Agree. Concerning EA as defined in TOGAF: EA=Business Architecture + Technical Architecture
To get real value of SO, business has to admit and organise its work based on services. This will create appropriate regime for SO in IT. Business SO Architecture demands changes in the business operational practice in many cases. For example, business has to move from product-oriented model (if it works this way) onto the function/service oriented model with strong cross-functional arm (equal in authority to the functional arms or even stronger). This leads to the situation where Business starts to count on IT capabilities when considering implementation of business functions via 'business' processes and the latter do not dominate any more over IT tasks and plans. - Michael ________________________________ From: Anne Thomas Manes <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 2:01:35 PM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Anne again on SOA's Mortality I agree that senior business managers understand "services", but even they won't be motivated to lead SOA efforts. If you want to. Improve the architecture of your IT systems by adopting SO principles, the effort must be led by EAs. Anne On Saturday, May 30, 2009, Michael Poulin <m3pou...@yahoo. com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my finding, business people who directly contact with IT don't, > indeed, 'grok the necessity of SOA' while the business people a layer above, > actually, DO. At the top of the business hierarchy, people operate primarely > in services... > > - Michael > > From: Anne Thomas Manes <atma...@gmail. com> > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 1:17:12 AM > Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] Re: Anne again on SOA's > Mortality > > > > To summarize my previous response: SOA must be business-driven (i.e., > the goals of the SOA effort should be focused on generating positive > business outcomes), but it should not be driven by business people. > (Business people don't grok the necessity of SOA, and therefore they > will not be good leaders for the effort.) > > Anne > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Rob Eamon <rea...@cableone. net> wrote: >> >> >> --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael Poulin >> <m3pou...@.. .> wrote: >>> >>> I do disagree with Anne on "SOA is an IT architectural style. IT >>> people are responsible for designing the architecture of the IT >>> systems. Hence, SOA must be driven by IT." >>> >>> Who has defined, when and how that "SOA is an IT architectural >>> style" and not an architectural style applicable to both Business >>> and Technical (IT) architecture? >> >> Gartner, in its original paper (widely credited to be the first formal >> description) : "Service-oriented architecture (SOA) is a client/server >> software design approach..." >> >> Throughout the paper, SOA is considered in the context of software and >> automation (IT). It was later that others realized SO principles applied >> well in other contexts. >> >> -Rob >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
