Fred Brooks, "No Silver Bullet", "Silver Bullet refired"
I often wonder if he feels like writing another paper "Seriously no Silver Bullet even if you are using heavy artillery" Steve 2009/1/10 Michael Poulin <[email protected]>: > In modern allegorical language, a "silver bullet" becomes a synonym of > 'solving problem' (for John Graham, 1st > Viscount of Dundee at Killiecrankie, time - via killing). I do not think > that Rob meant SOA as a killing instrument (am I wrong?) > The absurdity is in that the 'solved broblem' ususally has its own "silver > bullet", and so on. Other than this, those who represnt SOA-is-dead-in-IT > can count on Jacobite commander. > > - Michael > > ________________________________ > From: Gervas Douglas <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 6:42:03 PM > Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: IBM's Carter on Selling SOA > to the CEO > > 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 service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, 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: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com >> 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 >> > > >
