I found no disagreement with what you said. And also
no conflict between my views. Only open to termilogy
explanations.
I should say :"... accessible and usable by IT (aspect
of BP)" Or "...by BP('s IT aspect)"
And I should say: "This IT strategy is made possible
only when we model business processes in SOA way (at
the level of service abstraction)" "SOA way" I mean
business modeling as service orientation not IT
architecture.
We have discussed three levels of abstraction so far:
BP, B Service (B sub-Ps), and B Activity. Higher level
units have lower level units as constituents. Each
level may also be a hierarchy. One way to understand
each level is to model it and multiple models are
needed. They are business capability model, IT
capability model, and data model. The highest level
of modeling is the architecture which is our focal
point of discussion therefore B capabiity architecture
and IT capability architecture at each level. So we
have top-down three pairs of business and IT
architecture models: (BP architecture, BMP), (B
service architecture, SOA), and (B Actvity
Architecture, OOA)
B architecture is the meat at each level and IT
architecture at each level is the skin. How models at
different levels of abstraction meet? Skin touches
skin. So OOA is used by SOA that is used by BPM. How
business architectures at different levels meet? They
do not meet but encapsulated at each level. Or they
are modeled independently. At BP level, it does not
limit how business processes are internally modeled
whether it is SO or OO.
When we agree on this, we would be able to move up to
next level of abstraction.
Regards
Jerry
--- "Shashank D. Jha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with your view expressed earlier
> --start
> SOA is the architecture at the level of service
> modeling. The implementation
> of Services maybe using OO that needs another
> architecture at different
> level of abstraction. In other words, we need
> different architectures at
> different levels of abstraction.
>
> So we need a BMP architecture as much as we need a
> architecture at
> service level abstraction. Architectures at
> different levels of
> abstractionare ontologicially and sementically
> distinct and are not overlapping in
> representation of reality.
> --end
>
> Your this view slightly contradicts the scope of SOA
> as mentioned in this message.
>
> If BMP architecture decides to meet IT architecture
> (based on SOA) I will definitely qualify that as one
way of doing Enterprise Architecture (EA).
> Certainly not SOA.
>
> I agree with Steve when he says
> ---start
> Which to me is the dust, because we've been there,
> done that and
> failed a whole load of times. CICS was the same, MVS
> (IIRC) was the
> same, CORBA was the same, EAI was the same, DCOM was
> the same and now
> we have WS.
>
> For SOA to actually matter it must change the way
> people think, and
> neither BPM nor SOA 4 IT is capable of achieving
> that.
> ----end
>
> But if we want to achieve what he and we all want,
> that enterprise must have
> seamless integration between BP and IT
> infrastructure we need to change our
> approach, towards enterprise as a whole and organize
> all the activities and
> process within an organization within a common
> framework, which according to
> some is SOA, but I think that is EA.
>
>
> regards,
> Shashank D. Jha
>
> On 5/10/07, Jerry Zhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I correct what I said below as ... reusable by
> BP.(not
> > IT)
> >
> > It is interesting to diferentiate IT capability
> from
> > business capability. Business capabilities are the
> > driving factor and requirements of IT
> capabilities.
> >
> > So when we say SOA, we mean both SOA business and
> IT
> > capabilities. In SOA, services are defined as IT
> > assets that encapsulate business capabilities (of
> > certain business granularity) accessbile over
> network
> > and can be assembled and reassembled to form
> business
> > processes (larger business granularity than
> service).
> > SOA is IT strategy that make services standard
> based,
> > interoperable and reusable. This IT strategy is
> made
> > possible only when we model business processes in
> SOA
> > way. So SOA is also a business strategy in
> business
> > process modelings.
> >
> > So I agree what you say below.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > --- "Shashank D. Jha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <shashank.dj%40gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Can I say that SOA is IT capability which will
> be/is
> > > used by BP?
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > Shashank D. Jha
> > >
> > > So SOA is not just dust but business
> capabilities
> > > > enabled by IT and made accessible and reusable
> by
> > > IT.
> > > >
> > > > Jerry
> > > >
> > > > --- Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <jones.steveg%40gmail.com>
> > > <jones.steveg%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have to disagree here Jerry, Business
> Process
> > > is
> > > > > a long way away from being the only way that
> > > value
> > > > is _generated_ within a business. When people
> > > > > interact with businesses they tend to
> interact
> > > at
> > > > > specific points, these tend to be marked,
> and
> > > indeed
> > > > referred to as the "market facing services" of
> > > > > the organisation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Viewing SOA as just about the dust at the
> edges
> > > > > misses the real point of SOA
> > > > > which is that by using services to model
> > > _business_
> > > > > you can understand what
> > > > > different approaches are required in
> different
> > > area.
> > > > > BPM and SOA, if driven
> > > > > from a technical perspective, will fail to
> > > deliver
> > > > > any real benefits to
> > > > > organisations. Technology is a secondary
> > > concern,
> > > > > the main goal is changing
> > > > > the way people think about IT. If SOA just
> aims
> > > to
> > > > > be the dust while BPM is
> > > > > the business then it will be just as
> successful
> > > as
> > > > > BPM was _before_ SOA and
> > > > > as EAI was in controlling that dust.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://service-architecture.blogspot.com/2007/05/soa-isnt-about-technology.html
> >
> > > > > I tried to sum up what I mean in two
> pictures.
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 07/05/07, Jerry Zhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <jerryyz%40yahoo.com>
> > > <jerryyz%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see some conceptual confusion here.
> Business
> > > > > > process outcomes in the form of
> > > produce/service
> > > > > > delivered is not the same as SOA services.
> Now
> > > > > here
> > > > > > product/service refers to customer value
> > > created
> > > > > and
> > > > > > delivered. This value has nothing to do
> with
> > > > > > procedures or activties but is measured by
> the
> > > > > > external customer that varies from
> customer to
> > > > > > customer. Customer (external) value is
> > > created, by
> > > > > > definition, only by business processes not
> by
> > > > > smaller
> > > > > > granualities such as subprocesses,
> procedures
> > > or
>
=== message truncated ===
