Bingo! - Anne
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Rob Eamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "Anne Thomas > > Manes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> +1. >> >> To rephrase, lack of governance (i.e., the complete process) >> severely impedes SOA. >> >> Jeff asked me this question privately last week. Today he asked me >> whether 'business & I.T. alignment' is killing SOA. My response to >> him was: >> >> I think lack of understanding of what it really takes to do SOA is >> what kills SOA. > > Could "SOA" in the above be replaced with "architecture" (of any > sort) and the statements still hold true? IMO, yes. It's not the SO > part that is the issue. It's the A part. > >> To fully deliver the returns promised by SOA, it >> needs to be part of a much larger initiative to transform IT. The >> following perspectives will significantly limit the potential >> return on investment: >> >> - Technology-centric effort >> - Project-centric effort >> - Integration-focused effort >> >> Characteristics that facilitate success: >> >> - Investment in social capital, i.e. learn to speak "business" and >> establish trust >> - Enterprise-wide perspective >> - Prioritization of projects based on desired business outcomes >> - Focus on improving data quality and process optimization >> - Major changes to the IT department, e.g., new CIO, reorganization, >> adoption of agile >> >> Anne >> >> p.s. (this was not part of my original response to Jeff) >> The major changes to the IT department aren't essential, but they >> cause a massive shake-up that typically sparks a significant change >> in the attitude of the IT staff -- both in the way they interact >> with each other and the way they interact with people in other >> groups. It's the change in attitude that facilitates success > > None of these characteristics (the wrong perspectives nor the keys to > success) have anything to do with SOA, IMO. They are important for > any enterprise level architecture to succeed. Indeed, they don't > apply only to architecture efforts either. They speak to corporate > culture and relationships among groups. They are aspects that have a > broader reach than just architecture. > > Which is of course your point (I think). Please correct me if I'm > interpreting your post incorrectly! > > So those that are brought in to a company to help "do SOA", (such as > the fine folks at Burton Group!) end up needing to "fix" the company > interaction dynamics first in order to succeed with that effort at > the enterprise level. Is that a fair statement? > > It seems that the prerequisite characteristics are independent of > architectural style. So would tying those characteristics to SOA be > inappropriate? > > Is the focus on "transforming IT" misplaced? Perhaps that would be > better viewed as a potential byproduct of pursuing the > characteristics above--which are intended to for an end goal of a > more successful business rather than a goal of "transforming IT." > Aren't we trying to transform/improve the business? > > -Rob > >
