OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm-ra message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: thoughts listening to governance mp3

As always, nice to hear familiar voices.

re vendor products, it sounds like the vendor governance podcast hasn't changed since I signed in for a similar webcast a year ago.  At that time, only one vendor said anything that resembled SOA vs. single standalone system governance.  In February, MITRE had a SOA Governance TEM that included some vendor presentations.  One notable vendor was grilled on the spot for pushing a product/process that probably had limited success for the standalone system (although it did provide ample business for their consulting) and was doing nothing for SOA.  So being PC or not, those who have any idea of what we are talking about also realize the gap between sales and solution.

One danger with respect to acceptance of our models is that the Internet SOA is scary to some prospective user  communities and they would prefer an enterprise SOA where there is (in theory) an overriding authority.

Jeff - you mention governance models from the consultants, e.g. Burton, Forrester.  Can you pass those around and/or summarize what you think are the discriminating parts?

Some interesting dialog:
Bob: formal governance within enterprise/ownership domain but conflict and conflict resolution across enterprises
Frank: likely more informal relationships within enterprises than outside; rules of law
Bob: not convinced of that; intellectual conflicts
Frank: expected norms of behavior between entities
Bob: no top level organization setting norms
Don: lawyers negotiate contracts between identified entities
Bob: contracts at management level, not governance
Danny: +1 with Bob
Frank: agreement between two adult parties resolve disputes through third party [don't see this different from "daddy" of adolescents]; large number of third parties
Danny: so no top level governance
Frank: yes but formal
Bob: Hitler and Stalin had agreement not to attack each other and Hitler decided to break that with no third party adjudication

Frank - architectural component - dispute resolution - part of any governance architecture 
[Danny said I took it out but I intended the Governance Process to include the dispute resolution process (among others) and the Governance Framework provides the overall agreed upon structure so all the subprocesses of governance have a level of consistency, e.g. think of the framework as the class structure and the individual process as an instance.]

[Only have dispute resolution if participants decide they will abide by a third party. W3C or OASIS is good example of governance we will see.  There will be issues for which participants decide to cooperate and they will develop the rules by which they will interact.  In areas where there is not a convincing need to cooperate, participants will try to force their will on others.  Sometimes the one pushing their point can lay out appropriate incentives to get their way.  Sometimes others can try to negotiate other rules and see whether they can put together enough critical mass to override the participant pushing for dominance.  So we have a more complex model with any set of participants (inside or outside an enterprise) where there is not an agreed upon authority to state the law and enforce it.]

[In general, I agreed with Bob's position but I agree with Frank that just because you are within an identifiable enterprise doesn't guarantee more orderly governance.  It is really whether there are cooperative rules of engagement by which the parties will abide.]

*** on to Bob's paper but I realize I don't have copy :-(

Two good points:
Frank: What are the key pieces and the relationships between them?
Jeff: How much do we need (of our current social structure and governance models), how much do we not need?

[Don't confuse the potential for more effective enforcement through IT mechanisms and the will to establish policies that are as strong as the things you can notionally enforce.]

Talk with you folks in a couple hours.


Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305      phone: 703-983-7934
7151 Colshire Drive                         fax:       703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]