SOA Value Realization - Fact or Fiction? - · PDF file3 Introduction 5 Current Trends & Practices 6 Platform Capability – Integration Patterns & Monitoring 7 Process...

www.wipro.com

SOA Value Realization – Fact or Fiction?

Hitarshi Buch & Varun MathurArchitecture & Consulting Group,

Connected Enterprise Services, Wipro Technologies

2

ABSTRACT

Adoption of Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) caught

momentum several years ago in the IT industry. With

organizations increasingly investing in technology,

governance process and delivery aspects of SOA, the overall

maturity levels have increased. But has the same resulted in

proportionate gains and bene�ts for the organizations?

This paper analyzes the current trends and practices of

various organizations, across industry domains in the SOA &

Integration landscape, and attempts to understand its linkage

to value realization as well as challenges encountered. The

KEY FINDINGS

40% of all organizations surveyed fall in the “high SOA

maturity quadrant” which indicates the effectiveness and

ef�ciency of their SOA journey

Organizations are twice more likely to realize their

platform objectives than others in engagements with

effective Central Governance and/or Center of

Excellence (CoE)

Multi-channel adoption is the top-most ranked future

initiative by 60% of the respondents

RECOMMENDATIONS

A 'Pragmatic' integration capability towards multi-channel

programs, and a roadmap towards the target state

Governance and technology refresh should be

recommended at large engagements fairing low on

value realization

paper will provide insights into the future initiatives planned

by these organizations in the integration space such as

multi-channel enablement, extended enterprise and process

integration.

Based on the existing trends & pain-points, as well as the

SOA maturity levels, a set of recommendations and best

practices are provided to achieve the NextGen SOA / SOA

2.0. This includes scenario-based problem statement and

possible solutions covering technology, processes and

delivery aspects of SOA.

80% of respondents rate increased reusability and

reduction in point-to-point interfaces as the top-ranked

bene�ts resulting from SOA initiatives

Widespread interest to use Agile methodology (80-90%)

but organizations lack the maturity to operationalize it

Adoption of Cloud platforms is uniformly split across

capabilities like CRM & HCM but iPaaS adoption (< 10%)

is minimal

Delivery automation is an opportunity than can be piloted

at small engagements, and matured into an offering

Scope of open source adoption in low complexity

engagements which can be combined with delivery

automation to make an ef�cient and cost-effective solution

3

Introduction 5

Current Trends & Practices 6

Platform Capability – Integration Patterns & Monitoring 7

Process Capability – SOA Governance 8

Process Capability – Data Model Adoption 9

Execution Capability – Delivery Model & Accelerators 9

Integration Pain-points 10

Challenges in SOA Journey 10

Value Realization 11

Recommendations 12

Middleware as a factor in Omni-Channel/E-Commerce programs 12

Opportunity for Delivery Industrialization 16

Governance as a Factor in Delivering Integration Goals 17

Case for Open Source Middleware Adoption 18

Methodology 18

About the Authors 19

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4

Figure 1: SOA Investment – Value Realization Trends 5

Figure 2: SOA Capabilities – Business Domain Heat Map 6

Figure 3: Integration Patterns & Monitoring Trends 7

Figure 4: SOA & Data Governance Adoption Trends 8

Figure 5: Data Model Adoption 9

Figure 6: Delivery Model & Accelerators Usage Trends 9

Figure 7: Integration Pain-points 10

Figure 8: Challenges in SOA Journey 10

Figure 9: SOA Tenets & Value Realization 11

Figure 10: Overall Value Realization Trends 11

Figure 11: Middleware & Omni-channel Adoption 12

Figure 12: Target Integration Architecture for Omni-Channel Oriented Programs 14

Figure 13: Delivery Accelerator Adoption Trends 16

Figure 14: SOA Governance Trends 17

TABLE OF FIGURES

INTRODUCTION

While some organizations have chosen to focus on traditional Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) in the last decade or so, most of them have increasingly adopted SOA. It is predicted that organization’s spending on application integration will increase by 33% by year 2016*.

Companies across industry domains are at different maturity levels and have achieved varied degree of success in adopting and implementing SOA. Whether this has resulted in proportionate bene�ts has always been an interesting conundrum. Figure 1 answers this by depicting a relation between the SOA investments made and bene�ts obtained.

This survey was conducted on Wipro’s 40 key integration accounts across business domains. SOA investment was determined based on the level of maturity observed in the following foundational capabilities:

• Technology capabilities describes the integration middleware platform, patterns, monitoring as well as Cloud Integration and open source adoption in the SOA landscape (Weightage: 5)

• Process capabilities describe the SOA Governance structure and processes operationalized to ensure that integration projects follow standards and best practices

* Gartner - 2013 Strategic Road Map for Integration

Figure 1: SOA Investment – Value Realization Trends

5

(Weightage: 10). Higher weightage is provided as this is perceived as a key differentiator in SOA engagements

• Delivery capabilities describes the development model and accelerators used for successful execution of integration projects (Weightage: 5)

The observed integration capabilities were then linked to the reported realized bene�ts to plot the graph above (Figure 1). The realized bene�ts are detailed in the section for ‘Value Realization’. This maturity analysis will form the basis of the inferences and recommendations in the subsequent sections of this paper.

HighMaturityCluster

BFSIENUTelecomHealthcareManufacturingRetailLinear (BFSI)Linear (Telecom)Linear (Healthcare)Linear (Manufacturing)Linear (Retail)

Valu

e R

ealiz

atio

n

SOA Investment

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Key Observations

• 40% of the organizations fall in the “high maturity quadrant” and their success rate is found to be

proportional to the platform, governance, and delivery capabilities that were adopted/enhanced

• Organizations in BFSI and Retail business domains consistently depicted higher levels of SOA maturity majorly because

they embarked early on the SOA journey

• Accounts considered for Energy & Utilities (ENU) domain are in nascent stage of SOA adoption and hence have not

realized the bene�ts yet

Current state of customers in the integration landscape was ascertained by capturing attributes related to Technology,

Process & Delivery capabilities (Existing & Planned) as depicted in the Heat Map in Figure 2:

Key observations:

• Adoption for Cloud platforms is uniformly split across capabilities like CRM & HCM so far, but iPaaS adoption (< 10%) is not yet a reality

• Multi-channel adoption is a key business driver across business domains such as Banking/Healthcare/Retail and a top-ranked future initiative across the respondents. Roadblocks have been observed when this is not matched by integration agility

• Need for 'pragmatic' integration capability tuned towards multi-channel programs, and a realistic roadmap to grow it

• Organizations with security and regulatory considerations (such as BFSI) are still reluctant to invest in Open source products (< 10%) in their integration landscape

• Increased reusability & reduction in point-to-point interfaces (approx. 80%) are the top-ranked bene�ts resulting from SOA initiatives across business domains

CURRENT TRENDS & PRACTICES

Figure 2: SOA Capabilities – Business Domain Heat Map

6

• Distinct co-relation has been observed between effective service portfolio management & governance with the value realization achieved

• Canonical model adoption is high (> 60%) in most of the business units which indicates increased focus on standardization and interoperability

• Lack of successful adoption of Agile methodology has been observed which has resulted in 60% of the accounts relying on the Waterfall/Iterative model

• Delivery accelerators such as automated deployment and on-demand testing capabilities rank highest in customer’s wishlist

In addition to the summarized view, subsequent sections

will highlight comparison between high maturity & other

(low/medium maturity) customers.

Capability / Business Domain Heat map BFSIEnergy & Utilities

Telecom Healthcare Manufacturing Retail

Technology

Services in ESB 93.33% 20.00% 46.67% 63.33% 93.33% 20.00% 45.00% 0.00% 60.00% 0.00% 80.00% 32.50%

Platform Capability 54.76% 20.48% 35.71% 21.90% 38.10% 36.19% 46.43% 29.29% 38.10% 51.43% 44.64% 13.57%

Monitoring Capability 52.78% 30.36% 38.89% 26.19% 33.33% 61.90% 50.00% 0.00% 33.33% 28.57% 45.83% 33.04%

Cloud Integration 10.42% 29.76% 20.83% 13.10% 0.00% 0.00% 37.50% 25.00% 33.33% 33.33% 21.88% 12.50%

Open Source Adoption 10.00% TBD 6.67% TBD 6.67% TBD 5.00% TBD 0.00% TBD 2.50% TBD

Process

Design-time Governance 44.44% 17.38% 27.78% 33.33% 33.33% 24.76% 33.33% 17.14% 55.56% 40.95% 58.33% 39.64%

Service Re-use as a structured process

75.00% 16.67% 8.33% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% 50.00% 16.67% 68.75% 6.25%

Data Governance 63.66% TBD 62.50% TBD 41.67% TBD 59.03% TBD 22.22% TBD 70.83% TBD

Governance Tools Usage 47.22% 28.65% 16.67% 32.29% 22.22% 50.00% 8.33% 21.88% 22.22% 54.17% 33.33% 40.63%

DeliveryDeliver Model Maturity 36.11% 6.67% 45.56% 16.67% 31.11% 0.00% 13.33% 5.00% 53.33% 60.00% 33.33% 32.50%

Delivery Accelerators Usage 40.00% 25.00% 50.00% 35.19% 26.67% 18.52% 60.00% 27.78% 46.67% 33.33% 42.50% 13.89%

7

• Even though “SOA services in ESB” pattern usage is high (e.g. > 80% in BFSI & RCTG), usage of point-to-point integrations is widespread

(ranked 3rd highest by respondents)

• Low usage of Process Integration (< 30%) cannot be attributed entirely to maturity and its adoption is dependent on the domain-speci�c requirements

Platform Capability – Integration Patterns & Monitoring

Figure 3: Integration Patterns & Monitoring Trends

38.33%

26.67%

83.33%

68.33%

58.33%

47.22%

71.30%

27.83%

68.70%

60.87%

46.09%

24.64%

Point-to-pointInteractions

Process Integration(eg., BPEL)

Services Exposedin ESB

File-based Transfer ETL Work�ows Interface Monitoring

Customers with High SOA Maturity Customers with Low SOA Maturity

• Interface monitoring is in place but lack of run-time governance to measure the success of SOA and perform optimization for better returns was observed

8

• Design-time governance has been adapted to high degree and proportionate service reuse has also been achieved

• Service re-use as a process is prevalent with majority of organizations for both business and technology services

• Common data model is a key enabler and has been adopted (83% for high maturity; 60% for others) across rganizations. Refer to split of overall data model usage patterns in Figure 5

• CoE-driven delivery of integration projects (75% for high maturity organizations) has been observed as the more effective and ef�cient means of obtaining high value realization

Process Capability – SOA Governance

Figure 4: SOA & Data Governance Adoption Trends

39.13%

47.83%

30.43%

45.65%

60.87%

27.54%

66.67%

75.00%

8.33%

83.33% 83.33%

33.33%

Common Enterprise-wideGovernance Body

CoE-drivenProject Delivery

Service ModelingMethodology

Service Reuseas a Process

CanonicalModel Adoption

GovernanceTools Adoption

Customers with Low SOA Maturity Customers with High SOA Maturity

• Service modeling methodology has not gained traction and has minimal impact on overall bene�ts

• Several respondents reported that the central Governance body is similar to Enterprise Archit ecture group

• Governance tooling adoption has been moderate with 32% usage of SOA Registry & Repository, while others are using tools like SharePoint or custom applications to manage the service catalog

• Widespread interest to use Agile methodology (> 90%) but organizations lack the maturity to operationalize it and gain any signi�cant bene�ts out of it

Process Capability – Data Model Adoption

Figure 5: Data Model Adoption

Execution Capability – Delivery Model & Accelerators

Figure 6: Delivery Model & Accelerators Usage Trends

* The �gures may not add up to 100% due to usage of multiple data-model approaches for a given respondent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Application-baseddata formats are used

Application agnosticdata models are used

A mix of application-spec�c &agnostic data structures are used

An industry data model is used

Integration & Information datamodels are synchronized

Data Model Usage, by % respondents

Customers with Low SOA Maturity Customers with HIgh SOA Maturity

108.33%

58.33%

91.67%

83.33%

50.00%

8.33%

60.87%

60.87%

73.91%

52.17%

34.78%

8.70%

Agile Model Usage

Waterfall Model Usage

Common Utilities and Frameworks

Automated Deployment

Regression Test Suites

Testing Automation

Customers with Low SOA Maturity Customers with High SOA Maturity

9

• Continuous integration aspects such as automated deployment and testing are key contributors to ef�cient delivery and cost reduction

• Interface proliferation and long delivery cycles are inter-related pain-points, mentioned by 60% of respondents, which indicates lack of SOA Governance

• Emphasis on a Shared Service Model, instead of Line of Business (LoB) driven integration, is a key success factor

• SOA Governance body in conjunction with CoE-enforced best practices is required for achieving true service orientation

10

Integration Pain-points

Figure 7: Integration Pain-points

Challenges in SOA Journey

Figure 8: Challenges in SOA Journey

40.00%

31.67% 33.33%26.67% 26.67%

63.48%

46.96%

38.26%32.17% 32.17%

Integration projects aredriven by LoBs hence

no focus-sharedservice model

Governance body lackssuf�cient power toenforce standardsand best practices

Lack of ownershipfrom Business and/or

Enterprise Architecture

Dif�culty in onboardingbusiness users for

adopting SOA wheninitiated bottom-up by IT

Lack of skilled resourcesto implement

the SOA charter

Customers with High SOA Maturity Customers with Low SOA Maturity

• 56% respondents have marked legacy integration as a major challenge which indicates that legacy modernization initiatives and cloud adoption needs to be explored

• Ownership and funding model from business stakeholders is a key characteristic of successful SOA initiative

32

46

62

64

2359

35

35

12

30

47

Fragmented Platforms

Platform Stability & Scalability

Proliferation of Interfaces withDuplicated Functionality

Long Delivery Cycles

Code Quality

Integrations with Legacy Platforms

Supporting Multiple Channels

Availability of Real-time Information

Response Times & Throughput

Process Integration

Point-to-point Interfaces

VALUE REALIZATION

As was depicted in Figure 1, the bene�ts obtained from SOA are proportionate to the investments done. Another aspect of value realization is the degree to which the fundamental tenets of SOA are ful�lled.

• Agility is a combination of responses indicating improved delivery times, increase in frequency of B2B transactions, multi-channel enablement and BPM rollout/Process integration achieved

• Cost Reduction has been derived from responses indicating reduction in point-to-point interfaces, delivery ef�ciency and reduction in cost of developing and maintaining interfaces

• Reuse is derived as a factor of reusability of business/technical services & the resultant cost ef�ciency, as per the respondents

Figure 9: SOA Tenets & Value Realization

Figure 10: Overall Value Realization Trends

52.08%

94.44% 95.83%

61.11%

15.22%

34.78%

45.65%

21.74%

Agility Cost Reduction Reuse Interoperability

Customers with High SOA Maturity Customers with Low SOA Maturity

11

43.48%

26.09%

21.74%

34.78%

56.52%

8.70%

34.78%

4.35%

100.00%

91.67%

58.33%

91.67%

100.00%

33.33%

91.67%

25.00%

Reduction in point-to-point interactions

Improvement in delivery times

Increase in frequency and/or volume of B2B transactions

Reduction in cost of developing and maintaining interfaces

Increased in reusability of Business/Technical Services

Multi-channel/Mobile rollout

Increased Interoperability with Legacy Systems

Enterprise BPM Rollout/Process Integration

Customers with High SOA Maturity Customers with Low SOA Maturity

• Interoperability is combination of responses indicating increase in coverage of B2B transactions, multi-channel enablement and ease of integration with legacy systems within the enterprise

Organizations in high maturity quadrant have performed signi�cantly better in all aspects which are vindicated by overall value realization trends created by capturing responses across customer accounts.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Given below are key recommendations and best practices which have been derived from the current trends and initiatives as well its impact on the value realization.

Based on the observations in Figure 11, and studying the middleware refactoring projects cited earlier, following is presented as a “pragmatic” middleware capability refresh plan for omni-channel adoption.

57% of respondents who reported existing or planned omni-channel programs are posing new capability challenges for middleware platforms. The respondents were queried whether the middleware platform has acted as an enabler for these programs to which close to 25% respondents said the middleware is a

Figure 11: Middleware & Omni-channel Adoption

Middleware as a factor in Omni-Channel/E-Commerce programs

12

pain-point for such programs, to an extent that middleware refactoring programs are required as part of the overall omni-channel program. Around 15% responded that middleware has been an enabler for omni-channel adoption. The results of the investigation into middleware capabilities of these respondents are below:

Middleware cited as a constraint Middleware cited as an enabler

45.45

45.45

45.45

63.64

18.18

27.27

100

100

83

50

33

67

Accounts using canonical data models

Accounts where SOA services rank 1 or 2as the prevalent integration pattern

Accounts with establishedcentralized governance

Accounts with shared servicesintegration project teams

Accounts reporting effectivegovernance mechanisms

(compared to the average for the group)

Accounts using agile as a delivery method

Middleware capabilities enabling Omni-channel Adoption, by % respondents

13

CategoryMiddleware Capability

Refresh: Iteration 1Middleware Capability

Refresh: Iteration 2

Governance

• Finalize a canonical model for channel interaction

• Ensure all channels interact via the canonical model

• Govern interaction patterns usage

• Catalog existing/planned cross-channel interactions

• Enforce centralized governance – typically constituted with key program architects

• Setup formal integration technology and process governance

• Query services are prone to variations across projects & devices, and should only be subjected to pattern governance

• Update services, in contrast, need harmonization across geos and products via effective governance

• Catalog cross-channel interaction

• Secure edge traf�c via gateway products

• Add caching preferably via distributed caches

• Surface master data, catalogs, campaigns, customer/account data to the cache from SORs/MDM-Hubs in the canonical format

• Support device dependent ad-hoc entity querying via the cache

• Update services typically need a robust orchestration/BPM engine

• Add monitoring & policy enforcement to the edge gateway

Technology

• Align to the wider omni-channel projects, which typically run agile

• Consolidate Integration projects as a shared service – run as agile if supported by previous success

Delivery

Figure 12 represents the learnings from leading organizations pursuing multi-channel programs and refactoring the integration tier to support it. This is an architectural view of the key components in a target state multi-channel solution:

Figure 12: Target Integration Architecture for Omni-Channel Oriented Programs

14

SocialConnectors

ContentEngine

PartneredContent

CHANNELS & DEVICES

QueryAPIs

UpdateAPIsEnterprise XML/API Gateway

Data QueryServices

OrchestrationServices

BusinessServices

ESB

EnterpriseCache

Analytics &Rules BPM

Data Virtualization Layer

Data Hubs (MDM) SaaS/PaaS/In-Prem Apps

15

Category Query Services & APIs Update/Long Running Services & APIs

Governance

• Enterprise/MDM data is exposed off ESB or via direct application APIs

• Social/External data is stored in NoSQL/SQL tables, grids or accessed in real-time

• An aggregated view of the entity is represented in the data virtualization layer. This can selectively be cached

• Channel APIs are ad-hoc & query virtualized data - can be channel speci�c

• Real-time analytics provide content suggestions by matching entity data to context

• Services are mapped to enterprise capability models

• Realized via BPM & ESB orchestrations

• Provide harmonized entity change behaviors across LoBs

• Supported by composable & atomic ESB services

• Key enterprise entities are modelled formally, and governed on the data virtualization layer

• Rest of the entities and layers are governed for exceptions

• Typically, the traditional enterprise SOA Governance is apt here.

• Alignment of Information & Integration Governance is recommended

ArchitecturalElements

Opportunity for Delivery Industrialization

40% respondents have cited addressing costs as an urgent IT & middleware goal. A similar number mentioned long middleware delivery cycles as a pain area. This perception is more pronounced in high maturity organizations, with 64% respondents citing these reasons. As this trend is only likely to accelerate, the current state of delivery automation across respondents were captured.

Based on these observations, a middleware industrialization offering can be created with open-source tools covering:

• Test-oriented development via Continuous Integration – effectively collapse the build, unit and system test phases

• Regression & Performance Test automation – increase reliability of the iterative multi-channel delivery process

Figure 13: Delivery Accelerator Adoption Trends

16

• Delivery process modelling via a work�ow

Such an offering can be co-developed with a stable engagement with a small middleware footprint. The resultant framework can subsequently be leveraged in solutions offered to prospective customers.

Common Auditing/Logging/Exceptionhandling

Automated Project Deployment

Regression test suites & automation

Continuous Integration

End-to-end model-driven approach

40%

32%

21%

4% 3%

Delivery Accelerator Adoption, % respondents

Governance as a Factor in Delivering Integration Goals

The survey compared the adoption and results of integration governance, from respondents reporting higher value realization from the platform and overall maturity (Figure 14: SOA Governance Trends)

39.13

47.83

56.52

86.96

73.91

52.17

60.87

43.48

66.67

75.00

83.33

66.67

58.33

50.00

75.00

33.33

Existence of centralizedintegration governance

Existence of shared servicesintegration project teams

Canonical Model Adoption

LoBs dominate projects & funding

Governance lacks suf�cientenforcement capability

Lack of Business/EA ownership

Lack of SoA skills

Proliferation of interfaceswith duplicated functionality

Integration (Anti) Pattern Trends, by % respondents

Customers with Low SOA Maturity Customers with High SOA Maturity

There is a demonstrated linkage between adoption of effective centralized governance & shared services CoE setups, and value realization from middleware i.e. agility, cost reduction, reuse & interoperability (high maturity is de�ned with a strong linkage to value realization).

The existence of governance does not, by itself, change the challenges faced by foundational platforms like middleware – LoB-oriented project structures and focus or lack of Enterprise Architecture (EA) / business sponsorship. However, effective governance establishes the requisite balance between LoB / delivery orientation and the shared-service aspects of the middleware platform.

1. 65% of the middleware organizations (< 10-15 member teams) achieve higher maturity with stable, shared services teams without a specialized integration governance structure. The survey further recommends that periodic reference architecture and best-practice reviews should be conducted to allow for course corrections.

Figure 14: SOA Governance Trends

17

2. For handling integration complexity in the front (channels) or back (enterprise applications), canonical model usage is a clear differentiator between high and low maturity organizations (80% v/s 30% adoption). The leader organizations are driving canonical usage for all new initiatives in channels and back-end systems as well.

3. All run-time monitoring & enforcement capability reported to us was directly linked to non-functional business requirements, and were not tied to collecting SOA metrics or planning. Overall, 70% respondents said they possess monitoring/alerting capability, 10% have or will plan end-to-end transaction monitoring, and 45% have policy enforcement enabled/planned.

Case for Open Source Middleware Adoption

There is overall 17% adoption for open-sourced ESBs and messaging, and at the moment con�ned to non-critical functionality. Most early adopters are typically large organizations (90%) piloting the capabilities.

However, there is a signi�cant cluster of smaller organizations (50% of non-BFSI organizations outside the

METHODOLOGY

The survey was completed via interviews with Wipro Integration & Enterprise Architects assigned to 40 client organizations across business units. The possibility of introduction of a perception bias in the report was mitigated by gathering view-points from different respondents from each organization.

The respondent split by domain is:

• BFSI – 33%• ENU – 17%• Telecom – 8%

18

‘high maturity’ quadrant in the survey were classi�ed as ‘small’), that can be targeted for open source adoption. The most important drivers are likely to be cost ef�ciency and relative ease of the migration. This can be more compelling when clubbed with the recommendation for delivery process automation described earlier.

• Healthcare – 11%• Manufacturing - 8%• Retail – 23%

19

Hitarshi Meenketu Buch

Hitarshi has over 14 years of IT experience in architecture, design and implementation using SOA, BPM and Java/J2EE technologies. He has experience in IT transformation & modernization initiatives and has provided enterprise-wide SOA-based solutions. Hitarshi is currently working as a Senior SOA Architect in Architecture & Consulting Group which is part of Connected Enterprise Services at Wipro Technologies.

He can be reached at [email protected]

Varun Mathur

Varun has 13 years of IT services & consulting experience in enterprise technologies & integration platforms. He has architected SOA, Integration & BPM projects across business domains. Varun has also helped customers setup technology and delivery processes for their integration & BPM platforms. Varun is currently working as a Senior Architect with Architecture Consulting Group in Connected Enterprise Services at Wipro Technologies.

He can be reached at [email protected]

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

IND/BRD/NOV 2014–JAN 2016WIPRO LIMITED 2014©

About Wipro Ltd.Wipro Ltd. (NYSE:WIT) is a leading Information Technology, Consulting and Business Process Services company that delivers solutions to enable its clients do business better. Wipro delivers winning business outcomes through its deep industry experience and a 360 degree view of "Business through Technology" - helping clients create successful and adaptive businesses. A company recognized globally for its comprehensive portfolio of services, a practitioner's approach to delivering innovation, and an organization wide commitment to sustainability, Wipro has a workforce of over 140,000, serving clients in 175+ cities across 6 continents.

For more information, please visit www.wipro.comwww.wipro.com

CONSULTING | SYSTEM INTEGRATION | BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES

DO BUSINESS BETTER

WIPRO L IM I TED , DODDAKANNELL I , SAR JAPUR ROAD , BANGALORE - 560 035 , IND IA . TEL : +91 (80 ) 2844 0011 , FAX : +91 (80 ) 2844 0256 , Ema i l : i n f o@wip ro . c omNorth America Canada Brazil Mexico Argentina United Kingdom Germany France Switzerland Nordic Region Poland Austria Benelux Portugal Romania Africa Middle East India China Japan Philippines Singapore Malaysia South Korea Australia New Zealand