Comments inline. Robin wrote: > <Improving the reusability of business process and technology assets > helps businesses get to market faster, reduce costs...> > Really? > I think it is over-simplistic to think that increasing reuse will > reduce costs and will help business to market faster. > > I have been blogging some time ago about what I call The Paradox of > Reuse that is: "as much a service or a component is reused, as much > the risks and the cost of changing it are important." > http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/eai/applications/archives/the-paradox-of-reuse-4561 > > It means that reusing a component or a service results in an increase > of dependencies between systems, departments or teams. The > dependencies between systems is something that requires a high-level > of maturity and governance in a large company to deal effectively with. > > Yes. That's why governance is so important in SOA. Tools and infrastructure greatly helps in this area. It's also necessary to "properly" define services and their interfaces so they do not change too often. I've seem many SOA attempts come to a stop because it is difficult to know how large of a scope (defining service consumer domain and future directions) to include when deciding on these.
Not too many people are going to create an enterprise vision of an enterprise with over 10 group companies just to create one application system. > If reusing a service or a component means that you don't have to write > and maintain the same code twice, it now does mean that you maybe rely > on someone else to change this service (or create a new one) to match > your new, ever changing, requirements. > > The previous sentence might be interpreted positively or negatively > depending on the context. In highly regulated IT departments where > Enterprise Architecture is strong (think about Swiss banks for > example), that's business as usual, they believe in that. While in > other companies (I've got plenty of examples but I won't name them) > the only option to deliver on time and budget might be to redo > everything and not rely on other teams for delivering something useful > for your project. > > Well, in large projects, there usually are many teams and it's necessary to rely on them. I think that's why it's necessary to define interfaces and service description first before going into detailed implementation specification. > Sounds familiar? > > I am sceptical about the equation: more reuse = more business agility. > I think that's possible, I've seen this, but maybe not applicable to > every company today. > I agree with you. More reuse does not necessary mean more business agility, but I don't think the article stated this. It's necessary to know how much to reuse and to balance between reuse and agility. Cheers, H.Ozawa > Robin > --- In [email protected], "Gervas > Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> <<Improving the reusability of business process and technology assets >> helps businesses get to market faster, reduce costs and achieve more >> consistent results. This important concept has recently been receiving >> attention because Service Oriented Architectures (SOA) are enabling >> businesses to achieve much more frequent and extensive reuse of >> business services, software and data. >> ...... >> These modular components can be reused in other situations and for >> other departments or to meet other business needs. When this all comes >> together a business can expect to benefit by increasing its speed to >> market, trust of information, and flexibility to change.>> >> >> You can read this at: >> >> http://www.it-director.com/business/content.php?cid=9352 >> >> Gervas >> >> > > > >
