Marketing departments love jumping on ‘new’ ideas and adopting them as their own, which can muddy the waters for those who have been using the concepts for years. Cf SOA, which is becoming an increasingly chaotic area – ironic really, given that it is rooted in some really quite simple concepts. Our pals over at Redmonk have been debating how SOA has been hijacked by the marchitects: “it’s largely failed in that Holy Grail task of bringing the propeller heads and the suits together,” says Cote.
This is partially, but not entirely true. The good news comes from the organisations that are looking at using SOA, in that they view it not as some massively complex change to their existing ways of working, more as an incremental, evolutionary approach that enables it to think about its capabilities in business-meaningful terms, and the adoption of base principles such as contractural relationships between service suppliers and consumers. To quote my esteemed colleague Neil Ward-Dutton, “None of the companies I’ve talked to are dumb enough to try and re-engineer their entire organisations’ IT infrastructures top-down in some kind of elephantine SOA engineering folly.” In marked contrast to the goings-on in vendor-land, the approach is far more pragmatic.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise, given that SOA doesn’t actually exist, not as a product in any case. Perhaps the hand-flappings of the marketeers suggests as much about their inability to turn a concept into a product, as anything about gung-ho repurposing of the concept itself. Let us not spend too much time worrying about this: while the vendors try to out-market each other, organisations are quietly getting on with the job. The worst thing we could do would be to dismiss SOA as marchitecture, just because it has been hijacked; this would also dismiss the real value that SOA can bring.
“pal” singular? that is a Cote view, not a formal RedMonk position, and should probably be treated as such. He was asking a question by making a statement, which is a great question to ask.
its too early to call SOA a failure in bringing business and IT closer together though. I can point to organisations, such as Sprint, where SOA has undoubtedly encouraged alignment. There are many examples.
While I agree with much of what you say here, please respect our conversational analysis style, and I would ask you not to position statements on our blogs as definitive RedMonk positions.
Cheers Jon.
“pal” singular? that is a Cote view, not a formal RedMonk position, and should probably be treated as such. He was asking a question by making a statement, which is a great question to ask.
its too early to call SOA a failure in bringing business and IT closer together though. I can point to organisations, such as Sprint, where SOA has undoubtedly encouraged alignment. There are many examples.
While I agree with much of what you say here, please respect our conversational analysis style, and I would ask you not to position statements on our blogs as definitive RedMonk positions.
Cheers Jon.
“pal” singular? that is a Cote view, not a formal RedMonk position, and should probably be treated as such. He was asking a question by making a statement, which is a great question to ask.
its too early to call SOA a failure in bringing business and IT closer together though. I can point to organisations, such as Sprint, where SOA has undoubtedly encouraged alignment. There are many examples.
While I agree with much of what you say here, please respect our conversational analysis style, and I would ask you not to position statements on our blogs as definitive RedMonk positions.
Cheers Jon.
Hmm.
1. How can the outsider tell the difference between “a Cote view” and “a formal Redmonk position”? There is no disclaimer on the post, not that I would expect one but neither do I know how to distinguish the two.
2. The reason the post says “pals” is because Cote’s own post refers to “James and I” – you were indeed debating it, weren’t you? Or at least, you had a “delightful discussion”? I then reference Cote’s own comment.
3. I’m not sure if you’re disagreeing with Cote or agreeing with me – “its too early to call SOA a failure” – I certainly wasn’t!
4. “please respect our conversational analysis style” – I apologise in advance but I have absolutely no idea what I did that failed to respect your conversational analysis style.
5. “I would ask you not to position statements on our blogs as definitive RedMonk positions” – err, I didn’t. For that matter, I don’t know what difference it would make if I had.
All the best, Jon
Hmm.
1. How can the outsider tell the difference between “a Cote view” and “a formal Redmonk position”? There is no disclaimer on the post, not that I would expect one but neither do I know how to distinguish the two.
2. The reason the post says “pals” is because Cote’s own post refers to “James and I” – you were indeed debating it, weren’t you? Or at least, you had a “delightful discussion”? I then reference Cote’s own comment.
3. I’m not sure if you’re disagreeing with Cote or agreeing with me – “its too early to call SOA a failure” – I certainly wasn’t!
4. “please respect our conversational analysis style” – I apologise in advance but I have absolutely no idea what I did that failed to respect your conversational analysis style.
5. “I would ask you not to position statements on our blogs as definitive RedMonk positions” – err, I didn’t. For that matter, I don’t know what difference it would make if I had.
All the best, Jon
Hmm.
1. How can the outsider tell the difference between “a Cote view” and “a formal Redmonk position”? There is no disclaimer on the post, not that I would expect one but neither do I know how to distinguish the two.
2. The reason the post says “pals” is because Cote’s own post refers to “James and I” – you were indeed debating it, weren’t you? Or at least, you had a “delightful discussion”? I then reference Cote’s own comment.
3. I’m not sure if you’re disagreeing with Cote or agreeing with me – “its too early to call SOA a failure” – I certainly wasn’t!
4. “please respect our conversational analysis style” – I apologise in advance but I have absolutely no idea what I did that failed to respect your conversational analysis style.
5. “I would ask you not to position statements on our blogs as definitive RedMonk positions” – err, I didn’t. For that matter, I don’t know what difference it would make if I had.
All the best, Jon
Woo!
Jon got a Redmonk Cease and Desist! :-)
Woo!
Jon got a Redmonk Cease and Desist! :-)
Woo!
Jon got a Redmonk Cease and Desist! :-)