2008/11/17 Nick Gall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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 " and > disruptive innovation. Christensen points how many examples of well run > businesses that FAIL because they backed the WRONG "technical architecture".
Note that I said "same strong technical architecture", there are indeed examples of companies going to the wall because of the wrong technical architecture. There are also a whole raft of examples of companies who went to the wall because they focused purely on the technology, the .com bust for instance. Right technology, wrong business model. The key is "strong technical architecture" not the buzzwords that it uses. > 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. Not just the vendors, there are some SIs and associated groups such as analysts that often over focus on that area. > 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. I completely agree. As Mark Petit once described it to me "Where the rubber hits the sky" > 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. Oddly I don't. I've never said anything against new technologies, what I say _repeatedly_ is that its about applying the innovative technologies in the RIGHT place and in the RIGHT way. Over and over again I see vendors, analysts and technology centric deliverers use or promote a new innovative technology as a blanket approach rather than understanding where it actually delivers value. The key to success in technology delivery is focusing the right technology on the right bit and that means understanding the business model and the type of IT measures that make sense in that part. This is what a Business SOA approach is about, its about understanding the services, understanding the right support that IT needs to deliver in the different parts of the business and understanding the different delivery models that will deliver that success. Clearly its about both technology and business, the focus of most of IT however is on the wrong side (by a long way) and quite often innovation isn't about applying a shiny new technology its about doing something smart with what you have already, or the application of an old approach from one sector into your sector where it hasn't been done yet. This is the difference between Business driven SOA and the T-SOA approach. T-SOA says "use the technology" Business driven SOA says "Use this type of technology here, and deliver it in this way". The phrase I've used for years is "Driving IT from the business" and the above is exactly what I've been talking and writing about for years. Steve > -- Nick >
