RFP's for Service Oriented Architecture

At MomentumSI, we keep a close eye on the various RFP's that are issued relating to SOA. Yesterday, one caught my attention, and I'd love to hear from the blogging community on what they think.

The issuer is the Rhode Island Administration of State Courts, RFP/LOI #: B2008011. This is an active/open RFP titled, "Service Oriented Architecture Implementation". Naturally, an initiative that MomentumSI would be interested in...

I encourage others to take a look at the RFP - I don't mean to single this particular agency out, it's just a concrete example that I believe will facilitate a conversation.

Bloggers, what I want to know is do you think this is a good SOA RFP?
http://www.purchasing.ri.gov/RIVIP/ExternalBids/Judicial/JudicialBids/B2008011.PDF

Speak up - I want to hear your thoughts!

(For the record, MomentumSI will not be bidding on this RFP)

SOA Governance Priorities

I've been sending out emails and making some phone calls asking a simple question. How are companies prioritizing the various aspects of SOA Governance, using the following categories:

A. Plan Time Governance - Ensuring that business initiatives aligned with key I.T. services, avoiding silos while gaining cross organizational funding, etc.

B. Design Time Governance - Utilizing registries, repositories, validation frameworks, etc. to promote best practices in schema and contract design enabling reuse, search, verify, etc.

C. Pre-Release Governance - Validating solutions meet pre-production needs (highly available, secure, fast response times, new version doesn't break existing consumers, etc.)

D. Run Time Governance - Ensuring that the services in production are monitored, adhere to SLA's, leverage run time policies, etc.

E. Infrastructure Governance - Verify that the infrastructure used (ESB's, Registries, Mediation Devices, etc.) adhere to the corporate standards.

I've got quite a bit of feedback (thank you). For the most part, people feel that B, D and E are getting the attention, while A and C are not.

Here's where I'm seeing people spend time/money:
(B, D, C, E, A)

Here's my personal opinion on where they SHOULD spend time/money:
(A, C, B/D, E)

Here's my take:
- SOA Governance = A
- B,C & D aren't actually SOA Governance, they fall under the umbrella of "Service Lifecycle Management"
- E is a form of EA Governance (applied to the SOA domain)

Most companies have completely failed in "plan time governance". If you're going to do "transformational SOA", this is a recipe for disaster.

Companies that choose not to tackle Plan Time Governance are doing something other than SOA. I like to call it SOB. More on this later...

Generational Platforms

Programming COBOL on the mainframe was the preferred platform of the generation before me. Don't get me wrong, I did my fair share. I did it, but I remember thinking that it was "my fathers platform".

I was a PC guy. When it was time to develop some new piece of software, the PC and personal OS was my starting point. I programmed in 14 different languages mostly client/server or monolithic clients running on Unix, Windows, OS/2, etc. It was obvious for me to see the benefits of this platform yet it surprised me that the last-gen often didn't get it.

In the late 1990's, I began working with people who were slightly younger than I. These people assumed that any new software built would be browser based. The Web was their platform. I remember thinking that the big thing was really Java, virtual machines, distributed computing, security sand-boxes, etc. The Web was limited in capability. Initially, I fought it - but then I got it. I laughed a bit about how I was getting old.

I'm now seeing a new paradigm emerge, once again, initiated by a younger generation. This group believes that software starts with social networks like Facebook and MySpace. It's less about the function of the software and more about the communities, relations and communications that they enable. Again, the last gen is challenged to understand the importance of this jump and many old-timers will not make the transition.

Evidence is also appearing to suggest that a second shift is occurring in parallel. That is, pervasive computing seems to have finally crossed the chasm. The iPhone has blazed a trail for a new generation applications available whenever and wherever you happen to be located. GPS enabled features brings a whole new dimension to the platform enabling scores of location based offerings.

This blog is about SOA - more specifically it is about services that enable productivity. It's often easy to get stuck in the old traps of debating stuff that doesn't really matter (REST vs. SOAP, do ESB's suck?, etc.) The exciting stuff that is going on in computing is related to the next generation platforms. The new generation doesn't care about the SOA debates - their debate is on geo-location services, cross-SaaS provisioning, etc. In essence, it isn't about SOA - it's about the next generation of services that enable pervasive computing on a social network. All of this other chatter is just last generation fools talking about stuff that only obsolete people care about.

Multiple ESB Example

David Linthicum accurately assesses my feelings:

http://weblog.infoworld.com/realworldsoa/archives/2008/07/esbs_on_trial.html

"I think Jeff may be a bit grumpy from even having to respond to this. However, once again, as I mentioned in my previous post, I'm looking for case studies and details that prove why I'm wrong, and thus why this is "silly advice." Thus far, it's been out there for 24 hours, and I've gotten zero responses. "

Now, I'm even grumpier for having to respond twice.

In Dave's own blog, within hours, of his post a gentleman responded,

FedEx Delivery is driven largely from a TIBCO-based platform. Kinkos is similarly built upon webMethods. Then they merge. It is simply not rational to think that we cannot provide FedEx with a solution to service orchestration across these 2 systems. That's the business need and what we have to solve for.

So FedEx has Tibco and WebMethods. This is interesting because my friends at SAP have told me that FedEx is a huge customer, hence, they'll probably be using the NetWeaver ESB functions as well. And when I last visited FedEx, they had purchased the BEA AquaLogic stack. My guess is that an Oracle account representative either has or will be talking to them about the virtues of Fusion Middleware and their migration plan. My guess is that they probably also have some DataPower boxes sitting around - and a few of the developers have probably downloaded Mule and are testing it out as well.

I know of no company who isn't facing the exact same issue. I'm surprised that Dave didn't run into this when he was at Mercator or Saga/Software AG. Not picking on Dave here, but it's funny, people always talk about being 'business driven, not I.T. driven', but then they make recommendations to rip out huge pieces of infrastructure to make "I.T Cleaner" because in the long run it will help business. Again, in my opinion, this is silly advice.

Linthicum on ESB's

Several people have sent me the latest Linthicum article on the back channel. People are asking if I agree...

http://weblog.infoworld.com/realworldsoa/archives/2008/07/are_esbs_hurtin.html

Dave comments:

First, if there is indeed "enterprise architecture" and an "enterprise architect" then the different divisions should not be using different ESBs, or even an ESB for that matter.

Companies are buying ESB's, will continue to buy ESB's, will buy products that are packaged with ESB's and will acquire/merge with other companies that have ESB's. They aren't going away - so yes, large companies will have to figure out how to deal with having more than one...


Dave moves on to his second point:

Second, considering that my first point is correct (which it is), why the heck are you attempting to integrate these integration engines when they should perhaps be displaced altogether.

In an overconfident, if not pompous manner, Dave declares himself correct. He then wants to know why a single dictator doesn't come in and end-of-life various products across business units, geographies and missions. Well, it might be a good idea for I.T. but may not be in the best interest of the business.

Personally - I see this as just plain silly advice...but perhaps, I misunderstood his point.

Silo Analysis: Key to SOA Success

At virtually every conference I attend, I hear someone declare that we need to "destroy the silos", and that SOA is the enabler. Loosely, I think of a silo as a system or information repository that solves a problem for some portion of the enterprise, while leaving other areas responsible for solving the same or similar problems on their own. Silos causes duplication of systems, business rules and data. They require multiple levels of integration and cleansing, resulting in increased maintenance and operational expenses. In general, silos are bad.

After working with a handful of organizations, it occurred to me that these companies had not performed "Silo Analysis". Almost every large organization has a number of silos that exist for a variety of reasons including:
- I.T. funding occurred by business area and each area bought/built their own (silo) systems
- Mergers or acquisitions caused duplicate (silo) systems
- Poor visibility or planning across the enterprise led to unintentional silos

---

The rumors that SOA can help are true. But before rushing down the path, organizations need to ask some important questions:
- What are our silos?
- Is there a good reason for the silos?
- Which silos do we want to end-of-life?
- Which silos can we practically kill (politics, investment, etc. )
- Will SOA lead to "silo services"?

Silo Identification
The first step to this process is to identify what silos you currently have. As I mentioned earlier, silos often mimic organizational reporting and funding structures. Here are some easy ones to look for:
- Corporate Sectors / Divisions / Business Units / Departments
- Sales Centers (Asia, Europe, Americas, etc.)
- Facilities (warehouses, manufacturing locations, distribution centers, etc.)
- Delivery Channel (Web, kiosk, mobile, etc.)

It is common for these structures to be embedded within each other as well. For instance, Acme Corporation might have duplicate CRM systems for each SBU, but also have additional CRM systems in the Asia locations of each SBU. In essence, the silo analysis has to look at combinations of the structures.

Silo Justification
Not all silos are bad. There are often good reasons why silos exist. Unique business requirements may require unique I.T. solutions. It is important to understand WHY the silo system exists but be careful not to let the 'unique business requirements' become a universal excuse for duplicate systems.

Silo Targeting
Once you've found silo systems which could be rationalized to a single service, you have to decide if their is political will power to "de-silo" the area. In many cases, if not most, it is very difficult to retire systems. The upfront cost of retiring a system is often a burden that an organization will attempt to defer for as long as possible, typically stating there are "higher priorities". The bottom line is that there will always be higher business priorities but I.T. must make the case for retiring the old.

Often the goal isn't to retire the systems but merely to create a single point of entry. In such cases, I.T. can create front end interfaces that access multiple legacy systems which cross silos. Here, we aren't retiring systems, rather we're 'bridging the silos' by standardizing the access point allowing consumers to get a single view.

Preventing Silo Services
Service Orientation offers a great mechanism to decrease the number of silos and mitigate the damage of the silos which can not be eliminated. From a rationalization perspective, SOA offers the ability to create a single "Master Service" that acts as the single source of truth for logic AND data. However, many organizations are not realizing this vision. As many have noted, services continue to be built in an ad hoc fashion resulting in JBOWS (Just a Bunch of Web Services). In almost every case JBOWS are merely silo services that were created because no one funding authority had the charter to perform silo analysis and justify a non-silo solution.

Although the 'governance' and 'cross-silo funding' problems are barriers, I believe a more tactical barrier remains. I.T. leaders are failing to teach their organizations about the silos. What are the silos? Why do they exist? Which ones are we chartered to knock down? Which will be tactically bridge? And when we do knock them down, how will we advertise that a service isn't a silo service, but rather a Master Service that crosses the divide? And perhaps most important, how do we prevent 'silo creep' in the future. Today, most software professionals have no concept of 'attaching' their unique business logic to existing services.

The Bottom Line
SOA offers a great solution to the silo problem but it will take significant political power to pull it off. Even if you are able to remove some of the silos, you'll need a plan to prevent unwanted new ones. Silo Analysis must be ingrained in the mind of every business analyst, architect, developer and governance professional. Failure to teach our next generation will lead to more silos - they'll just be written in Ruby instead of Java...