…and I’ll charge you an arm and a leg to make it better. Looks like IBM is starting up a dysfunctional SOA practice. Not surprising really. Consider this quote: “Some organizations may not be happy with their service oriented architectures (SOAs). They may have “unhealthy” SOAs as a consequence of partnering with inexperienced system integrators. They may have proprietary SOA technology in the mix, and it may be difficult to scale operations.”

They will probably make a killing since no one agrees on what SOA really means and all IBM has to do is figure out what you think it is, then convince a few key executives that that’s the wrong idea, thus rendering them instantly unhappy. It was bad enough when selling the buzzword ruled the day, but selling the band-aid will be worse, I fear. This, my friends, is why we never should have let our executives hear “SOA” in the first place. 

Here’s a question: what happens if an organization worked with IBM as their Systems integrator in the first place and is now unhappy with what they got? Would IBM ride in to rescue that organization too? <unrealistic>Maybe for the sake of good-will and a case-study, they’d do it for free.</unrealistic> I wonder how IBM would sell that engagement? Probably by blaming your internal management.

I can’t help but think that this is a case of selling me poison, then following that up by telling me I have a deadly poison in my system and that you just so happen to have the antidote. Not that I am calling SOA poison in any way. Conceptually, it’s just the opposite.

Maybe I’m overreacting or being too negative here. Any one care to chime in with excitement about this announcement?