blog

SOA 2.0: The Petition

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 by

Further to our first SOA 2.0 post, it happened – enough people got in touch to convince me it was worth a couple of hours’ PHP coding, and we’ve created a petition to stop the SOA 2.0 madness.

Why did we bother with this? There are two reasons.

Firstly: industry does not, at this point, need more confusion around SOA. SOA has real value, but industry at large is only just coming to terms with what it means and what it can do. Inventing terms like “SOA 2.0″ might help some analysts and vendors make money, but overall, in the long run it damages us all.

Secondly: an experiment. Many people have discussed the power of the Web to aggregate and demonstrate the power of individuals: so it would be good to see if, through this simple petition web page, we could pressure the protagonists into backtracking on SOA 2.0.

We want you to sign, and we want to see if we can make something happen. Having an opinion is fine, but having an effect is much better.

So come on – join us! Sign up! You have nothing to lose but your chains…

You can see the list of people who’ve already signed first, if you want.

Posted in General

8 Responses to SOA 2.0: The Petition

  1. James Governor says:

    its an extremely fine example of tag-gardening… here you are doing some pruning… and i salute you for it.

  2. James Governor says:

    its an extremely fine example of tag-gardening… here you are doing some pruning… and i salute you for it.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I do not have enough it business expriment.
    hoopz.biz

  4. Anonymous says:

    I do not have enough it business expriment.
    hoopz.biz

  5. A lover of Real English says:

    Could you drop the ” IT-business alignment” waffle as well? That would make things just perfect.

    Ta.

  6. A lover of Real English says:

    Could you drop the ” IT-business alignment” waffle as well? That would make things just perfect.

    Ta.

  7. Neil Ward-Dutton says:

    “Lover”, it’s a shame you’ve chosen to be anonymous!

    We contend that the way we describe our focus is accurate. What’s more we back it up with some pretty solid analysis and research. We’re not just idly spouting the words, we’re really trying to help companies reduce the gaps between IT itself, IT organisations, and the broader organisations they work for.

    It’s a shame that “alignment” has become such an overloaded phrase and that so many others just throw it into conversations without backing it up with real insight. But we’re sticking with it for now.

    Maybe we should talk about “alignment 2.0″ – what do you think? ;-)

  8. Neil Ward-Dutton says:

    “Lover”, it’s a shame you’ve chosen to be anonymous!

    We contend that the way we describe our focus is accurate. What’s more we back it up with some pretty solid analysis and research. We’re not just idly spouting the words, we’re really trying to help companies reduce the gaps between IT itself, IT organisations, and the broader organisations they work for.

    It’s a shame that “alignment” has become such an overloaded phrase and that so many others just throw it into conversations without backing it up with real insight. But we’re sticking with it for now.

    Maybe we should talk about “alignment 2.0″ – what do you think? ;-)

Leave a comment: