<post blog="InfoQ">
BPEL: Who Needs It Anyway?
...
</post >
Jean-Jacques,
I like you approach to look wider than just BPMN vs BPEL and consider a multi-layer architecture for process-centric composite applications in which many of existing technologies would co-exist. Do you know a (maybe, virtual) place where such a wider scope can be discussed? Topics for discussion, for example, are: BPM reference model (offer my contribution http://www.slideshare.net/samarin/bpm-concepts-de-base-presentation ), BPM reference architectures, etc. I think they should lead us to a commonly agreed architecture for process-centric composite applications.
Thanks,
AS
2009-02-04
2009-02-03
re re BPMN for People and Robots
<post blog="Process Is The Main Thing">
BPMN for People and Robots, comment 10
...
</post >
Anatoly,
I am glad that this discussion turned to the description of a better BPM. I like your list and believe that such a list should include more BPM functionality, not just modelling.
For example, my list of essential requirements for the ideal process development tool (which is an extension of the modern process modelling tools).
• A BPMN-like modelling notation should use a standard execution semantic which can be validated and which guarantees the adequate interpretation of models by different software for different uses, e.g. for functional testing, performance simulation and execution.
• It should be possible to represent the same business process model with different levels of detail, e.g. a high-level view for a normal user, and a more detail for a business analyst.
• There should be a modelling procedure which guides different stakeholders how to use these different levels.
• Details of the execution of business processes should come from a coherent set of standards, similar to that provided by the W3C for HTML: a) xHTML for structure and content, b) CSS for presentation, c) DOM-based API for dynamic modifications, and d) some other specialized standards.
• Different types of artefact should be easily accessible from a business process development environment.
• It should be easy to plug additional DSL-like tools for the explicit definition of relationships between artefacts into the business process development environment.
• It should be possible to reduce and eventually eliminate the need for the explicit use of intermediate formats such as BPEL and XPDL.
• It should be possible to offer some techniques for improving the comprehensibility of business processes by all stakeholders.
I believe that it is time that BPM progresses from being vendor-centric to become customer-centric. A good example of customer-centricity is the current situation with Web browsers – all vendors of Web browsers want to benchmark their product against the ACID3 test (acid3.acidtests.org) to demonstrate their compliance with standards. Once such a baseline has been established, it becomes easy to compare the performance of products.
I hope that a similar tendency will be established in the BPM field whereby vendors of BPM software will compete in terms of compliance with standards and product performance.
But, as the first step, we need an agreed BPM reference model, of course.
Thanks,
AS
BPMN for People and Robots, comment 10
...
</post >
Anatoly,
I am glad that this discussion turned to the description of a better BPM. I like your list and believe that such a list should include more BPM functionality, not just modelling.
For example, my list of essential requirements for the ideal process development tool (which is an extension of the modern process modelling tools).
• A BPMN-like modelling notation should use a standard execution semantic which can be validated and which guarantees the adequate interpretation of models by different software for different uses, e.g. for functional testing, performance simulation and execution.
• It should be possible to represent the same business process model with different levels of detail, e.g. a high-level view for a normal user, and a more detail for a business analyst.
• There should be a modelling procedure which guides different stakeholders how to use these different levels.
• Details of the execution of business processes should come from a coherent set of standards, similar to that provided by the W3C for HTML: a) xHTML for structure and content, b) CSS for presentation, c) DOM-based API for dynamic modifications, and d) some other specialized standards.
• Different types of artefact should be easily accessible from a business process development environment.
• It should be easy to plug additional DSL-like tools for the explicit definition of relationships between artefacts into the business process development environment.
• It should be possible to reduce and eventually eliminate the need for the explicit use of intermediate formats such as BPEL and XPDL.
• It should be possible to offer some techniques for improving the comprehensibility of business processes by all stakeholders.
I believe that it is time that BPM progresses from being vendor-centric to become customer-centric. A good example of customer-centricity is the current situation with Web browsers – all vendors of Web browsers want to benchmark their product against the ACID3 test (acid3.acidtests.org) to demonstrate their compliance with standards. Once such a baseline has been established, it becomes easy to compare the performance of products.
I hope that a similar tendency will be established in the BPM field whereby vendors of BPM software will compete in terms of compliance with standards and product performance.
But, as the first step, we need an agreed BPM reference model, of course.
Thanks,
AS
2009-02-02
Re BPMN for People and Robots
<post blog="Process Is The Main Thing">
BPMN for People and Robots
...
</post >
Anatoly,
I would compare your shock with a shock of a person who looked first time at a human’s internal organs in live (I saw a beating heart once - not nice). Personally, I want to say huge thanks to Intalio for making a lot of BPM internals FREE, EXECUTABLE and EXPLICIT. Of course, some poor-man solutions are used so far. For example, all data messages are synchronous – an extra exchange is required to implement asynchronous communications, use of two languages (BPMN and BPEL), etc. Sure, Intalio is not perfect and they had some strange ideas (e.g. zero-code). Fortunately, they consider some critics with Business Edition and Developer Edition.
Returning to the diagram – it can be done by an analyst in the following way:
Also, the current Intalio implementation of human tasks is not a “fault” of BPMN, but the result of the usage of BPEL. At the same time, Oracle SOA Fusion invented some macros to hide this complexity in their BPEL. WebSphere (not IBM Designer) has a very comprehensive human task manager and a human task is a single “block” in their BPEL (because Websphere uses extra SCA/SDO layer).
Concerning Sandy’s “...consider people as first-class process citizens.” – it is an old story (after some problems in some industries) about automation of human work. “It does not mean that the goal is to replace humans by programs. On the contrary, the human is in command as he/she is responsible for the outcome. Any automation is to help the humans to carry out their work.”
Finally, all depends how you organise the work between business analyst and other people within the team - who should produce which artefacts. With Intalio you may have more choices.
Thanks,
AS
BPMN for People and Robots
...
</post >
Anatoly,
I would compare your shock with a shock of a person who looked first time at a human’s internal organs in live (I saw a beating heart once - not nice). Personally, I want to say huge thanks to Intalio for making a lot of BPM internals FREE, EXECUTABLE and EXPLICIT. Of course, some poor-man solutions are used so far. For example, all data messages are synchronous – an extra exchange is required to implement asynchronous communications, use of two languages (BPMN and BPEL), etc. Sure, Intalio is not perfect and they had some strange ideas (e.g. zero-code). Fortunately, they consider some critics with Business Edition and Developer Edition.
Returning to the diagram – it can be done by an analyst in the following way:
Also, the current Intalio implementation of human tasks is not a “fault” of BPMN, but the result of the usage of BPEL. At the same time, Oracle SOA Fusion invented some macros to hide this complexity in their BPEL. WebSphere (not IBM Designer) has a very comprehensive human task manager and a human task is a single “block” in their BPEL (because Websphere uses extra SCA/SDO layer).
Concerning Sandy’s “...consider people as first-class process citizens.” – it is an old story (after some problems in some industries) about automation of human work. “It does not mean that the goal is to replace humans by programs. On the contrary, the human is in command as he/she is responsible for the outcome. Any automation is to help the humans to carry out their work.”
Finally, all depends how you organise the work between business analyst and other people within the team - who should produce which artefacts. With Intalio you may have more choices.
Thanks,
AS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
