+1 lack of good governance
--- In [email protected], "Anne Thomas
Manes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bingo!
>
> - Anne
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Rob Eamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- In [email protected], "Anne Thomas
> >
> > Manes" <atmanes@> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1.
> >>
> >> To rephrase, lack of governance (i.e., the complete process)
> >> severely impedes SOA.
> >>
> >> Jeff asked me this question privately last week. Today he asked me
> >> whether 'business & I.T. alignment' is killing SOA. My response to
> >> him was:
> >>
> >> I think lack of understanding of what it really takes to do SOA is
> >> what kills SOA.
> >
> > Could "SOA" in the above be replaced with "architecture" (of any
> > sort) and the statements still hold true? IMO, yes. It's not the SO
> > part that is the issue. It's the A part.
> >
> >> To fully deliver the returns promised by SOA, it
> >> needs to be part of a much larger initiative to transform IT. The
> >> following perspectives will significantly limit the potential
> >> return on investment:
> >>
> >> - Technology-centric effort
> >> - Project-centric effort
> >> - Integration-focused effort
> >>
> >> Characteristics that facilitate success:
> >>
> >> - Investment in social capital, i.e. learn to speak "business" and
> >> establish trust
> >> - Enterprise-wide perspective
> >> - Prioritization of projects based on desired business outcomes
> >> - Focus on improving data quality and process optimization
> >> - Major changes to the IT department, e.g., new CIO, reorganization,
> >> adoption of agile
> >>
> >> Anne
> >>
> >> p.s. (this was not part of my original response to Jeff)
> >> The major changes to the IT department aren't essential, but they
> >> cause a massive shake-up that typically sparks a significant change
> >> in the attitude of the IT staff -- both in the way they interact
> >> with each other and the way they interact with people in other
> >> groups. It's the change in attitude that facilitates success
> >
> > None of these characteristics (the wrong perspectives nor the keys to
> > success) have anything to do with SOA, IMO. They are important for
> > any enterprise level architecture to succeed. Indeed, they don't
> > apply only to architecture efforts either. They speak to corporate
> > culture and relationships among groups. They are aspects that have a
> > broader reach than just architecture.
> >
> > Which is of course your point (I think). Please correct me if I'm
> > interpreting your post incorrectly!
> >
> > So those that are brought in to a company to help "do SOA", (such as
> > the fine folks at Burton Group!) end up needing to "fix" the company
> > interaction dynamics first in order to succeed with that effort at
> > the enterprise level. Is that a fair statement?
> >
> > It seems that the prerequisite characteristics are independent of
> > architectural style. So would tying those characteristics to SOA be
> > inappropriate?
> >
> > Is the focus on "transforming IT" misplaced? Perhaps that would be
> > better viewed as a potential byproduct of pursuing the
> > characteristics above--which are intended to for an end goal of a
> > more successful business rather than a goal of "transforming IT."
> > Aren't we trying to transform/improve the business?
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
>
