2009/5/19 Dennis Djenfer <[email protected]>: > > > > Steve Jones wrote: > > > <snip> > > If SOA is just technology then it is of value only to technologist. > > > - 1. Technology brings value to anybody who chooses to use it, not just > technologist. Let me quote wikipedia: "Technology has affected society and > its surroundings in a number of ways" > > > At which point it ceases to become "just" a technology and starts to > become the _application_ of technology. > > A rock is just a rock until someone realised you could hit stuff with > it, then it became a tool. If SOA is simply about the internals of IT > then it is simply a rock, if it enables the business to better use IT > then it becomes a powerful tool. > > Steve > > > There's two issues here: > 1) What is the boundary of IT? When does IT stop and business begin? > > > Its a very very blurred boundary, but there are bits that are pure IT > (e.g. internal delivery, programming languages, integration > technology, etc) > > > > 2) Is it possible for the "internals" of IT to affect the business or even > change the business? > > > Without the business using them? No. With the business applying them yes. > > > > > I don't have a clear cut answer to the first question which makes it hard to > answer the second question, but I will try to illustrate the point of the > second question anyway: > > Let's think about a connection to internet for a minute. The medium, > protocol and bandwith used is purely technical things, but it still affects > our behaviour and the business models of Internet providers. > > When I had a internet connection with a bandwith of 9.6 kb/s I used it > mainly for browsing purely text based pages. Today, when I have a internet > connection with a speed of several Mb/s, I'm happy to read the newspaper on > internet or even watch a video. The computer is always connected to internet > with gives loads of new oppertunities compared to my old dial-up modem. Was > it an internal change to the IT-system? I would say so. Only the protocol > and the bandwith changed. The internal change of the IT-system changed my > behaviour in several ways and the Internet providers found new business > models enabled by the technology. > > > Which I agree, a technology _applied to your business problem_ (which > happens to be in IT for yourself) can certainly change the way we work > and offer us new opportunities to work in new ways. If however the > technology was PURELY internal (i.e. you were still on 9.6kbps but the > servers were running at 100Gbps) then you'd not be seeing the benefits > in being able to change your business but might see a slight > improvement in the IT characteristics of the systems. > > > We obviously don't define the system boundary in the same way. The System, > from my point of view, is my computer, the connection to the ISP and the > servers on the Internet. With that definition, the change is a purely > internal technology change.
Bizarro indenting on this email, ahh webmail anyhoooo If it just sat there is would be internal. When its applied it becomes external. As an example. If I update a hammer from rock to steel then its a technological progress but its goal is to make the business challenge better. If I upgrade my internal manufacturing process so the hammer is identical, costs the same, works the same, does the same stuff but I feel "happier" as the internal manufacturing guy then the solution can again be technological but it has no business benefit. > > > > The next big change was when I got a 3G connection to my laptop. Did it > change my behaviour? Absolutely! Now I have the possibility to take some > fridays off and take my family to the summer house, where I'm able to work > from a distance. Was it an internal change to the IT-system? I would say so. > Only the medium for transfering the data changed but it made a profound > change to my behavior and the business models used by Internet providers. > > > I'd disagree that this was an internal change, specifically because > the 3G card is something that is placed into your hands and then YOU > choose to use it, i.e. this is an externalised technology. If 3G > cards were about but you didn't know about them or didn't have access > to them as they were reserved for IT internals then it would deliver > you no benefits. > > > Ok, it's possible to intrepret this example in different ways. Let me give > you a better, and less ambigous, and more current example of an internal > technology change that affects both the users and the business: > > Google reports that the loose 20% of the web traffic for every half second > of delay when rendering a web page. Amazon reports that they loose 1% of > their revenues for every 100 ms of delay. Steve Souders, Google, asserts > that the biggest time thief is the use of Javascript. With the new > generation of browsers, IE 8, Firefox 3.5 and Chrome 2, it is possible to > run JavaScript while the pages are downloaded and loaded. By exploiting this > possiblity, which mainly is about the design of the javascript code, it will > be possible to render the web pages much faster. Google reports a 60% > increase in the speed of rendering a page with this new way of designing and > using JavaScript. > > Do you think this internal technology optimization will be import for the > business? Will it be important for the users? I bet it will! Yes. Its a perfect example (for me) of technology change with a business goal. You have a measurable business goal and you have a defined technical way of addressing it. Banking has loads of similar cases. What is the reason for the optimisation? Answer: The business challenge. The application of technologies (SOA isn't a technology BTW) to solve a business problem is exactly what should happen. TECHNOLOGY CAN MAKE STUFF BETTER WHEN ITS FOCUSED ON THE BUSINESS OBJECTIVES. Sorry to shout, but I think its an important point ;) That is why I think SOA should be focused on the business and applied as much externally to IT as internally. Steve > > That is my point about SOA being inwardly focusing. Its like having > 3G cards but not giving them to the travelling salesmen. > > Steve > > > > Actually, I'm not discussing SOA in this thread. I'm arguing about your > statement where you wrote: "If X is just technology then it is of value only > to technologist". You actually wrote "SOA" instead of "X", but I guess you > meant this in general terms, No? > > In either case, I think that is just plain wrong, which I hope my latest > exemple has illustrated. > > // Dennis Djenfer > >
