William Henry wrote:
> The main idea I'm trying to get across is that though organizations
> should be thinking big they should start small.
I agree with the think big, start small approach. There's a natural
tendency to think big and get locked into a boil the ocean mentality.
> 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
Now here's where I disagree. While I think a maturity matrix is a
bit more flexible than a maturity model, I'm not a huge fan of them,
even if I ignore the recent SOA maturity model effort from
Reactivity, AmberPoint, Systinet, et al. To me, a maturity model is
something that works when there is one consistent pattern. When we
talk about the maturity levels that people go through, it applies to
everyone. There are individuals that may get stuck at one level, but
there really is only one path. Once we start suggesting that there
are multiple paths (rather than varying rates), I think it loses a
lot of its validity.
Patterns, on the other hand, can handle areas where there are
multiple ways of doing the same thing. When we're talking about
governance, I think it's much more about patterns than maturity
levels. If we use the analogy of traditional government, clearly
there are some governance models that are clearly bad. On the other
hand, there are plenty of examples of governance that work. Do they
all need to mature to one particular model? I don't think so.
Rather, I think there are most likely patterns of governance that
work based upon the culture of the municipality. The same thing
applies with SOA Governance. One company may be able to make a
community-based governance model work. One could say Verizon's
approach to SOA had elements of this. Another company may need to
establish a governing body. Yet another may apply a regulatory or
licensed style, where the areas in need of standardization are only
performed by a small group of people. The style chosen will need to
fit the culture of the company and how they go about making
decisions. Do the workers in the trenches see the CIO as a
figurehead, or do they take the CIO's words to heart and try to
implement the vision? Do projects already undergo architectural,
design, and implementation reviews, or is it more of the wild west?
How empowered are employees to make decisions on their own? How well
are decisions documented and communicated? All of these things come
into play when determining the best way to approach governance.
-tb
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/
