On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It depends what you mean. > > T-SOA for me is something pushed by vendors and those with vested > interest in the vendors. It is the thing that says that XML is game > changing and that all you need are a bunch of Web Services and BPEL > and you are away. > > Clearly SOA has to have a sound technical architecture,but that > certainly does not require the Web Services/BPEL/XML/REST > implementation centric view. > > A sound Business driven SOA approach can have _exactly_ the same > strong technical architecture as the previous set of solutions but > have them now delivered more effectively as a result of the different > structures, organisation, governance and commercials that delivers > them.
Steve, I'd love to know your opinion of Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma<http://books.google.com/books?id=SIexi_qgq2gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=innovator%27s+dilemma&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0> " and disruptive innovation. Christensen points how many examples of well run businesses that FAIL because they backed the WRONG "technical architecture". Technology DOES matter. Otherwise, the 21st century would look like the Flintstones: all the latest cultural and business practices, but using stone age technology. Yes, all too often technology vendors position technology as the end all and be all of business success because they have a vested interest in doing so. But the opposite is true too -- there are "business" vendors (McKinsey and groups within big SIs come to mind) who position "business structures, organisation, governance and commercials" as the end all and be all of business success -- because they have a vested interest in doing so. Neither aspect is the end-all and be-all. Successful companies use the right MIX of innovative technologies AND innovative business practices TOGETHER to achieve success. I don't know why you find that so difficult to accept. -- Nick
