Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
®
AMR Research is a registered trademark of AMR Research, Inc.
No portion of this report may be reproduced in whole or in part without the prior written permission of AMR Research. Any written
materials are protected by United States copyright laws and international treaty provisions.
AMR Research offers no specific guarantee regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information presented, but the professional staff
of AMR Research makes every reasonable effort to present the most reliable information available to it and to meet or exceed any
applicable industry standards.
AMR Research is not a registered investment advisor, and it is not the intent of this document to recommend specific companies for
investment, acquisition, or other financial considerations.
This is printed on 100% post-consumer recycled fiber. It is manufactured entirely with wind-generated electricity and in accordance with a
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) pilot program that certifies products made with high percentages of post-consumer reclaimed materials.
SOA and BPM for Enterprise Applications:
A Dose of Reality
by Bill Swanton and Ian Finley
The major platform and applications vendors have been hyping the
Executive benefits of service-oriented architecture (SOA) for several years, but
Vendors featured
in this Report:
Summary most of our manufacturing and retail clients say, “SOA what?” Unlike
BEA Systems
most of the SOA pioneers cited as references by vendors, these com-
IBM
panies, interested in exploiting that investment and not developing custom software, have
Oracle
built an IT landscape around a major ERP suite, such as Oracle E-Business Suite (EBS)
SAP
or SAP. For these companies, the value of SOA will be found in business process man-
TIBCO
agement (BPM), which promises to allow companies to create unique and differentiating
webMethods
business processes on top of the same software many of their competitors use.
To meet this promise, these tools must allow business analysts and developers to
collaborate closely on developing and iteratively improving the new business process.
In order to effectively assess SOA/BPM toolsets, AMR Research presented the major
vendors with a supply chain business process and asked them to show us how their
tools would be used to implement it. Here’s what we found:
• Many roles, skills, and tools are needed throughout the SOA/BPM development lifecycle.
• Three distinct models for linking SOA and BPM will affect collaboration and
continuous improvement.
• Ease of development varies as vendors continue to integrate and rationalize their suites.
• The depth and breadth of tools needed depends on your company’s SOA strategy.
• Catalogs of standard services, now in their infancy, will be critical for widespread adoption.
• ERP vs. non-ERP: choosing an SOA framework depends on maturity as well as your
strategy for applications and development outside ERP.
Companies can and should pilot SOA/BPM tools now to gain experience. Depending on
your chosen vendor, you might want to wait until the tools and services catalogs mature
over the next 18 to 24 months before committing to intensive development on mission-
critical processes. You may find it takes more effort than expected, and you may need to
rework the application to work with the next version of the platform. In any case, we rec-
ommend companies begin their effort with small pilot projects in order to better under-
stand the potential of the technology and its process and organizational impacts.
Unlike companies in other industries that focus on managing the cost and flexibility
of custom software and legacy applications, the goal for most manufacturers and
retailers is to enhance the value of their packaged applications. Table 1 shows the
scenario we specified for the vendors who took part in our study. It is a familiar one in
the manufacturing and retailing world: deciding whether to accept a rush order from
a customer based on capacity, transportation availability, and the value or strategic
importance of the customer.
Though some software vendors can accomplish this within their applications, most
companies use manual processes and multiple, heterogeneous applications to handle
rush orders. So, we created a scenario that required:
• The integration of software packages from several vendors
• Access to data about the customer in a data warehouse
• Access to an external web service
• The combination of human workflow and automated processing and integration
While few large-scale deployments combining BPM, SOA, and ERP exist today, we
anticipate manufacturing and retail companies will often apply SOA and BPM technology
in this type of scenario in the future.
Business Analyst Business Process Describe specific business BPMN, XPDL, ARIS
Modeling process, roles, and information
at a user level.
Note: This is a composite of the various vendors’ models. Source: AMR Research, 2007
A good toolset provides the right level of interfaces for business analysts, service archi-
tects, service developers, and systems managers, among others, while allowing them to
collaborate closely to iteratively create and improve the automated business process.
One note on architecture: there are several levels of architecture at play here. The
process/service architect differs from an overall enterprise architect, who worries about
the overall plan for systems, applications, and SOA. We expect to see organizational
design change as SOA takes hold and the process/service architect may be an
individual contributor within the larger enterprise architecture group.
The vendors we reviewed used three major approaches to taking a high-level process
definition and getting into an SOA development environment (see Figure 1):
• Waterfall model—This approach exports the business process model from the
business analyst’s tools and imports it into the development environment. This one-
way process resembles the traditional waterfall software development model. The
downside of this approach is that further changes or improvements to the model
need to be managed manually on both sides to avoid divergence over time.
• Synchronized models—Both sets of tools share a common portion of the model,
while each side’s model can carry additional information not needed by the other.
Enough context is maintained so that a change made on either side synchronizes
with the other, albeit flagged to be evaluated. This approach allows very rich
tools on each side to provide more scope up into the business and down into the
programming world, all while allowing for continuous improvement.
• Single model—In terms of simplicity, this is the most attractive approach. There is
a single model, but different specialized tools can be used by each role to work on it,
which provides both the business analyst and process/service architect a different level
of detail on the same process. The only downside to this approach is that the business
modeling environment is not as rich as that found in a tool like ARIS, though most
of the single-model BPM products could import from ARIS, Visio, BPMN, or other
models as a starting point for developing the technical business process.
Since relatively few companies do rich modeling of their business processes, high-level
modeling tools may not be an important consideration for you. For extensive business
modeling to ensure that business processes implemented in SOA/BPM match the
model, understand what will be necessary to accomplish this with the vendor under
evaluation.
Table 3 shows the multitude of products each vendor uses to cover various aspects of
their SOA framework (for more, see “A Framework Approach to SOA”). While the
vendors integrate the products technically, the marketing message often moves ahead
of reality. Components may be rebranded under a common name, such as NetWeaver
or AquaLogic, but they remain separate products from disparate organizations that
are working toward a common architecture. Several parts of a composite application
may need to be built separately and assembled outside the core tools and development
environment.
If we look at this from the point of view of the tool used to develop business process
models, Table 3 shows in bold those components tightly integrated into a BPM
framework. The other products work with these models, but may be distinct tools
or frameworks. These disconnects will disappear over the next few years. In the
meantime, evaluate whether the complexity these disconnects add can be managed in
your development organization.
User Interface
Workflow AquaLogic BPM WebSphere BPEL Process Enterprise Portal iProcess Client BPM
Suite Integration Manager—Human Guided Procedures
Developer Workflow Services
& Workflow Editor
Business Process
BPM for AquaLogic BPM WebSphere BPA Suite • IDS Scheer ARIS Business Studio BPM
Business Suite Business • Enterprise Portal
Analyst Modeler Guided Procedures
Simulation AquaLogic BPM WebSphere BPA Suite IDS Scheer ARIS Business Studio
Suite Business
Modeler
BPM for AquaLogic BPM WebSphere BPEL Process • EP Guided Business Studio BPM
Architect/ Suite Integration Manager Procedures
Developer Developer (sync with BPA • NetWeaver PI Process
Suite) Modeler (XI)
Rules Engine AquaLogic BPM WebSphere Business Rules Some rules capability • iProcess BPM
Suite Integration (also connects to built into Enterprise Decisions (OEM (OEM Fair
Developer iLog and Fair Isaac Portal and XI Corticon) Isaac)
through Decision • Business
Server) Studio
Business AquaLogic BPM WebSphere Business Activity KPIs are available as Business Events BPM
Activity Suite Business Monitor Monitoring part of SAP’s BI content
Monitoring
(BAM)
Note 1: Bold denotes components well integrated into the same development framework as the Source: AMR Research, 2007
BPM tools (more than common branding of component names).
Note 2 : Vendors use various terms, such as repository, registry, and composite application framework quite differently. Terms in lead
column are defined in Table 3a for the purposes of this Report. The data under each vendor name is its component name that contains the
equivalent functionality.
Service Development
Service AquaLogic WebSphere • Enterprise Service • NetWeaver PI (XI & • Business Works BPM
Aggregation/ Integrator Integration Bus ccBPM) • Business Studio &
Composition Developer • BPEL Process • Composite ActiveMatrix
Manager Applications Framework
• JDeveloper & ADF Core
Service AquaLogic WebSphere Service Metadata Services • Enterprise Services XML Canon can be Infravio
Repository Enterprise Registry and Library on Web for SAP used to implement X-Registry
Repository Repository published services some of this func-
• Locally defined tionality
services man-
aged in NetWeaver
Development
Infrastructure and XI
Execution
Enterprise AquaLogic Service • WebSphere Process Enterprise Service Enterprise Services Business Works Integration
Services Bus Bus Server Bus Infrastructure Server
(ESB) • Enterprise Service
Bus
• Message Broker
• Datapower
(appliance)
Service AquaLogic Service WebSphere Service Service Registry Policy enforcement ActiveMatrix Infravio
Registry Registry Registry and (OEM Systinet) through AmberPoint Registry X-Registry
(OEM Systinet) Repository partnership (OEM Systinet)
Monitoring AquaLogic SOA Tivoli IT Composite Enterprise Manager Development partner- HAWK and Optimize for
Management Application Monitor ship with AmberPoint Administrator Infrastructure
(OEM AmberPoint) for SOA
Development Eclipse (not all tools Eclipse JDeveloper Eclipse Eclipse (not all Eclipse
Framework ported yet) (Eclipse support for tools ported yet)
some tools)
Server WebLogic Server, WebSphere Process Oracle Application • NetWeaver ABAP AS Does not require Does not
Environment (WebSphere, Server Server (JBOSS, • NetWeaver Java AS application server require
Tomcat, JBOSS, and WebLogic, application
others as well) WebSphere also) server
Release AquaLogic BPM 6.0.2 10g Release3 NetWeaver 7.0 (2004S) • iProcess Suite Fabric 7
Evaluated Suite 5.7 MP2 10.5
• Business Studio
2.0
Note 1: Bold denotes components well integrated into the same development framework as the Source: AMR Research, 2007
BPM tools (more than common branding of component names).
Note 2 : Vendors use various terms, such as repository, registry, and composite application framework quite differently. Terms in lead
column are defined in Table 3a for the purposes of this Report. The data under each vendor name is its component name that contains the
equivalent functionality.
AMR Research Report | May 2007 © AMR Research, Inc.
Table 3a: Summary of vendor SOA framework components—notes
Monitoring Tools to monitor processes and service levels as they execute, as well as
intervene to resolve problems, such as hung or timed-out processes
Development Framework for integrating development tools and navigating different com-
Framework ponents of a project
Release Evaluated Release level of major BPM and SOA components used. Most vendors are on
a 6-9 month development cycle, so capabilities and scoring could change
rapidly over the next two years.
Source: AMR Research, 2007
Table 4 contains the criteria we used to rank the vendors. Most of them boil down to
how well integrated the tools are or how expansive of an applications landscape they
can contain. Some examples:
• webMethods has a single tool for BPM that covers process, user interface, and
business activity monitoring (BAM), while SAP has many separate tools, each of
which tackles a particular human or system process type.
• IBM’s BAM tool ties key performance indicator (KPI) definitions back to its
business modeling tool, while Oracle’s uses a separate capability that came from its
PeopleSoft acquisition.
Again, we expect some of these differences to disappear over time, so use the
information to set expectations and boundaries for your short-term SOA and BPM
activities.
Level of Capability
Why It
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 Matters
Business Incomplete Some end-to- Well coordinated Synchronized Single integrated Value of SOA
Process set of tools for end tools for set of tools for business pro- toolset working is in BPM and
Management designing busi- developing one system-to-sys- cess definition on a model for simple-to-use,
ness process form of business tem, human between busi- creating com- comprehensive
including human process (e.g., workflow, and ness modeling bined system- tools that reduce
workflow and human work- user interface. and technical to-system and the cost and
system-to-sys- flow). Business Business model- process model- human workflow effort of imple-
tem integration. modeling, BPM, ling is separate ing. with multiple menting pro-
No business ana- and SOA activi- and unidirec- views for differ- cesses, speeding
lyst UI develop- ties requiring tional in a water- ent roles. process improve-
ment tools. importing of fall development ment.
information from approach.
one tool to the
next.
Integration of Separate tools Separate groups Many tools inte- Common All BPM and SOA Reduces com-
Development used for differ- of tools for busi- grated into com- development tools in single plexity of devel-
ent functions ness modeling, mon framework, framework, but development opment process
with minimal BPM, and SOA but still porting limited registry framework and while reducing
support for activities requir- all needed tools and repository using common chances of
managing whole ing importing of into environ- capabilities. repository. incompatible
composite appli- information from ment. processes.
cation. No inte- one tool to the
gration between next.
business analyst
and developer
tools other than
reports.
Registry and No registry capa- Unintegrated Service registry Services reposi- Enterprise-wide Allows auto-
Repository bility. registry for ser- integrated to tory for storing registry and mated control
vice discovery both business additional meta- repository cover- of service usage
and policy defi- analyst and data about ser- ing development and deploy-
nition. developer proj- vices including and runtime ment in large
ect development business analyst with extensive organizations
framework. and developer SOA governance and reduces
models. Both capabilities to chances of
repository and manage access changes by one
registry capabili- and dependen- group affecting
ties controlling cies. Includes another.
development actionable and
and runtime with enforceable
some SOA gover- performance
nance capability. characteristics
and acceptable
values, linked to
BAM.
Source: AMR Research, 2007
Level of Capability
Why It
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 Matters
Services Manual entry of Basic capabilities Visual service Visual tools Visual service Simplifies com-
Development services into reg- to create service design tools for creation of design tools for plexity of busi-
istry. Requires models in regis- enable service new services creation of new ness process
WSDL and pro- try from WSDL definition. from common services, includ- at top level by
gramming for files. Requires Integrated APIs and small ing definition of allowing creation
service creation. WSDL and pro- with developer grain services, new application of more granular
gramming for design environ- including trans- logic. services.
new service cre- ment. Requires formations
ation. programming for from APIs and
new services. composing large
grain services
from smaller
services and
APIs. Requires
programming
for new applica-
tion logic.
Enterprise Basic capabilities Ability to intro- Standard Services for ERP Services avail- Companies with
Applications to access APIs, spect service services for and other appli- able from extensive pack-
Services databases, and and API defini- accessing mes- cations available industry vertical aged applica-
Catalog web services. tions from par- sage oriented as standard and horizontally tions want to
ticular enterprise middleware components focused commu- use the vendor’s
applications ven- (MOM) messages (supported and nities. services rather
dor libraries (e.g., provided. upgraded by the than creating
SAP or Oracle) vendor). their own.
User Interface User interface Human work- Integrated Business analyst Auto-generated Improves user
Development development flow as part of standard can use auto- UIs available for experience
separate from portal tools. components generation tools most functions. accelerating
BPM develop- Programming for workflow construct UIs All UI tools inte- adoption of new
ment. may be required management, associated with grated into BPM processes.
to build a gen- UI templates, human work- development
eral UI. and field pre- flow. framework as
population. May types of steps/
require some tasks.
programming to
finish UI.
Business Limited. Basic process Event capture Complex event Decision-making Critical to mea-
Activity metrics like cycle and analytic analysis to framework to suring and diag-
Monitoring time for opera- tools for calcula- detect correla- take automated nosing problems
tions monitoring. tion and creating tions and inter- action or make in existing
dashboards. actions between recommenda- processes and
events and infer tions based on measuring ser-
conclusions. inferences. vice levels and
compliance in
new processes.
If you will be focused on a few rifle shot processes and do not intend to deploy the
framework broadly, a lighter weight toolset may be more appropriate. In fact, two
of the vendors, webMethods and TIBCO, stated that they could have accomplished
our scenario with only their BPM tools, foregoing the complexity of the services
composition and repository capabilities.
The three companies furthest along take a very different approach to building their
services:
• SAP works with partners and customers as part of its Enterprise Services Community
to define its services. It facilitates groups, especially industry-specific ones, to write
specifications for new services. SAP’s architectural committee reviews the specifica-
tions and then schedules the development and delivery as part of its semiannual
enhancement packages. This approach ensures that demand exists for the specific
services, which will likely be used when available (for specifics, see “SAPPHIRE ‘06:
It Takes a Community To Raise Web Services”).
The most likely candidates to use something besides their ERP vendor’s framework are
companies that already have a significant deployment of another vendor’s technology.
For example, SAP customers that have been using webMethods for integration
and B2B e-business may not select SAP as the primary platform. Moving up to
webMethods’ BPM tools would have a lower learning curve and is currently a more
integrated development environment. Companies that use ERP purely for back-office
functions and have other vendors or custom applications for customer-facing functions
also may not choose that ERP vendor’s platform. If IBM, TIBCO, or BEA Systems is
already widely deployed for website development, integration, or software development,
it may be easier to extend that investment for BPM.
Companies may see SOA and BPM in their future, but the ramp-up time to apply
these technologies is long. Laggards will find that one morning their competitors who
use the exact same ERP software are suddenly zooming ahead, shortening lead times,
introducing new products faster, and reacting faster to changing market conditions. IT
groups that hope to respond to the business faster need to start making decisions, set-
ting a strategy, and building the skills to apply SOA and BPM as a competitive weapon.
See Appendix A for the scores for each criterion by vendor and a short summary of the
vendor’s strengths and maturity of their tools.
In all cases, we picked vendors that sell to very large, global companies. BEA Systems,
IBM, Oracle, SAP, TIBCO, and webMethods participated and demonstrated their
tools in a half-day session. A summary of our evaluation of each is below. Progress and
Microsoft were invited, but declined to participate.
BEA Systems
Oracle
The synchronization with the business process modeling tools (OEMed from
IDS Scheer) is the only round-tripping capability we saw from any vendor. This
gives business analysts a way to collaborate with their architect and development
colleagues without dropping into the very programmer centric world of JDeveloper.
Customers whose system landscape is dominated by E-Business Suite and other Oracle
applications have little reason to evaluate other tools.
SAP companies should pay close attention to the NetWeaver 7.1 release, which is
expected to start ramp-up in fall 2007 and be generally available sometime in 2008. It
promises to deliver a more unified Composition Environment to build applications, a
broader registry and repository capability, and SAP’s first BAM capability.
As shown by the scores, SAP’s Enterprise Services Community strategy and the customer
and partner involvement in its creation is an important strength. If SAP can deliver the
tools to simplify use of this catalog, it will close the gap with other vendors significantly.
TIBCO