On Anne's comment:
" Most large organizations are NOT especially service oriented internally. Each business unit operates like a little fiefdom. They all do things their own way. That use their own special processes, and they implement redundant, incompatible systems to support their unique, special processes. It's this "I'm special" way of thinking that has led to the application silos of today." Pulling in Rob's analysis: " SO is simply another way to modularize a system into components. (The "system" might be an entire company.)" And the oft-stated goal of aligning IT with business - because if it isn't aligned we run into serious problems as Steve mentions: " I find IT to be reactionary and protectionist..." And given the diversity in each of our backgrounds and experiences, in order to deal with the issues Anne raises above, it sounds like if we don't service-orient the organization, we're in trouble anyway. Thoughts? -- Udi Dahan From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anne Thomas Manes Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Anne again on SOA's Mortality Most large organizations are NOT especially service oriented internally. Each business unit operates like a little fiefdom. They all do things their own way. That use their own special processes, and they implement redundant, incompatible systems to support their unique, special processes. It's this "I'm special" way of thinking that has led to the application silos of today. >From an organizational perspective, most IT groups emulate (i.e., are aligned with) these business units. Alignment (from an organizational perspective) is not what IT needs. The more successful SOA initiatives are those that begin with a reorganization of IT -- moving away from business organization alignment. The IT group either creates a general pool or it aligns to business capabilities (billing, procurement, fulfillment, etc). I just can't see a SOA initiative being run by "the business" (i.e., business people). If it is run by a particular business unit, then it would focus only on the needs of that business unit -- and they would perpetuate the application silos that exist today. They only model that might fit is if the CEO established a new unit that manages cross-enterprise operations -- the equivalent of an EA group on the business side. Anne On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:56 PM, htshozawa <[email protected] <mailto:htshozawa%40gmail.com> > wrote: > > > External and internal are relative terms. It depends on a company, but many > large companies having several departments have well defined interfaces > between departments (in appearances anyways. :-)) Well, we could say > internal to the department, to section, to group, to team, to a person? :-) > > One of the goals of SOA is to better align business and IT. If we are > talking about just applying SO on a business side, what is the goal? What is > the difference between it with BPR? > > H.Ozawa > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com> , Nick Gall > <nick.g...@...> wrote: >> >> While SO may not be a new concept for some businesses EXTERNAL >> relationships, it is a NEW concept for internal relationships. For >> example, >> even though most banks have seen themselves for many years as >> financial *services >> *companies on the outside, they have failed to apply SO on the inside. >> >> So it IS a new concept for how to organize the INTERNAL capabilities of >> the >> enterprise for MOST businesses. >> >> -- Nick >> > >
<<image001.jpg>>
<<image002.jpg>>
