Matt Deacon's digestive blog : SOA

Talking Architects with Roger Sessions

matt deacon — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:10:46 GMT

According to Roger Sessions in his recent white paper " The IT Complexity Crisis ", the worldwide annual cost of IT failure is over $6 trillion a year and what’s worse is it is on the increase. The culprit, Roger believes, is complexity, which...(read more)

Architecting for the Lines!

matt deacon — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:17:17 GMT

It is so often the case that integration is a secondary concern and along with identity, audit/logging and reporting it ends way below the fadistic significance of the UX in driving developer time (and cost). Not that I want to decry the importance of...(read more)

The Interoperability Files: Defining Interoperability and Integration Part 2

matt deacon — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:13:03 GMT

Ah Mr Nanni,

I am indeed humbled and excited at reading your reply to my posting on Defining Interoperability and Integration and for highlighting the apparent paradox in my definition. However, as to whether this leads us back to using the original definitions I am not sure I agree. It is not that I disagree with your points or that I think our views are that far apart but that this represents an opportunity for us to move the definition forward rather than to settle for second best with the current version.

On first glance, I think our differences can be explained by the fact that we are approaching the problem from different starting points. For my part I was viewing the problem from a System Integrator (bespoke development) perspective where as I think you are taking a particularly product centric view. This is not to indicate a flaw in your thinking but more in mine, for which I thank you greatly. In order for the requirement of integration to exist then there must exist at least two different ‘systems’ (immaterial of whether they were bought from a vendor or built in-house) that need to be integrated together in the first place. Therefore, taking a product centric position (irrespective of the source vendor or bespoke) does indeed make sense and I would agree that “interoperability is a quality of the system” and not of integration itself.

However, I think the fact that we started from these two different perspectives highlights a significant feature of interoperability that your definition does not capture. Taking the System Integrator view there is still much work to do to ensure that one system interoperates with the other even if the originator (vendor or in-house) of each system believes that each system is interoperable in of themselves. This ‘glue’ that exists to broker this integration must therefore be classified as a ‘system’ itself and therefore exhibits some quality of interoperability as do the systems themselves, that are being integrated. I think it is too easy to assume that by a product being to some level “interoperable” solves all the problems.

I think this is an important factor that should be reflected and while I agree in essence with your redefinition “Interoperability [of systems] is a condition sine qua non to achieve system Integration” I think it needs further extending to ensure the notion of “quality” is maintained. With this in mind I propose the following definition for interoperability, with the changes to my original as listed.

- As discussed interoperability now relates to the system (or organisation).

- Quality Attribute is a common architectural term that I have decided this time round to introduce and to replace the word “property”.

- “facilitates” to replace “ensures”

- “a level of independence” removed from definition.

Interoperability is a quality attribute of a system (or organisation) that facilitates the integration between it and other existing and future systems (or organizations).

As for the definition of integration, there may be a “temporal dichotomy” but if this is the case then surely that is true of the original definition. Therefore, it is clearly not right for us to revert back to the original. Perhaps I do not fully understand the dichotomy you talk of here so until I receive further clarification I recommend the use of my original definition.

Integration is the process of linking together diverse systems or organizations

This now brings me to your final Zen comment. I am unfortunately not one for remembering quotes however, one that does come to mind given we share the name which (and please do not read too much into this) is a quote from Matthew 15:14:

”If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”

Ok, so now I got to hunting around so how about these pearls of wisdom from Isaac Asimov:

“If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.”

I guess what I am thinking here is that it is a good idea to try and get some definition here …

Matt

Bletchley Park Architects Council Part 1

matt deacon — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:42:19 GMT

Microsoft UK Architect Council Meeting
8 & 9 June 2009
Bletchley Park, Milton Keynes

In June 2009 a group of senior IT Architects from across the industry assembled at Bletchley Park, the home of the World War II code breakers for two days to discuss the current state and requirements for interoperability, standards, security and service-orientation across the IT industry. Bletchley offered a more than fitting venue to discuss and debate these subjects given its history and the incredible achievements they made.

More Photo’s here …

Welcome to Bletchley Park

Dave Gristwood and I chew the fat before the two day meeting takes place to talk about what we’re going to be discussing and why Bletchley was such a great place to be doing this.

But don’t let this stop you from viewing as there is then a great welcome from Simon Greenish, Trust Director at Bletchley Park who really made a special effort for us during our stay and who continues to be the driving force behind the growing success that is Bletchley Park today!

A quick view of Bletchley Park

Bletchley is a key part of our cultural and scientific heritage and for the computer industry stands out, not only as the scene of some of the most amazing code breaking stories of WWII that undoubtedly reduced the duration of the war by some considerable time but also as the birth place of modern computing.

We all owe much to Simon and his team at Bletchley for the incredible job they are doing to not only save this for us and future generations but in so doing enable us to learn from the lessons of Bletchley and the work that went on there during the War!

However, it should be noted that Bletchley remains under threat and I would impress on all the importance of your roll in ensuring its continued survival and future success.

Many thanks in particular to our guide David Whitchurch and also to Tony Sale for demonstrating how Colosus boots faster than his copy of XP!

http://www.codesandciphers.org.uk

So what is Interoperability anyway?

Interoperability means many things to many people but here just a few thoughts from the architects who met at Bletchley to discuss the subject …

The presentations …

The interoperability imperative

Giampiero Nanni, Director of Interoperability, Microsoft Ltd

Interoperability is at the same time a challenge and an opportunity for organisations, private and public, with implications that go way beyond the pure technical aspects and issues. Microsoft is committed to solve these challenges, starting from weaving Interoperability into the fabric of the company, and through a collaborative approach with the different communities, government and standard bodies

View more presentations from ukdpe.

Standards and software – combining innovation and interoperability

John Phillips, UK National Standards Officer, Microsoft Ltd

The vibrancy and innovation of the software industry is incredible. It has created the modern tools needed by competitive enterprises. But raw innovation in the modern multi-vendor, multi-domain environment can challenge interoperability as implementers interpret standards in different ways. The advanced software architect needs to combine innovation and interoperability in complex systems to keep customers happy. This session will explore the challenges today’s standardisers in the software domain may face in building a standardizing capability for system-wide interoperability.

View more presentations from ukdpe.

Who am I?

Steve Plank, Identity Architect, Microsoft Ltd

Projecting your corporate identity in the cloud!

View more presentations from ukdpe.

Lessons from Bletchley

Ian Race, Senior Architect, Merrill Lynch Bank of America

Rupert Brown, Senior Architect, Merrill Lynch Bank of America

Why is it that so many software projects fail? As the Standish Group's 2009 CHAOS report confirms, this record is getting worse, with only 32% of projects delivered on time, on budget, with all required features. 44% were challenged being late, over budget, and/or with less than the required features and 24% failed or cancelled prior to completion.

Bletchley represents enormous success by a relatively small group of contributors in a relatively short period of time. Was this just luck or judgement? Are their lessons we can learn? Taking a couple of assumptions into account the council represents well over 800 years combined IT experience, during this time there have probably been one or two successes? Is there anyway we can capture some of this collective wisdom and turn it into a form that could save current and future projects from failure?

View more presentations from ukdpe.

University Challenge

Keith Straughan, Dean, University College Milton Keynes

Earlier this year the Higher Education Funding Council for England proposed a new University Challenge to 'unlock Britain’s talent" to support the Government’s aspiration to see up to twenty new Higher Education Centres in the UK. In many ways Milton Keynes is a natural choice, but perhaps rather than just proposing itself as being another University why not take a step back and maybe consider what the University of Tomorrow might look like. What if it were to really harness the power of modern technology? What would this 'virtual' university look like? Keith and his team have been spending some time thinking about this problem and have come up with some interesting thoughts.

View more presentations from ukdpe.

Security Strategy Briefing

Ed Gibson, Chief Security Advisor, Microsoft Ltd

Ed gave a free flowing account of the state of security across the industry. He covered many of the industries top security challenges, a new economy action plan, and described Microsoft’s strategy in relation to Trustworthy Computing and the Security Development Lifecycle.

Security Intelligence Report

Cliff Evans, Security and Privacy Lead, Microsoft Ltd

Cliff provided his perspective on the changing threat landscape including software vulnerability disclosures and exploits, malicious software (malware), and potentially unwanted software. Using data derived from hundreds of millions of Windows users, and some of the busiest online services on the Internet, this session will provide an analysis of the threat landscape and the changing face of threats and countermeasures, including information on privacy and breach notifications.

www.microsoft.com/SIR

View more presentations from ukdpe.

SOA is Rubbish

Jon Collins, Managing Director, Freeform Dynamics

"SOA is Rubbish", "SOA is Dead", "SOA: Lives with Elvis" are just a few of the recent headlines from analysts and press over recent months provoking the debate on whether the great white hope of SOA has ever really materialised? What is the SOA ROI? But SOA has ridden worse storms over the many Gartner hype years than this. What is the state of play? Maybe the truth is we're doing this anyway, leave us alone! Just stop calling in SOA and stop getting my CEO all excited about nothing!

View more documents from Jon Collins.

Architecting of "GEL" Interop

John Whiteway, Lead Architect, Astra Zeneca

Brief overview on Astra Zeneca's current GEL Application Architecture, then open out to the group to consider options for its extension to best realise our vision of maximum interoperability.

View more presentations from ukdpe.

<><> </> </>

Council representatives:

Alastair Bain, Centrica
Bryan Boreham, Barclays Capital
Rupert Brown, Merrill Lynch/Bank of America
Simon Cox, University of Southampton
Barry Ellis, BP
Chris Franklin, HMRC
Tony Godson, Unisys
Darren Hallett, Sungard Vivista
Yvonne Harrison, Royal Mail Group
Mike Jolliffe, Equiniti
Mark Lewis, EDS
Mike Lloyd, Carbonflame
Stewart McEwan, Digital Semantics
Michael Paulson, Avanade
Stuart Preston, EMC
Ian Race, Merrill Lynch/Bank of America
Dave Robertson, AstraZeneca PLC
Stephen Simpson, Logica CMG
Roger Wagland, Clifford Chance
John Waterworth, Independent Consultant
John Whiteway, AstraZeneca PLC
Russell Wing, Zurich Financial Services

Council Industry Analyst:
Jon Collins, Freeform Dynamics

Guests:
Simon Greenish, Trust Director, Bletchley Park
Keith Straughan, Dean, University Centre Milton Keynes

Microsoft representatives:
Matt Deacon
Cliff Evans
Ed Gibson
Tim Gregson
Dave Gristwood
Giampiero Nanni
Steve Plank
John Phillips
Gurprit Singh
Simon Thurman

The Interoperability files: Defining Interoperability and Integration

matt deacon — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:25:35 GMT

Something that has confused and annoyed me over quite a few years are the words Interoperability and Integration and that they are used widely in IT and are often used interchangeably to suggest that perhaps they mean the same thing. My instinct has always known that there is a significant difference but at recent meetings/workshops on the subject I have found the terms used in equal measure and that each person seems to have their own definition, all of which comprise of several 100 words that don’t necessarily provide any more clarity. There are overlaps of course, but what is interoperability and is there a difference with integration?

Here’s the story is my little voyage ...

First stop, Wikipedia and the first thing to note was that the only relevant definition for Integration in a computer context was when prefixed with the word “System”, fair enough.

Systems integration is the process of linking together different computing systems and software applications physically or functionally.( Wikipedia)

Unlike Integration Interoperability had a top level definition of its own that spans both to systems and organisations:

Interoperability is a property referring to the ability of diverse systems and organizations to work together (inter-operate). (Wikipedia)

Therefore, to compare one needs to either promote integration (remove the word system) such that the definition includes organisations or to demote interoperability (introduce the word system) and limit the scope of its definition. I have elected to do the latter (although either approach would work) here is the definition for System Interoperability:

System Interoperability is a property referring to the ability of diverse systems to work together (inter-operate). (Wikipedia – modified)

The result is two extremely similar definitions that would suggest that integration and interoperability could indeed mean the same thing. However, I am still not convinced and therefore could it be that Wikipedia has an error?

For quite a while the word “diverse” stood out for me as the differentiating word but after many hours of pontificating to myself on this I had to accept that “diverse” and “different” are extremely similar words that are hard to separate in terms of meaning so Wikipedia it seems is still at fault. That said, the concept of diversity in an evolutionary context and the “future of the unknown” remained as being significant contributors to my thought process throughout as we shall see.

So the searches for other definitions came up with the IEEE definition for example which on the surface fared little better.

the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged. (IEEE)

Going back to Microsoft’s view on Interoperability I watched a catchy interview with Bob Muglia discussing interoperability. He talked about “systems working together” and introduced the word “disparate” meaning “very different” which I liked a lot. He also talked about the need for “standards” too – now this was interesting. Obviously, we all associate Standards with our definitions of Interoperability but does “being interoperable” require one to adopt standards? No definitions so far have actually stated this requirement, but there would clearly be value in using standards. In returning to Wikipedia and the section on Software Interoperability it states that “the lack of interoperability can be a consequence of a lack of attention to standardization” and that “interoperability is not taken for granted in the non-standards-based portion of the computing world.” So is it possible that standards mark a significant difference between integration and interoperability? Next I went to the Wikipedia definition for standardisation which lists its goals as being “to help with independence of single suppliers (commoditization), compatibility, interoperability, safety, repeatability, or quality.” Ah so that’s good and ties the two together neatly.

But obviously, one needed to check with ISO and here’s their definition for Interoperability which firmly supports the use of standards by inferring the need for some layer of separation between systems, although explicit use of standards for this purpose is avoided:

Interoperability is the capability to communicate, execute programs, or transfer data among various functional units in a manner that requires the user to have little or no knowledge of the unique characteristics of those units (ISO/IEC 2382-01)

So in one sense I thought I was close but then again does the use of some layer of separation differentiate the two terms? Maybe but it was now that a nagging thought returned how can you compare an “-ility” a “quality of being” word with a “-tion” an “action or process” word? Well according to various dictionaries that are apparently both abstract nouns so I guess I am excused to do so to some degree. But thinking about this, it’s clear that one can be involved in an “act of integration” but it makes no sense to be in an “act of interoperability” (well I don’t think so). Equally one can imagine the state of “being interoperable” but “being integration” is nonsensical (I guess one could be in the state of “being integrated” but that’s not very helpful to my argument). And I guess that’s where things clicked.

Interoperability is a quality (attribute, property or feature) of integration. (Matt Deacon, July 2009)

In this way all forms of integration exhibits some quality of interoperability. The type of integration method or approach will dictate the level of interoperability that is achieved. Here’s an example to explain further what I mean.

If I integrate systems A and B, then by default I have automatically created some quality (or level) of interoperability. At a very minimum we now have some quality (or level) of interoperability between the systems A and B. However, depending on the integration approach I took the quality (or level) of interoperability maybe much higher such that integration with system C might prove quite easy. However, if the quality of interoperability between A & B remained low then this integration with C might prove extremely difficult.

The key feature that the example illustrates is that by increasing the quality of interoperability when integrating systems allows one to deal with future integration requirements as yet unseen during design time. This really ties the notion of interoperability back to the concept of evolution and “diversity” and the “future of the unknown” I mentioned earlier. To quote a council member who stated that interoperability is about “future proofing”.

At this point I thought I was there and therefore returned back to the original Wikipedia definitions and to my amazement the points I thought I had uncovered were staring me in the face all the time. If you look again at interoperability you can easily replace “property” with “quality” and in the case of integration “process” could be replaced by “action”! In reality it turns out that these are the key words in understanding the definitions and more importantly the differences in the definitions between integration and interoperability, the first being the action and the second, the quality! If only Wikipedia’s definition of interoperability used the word “integration” then this path may never have needed to be trod!

With all this in mind I have provided a corrected top-level definition of system interoperability but second is a more complete statement that tries to reflect what the nature of the quality of interoperability is.

Integration is the process of linking together diverse systems or organizations. (Matt Deacon, July 2009)

Interoperability is a property of integration that ensures a level of independence between existing and future systems or organizations. (Matt Deacon, July 2009)

Next step is to take comments and to recommend the changes to Wikipedia.

Thanks for reading!

Technorati Tags: Interoperability,Microsoft,Integration,Architecture

The Cloud, the architect, IT and the great disruption

matt deacon — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:54:00 GMT

Here's the deck I presented to Accenture technical consultants. Bit of fun and got a chance to give my view on what's happening to IT. Here's what I was asked to cover ...

What’s cloud computing?
What’s the industry trend, projections, opportunity and client value?
What does this mean for organisations and how are we expecting them to change?
What’s Microsoft doing to define, capture or ride this trend?
What’s Microsoft and Accenture doing together to capture this market?
What’s the next big Disruptive technology?

On the last point - I said that we're in it, but the only problem is with disruptive technologies is that you can't normally see them until they disrupt:)! On the whole Cloud in all its forms is an example of radical innovation but in certain cases it will disrupt. Here's some candidates for disruption IMHO:

Traditional OUtsourcers, that don't see the opportunity to innovate as organisations multi-source
System Integrators/Consultants that don't seak to generate IP and business partnerships with their customers
Organisations that don't service enable their IT & don't differentiate their assets against critical and non-critical functions
Organisations that don't invest in architecture and integration at a strategic level within IT (and the business)

Implications Of The Cloud

View more Presentations from Matt Deacon.

Thoughts welcomed ....:)

More news on Oslo

matt deacon — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:31:00 GMT

If you can't wait for the PDC ( or aren't planning on going) then these should help ...

Microsoft's Distributed Destination: Oslo

The Origins of Microsoft's Oslo Software Modeling Platform

Just looking at the latest sessions listed for PDC makes me think attendance is a must!

Microsoft joins OMG

matt deacon — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:26:00 GMT

Probably old news to many but I am amazed it hasn't raised more of a buzz so far

I for one am really excited by this development ..

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/sep08/09-10OMGModelingPR.mspx

SaaS as a Disruptive Technology?

matt deacon — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:23:00 GMT

At long last I've finally got the report I produced with Dr Steve Moxey of Manchester Business School published on MSDN.

In short the report concludes that SaaS as a general concept is being seen as a "radical incremental technology" more than being "disruptive" which makes sense given that SaaS as an architectural pattern builds on existing architectural patterns such as SOA. That said, although the approach is itself "incremental" it will still depend on the individual scenario as to whether that will be disruptive or not.

The framework below describes the approach we took in workshops with software vendors that's proved a useful tool in understanding one's own particular market.