Sure, sure. SO is the only path to salvation. Until the next thing comes along.
In other forums I've been asking, "who's been positioning SOA as a panacea or a silver bullet?" Has it been you? :-) -Rob --- In [email protected], Michael Poulin <m3pou...@...> wrote: > > The new King - Service Orientation - would not agree with > this: "The items that will contribute to success are those in this > list. Not SO, in and of itself" > > Why SO is always right (like a customer)? Because SO is the core of > the Business (which, BTW, is the customer of IT). I think, this is > what Steve Jones means when saying that SOA is the business thing. > Another story with the second part of that expression - 'not all > customers are always right to you'. This may be read as not every > IT is up to the business needs. > > Things like "Focusing on business goals, values and benefits. > Collaborating and building consensus. Track and measure" will be > always successful if done in service-oriented manner. > > With regard to "Many prior efforts at transforming a company fail > but not because of the architectural approach nor the technology. I > conjecture that the root cause of those failures is often these > listed items" - to transform company, there should be a reason at > the level of risk of the company existence. In prosper time, such > reasons do not appear (acquisition is not always a disaster or > destruction for the acquired company; example: Cambridge Partners > was bought by Novell but who is managing Novell now? - Cambridge > Partners people). Another situation exist during the crisis - > disability to transform and do it quickly comes with the high > probability of crash. > > My theory is that Service Orientation at the enterprise level is > the survival receipt to the companies during the crisis. Why? I > will write about it in my blog. > > - Michael
