AgilePath Corporation 38 Merrimac Street Suite 201 Newburyport, MA 01950 www.agile-path.com
Copyright © 2013 AgilePath Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary and Confidential
Governance Registry In Practice
November, 2013
www.agile-path.com
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• Welcome • The Usual Concerns
– Ques2ons and Answers – Addi2onal Materials – Copies of Slides
• Presenter: Ø Kevin King, Vice President for Client Delivery at AgilePath
Over 20 years in Solu2on Delivery in Financial Services and Healthcare domains before joining AgilePath three years ago
Ø Senaka Fernando, Senior Technical Lead at WSO2 Member of WSO2 since 2009, focused on the WSO2 Governance Registry and WSO2 Cloud Services Gateway
Housekeeping
2
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• Who is AgilePath? • Why a Service Registry? • Selec2on of a Registry Tool • Extending the WSO2 Model • WSO2 Vision for Governance Registry • Q&A
Agenda
3
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• Founded by Eric Marks in 2003, AgilePath brings industry innova2on and thought leadership to our clients.
• AgilePath Corpora2on delivers management and technology consul2ng services based on AgilePath’s Playbook™ methodologies for SOA, Cloud Compu2ng, Enterprise Governance, Legacy PorYolio Moderniza2on and Mobile-‐Social-‐Cloud Fusion.
• AgilePath provides vendor-‐independent solu2ons and technical services to accelerate business results through superior technology adop2on.
AgilePath: More Than 10 Years of Innova2on
4
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• AgilePath provides services focused on today’s technology challenges: – Next Gen Architecture (Social, Mobile, Cloud), Cloud Compu2ng – Service Oriented Architectures & Business Process Modeling – Integra2on, Legacy Migra2on
• Established reputa2on with F100/F500 and Public Sector Clients
– Governance frameworks and implementa2ons – Cloud Architecture and Legacy System Migra2on strategies
• Cueng edge innova2ons that accelerate 2me to market, reduce business and IT costs, and improve efficiency
– Pioneering governance and modeling solu2ons – AgileQuad™ Modeling PlaYorm (PaaS): Expedite Solu2on Time to Market, Agile
Development – Governance PaaS for Cloud, SOA, Governance Managed Services: Reduce Cost of
Opera2ons
• Recently joined WSO2 Community Partner Program
AgilePath delivers strategic insight coupled with technology implementa2on
AgilePath (cont’d)
5
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• US Air Force • Marine Corps • Military Health
Services (MHS) • NGA • ODNI • NSA • State of California • USTransComm
• WalMart • Staples • Kaiser
Permanente • Federal Express • Intel Corpora2on • Mohawk Fine
Papers • GE Healthcare • Yale University
Representa2ve AgilePath Clients
6
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
Governance
Strategic Alignment Technology
Enterprise Governance IT, EA, Data, SOA, Cloud
Governance
Compliance & Risk Outsourcing & Managed Services
Dashboard & Metrics Change Management & Mentoring
Governance
SOA, BPM & IntegraDon Cloud CompuDng
Legacy Asset MigraDon & ModernizaDon
Data InnovaDon: Data Science & Big Data
Systems Engineering SoIware Development
Fusion & Next Gen Architectures
Technology Enterprise & Data
Architecture Business & Technology
Governance
Capability DecomposiDon SoluDon Modeling
Staffing Services OrganizaDonal Design
Strategic Alignment
AgilePath Core Prac2ces
Service Registry Fits Here
7
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
Cloud
Social Media
SOA & Service Registry
Mobile
Convergence of Technology and Governance
8
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• "We have learned that about 70 percent of the work in successfully adopting a service-based architecture lies in defining and implementing the governance model." - internal white paper, Intel Corp.
• In our experience: one business unit won’t fund all reusable services. The Funding Models are antiquated in most organizations yet they are a critical component for the success of SOA, Cloud, Mobile and Enterprise Technology requirements.
SOA or Services-‐Based Architecture is Crucial
Gartner: “Can’t Do Cloud Without SOA”
9
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
DefiniDon: A central ‘database’ that includes ar2facts for all services planned for development, in development, in use and re2red CharacterisDcs:
• The registry is the driver of a “Catalog” of Services • Searchable by service consumers and providers
– Service registra2on is performed by service owners – SOA COE ensures SLAs are implemented and agreed upon before services are in produc2on and
consumers implemented
• It enforces service design-‐2me policies • Service meta-‐data is updated throughout the SDLC and includes content from the Business
Owner, Development Owner, and Opera2ons / Deployment Owner – Interface defini2ons (e.g. opera2ons, XSD, sample XML messages) – Security mechanisms used/employed by the service along with any access criteria and restric2ons – Relevant design documents or links to them – Business/func2onal behavior – Development URLs where appropriate – Sample consumer code
• Registry provides support for and iden2fica2on of composite services
Characteris2cs of a Service Repository
10
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• Service Registry Actors – Business owner -‐ manages requirements and change requests – Service development owner -‐ develops and maintains the service – Service opera2ons/deployment owner -‐ manages the service when
deployed
• Lifecycle Actors – Business – manages priori2es, requirements, change requests – SOA Working Group – enforces standards, governance, facilitates
iden2fica2on – SOA Center of Excellence – handles excep2ons and escala2ons – Service Provider – typically source system owner, leads support efforts
and manages capacity – Service Consumer – the user of the service, can be a human or
applica2on but every applica2on must have human POC
Actors In The Service Lifecycle
11
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
Run-Time Governance
Design-Time Governance Run-Time Governance
Design-Time Governance
Identify Projects & Programs
Potential Service
Requirement Identified
Enterprise Architecture
Process Service
Candidate ID Service
Modeling Service
Qualification
Service Portfolio
Management
Funding and Budgeting
Prioritization
Service Design
Service Development QA / Testing Deploy Management/
Monitoring
Service Discovery
Consume / Reuse
Initiate New Potential Service Request
SOA Working Group SOA COE
Business
Service Consumer
Service Provider
Service Repository Process Begins
Tac2cal Lifecycle Processes/Rela2onships
12
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
Key Policies Enforced
• SOA First • Re-Use • Complexity
Reduction • P2P Elimination • Data Governance
Candidate Iden2fica2on
SDLC Phase Change
Service Design Change
Candidate Capability Iden2fied
Update Registry Entry Throughout SDLC
Iden2fy and Maintain List of Consumers
Project or Service SDLC
Business Sponsor / Capability Domain
Owner
Pre-conditions • Service Candidate
Identified • Agreement that
Capability is required
Plan for Version Management and
Re2rement
Registry Entry CreaDon and Update Process: This process describes the process for crea2ng a new capability in the Registry and maintenance of the content. This is complimentary to the SDLC, Consumer and Provider processes. Example: Capability Candidate is iden2fied during Modeling and Decomposi2on process. The Candidate may not be completed development for several months.
Input: There is a candidate capability iden2fied.
Summary Steps: A capability candidate is iden2fied and needs to be verified that a similar capability does not already exist. If one is close, then the request should be for an enhancement / new version of the exis2ng capability. If one does not exist, the request is for a new capability. As soon as the need for a new capability is confirmed, the candidate should be registered with minimal data in the Registry. As the capability proceeds through the SDLC process, the Registry should be updated with details as they are known. Preliminary content is acceptable as long as it is clearly noted. The progression from planning to development to tes2ng and ul2mately Produc2on is indicated through the SDLC Phase or Status field in the Registry. Output: The capability is created and maintained in the Registry.
Discovery
Create New Registry Entry
New Candidate Identified and Verified
SOA Center of Excellence
Enterprise or Domain Architecture Office
Governance Process Triggers, Events Major Process Steps
Governance Boards Overview
Internal reference: L07.02
Portfolio Mgmt.
Process
Publish, Discover, Register
Service Consumption
Modeling
Service Discovery
Process for Registry Entry Crea2on / Update
13
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
Governance Process Triggers, Events Major Process Steps
Governance Boards
Key Policies Enforced
• SOA First • Re-Use • Complexity
Reduction • P2P Elimination • Publishing • Registration
New Capability Approved
Change in Registry Content
Change in Solu2on Design
Registry Is Accessible
Exact or Near Match Found
No Match Found
Self-‐Governance
Domain Working Group
Overview
Pre-conditions • Capability has been
added to or updated in Registry
Requirement or Design Change in Current Project,
Trigger Discovery
Process for Discovery. Process for searching meta-‐data in the registry to uncover a capability.
NOTE: This can be done through a registry tool by no2fying previously registered consumers, those consumers who have contracts to consume it and through other internal organiza2on mechanisms (ex. development mee2ngs, wikis, etc.). Input: There is a new capability iden2fied OR a change to an exis2ng capability entry in the registry. There are known consumers iden2fied in the registry (either actual or poten2al). Excep2on: Consumer required to consume new version of exis2ng capability.
Summary Steps: Search is by keyword or other registry schema element in order to obtain a list of poten2al capabili2es that will meet the need. Person conduc2ng the search compares the return list with the required func2onality to determine if there is an exact, near, or no match. When an exact match is found, follow L7.5; if a near match is found, follow L7.5 and nego2ate with the provider to execute L8.2; if no match is found, work with the Architecture Team to iden2fy a provider who can then follow L7.2 and add the capability to the registry Output: Updated list of consumers; new capability added to Registry.
Capability Iden2fied as “Needed”
Prospec2ve Consumer conducts “Discovery”
Process for Discovery
Excep2on & Escala2on process as needed
SDLC Phase Gate or Milestone Achieved
Service Identification
Publish Discovery
Portfolio Mgmt.
Process
Realization, Utilization,
Re-Use
Internal reference: L07.04
Enterprise or Domain Architecture Office
Development Manager, Technical
Lead
Process for Discovery
14
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
Service Portfolio Management
• Perform Architecture Assessment
• “Business” Justification
• Perform Existing Service Analysis
• Begin Formal Development
• Define Service Architecture & Technical Requirements
• Define Functional Service Description
• Complete Funding Request • Perform Service Modeling
and Design • Implement Versioning • Confirm Service
Qualification
• Technical Design • Build Service • Perform QA Testing,
including System and Integration Testing
• Perform Release Management
• Consumer Management
• Issue Resolution • Change
Management
• Perform Operational & SLA Monitoring
• Performance Monitoring
• Security Monitoring • Capacity
Management
• Perform Service Discovery
• Create Registry Entry o Name o Description o Owner o Domain
• Start Service Mgmt • Register
Consumers
• Update Catalog Content o Preliminary Architecture o Preliminary Payload
Schema o Define SLA Content
• Status = In Development • Register Consumers
• Update Catalog Content o Final Architecture o Final Payload Schema o Final Service
Operations o Final SLA details
• Status = In Development • Status = In Test • Register Consumers
• Update Catalog • Confirm and
validate all Catalog Artifacts are final versions.
• Status = In Production
• Register Consumers
• SLA Management • Version /
Retirement Planning
• Metrics Reporting • Status o In Production o Retired o Deprecated
• Register Consumers
Catalog Ac2ons
Provider Ac2vi2es
SDLC Launch Concept DefiniDon / Planning Develop Support
Internal reference: L07.02
Registry Process Aligns with SDLC Process
15
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• AgilePath is engaged in a moderniza2on program for a global US Air Force enterprise system
• Our responsibility is implemen2ng SOA Governance for the System Integrator, suppor2ng 3rd Party solu2on development and tes2ng
• AgilePath is responsible for enforcement of service lifecycle governance across development and tes2ng environments
• AgilePath is also filling the role of Service Registry training and Tier 1 end user support for customer requirements
Example: US Air Force Program Service Registry
16
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
ü Import of XLS style data ü Define, Import and Export AF specific service meta-‐data ü Ability to filter services by site or by source system ü Access based on role ü On-‐site implementa2on but accessible by 3rd par2es ü Service Lifecycle Management ü No “heavy” vendor overhead or vendor lock-‐in ü Design-‐2me unlinked from run-‐2me ü No ‘linking’ across environments or to external vendor sites ü Flexibility for customiza2on
Program Service Registry Requirements
17
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
Summary Steps: 1. A service candidate is iden2fied and the user
queries the Service Registry… a) If a service is found that meets the
requirements, request consumer registra2on;
b) If there is a similar but not sufficient service, request an enhancement / new version of the exis2ng service;
c) If one does not exist, request a new service. 2. For a new service, the candidate service is
registered with minimal data in the Service Registry.
3. As the service is matured and proceeds through the SDLC process, the Registry is updated with details as they become available.
Preliminary content is acceptable as long as it is clearly noted. The service progression from planning to development to tes2ng and ul2mately Produc2on is indicated through a Service Status field and Service Lifecycle state in the Service Registry.
XLS-based
Managed Service Documenta2on Workflow
18
Button
Architects
Service Registry
Developers
Testers
Support
Use & Update
Populates
Use & UpdateUse &
Update
Use & Update
Identify Services & Functions
Service & FunctionTrackers
Security Domain “A”
Legend: UDDI Registries
Site X
Site Specific Services
Full Service List
EVTS Export
Service Catalog
Full Service List
Security Domain “B”
Security Domain “C”
Security Domain “D”
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• We used our standard Vendor Assessment Process to evaluate poten2al Registry Products
• Tested and evaluated 8 vendor products, scoring each with a 1-‐5 ra2ng across 6 categories comprising 29 different criteria.
• Category and criteria items were provided by AgilePath and individual weigh2ng of items was determined by analyzing customer criteria and requirements.
Vendor Assessment Process
19
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
Customer DescripDon / Requirement Maps to AP Criteria Category Web-‐based user interface easily accessible through Portal or intranet.
On-‐site / Installed Applica2on or Cloud Hosted
Install
Easy to populate and usable to the end consumer Import / Export to XLS User Advanced search capability (non-‐linear queries, more than just search on columns).
Robust Keyword Search / Discovery Across all meta-‐data fields
User
There are frequent requests for a Service Catalog related to a specific build. Where is the SC for Build 1? Build 2?
Customizable Service Provider workflow
Must Have Feature
Each build is a source of services informa2on. Service Lifecycle Management Must Have Feature Ability to add, change, edits and customize service metadata.
Support for customizable meta-‐data fields and tags
Content
Simultaneous edi2ng capability with row-‐level locking.
Full audit log to track changes Security
Design-‐2me/Run-‐2me Synchroniza2on Run-‐2me and Design-‐2me Instances Install Support for data import/export func2onality and possibly, ability to interface with CMDB.
Import / Export to XLS User
Ability to track service pedigree. Version Differen2a2on Must Have Feature Service Consumer registra2on and maintenance of consumer auributes with high data integrity.
Consumer Registra2on and Status Must Have Feature
Service usage count in number of consumers. Consumer Registra2on and Status Must Have Feature Service Depreca2on Status -‐ Which services are planned to be deprecated in the next 6 months? This would enable planning for service replacement.
Version Differen2a2on Must Have Feature
Customer Requirements Mapped To AP Scoring
20
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• Each criteria is “scored” using standard point values • Individual criteria values are ‘rolled up’ to determine the category score • Category scores are ‘rolled up’ to determine a weighted score • Raw point totals, unweighted, are accumulated for reference • Results automatically adjust. We re-do evaluations for new vendor releases • The same AgilePath resource evaluated all products within a specific
category to eliminate bias and personal preferences
Standardized Scoring
Values DefiniDon 0 Not evaluated 1 Does not meet requirement 2 Par2ally meets the requirements 3 Sufficiently meets the requirement 4 Meets requirement and has few addi2onal capabili2es 5 Significantly exceeds requirement in this area
21
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• Weights are tuned based on client requirements • Within each category, we also give a client-specific weight to each criteria • At each level, the individual weights add up to 100%
Vendors Scored Across Mul2ple “Categories”
Major Category Weight DefiniDon Content 15% Is there flexibility in underlying content, predefined
values? Install 10% Requirements that are important to understand the
technical requirements User 20% User experience requirements to ensure it meets the
customer need Security 20% Fundamental site and access security requirements Lifecycle 25% Requirements focused on lifecycles or processes Miscellaneous 10% Features that would enhance the customer
implementa2on
22
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
Content Weight Viewpoint: Is there flexibility in underlying content, predefined values?
Support for customizable meta-‐data fields and tags
45% Ability for client to define meta-‐data fields for quick reference content
Support for Links across internal network
20% Ability for client to link content within company network (ex. Link to XML Schema in source code repository)
Support for Links to external / public websites
20% Ability to link to external website for content (ex. WS-‐Security standards)
Support for Composite Services and Linking to Component Services
15% Easily iden2fied composite services and ability to trace back to component services for related content
User Weight Viewpoint: these requirements ensure the product meets the basic customer need
Import / Export to XLS 20% Can the applica2on import or export data to / from the repository for easy popula2on, backup, migra2on capability? Is it a selec2ve export?
Robust Keyword Search / Discovery Across all MetaData fields
25% Does the applica2on support key word search across custom meta-‐data fields?
Simple Keyword Search / Discovery across descrip2on field
15% Does the search feature search free form descrip2ve text?
Ability to iden2fy service dependencies
20% Does the applica2on show which services are consuming other services, which consumers are using which services? Bonus: Does it build a "mind-‐map" style diagram of the environment?
Version Differen2a2on 20% Does the applica2on support one or mul2ple versions of services? Does it facilitate version transla2on for request/response messages? Are re2red service versions accessible via search, view for reference?
Categories Break Down into Mul2ple Criteria
23
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• Three scores generated for each vendor: weighted average, straight average and total points
• Conducted a virtual “bake off” with top two vendors • Bake-off: WebEx style demo of 2 use cases created by the customer and
provided to the vendor. • Vendor conducted the walk-through of their tool directly with the customer. • Prior assessment activities were driven by AP to identify top two vendors. • All results were reviewed with the client prior to selection to ensure
transparency and that scoring was done to their specifications. • Client selected WSO2 Governance Registry Product
Vendor / Product Name Weighted Average
Scoring Average
Total Points
WSO2 Governance Registry 3.29 3.24 94
SoywareAG CentraSite 3.35 3.17 92
IBM WSRR 3.09 3.07 89
HP Sys2net 2.91 2.90 84
SOA Soyware Repository Manager 2.83 2.79 81
Oracle Service Registry 2.75 2.72 79
Jboss Enterprise SOA PlaYorm 2.55 2.59 75
Mule Galaxy 2.52 2.55 74
Vendor Assessments Presented to Client
24
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• To support the requirements, we extended the core Governance Registry Database: – Modeled Air Force / DoD specific meta-‐data
• Ex. custom risk exposure fields, mul2ple levels of system iden2fica2on (type of system, sub-‐system, etc.), related customer use case (ex. Targe2ng)
– Custom tables have primary key / foreign key rela2onships that we needed to enforce
• We will be building a custom extract for Risk Exposure for services connec2ng across firewalls
Extending the WSO2 Data Model
25
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
Extended Data Concepts
• Requirement to support custom fields • This outline helped ‘demonstrate’
those fields and their relationships • Within each Asset Type, there are 1+
related fields and tables
26
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
Asset Type Table Element Type Providing Component Overview Name Text Field Providing Component Overview Version Numeric Text Field Providing Component Overview DescripDon Text Field
Asset Type Table Element Type
Providing Component Taxonomy Keywords Editable List
Asset Type Table Element Type Providing Component Technical Constraints Text Field Providing Component Technical Language Drop-‐down Box Providing Component Technical Pla]orm MulDple SelecDon List
Asset Type Table Element Type
Providing Component Miscellaneous Usage Fee Numeric Text Field Providing Component Miscellaneous ExpiraDon Date Date Field Providing Component Miscellaneous ReDrement/Decommission Date Date Field
Data Concepts Translated to Rela2onal Tables
• Relational Tables were designed to maintain the affinity and cardinality of values to the underlying services
27
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• Custom Field iden2fies requirement for extract (if value = Y, then include in report)
• Extract includes custom fields as well as core WSO2 fields
• Output will be CSV and then input into PPT • Report currently planned for manual genera2on monthly but may explore automa2on in the future
• Challenge: Access to Business & Technical Resources that are not co-‐located is slowing requirements gathering and solu2on design
Client Requested Custom Report Required
28
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• Government customer was comfortable with Open Source solu2on
• WSO2 resources were helpful during sales cycle and with implementa2on ques2ons
• Combined service-‐based solu2on knowledge of System Integrator and AgilePath was cri2cal in driving solu2on analysis and design
Keys to our successful implementa2on
29
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• Governance processes can be built directly within the WSO2 product for enforcement
• Consumer and Providers benefit from a central Service Registry
• User educa2on about Registry is s2ll required • SLA tracking and enforcement can be conducted within the WSO2 tool
Governance Support Through Technology
30
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• A robust, user friendly Service Registry is required for the success of SOA and Cloud solu2ons
• WSO2 Product met the needs given its flexibility, extendibility and licensing approach
Summary
31
@agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com
• Contact AgilePath to help develop your Registry Implementa9on Strategy and SOA Solu9on Design – 978.462.5737 Office / Info@agile-‐path.com
• Contact WSO2 to learn more about the Governance Registry Tool and other Open Source Components – hOp://wso2.com/contact/
Ques2ons
38
Top Related