Nowadays a lot of people see the added value of architecture. Numerous examples exists showing that without architecture systems don't function in the way expected. Trying to change such systems delivers a real headache. However, architecture can have different formats. Just a pile of paper without any structure doesn't really help you. Architecture can be defined as a set of principles restricting the design freedom for a system design. These principles can be formalized using a structured format. In this way architecture can deliver real value in creating or changing a system, but how to convince your manager? Or, formulated in another way, what is the economic value of an architecture?
The "Service Oriented Architecture Special Interest Group" has been created on LinkedIn. I'd like to invite you to join this group. It's a fast growing, world-wide network of people interested in Service-Oriented Architecture and its applications.
Join the Service Oriented Architecture Special Interest Group on LinkedIn
Enterprise software has become very complex. SOA (Service-Oriented Architecture) is mostly presented as the solution. It can be discussed if it is a good solution. As I told in a previous article (see Model-Driven SOA) I have my doubts. For solving the current problems in enterprise software at least a model-driven approach is needed. A model-driven approach can bridge the gap between business and IT. It can also deliver the flexibility so much needed in the current fast changing markets. However, I miss another thing in most SOA stories. When reading these stories I mostly ask myself: where is the data?
