Skip to main content

BPM needs SOA, BPM drives SOA

Jim Sinur at the Gartner Blog network writes...

BPM portends to make process work easy and some activities / technologies are fairly simple to work with in process improvement. Process modeling is a great example of this principle. While getting the correct process model and getting all stakeholders to agree to it is certainly a challenge, but the BPM tools supporting process modeling are deceptively easy to work with in the modeling arena. Business professionals get real excited when they see their processes and find ways to cut costs and time out of them. It’s all good, right?

The problem is that this gives business professionals the impression that this is pretty easy stuff. When the processes involve composite processes that require significant IT support to complete, things do not move that fast. BPM actually gives the false impression that things are easier than they look... It gets much more difficult when the some of the process goes below the water line a needs web service orchestration, integration transformations, and composition logic.


Recently I heard Kiran Garimella of Software AG describe BPM as the “SOA Killer App”, and I must say I strongly agree. Indeed, BPM shows how easy it can be…if only the underlying service structure is in place to allow BPM to do it’s job.

Otherwise, building out the services necessary to support the BPM processes can be a costly and time consuming endeavor, essentially destroying the ROI potential of BPM.

In my former U.S. Fortune 50 environment, we decided 3 times to NOT invest in BPM due to that exact realization. However, that was with BPM attempting to be sold to IT management as a way to leverage abilities for the business.

In a way, IT management was relieved that senior business management was unaware of BPM technology. For when business management sees what is possible and the tremendous benefits available (not only modeling the processes, watching KPI's and gaining process control, but also taking snapshots and performing process adjustment simulations [what happens if sales increase, or decrease, if delivery time goes up, or down, to realize where to invest, focus, save, and change] ) they will very validly ask HOW DO WE GET THIS?

The answer is, we change our IT development paradigm and begin to emphasize SOA. The business driver being I WANT MY BPM and the full process view and control it offers. If you're looking for a business driver for SOA, go demonstrate BPM to your line of business managers, your CFO and your CEO. It may not have an easily definable "traditional" ROI, but it has a tremendous business value that is clear to see.

Popular posts from this blog

Integration Spaghetti™

  I’ve been using the term Integration Spaghetti™ for the past 9 years or so to describe what happens as systems connectivity increases and increases to the point of … unmanageability, indeterminate impact, or just generally a big mess.  A standard line of mine is “moving from spaghetti code to spaghetti connections is not an improvement”. (A standard “point to point connection mess” slide, by enterprise architect Jerry Foster from 2001.) In the past few days I’ve been meeting with a series of IT managers at a large customer and have come up with a revised definition for Integration Spaghetti™ : Integration Spaghetti™ is when the connectivity to/from an application is so complex that everyone is afraid of touching it.  An application with such spaghetti becomes nearly impossible to replace.  Estimates of change impact to the application are frequently wrong by orders of magnitude.  Interruption in the integration functioning are always a major disaster – both in terms of th

Solving Integration Chaos - Past Approaches

A U.S. Fortune 50's systems interconnect map for 1 division, "core systems only". Integration patterns began changing 15 years ago. Several early attempts were made to solve the increasing problem of the widening need for integration… Enterprise Java Beans (J2EE / EJB's) attempted to make independent callable codelets. Coupling was too tight, the technology too platform specific. Remote Method Invocation (Java / RMI) attempted to make anything independently callable, but again was too platform specific and a very tightly coupled protocol. Similarly on the Microsoft side, DCOM & COM+ attempted to make anything independently and remotely callable. However, as with RMI the approach was extremely platform and vendor specific, and very tightly coupled. MQ created a reliable independent messaging paradigm, but the cost and complexity of operation made it prohibitive for most projects and all but the largest of Enterprise IT shops which could devote a focused technology

From Spaghetti Code to Spaghetti Connections

Twenty five years ago my boss handed me the primary billing program and described a series of new features needed. The program was about 4 years old and had been worked on by 5 different programmers. It had an original design model, but between all the modifications, bug fixes, patches and quick new features thrown in, the original design pattern was impossible to discern. Any pattern was impossible to discern. It had become, to quote what’s titled the most common architecture pattern of today, ‘a big ball of mud’. After studying the program for several days, I informed my boss the program was untouchable. The effort to make anything more than a minor adjustment carried such a risk, as the impact could only be guessed at, that it was easier and less risky to rewrite it from scratch. If they had considered the future impact, they never would have let a key program degenerate that way. They would have invested the extra effort to maintain it’s design, document it property, and consider