So, I guess it goes without saying that I had to take the plunge and test my stuff in determining my “Nerd” level as the “Leader” I most resemble in a “Classical Movie”. Not sure if it’s worth any amount of analysis (e.g., the tests are mutually exclusive), but here it is. It was fun!

What Famous Leader Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

What Classic Movie Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

As a guest on Meet the Press, Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni presented what IMHO is finally a balanced and realistic view into the war in Iraq and the broader international crisis of the region. See the transcript of the show at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18094428/

I’m not familiar with Zinni’s history and philosophy in the past (and I know he was there to promote his new book), but I think he has captured the essence of how we ended up here and what needs to be done moving forward. Yes, I know that some staunch supporters of the administration will claim that he has not suggested an exact solution. However, his plan is clearly an improvement over the bickering going on right now over tactical issues such as the “surge” and “arbitrary time tables”. We need a leadership who can put a stop to all the politicking, and step up to get to the heart of the matter!!!

Last week, I read a posting by Keith Harrison-Broninski on his ebizQ IT Directions blog where he discusses the merits of BPM without BPMS. I agree with many of his points, but felt compelled to present a view that was a bit more balanced, which I posted as a comment under his blog entry:

“We’re all too familiar with the danger in “doing technology for technology’s sake”. The notion of BPMS is no different. It really is all about the specifics of the environment one is dealing with, both in terms of their IT assets (infrastructure, skill sets, etc.) as well as the way business interacts with IT and uses technology. In some situations introducing a BPMS is an unnecessary layer that clutters the picture in ways that could’ve been addressed using the existing technologies, e.g. integration stack and programming frameworks. However, there are many other circumstances where a BPMS is a needed abstraction tool that relieves the problems associated with IT (both from an organizational and level of maturity perspective). Also, in many instances the need for flexibility and quick response to business needs are critical for daily operations, which is more suited for a solution driven by business stakeholders (analysis, rules, etc.). The insurance industry is a good example where niche BPMS products are having some success. So, IMHO, as with anything else typically associated with a hype, it really depends on the specific situation. Just like SOA isn’t the answer to every architectural problem, BPMS’s don’t necessarily have a place in all process management and automation domains. But, I wouldn’t go as far as dismissing them entirely on the account of alternative approaches (MDA, etc.).”

I think Keith agrees with my comment based on his response.

“Kooros, this is a very balanced summary of the discussion – it certainly captures what I have been trying to say. Thanks.”

Yesterday I came across duh-gallery, a very easy to use WordPress plug-in provided by Nate Ritter for displaying photos in an image gallery. Although it took me a couple of tries to get it set up properly, it’s a great and quick way to get your photos in a WordPress blog. It supports thumbnails and a folder structure as well. Now, when I post entries that involve images, I can reference the Photo Gallery page on the sidebar where the images can be easily stored and accessed. Great tool!

In today’s digital world where multi-media news items are instantly at our disposal, we are often exposed to graphic displays of tragic events, e.g. the Virginia Tech murders, and other heart wrenching stories of sadness and grief. Robert Scoble’s I dare you to not cry references the story of a mother dealing with a son’s battle with cancer, as captured by a series of photographs by Pulitzer Prize winning Renée C. Byer.

We’re told from the young age to always be appreciative and thankful for what we have, especially our health. Stories likes these should reinforce that message and remind us that yes, it can happen to any of us.

Amidst all the rhetoric and verbal judo back and forth between the Democratic leadership and the Bush administration, I am puzzled by why no one seems to notice the fallacy in the words being exchanged. Take a look at this example from today. In response to the latest challenge from Harry Reid (D), the President said:

“I will strongly reject an artificial timetable (for) withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job”.

I agree that an artificial timetable for withdrawal (if that’s all we were talking about) is futile. But, isn’t there something fundamentally wrong with the second part of that quote? By accepting the logic in the President’s assertion, we are missing the point that Washington politicians, in this case the Democratic leadership, are not trying to tell the military commanders HOW to do their job, but rather WHAT their job/mission should be. No one doubts the military’s capacity to plan and execute missions (the missteps and other tragic scandals aside). The real issue is with the Executive and Legislative branches in devising an appropriate strategy that is based on prudent policies with goals that ultimately achieve a sustainable objective.

Four years ago, while the anti-war activist were pouring on the sensational and graphic images from the early days of the war, I wrote in a comment that the ugliness and civilian tragedy brought on by any war is nothing new and is irreversible. I pointed out that instead of trying to cause an uproar by emailing pictures of blood and destruction, we should really be worried about whether we have a complex foreign policy plan and a savvy leadership to win the ultimate battle, which is equally about diplomacy and finesse as it is about firepower. I am saddened to see that my concerns were legitimate and we are still nit-picking in unattainable idealistic scenarios and have not learned to appreciate the complex factors that are at play in a region of the world rich in history and turmoil.

Coming back to the problem with the logic in the President’s statement, I think it’s ironic that no one is pointing out the simple fact that opposing the current strategy is not the same as meddling in the military’s business as much as it has nothing to do with lack of support for the troops. Remember the 2004 election posters that read: “Support our troops, vote Bush/Cheney”? I never understood why the average public would have to accept that the two parts of that slogan have to go together. Then again, I think it was exactly designed that way for the average public. In fact, one should argue that opposing the current strategy is PRECISELY to support the troops by providing them a mission that is worth their fight and gets us closer to a safer place both at home and abroad.

As I said earlier, an artificial timetable for withdrawal is futile. It’s hard to imagine under the current circumstances in Iraq how simply targeting a date for withdrawal gets us any closer to a longer term solution. Yet, it’s another example of how things get done in Washington, where a drastic stance like this has to be exercised in order to attempt a change in strategy.

I hope someone with more reach and louder voice than mine starts to make this very simple argument in public. See my earlier entry, Someone had to say it, for an example of an apparent voice of reason.

P.S. My comments are not based on any partisan bias or other affinity on my part towards either party. It’s simply a matter of logical thinking and an attempt to cut through the clutter that frustrates me.

I came across the newest S2DaSot clip from YouTube. Based on the current view count (70), it hasn’t gotten around much. Still, pretty clever and entertaining in its attempt to mock the MTV Cribs series with kids as the actors.

While the SOA hype cycle continues to churn, there’s been no shortage of vendors, analysts/consultants, and other service providers circling the bandwagon. Like the old Persian saying, “Catching fish in muddy water” (the equivalent in English being “Shooting fish in a barrel”), many of the above players are trying to capitalize on this frenzy and confusion to further their products and/or other offerings. SOA Governance is an area which is getting a lot of attention. Why you may ask?

The term governance is not newly created in the SOA phenomenon, much less the technology space in general. However, given the recent climate filled with corporate scandals and compliance issues, it (governance) gets thrown around as a silver bullet. Specifically, as it relates to the use of technology, we’ve seen a plethora of “compliance” tool vendors enter the market. In many instances, they are glorified business intelligence tools with built-in process management features. The same is happening in the SOA governance space. Yes, there are tools that automate the operations and management of services , but what about all the other management and control practices we’ve always used in enterprise-scale technology initiatives? Are they also part of governance?

In a recent posting on David Linthicum’s blog, there was a reference to a summary by Nick Malik on this topic. While I agree with David and Nick, I think that we are perhaps applying too broad a brush in the use of governance. Many of the activities and perspectives discussed above are really part of the discipline one would use as part of the management and control best-practices in each of the stages, e.g. analysis, design, development, etc. One could argue we’ve always had to apply a similar discipline in every major transformation and technology adoption initiative without getting wrapped around the term “governance”. So, it’s not just about SOA.

The fact that we are trying to shrink-wrap such good practices as a “tool in a box” is causing all the confusion. IMHO we should separate what we mean by operational governance which is what many of the tools provide (or try to), vs. all other aspects of applying proper control to the life cycle of the SOA initiative, which arguably is simply (or not so simply) about maturity in management and execution. Let’s not bundle these under SOA governance. It might perhaps clarify the tool capability landscape, and allow us to focus on these other important activities in their proper light.

After over a year of reading about and dabbling with Ruby on Rails (RoR), I decided to look for a good book that covers it in its entirety, i.e. not just about Ruby or how to develop AJAX apps using the Rails framework. Not so surprisingly, during this past 6-9 months there has been a surge of new books on the topic and there’s no shortage of choices. So, which one did I pick? I chose Build Your Own Ruby on Rails Web Applications by Patrick Lenz. I’ve just started with it, but given my past experience with SitePoint books, I have high expectations. We’ll see!

Do you have a good book or author that you like on this or other similar topics? Let me know.

A Sept 27th article talks about developing a business case for SOA and raises the point that SOA as a pure architecture/technology principle is difficult to sell, and must be sold as a business solution.

“First, the best way to sell SOA is not to call it SOA,” says analyst Joe McKendrick of Nucleus Research Inc., expressing the consensus among the analysts interviewed for this article. “A good business case is no different than a sales proposal pitched to a prospective client company,” McKendrick said. “And the nature of the game is that all a client wants to know is ‘What’s in it for me?’ More specifically, they want to know, ‘Can you help me increase revenues for this product line?’ ‘Can you take away my pain point in this area of the business?’ No one is going to ask you, ‘Can you set up an SOA for us?’”
Jason Bloomberg, senior analyst with ZapThink LLC., said the need to focus on business problems more than SOA specifics make the SOA business case something of a paradox.
“The most important thing to keep in mind about a SOA business case is paradoxically that it might not look like an ‘SOA’ business case at all,” Bloomberg said. “It must have a clear description of one or more specific business problems, along with the proposed solutions to those problems, along with their costs and risks — just like any business case.”
While three-letter acronyms surrounding SOA may be constantly on the lips of architects and developers, several analysts interviewed for this article said they would avoid putting technology up front in the business case.
“The proposed solutions leverage SOA best practices, but depending upon the problems being addressed and the audience,” Bloomberg said, “they may not be identified as SOA. It’s often a better idea to identify them with the problem space. ‘Customer satisfaction business case’ or ‘integration cost reduction business case’ will go over in the boardroom much better than ‘SOA business case.’” Bradley F. Shimmin, principal analyst of application infrastructure at Current Analysis LLC, also advises staying away from SOA and the related acronyms as much as possible.

It is a good example of where there needs to be a distinction between situations where architects focus only on the technical components of an SOA project vs. developing a program’s overall value proposition, i.e.

• Provide comprehensive offering (IT strategy, business process optimization, and technical architecture)
• Assess readiness (industry expertise, technology maturity, organizational impact)
• Refine ROI goals and benchmarks
• Develop program execution roadmap