Yes, I agree completely with this. That's what I thought I was trying to say in fact about SOA infrastructure - that the technology comes after the architecture/design work, not before.
So my suspicion remains that this is a terminology isssue perhaps? Eric --- Ron Schmelzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe the point is that SOA does align business and > technology, but > maybe companies already have ENOUGH technology. So > the problem isn't to > apply MORE technology, but rather to let the human > side catch up with > the equation? Sometimes in our haste to be techies, > we forget that > there's a balance with human activity. It's quite > possible that > companies already have all the technology they need > to make SOA a > reality. So, what's preventing SOA adoption? Maybe > it's not the need for > more technology. I'm not advocating a strong > position here, but I am > saying that there is another side to this argument / > debate that is > worth discussing. > > I don't think anyone is suggesting to ditch > technology and go back to > typewriters (ok, maybe the Selectric branch of IBM > might suggest that > ;), but I think the emphasis has been placed too > much on technology as > being the sole answer to the problem. I see here a > natural counterweight > that requires us to think first in terms of human > activities and then in > terms of technology enablement rather than > vice-versa. > > Ron Schmelzer > > Eric Newcomer wrote: > > Todd, > > > > I am really baffled by this, I have to admit. Are > you > > implying that an SOA doesn't have to be realized > in > > software? > > > > I have been thinking of SOA as related to > software, > > isn't it? > > > > I realize there are a lot of nontechnical issues, > and > > I completely agree that an SOA needs to be defined > > independently of technology considerations, but at > the > > end of the day isn't the point of the exercise to > > improve the usefulness and suitability of > computers > > for business applications? > > > > Are you and JP arguing that it's enough to do the > > design? This is what I don't get. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Eric > > > > > > --- Todd Biske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > +1. If I could give it +2, I would. Every > time I > > > sit down and > > > think about what it takes to make SOA > successful, I > > > don't think > > > technology ever comes up on my list. > > > > > > -tb > > > > > > On Mar 11, 2006, at 3:42 PM, JP Morgenthal > wrote: > > > > > > > Eric, > > > > > > > > Technology is not required to implement > anything. > > > I can take any of > > > > the bank services I represented in my example > in > > > my post and > > > > implement them > > > > with humans. Will I still need > infrastructure, > > > yes, probably a > > > > building in > > > > which to work, a phone, a pen, pencil, maybe > I'll > > > even throw in a > > > > pad for > > > > good faith. The one thing I don't need is > > > technology (unless you > > > > want to > > > > consider the pencil technology, in which case > I > > > won't argue). > > > > > > > > The problem with saying SOA > Infrastructure is > > > that it immediately > > > > associates in non-technical people's minds > that > > > this thing is > > > > beyond them, > > > > not in their field of vision, "that thing that > IT > > > does that we all > > > > hate > > > > because they're too slow doing it in the first > > > place." > > > > > > > > I just worked with a company where we > used SOA to > > > define the entire > > > > enterprise. The CFO and the sales team and the > > > marketing team and > > > > the loan > > > > team didn't see SOA as technology. They saw > it as > > > the way they > > > > were being > > > > organized. They saw it as the way they define > > > what they do to other > > > > departments, they say it as requirement to > develop > > > a contract that > > > > explains > > > > to other groups how to use their services. > > > > > > > > SOA can be so much more than we're > giving it > > > credit for today. It's > > > > only recently that I've seen the power of > using in > > > organizational > > > > management. However, there are many thought > > > leaders in this group > > > > and if > > > > you all continue to associated SOA with > technology > > > in the minds of > > > > non-technologists, the whole value proposition > of > > > SOA as a way to > > > > bridge IT > > > > and business disappears. > > > > > > > > Given your investment in the ESB market, > I'm > > > sorry to say, these > > > > people could care less about an ESB, a > registry or > > > an SOA governance > > > > facility. > > > > > > > > But, for the record, your reply even > states an > > > "SOA Application", > > > > hence, I say that you're talking about SODA > > > infrastructure and not SOA > > > > infrastructure. > > > > > > > > JP > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Behalf > > > > Of Eric > > > > Newcomer > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 10:13 AM > > > > To: > > > [email protected] > > > > Subject: RE: [service-orientated-architecture] > Re: > > > SOA Infrastructure > > > > > > > > Hi JP - > > > > > > > > I am not sure what you think SOA > Infrastructure > > > means, > > > > but to me it means the technology needed to > > > implement > > > > an SOA based application - i.e. an application > > > > designed using an SOA. > > > > > > > > The coin in this case has two sides - yes, SOA > > > based > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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/
