In my practice I'm doing a lot of work with the government and government contractors. I enjoy working with the government now much more than I did in the past, they are clearly more aggressive with technology and in some cases more innovative. Yes, I said it…I used "innovative" and "government" in the same sentence.
So, what's changed? The fact that IT is a strategic weapon to do more with less, and that's something many agencies are asked to do all of the time. Moreover, many see SOA has a strategic direction…again looking to align IT better with the business, or the case of government, "the mission."
However, there are some clear challenges out there as well for many agencies, and the military, namely that fact that there is a huge demand for SOA expertise, but not enough talent to drive many of the larger strategic SOA projects in the right directions. Moreover, government in many cases is leading the way. This makes the issue more drastic since you're leading, not following, and that's harder and more risky.
The core issue is that if we have any widespread problem in the world of SOA it's the fact that few understand what it is exactly, and how to go about approaching the problems. So, they typically revert to more traditional approaches that in many instances won't work, and indeed are much more costly when considering the amount of rework that has to be done, or the lost value of having an SOA.
While there are many traditional architectural concepts that carry forward to SOA, the fact is that it's a very different way of approaching architecture. We build solutions upon a foundation of services, and those services need to be defined and designed correctly, including semantics, performance, granularity, etc., else the whole thing comes tumbling down. Moreover, you have to consider new concepts such as SOA governance, orchestration, services management, and SLAs.
The deal is this. Those who are attempting to build an SOA for the government, or for the commercial world for that matter, need to understand the core concepts and the processes required to get to the desired destination.
There are few things that need consideration here:
- You get what you pay for. The lowest bidder is not always the company that will make you successful with your SOA. Lower hourly rates could result in huge strategic losses down the line, both in delays, rework, and not having the benefit of your SOA in the timeframe required. Good SOA guys are expensive, but perhaps worth it, all things considered.
- Planning, planning, and planning. Those that jump right into SOA without advanced planning are planning to fail, I can't say that enough. Many of the projects I'm seeing are diving right into the technology without a clear understanding of the desired outcome.
- Splurge on training. Investment in SOA training pays clear dividends when considering the productivity benefits. Moreover, leverage a SOA mentor along with training is also a good idea.
SOA is a great concept for the taxpayer, considering that government has an opportunity to do much more and thus provide better services. However, the concepts behind SOA are also complex, and you'll need to right soldiers around to win those battles. Trust me.
Posted by Dave Linthicum on June 10, 2007 11:19 AM
![[VoiceIndigo Mobilize - Listen to podcasts on your mobile phone]](http://www.voiceindigo.com/ht/images/mobilize_logo_sm.gif){kind=logo}
