I just reread my post and the wording is quite poor. The way it is written I can see how it appears that I referred to you, Steve and Anne as detractors. That was not what I intended to say.
Allow me to reword: I've not honestly seen anyone seriously position SOA as the end-all- be-all--particularly you, Michael, Steve, or really anyone on this forum! The only people I've seen position SOA as a panacea/silver bullet/etc. are SOA detractors that comment on blogs. Switching gears a bit: As far as "crucial" step to surviving the crisis, can someone point to examples where poor IT was the downfall of a company? Can we point to financial companies that contributed to the current crisis due to inflexible IT systems more so than questionable assumption of risk? Will the only companies that survive this crisis be those that pursue SOA? Of course the answer is no. I'd offer that the majority of companies that survive will do so despite lacking a cohesive, enterprise-wide SOA effort. -Rob --- In [email protected], Michael Poulin <m3pou...@...> wrote: > > I am far from the honor of being like Gallileo but he was the Major > Detractor of his time. In spite of it, Earth is rotating around Sun > as well as the nature of Business is service orientation, do you > like it or not, Rob. > > Since we are going to end IT-SOA, thanks to Anne and all bloggers > who supported this, the way to Business-SOA becomes more clear. > Finally, it has to be the head that drives the foot, not other way > around. > > For you, Rob, let me say that SOA is not "the end-all-be-all", > there are many other things for IT to do; SO is only WHAT and WHY > Business or IT is doing. SO architecture is right step toward > convergence between Business and IT, and this will be the crucial > requirement for enterprises to survive in this crisis. > > - Michael
