In reaction to this dilemma, enterprises created positions called enterprise architects. These are single individuals, or groups, within the organization who have the responsibility to drive the enterprise architecture strategy going forward. While a good idea in theory, the reality is that many of these enterprise architects simply don't have the political or budgetary authority within their companies or government agencies to make much of a difference. In many instances, they have been relegated to those who create reports and presentations that nobody reads, and provide direction and guidance that's easily ignored.

Thus, without good architectural governance and ongoing corporate management pressure to redirect resources to tactical IT projects, the enterprise architectures continue to become more unnecessarily complex, static, and fragile. What was a mere annoyance only a few years ago, is today a clearly limiting factor in the businesses' ability to create shareholder value. The company can't easily shift into new and emerging markets, acquire companies, and adjust major business processes without a great deal of latency. In some cases, they are completely unable to change. In other words, things are bad and getting worse.

SOA is not a miracle cure for bad architectures. However, it is a step in the right direction for those looking to move their existing enterprise architectures into something much more efficient and valuable to the business. Those who embrace SOA as a practical architectural pattern in the context of a long-term strategic architectural plan, and are able to execute architectural rejuvenation without tactical interruption, will find that they are quickly ahead of the game. SOA provides two primary values. First is the ability to save development dollars through reuse of services. Second is the ability to change the IT infrastructure faster to adapt to the changing needs of the business. Agility is the primary value proposition of SOA, and enterprise architecture for that matter.

Those looking to leverage the notion of SOA are tempted to sign up for the SOA-in-a-box type of solutions...perhaps an ESB, a BPEL engine, or a governance tool, or all of the above. Unfortunately, "buying-and-bolting-on" technology solves very little and could actually make things worse. SOA is something you do, not something you buy. But the buying patterns of those in the planning stages of SOA are still very much influenced by "hype-driven" and "manage-by-magazine" solutions that could cause many to find SOA distasteful as they realize the technology does not live up to the hype. There are no quick fixes, and real work must be done.

Indeed, doing SOA is a complex undertaking, and you'll need to learn a great deal to become efficient with the emerging approaches, techniques, technologies, and methods. Those who are successful at SOA, plan and design long before they develop and implement. The path to a truly strategic and valuable SOA is something that only comes to those who understand the importance of the work leading up to the technology. In addition, they have corporate sponsorship, the appropriate funding, and the proper amount of mentoring and training.

The movement toward a SOA should be something that has key strategic significance within the company or agency, much like a new product or line of business. In fact, a well-planned and implemented SOA will be far more valuable in comparison, considering its long-term ROI. In essence, SOA should have boardroom visibility.

Sometimes it seems that architecture must have a bad PR agency. The value is clear to anyone who analyzes the real cost of the limits that bad enterprise architecture places upon the business. However, the negative effects on the business are still widely accepted and thought of as something that really can't be fixed. Nothing could be further from the truth.