On Jun 25, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Rob Eamon wrote:
>
> My comment was more along the lines of distrust between BUs ("I'm not
> willing to gamble my BU on the competency of your BU.") rather than
> competition.Great point. You're spot on that it's a matter of trust, rather than competition. This is far more common than actual competition. The only time I've seen that is where two (or more ) BU's are both trying to purchase a product in some area and have chosen different vendors. At that point, it is a competition, rather than just distrust. This is less common, however, because typically, some implementation of the capability already exists somewhere in the enterprise. > > Basically, "BU A, you will use BU B services, even if you don't want > to." This can be effective. In many places, this level of governance > (why is it "SOA governance"? isn't it just IT governance?) doesn't > even exist. That's why I mentioned "one possible outcome." It should just be IT governance. And you're right, more often than not, it doesn't exist. What's even more difficult is where there may be someone with authority providing this direction, but the people charged with following it just delay things so long that they throw down a trump card of "we'll have to slip our schedule by 6 months if we make that change." Until someone gets knocked (i.e. demoted, salary cut, fired, etc.) for not following explicit direction of the authorities, these activities will continue. -tb
