Skip to main content

SOA and BPM: Too much Round Tripping?

A previous post  SOA & BPM referred the issue of bidirectional gateway between BPM modeling and BPM implementation. The build of updated model from changed implementation or vice versa could also be termed as Round Tripping.

Recently, I read an Industry Trends Report named "BRIDGING THE BUSINESS-IT DIVIDE IN ENTERPRISE CLASS PROCESSES" written by Bruce Silver Associates.

The trends report topic is BPM and its relationship to SOA. The report illustrates the difficulties of bridging between Business BPM Analysts and Information Technology experts and also between SOA type BPM based on BPEL and Human based BPM nased upon Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) OMG's standard. The Round Tripping of BPEL based execution and BPMN based modeling is another challenge.

Another issue analyzed is the requirement for bridging between Metadata model, Data model and Programming model developed by using different tool sets. The context of the report is limited to BPM and SOA, however bridging between Data model and programming model is not limited to BPM and SOA. It is an old and known issue, which is manifested in various ways, for example, in the O-R Mapping challenge in case of an Object Oriented Programming Model with a relational data base.

A major problem is the gap between Business and IT. Some consequences of the gap are usage of different tools and terms for Business people and IT staff. Bridging between the different tools resulted in another Round Tripping.

The second part of the report is about an innovative BPM tool M3O developed by Vitria.
Unlike, Second Generation BPMS, M3O eliminates the Round Tripping by usage of Web 2.0 technologies and wizards instead of improving the Round Tripping solutions.

Conceptually, the key for closing the BPM gap between IT and Business is abstraction: The abstracted layer is simpler and free from technical terms usage.

M3O architecture is similar to Human Centric BPM suites, but tries to address Enterprise SOA BPM processes unified with EDA and Human Centric BPM.
The key principles are:
  • Shared Repository for IT professionals and Business Analysts
  • Shared design time processes viewed partially according to roles.
  • No code generation and therefore no need for Round tripping
As code is executed probably it was created as part of the product and customized by
executing wizards.


My Take
Sharing artifacts instead of Round Tripping is viable option.
It reduces Complexity and error due to unsynchronized artifacts. On the other hand the ability of that architecture to support complex SOA and Human Centric processes should be validated. It also should be noted that Management and Governance of a shared repository is a challenge.

In my opinion a key question for assessing product without code generation or programing is: Is it capable of handling Complexity?
Addressing requirements of Enterprises with thousands users, hundreds systems and many complex processes will include such Complexity

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The mainframe: still alive and kicking

Recently, I was interviewed by  Pcon   (unfortunately the link points to an Hebrew only site) as part of debriefing on Legacy Systems.  Pcon is an Israeli company investigating IT topics by quoting professional articles and interviewing experts. They publish the results of the investigations including practical recommendations. This post is mainly about topics raised by me during the interview, but not included in the debriefing, which will be published.    What are Legacy Systems? The term Legacy Systems refers to old application systems and/or veteran technologies still in use.  Usually, the term Legacy Systems is associated with: 1. Mainframe Hardware e.g. IBM System z and its Operating Systems or Proprietary Servers and Operating Systems such as HP Alpha and OpenVMS Operating System, IBM AS/400 and OS/400   Operating System. 2. Development and Production Environments, e.g. COBOL , Natural and DBMS systems such as Adabas  ...

Will Business and IT Aligned?

For decades we are talking about closing the gap between business and IT , but the gap is still as wide as it was. In the beginning of the ERP era, we focused on aligning Business Processes and Core Systems, but in most enterprises we failed. SOA was the next alignment promise: defining the SOA Services in Business boundaries instead of Technical boundaries, should narrow the gap. However, despite of SOA Business Value ( Agility and Reuse )  in most enterprises,  the large Business-IT Gap remained as large as it was.  The IT Community aimed at the next alignment attempt: SOA is technical and BPM is its Business related complement.  Will the current BPM based alignment attempt succeed? I do not know, but Nick Heath's article  titled: Stop doing what the vendors tell you, CIOs told , published in  Tech Republic , suggests that the root of the problem is not Technological .   Stop Doing What the vendors Tell You Nick Heath's article is based ...

Vendors Survival: Will Software AG Survive until 2019?

This post is another post in the Vendors Survival series following posts on Microsoft , Google , HP , Sun and EMC . On July 14 th Software AG and IDS Scheer announced that Software AG is going to take over IDS Scheer . The intended acquisition is an opportunity to add another post in my Vendors Survival posts series. A brief history of Software AG Mainframe products Software AG is larger than any German software company except SAP . It was established in the Mainframe age (in 1969). I worked with many customers, who used and some of them are still using, its two flagship products Adabas and Natural . Although these products support many platforms, their main platform is IBM Mainframe. Adabas is a database and Natural is a development environment. Like other pairs of Database and Development Environment in the mainframe environment (e.g. Ideal and Datacom , Mantis and Supra) build by the same vendor, they are tied together. As a result, although it is possible t...