Sometimes my fingers do not catch up with the scope of
my brain. My brain says that when we have some common
understanding along these lines we can move up to EA.
but not to conform to what I typed below. ( I hope I
do not turn people off) Because higher level concepts
depend on concepts of the lower levels. So conceptual
accuracy of the lower levels must be reached before
attaining that of higher levels.
The question I was thinking for quite a while is, waht
is the unit of analysis at the level of abstraction
above BP? My thought is Business Needs that
categorizes BPs. Each category of BP contains many
types of BPs. This level of abstraction is not
functional but categorial. So we have SOA level that
is operational, BPM as functional, and BN as
categorial. It is interesting to think what is the IT
capabilities at the level of BN. I think that many
questions and confusions Steve Jones has can be answer
at this level of abstructure. Many of the confusions
we experience in today's business world are due to
questions being asked at the wrong levels of
abstraction.
BTW, today's EA frameworks are fads in my view as much
as UP software development methodology is a fad. They
are fads becuase the practice of them are more art
than science, not much a discipline of engineering.
They are putting forward solutions to be selected as
chance events. Only a third are selected as a success
in software projects.
Best to all,
Jerry Zhu
--- Jerry Zhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
=== message truncated ===
