In recent weeks, we've been talking about 'Guerrilla SOA,' a term put forth by Jim "World Wide" Webber, as an effective strategy for bringing service-oriented methodologies and solutions into SOA-resistant organizations.
Both Guerrilla SOA and Web 2.0 emphasize rapid, lightweight Web-based solutions to pressing problems
Now, a discussion by analysts in the latest BriefingsDirect SOA Insights podcast raises Guerrilla SOA thinking to a whole new level -- that it's actually part of the Web 2.0 phenomenon.
(Podcast leader Dana Gardner also provided more insights on the Guerrilla SOA-Web 2.0 connection in a panel discussion I hosted as part of this week's SOA in Action virtual conference. I'll post more details as the archived links become available.)
SOA Insights panelist JP Morgenthal said the Guerrilla SOA/Web 2.0 approach is well suited for smaller organizations that don't have the time and resources to sit and plan grand SOA/EA strategies -- they just need to get things done and do what they can to clear up backlogs: "They don’t spend their time sitting there wondering, whether they're going to do Web services or SOA. It’s more like 1,500 calls coming in a day, they’re being bombarded, and yet they still have to get stuff done."
Analyst Tony Baer agreed that conceptually, Guerrilla SOA and Web 2.0 are similar. "I'm sure there are probably purists who would probably come up with their own unique definitions to reflect the idiosyncrasies of each of the terms, but, I think it refers to an overall style... It’s the same drive that’s basically made agile-development techniques so popular. The idea is that we have pain points we need to address today, but we need a planning methodology that’s robust enough so that we don’t keep chasing our tails. At the same time, we also need technologies we can use to make this simple."
Tony also pointed to the irony that REST is considered to be a faster and simpler deployment mechanism than conventional Web services. Not too long ago, conventional Web services were touted as a simpler alternative to an earlier incarnation of SOA, which was CORBA, he pointed out. "As we started getting a little more experience working with some of those Web-services technology, we realized that maybe we didn't always need those complicated SOAP headers. So, why not dispense with that, because most of our needs right now are for simple things like fetching data."
The irrepressible Jim Kobelius chimed in with a new acronym, proposing that the new architecture be called GOA, which could mean one of two things -- "Guerilla Oriented Architecture versus Governance Oriented Architecture." Or, taking the WOA acronym a step further, meaning "Water-cooler Oriented Architecture" versus "Web Oriented Architecture." We all know that this is where the real collaboration and information sharing takes place within organizations. And, in many ways, is Web 2.0 not is making the world one giant water cooler?
Dana also wondered out loud if the horizontal collaboration and service development and sharing that is now possible across organizational boundaries and across the globe is not making the corporate structure as we have know it irrelevant. "The corporations traditionally needed to exist because of the requirement of huge capital brought together in large R&D budgets to solve massive technical problems. They're being overshadowed by groups of 8 to 10 people that then create a startup using their credit cards, access to Web services, and low-cost computing, storage, and networking."