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

More Responses to SOA and the Reality of Reuse  
# Monday, October 09, 2006
 
Since writing a short summary of the responses to my August Opinari, I've run across one more important comment on it. Written by Eric Newcomer, CTO of Iona, it's unlike the other responses I've seen in a significant way: Eric largely disagrees with my perspective.

I've known Eric for a long time, and I have great respect for his views. (In fact, he's written or co-written two excellent books in the series I edit for Addison-Wesley.) He points out that he's heard plenty of reuse success stories from Iona's customers, and I'm sure he's right. My perspective, however, isn't that reuse of business services is impossible. Rather, achieving this kind of reuse--and the benefits that go with it--appears to require more effort and more discipline than the average organization can muster.

I have no doubt that some firms will succeed in reusing business services. A reasonable number already have. But I'm still full of doubt about whether the average firm, or even a majority of organizations, will reach this goal. Anybody who's selling an SOA effort on the strength of potential business service reuse would do well to begin with a clear-eyed view of how likely the target organization is to actually achieve that reuse.

A greater focus on services makes sense even for firms that don't have much chance of reusing those services. But whether it's an internal or vendor-driven effort, it's usually better to promote a new approach based on the benefits it's most likely to have.


1 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

There is a quite common reuse of services probably unavoidable with the companies selling something to the general public (insurances, mobile providers, banks…). It has to do with multiple sales channels, some of which are partner channels. The companies offer their products through call centers, own internet portals, own points of sale/mobile agents or via partners/dealers. While the short time-to-market is essential, the products must be offered consistently over the channels. One way of doing it would be to use the same portal for each channel. It is sometimes even the best solution. However, some business requirements cannot be fulfilled that way and enterprises choose to use services to uncouple the channels from the back-end processing and data. So, a service to enter an insurance claim is being used by the point-of-sale application, different portals and call center(s).
In this case, the consistency across channels can be strengthened by moving the business logic into the back-end applications as much as possible. However, these changes are extremely difficult to make as they have to do with the business responsibility. I believe that you and the person from Gartner are referring to those kinds of reuse difficulties.
What probably does not work at all is to approach the reuse as a goal on itself. I believe it is very hard to identify common business logic without having a business problem first. Once the business ask for a particular reuse solution, it’s easy. Before they ask, it appears practically impossible to do.
 

Post a Comment


<< Home