Robin, On Apr 26, 2007, at 3:04 PM, Robin wrote:
> Hi Stefan, > My view on this is that it depends what SOA you are talking about. > If you are discussing with developers or technical architects, for > them SOA is more or less a distributed architecture based on (Web) > Services used to integrate applications of all kinds. For them SOA and > BPM are orthogonal. OK, we agree here. > But if you discuss more with enterprise architects or business people, > there is no interest for them to build a SOA without some BPM. I disagree 100%. At the enterprise level, everything is obviously related to a company's business processes - but SOA does in no way imply that these processes need to be formally defined, let alone executable. In other words: I think one can be a believer in SOA as a means to increase a business's agility because it improves business/ IT alignment, but still be a non-believer in BPM. > Here, > SOA is an IT architecture which could increase the business agility > and that one includes the use of BPM. Why would it have to? Best regards, Stefan -- Stefan Tilkov, http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/ > > Robin > > --- In [email protected], Stefan Tilkov > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I was in a panel discussion at a conference this week, and was > > surprised to notice there's still no consensus about whether or > not a > > process engine (or rather, support for automated BPM) is a "must" > for > > SOA. > > > > Well OK, not really surprised, but I still would be interested in > the > > group's opinion. > > > > There were two views: > > > > 1. BPM and SOA are orthogonal concepts - you can do one without the > > other. It's perfectly OK to have a SOA where there is no BPM/ > Workflow/ > > BPEL engine involved anywhere. (This is my view). > > 2. SOA is all about automating business processes via orchestration > > of services, so a process engine is a necessary part of an SOA > effort. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Best regards, > > Stefan > > -- > > Stefan Tilkov, http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/ > > > > >
