+1. Some people are trying to make SOA too complex and expensive. I agree that there has be some benefit to a business, but I think it can be a implicit benefit as well.
H.Ozawa --- In [email protected], Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Interesting approach, Jeff. Let me see if I can answer them. > > "Top Reasons Why People are Making SOA Fail" > 1. They fail to explain SOA's business value > - What if... SOA didn't require an explanation to the business? > MP - I worked for the business that did not need such explanation. SOA development run very well. > > 2. They underestimate the impact of organizational change > - What if... SOA didn't require organizational change? > MP - 'organizational change' is needed only if enterprise is not organised along its own business model, i.e. where personal interests are in conflict with corporate interests. This is expressed in inadequate ownership and accountability models. I think, dominant majority of enterprises have such problem but some - might not. > > 3. They fail to secure strong executive sponsorship > - What if... SOA didn't require executive sponsorship? > MP - this assumes that SOA is coming from the 'below' while it has to come from the 'above'. Probably, SOA people have to play golf better... > > 4. They attempt to do SOA on the cheap > - What if... SOA wasn't expensive? > MP - SOA is not expensive at all. It is modification of the rest of the enterprise into SO organisation is expensive. Companies usually have all needed SO environment (except registry/repository, probably) to construct right SO architecture; people simply do not know about it. > > 5. They lack the required skills to do SOA > - What if... SOA didn't require major skills retooling/ > MP - I agree with this, skills and knowledge. It looks this is the place we need to start with, not with ESB or REST-WS* competition (every one of them is good for its goals) > > 6. They have poor project management > - What if... SOA didn't affect project management? > MP - this looks like mis-target. Majority of SOA failures happened due to very strong project management, which totally ignored major SO principles and reasons (build for changes, build for unknown requirements of future consumers, build for narrowed but total responsibilities that depend on consumer's satisfaction instead of management satisfaction). Actually, SOA would not affect project management only if project management is organised for development of distributed computing, like GRID. Otherwise, project management does not have appropriate 'tools' and has to be affected > > 7. They think of SOA as a project instead of an architecture > - What if... SOA was clear in everyone head? > MP - I believe there are companies where SOA is clear for those its implementation depends on > > 8. They underestimate the complexity of SOA > - What if... SOA wasn't complex? > MP - As I said, SOA is NOT complex. It's simply different and unusual for modern IT practice. Some people thought that EJB was complex (lack of understanding what it is for) but I met people who thought it was a piece of cake > > 9. They fail to implement and adhere to SOA Governance > - What if... SOA didn't require governance? (AKA, synthetic trust) > MP - sorry, but the question is deliberately inconsistent. Everything requires governance, the question is what kind and how strong the governance has to be. The failure point is clear - doing OO, we need an OO Governance, doing SOA - we need an SOA Governance as well as business governance, enterprise governance, IT governance, etc. > > 10. They let the vendors drive the architecture > - What if... SOA didn't need much vendor infrastructure? > MP - agree, I already commented on this. > > > - Michael > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: jeffrschneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:20:05 PM > Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Is Governance Killing SOA: Part 2 > > > > Here's an interesting article. discuss: > > > http://cio.com/ article/438413/ Top_Reasons_ Why_People_ are_Making_ SOA_Fa > il?page=1 > > Miko - what a thought provoking article! Thanks for the softball. > > If these are the 10 obstacles to implementing SOA... we have to ask > the very simple question: Can we remove them? > > Here are the 10 reasons, followed up with the 'obvious question'... > (you may want to read the article first to get the context). > > "Top Reasons Why People are Making SOA Fail" > 1. They fail to explain SOA's business value > - What if... SOA didn't require an explanation to the business? > 2. They underestimate the impact of organizational change > - What if... SOA didn't require organizational change? > 3. They fail to secure strong executive sponsorship > - What if... SOA didn't require executive sponsorship? > 4. They attempt to do SOA on the cheap > - What if... SOA wasn't expensive? > 5. They lack the required skills to do SOA > - What if... SOA didn't require major skills retooling/ > 6. They have poor project management > - What if... SOA didn't affect project management? > 7. They think of SOA as a project instead of an architecture > - What if... SOA was clear in everyones head? > 8. They underestimate the complexity of SOA > - What if... SOA wasn't complex? > 9. They fail to implement and adhere to SOA Governance > - What if... SOA didn't require governance? (AKA, synthetic trust) > 10. They let the vendors drive the architecture > - What if... SOA didn't need much vendor infrastructure? > > Call me nutty... > Jeff >
