Dave, My point is that IT people should stop using the term "SOA" when talking to business people. They should not try to sell architectural concepts to business people. They should focus on selling solutions that deliver value to the business. But architects should still apply service-oriented principles to the solutions that they deliver.
Anne On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:27 PM, David Chappell <[email protected]> wrote: > After rereading the post, I would say that the title of the blog is > contentious - but the thoughts presented towards the 2nd half of the article > are not all that outrageous. > The start of the article is a nice read, but without facts to back it up. I > would actually think during recessionary trends, organizations would prefer > to cut costs and the architecture until recently known as SOA would be a the > solution to bring down application development and maintenance costs through > increased reusability. > Towards the middle of the article, it starts to sing a common tune - "the > requirement for service-oriented architecture is stronger than ever." So, in > effect, you believe in the promise of services, but think its time to cut > through the hype and define SOA as not just a software/technology, but a > mindset which requires shift at organizational level as well. Well put, and > I don't think you would find any disagreement. > So where is the dead part? > Dave > > ________________________________ > From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:13 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: SOA is Dead > > Eric, > > See Andrew's response: > > "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." > > Selling "SOA" is the problem. Business people cannot understand the > value of "SOA". So don't try to sell it. And don't try to sell the > same architectural concepts by any other name. It's a bad idea to try > to sell an architectural concept to business people. > > Anne > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Eric Newcomer <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Anne, >> >> I am sorry if I misunderstood something. But I was unsure what you meant. >> On the one hand you say we shouldn't use the word "SOA" any more, but on >> the >> other hand you say we should still promote all the ideas and concepts the >> word is currently used to communicate. >> >> I am sorry - I am a bit lost here if cost wasn't the main issue you were >> getting at. I was thinking your suggestion was to seek low cost >> alternatives to implement SOA, or whatever you prefer to call it now. >> Eric >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Anne Thomas Manes <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2009 7:41:24 AM >> Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: SOA is Dead >> >> Read my post again Eric. I explicitly berated teams for focusing on >> silly technical debates. It's not a question of big or little SOA or >> SOAP vs REST. My point is that IT groups should no long attempt to >> sell "SOA" to the business. "SOA" is now a bad word. >> >> And--btw--only big transformation efforts, where SOA was part of >> something bigger, produced significant benefits. Little SOA takes too >> long to deliver value. But big SOA is worse if it isn't part of >> something bigger. Spectacular results requires a spectacular >> commitment to change. >> >> Anne >> >> On 1/6/09, Eric Newcomer <e_newco...@yahoo. com> wrote: >>> To me the message sounds more like "Big SOA" is dead - i.e. >>> those high-priced SOA software packages complete with huge services >>> contracts that some vendors have been promoting. Not SOA itself. >>> >>> Regarding the Web, I think most innovation in distributed computing is >>> happening there now, but traditional systems aren't going away any time >>> soon. The cost of rearchitecting everything to REST is just too high to >>> make it a practical suggestion. >>> >>> I would also like to put in another plug for the OSGi Framework here, >>> since >>> it is SOA based and is gaining traction, not losing ground. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________ _________ _________ __ >>> From: mikomatsumura <mikomatsumura@ yahoo.com> >>> To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 12:22:29 PM >>> Subject: [service-orientated -architecture] Re: SOA is Dead >>> >>> >>> It's certainly one way of looking at it. >>> >>> Another way of looking at it is that it's alive and well in 2009. >>> >>> I think as an all-singing all-dancing transcendental architecture it's >>> certainly going to experience a significant impact as IT begins to >>> realize it's new year's resolution to become more "fit". >>> >>> But it remains the case that the need to organize and abstract >>> capability for combinatoric reuse and to overcome heterogeneous legacy >>> still remains a large and challenging sore spot to agility in the >>> enterprise. Whatever the efforts to address this challenge are called, >>> the winners of that game will do better than the losers. >>> >>> My 2 bits, >>> Miko >>> >>> --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, "Anne Thomas >>> Manes" <atma...@... > wrote: >>>> >>>> This post should generate a bit of discussion: >>>> >>>> >>> http://apsblog. burtongroup. com/2009/ 01/soa-is- dead-long- >>> live-services. >>> html >>>> >>>> Anne >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
