Skip to main content

Early Signs of SOA Success


successI’ve been working with a client for an extended period of time.  This large IT department has had a variety of SOA tools and technologies available and has been doing major systems integration for 10 years.  Yet while their SOA tools have allowed them to integrate quicker than manual development, their integration methodology (essentially none) has given them 0% reuse.

Reuse is a fine objective, but it may not actually be valuable depending on the business and IT organization goals.  In this client’s case we did an extensive evaluation of IT current state, IT future state plans and goals, and business goals.  That may sound like a lot of overhead to determine future state integration and SOA approaches, but in the current economic climate architecture for architecture’s sake is simply not acceptable (if it ever was).

Or to put it another way, when IT is aligned with and demonstrating direct business value then IT is valued by the business.  And this attitude has to filter down to enterprise architecture, integration and SOA.

This is not to justify SOA (service oriented architecture).  Rather, SOA must justify it’s overhead by demonstrating how it’s going to provide value in meeting the IT and business goals.

At this client we identified 3 primary business and IT drivers for integration:

1. Business and IT systems agility.  This client is in a dynamic business environment and is frequently reinventing parts of their business, leading to an unusually high volume of major application replacement and feature revamping.

2. Reliability.  As the complexity of the interconnections between systems and applications had been increasing, reliability was suffering, sometimes with real dollar measurable business impact of downtime or data loss.  (Correspondingly more and better people were needed for support as more time was spend on more complicated problems.)

3. Integration Cost Reduction.  Integration (and integration support) were taking higher and higher percentages of project budgets and the trend continues to grow.

As I noted at the beginning of the article, I’ve been working with this client for some time.  Meeting this client’s goals is mostly about IT process changing and IT thinking change (though some solutions can be met with select tools for certain parts of the problem), for which we’ve been planning and preparing and planting the seeds as we’re reviewing projects in progress before the new processes are complete.

This week I saw in the organization the first signs of real SOA success.  I was sitting with an integration architect who was describing how he just saved 75% of the integration of 3 projects because we designed the services used by the first project in a reusable pattern. 

And that’s how it starts.

The goal is not reuse, the goal is aligning IT to meet the business goals.  Reuse is a method.  And seeing my client beginning to have success with the method and start meeting their goals…that’s exciting!

(Now we have to quickly put in place the KPI’s [key performance indicators] to measure the success and report it to all levels of IT management.  That’s the way to reinforce the positive people pattern and get the integration people positive recognition.)

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