Pure-play partnerships: helping light the way to BPM + SOA?
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) players often talk about their ability to support
BPEL, and this is often mistaken for
BPM support. But BPEL is a misleading beast (as I've blogged about
previously). It's not a bad technology for helping IT folks with declarative specification of service-to-service integration processing, but it's not the same as BPM. This is often overlooked, and is where a good deal of the
confusion surrounding BPM stems from.
The gap between BPM and BPEL is one perspective from which
Cape Clear's recent
tie-up with
Appian - and
Sonic's earlier
tie-up with
Lombardi - are newsworthy.
BPM initiatives need to be supported by technology that can flexibly integrate existing application, system and information assets into executing process instances. BPM pure-plays like Appian and Lombardi are both frequently tested against larger platform vendors (think IBM, BEA, TIBCO, Software AG, Oracle, etc) and, when standing alone, their integration stories are less comprehensive than those of the big boys.
Conversely, many SOA initiatives are pursued in the context of business process integration and improvement initiatives, and ESB specialists like Sonic and Cape Clear are frequently tested against the larger platform vendors, which on paper can offer more sophisticated support for runtime management of business processes. They certainly have more engineering and marketing resources.
So figuring out that partnerships between BPM specialists and ESB specialists are sensible is hardly rocket science. There are plenty of organisations out there which (for whatever reason) don't want to spend too much money with the big platform vendors, preferring instead to work with specialist suppliers.
What's more intriguing to me is how the separation of technologies forced by these partnerships can actually encourage good practice in "BPM + SOA".
It's often the case, where BPM and SOA tools are presented as part of broad tool suites, that separating business-focused process models from more technical models and service integration models is not encouraged in any meaningful way. Unless you work hard to keep these different models separate, over time artifacts which by rights should remain separate end up bleeding across models and it becomes harder and harder for different teams and stakeholders to remain actively involved in the programme, using tools and models that make sense to them.
By separating business-focused BPM modelling tooling from BPEL tooling and ESB configuration tooling, but still making it easy to link and reference where necessary between models and tools, these partnerships may well help to enforce good practice. It'll be really interesting to see how these partnerships develop, and whether the participants can make 1+1 = 2 (or more). If they can, then I agree with
Sandy: these partnerships have the potential to create market-leading positions.
[Another interesting angle, IMHO, to the Appian-Cape Clear tie-up that's not really been picked up is that both companies are active in the area of SaaS. Cape Clear is doing quite a lot of work enabling integration of SaaS and on-premise capabilities for customers; Appian has a SaaS implementation of its technology called Appian Anywhere.]
Labels: Appian, BPEL, BPM, Cape Clear, ESB, Lombardi, sonic
The SOA tool pyramid
I've had a bit of a graphic spurt (as it were) and so here's another blog post based around a diagram.
I was talking to a journalist a couple of weeks back about the kinds of functionality that customers need to look for when looking for tooling for SOA initiatives, and which vendors provide which groups of functionality. It's not always easy to explain this kind of thing over the phone, so I thought I'd have a go at describing the main areas of functionality as a pyramid. Something like this:
In our assessments of SOA tool vendors' capabilities (see
here for an example) we highlight nine separate areas of functionality, but this is a simpler picture that just focuses on four:
- Service enablement - this is functionality that helps you take existing IT assets (applications, databases, etc) and create service interfaces based on the capabilities they offer. A lot of vendors provide facilities in this area because in truth most of them started out as integration tools vendors.
- Orchestration and composition - this is functionality that helps you aggregate services and create "composite services" or "processes". Most vendors offer some capability along these lines, and most involve the ill-named "BPEL" in some way (but that's another story). The reason is the same as the reason above: many of the SOA tooling vendors had "pre-SOA" offerings which allowed you to aggregate and orchestrate resources from existing applications and systems.
- Lifecycle management - this is all about supporting development, integration and operations teams in linking their efforts to ensure that the consumer service experience is high-quality and consistent under potentially unpredictable circumstances. Typically the foundation of this capability is some kind of registry/repository, but ideally tools go further than this - firstly by helping to automate team workflows for implementing quality controls at design time; and secondly by helping to translate design intentions relating to operational SLAs into runtime policies which are tied into the infrastructure. Some vendors are starting to offer capabilities in this area, through acquisition (HP/Mercury/Systinet, webMethods/Infravio, BEA/Flashline (kind of)); OEM/resale agreements (Oracle/Systinet, BEA/Systinet) or in-house development (IBM, Sun).
- Service development - this is about the ability to design services "from scratch", or to design services where any existing applications/systems offer functionality which only partially fulfils a requirement. Ideally this starts "contract first" - first of all documenting what the service needs to do and the commitments the provider should make to service consumers; and only then refining that spec into a working service implementation and interface.
Most SOA tools vendors suck at this last bit, frankly. I think that TIBCO is starting to do provide some interesting supporting facilities for this broad area with
ActiveMatrix, and as vendors start to implement
SCA/SDO in their tools the situation might get better across the board. In the meantime if you've heard of a vendor targeting SOA specifically that really provides solid tools to help with this kind of contract first" development approach, I'd love to know.
Labels: BPEL, contracts, development, SCA, SOA, tools
