(sigh) I had high hopes for this article, based on the title.
But alas it is just another list of things that have nothing to do with SOA per se. The lists are decent but those roles should exist with or without a service orientation applied to architectures. IMO, there is no such thing as the "SOA/BPM level" that is mentioned. And certainly SOA != BPM as is implied. Actually, I guess the treatment of them as equivalents is explicit! :) The article tends to treat SOA (and BPM) as a thing rather than a style of architecture or as something you do. This phrase caught my eye: "...can catch problems with proposed BPM changes before it is ever turned over to IT" And later: "Once the business side has come up with a process that works, it can be turned over to IT where the IT analyst, architect and developer can begin implementing the process as a set of services in SOA, Carter explained." So there it is--the view of IT as simple order taker. We really need to get away from this artificial divide. On the plus side, the "IT Leader" role was defined as a "Business leader" with technology focus. A good start! -Rob
