We have a phrase at Software AG webMethods which is “Liberate and Govern”, which are two sides of the same coin. Perhaps “regulate” might be a better word, but if we’re planning to ditch “govern” we had better move to something a lot better. Regulate doesnt really get me excited either.

The interdependencies in SOA drive complex systems and therefore emergent behavior. Governance as a term fails to capture the essence of the notion of complex behaviors made emergent by the use of simple rules of engagement. I’ve been favoring the word “Coordination” lately, which evokes a flock of geese or ordered “swarm” behaviors.

The assertaion that “Corp. Governance in general – and IT Governance more specifically… are well known disciplines.” is not true in the majority of companies with which I have consulted. It’s as though they are watching the Discovery Channel for the first time.

At design time, what is needed is a shared understanding of the architecture principles, frameworks, standards and best practices used within your organisation for for providing and consuming Services.

How do you ensure that this shared understanding is
a) communicated effectively,
b) understood and
c) implemented by all.

This goes way beyond technology solutions and encompasses the overall development culture. Tools can help – but they should be an enabling framework rather than a enforcing roadblock.

1) “Run-time” SOA management vendors co-opting the use of the term and nobody having the stones to call them on the fact that management and governance are two very different albeit complementary sets of capabilities. End-to-end run-time governance is an artificial and convenient reference for people trying to sell you a management solution. It’s like saying that your business is open 24/7, 365 days a year (between the hours of 8 and 11AM). It may be true, but it’s irrelevant.

2) So-called pundits like Mr. Linthicum and yourself spending near-zero time learning about what the essence of governance is and abusing the usage of the terminology by spouting off about needing some new term. Corp. Governance in general – and IT Governance more specifically (which is a superset of SOA Governance), are well known disciplines. Linthicum abuses the term by liberally interchanging references to a discipline (i.e. SOA Governance) when describing types of technologies (and their capabilities) that support the discipline. This is unacceptable coming from accomplished architect and renowned writer such as Mr. Linthicum.

The problem with SOA Governance isn’t that we need a new term. What’s needed is for so-called experts to stop talking about what we need and start listening to what works and startunderstanding what’s already know.

…stop re-discovering Antarctica!!!

I propose “SOA Visability” or any other term that implies “pulling back the curtain to see what’s going on.”