Automate a mess, and get an automated mess. Service-oriented architecture has released many of the constraints on incompatible systems and silos that have hampered cross-enterprise automation efforts over the years. Now, Web 2.0 — and by extension, Enterprise 2.0 — promise similar benefits, at a far faster pace than SOA. Do we risk automating messes even faster than before?

In a Webinar hosted by ebizQ, David Mitchell Smith, VP at Gartner, warns that software is software — whether its traditional applications, SOA, or Web 2.0-based services being rolled out, much of its success depends on the nature of the organization itself. (Archived Webinar is available here, registration required.)

“Software architecture is an unintended consequence of social architecture,” Smith says. “If you have a dysfunctional organization, and you build software to align with it, you’re going to get dysfunctional software. We need to go in with our eyes open and understand. This may exacerbate issues. Don’t expect putting new technology is going to change that. it often exacerbates issues.”

In times gone by, enterprises and vendors have cut through the confusion around IT by gelling technology, solutions, and services around platforms, which became a focal point for enterprise computing, a sort of town square of the enterprise infrastructure, if you will. The IBM zSeries is perhaps the mother of all examples when it comes to thinking of platform and surrounding ecosystems, but Windows and Linux also exist in their own platform spaces.

SOA and Web 2.0 are dramatically changing our notion of what a “platform” is, Smith points out, and the end result is “the beginning of what we call the ‘Web platform.’” The idea of an established ‘platform’ has always provided a meaningful point of reference in the maze of vendor stacks that proliferate the market, he adds. “The platform is the ‘you are here,’ it is the pointer in the stack. The stuff below is infrastructure, and the stuff above the platform is the business value, the applications or the solutions that you’re going to buy or build, the services in the world of SOA.”

Gone are the days when a platform was something that “you buy and stick in a back room,” he continues. The Web platform on the other hand is a virtual platform — “It may not necessarily be a standalone platform that you purchase, but something that exists in a virtual way. It is separated often by a network, typically the Internet. It can be hosted, can be distributed and usually is. It’s not just a client platform or a server platform, but a distributed one.”

While the notion of platform as a physical entity has changed, one thing has not — what makes a platform a success, Smith adds. “The real success factor for a platform is the ecosystem around it — the solutions, the applications, the third party tools. Also key is the way the platform provides access to data and business capabilities. Both SOA and Web 2.0 offer emerging ecosystems and communities that enhance the Web platform.

There are also notable differences between Web 2.0 and SOA, Smith added. While SOA composite applications are tied to service level agreements that assure uptime, enterprise mashups from Web 2.0 applications typically don’t carry SLAs. “In the Web 2.0 world, there are some things that have not been that well thought out yet,” he cautions.Another important difference is in the role of the business in technology deployments. Namely, while SOA needs to have business drivers before the technology is determined, Smith urges that Web 2.0 projects be undertaken with or without business input. “You should not wait to do the business requirements first,” he said. “There’s no reason to not start adopting some of these technologies right away. Some of these technologies are things you can take advantage of without going full force into changing how you do your business.”

One of the obstacles to SOA, Smith observes, is that implementation and eventual success depend on “non-technology pieces.” SOA “requires changes in behaviors, and changes to how business is done. They’re not the kinds of things that are going to happen overnight. When companies start hearing about redefining your business, they tend to tune out.” Web 2.0 technologies do not carry such a weight, and can be implemented more freely, he says.