First, most SOA architects (or should I say SOAAs [Okay, I won't]), are doing a poor job in convincing the powers that be that be that SOA is a good idea. I'm hearing this a lot, and considering the investment this is going to be a major issue in moving existing "crappy architectures" to SOA. However, you have to consider that many asking for SOA money are those that built to "crappy architectures" in the first place; I guess I can see the point of management in some cases.

So, what do you do? Basics kids. Define the value as a business case. That means we’re not doing SOA because it's cool, but because it makes a better business. Focus on that. It's not a fix, it's moving to improve. It's not a project, it's a journey.

Second, performance and security are systemic, thus must be considered throughout the architecture. Many are only considering those notions as a part of the process. That's a mistake, and will force you to change out technology later, and will cost valuable time and money.

Finally, focus on small successes at this point. As you saw in the Oracle case studies I blogged about last week, the first instances of SOA are much more simplistic. That's good; you build from the ground up and do so in baby steps.

Posted by Dave Linthicum on August 28, 2006 06:25 AM