2009/1/18 Gregg Wonderly <[email protected]>: > Steve Jones wrote: >>SOA doesn't mean that it can't be crap in the same was a WOA doesn't >> mean it can't be crap. You can have the best service design in the >> world but pick the wrong technology to implement it then its going to >> be a rubbish SOA. >> >> If the services are poorly designed and not representative of the >> business or problem context then it would (for me) not be SOA. If >> they are however well designed and representative of the business then >> it is (IMO) SOA. >> >> The SOD (Service Oriented Delivery) could be complete bobbins but the >> Architecture would still be SOA. > > I'm still a little amazed how much focus there is on one version of the SOA. > If > there is not a quality management system and a lifecycle management > perspective, > then it's not much of an SOA either is it? The whole point of SOA is to help > manage change more effectively, including improvements that may feel like > continual integration or development I think.
These apply however to EVERY IT system. If there isn't a QMS or LM for a 1980s COBOL system then you are in quite a bit of trouble as well. SOA doesn't magically make everyone more professional, it can make certain things easier and simpler but the old good practices are still good practices. A great SOA is one where the Architecture is service oriented, the organisation is aligned to the services the teams are delivering services not applications and where change is managed at the service level and where all of this is aligned to the value that the service delivers. That is pretty much as good as it gets. But you don't have to do EVERYTHING in order to be "doing" SOA. SOA is about the architecture, its a good start but it isn't the end. People can have a great architecture and still fail because of the way they chose to implement it. Steve > > Gregg Wonderly >
