The IMPACT on Architects and Developers

What an IMPACTful week. IBM certainly pulled out all the stops at their annual IMPACT SOA conference held this week in Las Vegas. In case you missed it, IBM highlighted a slew of new products.

What I find most interesting of the lot is the new WebSphere CloudBurst appliance for managing private clouds and the new products around rules, optimization and virtualization from last year's ILOG acquisition. Frankly, it's a challenge to keep track of the hundreds of products in the IBM middleware portfolio but what the IMPACT announcements really get at is the need for architects and developers to address the challenges associated with sustaining the infrastructure.

Speaking very clearly about the value of SOA, Joe McKendrick aptly reported on IBM's Steve Mills who laid down the gauntlet and challenged the audience to find him a company not interested in SOA principles.

Of course, when you attend a conference like IMPACT, you tend to expect announcements about new products, bold statements from the executives and shots from the competition (like the recent WebSphere challenge issued by Microsoft).

What I didn't expect to find among the sea of people were the lines of architects and developers waiting to take various certification tests. The lines were so deep you'd almost think Billy Crystal was administering the tests.

IBM offered certifications in WebSphere, SOA and XML and the folks over at ZapThink offered a SOA for Managers Certification Course. When you think about it, the interest makes sense. After all, these events really should be about the folks who actually use the technology to do their jobs.

Now you could argue that the lines are sign of the times as IT professionals beef up their resumes with additional certifications.

Though as I've mentioned before in this blog, regardless of the marketing term du jour (SOA, cloud, virtualization, etc.) IT professionals who have a mastery of the way that the architecture can reduce costs as well as the skills to execute on the strategy will always be in demand, regardless of the way the economy turns.

As for IMPACT 2010, there's already some buzz about it...

-Jeff

Gartner's SOA Governance MQ: Good Guidance on Guidance

Well, the long awaited Gartner Magic Quadrant on SOA Governance was released yesterday. As expected, the Gartner report delves into the current leaders, challengers, visionaries and niche players.

While Gartner has its copyright rules that I won't dare disturb, I would like to share the news that WebLayers has made its debut in the leaders quadrant of this annual Gartner MQ.

The official report title, "Magic Quadrant for Integrated SOA Governance Technology Sets" provides an interesting view on the rising importance of SOA governance and related technologies as the recession gets deeper and the need for cost optimization rises. I am sure Gartner's lawyers were in over drive prepublication as this appears to me an objective view...Kudos Frank Kenney, I am sure it ruffled some big feathers here and there.

From our view, what this means in the bigger picture actually underscores three key points about the business of governance that we've been saying all along.

1. Governance goes beyond the SOA realm. Sure, governance is a natural fit for a service oriented architecture yet that's not the only use for it as it can strengthen the entire software development lifecycle.
2. There's a yet untapped potential for governance when it comes to offshoring because it can identify and correct potential and costly mistakes in design and coding long before they're returned back to corporate headquarters.
3. Along the same vein as point number two, visibility is key when it comes to doing more with less. Without it, you’re relegated to making business decisions without all the facts. So visibility, as a result of "active policies" and automated guidance reduces I.T. risk - Bottom line.

So why is it that governance gets more traction when times are hard? Could be one of those silver linings that you find during the recession when we know we have to 'hunker down' and learn to be lean and mean.

Or it could be a matter of semantics if you ask me. Isn't it funny how people tend to wince when they hear the term governance yet feel a bit more at ease when you talk about guidance?

Jeff

Is cloud computing more than just a new piece of marketing campaign?

You know cloud computing has hit the big time, or more to the point at least the vocabulary has, when the more mainstream press starts writing about it. Today's Wall Street Journal has a wonderfully titled article, "The Internet Industry Is on a Cloud - Whatever That May Mean."

The article does a great job giving a state of the state on clouds and aptly points out how overused the term already is and the fact that frankly, the concepts behind cloud computing have been around for a while. So what's new and different this time other than we haven't invented a new buzzword this month so we are behind quota?

You could argue that if not for Google pushing the cloud agenda in 2006, we may still be talking about the ability to parse our technology resources under the realm of utility computing. Yawn, pillow druel etc.

While cloud computing still lacks an agreed upon definition, please don't let that get in the way of our marketing speak.

The WSJ article quotes Salesforce.com's Mark Benioff stating that since the company started using the term cloud computing, it's revenue grew 44 percent. That's more than impressive and I'm sure the company's cloud computing event --- complete with staffers wearing white puffy jackets and holding oversized cloud balloons while the Rolling Stones' "Get off My Cloud" blared in the background -- made for a fun day at the office.

For those who have been in tech marketing for a while, I suspect they've been itching for something cool to wrap their campaigns around. Let's face it, trying to be creative when you're pushing a technology called application servers, multiprocessors or high performance computing pales in comparison to all the fun you can have when you're working on something called the cloud.

C'mon, the puns and headlines practically write themselves. Not a cloud in the sky, not nebulous like SOA, storm clouds, cloudy forecast, etc. While there's certainly a valid business argument to be made with regard to the value of the cloud, I just have to wonder if it would have this much steam if we stuck with calling it utility computing, client server, or the now dated 'on demand' catchphrase.

Do you think cloud computing is catching on for its business and technology benefits or it's all just puffery driven by marketing speak? Drop me a line and tell me what you think.

If SOA is dead, this must be the afterlife

Otherwise, I really can't explain all the renewed interest in SOA of late. As many of you know, WebLayers and Burton Group hosted a webinar on Thursday afternoon. The topic was "SOA: Dead Man Walking in the Cloud?" and based on the sheer volume and level of attendees, it's clear that the SOA conversations are far from over.

Of course, the conversations about the conversations about the continued existence of SOA continue. Loraine Lawson makes a good point of this with regard to the level of activity around SOA and the cloud and how they really are complementary approaches.

What I find interesting about the dialog is the focus on architecture and services and scalability. Now don't get me wrong -- all of these are critical to pulling off a successful I.T. initiative.

Based on Thursday's Q&A in the webinar, I've decided that what I'd like to see - and I'm guessing I'm not the only one - is more talk about business benefits. And when I say this, I don't mean it as a call to action for another ROI calculator (as if we don't have enough of those).

What I mean is that what put us in a pickle with SOA can be boiled down to two major missteps. The first is the focus and debates around the technology. SOAP versus REST. It's all about web services. It's not about web services. If you've been around the SOA space, you know exactly what I'm talking about and I'll even plead guilty to a few of those debates myself. While these conversations were and will continue to be important, we need to get out of our own way in order to get executive support for any major IT initiative.

The second issue was around the lack of demonstrable business value. Let's face it, your typical board room attendee is not likely to tune into a discussion that begins with S.O….what??

Once you fully grasp those two valuable lessons, it's easier to see the how the controversy around the death of SOA actually brings about a new opportunity - a shot at redemption in the afterlife if you will -- to articulate the importance of SOA to the business.

Now I've said this before and I'll say it again. Let's not blow the growing interest in the cloud, along with the renewed faith in SOA, by littering the conversations with jargon and in-the-trenches philosophical debates. I think this cartoon just about sums it up.

The bottom line here is actually the bottom line. Talk in business terms, prove your argument with metrics and financial impact on the bottom line, and you'll convert naysayers into I.T. champions.

BTW ---you can replay the WebLayers/Burton Group webinar here

Jeff.

Don't lose sight of the "A" in SOA

Roger Smith at InformationWeek wrote a really insightful article on "The State of SOA" that reiterated that SOA isn't dead.

Still, I think we can all agree that SOA isn't exactly rocking and rolling like it was a few years ago. There are lots of reasons for that such as inconsistent definitions, unrealistic expectations and the sheer fact that SOA is a journey, not a software installation.

The article is chock full of interesting data points based on in-depth surveys that InformationWeek Analytics conducted with business technology professionals.

Along with uncovering that SOA still does have a pulse, the research points to the fact that one of the major reasons for the halting of an SOA evaluation or project is largely due to SOA having earned the reputation of overpromising and under-delivering.

Instead of pointing fingers to how and why SOA earned that reputation, let's step back and figure out what we can learn.

What InformationWeek implies - and I tend to agree - is that for a long stretch of time the focus was on the selection and evaluation of point products with less emphasis on the "A" of SOA.

Certainly you can't execute a SOA strategy without the supporting technology. And the SOA movement gave rise to some powerful offerings that are critical to the SOA's evolution. However, without a solid foundation and understanding of what the architecture can do for the business, we're merely installing products that address specific infrastructure problems yet lose sight of the bigger picture.

While the article makes it clear that SOA projects aren't going away, perhaps the recent shakeups will prompt more dialog among business and IT leaders so that both sides are clear on what an SOA - or any sweeping IT initiative - can and can't do for the business in the long and short term.

Jeff

A SOA by any other name

Now that the SOA mourning period is pretty much over, I suppose it's time to move on to the next big thing that now appears to be cloud computing.

But what are we dgoing to do about all those projects otherwise known as SOA? After all, they got a green light from management and actually delivered value so we can't just stop working on them simply because the project name has been declared taboo.

This issue got me thinking about the conversations that are happening at a lot of companies today in terms of IT budgets and SOA initiatives.

As I sat down with Anne Thomas Manes this week, it became clear that one of the reasons that SOA didn't live up to its promise was because the IT and business teams weren't speaking the same language.

IBM's Sandy Carter's pointed out this issue in 2007 when she wrote "Selling SOA to the CEO" as a guest of SearchSOA. In fact, her first recommendation was 'don't call it SOA.' (You could also argue that SOA adoption suffered due to an identity crisis. After all, the industry couldn't even agree on a standard definition.)

The reality is that SOA is not going away. It will continue on as a critical IT and business initiative though will likely earn a new moniker or perhaps just become part of the way we work.

It doesn't take much of leap to see how important the role of the architecture is to making cloud computing work. It also doesn't take much to realize that a conversation with a business exec. about architectures, ESBs and web services is fruitless when the purpose of the meting is to articulate how technology investments will deliver value to the company.

Though I fear that cloud computing may be the next misunderstood opportunity if the business benefits are not clearly outlined and if cloudy definitions prevail.

We're actually starting to see the misconceptions happening with regarding to cloud computing as Infoworld's Eric Knorr recently pointed out in his post, "Defogging Cloud Computing."

And while many believe that SOA projects will continue and will prove to be a critical part of cloud computing, we are currently stuck in a holding pattern with regard to what we actually call that project previously known as SOA.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on renaming SOA. This time, let's try to work on this name together and agree on its definition.

-Jeff