Exactly, it "does not equal profit", and may be not good for every process. If I look at the Business with Service Eye (where process is just an implementation), flexibility is what is needed in frequently changing external environment. If the latter does not change or changes slowly, flexibility is not that crucial.
So, the first is a requirement for flexibility that comes from the business needs/market/ external environment; which business service/process has to be made flexible is the second. I tried to point that flexibility is not that ambiguous. - Michael ________________________________ From: htshozawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 12:15:59 PM Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Rhody tells you how to sell SOA It's the context of how "flexibility" is often used. Flexibility does not equal profit nor in general term can it be said to be good for every business processes. I think it's necessary to propose a business process which may benefit from being flexible using SOA and quantively calculate the benefit. H.Ozawa --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .> wrote: > > "flexibility" has following metrics: > 1) how quickly a change may be adopted in the business solution (time-to-market) -T2M > 2) how costly to adopt a change in the business solution (investments) - INV > 3) cost of integrating the change into existing business solution landscape (impact) -IMP > > max (¡Æflexiblity¡Ç) = min {ô(T2M+INV+IMP) } > > > ROI is out of this picture because it belongs to another category than 'flexibility' > > What the ambiguity left? > > - Michael >
