On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 10:31 -0500, Nibeck, Mike wrote: > "My point is that IT groups should no long attempt to > sell "SOA" to the business. "SOA" is now a bad word.' > > So by changing what we call it, it will somehow become relevant and > useful? Couldn't we be seeing a core, fundamental problem with SOA as > a viable solution. Regardless of why or where it is breaking down, I > think it's safe to say that it is frequently breaking down. Not all > the time, as members of this can attest to, but if you look at the > ratio of good core content vs.. semantic discussions of this list over > the last 4+ moths, very little actual details are emerging. It always > gets back to discussions of definitions, and approaches. > > The move from client-server to web worked not only because it was > "better", but because it was a clearly defined, different approach to > solution development. SOA (or whatever you call it) is too similar to > past efforts, and isn't a clearly defined path. > > Just MHO. > > _mike
The biggest thing about "the approach formerly known as SOA" is that you have to be committed to looking at the way IT provides services to the organisation differently than you did before. Often this starts simply by breaking the previous assumption that application and service are the same thing. Certainly, this is much easier for a technologist than a business person to do. At one level, business people get the idea of services, but you have to be very careful about how you use the term in a business context, because you're quickly going to hit the context/frame of reference issues mentioned in an earlier message--or you're down the slippery slope of trying to explain SOA implementation techniques and benefits to a business person who could care less. I think the reason that there's so much discussion of semantics, definitions and approaches is that actually invalidating that assumption across all your thinking about IT, technology and system deployment is very, very hard, since it goes against much of our backgrounds and training. This doesn't mean that applying a service-oriented approach delivering IT services to support the business is not viable, it just means that making the shift of mindset is hard. To Anne's point that SOA as a name is a dirty word in business today: she's absolutely right. The reason is just what she said: people are trying to sell SOA to the business rather than trying to sell programmes of positive change and lasting value to the business which just happen to be implemented using services and a service-oriented approach. If it happens enough times, you're back into the classic "technology boy who cried wolf" scenario we've seen repeated over and over and over again. Once people have developed a better way to combine high levels of big picture business and technology understanding, you'll start to many more business success stories. I'm also guessing that a lot of these will also be based on service-oriented approaches in the cases where it makes sense. Unfortunately, I think we're still a ways away from this being the norm rather than the exception. Cheers, ast -- Andrew S. Townley <[email protected]> http://atownley.org
