2008/9/26 Kirstan Vandersluis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > --- In [email protected], "Steve Jones" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The question I've got though is where are the references for a Data >> first approach that lead to a "good" SOA. > > That's a fair request, we'd all love to see real proof. I think one > of the problems is how to judge the "goodness" of an SOA. It should > be judged by how well it accomplishes its goals. But we as a > community don't have consensus on what the goals of SOA are. This is > obviously a huge, multi-layered question, but I think it starts at the > top with something like, "the goal of SOA is business agility and IT > cost savings". I think (or maybe just hope) there is consensus this > is a major part of the goal. Next, I'd say you need an organization > of services. But the definition of a service has no consensus. > Things just get messier as you get deeper. No consensus on goals > means no way to measure and no consensus on how to judge goodness. > >> >> 2008/9/24 Kirstan Vandersluis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > Linthicum is speaking from experience that the data side is where >> > groups fail the most, due to lack of understanding or >> > underestimation of the scale of the problem. I certainly have seen >> > this too. >> > >> > Rob & Steve, I personally question whether too much emphasis is >> > placed on the SOA approach. Rob, your opinions express "SOA" as a >> > verb... its how you design and partition services. I feel that SOA >> > is a noun... it is an architecture and organization that you have >> > (or end up with), and one that will bring business agility plus IT >> > cost savings if it has the right service oriented qualities. >> > Steve's book on SOA adoption strategies is one way to create one, >> > but that doesn't mean there aren't others. Linthicum is suggesting >> > leading with data is a valid way. We've heard lots of other >> > opinions supporting entity services/core services that lean in that >> > direction as well. If the result of this strategy is a successful >> > SOA, its hard to argue with the approach. >> >> >> The question I've got though is where are the references for a Data >> first approach that lead to a "good" SOA. > >> Now I'm not saying that a >> DOA can't deliver decent service but I do think that an approach that >> separates service and process is liable to create a relatively poor >> SOA. There are lots and lots of different ways to create an >> architecture but a service oriented one surely has to be oriented >> around the services > > I think we all agree. But the problem is we define "service" > differently. Example: Erl's definition versus yours. > >> I'm never going to argue against anything that truly works, as opposed >> to gets one project live. > > I agree, getting a project live does not automatically qualify as an > SOA success for the company. > >> The question though is does this make a >> change and transformation programme towards SOA succeed? There are >> many different ways to get a project live, and data concentration can >> be one of them, that doesn't mean that in 5 years time it will have >> achieved and form of transformation of the IT estate towards a more >> business, and less technically, oriented environment. > > Yes, IT should be business oriented, but I believe this includes IT > resources being organized as services that are aligned with business > functions and data. Services are building blocks for higher level > business functions, and the business should be able to communicate > changed or new functionality in terms of those building blocks.
Whereas what I say is those higher level things are also services and fundamentally the company itself is a service, it offers a service to the market. Whether that be as an Airline, Logistics company, Bank or whatever, at an even higher level it offers a service to shareholders via a clear contract with a known RWE. Steve > > -Kirstan > >
