++1 - Michael
----- Original Message ---- From: Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:45:59 PM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Is Governance Killing SOA: Part 2 Note that when I say management I don't mean the PM, I mean the business and the department. If the governance doesn't come from above then its toothless. Steve 2008/7/22 Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com>: > I absolutely agree with MEASUREMENT! Though, it is implicit relationship. > Management has to read/be aware of measures and ACT appropriately. > Governance only define what to measure and how list of to-be-measured things > to be composed and used in monitoring systems. > > " Governance should be a management thing" - maybe I read it inadequately > but I would agree with this only in the following interpretation: management > has to be conducted in accordance with governance, management has to > organise monitoring and measurements against policies and policy > enforcement. Management may not contradict governance. For example, if > Governance state that every new technology may be used if it is in the > Emerging or Recommended state in the Technology Roadmap ( assuming that > management must provide/buy related tools before or during Emerging status > ); if technology is marked as obsolete, no new project may use it (some > exceptions to be reviewed on individual basis). This means that a PM may not > use the obsolete technology w/o permission and it does not matter if s/he > (PM) thinks that project could be shorter with the obsolete technology. No > governing permission, no go, that simple. > > - Michael > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@ gmail.com> > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 10:20:35 PM > Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] Re: Is Governance Killing > SOA: Part 2 > > Governance should also be about the _measures_ and tracking compliance > with them. I agree its not about the implementation, but it is about > the _measurement_ and _enforcement_ of the implementation of the > governance. If it can't provide clear metrics against which the > governance will be checked then its all just down to CMMi Level 1 > stuff and individual skills. > > Take review meetings for instance. I've been at companies (not my > current one) where we went through various different "compliance" > reviews and came out smelling of roses. This was down to the talent > of the team put in front of the review rather than being a cross > section of the whole company. In other words the governance didn't > have clear objective measures but was a subjective assessment of a > slice, this meant we concentrated on the slice. > > Governance should be a management thing, it should end up being > reflected in people's KPIs not simply in the XML schemas they create > or the number of dead trees converted into dead documents. Governance > shouldn't define the implementation but it should set the > Gold/Silver/ Bronze/Chinese Rower levels of measurement. > > Steve > > 2008/7/21 Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com>: >> Based on your comments "what is done should demonstrably improve the >> situation if it doesn't then don't do it". This might contradict my point >> 1): governance does not Do, it says What and seldom Why and How; it is >> about >> policies and procedures, not about their implementation. The latter is the >> managerial function. >> >> For example, governance may say at which points of project life-cycle >> architectural reviews are needed and what roles have to be represented in >> the review meetings, one by one; also, governance can define the >> boundaries >> of the meeting competence and decisions. It is the management action to >> call >> the meetings, and apply meeting decisions and recommendations to the >> project >> or ignore them. >> >> Governance in service development and run-time can influence almost >> everything but management is the one who enforces governing policies and >> procedures. >> >> From another A-C type >> >> - Michael >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@ gmail.com> >> To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com >> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:09:53 PM >> Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] Re: Is Governance Killing >> SOA: Part 2 >> >> 0) Remember the goal of governance is to improve things >> >> This is the first rule that I put in all engagements, what is done >> should demonstrably improve the situation if it doesn't then don't do >> it. Too often people create elaborate governance frameworks (or >> application frameworks) for a set of perceived "perfect" needs when a >> much simpler solution would be more appropriate for where they are. >> These complex solutions then often create more issues as they assume a >> perfect state. >> >> Governance is a classic area where the CYA mob can drag down efforts >> into the mire. >> >> I'm a type A-C I think there is too little governance and what there >> is tends to be focused in the wrong area. >> >> Steve >> >> 2008/7/21 Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com>: >>> Well, we already have a sort of a Civil War in SOA, why do not have a SOA >>> Bill of Rights? >>> >>> Unfortunately, a SOA Bill of Rights is another policy... and enforcement >>> in >>> this case can come from those who disagree... "People have rights for >>> information" - It is only unclear how a country which preserves a right >>> for >>> private property, which recognizes information as a property, does not >>> have >>> a right for private information. I mean, a SOA Bill of Rights may be as >>> controversial as anything else. For example, I would like to have a right >>> having bagels instead of donuts... >>> >>> How about a Business Plan for SOA Governance? For the start: >>> >>> 1) separate governance function from management function >>> 2) recommend rational set of governance controls (along the project >>> life-cycle) >>> 3) recommend minimal requirements for SOA testing tools >>> 4) identify early stages where SO development must closely collaborate >>> with >>> business clients like Concept and Proposal stages >>> 5) elaborate on end-to-end vision of SOA service >>> 6) ... >>> >>> - Michael >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ---- >>> From: mikomatsumura <mikomatsumura@ yahoo.com> >>> To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com >>> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:38:52 AM >>> Subject: [service-orientated -architecture] Re: Is Governance Killing >>> SOA: >>> Part 2 >>> >>> Aha! >>> >>> I knew there was something clever in Jeff's overly simplified wording. >>> A Rorchach test =) >>> >>> Jeff's follow up question about "too much Type A" is a reasonable one... >>> >>> My view is related to the concept of a "more perfect union" as >>> mentioned in the preamble of the US Constitution (which of course >>> establishes a Federated government). >>> >>> Thomas Jefferson speaks well to this topic: >>> "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from >>> the consent of the governed." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of >>> Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429 >>> >>> Enforcement of policy can either be the enforcement of a previously >>> existing *agreement* or it can be a central mandate without any >>> bilateral consent. >>> >>> Some forms of Governance are pretty clearly bilateral, such as >>> enforcement of service level *agreement*. So contracts are entered >>> into by two parties both seeking their own interest and therefore >>> explicitly consent. >>> >>> So the policies that you are probably worried about are the ones that >>> ostensibly arent enacted between peer groups--to some extent this is >>> the function of the legislative group known as the COE (Center of >>> Excellence) or Competency Center or whatever you want to call it. >>> >>> Now if you look at the establishment of the Federal Government in the >>> United States Constitution, the implicit Jeffersonian "consent" is >>> reflected in the fact that States have unlimited sovereignty while the >>> Federal Government has explicitly limited sovereignty. Also, the >>> Federal government has a tripartite structure including an independent >>> judiciary as well as a legislative function which manifests consent >>> through elected representation (congress). >>> >>> In fact, enough people were uncomfortable with the implicit >>> Jeffersonian consent that the first ten amendments were declared (the >>> Bill of Rights) to explicitly curtail the power of the Federal >>> Government. >>> >>> Long analogy, but all I'm trying to say is there are good ways and >>> crappy ways of creating and enforcing policy and the "consent of the >>> governed" is a theme that is often lost. >>> >>> Maybe we need an SOA Bill of Rights? >>> >>> 1) Free Speech: >>> some kind of annotation system that allows (wiki style) anyone >>> affected by a policy to provide feedback (such as "this is stupid and >>> here's why") for anyone to read >>> >>> 2) Right to bear arms: >>> dunno... maybe squirt-guns? Someone proposes a dumb policy in your CoE >>> and you get to squirt them with water? >>> >>> 3) Protection from quartering troops >>> heh.. how about a rule against having more than fifty percent of any >>> meeting be from IBM =) >>> >>> 4) Protection from search and seizure >>> ... >>> >>> 5) Due Process >>> Is there a need for an independent judiciary for SOA? >>> >>> etc... >>> >>> The only other right I would like to preserve is the protection >>> against cruel and unusual punishment. This might limit the duration of >>> CoE meetings to 2 hours and would demand the presence of snacks such >>> as donuts. >>> >>> Miko >>> >>> --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, >>> "jeffrschneider" <jeffrschneider@ ...> wrote: >>>> >>>> "Is Governance Killing SOA?" is my simple Rorschach personality test. >>>> --- >>>> >>>> When you read the question did you understand the question to mean: >>>> A. Is a LACK of governance killing SOA? >>>> or >>>> B. Is TOO MUCH governance killing SOA? >>>> or >>>> C. Is IMPROPER governance killing SOA? >>>> >>>> Although some people interpret the question to have other meanings, >>>> it has been my observation that most people think A or B. >>>> >>>> After asking this a number of times, my informal results have led to >>>> two distinct results: >>>> 1. Enterprise Architects, I.T. Analysts, Press and Product Marketers >>>> almost always interpret the question to mean "A" (lack of governance) >>>> and >>>> 2. Application architects, software developers and project managers >>>> almost always interpret the question to mean "B" or "C" (too much or >>>> poor governance) >>>> >>>> This begs the question, if Type "A" personalities get their way - >>>> will the situation be improved? >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
