--- In [email protected], Todd Biske
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I agree with everything I said.  :)

Consistency is always reassuring, Todd!  Perhaps Rob will be telling
us that SOA is an oxymoron next....

Gervas

> 
> -tb
> Todd Biske
> http://www.biske.com/blog/
> 
> On Sep 26, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Gervas Douglas wrote:
> 
> > <<During my soapbox derby discussion at the SOA Consortium meeting, I
> > chose to discuss SOA Governance, and I thought that one of the
> > messages I delivered would be another appropriate post to highlight
> > some of the content in my upcoming book.
> >
> > As I've said in this blog, SOA governance is the combination of
> > people, policies, and processes that an organization uses to achieve
> > the desired behavior associated with SOA adoption. This post, not
> > surprisingly , will focus on the process component. Previously, I had
> > a post explaining that governance does not imply command and control.
> > Those two words only bring to mind one of the four processes:
> > enforcement. There are three additional processes that your governance
> > effort must also implement. The four processes are:
> >
> > * Policy definition
> > * Education and communication
> > * Enforcement
> > * Measurement and feedback
> >
> > Policy definition is concerned with establishing the policies that the
> > governance team feels will result in the desired behavior if they are
> > followed. Without policy, the rest of the organization must either
> > guess what the correct decisions are to get to the desired outcome, or
> > involve someone from the governance team on every single project. The
> > first option is unlikely to lead to success, and the second option has
> > both scalability issues as well as being prone to variation based upon
> > the "tribal knowledge" of the particular person from the governance
> > team involved. Defining and documenting the policies is step one
> > toward gaining consistency in the outcome.
> >
> > Education and communication is the next step, not enforcement. Just
> > because the governance team has reached agreement and documented the
> > policies doesn't mean they're going to be followed, or even known for
> > that matter. A formal, planned communication effort to educate the
> > organization on why you're adopting SOA, the desired behavior you hope
> > to achieve, and the policies that are being put in place to achieve
> > them is required. It's not a one time presentation to all of IT, but
> > rather a series of targeted communications for the various roles in
> > the organization, large group presentations, small team presentations,
> > blogs, wikis, and appropriate surveys and followups to ensure that the
> > communication is effective.
> >
> > Enforcement is the third step. Even if your communication efforts are
> > incredibly successful, you still need to put processes in place to
> > ensure the policies are being followed. What you will find, however,
> > is the better job you can do on communication and education, the
> > easier your enforcement processes can be. If education is poor,
> > enforcement will likely need to be more heavy-handed. Where possible,
> > automated testing and reporting can certainly make the processes more
> > efficient and cost-effective.
> >
> > Finally, the governance group must have measurement and feedback
> > processes to ensure that progress is being made toward the desired
> > behavior. If the desired behavior is not reached, something needs to
> > be changed, and it could easily be the policies, the processes, or the
> > people involved with governance. Accountability is lost if the team
> > puts policies and processes in place, but then does nothing to verify
> > that all that effort actually paid off.>>
> >
> > You can find Todd's blog at: http://www.biske.com/blog/?p=506
> >
> > Thanks to José Carlos for pointing this out on fb.
> >
> > Gervas
> >
> >
> >
>


Reply via email to