2009/6/8 htshozawa <[email protected]>: > > > I'm not too keen on "service-orient the organization". Like other disruptive > technology, SOA is not a technology, just like OO wasn't a technology. Its a mind set change not a technology change.
> SOA allows users who were not able to create enterprise > architecture to gradually create one. I don't think there isn't too much > difference between a hole dug by a hydraulic excavator compared to a > cable-operated excavator. There isn't too much difference now between steel > from large steel mills compared to mini steel mills. I think it's the > enablement that the key. IMHO, an organization with a strong leader and with > enough budget, time, and talent will be able to achieve success and attain > flexibility without SOA. Given enough budget and time monkeys can create the complete works of Shakespeare. > > IMHO, SOA is for the others who don't have a strong leader to quickly form > consensus, don't have enough budget, time, and gather all the necessary > talents. SOA when properly applied allows there organizations to better use > external resources to obtain the goal. So SOA is from where one of Budget, Time, Talent is underpressure. Sounds like SOA is for the real-world therefore. > > As an example, with the spread of the Internet, there are now many sites > offering comparison of different services. These sites not only review the > product itself but allows users to write review on the services including > ease of payment, delivery and shipping, and claim handling. It it no longer > a matter of being able to ship a product but to be able continuously satisfy > the users to make them come back again by always being able to provide the > best service available anywhere. This necessitate us to better cooperate > with external entities because an organization or a person can not do > everything alone. > > While some sees open source as just making program source available, the > success of an open source project hinges on building a user/developer > community. Allowing others to see the source codes is just one of the ways > to attract people to form a virtual organization which is more able to offer > higher level services to better compete. Just making the source code > available is not enough, there must be a process to allow others to join and > to contribute to offer new services and to offer higher quality services in > a shorter period of time and with lower cost. > > Open source is one example of cooperation between external entities. > Organizations and people can benefit by cooperating with each other without > making something public. Payment is an example where cooperation with an > external entities often offers better service. Some stores used to have > their own credit cards, but this gave way to more generalized credit cards. > A service such as Paypal further offers more options to customers. An > organization would be able to provide better services by concentrating on > providing their core business service and by combining it with currently > unforeseen external supporting services. SOA is an enabling technology to > make formation of such cooperative service much easier. > > SOA, however, is just an enabling technology allowing organizations who > would not have started an initiative because of high cost, long time frame, > and high risk. There is still a need to better cooperation with external > entities based on a business strategy, but organizations will be able to > realize the goal through better alignment of business strategy and IT. > > With the tight economy and with global competition getter fiercer, the > question is whether if we need SOA or not but should be more of how we can > strategically apply SOA to offer better services to our users to remain > competitive. > > It seems like to some organizations this question maybe too late, but can > you say that your organization is rated as offering the best service in > different categories globally? If not, maybe SOA can help. :-) If SOA is just a technology change then its another set of lipstick on the pig to be added to EAI and all the others. OO wasn't a technology change which is why it had a bigger impact. Steve > > H.Ozawa > > --- In [email protected], "Udi Dahan" > <thesoftwaresimpl...@...> wrote: >> >> So if there is clarity on the need to service-orient the organization, can >> we describe at an organizational level what the key differences are >> between >> one that is SO and one that isn't? >> >> >> >> I would suggest that such a description take into account the geographical >> perspective as well - for example, the fact that there is a billing >> department at each location, can we say that they all belong to the same >> billing service? >> >> >> >> Steve, would you like to bring the value networks stuff to play here? >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> -- Udi Dahan >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> htshozawa >> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:06 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Anne again on SOA's >> Mortality >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- In [email protected] >> <mailto:service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com> , "Udi Dahan" >> <thesoftwaresimplist@> wrote: >> > >> > Hitoshi, >> > >> > >> > >> > I wasn't being prescriptive on how we service-orient the organization >> > (bottom-up, top-down, middle-out, whatever), that's a different >> discussion. >> > >> > I just wanted to see if we could get clarity on the need. >> > >> Well, I think most of us on this list don't doubt the necesssary of SO. >> It's >> just the extent (whether SOA or just SO) and how we go about it. >> >> H.Ozawa >> > >
