IBM has announced plans to release its service-oriented architecture catalog.
This caveat is that the services offered are built on IBM technology, and the extent to which this can be reused in other environments is not yet known.
If the services are truly reusable within non-IBM environments, it could see the start of a whole range of offerings from other vendors as the race for mind-share in the SOA space really starts to heat up. The whole ethos of SOA (and, going back several years, web services) is the ability to reuse assets both within and external to the implementing organization. However, that is only part of the picture.
The availability of reusable assets does not by itself mean that they will be reused. Development methodology is so ingrained that the whole idea of reusing existing assets is anathema to most development teams, and this is something that needs to be addressed at a deeper level than simply making assets available (although no blame should be attached to IBM for this mindset – at least it is trying to do something).
The whole issue of reuse has to be put into focus. There are still too many developers that believe reuse is about cutting and pasting pre-written code into their own applications. The reality of SOA is that services will be assembled into functional processes and the developer will be less concerned with coding and more concerned with creating logical functional structures.
To return to IBM, there is probably no other organization in the vendor community with the depth and breadth of experience to help make this vision of reusable services a truly viable proposition. The possible downside is that if organizations create processes from reusable services, where are they going to create differentiation?
When one considers business differentiation, it can all be brought back down to the issue of process. Processes that are more efficient create cost savings, and also (in many instances) a better customer experience. The use of vanilla services offers a world of no differentiation, and this is hardly likely to have CEOs signing up for the new architectural style.
Source: OpinionWire by Butler Group (www.butlergroup.com)
