Here is an excerpt from a comment in a recent discussion stream about the potential misunderstanding of an agent-based internal and external metaprise development and implementation model:
“I ask, because the part where you say what I/O can’t do feels off if it’s in a solution that runs all the way through pay. These I2P solutions connect with an ERP (Netsuite, Sage, etc) and run seamlessly.”
It took me a little while to figure out the disconnect, especially regarding the last statement: “These I2P solutions connect with an ERP (Netsuite, Sage, etc.) and run seamlessly.“ Then it hit me; seamless integration isn’t about technology- which is what I call an equation-based model. Seamless integration – true integration, is the result of human-led agent-based modeling.
Because people tend to lead with tech—which is much easier to sell conceptually—the above comment about seamless integration may technically be accurate. However, in a practical, real-world sense, this approach fails 80% of the time. In other words, today’s misunderstanding results from the SOA Hangover.
What Is The SOA Hangover?
Just because something works or should technically work doesn’t mean it practically and reliably works in the real world.
Here is the link to one of the many articles I have written about Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) between 2007 and today: Procurement Decentralization 20 Years Later. You can access the entire SOA article archives through the following link.
While you can go through the archives at your leisure, here is why tech-led or centric integration initiatives in the past, present, and future ultimately fail in the real world:
Why did Service Oriented Architecture fail?
Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) failed to deliver its promised benefits for several reasons, despite its initial promise of increasing flexibility, scalability, and reusability. Here are some key factors that contributed to its failure:
Reasons for SOA Failure
- Complexity and Interdependencies: SOA systems often became overly complex due to the high number of interdependencies between services. This complexity made it difficult to modify or debug systems, as changes in one service could affect others in unpredictable ways[1][2].
- Single Point of Failure: The use of Enterprise Service Buses (ESBs) in many SOA implementations created a single point of failure, as all services relied on this centralized component for communication. If the ESB failed, the entire system could become inoperable[1][3].
- Lack of Alignment with Business Objectives: SOA initiatives often failed to align with core business objectives, leading to a lack of meaningful ROI. Without clear business goals, SOA projects became ends in themselves rather than means to achieve strategic outcomes[3][4].
- Cultural and Organizational Challenges: Implementing SOA required significant cultural and organizational changes, which many organizations struggled to manage. Securing buy-in from all levels of the organization and providing adequate training were common challenges[4][5].
- Technological Challenges: SOA required specialized technologies like web services and ESBs, which were complex and expensive. The lack of standardization and interoperability issues with vendor-specific solutions further complicated implementations[2][6].
- Overemphasis on Technology: SOA was often promoted as a technological solution rather than a business strategy. This overemphasis on technology led to neglect of the organizational and process changes needed for successful implementation[7][3].
- Performance Bottlenecks: The distributed nature of SOA led to performance issues due to the overhead of inter-service communication, which resulted in slower response times and diminished efficiency[7][2].
Overall, while SOA had promising principles, its practical implementation was marred by complexity, technological challenges, and a failure to align with business needs. These issues led many organizations to abandon their SOA initiatives or transition towards more agile architectures like microservices.
- https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/service-oriented-architecture/
- https://resources.lobster-world.com/en/wiki/service-oriented-architecture-soa-explained-for-non-developers/
- https://www.3pillarglobal.com/insights/blog/microservices-vs-soa-whats-the-difference/
- https://www.bptrends.com/soa-adoption-challenges/
- https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/5474131/file/5474133.pdf
- https://www.capitalware.com/dl/docs/IB_Worst_Practices.pdf
- https://netapinotes.com/anne-thomas-manes-declares-soa-dead/
TODAY’S TAKEAWAY
Almost twenty years later, seamless integration is still viewed as an equation-based technology-first approach versus a human-led agent-based development and implementation architecture. That is what the SOA Hangover means.
30
Procurement Insights
Today’s Intake/Orchestration And The SOA Hangover
Posted on March 20, 2025
0
Here is an excerpt from a comment in a recent discussion stream about the potential misunderstanding of an agent-based internal and external metaprise development and implementation model:
“I ask, because the part where you say what I/O can’t do feels off if it’s in a solution that runs all the way through pay. These I2P solutions connect with an ERP (Netsuite, Sage, etc) and run seamlessly.”
It took me a little while to figure out the disconnect, especially regarding the last statement: “These I2P solutions connect with an ERP (Netsuite, Sage, etc.) and run seamlessly.“ Then it hit me; seamless integration isn’t about technology- which is what I call an equation-based model. Seamless integration – true integration, is the result of human-led agent-based modeling.
Because people tend to lead with tech—which is much easier to sell conceptually—the above comment about seamless integration may technically be accurate. However, in a practical, real-world sense, this approach fails 80% of the time. In other words, today’s misunderstanding results from the SOA Hangover.
What Is The SOA Hangover?
Just because something works or should technically work doesn’t mean it practically and reliably works in the real world.
Here is the link to one of the many articles I have written about Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) between 2007 and today: Procurement Decentralization 20 Years Later. You can access the entire SOA article archives through the following link.
While you can go through the archives at your leisure, here is why tech-led or centric integration initiatives in the past, present, and future ultimately fail in the real world:
Why did Service Oriented Architecture fail?
Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) failed to deliver its promised benefits for several reasons, despite its initial promise of increasing flexibility, scalability, and reusability. Here are some key factors that contributed to its failure:
Reasons for SOA Failure
Overall, while SOA had promising principles, its practical implementation was marred by complexity, technological challenges, and a failure to align with business needs. These issues led many organizations to abandon their SOA initiatives or transition towards more agile architectures like microservices.
TODAY’S TAKEAWAY
Almost twenty years later, seamless integration is still viewed as an equation-based technology-first approach versus a human-led agent-based development and implementation architecture. That is what the SOA Hangover means.
30
Share this:
Related