Sorry, I've lost track of which company we're referring to in this thread. I spoke to about 15 companies. Most companies selected projects for their SOA initiative from the regular project queue, although often PoCs and pilots were conjured for the SOA initiative.
Only one company -- Cigna -- really focused on investing in social capital. Anne On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 4:58 PM, htshozawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you for clearing it up. Your findings is consistent with what > I've been thinking. I'm using an "ESB" as a alternative to custom > programming to create service interfaces to existing applications > (resources) which does not already have service interfaces. > > One more question. Did the company initiate the project as a SOA > project or more of a investmentin social improvement? > > H.Ozawa > > --- In [email protected], "Anne Thomas > > Manes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Only a few companies talked to me about how much strategic progress >> they'd made. As I said in the presentation, the success stories > were >> very inspiring. And they all involved an investment in social > capital. >> One thing I found really surprising was that the people from the >> successful initiatives rarely talked about their infrastructure. I > had >> to explicitly solicit the information from them. From their >> perspective, the technology was the least important aspect of their >> initiative. Typically, they built their services using existing >> application platforms -- they didn't bring in an ESB. I think all > of >> them were using some type of management technology (e.g., > Amberpoint >> or Actional). They rarely talked about design-time governance -- > other >> than improving their SDLC processes. They implemented governance > via >> better processes. Most of it was human-driven, although many use >> repositories to manage artifacts and coordinate lifecycle. But > again, >> the governance effort was less important than the investment in > social >> capital. >> >> I'm still committed to my assertion that governance is critical to > a >> successful SOA initiative--but only because governance is a means > to >> effect behavioral change. The true success factor is changing >> behavior. >> >> Anne >> >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:17 AM, 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 [email protected], "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. >> >> >> > >> > >> > >
