Gartner on Convergence of BPM and SOA

Gartner Inc. analysts predict that, beginning in 2007, business
process management (BPM) will become the driver for SOA implementations.

The technology for the convergence of BPM and SOA may not fully mature
until 2010, but the analysts urge business adopt “process
architecture” now if they want to take a leadership role in this trend.

In the report titled Gartner Predicts 2007: Align BPM and SOA
Initiative Now to Increase Chances of Becoming a Leader in 2010,
analysts tell business managers, SOA architects and developers to
start adopting “process modeling and develop a process architecture.”
Process architecture includes identifying the customer-facing and
partner-facing processes that are key to achieving the business goals
of a company and then holistically concentrating on optimizing them
through BPM and SOA, the Gartner analysts explain.

Asked for a definition of process architecture, Jim Sinur, Gartner
vice president and distinguished analyst, who co-authored the report
with Janelle B. Hill, research vice president, explained: “A process
architecture would start with the 10-15 most important business
processes and drill down from there to avoid process sub-optimization.”

Project management specialists identify process sub-optimization as a
Catch-22 in IT systems design where concentrating on making some of
the processes more efficient can make the overall system less
efficient. It is a little like the case where speeding up the number
of cars that can pass through an onramp then causes a traffic jam by
putting too many cars on the freeway at the same time. Thus the
overall goal of smooth traffic flow is lost, even though the onramp is
technically operating faster.

To avoid this, the Gartner report recommends that business analysts
and architects take a holistic approach. “Identify the areas that
require greater flexibility and adaptability than possible in their
current implementation form,” the report recommends. “Look for common
activities and tasks across the process architecture where flexibility
is desired. These areas should be the top priorities for an SOA and
BPMS-based implementation.”

Rashid Khan, founder and CEO of Ultimus Inc., a business process
management (BPM) software vendor, said that when he read the Gartner
report it jibed with his current experience with customers. He said he
finds that business people don’t care about SOA, but they do care
about their business processes. He sees BPM as the link that brings
business people into the SOA world.

barriers to innovation

This text was copied from here.

…

The Laziness – Busyness Dimension.

Jim McGee had a great post on the Fast Forward blog, Balancing diligence and laziness. He begins with a reference to the work of General Erich Von Manstein (1887-1973) on the German Officer Corps. Erich mapped a 2 x 2 matrix with laziness/diligence on one side and smart/stupid on the other. He said the stupid lazy people can be ignored as they do no harm. It is the stupid diligent people that are the biggest threat to the organization. The smart diligent people become middle management and the smart lazy people become senior management. Jim adds to this, “…our Puritan/Calvinist heritage still dominates reward and evaluation systems. Regardless of the actual importance of thought and reflection to long-term organizational success, you are better off looking busy than looking like you are thinking.”I have seen this happen in so many organizations. Where middle management that aspires to senior management will watch when the senior guys get to work and make sure they are there earlier to be seen looking busy. There was even one consulting firm that I partnered with that took this to an extreme. I will not name them but it was not one of my employers, only a partner. They saw that their goal was to instill a workaholic nature in their client’s employees. They would spend long hours doing planning sessions. They would be sure to arrive before the employees and leave afterwards. Often they dragged in the employees to their endless planning sessions. Eventually, when they did not produce much besides detailed analysis and plans, their numbers would diminish and then they would get kicked out. The employees would be glad to see them go. They made us look good since the firm I was with at the time focused on having a good time, working as short hours as possible, but producing tangible results. That has been my work ethic.Jim posed some useful questions at the end of his post.What alternate terms than diligence and laziness could we use to better frame the issue?How important is it to carve out times and places to engage in visible laziness within organizations?Is this a problem that needs to be solved at the organizational level? For which types of organization?What barriers to innovation, if any, does a bias toward diligence create?