David Chappell

  • September 2020
  • November 2017
  • April 2017
  • October 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • August 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003

Opinari

Get the Feed! Subscribe

Moving to SOA: Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up  
# Saturday, March 19, 2005
 
The best approach to creating a service-oriented environment is obvious. Start by understanding the business, probably by grasping the most important business processes and determining which applications underlie those processes. Once you've figured out the business services that software implements, you can wrap existing apps and create new ones to expose just the right services. This top-down, business-process-first approach is elegant, clean, and sensible. It's obviously the right way to do it.

Unfortunately, it's also impossible in most organizations. Taking this approach requires getting a company's business decision makers to understand and believe in the benefits of SOA. What this really boils down to is IT saying something like this to the business people: "Give us several million dollars, we'll build this cool SOA thing, and in three years you'll see a significant ROI on your investment". I've spoken with dozens and dozens of organizations moving to SOA, and in all but a handful, this kind of request is a non-starter. Most often, ROI-based arguments for SOA are DOA, at least when they're made to business people.

What actually is possible in a typical organization is a bottom-up approach. The IT organization builds a service-oriented application solely because doing so makes sense for them. The architects and developers who create this app know that it will be accessed by diverse clients or other applications, and so making it service-oriented from the start will make their lives easier. The IT organization then builds another service-oriented app, and so on. Whenever required, an existing application is wrapped with services to let it participate in this new world. Creating a service-oriented organization in this fashion is inelegant, certainly, even ugly. But it's also the only viable approach in a majority of cases, and it's what I see people doing most of the time.

Get just a little way down this bottom-up path, though, and problems start to appear: managing the services you're creating, securing them in a consistent way, and more. Get further down this path, and the advantages of the top-down approach will become clear. You'll hunger for a broader view of your organization and its business processes. Given this, organizations start bottom-up, then attempt to take some kind of broader view once they've gotten part way down this path.

If IT organizations had more credibility with business people, the top-down option would be more feasible. Given the reality in most companies, though, the bottom-up approach, followed later by some kind of broader perspective, looks like the path that most organizations will take.


0 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

Post a Comment


<< Home