Main

Avoid SOA becoming a ‘SO What?’

Dave Oliver — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:30:23 GMT

Analysts, vendors and end users alike appear united in their enthusiasm for SOA. Recently the Butler Group tells us that only 3% of organisations have rejected SOA. In a recent survey by systems integrator Griffiths Waite found that 2008 is a critical year for SOA implementation, with 15% of organisations already running SOA but a much larger 38% progressing towards it. Of the 47% still “contemplating” it, Giffiths Waite says “evidence suggests these will [start to] move into strategising and planning”.

However it has to be said that despite these figures scepticism about SOA is starting to appear along with news of the first SOA casualties. Anne Thomas Manes, VP and Research Director with the Burton Group, recently blogged about her ongoing research with enterprises implementing SOA. She says:

“…I think I’ve become a bit jaded from the interviews, …[because] it has become clear to me that SOA is not working in most organisations.”

She goes on to describe how despite the “stunningly beautiful” SOA infrastructures these companies have developed, their SOA initiatives “invariably stall out”. She says: “The techies just can’t sell SOA to the business. They have yet to demonstrate how all this infrastructure yields any business value. More to the point, the techies have not been able to explain to the business units why they should adopt a better attitude about sharing and collaboration – which is the fundamental cultural shift required for SOA to succeed… As one of my interviewees said, ‘Altruism is not an enterprise strategy.’”

It is hard for what is essentially an IT initiative that is utterly dependent on business buy-in to get it. So how do you sell it to the business? For my experience the best way is to turn selling SOA to the business into a mini PR project taking a strong hint from Alan Cooper work on Personsa’s and TOGAF Architectural Views

When selling SOA to the business it’s wise not to just target the individuals incharge of budgets and give them that standard definitions and turn it into an technology education session. These people will have others that influence them and report to them, all of them will have specific view-points so it is worth preparing sessions that cater directly to their needs rather than getting lost in the big picture, use Business Analysts to help identify their concerns, likes and dislikes, in other words get to know your audience. This will be time consuming but ultimately allows people from IT and Business at a non-management level to interact which will do more for business/IT alignment than any Gartner report because you are listening to each other, this is priceless. Also alot of detail will come out so ensure that your requirements capture process/tool is up to scratch because it will get a hammering, capturing as much as you can because it’s all good.as this is lthe level where SOA is made or broken down, keep the process moving by recording and moving on.

This leads me on to my next point, I’m not sure it’s wise to have business and technical staff at different locations and different time zones. Alignment comes with good relationships, you can’t make friends via requirement documents and email. Global organisation or not you will lose money going backwards and forwards and lost time in misunderstandings.

SOA effects business and technology further than most methodologies have done in recent years, how many can claim to need a change to business process? So, take business with you to avoid the So What.

Technorati tags: SOA

Loosen the grip of SOA Principles at your Peril

Dave Oliver — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:21:29 GMT

Recently, I was involved in a SOA review for an organisation (obviously, I do not wish to name names) It was pretty clear that they hadn’t actually adhered to many of the key SOA Design Principles that are,

Much of the SOA was built using a single vendors technologies many corners were cut because of compliancy, so tight coupling crept in to make interfacing ‘easier’, abstractions were compromised to improve performance. Reusability opportunities were missed because of ‘not invented here’ mentality and ‘it’s not quite what we wanted’. Statelessness was lost because of writing application specific services, discoverablility turned into a spreadsheet with multiple copies all out of sync and business rules all over the UI because ‘surely there isn’t going to be another one of those ???’. So corner cutting made the SOA an expansive large and complicated Client/Server application so they had recreated the very mess they were trying to escape from.

The key reason why the SOA principles exist is because you can’t predict the future so prepare for change without exception (– this could be the ultimate SOA principle). It’s that simple. This is why the argument for SOA Governance is resonating right now. So the message is follow them now voluntarily to save having it forces on you later, which I know is happening at some organisations because of the amount of money at stake.

Companies live and die because of their differentials or lack of them, a decent SOA helps people leverage them. With the economic climate as it is compliancy could lead to the need to find another job.

Get Answers from Your Peers

Dave Oliver — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:23:53 GMT

I have been subscribing to TechTarget emails for sometime because of the low signal to noise ratio covering a broad technology spectrum that is important to me as I'm keen to hear from more than just a few vendors so it comes as no surprise that IT Knowledge Exchange (ITKE) was recently voted one of the 10 Great Media Web Sites.

ITKE is on of those dead-handy site that I keep in the 'Favourites' when I want to find an answer. It's not so good for Microsoft .Net Development questions, better off going to C9 Tech Off for that but for everything else try ITKE first rather than relying on the randomness of Google and then wondering if whether to subscribe to Experts Exchange to get the darn answer to a question because they always end-up somewhere near the top.

OK so why do I like ITKE?

1) It's not like a forum, no wading through pages and pages of stuff to get to the answer. If you can improve on the answer given, you are allowed to using a Wiki-style interface.

2) For asking, answering or discussing questions, you can earn points which then can be use to purchase items, like gadgets. You get more point the better your rating. And they have a competition to win prizes for points.

I recently discovered that they also have a whole bunch of very active bloggers that are experts in a particular field, Anton Venter has just started his blog on Enterprise Architecture and is promising a no-nonsense approach so I'll be watching this with interest.

So, all in all, a good IT community that isn't married to a vender where the content is easy to access that has a unique approach to improving the quality of answers all of which are from peers.

The first problem with Enterprise Architecture is the name!

Dave Oliver — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:32:34 GMT

Job titles are often effortless in their descriptiveness. Project Manager, Business Analyst, System Tester and .Net Developer are good examples because the subject is concise and the predicate modifies successfully, all meaning some semblance of what a person does can be derived from it.

However with 'Enterprise Architecture' and 'Enterprise Architect' it’s not entirely obvious what the position is and what someone holding that position does, inevitably leading to the need for further description which predictably stumbles into the second problem, the woefully dire and contrasting descriptions of that we do that litter almost every Enterprise Architecture methodology and practitioners blog. No wonder the meaning is different from organisation to organisation and therefore what an Enterprise Architect does (or doesn’t) and get involved in. Inconclusion the Enterprise Architect is hindered from the get-go.

So what are the solution options?

1) Educate everyone on Enterprise Architecture – Many are hoping that time and tide will eventually solve this one but without a united vision I fear that this is little more than a hope.

2) Break-up Enterprise Architecture into it’s constituent parts and give each one an individual role – More realistic as this ensure that the activities under Enterprise Architecture have individual focus and therefore are likely to happen rather than get lost, diluted or ignored.

What do you think?

Technorati tags: Enterprise Architecture

Can Developers Work Inside Virtual Environments?

Dave Oliver — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:35:14 GMT

As I've been helping out with VMware I wanted to consider the old question of whether developers really could work inside virtual environments?

As we know virtual environments can help maximise under utilised resources, CPU, RAM, diskspace and save on space, power, HVAC and TCO with centralised support and maintenance.

Another main advantage of virtualised environments that is particularly attract to many developers is the ability to remote work which is a requirement that has become far more common with companies wishing their employees to travel less to reduce carbon footprint or to offshore work. But as development environments are resource intensive it has always been felt that they wouldn't make a reasonable virtualisation candidates.

Also, by moving development operations off local desktop means that developers do not have to carry around the weighty desktop replacement laptops, they have far more options from, a large screen, thin client, keyboard, mouse and network access or sitting in the local coffee shop on their Wifi with the trusty Asus Eee or any combination in between.

After some investigation I've determined that normal code writing isn't very resource intensive at all! Infact the only part that is, is compilations. Even with the wealth of utilities and tools at a developers disposal, the modern day processor handles it with some aplomb. Candidacy looks even better when realised that most development environments are running under 32bit operating systems on typical desktops and laptops with up to 4GB RAM and this is the exception rather than the rule, the average being 1-2GB RAM. This puts things into perspective when the modern day virtual server spec is 4 x quad core with 64GB RAM, so you can see there is potential.

In the Lab

On the flip side of the coin, virtual environments can give the developer access to more options than they currently have! No reason now not to run both Linux, Windows and Solaris, Java and .Net! SQL Server and Oracle! All at once! Or an IDE with as many tools and utils running as possible. Why not the whole darn multi-server application! Why not the Testing and pre-prod environments as well! All of which can be replicated as many times as you wish so you can kit out your team, your division, your company! To a certain point the limit is the imagination! And this is exactly where tools like VMware Lab Manager come in!

Lab Manager has been specifically written for the developer and tester in-mind where whole environments can be built and teared down again quickly. You can even have multiple copies of the same environment running at the same time so no need to fight over servers.

Cutting it with a blade

Dave Caddick pointed out to me that where virtualisation environment like VMware and Citrix still suck is graphically intensive operations.

Citrix has a few more years of experience over the marturist of virtual server and software virtualisation technologies that are still using RDP which doesn't perform as well graphically as ICA.

Dave offers an alternative solution to virtualised environments that still offer many of the savings in power, HVAC and TCO that servers have and that is the concept of the Blade PC's.

Blade PC , is a computer that is entirely contained in a thin, modular circuit card placed in a centralised, secure location such as a server rack. A cable connects the card to the user's display, keyboard and mouse. Vendors of blade PCs include ClearCube and HP .

A blade PC, in contrast to a thin client as it is a complete computer that includes all the components normally found in a desktop PC including the microprocessor, memory chips, hard drive, video card and network card. The blade PC concept is similar to the blade server paradigm, except that the ratio of cards to end-users is one-to-one rather than one-to-many.

Blade PCs are initially more expensive to deploy than the conventional arrangement, in which each station has its own computer box, because associated infrastructure, cards and cabling must be installed. Once installed, however, the blade PC offers a number of advantages over the traditional approach and they are,

Lower administrative, operational and maintenance resource demands
Space savings at the workstation
Ease of adding and relocating end users
Reduced workstation noise caused by fans and hard drives
Reduced work area heat generation
Sharing of certain accessories such as uninterruptible power supplies
Improved physical security by placing critical hardware in a central, locked location.

Be Brief

Amazingly, some software companies do not offer licensing for virtual environments which is pants! And very often virtual environment don't support specialised hardware so do your homework.

So you can see there is a number of different avenues open to the developer which are easy to justify. There is no point in trying to stuff everything into that 'paving slab' of a laptop as there is no longer any need, I believe once you get over the fear of giving up a bit of control you will feel the liberation! However it's not like going commando as virtual environments offer amazing support, eventually you'll hardly notice the difference and wonder what all the fuss was about!

Technorati tags: VMware, Blade PC, Lab Manager

Internet Explorer or Firefox?

Dave Oliver — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:21:21 GMT

The question being asked today is do you prefer Internet Explorer or Firefox? to mark the launch of Firefox v3.

Well I have both installed on this machine, both patched and uptodate but shockingly I'm not in-love with either program. I don't find browsers sexy. OK, so I liked tab's that for me is the single biggest innovation in the last few years but I was using those in IE before Firefox went mainstream.

What about security, what about compatibility and adherence to standards?

Security is important to me but neither Firefox or IE is essentially insecure. Compatibility and adherence to standards on the other hand isn't important to me and isn't to very many I suspect, purely because the overwhelming majority of websites work, people are just not seeing the argument. It's a fact of life that we have to play with the hand we are dealt and not ideals, so adherence to IE being the market leader is going to be more important than adherence to standards naturally, so get over it! If I do see a return to the bad old days of sites only accepting one browser and not the other I will vote with my feet and not use them at all because it's pathetic! There are worthier causes to fight.

So my answer is ... lets not have another browser war.

IBM Lotus Symphony's pricing is going to make companies switch from Microsoft Office

Dave Oliver — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:16:22 GMT

IBM are offering $25,000 for 20,000 users to have unlimited remote support for a year, the product itself is free just like OpenOffice which Symphony grew from, that's $1.25 per user.

According to Directions, Microsoft Office costs, licence and support, $151per user for 20,000 users, however Microsoft will discount depending on what else is purchased.

I don't have to do the sums for you, the difference between the pricing could pay for a migration project which could be tempting for companies looking to save money.

The gap between the two is enough, I believe, to justify the migration to even the most die-hard Office supporter, which is the very role I have played for awhile.

There still isn't an equivalent to VBA which will be enough of a risk for some not to attempt a migration and the level of userability between the two is wide. IBM would do well to employ the services of someone like Alan Cooper because the user-interface isn't a joy to use, I'm not fooled by the nice use of colours, lip-stick on a pig springs to mind. However these arguments mean little in a bear-market were squeezing out more share-holder value is what many companies are currently concentrating on.

Who needs a Wii !?

Dave Oliver — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:50:58 GMT

I just had to post this video as I was so impressed! My Wii is looking old and crude.

Am I an Armchair Architect?

Dave Oliver — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:32:11 GMT

According to James McGovern, I probably am! Why? Because I don’t code … very often.

I don’t sit in an Ivory tower either making up my dictions via, Visio & Powerpoint. I think the key to being a good Architect is taking responsibility for designing a technical solution for business requirement with those who are going to built it, implement it, look after it and use it.

Making good technical decisions often means getting your hands dirty and trying afew things out, if that is writing code or testing a device or installing a server then whatever it takes. However, Architects shouldn’t try to be heroes and experts at technologies but have the courage to go form relationship and seek opinions of those that are, I think that this is the real point.

Ok, so an Architect therefore is more about diplomacy, relationships and pulling strings together, it isn’t an adversarial role, it’s point is to generate a solution to a business problem where everyone that is playing a technical role knows what they have to do.

Architects shouldn’t pretend to be experts in technologies, they should know when to leave things to the professionals and not to meddle and step back and let them do their jobs. Architects can’t keep up with best practices in all technologies, there isn’t enough hours in the day.

I believe that an Architects mindset has to be different from that of a lead developer or technical guru as an Architect has to be technically agnostic and objective, whilst a lead developer or guru has to be an expert in chosen technologies, can you see the difference? One is a specialist in a technology the other is a specialist in a practice that requires a passion for all technology. Often Architects are consider as the technology ‘point-man’ for a project and first point of call for all things ‘techie’ for a Project Manager.

So can an Architect specialise? Yes because technology is such a vast set of topics I can’t see how Architects can’t specialise in a field but it then becomes a balancing act where technology meets good architecture principles meets business direction, where as a developer or IT Pro need to become honed in their art whether they use an aspect of a technology at that moment in time or not, form opinions and even become bias, these are not luxuries an Architect can afford.

So if you are a developer or IT Pro and reading this and say … 'but I do that this stuff already', I would reply, 'good for you!' Because obviously you are capable of performing more than one role, don’t get the two confused.

'So what is Enterprise Architecture?' ... why can't we agree on a definition and the risk if we can't.

Dave Oliver — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:06:14 GMT

Ask almost any Enterprise Architect and more seriously anyone who has to work with Enterprise Architects, what Enterprise Architecture is? and I guarantee you will get a great number of differing responses. Yes, obviously you will get a number that that only describe their individual relationship and won't fully encompass the role but then again will they know the rest of what an Enterprise Architect can do? ... and if they don't know and they are a manager could they make a mistake and create another group to perform one of the tasks under the EA remit? Surely this kind of thing doesn't happen in a well managed Enterprise? Well if that was the case then the 'well managed' Enterprise wouldn't need EA's!?

So where do you go for the answer? TOGAF? Zachman? Fellow EA's? IEEE 1471-2000? ... and I'm perfectly sure that every EA's that has a blog has had a crack at the definition as well!

So why can't we all 'sing from the same hymn sheet?' What will need to happen so we all are?

I think I need to muse on this question a bit more.

Whilst intrinsically we all feel strongly about EA providing a strategic thinking overview to help organisations make informed business decisions, we battle to make EA pragmatic. We also battle to sell the value of EA to senior business managers and even make the value clear to our IT and business colleagues.

Moreover, even if organisations believe in EA, many organisations simply cannot afford the time and resources to establish an EA framework. On that gloomy note you might conclude that we are all wasting our time attempting to carve out careers in EA.

One way could be helping our IT colleagues to develop a mature Operations and Support Services (OSS) Architecture. Another could be helping our teams improve IT Governance.

At each step along the way we must deliver value to the business in real terms such as:
- reducing costs
- increasing revenues
- reducing time-to-market
- improving service levels, or
- reducing business risks

Before organisations will allow us to do grander things we enterprise architects must increase our credibility. The only way to do this is to progressively solve business problems for people along the way. Consistently demonstrating real business value bottom-up as well as top-down.