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

Opinari #16 Posted: SOA and the Reality of Reuse  
# Wednesday, August 30, 2006
 
Will software reuse really be much easier with SOA? I'd like to believe the answer is yes, but my experience so far suggests otherwise. The latest issue of my Opinari newsletter, available here, explains why.

I'd like nothing more than to be wrong about this. After all, it's still relatively early days for SOA, and some organizations have seen successful service-based reuse. Still, the overall picture so far isn't especially encouraging. The inevitable move to services brings plenty of benefits, but I'm becoming doubtful that widespread reuse of business logic will be among them.


5 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

From what I've seen, data services appear to be the most reusable. If an organization can provide a common way to access shared data, then rigorously enforce this common access (which is the hard part), it can reduce the need for redundant databases that must be synchronized.

Granularity also appears to matter. For decision services, it would seem easier to do reuse at a coarse level--should we offer this loan or underwrite this insurance applicant--than at the more fine-grained level of specific rules. You know far more about this I do, however; what's your view?
 

I have had the same experiences as a consultant on several SOA based projects (some very large).
Here is a short paper à wrote on that topic:
www.lesmoineau.fr/Papers/SOA_Gouvernance_EN.pdf"

PS : Even if data services are easier to reuse, agreeing on the behaviour of the data is not easy.
 

This is a very interesting paper--thanks. I especially like your cube model. Overall, do you think the Copernic SOA project you describe in that paper was a success? And did the organization see extensive reuse of business services?
 

Copernic is a gradual refactoring of the full fiscal IT system in France (not a big bang approach).
One of the first outcome of Copernic is the tax declaration over internet which was used this year by more than 10% of the taxpayers and worked very well.

Reuse is starting to kick in, especially reuse of data services : the target architecture is centered around central repositories used by all the applications.
This may seem a trivial architecture but moving from silos-based to such an architecture proved to be a paradigm shift more difficult than expected – especially for business and functional experts. I wrote a paper on that, but currently in French – I may translate it in the next weeks.
There is a central team of functional and application architects who define and maintain the blueprint. In addition, there are more than 15 evangelists identified in the programme to promote these architectures and to help the projects with the new paradigm. This is a high price to pay but it was considered mandatory and the business benefits are big enough to pay for that (in this special case the ROI has been calculated and is good).

Reuse of fragments of business processes is considered too difficult currently, not in term of technology but in term of business people maturity – it may be considered later….
 

News flash: Business asset reuse has nothing to do with technology, film at 11...

Personally, I think SOA is less about reuse and more about *use*, and while your article is broadly correct, there is major one point I disagree with -- that business agility has something to do with "reuse".

The classic benefits of reuse programs are based on labour savings. If I build X now, I save Y labour in the future, accruing the benefits. The challenge is everything you claims in your article, and this approach is not likely to work in a a business IT environment. It likely works with an ISV's product lines or a language's standard libraries.

The other benefits of reuse are consolidation & consistency. Instead of 3 ways to do something, I have 1, and I save the operational costs of doing so. Here is where I think there is confusion between SOA and reuse.

SOA, in itself, has nothing to do with consolidating or eliminating the operational or maintenance costs of software. It can complement such a program, but doesn't actually do the job. Classic reuse is about cost savings from increasing #'s of consumers, or controlling operating & maintenance costs through centralization of *implementation*.

SOA, I believe, is about drastically reducing the marginal costs of integration through consistent / uniform *contracts*.

Thus in an SOA, I may have a consistent service contract to maintain "customer data", but it may have 3 inconsistent and synchronized databases underneath that contract. New consumers are insulated by the contract when I decommission one of those 3 databases.

The first challenge continues to be the need to standardize data defnitions and semantics, at least in pockets, and have predictable ways to mediate among disagreements. The data warehousing community tackled this challenge in the 1990's and has had some success (though there were many failures). The SOA world likely will be no different. It's a painful political process, but it can, and has been done, just more often in the decision-support / BI world and less often in the online / transactional world.

The other challenge is that CIOs have no reliable way to correlate SOA initiatives to "business agility", whose performance indicators are typically under the care of the business unit. So it's going to be a hard to provide a quantitative case unless there is a very good business/IT relationship.
 

Post a Comment


<< Home