Well, some people are like Peter Pan. :-) H.Ozawa
--- In [email protected], "Gervas Douglas" <gervas.doug...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Steve Jones > <jones.steveg@> wrote: > > > > 2009/6/8 Michael Poulin <m3poulin@>: > > > > > > > > > <<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 > > This goes back to the old salesman/filing clerk binary classification - more > a question of attitude than of function. If IT does not adopt a business > mindset, how does it hope to gain influence and prosper within the business? > > Gervas > > > > > > > > > - Michael > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@> > > > 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 < > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
