Giving credit where credit is due: David Linthicum wrote the article.
I just Tweeted about it.

Anne

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Rob Eamon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I'm reminded of Anne's point (also made by others?) that architecture isn't
> the effort/project of interest. It is the broader effort that prompted the
> architecture definition/rework that is key. One doesn't "do architecture"
> for the sake of architecture.
>
> "ROI of architecture" is misplaced, IMO. The creation of a blueprint to
> guide the creation of something is but a small part of the entire process.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Rob
>
> --- In [email protected], Todd Biske
> <toddbi...@...> wrote:
>>
>> Reading this makes me wonder how many other efforts fall into the same
>> category? Lack of a business case or clear ROI is not a problem
>> specific to SOA. It is a problem for everything IT does. This is why
>> it is no surprise to me that Anne found a positive correlation between
>> solid application rationalization/portfolio management efforts with
>> SOA success. I suspect the same thing will be true with cloud
>> computing, at least for companies with existing infrastructure. For
>> startups, it is a different story since they don't have to answer the
>> "what are my current costs" question.
>>
>> -tb
>>
>> Todd Biske
>> http://www.biske.com/blog/
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On May 21, 2009, at 7:24 AM, Gervas Douglas <gervas.doug...@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks to Anne for pointing out this article:
>> >
>> >
>> > "A new Gartner survey of SOA architects finds 40 percent do not
>> > measure how long it takes to achieve a ROI for their SOA -- or if
>> > the darn thing had any business benefit, for that matter. Shame on
>> > you guys! According to the survey:
>> >
>> > Gartner, which carried out the survey among enterprises from around
>> > the world, also highlighted the fact that 50 per cent of those who
>> > had not yet adopted SOA technologies did so because they could not
>> > articulate and demonstrate the business value of it.
>> >
>> > [ Keep up on developments in SOA with InfoWorld's Technology:
>> > Architecture newsletter. ]
>> >
>> > The fact is that people love doing SOA, or SOA-like things, but hate
>> > doing the business cases or, more importantly, the analysis that
>> > needs to be done on the back end. There are no reasonable
>> > expectations set going into the project, nor any measurement of
>> > success on the back end. Thus, who knows if the SOA provided any
>> > business value? Also, there are no clear objectives.
>> >
>> > Massimo Pezzini, research vice president and fellow at Gartner, said
>> > that many companies were approaching SOA projects with excessive
>> > expectations and little awareness of the effort, resources and time
>> > needed to achieve any benefits.
>> >
>> > Some SOA projects are perceived to have failed when in fact there
>> > are simply no well established metrics to evaluate success," he said.
>> >
>> > Folks, you can't figure out if SOA is going to have any business
>> > value without doing a business case up front. This means
>> > understanding your core needs and how SOA will create an
>> > architecture that solves actual problems, and not just looking to
>> > push out an SOA because it seems like the right thing to do.
>> >
>> > The metrics/analysis are pretty simple:
>> >
>> > What are the current inefficiencies within the enterprise
>> > architecture, and how much do you think that's costing the business?
>> > What is the value of reuse, and how much reuse can you expect?
>> > What is the value of agility?
>> > What is the estimated cost of the project?
>> > What are the estimated benefits from the dollars spent?
>> > More importantly, how we define success -- or when we've achieved
>> > the objectives of the project?
>> >
>> > There's no excuse for leaving the ROI analysis out of this process.
>> > You've been hearing that from me for years, so go run some numbers."
>> >
>> > You can read this at:
>> > http://www.infoworld.com/d/architecture/soa-roi-does-not-seem-be-priority-265
>> >
>> > Gervas
>> >
>> >
>>
>
> 

Reply via email to