„…Not everything is a service. If you’re not transforming the business into a service paradigm, if you’re not thinking about what I do as a business, where are my business functions and where are my boundaries for my business function, you’re not doing SOA…”

This pretty much also refects my opinion on what SOA is and what it is not.
More on IT Business Edge.

The article was published by Computerwoche, a German paper for IT (CW). The author was Dirk Stähler, who also published a book “EA, BPM and SOA for business analysts” this year and works for the Consulting firm “Opitz Consulting“.

The calculation approach consists of the following steps:

1. Effort calculated per entity and relationship as product
   p.e.:
   effort = times x determintation effort(per object/relationship) x factor
2. The initial effort for the model then equals the sum of the effort per object type

Preconditions
The effort estimation for the creation of the initial model is acceptable under the following circumstances:
The part of the EA metamodel relies on rough and abstract descriptions. Required informations to instances of the object types can be obtained at central places.

In order treat uncertainties you should define factors between 1 and 3 for each kind of object type.

• Choose factor 1, if both of the preconditions for any object type do not apply
• Choose factor 2, if one of the preconditions for the considered object type do not apply
• Choose factor 3, if both of the preconditions for the considered object type do not apply

I am just wondering if this leads to an approach to determine overall efforts for an EA programme, if we just consider the metamodell… Even though, the approach sounds really interesting…

What do you think?

The main objective both methodologies is to optimize the alignment between business through agility and enabling the organization to improve as a whole.

Tarak also talks about a symbiosis where “…SOA fulfills the … need of the cloud… that aligns with its own virtualized,…,being.”

I was just wandering how this really could work together… What do you think?

OSIMM defines a process, how companies set up a roadmap for a stepwise implementation of SOA in the enterprise and across business lines. The model consists of seven maturity levels, that allow companies to show, to which steps and business objectives the provision of their services should have which status and which tasks and ideas should be kept in mind for future steps.

The SOA Governance Framework defines a how-to for companies, to understand deeper means of SOA-Governance and to deploy it in their service oriented architectures. The spec defines how a SOA Governance Reference Model (SGRM) and the so called SOA Governance Vitality Method (SGVM) should support companies, to customize the reference model to own needs and to implement it. In theSOA Work Group IBM and Capgemeni works closely with the Open Group… what my firm does not – yet…

Well this actually deals with soa, enterprise architectures but mainly focusing the business aspects. I really am NO techie guy who has deeper interest in how services or such things can later on be implemented. I much more like the transformational aspect: how to keep business and it aligned, speaking the same language, concentrating on business processes…

But what I furthermore like is that thing of the cloud (misteriously…)

Ok, that much to this extend. Hope to post my thoughts on experiences and learnings I make on this…

cu