SOA Methodologies in Practice

4,296 views

Published on

Briefly outlines competing methodologies for SOA from IBM, CSC and Fujitsu. Originally presented at Oakland University, Detroit, Oct 2008.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
18 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,296
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
35
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
18
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

SOA Methodologies in Practice

  1. 1. SOA Methodologies in Practice Sandeep Purao , Ph.D. Associate Professor of IST Enterprise Informatics and Integration Center Standards Interest Group, Socio-technical Systems Lab
  2. 2. We Are.. College of Information Sciences and Technology
  3. 3. Services everywhere … SSME SOA SOC Web Services Methods Tools Co-creation Governance Systems Integration Service Economy Consulting Services Service Networks BPM Service Ecosystem
  4. 4. SOA <ul><li>Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) is an architectural style for solution architects to create and manage new value added solutions by leveraging various solution artifacts such as business processes, services, packaged applications, and manageable attributes throughout their lifecycle. </li></ul>(IBM, July 2008)
  5. 5. SOA Principles <ul><li>SOA is a “durable” change in application architecture </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The system must be Modular </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Modules must be Distributable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The modules must have clearly defined Interfaces </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Modules that implement the service must be Swappable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The modules must be Shareable </li></ul></ul>(Gartner, January 2008)
  6. 6. Hype Cycle: Integration (Gartner, Late 2007)
  7. 7. SOA ++ <ul><li>EDA </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A sub-style of SOA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Event notifications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Complex event processing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>WOA </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A means of implementing SOA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>URIs, formats and protocols </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Core and Extended Service Layers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>WS and WS* </li></ul></ul></ul>(Gartner, Late 2008)
  8. 8. Hype Cycle: WS Standards (Gartner, Late 2007)
  9. 9. An Example <ul><li>Alter’s Service System Fundamentals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Argues for a unified view: “service systems are work systems” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Suggested ‘representation styles’ for services, e.g. Work system snapshot consisting of </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Customer, Services, Processes, Participants, Information and Technologies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Contrasting WSLC against SDLC emphasizing reuse yet several unanticipated interventions </li></ul></ul>(Alter 2008)
  10. 10. Another example <ul><li>Rouse’s Service Value Networks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Actors: consumers, service providers, enablers and auxiliary enablers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Applications in several domains including healthcare </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Complexity computations extending Shannon’s entropy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analytical possibilities following economic and industrial engineering perspectives </li></ul></ul>(Basole and Rouse 2008)
  11. 11. Our own ongoing work <ul><li>Designing and Monitoring </li></ul><ul><li>With Robinson and Jain </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Harvesting services from legacy applications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Capturing service interaction protocols </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Goal-based monitoring </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feedback to suggest evolution possibilities </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. A few problems <ul><li>A selective list based on anecdotal data / observations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Business-IT relationship </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A problem of scale </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An ‘all-or-nothing’ proposition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do we know ‘how-to’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transition plan </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Governance concerns </li></ul></ul>Three Vendors ->
  13. 13. The IBM View UML-based Meta-model Meta-model includes KPI, NFR, Goals, Processes © IBM
  14. 14. The IBM View Implemented with Rational New Stereotypes © IBM
  15. 15. The IBM View Impact Diagram Graph- based Analysis © IBM
  16. 16. The CSC View Services as Interfaces to Components Recognizes Business and Technical Services © CSC
  17. 17. The CSC View Kinds of Services Recognizes Manual and Automated Components and Services © CSC
  18. 18. The CSC View Network of Components Allows Creation of Graph-like Structures © CSC Proprietary
  19. 19. The CSC View Kinds of Services Can be Extended © CSC
  20. 20. The CSC View Patterns (known usage modes) Allows Linkages © CSC Proprietary
  21. 21. The Fujitsu View One state should be one service Service architecture quoted Service bus ordered fulfilled shipped Order billed © Fujitsu Quote service Order Processing service Logistics service Delivery service Billing service
  22. 22. The Fujitsu View Quality Checksheet Bill Order service Quote service Logistics service Delivery service Service architecture Service bus Quality Checklist Created Quality Report Produced issued collected created Billing service Analysis remains focused on the management data and the state transitions. Nothing about “systems” and “processes” yet © Fujitsu Quality Checklist Service Bill Creation Service Quality Report Service Bill issue service Bill Collection service
  23. 23. The Fujitsu View © Fujitsu Interactions among services specified Service bus Quote service Order service Logistics service Delivery service Billing service Bill Collection service Bill Creation service Bill Issue service
  24. 24. Assessment <ul><li>Analogs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>systems development methods </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>process reengineering methods </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>asset-based/reuse-based methods </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>governance approaches </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. Implications <ul><li>Partner and Tool selection </li></ul><ul><li>Role of technology </li></ul><ul><li>Organizational resource commitment </li></ul><ul><li>Problem selection and level of analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Modeling / formalization </li></ul><ul><li>Intervention based research efforts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Case studies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Models and Simulation </li></ul></ul>
  26. 26. Q+A <ul><li>This Presentation </li></ul><ul><li>College of IST + EI 2 Center </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Penn State Football </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>

×