Tag Archives: Anne Thomas Manes

Inside of a Dog, it’s too Dark to Read: SOA and Business Variation

Groucho Marx once famously said “outside of a dog, a book is man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read”

The amusement is that the word “outside” is semantically ambiguous. What’s less funny is the SOA Manifesto stating that they will follow the principle of “Pursue uniformity on the outside while allowing diversity on the inside.” Much like the Groucho Marx quote, the antecedent for “outside” is ambiguous. Outside of what?!

Groucho_Marx2
(Picture of Groucho Marx looking a bit like Ron Schmelzer)

Why is this statement problematic?

First and foremost, I chastise this statement because it is sloppy. Sloppy architecture is what got us into this mess in the first place. But more importantly, this statement reflects a narrow, IT centric view of the scope of Architecture which leads down a dangerous path. Complexity theory has a term called a “holon”. A holon is something that appears to be a whole–yet is a part of something larger (e.g an organism is part of a biosphere). By confusing the antecedent for “outside”, the SOA Manifesto focuses on the holon of the service interface. If so, the reworded principle would be “Pursue uniformity on the outside (of the service interface) while allowing diversity on the inside (of the service interface).” The problem with this statement is that it ignores the concept of diversity on the outside (of the service interface).

Diversity on the outside solves the business complexity problem
Lest you think I’m splitting dog hairs here, why is this of any importance?

Because everyone is presently overfocused on the complexity of the IT Supply rather than the complexity of Demand on IT. The business is driven to compete, innovate and requires Internet style services that scale and can be consumed on any device in any language, anywhere and any time. They demand self-service, personalized, localized, mass-customized and differentiated customer experiences, and they require access to the same information whether it’s in a customer contact center, on a web browser, an internal application, on a mobile device or at a branch office. Business demands complex consumption patterns on the outside of the service interface.

By ignoring the consumption pattern diversity, attention is only drawn to the IT problem of managing complex IT supply. One of the biggest flaws in SOA implementation, and arguably the reason why Anne Thomas Manes declared “SOA is Dead” is the lack of connection between SOA and the business solution. The ability to dynamically compose solutions into composite applications, mash-ups or business processes using business services is the central underpinning for agility and business transformation.

Managing Business AND IT Complexity
This requires the ability to solve the problems of Business Complexity and IT Complexity. Services are just tools that allow you to trade consumer complexity for trust, thereby improving manageability. Processes are tools that take full responsibility for complexity, thereby enabling optimization. The primary function of Services in this context is to manage the interaction between two specialized organizational subgroups. This allows one group such as business unit to consume the services of another group say, IT without having to know the gory details of the implementation of the service. Insulating the business from the complexity of IT is helpful, since the IT subgroup is highly specialized and therefore hard to understand. However, two implications arise, firstly that the business group is also highly specialized and therefore complex. Secondly that IT cannot abdicate its responsibility for IT Process, unless of course it is prepared to outsource the service. The provider view of a service is process-oriented, only the consumer view of service is service-oriented.

The “new normal” Business Environment
A good example of this complex consumption pattern is Software AG’s recent partnership with Tom Tom Work–who are now able to offer fleet management as-a-service to their business customers. The ability to offer outsourced transportation and logistics management enables Tom Tom to provide a new differentiated service on top of the core competencies of their organization, namely location-based services. The power to dynamically recombine core capabilities into new product and service offerings while simultaneously offloading non-core competencies to partners reflects a “new normal” business environment. Complexity should be seen as a function of specialization, and organizations should identify which sources of complexity they want to embrace through process-orientation, and which sources of complexity they want to eschew through service orientation. Eschewing complexity through service-orientation requires the discipline of segmenting specialized Enterprise subgroups and actively deciding whether your organization wants to invest in world-class processes or divest services to outsourcers. No single person in the Enterprise can understand the total complexity of the value chain, but this does not lead to weakness as long as you can align internal and external subgroups through trust or by developing a trusted framework of operation.

Trusted Frameworks

A trusted framework allows you to manage complexity housed in many discrete silos without requiring explicit trust between specific providers and consumers. By externalizing trust into policies that are uniformly enforced, we create a trusted environment. An example is automobile traffic. Automobile traffic is exceedingly complex, and no single driver can understand what is in the minds of all the other drivers. In fact, when one goes on the road, it is not because one trusts each and every driver explicitly, rather that there are enforceable rules of the road that have been declared and enforced. Individual trust relationships between drivers is not scalable. So a driver trusts in the framework of policy enforcement. Similarly, trusted environments hold the key to enabling spontaneous networks of collaboration between Enterprise subunits and external partners and suppliers.

As such, the business and IT functions need to develop a framework of trust that creates the possibility of continuous improvement–an evolutionary paradigm that at the Enterprise scale requires continuous measurement, continuous optimization, continuous alignment and continuous collaboration. If SOA and Enterprise IT are going to bury their heads on the “inside of a dog”, it will be much too dark to read the intentions of the business.

My 2 cents,
Miko

Incoming search terms:

Posted in Cloud | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

The Legacy of Enterprise 2.0–Concluding thoughts from the Conference

The absolute highlight of last week’s Enterprise 2.0 conference was meeting in person and online many very bright people including Nenshad Bardoliwalla, Susan Scrupski, Michael Krigsman and many others. There’s certainly a strong discourse here about advancing the agenda for Enterprise computing.

As with many advanced topics in Enterprise computing, it’s very easy to take a potshot: as we all know:

crocky

* SOA is Dead (Anne Thomas Manes)
* Enterprise 2.0 what a Crock (Dennis Howlett) and
* Cloud is Water Vapor (Larry Ellison)

One link that got me to thinking was posted by Nenshad–Tomio Geron from the Wall Street Journal blogged about the vast number of venture backed startups that have failed this year.

Pundits aside, I think there is a very easy “Crock Test” that can definitively answer Dennis Howlett’s question. The question wont be answered by a failed panel discussion. No matter how pithy, it wont be answered by a blog post. The closest thing to the “Crock Test” came from Susan Scrupski’s “last and only response to crock-gate”, a list of organizations involved in the Enterprise 2.0 Adoption Council. The problem with the list is that the names are just names–you kind of want to be able to click on them to see the case studies, if any.

Which brings me to the “Crock Test”. Unfortunately, the test will require some degree of patience. We will definitively know if Enterprise 2.0 is a crock if in 20, 30 or 40 years we can look back on all of the Enterprise 2.0 legacy software that has been created.

As I mentioned in 5 definitions towards the maturing of Enterprise 2.0, legacy is another word for the software projects that worked. So here’s hoping we will be looking back at Susan’s list of companies and seeing a list of case studies about the depth and scope of transformation and a list of the huge successful companies built on top of Enterprise 2.0–not a list of failed ones.

To be fair, the failed companies on the list come from a large number of sectors–it’s just a sobering list, not a condemnation of #e20

My 2 cents,
Miko

Posted in Cloud | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off

Whatever Center recieves kudos from key analyst in the whatever sector

I woke up this morning to see that Anne Thomas Manes had twittered my changing the SOA Center web site to whatever center…

Anne and Sashaatmanes Love Miko’s response to “SOA is Dead”: http://whatevercenter.com/ about 1 hour ago from web

A great boost to our little thought experiment…

On a more serious note to real practitioners, I am composing a baby/bathwater list to try to reorganize the architectural insights and patterns as well as challenges in Enterprise IT. The “death” of SOA leaves a pretty big vacuum and one that will require a constructive and creative response. Welcome 2009 out with the old, in with the new… become the change we need, and yes we can!

Posted in Cloud | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off

SOA is Dead, what’s next, pundits?

SOA hit by meteor

In Anne Thomas Manes’s blog, she states:

SOA met its demise on January 1, 2009, when it was wiped out by the catastrophic impact of the economic recession. SOA is survived by its offspring: mashups, BPM, SaaS, Cloud Computing, and all other architectural approaches that depend on “services”.

It’s a good read and certainly a legitimate way of looking at the world. As you know from my blog, I have taken a very evolutionary perspective on SOA and on technologies used in the Enterprise in general. When I say “evolutionary” I do NOT mean incrementalist. Over the course of 2 years, very little changes–but over the course of 10 years things are typically substantially transformed. I subscribe to the model of evolution espoused by the late great Stephen Jay Gould–of Punctuated Equilibrium.

The image of the big SOA dinosaur is certainly a viable image… We could characterize project like these as being very large, slow moving and vulnerable, and part of the large upfront capital expenditure model of IT in the late 1990’s.

The thing is, evolution grows by leaps and bounds–I spoke of this when I wrote about what I learned from my breakfast with Steve Wozniak, which is that evolution is constantly devising new solutions, and doing so under extreme survival pressure. The lungfish crawls out of land to breathe air not because it’s expressing itself creatively, it is because the pond has dried up. The Archaeopterix flies in the air not to experience the trancendental joy of soaring, but to avoid the snapping jaws of predation. These moments in evolutionary history are not without precedent and always of historiographic import as they are subject to revisionism.

What remains is the fundamental evolutionary need–to survive and to compete in business. Those “organisms” who are burdened with the evolutionary legacy of their heterogeneous infrastructure and are unable to come up with agile, dynamic ways to recombine these systems will become extinct. Whether the patterns of management to enable these new adaptation layers are called SOA or something else remains to be seen, but the organizations that fail to transcend their legacy history and complexity of architecture to emerge reformed as the new flying, air breathing, small, furry mammals of the new age (not neccesarily all of the above strategies can be combined in a single creature) will of course be doomed to the tar pits of history.

I believe that use of SOA as a term will certainly decline, but the strategies to address the fundamental problems will have to continue to evolve out of the SOA “stream”. At the same time SOA is dead, SOA is also inevitable–but it may come under a different name. The DNA of large organizations will require interfaces to appropriately segment the what of requirements from the how of implementation, and the design patterns of SOA will be the ones that will realize the long term vision of an Enterprise, Multi-Enterprise, and indeed “cloud” platform. Any term like SOA has to experience the hype cycle and goes through linguistic mystique, implementation, experimentation, and eventually a degree of nomenclature fatigue. SOA had a particularly “big tent” agenda and so a lot of folks latched on to it in the hopes that SOA would be their savior. Frankly I see the same kind of pattern in “cloud”, which is to say that it’s not an easily defined technical term, rather a set of political interested tied to a set of insights and realizations.

For 2009, it’s incumbent upon us as participants in the unfolding of the world’s technology platform that we don’t overreact to the external conditions that are foisted upon us. Fear about the economy should take a back seat to the project of becoming the change we need. The era of knee-jerk emotional reaction can hopefully be relegated to 2008 (or perhaps the first half of 2009) and we can move forward together to both re-envision and rebuild our infrastructure. And to realize the big vision we need each and every person to become the change we need.

I’m indifferent to whether we continue to call it SOA or not, lets just keep building the future together.

My 2 bits,
Miko

Posted in Cloud | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off