We've seen the hype: "We're a SOA tool, and we're here to help." However, most SOA vendors out there don't understand the value of SOA, nor how to approach SOA. They focus on the tactical, and not the strategic. Why? Because the tactical is easier for them to sell, and for them to understand. However, by doing that they are selling their customers short. Take integration, for example. We've understood how to do We’ve seen the hype: “We’re a SOA tool, and we’re here to help.” However, most SOA vendors out there don’t understand the value of SOA, nor how to approach SOA. They focus on the tactical, and not the strategic. Why? Because the tactical is easier for them to sell, and for them to understand. However, by doing that they are selling their customers short. Take integration, for example. We’ve understood how to do integration since the early days of EAI, and indeed it’s clearly a component of SOA. However, integration, on its own, is not architecture. Thus, just binding systems together is not architecture, thus not SOA. The fact of the matter is that dozens of vendors built integration tools, when integration was hot. As the world moved towards SOA, driven by the hype, vendors just relabeled their tools as “SOA,” even though they still address integration, and not architecture. Therefore, when selling into the SOA marketing, they are driving integration and not architecture, focusing more on the tactical, and not the strategic. Not as much value to the business there. My advice to these vendors is to spend some more time understanding just what SOA is, and its value to the business. Integration is in there, but it’s a small part of architecture. I should know, I wrote the book on integration. However, I did not attempt to see it as architecture. Software Development