That's exactly why we should stick with SOA instead of changing names. Changing names seems like we were defeated or worse, that we are just trying to sell the same of stuff under a different name. The point is there were some (many?) initiatives/projects that went sour but if we were a used car dealer, would we change the name because the dealership across the street is selling lots of lemons?
I think it's just a matter of being able to explicitly show the benefits and show the differences between failed initiatives and our approaches like we always have been doing with proposals. IMO, sticking with the same name makes it easier to compare between those who really don't have any idea and those who do. It's easier to explain what's went wrong with the current initiative/project rather than not make users think that we are trying to pitch them the same thing under a different clothing. :-) H.Ozawa --- In [email protected], Anne Thomas Manes <atma...@...> wrote: > > 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, 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. > > Anne >
