Several folks have raised important points in this connection. Namely (assuming I have interpreted the comments correctly):
1. A question of SOA Governance:
"Do services come from some apriori (generalized, enterprise-wide or industry-wide) schema (Kant), or do they come from the specific local requirements (Hume)?"
2. Instill SOA into company DNA: "The DNA or "Nature" has to be "Nurtured" in an Information Technology (IT) still in its infancy. You could think of the IT DNA as the defined lower metrics required for any IT shop to deliver Information. The key performance criteria for Information delivery SOA as a roadmap to bridge the communications gap between the "IT think" people and the "Business driver think" people."
3. Natural Selection: The more we put in the DNA, the more restrictive the future generation of SOA will be, the less we put in the DNA the more fragile our SOA generation will be.
4. The Grand Design approach: "...grand design, and hints at a roadmap created by an external, pervasive entity ... the lingua franca for cross-platform coding...."
To me, project motivation comes from two very diametrically opposed sources: pragmatics of funding (business drivers) and the passion of professionals (to do "the right thing").
In some organizational cultures, we will have an entry level of maturity that is going to be project focused and natural selection may indeed rule.
At the other end of the spectrum we have neterprise wide transformation efforts that are occuring with some degree of SOA governance that follows a roadmap, "grand design". This allows the "instilling of SOA into Company DNA" in a spiral form : not necessarily top-down, not project by project, but by whichever comes first. The governance in place sees to it that where the passion of professionals or the pragmatics of funding are the drivers, that success is achieved within the designated , I repeat, designated scope.
As diverse projects weave their way to SOA, SOA governance sees to it that Variation-oriented Analysis is conducted across projects by the enterprise architecture board (with business and IT representation), Service Refactoring is done to factor out common services that eliminate redundancy (the third Service Litmus test).
BPM & Service-oriented Architecture: Insights and Best Practices
Now you have convinced people to invest in building services for flexibility, redundancy elimination and business/IT alignment. Great.
Each business line goes about their way to achieve it, but soon will find out that there is one conspicuous issue: who is the Service Owner? If I build this service and it is used in multiple places, who pays for the changes if the changes are those I do not specifically "care about" in my line of business?
Thus appears the notion of Service Domains, where a domain defines a set of related services that some "one" can own, maintain, support and (obtain) fund (ing).
To make a chance to a service, contact the Service Domain Owner.
Here is a question for you:
If I don't need to change the service description, can I change the service implementation? If so, do I still have to go to the service domain owner?