I must point that the role of a silver bullet is not to save but to kill. I believe the origin of the term goes back to a story about the death of that charismatic Jacobite commander, John Graham, 1st Viscount of Dundee at Killiecrankie: http://abunga.com/?d=product&productid=9781413746556
Gervas --- In [email protected], Michael Poulin <m3pou...@...> wrote: > > Nope, Rob, a "silver bullet" has never saved anybody... because "the next <bullet> > comes along". I do not deserve an honor in this - I did not create a theory of Business and its service orientation. A "normal paradox" of this situation is almost Biblical - IT had to grow from a servant into partner/service to tell the story to Business about Business itself :-) > > Long Live SO! > > - Michael > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Rob Eamon <rea...@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, January 9, 2009 9:55:44 PM > Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: IBM's Carter on Selling SOA to the CEO > > > 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 service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael > Poulin <m3poulin@ .> 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 >
