Service Oriented Architecture

Hi,

I am an Architect in the Software Industry. I know the need for such a role is hotly debated one. But for now, I can do with such a designation.

Service Oriented Architecture is a buzz-word since almost 3-4 years now. I believe that it has not caught up as fast as it promised to. However, there is definitely benefits that can be derived out of its implementation (if done right) across large enterprises.

My opinion on this is that it is almost a sure failure, if it is taken up in a big bang way for implementation. It has to be planned and taken up in phases with calculated but less risky applicaitons initially. Once the technical success of it is ascertained, the applications of business value need to be taken up to move towards this architecture.

Though lot is said about this in various forums, I am yet to hear anyone say confidently that much of their enterprise has taken to SOA.

Anyone's thoughts on this?
Do you think Business critical applications should be taken up to prove the business value to the enterprise for a pilot phase or less critical applications should be piloted, to absorb and risk of failure?

Web 2.0 for the software services industry?

Here are some of my thoughts on what Web 2.0 would mean to the software services industry.

The five main principles that qualify for calling and application / site Web 2.0 is:
1. Web as a Platform and Software as a service
2. Architecture of participation for harnessing collective intelligence
3. Own or create hard-to-recreate data sources
4. Software through multiple channels and devices
5. Rich User interface or Rich Internet Applicaitons

While the principle 2 seems to be attracting the most attention in Web 2.0, for the services industry, principle 1 holds the key.

Let me elaborate what I mean. In terms of implementation, principle 2 stands for creating and enhancing the network of people visiting your applicaitons and using them or adding value to them through blogs, wikis, social networks, susbscription of feeds, provide permalinks and trackbacks, allowing tagging or folsonomy as some call it. Now, providing or building these features is a breeze. Most of them can be just configured by using many available off-the-shelf, open source software.

Also, practically speaking, if an organization does not have a core business around which to implement web 2.0, just providing the above is not going to be of any value add to itself.

The crux continues to remain that any organization must have a core business model that needs to adapt itself to Web 2.0. By this I mean, they must be providing some service in the real world and that should preferrably have already made its presence on the web through the Web 1.0 way. Even if not, it needs to be morphed to be provided as an online service, in the first go.

This is nothing but extending the web service model to the real "web". While the former was more often than not, within the walls of an enterprise or extended mainly to business partners, the latter would be real services maintained for the public use on the web by anyone who subscribes and pays for it. This would mainly help the smaller business of both types: the providers of such services as well as the consumers of such services.

There are enough successful models over the last couple of years like the salesforce.com which are thriving on this business model, a model of revenue generation that did not exist inherently in web 1.0. This may be one of the main causes for a potential success of Web 2.0, as I see it.