Leo Shuster shows how to combine service architecture and lifecycle management, funding, SOA governance and metrics for an organization to be able to develop its projects and integrate them into an encompassing SOA initiative which is unfolding in the same time.
Leo Shuster has 15 years of IT experience as group manager, team lead, project manager, architect, and developer, directing the Enterprise Architecture and SOA strategy and execution for a number of organizations. He holds an MS in Computer Science from Case Western Reserve University and an MBA from Cleveland State University.
QCon is a conference that is organized by the community, for the community.The result is a high quality conference experience where a tremendous amount of attention and investment has gone into having the best content on the most important topics presented by the leaders in our community. QCon is designed with the technical depth and enterprise focus of interest to technical team leads, architects, and project managers.
Siva Prasanna Kumar
Thanks Siva Prasanna Kumar .P
I humbly Disagree with a lot of things you have said
I also don't agree with the concept of SOA Governance. 80% of SOA projects fail and people are talking about how it takes 10-15 years to get a SOA Transition right, no it doesn't usually you get it on the right track within 5-6 months. It is not poor governance that causes SOA projects to fail but rather governance itself.
While a project goals are mostly tactical SOA goals are strategic and I have been using the Rincci SOA methodology with virtually 100% success rates with our Fortune clients. Which marries tactical goals of system evolution with the strategic goals of SOA evolution. WIthout any Central Governance. It works the best with distributed agile teams which are used to change and evolution of systems and use a security net for refactoring, with unit tests for services at the producer end and intergration tests at the consumer end. This is in direct contrast to what you are proposing i.e. Service Lifecycle should be centrally managed and central team should be responsible for service identification, lifecycle management and pipelining acttivities. This is the most anti-case for evolutionary design. This seems like everything we used to do 15 years back with waterfall methods and upfront design and architecture. As an Agilist I have reservations and with our SOA experience I think this is why most SOA projects don't work.
Look at it this way. Its an ecosystem you don't provide services you don't get services. Its an ecosystem that can be self evolving without central control. The most scalable systems are without one Truth, one central controller or one central oracle that knows everything. The analogies from software systems apply to organizational structure as well. As Software systems mimic tasks done by people albeit. in an automated fashion.
I would like to recommend reading my book "Essays on SOA & EAI - A Pocket Guide"
adityayadav DOT com
Author: Essays on SOA & EAI - A Pocket Guide
Re: I humbly Disagree with a lot of things you have said
I agree on the safety net (or CI) aspect, and promote and scale well the work of your distributed architects.
To amend video, I would like to recommend browsing through my (openly available) slides from Orlando ScrumGathering "SOA and Scrum"
Thoralf J. Klatt