Free Newsletters

   All InfoWorld Newsletters
Real World SOA | David Linthicum » Some Consultants Are Bad for SOA

January 02, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Some Consultants Are Bad for SOA

First of all, full disclosure. I am a SOA consultant, thus I'm always a bit careful when I talk about other consultants in the business. However, I'm also an industry pundit, and, as such, I think it's time for me to point out a rather disturbing pattern. As larger organizations begin to embark on their SOA projects, there is some misdirecting going on that you should be aware of, which will allow you to make an educated decision as to, not only what you're going to do, but who's going to help you.

At issue is the fact that many people in the planning stages for SOA do not get the proper advice and guidance as to how to proceed, or even what a SOA actually is. Thus, the larger tragedy is that many of these projects will hit the wall, and do so with an impact that will reflect poorly on the notion of SOA, when it's not really a SOA issue at all.

First, be wary if consulting organizations point out their experience in the world of SOA by putting up past projects as proof of their experience. Most, if not all, of these past projects are really JBOWS (just a bunch of Web services) and have no underlying mechanisms to provide agility, which is the core benefit of SOA.

The problem is that many of people looking to hire SOA consultants don't understand the difference between JBOWS and a true SOA, and accept JBOWS as "experience." In reality, it's an indication that the consultants don't understand the core value of SOA, and thus could send you off in all sorts of dangerous and costly directions. So, make sure to hire consultants who understand that SOA is really about configuration, agility, and changeability, and not just about service enablement. It's very easy to expose services; turning those services into solutions is another level of sophistication.

Second, many consultants are a bit too chummy with vendors. Thus, you'll find that they implement the same vendors and technology each and every time. This should be a huge red flag since SOA problem domains are all very different, and technology solutions that work best for the solution are never, ever, from the same vendor, over and over again. However, when you sell hammers, everything looks like a nail. The path of least resistance is what you know, not what you should do.

Those tasked with managing SOA consultants need to state clearly that you are looking for the right solution, not the one they know, or what may be part of an existing partnership. Indeed, consulting organizations with many preexisting vendor partnerships should be quickly overlooked. You need guys and gals in there who are agnostic when it comes to technology, and are willing to leverage the best-of-breed to address your issues.

Third, there needs to be a predefined process. While many SOA consultants try to use older SDLC and enterprise architecture processes, SOAs need a specific approach that addresses the unique nature of these architectural patterns. For instance, there is a traditional focus on data, but the data needs to be properly bound to services. Moreover, those services must be properly bound to processes. Plus you need to keep track of all the interdependencies, and how all of this stuff links to SOA governance, SOA security, and event management and monitoring.

Many consultants attempt to oversimplify the process, rapidly moving through or even foregoing the planning steps. Their main focus is the selection of the technology, or, in some cases, they attempt to force fit a problem with a predetermined technology solution. This can never be good.

Posted by Dave Linthicum on January 2, 2008 04:27 AM


RATE THIS ARTICLE:





 

  •  
  • COMMENTS




Thanks for this post, once again making the point for thoroughness rather than expediency.

I wonder, though, how many companies are really willing to fix their current rat's nest with a well designed and competent SOA.

What are you finding with your contacts in the industry? Does the JBOWS situation depict the majority of SOA efforts?

Posted by: Douglas Thiel at January 2, 2008 02:04 PM

I recently worked for a company who believed that by implementing a service layer pattern they had developed an SOA based application set. This, on the basis of advice by their external architecture consultant. Neither party could be convinced of the error of their ways. Go figure.

Posted by: Simon Ablett at January 3, 2008 12:58 AM

So sad, so true. A too common trait, looking previous comments and my own experience. Partly to blame the vendors and consultants but corporations should understand that they have to make their own decisions, no canned WEB or pattern or whatever solution works everywhere. It is a lot like the idea starting franchises everywhere without the groundwork and start making money, we all know how well that did work.
And maybe it is the consultants, vendor or independent, who can't sell SOA. SOA seems overwhelming and expensive which it doesn't have to be, starting right it can be (should be) built over time and not all at the same time.

Posted by: Tuomo Stauffer at January 3, 2008 06:03 PM

Thanks for giving a better understanding of who to go and who not to go, I been through lot of papers articles about SOA and my understanding and their explaination says the major benefit of SOA is, it is as business appears. So the one who is looking for SOA solution should understand first that now technology and process are not two things which need to be fit in a singe frame but they should look for process technology can be used anyway if process is in place. Interoperability, composibility and loose coupling are properties of SOA.

Madhav

Posted by: Madhav at January 6, 2008 11:11 PM

Technology White Papers

 

InfoWorld Technology Marketplace

» Technology White Papers Library

Technology White Papers by Topic

Technology White Papers E-mail Alert

Find out when the latest white paper is available:
 
 
» BUY A LINK NOW

Sponsored Technology Links