SOA – Case proven internally on cost, but not yet on value? | CTO Blog | Capgemini

« Google and Green | Main | iPhone launched in Second Life »

SOA – Case proven internally on cost, but not yet on value?

We finally have the case study we have all been waiting for; British Telecom has announced after some eight years it has nearly finished making its entire infrastructure ‘entirely SOA based’.

Eight years of work on this certainly supports the statement that SOA is not new, but as anyone who has ever worked in a company that has tried to create standardisation by standardising on a single product will quickly recognise it’s not the ‘what’, meaning the product, but the ‘how’ meaning the implementation that matters. Our understanding of how to implement SOA has got better in the last year, but even now we are far from a universal agreement. Looking at the press release more carefully reveals that BT has been experimenting with Web Services since 2001. This to my mind pretty well guarantees that anything done six years ago is now obsolete and not going to work with anyone else.

I am not sure that matters in this case as BT is pretty clear that its benefits case is internal around using SOA to deliver the existing IT systems for less cost, and that’s where it gets really interesting. BT claims that there has been a 20% drop in IT staff required releasing 2000 people towards customer facing or revenue generation roles. That’s huge, and should remove any doubts as to whether the adoption of SOA as an internal methodology to deliver is justified.

I did wonder about other savings, cost reductions, or values found in business process change, as BT were honest enough to tell us that as part of moving to SOA the definitions of ‘services’ and ‘processes’ were the issue. This issue was not a technical one, but the reality of finding that the process really followed by people working in the front line was not the same as the procedure laid down in the ‘rule book’. This would seem to be proof indeed of the accuracy of the comments from some directions that SOA implementation is a business process issue more than a technology issue.

The challenge, of course, is how to engage the business people in this change to make sure that the difference is not just clarified as to what it was meant to be originally, but was rethought to say what it should be, given a better understanding of why it has changed. However to define what it should be, or even what it could be, means understanding the new possibilities, and that means looking at extending processes that flow across the business rather than segregated silo function elements. Do that right and there should be just as big a benefit case in business efficiency as the one that BT found in the IT department.

Before Business Package applications taught the lesson that it was better to use what they provided as best practice then design your own process there were a lot of people around performing the role of Business Analysts. These are just the people we are looking for to help in this challenge, it’s just when I look around now they don’t seem to be around any more. That’s a problem, and seems to suggest that we aren’t going to be able to answer the second part of the question on how shifting to SOA adds value to the business process in a hurry as we don’t seem to know who has the skill to work on this. Seems to me we are going to have to think about how we are going to re-introduce this role again.

Posted by Andy Mulholland on July 2, 2007 | Digg this | Seed Newsvine

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.capgemini.com/cgi-bin/blog/mt-tb.cgi/146

Comments

# on July 6, 2007 6:55 PM, Jon Collins said:

"BT were honest enough to tell us that as part of moving to SOA the definitions of ‘services’ and ‘processes’ were the issue."

Absolutely - and I would wager that BT will not be alone in this - when I hosted a session on the topic, we came to a similar conclusion: http://technologygarden.wordpress.com/2007/03/28/what-characterises-a-service/

Interesting as well that you talk about the re-emergence of business analysts. Agreed this would be a good thing, but perhaps they will need a broader skills portfolio than in the past, or at least have already adopted the services perspective.

Thanks, Jon

P.S. Good to meet you briefly at the mobility summit

# on July 6, 2007 7:31 PM, andy mulholland said:

Hi Jon

good to reconnect, and the agreement on this being the challenge seems to be common. Sadly we are all still struggling for the same concensus on what to do to solve this. Interesting extension on this Blog with some good challenges at http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2007/07/05/on-soa-at-bt-confused-by-andy-mulholland/

# on July 19, 2007 6:07 PM, Osei Kufuor said:

Designers of the factory for the future have long known that SOA is not a new concept, and more importantly the SOA is a business process issue. For example, standardization of business processes across an enterprise has been the hallmark of Toyota Adaptive Ecosystem and Wal-Mart Adaptive Value Systems. So, we are in agreement with BT that SOA is a business process issue. Thus, the emphasis should be on skilled business analysts.

# on July 25, 2007 10:35 PM, Wedge Greene said:

Hi Andy,
Regarding your observation: ” there were a lot of people around performing the role of Business Analysts. These are just the people we are looking for to help in this challenge, it’s just when I look around now they don’t seem to be around any more." I wish to assure you they are still available. However, consultants must express themselves in terms of the value position the client holds; otherwise they are just a cost. While I consider myself a Business Analyst in a company of Business Analysts, customers frequently see me in terns of contacts, OSS architecture skills, or IT experience. Unless a customer asks for xxx, they shall not find.

But this points to an unintended consequence; if a skill is not valued and paid for, it becomes marginalized. I am greatly concerned that the experience we built with developers and architects who understood autonomic communications on the FineGrain NGOSS project at the start of the century has been scattered to the wind. Will the ability to build robust, self-healing, self-configuring systems be lost like the industrial skill for building big rocket boosters was lost when the moon program was shut down in the USA?
- Wedge Greene

# on July 26, 2007 11:19 AM, andy mulholland said:

Just come back from a meeting of the Open Group and it would seem that we have a new title and possibly new competancy called 'Business Architect.

i say possibly because the discussions were divided if this really was new in content or just in title!

so maybe the people are still around, just got a new title !