Comments on: The Myth of the Silo

By: Johannes Brodwall

Johannes Brodwall — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:32:29 +0000

I don’t think of the layered system that I’m talking about as a silo. Rather, I think of it as a business level service composed of several component services. What characterizes such system is a great deal of fragmented responsibility.

The people responsible for a single layer generally seem to consider themselves service providers for the layers above.

This is not a agile way of creating software. But it’s a common implementation of medium-grained SOA services.

Thanks for the kind words, Eivind. Your closing remark is exactly what I wanted to express.

By: Johannes Brodwall

Johannes Brodwall — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:32:29 +0000

I don't think of the layered system that I'm talking about as a silo. Rather, I think of it as a business level service composed of several component services. What characterizes such system is a great deal of fragmented responsibility.

The people responsible for a single layer generally seem to consider themselves service providers for the layers above.

This is not a agile way of creating software. But it's a common implementation of medium-grained SOA services.

Thanks for the kind words, Eivind. Your closing remark is exactly what I wanted to express.

By: Eivind

Eivind — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:15:00 +0000

Audacious assertions!
Fact 1: “Each layer was added in an attempt to make it easier for someone to integrate with the system. Each layer makes the whole harder to understand.” Would you call this a silo? Each layer is probably added for, and probably serves, its purpose of adaption or adding value. Different layers may exist in parallell or on top of each other. New and different integration needs may solved on top of previous, lower layers. That seems natural. Unless you only conceive the top as being “the service”.
Fact 2: Important learning. Silos may be only apparent and present integration interfaces. Thanks.
Fact 3: Yes, few examples of successful, euphoric, large-grained integration and reuse exist, and probably for good reasons. But isn’t there an agile, medium-grained middle way between that and silo thinking?
Ode to silos that in fact aren’t and to agile, timely integration?

By: Eivind

Eivind — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:15:00 +0000

Audacious assertions!
Fact 1: “Each layer was added in an attempt to make it easier for someone to integrate with the system. Each layer makes the whole harder to understand.” Would you call this a silo? Each layer is probably added for, and probably serves, its purpose of adaption or adding value. Different layers may exist in parallell or on top of each other. New and different integration needs may solved on top of previous, lower layers. That seems natural. Unless you only conceive the top as being “the service”.
Fact 2: Important learning. Silos may be only apparent and present integration interfaces. Thanks.
Fact 3: Yes, few examples of successful, euphoric, large-grained integration and reuse exist, and probably for good reasons. But isn't there an agile, medium-grained middle way between that and silo thinking?
Ode to silos that in fact aren't and to agile, timely integration?