Composable Architecture: Just Another Buzzword for Service Oriented Architecture, or the Next Big Thing

Composable enterprise architecture is a new approach to designing and building enterprise software that emphasizes flexibility and adaptability over the traditional monolithic, highly integrated stacks. This shift has been driven by the rapid rise of cloud computing and the desire of organizations to take advantage of the benefits of cloud-native architectures, such as scalability, agility, and cost savings.

Traditionally, enterprise software was built as a single, tightly integrated system, with all components and functionality tightly intertwined. However, this approach often resulted in inflexible systems that were difficult and expensive to change. The rise of cloud computing has enabled organizations to adopt a more flexible, component-based approach to software development, with each component able to be developed and deployed independently.

This shift towards composable enterprise architecture has allowed organizations to adopt a best-of-breed approach to software development, leveraging the best available tools and components for each aspect of their software. For example, an organization may use an in-house developed component for their billing system but use a third-party component for their customer relationship management system. This approach allows organizations to leverage the best available tools for each aspect of their software, while still retaining control over their overall architecture.

Additionally, composable enterprise architecture enables organizations to more easily adopt new technologies and respond to changing business requirements. Rather than being locked into a single, highly integrated system, organizations can quickly swap out components as needed, allowing them to adapt to changes in the market or their business environment.

The shift away from highly integrated stacks to composable enterprise architecture is a key aspect of the move towards cloud-native software development. This approach allows organizations to take advantage of the benefits of cloud computing, such as scalability and agility, while still retaining control over their overall software architecture. By leveraging the best available tools and components, organizations can build highly flexible and adaptive systems that can respond to changing business requirements and take advantage of new technologies as they emerge.

Composable Architecture: A New Approach or Regurgitated Old Concepts?

Composable enterprise architecture has been described as a new approach to building enterprise software, but some have argued that it is simply a repackaging of older concepts such as service-oriented architecture (SOA) and the enterprise service bus (ESB).

SOA is a software design approach that focuses on breaking down monolithic applications into smaller, independent services that can be composed to form larger systems. This is similar to the component-based approach of composable enterprise architecture, where each component can be developed and deployed independently.

An ESB is a component of an SOA that facilitates communication between services. In a composable enterprise architecture, the idea of an ESB can be seen as the component responsible for integrating different components and services within the overall architecture.

However, while there are similarities between composable enterprise architecture and SOA, there are also important differences. The rise of cloud computing and the adoption of cloud-native approaches has led to a shift towards microservices, where each component is even smaller and more independent than in traditional SOA. Additionally, composable enterprise architecture places a stronger emphasis on flexibility and adaptability, enabling organizations to quickly swap out components and respond to changing business requirements.

While composable enterprise architecture may have similarities to older concepts such as SOA and the ESB, it is a distinct approach that reflects the latest trends and best practices in software development and the adoption of cloud-native architectures. It is not simply a repackaging of old ideas, but rather a new approach that is well-suited to the challenges and opportunities of the modern software landscape.

Composable vs. Monolithic: Which Enterprise Architecture Model Wins?

Large monolithic enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems represent the antithesis of the composable enterprise architecture model. These traditional ERP systems were designed as highly integrated, monolithic applications that included all of the functionalities required by an organization, such as accounting, supply chain management, and human resources.

However, this tight integration often resulted in inflexible systems that were difficult to change and customize to meet the unique needs of an organization. Additionally, these ERP systems were often built on outdated technology and were unable to take advantage of the latest advancements in cloud computing and other areas.

In contrast, composable enterprise architecture enables organizations to build software systems that are highly flexible and adaptable. By breaking down applications into smaller, independent components, organizations can take advantage of the latest technologies and best-of-breed tools for each aspect of their software. This approach allows organizations to respond more quickly to changing business requirements and to take advantage of new technologies as they emerge.

For example, a composable enterprise architecture might include a cloud-based accounting system and a supply chain management system that are developed and deployed independently, but which are integrated through a common interface or API. This approach allows the organization to take advantage of the latest cloud-based accounting technology, while still retaining control over their overall software architecture.

Large monolithic ERP systems represent the antithesis of the composable enterprise architecture model, as they are often inflexible, difficult to change, and based on outdated technology. By adopting a composable approach, organizations can build software systems that are highly flexible, adaptable, and able to take advantage of the latest advancements in technology.

Composable Architecture: Surrendering Control for the Sake of Efficiency, Savings, and Laughs

The use of cloud-based solutions and centralized providers can indeed raise concerns about surrendering control over the overall software architecture. However, there are several benefits to adopting a composable enterprise architecture that can offset these concerns.

First, by relying on best-of-breed solutions for each component of the architecture, organizations can take advantage of the latest technology and innovations in each area. This can result in significant improvements in efficiency, cost savings, and enhanced capabilities.

Second, a composable architecture enables organizations to respond quickly to changing business requirements. For example, if a new regulation or business requirement emerges, a composable architecture enables the organization to quickly swap out the affected component and replace it with a new solution that meets the requirement. This agility and responsiveness can be a significant competitive advantage in today's rapidly changing business environment.

Third, by relying on a centralized provider, organizations can benefit from the provider's expertise and resources in managing the underlying infrastructure. This can result in lower costs and increased reliability, as the provider is better equipped to manage the hardware and software than the organization would be on its own.

Finally, by adopting a composable enterprise architecture, organizations can take advantage of the economies of scale that are possible with cloud-based solutions. By leveraging the provider's infrastructure, the organization can benefit from lower costs, improved performance, and enhanced security.

It is true that organizations surrender some control by relying on centralized cloud providers, the benefits of a composable enterprise architecture can offset these concerns. By taking advantage of the latest technology, responding quickly to changing requirements, leveraging the provider's expertise and resources, and benefiting from economies of scale, organizations can build more flexible, adaptable, and secure software systems.

The SOA Paradox: Promising Flexibility, Delivering Complexity

Service-oriented architecture (SOA) was designed to offer organizations a way to build software systems that were more flexible, adaptable, and scalable. Despite its promise, many organizations struggled to adopt SOA for a variety of reasons. Some of the key pitfalls that prevented organizations from adopting SOA include:

Complexity: SOA often required organizations to implement complex and difficult-to-manage systems, which made it difficult for many organizations to fully realize its benefits.

Integration challenges: SOA often required organizations to integrate multiple components and services, which could be challenging and time-consuming.

Lack of standardization: SOA was often implemented without clear standards, which resulted in disparate systems that were difficult to integrate and manage.

Skills gap: SOA often required specialized skills and expertise, which were in short supply at many organizations.

Cost: Implementing SOA often required significant upfront costs, which many organizations found difficult to justify.

Resistance to change: SOA often required organizations to make significant changes to their existing processes and systems, which many organizations were reluctant to do.

SOA was designed to offer organizations a way to build more flexible, adaptable, and scalable software systems. Despite its promise, many organizations struggled to adopt SOA due to factors such as complexity, integration challenges, lack of standardization, skills gap, cost, and resistance to change.

Tech Stack Turmoil: The Impact of Departmental Disunity on SOA

In addition to the challenges mentioned above, organizations often struggled to implement SOA because they were too siloed with their inter-department technology stacks. Each department would often have its own separate technology stack, which made it difficult to achieve consistency across the entire software development landscape.

Moreover, many organizations were driven by self-centered project managers who were focused on meeting project deadlines rather than ensuring the quality and long-term benefits of the software systems. This resulted in a focus on short-term goals that were not aligned with the overall objectives of the organization.

In such an environment, it was difficult to get buy-in from all departments to implement SOA in a manner that would be consistent across the entire software development landscape. This lack of consistency made it difficult to achieve the full benefits of SOA and often resulted in suboptimal software systems that were difficult to integrate and manage.

The siloed nature of inter-department technology stacks and a focus on short-term goals by self-centered project managers were significant challenges that prevented many organizations from fully realizing the benefits of SOA. To overcome these challenges, organizations need to adopt a more integrated and collaborative approach to software development that is focused on long-term benefits and quality.

Same Problems, Different Package: The Challenges of Implementing Composable Architecture

The same arguments that applied to the implementation of service-oriented architecture (SOA) can also be applied to the implementation of composable architecture. Both SOA and composable architecture require organizations to make significant changes to their existing processes and systems, which can be challenging and time-consuming.

Composable architecture, like SOA, also requires organizations to integrate multiple components and services, which can be challenging and difficult to manage. Additionally, the implementation of composable architecture may also require specialized skills and expertise, which may be in short supply at many organizations.

Moreover, the cost of implementing composable architecture may also be a significant challenge for many organizations, as it often requires significant upfront investment. And like SOA, the lack of standardization in composable architecture can result in disparate systems that are difficult to integrate and manage.

The same challenges that prevented organizations from fully realizing the benefits of SOA, such as complexity, integration challenges, lack of standardization, skills gap, cost, and resistance to change, can also be applied to the implementation of composable architecture. To overcome these challenges, organizations need to adopt a more integrated and collaborative approach to software development that is focused on long-term benefits and quality.

Why Change? The Perpetual Struggle of Adopting New Architecture Patterns

While service-oriented architecture (SOA) and composable architecture have promised to offer organizations more flexible, adaptable, and scalable software systems, their implementation has been challenging for many organizations due to various reasons such as complexity, integration challenges, lack of standardization, skills gap, cost, and resistance to change. Additionally, the siloed nature of inter-department technology stacks and a focus on short-term goals have also contributed to the difficulty in fully realizing the benefits of these architectures. To overcome these challenges, organizations need to adopt a more integrated and collaborative approach to software development that is focused on long-term benefits and quality. With a strategic and holistic approach, organizations can reap the benefits of these architectures and drive innovation and growth.