Mike, But how do they measure success/failure? Individual projects might be successful, but does that mean that the initiative as a whole is a success?
Most organizations that I've spoken to are using service-oriented middleware to do integration (SOI rather than SOA). Very few companies are actually rearchitecting their systems, i.e., simplifying their applications and data architectures in order to increase agility. Instead they are using WS-* or something similar to implement open interfaces to their existing applications (i.e., JABOWS). Over time, JABOWS typically results in increased architectural complexity and systems that are more fragile and more expensive than ever before. Although initially the initiative appears to be successful, the long term effect is actually a failure. The best way to measure success is to measure it from the bottom line. If an organization invests $15 million in infrastructure, education, new hires, consultants, project costs, etc, over the course of 5 years, how long will it take the organization to recoup that investment and start realizing benefits that can be quantitatively measured? Can they now actually deliver new solutions in less time and for less money than they could 5 years ago? Are their savings sufficient to offset the 5 year investment? If so, then I would agree that the initiative has been successful. If not, then you need to reassess the initiative and figure out why it has not delivered its promised benefits. I have seen a small number of spectacular success stories. These companies have realized huge savings, they are able to deliver new solutions in significantly less time than before. All of these companies adopted SOA as part of a much larger IT transformation effort, and they really focused on the architectural aspects of SOA. I have also seen a number of companies that are starting to realize small cost savings and increased agility, but it's taken them 6+ years to get there, and they have not yet recouped their initial $15 million investment. It will probably take them another 3-4 years to break even. These companies will eventually be successful, but I suspect the business would think twice before making this type of long-term investment again. And just in case you miss my point, I still strongly encourage organizations to invest in SOA. But my primary recommendation is to focus on architecture rather than technology. The goal of the program should focus on reducing the complexity and redundancy of the applications and data architecture. Anne On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Michael Poulin <[email protected]> wrote: > I am at QCon conference in London for last few days. As you can guess, I am > spending my time around SOA in here. I have seen a full auditorium of > representatives of different companies that who do NOT claim SOA failure... > - Michael > > ________________________________ > From: Gervas Douglas <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:19:32 AM > Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Roch on SOA Failures > > <<There are wide views on what SOA is and its benefits. Many companies have > claimed success and many pundits point to a high volume of failures. But if > we cannot agree on what SOA is then how can we declare success? > > We can think of SOA as a set of valuable business services that have > positive ROI then in financial terms it should be considered a success. We > know that building services, from a technical perspective is very easy > (trivial really); building the right services is harder but not rocket > science so where are so many projects going wrong? > > After working on many SOA projects and talking with companies and architects > all over the world I firmly believe that most SOA failures are by far due to > overspending or mistimed spending. If you don't spend a lot of money it's > hard to get the failure label slapped on your efforts. If you build a few > .NET web services and no one but you uses them I don't think people will run > around calling you a failure. But, many companies have spent millions of > dollars on SOA software, infrastructure and consulting dollars with no idea > how to justify the costs. That's bound to get noticed. > > They might have promised executive management reuse or agility or some other > intangible benefit to get the big bucks and then looking back over a couple > of years cannot qualify the benefits of the spend. > > I said long ago, "Show me actual projects with tangible benefits and ROI and > prove how SOA will benefit these projects. Intangible benefits, like > agility, can and must be quantified." Maturing SOA processes like governance > should be a goal but many have placed things like platform architecture and > governance ahead of the projects with tangible ROI. > > As a good example, I recently talked to a company that spend millions of > dollars on SOA software and are now spending the next 18 months on their > architecture frameworks and governance model. I have to wonder, given the > time value of money, how that company will ever get to positive ROI. > Especially since no one is actually talking about business related projects > yet or even in the near future! All of this money was spent on toys for > architects. > > But I have seen improvements in cost justification this year. With the > recession many companies are questioning every dollar spent. Everywhere I go > I am asked out to start SOA with low costs or with open source. I tell > people to start slow and spend little money early and improve processes over > time as benefits arrive to pay for them. > > Find that great first project with a solid SOA entry point like integration > or process improvement and don't spend a ton of money early. Once you start > getting some project successes start investing more money on tools and > process. Then you will have a better idea on what you really need based on > real experiences and business driven project requirements. > > What do you think? Why have so many failed with SOA?>> > > You can read this at: http://it.toolbox. com/blogs/ the-soa-blog/ > what-constitutes -a-soa-failure- 30498 > > Gervas > >
