Critical Success Factors in the Planning of a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) Strategy for Educators and Managers James Lawler lawlerj@aol.com Virginia Benedict H. Howell-Barber Anthony Joseph Pace University 163 William Street, New York, New York 10038, USA Abstract Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) continues to achieve agility, efficiency and flexibility of core processes in business firms. The authors of the study analyze technical, procedural and business factors that contribute to effective management of SOA. Derived from an undergraduate research project survey and practitioner case studies of technology firms, the findings disclose that business factors are more important in SOA strategy than functionality of technology, confirming earlier findings of the authors. The findings can help industry practitioners in confidently planning SOA strategy without confusion from the hype of technology firms. These findings may be helpful to educators in information systems, as they consider further business emphasis of SOA and fruitfulness of research of SOA in information systems (IS) curriculum models that include IS 2006. Keywords: Business Process Management (BPM), Information Systems (IS) Curriculum, Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA), Service-Oriented Computing (SOC), Service-Oriented Enterprise (SOE), Web Services 1. BACKGROUND Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) is a concept already defined in the practitioner literature: “[an enabling] framework for aligning business process and information technology (Mehta, Lee and Shah, 2006) by integrating processes and information technology infrastructure as [loosely coupled and] secure, standardized components [functions] – services – that can be [accessed by business departments or business units], combined, and reformed to address changing business priorities (Bieberstein, Bose, Fiammante, Jones and Shah, 2006) [of the units and of the business firm]”. Services deployed do discreet functions as component SOA services or a collection of functions as composite distributed services. They may be business services, as in the functions of processing a customer inquiry, or technical services, as in data warehousing, and services may integrate legacy infrastructures (Martin-Flatin and Lowe, 2007) interoperable with SOA in discoverable and publishable interfaces (Adams, Gisolfi, Snell and Varadan, 2002) for business departments. They may be flexible mash-up services in front-end interfaces to the back-ends of SOA that integrate business friendly Web 2.0 technologies (Taft, 2007). The goal of business firms in doing SOA is to be a Service-Oriented Enterprise (SOE) in integrating processes and services in larger intranet business unit-to-business unit and extranet firm-to-firm on-demand solutions. Deployment of SOA is considered to be founded on business decisions of firms. Fundamental to the foundation is a business model that consists of the objectives and the core processes to achieve the objectives. Business enterprise architecture defines the design of detailed tasks of the business processes, the business policies, as in management of metadata, and the information technologies included in an information technology infrastructure, based on the definition of what firms do as businesses (Lawler and Howell-Barber, 2007, p. 6). This infrastructure consists of the integration of applications, data bases, information, standards and platform technologies behind the processes. SOA consists of an enterprise architecture of services which is based on business objectives or a definition of business strategy. Benefits of SOA continue to be cited in agility, efficiency and flexibility of business processes (Lawler and Howell-Barber, 2007, p. 4). Flexibility in processes (Dubois, 2008) as business models change because of competitor conditions, customer demands, global pressures, or even regulatory requirements can be beneficial to firms. The benefit of flexibility in both technical and business processes, from plug and play interoperability of services and solutions of SOA, can contribute exceptional functionality in the processes that may be considered by customers or partners to be better than or different from those of competitors. Time-to-market of new products may be an example of further benefits recognized by partners and customers (Koch, 2007). The benefits of services in an SOA can differentiate unique firm and customer propositions of value. These benefits of an SOA if not an SOE can differentiate business firms that desire discernable differentiation in their industry and are important to the firms (Information Week, 2008). Because of the benefits and the importance of SOA, practitioner literature cites constant adoption of projects of SOA by business firms (Daniel, 2006 and Alter, 2007) that is confirmed by academic literature (Seethamraju, 2007). Currently 40% of projects are deployed as SOA in business firms (Amber Point Report, 2008), as displayed below: Gartner forecasts 80% of projects to be based on SOA by 2008 (Gruman, 2006). IDC forecasts $15 billion to be invested by business firms in software of SOA by 2009 (Linthicum, 2007). Winter Green indicates $18 billion to be invested by business firms by 2012 (Hall, 2007). Clearly technology firms continue to market SOA to the business market (Tsai, Wei, Paul, Chung, Huang and Chen, 2007). Business firms are challenged however in the dominant hype of technology firms marketing service and SOA solutions (Pieczkowski, 2007). Despite billion dollar investments, business firms in general have not benefited fully from services and SOA (Papazoglou and Van Den Heuvel, 2007). Literature in practitioner publications indicates that 70% of firms have met a few but not most of the benchmarks of SOA, and that 15% have met none of them (Babcock, 2007, September 17). Literature in practitioner publications further indicates only 5% of firms having met the benchmarks of an SOE (Rettig, 2007, p. 7). Failure in expectations from the idea of services (Crosman, 2008, February 19) or of an SOE is not from frequent low benefit “low hanging fruit” homogeneous implementations of services at a department or a business unit level (Babcock, 2007, September 10). Failure is from infrequent high benefit heterogeneous high-throughput implementations and post-implementations of integrated services of SOA at a business firm level. The latter, forecasted to be implementations as late as 2013 (Crosman, 2008, February 11), lead to the real return-on-investment (ROI) of an SOE idealized by technology firms. Frustration is frequent in business firms filtering the hype of the technology firms so that they might control and manage projects of SOA (Bartholomew, 2007) on a path or a progression (LaJeunesse and Tzur, 2008) to an SOA. Literature in scholarly publications indicates implementation issues at business firm levels instead of project implementations at business unit low hanging fruit levels (Gallagher and Worrell, 2008). Methodology of managing SOA as a business strategy continues to be a concern for industry managers and practitioners and for instructors in information systems that introduce SOA as a methodology to students. 2. INTRODUCTION TO STUDY In this study, the authors analyze the methodology of managing SOA as a business strategy, based on earlier analyses of Web services and SOA (Anderson, Howell-Barber, Hill, Javed, Lawler and Li, 2005 & Lawler and Howell-Barber, 2007) conducted at business firms with industry practitioners of services and SOA. Findings from focus groups and surveys in the studies disclosed that business firms that lead projects in services or SOA with business considerations have more benefits in effectiveness from SOA than business firms that lead the projects with technical dimensions. Factors of business benefit driver, customer demand, and focus on integration of processes defined by business departments in the firms as examples have higher importance in managing SOA as a strategy than factors of platform technology of SOA defined by technology departments or technology firms. Methodology of SOA moreover has higher importance than the perceived technology of SOA. These findings are considered to be beneficial to manager practitioners in managing SOA as a business strategy. Though the business dimensions of services found by the authors are defined by technology firms marketing SOA, projects of services and of SOA are done frequently from purely technical dimensions (Bell, deCesare, Iacovelli, Lycett and Merico, 2007) if not described in technical terminology of the technology firms (Dodds, 2008). Technology departments of business firms may focus moreover on services as low hanging fruit solutions than on an SOA strategy (Feig, 2007). They may not be even fully knowledgeable in the business strategy, which may not be shared by the business units of the business firms. The business departments and technology departments of the business firms may be limited by methodology that is not fast, flexible, incremental, innovative, nor iterative in release of services in an SOA strategy (Lawler and Howell-Barber, 2007, p. 16). To manage SOA as a business strategy, manager practitioners can benefit from a dynamic methodology that is focused more on business and procedural elements and less on the technical functionality of SOA. The literature in services continues however in indicating a gap in further including procedural and business factors in the management of an SOA strategy (Marjanovic, 2004). Demand for including business enterprise goals into the technical strategy of projects (Cameron, 2007), such as those of SOA, is referenced in the literature. Is the infrastructure of the platform technology in the technical strategy integrating the practitioner strategic vision of the technology (Prahalad and Krishnan, 2002)? Management of SOA as a business strategy is imputed in this study to subordinate the technology hyped by the technology firms to the practitioner vision of the technology. To do this, manager practitioners and technologists have to be joined in learning a methodology new in strategizing SOA as a vision (Hurwitz, 2007) and in managing the technology firms to this vision (Rodier, 2008). The methodology of managing SOA as business strategy, subordinating technology to the practitioner strategic vision of technology, is a discipline important in including in the curricula of information systems. The curriculum is developing students to be future practitioners and technologists of SOA in industry (Lim and Jong, 2006, p. 1). Though schools of information systems have initiated programs on SOA, they are frequently not including business process management (BPM) or methodology of SOA as a reengineering strategy. They may be integrating SOA as a technology, not as a methodology or a business strategy. They may be integrating non-agile methodologies, not hybrid non-agile and agile methodologies of industry practices of SOA (Kohun, Wood and Laverty, 2007), so that students may not be learning the state-of-the-art of SOA. The practices of industry on SOA may be input into the curriculum of information systems that might model the discipline of SOA (McAleer and Szakas, 2007, pp. 1-2). The importance of the methodology of SOA as a business strategy (Medjahed, Bouguettaya and Benatallah, 2007) is clear in the demand of industry for professionals experienced in the management of services and SOA and in procedural and process reengineering with SOA (Lee, Trauth and Farwell, 1995). The methodology of SOA as a business strategy, and not as a technical strategy, might inspire students in information systems and computer science to become practitioners of SOA (Lim and Jong, 2006, p. 2). Students might be more knowledgeable in the business, procedural and technical of SOA if instructors learned more of the program of SOA. They might be more marketable to industry if they learned business, procedural and technical facets in the management of SOA, factors of which are the focus of this study. 3. FOCUS OF STUDY The focus of this study is to analyze factors that can contribute to effectiveness in the management of SOA as a strategy. The factors, consisting of business, procedural and technical in Table 1, are derived from in-depth analyses of industry programs and projects by the authors in earlier research of services (Anderson, Howell-Barber, Hill, Javed, Lawler and Li, 2005) and of SOA (Lawler and Howell-Barber, 2007, pp. 27-59) and are condensed from a disciplined methodology of managing SOA as a strategy (Lawler and Howell-Barber, 2007, pp. 27-59). These factors are also derived, but filtered from, the literature of technology firms and of business firms and from other industry literature. The goal of this study is to confirm the current importance or non-importance of business, procedural and technical factors individually and relatively to the management of an SOA strategy, in contrast to our earlier studies (Anderson, Howell-Barber, Hill, Javed, Lawler and Li, 2005 & Lawler and Howell-Barber, 2007). Few scholarly studies have examined the business and procedural factors of SOA in contrast to the technological factors and products often hyped by the technology firms. This study contributes findings that may be helpful to instructors in information systems in developing curricula on SOA and to practitioners investing in SOA as a strategy. These factors form the framework for the methodology of the study. 4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY OF STUDY “Undergraduate research is an inquiry or investigation conducted by an undergraduate [student] in collaboration with a faculty mentor that makes an original intellectual or creative contribution to the discipline” (Wenzel, 1997). The research methodology of the study consisted of a top down literature survey of products of 21 technology firms that applied the products to programs of projects of SOA in business firms in 2007. Each of the 21 firms was chosen based on the apparent deployment of a diversity and maturity of complex, intermediate and simple internal and external projects of SOA that were on an apparent path to SOE because of the products. The survey was done from the literature of the technology firms but was filtered by other technology-agnostic literature of leading consulting organizations. The survey evaluated the products applied to collective programs of projects based on business, procedural and technical factor importance in the implementation of the projects in 2007 in a perceived SOA strategy. The factors of the programs were evaluated on a seven-point scale of very high (7), high (6), somewhat high (5), low (4), somewhat low (3), very low (2), and not applicable (1) in importance. The survey was performed by a technology agnostic undergraduate student, in a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) Strategy Independent Project Study, at the Seidenberg School of Computer Science and Information Systems of Pace University, and the student was the second author of the study. The student performed the survey in the fall September 2007 – February 2008 semester. (During the period of the survey, the student participated with the instructor of the Independent Project Study, also the principal author, at conferences and exhibitions in industry, including SOA Executive Forum and SOA / Web Services on Wall Street, lunch & learn seminars on SOA at the Seidenberg School, and SOA Webcasts by technology firms on SOA, which were requirements of the Study.) Following the survey, the methodology of the study consisted of bottom up case studies of the products of three (3) technology firms covered in the survey that similarly applied the products to programs of projects of SOA in the business firms in 2007. Each of the 3 technology firms was chosen based on highest deployment of the diversity and maturity of the projects of SOA of all of the 21 technology firms. The case studies evaluated the products applied to individual programs of projects based on business, procedural and technical factor importance in the implementation of the projects in 2007 in an SOA strategy and on the aforementioned seven-point scale of the survey. These programs of projects were evaluated in in-depth studies that as feasible included non-structured interactions at the business firms, in order to have filtered the hype of the technology firms. Internal documentation on processes was evaluated selectively at these firms. The case studies were performed by an experienced technology agnostic industry practitioner in process and services technologies. The practitioner performed the studies in relatively scholarly steps (Eisenhardt, 1989). The practitioner was the third author of this study. The case studies were performed in the spring February – May 2008 semester of the Study. The goal of the case studies was to confirm or not confirm the general findings from the literature survey. (During the periods of the case studies and the literature survey, the student was mentored and the practitioner was supervised by the principal author.) Finally, the methodology included statistical analysis of the findings from the case studies and the literature survey, which was performed by the fourth author of the study. Research methodology of the study is displayed in Figure 2. 5. ANALYSIS Analysis – Survey of 21 Technology Firms The analysis of the data from the survey of the 21 technology firms that applied their products to programs of projects of SOA in business firms disclosed higher importance in business factors (m = 3.28) than in technical factors (2.80) in the implementation of projects. Business factors (3.28) were also higher in importance than procedural factors (2.65). The data for the business factors was distributed from customer demand (3.90) and focus on improvement of process (3.90) to executive business leadership (2.57). The data for the procedural and technical factors was distributed from SOA center of competency (3.71) to technology firm knowledge capture (0.95) and from internal Web services on projects (3.76) to proprietary technologies (1.57). This data is displayed in Tables 2 and 3 in the Appendix. Analysis – Case Studies of Technology Firms 1, 2 and 3 The technology firms in Case Study 1, 2 and 3 are confidentially described as Firms 1, 2 and 3. These firms were deploying a commingled mix of products - application legacy adaption, business process management (BPM), configuration and deployment, data management, development, integration and service, knowledge management, management and monitoring, middleware and service bus, registry and repository, run time, security and testing tools - for programs of projects of SOA in Fortune 100 business firms in 2007. The products of these 3 technology firms were implemented largely in a mix of programs of internal business unit and firm process projects and external firm process projects that were the highest programs in intensity in SOA than the programs of the other 18 technology firms in the survey. The programs included 3 to 5 business firm projects for each of the 3 technology firms, and the benefits of the projects were indicated in the literature of the 3 technology firms to be business process improvement, conformance to regulatory changes, enhanced customer service, faster marketing of products and services, and increased industry market opportunity and share, mostly indistinguishable from the other firms in the survey. The descriptions of the Case Study technology firms are displayed in Table 4. The aggregate analysis of the data from the case studies of technology firms 1, 2 and 3 disclosed higher importance in business factors (4.87) than in procedural factors (4.42) and in technical factors (4.70). The data for the business factors was distributed from agility, efficiency and flexibility benefits (6.00), financial benefits (6.00), competitive, market and regulatory differentials (6.00), customer demand (6.00) and executive technology leadership (6.00) to executive sponsorship (3.00) and executive business leadership (3.00). The data for the procedural factors was distributed from education and training (6.00), knowledge exchange (6.00), naming conventions (6.00) and procurement of technology (6.00) to responsibilities and roles (1.67). The data for the technical factors was distributed from external process domain on projects (6.00), external SOA domain on projects (6.00), business process management software (6.00), XML standard (6.00) and Web services best practices (6.00) to proprietary technologies (1.00). This data from the case studies is displayed in Tables 5 and 6 in the Appendix. Firm 1 - Discussion The programs of projects in technology Firm 1 focused on external and internal process projects in the business firms in 2007. The programs were driven by business benefits of agility, efficiency and flexibility, competitive, market and regulatory differentials, customer demand, finance, and focus on improvement of processes. Executive business leadership, executive sponsorship and executive technology leadership in the business firms were factors highly important in the implementation of the programs. The technology firm implemented methodology for change management, education and training, process and service delivery environment and deployment techniques, and service catalog management and support by instituting centers of competency for SOA. However technology firm knowledge capture was constrained in the business firms, as technology Firm 1 continued to mostly manage the programs, hindering the business firms in becoming independent of Firm 1. Platform technology of the firm was an enabler in the implemented programs of Firm 1. The implementation of SOA in the programs of Firm 1 was impacted more by business factors than by procedural and technical factors in findings of success. Firm 2 - Discussion Firm 2 focused on programs of external and internal process projects as in technology Firm 1. Business benefits of agility, efficiency and flexibility, competitive, market and regulatory differentials, customer demand, finance, and focus on improvement of processes were equivalent in technology Firm 2 as in Firm 1. However executive business leadership and executive sponsorship were factors less important than executive technology leadership of the technology departments of the business firms in the implementation of the programs. Culture of innovation in the business firms was less important in the programs than in Firm 1 or Firm 3. Firm 2 implemented limited methodologies in lower control of program, in lower integrated process and service delivery environment, and in non-existent responsibilities and roles of staff in the business firms, though Firm 2 instituted centers of competency for SOA that included service catalog management and service management and support. Technology firm knowledge capture was nevertheless not constrained in the business firms supported by Firm 2, as in Firm 1 or 3. Executive technology leadership of the programs in the business firms was independent of technology Firm 2. Platform technology and platform specialty tools of Firm 2 were enablers, facilitating implementation of the programs. The implementation of the programs of Firm 2 was impacted more by business factors than by procedural and technical factors, but they were not as notable as in Firm 1 in the findings of success. Firm 3 - Discussion Firm 3 was focused on programs of external and internal process projects of SOA as in technology Firms 2 and 1. Business benefits of agility, efficiency and flexibility, competitive and regulatory differentials, customer demand, finance, and improvement of processes were equivalent in Firm 3 as in Firms 2 and 1. Executive business leadership and executive sponsorship from the business units in the business firms as in Firm 2 were less important than executive technology leadership of the technology departments in the initiation and installation of the programs. Reusability of assets and strategic planning in technology Firm 3 were less important in the programs than in Firms 2 or 1. Methodologies were lacking noticeably in change management, control of program, responsibilities and roles of staff, service catalog management, standards management, strategy management, and technology firm knowledge capture in the business firms. They were lacking in centers of competency for SOA highlighted in the programs in Firms 2 and 1, as the centers of competencies were limited to the products of Firm 3 and were not as neutral as the programs of Firms 2 and 1. Though the projects of the programs were enabled by education and training in the platform product technology and specialty tools of Firm 3, the methodologies of Firm 3 were even less important than the methodologies of Firms 2 and 1 and less important than its technologies and tools, which the technology departments of the business firms depended upon Firm 3 for continued installation, but which the technology departments managed independently of the business departments. The implementation of SOA in the programs of Firm 3, in contrast to Firms 2 and 1, was impacted inevitably more by technical factors than by procedural or business factors in the findings of success. Firms 1, 2 and 3 – Discussion Summary Implementation of the programs of projects of SOA in technology Firms 1, 2 and 3 indicate that business factors were more important than procedural and technical factors in aggregate findings of success. Procedural factors were however less important than technical factors in aggregate findings of success. Firms 1 and 2 indicated that business factors were more important than procedural and technical factors, which were noticeably higher in Firm 1 than in Firms 2 and 3. Firm 3 indicated that technical factors were more important than procedural and business factors, the latter of which were noticeably higher than in Firms 2 and 1. Findings indicated that business factors in the business units of the business firms were considerations impacting the higher or lesser importance of technical factors of the programs of these technology firms. Summary of Analysis and Discussion – Case Studies and Survey The case studies performed by the experienced practitioner confirmed the findings of the survey performed by the student in the Independent Project Study. Business factors in the survey (3.28) and in the case studies (4.87) were found higher in importance in the implementation of SOA strategy than technical factors (2.80 and 4.70). These findings confirmed the results of our earlier studies of Web services (Anderson, Howell-Barber, Hill, Javed, Lawler and Li, 2005) and of SOA (Lawler and Howell-Barber, 2007). Findings on methodological or procedural factors were different however in that in the current study procedural factors in the case studies (4.42) and in the survey (2.65) were lower in importance than the technical factors (4.70 and 2.80) and the business factors (4.87 and 3.28), even though the student indicated procedural factors in her survey of the 3 firms individually to be slightly higher in importance than the technical factors (4.24 vs. 4.18 [in survey of 3 firms]). Follow-up interviews of Firm 1, 2 and 3 practitioners on the procedural factors indicated that the industry is evolving in implementations of intricate external and internal domain projects of SOA (6.00 and 5.67 [in case studies summarized in Table 6]), such that technical factors might be inevitably eclipsing matured procedural factors from our earlier studies in 2007 and 2005. Further analysis of procedural factors will be considered in a future study, but the findings of the current study confirm demonstratively the importance of business factors, in contrast to technical factors, in the implementation of SOA strategy. 6. IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY Findings of business factors having higher importance than technical factors emphasize the implication of the importance of having further business leadership on programs of projects of information systems and SOA. Managers in business have to lead the programs of projects of information systems, so that the technology of SOA is not foremost to fundamental business models (Feld, 2007). Managers in the business firms, and in the technology units of the firms, frequently do not lead in business process improvement of business models (Shay, 2007), in innovation of technology, nor in integration of technology and business (Carter, 2008), though the literature in practitioner and scholarly sources indicates the necessity. The goal of managers has to be to enhance internal if not external processes relentlessly in the integration of SOA throughout the firms. Manager practitioners might be educated further on the business proposition of information systems (Rettig, 2007, p. 8) and SOA as well as the technology. Instructors in information systems might begin to enhance in the interim the content of courses in the curricula in schools of information systems, so that students might be educated further in the interdependence of SOA and its proposition as a strategy. Importance of improving the curricula in schools of information systems in the business proposition of SOA as a strategy is another implication of the study. Literature indicates the complexity of design and the discomfort of instructors in improving courses in information systems, so that they are current with industry methods and practices of firms (Cameron, 2007). Though instructors may be in committees confronting continued and further evaluation of practices in industry, students in information systems may not in the interim be learning current hybrid methodologies and practices current in industry that improve upon the systems development life cycle (SDLC), including marketable program management methodologies as they are relevant to SOA as a strategy. The instructors and the students may not be learning the methodologies, organizational practices or processes that matter in industry investment of technology (McAleer and Szakas, 2007, p. 4). They may not be learning technology as business technologists, but as programmers or technologists that are not as in demand by business firms as business technologists (Raths, 2007). Instructors might begin to initiate improvement in SOA by incrementally integrating such practices into current curricula of information systems or in a new curriculum on SOA, as displayed in modules in Figure 3 and drafted in Table 7 of the Appendix and referenced to the IS 2006 curriculum model (McGann, Frost, Matta and Huang, 2007). Undergraduate students might learn business process management (Campbell, 2008, & Carr, 2008) and the proposition of SOA as business, culture, methodology and research in tandem with the technology. It is important that industry practices on SOA not be integrated into a couple of courses, but in a cumulative curriculum of courses, as drafted in Table 7. Schools of information systems might furnish grant incentives to instructors to prepare such curriculum on SOA, and technology firms might furnish grants (Ericson, 2007). Grants to instructors might include process modeling software, such as IBM INNOV8 Simulator, in order to provide the business proposition of SOA as a strategy. Importance of including students in an experiential project of research in industry is a final implication of the study. In this study, a senior undergraduate student in information systems initiated the research of technology firms marketing SOA, though such researchers are frequently graduate students (Reif, Clarke and Choi, 2007). Literature indicates increased learning of researcher students leading to the likelihood of graduate study (Prince, Felder and Brent, 2007), if not increased learning of instructor researchers (Sama, 2007) leading to innovation in curricula (Karukstis, 2007). Learning of instructor researchers might be further increased in methodologies and technologies of SOA if the research is in partnership with the business firms or the technology firms. Manager practitioners of the firms might be hosted at consortiums in schools of information systems and might inform on practices and technologies of SOA, or be informed of high potential students, or they might be invited to join councils in the schools and might inform instructors and researchers on the currency of the curricula on SOA (Hoffman, 2008) and on positions in information systems at the firms. Research might lead to internships or positions of undergraduate students at the firms. In short, integrating senior, junior or sophomore students in the research of instructors might lead undergraduate students sooner to positions in the field of information systems if not to tangible responsibilities as the next generation of business technologists. 7. LIMITATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN RESEARCH The study may be continued in a direct and expanded survey of business firms that have completed programs of projects of SOA that are closer in completion in an SOE, which may dissipate concerns as to the generalizability of the findings of the study. The feasibility of such study is constrained by the few business firms experienced in services (Gosain, 2007) in an SOE strategy. Though experienced in fundamental services in an SOA strategy, they are largely only on a journey in the process of experimenting with an SOE strategy (Ozair, 2008). Study could be done of the few firms in expanded in-depth case studies of an industry, but confidentiality of the strategies in the firms may inhibit the researcher. The instructor plans to introduce a new program of study on SOA at the Seidenberg School of Computer Science and Information Systems of Pace University, in which further research on SOA might be done by groups of students in field internships with financial firms on Wall Street, with whom the school is a frequent incubator on studies. The program is introduced in the previous Table 2. This research may be an interim solution in the study of SOA, with findings that may improve upon this study. 8. CONCLUSION The study continues to confirm the earlier findings of the authors in the higher importance of business factors in the management of SOA strategy. Technical functionality is found to be less important than the business factors of the strategy. The importance of a bona fide program management methodology on SOA is also indicated in the findings, but is less in importance than the technical and the business factors and might be considered for further study. These findings contribute input to practitioners designing SOA strategy. This methodology integrating the business and procedural factors and the technical factors may be input into the curricula of instructors in schools of information systems, in order to ensure programs are consistent and current with the needs of practitioners. The authors will continue to research SOA as industry matures in strategy, and they will suggest ideas for educators and practitioners in new and timely studies. 9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The principal author of the paper acknowledges release time granted to him by the Dean of the Seidenberg School of Computer Science and Information Systems of Pace University in spring 2008 in order to complete this study. 10. REFERENCES Adams, H., Gisolfi, D., Snell, J. and Varadan, R. (2002) “Service-Oriented Architecture, Web Services and IBM Patterns for e-Business.” IBM Developer Works. Alter, A. (2007) “Bank on Service, Not the Savings: Web Services, SOA and SaaS Are Meeting Most Users’ Expectations, but Are Not Cutting Costs as Hope.” CIO Insight, July, p. 36. Anderson, D., Howell-Barber, H., Hill, J., Javed, N., Lawler, J. and Li, Z. (2005) “A Study of Web Services Projects in the Financial Services Industry.” Information Systems Management, Winter, pp. 66-76. Babcock, C. (2007) “The SOA Gamble: One in Three Is Disappointed in Results.” Information Week, September 10, p. 54. Babcock, C. (2007) “Wachovia Puts Its Stock in a Service Architecture.” Information Week, September 17, p. 113. Bell, D., deCesare, S., Iacovelli, N., Lycett, M. and Merico, A. (2007) “A Framework for Deriving Semantic Web Services.” Information Systems Frontiers, (9), p. 69,82. Bartholomew, D. (2007) “The Pros and Cons of SOA: Control and Trust Are Key Concerns, Say Avis, Comcast and Other Early Adopters.” Baseline, November, p. 22. Bieberstein, N., Bose, S., Fiammante, M., Jones, K. and Shah, R. (2006) Service-Oriented Architecture Compass: Business Value, Planning, and Enterprise Roadmap. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, p. 215. Cameron, B.H. (2007) “Enterprise Systems Education: New Directions and Challenges for the Future.” Presentation to the Information Systems Education Conference (ISECON), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, November 3, p. 3. Campell, B. (2008) “Building for the Future: Students Explore BPM – and Bring Knowledge into the Business World.” Profit, 13(2), May, pp. 51-53. Carr, D.F. (2008) “Wyeth’s Rx for BPM Success: The Drug Giant Laid the Groundwork for Early Success by Putting Business Process Ahead of Technology.” CIO, June 15, pp. 44-53. Carter, S. (2008) “The Smart SOA Approach to Driving Business Value in Financial Markets.” Presentation to the 2008 Web Services / SOA on Wall Street Conference Program, New York, February 11. Crosman, P. (2008) “The Future of SOA on Wall Street.” Wall Street & Technology, February 19, p. 1. Crosman, P. (2008) “What’s Holding SOA Back on Wall Street?.” Wall Street & Technology, February 11, pp. 1-2. Daniel, D. (2006) “SOA Adoption Gains Momentum.” CIO, April 15, p. 20. Dodds, P. (2008) “Service-Oriented Architecture: What’s in a Name?.” Align Journal, February 20, p. 3. Dubois, S. (2008) “Web Services 2.0 Make Good on the Web’s Promises of Flexibility and Customization.” Wall Street and Technology, April 15, pp. 1-5. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp. 532-550. Ericson, J. (2007) “Process University (U): Widener University Adds Business Process Management (BPM) Curriculum to Core Graduate Students.” BI Review, June, p. 22. Feig, N. (2007) “Foundation for Transformation: Implementing a Successful Service-Oriented Architecture Starts with Making the Right Decisions Early in the Process.” Wall Street and Technology, May, p. 32. Feld, C. (2007) “The Architected Business.” CIO, September 15, p. 42. Gallagher, K.P. and Worrell, J.L. (2008) “Organizing Information Technology (IT) to Promote Agility.” Information Technology Management, 9, pp. 71-88. Gosain, S. (2007) “Realizing the Vision for Web Services: Strategies for Dealing with Imperfect Standards.” Information Systems Frontier, 9(1), p. 66. Gruman, G. (2006) “Pulling Together an SOA Strategy.” Computerworld, Next-Generation (Next-Gen) Information Technology (IT), April, p. 6. Hall, M. (2007) “You Cannot Manage SOA Applications with Any Old Tool.” Computerworld, December 17, p. 18. Hoffman, T. (2008) “Business Meets Academia: How United States (US) Colleges and Universities Are Working with the Private Sector to Develop Next-Generation Information Technology (IT) Leaders.” Computerworld, February 25, p. 44. Hurwitz, J. (2007) “The Politics of SOA: A Reasoned Approach Is Needed When Implementing SOA and Other Architectural Principles.” BI Review, December, p. 18. Karukstis, K.K. (2007) “Promoting an Undergraduate Research Culture.” An Inside Higher Education (Ed) Audio Conference, Harvey Mudd College, December 12. Koch, C. (2007) “How to Get the Most from SOA.” CIO, September 1, p. 60. Kohun, F., Wood, D. and Laverty, J.P. (2007) “Systems Oriented Architecture, Unified Process Life Cycle, and Information Systems (IS) Model Curriculum Compatibility: Meeting Industry Needs.” Proceedings of the Information Systems Education Conference (ISECON), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 24(2314), November 2, p. 4. Lawler, J. and Howell-Barber, H. (2007) Service-Oriented Architecture: SOA Strategy, Methodology, and Technology. Auerbach Publications: Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 4,6,16,27-59. LaJeunesse, M. and Tzur, A. (2008) “A Strategic Approach to SOA: Using Pilot Projects and Effective Disciplines to Ensure Successful Adoption and Governance.” The SOA Magazine, January, p. 2. Lee, D.M., Trauth, E.M. and Farwell, D (1995) “Critical Skills and Knowledge Requirements of Information Systems (IS) Professionals: A Joint Academic / Industry Investigation.” MIS Quarterly, 19(3), pp. 313-340. Lim, B.B.L. and Jong, C.J. (2006) “Integrating Service-Oriented Paradigm into Introductory Information Systems (IS) Courses.” Proceedings of the Information Systems Education Conference (ISECON), 23(3352), Dallas, Texas, November 4, pp. 1-2. Linthicum, D. (2007) “Five Surefire Ways to Make Your SOA a Success.” Infoworld Information Technology (IT) Strategy Guide, Infoworld, October. Marjanovic, O. (2004) “Web Service Business Context: The Normative Perspective.” International Journal of Web Services Research, 1(2), pp. 1-3. Martin-Flatin, J.P. and Lowe, W. (2007) “Special Issue on Recent Advances in Web Services.” Guest Editorial, World Wide Web, 10, p. 207. McAleer, B. and Szakas, J. (2007) “Forces for Change in the New Information Systems (IS) 20XX Curriculum.” Proceedings of the Information Systems Education Conference (ISECON), 24(3333), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, November 3, pp 1-2,4. McGann, S.T., Frost, R.D., Matta, V. and Huang, W. (2007) “Meeting the Challenge of Information Systems (IS) Curriculum Modernization: A Guide to Overhaul, Integration, and Continuous Improvement.” Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(1), p. 50. Medjahed, B., Bouguettaya, A. and Benatallah, B. (2007) “Introduction to Semantic Web Services.” Special Issue, ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 8(1), p. 1:3. Mehta, M.R., Lee, S. and Shah, J.R. (2006) “Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts and Implementation.” Proceedings of the Information Systems Education Conference (ISECON), 23(2335), Dallas, Texas, November 3, p. 1. Ozair, K. (2008) “The Nine (9) Requirements for a Successful SOA Deployment.” CIO Update, February 21, p. 1. Papazoglou, M.P. and Van Den Heuvel, W-J (2007) “Life Cycle Methodology: An Innovative Roadmap Brings Together the Worlds of Business Processes and Web Services, Harnessing Their Power to Construct Industrial Strength Business Applications.” Communications of the ACM, 50(10), p. 79. Pieczkowski, E. (2007) “Thinking Inside the SOA Box: As Service-Oriented Architectures Go Mainstream, Can Applications Reduce Complexity?.” Information Week, November 12, p. 81. Prahalad, C.K. and Krishnan, M.S. (2002) “The Dynamic Synchronization of Strategy and Information Technology.” MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer, p. 27. Prince, M.J., Felder, R.M. and Brent, R. (2007) “Does Faculty Research Improve Undergraduate Teaching: An Analysis of Existing and Potential Synergies.” Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), pp. 283-294. Raths, D. (2007) “The People Side of Information Technology (IT) Architecture.” Computerworld, October 29, p. 48. Reif, H.L., Clarke, K. and Choi, Y.B. (2007) “Moving Beyond Integrating Ubiquitous Research Skills in Undergraduate Information Systems Degree Programs.” Proceedings of the Southeast Decision Sciences Institute (SEDSI) Conference, Savannah, Georgia, February, p. 1. Rettig, C. (2007) “The Trouble with Enterprise Software: Has Enterprise Software Become Too Complex to Be Effective?.” MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall, p. 7-8. Rodier, M. (2008) “Information Technology (IT) Vendor Management More Important Than Ever for Financial Firms.” Wall Street & Technology, March 5, p. 1. Sama, L.M. (2007) “Partnering on Research with Doctoral Students.” Presentation to Pace University Faculty Institute, Pace University, New York, May 16. Seethamraju, R. (2007) “Enterprise Systems (ES) Software in Business School Curriculum: Evaluation of Design and Delivery.” Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(1). Shay, S. (2007) “Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) Rate Information Technology (IT): Steady But Uncreative.” CIO, April 1, p. 20. Taft, D.K. (2007) “Prepare to Merge: Productivity Increases, Solutions Are More Flexible, and the User Is Empowered.” eWeek, Innovations, Fall, p. 8-9. Tsai, W-T, Wei, X., Paul, R., Chung, J-Y., Huang, Q. and Chen, Y. (2007) “Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE) and Its Applications to Embedded System Development.” Service Oriented Computing and Applications, 1, p. 3. Wenzel, T.J. (1997) “What Is Undergraduate Research?.” Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) Quarterly, 17, p. 163. _____. (2008) “More than Flexibility: Service-Oriented Architectures and Web Services Are Key to Attaining Business Goals.” Information Week, SOA / Web Services Research 2007, February 25, p. 12. _____. (2008) “State of SOA Adoption Report: Gauging the Use of SOA Systems in the Enterprise.” Amber Point Report, Amber Point, Inc., January, p. 4. APPENDIX Figure 1: Adoption of SOA in Business Firms Source: _____ (2008), “State of SOA Adoption Report: Gauging the Use of SOA Systems in the Enterprise,” Amber Point Report, Amber Point, Inc., January, p. 4 [Adapted]. Figure 3: Curriculum in Information Systems: Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) – Summary of Model Note: Business Fundamentals and Technology are also noted in IS curriculum models (Gorgone, Davis, Valacich, Topi, Feinstein, and Longenecker, Jr., 2002) Table 1: Factors of Study Factor Type Description of Factor Business Factors Agility, efficiency and flexibility benefits Extent to which benefits of adjusting to business environments drive the program Financial benefits Extent to which benefits of increased revenues and / or decreased expenses drive the program Business client participation Extent to which business departments consent, contribute and furnish content and guidance to the program Competitive, market and regulatory differentials Extent to which competitive, market and regulatory first mover edge for the firm drives the program Customer demand Extent to which customer demand for enhanced service from technology drives the program Culture of innovation Extent to which innovation in business and technical practices is encouraged and facilitates the program Organizational change management Extent to which cultural change management is evident in helping business and technical staff embrace the program Executive sponsorship Extent to which senior managers in the firm articulate and evangelize the business criticality of SOA as a strategy and fund the program Executive business leadership Extent to which senior managers in the business units evangelize business criticality of SOA as a strategy Executive technology leadership Extent to which senior managers in the technology departments evangelize the technical and business criticality of SOA as a strategy Strategic planning Extent to which business strategy of SOA is articulated in the firm and is accepted by program staff Enterprise architecture Extent to which formal enterprise architecture contributes to initiation of the program and evolves with processes to an SOA Focus on improvement of process Extent to which improvement of business processes, process integration and service choreography are the goals of the program Service orientation Extent to which technical and business staff is receptive to principles of service orientation and SOA Reusability of assets Extent to which multiple services using software technologies is a goal of the program Procedural Factors Control of program Extent to which a formal function is evident for guiding and helping the firm in evolution to SOA SOA center of competency Extent to which a centralized team is evident for furnishing SOA expertise help to program staff Responsibilities and roles Extent to which responsibilities and roles of staff on the program are clearly defined for completing project tasks Education and training Extent to which formal skill training on services and SOA is evident for program staff Knowledge exchange Extent to which processes and procedures are evident for informing business and technical staff of progress of the program Change management Extent to which procedures are evident for ensuring optimal resolution of requests for changes in existing processes or services or of requests for new processes or services Information management Extent to which procedures are evident for ensuring data integrity and quality for technical and business functions Common reference Extent to which business and technical terminology is applied consistently by program staff Naming conventions Extent to which naming standards and service versioning are used by program staff Procurement of technology Extent to which a formal function is evident for furnishing quality hardware and software technology to the program in a cost effective and expeditious manner Technology firm knowledge capture Extent to which program staff captures knowledge from hardware and software technology firms in order to be independent of the firms Risk management Extent to which procedures are evident for mitigating failure or loss caused by SOA Standards management Extent to which program staff is cognizant of official standards, scope of implementation of the standards by technology firms and standard gap resolution techniques Infrastructure architecture Extent to which procedures are evident for guiding the evolution of technology in a strategy of SOA Process and service deployment environment Extent to which procedures are evident for furnishing software and tools to the development staff on the program Process and service deployment techniques Extent to which procedures are evident in order to ensure the highest quality of deployed technology throughout the program Service catalog management Extent to which procedures for managing a registry or a repository of processes and services are evident on the program Service management and support Extent to which procedures are evident for ensuring service availability and reusability and furnishing metrics on service support Security management Extent to which procedures are evident for safeguarding access to services Continuous process improvement Extent to which procedures are evident for iterative improvement of existing and new processes Costing techniques Extent to which techniques are evident for costing existing and future SOA product realization and support Strategy management Extent to which procedures are evident for evaluating and improving program strategy of SOA as required Technical Factors Internal Web services on project Extent to which Web services as simple projects contribute to the evolution of SOA Internal process domain on project Extent to which complex Web services applications contribute to the evolution of SOA Internal SOA domain on project Extent to which standards compliant, internal and loosely coupled projects contribute to the evolution of SOA External process domain on project Extent to which external tightly coupled and security sensitive and trusted projects contribute to the evolution of SOA External SOA domain on project Extent to which external standards compliant, loosely coupled and security sensitive and trusted projects contribute to the evolution of SOA Business process management software Extent to which Web Services-Business Process Execution Language (WS-BPEL) software is included on the program Data tools Extent to which data tools supporting Extensible Markup Language (XML) are included on the program Middleware Extent to which an enterprise service bus (ESB) or traditional middleware technology is included on the program Platform of key technology firms Extent to which the platforms from key technology firms (e.g. BEA, IBM, and Microsoft) are included on the program Platform specialty tools from platform technology firm Extent to which specialty tools of the platform technology firms are included on the program Proprietary technologies Extent to which proprietary software is included on the program Best-of-class tools Extent to which specialty tools from pure play or third party technology firms are included on the program XML standard Extent to which XML is included on the program Messaging standards Extent to which technology supporting Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP), SOAP Message Transmission Optimization Mechanism (MTOM) and SOAP with Attachments (SwA) or similar standards is included on the program Service description and discovery standards Extent to which technology supporting Universal Description, Discovery and Integration (UDDI), Web Services Description Language (WS-DL) and Web Services-Policy (WS-P) or similar standards is included on the program Transaction standards Extent to which technology supporting Web Services-Composite Application Framework (WS-CAF), Web Services-Choreography Description Language (WS-CDL) and Web Services-Transaction (WS-TX) or similar standards is included on the program Security standards Extent to which technology supporting Extensible Markup Language (XML) Encryption, XML Signature, Web Services-Federation (WS-F), Web Services-Security (WS-S) and WS-Security Policy (WS-SP) or similar standards is included on the program User interface standards Extent to which user interface tools or Web Services-Remote Portlets (WS-RP) are included on the program Web services best practices Extent to which Web Services-Interoperability (WS-I) is included on the program Web services management standards Extent to which Service Provisioning Markup Language (SPML) and Web Services-Distributed Management (WS-DM) are included on the program Source: Lawler and Howell-Barber (2007), Service-Oriented Architecture: SOA Strategy, Methodology, and Technology, pp. 45-49. Table 2: Analysis of Factors from Student Survey of 21 Firms – Summary Factors Mean n Standard Deviation Business 3.28 315 2.69 Procedural 2.65 462 2.52 Technical 2.80 420 2.67 Total 1197 Table 3: Analysis of Factors from Student Survey of 21 Firms - Detail Business Factors Mean Standard Deviation Agility, efficiency and flexibility benefits 3.76 2.76 Financial benefits 3.67 2.71 Business client participation 3.14 2.82 Competitive, market and regulatory differentials 3.57 2.66 Customer demand 3.90 2.62 Culture of innovation 3.14 2.83 Organizational change management 3.05 2.73 Executive sponsorship 2.95 2.65 Executive business leadership 2.57 2.54 Executive technology leadership 3.00 2.70 Strategic planning 3.19 2.86 Enterprise architecture 3.24 2.66 Focus on improvement of process 3.90 2.61 Service orientation 2.62 2.60 Reusability of assets 3.43 2.54 Procedural Factors Mean Standard Deviation Control of program 3.33 2.46 SOA center of competency 3.71 2.51 Responsibilities and roles 3.05 2.50 Education and training 3.24 2.49 Knowledge exchange 3.38 2.50 Change management 2.10 2.77 Information management 3.19 2.64 Common reference 2.48 2.69 Naming conventions 2.05 2.69 Procurement of technology 1.33 2.46 Technology firm knowledge capture 0.95 2.04 Risk management 2.10 2.51 Standards management 3.29 2.47 Infrastructure architecture 3.29 2.72 Process and service deployment environment 3.00 2.70 Process and service deployment techniques 3.00 2.70 Service catalog management 2.52 2.52 Service management and support 3.00 2.51 Security management 2.62 2.29 Continuous process improvement 3.10 2.53 Costing techniques 1.05 1.94 Strategy management 2.48 2.69 Technical Factors Mean Standard Deviation Internal Web services on project 3.76 2.49 Internal process domain on project 3.33 2.73 Internal SOA domain on project 3.38 2.50 External process domain on project 3.14 2.41 External SOA domain on project 2.95 2.48 Business process management software 2.52 2.73 Data tools 2.71 2.69 Middleware 3.05 2.73 Platform of key technology firms 3.19 2.91 Platform specialty tools from platform technology firm 2.29 2.72 Proprietary technologies 1.57 2.58 Best-of-class tools 2.00 2.65 XML standard 3.10 2.79 Messaging standards 3.05 2.75 Service description and discovery standards 2.43 2.64 Transaction standards 2.48 2.69 Security standards 2.76 2.74 User interface standards 2.81 2.79 Web services best practices 2.76 2.76 Web services management standards 2.71 2.70 Table 4: Descriptive Summary of Case Study Technology Firms Technology Firms Firm 1 Firm 2 Firm 3 Business* $90 Million $100 Million $40 Million Products Application Legacy Adaptation x x Business Process Management x x x Configuration and Deployment x x x Data Management x x Development, Integration and Service x x x Knowledge Management x Management and Monitoring x x x Middleware and Service Bus x x Registry and Repository x x Run Time x x Security x Testing x x Programs of Projects Internal Process x x x External Process x x x Benefits Business Process Improvement x x x Conformance to Regulatory Requirements x x x Enhanced Customer Service x x x Faster Marketing of Products and Services x x x Increased Market Opportunity and Share x x x *2007 Sales of SOA Table 5: Analysis of Factors from Practitioner Case Studies of Firms 1, 2 and 3 - Summary Factors Mean n Standard Deviation Business 4.87 45 1.08 Procedural 4.42 66 1.40 Technical 4.70 60 1.30 Total 171 Table 6: Analysis of Factors from Practitioner Case Studies of Firms 1, 2 and 3 - Detail Business Factors Mean Standard Deviation Agility, efficiency and flexibility benefits 6.00 0.00 Financial benefits 6.00 0.00 Business client participation 5.67 0.58 Competitive, market and regulatory differentials 6.00 0.00 Customer demand 6.00 0.00 Culture of innovation 5.00 1.73 Organizational change management 3.33 1.53 Executive sponsorship 3.00 2.65 Executive business leadership 3.00 1.73 Executive technology leadership 6.00 0.00 Strategic planning 3.33 2.08 Enterprise architecture 5.00 1.00 Focus on improvement of process 5.67 0.58 Service orientation 5.00 1.73 Reusability of assets 4.00 2.65 Procedural Factors Mean Standard Deviation Control of program 4.00 2.00 SOA center of competency 4.67 2.31 Responsibilities and roles 1.67 2.08 Education and training 6.00 0.00 Knowledge exchange 6.00 0.00 Change management 4.33 2.89 Information management 4.00 2.65 Common reference 4.00 1.73 Naming conventions 6.00 0.00 Procurement of technology 6.00 0.00 Technology firm knowledge capture 3.00 2.00 Risk management 4.00 1.73 Standards management 2.67 0.58 Infrastructure architecture 5.00 0.00 Process and service deployment environment 4.33 2.89 Process and service deployment techniques 5.67 0.58 Service catalog management 4.00 2.65 Service management and support 5.00 1.00 Security management 4.67 1.15 Continuous process improvement 5.00 1.00 Costing techniques 3.67 2.31 Strategy management 3.67 2.31 Technical Factors Mean Standard Deviation Internal Web services on project 5.00 0.00 Internal process domain on project 5.00 0.00 Internal SOA domain on project 5.67 0.58 External process domain on project 6.00 0.00 External SOA domain on project 6.00 0.00 Business process management software 6.00 0.00 Data tools 4.00 2.65 Middleware 3.67 2.52 Platform of key technology firms 5.00 1.00 Platform specialty tools from platform technology firm 5.00 1.73 Proprietary technologies 1.00 1.00 Best-of –class tools 5.33 1.15 XML standard 6.00 0.00 Messaging standards 4.33 2.89 Service description and discovery standards 3.67 3.21 Transaction standards 2.33 2.31 Security standards 5.33 1.15 User interface standards 4.33 2.89 Web services best practices 6.00 0.00 Web services management standards 4.33 2.89 Table 7: Curriculum in Information Systems: Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) – Detail of Model Module Content Customization to Industry IS 2006 Curriculum Model Year     Finance Human Resource Logistics Marketing, Sales and Service Regulatory Business Skills Analytical Skills Interpersonal Skills Technical Skills Business                       Business Process Management (BPM) and Transformation   X X X X X X X     1   Business Objectives                       Critical Few Objectives (CFOs)                       Competitive Differentiation of Core Processes – Strategic Performance Management                     Business Models   X X X X X X X     1   Business Process Modeling Systems (e.g. IBM INNOV8 Simulator)                     Enterprise Architecture   X X X X X X X  X X 1,2 (Business Architecture, Application Architecture and Technical Architecture)                         Applications                       Data Bases                       Processes                       Systems                       Technologies                     Module Content Customization to Industry IS 2006 Curriculum Model Year Culture                       Change Management   X X X X X   X X   1   Changing the Culture of Organizations                     Organizational Sectors for SOA   X X X X X  X X X   2   Corporate Staff                       Business Staff                       Governance Staff                       Technology Staff                     Planning for “On Demand” Enterprise SOA   X X X X X  X X X X 4   Centers of Excellence in SOA                     Module Content Customization to Industry IS 2006 Curriculum Model Year Methodology                       Essentials of Program Management Methodology   X X X X X X X   X 1   Program Management vs. Project Management                     Program Management Methodology   X X X X X X X   X 2,3,4   Framework of Governance                       Framework of Communication                       Framework of Product Realization                       Analysis and Design Phases                       Development Phase                       Integration and Testing Phases                       Deployment and Implementation Phases                       Multiple Iterations                       Framework of Project Management                       Framework of Architecture                       Framework of Data Management                     Framework of Service Management   Framework of Human Resource Management                       Framework of Post Implementation                                               Non-Agile vs. Agile Methodologies                     Essentials of Service Orientation             X X   X 2   Process Analysis, Design and Deployment                       Process Interoperability                       Internal Processes X X X X X             External Processes X X X X X             Service Design and Deployment Techniques                     Program Staff Team Playing   X X X X X   X   3   Corporate, Business, Governance and Technology Staff                     Module Content Customization to Industry IS 2006 Curriculum Model Year Research                       Independent Project Study of SOA   X X X X X X X X X 3,4   Best-of-Class Case Practices in Industry             Practitioner Literature             Day-in-the-Life of Business Analyst Practitioners             Day-in-the-Life of Enterprise Architect Practitioners             Day-in-the-Life of Service Engineer Practitioners             Instructor as Study Supervisor           Industry Project Internship   X X X X X X X X X 4   Practitioner Shadowing                     Module Content Customization to Industry IS 2006 Curriculum Model Year Technology                 Essentials of SOA               X   X 1   SOA and Web Services                       SOA and SOE                     Enterprise Infrastructure of Services in SOA             X X   X 2,3 Enterprise Metadata in SOA              X X   X 2   Data Tools                     Enterprise Portals in SOA               X   X 2,3,4   Mash-ups                       Service Bus Topologies                     Platforms of Best-of-Class Technology Firms   X X X X X   X   X  2,3,4   Product Specific SOA Technologies (e.g. IBM Reference Architecture [Websphere])             -Product Specific Web Services Development Technologies (e.g. IBM [.Net] / Open Source [Eclipse] and Oracle [JBoss])                     Platform Monitoring, Registry and Security Specialty Tools               X   X 3,4 Enterprise Monitoring of Services in SOA               X   X 3,4   Product Specific SOA Tool(s)                     Enterprise Registry of Services in SOA               X   X 3,4   Product Specific SOA Tool(s)                     Enterprise Security of Services in SOA               X   X 3,4   Product Specific SOA Tool(s)                     Standards in SOA                   X 3   Description and Discovery (e.g. UDDI)                       -Invocation (e.g. WS-IF)                       -Management (e.g. WS-I)                       -Messaging (e.g. SOAP)                       -Presentation (e.g. WS-C)                       -Security (e.g. XML)                       -Session (e.g. WS-RF)                       -Transaction (e.g. WS-CDL)                       -Transport (e.g. WS-R)                       -User Interface                     Systems Management of SOA             X X  X X 4   Service Level Agreements (SLAs)                       Metrics                     Trends   X X X X X  X  X  X X  4   Careers for Practitioners in SOA                       Certification Paths for Practitioners in SOA                       Compensation and Employment Forecast for Practitioners in SOA                     Note: Curriculum may begin with a mix of the business, culture, methodology, research and technology modules for freshmen students declared for the field of information systems.