Hello Michael I see three things in your message that I answer one by one.
1. The value of developers' work is not greater than paid for. 2. Better P/L of IT investment is the goal of EA 3. Relationship between EA and SOA. 1. I agree that today's SW cost more than planned and are highly defective w/ high failure rate. You said the blame is in developers. I disagree. Yes there is a difference between good and bad developers but this difference is quantitative not qualitative and does not change the statistics. I think that the blame is in the methodology not people. This can be evidenced that SW failure occurs in all organizations of all sectors. 2. I think that EA is the bridge between (long/mid/short term)Business Strategy (BS) and its implementation in the use of IT. Profibility is the responsibility of BS not of EA. EA only concerns how to implement a BS but can't say anything about good or bad BS. 3. EA has been around for more than a decade(Zachman's paper published in 1987) while SOA as a business concept is much more recent. Zachman framework has been extensively applied in the industry w/o SOA. SOA is a way of modeling SW that require the modeling of business process in similar way. I agree that the scope of software using SOA is larger than that of SW before SOA but not as large as that of EA. SOA is about agility of business processes while EA addresses the context of business processes. From business perspective, SOA adresses a category of business process types while EA addresses all categories and their relations within the enterprise. Jerry --- Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Jerry, > indeed it is awhile ago I passed Political Economy > and Philosophy tests doing my Ph.D. as well as the > tests on Sun's Architect certification; thank you > for refreshing my memory. > > Nevertheless, it is hard to me to find where my > feet are. However, I know, more or less, what is in > my pocket and I try to fill it faster and in more > reliable way. > > I guess many developers do not recognize that the > majority of their work worth not more than the > amount of money their employers gain from the > results of the work. This comes with experience > (even in post industrial age). So, DB, App. Servers > and related Warehouse and multi-tier architectural > solutions are good only while they result in more > profit or less investments. This is the primary > goal of Enterprise Architecture (at least, in 5 > international financial institutions I worked for). > > SOA-RM standard simply says the same as I said > above - horizontal conceptualization went too far > from the actual business needs and it is time to > return EA onto the business alignment rails. It is > appeared that to have such alignment the business > has to recall and re-use its vertical > conceptualization. > > Is an EA wider than SOA? I would say YES. Does EA > make sense w/o SOA? I would say that in many cases > NO (though in some - YES). SOA cannot be "without > EA" because SOA is the form of the part of EA which > serves business (another part of EA serves EA > itself enabling the first part to serve the > business). That is, "EA entails a higher level > abstraction than SOA" does not make sense to me. > Sorry. > > - Michael > > > > > > > Jerry Zhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael, > > Before DBMS in 1960s-70s, Enterprise information > systems was in middle age. As we can buy DBMS in > the > market we entered into industrial age (large > amount > labors massed around machines to produce > standardized > products - OS, DBMS, network OS etc). This is the > result of horrizontal separation of concerns. > From > architecture perspective, we have client server, > three > tier to multi-tier etc. > > Currently we are in the early stage of > transformation > from industrial age to post industrial age as we > begin > to reconceptualize the world. One of the new > concetuplization is separation of concerns that is > vertical rather than horrizontal. This is a hard > transition simply because most of us have both > feet > still in the world of industrial age. > > The most important change today is in the way we > try > to understand the world, and in our conception of > this nature. If our view of the world is out of > date, > our behavior they drive will be out of date. > > Best > > Jerry > > --- Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, well, this starts to look like a driver > > without car... > > - Michael > > > > Jerry Zhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Robin > > > > Agree with what you said. > > > > EA is the thing that bridges business strategy > > (present and future states and steps from here > to > > there) to its implementation. It's enterprise > > wide in > > scope. > > > > SOA is in the scope of lines of business and > > concerns > > business agility - one set of sub > architectures > > (we > > call it sub because it is the architecture of > > lines of > > business) among many for EA. > > > > EA entails a higher level abstraction than SOA > and > > yields the understanding of SOA. > > > > Jerry > > > > --- Robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Well well, I think that SOA without EA is > like > > > driving a car without a > > > clear destination. You may enjoy the ride > of > > course > > > and I bet lots of > > > people on this list do ;-) > > > I think EA should indicate the target > > architecture > > > supporting the > > > business strategy and vision. SOA is then a > mean > > to > > > reach this target > > > enterprise architecture and not a goal on > its > > own. > > > Robin > > > > > > --- In > > > > [email protected], > > > Michael Poulin > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I am afraid that SO{alphabet}A will > > destroy > > > the concept and > > > allow a "flavor" of SOA for compromising the > SOA > > > principles on the > > > ground that in a SOxyzA they are not > needed. > > > > > > > > I am working primarily with > financial > > Web > > > sites and, in > > > particular, with Web interfaces for internal > and > > > external users. > > > According to Adrian's logic, I have to say > that > > I > > > deal with SOBIA > > > where BI stands for Business Interface. > > > > > > > > However, on the basis of `plain' > SOA, I > > was > > > able to explain > > > my business clients that the Web site > represents > > an > > > aggregation of > > > business services that join its business > > interfaces > > > for business > > > collaborative tasks and that Web page flow > > simply > > > reflects the flow > > > of business units of work mixed with the > User > > > Experience aspects, and > > > that an interaction between Web sites is > nothing > > > more than a business > > > process. This allowed me to re-model the Web > > > interface design as a > > > design of collaboration of business > interfaces > > > sitting on the top of > > > business services currently represented by > web > > > applications (that will > > > be replaces by SOA services in close > future). > > As a > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
