Todd Biske wrote: > It's disappointing to see that people are cringing away from a > meaningful discussion on the development of best practices and > techniques for widespread (i.e. enterprise) SOA adoption. Right now, I > would say there is a disproportionate amount of case studies that come > down to having the right people at the right time. Unfortunately, > that's not something that is easily repeatable. To keep things moving > forward, it's important that we find a way to do so. If we don't, SOA > will follow the same path as every other "shiny new thing" coming from > IT , and be generally viewed as a failure. >
I think the fundamental problem is that the business half of any company has heard it all before. This new tech or that new tech or this new approach or that new approach is going to save the day: "We'll just upgrade our architecture and tools one more time and we'll be there, honest, no there won't be a new fad next year, this is for keeps". Fundamentally, I don't think they care one jot about SOA or any other hot tech/solution/approach. I think they care about: (1) Solve all my ever growing problems today (2) Cheaper (3) Faster i.e. More for less They don't care about time spent removing old features, they don't care about maintenance work, they don't want to have to understand even the highest-level detail of what IT does - they want all the positives and none of the negatives all at ever-reducing cost. The way you satisfy these people is to give them one or more of the above - they don't care how you do it but you can bet that once they get a taste they'll get greedy and want more. Sounds like the irrational behavior of a drug addict to me! If an enterprise _really_ wanted to achieve more for less it would need to ensure that it had a culture that co-operated together, discussed, compromised and negotiated with complete honesty. Something that just isn't going to happen because of politics. That enterprise would also have to realize that it gets what it pays for and there's only so much talent around. So treating programmers, architects etc like battery hens all paid the same would need to go out the window too. Fundamentally, every enterprise will say they want all this but very few will actually get up off their behinds and commit to making it happen. Instead they'll make some half-hearted, half-baked attempt at it such as buy some new IT kit but when it gets beyond that, they'll quit. And then they'll complain that it was all too complex and too costly and do it all again next week. > If you're cringing away from a discussion around these topics, then I'd > ask, how are you achieving SOA adoption? How are you ensuring that the > strategic plans of the business align with the efforts of IT? If you're > not doing anything about it, that either means that your business is > very happy with IT and the organization is operating as a well-oiled > machine (in which case, please tell us how you're achieving this > nirvana); the business is apathetic toward IT and just accepting the > processes for what they are (i.e. simliar to the frustration we all deal > with in using our desktop systems); or the business is unhappy with IT, > placing the IT staff on very shaky ground. If it's one of the latter > two options, how can we make things better? If Zachmann is overkill, I'm pretty sure in most cases it's the latter two options. And IT staff making the same old promises about some new tech certainly increases the apathy. And most new tech is anything but, more often than not it's just a re-hash by vendors of what they already have, one way or another. Why would they put in a whole load of effort (cost) to inventing something truly different when they can just redress what they have confident that they can hoodwink the tech hoardes again? To be fair, that's not the only reason for re-hashing - vendors just like enterprises only have so many smart people who can think different and do something new and get sufficient buy-in to make it happen. In the absence of those smart people, things will tend to stagnate and repeat. > are there elements of it that are critical? If SOA is too abstract, > where do things need to be made more concrete? > I think what is critical is to get yourself into a place where you can have sufficient control and influence to build something that becomes successful. Once it's successful, people will start to ask how you did it and from there you get buy in and potentially positive change. > Perhaps my feelings on this are more tied to the fact that I've always > preferred the application of technology to the technology itself. > A good trait to have and it'll take you a long way but you're going to need the co-operation of a large number of others across a number of disciplines to break through the barriers you already see. My two cents, Dan. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/NhFolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
