Publish  January 25º - 2009   (Original link  http://www.glaucoreis.com.br/is_soa_dead_i.html)

Probably after the crisis, this should be the most explored theme in the internet at this time. In your blog, Anne Thomas Manes declared the death of the SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) from the date of 01 of January 2009. Naturally, this generated lots of protests and congratulations. I Would like to comment it here as well, once that I´m an consultant in a consultancy that keeps your focus in SOA and BPM, and to besides affecting my day by day I also have a lightly different opinion compared to Anne´s, although it respect your point of view

Well, she initiates the speech crediting in the world crisis as the main causer of the death of the SOA. There is no doubts that the crisis is going to affect IT in several ways. But, is SOA the just one affected ? From the form as exposed in the article, I had the impression that SOA was the only death. Actually, my interpretation for Anne's Drawing was :

Realize that the sons of SOA, like Governansaurus , Saasaurus and ServiceSaurus are not dead. The declared death belongs to the SOA acronym, because according to the article "SOA instead turned into a great failed experiment". Instead of to reducing the costs and to increase reuse, what´s happened was exactly the opposite.
Well, we can kill the SOA acronym without problems. But, do it kill an acronym solves the described problems?
We can assign a new acronym and a year from now it will die again, since the causes of the problem were not fixed. I propose, as evolution of this idea, the creation of a list names, as used today to name California's Hurricanes, since we will have to change the name several times for each faulty technology that IT tries to implement.

Well, about both topics :

Only with governance we have control of the services and therefore we can reuse them, reducing the costs.
And, unfortunately, governance is not something (that) we buy from a provider, install and forget about. Governance means control, and it needs people, methodology and artefacts to realize. Is the business supposed to pay this bill ?
By the way, I´ll point my protest here. We do not evolve almost nothing in terms of methodology and artefacts for conduction of SOA projects. Where are the specific artefacts for Services documentation? Today they are almost always textual documents adapted of Uses Cases by the companies that are implementing SOA. In terms of methodology we also have little disseminated concerning about. Almost all the methodologies are adapted of the OO or component model, which seems they have failed in terms of reuse in the past.

Further in the text, she comments that, "besides the word SOA be dead, the needs to an architecture guided for services is stronger than never". Well, now we come back to the beginning of the text. instead of to killing the SOA and change to other acronym,  is it not better to solve the causes of the problem and to keep the same name?

And since of a certain form all agree that services will have a fundamental paper in the near future of IT, and that the need for an architecture that allows the development, reusing and maintenance of the services seems to be fundamental, what about discuss how to reach this goal,  instead of just select a new name ?