Skip to main content

Organizing principles for services

One of the questions that comes up from time to time is how to define your services. This has come up for me in two independent fora: within the OASIS Service Oriented Architecture work and in the context of human provided services, for example at Genietown.

In the work on the SOA Reference Model we decided that "services are the mechanism by which needs and capabilities are brought together"; i.e., its about needs and capabilities to satisfy those needs, and the access mechanism.

However, this still begs the question somewhat. In the domain of human services, where the services are things like "building a home", "walking the dog", "taking care of my elderly parents"; it gets even fuzzier. Sometimes a service seems to organized around the person offering the service, for example, an architect, or a doctor. Sometimes the service is organized around a particular kind of product, such as doors or skylights. At other times, the service is organized around a material, such as glazing and paint services. Another kind of organizing principle is location; for example, landscape services involve a whole range of things in the garden.

While it is clear that a service is typically organized around a set of actions, and one or more resources; I do not believe that there is a single 'syntactic' condition that can be applied to define a service.

Currently, we do not have a good higher-level handle on how to organize a large suite of resources and actions into well differentiated services. The standard technologist's answer to all this is to throw the problem 'upstairs' and appeal to business function (e.g., accounts, sales, library book management etc.). What that amounts to is asking someone else to come up with the organizing principles for defining a service. It may just be that the business level is the right level to ask these questions.

Popular posts from this blog

Comments Should be Meaningless

This is something of a counterintuitive idea: Comments should be meaningless What, I hear you ask, are you talking about? Comments should communicate to the reader! At least that is the received conventional wisdom handed does over the last few centuries (decades at least). Well, certainly, if you are programming in Assembler, or C, then yes, comments should convey meaning because the programming language cannot So, conversely, as a comment on the programming language itself, anytime the programmer feels the imperative to write a meaningful comment it is because the language is not able to convey the intent of the programmer. I have already noticed that I write far fewer comments in my Java programs than in my C programs.  That is because Java is able to capture more of my meaning and comments would be superfluous. So, if a language were able to capture all of my intentions, I would never need to write a comment. Hence the title of this blog.

Minimum Viable Product

When was the last time you complained about the food in a restaurant? I thought so. Most people will complain if they are offended by the quality or service; but if the food and/or service is just underwhelming then they won't complain, they will simply not return to the restaurant. The same applies to software products, or to products of any kind. You will only get negative feedback from customers if they care enough to make the effort. In the meantime you are both losing out on opportunities and failing your core professional obligation. Minimum Viable Product speaks to a desire to make your customers design your product for you. But, to me, it represents a combination of an implicit insult and negligence. The insult is implicit in the term minimum. The image is one of laziness and contempt: just throw some mud on the wall and see if it sticks. Who cares about whether it meets a real need, or whether the customer is actually served. The negligence is more subtle but, in the end,

In Praise of Crappy Code

Not all code needs to be perfect! This is pretty heretical thinking for a software engineer. The issue is simple: how do you go about developing software for a small fixed budget. Imagine that you have $500 to implement a solution to a problem. If you spend more than that you will never recoup the extra that you spent. This comes up a lot in systems integration scenarios and also in customization efforts. Someone wants you to 'tweak' an application that they are using; you know that no-one else would want that feature and that if you spend more than what the customer will pay you will end up losing money. From the customer's perspective, the common 'time and materials' approach to quoting for software development is a nightmare. Being able to offer a fixed price contract for a task is a big benefit for the customer. But, how much do you quote for? Too much and you scare the customer away. Too little and you lose money. This is where 'crappy code' com