[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Will The Real SOA Please Sit Down?

• To: 'Chiusano Joseph' <chiusano_joseph@b...>, "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>, XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Will The Real SOA Please Sit Down?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:24:53 -0600

If premium costs lead to better service, insurance helps and 
if combined with savvy benchmarking

http://hbsworkingknowledge.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=5158&t=strategy

could steer the evolution of the processes and services.  
Note the emphasis on commoditization of 
services which implies transparent costs.

I note an article at CNet the describes the problems 
of 'green' legislation with regards to oursourcing 
and transparency and provability.  The legislation is 
compared to Sarbanes-Oxley where the main value proposition 
of the supporting processes is staying out of jail 
Note: SOX doesn't create transparency; it results in 
less information being published.  See Elliot Spitzer.

Note also that which of the definitions one chooses 
is related to the value proposition for the definition. 
SOA is easy to sell when related to sharable processes. 
As soon as it is related to implementation, fights break out. 

I spent a part of last week and the weekend trying to 
describe why Google and a "Google for Law Enforcement" 
is a problematic comparison and it is much like the 
Wal-Mart vs Armani comparison.  It is a very different value 
proposition.  The outputs may look the same in terms of 
the GUI, but the business objects underneath are very 
different.  It would be fun to chat with Google about that 
but I'm not smart enough.

So one turns to differentiated services to improve processes 
and one works very hard to determine if the processes are 
truly comparable or commodities, or if they have a higher 
value proposition.

len


From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@b...]

> When accepting business 
> processes as sharable, that is a very dangerous assumption, 
> so sharing services is inherently less dangerous than sharing 
> processes.  On the other hand, in a system built up over 
> outsourced components, services and processes, the legal 
> principles are such that he who offers the process assumes 
> the duty and then, the opaqueness of the service makes it 
> difficult to manage the risk.  It will be interesting to see 
> the outcome of negligence torts based on *respondeat 
> superior* where the system is SOA-conforming.

That's where service insurance comes in:
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200410/msg00010.html

• Prev by Date: RE: Will The Real SOA Please Sit Down?
• Next by Date: Re: Who thought up term XML?
• Previous by thread: RE: Will The Real SOA Please Sit Down?
• Next by thread: RE: Will The Real SOA Please Sit Down?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread