2009/6/8 Michael Poulin <[email protected]>: > > > <<maybe the reality is that internal IT departments need to act > like business partners rather than cost centers>> - to act as business > partner,an IT has to be treated/viewed as such first, hasn't it?
I think that you can act mature before you are treated as an adult. Steve > > - Michael > > ________________________________ > From: Steve Jones <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2009 11:29:55 PM > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Anne again on SOA's Mortality > > 2009/6/7 Anne Thomas Manes <atma...@gmail. com>: >> >> >> Hitoshi, >> >> When I say SOA is dead, I mean that (in most organizations) business >> people no longer believe the hype about SOA. The general attitude is >> that SOA costs a lot and does not deliver value; therefore, funding >> for SOA initiatives has dried up in most organizations. This is a >> tragic development, > I disagree with this, its a good thing IMO that the vendor driven hype > train of despair has been stopped. The point below is true but the > problem is that the HYPE (buy an ESB/CEP/BPM/ SDP/etc) was also nothing > about improving application architecture. > >> because all organizations should be working to >> optimize and improve their applications architecture. (Note, though, >> that few so-called SOA initiatives were focused on architecture >> improvement. ) >> >> Given tight budgets and increased IT investment scrutiny, IT groups >> should avoid putting forth proposals for "SOA" and instead focus on >> developing proposals for concrete services with hard metrics that will >> demonstrate quantifiable business value with rapid ROI. > > +100 > > But then as someone always selling into organisations its always been > the world I've lived in. People don't pay unless there is a business > case, maybe the reality is that internal IT departments need to act > like business partners rather than cost centers. > > Steve > >> >> Anne >> >> On Friday, June 5, 2009, Hitoshi Ozawa <htshoz...@gmail. com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Udi, >>> >>> This is one of the topic that's come up often. >>> Unfortunately, I'm on the disagreeing side from Anne. It's nice to see >>> EA initiative start from the top, but I see it too often to start from >>> a single successful project and to spread to other projects. I see SOA >>> as more of a concept that will allow a system to evolve with new >>> requirements as it spreads through the enterprise rather than >>> initially creating a fixed set of rules. I agree that each business >>> unit operates like a little fiefdom. I see SOA as a concept that will >>> gradually enable these little fiefdom to better work together rather >>> than requiring a sudden drastic organizational change to create one >>> harmonious community. >>> >>> Well, since Anne stated that SOA is dead, does this mean she's given >>> up on trying to revolutionize the entire enterprise and decided to >>> focus just on the service between these silos? :-) >>> >>> H.Ozawa >>> >>> 2009/6/5 Udi Dahan <thesoftwaresimplist @gmail.com>: >>>> >>>> >>>> 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: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com >>>> [mailto:service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of >>>> Anne >>>> Thomas Manes >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:56 PM >>>> To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com >>>> 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 < >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >
