Re: [soa-forum] Fw: Call for Volunteers: Practical Guide to Federal SOA

["Paul S Prueitt" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Why does the government not contract using some (say 2%) of the around 67B allocated for e-Gov expenditures to actually do the Federal SOA work?  This is asked rhetorically of course as an alternative to pretending as if volunteers can be pulled from the IT contracting community (those already getting the 67B in consulting contracts this year) and form an all-volunteer process that produces anything at all.  The status quo is protected by the Federal CIO Council sponsored volunteer group making NO PROGRESS YEAR AFTER YEAR.  The profound deceit is understand only when one understands this concept of "volunteering". 

 

The sentiment as stated in an recent email:

 

"Paul, I agree. You bring a good point. How does one go about bringing change to this "quasi nepotism" process?  Let's discuss this further, I too want to contribute and am appalled at the current closed environment and resulting waste of resources achieving so little due to vested interests

 

I see, as pointed out by Jane Fountain, the government as being not competent to make these contracts go to those who would define a new radically different system such as proposed in the Resilience Project White Paper

 

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/ResilienceProjectWhitePaper.htm

 

So the current poor design and non-progress is reified (justifed) by this volunteer process, in my opinion.

 

 

The use of volunteers sets up a evolution where only those with strong vested interests in engineering future IT contracts (from the e-Gov's 67B for this year and from other government accounts).  Brand has been very good at managing this evolution, and the consequences needs to have objective oversight as stated by one of the several private emails I have received since yesterday.  Note that we are likely to spend only a little under 100B on the entire Iraq war this year!!!!!

 

Example from another email:  We need to come up with a solution to the congress not just problems and point fingers at the major contractors-which are many."

 

I forward Harry Hendricks's note to the other part of this forum, with the observation that enterprise, business and IT is still NOT a cover for all process envisioned in the original e-GOV program (1996) enacted by the Clinton administration to create "citizen centric government using IT) - a point well made when one starts to talk about law and jurisprudence (as Henry does) .

 

Henery's note shows that the categorical error "all things are business processes is ubiquitous within the IT contracting comments".

 

Dear all,

 

This is quite an interesting discussion: how to differentiate between IT and business. As may not be surprising this is one of the aspects we have to agree upon in the Working group Business Architecture, which has just started last December.

 

What we are doing is to get the description of the different domains right: IT, Business, enterprise. Is enterprise the whole lot together? Is enterprise substitutable for organization? Is business substitutable for purposeful, or commercial?

 

It is already quite difficult to get a shared understanding within one community. Let alone between different communities. For me business is also the business of government institutions: execution of laws and rules; developing policies; tax collection. Not very different from manufacturing at a higher abstraction level. However, this is from a professional point of view.

 

A politician may have quite different needs or tradition. I don't know whether it would help us to include these communities in the discussion here.

 

I hope this highlights a little the difficulty to agree between communities. In my view first the community has to be identified which has to resolve an issue or problem. From that problem onwards, one may get to an ontology. I don't think we can speak about one universal ontology. Time frame, geography and discipline frame are critical to meanings.

 

I hope this helps in the discussion. I can understand the concern which has been expressed by Paul. However, I don't see how increasing the number of perspectives does help us very much.

 

I am interested to hear any other view. Because the topic is in my view quite relevant for the ontology group.

 

Regards

 

Harry

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Niemann.Brand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:02 AM
To: soa-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [soa-forum] Fw: Call for Volunteers: Practical Guide to Federal SOA

FYI. Please participate in this and our January 23rd Workshop to learn more about it at http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ExpeditionWorkshop/CollaborativeOrganizingWorkshopToPlanWorkshops_01_23_07

 

Thank you and Happy New Year!

 

Brand Niemann

SOA CoP Co-chair

-----Forwarded by Brand Niemann/DC/USEPA/US on 01/11/2007 12:58PM -----

To: chiusano_joseph@xxxxxxx, bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Elkins, Nick" <Nick.Elkins@xxxxxxxxx>, "Jolly, Michael D" <Michael.D.Jolly@xxxxxxxxx>, scottwm0@xxxxxxx, richard.murphy@xxxxxxx, Kshmendra.Paul@xxxxxxxxx, stephanie_powers@xxxxxxx, srana@xxxxxxxxxxx, jonathan.rich@xxxxxxx, marion.royal@xxxxxxx, Kenneth.B.Sall@xxxxxxxx, g.thomas@xxxxxxx, rwtucker@xxxxxxxxx, Urman.Tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Kenneth.Boyd@xxxxxxxxxx, "Carr, Michael" <Michael.Carr@xxxxxxxxx>, tclarke@xxxxxxxxxxx, Kent.Craig@xxxxxxxxx, Hai.Dang@xxxxxxxxxx, guinant@xxxxxxxxxx, Anil.John@xxxxxxxxxx, Mason.McDaniel@xxxxxxxxxx, Miller_Mark@xxxxxxx, Michael.Richards@xxxxxxxxxx, chadms@xxxxxxx, jsalasin@xxxxxxxx, rex.stratton@xxxxxxx, sdwarkanath@xxxxxxxxxxx, Shau-Fai.Tse@xxxxxxxxxx, jermey.warren@xxxxxxxxx, gary.washington@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Nejad, Mitra" <Mitra.Nejad@xxxxxxxxx>, neil.henderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, cjr@xxxxxxxxx, Vivek.Pande@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, AAnders@xxxxxxxx, james.boyter@xxxxxxxxxxx, dmayo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, grieg@xxxxxxxxxx, Brand Niemann/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, mrh@xxxxxxxxx, Kim.Richeson@xxxxxxxxxx, Linda.Dinga@xxxxxxx, Frank.Lu@xxxxxxxxx, Yan.Zhao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bryanja@xxxxxxx, jamestb@xxxxxxxx, mike.dunham@xxxxxxxxxx
From: "Elkins, Nick" <Nick.Elkins@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 01/11/2007 10:50AM
Subject: Call for Volunteers: Practical Guide to Federal SOA

All,
We are soliciting participants and team leads for the development of the Practical Guide to Federal Service Oriented Architecture. This is a collaborative effort among government (AIC/BPC) and industry (IAC). We hope you will volunteer to support this important undertaking and will canvas your colleagues to volunteer as well.

We will be establishing an editorial board (executive steering committee) and putting in place a project coordinator. The editorial board will provide overall direction and arbitrate differences in approach, direction, etc. The project coordinator will manage the project plan and will facilitate collaboration among the team leads.

We want this to be a collaborative process and welcome participation from all who are interested/knowledgeable about SOA and are good writers. For the team leads we are looking for individuals with some expertise in the specific areas of the paper (see below). The team leads will be expected to lead the discussions and writing for the topic areas and to coordinate with the other team leads so that some consistency can be maintained.

The topic areas for which we seek team leads are (this is draft and subject to change):

• SOA Drivers & Rationale
• Executive Support and SOA Governance
• SOA Adoption & Management
• SOA and EA
• SOA Infrastructure
• Service Delivery and Composition
• SOA and Other Management Processes

In terms of schedule, we expect the majority of the effort to take place in this quarter (Jan ? Mar), so it is a fairly ambitious undertaking. We hope to spread the effort so that it does not place too much of a burden on any individual. Please help out if you can. This is an opportunity to have a significant impact on how the Federal government works.

To volunteer, please reply to this email with your contact info (and area of expertise).  Please include Dave Mayo ( dmayo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ) and Mike Dunham ( mike.dunham@xxxxxxxxxx ) in your email as they are leading this effort.

Thank you,

Nicholas Elkins
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Policy & Planning Staff
Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office (EAPMO)
202-616-9385 (office) || 646-345-1407 (mobile)
nick.elkins@xxxxxxxxx

 _________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP    (01)