Agreed. Ron's analysis is a pile of crap. :-)

Seriously though - there's nothing wrong with having a SOA maturity 
model, Agility Maturity Model, or whatever else you want to come up 
with. Maturity models give people a multi-dimensional roadmap based 
on their current state and desired end-state.

As for measuring agility - great, I love the idea. Some organizations 
current state is far from their desired state. Maybe they need to 
Mature their Agility Model... perhaps they'd even like multiple paths 
to getting there... and assessing where they're at in the process... 
Hmm... If only...  
Jeff


--- In [email protected], Michael 
Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> To me, comparison Agility Model to SOA Maturity Model, taken in the 
ZapFlash, sounds a bit as apples to oranges. "Measuring agility on a 
scale of 1 to 5 (as almost all maturity models do), is a pointless " 
indeed. I do not know anybody who would do this. However, measuring a 
project agility inside this or that Maturity Model is a regular 
thing. A SOA Maturity Model ( at  least, the ones I saw) always had 
certain definition/measurement of service solution agility for each 
of the Maturity Model levels. Plus, the higher levels usually 
included the lower ones.
> 
> Thus, it is nothing wrong if a project implements agility at the 
level 1 in the organisatoin which is at the 4th level of Maturity 
Model. First, not all projects need the same level of maturity (as 
ZapFlash notice), second, the project must have strong reasons for 
building for exceptional maturity level.
> 
> What is unclear to me is an "absolute" style of Agility Model level 
comparison. That is, "Considering these Agility Measures, the fewer 
degrees of freedom and variability, the less agile the system as a 
whole." I think, it has to be rather relative to the "degrees of 
freedom" available for particular business subject. If it is stable 
enough, the "degrees of freedom" may lead to over-enginnering.
> 
> While I find Seven Levels of Agility a good  starting point, I am 
afraid, we do not have objective criteria to measure variability - 
when enough is  enough? This seems to be very subjective and, in some 
cases, dependent on not SOA savvy decision makers (e.f., project 
managers).
> 
> - Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Gervas Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 2:48:15 PM
> Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] [ZapFlash] Forget 
Maturity Models -- It's Time for an Agility Model
> 
>                                    
>  
> [<SPAN id="misspell-17" class="mark" >ZapFlash</SPAN>] Forget 
Maturity Models – It's Time for an Agility Model                      
>   ZapThink" border="0">  ZapFlash: In this Issue Jan 17, 2008  
>   
>    Forget Maturity Models – It's Time for an Agility Model Document 
ID: ZAPFLASH-2008117 | Document Type: ZapFlash
>  By: Ronald Schmelzer
>  Posted: Jan. 17, 2008
>  
>  Companies need to know where they stand. The desire to measure 
progress is especially the case with regards to IT – something that 
many business people regard as intangible, unpredictable, and 
unreliable. One way of reining in all this uncertainty is to apply 
industry-wide metrics and measures to enterprise IT projects. Using 
these measures, companies can ideally determine if they are ahead of 
their competition and generally moving in the right direction with 
regard to their IT projects. Many companies look to certain industry-
wide maturity models to fill this need. However, this is exactly 
where most maturity models fall flat.  Too often, companies flock to 
maturity models, such as the widely-famous (and too-often mimicked) 
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), without adequately 
understanding what they are meant to measure. Now, the point of this 
ZapFlash is not to explain CMMI or equate CMMI and SOA Maturity 
Models... they have nothing to
>  do with each other from either content or context perspective. 
However, most SOA Maturity Models try to mimic the CMMI in structure 
and format without realizing that it's not relevant. 
>  Many abstractly measure an organization against arbitrary measures 
of maturity without factoring in an organization against others of 
its size, geography, or industry. Does it make sense that IT 
organizations in the retail sector should face the same rigorous 
discipline of IT measurement as companies in the financial sector? 
Does the measure of maturity factor in the average of all the 
activities in the organization, the most advanced, or the least 
advanced? Does the maturity model measure the company organization- 
wide, on a department-by- department basis, or on a per-project 
basis? Without understanding what the maturity model measures, it's 
hard to say if it truly is any real measure of maturity. 
>  More importantly, what is the maturity model meant to motivate? 
For many companies, achieving a certain level of maturity has 
primarily a marketing-only value for the end-users. Other maturity 
models are positioned primarily to sell vendors' products. But scarce 
few are meant to advance the state of adoption of a particular IT 
practice in an organization. If the most popular maturity models fall 
flat here, this is even more so the case with SOA Maturity models. As 
we discussed in our Quantity is No Measure of Maturity and What to 
Look for in a SOA Maturity Model ZapFlash, most SOA maturity models 
fall into one of the three camps: ill-defined, abstract models of 
maturity that are primarily based on Service implementation rather 
than Service architecture, vendor-driven maturity models that attempt 
to push customers through SOA infrastructure buying decisions, and 
consultant-driven maturity models that attempt to push customers 
through architectural
>  exercises that have not proven to truly advance the state of SOA. 
>  It's becoming clear that the industry doesn't really need a SOA 
maturity model. The act of doing SOA properly in itself is an act of 
architectural maturity that many companies are having trouble 
grasping. Companies are trying to understand how to best apply SOA 
and realize the benefits against their own stated business goals. As 
such, what's not needed is an abstract, enterprise-wide, industry-
wide, artificial measure of maturity that complies with CMMI's five 
levels, but rather a way of measuring the state of a SOA 
implementation against the fundamental goal of SOA itself: agility. 
>  Introducing the Agility Model
>  What ZapThink is proposing in an ideal Agility Model is a measure 
the agility of a particular SOA implementation against solid measures 
of flexibility. Rather than shooting to measure a project against an 
arbitrary five levels of maturity, where the assumption is that the 
top level is the "best", the idea is to measure the agility against 
the goals for the business and that project. 
>  Measuring agility on a scale of 1 to 5 (as almost all maturity 
models do), is a pointless exercise. Simply put, not all Service-
oriented projects need to have the same level of agility as others. 
Some project require deep levels of loose coupling at perhaps all the 
levels we discussed in our previous Seven Levels of Loose Coupling 
ZapFlash. Other projects might not need the same amount of loose 
coupling since each layer of coupling adds flexibility at the 
potential cost of complexity and efficiency. Good architects know 
when to make Services and processes loosely coupled enough to meet 
the business requirements and meta-requirements of agility, but not 
any more so. As such, we should consider the Agility Measure to be a 
spectrum of sorts, with the desired level of agility matching the 
business requirement. 
>  As such, companies should shoot for "optimal" where anything 
outside of that is suboptimal. To be specific, if a business is 
aiming for a specific level of agility, but the projects have been 
implemented in a way that has made them more flexible then desired, 
it's quite possible they might have been over-engineered. Likewise, 
projects that don't achieve the desired Agility Measure are 
suboptimal and under-engineered. As a rule, the more agile a system 
is, the more expensive it will be, so it's important for an 
organization to be able to prioritize their agility requirements in 
order to determine which ones they want to pay to satisfy, given 
budgetary and other constraints. As such, I wouldn't recommend a 
corporate-wide Agility Model, as there will be varying requirements 
for agility at varying times and in different parts of the 
organization. 
>  The key question to answer in considering the Agility Model is how 
does one measure Agility? One way to measure agility is to determine 
various degrees of freedom and variability allowed by the system in 
question. Considering these Agility Measures, the fewer degrees of 
freedom and variability, the less agile the system as a whole. Using 
the ideas from the Seven Levels of Loose Coupling as a starting 
point, would could start with a basic Agility model as such: 
>         Implementation Variability – Projects at the bottom of this 
measure of maturity are inflexible with respect to implementation 
changes, whereas those at the top allow for changes to Service 
consumers and producers without impacting each other.     
Infrastructure Variability – Projects that exhibit poor agility in 
this aspect of loose coupling are heavily dependent on the current 
infrastructure to provide all the requirements for SOA 
infrastructure, whereas those that show greatest agility can 
accommodate arbitrary changes, replacements, or additions to the 
infrastructure without skipping a beat.       Contract Variability -- 
Projects at one end of the spectrum don't allow for flexible change 
to Service contracts while those at the other end are immune to such 
changes.       Process Variability – SOA initiatives at the bottom of 
this agility measure don't allow for dynamic and continuous process 
change while those at the top can handle
>  any new process change or configuration requirement.       Policy 
Variability – SOA projects that exhibit weak agility with regards to 
policy variability can only handle policy changes through 
redevelopment, redeployment, or even infrastructure change, whereas 
those that show greatest agility can handle any policy change or new 
policy requirement flexibly.       Data Structure Variability – SOA 
initiatives that exhibit poor data structure variability cannot 
accommodate variations to the representation of data, whereas those 
that show greatest agility can handle such changes without having to 
refactor Service consumers or providers.     Semantic Variability – 
Projects at the low end of the spectrum are inflexible with regards 
to changes to the meaning and semantics of information whereas those 
that show greatest flexibility can handle semantic differences 
between systems without requiring human involvement.        The 
result of the above analysis
>  is a heat-map of sorts. Each project will exhibit characteristics 
of agility that might be more flexible at one level, while less at 
another. The key is not to achieve the highest level of agility for 
all measures, but to create the agility model for the particular SOA 
project and compare that against project-specific or broader Agility 
Models that act as a baseline for all subsequent SOA projects. In 
this way, companies can use agility models for both project planning 
as well as auditing and measurement. Companies can also, if they 
choose, compare their Agility Models with competing firms in the same 
industry and across multiple industries, but this is certainly not 
the goal of the Agility Model.  Of course, in a 1500-word ZapFlash, 
it's hard to truly summarize the mechanism and methods for 
determining such levels of Agility. ZapThink has built significant 
knowledge and intellectual property in the calculation and 
measurement of the above Agility
>  Measures as well as methodologies for helping companies set their 
Agility Model for the business on a strategic and per-project basis. 
If you want to successfully apply the Agility Model to your own 
company, you should approach it both as a project-planning tool as 
well as an auditing and measurement tool, keeping in mind that the 
projects might be flexible and agile at one level, but not at 
another. The idea is not to achieve some abstract "top" measure, but 
rather to achieve an optimum. The secret sauce is determining your 
optimum and finding concrete ways to measure distributed projects in 
the enterprise. 
>  The ZapThink Take
>  It's important to realize that the Agility Model itself is just 
one part of a larger collection of activities around agility. 
Businesses need to represent their functional and non-function 
requirements in terms of not only Service, process, and policy 
requirements, but also Agility Requirements. Those Agility 
Requirements then serve as the basis for determining how an Agility 
Model can be defined as a to-be planning activity. Once this Agility 
Model Baseline has been defined for the particular project, 
organizations can measure subsequent architectural artifacts and 
activities using Agility Measures to see how they match up. The 
resulting heat-map shows how the actually implemented architecture 
measures against planned agility goals. 
>  Generic, cross-industry measures of maturity, such as CMMI and 
almost all SOA Maturity Models, have very little meaning or value 
outside of its potential marketing benefit. These generic models 
provide little guidance on how to manage or measure ongoing projects, 
nor do they handle the wide range of maturity of disparate projects 
in the enterprise or the necessary variability across different 
industry sectors and company types. Nor do these measures really 
address the core reality that different projects should necessarily 
be at different so-called maturity levels due to business 
requirements. 
>  I believe that most SOA Maturity Models are meaningless measures 
of SOA activities against arbitrary measures of architectural 
capability. Instead, project-specific Agility Models paired with 
Agility Plans that indicate how the enterprise as a wide will deal 
with projects at different levels of agility will help to guide SOA 
implementations as well as provide an enterprise-wide view of the 
various projects and how they are contributing to an organization' s 
agility. A good Agility Model will help organizations advance their 
business to greater degrees of agility on a timeframe that matches 
their ability to invest. That matters a lot more than achieving some 
meaningless number on an arbitrary measure of maturity. 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>                  
>                          
>                   <!--  #ygrp-mkp{ border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-
family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;} #ygrp-mkp hr{ 
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;} #ygrp-mkp #hd{ color:#628c2a;font-
size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;} #ygrp-
mkp #ads{ margin-bottom:10px;} #ygrp-mkp .ad{ padding:0 0;} #ygrp-
mkp .ad a{ color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;} -->    <!--  #ygrp-
sponsor #ygrp-lc{ font-family:Arial;} #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{ 
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;} 
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{ margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;} -->    
<!--  #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, 
clean, sans-serif;} #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;} 
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, 
clean, sans-serif;} #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;} 
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;} #ygrp-text{ font-
family:Georgia; } #ygrp-text p{ margin:0 0 1em 0;} #ygrp-tpmsgs{
>  font-family:Arial; clear:both;} #ygrp-vitnav{ padding-
top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;} #ygrp-vitnav a{ 
padding:0 1px;} #ygrp-actbar{ clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-
space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;} #ygrp-actbar .left{ 
float:left;white-space:nowrap;} .bld{font-weight:bold;} #ygrp-grft{ 
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;} #ygrp-ft{ font-
family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666; padding:5px 
0; } #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{ padding-bottom:10px;}  #ygrp-vital{ 
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;} 
#ygrp-vital #vithd{ font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-
weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;} #ygrp-vital ul{ 
padding:0;margin:2px 0;} #ygrp-vital ul li{ list-style-
type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee; } #ygrp-vital ul li .ct
{ font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-
align:right;padding-right:.5em;} #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{ font-
weight:bold;}
>  #ygrp-vital a{ text-decoration:none;}  #ygrp-vital a:hover{ text-
decoration:underline;}  #ygrp-sponsor #hd{ color:#999;font-size:77%;} 
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{ padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-
bottom:20px;} #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{ padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;} 
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{ list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-
size:77%;} #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{ text-decoration:none;font-
size:130%;} #ygrp-sponsor #nc{ background-color:#eee;margin-
bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad{ padding:8px 0;} #ygrp-
sponsor .ad #hd1{ font-family:Arial;font-
weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;} #ygrp-
sponsor .ad a{ text-decoration:none;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{ text-
decoration:underline;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{ margin:0;} o{font-
size:0;} .MsoNormal{ margin:0 0 0 0;} #ygrp-text tt{ font-size:120%;} 
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;} .replbq{margin:4;} -->   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       
______________________________________________________________________
______________
> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>


Reply via email to