With all respect, dear javicamara, I would not want to open another can of w...
Would it make sense to discuss quality of fortification if its built on the sand? We may not skip a definition of Service because, for example, I can define it in such way you would not need any 'reuse' and 'technical concept' of SOA would not just fit into 'the implementation of IT'.
Would it make sense to discuss quality of fortification if its built on the sand? We may not skip a definition of Service because, for example, I can define it in such way you would not need any 'reuse' and 'technical concept' of SOA would not just fit into 'the implementation of IT'.
The business managers will 'not be concerned at all about whatever architecture used in IT immediately when IT stops telling them technical terms and conditions and stars to operate at the level of business functions, processes and business units of work. (This is what SOA RM tries to say, I think).
In
this discussion, I see that people try to define Service in the way which would finally agile IT with the business rather than isolating and closing the IT world from the business. Many people share the idea that IT architecture has to be business driven; that just service-styled applications (even based on WS-* standards) can still be too far from the business drivers to seriously talk about business agility (BTW, in SOA based on Jini, how high role the WS-* standards play?). Though, there are many others who believe that service-based IT is enough for the business
- Michael
javicamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the point of contention, whether soa is about IT architecture?
> or it is about aligning IT with business? is that EA?
My own definitions are:
- Service Orientation is a way of creating information systems so that the implementation of the functionalities they offer is distributed across discrete units called services.
- Of course the definition of Service and others is key, but since we are focusing on Architecture, let's leave it out of here now.
- An IT system is said to have a Service-Oriented Architecture if its architecture supports Service Orientation. At a minimum, this means that it allows services to run, and service consumers to run, locate and communicate with services.
The main point of SOA is that, if it is based on specifications standard enough (e.g. WS-*), it enables reuse across the whole organization and even outside it.Because of this reuse capability, it sounds logical that the Architecture of the whole Enterprise ends up being Service-Oriented.And in turn reuse should improve the easeness of the IT department to implement the business needs, resulting in better business agility. Also, in theory power users should be able to reuse high-level services through BPM or through Composite Application Builders, without the help of IT people, which further helps to that agility. But saying that this agility is enough to align IT with business seems somewhat far fetched to me.I think SOA is a technical concept related to the implementation of IT, and about which business managers should not be concerned at all. IT Governance is the process that should ensure the alignment of IT with business. That its agility will make SOA governance better than with other kinds of IT, still remains to be seen.Just my views. Regards
Sponsored Link
Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate new house payment __._,_.___
SPONSORED LINKS
| Computer software | Computer security software | Computer software program |
| Computer fax software | Computer virus software |
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
