Strategic Use of Information Technology (SUIT)

Key Best Practices - REST Assured????

noreply@blogger.com (Surekha Durvasula) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:04:50 PDT

The purpose of the blog is to find out if there is a place for REST in the realm of “Business Services”.

First of my definition for REST – it is a "Get", "Put", "Post", "Delete" operations performed on "Resources" that are identified as URIs being transmitted over HTTP(S) as REST.

REST by nature has a very simple service operation set with the complexity all embedded in the Resource URI. The operations that REST allows are NOT business user-friendly and hence do not really belong on the Service Repository that an end user is referencing to discover business services. To accommodate complex business behavior and to compensate for the finite list of RESTful operations the resource identifiers have to be fairly complex.

SOA on the other hand, allows fairly diverse interface definition that resembles as closely to the business syntax as it can get. The canonical model that is shared is standardized and is not as diverse as are the resource URIs of the REST architecture. The canonical models for the most part are XML.

Another key difference lies in the protocol and messaging support for REST. REST is limited to only HTTP/ HTTPS which by nature is stateless and has no standardized protocol level interception model for the more enterprise category behavior such as guaranteed delivery of messages and asynchronous messaging semantics. SOAP and the standardized metadata associated with SOAP envelope on the other hand can be interpreted by the Web Services SOAP stack to enable behaviors such as Reliable Messaging, Transaction Management, Addressing, and Notification with a level of interoperability across-vendor platforms.

Having said that, it is possible to find a home for RESTful architecture and to leverage one of its strong points in terms of a simplified and standardized interface. REST may be a good architecture model or construct to follow in the service implementation layer or at the service adapter layer. This helps to keep the service implementation the same across any type of service interface definition. In the event there is a need for additional transactional integrity then these behaviors could be taken care of in the service facade or in the service mediation layer while keeping the actual implementation in the simplified RESTful architectural format.

If we are looking at SOA service operation being exposed to the world and using a RESTful service implementation layer then we would need to deal with translating canonical models and parameters of SOA style service into URIs. This translation behavior includes extracting the request parameters from the Request canonical model and transforming these to verbs and values in the format of a query string i.e. a URI.

One option is to have the specific URIs needed by the service implementation layer to be translated to the input URIs as specified by the RESTful service implementation layer. Here the service interface layer or the service mediation layer performs the translation of the input parameter into the specific URI and initiates the invocation of the appropriate service implementation layer.

The other option is to have the service interface layer or the service mediation layer translate the input into a generic URI for calling the RESTful implementation layer which in turn does the mapping internally to the required operational version of the URI. This improves the durability of the service interface layer or the service mediation layer. In addition, it provides a mechanism for doing internal operation overloading and polymorphism.

Regardless of which option is chosen, I would think that embedding RESTful services in the implementation layer would be a good option while not exposing painfully abstract behavior to the business user who is used to seeing more of English like business syntax.

Here is a link to another blog of mine on the topic in the context of Service Orientation!

Even though I agree that there is a place for REST as it may simplify (by providing a finite set of operations) there are infrastructural capabilities that do not exist with the REST and without these the business agility piece is going to be hard to deliver. Here are some additional thoughts on the topic that an enterprise architect may have to resolve prior to embarking on a RESTful implementation.

Identify which layer deals with the interpretation of the get(Resource) call? Is it the service provider (SP) interface or is it the service implmentation layer?
Would the SP be dealing with versioning of the Resource thereby creating a grand facade that does internal resource mapping via a URL redirect style substitution? This would be one way of protecting the service consumer (SC) and to accomplish backward compatibility.
Identify how the SC gets the handle or URL to the "right" resource? How does it "know" what to expect from the Resource and how does it "know" to express its' semantic expectations for the SP Resource that is being called upon? Does it do a "Get(SearchByCriteriaResource)" call with semantics embedded in the Request Resource?
Is the get(RightResource) another call and somehow the metadata held in the response Resource is expected to have the "right metadata" for each of the provider Resources (that meet the SC search criteria) in order to help the SC choose the right SP? If this is the case, then following this invocation would be a secondary SC to SP interaction to fetch the chosen SP Resource.
Identify if there would be a standardized URI with search criteria specification. This might be good to define up-front to enable the support of JINI-like or SaaS like interactions?
Identify and define how one would deal with asynchronous interactions? Would it be via the use of " ack/ no-ack post notifications" and "post response Resource" calls? How would this be to handled? The SC would have to provide a pre-set "call back" Resource identifier to which the SP would have to reply back to?
Would existing messaging infrastructures still work as most of them have proprietary protocols or else they support JMS/ RMI?
Identify a URI for brokering of the two-part synchronous post HTTP call to. This would be for enabling the pseudo-asynchronous interaction semantics. Is the centralized broker URI all that is needed to broker the two part synch call for faking the Asynch interaction semantics especially if the architecture does not have to deal with message delivery guarantee? I assume "post" might have void return type communication model to enable releasing of calling address space resources?
Would one have to leverage any "Registry" or ESB like middleware or "service grid" like infrastructures? If so, how does would resource proxying work? Would the proxy Resources’ "forward" their calls to the right Resource?
Would this mean that the middleware and mediation layer products need to know how to deal with this type of an interaction semantic where the "Registries", ESB, "service grids/ service marketplaces" are all metadata-driven Resource proxies with built-in support for REST - as opposed to service proxies as would be the case in SOA style architectural models.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

surekha -

Best Practices: Master Data Management

noreply@blogger.com (Yogish Pai) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:51:02 PDT

Following are some of the best practices for adopting (note - not implementing) Master Data Management solutions within an Enterprise.

Understand the Business Context (semantics) prior to picking a solution

As per my earlier blog on EA, BPM, SOA and MDM it is very important to understand the business context, including the semantics of what each of business units, departments and entities mean when they refer to MDM entities such as Customers or Products. For example marketing deals with leads, sales with opportunities/accounts and services with paid customers. Should all the entity be referred to as customers throughout the business process? or should the master entity be referred to as Organization? Common vocabulary goes hand-in-hand with master data.For example what does this sign on a building mean? Is the building fully occupied and available for purchase? or does it mean that the entire building is unoccupied and available for rent? The business context needs to be clearly defined in terms of business units, departments and business processes.

Develop a comprehensive entity model.

Not only should one define the common attributes for the master data, one should map the entire set of attributes and where it is used. For example, in customer services the customer is used as a reference whereas in order management it is transactional data.
A set of models and documents that can be used both by Business and IT.

Establish data governance process right up front.

It is important to establish data governance process right upfront, especially as this may required dedicated resources from all the business units as well as from IT to manage the master data. The approach that worked for us is as follows:

Executive Leadership Team Data Leadership Team that meets on a periodic basis (once a month) to establish data policies, standards, establish priorities for the data quality team
Data Stewardship (Quality) Team are the business operations people who manage the data quality on a day to day basis. The business team enforces and ensures data quality across the enterprise.
Enterprise Data Program team is responsible for developing and managing the programs and business rules in the various technology tools.

Integrate with 3rd party data providers

It is important for enterprises to consider bringing in 3rd party data providers such as D&B and Factiva for better understanding of the market. For example on a typical morning between 9:00am and 11:00am

706 businesses will move
578 businesses will change their phone numbers
60 businesses will change their name
49 businesses will shut down
10 businesses will file bankruptcy
1 business with change ownership

Source: Dun & Bradstreet (2004)

3rd party data from D&B could be used for leveraging legal name as the name of the organization, providing knowledge management systems that also provide news feeds as well as market statistics by industry, geography and demography and also mapping it to existing sales.Picking the right data standardization and matching engine:

This is a key technology that will either make or break the quality of your data. I agree that developing the business rules and configuring the matching tool is more important - however from a technology point of view - I would dedicate substantial amount of time evaluating and testing the tools with existing data before picking a technology. My preference would be to use one of the following matching engines:

Trillium, First Logic (now SAP), IBM or SAS.

In cases where a MDM product is packed with a different matching engine, I would be tempted to externalize the data quality to one of the above mentioned data matching engines. Just my preference - maybe the other quality engines may have got better. Do you own evaluation.

Expose all MDM functionality as services
Expose all functionality such as data (address) standardization, data matching, update master and propagate master key.

As usual please do feel free to drop me line with your comments and/or feedback.

- Yogish

Organizational Issues with SOA

noreply@blogger.com (Ashok Kumar) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:21:07 PDT

One of the barriers to full realization of SOA potential is shortage of critical skill sets needed to successfully implement SOA initiatives. Let's be honest about the reality of the situation. Development teams typically are made up of outsourcing partners, temporary consultants, and employees. They all have varying degrees of training, skills and motivations when it comes to delivering a solution. These teams are responsible for carrying out the vision, approaches and processes laid out by the EA team. In general, the EA teams do a good job of laying out the target architecture, governance processes, best practice etc. However, the developer community is generally focused on getting things working in the shortest time possible with little regard to making sure the services have the right level of de-coupling and are designed and developed correctly for future re-use.

Having a strong governance structure can help relying too much on governance leads to a situation where the governance body itself becomes more of a micromanager than an oversight entity.

In my opinion, the right team structure is when at least a few key members (preferably in permanent capacity) have the leadership and communication skills and have full understanding and appreciation of SOA. These members can act as mentor and provide the necessary oversight to make sure services are delivering on the promise of business agility.

Ashok Kumar

Architecture tenets of High Cohesion and Loose Coupling

noreply@blogger.com (Surekha Durvasula) — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:15:53 PDT

Architecture tenets of High Cohesion and Loose Coupling – Both of these tenets are related to one construct i.e. that of a “Contract”.

The term contract in information technology involves the definition of high level interfaces in the form of a coarse-grained set of operations that have well known inputs, output, clear exceptions or faults. The contract hides all of the details of implementation and allows these hidden implementation details to behave as one cohesive unit - in that it provides support for "high cohesion". By extension, in separating the client or consumer or caller of the contract from the implementation details it provides support for “loose coupling”.

This concept of contract works at any of the following levels:
1. sub-system interface (for example, a persistence sub-system)
2. component interface (for example, a remote monitor)
3. layers of architecture (for example, business layer vs. presentation layer)
4. infrastructure service (for example, a messaging service)
5. SOA style business service (an customer account self-service)

Furthermore, the concept works whether the implementation is a local call or a remote component call long as the "contract" is honored. Experienced architects also insist on unidirectional contract-based communication even between the layers of the architecture - with communication only being allowed to the very next layer down. The concept is that the more volatile layers interact with the more stable layers’ contract without skipping levels. This level of indirection adds as a check for the entire system as the volatility of top level layers and the communications from the volatile layers’ are limited to the very adjacent layer alone without affecting multiple aspects of the system when these layers change.

This concept is the key driver of the Model View Controller or MVC pattern wherein the presentation layer is allowed to talk to the interface or contract of the controller layer or the façade layer alone but not to the interface in the business logic layer or the data logic layer. Also, the façade layer or the controller layer is not allowed to communicate to the client or the presentation layer. The contract dictates that it is the client or the presentation layer that is responsible for initiating the communication.

Advantages of adhering to the Contract:
A) Implementation details can change without negatively affecting the consumer or the client. Loose coupling facilitated by the contract protects the client or consumer. Also, since the behavior is highly cohesive (all hidden behind the contract in one well-knit codebase) any alterations to business rules or behavioral logic is embedded in this codebase, thus insuring the completeness of apply the rule/ logic change. Without this it is very possible that part of the logic is embedded in consumer codebase and part of it may also be placed in the communication or the mediation layer (leading to the anti-pattern low cohesion and high coupling).
B) System integration testing and performance optimizations are easier when there is a known finite set of operations, inputs and outputs that will be allowed by the contract.
C) Understanding the interactions and invocations for the consumer becomes easier due to the known and pre-configured set of operations that are published on the contract. This helps to make the system or application more deterministic.
D) As long as the contract is not broken in making behavioral enhancements new consumers can be entertained without having to create newer versions of the codebase. Of course, this can also mean addition of newer audit and tracking capabilities in compliance with internal or regulatory policies without affecting or "informing" the consumer.
E) Since the consumer is not interacting with multiple internal points of the codebase, the system interactions and resource utilizations per consumer/ client call are more quantifiable and predictable. This makes it easy to scale the system for availability. This contract or interface then becomes the single point of entry for all interactions and is thus the only point that needs to be monitored to assess system resource utilizations. In addition, provisioning of system resources becomes more scientific as all calls of a certain operation take a known amount of time and resources given that the inputs are also quantifiable.

As can be seen, a simple construct such as “Design by Contract” when taken seriously and to its logical conclusion renders a great deal of architectural stability, robustness and extensibility.

As always your comments are welcome.
surekha -

Business Architecture – Process Architecture and Information Architecture!

noreply@blogger.com (Surekha Durvasula) — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:21:18 PDT

First the problem statement - Typically the Line of Business (LoB) owned business processes and IT owned data/ information aspects. This would then help explain why these two key aspects were never in synch. The industry is now realizing the need for alignment between the process and the informational aspects and has created a new discipline of “Business Architecture” to encompass business process and business information.

Here the idea would be to leverage the business information flow in an optimal manner to drive business process definition, business process engineering and business process optimizations as opposed to shoe-horning this crucial business information into the business process. It must be noted that business information can take forms such as rules to transform business data, business decisions made in the context of an exception in the process, regulatory influences on a process or short-circuiting rules that enable a process to either be aborted without a detrimental effect on the process or rules for enabling a process to be completed quickly in “special business situations”. It is the access to this contextual business information that makes business process automation possible without losing the knowledge base of the subject matter experts.

A key goal of Business Architecture is to bring about the efficiencies of business process by access the right information. As was mentioned earlier, business architecture allows sharing of business information that is an enterprise asset in the context of a business process that is a LoB asset. Business architecture also helps highlight lost opportunities by drawing up scenarios where lack of business information availability (due to "not invented here complex" or lack of proper stewardship) prevents business process efficiencies from being realized. In addition, business process without the decision influencing contextual information still leaves the LoB user to make one off decisions that may be either based on invalid data or insufficient data and leads to process execution inconsistencies.

Furthermore, in an exceedingly inter-related enterprise or even extended enterprise sub-optimal decisions made in any business process leads contradictions in the rest of the enterprise. From an upstream process perspective, these lead to business strategies being interpreted erroneously. From a downstream perspective the business events being emitted by the siloed business process may have insufficient or improper information for execution leading to more exceptions in the downstream steps of the process. This may , slow down the entire business process chain having a negative impact on the business.

Another key goal of Business Architecture is to insure that the business information captured as part of Business Process Optimization efforts is consistent in its’ reporting. Here business process decisions made prior to the process reengineering efforts and after have to be captured consistently and accurately. This base line allows the study of the process efficiencies to be quantified. If the business information that is emitted in the form of business process based events is not being made available beyond the LoB process boundary then again sub-optimal process execution in the downstream steps could overturn the effects of any optimization work.

Information has to be captured consistently, emitted in a timely fashion and finally the events have be interpreted accurately to insure that the business strategy and the optimizations that are being envisioned by the business in implementing the value chain activities are in fact resulting in competitive advantage. This knowledge enables further process improvements and makes it easy to deal with business process adjustments especially when enterprise is faced with making a dramatic shift to deal with changing market conditions or regulatory conditions.

Finally, business process management, business process optimization and business activity monitoring need access to a well thought out MDM philosophy and strategic analytical marts that can be accessed via informational business services. These type of information access services can combine real time operational BI, real time business events and analytical sources to "close the informational loop"!!! Please see my whitepaper on this topic as well - Closing the Loop: Using SOA to Automate Human Interaction!!

As always thank you for your feedback.
surekha -

Organizational Issues with SOA/EA ...

noreply@blogger.com (Ashok Kumar) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:44:19 PDT

Last time I wrote about how shortage of critical skills in the developer community are an obstacle to full realization of SOA potentials. I got some irate responses from developers that it is the short term focus from IT management that is to blame. I must say that I did not mean to single out the developer community as the primary reason for not getting the most out of SOA, EA etc. There is plenty of blame to go around, including but not limited to over-hyping vendors, under performing technologies, cost pressures from executive suite etc. As far as management part of the equation is concerned, the biggest issue is the drive to deliver short term results. We live in a world of instant gratification at the expense of long term viability. Wall Street has proven it again and again that people are willing to throw away their long term future to realize short term gains. Bonuses are not tied to something that will pay off in long term. So, while everyone recognizes the value of architecture, how many CIOs do you know that come from Enterprise Architecture background?

I find that we in EA are constantly in a defensive posture, trying to convince everyone that following EA best practice will deliver results in the long term while others who are solving day to day problems get all the accolades (and promotions to senior management positions). EA must find a way to go beyond being a niche player in an organization where they are either always looking for a “low hanging fruit” for the latest alphabet mix or something that everyone tolerates, to becoming a true player in transforming an organization. For that to happen, we need people at the CIO level that have strong bias towards Architecture and for that to happen we as Enterprise Architects have to learn to not only talk about SOA, BPM, CEP but also have to be able to talk revenue growth, profit growth, costs, and operational aspects of business that is understood by senior executives who are making the decisions about who gets to occupy that office where IT decisions are made.

Ashok Kumar

SOA Consortium announces SOA Case Study Winners

noreply@blogger.com (Yogish Pai) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:38:24 PDT

The SOA Consortium and the CIO Magazine this week announced the winners of the SOA Case Study competition. Please click here for the results.

Organization Skills assessment and Reference Architecture

noreply@blogger.com (Yogish Pai) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:33:17 PDT

The other day I was participating in the engineering skills assessment discussion and it dawned on me that mapping the skills to a reference architecture makes is much easier and simpler discussion to have. The reference architecture enabled us to first list the categories and drill into each of them to define the skills as well as leveling required for Architects, Developers, QA and Managers positions.

Key Learning's:

Having a reference architecture also helps in organization (engineering) skills assessment
The Skills Assessment / Mapping is independent of Governance and Organization. However, Governance drive where these resources belong

Canonical Models and Services

noreply@blogger.com (Surekha Durvasula) — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:09:00 PDT

In thinking about canonical models one mostly thinks about an enterprise worthy or industry compliant representation of a business concept or a business entity। Often this canonical model compliant payload is packaged in a response envelope that is returned by the service provider. However, the question is whether the term canonical model can be used to define the " business request" or if it is limited to the "business response". This blog explores the canonical request models that might be used to alter the behavior of enterprise services using search services as an example.

Let us look at a "search service" where one could think of a "context based search request" that is made to the search facility to make the search behavior of the service providers more efficient। In addition, this "search context" could also be used to express the specific search needs of the service consumer. Given this, the question is whether the canonical model could be used to define a request model that is a representation of the service provider search/ browsing parameters and service consumer's usage context. Here the search capabilities of a search service could use search/ browse related grammer rules to interpret the search context that is embedded into the request by the consumer. The context provided by the consumer allows the service provider to "accurately" and "efficiently" interpret the request.

For example, search semantics embedded in a search service that returns cross-sell product options could include information like "customer preferences", "type of credit card used by customer", "shipment processing preferences", "customer purchase history" etc। This type of "customer information" represents usage semantics embedded in the request and allows the provider to return cross-sell product options that are geared to the the specific customer being refered to by the consumer call। This in turn allows compilation of product suggestions which incorporate the profitability levels and purchase ability of this particular customer. The "customer information" is deemed to be the search result and usage context that are sent into the search request. These search results are thus customized to the consumer context without the consumer needing to make multiple calls to get the desired results. Therefore, one could see how the canonical request model has not only the standard search parameters supported by the provider but also allows the consumer to express its' search context and how it might apply the results of the search/browse call.

In addition, the canonical request model based search context could be used by the consumer to drive processing efficiencies in the provider। These request based keywords/ context can help the provider eliminate or short-circuit certain types of processing as well. For example, a canonical request model could support "new customer search" vs "existing customer inquiry" keywords to help alter the providers' audit processing behavior and past inquiry Here a consumer call with "new customer search" context could be used to suggest to the provider that the audit/ security and past inquiry lookup be disabled thus positively impacting the response time of search call.

In conclusion, we can see that the consumer usage semantics allow the provider to tailor it's search behavior to the needs of the consumer without changing the provider service interface.

Please give me your feedback on this topic। Also, I would be interested in knowing whether or not you have leveraged these concepts in your industry vertical।

Surekha -
Thank you!!

Comparing current financial crisis to SOA

noreply@blogger.com (Yogish Pai) — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 13:11:15 PDT

Comparing the current financial crisis with SOA was one of the topics we briefly discussed at the Community of Practice working group of the SOA Consortium. Following are some of my thoughts on this topic:

The current financial crisis is based on a flawed foundation - the sub-prime mortgages
Investment bankers and mortgage companies composed new and complex derivatives and resold them all across the globe - all in the name of new and investment models
Most of the executives of the involved companies as well as government agencies reviewed some of the aspect of the new world and based on what they knew then - thought it was all OK.
No one seriously took time to review the potential business risk and take corrective action before it was too late
The investments were so interdependent which made it impossible to understand the implications or the impact of letting one service fail. Example: The is no rational on why Lehman Brother was allowed to fail? and why AIG was rescued?

...and we see the result today. Doesn't this sound familiar?

Following are my recommendation on how to make sure that our SOA adoption does not take the same path (some will).

Make sure that all SOA adoption is based on sound business and technical foundation. Adopt and make sure to document the business architecture (design) and develop a technology road map (architecture) to meet these goals.
Do not hype and push rapid adoption without thinking through the life cycle .
Ensure that there is proper governance around your SOA Adoption - over communicate and be a bit more conservative on the risks.
It is not necessary to adopt SOA for all implementations - I would rather then to recommend that one makes sure that some of critical business capabilities (applications) are provided (build) using the traditional model.
Do not depend on services that are more than two level deeper (Reference: SOA Theorem #4: Service Hierarchy should not exceed more than three levels ). This is to ensure that you understand each of the services and their performance which will help you take corrective action, if required.

These are just some of my initial thoughts and as usual please do feel free to drop me line with your comments and/or feedback.

- Yogish

Comparing Current Financial Crisis to SOA - Continued

noreply@blogger.com (Surekha Durvasula) — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:29:23 PDT

I agree completely with Yogish's views as posted on "Comparing Current Financial Crisis to SOA" and his advice on treading light and having solid justification prior to undertaking SOA style projects.

A) An upfront investment has to be made in performing the right level of business process analysis and business architecture to pick the right SOA service candidates.

B) One should not attempt embarking on SOA with a highly visible project, as these types of projects operate under unwarranted pressure for delivery and with little patience for "architectural constructs" SOA or otherwise!!

C) Any project that is a high return type process with established KPIs and benchmarks is a good candidate for first time SOA implementations. Here gains are measurable (in the form of cost avoidance, cost reduction etc.) and can be directly tied to SOA-enabling these operational processes.

D) One has to invest in marketing the success of these projects and the services that were responsible for these quantifiable returns delivered by following SOA principles. Advertising the benefits of SOA style services with the benefits rendered by these projects help the business to relate to the abstract constructs such as SOA and so offer a better chance for service adoption. Also, advertising these business services that deliver efficiencies can be shown to offer speed to market gains that can be used for upcoming projects by encouraging reuse.

E) As always one should not assume technology will be the magic bullet. An assessment has to be made to understand if all components of the process/ business capability have to be refactored into services. One has to be open to leveraging legacy assets to reduce risk even if all that can be achieved is establishing a document based interaction or a mediated invocation of the legacy system.

Your feedback is invaluable.
Thank you!!
Surekha -

Architecture Organization Patterns

noreply@blogger.com (Yogish Pai) — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 07:32:43 PST

Over the past couple of years I have observed that companies from the high-tech industry are adopting two distinct patterns for organizing their architecture team.

Centralized Organization:

This is true for most IT organizations led by a CTO-IT, VP EA or Chief Enterprise Architect
All EA members reports to the head of the EA team
Individual EA are either focused on some core technology, IT functions (such as networks and operations) and Business Domain
Business Domain Architects dotted line report the head of LOB-IT (typically the Divisional CIO)
LOB-IT may also have Architects who dotted line report to the member of the EA team

As IT organizations need to focus on what is best for the enterprise - rather than on individual business units, this is a preferred organization structure adopted by IT organizations.

Federated Organization:

Most of the High-Tech companies have adopted this model for their line business (with IT adopting the Centralized Organization)
Typically there is a Chief Architect for the company who reports to the CTO of the organization
Evey business unit has a Chief Architect who directly reports to the Head of Engineering of the business unit and dotted line to the Chief Architect or the company.
The Chief Architect sometime reports directly to the GM of the Business Unit.
The GM of the Business Unit and the CTO typically report to the CEO
The head of engineering reports to the GM or is also the head of the Business Unit (varies - no consistent pattern observed)
The success or failure of this pattern is directly dependent on the leadership skills of the Chief Architect of the Company
The Chief Architects of the Business Units also play an important role and will be effective only if they constantly communicate to each other

As the GM like to have a sense of ownership - this organization pattern makes sense of the High-Tech industry. If the Architecture team is centralized under one Chief Architect - my observation has been that the GM then hire their own Chief Architect (under some other title) which creates a huge organization conflicts.

Some Interesting Observation:

One of the companies during the transformational phases transferred all their key resources - including development managers, developers, DBAs, Operations, etc. to the architecture team. Made a public statement that Architecture team was core - reorganized the rest of the teams and later over the three year period transferred the folks back out to the new organization. Using the Architecture team to retain the best resources during their transformation phase.
There is a 50% split between Shared resources team as being part of the Architecture team or an independent team.
Lately over the last 12 months - a lot more companies in the Silicon Valley are looking or Chief Architects responsible for both Business and Technology Architecture. However, they do not explicitly mention Business Architecture in their job description but their job description includes Business Architecture responsibilities.

Just some of my observation about the Architecture Organization Patterns and as usual please do feel free to drop me line with your comments and/or feedback.

Yogish

Enterprise Architecture, BPM, SOA and Master Data Management (MDM)

noreply@blogger.com (Yogish Pai) — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:07:25 PST

One of the best practices for Enterprise Architecture teams to redo the enterprise road map on a periodic basis. It is typically reviewed and updated during the yearly budgeting cycle and my preference is to perform this activity every 18 months. The best practices (and the traditional approach) is to first document the as-is, next develop the target or future state (architecture) and finally develop a short term (6 months), mid term (12 months) and long term (18 months) road map. Preferable an actionable road map that ties back to the business initiatives.

It is good to document the the as-is (or current reality) from all the domains such as Business Context, Applications, Technology, organization and Funding. Typically the business context is best understood by identifying and mapping the key business processes at a high-level.

This approach not only helps have a common vocabulary between business and IT by identifying the key business processes, it also helps identify the key enterprise data objects (entities) such as Customers, Contacts, Products and orders. Based on the priorities of the each of the business process, the next steps would be to drill down into one or all the business processes as illustrated below.
Once again, it is not necessary to use a Business Process Modeling tool (however, using one would be helpful later), the objectives is to clearly identify and document the next level of details. The next steps are to perform the gap analysis on each of the activities as illustrated below.

This approach enables both business and IT clearly visualize the existing gaps, impact areas and cost estimates which helps in developing the priorities and the investment plan. In addition, it is also important to identify and illustrate the list of applications/solutions that support a given business process as well as it perception within Business and IT as illustrated below.
As we develop the actionable road map to the future state, one this is obvious, no matter what we implement or adopt, whether it is a packaged applications, BPM or SOA key enterprise data crosses the silos both from an organization and the applications. It is for this reason, there is a critical need for adoption Master Data Management across the enterprises.

It is very important to spend sometime understanding and mapping these enterprise data objects in the context of the business process. It would also be very helpful to also develop a high-level data model and transaction (CRUD) matrix associated with the business process before initiating the activity of selecting/implementing an MDM solution.

I have seen a lot examples where companies have embarked on an MDM project without developing the architecture (see my blog on Blueprinting Information Architecture for more details) and not meeting the desired business outcome. The two other primary reasons of MDM failures are:

Lack of developing the data governance model up front that involves all the impacted business units
Assuming that a packaged applications could be modified to be the master data for enterprise.

To keep this blog short, I plan to blog more about my thought on BPM & SOA later and please do feel free to review my CDI-MDM Summit presentation on my experience with MDM/CDI.

As usual please do feel free to drop me line with your comments and/or feedback.

- Yogish

Key learning from Home Entertainment/Automation that can be applied to SOA/SaaS

noreply@blogger.com (Yogish Pai) — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:07:25 PST

Unlike the previous generation where technology innovation was driven by enterprise needs, over the past few years technology innovation such as smart phones, multimedia, game consoles, multimedia and social networking is being driven by the consumers. In short the consumers have gone digital, whether it is HDTV, Blue-ray, Home automation, smart phones, media servers or IMS (IP Multimedia Services). The vendors manufacturing these devices and services understood that unless there are standards adopted by industry - the consumers would not adopt these technologies (especially as they are not cheap). It is for this reason, most of the large vendors (hardware, software, manufacturers, protocol stack providers, etc.) got together to form the Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA).

Their objective was to resolve the following consumer challenges:

Products designed for the home should be easy to install, provide noticeable user value and be affordable
Product must inter operate with each other without requiring the consumer to undergo complex setup and configuration for connection between devices
Digital home products must inter operate with each other and with existing CE devices such as TVs and stereos.

Doesn't this sound very similar to the current IT Operations challenges?

The above diagram illustrates DLNA's view of the customers needs (source: DLNA). In order to be vendor neutral and provide the consumer the ability to control any service (yes! they call it services) the DLNA members standardized the technology stack (as shown below - source DLNA).

The key learning here is that the vendors adopted Peer-to-Peer (P2P) for device discovery, control and Media management. For now they have all adopted UPnP, especially as most existing devices at home (desktops, laptops, storage devices, game consoles, IP based TVs, Stereo systems, network hubs, etc.) support UPnP. Some of the vendors such as Microsoft support both UPnP and WS-Discovery and it the long term (once the backward compatibility issues are addressed) the industry may migrate to WS-Discovery.

For those getting ready to purchase TVs, Phones or other Digital Devices, I would recommend you verify that they are DLNA Certified.

The next obvious question is What does this have to do with SOA/SaaS? Well! why not use this same approach for deploying services? It would make life much easier for IT Operations and potentially eliminate the need for additional ESB hops in the network. Yes! I am back on this topic :). The Services-Oriented approach, it is basically a P2P architecture, i.e. a consumer invokes a producer. As most of the large software vendors have made a commitment to adopt Services Component Architecture (SCA) and developing the SCA Run time engines, it would great if they could adopt either UPnP, WS-Discovery or some other P2P technology. The following diagram illustrated the joining of new node/service(s) to the P2P network.

Benefits:
Following are the benefits of adopting this approach:

Based on the SCA standards -unique (logical) service name for services both for defining and invocation. Do not need to know the EPR (physical location) at the time of deployment.
Multi-cast availability of service whenever an instance come up - dynamic configuration does not require IT Operations or tools (even if they are automated) to change configurations.
Service maps (for a predetermined domain/network) maintained at each node. Complete map could be maintained in the Super peer (read up on p2p architecture for more details).
Eliminate the need for Service Registry in production. As each instance of the node and services is maintained dynamically by the Super Peer - there isn't a need to maintain and administer a Service registry.
Eliminates the need for having a separate monitoring agent on each node, especially as each instances could updates it's own service performance details in the P2P map.
Universal administration tool could be used to configure one or all the instances at any node and propagate the changes across the network.
As the consuming services would know the EPR of the producing service, this eliminate the need of an ESB.

The Newton: Component Model (Key technologies, OSGi, Jini, SCA) is the only run time engine I know of, that supports both P2P (Jini) and SCA. The Apache Tuscany project does claim to support JXTA (P2P) binding and have not researched it as yet.

Just my thoughts and as always do feel free to drop me line with your comments and/or feedback.

- Yogish

Key Learning from reclycling

noreply@blogger.com (Yogish Pai) — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:43:25 PST

Over the long weekend I decided to recycle all the boxes that were in my garage and following were my observations:

I had not recycled the boxed for a very long time - so it was complete mess in the garage.
About a decade back you could just put the boxed out and the garbage collectors would take it for recycling - not any more. We now need to break down the boxes - flatten them and stack them in the provided container in a systematic manner - otherwise they WILL leave them behind.
As I was breaking down the boxed - realized that the technology has changed. It is very easy to flatten and stack them.
However, there were a couple of boxes where I need to use brute force, cut them and even stand on them to forcefully flatten them. Some of them were recentely manufactured ones - guess they did not use the latest technology
These days - eveything seems to come in box, no matter what you buy.
It is important to recycle the boxed on a weekly basis - instead of waiting for a long time. The longer you wait the worse it gets.

Hmm!! - haven't I heard this before? :)

Yogish

Doing a lot more with a lot less in the current environment

noreply@blogger.com (Yogish Pai) — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:12:13 PST

Given the current market conditions all business executives are once again challenging the technology teams to do a lot more with lot less. Following are some of my thoughts around this (nothing new - just going back to the basics).

Focus on solving your customers needs - independent of the industry.
Do not scale back on innovation. All markets typically are different when they come out of a recession that what they were before one. It is only those who focus on innovation shall come out as winners.
Focus on your core business - differ the adjacent market until the market recovers (unless it is related to the innovation)
Do not focus on developing new infrastructure (unless absolutely needed). Build out the infrastructure incrementally as new products and offerings are either upgraded and rolled out to customers.
Do invest heavily on large packaged applications. As the entire market is going through a shift - it may not be wise to invest in large packaged applications. It will consume a lot of resources (and $$$) without any major differentiation. It may be easier to subscribe for the same applications from a SaaS provider.
Do invest in a few strategic initiatives
Do not attempt to crawl before you run - "run baby run". The company that runs the fastest to meet the customers demand WILL WIN.

Just some of my final thoughts to close out 2008 and as usual please do feel free to drop me line with your comments and/or feedback.

Wishing everyone a very happy and prosperous new year.

Yogish

Architetcure in 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Ashok Kumar) — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 08:17:24 PST

This will be my first entry into the blog for 2009. It has been a while due to a lot of churn over last few months. I am happy to see 2008 go. The only fear I have is that at the end of 2009, I don’t want to be longing for 2008. What a brutal year. I am hoping that people have learnt some lessons that you can not always focus on short term results at the expense of doing the right thing that has long term value. Architecture falls in that long term value category, yet first thing organizations do when it comes to cutting costs - they sacrifice architecture. Why do we keep rewarding people that cause untold harm in the long run while seemingly achieving short term goals? Most IT organizations fall into the same category. Senior executives are rewarded based on short term gains or operational efficiencies at the expense of long term viability. Current environment will only exasperate the situation.

It seems to me that executives and boards have not met the responsibilities entrusted upon them. Most executives have only been interested in benefiting themselves. I believe that executive bonuses should be kept in escrow and only be handed out at least 3-5 years after they are eligible to receive it. The disbursement of bonuses should be contingent on meeting some tough criteria where it is clear that no long term harm was brought upon by actions of these executives that may have fattened the bottom line in one year but killed the company over long haul.

My apologies for ranting but it has been very frustrating last few months. Now we need to focus on future and adjust accordingly. One trend I am seeing is that without clear, measurable ROI, funding is going to be scarce. There are fewer (if any) opportunities to experiment. This also means that vendors will have to adjust their expectations and will have to prove beyond power point slides that their product is worth investing in.

Happy new year everyone.

Ashok Kumar

Key Learnings:Drawing parallels between Design Patterns and the principles of SOA - Part II

noreply@blogger.com (Surekha Durvasula) — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:32:10 PST

This blog entry attempts to expand on the concepts explored in a prior blog of mine Key Learnings: Drawing parallels between Design Patterns and the principles of SOA that deals the relevance of design patterns in the world of SOA and services. Patterns explored previously were the Facade, Abstract Factory, Builder, Factory and Bridge.

In this blog we look at how infrastructure components like the ESB that are part of the service mediation layer insulate the service consumer from the service provider by offering call-dispatch functions that map out the most efficient call execution path for honoring a consumer business request। Many of the constructs of the service mediation layer provide add-on capabilities which are in fact model driven implementations of common design patterns।

Adapter - modifies an incoming method call to fit the required method signature or definition of the provider without impacting the consumer

Transformer - adapts the parameter and return type or message format (which includes alteration or interpretation of the message content) and enables the insulation of the consumer information from that of the providers'

Decorator - augments the behavior or is a facility to add on to the behavior without altering the interface and breaking the service interface and service contract as new consumers need additions to the base business behavior

Interceptor - provides ancillary behavior, filters out information or calls to the provider, validates the message content for authN credentials, authZ/ entitlements and permissions etc। all of which provide important ancillary behavior to the provider without having the providers' service implementation layer having to be peppered with nonbusiness logic level code।

Finally, the point of this blog is to show that despite vast numbers of changes in technologies and technology based service offerings the basic design principles and design patterns of the object oriented design realm are still applicable। Knowing these and applying these carefully enables one to retain the durability of the service interface and protects the consumers from unexpected or non-deterministic results and exceptions.

Thank you for listening. Your input is invaluable!

- surekha

Have you heard for Ahmedabad? If not - you should

noreply@blogger.com (Yogish Pai) — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:28:45 PST

Ahmedabad is the largest city in the state of Gujarat (India) and is a few hundred miles north of Mumbai. This is also the city where Gandhi had his ashram where he start the non-violent movement for freedom from the British rule.

It is very unlikely that you have heard about this city, other than maybe seen it in the Gandhi movie not knowing the name of the City. Based on my recent trip there earlier this year I believe that it has the potential of becoming one of the major International cities in India .

Following is my reasoning:

The state of Gujarat was hit by a major earthquake in 2001 which resulted in thousands of death and substantial damage to the infrastructure. From this tragedy rose an opportunity (and which I sincerely hope we repeat the feet to overcome the current financial crisis)

The state and the city rebuilt all the major roads include some highways that are mostly 6 lanes wide (OK the extreme two are now used for parking). Even though there is traffic - it keeps moving and one can go from one end of the city to the other without any major traffic blocks (unlike the other major cities)

In the late 80's early 90's the pollution was horrible, especially at the center of the city where they had the highest level of pollution of any of the cities in India. Today they have provided incentives where majority of the auto rickshaws have switched to CNG (see picture below).

The city is the banks of river Sabarmati and they have now embarked on ambitious multi year project (SRFDCL) to develop the riverfront on both the banks of the river from one end of the city to the other.

Even though the traffic is OK now, in order to cater to the growth the city has embarked on one more project of developing a Rapid Transport System (BRTS). Instead of developing a city metro/rail system, they took a faster an more practical approach. The city has built dedicated special center lanes for express bus. In addition, they have also built a number of flyovers to facilitate rapid transportation. Something to learn from, it may be cheaper and faster to develop rapid transportation system using buses than developing a city wide metro/railways.

The city boasts one of the best Management Institutions (Indian Institute of Management - Ahmedabad) in the country. Ofcourse there is also the Gujarat University (a large campus) with a lot of well reputed colleges and research centers around it.

Looks like Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) is expanding into more cities, include Gandhinagar (IIT Gujarat) which could basically be considered as one of the suburbs of Ahmedabad

There are lot of other cool stuff about Ahmedabad and if it looks like I am biased - Yes! I am. In the spirit of full disclosure, I spent my first 19 years at Ahmedabad.

What does this have to do with SOA or Strategic IT? Very simple - the State and the City realized that the city was becoming unlivable because they were not providing adequate services to their citizens. In order to improve the quality of service - the combined their efforts to first plan and build out the infrastructure (still WIP) to try and provide one of the best living conditions in the Country. Something we can all learn from.

Thoughts on Finding Value in BPM/Workflow Technology

noreply@blogger.com (Surekha Durvasula) — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:26:58 PST

I found an interesting entry on my colleague Todd Biske's blog Finding Value in BPM/Workflow Technology.

Here are some additional thoughts on how the value proposition for the BPM and Work Flow Management tools could be taken to the next level.
1) Ability to incorporate "Rules" or a "Rules Engine Component" into a business process step or a work flow task would be a great addition to these BPM/ Work Flow Engines. These rules can be encoded best practices or they can be regulatory in nature or business algorithms that may be volatile while the process flow or the work flow may not be so.

2) Ability to perform impact analysis for any process flow change prior to releasing the "new process".

3) Availability of analytical tools that could suggest optimization opportunities that could make process improvement suggestions such as the following
a) how switching the steps in the process may benefit the overall process flow
b) how metrics show that there is a ton of waiting in a step that could be made optional based on some criteria
c) how analytics could drive other optimizations such as making suggestions for automation of an information gathering step

4) Ability to subscribe to regulatory bodies that govern the outcome of a particular step of the process flow.

5) Ability to create a business process template for oft used processes within an industry vertical that allow standardization in the overall flow while catering for customizations and competitive advantage optimizations in particular steps of the flow.

Best Regards!!
- surekha,

SOA is not.....

noreply@blogger.com (Yogish Pai) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:16:45 PST

Looks like there is a contant need to educate the industry on SOA and this time I shall take a stab at what SOA is not....

SOA is not about technology
Web Services is not SOA
SOA is not dead - it has the same symptoms as global warming (too much pollution in the air)
SOA is not defined as "A camel is a horse desinged by a committee"
It is not a case of Chicken (Business Architecture) and the egg (SOA)
SOA is not entirely about reuse
SOA is not expensive - it follows Archimede's Priciples :)
SOA is not a product or a platform
SOA is not about registry & repository
SOA does not start with a big bang

Just my thoughts and please do feel free to drop me line with your comments and/or feedback.

Yogish

Economy and IT

noreply@blogger.com (Ashok Kumar) — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:55:56 PST

All the bad news about economic downturn got me thinking that there are a few parallels to be drawn between the cause and effect of current economic situation and IT. Just like American consumer, we have to start thinking about making some adjustments that will be required in future. Lets look at some of the parallels first:

Exotic instruments – One of the reasons financial system came crashing down was the invention of exotic financial instruments such as Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO), Credit Default Swap (CDS) etc. These instruments were not well understood by majority of people that were peddling it or those that bought into it. We in IT world have been living in alphabet soup of our own – EAI, AI, SOA, BPM, CEP etc. While some of these acronyms have legitimate meaning, most are there to sell products or consulting services. In financial world these instruments have led to illusion of profit thus fat bonuses for undeserving people. In IT world this has also led to fat profits or career advancement for undeserving people

Sub-Prime Mortgages – IT equivalent of sub prime mortgages is the foolish investments we have made over time in technologies that have failed to pay back (they are the financial world's equivalent of "Upside Down" mortgages). Now, any new technology investment is risky and we should not be totally risk averse otherwise we will miss the opportunity to take advantage of transformative technologies such as the Internet, but at the same time we in IT tend to over hype any thing new. "If only I go ahead and buy a new CRM package, I will have better customer relationship." I am sure every organization has a number of expensive software products that have either been abandoned or are under utilized.

Next time I will talk about the adjustments. Anyone here with me for a “BAILOUT”?

Ashok Kumar

Missing-link between Business Architecture and Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Surekha Durvasula) — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 10:40:11 PST

Before we embark on the effort of establishing a link between Business Architecture and Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) here is an attempt at creating a loose working definition for each.

SOA is an architectural paradigm that allows one to model, build and measure reusable business components that can be flexibly assembled to offer a business service.

Business Architecture is an architecture style that structures the accountability over the most important business activities (for instance production, distribution, marketing, etc।) and/or the economic activities (for instance manufacturing, assembly, transport, wholesale, etc.) into domains.

To begin with here are a few key SOA principals that all apply to the realm of Business Architecture. Principals of loose coupling, abstraction, reuse and interoperability (of both messages and the operations) all of which facilitate composition of more course grained business services.

So what does a Business Architecture effort entail and how is SOA relevant to the discipline of Business Architecture? Business Architecture should focus on broad reusable business components that can be turned into or wrapped into reusable service components and/or business services. The term reuse has received a bad wrap but when looked at from the lens of being able to offer enterprise wide consistency and cross-business area interoperability one begins to realize that this very attribute of “reuse” has the potential to deliver speed to market and cost reduction both of which are touted to be powerful selling points for SOA. From this perspective Business Architecture can be seen as a precursor to SOA.

Business Architecture should be designed to help align the right business operating model (low cost services provider or innovation oriented service provider or niche services provider or a service provider that offers low cost processing to meet regulatory compliance needs etc.) with the value chains and the component business processes. Following this effort one would need to study how to alter business activities and those value chains that are directly impacted by the changing business needs (which are external influences to the operating environment). Without undertaking this study it is not possible to identify "appropriate" business strategies that fit the underlying operating model chosen by the business. This effort has to precede SOA based service definition work as this thought process enables rationalization of the current state “service worthy assets” and helps in the identification of business service interface for these assets.

Given the above description of the discipline of Business Architecture one would logically arrive at the conclusion that for the concept of Business Architecture to truly take root in any organization it is imperative that business strategy be considered the "driver" of the Business Architecture effort(s). In addition one will notice that package solutions and infrastructure / frameworks can only be treated as an enabler for the identification of business optimization opportunities (within the value chains and their component business processes) but are definitely not the drivers of Business Architecture work or SOA work. There are some other considerations as well such as the role of a Business Architect, the executive sponsorship for Business Architecture etc.

The role of a Business Architect is a critical aspect of Business Architecture to succeed. Since the “business aspect” of Business Architecture is important finding someone with the right type of business knowledge to fulfill the role of Business Architect would be a must have. Also, having someone with the ability to apply the philosophy of architectural abstractions to the business domain is important. Fortunately for us architects this is great news as some of the lessons learnt from SOA can now be easily translated to the realm of Business Architecture long as we have the right level of business expertise as well.

Having said that, Business Architects will need to be cognizant of the fact that they have to strike a fine balance between their technical and business skills. In addition, people in this role have to be careful to not engage in prematurely promoting the principal of business process abstraction (a core architectural principle), without first establishing the right foundation for introduction of this concept. The reason is that the Lines of Business owners possess a very keen sense of pride in being “unique” and abstractions often lead to the erosion of or removal of “unique” customizations where ever these interfere with the larger scale intent of the business process/ value chain.

Business Architects need to have enough business savvy to engage with their business partners on an equal footing. They have to first express the nuances of the various problem domains before they start the process of abstracting and drawing parallels across the business processes owned by the multiple Lines of Business. Even during this phase Business Architects have to be able to explain these abstractions in business syntax and show how the competitive advantage “uniqueness” can still be incorporated without loosing operational efficiency. To be able to articulate the concept in business lingo and to tie this to financial impact by walking through the underlying analysis is the only way to get business buy-in given that these are the metrics up on which Lines of Business owners are measured. If not done by garnering the right partnerships the resultant enterprise-wide operational efficiency or competitive advantage benefits would never be realized.

If one cannot find this Business Architect, a cross-functional team with complimentary skills may be able to pull this off. In order for such a cross-functional team to be able to execute effectively on any large scale Business Architectural/ SOA effort it must have the support of a prominent executive sponsor. The executive sponsor has to be able to articulate business strategies, and influence key representatives of the Lines of Business to collaborate with a group such as the Enterprise Architecture Group. Executive support of such a team enables it to effectively analyze and abstract broad Business Architectural constructs and can help define and drive business solutions to implement business strategies that align with the chosen operating model of the organization.

An oft asked question on executive sponsorship is whether it is the CIO or the CEO and the influence that technology has on such an effort. This depends on the type of organization, the charisma of the CIO and the business acumen of the CIO vs. the technical acumen of the CEO. Also, key to this decision is whether technology is a business driver for this organization or is at least a key component for driving the operating margins.

Finally, for Business Architecture, the related SOA work and the business solutions to be considered part of a sustainable model this body of work has to deliver tangible and measurable benefits. The measures and the value proposition will have to be agreed upon at the outset of embarking on this path/ journey. In addition this multi-step journey has to be associated with a set of well-understood and well-published multi-year target business deliverables.

For some additional information on Business Architecture please review content on related blogs:
Business Architecture – Process Architecture and Information Architecture!
Key Best Practices - What is Service Orientation?

Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Surekha -

Role of Events in taking Proactive Action

noreply@blogger.com (Surekha Durvasula) — Sun, 17 May 2009 15:30:40 PDT

In exploring the role of events is it possible to achieve predictive analysis to provide rapid response and take proactive action?

One possibility is by tracking how humans handle event exceptions and locking their processing logic and turning this into business logic. This allows one to perform event correlations and to automate exception handling. Here event handling can take the form of rapid response or proactive action. Further, analysis of precursor events (i.e. events that occurred just prior to the exception) could lead to predictive alerts to be raised to circumvent exception situations and thus enable proactive actions to be taken.

If sensors and RF ID technology are the first steps to event capturing and event processing then addition of event analysis and event composition (Complex Event Processing style) is the next step in the evolution with exception based learning and proactive action based event emission may be considered a more advanced step in the process of EDA.

Many transportation companies and carriers and just in time supply chain providers could adopt EDA for rapid response or even proactive action. For example, combining whether based events, traffic flow patterns etc can be used to insure quality of the goods being transported to minimize wastage in transport. Furthermore, containers that transport organic food that does not use preservatives could use special types of "sensors" that detect the emission of gases and chemicals within the shipping container chambers to assess the freshness and the ripeness of the produce. If these events indicate rapid ripening proactive action based events can be sent to these shipping containers to lower temperature etc. to retain the freshness of the produce for transportation with minimum damage. (This example is only illustrative as I am not a expert on this subject.)

It must be noted that traffic and whether based events are combined with information about product preservation rules, correlated and processed to preserve sensitive consumer products to safely and preserve the high quality after this type of behavior has been observed in the human actor and this exception processing logic has been codified for future automation. EDA in this case is utilized for the purpose of tracking human exception processing and then automating this behavior albeit all the while depending on incoming current state events and outgoing proactive actionable events.

It seems very much a plausible use of EDA and so I am curious how many of you are using EDA for solving similar use cases.

As always your input is very valuable.
surekha -

Issues with SOA Adoption

noreply@blogger.com (Surekha Durvasula) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:55:40 PDT

Here is my attempt to identify some of the reasons for failure to adopt SOA. This time the focus is on not having a holistic SOA enabling infrastructure.

Many large enterprises try to reduce vendor-lock by not having a single provider for their entire SOA development/ deployment stack. This philosophy works great from a risk management perspective. However, this risk management strategy directly competes with the “speed to market” gains promised by SOA.

1. Not having a unified platform that facilitates seamless integration across the service orchestration layer, the application layer, the data layer etc. leads to long system integration and debugging cycles
2. Not having a centralized facility for the end to end management and monitoring of services can cause long outages and hampers the ability to track information/ transactions flowing across the various layers of the service architecture (i.e. service orchestration layer, the application layer/ business logic layer, the data layer etc.)
3. Not having a holistic SOA governance suite that enable discovery of existing service assets at design time and that provides service utilization information at runtime causes service proliferation issues

The following blog by my colleague and co-blogger Yogish prompted me to address this issue as it speaks to Oracle/ BEA integration strategy two big names in the space of SOA infrastructure.

Analysis on Oracle’s BEA integration strategy

In lieu of the one year anniversary of Yogish’ blog I am being optimistic in assuming that this acquisition will lead to the creation of a holistic SOA platform that encompasses service interactions at design time and runtime. I am also hopeful that a single SOA platform will provide seamless integration across various layers of the architecture as in the service orchestration/ mediation layer, the business logic/ application logic layer and the data layer. In addition, my hope is that a stronger player such as Oracle (following the BEA acquisition) would start pushing for “SOA standards” and start holding other SOA players accountable for staying compliant with these (in much the same way that the other vendors would now be putitng more pressure on a stronger SOA contender such as Oracle (following the BEA acquisition) to abide by these same standards. This "peer pressure" will hopefully make interoperability an achievable goal.

In the event Oracle is able to pull together a holistic SOA stack then here are some advantages for its' customers -

1. Having one vendor support the end to end stack enables a customer to find the right support whether it be from the perspective of SOA product suite integration or from the perspective of availability of the right tooling to enable and enterprise to cut down its' service lifecycle timeline (service design, service deployment) and improve its' time to market.
2. Having a player such as Oracle that has traditionally focused on scalability, reliability and end to end monitorability will provide customers with a SOA platform that is robust enough to meet the stringent SLAs at runtime while making service availability more predictable and less of a guess work at runtime
3. Having one vendor provide a holistic service governance suite will allow an enterprise to reuse its enterprise service assets (if authored appropriately) thus enabling the business to compose existing services to offer new capabilities.

In conclusion, I want to state that I do not align with Oracle or any other SOA player but merely want to comment on issues that have hampered SOA adoption and how these might be addressed. I believe that a unified SOA infrastructure platform will be a key capability needed to truly realize the full potential of SOA.

Thanks for listening.
surekha -