Manes: let's get more 'concrete' about service orienting

Manes: let's get more 'concrete' about service orienting

Summary: More on the Architecture Formerly Known as SOA:Anne Thomas Manes created quite a kerfuffle across the blogosphere this past week with her pronouncement that SOA [as we know it]  is "dead," at least as a concept for addressing efficient delivery of services across enterprises.In a follow-up post, Anne says her statement was widely misinterpreted.

SHARE:

More on the Architecture Formerly Known as SOA:

Anne Thomas Manes created quite a kerfuffle across the blogosphere this past week with her pronouncement that SOA [as we know it]  is "dead," at least as a concept for addressing efficient delivery of services across enterprises.

In a follow-up post, Anne says her statement was widely misinterpreted. She says she was not -- repeat, not -- advocating incremental approaches over "Big SOA;" nor was she advocating REST adoption over WS-* as the service protocol that underpins SOA. Nor was she saying that the moniker "SOA" itself was flawed, so we have to call it something else.

Instead, Anne says, the SOA concept itself is fundamentally flawed, especially when that it calls for business transformation that may be impossible to undertake in one fell swoop. And that's where the disillusionment has set in. Instead, organizations need to focus on the most efficient means of delivering services across the enterprise, and build from there. As Anne puts it:

"My real point is that we should not be talking about an architectural concept that has no universally accepted definition and an indefensible value proposition. Instead we should be talking about concrete things (like services) and concrete architectural practices (like application portfolio management) that deliver real value to the business."

One of the things I have pondered since the inception of this blog (and I've seen hotly debated) is whether the term or idea of "service oriented architecture" should be widened to incorporate the cloud, Web 2.0, enterprise 2.0-ish phenomena we're seeing in the world at large, or if SOA should not stray from its original intent and definition, which is to facilitate an environment in which loosely coupled services are developed, deployed, and reused/shared in a managed, orchestrated manner to support processes across and between organizations.

In one sense, cloud and Web 2.0-ish approaches such as mashups can be considered emerging approaches and enablers of SOA under this definition. On the other hand, throwing in all and everything leads to a watering down of the definition of SOA --which only creates confusion and disillusionment.

This is a question we'll continue to look at and try to answer in this blogsite. Of course, the bottom line is that SOA -- and cloud and Web 2.0 for that matter -- deliver nothing to the business -- nothing. Organizations are not demanding "SOA" and they are not demanding "cloud computing." They are demanding better business intelligence and more predictive supply chains. They are demanding faster ways to understand and meet customer needs. SOA is a methodology that potentially makes more agile and streamlined business applications possible to meet these business demands.

Topics: Enterprise Software, Browser, Software, Software Development

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

4 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • ok..

    This is a position I think I can agree with when it comes to SOA.

    A lot of posts about SOA are so far removed from business realities that they are extremely painful to read. This one and the article it quotes seem to have a clue about things.
    rijrunner
    • Thank you...

      SOA is only successful when it delivers value to the business, and we try to stay focused on that.
      joemckendrick
  • RE: Manes: let's get more 'concrete' about service orienting

    I teach desktop repair to technician hopefuls and I have noticed that they have a hard time grasping what Web 2.0 really means. I have a handy definition (information and presence awareness through indirect internet access), but it's too abstract to incorporate into their toolset or mindset just yet.

    I think you have the same problem here where someone thinks the latest and greatest moniker is the answer to everything while most people are scratching their heads as to how to implement it.

    I think the problem here is writers having too little to write about intelligently (how people can use the info in a concrete way as you say) and too many people not really knowing what to do with that scraped up article because it isn't in a form they are looking to use yet (like something they can buy or test out).
    ifyoucanreadthis
    • There's definitely a disconnect...

      ...between the glitzy things we hear about Web 2.0-ish applications and services, and their practical application to business problems. Web 2.0 is an ill-defined area, which covers everything from mashups to cloud computing. Web 2.0 has interesting productivity and connectivity possibilities, but these may still only be marginal to the business. Where they may see their value enhanced is mashups, where end users can assemble their own front-end apps, drawing on back-end services. This could make SOA "real" to the business user.
      joemckendrick