Hi Todd, Great point. I was talking to Eric Newcomer about a very similar aspect to this yesterday. That is, that unlike previous trends where much of the enterprise thinking and standards evolved after the the technology was established and already deployed in lots of organizations, enterprise thinking has been part and parcel of SOA from the beginning and adoptions has been slower due to economic factors and previous experience factors. Though standards in certain areas may not have been ratified the ideas are mature enough that there is lots of thought and collateral already existing.
This can have a negative effect on adoption though. Organizations don't know how much of all the governance, enterprise features etc. that they need. What I like to call "Right Fit SOA". I think this ties in with what you are saying. I've posted an article on IP Babble (www.ipbabble.com) about SOA Adoption which only touches on this subject: http://www.ipbabble.com/2006/02/soa_adoption_think_big_start_s_1.html The main idea I'm trying to get across is that though organizations should be thinking big they should start small. I think that it would be helpful to create some sort of maturity matrix that allows companies to self assess what various aspects "SOA" they require in the short term and also in the long term (Think Big, Start Small, Scale Fast). It would benefit the industry more if this was part of the standards instead of vendor controlled. It would not only speed up adoption but would also help guarantee more successful deployments. Consider questions on transactional needs and security needs etc. etc. This would help define policies for various level of maturity of the service as it goes through its deployed life- cycle. For example it my be deployed behind a firewall today but outside a firewall tomorrow ... who do the policies evolve? Regards, William On Feb 8, 2006, at 8:11 AM, Todd Biske wrote: > In case anyone's interested, I posted some more comments on SOA > governance on my blog (http://www.biske.com/blog/). It has a > somewhat humorous anecdote on the differences in the political > process in California and Missouri. > > What is worth discussing here, however, is the point I was trying to > make about SOA governance. Essentially, a company needs to define > what SOA governance means to them and make it fit their culture. > This is no different in adopting SOA in general, as each company has > to define what SOA means to them and what their goals are. While > there are broad, general goals for SOA that apply at any company and > broad governance goals that equally apply, there are plenty of > details left for companies to define. > > If you agree with this, the next question would be what are the > patterns? Can corporate cultures be grouped into a small set and be > paired with a particular governance style? What are those culture > and styles? Does the same thing hold true for SOA in general? Are > there common corporate strategies and goals that map to particular > application of SOA? (note to Miko, my hope is that this would be > information that would come out of the efforts of the SOA Adoption > Blueprints TC) > > If anyone has done some analysis on this and has some content that > can be shared, I think it would make for an interesting discussion! > > -tb > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
