT staff with tools and documentation to monitor the performance and health of the FileMaker application

• make the FileMaker project’s status transparent by integrating into overall IT departmental management and reporting processes.

Lastly, possibly the most important, select a suitable target for the first FileMaker enterprise application. This would have clear and mutually agreed objectives, steadfast support of key users, and the company’s commitment to actively participate in the iterative development through-out the project life cycle.

If the steps outlined above are observed, there is a compelling case for utilizing FileMaker as a platform for enterprise applications. Elegant and feature rich applications can be deployed in a rapid and cost effective

manner - while fitting nicely into the IT infrastructure. A win-win for all stakeholders.

And for good measure, the company will have the satisfaction of know-ing that it is creating jobs in the United States.



Package SaaS FileMaker

CRM On-Demand $1,344,000

Server hardware $40,000 $40,000

Server software $285,000 $35,000

Client software $190,000

Developer tools $50,000 $4,000

Application software $900,000

Hardware maintenance $3,000 $3,000

Software maintenance $1,824,900 $69,000

Sub-total $3,292,900 $1,344,000 $151,000

Development and implementation services $2,830,000 $1,981,000 $1,382,400

On-going support $540,000 $324,000 $1,080,000

Total life cycle cost $6,662,900 $3,649,000 $2,613,400

ASSUMPTIONS

General AssumptionsLife of application - 84 monthsNamed users - 200

Siebel CRM - basic systemOracle Enterprise DBMS - $47,500/core plus $950/userProcessors - 6 coresSiebel application license - $4,500/userAnnual maintenance (hardware & soft-ware) - 22%Implementation and configuration - 2 times software costOn-going support rate - $180/hrAnnual support - 500 hrs

Oracle On-Demand CRMOn-Demand fee - $80/userImplementation and config - 70% of PkgOracle on-going support - $180/hrAnnual support - 500 hrs

FileMaker custom developmentFileMaker Server AdvancedFMDataGuard plug-inFileMaker Pro Advanced - developerGoya tools for developmentFileMaker Pro site license (SLA) for 210 users, including servers and clients - $35,000Annual SLA renewal - $11,500FileMaker developer - $180/hrFileMaker developer - $28,800/mthIntensive dvlp - 4.5 FTEs for 6 mthsStabilization dvlp - 3.5 FTEs for 6 mthsAnnual support - 1,000 hrs

Appendix 1 - Life cycle cost estimate for three development alternatives



Item Qty Unit Cost Extended

DL380-G7 Database Server (w/9.6TB internal raw or 4.8TB RAID 10 storage)

Configurable - HP ProLiant DL380 G7 High Performance Server

HP ProLiant DL380 G7 High Performance Server

(2) Six-Core Intel® Xeon® Processors X5690 (3.46GHz, 12M L3 Cache, 130 Watts)

(2) Embedded HP NC382i Dual Port Multifunction Gigabit Server Adapters

(2) HP 750W CS HE Hot-Plug Power Supplies

HP 8GB PC3-10600R 4x2GB 2Rank Memory (for 1st CPU)

HP 8GB PC3-10600R 4x2GB 2Rank Memory (for 2nd CPU)

HP P410i/1GB Flash Backed Cache (SAS Array Controller)

HP Insight Control including 1yr 24x7 Support ProLiant ML/DL-bundle Electronic License

Integrated Lights Out 3 (iLO 3) Management

HP Standard Limited Warranty - 3 Years Parts and on-site Labor, Next Business Day 1 $8,636 $8,636

HP 600GB 6G Hot Plug 2.5 SAS Dual Port 10K rpm Enterprise Hard Drive 8 $799 $6,392

HP 8-Bay Small Form Factor Drive Cage 1 $199 $199


HP P410 with 1G Flash Back Cache Smart Array Controller 1 $749 $749

HP Slim 12.7mm SATA DVD-RW Optical Drive 1 $130 $130

Subtotal (bundled HP website $) $22,498

Optional Items & Warranty Uplift (substitute as required)

HP Care Pack, 3 Years, 4 Hours, 24x7, Hardware, ProLiant DL380 1 $931 $931

HP 146GB 6G Hot Plug 2.5 SAS Dual Port 15K rpm Enterprise Hard Drive TBD $369 TBD

HP 8Gbps SAN dual-port adapter (Qlogic or Emulex) TBD $2,000 TBD

Appendix 2 - Sample configuration for database server



Item Qty Unit Cost Extended

DL380-G7 Web Server (w/2.4TB internal raw or 1.2TB RAID 1 storage)

Configurable - HP ProLiant DL360 G7 Server

HP ProLiant DL360 G7 Server

Six-Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5675 (3.06GHz, 12M L3 Cache, 95 Watts)

HP 2GB PC3-10600R 1x2GB 2Rank Memory (for 1st CPU)

Six-Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5675 (3.06GHz, 12M L3 Cache, 95 Watts)

HP 2GB PC3-10600R 1x2GB 2Rank Memory (for 2nd CPU)

HP P410i/ZM (SAS Array Controller)

HP 4-Bay Small Form Factor Drive Cage

(2) Embedded HP NC382i Dual Port Multifunction Gigabit Server Adapters (4-Ports)

(2) HP 750W Common Slot Gold Hot Plug Power Supplies

Integrated Lights Out 3 (iLO 3) Management

HP Standard Limited Warranty - 3 Years Parts and on-site Labor, Next Business Day 1 $6,247 $6,247


HP 1G Flash Backed Cache (For P410i) 1 $529 $529

HP 12.7mm SATA DVD-RW Drive 1 $130 $130

Subtotal (bundled HP website $) 1 $10,102

Optional Items & Warranty Uplift (substitute as required)

HP Care Pack, 3 Years, 4 Hours, 24x7, Hardware, ProLiant DL360 1 $750 $750

HP 146GB 6G Hot Plug 2.5 SAS Dual Port 15K rpm Enterprise Hard Drive TBD $369 TBD

Appendix 2 - Sample configuration for Web server

Date post:	22-Apr-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	miguel-angel-monllau
View:	163 times
Download:	6 times

FileMaker in the Enterprise

Documents