Skip to main content

Surge of SOA Suites?


IBM_SOA_Maturity A month ago I wrote how suddenly I’m seeing a surge of interest in SOA Governance.  In an interesting follow up to that article, I found myself sitting in a vendor sales presentation for a full SOA suite of tools to a potential customer.  And this customer asked a very good question…

“We haven’t seen a lot of SOA suite sales in our region (and therefore haven’t seen many sales of your product). Why not?”

While many of the Fortune 500 and leading edge companies approached SOA with significant investment and (somewhat) serious commitment, others did not.

early_majority

The innovators and early adopters have been “doing SOA” for 6-10 years.  Two things forced them into major vendor ESB products and SOA suites from the start.  First, these were the only tools (operating at an enterprise level) early on the market and they provided EAI and protocol + technology bridging that settled them into a solid enterprise IT niche.  Second, the extending of all the various development technologies into the web service space hadn’t happened yet – therefore the major tools were the only way to “do SOA”.

The majority of adopters (from the charge above) have had other options.  Various containers and servers extended to provide parts of SOA functionality.  EAI tools and gateway tools that provide parts of ESB functionality.  A variety of small vendor SOA tools and even open source projects to fill in function needs.

As such, before investing hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more!) in a major SOA suite and major implementation effort, most IT shops (particularly where I am located, a small country) have started with small tools.  These departmental sized tools have allowed them to get their feet wet with SOA without the large investment risk of a major suite and associated implementation project.

Suddenly though, as with my article on Governance, many of these IT shops are finding they’re hitting the capacity and capability limits of these departmental tools.  Having been “doing SOA” for 2-4 years and hitting the 100-300 major service range, the more limited SOA tools hit reliability and performance problems, lack capabilities for managing the library of services (at design time or, more importantly in this case, at runtime), don’t do much about security, are harder to use than the visual design and scripting oriented SOA suite tools, and don’t well integrate out into governance tools or BPM tools.

Net net, the value proposition of a SOA suite becomes apparent, and the fears of a high investment in an unknown area no longer exist as they’re already familiar with some level of SOA and looking to move up in SOA maturity (to solve developing SOA management problems and to begin to realize higher level SOA benefits).

This is good news for Software AG, IBM, Oracle, and Tibco.  But the window of opportunity is closing for Microsoft, HP, Fujitsu, Alcatel-Lucent, Progress, and others.  Niche product vendors will be dependent on how well their specialty solutions play with the major suites (examples: Layer 7, Intel SOA Expressway, Weblayers, iWay).  The jury is still out on whether the growing open source SOA suite Mule make an impact.

Popular posts from this blog

Integration Spaghetti™

  I’ve been using the term Integration Spaghetti™ for the past 9 years or so to describe what happens as systems connectivity increases and increases to the point of … unmanageability, indeterminate impact, or just generally a big mess.  A standard line of mine is “moving from spaghetti code to spaghetti connections is not an improvement”. (A standard “point to point connection mess” slide, by enterprise architect Jerry Foster from 2001.) In the past few days I’ve been meeting with a series of IT managers at a large customer and have come up with a revised definition for Integration Spaghetti™ : Integration Spaghetti™ is when the connectivity to/from an application is so complex that everyone is afraid of touching it.  An application with such spaghetti becomes nearly impossible to replace.  Estimates of change impact to the application are frequently wrong by orders of magnitude.  Interruption in the integration functioning are always a major disaster – both in terms of th

Solving Integration Chaos - Past Approaches

A U.S. Fortune 50's systems interconnect map for 1 division, "core systems only". Integration patterns began changing 15 years ago. Several early attempts were made to solve the increasing problem of the widening need for integration… Enterprise Java Beans (J2EE / EJB's) attempted to make independent callable codelets. Coupling was too tight, the technology too platform specific. Remote Method Invocation (Java / RMI) attempted to make anything independently callable, but again was too platform specific and a very tightly coupled protocol. Similarly on the Microsoft side, DCOM & COM+ attempted to make anything independently and remotely callable. However, as with RMI the approach was extremely platform and vendor specific, and very tightly coupled. MQ created a reliable independent messaging paradigm, but the cost and complexity of operation made it prohibitive for most projects and all but the largest of Enterprise IT shops which could devote a focused technology

From Spaghetti Code to Spaghetti Connections

Twenty five years ago my boss handed me the primary billing program and described a series of new features needed. The program was about 4 years old and had been worked on by 5 different programmers. It had an original design model, but between all the modifications, bug fixes, patches and quick new features thrown in, the original design pattern was impossible to discern. Any pattern was impossible to discern. It had become, to quote what’s titled the most common architecture pattern of today, ‘a big ball of mud’. After studying the program for several days, I informed my boss the program was untouchable. The effort to make anything more than a minor adjustment carried such a risk, as the impact could only be guessed at, that it was easier and less risky to rewrite it from scratch. If they had considered the future impact, they never would have let a key program degenerate that way. They would have invested the extra effort to maintain it’s design, document it property, and consider