Miko, you got right into the point, my research shows the same:
>In my view, one of the big aspects of overcoming application silos is > overcoming behavioral silos. This is hard and one of the aspects that > is somewhat overlooked in the area of SOA Adoption. If human behaviors > dont change, it's hard to effect a systematic change to the agility of > IT as experienced by the business. SO Governance must start in the Enterprise Architecture, move down into Business Architecture and only then into IT Architecture and Development. Behavior has to be changed at the enterprise level in the business first, then in IT. (Business Architecture is not the same thing as organisational responsibility/reporting hierarchy). The major problem here are existing models of accountability and ownership in the organisation. They allow (if not promote) a difference of interests between the very top management, which directly depends on the reaching of the enterprise goal(s), and the lower levels of responsibilities, down to the regular project management. I am not sure if the author was Steve Jones but I read a suggestion that accountability and ownership in the enterprise had to move from the function basis into the product basis to make SO happen. It is still unclear to me what products were meant. Anyway, an enterprise management cannot move away from the business function management model, otherwise the enterprise would break. Also, it is impossible to expect effective management w/o ownership. Thus, it is the accountability that must be changed. Business has to be become more transparent to itself and be rewarded for the contribution into the company's goal, not for doing its own "garden" work. For SO to succeed, we need to get business and IT management from their hierarchical silos. Plus, IT has to build to the enterprise business model instead of its implementation at its lowest level. - Michael ----- Original Message ---- From: mikomatsumura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 7:42:35 PM Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Meehan & Anne on SOA Success - or lack of This is very important research. I hope this will highlight the need for better approaches to SOA Adoption rather than slow down the adoption of SOA as businesses become more "cautious". With respect to approaches, we recently conducted a survey of 176 customers and prospects of Software AG webMethods and found the following. Please be aware of the selection bias factor as our sample was drawn from our own customer and prospect population. Still, I believe the data is interesting. 91% of respondents stated that Governance was either Critical (54%) or Moderate (37%)in importance for SOA Strategy. yet only 7% of respondents said their approach to governance was "Mature". 65% said their current approach to governance was either non-existent (26%) or Insufficient (39%). Once again, of course subject to sample bias but interesting to consider. I can cite much research (some from Burton Group) stating that governance is important for SOA Success. In my view, one of the big aspects of overcoming application silos is overcoming behavioral silos. This is hard and one of the aspects that is somewhat overlooked in the area of SOA Adoption. If human behaviors dont change, it's hard to effect a systematic change to the agility of IT as experienced by the business. Good governance suggests that we need to measure business value incrementally and continuously and keep reporting the value back to all stakeholders on an ongoing basis. I know that showing incremental value on an ongoing basis is very different from showing complete system transformational value at the "end" of the process. But if we wait until the "conclusion" to show value, it will be too late. my 2 cents, Miko --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, "htshozawa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ..> wrote: > > Interesting article. > Just curious Anne, who decided is the project was a success or a > failure and what was the timeframe when the deciding data was measured? > Was it immediately after the project finished or was it may be a year > after? > > I'm just wondering because most people involved in the project will > rate it as a success. :) > > H.Ozawa > > > --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, "Gervas > Douglas" <gervas.douglas@ > wrote: > > > > According to Burton Group vice president and research director Anne > > Thomas Manes, some users had executed nearly perfectly in terms of > > doing SOA on the IT side, but the initiative had yielded no increased > > agility, quicker time to market or project savings because the > > business remained completely oblivious to the initiative. Yet the > > study also found that users who do break down artificial corporate > > barriers, install proper governance and involve the business have > > runaway success stories to tell. > > >
