+1 I prefer to think of it as the battle between the proletariat and the evil capitalists, with the IT department proudly declaring itself the People's Republic of IT and independence from the Business. The PRI invests in its technology and boldly creates ten-year plans on what will help, this leads to massive issues on the business side but the IT politburo doesn't worry about such trifling things when they are building a better tomorrow for the good of the people.
PRI is all about the technology, about the buzzwords and about the kool-aid. PRI sucks. Steve 2008/11/3 Nibeck, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I think budget is a key point here. Too frequently, the IT department and > the business owners have separate budgets. In order to "grow" or "mature" > their respective areas, each strive for new and potentially relevant > projects. In this respect, IT folks tend to bring forth technology driven > projects to ensure a continual funding stream. I see this each and every > day. I also see situations where the business comes up with the need, but > the IT department ponies up the dollars. This is a real recipe for disaster > because in the end, whatever IT says wins because it's their money. > > With the huge focus on technology over the past 2 decades, I think that many > companies focus their thoughts and money on the IT thinking that's the > ultimate way to improve the overall business and build efficiencies. The > idea of being business driven is almost non existent anymore. There are > many reasons for this, but again, I think it goes back to the individual IT > leaders that are building kingdoms and strengthening their positions. > > _mike > > ________________________________ > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob > Eamon > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 7:40 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Rhody tells you how to sell > SOA > > IMO, trying to get budget to startup an SOA project is a misplaced > idea. SOA isn't the end goal. > > Being business driven means there is a business issue of some sort to > address. Or many. There should be a business driven desire to > revise/define the business architecture. Then, one can consider whether > or not SO principles (among others) would be a good fit for what one is > trying to accomplish. > > If the business architecture seems fine as is, perhaps there is a need > at another architectural level. Even here, one identifies a business- > driven need first. > > One shouldn't try to convince the business team (which includes IT) > that "we need to do an SOA project." That's backwards. The more > appropriate discussion, IMO, is one about the fit of SO principles to > an already recognized architectural definition need. e.g. "We know we > want to change/update/revise/define the architecture, are SO principles > (and others) a good way to meet the business goals that the > architecture must fulfill?" > > -Rob > > --- In [email protected], "htshozawa" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It's not about whether technology is important or not, it's about >> how to get budget to startup a SOA project. >> >> H.Ozawa > >
