Which was said by a President who was leading a Civil War to institute a new way of working.
Actually its harder to think of something that better demonstrates the power of top-down governance, bringing most of the organisation with you and the challenges of overcoming those who won't change. There must be a goal and an objective to the governance but that goal does not have to be liked by everyone, really it has to be just liked by the voters who in most companies are ultimately the shareholders. Steve 2008/7/24 htshozawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > So what happened to the Gettysburg address? > "...government of the people, by the people, for the people..." > > IMHO, if there isn't any convincible value to the people, it > shouldn't be used. Authority and measurement isn't a way to get > something accomplished. > > H.Ozawa > > --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, Michael > > Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> ++1 >> - Michael >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:45:59 PM >> Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Is Governance > Killing SOA: Part 2 >> >> >> Note that when I say management I don't mean the PM, I mean the >> business and the department. >> >> If the governance doesn't come from above then its toothless. >> >> Steve >> >> 2008/7/22 Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com>: >> > I absolutely agree with MEASUREMENT! Though, it is implicit > relationship. >> > Management has to read/be aware of measures and ACT > appropriately. >> > Governance only define what to measure and how list of to-be- > measured things >> > to be composed and used in monitoring systems. >> > >> > " Governance should be a management thing" - maybe I read it > inadequately >> > but I would agree with this only in the following > interpretation: management >> > has to be conducted in accordance with governance, management > has to >> > organise monitoring and measurements against policies and policy >> > enforcement. Management may not contradict governance. For > example, if >> > Governance state that every new technology may be used if it is > in the >> > Emerging or Recommended state in the Technology Roadmap ( > assuming that >> > management must provide/buy related tools before or during > Emerging status >> > ); if technology is marked as obsolete, no new project may use > it (some >> > exceptions to be reviewed on individual basis). This means that > a PM may not >> > use the obsolete technology w/o permission and it does not > matter if s/he >> > (PM) thinks that project could be shorter with the obsolete > technology. No >> > governing permission, no go, that simple. >> > >> > - Michael >> > >> > ----- Original Message ---- >> > From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@ gmail.com> >> > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com >> > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 10:20:35 PM >> > Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] Re: Is > Governance Killing >> > SOA: Part 2 >> > >> > Governance should also be about the _measures_ and tracking > compliance >> > with them. I agree its not about the implementation, but it is > about >> > the _measurement_ and _enforcement_ of the implementation of the >> > governance. If it can't provide clear metrics against which the >> > governance will be checked then its all just down to CMMi Level 1 >> > stuff and individual skills. >> > >> > Take review meetings for instance. I've been at companies (not my >> > current one) where we went through various different "compliance" >> > reviews and came out smelling of roses. This was down to the > talent >> > of the team put in front of the review rather than being a cross >> > section of the whole company. In other words the governance > didn't >> > have clear objective measures but was a subjective assessment of > a >> > slice, this meant we concentrated on the slice. >> > >> > Governance should be a management thing, it should end up being >> > reflected in people's KPIs not simply in the XML schemas they > create >> > or the number of dead trees converted into dead documents. > Governance >> > shouldn't define the implementation but it should set the >> > Gold/Silver/ Bronze/Chinese Rower levels of measurement. >> > >> > Steve >> > >> > 2008/7/21 Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com>: >> >> Based on your comments "what is done should demonstrably > improve the >> >> situation if it doesn't then don't do it". This might > contradict my point >> >> 1): governance does not Do, it says What and seldom Why and > How; it is >> >> about >> >> policies and procedures, not about their implementation. The > latter is the >> >> managerial function. >> >> >> >> For example, governance may say at which points of project life- > cycle >> >> architectural reviews are needed and what roles have to be > represented in >> >> the review meetings, one by one; also, governance can define the >> >> boundaries >> >> of the meeting competence and decisions. It is the management > action to >> >> call >> >> the meetings, and apply meeting decisions and recommendations > to the >> >> project >> >> or ignore them. >> >> >> >> Governance in service development and run-time can influence > almost >> >> everything but management is the one who enforces governing > policies and >> >> procedures. >> >> >> >> From another A-C type >> >> >> >> - Michael >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> >> From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@ gmail.com> >> >> To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com >> >> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:09:53 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] Re: Is > Governance Killing >> >> SOA: Part 2 >> >> >> >> 0) Remember the goal of governance is to improve things >> >> >> >> This is the first rule that I put in all engagements, what is > done >> >> should demonstrably improve the situation if it doesn't then > don't do >> >> it. Too often people create elaborate governance frameworks (or >> >> application frameworks) for a set of perceived "perfect" needs > when a >> >> much simpler solution would be more appropriate for where they > are. >> >> These complex solutions then often create more issues as they > assume a >> >> perfect state. >> >> >> >> Governance is a classic area where the CYA mob can drag down > efforts >> >> into the mire. >> >> >> >> I'm a type A-C I think there is too little governance and what > there >> >> is tends to be focused in the wrong area. >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> 2008/7/21 Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com>: >> >>> Well, we already have a sort of a Civil War in SOA, why do not > have a SOA >> >>> Bill of Rights? >> >>> >> >>> Unfortunately, a SOA Bill of Rights is another policy... and > enforcement >> >>> in >> >>> this case can come from those who disagree... "People have > rights for >> >>> information" - It is only unclear how a country which > preserves a right >> >>> for >> >>> private property, which recognizes information as a property, > does not >> >>> have >> >>> a right for private information. I mean, a SOA Bill of Rights > may be as >> >>> controversial as anything else. For example, I would like to > have a right >> >>> having bagels instead of donuts... >> >>> >> >>> How about a Business Plan for SOA Governance? For the start: >> >>> >> >>> 1) separate governance function from management function >> >>> 2) recommend rational set of governance controls (along the > project >> >>> life-cycle) >> >>> 3) recommend minimal requirements for SOA testing tools >> >>> 4) identify early stages where SO development must closely > collaborate >> >>> with >> >>> business clients like Concept and Proposal stages >> >>> 5) elaborate on end-to-end vision of SOA service >> >>> 6) ... >> >>> >> >>> - Michael >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ----- Original Message ---- >> >>> From: mikomatsumura <mikomatsumura@ yahoo.com> >> >>> To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com >> >>> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:38:52 AM >> >>> Subject: [service-orientated -architecture] Re: Is Governance > Killing >> >>> SOA: >> >>> Part 2 >> >>> >> >>> Aha! >> >>> >> >>> I knew there was something clever in Jeff's overly simplified > wording. >> >>> A Rorchach test =) >> >>> >> >>> Jeff's follow up question about "too much Type A" is a > reasonable one... >> >>> >> >>> My view is related to the concept of a "more perfect union" as >> >>> mentioned in the preamble of the US Constitution (which of > course >> >>> establishes a Federated government). >> >>> >> >>> Thomas Jefferson speaks well to this topic: >> >>> "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just > powers from >> >>> the consent of the governed." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration > of >> >>> Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429 >> >>> >> >>> Enforcement of policy can either be the enforcement of a > previously >> >>> existing *agreement* or it can be a central mandate without any >> >>> bilateral consent. >> >>> >> >>> Some forms of Governance are pretty clearly bilateral, such as >> >>> enforcement of service level *agreement*. So contracts are > entered >> >>> into by two parties both seeking their own interest and > therefore >> >>> explicitly consent. >> >>> >> >>> So the policies that you are probably worried about are the > ones that >> >>> ostensibly arent enacted between peer groups--to some extent > this is >> >>> the function of the legislative group known as the COE (Center > of >> >>> Excellence) or Competency Center or whatever you want to call > it. >> >>> >> >>> Now if you look at the establishment of the Federal Government > in the >> >>> United States Constitution, the implicit > Jeffersonian "consent" is >> >>> reflected in the fact that States have unlimited sovereignty > while the >> >>> Federal Government has explicitly limited sovereignty. Also, > the >> >>> Federal government has a tripartite structure including an > independent >> >>> judiciary as well as a legislative function which manifests > consent >> >>> through elected representation (congress). >> >>> >> >>> In fact, enough people were uncomfortable with the implicit >> >>> Jeffersonian consent that the first ten amendments were > declared (the >> >>> Bill of Rights) to explicitly curtail the power of the Federal >> >>> Government. >> >>> >> >>> Long analogy, but all I'm trying to say is there are good ways > and >> >>> crappy ways of creating and enforcing policy and the "consent > of the >> >>> governed" is a theme that is often lost. >> >>> >> >>> Maybe we need an SOA Bill of Rights? >> >>> >> >>> 1) Free Speech: >> >>> some kind of annotation system that allows (wiki style) anyone >> >>> affected by a policy to provide feedback (such as "this is > stupid and >> >>> here's why") for anyone to read >> >>> >> >>> 2) Right to bear arms: >> >>> dunno... maybe squirt-guns? Someone proposes a dumb policy in > your CoE >> >>> and you get to squirt them with water? >> >>> >> >>> 3) Protection from quartering troops >> >>> heh.. how about a rule against having more than fifty percent > of any >> >>> meeting be from IBM =) >> >>> >> >>> 4) Protection from search and seizure >> >>> ... >> >>> >> >>> 5) Due Process >> >>> Is there a need for an independent judiciary for SOA? >> >>> >> >>> etc... >> >>> >> >>> The only other right I would like to preserve is the protection >> >>> against cruel and unusual punishment. This might limit the > duration of >> >>> CoE meetings to 2 hours and would demand the presence of > snacks such >> >>> as donuts. >> >>> >> >>> Miko >> >>> >> >>> --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, >> >>> "jeffrschneider" <jeffrschneider@ ...> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> "Is Governance Killing SOA?" is my simple Rorschach > personality test. >> >>>> --- >> >>>> >> >>>> When you read the question did you understand the question to > mean: >> >>>> A. Is a LACK of governance killing SOA? >> >>>> or >> >>>> B. Is TOO MUCH governance killing SOA? >> >>>> or >> >>>> C. Is IMPROPER governance killing SOA? >> >>>> >> >>>> Although some people interpret the question to have other > meanings, >> >>>> it has been my observation that most people think A or B. >> >>>> >> >>>> After asking this a number of times, my informal results have > led to >> >>>> two distinct results: >> >>>> 1. Enterprise Architects, I.T. Analysts, Press and Product > Marketers >> >>>> almost always interpret the question to mean "A" (lack of > governance) >> >>>> and >> >>>> 2. Application architects, software developers and project > managers >> >>>> almost always interpret the question to mean "B" or "C" (too > much or >> >>>> poor governance) >> >>>> >> >>>> This begs the question, if Type "A" personalities get their > way - >> >>>> will the situation be improved? >> >>>> >> >>>> Jeff >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >
