A maturity model towards BPM/SOA Alignment - Department ...

A maturity model towards BPM/SOA Alignment: “Establishing a

Flexible and Agile Business-driven Service-oriented Enterprise”

Master thesis Business Informatics,

Anne Hiemstra

Scriptie nummer: INF-SCR-08-32

“Esta

A matuablishin

urity mong a Flex

oMaster t

odel towxible andorientedthesis Business

wards BPd Agile Bd Enterps Informatics,

PM/SOABusinesprise” by Anne Hiems

A Alignms‐driven

stra

ment: n Servicce‐

2 A maturity model towards BPM/SOA Alignment: “Establishing a Flexible and Agile Business‐driven Service‐oriented Enterprise”


A maturity model towards BPM/SOA Alignment: “Establishing a Flexible and Agile Business‐driven

Service‐oriented Enterprise” Anne Hiemstra University of Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands December 9, 2008 Supervisors P. Ravesteyn, MSc, University of Utrecht prof. dr. S. Brinkkemper, University of Utrecht Drs. Y. Hoekstra, Senior Consultant / Business Architect, Capgemini Netherlands Ing. G. Tomsits, Managing Consultant, Capgemini Netherlands


Preface This Master thesis is the final product of eight months of research. It has been carried out in cooperation by the University of

s research also depended on the support and cooperation of many other people. First, Fred Steenbergen

Utrecht and Capgemini. This research can be of value to people from the business or IT‐branch that have an interest in BPM and SOA, their relationship and how they can be of value to each other. In addition, BPM experts or architects can use the assessment tool to measure the maturity of organizations, which can for example, support improvement plans or enable discussion.

Acknowledgements Carrying out this research project required a lot of support from many people. First, I would like to thank my supervisors, Yvette Hoekstra (Capgemini) and Pascal Ravesteijn (University of Utrecht) for the guidance and support they provided throughout this project. The success of thi(Capgemini) and Pieter Hörchner (Capgemini) were of great value for the internal validation phase. Second, I would like to thank Dave van Gelder (Capgemini) for using his network in providing respondents from external organizations. Very special thanks to Jennifer van Vuuren for the many brainstorm sessions we had and her support and feedback through some difficult periods throughout the research project. Final, I would like to thank Pascal Ravesteijn and Johan Versendaal for their contribution to the paper which has been submitted to the ECIS 2009.


Abstract Nowadays, many organizations perform interaction and collaboration with stakeholders, partners and customers on a global scale. Global interchange enables enterprises and organizations to quickly respond to environmental changes and utilize new methods to introduce (new) products and services into various (global) markets. Furthermore, organizations are then able to directly target specific customer groups and moreover address their needs more quickly than ever before. At the same time, customers are accustomed to rapid product deliveries and are increasingly demanding such things as product configuration to

ak & Chung‐Yee & Bruner 1995). According to mith and Fingar (2003), enterprises are increasingly dependent on BPM to keep their business processes in control due to ese booming business globalization and commoditization. BPM utilizes advanced tools in order to automate processes in njunction with functionality to analyze, measure and improve their performance. Although these systems and applications

IT infrastructure is often rigid and full of high couplings (Gopala & Behara 2006). Combining BPM with SOA, creates opportunities to, not only be able to visualize the enterprises processes, but to also develop a flexible internal IT infrastructure. However, despite the obvious synergy between BPM and SOA, leveraging the two concepts is not that straightforward. Obtaining optimal alignment requires major organizational transformations (Gopala et al. 2006, Woodley & Gagnon 2005, Kamoun 2007). In a survey conducted by the Aberdeen Group (Donham 2007), CIO’s were asked about their drivers to adopt SOA, 62% answered ‘the need to support new, agile processes’ as a top pressure driver, 44% of the respondents thought their current ERP system or best‐of‐breed supply chain solution insufficient to provide the desired functionality. In effect, vendors of various Business Process Management systems make use of SOA technologies, such as web services, to address these new organizational requirements. This narrow focus of BPM suites and technologies on process automation has blurred the traditional BPM approach. The holistic approach for the processing of processes has changed towards a focus on business process integration and has evolved towards an orchestration niche (Fingar 2008). Instead of bridging the gap between business and IT with a focus on strategy, it has become an IT process management approach with a tactical focus and limited scope (Fingar 2008). These new technologies and suites also have effect on the perception of organizations with respect to SOA. As vendors propagate a lot of opportunities and benefits by leveraging SOA technologies, organizations expect a one‐size fits all solutions. The full complexity of implementing and adopting an enterprise‐wide SOA is overlooked and not fully understood, resulting in common misconceptions about SOA as an architecture paradigm (Lewis & Morris & Simantra & Wrage 2007). Establishing such an environment requires much more than merely implementing BPM technology together with a SOA technology like web service support. Our proposition is that alignment is required between a holistic BPM approach and a true SOA vision in order to establish a business‐driven service‐oriented enterprise to be truly agile and flexible. The way we approached, is by creating a model that addresses maturity and alignment of BPM and SOA. The last two decades, maturity is used as a measure to evaluate the capabilities of an organization with regard to certain disciplines. Since the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) proposed by the Carnegie Mellon University (Paulk & Weber & Curtis & Chrissis 1995) maturity models have extended the CMM model to suit the scope and discipline of for example IT infrastructure Management, Enterprise Architecture, BPM and SOA. Yet, to our knowledge there are no models focusing on measuring the alignment and maturity between BPM and SOA to establish a business process‐driven service‐oriented enterprise by means of a quick scan. In this paper we answer the following research question:

“How can we establish an agile and flexible business‐driven service‐oriented enterprise, using BPM/SOA maturity and alignment principles?”

personalize their needs. To cope with such important business changes, organizations make large investments in IS and IT. New technological possibilities give way to new methods, frameworks and technological infrastructures, which enterprises integrate and implement to become more agile and flexible in their IS/IT landscape. This has resulted in information spread across various (mostly) non‐integrated information systems, distributed in all sorts of ways: across technologies, languages, and places and in different types of groups and objects, causing information and process inconsistencies everywhere across the enterprise (Evgeniou 2002). Business Process Management (BPM) provides methods to enable continuous analysis, optimization and management of the business processes, resulting in higher business process visibility (Elzinga & HorSthcoprovide some flexibility in the management of process flows, the underlying


The contribution of this paper is 1) The BPM/SOA Alignment Maturity Model, which 2) considers a holistic perspective of organizational aspects that concerns the BPM and SOA approaches and the alignment between the two, as well as Enterprise Architecture, business/IT alignment and IS/IT governance. 3) It provides a questionnaire as assessment tool for the model and a

ng of key activities that can support the organization in their evolution from the As‐is towards To‐be maturity state. 4) This research bridges several disciplines to construct a model focusing on the alignment of BPM/SOA and business/IT in order to establish a truly agile and flexible business driven enterprise, namely Enterprise Architecture, business/IT alignment

mo available for thisThismodels, iwfa ofbe se

be

as sreflected

roadmap consisti

and IS/IT governance. Currently, there is little research about achieving a BPM/SOA synergy or alignment and no maturity del is purpose.

is based on a lite research rature review to identify and analyze BPM and SOA approaches and best practices and maturity n order to identify the key factors, frameworks and models. In addition, semi‐structured interviews are performed

ith experts in the field of BPM and SOA adoption and implementation. These interviews provided possible success and failure ctors BPM and SOA initiatives as well as a ‘practical’ vision of such an optimal environment. In addition, the model has en as ssed at a large financial organization in the Netherlands to validate its applicability in practice. The assessment tool

has en thoroughly changed during these assessments to extend the value proposition of the model and to ensure that the questions of the questionnaire are as consistent as possible. The questionnaire is extended in such a way that the as‐is as well to‐be ituation can be answered. In effect, the desired state of the business as well as IT respondents can be measured and

to each other as well as to the desired state of executive managers.


C eont nts

1 TR

1.1.2 .3

1.4 SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTION .............................................................................................................. 15.5

LI

BUSEBPMRE

3 TH

EN3.2 IS RESEARCH: EVALUATE...................................................................................................................................... 55

4 INTERVIEWS WITH EXPERTS AT CAPGEMINI ................................................................................................ 58

4.1 THE BPM/SOA ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................................ 58 4.2 MOVING TOWARDS THE BPM/SOA ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................. 59 4.3 LEVERAGING THE SERVICE‐CENTRIC PERSPECTIVE TO BUSINESS PROCESS MODELING ........................................................ 60 4.4 THE INFORMATION MODEL ................................................................................................................................... 61 4.5 CHANGING THE TRADITIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL .............................................................................................. 62 4.6 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................... 63

5 DEVELOP/BUILD AND EVALUATE PHASE ..................................................................................................... 65

5.1 A META‐MODEL TO SUPPORT THE RESEARCH ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................. 66 5.2 ESTABLISHING MATURITY LEVELS............................................................................................................................ 67 5.3 ESTABLISHING THE DIMENSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 70 5.4 DEFINING THE KEY FACTORS WITHIN THE CELLS ......................................................................................................... 76 5.5 CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROADMAP ......................................................................................................................... 79

6 EXTERNAL EVALUATION PHASE .................................................................................................................. 80

6.1 EXTERNAL VALIDATION WITHIN CAPGEMINI ............................................................................................................. 80 6.2 VALIDATION WITH EXPERTS OF EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS .......................................................................................... 82

7 THE BPM/SOA ALIGNMENT MATURITY MODEL ........................................................................................... 83

7.1 PURPOSE AND PROPOSITIONS OF THE MODEL ........................................................................................................... 83 7.2 THE MATURITY LEVELS ......................................................................................................................................... 83 7.3 THE DIMENSIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 86

IN ODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 9

PROBLEM AREA ................................................................................................................................................... 9 1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 11 1 IS RESEARCH FRAMEWORK AS A STARTING POINT ...................................................................................................... 13

1 OUTLINE OF THIS STUDY ....................................................................................................................................... 16

2 TERATURE STUDY .................................................................................................................................... 17

2.1 SINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 17 2.2 RVICE ORIENTED ARCHITECTURE ........................................................................................................................ 27 2.3 M AND SOA ................................................................................................................................................. 35 2.4 ATURITY MODELS FOR BPM AND SOA ................................................................................................................ 42 2.5 FERENCE MODELS ............................................................................................................................................ 50

ME ODS .................................................................................................................................................. 53

3.1 VIRONMENT .................................................................................................................................................. 53


7.4 APPLICATION OF THE MODEL ................................................................................................................................ 91

8 APPLICATION OF THE MODEL IN PRACTICE ................................................................................................. 94

8.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 94 ....................................................................................................................................... 94

8.3 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................... 94

ENSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 120

8.2 THE ASSESSMENT ........

9 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 101

10 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................................... 105

11 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ................................................................................................ 106

12 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................... 107

13 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................. 114

13.1 DIMENSIONS WITH THE RESULTS OF INTERVIEWS AND SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE ............................................................ 114 13.2 ADJUSTMENTS TO KEY FACTORS OF THE MODEL IN THE VALIDATION PHASE ............................................................... 117 13.3 BPM/SOA AMM OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 119 13.4 BPM/SOA DIM13.5 ROADMAP ................................................................................................................................................... 124 13.6 DESCRIPTIONS OF SOME KEY FACTORS IN THE BPM/SOA AMM ........................................................................... 127 13.7 QUESTIONNAIRES ......................................................................................................................................... 131 13.8 ABBREVIATIONS AND EXPLANATORY DESCRIPTIONS .............................................................................................. 163


1 Introduction

1.1 Problem Area The technological developments of the last two decades have increased pressure on organizations and enterprises to continuously strive to stay ahead of competition. The emerge of Internet and related technologies significantly increased globalization, which is the concept of mobility of goods, services, labor, technology and capital throughout the world (Thurlow, Lengel, Tomic, 2004). This brought rigorous changes in traditional way of doing business. Especially the interaction with stakeholders, partners and customers, is faster, easier and most important they can be reached on a global scale. This gives enterprises and organizations opportunities to quickly respond to environmental changes and utilize new methods to introduce (new) products and services into various (global) markets.

rks and technological infrastructures, which enterprises integrated and plemented to be more agile and flexible in their IS/IT landscape. This evolved in information spread across various (mostly)

sible and flexible manner.

p (Donham, 2007), CIO’s were asked about their drivers to adopt SOA; 62% answered ‘the eed to support new, agile processes’ as a top pressure driver, 44% of the respondents ought their current ERP system or best‐

. In effect, vendors of various Business Process Management products implement SOA technologies, like web services, to address these new organizational needs. Therefore, companies are now also supporting the idea that deep synergies exist between the BPM and SOA approaches (Bea Systems Inc, 2008). Nowadays, the vision of BPM has blurred due to these new BPM suites and new technologies. The holistic approach for the processing of processes has changed towards a focus on business process integration and has evolved towards an orchestration niche (Fingar, 2008). Instead of bridging the gap between business and IT with a focus on strategy, it has become an IT process management approach with a tactical focus and limited scope (Fingar, 2008). These new technologies and suites also have its effect on the perception of organizations on behalf of SOA. This resulted in common misconceptions and limited understanding of the full complexity of adoption an enterprise‐wide SOA (Weske, 2005). In effect, potential and current adopters tend to overlook the expected effort that is required for enterprise‐wide SOA adoption (Lewis A., Morris E., Simantra S., Wrage L., 2007). This results in various problems when trying to create a flexible and agile organization by means of BPM and SOA.

Furthermore, organizations are now able to directly target specific customer groups, on an international level, and moreover address their needs more quickly than ever before. As a result, customers got accustomed to fast product deliveries, higher focus of organizations on customer satisfaction and the ability to compare and choose between products of various suppliers. This has an immense impact on the traditional way of doing business, as companies have to focus on the rapidly changing customer requirements and at the same time recon with decisions and activities of competitors and (newly bound) collaborative associations. To cope with these important business changes, organizations made large investments in IS and IT. New technological possibilities gave way to new methods, framewoimnon‐integrated information systems, distributed in all sorts of ways: across technologies, languages, and places and in different types of groups and objects, causing information and process inconsistencies across the enterprise (Evgeniou, 2002). Evgeniuo (2002) states that enterprises want to be flexible in terms of IT policy across the organization and at the same time have a sense of visibility in their information. He describes the optimal situation where an enterprise has a high visibility and high or dynamic flexibility as an adaptive enterprise. Where business management is able to discover, access, analyze, manage and control the information asset of the enterprise, while the IS/IT domain must enable these activities in a viBusiness Process Management provides methods to enable continuously analysis, optimization and management of business processes, which can result in a higher visibility. Although some BPM systems and applications provide some flexibility in the management of process flows, the underlying IT infrastructure is often rigid and full of high couplings. Combining BPM with SOA, creates opportunities to, not only be able to visualize the enterprise, but to also be efficiently in the management of the internal IT infrastructure. In effect, the enterprise should be able to gain a high visibility and flexibility (Evgeniou, 2002). However, despite the obvious synergy between BPM and SOA, leveraging the two concepts is not that easy, because optimal alignment requires major organizational transformations (Gopala & Behara, 2006; Woodley & Gagnon, 2005; Kamoun, 2007). the survey of the Aberdeen GrouIn

nof‐breed supply chain solution insufficient to provide the desired functionality


Establishing such an environment requires much more that merely implementing a BPM technology with web service support. olistic BPM approach and the true SOA vision in order to establish a business‐driven

‐oriented enterprise to be truly agile and flexible.

llon (Paulk, Weber, Curtis, and Chrissis, 1995) maturity models have extended CMM to suit the scope and discipline of for

examplThe re s focusing on a BPM/SOA alignment at the moment. There are however, several holistic maturity models available which could be used as a quick‐scan for BPM,

Maturity Model Integration (CMM and CMMI) (Paulk et al., 1995), PEMM (Hammer, 2007), Business Process

e two, as well stionnaire as assessment tool for

key activities that can support the organization in their evolution from the As‐is towards bridges several disciplines to construct a model focusing on the alignment of BPM/SOA

and business/IT in order to establish a truly agile and flexible business driven enterprise, namely Enterprise Architecture, b nt and IS/IT governance. Currently, there is little research about achieving a BPM/SOA synergy or alignment and no m This res practices and maturity m identify the key factors, frameworks and models. In addition, semi‐structured interviews are performed with exp s of BPM initiatives, their perspective of such an environment and the usage of maturity levels or aspects of these models that could be suitable for the purpose of this research. Subsequently, the results of semi‐structured interviews and ientific literature study will be used to construct the BPM/SOA Alignment Maturity Model.

the IS Research Framework of Hevner et al. (2004) is used to ensure a qualitative design research approach. This framework requires that the research adds value to the environment, to address the needs of the business, and t wledge base. The value propositions of the model describe in what way the maturity model will address the busines the align and SOA. In addition, as there is little scientific literature written about the synergy between BPM a no maturity model focusing on the alignment between BPM and SOA, this study will extend the k tific fields like enterprise architecture, business/IT a governance.

An alignment is required between the heservic

The last two decades, maturity is used as a measure to evaluate the capabilities of an organization in regards to a certain

(Rosemann & de Bruin, 2004). Since the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) proposed by the Carnegie MedisciplineUniversity

e IT infrastructure Management, Enterprise Architecture, BPM and SOA. sults of a pre‐literature study showed that there are no quick scans or roadmap

(Capability Maturity Model (BPMM) (Fisher, 2004; Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005), and SOA, (Service Integration Maturity Model (OSIMM) (The Open Group, 2006), CBDI SOA Maturity Model (Sprott, 2005) and the Level 5 Oracle SOA Maturity Model (Oracle, 2007). The contribution of this research project is 1) The BPM/SOA Alignment Maturity Model, which 2) considers a holistic perspective of organizational aspects that concerns the BPM and SOA approaches and the alignment between thasth Enterprise Architecture, business/IT alignment and IS/IT governance. 3) It provides a quee model and a roadmap consisting of

To‐be maturity state. 4) This research

usiness/IT alignmeaturity model is available for this purpose.

earch is based on a literature review to identify and analyze BPM and SOA approaches and bestodels, in order to

erts of Capgemini, operating in the field of BPM and SOA. These interviews focus on possible success and failure factor and SOA

scTo construct the model,

o the scientific knos needs. Subsequently, the research will extend the knowledge base with new insights of the key factors that influencement between BPM

is yetnd SOA and therenowledge base with a holistic perspective in the relation to other scienlignment and IS/IT


1.2 Research questions This aim of this research project is to develop a method to evaluate and measure the organizational readiness regarding the implementation of BPM and SOA initiatives in a short period of time. The following research question has to be answered:

e parts, each relating to a phase of the research

“How can the BPM/SOA maturity of organizations be measured by means of a quick‐scan in order to establish a business driven service‐oriented enterprise which is truly agile and flexible? ”

To address the main research question, the sub questions are divided into threproject. The scientific literature consists of questions relating to the scientifi

c literature study, Capgemini to the expert

interviews and Capgemini & Science include on the one hand the relation of the results of the open structured interviews to important findings of the scientific literature study, and on the other the composition of the quick scan method. The following sub research questions are formulated in relation to the aim of this research:

1.2.1 Scientific literature

1.2.2 Capgemini

1.2.3 Scientific literature & Capgemini

Question 1 (Q1) How can Software Oriented Architecture (SOA) and Business Process Management (BPM) support each other?

Question 2 (Q2) How can BPM and SOA be aligned to achieve an agile and flexible organizational environment? Question 3 (Q3)

What maturity models are available to measure the maturity of BPM, SOA and BPM/SOA initiatives in a short period of time?

Question 5 (Q5) What do experts at Capgemini find to be good maturity models to analyze organizations where BPM and SOA are to be implemented?

Question 6 (Q6) How do these experts describe an optimal BPM/SOA environment?

Question 7 (Q7) How can an optimal BPM and SOA situation be achieved according to these experts?

Question 8 (Q8) Is one model directly applicable to measure the BPM/SOA maturity for the purpose of agile analysis?

Sub question 8b (Q8b) If not, how can the aspects of the various BPM and SOA models be combined to construct such a model?

Question 9 (Q9) How can the model be used as a quick‐scan?


The expectation of this study was that there are no quick‐scan maturity mod

els to measure the alignment between BPM and

b‐research questions can be used to construct such a model.

SOA. The first two sub‐research questions are of an exploratory nature to investigate how a BPM/SOA environment looks like, how the both approach can be connected and adapted to reach a certain synergy where BPM and SOA deliver more benefits than either one can provide alone. The purpose of the third sub‐question is of explanatory nature, to explain which models are currently applicable to measure a BPM, SOA or BPM/SOA environment. The sub‐research question that concerns the experience and opinions of the expert of Capgemini are of an exploratory purpose. The BPM/SOA phenomenon is investigated to identify and discover important categories of meaning, like what elements are important to reach an optimal BPM/SOA environment. The last element where the results of the expert interviews and the literature study come together is used to describe how the

should look like and how the results of the previous sumodel


.3 IS research Framework as a starting point 1 The pre‐literature study proved that there is no model applicable for the purpose of this research. In addition, results of scientific literature study, focusing on the BPM/SOA alignment or business‐driven service‐oriented enterprise, proved that this research covers comprehensive aspects. Therefore, a structured approach was necessary to merge and combine several models, scientific literature and results of semi‐structured interviews. The Information System Research Framework of Hevner, March, Park and Ram (2004) is chosen as a starting point to construct the model for the following reasons. First, because of its clear guidelines, structure and relationship between IS research, environment and knowledge base. Second, it ensures a qualitative design research approach. Subsequently, to improve reliability of the study, which concerns whether operations of the research can be repeated with the same results (Yin, 2003), the method engineering discipline is used to model and describe the activities with the corresponding deliverables. The objective of the study of Hevner et al. (2004) is to describe, ‘the performance of design‐science research in Information Systems via a concise conceptual framework and clear guidelines for understanding, executing, and evaluating the research’. IT has received a lot of attention in the scientific field, mainly because of the impact on the effectiveness of organizations. According to March and Smith (1995), this interest can be divided in descriptive and prescriptive studies. Where descriptive studies aim to understand, explain and predict why certain phenomena in IT are occurring, prescriptive approach aims at improving performance to meet business needs (March & Smith, 1995; Hevner et al., 2004). The descriptive studies are defined as a knowledge‐producing activity, which is related to behavioral or natural science, where the prescriptive is a knowledge‐using activity corresponding to design science (March & Smith, 1995; Hevner et al., 2004). These two different interest groups have created ‘a dichotomy among IT researchers and disagreement over what constitutes

r, Hevner et al. (2004) propagates that in IT as well as research domain, technology and behavior or justified theory and ‘artifacts that are effective’ are two sides of the same coin

amework to combine the activities of the two research sciences to ensure that IT research is both relevant

legitimate scientific research in the field’ (March & Smith, 1995). HoweveISand thus inseparable. The framework of Hevner et al. (2004), depicted in Figure 20, is generally based on the study of March and Smith (1995) who created a research frand effective. This framework is depicted in Table 1. Research activities

Research outputs Build Evaluate Theorize Justify

Constructs

Model

Method

Instantiation

Table 1. Design science research framework (March & Smith, 1995) The framework of Hevner (2004), however, takes a more comprehensive approach by explicitly defining the boundaries of

ormation system research and describes a set of guidelines for the nduction and evaluation of quality design‐science research.

n also be used for other practices than hensive boundaries and guidelines

design science in the IS discipline in order to understand infcoAlthough the framework primarily focuses on technology‐based design, they explicitly mention their interest in ‘exploration of organizations, policies, and work practices as designed artifacts’. Thus, the model catechnology‐design approaches. This holistic approach with its clear boundaries and compremakes the framework extremely valuable to serve as a basis for this research.


Figure 1. Information System Research Framework (Hevner al., 2004)et

The IS Research uses the output of the Environment and Knowledge base as inputs for the development of a particular solution, which is in the study of Hevner et al. (2004) primarily focused on technology‐based solutions. The IS Research consists of the following elements: ‐ Develop/Build: March and Smith (1995) define the Build phase as follows; ‘Building is the process of constructing an

artifact for a specific purpose’. ‐ Justify / Evaluate: In effect, they describe the Evaluate phase as; ‘Evaluation is the process of determining how well the

artifact performs’ (March & Smith, 1995). These elements and their outputs are highly related to the framework of March and Smith (1995) as Table 1 displays. The outputs can be described as follows (March & Smith, 2004): ‐ Constructs: The conceptual vocabulary of a domain. ‐ Models: The set of propositions or statements expressing relationships between constructs. ‐ Methods: A set of steps used to perform a task – how‐to knowledge to satisfy the business needs of the Environment. ‐ Instantiations: Bringing the constructs, models and methods into practice. ‐ Better Theories: The addition to the Knowledge Base. The environment provides the business need which should be satisfied by the results of the IS Research element. Otherwise it is not perceived as useful as it does not solve a particular problem (Hevner et al., 2004). The knowledge base of the IS framework consists out of the following two elements: ‐ Foundations: This element consists of the results of related scientific disciplines and previous IS research, and

methodologies, like data collection and empirical analysis (Hevner et al., 2004). According to this model, the foundation provides the frameworks, instruments, models, constructs, etc., which are utilized in the Develop/Build phase of the IS Research element. The Methodologies provide the guidelines for the Justify/Evaluate phase.

‐ Methodologies: This element provides the guidelines which are used in the Justify and Evaluate phase of the IS Research element. It consists of e.g. guidelines for data analysis, techniques and validation criteria.


Although this framework describes what should is proposed how to model, design

be delivered in qualitative design research supported by several guidelines, no and construct these deliverables. To address this issue, the method engineering

the corresponding deliverables. methoddiscipline is used to model and describe the activities withThis method is defined as follows: ‘Method engineering is the engineering discipline to design, construct and adapt methods, techniques and tools for the development of information systems’ (Brinkkemper, 1996). Although no method will be adapted, its techniques and modeling notations will be used to describe which activities will be used with their corresponding deliverables. Its meta‐modeling approach stimulates the reusability of method fragments, which can be useful for describing the construction of the maturity model (Brinkkemper, 1996).

1.4 Scientific and practical contribution This research provides new insights in how to achieve a BPM/SOA Synergy and what disciplines and key factors are important in achieving that synergy. In addition, the BPM/SOA Alignment maturity model is the first model that focuses on BPM as well as

perspective enables future extensions to other or new emerging

and flexibility of managers

ve towards their desired state. In effect, the roadmap can be used to support available

SOA factors and goes beyond these disciplines by incorporating enterprise architecture, SOA governance and Business/IT alignment aspects. In addition, its holistic and broaddisciplines. For the environment, or practical contribution, this research provides an assessment tool to measure the agilityan business driven service‐oriented enterprise. As such, it enables discussion between business, IT and executiveabout their as‐is situation as well as their desired state. In addition, the roadmap provides organizations directions on what activities are important to evolimprovement plans.


1.5 Outline of this study The chapters of the thesis will be structured as follows:

the sub‐research questions Q1, Q2 and Q3. (BPM); its definitions, lifecycle, technologies, how BPM affects

e structure of an organization, and techniques.

gy) to answer the research questions Q1 and Q2. e results of

pre‐literature study the conclusion was drawn that there were no quick‐scan maturity models available to measure the dels are selected to support the construction

of a BPM/SOA maturity model in subchapter five. In addition, a IS Research Framework is used as a foundation for the nstruction of the model. This is discussed in subchapter six.

hods that are used in this research; the literature study, qualitative semi‐structured inte ws and the methods to validate the model.

chapters: ‐ Results of the interviews with expert of Capgemini to answer the research questions Q5, Q6 and Q7.

Chapter two will use a scientific literature study to answer The first subchapter will discuss Business Process ManagementthThe second subchapter will discuss Service Oriented Architecture (SOA); definitions, (web) services, brief history, middleware technology and operations. The third subchapter will use the results of the previous subchapters of chapter two, literature about combining BPM and SOA and achieving the optimal alignment (synerSubchapter four will evaluate maturity models which could serve as a quick‐scan to measure BPM and SOA. From thaBPM/SOA maturity. Therefore, from the results of subchapter three, reference mo

coChapter three will discuss the met

rvieThe results of the research are divided into four

‐ The results of the phases to construct the BPM/SOA maturity model and to answer research question Q8b ‐ The description of the BPM/SOA Alignment Maturitymodel; its maturity levels, dimensions, key factors and how it

should be utilized. ‐ Final, chapter seven will discuss the application of the model in practice at a large financial organization.

In chapter eight the research questions will be answered with the findings and results of the previous chapters. The final chapter will discuss the recommendations for future research and the limitations of the research.


2 Literature study

2.1 Business Process Management T h uick‐scan, this

r will discuss the most important elements as defined by literature. results of this literature study will provide the chapter 2.3 with information how BPM can be supported by SOA.

r satisfaction, reducing costs and improving operations, the computer science

• identification of customer requirements in order to provide the quality the customer wants to perceive, form strategic supplier relationships to select the best cost and quality ratio,

improve quality by identifying problems that span multiple functions within an

hnology, regulation, ‘the action of stakeholders’, and ‘the eroding of business boundaries’ (Armistead, Machin, Pritchard, 1997; McAdam, McCormack, 2001). There are many definitions of BPM ranging from an IT‐focused view to a holistic management practice (Rosemann & Bruin, 2005), such as:

“A systematic, structured approach to analyze, improve, control, manage processes with the aim of improving the quality of products and services” (Elzinga et al., 1995), “Business process management includes concepts, methods, and techniques to support the design, administration, configuration, enactment, and analysis of business processes” (Weske, 2007) and

his chapter will discuss Business Process Management; its definitions, elements and techniques. Because BPM is seen as aolistic management approach and the research focuses on the construction of a BPM/SOA maturity model q

chapteThe

2.1.1 The BPM approach

2.1.1.1 Introduction and definitions Organizations have continuously been striving to increase revenue, improve quality and reduce costs. Many methods, techniques and approaches were developed to support organizations in their endeavor. These methods and approaches however, have been changing continuously. The last decade, Business Process Management (BPM) has received a lot of attention as a new or reemerging approach (Elzinga, Horak, Chung‐Yee, Bruner, 1995; DeToro & McCabe, 1997). Two domains provided significant support to BPM: business administration and computer science communities. Where the business administration focuses on increasing custome

“To improve is to change. To be perfect is to change often” (Winston Churchill).

communities are interested in providing robust and scalable software systems (Weske A. , 2007). However, BPM does not always need technology to be successful, but it can be an important enabler and useful contributor (Jeston & Nelis, 2008). BPM originates from Business Process Reengineering (BPR), described by Hammer (1990), Hammer and Champhy (1993) and Davenport (1993), and Total Quality Management (TQM) (Lee & Dale, 1993). Although both approaches have similarities, TQM has a more continuous process improvement perspective, with a focus on learning, where as BPR is “rule‐breaking and radical, aimed at the development of entirely new processes, and with a focus of entirely new processes” (Ravesteyn, 2007; Chang, 2005). Hackman and Wageman (1995) identified a number of practices of TQM assumptions, which preponderantly returns in BPM (Chang, 2005):

• the use of cross functional teams toorganization, and develop and test solutions to resolve these problems,

• scientific methods for monitoring quality and identifying areas for quality improvement, like statistical and probabilistic techniques,

• process management techniques to improve the generation of quality improvement ideas. DeToro and McCabe (1997), describe BPM as an approach that “presents a more comprehensive array of improvement options” and can help organizations to “avoid the tendency to fall prey to the hype of a new management fad”. Drivers to adopt BPM are globalization, changing tec


“A structured approach to analyze and continually improve fundamental activities such as manufacturing, marketing, communications and other major elements of a company’s operations”(Zairi, 1997).

In this research BPM will be viewed as follows:

and Machin (1997) and Zairi (1997).

.1.1.2 Business processes

, 2005). This is emphasized by a statement of Chang (2005) who states, “if processes are not measurable, it is not ossible to determine the value they create”. lthough Business processes serve a single organization, they can interact with business processes performed by other

nts or deliver information to other business processes, they can be mposed into a set of internal and external business processes. As such, they can be composed into a business processes

anagers can utilize this information to entify bottlenecks, inefficiencies, process defects and faulty coordination (Zhu, Osterweil, Staphles and Kannengiesser, 2008).

BPM is a holistic approach to manage organizations; focusing on processes and process improvement activities on a ongoing basis with a sound focus on culture change and strategy development (Armistead & Machin, 1997; Zairi, 1997).

This definition has been created from the definitions of Armistead

2A business process consists of interdependent activities designed and structured to deliver a specific output, which can serve as an event, input, assignment or invocation to other applications, business processes, or human actors (Papazoglou, 2007). As an activity performs a specific function, ordering a set of activities from the beginning to an end, can be as seen a process. Another way to describe a process is as a sequence of steps, with a desired input, like an event, to transform information, material, or commitments, to produce a specific output (Harmon, 2003; Papazoglou, 2007). Coupling these processes to serve a business context, in order to produce a specific output for a customer or market or business goal, forms a business process (Papazoglou, 2007; Weske, 2007; Chang, 2005). In BPM, there is a high emphasis on improving the business processes, in order to increase the quality of the output, time‐to‐market or decrease costs (Elzinga et al., 1995; Zairi, 1997). In effect, determining performance measures of the process, like cost, quality, time and customer satisfaction, is vital to maximize their performance (Papazoglou, 2007; ChangpAorganizations. Because business process can provide evecosupporting the entire value chain, to produce a product or product line (Weske, 2007). Thus, improving these business processes can provide significant benefits to multiple parties in the supply chain, like time‐to‐market, quality improvement, increased productivity, faster response to the rapidly change customer demands, etc. (Weske, 2007; Doyle, 1998; Adam & McCormack, 2001). However, especially in an enterprise‐wide environment, these business processes may include complex actions, like the coordination or execution of other (distributed) processes and activities, making improvement activities extremely complex (Papazoglou, 2007).

2.1.1.3 Integrating business logic Before any measurements and analysis can be performed, business processes need to be described. Process descriptions provide means to prescribe which entities are to perform which tasks at what time. MidBusiness process models define business processes, describing the activity models and execution constraints between them, as a simple example depicts in Figure 1 (Weske, 2007). In this example, each order that is processed is a business process instance, thus the business process model can be reused in a one‐to‐many relationship. The same holds for the activity models, which can also be instantiated.

Figure 2. A simple ordering process of a reseller (Weske A. , 2007)


Integrating the business logic of various systems throughout multiple eprocess into a business model is called Business Process Integration (BPwith the integration of systems and application within a single enterprise Ein such a way that no major investments are necessary to couple the specific application logic (Papazoglou, 2007). BPI is often supported by and intricate processes need additional human input and intervention ‘systems that provide modeling, executing and administrating of busineAccording to Papazoglou (2007), the extension of BPI with manageManagement, emphasizing on the “automation of processes to achieveand time”.

2.1.2 Organizational structure and BPM In many companies, the traditional organizational structure has evolve in a way of thinking where every department (silo) focuses on their own activities and operates in their own way, is is also known as silo thinking, where every department in the organizational ap is depicted as an isolated silo. By focusing on the all of the core and support processes necessary to turn the raw resources into deliverables (products or services), organizations get a clearer picture of e.g. the costs and revenues of each process in the value chain (Harmon, 2004a). McAdam (1997) calls this a process‐based approach, which should improve customer satisfaction, as the traditional structure suffers from poor communication and ‘turf protection’ between departments (Zaire, 1997). This process‐based view of looking at the organization is based on the value chain definition described by Porter (Porter & Fuller, 1986). He refers to value as something the customer perceives and is willing to pay for (Harmon, 2003). Mapping this process‐based approach onto the organization, results in the example of Figure 2. In this depiction, major business processes overlap multiple functional units, forming in a horizontal structure. The relation between BPM, business processes and value is emphasized by Zaire (1997), as he states “BPM is concerned with the main aspects of business operations where there is high leverage and a big proportion of added value”. He also mentions that BPM has to be governed by certain rules. One of these rules is that BPM has to “create a focus on customers through horizontal linkages between key activities” (Zairi, 1997). However, restructuring an organization from a vertical to horizontal way of thinking has a severe impact on employees and management, as their traditional way of working and thinking has to change. Change management should support this transformation, in order to get people engaged in delivering success, encourage people to process oriented thinking and give their full support to the project (Miers, 2006). A simple example would be a workshop where the employees get familiar to BPM, best practices, and process oriented thinking.

A vital role in achieving successful change management and improvement process is for by top‐level management,, as they determine strategies, designing processes and enabling employees to contribute (Zaire, 1997; Harrington, 1995; Zhu, Osterweil, Staphles and Kannengiesser, 2007). Zaire (1997) also states, “The achievement of a BPM culture depends very much on the establishment of total

nterprises to support, structure and design a business I). Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) is concerned . BPI interconnects with the AI of multiple enterprises various distributed legacy systems in order to extract workflow management systems (WfMS) when complex (Papazoglou, 2007). Jung et al. (2006) define WfMS as, ss processes in consideration of organizational models’. ment is commonly referred to as Business Process maximum flexibility with minimum development cost

d with little regard to the overall process (Harmon, 2004a). Th

hgr end‐to‐end process, from supplier to customer perspective, including

alignment of corporate goals and having every employee’s effort focused on adding value to the end customer”.

Figure 3. Functional Units, Value chains, and Processes (Harmon, 2004)


2.1.3 The Business Process lifecycle

Figure 4. The business process lifecycle (Weske A. , 2007)

The business process lifecycle by Weske (2007), depicted in Figure 3, describes concepts and technologies related to BPM. The lifecycles illustrates several phases in support of operational business processes, logically organized in a cyclical structure. Although these divisions, flows and dependencies indicate a rigid and definite movement through the lifecycle, many of theactivities in the design and development are performed during each of the phases (Weske A. , 2007).The lifecycle is centered on

olders, who are responsible in managing, organizing and executing various tasks defined in the

rveys. The results of these surveys are in the form of informal

cess Modeling notation (BPMN), which is developed by the Object Management Group

flow in business process within an organization (Decker, G., Barros, cusses the use of standards in BPM.

ustakehold ate

Ho

Workshoske, A.,

administration and stakehsurrounding lifecycle phases. This emphasizes the imperative human factor in BPM.

2.1.3.1 Design & Analysis The Design & Analysis phase is the first step to initiate the lifecycle. According to Muehlen and Ho (2006), the first step is to specify the organizational process goals by means of a assessment of environmental and organizational factors and constraints. These assessments are often conducted in the form of sudescriptions and are translated into business process models by means of specific modeling notations (Weske, A., 2007). One of such a notation is the Business Pro(OMG) and is generally accepted as a standard process definition language (OMG, 2006). This notation provides a way to capture activities, decision responsibilities, control and dataA., 2007). Chapter 2.1.5 further disThe b siness process models facilitate the communication of the business processes to improve the understanding of

ers, allowing them to identify those processes the organization would like to analyze, redesign and/or autom07). Elucidating important variables, like process limitations, is according to Muehlen and(Muehlen, Ho, 2006; Weske, 20

(2006) one of the first steps in designing and redesigning processes. ps are commonly used for this purpose. During these workshops the validation of the initial design models are often in

ensure that all valid business process instances are translated appropriately (Weare discussed with the stakeholders, to


2007). Sithe entiredisplays t

n

mate the implementation process by utilizing process aware information systems, like workflow software (Muehlen, Ho, 2006; Weske, 2007).

are BPM system to model, test and deploy the business processes. While

run‐time errors. These errors are

execution constraints defined in the process model. ate information of the status of the process to define and

Duri thevaluatioAccordinginstances ycles:

it possible to continuously manage and improve processes. A process performance measuring tool

.1.3.5 Stakeholders & Administration s mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, the phases of the lifecycle are centered on stakeholders and administration,

ies in each lifecycle phase. Some tasks and responsibilities where already ycle. Weske (2007) defines several roles for knowledge workers who have

me kind of responsibility in the various activities in the Business Process Management.

mulation is a important enabler in these activities, as it enables the stakeholders to not only walk through each step of process but, most importantly, to shows if a sequence does not contain any undesired properties and actually he desired behavior (Weske, 2007).

2.1.3.2 ConfiguratioAccording to Weske (2007), there are two ways to translate the business process models into the operational information. The first way is to manually implement the models by a set of policies and procedures were the employees must comply to. The second way is to auto

Nowadays, it is most common to use a process awselecting or configuring a system, stakeholders must bear in mind the organizational environment of the enterprise, like existing (legacy) systems and usability to support employee interaction. Especially the current technological infrastructure, like legacy systems, can bring about additional implementation efforts to integrate the BPM system (Weske, 2007). According to Weske (2007), integration and performance testing plays a vital role in detectingnormally only returned when the system is implemented, thus providing significant added value in reducing costs and effort. Other activities after the implementation could be the training of personnel and the integration of data into the new platform.

2.1.3.3 Enactment The BPM system actively controls the execution of business process instances, often initiated by a predefined event. For example, when the customer sends a receipt, the system will define the necessary steps at run‐time. These steps are controlled by the orchestration and As discussed in the Chapter 2.1.1.3, managers depend on accurdetermine the improvement options. Therefore, it is vital that the system presents accurate information about the status of the business process instances, as such that the stakeholders can accurately respond to additional requests or to notice any undesired behavior and performance issues (Weske, 2007).

ng e run‐time business process enactment this information is stored in an execution log, which can be utilized in the n phase (Weske, 2007). to Chen, Zhang and Zhou (2007), there are three process management tools which support users to manage of business processes throughout their lifec

• Tool for process operation: These tools provide end users interactive means to instantiated business processes. Furthermore, they are able to manually change the status of a process instance, by interacting with web services (Chapter Web services2.2.6).

• For process monitoring: Monitoring tools are able to track the status and the progress of process instances. Process owners or participants, or even application processes can be notified through alerts automatically generated when certain events occur.

• Process performance measuring Analysis makesproduces reports, constructed of statistical analysis of e.g. the Key Performance Indicators (KPI). Based upon these results managers can determine whether or not the processes need to be improved.

2.1.3.4 Evaluation In the evaluation phase, the execution logs, from the enactment part of the lifecycle, are evaluated using business activity monitoring (BAM) and process mining techniques to provide stakeholders with performance information of the executed business processes.

2Aindicating that they have important responsibilitdiscussed while describing the phases in the lifecso


One important aspect in BPM is the translation of the business domain. This does not only affects the correct rendition of the business domain to business processes, models and the enactment of these models by BPM systems, it also concerns the support of the participants in the form of creating a BPM culture (Zaire, 1997; Harrington, 1995; Weske, 2007). As Zaire (1997) states, “the achievement of a BPM culture depends very much on the establishment of total alignment of corporate goals and having every employee’s effort focused on adding value to the end customer”. Like Zaire (1997), Harrington (1995) supports this statement and adds that top‐level management has a major impact on the success of breaking down walls and barriers to effective performance. Weske (2007) defines two roles concerning these responsibilities:

• Chief process officer: the existence of a chief process officer acknowledges the importance of business process management at top‐level management. One of his functions is to define the strategy to adapt the business processes

er into clear goals for the organization and its business processes. Its common that business engineers lack technical knowledge, thus, simple business process notations are necessary for efficient communication (chapter 2.1.3.1).

ocess designers gather the information from domain experts, relevant

s and the interrelationship between their work. Weske (2007) defines a specific role among these participants, hold detailed information about

e business process and the application domain, performing activities or even parts of business processes autonomously by u ystems. I s concerning the application developer. Where the developers create software artifacts required to implement the busin s are responsible for the proper enactment of the business processes by developing and ess management systems. The developers on the other hand, focus on the implementation of inte the existing software systems. When the business process model is designed by the process design erson responsible for the c efficient execution of all the b d be continuously analyzing

ve the process in concert with the process participants and rocesses designers.

ement and improvement of these business processes in near real‐time in the form of a graphical p uet al., deliverproces M Suites, 2007). As the BPM system is aware of all the procesinformreengibusine2006).

to the changing market requirements. This also emphasizes the relation to top‐level management.

• Business engineer: The business engineer is described as an expert in the business domain, responsible for elaborating the strategic decisions of the chief process offic

When the strategic decisions and such are described, prstakeholders and process participants, in order to model a business process. As processes concern multiple stakeholders and participants each with differing perspectives, a process designer must have good analytical capabilities and excellent communicational skills. The process participants possess important knowledge of the activities and roles of other process participantnamely the role of knowledge workers. They are an unique kind of process participant as theythsing software smportant role domain are system architect and

ess processes, the system architect configuring business proc

rfaces to be able to connect toer and is connected to a BPM system, there has to be a p

orrect and usiness processes within the model. This person shoulthese processes to detect inefficiencies and errors in order to improp

2.1.4 BPM technologies and suites Traditionally, the business process management activities were performed manually by experienced personnel, guided by rules, policies and procedures defined by the organization (Weske, 2007). Nowadays, new types of information systems support the enactment, analyzing, managrod ctivity tool, also called Business Process Management Systems (BPMS) (Smith & Fingar, 2003; Weske et al., 2004; Elzinga

1995). Evolved from application integration technologies, like EIA, and Workflow management systems, BPM systems ways to effectively coordinate all the necessary human and technological resources required to perform a business s (Ravesteyn, 2007; Papazoglou, 2007)(An Introduction to BPses, information and business constraints in the process chain, it can not only produce audit and management ation, but it can also couple these elements to reduce human workload and enable continuous optimization or neering of processes (Leeming, 2005). BPM systems can even consume business models encompassing enterprise‐wide ss processes and automating them to broaden the scope of BPM towards the supply chain (Jung, Kim, & Kang, October

The last decade, BPM systems converged into suites to support business managers in enhancing business performance by coordinating all the necessary human and technological resources to perform a business process (Hill, Sinur, Flint, & Melenovsky, 2006; Miers D., Harmon, P., Hall, C., 2007).


2.1.4.1 BPM Systems and their components According to the report of BPTrends of 2007 titled ‘An introduction to BPM Suites’ (Miers et al., 2007), there is still no agreement about what should be included in a BPMS, as the vendors’ BPMS products vary in features, applications and specializations. However, according to Miers (2005), there are some core components within a BPM technology, as depicted in Figure 5. Key aspects of the design and runtime environment of BPM systems are listed in Table 2.

Environment Key aspects

Design time ‐ Business processes ‐ Business rules ‐ Workflow ‐ Presentation ‐ Management information & activity monitoring

Runtime Scheduling and orchestrating workflow and processes.

Table 2. BPM system environments with examples (Leeming, 2005) Generally, there are three important engines or core components, which support BPM suites;

• Rule engine: the rule engine support and simplifies complex decisions and processes by emphasizing on the expression, The business rule approach consists

of a collection of terms (definitions), facts (connection between terms), and rules (computations, constraints and conditional logic) (Charfi & Mezini, 2004). According to Harmon (2004), there is no rule engine that can support every

ss, it can foster processing and compliance, effectively supporting process

n (An Introduction to BPM Suites, 2007).

PM suite or application (Miers et al., 2007).

management and automation of certain rules (Miers, 2005; Charfi & Mezini, 2004).

situation as efficient as possible. Neverthelechange (Miers, 2005).

• EAI engine: The Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) engine is the engine that manages the software components (An Introduction to BPM Suites, 2007). This part is comparable to Business Process Integration, connecting the various Enterprise Application Engines, systems and their diverse platform dependencies. Obviously, this could result in complex dependencies and couplings between systems (Miers, 2005).

• BPM engine or Process engine: the BPM engine is also called the process engine. The engine supports the (re)design, processing and execution of the business process models and its instances (Harmon, 2004; Weske, 2007). In addition, it manages the state of individual work, can assign tasks to the human actors and the system in accordance to the defined process model. In effect, it is common that the BPM engine is supported by workflow engines to support the human interactio

The essence of Figure 5 is that a BPM application can be composed out of several applications. In effect, organizations could compose or develop a product or suite by developing their own tools and utilities and/or by incorporating products from external organizations into their B


Figure 5. A layered view of BPM products or utilities (An Introduction to BPM Suites, 2007)

2.1.5 BPM modeling and standards Figure 5 shows the utilities and products a BPMS can consist of. Several vendors combine their own products as a BPM suite, resulting in a high coupling and dependencies between integrations and faulty support for open standards. Interoperability will depend on the ability of the suite to support the integrating of business models described in open standards like BPML and BPMN or BPEL and will often require a process interface; “where the process expressed in one language can become a participant in another process expressed in a different language” (Smith & Fingar, 2003). Although it is comprehensible that several vendors will partly support open standards, (as they see little in terms of competitive advantage )(Miers, 2004), in the way that a process interface will be necessary to import business models described in open standards, only vendors who fully understand the significance of the process foundation and insist on it will withstand any changes in process standards (Smith &

for business processes. First, the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) is standardized by MG. Second, the Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) is approved by the OASIS standard (Nitzsche, Lessen,

007).

2T L) relies on the existence of an execution environment and is therefore directly executable on an IT infrastructure. This executable code is processed by a ‘process virtual machine’ within a process anagement system. While a standard language can only reach its full potential when people from the business domain are

processes”(OMG, BPMN v1.1). Still, representing BPML with BPMN is not suited for every situation, for example, elements

Fingar, 2003). here are two major standardsTOKarastoyanova, Leymann, 2

.1.5.1 BPML and BPMN he Business Process Modeling Language (BPM

mable to communicate with it, and BPML is not comprehensible without any training, BPMN has therefore an equivalent graphical notation, the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN). In this notation a simple set of graphical attributes represent BPML elements (Smith & Fingar, 2003; Weske, 2007). Figure 6 gives an explicit depiction of the differences between both methods. “The primary goal of BPMN is to provide a notation that is readily understandable by all business users, from the business analysts that create the initial drafts of the processes, to the technical developers responsible for implementing the technology that will perform those processes, and finally, to the business people who will manage and monitor those


where timing, resources and constraint resources are applicable can be best viewed in BPML. As explained in the chapter 1.1.2, BPI respects the middleware, applications and legacy systems, which are already in place, ‘it builds on, rather than replace,

Figure 6. The Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) and Business Process Modeling Language (BPML version .4, March 2001; Smith & Fingar, 2003)

2.1.6 Compliance

Large scandals in corporate history, like Enron (USA) and HIH (Australia), has let to compliance requirements imposed by legislature and regulatory bodies, such as Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (Namiri & Stojanovic, 2007). As high level management can now be held responsible for false management, organizations made enormous investments in compliance related software and services to comply with these requirements (Sadiq et al., 2007). This boosted the implementation of Business Process Management to enforce corporate policies and regulations in order to recognize process risks, exceptions and be able to periodically report process regimens and documentation. Although mostly seen as a burden, a majority of the industry

middleware’, which minimizes development and costs (Smith & Fingar, 2003; Papazoglou, 2007).

2.1.5.2 BPEL BPEL is based on the Web Service Description Language (WSDL). In BPEL the process logic directly refers to the WSDL operations and are therefore strongly coupled. According to Nitzsche et al. (2007) this causes a major drawback as It inhibits the reuse of processes or parts thereof. Nevertheless, the standard has gained a broad acceptance in industry and research for specifying business processes in a Web Service environment.

‘Compliance is ensuring that business processes, operations and practice are accordance with a prescribed and/or agreed set of norms’ (Sadiq, Governatori, Namiri, 2007).


expected to reap business benefits from the introduction and et al., 2007; Jeston & Nelis, 2008).

improvement of their compliance regiments (Hagerty, J., 2007;

ment of different roles,( internal and external auditors and consultants), causes high expenses in order to check , automating the detection can reduce assessment time and improve the remediation and/or mitigation of control

d s . N s, like BPM systems, can play a significant role in achieving compliance, e.g. comply with the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act, as most of the automated business processes affects financial reporting (Maurizio & Girolami, 2007).

SadiqAccording to Sadiq et al. (2007), there are two main approaches towards achieving compliance. First, by manually performing traditional audit to detect compliance inconsistencies, also called retrospective reporting. Second, by means of automated detection, where software solutions automatically check and guide compliance throughout the organization. Nowadays, this last method is frequently used to generate audit reports against hard‐coded checks with the use of certain enterprise system. the involveAs

complianceeficiencies (Namiri & Stojanovic, 2007; Sadiq et al., 2007). Sadiq et al. (2007) mention that enterprises have to reckon withustainability problems as the compliant requirements and detections checks can rapidly increase in scale and complexityonetheless, enterprise application


.2 Service Oriented Architecture 2 As will be discussed in this chapter, Service Oriented Architecture is generally viewed as an Information Technology (IT)

a popular term in the scientific, vendor and customer domain. Customers ve a level of interoperability among systems and agility in business practices the term to market their hardware, software, tools and services to extend ementation within organizations (Lewis et al., 2007). The scientific field on

s, methods and approaches in the adoption, implementation and practice of lst W.M.P., Leymann F., Reisig W., 2007; Papazoglou, van den Heuvel, 2007; K., 2005). According to Lewis et al. (2007), ‘SOA may currently be the best

, and other goals such as providing a technology upgrade path that plifies deployment of new systems’. However, they mention that the correct

on of SOA requires significant knowledge of its principles, methods and practices, which is usually greatly

mations made by vendors, which have resulted in common misconceptions of SOA (Lewis et al., 2007; Erl, 2005). Erl (2005) calls these misconceptions rely a marketing term used to rebrand the distributed computing with Web from the early use of SOA, where enterprises simply tried to port their

eb services (Papazoglou & van den Heuvel, 2006). Papazoglou and van den Heuvel (2006a) applications or

strength enterprise applications. can be found in the

approach, which is mainly caused by vendor trying to sell their software products. However, SOA is much more than just IT. This chapter will discuss how the scientific literature describes SOA, its principles and techniques, (web) services, operations and strategies.

‘Service Oriented Architecture is recognized as a way to improve business flexibility, adaptability and better align IT through the breakdown of technology‐driven barriers among internal and external organizations’ (Maurizio A., Sager J., Jones P., Corbitt G. and Girolami L., 2008)

2.2.1 Introduction Nowadays, Service‐Oriented Architecture (SOA) isembrace this new paradigm as a new way to achiewhich was previously unfeasible. Vendors misusetheir current products or to support the SOA implthe other hand, researches these new conditionSOA within and between organizations (van der AaZimmermann O., Doubrovski V., Grundler J., Hogg available solution for achieving interoperability, agilitypreserves the investment in legacy systems and simimplementatiunderestimated (Lewis et al., 2007). This is primarily caused by the solutions and exclaabout the support, implementation and adoption the ‘false SOA’ syndrome; believing that ‘SOA is meservices’. A lot of these misconceptions originateexisting components to act as Wmention that although it is widely practiced by thcomponents is insufficient to construct commercialThe notion that SOA is not just a technological implementation, primarily performed within the IT domain

e industry, merely placing a thin layer on top of existing

definition of Marks and Bell (2006):

They also propagates that the conceptual vision of SOA does not only incorporates business and IT, but also architectural goals, governance models and policies to foster the enforcement of standards and technical requirements of SOA over time. This architectural view is shared by Papazoglou (2006), they state that;

‘SOA is a business concept, an idea or an approach, about how IT functionality can be planned, designed and delivered as modular business services to achieve specific business benefits’ (Marks & Bell, 2006).

The understanding of the SOA concept in the context of this research will be based on the definition of Papazoglou (2006):

‘SOA provides a set of guidelines, principles and techniques in which business processes, information and enterprise assets can be effectively (re)organized and (re)deployed to support and enable strategic plans and productivity levels that are required by competitive business environments’ (Papazoglou & van den Heuvel,2006).


not constructed to fit only ne specific puzzle landscape, as it can be reused to connect with various adjacent pieces. Nonetheless, it serves the same urpose in every situation: providing a small piece of logic to the puzzle landscape. This aspect is one of the SOA principles,

a specific organizational problem or issue. By ecomposing this problem into a collection of smaller pieces, where each piece represents some kind of logic or element, it can

ly

other pieces, resulting in a service consisting of other services, as depicted in Figure 6 (Erl, 2005). For the consumer of the service, or in this metaphor the user placing the piece of the puzzle, only its physical shape and function is revealed. As such, the consumer can ‘play around’ with the pieces without explicit knowledge of its technical, internal activities. This

2005).

ed in such a way that they can be dynamically located and accessed, via available discovery mechanisms (Erl, 2005; Papazoglou, 2003a).

( s a services computing paradigm, which describes services as ‘self‐describing, platform‐pport rapid, low‐cost composition of distributed applications, which perform functions, sts to complicated business processes, as long as they perform a function’. To the SOA nal requirements can be added, as defined by Papazoglou (2003b): pendent: First, the services must be invocable through widely accepted standardized ost all IT environments. Second, the interface contract of the service must be limited ions (Papazoglou, 2003b). By using widely accepted standards and platform ectivity of heterogeneous applications increases and the diversity of interface ore, integration and maintenance costs can be reduced (Legner & Heutschi, 2007).

All e d services: Defining services should not only be performed at the IT level, but also from re business functions, business transactions composed of lower level functions, and

unctions pazoglou & van den Heuvel, 2006). ort n ices must have their definitions and location information stored in a repository such as

ty of clients that can invoke the services irrespective of their location’ (Papazoglou,

2.2.2 SOA and services We can metaphorically describe a ‘service’ in SOA, as a small piece of a puzzle. However, this piece isopcalled reusability (Erl, 2005; Kim & Lim, 2007). The landscape representsdbe better constructed, executed and managed (Erl, 2005). Each piece, or unit in the definition of Erl (2005), must not depend on the structure and form of adjacent pieces, as it has to fit in the collection of various puzzle landscapes. This is called loosecoupled, which is another key principle of SOA. In addition, what happens inside each piece (the activities to fulfill its function), is invisible for the outside landscape. This is called abstraction. Another key aspect is that each piece can also be build out of

were not discussed in the metaphor (Erl, 2005): ‐ Service contract: ‘A Service adheres to a

communication agreement, as defined collectively by one or more service descriptions and related documents’ (Erl,

is principle is called autonomy (Kim & Lim, 2007). There are several other key principles, which

‐ Statelessness: This principle entails that the service maintains its own state, which implies that the environment, for example the connection to other services, is not aware of, and is not able to influence the state of the specific service.

‐ Discoverability: SOA assumes that services are design

Figure 7. Services can encapsulate varying amounts of logic

Papazoglou 2003), defines ervices from agnostic computational elements that suwhich can be anything from simple requeprinciples we just mentioned three additio‐ Technology neutral & platform inde

technologies that are available to almto platform independent affirmatindependency, the technical conntechnologies can be reduced. Theref

‐ functions in an SOA ar efined asa business perspective, ‘Including pusystem service f as well’ (Pa

‐ Supp Locatio transparency: ‘serva UDDI and is accessible by a varie2003a).

2 29 A maturitEnterprise

Looking at scommon fualso improvto create ar

2.2.3 Se Today, orgaparadigm wchanging thimportant p

requiremencumbersomexpectationthe IT infraarchitecture The princDevelopmesoftware c

ip

osoftware coemphasizedbusiness funview, as thmodeling et With the component tier client seThe distribamong mureduced deamount of resided on clients (Erl, had somcomplexity ese issth u

emerged mmunicalso called coa

Monoli

Figure 8. Th

ty model towae”

services from a nctional charactve the level of abrtifacts that have

ervice orien

anizations are prwhere business sehroughout the laproblems IT face

ts. Applications me, rigid IT infrns, like time‐to‐dstructure, whiche, with at the en

s of SOA, dele snt (CBD) (Kim &omponents. Its omponents. Thed in the way Ennction that the shey both includtc.

advance of based applica

erver architectubution of applultiple componployments issuethe applicatiothe servers ins2005). Still, this

me deficiencieissues). As a

ues, a new to allow

tion between the Remote P

iths Stru

he olution of a ev

ards BPM/SOA

business domaiteristics and obbstraction in an e an enduring va

nted archite

rogressively evoervices are comast century (Endes to supp

which are

ort t

unarastructures. Asdeliver and qualh consequently,d service orient

scr d in ibe the p& Lim, 2007). Comain goal is toe relation betwendrei et al. (200service represene interface‐base

developing tions, multi‐res surfaced. ication logic ents mainly es, as a large n logic now stead of the s architecture es (mainly respond to technology

w remote components, Procedure Call

uctured Cl

rc cturhite e (En

Alignment: “Es

in perspective bjectives can notSOA (Papazogloalue for both the

ecture and a

olving from vertiponentized and drei, Arsanjani, Che business dom

ble to intercoms a result of thity, requirement, must be capabation.

previous chapteomponent‐basedo reduce develoeen services‐ori04), defines servnts’. According toed design, blac

ient/server

Figure 9. Tight

drei, Arsanjani,

tablishing a Fle

by evaluating tht only simplify au, 2003a). Krafze business as wel

brief histor

cal, isolated busdistributed. In oChua, Comte, &main: heterogen

mmunicate and ihe rapidly chants are changing ble to address t

r (2.2.2), have d development opment cost aniented architectvices as a ‘colleco Kim et al. (200ck‐box modeling

3‐Tier

tly coupled RPC

Chua, Comte, &

exible and Agil

e current businand reduce the zig et al. even stall as the technol

ry

siness divisions, order to support Krogdahl, 2004neity and intero

incapable of opnging environmconstantly (Endthese issues. Fig

similarities withis defined as thd time‐to‐markture and compction of compon07), SOA is simig, design patter

Distributed objects

point‐to‐point in

Krogdahl, 2004

e Business‐driv

ess processes onumber of busiate that ‘it is theogy side’.

towards the net this evolution, 4). Endrei et al. operability and c

erating on varioent, together wdrei et al., 2004)gure 7 depicts t

h the principleshe planned integket, by means oponent‐based denents working ilar to CBD fromrns, design by

Component

ntegrations

)

ven Service‐orie

on a level of clasiness processes;e first time in IT

ew ecosystem buIT has been rapi(2004), describecontinuously ch

ous platforms, cwith higher cus). This has its effhe evolution of

of Componentgration of pre‐eof large‐scale reevelopment is fin concert to de a conceptual pcontract, depen

s Service

ented

ssifying ; it can history

usiness idly e three hanging

creates stomer fect on f the IT

t‐based existing euse of further eliver a point of ndency

es


(RPC) technologies (CORBA, DCOM)(Erl, 2005). This technology introduced a middleware layer, which can be described as nnectivity software allowing different systems to communicate and interchange data (Papazoglou, 2007). A RPC technology is ased on a request/wait‐for‐reply model. In effect, an application invokes a procedure located on a remote system and waits till e results are returned. The impractical side effect is the tight coupling between interfaces and applications, as each pplication must be aware of the interface details of every other application, as depicted in Figure 8 (Papazoglou & van den euvel, 2007). This situation becomes complex and unmanageable when the number of systems increases, and in effect, the umber of integration points. OA promotes asynchronous communication by a loosely coupled environment where applications can be unaware of the ternal details of how they should reach and interface other applications (Papazoglou, 2007). Such architecture is shown in igure 9.

ne of the aspects which support ese benefits is the message‐based ay of communication within SOA. hese messages are based on the ML document format described as OAP. This shifts from the RPC‐style walthough there are RPC‐style

AP.

implementation,

accounting. To support this functionality the ESB combines conventional Enterprise

007).

cobthaHnSinF O Business Process LayerthwT Middleware Layer (backbone)XSto rds document‐style messaging. Messages Messages Messages MessagesAapproaches supporting the transmission of granular XML documents with targeted data, the XML documents within SOA often

Application #1 Application #1Application #1 Application #1

require bundled data related to more than one data context. As such, it minimizes the frequency of

Data #1 Data #1 Data #1 Data #1

message transmissions, but increases the data load (Weske, 2005). In effect, RPC communication is sometimes preferred as it is noticeably faster than SO

Figure 10. Loose coupling of asynchronous interfaces

2.2.4 SOA as a middleware In order to realize a service orientated environment, SOA utilizes a middleware or integration platform backbone, also called the service bus (Leyman, 2005; Papazoglou & van den Heuvel, 2007). According to Papazoglou and van den Heuvel (2007), the concept of the ESB can be divided into two prominent features:

• promoting loose coupling of connected systems,

• enabling management of integration logic by breaking it into distinct pieces. These authors describe the ESB as “an open, standards‐based message bus designed to enable the deployment, and management of SOA‐based solutions with a focus on assembling, deploying, and managing distributed SOA” (Papazoglou & van den Heuvel, 2007). These focus points and design aspects also concerns proper control of messaging, security related issues, policy, reliability andApplication Integration (EIA) technologies with Web services, orchestration and choreography technologies, like BPEL, WS‐CDL and ebXML BPSS (Papazoglou & van den Heuvel, 2


ementation are two vital elements of a service in SOA (Papazoglou & van den Heuvel, be

domain described as business processes, where each process represents some form of business logic (Erl, 2005). In order to describe these situations, the documented business processes do not only contain the requirements of the situation, but often also constraints, dependencies and other outside influences to demarcate and enclose all potential outcomes and possibilities which can occur in the actual specific business process (Erl, 2005). These steps or activities in the business process often require information from applications to support the business logic it represents. A piece of information derived from an application is represented as a type of application logic. This piece of logic can be composed of other pieces of application logic to fulfill the requirements of the business process steps (Erl, 2005). The applications of which the application logic is derived are situated in the application layer, each with their own specific requirements and dependencies, like platform and programming language. Each piece of logic, whether its business or application logic, can be represented by a service, and in turn, can capsulated other services within SOA. In effect, services can modularize the enterprise, ‘forming standalone units of logic that exist within a common connectivity layer’ (Erl, 2005). Figure 10 shows an abstract visualization of these layers, whereas Figure 12 depicts a more detailed view of an ESB connecting various technological platforms and applications.

Application Layer

Business process layer

Service Interface Layer

Orchestration service layer

Business service layer

Application service layer

Application

DATA #1

Application

DATA #2

Application

DATA #3

Application

DATA #4

The service interface and the service impl

Figure 11. Enterprise layers with the three service layers

2006). The service interface encapsulates the service by means of formal a documented interface. This interface has todiscoverable by not only the agents who created the service or were responsible for its design, but also by agents without any knowledge about the internal composition (Papazoglou & van den Heuvel, 2006). To support the fundamentals of accessibility and discoverability, the interface must be platform independent and should provide a description of the identity of the service and its invocation logics. In effect, clients are able to use the service irrespective of operating system, computational platform and programming language (Papazoglou & van den Heuvel, 2006). Although, the service interface and implementation seem to have a strong relationship, SOA emphasizes on a separation of the two in order to reach its loose‐coupling principle (Papazoglou & van den Heuvel, 2006). In addition, the service interface layer functions as a common connectivity layer between the business and the application layer. The business layer of SOA contains formalized descriptions of specific situations in the business


Figure 12. Enterprise Service Bus connecting diverse applications and technologies

.2.5 Operations in the SOA

a vital role in the interaction between these two actors; the service discovery agency (service tion(s) of the service(s) they offer at the

able the clients to find the most suitable service by descriptions (Erl, 2005).

the essential information to the

2 Communication within SOA is performed through service requests between the requestor (client) and the service provider. SOA is able to provide services to either end‐user applications or other services distributed in a network through published and discoverable interfaces (Papazoglou, 2003b). The client and requestor can directly communicate with each other. However, the communication is usually performed by another participant who plays registry) (Papazoglou, 2003b). The service provider is responsible for publishing descripservice discovery agency. Subsequently, the service discovery agency will enproviding search options in the collection of published serviceThus, the service discovery agent acts as an intermediary between the two actors by providingclient, which enables him to bind to the selected service of the provider (Papazoglou, 2003b).

Figure 13. basic SOA architecture


In this basic scenario (Figure 12), the three roles and their interaction is depicted and an important service artifact is discussed:

cription provides the service capabilities, interface(s), behavior and quality of the service (Papazoglou,

er and the requestor will go through the service discovery agency.

2 b servic Today, SOA builds on tLanguage (BPEL) for We s to achieve the functionality described in the previous chapter (2.2.5) (Erl, 2005). Although the concept of SOA is most A., Morris, E., Simantra, S., iand SOA as(Le 7, Erl, 2Web services standards

• Basic infrastructure

• Service composition

• Cross cutting standThe first of these three categories is the most developed and mature of the Web Service standards. W pcommonly formatted accordingHeuvel (2007) as ‘a light ed protocol allowing RPC‐like calls over the internet’. The main characteristics of this protocol are that it is platform‐nrelationship between thto perform service invocproposed XLANG (Web P., Leymann, F. and Reisig, W., 2007; Papazoglou & van den technology and vendor n

.2.6.1 Service provider selection e emphasize on the importance of selecting the appropriate service provider is stated by Erl (2005), who views the web

ective; ‘the web service provider is an organization that owns the Web service and implements business logic that underlies the service’ (Erl, 2005). This underlines business aspects like security and privacy, which could

vital for service requestors. To support this issue SOA introduces several technologies, like the UDDI service registry (UDDI, 2000), security and privacy standards such as SAML (Farell et al., 2003) and WS‐trust (Anderson, S., et al., 2005; Papazoglou &

the service description. The service delivered to the client typically consists of a specific business function implemented in software, wrapped with a formal documented interface (Papazoglou, 2003b). This interface contains the description of the service, consisting of the following basic categories (Erl, 2005):

• business information: information of the service provider or the implementer of the service,

• service information: information about the nature of the service,

• and technical information: containing the information how clients must invoke the service (i.e. a set of signatures of the available operations), and a specification describing all the interfaces of the (composed) service.

Thus, the service des2003b). The find operation can be initiated in two ways; dynamically (at run‐time) or statically at design time to retrieve a service’s interface description for program development (Erl, 2005). Next, the actual service selection has to take place. This activity also has two possible methods; manual or automatic. The service can be selected after manual inspection or through an automatic selection of the best candidates between potential services (Erl, 2005). When the appropriate service is selected, the information in the service description is used to locate and contract the service at run‐time. Another method is that all communication between the provid

.2.6 We es

he Web service baseline specifications of SOAP, WSDL, UDDI, and the Business Process Execution b Servicecommonly discussed in combination with web services, they are not synonymous (Erl, 2005; LewisWrage L., 2007). Web services are the main standards‐based technology available today to mplement

realize SOA.wis et al., 200

a concept however, is technology independent and can also be implemented with Java, C# or J2EE 005). can be divided into three broad categories (Lewis et al., 2007):

: e.g. HTTP, XML, XML Schema, SOAP, WSDL, UDDI

: e.g. WSCL, WS‐coordination, BPEL

ards: e.g. WS‐Security, SAML, WS‐transactions, WS‐Reliability.

eb services are trans orted over the internet through protocols of the basic infrastructure. The messages themselves are to The Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP), which is described by Papazoglou & van den

‐weighteutral and vendor‐neutral by nature. This makes SOAP a suitable protocol to allow the loosely coupled e requestor and provider. However, SOAP is not a requisite when using web services, other standards ations are also applicable, like the WFSL (Web Services Flow Language) proposed by IBM and Microsoft Services for Business Process Design) (van der Aalst, W.M.Heuvel, 2007). Nevertheless, these standards generally do not comply to the basic SOA principles of eutral.

2Thservices from a business persp

thebe


van den Heuvel, 2007). In addition, a new role called the service broker is introduced, which is a ‘trusted party that forces service providers to adhere to information practices that comply with privacy laws and regulations, or even industry best practices’ (Papazoglou & van den Heuvel, 2007).

2.2.7 SOA strategies K ttom‐up architectural approach. This view is discussed by Vinoski (2005), which considers three views in a web service design; bottom‐up, top‐down, and essage‐focused. The bottom‐up approach is according to the perspective of Kamoun (2007), mostly used by developers from n IT perspective (Vinoski, 2005). However, as SOA is an architectural style various authors state that the SOA strategy should

n that there are two strategies which are commonly ; Lewis et al. 2007). They suggest a strategy working

top and from bottom‐up; simultaneously defining and describing the business processes and goals, while at the meantime de describing the service capabilities (Maurizio et al., 2008). The three SOA strategies and their characteristics are diLe th the SOA environment in order to best suit its needs’. In effect, they mention that adopting or implementing SOA by

obably fail. According to Lewis et al. (2007), SOA adoption is a continuous and evolving process which needs to be phased and planned. This allows the enterprise to learn from small projects, mitigate majorsks and minimize the impact on the end‐users of the enterprise systems (Lewis et al., 2007). For example, pilot projects can

amoun (2007) describes SOA from an IT perspective and concludes that SOA is primarily a bo

mabe top‐down (Ligthart, Graave, Rooij, Gerwen, & Es, 2005). Others mentioused in a SOA environment: top‐down and bottom‐up (Maurizio et al., 2008from

fining andscussed in Table 3. wis et al. (2007) state that ‘the enterprise first needs to understand and identify the benefits of SOA in its business context anden tailor

means of a big‐bang approach will most pr

riprovide experiences in identifying risks, evaluating tooling and vendors, and business cases which can be support this understanding (Lewis et al., 2007).

Strategy Characteristic

Top‐down A top‐down strategy starts with the overall goals of the project, leading to process changes or improvements. Subsequently, these processes are refined in a stepwise fashion to a software implementation or identification of services candidates (Deb, Helbig, Kroll, Scherdin, 2005; Perepletchikov, Ryan., Tari, 2005; Schepers, Lacob , van Eck, 2008). The business process models serve as a blueprint for the identification of services (Perepletchikov et al., 2005). This strategy requires a lot of coordination and support, but leads to a more coherent solution with higher probability of interoperability (Erl, 2005; Perepletchikov et al., 2005).

Bottom‐up The bottom‐up strategy starts at the technical basis, ‘working upwards to the requirements and business process models by building services on top of the existing (legacy) systems’ (Perepletchikov et al., 2005). Schepers et al. (2008) extends this statement by mentioning that the bottom‐up strategy starts by identifying the service requests of the users. From that point, an assessment of the identification of the process determines if the requirements can be fulfilled (Schepers et al., 2008). Deb et al. (2005) calls this the usage‐drive approach to service discovery by focusing on the usage of IT infrastructure, application functionality and data by business applications.

Meet‐in‐the‐middle The meet‐in‐the‐middle strategy is actually the combination of both the top‐down and bottom up approach; ‘simultaneously mapping out business process and goals as well as service capabilities’ (Maurizio et al., 2008). Perepletchikov et al. (2005), mention that this strategy is not well understood as well‐described techniques are scarce. According to the goal‐service modeling technique of Arsanjani (2004), high level business process functionality has to be externalized to coarse‐grained services, while at the same time existing legacy functionality has to be analyzed to specify finer‐grained services. The results of both approaches can reduce the number of candidate services that were already identified (Arsanjani, 2004.; Perepletchikov et al., 2005). In this strategy, business processes should extend to vendors, customers and partners. Process modeling should be included in the long term strategy plan (Maurizio et al., 2008).

Table 3. Overview of the three SOA strategies and their characteristics.


2.3 BPM and SOA In scientific literature, BPM and SOA are mentioned as two‐sides‐of‐the‐same coin. In addition, current BPM technologies and suites, (discussed in chapter 2.1.4), already employ SOA web services. However, web services are just a SOA technology (chapter 2) and BPM is not merely a process integration approach (chapter 2.1). Therefore, this chapter focuses on how BPM and SOA can be aligned in such a way that they achieve a synergy.

‘Top go al.,

achieve SOA in a company, the need is to understand that it requires all of the differing aspects of the company’s rocesses – business and technology – to accomplish the overall als’ (Maurizo et 2008).

2.3.1 BPM/SOA synergy and Business/IT alignment

s the interpretation of both approaches has mainly been influenced by vendors, it’s vital to summarize the definitions that are used in

syn∙er∙gy n. pl. syn∙er∙gies The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects. (The American Heritage Dictionary, 2006)

Synergy is defined as ‘the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects’, by the American heritage dictionary. According to various authors this is exactly the case with BPM and SOA, as both can be implemented independently, but are seen as ‘two sides of the same coin’ or ‘more powerful than either is in itself’ (Woodley & Gagnon; Gopala & Behara, 2006; Kamoun, 2007). According to these authors, SOA and BPM can act as natural partners in situations where new applications are assembled in a service‐oriented environment. Maurizio et al. (2008) mentions that implementing a standard services architecture requires an increased organizational discipline, such as processes, standards, and regulations. These organizational requirements should span the entire organization ensuring a commitment to SOA principles and methods (Maurizio et al., 2008). By providing consistency throughout the organization with a high visibility of processes and risks, BPM can be seen as the method to gain these requirements

the enterprise (Maurizio et al., 2008). throughoutA

this research:

BPM on a ongoing sis is a holistic approach to manage organizations; focusing on processes and process improvement activities

ba with a sound focus on culture change and strategy development.

‘SOA provides a set of guidelines, principles and techniques in which business processes, information and enterprise assets can be effectively (re)organized and (re)deployed to support and enable strategic plans and productivity levels that are required by competitive business environments’ (Papazoglou et al., 2003,2006).

In both definitions there is an emphasize on (business) processes, which could play an important role in combining both approaches and achieving a synergy. Therefore, the following definition will be used for business processes:


‘A business process is the complete and dynamically coordinated set of collaborative and transactional activities that deliver value to customers’ (Fingar P., 2007).

Business processes play a significant role in the intersection between BPM and SOA. Although the basic concepts of SOA can support and enable the construction of more efficient IT operations, the full SOA potential enables business operations to quickly build competitive business applications and make them resilient to change (Deb et al., 2005). The vital aspects in this situation are business services, which are in fact services used by (high‐level) business processes (Deb et al., 2005; Erl, 2005). These business services should be developed based on organizational criteria’s and resemble an organizations business function (Werth, Leyking, Dreifus, Ziemann, and Martin, 2006). According to Werth et al. (2006), business processes serve the business ntext required for business services to form a truly business‐driven service‐oriented architecture.

PM provides methods to analyze, improve, control, and manage these processes with the aim of improving the quality of roducts and services (Elzinga et al., 1995). In effect, it radically redesigns business processes in order to achieve dramatic

transformation initiative highly depends on Human resources anagement, who has to support the people within the organization to understand their positions in the newly changed

s to change as well. This puts significant pressure on the underlying

gulation, the action of stakeholders and eroding of

horizontal linkages Lee & Dale, 1998) and SOA through the assertion that users/customers are

s owners, which can easily be contacted in real‐time thro ultiple channels (Chen, 2008)(van Es et al., 2005). Final, BP well as SOA focus on the encapsulation, modularity, reuse, loose coupling (Kamoun, 2007).

hen (2008) propagates that a successful SOA alone is not sufficient enough in achieving organizational agility. According to

n technology

co

‘Service orientation of an organization means that functions and sub processes needed by numerous organizational units are provided by a single unit towards multiple units in order to reduce costs and complexity. We define such functions as business services. ’ (Werth et al., 2006).

Bpimprovement in performance. Subsequently, the success of thismstructure (McAdam & McCormack, 2001) A vital aspect in this transformation is the communication of information; between people, functions and business partners. Information Technology has become a key enabler in driving and supporting this information interchange (Davenport & Short, 1990). As the traditional organizational structure erodes and new ones are established, the traditional flow of information hainfrastructure. It’s here, that the basic concepts of SOA can support and drive the organizational transformation by enable efficient and flexible IT operations. According to Armistead et al. (1997), globalization, changing technology, rebusiness boundaries are the five main drivers of process change. Process improvement is mainly considered in companies who are in crisis or have a strong competitive position and envisaging even greater competition in the future and/or want to capitalize on that position (Hill and Collins, 1998). Reflecting these drivers and characteristics of BPM on the full potential of SOA mentioned by Deb et al. (2005), the conclusion can be drawn that both approaches share the same principles. First, the SOA paradigm and BPM approach both try to achieve organizational agility. Second, another similarity is the focus area of adding value to the end customer; BPM defines processes from the customers perspective through between key activities (Zairi, 1997; Weske, 2007; ervice M as

ugh m and

‐ BPM and SOA bot’h try to ‘enable an enterprise to increase the continuous changing (Maurizio et al., 2008).

ches emphasize on adding value to the end cuty n K .

the adaptability and reactivity tomarket dynamics

‐ Both approa ‐ Both focus on the promotion of encapsulation, modulari

stomer. , reuse, a d loose coupling ( amoun, 2007)

CChen (2008), achieving organizational agility can only be achieved by aligning the business and IT with an integrated view of enterprise resources. Erl (2005) mentions, that a service oriented enterprise with a highly response informatioenvironment can only be established when the business domain employs principles of service orientation and continuously aligns their current state of business models with business requirements. Luftman, Lewis and Oldach (1993) supports the statement of Chen (2008), by emphasizing that organizations within an increasingly competitive, information‐intensive and dynamic environment, have to align their business strategies and


information technology strategies in order to survive. Information technology enables the redesign of business processes, monitoring its performance and management of business processes and activities. In effect, being effective and efficient in the sage of information technology resources is a necessity in such organizational environments (Luftman et al., 1993). This is pported by Henderson and Venkatraman (1993), who argue that the business can only realize value from their IT investments

strategies have to be continuously improved and dapted as competitors are also changing and adapting their strategies (Luftman et al., 1993). In effect, organizations will have

ructure must be well suited to it if a significant competitive advantage is to

he goal of a BPM and SOA synergy is to create an environment where the advantages of both approaches can be optimally achi ed y is not as oun, 2007; Gopala & Behara, 2006; Woodley & Gagnon, 2005). Kamoun (2007) listed some diff ncOn a str d SOA is that BPM is primarily is management discipline where decisions bottom‐ ‐the‐middle as discussed in chapter 2.2.7. Another difference in perspective between BPM and SOA. BPM has a process‐centric view, while SOA takes a service‐centric perspective. This often results in different goals and interpretations among domains. For example, where web services designer would aim at achieving more flexibility in the utilization of services, process management systems

usuwhen they have aligned the business and IT. In addition, business and ITato continuously respond to maintain an advantage. In effect, aligning the strategies and business objective to BPM in order to optimize business performance has become increasingly important (de Bruin & Rosemann, 2006). The relation between the business, IT and its environment is clearly defined by Bergeron, Raymond, and Rivard (2004), who state that ‘as strategy is the force that mediates between the firm and its environment, it is, in practical terms, the basic alignment mechanism, and the organizational stcreated’. Reflecting this on the holistic definitions of BPM and SOA, we can conclude that the service orientated business strategy influences how BPM manages the organizational structure, its activities, processes and their lifecycle, people and culture, supported by the guidelines, principles and techniques provided by SOA.

2.3.2 The differences between BPM and SOA T

ev by focusing on the collaborative relationship between the two. Whether this is obvious or not, achieving that synerg easy as foretold (Kam

ere es between the two approaches in Table 4. ategy level, the main difference between BPM an are taking top‐down (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005.; Kamoun, 2007). A SOA strategy however, can be performed fromup, top‐down or meet‐in important aspect is the

ad

esigners would focus on designing systems where all services are visible and available in a common environment to be reused

in processes (Smith & Fingar, 2003). Maurizio et al. (2008) supports this facet by mentioning that the combination of process modeling with SOA often result in differing opinions between analysts and consultants about best practices.

Table 4. Additional differences between BPM & SOA (Kamoun, 2007) Although it is said that BPM is designed to integrate and consume the service artifacts provided by SOA, the difference in perspective can result in situations where certain service designs become inoperable (Woodley & Gagnon, 2005).

BPM SOA

Business‐driven IT‐driven

Top‐down process approach Bottom‐up architectural approach

Reuses process models Reuses service implementation

Project‐oriented Enterprise infrastructure‐oriented

Success measured by business metrics and Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s)

Success measured by architectural metrics, logical consistencies, ease of integration, and cost of change.

Thus, BPM is an approach to continuously manage the business processes, people, and activities of the organization in order to improve business performance, where the SOA paradigm provides the business with a service‐centric view and the IS/IT with a flexible infrastructure to enable a stronger position in the dynamic and highly competitive market. As both approaches enable and drive the business strategy and incorporate business and IT aspects, achieving a BPM/SOA synergy is highly dependent on careful business‐IT alignment.


This situation relates with the difference between processes and services; where business processes change very often, business services remain relatively stable over time (Woodley & Gagnon, 2005). In addition, Woodley and Gagnon (2005) consent to these situations, as they mention that the methodologies, tools and

006), with the situation that the current procedural nature of certain languages which are commonly used in BPM, like in

be aware of pplications, their API’s, internal data models and technologies in which they are implemented (as depicted in Figure 8) (Gopala & Behara, 2006). In order to support reusability and adaptability, models have to be generic, without specific and unnecessary details about the context and environment (Gopala & Behara, 2006; Kamoun, 2007). Although this approach can still be effectively deployed, its inefficiency will display in the course of his growth as frequent changes to services and processes will become a necessity (Kamoun, 2007). It’s here, that SOA provides a significant value to BPM in addressing the deficiencies of his rigid infrastructure, by providing an ideal platform for the process models in the form of a service layer (Gopala & Behara, 2006). This situation empowers loose coupling between business applications and integration systems (Kamoun, 2007). By exposing the application logic in the form of autonomous, stateless and platform independent services, merely by requiring some form of input, BPM is able to employ the application logic as services to support his (business) process models without adding any technological or application specific knowledge. Gopala et al. (2007) mention some additional reasons why the service layer adds significant value to the interaction with the business process layer:

In addition, BPM methodologies can support SOA in the definition of business services and service orchestration (Woodley &

M systems broadens in a service‐oriented environment d venue, by expressing business logic via services through

the use of extensions (Erl, 2005). Standardization is fostered in the way SOA positions orchestration as a service itself. This key aspect enables standardization of process representation across the organization, by building upon orchestration logic within the orchestration layer, while still promoting service‐orientation (Erl, 2005).

practices of BPM are not easily integrated in a pure service‐oriented environment. This is supported by Van der Aalst and Pesic (2workflow management systems, do not go hand in hand with the autonomous nature of services. 2.3.3 Process automation and the SOA infrastructure According to Ferguson and Stockton (2006), BPM distinguishes itself from other classic approaches to application development and execution, by iteratively and coherently describe and implement the business model through the development stage into running systems. This is a more detailed definition than the definition that is described in the chapter ‘BPM/SOA synergy and Business/IT alignment’, focusing on process automation. From this perspective, the SOA paradigm provides BPM greater means to achieve his goal (Ferguson & Stockton, 2006). In a BPM environment without SOA, BPM relies on a proprietary infrastructure as the underlying business applications are directly accessed by the process layer (Kamoun, 2007; Gopala & Behara, 2006). In effect, the business process musta

• The service registry and service discovery facilities ensure that the services can be dynamically located and accessed by the process layer,

• The decision whether a process is authorized to employ a service is defined in a service‐level security model providing single‐on and role‐based access control,

• Because the service‐level data model is based on the business domain, it is independent of the data model of a particular application. (Gopala et al, 2007)

Gagnon, 2005). The traditional role of the orchestration function of BPas the orchestration can be performed in a standardized, service‐base


2.3.4 Improving understanding and structure in a BPM/SOA synergy

mation technology. This is related to the statement of Harmon (2008b); ‘BPM

s such, BPM is the perfect starting point for IT development in general and SOA development in particular (Werth et al., 2006). O in goals of a business‐driven SOA is to decouple business processes from the applications and systems such that e r in achieving this ate b 2005; Deb et al., 2005, We ). According to Deb et al. (2005), a vital ess takes ownership for SOA in the business a th ains a e The analysis and identification of the ortant struc SOA at all levels of the organization (Deb et al., 2005). Howeve e benefits of long‐term stability and in effect, should be mapped against actual and potential futu scenarios (Deb et al., 2005). E the servi tion o s understanding of iness models with the structure that can significantly improve the flexibility and agility w process can be remodeled in r the Bus

14. Architecture, service discovery and BPM (re)design phases

Erl (2005), Deb et al (2005) and Werth et al. (2006) each describe important aspect to achieve the full potential of a business‐driven SOA. Using web services to support business processes through an Enterprise Service Bus, is merely a form of Enterprise Application Integration to support BPM in the integration of applications along the end‐to‐end business processes (Werth et al., 2006). The real challenge however, is to bridge the gap between business and IT as it was propagated by SOA (Werth et al., 2006). Werth et al. (2006) state that; ‘To reach that very SOA vision, one must rather think how business requirements can be possibly seamlessly transferred’. According to them, BPM can be identified as a requirements engineering approach in the business domain with a high focus on inforprograms are all about coordinating the use of all its tools and techniques to assure the success of the organization as a whole’. A

ne of the maach can evolve usiness serv

independently (Deb et al, 2005). A key success facto goal is the ability to discover and crerth et al., 2006ices from the business process models (Erl,

requirement in achieving a business‐driven SOA is that the businrchitecture. Theynd the requir

ture to introduce

must be responsible for the scope of domains, identification of ments of these business services.

e business services within these dom business domains serves as an impr, the domains should render thre business

rl (2005) adds thf the busines

at the business, e.g. business analysts, should incorporate process models. This does not only contribute to the

ce‐oriented principles in the construc business services, ‘it brings the busith which

esponse to changes’ (Erl, 2005). These aspects are depicted in the top block of iness element in Figure 14.

Figure


These process models are highly relevant for the enactment and even analysis of processes (Aalst, Leymann, and Reisig, 2007). According to Pedrinaci et al. (2008), the main problem in the scalability of current BPM practices is the lack of semantics throughout the various levels of the BPM lifecycle. They created five abstraction levels of business process modeling throughout the BPM lifecycle, listing issues of semantic and standards in each level (Table 5). They conclude that the layers contain artifacts that do not have representations on the lower levels of abstraction, resulting in a lack of direct or complete translation of models from the higher level to a lower one (Pedrinaci et al., 2008).This is supported by Thomas, Leyking and Dreifus (2008), who mention that there is a gap between the conceptual and the technical models, which is caused by a lack of continuity between both levels of modeling. These levels are mapped onto the requirements and architectural layers defined by Erl (2005) and Deb et al. (2005) in Figure 14.

Level of abstraction

Description activities Semantics & standards

Business level (strategic)

• Explains the ‘What’ of the business problem. • Functional breakdown of domain • It is common that large scale reference models, e.g. Supply

Chain Reference model or solution maps.

Informal and ad hoc modeling standards and semantics.

Business level (operation)

• The operational business level creates several layers depicting concrete processes.

More defined and formalized, without a clear execution semantics. BPMN is an emerging standard in this level of abstraction.

Technical level (processes)

• This level is generally supported by workflow systems, translating the models into executable code.

Workflow engines generate well defined semantics. BPEL is commonly used as a standard.

Technical level (services)

• In this level the actual implementation of the services is performed.

Web service standards are common standard technologies.

Technical level (Implementation)

• In this level the artifacts, like business functions, are implemented.

Table 5. Level of abstractions of the phases in (re)designing business processes (Pedrinaci et al., 2008) Pedrinaci et al. (2008) propagate that the modeling continuum should be supported by semantic information that spans over these levels of abstraction. This is supported by Liu, Li and Zhao (2008), who mention that the seamless management of business and software services in according to their business properties places challenges to semantic service modeling. A process ontology should be shared by all levels of modeling, specifying modeling notations, generic artifacts, that should result in a standardized vocabulary bridging business requirements and IT constraints (Thomas et al., 2008; Pedrinaci et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2008). In effect, this should increase the understanding and manageability of the organizational processes by fostering a holistic BPM view, which is necessary to ‘avoid isolated solutions and to provide an overall view of the whole enterprise’ (Pedrinaci et al., 2008).

ncements in enterprise architecture as never

rious rchitectures described by Deb et al. (2005) are mapped between the global steps of services discovery in Business and IT blocks on the left side and the abstract layers of the business process modeling defined by Pedrinaci et al. (2008) at the right side. Deb et al. (2005) mention that business as well as IT should collaboratively refine business services and work out the details, as depicted in Figure 14. Nevertheless, the business should have the final responsibility and authority (Deb et al., 2005; Werth et

This problem is also discussed Kiraka and Manning (2005), which propagate that a consistent terminology within the BPM domain is a necessity in the identification and understanding of processes. Ravesteyn (2007) and Leeming (2005) discuss the same issues, where a lack of semantics and knowledge of IT and Business about each other’s domain result in inconsistent models. They both point out that the support of architecture is a key success factor to BPM (Ravesteyn, 2007; Leeming, 2005). Woodley and Gagnon (2005) state that ‘SOA is transforming and enabling advaseen before’. According to Brown (2008), architecture can provide enterprise‐standard design patterns to individual projects, fostering collaboration in and between each level of the design phases. As such, it provides clear guidelines and rules about semantics, standards, roles and responsibilities within and between these levels of abstraction (Brown, 2008). Therefore, the vaa


al n ar s an ). In s (both on the application and infrastructure layer) may be changed or replaced without affecting business processes, as long as the service contracts are kept stable. Conversely, business processes can be

or augmented relatively easily when many of the building blocks (the business services) already exist, waiting to be

This is supported by Harmon (2008a), which mentions that BPM experts have be involved in the SOA discussion and should work together to seamlessly transfer the business requirements from the usiness side towards the IT.

will impede and ultimately lead to an unsustainable SOA al. (2008), to increase the overall semantics within the BPM

fecycle, should also support the process of service discovery and portfolio management in creating a sustainable SOA

he business will be more and more responsible for changes in IS/IT. As technologies and IS/IT systems evolve, the BPM ore advanced. This has an impact on the traditional relation and roles between the

s e s and IT. For example, business analysts will be able to make changes without having to resort to IT, ‘saving time and

priate knowledge of each other’s domain SOA were not

riginally designed to work together, SOA architects from the IT side are not fully grasping the business process modeling approach. Similarly, the BPM process owners on the business side do not fully comprehend SOA and how it interacts with BPM.’ Deb et al. (2005), state that when utilizing SOA to transform an enterprise IT landscape, ‘business people must take ownership of business architecture’. The business owners should be responsible for providing scope of domains, ideas for those business services and identifying the requirements that their domain needs (Deb et al., 2005). Although the final responsibility will still be at the business domain, the business and IT will be collaborating more closely to decouple processes and applications through domains and their associated services (Deb et al., 2005; Kamoun, 2007). This collaboration, as depicted in the Service selection step of Figure 14, establishes a federal business/IT governance to manage and control the collaborative coordination between both domains (Deb et al., 2005; Kamoun, 2007). Their role is to translate guidelines established by the architecture, (like the architectures described in Figure 14), into decisions how they will be managed and controlled (Op ‘t Land, 2008; Smits et al., 2008). Strnadl (2007) defines BPM/SOA governance as follows:

., 2006). The Logical Service architecture serves as an abstraction layer between the process architecture and applicatiochitecture (Deb et al., 2005). The purpose of this architecture is to decouple the processes and applications through domaind their associated services, ensuring flexibility and responsiveness to changing business designs (Ferguson & Stockton, 2006 effect, Deb et al. (2005) state; ‘It system

changedre

used’.

Thus, the logical architecture describes how the business and application logic will be loosely coupled by means of process models, business and IT services and therefore defines a large part of the services interface level, as described in chapter 2.2.4 ‘2.2.4 SOA as a middleware’ (Erl, 2005). Within this architecture, the service candidates are refined in order to be implemented by a project (Deb et al., 2005). The close collaboration between business and IT within this step and service interface layer is emphasized by the statement of Erl (2005); ‘Analysts, architects, and other IT professionals collaboratively complete a special analysis process through which each business service is assigned a functional context derived from one or more existing organizational business models or specifications’.tobDeb et al. (2005), also mention that a lack of semantics transformation. Therefore the aspects mentioned by Pedrinaci etlitransformation. 2.3.5 Changing roles and relationships between business and IT Tproducts will also become more and mu in sb

increasing flexibility’ (Harmon, 2004b). According to Ravesteyn (2007), organizations have to be aware that “BPMS requires a different way of software development that begins with modeling the processes and information that needs to be automated”. Maurizio et al. (2008), even mention that a new system architect is needed, with the knowledge of day‐to‐day operations of her business unit, to utilize the visual modeling tools that BPM provides to (re)design new business processes with the support of SOA. To guide these new roles and activities to successfully cooperate in BPMS projects, not only the support of Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Integration disciplines are a necessity, but also the approis of vital importance (Ravesteyn, 2007). Kamoun (2007) supports this aspect as he states that ‘because BPM ando


ed to set the priorities, settle arguments and ongoing repository ons learned’. This knowledge and experience can later form the

‘SOA/BPM Governance specifies the decisions, rights and accountability framework to encourage desirable behavior in the context of BPM and SOA. This consists of leadership, organizational structure and processes to direct and control the enterprise in order to sustain and extend the organization’s strategies and objectives by utilizing SOA and BPM methodologies and tools’ (Strnadl, 2007)

A coc i Mrd ng to iers (2006, ‘a steering group should be establishof knowledge for future BPM projects, carrying over lessfoundatio teams, like Process Integration Centers (PIC’s), should be established to guide and coordinate BPM/SOA projects. These teams play a large role in the implementation of BPM solution and selection and management of the enterprise SOA (Woodley, Gagnon, 2005; Brahe, 2007). Therefore, these teams should be incorporated in the interdiscipl

n of BPM Center of Excellence (CoE) for the organization. (Miers, 2006). These Center of Excellences (CoEs) or special

inary group of expert in the field of business and IT architectures, BPM and SOA.

2.4 Maturity models for BPM and SOA From the results of pre‐literature study the conclusion was drawn that there were no models which focused on a quick‐scan to measure the BPM/SOA maturity of organizations. As the research focuses on constructing a quick‐scan model, maturity models which were too comprehensive, e.g. an extensive documentation, were excluded from the evaluation. In addition, only two‐dimensional models were chosen, as an one‐dimensional model was seen as over‐simplistic (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005).

tation (CMMI), process maturity (Harmon, 2004), others

2.4.1 BPM Maturity models There are several maturity models which focus on Business Process Management, varying in complexity and focus area. Some models focus on process and product development with a project orientake a more holistic approach (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005; Fisher, 2004). Although some models are derived from the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) of the Software Engineering Institute (SEI), many vary in form, dimensions and levels and focus area. To show the range and comprehensiveness of BPM maturity aspects Rosemann and de Bruin (2005) made an overview of the CMM levels and the variety of characteristics, as shown in Figure 15. In this chapter, the maturity models discussed in various scientific literatures will be described and discussed.

Figure 15. Comparison of low and high maturity and the five maturity stages (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005)


2.4.1.1 CMM & CMMI The Capability Maturity Model of the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) is the most familiar maturity model in history. It was one of the first maturity frameworks, as its evolution started in 1986 with assistance of the MITRE Corporation to provide the federal government with a method for assessing the capability of its software contractors (Paulk, Weber, Curtis, Chrissis, 1995).

ment practices had adopted CMM and extended or adapted the model to suit the needs of eir approach, like evaluation of Knowledge Management, IT Infrastructure Management, Enterprise Architecture

Management and Project Management (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2004; Lee et al., 2007). SEI also extended the CMM model for different purposes, like the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). With CMMI SEI wants to “provide guidance for improving an organization’s processes and their ability to manage the development, acquisition, and maintenance of products and services” (Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute). CMMI identifies the best practices for specific processes and evaluates the maturity of an organization in terms of how many of those practices it has implemented (Hammer, 2007). According to Curtis and Alden (2007), the framework focuses on activities conducted in projects, and is specifically focused on systems development projects. Like CMM, CMMI evaluations can be very rigorous and take months; hence many models derived from CMMI take a more holistic approach or focus on just a view aspects to assess the organization in a short period of time or to a specific kind of field (Fisher, 2004; Curtis & Alden, 2007). Some authors argue that organizations which have a high CMM maturity level are that well‐organized and focused on repeatable processes that they cannot capture the need for business process innovation (Smith & Fingar, 2004; Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005).

2.4.1.2 Process and Enterprise Maturity Model (Hammer, 2007) Michael Hammer developed a Process and Enterprise Maturity Model (PEMM), allowing companies to evaluate the maturity of their business processes and the receptiveness to process‐based change. One of the major differences with the CMMI model is that PEMM applies to all industries and all processes (Hammer, 2007). He combined his experience of the last two decades in the fields of business process redesign and reengineering with various organizational studies and constructed five process enablers and four enterprise capabilities. These elements are measured against a 3 point scale in each of the 4 maturity levels. According to Hammer (2007), organizations cannot proceed to the next level unless all of the elements of the desired level are fulfilled. When for example, 4 out of 5 elements are in level 3 and one element is situated in level 2, the organization cannot advance to the third level and stays in the lowest level of all elements. Hammer (2007) elucidates that not only infrastructure, social elements and metrics are important, a supportive organizational

This environment is measured by organizationapabilities in four areas: leadership, culture, expertise, and governance, which must exist throughout the organization when it

2007).

e levelers of change’: Strategy, Controls, People, Technology and Process. According to him, these five

dmap. The business process is considered as a process having multidimensional and non‐linear characteristics.

After four years the SEI evolved the maturity framework into the CMM for Software. This framework has three key principles (Paulk, 1995):

• It is based on actual practices

• Reflects the best of the state of the practice

• Reflects the needs of the individuals performing software process improvement and software process appraisals. Through the years, different manageth

environment must also be in place to develop high‐performance processes. l cawants to institutionalize the enablers and sustain the performance of its processes (Hammer,With the model, a comprehensive audit tool is included to assess the organization. Curtis and Alden (2007), criticize the model of being primarily diagnostic, as it does not offer an improvement roadmap of best practices and is mainly descriptive.

2.4.1.3 Business Process Maturity model (Fisher, 2004) Fisher introduces the ‘fivlevelers present the core of most organizations. The model focuses on two dimensions, these five levelers of change on the y‐axis and the maturity levels, or as Fisher calls them ‘the states of Process Maturity’ on the x‐axis (Fisher, 2004). They are defined as follows: Siloed, Tactically Integrated, Process Driven, Optimized Enterprise and Intelligent Operating Network. The model provides a holistic view of the stages of maturity in the BPM domain, where the capabilities defined in each element can provide a general improvement roa


The objective of the model is not to provide a benchmark tool in which organizations can assess themselves against each other in the form of progression of progress maturity, but to present the means to identify their gaps across each five levelers of change (Fisher, 2004). According to Fisher, organizations can identify specific actions that can be taken to ‘overcome current

organization can only obtain the benefits of the desired state when all cells are on the same level or above that maturity state. This model however, does not provide an assessment tool, like a questionnaire, and only provides the ends, with no means to achieve these ends (Lee, J., Lee, D., and Kang, 2007). Thus, it is not comprehensible enough to be used as a roadmap for process maturity improvement. According to Lee et al. (2007), incorporating suggested actions and achieving capability in a progressive manner would improve the model.

2.4.1.4 Business Process Maturity model (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2004) Rosemann and de Bruin (2004), constructed a model to measure the maturity of BPM. The model assesses the organization by measuring the as‐is (current) as well as the to‐be (future) situation of the organization. As such, it can be used for the following purposes (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2004): ‐ A diagnostic tool to identify strength and weaknesses as well as direct necessary BPM‐related activities, ‐ Facilitate informed decisions about prioritizing areas for BPM development, which can be applied over time as a

longitudinal study. The model is structured as a three dimensional model, consisting of Factor, Stages, and Organization Scope. The stages on the y‐axis represent the maturity levels, which are derived from the CMM model (Initial State, Defined, Repeated, Managed and Sustained). The horizontal axis defines the factors representing the dimensions of the model: IT/IS, Methods, Governance, People, Culture and Strategic Alignment). On the z‐axis the model describes the scope on which organizations can note the results over time and through divisions.

limitations and ultimately achieve the benefits waiting for them as they move up the maturity mountain’ (Fisher, 2004). According to Fisher, the gaps are actually the difference of the maturity position in each cell of the matrix. The

Figure 16. Business Process Maturity Model of Fisher (Fisher, 2004)


An important aspect is that the factors are measured on Coverage and Proficiency. Coverage is used to emphasize the portance of standardized and consistent distribution of BPM capabilities. Proficiency focuses on the quality of BPM

capabilities of the organizational entity that is being assessed. literature,

im

An important aspect of the model is the solid theoretical foundation, as it is constructed based upon scientific surveys and case studies. Nevertheless, it is criticized to be too complicated and complex (Lee et al., 2007).

Figure 17. The BPMM model of Rosemann & de Bruin


2.4.2 SOA Maturity models

2.4.2.1 The Open Group Service Integration Maturity Model (OSIMM) (The Open Group, 2006) OSIMM is based on the Service Integration Maturity Model of IBM, defining how organizations evolve in their ability to support SOA (Arsanjani & Holley, 2006). It has been adopted by the Open Group and renamed to the Open Group Service Integration

s a maturity stage on a certain aspect as depicted in Figure 18.

Figure 18. The OSIMM model of the Open Group Levels towards service‐orientation The firs level of the OSIMM model is depicts a type of organization that is incapable of implementing business processes that require cooperation, and a lot of manual operations must be performed to integrate IT systems. The second level of the model, characterizes organizations which implemented technologies to communicate between the silos and integrate their information data and interconnections. In this level the organization is starting to be able to integrate an IT system that runs across different parts of the organization. The third level uses systems discussed at the end of Chapter 2.2.3, where the organizations uses components to break down the IT systems in the functional silo’s interacting with each other through a defined set of interfaces. There may also be a limited analysis of the business functionality of the components.

Services The following levels are concerned with certain types of services or the usage and implementation of services.

Maturity Model. The Open Group is formed by a consortium of large organization in the IT community. With OSIMM, the Open Group wants to establish a industry‐recognized adoption model and terminology based on open standards (Szakal, 2007). Organizations can assess their maturity within a complete SOA migration path and identify how to maximize business benefits from their adoptions. It consist of seven maturity stages on the horizontal axis and seven maturity aspects on the vertical axis, where each cell represent


The fourth level is called services, where the organization starts to focus on loose‐coupling between composite applications in the form of business services. The service interoperate throughout the enterprise and even the eco‐system with the use of open standards and an IT infrastructure that supports that support the services with suitable protocols, security mechanisms, data transformation and service management capabilities. The service can be managed by assigning responsibilities for SLA’s to relevant parts of the organization. However, in this stage the flow of control within a composite application is defined by custom programming and no declarative flow language. At a business level, a business architecture is in place which ensures that business services will interoperate at the business level by thoroughly analyzing business functionality and breaking it down into business services. This will make it possible to construct a catalogue of service by defining services via a specification language that unambiguously defines the operations performed by a service. Most importantly, this level is hindered in its agility by the bespoke programming language in the composite applications. The next maturity level, the organization is able to construct a business process as a set of interacting services by the use of a composition language, e.g. BPEL. The organization is capable of composing business services into business processes, without the significant construction of code. The developers may be under close guidance of business analysts to ensure a consistent translation of business processes into business services. In effect, there is a high agility in the design and development of business services. In the virtualized services maturity level, the business processes are assembled at design time by developers, under support of business analysts and product managers, with the use of suitable tooling. The tools provide a façade, in a way that the business and IT services are not invoked directly but through a ‘virtual service’. The infrastructure performs the actual conversions and transformations, e.g. changes in service address, protocol, data and synchronization patterns that are contained in the call. The final level, dynamically re‐configurable service, takes it even one step further, as here the assemblies are performed at run‐time. This requires a repository of services, where the characteristics of the service can be queried and accessed.

2.4.2.2 CBDI SOA Maturity Model (Sprott, 2007) The CBDI forum has been refining and extending their SOA maturity model for almost five years. It has been published in 2005 and updated in 2006 and 2007. Throughout these years changes were primarily made in the dimensions and maturity levels. The dimensions for example, where called perspectives in the issues of 2006 and streams in the issue of 2007. The model focuses on the maturity of the enterprise adoption of SOA. The maturity levels are defined by CBDI (2007) as follows: ‐ Early learning: ‘The organization is experimenting with SOA. Activity is likely to be characterized Pilot Projects or Proof of

‐ Applied: ‘SOA is employed within conventional projects to deliver improved structure’. ‐ Integrated: ‘SOA is used to deliver integration between projects and or application silos’. ‐ Enterprise: ‘SOA is optimized at the enterprise level’. ‐ Ecosystem: ‘The SOA is inherently federated supporting virtual businesses.

Concept (PoC) projects’.


19. CBDI SOA Maturity Model Figure

The streams of the model are SOA Management, Service Architecture, Operational Infrastructure, Life Cycle Infrastructure, Framework and Process, Organization and Project and Programs The model can be assessed according to the capability areas and corresponding capabilities which defines the intersection between the streams and the maturity levels, but these are not thoroughly discussed in the appropriate report. The model is depicted in Figure 18.

2.4.2.3 Level 5 Oracle SOA maturity model (Oracle, 2007) The maturity model of Oracle, depicted in Figure 19, describes five levels where organizations can be positioned in their evolution from a low (opportunistic) to a high maturity (industrialized). In the high level overview the model distinguishes two important dimensions each with its own characteristics per maturity level, namely strategic goals and tactical plans. Strategic goals define in what way SOA is defined in the organization strategic plans and how SOA supports the Business. Tactical Plans displays how SOA should support the operational side of the organization, like focus on standards, deploying BAM, BPEL and BPM to baseline. These characteristics are mapped onto the following maturity levels: opportunistic, systematic, enterprise, measured and industrialized. Each level consists of the following dimensions on which the organization can be assessed: Infrastructure, Architecture, Information & Analytics, Operations, Project Execution, Finance & Portfolio, People & Organization


and Governance. The extensive amo SOA maturity model.

unt of dimensions and the defined key factors within each dimension makes it a However no assessment tool could be found, the amount of factors indicate that the

w a e maturity levels.

ure 20. Oracle LEVEL 5 SOA model

comprehensiveassessment could provide a roadmap of factors which need to be implemented to evolve to the next level of maturity. The large amounts of characteristics do have a drawback in consistency and survey ability, as they do not always shoconsistent and clear evolution throughout th

Fig


2.5 Reference models As chapter 2.3 discusses, achieving a synergy between BPM and SOA implies a careful business/IT alignment in strategy and principles and techniques. Several important aspects were discussed in this chapter, like Business/IT alignment, the role of (Enterprise) Architecture and governance. In addition, three maturity models are used to support the construction of the BPM/SOA Alignment Maturitymodel. Their levels, dimensions, key factors and the overall evolution of these elements will serve as a foundation and verification while

SOA Chapter, a BPM and SOA synergy is highly related to business‐IT

activity to the continuous changing market dynamics. SOA is even stated as ‘a new architecture style in the broader enterprise architecture f , Lacob, v In addi .4 dis ce foster the awareness and understandi e a BPM/SOA synergy. Thus, the Enterprise Architecture Maturity model

W., rtson selec rence m verifica e architecture alignment aspects.

‐ SOA governance; Various authors emphasize the importanc nce to su y adopt SOA t al., 2008; Kamoun, 2007; Schepers et al., 2008). The SOA governance of Schepers et al. (2008) is based on the SOA

rnance l on anizat th imture to t A model.

dels will be discussed in the follow rs of ch

Strategic u l

00) c Alig h e bus nt an organization. It is based on s research c /in ving

(Luftman, Papp, Brier, 1996). Luftman (2000) makes the following statement about the alignment between b d IT:

he maturity model has six criteria’s which are used to derive the strategic alignment maturity level, these dimensions are:

Competence / Value Measurement Maturity,

e maturity and

constructing the model. The following perspectives could provide significant value in the construction of the BPM/SOA Alignment Maturitymodel: ‐ Business/IT alignment; as described in the BPM and

alignment. Therefore the Strategic Alignment Maturity model of Luftman (2000) is selected as a reference model. ‐ Enterprise Architecture; SOA and BPM both try to enable an enterprise to increase the adaptability and re

ield’ (Schepers an Eck, 2008).ng to achiev

tion, chapter 2.3 cusses the importan of architecture to

of Ross Weill P. and Robe D.C. (2006) is ted as a refe

e of governa maturity model

odel for the

ccessfull

tion of enterpris

(Smits e

govestruc

ifecycle and focuseshe BPM/SO

aligning the org ion to SOA. It can erefore provide an portant reference

These mo ing subchapte apter 2.5. 2.5.1 Alignment Mat rity Mode

Luftman (20maturity of

reated the Strategic nment Maturity Mo previou

del as an approaconcerning enablers

for assessing thhibitors in achie

iness‐IT alignmestrategic alignment usiness an

‘…. alignment addresses both how IT is in the bu how the b ould, or could be in harmony with IT. Alignment maturity evolves into a relationship where on of IT and other business functions adapt their

ies togeth ignment ry and dy2000)

harmony with siness, and the functi

usiness sh

strateg(Luftman,

er. Achieving al

is evolutiona namic.’

T‐ Communications maturity, ‐ ‐ Governance maturity, ‐ Partnership maturity, ‐ Scope & Architectur‐ Skills maturity. These six maturity criteria’s are measured on a scale of five maturity levels in ascending order: Initial / Ad hoc, Committed process, Established Focused process, Improved / Managed process and final Optimized Process. The model encompasses an assessment method with concise statements, which should be assessed on a scale from 1 to 5.


2 5.2 Enterprise e The model of Ross et consists of 5 maturity stages, where each st izationa w to a ss trate se stage lows: Bus Technology, Optimized Modularit namic Venturing. W focuse level, t l focus tn lf‐ o ture governancIn s et al. areas associated summarized , B objectives, Funding priorities, Key man capability, Who define tions, Key IT and S ns. A e is no assessment tool, research and case studies elaborate el with the evop ourcing le tag ive

. Architectur Maturity Model

al. (2006), age involves organ l learning about hopply IT and busine process discipline as s

Core, Businessgic capabilities. They and Dy

s are stated as folhere the first level

iness silo, Standardizeds on a functional

he highest leve es on the merger of par ers systems, creation of se contained business comp nents and joint vene.

addition, Rosusiness

defines six important where the changes agement

with each stage ares applica

: IT capability governance issues

trategic implicatiolthough ther

The model is described in Table 6. d the mod lution of management

ractices, outs relationships and CIO ro mapped to the maturity s es resulting in an extens model.

Business silos Standardized Technology

Optimized Core Business Modularity Dynamic Venturing

IT capability Local IT applications Shared technical platforms

Companywide standardized processes or databases

Plug‐and‐play business process modules

Seamless merging with partners’ systems

Business objective

ROI of local business initiatives

Reduced IT costs Cost and quality of business operations

Speed‐to‐market; strategic agility

ROI of new business venture

Funding priorities

Individual applications Shared infrastructure services

Enterprise applications

Reusable business process operations.

‐

Key management capability

Technology‐enabled change management

Design and update of standards; funding shared services

Core enterprise process definition and measurement

Management of reusable business processes

Create self‐contained business components

Who defines applications

Local business leaders IT and business unit leaders

Senior management and process leaders

IT, business, and industry leaders

IT, business, and industry leaders and partners

Key IT governance issues

Measuring and communicating value

Establishing local/regional/global responsibilities

Aligning project priorities with architecture objectives

Define, sourcing, and funding business modules

Joint venture governance

Strategic implications

Local/functional optimization

IT efficiency Business/operational efficiency

Strategic agility Organic reconfiguration.

Table 6. Learning requirements of all five stages of the Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model (Ross et al., 2006) 2.5.3 SOA governance focus per business maturity level Schepers et al. (2008) proposed a methodological approach to SOA governance. They created a maturity framework which ‘differentiates between problems on different SOA’s and points out problem areas an organization is likely to encounter in their current maturity level’. The model is chosen for the following reasons. First, because it strongly relates to BPM and business/IT alignment aspects, as they assume that SOA governance should be a joint responsibility of the business and IT. Although BPM is not explicitly mentioned, they mention that SOA does not only requires organizational input about the conditions that need to be managed in the context of the individual processes activities in the organization, SOA governance is also a continuous process. Second, the framework is based upon scientific research. The model is depicted in Table 7.


1. Pioneer 2. Department 3. Enterprise 4. Network

Define SOA strategy Look for most profitable services.

Involve stakeholders. Align SOA with organization and IT.

Make SOA part of corporate strategy.

Align organization to SOA

Centralize governance structure.

Record ownership of services.

Translate business processes to services.

Decentralize governance structure.

Manage SOA portfolio

Agree on scoring criteria. Formalize portfolio process. Migrate & integrate legacy into SOA.

Define how services should be sourced.

Control service lifecycle

Develop best practices. Formalize development process.

Catalogue services in a library.

Align service lifecycle with network, track changes partners.

Incorporate policy enforcement

Create service guidelines. Form policies. alize Report on policy use & violations.

Specify enforcement points between partners.

Service level management

Identify critical services. Formalize simple contracts for services.

Monitor usage and check SLA compliance.

Billing of service use between partners.

Table 7. SOA governance focus per business maturity level (Schepers et al., 2008).


3 Methods

A literature study together with semi‐structured interviews with experts at Capgemini is used to answer the main research

rves as a basis for the construction of the model to ensure that the nduction and evaluation of the design‐science research is qualitatively performed, as described in chapter 1.3.

he methods that are used in each of these elements will be described in the following subchapters (3.1 , 3.2).

question:

The IS Research framework of Hevner et al. (2004) se

“How can the BPM/SOA maturity of organizations be measured by means of a quick‐scan in order to establish a business driven service‐oriented enterprise which is truly agile and flexible?”

coTherefore, elements of the research are mapped onto the IS framework in Figure 21. Although this framework describes what should be delivered in qualitative design research supported by several guidelines, no method is proposed how to model, design and construct these deliverables. To address this issue, the method engineering discipline is used to model and describe the activities with their corresponding deliverables.

Figure 21. Research project mapped onto the IS research framework T

3.1 Environment

3.1.1 Semistructured interviews According to Hart et al. (2001), when a research project encompasses complex issues with limited scientific support, it’s

to use an open interview. As SOA and BPM are well‐practiced at Capgemini on an individual basis, the mbination however, is still limited. In addition, the results of pre‐literature study indicated that there were no models which

d the maturity of both BPM and SOA. In the scientific literature used in this study only limited sources discussing the

recommendedcomeasure


B gy were found. T semi‐structured open interviews were conducted to explore opinions and e rts in the field of of services, Business Process M Arch T d by c rience in SOA or BPM/SOA. I re interv ee enterprise architects (BPM/SOA). E had a minimum ted to find their p M/SOA enviro BPM/SOA synergy. The enterprise architects were assumed to provide a more holistic view, as they had experiences in both

ation and adoption projects.

ncepts (Paré, 2004). The first interview with an enterprise architect provided the knowledge and insights about the lationship between the scientific literature and expert experiences in the field, by means of a unstructured interview.

ctured interviews is preferred when the researcher has little knowledge about the sses. This enterprise architect was chosen as he had experience in BPM and SOA

plementations and guided several BPM/SOA projects. He could therefore provide a broad and practical view to the scientific e literature study to find suitable questions for future semi‐

ructured interviews.

PM/SOA syner herefore, xperiences of expe BPM, SOA and BPM/SOA, with questions about the definitionanagement, Service Oriented itecture and their relationship.

he respondents were selecte the field BPM,

oordinators of the research project at Capgemini, who knew who had significant expe

n total, seven experts we iewed, two SOA architects, two BPM experts and thrach of the experts of five years experience in their field. The SOA and BPM experts were selecerspective on a BP nment and what aspects are important in their domain to achieve and measure such a

SOA and BPM implement Eight face‐to‐face, semi‐structured interviews were conducted to give the participants the freedom to respond and illustrate coreAccording to Paré (2004), conducting unstrutopic and learns while the interview progreimliterature. The results of this interview where reflected on thst

Function / title Industry Sector within Capgemini Referred to as

Service Oriented Platforms & Expert Group Leader Cordys

Information Technology and Services Financial Services SOA architect

Solution architect & Consultant Supply Chain Management

Logistics and supply chain Financial Services SOA architect

Managing consultant, BPM expert group leader

Management Consulting Financial Services BPM Expert

Principle consultant, BPM expertise Management Consulting Financial Services BPM expert

Principle consultant, Enterprise architect

Information Technology and Services Financial Services Enterprise architect

Business & IT architect Financial Services Financial Services Enterprise architect

Enterprise architecture & IT strategy Information Technology and Services Products Enterprise architect

Table rviewed T of the r ented in Table 8. Out the names are k n 3 of inte

iew together with scientific literature study are used to rmulate the semi‐structured interview questions.

from the interviews. To make it possible to compare the answers of the respondents the following coding scheme was used to analyze the interviews (Table 9):

8. List of the inte

o justify the selection of privacy

respondents

espondents, information about their relation to the field of BPM/SOA is presept ano ymous.

.1.2 Analysis rview data

As described in the previous chapter (3.1.1), an exploratory intervfoThese two sources also predetermined the codes to analyze the qualitative data


Category purpose

Evaluation strategy How experts evaluate an organization on behalf of BPM and/or SOA.

Business Process Management implementation

How experts look at implementing BPM and the important aspects in such an implementation.

Service orientated architecture implementation

How experts look at implementing SOA and the important aspects in such an implementation.

BPM and SOA environment Deriving important aspects or links between BPM and SOA.

Service‐orientation How service‐orientation look like within an organization on the business and IT side.

Business / IT relation Finding what kind of implications such an synergy will have on the current relation between Business and IT.

Table 9. Coding scheme In total, seven interviews were recorded and transcribed. The qualitative interview data was structured according to the coding

luate

scheme for further analysis.

3.2 IS Research: Eva

3.2.1 External respondent within Capgemini Three experts within Capgem described in Table 10. The BPM and process expert were chos rts of the semi‐structured interviews. The global architect is well known with Capgemini for his experience and close collaboration with The Open Group, which is c apter k ( h is an industry standard nt o pro maturity model. T xpert has also been working closely with the Open Group in refining their BPM course and exams. T ly expert d PEMM to measure the on

model can provide added value to the practical

additional ini were contacted to evaluate the BPM/SOA AMM. Their functions and experiences are

en because they were often mentioned by expein

urrently developing OSIMM (chTOGAF), whic

2.4.2.1). He is one of the professionals of The Open Group Architecture Frameworarchitecture framework. His experience in the field of architecture and the developmevide significant added value to the validation of the BPM/SOAf an architecture framework could

he BPM ehe process expert was the on

(Hammer, 2007) who used a BPM maturity model to measure the organizations BPM maturity. He use process and enterprise maturity of a large international oil company. The expectati

was that his practical experience with the application of a BPM maturitypplication of the BPM/SOA AMM. a

Function Description Referred to as

Managing consultant, Business & IT Process Management

This expert was part of the first validations of a new BPM course from the Open Group. He has a Blog about BPM, discussing important aspects which could improve BPM within an organization. He therefore describes himself as a BPM expert.

BPM expert

Process consultant This expert has experience with PEMM in determining the enterprise process maturity of organizations.

Process expert

Global architect This expert is one of the professionals of The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF).

Global architect

Table 10. List of experts within Capgemini for the external validation


3.2.2 Respondents of external organizations T r h ee external respondents were contacted to externally validate the model. Their functions and experiences are described in

nt BPM practices and future irections could be of value in the validation of the direction and evolution of the dimensions and key factors in the BPM/SOA

ation its business processes. This ld validate the application of the model and

comprehensibility of the model.

Table 11. The professor was chosen because of his experience in research with a focus on maturity models and frameworks. In addition, he was a reviewer of several journals and conference articles. Therefore, he may provide a significant scientific contribution in the validation of the model. The second respondent has a lot of experience in the field of BPM and process automation. He has written multiple columns for BPTrends, focusing on BPM related subjects. In addition, he is chairman and co‐founder of the process community, which is an international community for BPM board members around Europe. His knowledge about curredAMM. The third respondent is a cofounder of a company which developed a process management approach, the approach primarily support management by providing a clear and unambiguous method to discuss the organizperson was recommended by the global architect at Capgemini as he cou

Function Description

Professor working at several Universities

The respondent works at several universities in the Netherlands. His PhD was based on the dissertation “Automation at work. The influence of Automation on the Job Structure of Organizations”. Since then, his research interest and publications are in field of business‐IT alignment, implementation of ERP‐systems, teleworking and CRM, as well as inter‐organizational issues as the extended enterprise and e‐procurement.

Chairman of the BPM forum in the Netherlands, Strategic alliance manager at Tibco software

The respondent is chairman and co‐founder of the process community, which is an international community for local BPM board members around Europe. In addition, he is a part of a member board of advice of several commercial and academic organizations.

Founder of the SqEME process management approach

The respondent is one of the three founders of a process management approach which focuses on providing management a clear and unambiguous way of talking about the structure of the organization by focusing on its business processes.

Table 11. List of the interviewed respondents of external organizations

3.2.3 Application of the model in practice

3.2.3.1 Application as validation The most important aspect of applying the model in practice is the validation of the assessment tool. This is emphasized by Hevner et al. (2004) who state; ‘The application demonstrates feasibility, enabling concrete assessment of an artifact’s suitability to its intended purpose. In effect, they enable researchers to learn about the real world, how the artifact affects it, and how users appreciate it’. As the answers of the questionnaire determine the position of the organization in the BPM/SOA maturity model, it is important that they are understandable and represent situations that are applicable in practice. In addition, performing the model at an organization can evaluate if the model and the assessment tool is suitable to serve as a quick scan.

3.2.3.2 Selected organization The model is performed at a retail business unit of a large financial organization in the Netherlands. This unit was chosen because they were in the midst of performing major changes in their business and IT architecture. The business architects were creating a thorough documentation of business process models, domain and service models to support the translation into services. In other words, from the perspective of a maturity model, they were trying to establish and perform important activities to evolve towards a higher maturity level. These activities could be verified and supported by


the holistic roadmap of the BPM/SOA AMM by identifying their As‐Is aactivities can be mapped onto the BPM/SOA AMM roadmap to identify gap

nd To‐Be situation. As such, their current roadmap of s in the evolution towards their desired future state.

n, a list of predefined business and IT related roles was provided to ensure that e respondents would be valuable for the assessment.

e other IT related. The business related respondent was a Retail BPM cts that was establishing the new architectural plans and models. The IT

lated respondent that performed the questionnaire had the function of an enterprise architect. Th be an their answers.

3.2.3.3 Selection of respondents To find suitable respondents to assess the model, a high level business architect of Capgemini working within the organization was contacted. To support him in this selectiothTwo respondents were selected; one business and tharchitect and was part of the group of business architere

e assessment was performed in a face‐to‐face setting, where the respondent was asked to mention any question that could perceived as ambiguous or was difficult to understand. After the assessment the questions were adapted to their remarksd a new appointment was made to validate the new adjustments and verify


4 Interviews with experts at Capgemini

This chapter will discuss the results of the semi‐structured interviews of experts at Capgemini. As their names are keptanonymous they are referred to their function as described in Table 8 of the Methods chapter. At the end of this chapter theconclusions of the interviews are presented.

4.1 The BPM/SOA environment

Odr re on the one side there is a focus on organizing or orchestrating people, task and departments effectively (including audit mechanisms and tools), and one other side, a focus on orchestrating streams of data from various IT systems. He states that:

ne of the enterprise architects propagates an organization where the service model is ultimately extended towards the bu au se co their activities: ‘focus on the things you as a person have to perform within the entire radar of activities. They should have a notion why they are performing an activity, but that should be ’.

g that type of information which is comprehensible to the user. As a result, users can interpret and

‘Service orientation provides the power to control and manage the organizational assets, like people and IT, in an efficient manner, which will eventually enable flexibility. The additional element is BPM, which enables the process steps and invocation of automated process sequences occur in a flexible and dynamic fashion. In addition, this can only be achieved when everything is serviced on a infrastructural level’ (enterprise architect).

ne of the SOA architects had a huge interest in BPM and indicated that there are two sides of BPM: a human centric and data‐iven one. He was very interested in BPM as an orchestration of services and human activities. Whe

th

Implementing the combination of both approaches should result in a transformation from a business model towards a service model, ‘structuring problems into solutions, as such that there are a large number of benefits’. The power of such an organization manifests in the efficient use of resources and the flexibility to adapt to changes.

‘As there are always people performing activities with the use of IS/IT systems, you will always need a combination of both. Organizing one of the extremes is a relatively easy task, the combination however, this ‘blurred version’, that’s the hard part’ (SOA architect).

Osiness domain. In this organization, highly dynamic aspects (the business processes) are captured in orchestrators, which aretomatically supported by business rules. Not only the IT, but the entire organization is partitioned into a large number ofrvices. According to the respondent, a BPM/SOA environment will ultimately evolve towards a situation where people are notncerned about processes anymore. Instead, they focus on

itAnother enterprise architect also sketches a BPM/SOA environment where the importance of processes has moved to the background:

‘In such an environment, processes are dynamically composed by managers from behind their desk. In effect, a process defined today, can be a different one tomorrow’ (enterprise architect).

Still, they both agree that processes will always be necessary to handle exceptional cases, like escalations and small problems. The majority of respondents mentioned that there will not only be a shift towards a focus on the customer, but also on the facilitation of human work activities. An enterprise architect identifies this aspect as ‘mass customization’, which implies that IS/IT systems should provide employees full flexibility. Providing flexibility in such a way that it enables them to manage their own work, like scheduling their activities and working hours, but most of all, let them completely free to create and customize their personal electronic work space. Good examples are portals where users can adjust themes, colors, application shortcuts and dashboards. An organization in its highest maturity bears in mind the perception of the individual in its request for information, by deliverin


pr en

4

ocess the requested information without any effort, which could lead to an increase in productivity and the creation of anvironment where the user feels comfortable.

‘The environment should be human‐centric with a focus on the behavior and feelings of the participant of each process; what kind of information he needs and in what kind of representation. A manager that is responsible for managing of a certain process for instance, should be informed by a graphical user interface similar to a car dashboard. That is what he understands, and that is truly effective’ (enterprise architect).

Furthermore, both enterprise architects mention that process control and organizational structures will become less and less important and will move to the background.

‘The ultimate service model is an organization which has a business based upon services. That can be orchestrated in a flexible way by the utility of BPM tools supported by a large number of technological services. With this foundation the organization can support its service portfolio, by quickly coupling and orchestrating these services to create new functional units. But one of the most important enablers to support this service model is the existence of a clear set of agreements about what is information, their costs and models describing their semantics (enterprise architect).

.2 Moving towards the BPM/SOA environment A successful transformation towards a BPM/SOA environment requires significant changes in the current organization, process and governance model (enterprise architect). All respondents agree that BPM transforms the organization from a vertical

tfolio.

bout the capabilities and possibilities of tooling, technology and people within the business. There is a

capabilities are displayed as semi nished products. This type of service model provides a clear business view of the combinations of service building blocks with

clear and accurate descriptions of costs and delivery time. This entails that the service menu should be constructed by the consultation of experts, with the appropriate knowledge of tooling, technology and organizational resources, and should be continuously reviewed.

structure towards a horizontal one, by focusing on the key business processes. Thus, the organization has to be restructured around these key processes. In each process, the parts which can be automated should be identified, in order to support the employees as sufficiently and efficiently as possible. An essential aspect in the identification of the key business processes is that they should be focused on their external environment; their customers or service and product por

One of the enterprise architects indicates that thinking in black boxes, (“What will the service produce or deliver and what triggers are important”), instead of white boxes, (“How will the service work”), could improve the integration process with SOA, as most of the services on the business side could be implemented by IS services almost on a one‐on‐one basis. In addition, the cohesion between services are clearer, which could facilitate the understanding of managers in the interpretation of the relationship between services orchestrated to deliver a certain outcome. The traditional business models and the way people are accounted should also change. Today, it is common that there is a clear separation between business and IT, as the business explicitly decides what should be delivered. The problem however, is the lack of knowledge a

‘WhiSta

ch services do we deliver and what kind of products do we build? Do we have a consistent portfolio and is it profitable?

What is the best way to do this? But most of all, the organization has to focus on their core competence: do what you do rting from that commercial perspective, the executive management should evaluate their current situation and focus on:

best, let other companies do the rest’. (enterprise architect).

constant discrepancy between business and IT, which is the result of the rigid demand model. According to the enterprise architects, the organizations should provide a service menu or catalogue where their servicefi


and IT. The business hen certain aspects

be automated, for example because of budget, these decisions should be discussed with the business in order to create a de

tric perspective to Business Process Modeling

‘A good metaphor is the menu of a restaurant, where each dish is adapted to the customer. The price of each dish is constructed of the costs of quality ingredients and time/effort to create it. As such, it has a lucid time in which it must be served. However, when a customer asks for a dish which is not included in the menu, the cost and delivery time will significantly increase. Moreover, the menu is continuously changing; some dishes will be added, some removed, and the price per dish should be explicitly defined, as such, that the costs can be traced down to the final cent’. (Enterprise architect)

4.2.1 Traceability and tooling Currently, there is still a lack of alignment between the business and IT standards. According to one of the enterprise architects there should be certain traceability between what is delivered and the corresponding business model. Especially within the engineering context, there should be iterative feedback phases between business models delivered by the business architects are further refined with technical details by the IT domain. Wcannotnew solution. In addition, these changes should be well documented, as such that there is a certain link between what islivered and was desired.

‘Traceability between what is delivered and what was desired may lead to future improvement processes. It fosters the ility of the performance and activities of the key business processes of the organization. Subsequently, gaps and

effect, important problem areas can be addressed (enterprise architect). visibperformance issues can easily be identified. In

Tooling can provide significant support in achieving this kind of traceability. Nevertheless, it often falls short of consistent usage by human actors. Tooling can also support reusability. Normally, identifying reusable services always requires a certain human intelligence, recognizing that certain services have already been developed. According to an enterprise architect, recognizing reusable services still requires expert knowledge, while a tool can significantly support this aspect, it is still dependent on the consistent usage of human actors in inserting the services and using correct semantics and context descriptions.

4.3 Leveraging the servicecen A A business processes and business services, there are no methods to actually describe these business services in their line of work. Business process modeling techniques follow a certain path of iggers to model a process. This process‐centric way of thinking and modeling deviates from the service centric view. One of

the main differences in the modeling discipline is that processes are How driven, (e.g. How will it work?), and business services ar w ar no m PM projects do not always focus on the creation of flexible and dynamic processes.

s, which is very nderstandable and justifiable’. One of the BPM experts emphasizes both aspects in Case 1.

ccording to the BPM experts, business process modeling is not concerned with the automation of processes and technology.lthough these experts see a comprehensible link between

tr

e driven from a What perspective, (e.g. What is required). Although there are some business process modeling techniqueshich come close to the service‐centric way of thinking, like DEMO which has a focus on transactions (Op ‘t Land, 2008), theye far from perfect. Although business architects already model from a service‐centric perspective within Capgemini, there is leverage with the BPM experts, because they focus on a process‐centric perspective. The main problem is that there is noethod or technique to further refine services and that B

Another impediment, according to one of the enterprise architects is the human aspect: ‘People think in processeu


4

At a corporate bank, services were modeled by business architects in ARIS, which BPM experts had to process. As the BPM experts were modeling the processes from a business perspective, the architects had an architectural point of view. This

deled in services. But why should I describe the process in such a service‐centric way, when a costumer or user doesn’t even think in services. For

difference in perspective caused conflicting situations with the BPM process modelers: ‘As we were modeling a process from a perspective of activities, triggers and documents, the group of enterprise architects mo

example, they want to receive a form, and check whether or not the input fields are correctly filled.’

Case 1. Problems in leveraging service‐centric modeling according to one of the BPM experts.

According to this BPM expert, business process modelers at Capgemini are primarily employed on a project basis. Their objective is to improve, not to construct or structure flexible processes. This creates a gap between the service‐centric view of enterprise architects and the BPM experts, like in the previous example. Organizations have to ask themselves, ‘why am I working with processes and what do I want to achieve?’.

‘service‐centric modeling in the BPM domain can only be achieved when the objectives are focused on constructing or structuring flexible processes, only then can it be of real value’. (BPM expert)

.4 The information model An organization and even the eco‐system is the description of

agreements

the value chain partners should establish one n across the whole chain. When all partners

agree about the identification and description of various types of information artifacts throughout the value chain, it could ultimately lead to a significant decrease in the need to control and check information consistency and compliance. Furthermore an enterprise architect adds that when the information model is consistently carried through the entire chain, organizations become increasingly specialized in their core competence as the focus on adding value intensifies. An example is given by one of the enterprise architects in Case 2.

important aspect in the information interchange throughout the important information artifacts, e.g. a comprehensive description of what a customer actually means to the organization.n enterprise architect stated that ‘as the new business models move towards the notion of value chains, makingA

about the standardization of information becomes highly important’. Within information model. In addition, they can centralize share and store informatio

‘A good example is Nike, they used to own shoe factories to produce their shoes. Today, they are only focusing on branding, they out‐sourced the rest’. (Enterprise architect)

One case which illustrates the benefits of extending the information model throughout the value chain is the meat industry. As a response to the devastating cow disease (BSE) that struck the meat industry in the Netherlands, the industry managed to establish one information model for the identification of a ‘piece of meat’ throughout the value chain. As a result, when a new disease emerges, e.g. farmer Jansen finds one of his cows infected, the supermarkets can identify each piece of meat originated from his farm, by simply scanning the barcode.

Case 2. Case example of an extended information model throughout the value chain by an enterprise architect.


4.5 Changing the traditional accountability model Another important aspect mentioned by the respondents is that the organization has to change the way people are accounted for. One BPM expert mentioned that in practice not all managers are aware of their accountability.

Traditionally, managers or employees are accounted for working within budget or performance related agreements, like

ce n g

‘One of the most important questions you have to ask a manager is “Where does it hurt?”, “when there is a 10% exceeding in time, or 100%? On what aspects are you accounted for?”’. (BPM expert)

achieving rtai KPI’s. Accordin to the enterprise architects the accountability should move towards the agreements made about the services, which are captured in the Service Level Agreements (SLA). When the service model is extended towards the business domain, managers are able to simply report the SLA’s of the specific services. By means of these SLA’s, each service owner or performer has a clear objective to which they must comply. A practical example of an accountability model based on

SLA’s is given by one of the enterprise architects in Case 3.

Recently I worked for a company which had a service model on a business level, as such that each department had a service catalogue, stating their objectives and response times. A system provided forms where a majority of the activities were automatically checked whether or not they were performed within the agreed time. The manager had an easy job; he just has to check if there are exceeding numbers and if they are within boundaries and at the end of the year he simply makes a report of the SLA’s: “these are the response times of our services”.

Case 3. of an the accountability model was based on SLA's. Example enterprise architect of an organization where


4.6 Results One of the questions during the interviews concerned whether or not the expert used some kind of maturity model to get an

ity of a BPM and/or SOA implementation. It appeared that none of the experts used a maturity y all knew aspects of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and mainly used it as a reference point. In

turity levels like, silo, initial, integrated and optimized throughout the interviews, which are similar to

nts had the same thoughts of how to classify BPM tooling functionalities, process identification, ferent expertise brought different contexts. Where enterprise architects had a

provided a practical point of view, mostly

d, transcribed and coded by using a coding scheme, described in the Methods, t data from various interviews.

ived: SOA, BPM, Processes, Information, Business and IT, 12. interview data, that are vital in achieving a BPM/SOA synergy

llowing important aspects in establishing the BPM/SOA Alignment Maturity Model. First, it be used to define the highest maturity level of ts, which will be used to support the selection

of the dimension for the maturity model. Final, key factors that are important in achieving BPM/SOA alignment, listed in Table 13, are used to select the dimensions (Table 32), and support the selection of key factors in the cells of the maturity model.

indication of the level of maturmodel or method. Theeffect, they mentioned mathe CMM framework. The majority of respondeservice orientation and SOA. Nevertheless, difclear vision about the overall BPM/SOA environment, SOA and BPM experts mainlyconfined between the boundaries of their domain. The data from interviews was recordesubchapter 3.1.2. As a result, each subject of the coding scheme contained relevanSubsequently, from these results the following key subjects were derSupport and Accountability. These subjects are described in TableBesides these key subjects, key factors were highlighted from theaccording to experts. Thus, the results provide the foprovides a vision of an environment where BPM and SOA are aligned, which willthe BPM/SOA Alignment Maturity Model. Second, these results define key subjec

Subject Key factors according to the respondents

SOA An organization should implement SOA to increase turn‐over, faster time‐to‐market, being able to easily out –or in‐source and to be more flexible.

BPM From a BPM perspective the organization must have the objective to create and structure flexible processes, only then can it provide an added value to service‐orientation.

Processes In the identification of the key business processes, organizations should focus on their customers, services and product portfolio. In this process, the organization should identify and define their services based on their added value to the value chain.

Information There should be explicit agreements about information artifacts (information model), e.g. what is a customer to us, throughout the organization and the value chain. Information should be presented from a human‐centric perspective. Provide information the way users can easily understand and work with.

Business and IT Changes and deficiencies between the business models and actual IT deliverables should be continuously documented and supported by tooling. Business modeling standards should be aligned with IT standards to increase a seamless transfer between domains.

Support Tools should support the traceability, reusability and service feedback mechanisms, and people should be stimulated to consistently use the tools. Tools should be facilitating and serve the actual users, and should be customizable to their needs. Tooling must be able to support the orchestration of services, people and tasks.

Accountability The accountability model should change towards Service Level Agreements (SLA), where people are accounted for the predefined performance levels of the service they perform or control.

Table 12. Key points in achieving a BPM/SOA synergy according to the respondents


Key factors

‐ The traditional vertical structure should evolve towards a horizontal one, by focusing on the key business processes and services. ‐ Change in business model.

el towards SLA’s. stems.

customizable IS/IT systems. folio.

‐ ols should support traceability, reusability and feedback mechanisms. ‐ Tools should be able to support the orchestration of servic‐ There should be explicit agreements about information ar‐ Information should be presented from a human‐centric pe‐ Monitor the SLA’s of services.

‐ There should be a standard method for BPM as for SOA within the organization. ‐ Defining service‐orientation. ‐ Defining standards. ‐ Flexible infrastructure. ‐ Supporting people in mobility. ‐ Change turf mentality. ‐ Change in accountability mod‐ People should be stimulated to consistently use IS/IT sy‐ People should be supported and facilitated in their work by ‐ In the identification of key business processes the organization should focus on their customers, services and port‐ Create and structure flexible processes. ‐ The importance of processes should decrease, while focus on individual activities should increase.

Toes. tifacts. rspective.

Table 13. Key factors in achieving a BPM/SOA synergy


5 Develop/Build and Evaluate phase

The following subchapters will discuss how the BPM/SOA AMM is constructed with the support of the IS Research Framework of Hevner et al. (2004) to ensure a qualitative design research approach. The IS Research Framework requires certain outputs in the IS Research element as discussed chapter 1.3. This research will have the following deliverables:

In addition, a method is constructed defining the guidelines and activity steps in the application of the model (Method).

In order to describe the steps that were taken to establish the structure and elements of the maturity model, Figure 22 and Figure 23 are depicted to further elaborate Figure 21 of the Methods chapter. The results of the scientific literature study, from the Foundation element of the Knowledge Base, will provide key requirements to achieve a BPM/SOA synergy environment. In effect, these results will provide the scientific perspective of the key factors and evolution throughout the BPM/SOA maturity model. The results of qualitative interviews with experts of Capgemini will serve as the practical perspective of how such an environment would look like and what kind of problems organizations could face while trying to evolve to a synergetic state. In the first phase of the construction of the model (Figure 22), results of the Knowledge Base will outline the evolution and key factors of the maturity levels. This outline will support the selection of the maturity levels and dimensions of the BPM and SOA maturity models and are described in Chapter 5.2.3 (selection of the maturity levels) and Chapter 5.3.3 (the selection of the dimensions).

The second phase in the construction of the model will focus on the selection of key factors within each cell of the

model is extended with information of the reference models, which are discussed

2.5, and the selected maturity levels and dimensions to serve as a reference framework. This reference framework will support the selection of the key factors from the various BPM, SOA and reference maturity models. This is discussed in chapter 5.4.

‐ the maturity levels (Constructs), ‐ dimensions (Constructs), ‐ the characteristics within each cell(Constructs), ‐ the model, consisting of these artifacts (Model), and ‐ an assessment tool in the form of a questionnaire based upon the key factors of each cell (Method). ‐

matrix. Here, the outline of the

in chapter

Figure 22. First phase in the construction of thestructure of the model

Figure 23. Phase 2 in the construction of the model


5.1 A metamodel to support the research activities To guide the construction of the maturity levels and dimensions, a meta‐model was developed to identify and describe clear ctivity steps and deliverables. This meta‐model, depicted in Figure 24, will be used in the following subchapters, (5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5 pport the establishment of the Maturity model; its maturity levels, dimensions and key factors. The meta‐model is In m les, names or key factors of the dimensions or maturity levels of the eval activities are depicted. From these activities a (dotted) line is drawn towards side of the model displays how the deliverables relate to each other. The

perts’, will determine if the deliverable is approved or has to be

a.4 and 5.5), to su

designed according to the method engineering approach discussed in chapter 1.3.

the eta‐model the term ‘notations’ represent titel, theuated models. On the left side of the mod

the corresponding deliverable. The rightoutcome of the last activity, ‘validate description with exrefined. When rejected, the ‘Selection of notation’ is reactivated.

Figure 24. Meta‐model describing the phases to select a notation, like in this research the maturitylevels or dimensions.


.2 Establishing maturity levels 5

steps are taken in ent of the maturity le ): The following the establishm vels in accordance to the meta‐model (Table 14

Step Activity

1 The notations of the maturity levels from the various SOA and BPM maturity models are grouped.

2 The terms of the levels are sim evaluated and regrouped to structure ilar notations.

3 Out of these levels the maturity levels are chosen.

4 Maturity levels are validated by the experts.

Table 14.steps and activities in defining the maturity levels

of the maturity levels in the BPM, (Fisher, Rosemann & de Bruin, PEMM), and SOA models, (OSIMM, CBDI and O eve ere enumerated and grouped under the leve urity. Notations which could relate to the subject of synergy or tion between BPM and SOA were highlighted. The BPM/S maturity levels should represent an evolutio ent between BPM and SOA (synergy). Therefore, can not represent such an evolution are ed in the selection, e.g. ‘Composite services’ (OSIMM) or ‘Process her).

nergetic state, establishing 5 comprehensive

ate a 5 level evolution of specific aspects, as they primarily found it d, the PEMM model is

the name of each maturity level has to be comprehensible and should reflect not only clear stages that an organization would go order to achiev also a certain advantage c the previous maturity

f the evaluated mo ctly be employed. As such, the summarized notati there were notations which could fit these requirements.

rity level not ined (Ta

These activities will be further described in the following subchapters of chapter 5.1.

5.2.1 Phase 1 & 2: Grouping notations & Identify associations The notationsracle L l 5 SOA), w l of mat

collaboraOA AMM n towards an alignmnotations that omitt driven’ (Fis

5.2.2 Four maturity levels The models that are evaluated ranged from 5 to 8 maturity levels, the BPM/SOA synergy model (BPM/SOA AMM) will only consist of 4 levels, for the following reasons. First, as the model focuses on aligning BPM and SOA and the growth towards a systages with clear distinctions appeared cumbersome. Second, the respondents often found it superfluous to indicunnecessary to model a maturity level which is, in practice, impossible for organizations to achieve. Thiralso based on 4 maturity levels and was conceived as well‐organized and straightforward by the respondents.

5.2.3 Phase 3: Selection of notations As

through in e a BPM/SOA synergy, but ompared to stage, none o dels could dire

ons were evaluated to see whetherThe following matu ations were selected and def ble 15):


Notation Notation derived from Description

1. Initial CMM (level 1), Rosemann & de Bruin (level 1)

Initial use of BPM and SOA, ad hoc and separately.

2. Integrated OSIMM (level 2)/ CBDI (level 3) BPM and SOA are becoming integrated in the organization.

3. No selection made of derived models

Not derived from current models. BPM and SOA methods, techniques and principles are connected and linked throughout the enterprise

4. Intelligent & Dynamic Fisher (level 5) , OSIMM (level 8) BPM and SOA are seamlessly integrated and extended towards the eco‐system. As such, the BPM/SOA elements provide the organization the agility and flexibility to be dynamic and make intelligent decisions as information is visible and accessible throughout the eco‐system.

T able 15. First selection of notations from the maturity levels of the BMP and SOA models

h third level en derived from the evaluated models, as the notations arly reflect the description defined e overall evolution towards

st of notations of ble 15 for the third

Table 16. Overview of the various notations of level 3 and 4 None of these notations give a good representation of the state of alignment between BPM and SOA. Therefore, key factors within the higher maturity levels of the BPM and SOA models are evaluated to discover the best way to name the notation of level three. The second‐last maturity levels of the models showed similar visions;

• Business and IT are aligning their practices,

• Processes are integrated or captured by services,

• Measuring, monitoring and improving processes and services receive considerable attention. These aspects represent the collaboration between business/IT, process/service and BPM improvement methodology towards not only processes but also to services. In effect, the term Collaborative could provide a better representation for the description of level 3 (Table 15). Table 17 displays the final overview of the maturity levels.

T ein Table 15, and th

has not be did not cle a BPM/SOA synergy that the levels should represent.

Table 16 displays the li the BPM and SOA maturity levels that could fit the description in Tanotation.

Notation Notation derived from Description

1. Initial CMM (level 1), Rosemann & de Bruin (level 1)

Initial use of BPM and SOA, ad hoc and separately.

2. Integrated OSIMM (level 2)/ CBDI (level 3) BPM and SOA are becoming integrated in the organization.

3. Collaborative Notation is not explicitly derived from models.

BPM and SOA methods, techniques and principles are connected and linked throughout the enterprise

4. Intelligent & Dynamic Fisher (level 5) , OSIMM (level 8) BPM and SOA are seamlessly integrated and extended towards the eco‐system. As such, the BPM/SOA elements provide the organization the agility and flexibility to be dynamic and make intelligent decisions as information is visible and accessible throughout the eco‐system.

Table 17. First notations of the maturity levels

Level Notation Model

3 Defined CMM, CMMI

Repeated Rosemann & de Bruin

Integrated CBDI

Enterprise Level 5 SOA


5.2.4 Phase 4: Validate descriptions with experts

with the

a BPM/SOA synergy as described in the results of

and SOA synergy. Thus, the final level will be called Synergetic. he final notations are shown in Table 18 and were perceived as consistent and complete by the experts.

Four interviews, each with a different respondent, are conducted to validate the maturity levels of the BPM/SOA Alignment Maturity Model. One of the experts questioned whether the first element of the final maturity level; ‘Intelligent & Dynamic’, wouldn’t offend organizations in a lower maturity state. He argued that the notation ‘Intelligent’ implies that organizations in inferior levels are not able to make intelligent decisions. In addition, several experts mentioned that the last level was inconsistentevolution of the other levels towards a state where BPM and SOA are aligned. The description of the final maturity level should be related to the state of scientific literature study. In effect, the notation of the final maturity level could best be defined as synergetic, representing the state of a BPM T

Notation Description

1. Initial BPM and SOA are initially implemented and used separately, primarily on an ad hoc basis.

2. Integrated The organization starts to integrate BPM and SOA methods and techniques.

3. Collaborative The enterprise puts significant effort fostering the relation between the business and IT and has implemented BPM and SOA on an enterprise level.

4. Synergetic The BPM and SOA approaches have evolved throughout the enterprise, in such a way that their combined effect is more effective than either BPM or SOA alone.

Table 18. Final notations of the maturity levels


5 bl h ns .3 Esta ishing t e dimensio T provide an ov the dimensions of the BPM and SOA maturity models, and serve as a basis for of key in the matrix. A els, di d in the 4.2, erent perspectives and the results of literature study (chapter 2.3) displays; simply combinin models will res and incomplete model. The reference models (chapter 2.5) will primarily focu s and inconsisten may arise in combining the BPM and SOA models. B e Align odel (SAM) of Lu ) has a two dimensional structure with similar notations as the dimensions of the BPM and be added The meta‐model o , is the est mensions of the BPM/SOA AMM with the following a

his analysis will erview of the differencesstablishment

and similarities between cells the e factors for the

s the mod scusse chapters 2.4 and 2. have diffg these ult in an inconsistent s on gap cies that

ecause only th Strategic ment M ftman (2000SOA models, it will

de to the analysis.

f Figure 24 reused to gui ablishment of the dictivity steps:

Step Activity

1 The notati the dim maturity models aons of ensions of re listed.

2 The terms of the dimens grou n feasible, to shorten the list and give an overview of the similarities ions are evaluated and ped whebetween t im maturity modhe various d ensions of the els.

3 The list, together with the findings of scientific literature and expert interviews are combined and evaluated to make a final selection.

4 The selecte nsions are experts.d dime validated by the

Table 19. Activity in the se sion 5.3.1 Phase e dimensi the maturity models Table 20 displays an overview evaluation of the BPM and SOA models. Dimensio hich ha re excluded from the selection. However, the characteristics and to e dimensions

steps lection of the dimen s

1 & 2: D riving the ons from

of the dimensions which with

had more than one occurrence in thens w d no similarities other dimensions we/or key fac rs from thes are not excluded in the selection phases of key factors.


Dimension Related to domain

Associated with Dimension name

Organization SOA OSIMM OrganizationOracle Level 5 SOA Organization & PeopleCBDI Organization

Method BPM Rosemann & de Bruin MethodPEMM Expertise ‐Methodology

SOA OSIMM Methods

Architecture SOA OSIMM ArchitectureCBDI Service ArchitectureOracle Level 5 SOA Architecture

Alignment SAM model Scope & Architecture

Infrastructure SOA OSIMM InfrastructureLevel 5 SOA InfrastructureCBDI Operational infrastructure, Life Cycle infrastructure

BPM PEMM Infrastructure (Information systems, Human resource systems)

Culture BPM PEMM Culture (Teamwork, Customer Focus, Responsibility, Attitude towards change)Rosemann & de Bruin Culture

Alignment SAM model Partnership (relationship, trust style), Skills (management style, change readiness, social/political/trusting environment), Communication (knowledge sharing)

Governance SOA Oracle Level 5 SOA GovernanceOSIMM Organization

BPM Rosemann & de Bruin GovernancePEMM Governance (Process model, Accountability, Integration) Fisher Controls

Alignment SAM model Governance

People BPM Fisher PeoplePEMM Expertise – People, Performers, OwnerRosemann & de Bruin People

SOA Oracle Level 5 SOA Organization & peopleAlignment SAM model Communication (Understanding of IT by Business, Understanding of Business

by IT)

Process BPM Fisher ProcessPEMM Design (purpose, context, documentation)

SOA CBDI Framework & Process (architecture focus)

Information Technology

BPM Rosemann & de Bruin IT/ISFisher IT

SOA OSIMM Information

Metrics BPM PEMM Metrics (Definition, Uses)Alignment SAM model Competency/Value measurements

Table 20.Overview grouped dimensions maturity models 5.3.2 Phase 2 Deliverable: Description of the selected dimensions

execute

This subchapter will describe the dimensions which are selected from the evaluation of the models of the BPM and SOA domain and SAM model.

5.3.2.1 Organization The organizational dimension has been derived from the SOA maturity models. OSIMM defines this dimension as a ‘focus on structuring and design of organizations and resulting measures of organizational effectiveness in the context of an SOA’, e.g. SOA governance. In the CBDI SOA model, the organization dimension can be described as ‘Roles and responsibilities toon federated, specialized, utility based solutions environment’. Both models define this organizational dimension from a governance perspective.


5.3.2.2 Methods Important aspects of the Method dimension in OSIMM (The Open Group, 2006) are the focus on methods and processes for the transformation of business and IT, Software Development Life Cycle, estimation techniques, design methodologies and techniques for designing solutions. Rosemann & de Bruin (2005) define this dimension from a BPM perspective, where the main

nt of explicit IT and software aspects: ’The adoption of formal, well‐defined and repeatable methodologies

The Strategic Alignment Model of Luftman (2000) describes the dimension Scope & Architecture. It gives a description of how within the organization (Enabler/Driver), how it is integrated within the organization (functional,

operations, management g monitoring and which types of integration

ific type of framework, like the Enterprise Service Bus, and how it manages and secures services. The Life cycle infrastructure addresses the

d, seen as assets, the service repository and registry, and governance.

portant changes are the redefinition of roles and responsibilities, enabling managers to oversee processes instead of activities, and support people rather than supervise them.

Hammer (2007) provides is that of “The values of customer focus, teamwork, personal accountability,

2000) does not explicitly mention culture as a dimension, nevertheless, the partnership dimension,

the BPMM model of Rosemann & de Bruin (2005), governance was first described as accountability. ountability. They defined accountability as ‘The

assignment of responsibility and accountability for BPM practices to personnel related to the organization’s processes’. Process roles and responsibilities, process metrics, process management standards, etc. are important factors according to this model. PEMM (Hammer, 2007) defines governance as ‘Mechanisms for managing complex projects and change initiatives’. Whereas Fisher (2004) describes the aspects of governance under Controls and defines it as ‘The governance model for the management, administration, and evaluation of initiatives with a strong focus on the appropriate metrics applied for measurement’. The governance dimension of the SAM model (Luftman, 2000) encompasses aspects like Business strategic planning, IT strategic planning, Budgetary control, Steering Committees and prioritization process. As Rosemann and de Bruin (2005) and Fisher (2004) both classify aspects of metrics in the dimension of governance, the metrics dimension of the PEMM model (Hammer, 2007) will also be incorporated in this dimension. In addition, the

distinction is the absefor conducting BPM’. PEMM (Hammer, 2007) also mentions methodology, (only under the dimension of Expertise), which is defined as ‘skills in, and methodology for, process redesign’.

5.3.2.3 Architecture CBDI (Sprott, 2005) describes service architecture as the ‘creation and ongoing management of the service architecture and portfolio’. In OSIMM (The Open Group, 2006) architecture is focused on typology, data characteristics, business information model, integration techniques, enterprise architecture decisions, standards and policies, experience in SOA implementation and SOA compliance criteria.

architecture is used enterprise, inter‐enterprise) and their function and objective (Standards articulation, managing emerging technology).

5.3.2.4 Infrastructure Infrastructure in OSIMM (The Open Group, 2006) is mainly concerned about IT; how it is managed, itsand administration, but also aspects like service management, SLA’s, performinplatforms are addressed. The CBDI model (Sprott, 2005) defines two kinds of infrastructure dimensions or streams, Operational infrastructure and Life Cycle infrastructure. The operational infrastructure focuses on the existence of spec

service life cycle, how services are deliverePEMM (Hammer, 2007), one of the BPM models, defines infrastructure as an important process enabler, and is defined as ‘Information and management systems that support the processes. The process audit of the model classifies 2 infrastructure systems; Information systems and Human resource systems.

5.3.2.5 Culture Michael Hammer, author of PEMM (2007), mentions that organizations have to reshape their organizational culture to emphasize teamwork, personal accountability, and customer importance. Im

The actual definition thatand a willingness to change”. Rosemann & de Bruin (2005) define culture as ‘The acceptance, practice and promotion of BPM by personnel related to the organization’s processes’, which is constructed according to several scientific literature sources. The SAM model (Luftman,assesses aspects like relationship and trust style, which could be seen as culture aspects.

5.3.2.6 Governance In the constructing of However, governance was seen as a more comprehensive perception than acc


competency/value measurements dimension of the SAM model (Luftman, 2000) could also be incorporated in the governance imension. Service Level Agreements, Business and IT metrics and continuous improvement are important assessment criteria’s

.3.2.7 People Fisher (2004) defines the dimension of People as ‘The human resource environment, including skills, organizational culture, and o n . Howe al d nPEMM classified several dimensions under the people dimension, according to the previously stated d it dimen s dimen and trusting environment are important assessment subjects.

5.3.2.Proces the wa separate roles and activities concerning the aspect of processes; Design: ‘The comprehensiveness of the specification of how the process is to be executed’,

sion, which is described as ‘The

gy d Systems’ as ‘the use of IT/IS resources (aka

rocess‐aware Information Systems) in the implementation and conduct of BPM practices’, since it plays a vital role for or ni informOSIMM (The Open Group, 2006) incorporates an application dimension, which focuses on ‘ functional decomposition, reusability, flexibility, reliability and extensibility of the applications, understanding and uniform use of best practices andatterns, whether multiple applications have been created to serve different lines of business with essentially the same

ctions, namely definition and uses. Definition is concerned with how the e in cost and quality. The section ‘Uses’ focuses on

using them for benchmarking purposes or to increase awareness

din this dimension of the SAM model (Luftman, 2000).

5

rga izational structure’. Rosemann & de Bruin (2005) on the other hand, initially included people in the culture dimensionver, after some case validations they decided that it was best to separate the people aspect from culture as an individu

ime sion, focusing on the resource side, including knowledge, capabilities, education, training and skills. model (Hammer, 2007)

efin ions; Expertise (people) and Leadership. Although the SAM model (Luftman, 2000), does not mention a peoplesion, it employs a Skills dimensions which is highly related to Expertise, and in addition, could be integrated in thision. Here, education, cross‐training, change readiness,

8 Process s is described by Fisher (2004) as: ‘operating methods and practices, including policies and procedures, which determiney activities are performed’. Hammer (2007) describes

Performers: ‘The people who execute the process, particularly in terms of their skills and knowledge’, Owner: ‘A senior executive who has responsibility for the process and its results’. CBDI (Sprott, 2005), one of the SOA maturity models, defined the Framework and Process dimenarchitectural framework and repeatable processes enabling consistency, trust and governance in federate activity’.

5.3.2.9 Information TechnoloRosemann & de Bruin (2005) describe their dimension ‘Information Technology anpga zations in communicating BPM practices. Fisher (2004) employs a similar definition for his Technology, ‘Enabling

ation systems, applications, tools, and infrastructure’.

pfunctionality, and the availability of enterprise schema and object models’ .

5.3.2.10 Metrics Hammer (2007) has defined divided Metrics into two seorganization has derived the process metrics and how they are defined, likhow managers utilize the results of the metrics, for example and motivation. The Competency/Value Measurements dimension of the SAM model (Luftman, 2000) primarily states IT, Business, Balanced metrics and Service Level Agreements as important aspects to demonstrate the value of IT in the terms that business is able to understand. According to Luftman (2000), there should be a balanced ‘dashboard’ demonstrating the contribution of the IT value to the business.


5 e 3: Refinem lection T dimension from the ture study. The l 20) of the previous pha

r refine the derived dimensions, the statements and conclusions from expert interviews and

e a quick scan with a comprehensible and lucid overview of important dimensions and ich

lected as dimensions for the model. The other mensions will serve as a subset of these dimensions.

T subchapters will d ement of the dimensions.

5. {People, Culture, Strategy

.3.3 Phas ent of se

he selected models will be extended by the results of expert interviews and scientific literaist (Table se shows some interesting aspects:

In order to validate and furthe

SOA models explicitly mention Organization, and do not incorporate the dimensions of Culture and Metrics. In addition, only the Oracle Level 5 SOA model discusses People, but in combination with Organization as one dimension.

Where the Architecture dimension receives a lot of attention within SOA models, BPM models do not explicitly mention this dimension.

As infrastructure is the key to achieve and adopt SOA, the Infrastructure dimension receives a lot of attention in SOA models. Within BPM only PEMM explicitly mentions infrastructure. Other BPM models mainly incorporate some key factors of Infrastructure in the IT dimension.

The aspects and criteria’s of the Strategic Alignment Model (SAM) could provide additional value in connecting the BPM and SOA models as it has relationships with dimensions that were either BPM or SOA related.

The Governance dimension is explicitly mentioned in BPM, SOA and the SAM model, which could indicate that this dimension is vital in the final structure of the model.

other scientific literature are mapped to these dimensions in Table 32 (Appendix, chapter 13.1). In the expert column, only those aspects were described that were not already explicitly mentioned within the derived dimensions of the model. From the findings of the literature study, statements and conclusions were listed to provide scientific support to the choice of dimensions. The following assumptions can be drawn from Table 32 (Appendix, chapter 13.1):

Organization, Governance, Method, Architecture and Information & Technology receive a lot of attention in scientific literature and/or experts’ statements. As a result they should explicitly be mentioned as dimensions in the model.

As the goal of the model is to providevolution towards a BPM/SOA alignment, ten dimensions would be far too much. Therefore, the five dimensions whreceived most attention from literature and/or expert statements are sedihe following escribe the refin

3.3.1 Organization } Pe will be a subset as an organization consists of people, and culture is d deep structu the shared values, beliefs and assumptions held by o embers’ (DenisW th ly covered, other aspects like strategy and objectives should

dimension is added, namely Strategy.

.3.3.2 Governance {Processes, Metrics, Responsibility & Roles

ople and Cultureescribed as ‘the

of the Organization dimension,re of organizations, which is rooted in

rganizational m on, 1996). hile the human aspects of e organization are now thorough

also be incorporated. To address this aspect, a new sub

5 } ce; Corporate, Business and IT‐governance (Smits et al.,

008). Their concerns are shown in Table 21. Within the governance context, there are three forms of governan2


Governance Concern

Corporate External regulations

Business Performance; how to create value and to ensure the continuation of the organization.

IT Compliance, development and alignment.

T er ce forms (Smits et al., 2008) T should represe each of these concerns. According to Smits (2008), the organization should address two

restructuring IT governance: ‘Who decides about what?’ and ‘What are the sponsibilities and who is accountable?’ his reveals a gap in the subset of the governance dimension, as monitoring, improving, reporting and managing business

rms and highly related to the dimension of Processes n Metrics, but are not yet discussed within this dimension.

{Support

able 21. Overview of the diff ences between the three governan

his dimension nt important questions when establishing orreTprocesses are indeed important aspects in each of the three governance foda

Therefore, the following subset will be integrated: Responsibilities & Roles. This sub dimension addresses the roles, responsibilities, accountability of employees, teams and governance boards.

5.3.3.3 Information & Technology , Information, Infrastructure} & Technology, because it provides the fundamentals to support information

and corresponding technologies. This is in accordance to the PEMM model, which also places the support of IS/IT systems astructure. Th ub lusions of the expert interviews in chapter employees and managers in their work activities. Be many discuss tooling an ow ople in the process or service lifecycle, the sub dimension Support is added,

formation is the most important aspect within communication between people, systems and people and systems, as discussed partners, making agreements about standards and

formation, and sharing information, like documents, models and services, are aspects which are heavily discussed by scientific bset of the Information & technology

imension.

final selection of the dimensions will be as follows (Table 22):

Infrastructure is placed under Informationinterchanges

under infre s ject ‘Support’ receives considerable attention of experts as described in the conc

4. The items in this subject discussed how tooling could support thecause a lot of aspects in the dimension Information & technology of Table 32 relate to this subject, asd h features of these tools can support pe

focusing on how processes, services and people are supported by IS/IT systems. Inin chapter 2.3. Sharing the organizational information model with businessinliterature and the interviewed experts. Therefore, Information is added as an sud

5.3.3.4 Selected dimensions As methods and Architecture both receive significant attention of literature they are incorporated as individual dimensions. As a result the

Dimension Sub dimension

Methods ‐

Architecture ‐

Governance Processes, Metrics, Roles & Responsibilities

Organization People, Culture, Strategy

Information & technology Support, Information, Infrastructure

Table 22. Overview of the final dimensional structure

5.3.4 Phase 4: Validate dimensions with experts The experts were asked if the selected dimensions incorporated all aspects, which could be important to measure or evaluate in a BPM/SOA environment. It appeared that the sub dimension Metrics of the Governance dimension was to limited, missing

ensions is shown in Table 23.

compliance related aspects and funding related activities. Therefore, the notation of the dimension of the BPMM model of Fisher is used to broaden the perspective of the Metrics sub dimension, namely Controls. The final selection of dim


Dimension Sub dimension

Organization People, Culture, Strategy

Governance Processes, Controls, Roles & Responsibilities

Information & technology Support, Inform ucture ation, Infrastr

Methods ‐

Architecture ‐

Table 23. Validated selection of dimensions

5 fining y factors within the .4 De the ke cells T define a the key cell wi ensions a e meta‐model that was used with the establishment of the ma ls and dimensions. However, a more iterative approach is used during the e shment of the T ps w

he steps to nd establish factors of eachturity leve

thin the dim re guided by the sam

stablihe following ste

key factors. ere taken (Table 24):

Step Activity

1 All key factors odels were gro er the correspo um of the m uped und nding maturity level n ber.

2 Refining the list by classifying each element under the defined dimensions.

3 The findings fr dy and were u e imporom literature stu expert interviews sed to identify th tant characteristics.

4 The characteri by expstics are validated erts.

T . Steps and activities taken to establish the characteristic ell in the matrix. T are fu ed in the following subchapter

turity level numbers.

nal sub

One(Ham the BPM/SOA Alignment Maturity model (BPM/SOA AMM) as reference points. Utilizing PEMM (Hammer, 2007) as a first reference point for the model was done for the following reasons.

o consists of four maturity levels. ure and expert interviews would be positioned

within the BPM/SOA AMM, guided by the reference points and description/evolution of the maturity levels. Another maturity model that is used to provide additional reference points to structure the characteristics and important aspects, was the ‘learning requirements of how to benefit from the 5 Architecture Stages’ of the Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model (EAM) of Ross et al. (2006) discussed in Chapter 2.5.2. Although the model actually has four‐stages, the fifth dimension is additionally added to describe the (in that time) revolutionary new organizations, that plays an orchestrator role by using self‐contained business components, which could be dynamically connected.

able 24 s of each c

hese activities rther describ s.

5.4.1 Phase 1 & 2: Grouping notations & Identify associations All of the key factors from the SOA and BPM models were grouped under their corresponding maWhen the dimensions were chosen, each factor was grouped under the parent dimension. Kay factors that did not fall under any of the selected dimensions are classified under ‘miscellaneous’ in case they would fall in one of the additiodimensions.

5.4.2 Phase 3: Selection of notations

of the first steps that was taken to organize the key factors, is mapping the corresponding elements of the PEMM model mer, 2007) to the dimensions of

First, PEMM is the only model which has an assessment tool, with clearly and consistent defined elements. Second, although PEMM is known as a BPM maturity model, it provides a holistic view by focusing on both Process as well as Enterprise maturity aspects. Final, it is the only evaluated model which alsFrom that point, assumptions were made where important aspects of literat


A the already provides portunities d el f f th et a le e fourth level of the /SOA maturi shown in Ta

s BPM/SOA AMM directly evolves to service‐orientation, the final level the benefits and opescribed in lev our and five o

BPMe EAM model (Rossty model as

l., 2006). Thus, the fourth and the fifthble 25.

vel could be mapped to th

Business silos Standardized Technology

Optimized Core Business Modularity

Dynamic Venturing

IT capability Local IT applications Shared technical platforms

Companywide standardized processes or databases

Plug‐and‐play business process modules

Seamless merging with partners’ systems

Business objective

ROI of local business initiatives

Reduced IT costs Cost and quality of business operations

Speed‐to‐market; strategic agility

ROI of new business venture

Funding priorities

Individual applications

Shared infrastructure services

Enterprise applications

Reusable business process operations.

‐

Key management capability

Technology‐enabled change management

Design and update of standards; funding shared services

Core enterprise process definition and measurement

Management of reusable business processes

Create self‐contained business components

Who defines applications

Local business leaders

IT and business unit leaders

Senior management and process leaders

IT, business, and industry leaders

IT, business, and industry leaders and partners

Key IT governance issues

Measuring and communicating value

Establishing local/regional/global responsibilities

Aligning project priorities with architecture objectives

Define, sourcing, and funding business modules

Joint venture governance

Strategic implications

Local/functional optimization

IT efficiency Business/operational efficiency

Strategic agility Organic reconfiguration.

Table 25. The fourth Maturity model (Ross et d as a SOA/BPM environ Utilizing reference points as a basis for the BPM/SOA AMM was done for the following reason‐ Many key factors of the various models are distributed over a maturity scale larger than 4

AMM. e, many cells

within t could not be implemented. Therefore, the reference points provided a basis to select and refine important key factors.

requires important aspects like business/IT alignment, architecture and governance. Therefore, the key factors of the reference models could provide important aspects that are not incorporated

selection and mapping of key factors of

and fifth level of the Enterprise Architecturement already provide these benefits.

al., 2006) can be combine

s: levels. Therefore, considerations

had to be made which of those elements could be mapped to the maturity level notations of the BPM/SOA‐ The key examplfactors of many of the models did not consistently evolve throughout the maturity levels. For

hese models had more or less key factors than the previous cell. As a result, many factors

‐ As discussed in chapter 2.3, the BPM/SOA synergy

by the BPM and/or SOA models.

The reference framework with its reference points, is used as a steppingstone for the the BPM and SOA models. Table 26 depicts the reference framework with the origins of each reference point or key factor. Each dimension on the y‐axis, consist of a 4 level maturity.


1. Initial 2. Integrated 3. Collaborative 4. Synergetic

Organization (E) functional, silo organizational structure

(E) Cross‐functional structure

(E) Implement SOA to increase turn‐over, faster time‐to‐market, being able to easily out –or in‐source and to be more flexible. (E) BPM should have the objective to create and structure flexible processes.

(E) People focusing on their activities instead of processes. (E) Service‐orientation practiced within the business as well as the IT.

(EAMM) ‘Business objectives’ and ‘Strategic implication’ dimension. (PEMM) Performers, Culture and Expertise ‐ People dimension. (G) ‘Define SOA strategy ‘dimension.

Governance (E) Visualize processes to conform to external regulations.

(E) Organizations should focus on key business processes, customers and product/service portfolio in the identification of their processes.

(E) People should be consistently stimulated to support the tools (E) The accountability model should focus on the SLA’s.

(EAMM) ‘Key IT governance issues’ and ‘Who defines applications’ dimension. (PEMM) Design, Owner, Metrics and Governance dimension. (G) ‘Align organization to SOA’, ‘Service Level management’, and ‘Incorporate policy enforcement’ dimension.

Information & Technology

(E) legacy systems

(E) Tooling must support the orchestration of services, people and tasks. (E) Agreements must be made about standards and information artifacts throughout the enterprise. (E) Information should be presented from a human‐centric perspective, provide information in the form they can understand and work with.

(E) Mass customization (E) Tools should support traceability, reusability and service feedback mechanisms.

(EAMM) ‘Who defines applications’, ‘IT Capability’ and ‘Key management capability’ dimension. (PEMM) Infrastructure dimension. (G) ‘Control service lifecycle’ dimension.

Methods (E) Organizations optimize their methods and practices.

PEMM) Expertise ‐ Methodology dimension.

Architecture (E) The organization has a service portfolio, like a menu of a restaurant, with clear costs and time‐to‐deliver.

Table 26. Reference points to support the mapping and selection of the characteristics of the various models. (E) Statements of experts, (EAMM) Enterprise Alignment Maturity Model (Ross et al., 2006), (PEMM) The Process Audit (Hammer, 2007), (G) SOA governance maturity (Schepers et al., 2008).

5.4.3 Phase 4: Validation with experts This validation phase had a far more iterative approach then the other two phases. The experts evaluated the consistent evolution of the key factors and whether these aspects reflected their maturity stage. In addition, they provided significant input whether or not an organization could actually perform these aspects in practice. Especially level three and level four are adapted and changed to improve the aspect of service‐orientation in the evolution of the key factors. Although Methods and Architecture are mentioned as significantly important in a BPM and SOA environment, the results of literature and maturity models only provided one or two consistent key factors within these dimensions. Therefore, experts provided additional information from their experience in the field and their vision of a BPM/SOA synergy. Table 33 in chapter 13.2 of the Appendix, describes modifications that are made to the BPM/SOA AMM, with the id numbers of each key factor. In addition, Table 34 in chapter 13.2 of the Appendix, summarizes why each of these aspects are changed.


5.5 Construction of the roadmap As the BPM/SOA AMM is a holistic model, the roadmap can only provide global activities that support the organization in

rtain state of mind, belief or value of people. when the dimensions are aligned these key factors will ey are excluded from the roadmap.

he roadmap is depicted in the Appendix, chapter 13.5.

evolving to a higher level. The activities in the roadmap are based on the key factors of the cells of the BPM/SOA AMM. These key factors are translated into global activities and mapped to their preceding maturity level, as the activity enables the establishment of the desired key factor. Not all key factors can be translated into explicit activities as several relate to a ceBecause the dimensions are highly interrelated it is assumed that indirectly be achieved. Table 20 describes these key factors and why thT

Code nr. description

O.P.1.1 This characteristic contains the awareness and skills of people, which can be improved by aspect O.P.2

O.P.3 How people view IS/IT systems and the way they feel supported can’t be translated in an improvement activity. However, training (O.P.2) and support can positively stimulate this aspect.

O.C.3 The way the business views the IT, can only be improved by better communication, working together, and learning about each other’s domain knowledge.

O.C.4 Changing or positively stimulating the way people view their work as a value‐adding service to their customer can be implicitly improved by education and training (O.P.2)

O.S.1, O.S.2, O.S.3, O.S.5

These characteristics are used to get an indication of what kind of strategic aspects the organization is currently practicing. These characteristics are implicitly influenced by the characteristics in the other dimensions.

A.4 This characteristic describes the interest of Architecture collectives within the organization, which can provide support to the enterprise architecture and SOA adoption. However, this can’t be translated in a activity, but should grow in the evolution towards a higher maturity.

Table 27. Excluded characteristics from the roadmap


6 External Evaluation phase

This chapter will describe the external validation phase of the model and how the results refined or changed the BPM/SOA AMM. In the chapter Methods, the respondents of this phase are described. Because the respondents will remain anonymous, that chapter describes how they are referred to in the following subchapters 6.1, 6.2.

6.1 External validation within Capgemini As described in the Methods chapter, three additional experts within Capgemini were contacted to validate the BPM/SOA AMM. The results of the validation will be described in this chapter. During the validation with the BPM expert, he argued that there was a missing link between why organizations improve their

be informed by the status of the processes, it is not mentioned what the rganization actually does with this information. According to him, this is one of the important maturity indicators of the BPM

Model of the Object Management Group, which is not analyzed in this research as it was perceived as too co

business and IT roles changed, as discussed in the chapter 2.3.4 ‘Changing roles and relationships between business

As other experts and scientific literature also mentioned the changing roles within business and IT this aspect has also been integrated. These two remarks are integrated in the dimension of Governance, as displayed in the Table 35 in the Appendix, chapter 13.2. The global architect analyzed the overall consistency of the key factors, within each cell of the model. Because he is specialized in the field of architecture he primarily focused on the key factors within the architecture dimension. In the organization dimension, he advised to focus on the KPI’s more explicitly. This should improve the consistency and exclusiveness of the key factors throughout the four maturity levels. Another remark he made, was that within the sub dimension Culture, it is not clear what is meant by a ‘customer’.

His advice was to describe the customer more explicitly as the ‘customer of the end‐to‐end process’.

processes and how they improve them. As the key factors of the model generally describe what aspects are necessary to improve business processes and how people shouldoMaturitymprehensive to serve as a quick scan. He made the following remark:

‘How does the organization improve their processes, what is their process improvement driver? That should reflect some form of maturity.’ (BPM expert)

He also mentioned the “change of roles” throughout the last decades between the business and IT. With the emerge of

M&SOA BPand IT’. Another aspect he found additionally important is the change in roles between the business and IT.

‘In the past, IT was 100% responsible for the performance of process implementations and changes. Nowadays, this responsibility is shifting, business receives more and more responsibility and IT moves to a specialist role. However, the traditional roles within the business are not suited for these new responsibilities and activities. Therefore, a new role should emerge between the business and the IT, someone who has knowledge of both domains’. (BPM expert)

‘Is it the customer of the organization or the enterprise, or the customer of an end‐to‐end process? In addition, a customer for the H&R department is another customer than the customer for the sales department.’ (Global architect)


The Controls in the Governance dimension, and in particular the key factor (G.C.2) where could also take a broader perspective. This aspect focuses on how these me

process and cross‐process metrics are trics are derived. However, the global

decision making

expert also used PEMM (Hammer, 2007) to measure the enterprise

were changed.

described,architect mentioned that a broader perspective could be achieved when the metrics are incorporated in theprocess. Another important remark concerned the first maturity level. According to the global architect, Initial indicates a certain starting point, which implies that every organization starts at level one. As organizations are positioned according to the results of the assessment, it is also possible that their as‐is situation (starting point) is at, for example, level two. Therefore, he advised to change the first maturity level in for example ad hoc, or unmanageable. Because Ad hoc is a popular term in the domain of maturity models, is comprehensible and reflects a lucid evolution to the second maturity stage ‘Integrated’, the dimension Initial is changed into Ad hoc. The last interview was performed by the process expert. Especially the Process sub dimension was perceived as consistent and

te. This was mainly the case because the processcompleand process maturity of organization. As PEMM was one of the models which served as a basis for the reference model (Table 26), the key factors for the Process dimension were influenced by this model. His opinion was that the model was consistent and complete, but as it encompasses a lot of aspects, it can be perceived as mpco lex. Therefore, he made an important remark:

‘That the model touches a lot of aspect in and between the Business and IT is not a bad thing, but you have to keep in mind: What kind of business are you going to sell? How are you going to sell the model to customers?’. (Process expert)

In addition, he emphasized that there must be a careful selection of respondents, ‘they should have the appropriate level within the organization, otherwise the result will be different with each person you talk to’ (Process expert). According to the process expert, a workshop with high executive managers should be a good kickoff to start the assessment of the model. Table 35 in chapter 13.2 of the Appendix, shows the modifications that were made to the BPM/SOA AMM, with the id numbers of each key factor. In addition, Table 36 in chapter 13.2 of the Appendix, summarizes why each of these aspects


6.2 Validation with experts of external organizations As described in the chapter Methods, three respondents were selected from different external organization. The first respondent is a professor at multiple universities in the Netherlands. His knowledge and experiences of similar

one of the founders of a business process management method. Several books were written about this approach on the business and organizational side (People,

ng their model in practice could validate the BPM/SOA MM business aspects and application of the model.

s were similar; it’s a holistic but also a comprehensive model. directions that the evolution of the model implies:

The

he first respondent asked how the dimensions relate to each other, and mentioned that dimensions should be structured ccordingly. Therefore, the Architecture and Methods dimensions in the model and questions of these dimensions in the

the model and questionnaire. model was called BPM and SOA as the model did not merely use BPM and SOA

aracteristics, but also enterprise architecture and business/IT alignment. According to him, the holistic definitions that are ed for BPM and SOA in this research does not relate to the views and perspectives of various domains in practice, like

(ECM). The holistic definition of BPM would imply that every field is subjective to BPM, and

ion for the model: The Architecture and Methods dimensions were positioned at the top of the model and questionnaire.

e model was extended, with an more extensive focus on the selection of respondents

research subjects could provide a scientific contribution to the validation of the model. The second respondent has a lot of experience and knowledge of the BPM domain, tools and suites. He has some important positions in the domain of BPM, like chairman of the BPM Forum in the Netherlands and co‐founder of the international process community. His experiences may validate the overall evolution of the model, consistency of the key factors and application of the model in practice. The final respondent is in combination with process management. This method mainly focusesstructure, etc.) of organizations. His knowledge and experience in applyiA Each respondent found the model to be complete and consistent and all agreed on the added value and contribution to the business in measuring the BPM and SOA alignment. Their opinionAccording to the respondents this is primary caused by the‐ The organization evolves towards an extensive collaboration with business partners in the eco‐system, ‐ BPM and SOA should be highly mature and adaptive to one another, ‐ And it focuses on bridging business and IT by bringing them closer and closer together. All these aspects can make the model difficult to understand. In effect, each respondent emphasizes on the importance of selecting suitable respondents to assess the BPM/SOA AMM. Another important remark was how the model would be applied to organizations and how its results would be presented.third respondent mentioned that, as the model also incorporates business/IT alignment, the results could provide a inter‐subjective representation of the tension area between business and IT. This would provide the organization insights of how the business and the IT think about each other, and how these expectations could be used to foster dialogue and collaboration between the two. The scope of the maturity levels of the model was also a point of interest. As the model scopes organizations as functions, enterprise or part of the eco‐system, it is of vital importance that it is clearly defined when an organization is actually part of such a structure. According to the respondents, identifying suitable respondents could also address this issue. Taquestionnaire are positioned to the top ofThe second respondent asked why thechusEnterprise Content Managementthis could cause some consternation. In addition, he mentioned that a new approach emerged, namely Human Interaction Management, which would be the next best thing. With this remark he implied that as BPM and SOA are currently contemporary methods for organizational agility, their names will change or other approaches will emerge. According to him, changing the name would extend the best‐before date of the model. These opinions and remarks had the following implicat‐ ‐ The application of th‐ A list of descriptions of the terms, like enterprise, eco‐system, service repository, etc., that are used in the model and

questionnaire was added to the assessment tool.


7 The BPM/SOA Alignment Maturity Model

This chapter will describe the BPM/SOA Alignment Maturity Model; its purpose, maturity levels and dimensions with additional support of scientific literature. It also describes how the model should be used within organizations; its activities and deliverables. The overview of the model is depicted in the Appendix, chapter 13.3. The detailed dimensions are depicted in Appendix, chapter 13.4.

7.1 Purpose and propositions of the model The primary purpose of the BPM/SOA AMM is the evaluation and assessment of an organization’s maturity in the alignment of BPM and SOA. Both curreell as the operational and

nt (as‐is) and the desired, future state (to‐be) of the organization defined by high‐level executives as tactical employees can be assessed.

he BPM/SOA AMM has the following value propositions: ; it allows the identification of the strengths and shortcomings of the current alignment situation

related

wT

1. As a diagnostic toolof BPM and SOA in different dimensions, such as IT, organization and governance. In addition, it provides a business and IT perspective of these shortcomings according to business and IT related respondents.

2. The model and the results of the assessment tool can be used to identify and direct necessary activities to improve the BPM and SOA alignment aspects. For example, it enables the organization to focus on the less mature areas and to support the development of a structured improvement plan for processing to the determined to‐be situation.

3. The model facilitates informed decisions about prioritizing areas to increase the response to the market dynamics and to improve the visibility and flexibility of the organization. The framework provides management a holistic view of how specific areas of the organization are to this alignment and how their tactical and/or strategic employees from the business as well as IT view the organizations As‐Is and To‐Be situation. In effect, it can create awareness about the difference in perspectives between the business and IT related domains, as well as how their perspectives differ to the organizations view of the To‐Be situation. Subsequently, this insight can facilitate the prioritization of investment decisions and opportunities, and can foster dialogue between the business and IT to improve their collaboration.

7.2 The maturity levels

7.2.1 Ad hoc In level one the organization is structured in functional silos or departments, where employees tend to focus on improving their department. The information systems within departments are typically legacy systems and no real effort is taken in sharing eir information outside their own functional boundaries. IT is generally perceived as a cost or burden by the business. Still,

to transform towards a horizontal structure, focusing on its (key) business processes. Cross‐functional teams

ththere is some responsiveness to change as there are some functions which experiment with new technologies and frameworks, e.g. an Enterprise Service Bus. At this level individuals (‘local heroes’) or small groups of committed individuals drive process improvements that are limited to their function.

7.2.2 Integrated Breaking down the rigid barriers of the traditional silo’s and functions is the main focus of the second maturity level. The organization startsare established to support the activities of the end‐to‐end process and start to share their information and knowledge to improve time‐to‐market, product quality and customer satisfaction. In order to achieve these goals the infrastructure and information technology must be able to support these changes and new business activities.


One of the most important aspects of this transformation in comparison to the previous infrastructure is the establishment of connections between the scattered functional legacy and information systems. As information is now available through the rmer boundaries of departments, security, privacy, process control and manageability are playing a far larger role than in the hoc stage. As a result, formal governance policies, process roles and responsibilities are established to guide the transition

ing and business process management.

s are well‐informed, educated and stimulated. This

integration mechanisms, e.g. service

the gap between Business and IT in nd concepts,

mains are clearly discussed and agreed upon

nother important shift in comparison to the previous maturity stages is the scope of context, which is now moved towards the nterprise instead of the organization. As a result, information is not only shared between functions within the organization, ut also between partners. Agreemen about information, e.g. definitions and semantics, should be made with and between

these stakeholders to ensure consistent information interchange. Non functional requirements, like privacy, security and reliability, are now on a global scale and must be supported by the infrastructure. Functional requirements are defined in service level agreements and continuously monitored against the business and IT metrics. Service oriented architecture does not only provide opportunities to decrease lead‐time and time‐to‐market, but is also able to support the change management process of BPM. The combination of the focus on ‘people and processes’ (BPM) and ‘service orientation and flexible infrastructure’ (SOA) can provide IS/IT systems where employees can manage their own working hours and activities in a flexible manner; anywhere at any time. It should also facilitate the design of business processes and the connection to business services by means of process aware IS/IT systems supporting the design and run‐time of processes and services. As service orchestration is frequently used to support the automation of business processes, they must also be easily discovered. In the previous stage, repositories and service registries were mostly on a functional or initial level, whereas in the collaborative stage they should be centralized within the enterprise to improve service discovery and support the service portfolio management. In order to sufficiently support BPM/SOA projects and programs, Center of Excellence or similar teams receive

foadtowards information sharArchitecture, methods and standards are starting to emerge as an important driver of the evolving organization to support visibility, reliability and flexibility. As this immense change puts significant pressure on the traditional work activities, behavior, skills and knowledge of the employees, the organization must try to prevent negative emotional responses. The organization should put significant effort in creating an environment where employeerequires strong leadership of dedicated and innovative senior managers, supporting and directing the change process. Integration between the diverse and scattered systems is mainly done by Remote Procedure Call type of interfaces. While at the meantime, the IT domain incrementally starts with the creation of data services, which should be highly reusable and could offer significant short‐term benefits in order to receive top‐level support and funding. Middleware frameworks, like an Enterprise Service Bus, are implemented on a project level, supporting some initialrepository and registry.

7.2.3 Collaborative The third maturity level defines an enterprise which puts a lot of effort in trying to bridge order to increase their agility and flexibility. Both domains receive education of each other’s methods, principles awhich could ultimately improve their understanding, awareness and cooperation. Agreements about standards and semantics are a necessity in achieving a seamless cooperation between domains. The increased awareness and understanding, manifests in how business models are refined and extended within the IT domain. In previous stages of the model situations could occur where parts of the business models were redesigned from scratch within the IT domain, caused by inconsistencies in semantics or context. In this stage however, semantics, inconsistencies and demands between dothroughout the enterprise. As a result, the IT reuses the business models and only refines or extends them with technical aspects. From a top‐level management perspective, service oriented architecture is now seen as the mean to achieve flexibility and used as a driver in the business strategy. This has its effect on the architectural function as their focus moves from providing information system solutions towards business goals and requirements, like checking the robustness of the domain architecture by mapping it against actual and potential future business scenarios. Enterprise wide methods, standards and best practices now form the basis for design and development phases of the BPM and service lifecycles. Aeb ts


additional authority in making reco of BPM and SOA aspects

mmendations and finding problems. They align training courses, gather expertise, provide and act as a ‘helpdesk’ for the BPM/SOA project teams.

.2.4 Synergetic

cus

of to collaboratively increase the overall performance.

and business services and even human resources are dynamically managed, controlled, coupled and

and, ensures the strong harmony between process design (Business‐driven) and IT architecture and It drives the service‐centric perspective from the business towards the IT domain, improving

erstanding and interactions between and within domains. Roles and responsibilities change as decisions

one which bridges the gap

knowledge

7 In the evolution of the previous maturity stages, BPM and SOA methods and principles have evolved throughout the model to a mature state, by transforming the organization towards an enterprise level with a flexible infrastructure and a fo on service‐orientation. Where in the Collaborative stage the characteristics of both approaches are being connected, in the synergetic stage they are adjusted to one another, as such that they function as one. This final maturity level displays an enterprise where the business as well as the IT domain has seamlessly integrated the service‐orientation concepts and principles. People think in services, embrace change and see their work as a value‐adding service to consumers. The enterprise has bridged the gap between subcultures, removing any adverse factors in the cooperation between domains. People work in teams composed business partners from the eco‐system, sharing responsibilities and resourcesEnterprise assets like ITdeployed throughout the eco‐system to adapt and react to the market in real‐time. Thus, boundaries between the enterprises become faint and the organizational and governance model are now implemented on a eco‐system level. Within this level, information is seamlessly integrated and shared throughout the eco‐system and supported by services and open infrastructures (e.g. middleware, repository and registry). This takes the enterprise to a synergetic state, delivering opportunities that were unachievable in previous stages. The systematic and problem‐solving methodologies of BPM strengthen newly‐designed services from business processes, reinforcing linkages between various functions and ensuring that optimum performance can be achieved on a continuous level. SOA on the other happlication (IT driven).communications, undhave be to made faster and the traditional business and IT roles become faint. Traditionally, whenever the business made process changes having any effect on the IT, the IT domain had a hundred percent responsibility for the realization and performance. Now, the business can tweak, tune and compose their processes and business services, without any direct IT involvement. Where the business roles move towards the IT domain, roles within the IT are specializing towards service development. Nonetheless, traditional business roles are not suitable and proficient enough to tweak and tune these service orchestrations. A role of business service analyst should emerge, between the business and IT, with sufficient knowledge of both domains to be able to tweak, tune and manage the business service orchestrations and communication between the business and IT service developers.


7.3 The dimensions

7.3.1 Organization When an organization performs business process management or is implementing the BPM approach, he’s actually in a transformation stage. As organizations are traditionally vertically structured, BPM stimulates a horizontal organizational structure focused around the end‐to‐end (key) business processes of the organization. In every organizational transformation its success depends on the support of top‐level stakeholders and the tractability of the people and employees within the organization. Bieberstein et al. (2005) states that; ‘one of the critical challenges in implementing SOA is achieving the right organizational structure’. He state that immature organizations suffer from resistance to the SOA implementation, because of short‐term focus and the lack of proper business alignment. Mature SOA organizations

a certain paradigm or methodology is never without a certain vision or strategy, that is, the actual reason behind the time‐to‐market or reducing maintenance and development costs (Kamoun, 2007). The strategy passes the actual goal of the organization to employ BPM/SOA: increasing his ability to react and

dapt to the continuous changing market dynamics (Maurizio et al., 2008; Kamoun, 2007).

ess if one does not fully understand the activities needed to be performed. For

business as well as the IT domain (Chen, 2008).

ommunication problems, like semantic inconsistencies (Ravesteyn, 007). Education of each other’s concepts, methods and principles is an important aspect in bridging the gap between these

Chen, 2008; Luftman et al., 1999). also decrease the resistance to change, as misunderstanding, lack of trust arising from poor

tools to the actual users can not only increase acceptance, but can also play a major part in

ssumptions held by organizational members’ (Denison, 1996). Organizations consist of many

in a culture gap (Ward & Pepper, 2002). Ward and

are classified as ‘they span business lines and the boundaries of roles while achieving interdisciplinary coordination’ (Bierberstein et al., 2005).

3.1.1 Strategy 7.Employingtransformation, e.g. faster aspect in this model encomaAn important facet in achieving this goal is Business / IT alignment, where the business is using BPM with a certain service orientation and the IT domain SOA and BPM tooling to structure its infrastructure and manage and control its information interchange (Chen, 2008). The proper balance and harmony between the two domains is vital in achieving these kinds of performance issues.

7.3.1.2 People People are the essential part of every organization. It’s not only important that the changes are accepted by the employees but also understood, as one cannot execute a procexample, if the transformation requires that the process owners are responsible for the end‐to‐end process, but there is a lack of awareness or understanding of the process steps, activities, performance requirement and responsibilities or even the outcome of their part of the overall process, the transformation will ultimately fail. When an organization implements BPM and SOA, the transformation has severe impact on theThe organizational transformation and orientation towards a service point of view, entails that the traditional relationship between Business and IT domains alters, as roles in both domains change. Furgeson and Stockton (2006) for example, propagates that the evolution and the changing focus of IT is causing the business to be more like IT. Changes in roles and closer cooperation between domains often results in c2domains (Kamoun, 2007;Training and education cancommunication of the change process and conflicting views are often the cause for this emotional response (Jashapara, 2004). Another crucial aspect in the BPM/SOA environment is the acceptance of technology, as an increasing number of business activities and processes will be automated and facilitated by IS/IT systems. For example, when certain tooling is chosen because of its high functionality and features, but no thought is given to the usability, people will ultimately discard the new investment. Thus, customizing the advancedwork productivity and fulfillment (Miers, 2004).

7.3.1.3 Culture Whereas the people dimension concerns the individual, culture refers to ‘the deep structure of organizations, which is rooted in the values, beliefs and asubcultures, often formed by specialisms or geographical locations. It’s common that the shared values within subcultures clash with others, making them dysfunctional. The Information Technology for example, has evolved in a new subculture, which does not go well with the dominant subculture of the business domain, resulting


Pepper (2002) stated that a culture gap between (sub) cultures implies that the viability of any strategy, whether its business or

mely ‘service‐

m between domains, understanding each other’s methods and principles by means of education, cooperation and best ‐

ltures closer and closer together. For example, the traditional attitudes and assumptions in the business and the IT domain should be moving towards the notion that both domains are inseparable and equally important.

f changes, the organization should bear in mind the attitude towards change, which

rnance is mentioned as one of the most important aspects in BPM (Zairi et al., 1997), SOA

al. (2008) support this statement in the way that the governance framework should provide clearly defined roles

the subject of SOA, it is assumed that there’s already some form of organizational governance present. evertheless, SOA governance is not seen as subsidiary, but more as an extension of the present organizational governance. It stated that in the early stages of SOA, governance is not a prerequisite, but as services and metadata grow, guidelines and

OA governance should also be concerned with reviewing the architectural decisions and incorporating the control of the

ns are able to adapt and react to the changing market. As globalization and commoditization emerged as booming trends, dynamic collaborations among organizations have become increasingly important to remain competitive in the

., 2008).

ling the business processes, capturing the essential

ploy new services, whether these services are human resources, new products or completely new companies, at his highest maturity level.

IT, depends on the realization of those who have to implement the strategy. Their dedication depends on to what extent the strategy is drawn from their ‘shared values’. This maturity model shows a track where the organization grows towards two highly related shared values, naorientation’ and ‘customer centric’. BPM and SOA both emphasize the focus on adding value to the end customer; BPM defines processes from the customers perspective through horizontal linkages between key activities (Zairi, 1997; Weske, 2007; Lee & Dale, 1998) and SOA through the assertion that users/customers are service owners, which can easily be contacted in real‐time through multiple channels (Chen, 2008; van Es et al., 2005). It tries to bridge the gap between subcultures, by for example specialispractices, and guidance and support of an interdisciplinary management group, bringing the shared values between subcu

As the transformation incorporates lots ocould be fostered by training and stimulation methods, e.g. reward systems and the explicit communication of changes: why, how and when (Jashapara, 2004).

7.3.2 Governance In the BPM and SOA literature gove(Chen, 2008; Bieberstein et al., 2005), as well as in a BPM/SOA environment (Woodley et al., 2005; Kamoun, 2007; Strnadl, 2007). Kamoun (2007) even state that ‘a proper governance model should take into account the fact that BPM/SOA initiative should endorses a new state of mind that brings business and IT closer together than any previous time before’. Maurizio et and responsibilities. Where BPM generally directly start with governance related activities to guide and control business processes, as it is primarily a business driven / top‐down approach (Kamoun, 2007), SOA on the other hand, does not directly mention governance in SOA maturity models. In scientific literature onNispolicies are vital for its existence (Boden, 2004).Senterprise model (Bierberstein et al., 2005), including clear definitions of data ownership. A BPM/SOA governance should cover the following three aspects; ‘who decides and enforces’, ‘which SOA or BPM relevant questions’ and ‘according to which decision making enforcement processes’ (Strnadl, 2007).

7.3.2.1 Processes By focusing the organization around its (key) business processes, BPM is transforming the organization from a vertical to a horizontal structure, becoming more transparent, in control and customer‐focused. By continuously improving their business processes, organizatio

global market (Lui et alIn order to be efficient and effective in these collaborations, organizations should be capable to seamlessly integrate their business processes with their partners. Obviously, the identification, knowledge and insights of the right business processes is a crucial part in being able to reach these opportunities, activities like modeparts into services and accepting the enterprise service model established by the architectural department are important aspects in this dimension. The most important change process in the processes dimension displays the evolution from process towards service orientation centric, where the enterprise is able to instantly de


7.3.2.2 Controls BPM relies on measurement activities to assess performance of individual processes by means of setting metrics and targets to ensure that output levels are met and are conform to corporate objectives. Governance also employs documented or automated procedures to ‘ensure discipline, consistency and repeatability of quality performance’ (Zairi, 1997). The governance department should evaluate the business concepts defined by the architectural department. As the

7.3.2.3 Responsibilities & Roles ilities and Roles, the aspect of ‘who decides and enforces’ are discussed. The one who enforces

made quickly, in order to trigger the right set of actions. As a result, employees on the

eing able to quickly react to the dynamic market requires a seamless integration of the business and IT domain in strategies, ecisions and directions. This is shown in the stages of the maturity model, where the overall responsibility evolves from a

structure towards an interdisciplinary board concerned with Business / IT alignment guidelines and bjectives.

rity, scalability and agility, liability and process validation (Lui et al., 2008). rocessing and transferring information correctly throughout the value chain is a necessity in a dynamic collaborative

allenge is to integrate inter‐and intra‐enterprise applications and information efficiently and ffectively (Zhang, 2004). Formal agreements about definitions, semantics and standards are the basis for any information

BPM/SOA and ensures consistent use of methods, techniques and standards throughout the enterprise.

architectural models of the business can contain KPI’s to measure business performance, governance will decide if and how these will be managed and controlled (Op ‘t Land, 2008; Ferguson & Stockton, 2006). For example, during the SOA development, metrics can be used to govern the outcome of the architectural programs and principles (Legner & Heutchi, 2007). BPM/SOA governance should also focus on funding, like IT investments such as SOA project funding (Bieberstein et al., 2005).

In the dimension of Responsiband decides, whether it’s a person or a group, is often dependent on the organizational structure. A rigid traditional hierarchical structure with functional departmental structures can be found in the least mature organizations. The essence of a BPM/SOA is that the organization is highly adaptable and flexible resulting in an increase of reactivity, which implicates that decisions have to beoperational level will be more and more empowered in making decisions with the appropriate responsibility, e.g. performance requirements (van Es et al., 2005). Bdfunctional hierarchical oThe cross‐enterprise board are responsible for the aspect of asking the right and relevant SOA and BPM questions and are responsible for e.g. the architectural decisions concerning the technical SOA‐infrastructure, architectural principles, interpreting Business & IT strategies and establishing appropriate responsibilities and relationships (Kamoun, 2007; Legner & Heutchi, 2007; Ward & Pepper, 2002).

7.3.3 Information & Technology Enabling organizations to react and adapt to the changing market dynamics puts significant pressure on the underlying IT infrastructure. The infrastructure should not only facilitate the separation of day‐to‐day operations of users from the underlying functional infrastructure (Boden, 2004), but also support non‐functional requirements like securePenvironment. The main cheinterchange within different departments or across the ecosystem and should be well‐defined and captured in contracts or information models.

7.3.3.1 Support The support dimension is concerned with how business activities and employees are supported by IS/IT systems in their daily work activities. As discussed in the dimension of People and Culture, IS/IT systems should be centered on the users: facilitating their activities, making their job easier and as result stimulate productivity. It can also create awareness of the performance and status of the process, by providing information by means of dashboards. It also supports the cooperation between the business and IT as their cooperation and transactions are fully transparent on the highest maturity level, as the systems can manage the entire lifecycle of


7.3.3.2 Information Information is one of the most important assets of an organization. As information often travels through multiple levels within the organization and even across organizational boundaries in the value chain, establishing a common understanding of the

nd artifacts, metadata, services), are translated, tners. Another aspect is the traceability between ion of every service or product from business ed and monitored. less transfer between business models and the

IT, the highest level of maturity displays an organization which is able to monitor to what extend the business requirements are fulfilled by the IT.

7.3.3.3 Infrastructure The infrastructure dimension shows the requirements and characteristics the organization or enterprise should contain within their infrastructure to evolve towards enterprise‐wide service support. Collaboration with internal and external partners becomes increasingly important throughout the model which puts immense pressure on the infrastructure, especially on aspects like security and flexibility. Open standards, technological independent platform support, and loose coupling should be supported by a middleware framework to achieve such flexibility.

7.3.4 Methods Methodologies and best practices provide organizations with proven approaches or standard‐based steps in guiding the end‐to‐end process or a certain problem or situation. BPM has a high emphasize on methods and techniques as it plays a large part in many definitions of BPM. Almost every organization uses some kind of method or best practices. Some have formally documented and enforced them others indirectly and informally follow a certain paths or steps in their activities. In this dimension there is a focus on which kind of methods an organization has implemented and where and how. Most organizations use standard methods in for example system development, e.g. RUP (Rational Unified Processes) or XP (eXtreme Programming), but many of those methods lack important aspects for a BPM/SOA environment. One of these aspects is the focus on process modeling, BPM and Enterprise Architecture (van Es et al., 2005). In the highest level of maturity the enterprise is able to adapt and improve their methods and best practices and share them throughout the ecosystem. In the study of Bandara et al. (2007), experts state that there is not one method which could fit the entire organization, and that it is recommend to borrow aspects of methods and adapt one’s own.

7.3.5 Architecture The architecture dimension focuses on the coverage and usage of architectural models and methods and the architectural function within an organization. The last decade Enterprise architecture has become an instrument to reach alignment between the internal organization and its products and services, as well as aligning the internal organization, e.g. business processes, organizational structure (van Es et al., 2005). Enterprise architecture is described by Ross et al. as “The organizing logic for business processes and IT infrastructure, reflecting the integration and standardization requirements of the company’s operation model.”. It should provide a long‐term view of the processes, systems and technologies as well as fulfilling the immediate needs (Ross et al., 2006). Architectural models of the business could contain business artifacts (purchase order, bill of materials), policies (schedule premier customers, ahead of others), and business components (shipping department, finance and accounting) and can contain KPI’s to measure the business performance (Ferguson & Stockton, 2006).

information artifacts can be crucial in the process cycle. Agreements on the form, transfer and semantics of information can ynamic eco‐system collaborations.provide essential value to the understanding, which can be a critical aspect in d

The information dimension is concerned with how information, (e.g. models astored, made available, and shared within the enterprise and with business parthe business requirements and the IT deliverables, ensuring that the evolutrequirements to development, maintenance and improvement cycle are describWhere an enterprise in the Collaborative maturity dimension already has a seam


Architectural boards and roles use the organizatiouidelines in the discovery and development of

nal objectives as a basis to formulate the architectural principles, consisting of services, standardization of development and processes, or the service and

gprocess design (Legner & Heutchi, 2007). Throughout the model, architecture will evolve towards enterprise architecture, integrating the various architectural perspectives and aligning them with the corporate BPM/SOA business and IT strategy, vision and objectives.


7.4 Application of the model This chapter discusses the activities and steps that must be taken and what should be delivered when the model is applied at an organization. The model depicted in Figure 25 shows the activity steps and their deliverables throughout the ment. The

subchapters of chapter 7.4 assess

will elaborate each step.

T lient. One of the external respondent who was interviewed to validate the model that a workshop or presentation would be a good starting point. According it t ve managers are present during this activity. This should facilitate the selection and appropriate s of the organization should clearly defined in order to determineIn the should be arly described to this is organization or business uniFirst, the respondents should be on a tactical or st e authority and responsibility of a chain of processes/services. In

owners/performance of these rocesses/services. Another role function would be that they are part of prioritizing improvement projects, investments and/or

following

Figure 25. Meta‐model presenting the activities to perform the BPM/SOA AMM

7.4.1 Phase 1: Intake he first step can be defined as an intake with the c

(chapterhat high le

6.2), mentionedl executive

to him, engagement

is vitalof the

respondents. During this activity the mission, vision and objective be the ‘To‐Be’ situation within the model.

of addition, organization has to provide a certain number respondents. Their roles and job descriptions determine whether group a reliable representation of business and IT employees of

clethe

t. Several aspects should be considered in this selection phase. should be equally divided among business and IT related roles. Second, the responde

rategic level within the organization, or have thnts

effect, they should have the oversight of multiple processes/services and manage/control thep


performance related activities of the overall process/service chain. Third, a minimum of four respondents is required to deliver a certain validity. As the model takes a holistic view and discusses business and IT aspects, an overview of relevant roles for the selection of respondents is provided in Table 28.

Domain Role

Business Enterprise / Business architect

Process owner / business service owner of multiple processes or services

Project manager

IT IT architect

IT manager

Project manager

Table 28. An overview of roles relevant to use as respondents for the BPM/SOA AMM

ow that the respondents are selected, they have to be contacted to schedule the assessment. As the maturity model serves ned, preferably within a week. Before sending or conducting the

uestionnaires the respondents must be informed about the purpose of the model and privacy related aspects. Depending on

sary. The assessment should take approximately between thirty minutes and one hour.

7.4.4 Phase 4: Positioning results in the BPM/SOA AMM The key factors in the cells of each dimension in the BPM/SOA AMM are the foundation for the answers in the questionnaire (Appendix, BPM/SOA AMM). Each answer is defined by the code of the set of key factors of the particular dimension. These codes can be found in the detailed overview of each dimension of the BPM/SOA AMM. For example, the following question (Table 29) originates from the Organization‐Culture dimension (key factor O.C.1) and describes how the values are assigned to each answer.

7.4.2 Phase 2: planning questionnaires Nthe goal of a quick‐scan, this should be tightly planqthe amount of respondents this can be done personally or by sending an e‐mail. It is preferred that the high level executives that were present at the intake session, inform the respondents before they are contacted to schedule an appointment. 7.4.3 Phase 3: Conducting the questionnaires The questionnaires can be conducted on a face‐to‐face basis or by sending the questionnaire by e‐mail. Conducting the questionnaire on an face‐to‐face basis provides the respondents the opportunity to ask questions when certain terms are not clear. However, it is important that the analyst should be independent and should only explain terminology when neces

O.C.1) does your organization look at teamwork?

Answer Description Maturity level

Value

A Our work is mostly on a individual basis, teamwork is done on occasion. 1 1

B Teamwork is mostly functional and project focused, within departments. 1 1

C Teamwork is common throughout our organization, as cross‐functional teams are stimulated and regularly formed.

2 2

D Cross‐functional teamwork is a norm for process performers and commonplace among managers. 3 3

E We do not only work in teams within throughout the enterprise, teams are formed with customers and other stakeholders of our supply and/or value chain.

4 4

T able 29. One of the questions of the questionnaire with predefined values for each answer.


7.4.4.1 Calculating the maturity levels The value of each key factor is weighted according to the number of the maturity level in which it is situated. As such, each answer of the questions within the same dimension is multiplied with the number of the maturity level in which the

fined. To calculate the maturity level of a dimension consisting of sub‐dimensions, the maturity are used for the calculation. Subsequently, the values of the (parent) dimensions are used to

l.

.4.4.2 AsIs and ToBe answers

he global roadmap consists of activities based on the key factors in each cell of the BPM/SOA AMM. The global results,

first phase.

Present outcomes

level and an advice can be given when business and IT related spondents, or the respondents and the executives’ To‐Be view highly differ.

corresponding key factor is dealues of the sub dimensionsvcalculate the global maturity level of the organization. However, the result of the maturity levels will be in decimal point. Therefore, the decision has to be made how this value will be rounded. In other words, where will an organization be positioned when for example the maturity level of a dimension is 1.6. In the BPM/SOA AMM, an organization can only be positioned into a maturity level when all dimensions are in that level or higher. In effect, when the organization has a maturity level of 1.6, the dimensions that have a value of 1, first have to be

proved to the second leveim

7For each question the respondent has to fill in the As‐Is as well as the To‐Be situation. In effect, the desired To‐Be situation, as defined in the intake phase, can be compared to the desired state of the business as well as the IT related respondents. Subsequently, the As‐Is and the To‐Be levels can be calculated for the business, IT and both. The values of the business and IT will represent the global position of the organization.

7.4.5 Phase 5: Creation of the roadmap T(answers of the business and IT combined), can be mapped to the roadmap. Figure 26 depicts the phases that the roadmap should support. First the dimensions have to be aligned, depicted as point one in this figure. Second, all dimensions have to evolve to the desired (To‐Be) state. Thus, the activities of the roadmap in the cells of point one should first be performed to align the dimensions. Subsequently, the roadmap should incorporate all activities of the cells where point two is depicted. A majority of the activities in the roadmap has a large impact on the organization and will take a lot of time to implement and embed into the organization. Therefore, it is advisable that before or during the proceeding of implementing and performing the second phase of the roadmap, another assessment should take place to evaluate the changes of the

Figure 26. Moving towards the To‐Be situation

7.4.6 Phase 6: In the final phase, the results will be presented to the organization. The results of the respondents should be reflected to the To‐Be situation defined in the intake phase and upon each other. The roadmap should be addressed in how these activities can add value to the processing towards a higher maturity re


8 Application of the model in practice

8.1 Introduction The application of the model is performed at a large financial organization in the Netherlands. They are currently performing major activities in the retail and procurement departments to structure and improve their business architecture. As such, the model can be used to support and evaluate their improvement plan and corresponding activities with the guidelines of the roadmap. In addition, it can evaluate if the improvement plans are supported by the To‐Be perspectives of the high‐level business and IT personnel.

8.2 The assessment Two respondents were selected to perform the assessment tool; a business related respondent that was a BPM Retail Architect and an IT related respondent with the function of Enterprise Architect. The selection was performed by a Capgemini high level architect that was head of the improvement project. By providing him a list of suitable role functions on the business and IT side he was able to inform the appropriate level of respondents within the business unit for the assessment. Subsequently, both respondents were willing to cooperate to perform and validate the assessment tool. The assessment was performed on a face‐to‐face setting and the respondents were asked to speak freely when they thought that questions and answers were inconsistent, ambiguous or difficult to understand. The first assessment was performed with the business respondent. Several important aspects appeared in this first assessment. First, with almost every question he showed the documentation they were establishing or told how these activities would affect the answer. Second, with a lot of questions multiple answers were applicable. Third, although there was a list of abbreviations

in the assessment, it appeared that there were still terms that caused confusion ational scope throughout the options caused problems, like whether their business

could be addressed as an enterprise or part of the eco‐system. Another conflicting aspect was the term ‘architecture’, because the difference between the business and IT architecture was not that simple as was assumed. These remarks and problem areas were processed in a new version of the questionnaire. The explanatory remarks of the BPM Retail architect about how their current improvement activities would affect each answer, provided a new opportunity for the model to derive not only the To‐Be perspective of the high level executives in the first phase of the intake, but also of the business and IT respondents. This could provide new possibilities to the evaluation. Another important aspect that should improve the assessment time and understandability of e.g. the term architecture, is an improved introduction to the assessment and separate business and IT assessment tools to explicitly imply that respondents have to answer the questions from a business or IT related perspective. The new IT related version of the assessment tool was presented to the Enterprise Architected. The assessment time was within the hour and no major issues were mentioned. Subsequently, the BPM Retail architect received the questionnaire designed for business related respondents. This assessment was also done within the hour as was intended for the assessment of the PM/SOA AMM as a quick‐scan.

.3 Results

and descriptions of the terms that were usedr were difficult to understand. The organizo

unit

B

8 The results will be discussed as follows. First, the As‐Is situation of the business and IT will be presented. Second, the To‐Be situation of the business and IT will be discussed. Final, the position in the BPM/SOA AMM with the As‐Is and To‐Be situation will be presented with conclusions and roadmap activities.


8.3.1 A The results within the mAd Hoc. A more detmaturity onare in the Ain the Organas a result t

Figure 27. A

Figure 28. A

8.3.2 T As depictedlevel, their dtakes a modimensions

ty model towae”

AsIs situatio

of the As‐Is situmodel. The IT ho

ailed view is pren the levels of GoAd Hoc stage of mnization ‐ Peoplehe response the

As‐Is situation of

As‐Is situation of

ToBe situati

d in Figure 29, itdesired state is tore gradually apin the IT dimens

Org

Org. Stra

IT. Suppor

IT. Informatio

IT. Infras

ards BPM/SOA

on

uation depicted owever, is prima

esented in Figurovernance ‐ Conmaturity. The one dimension. Ove market dynam

business and IT

business and IT

ion

t is clear that prto evolve to thepproach as theysions, where the

Ar

ganization

IT

1

2

3

4Arc

Org. Culture

ategy

rt

on

tructure

Alignment: “Es

in Figure 27, diarily on an integ

re 28, where thentrols and Organnly sub‐dimensioverall, the organics are very low.

T

T in detail

rimarily the bus level of Collaboy mainly want te IT has no desir

1

2

4

3

rchitecture

G

1

2

3

4hitecture

Me

Org. Pe

tablishing a Fle

isplays that the rated maturity l

e dimensions annization ‐ strategon where the buization is in an i.

iness has large orative with peato evolve to the to improve. Fi

Methods

Governance

ethods

Gov. Contr

Gov. Peop

Gov. Resp. &

eople

exible and Agil

business is currevel as only the

nd sub‐dimensiogy. However, thsiness is on a levmmature state

plans in improvks in the Architee next level of gure 30 displays

BuIT

rols

ple

roles

B

I

e Business‐driv

rently on the loe Methods dime

on are displayedeir Methods andvel two accordinin the alignmen

ving their operatecture and Methmaturity. Notic

s that the sub‐di

usiness As‐IsT As‐Is

Business As‐Is

T As‐Is

ven Service‐orie

owest level of mnsion is on the l

d. The IT showsd Governance ‐ng to the respont of BPM and SO

tions. From an Ahods dimension.ceably, there amensions Suppo

ented

maturity evel of

a high People ndent is OA and

Ad hoc . The IT re two ort and


ty model towaards BPM/SOA

Informationthe busines

8.3.3

P Figure 31 dithe first levethe level of

e”

n of the IT dimens and the IT are

Position in th

isplays the positel, namely Ad HoCollaborative. O

nsion remain on almost aligned.

Figure 2

Figure 30. In th

he model

tion of the businoc. The To‐be sOnly the Informa

Org

Alignment: “Es

the current As‐

9. Overview of

tablishing a Fleexible and Agil

hows that To‐B

Org.

IT. Supp

IT. Inform

IT. In

t

e results of all d

ness unit in the ituation is, as Figation & Technolo

ganization

IT

Org. Cult

Strategy

port

mation

nfrastructure

Is level. It also s

the To‐Be situati

dimensions of th

BPM/SOA AMMgure 30 in the pogy dimension st

1

2

3

4Architecture

1

2

3

4Architecture

ure

e

ion between bus

e To‐Be situatio

M. The As‐Is posirevious chapter till remains on t

Metho

Governance

e

Methods

Go

G

Gov.

Org. People

e Business‐drivven Service‐orieented

e situations in thhese domains beetween

siness an IT

n between busi

d

n

tion of the busi(8.3.2) already dhe Integrated m

ods

e

BusineIT To‐B

ov. Controls

Gov. People

Resp. & roles

Bu

IT T

ness and IT

ness unit is situadisplayed, prima

maturity level.

ess To‐BeBe

usiness To‐Be

To‐Be

ated in arily on


ty model towaards BPM/SOA Alignment: “Establishing a Fleexible and Agile Business‐drivven Service‐orieented e”

Figure 31. A Figure 32 dGovernancecaused by tCollaborativAlthough noTo‐Be situadocumentatlevel of matc

Figure 32.

ould be an

M

As‐Is and To‐Be p

displays the rese – People, Govethe result of theve where the buo formal Intake ation was detetion that was paturity. This was s element for fut

Maturity position

Organization

IT

Or

IT. S

IT. Info

IT.

position of the o

sults of the (suernance – Roles e IT related assesiness results arwas performed,ermined by higart of their currsupported by thture discussion.

n of the dimensi

1

2

4Archite

3

c

Org. Cu

rg. Strategy

Support

ormation

. Infrastructure

rganization

b) dimensions.& Responsibilitessment, as Orgre on the level of, as defined in tgh‐level executirent improvemee results of Figu

ons of the As‐Is

cture

Gov

1

2

3

4Architectu

ulture

e

Four dimensionties, Organizatioganization – Straf Ad Hoc. the activity stepsives. However, ent plans. This inure 30. Thus, the

and To‐Be situa

Methods

vernance

re

Methods

Go

G

Gov.

Org. People

ns are positioneon ‐ People and ategy and Gove

s of the assessmthe business

ndicated that the two areas of th

tion.

A

T

s

ov. Controls

Gov. People

Resp. & roles

ed on the IntegOrganization‐ Sernance – Contro

ment method (chrespondent shhey were trying he Information a

As‐Is

To‐Be

grated maturityStrateg

yy. This is

ols are on the l

level; mainly evel of

hapter 7.4), no eexplicit owed comprehto evolve to thand support dim

hensive third e

mension

As‐Is

To‐Be


8 admap The following activities ca port the Table 30 displays the activities that rela factors of the dimensions that are currently not positioned in the second level of maturity. As depicted in Figure ll roadmap activities of the SOA AM

.3.4 Ro

n sup organization in evolving towards the levels of Integrated and Collaborative. te to the key 30, none of the current dimensions are in the level of Collaborative. Therefore, a

BPM/ M model are displayed in Table 31 for the second improvement phase.

Dimension Key factor

Roa 2) dmap activities from Ad‐Hoc (Level 1) to Integrated (Level

Architecture A.1 Establish architectural functions in departments.

A.2 Focus on IS solution architecture.

A.3 Create portfolio plan. an application and product

A.4 Connect and align the IT and Infrastructure architectures.

Methods M.1 Implement & methods best practices from project to enterprise level.

M.2 Implement project management (e.g. Prince2), control and planning methods and techniques for tools/methods.

M.3 Implement methods to support the BPM lifecycle management and parts of the Service lifecycle management.

Governance ‐ Processes P.1 Model a the business processes end‐to‐end and include automated process steps as basis for the automated workflow.

P.2 Let the senior executives accept the enterprise model of the Architecture function.

P.3 Process improvement plan based upon KPI’s, processes & functional requirements.

Organization‐ Culture C.1 Promoting teamwork and cross‐functional teams.

C.2 Support employees in the change process: training, education, and explicit communication.

IT‐ Support S.1 Imp time process support. lement process aware systems with design‐

S.1 Syst cess performance. em should support monitoring to reflect pro

S.2 Enable people to access organizational resources and customer information through an intranet.

S.3 Infor ss owners with information about the status of the individual & overall process. m managers and proce

IT‐ Information IT‐ Infrastructure

I.1 Cro reements about programs and standards on a project level. ss functional teams should make ag

I.2 Esta ration. blish a repository supporting data and content integ

I.3 Let es of system functionality with a high reusability factor, providing the IT domain select and create servicsuccessful pilots.

I.4 Start using the service registry across functions

I.6 Make corporate agreements about information integration and transfer, artifacts and definitions

IT‐ Information

IF.1 Esta platform, with cross‐functional integration between systems (RPC blish a shared technicalpoint‐point).

IF.1 Create an ESB on a functional level.

IF.2 Esta artments. blish a security infrastructure enabling secure communication between cross‐functional dep

IF.3 Establish a metadata management infrastructure across one or more departments.

Table 30. Activities to evolve from Ad Ho vel

c to the Integrated maturity le


Dimension Key factor Roadmap activities from Integrated (Level 2) to Collaborative (Level 3)

Architecture A.1 Create an architectural function on a enterprise level.

A.2 Focus the architecture on the business goals and requirements, like business, process and service modeling.

A.3 Create a service portfolio plan covering business services, foundation services and data services.

A.4 Align the Business, IT and Infrastructure architecture throughout the enterprise.

Methods M.1 Implement methods & best practices from project to enterprise level.

M.2 Use reference models and architecture methods like IAF / TOGAF.

M.3 Implement the BPM and service life cycle management methods on a enterprise level.

Governance ‐ Controls C.1 Link the Business & IT metrics throughout the enterprise.

C.2 Derive metrics from enterprise strategic goals.

C.5 Explicitly agree to QoS in SLA.

C.6 Use metrics to measure process changes, service reuse and performance at both the project and enterprise level.

C.7 Focus funding on enterprise applications.

Governance ‐ Processes P.1 Capture business processes into business services and include them into the automated workflow, supported by BAM tools.

P.2 Use the enterprise service model to drive project prioritization and link it with enterprise level technologies and data architectures.

P.3 Business service improvement planning based upon SLA and real‐time information.

Governance‐ Roles & Responsibilities

R.1 Establish cross‐enterprise board that is responsible for overall performance of services.

R.2 Establish a business service analyst role, focusing on the optimization of business services and communication between business and IT.

R.3 CoE support & guide BPM/SOA programs.

R.4 Empower service owner to drive improvements and optimization of services and make them accountable for their performance.

R.5 Accountability based upon SLA’s.

Organization‐ People P.3 Connect training courses between business and IT.

Organization‐ Culture C.1 Extend and integrate teamwork.


Organization‐ Strategy S.4 Extend service portfolio with long term strategy.

IT‐ Support S.1 Make enterprise‐wide agreements about standards and programs in the Business and IT domain, between domains on a project level.

S.1 Support of runt‐time monitoring of usage, performance and compliance (SLA) of services and processes. Feedback mechanisms into BAM tools.

S.2 Enable people to manage their work activities in a flexible manner, anywhere at any time.

S.3 Let managers, service owners and performers receive real‐time information about the performance of the business processes and services.

IT‐ Information

I.1 Make enterprise‐wide agreements about standards and programs in the Business and IT domain, between domains on a project level.

I.2 Establish a central repository enhancing business applications with broad information access and facilitate BPM using analytical services.

I.3 Business domain defines which services should be constructed by focusing on the key business processes.

I.4 Establish an advanced, enterprise‐wide use of service registry to handle versioning, external publication and discovery.

I.6 Make agreements with business partners about information transfer, definitions and semantics.

IT‐ Infrastructure

IF.1 Create a common middleware (ESB) promoting loose coupling between system interfaces in the form of services, supporting open standards and technological independent platforms.

IF.2 Establish a security infrastructure enabling messaging, events, routing, etc. throughout the enterprise.

IF.3 Establish a metadata management infrastructure supporting the enterprise.

Table 31. Activities to evolve from Integrated to the Collaborative maturity level


3.8. 5 Conclusions

nt plan and activities. Although there is a no significant difference in the perception of the toconclu st maturity state of the BPM/SOA AMM. A significant mount of effort must be taken to become agile and flexible to the dynamic market environment, especially for the business

The primary purpose of the BPM/SOA AMM is to evaluate and asses the maturity of organization’s in their capabilities to align BPM and SOA and establish a business‐drive service‐oriented enterprise. In this situation, the model can be used to verify, support and extend current improveme

‐be situation between business and IT related respondents, the number of respondents is too small to draw valid sions. The current state of the organization is positioned in the lowe

adomain.


9 Conclusions

The aim of this research project is to develop a method to evaluate and measure the maturity of the BPM and SOA alignment of organizations in a short period of time in order to establish a business driven service‐oriented enterprise. The following

Process Management (BPM) and Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) paradigm both share the same principles.

n

hange and strategy development’, hereas SOA is defined as;

‘A set of guidelines, principles and techniques in which business processes, information and enterprise assets can be (re)organized and (re)deployed to support and enable strategic plan and productivity levels that are required

hus, where BPM focuses on identifying processes and improvement of these processes to manage the organization, SOA

M

s through the rigid infrastructure of traditional organizations. SOA provides the ideal platform for the

ese organizational requirements should span the entire organization ensuring commitment to SOA rinciples, methods and provide consistent visibility of processes and risks. Here, BPM can be seen as the perfect partner to

prove the definition of business services and rvice orchestration as they provide the business context and corresponding business processes. In addition, the advanced

SOA the means to orchestrate, manage and control its services.

) ow can BPM and SOA be aligned to achieve an agile and flexible organizational environment?

initions in

research question has to be answered: “How can the BPM/SOA maturity of organizations be measured by means of a quick‐scan in order to establish a business driven service‐oriented enterprise which is truly agile and flexible?”

To address the main research question, the sub questions are divided into three parts, each relating to a phase of the research project. Each sub research question will be discussed in order to address the main research question. Question 1 (Q1) How can Software Oriented Architecture (SOA) and Business Process Management (BPM) support each other? The Business Both focus on adding value to the end customer, enable an enterprise to increase the adaptability and reactivity to the continuous changing market dynamics and both promote encapsulation, modularity, reuse and loose coupling. However, both approaches have some major differences. BPM is primarily a management discipline with top‐down decisiomaking, SOA is generally an IT approach where decisions can be taken top‐down, bottom‐up or meet‐in‐the‐middle. Another major difference is that BPM has a more project‐oriented perspective, while SOA has an enterprise infrastructure‐oriented focus. Looking at the definitions that are used during this research for BPM and SOA, several aspects emphasize their differences as well as the relationship to each other:

‘BPM is a holistic approach to manage organizations; focusing on processes and process improvement activities on a ongoing basis with a sound focus on culture c

w

effectively by competitive business environments’.

Tprovides means to enable these improvement activities as an architectural paradigm. The vital aspect in this relationship can be found in the business services of SOA that encapsulate (high‐level) business processes. As an important part of the BPlifecycle focuses on the enactment of business processes by information systems, in order to improve them by measuring and monitoring their status, SOA diminishes a significant aspect of the inefficient BPM methods to cope with the problem of connecting systembusiness process models to empower loose coupling between business and application logic in the form of a service layer. By exposing the application logic in the form of autonomous, stateless and platform independent services, merely by requiring some form of input, BPM is able to employ the application logic as services to support the business process models. Achieving a successful adoption of SOA requires an increased organizational discipline, such as processes, standards and regulations. In effect, thpgain these requirements throughout the enterprise. These requirements also imseBPM tools provide Question 2 (Q2H Today, BPM has evolved to an advanced process integration method and SOA towards the method to use web services. However, web services are just a SOA technology and BPM is not merely a process integration approach as the def


question 1 clarify. An environment where the full potential of SOA as well as BPM are aligned can be defined as a synergy. This nergy enables organizations to be agile and flexible to the dynamic market environment by gaining a high visibility and exibility throughout their organization and beyond the traditional organizational boundaries. To achieve such a synergetic

organizational transformations are required. This transformation requires careful business/IT alignment to achiev urces.

the understanding of business services, it can also significantly improve flexibility and agility in the way

siness as well as IT should collaboratively refine

siness side towards the IT. hese new collaborations, connections of BPM systems onto SOA technologies, and changing responsibilities and ownerships quires a new form of business / IT governance to manage and control the collaborative coordination between domains. This

e framework should specify decisions, rights and accountability as defined by architecture to , consisting of high level business and IT

rchitects, should guide and manage the knowledge for future BPM and SOA projects. In addition, a large role should be played

everal two‐dimensional BPM and SOA models were selected that could serve as a quick‐scan. The results of a pre‐literature

Model of acle (Oracle, 2007 ).

arily use their experience to judge how mature an organization is in their operations.

syflstate, significant

e an organizational agility with an integrated view of enterprise resoThe main objective of this synergy is to achieve a seamless transfer of the business requirement towards development of information technology. This can be achieved by decoupling the business processes from the applications and systems, such that they can evolve independently. A necessity in reaching this goal is that the principles of SOA should be introduced at all levels of the organization. Business analysts should incorporate these principles in the construction of business process models. This can not only fosterprocesses can be remodeled in response to changes. Another important problem in the scalability of BPM practices is the lack of semantics throughout the BPM lifecycles. Enterprise architecture with a focus on service‐orientation plays an important role in providing design patterns, semantics, standards, roles and responsibilities to address these problems and address the gap between business and IT. For example, a process ontology should be shared throughout all levels of modeling, specifying modeling notations and generic artifacts to establish a standardized vocabulary to bridge the business requirements and IT constraints. Because business services are a vital element in achieving this synergy, the buthe business services defined by the business and work out the details. In effect, BPM experts have to be involved in the SOA discussion and should work together to seamlessly transfer the business requirements from the buTrenew SOA/BPM governancencourage the desirable behavior in the context of BPM and SOA. Steering groupsaby a Center of Excellence (CoE) or similar teams of business and IT experts, in the implementation of the BPM solutions and selection and management of the enterprise SOA. Question 3 (Q3) What maturity models are available to measure the maturity of BPM, SOA and BPM/SOA initiatives in a short period of time? Sstudy revealed that there were no models that could serve the purpose of measuring the alignment between BPM and SOA. Although several of the holistic BPM models discussed some IT related aspects, (like modules and middleware), and a number of SOA models touched some business, process or organizational disciplines, they were all to holistic to serve as a BPM/SOA alignment model. The following BPM models were discussed; the Process Enterprise Maturity Model of Hammer (2007), Business Process Maturity Model of Fisher (2004) and the Business Process Maturity Model of Rosemann and de Bruin (2005). The following models were evaluated to measure the maturity of SOA; The Open Group Service Integration Maturity Model (OSIMM)(The Open Group, 2006) of the Open Group, the CBDI SOA Maturity Model (Sprott, 2005) and the Level 5 SOA MaturityOr

The following sub research questions discuss the expert interviews at Capgemini. Question 5 (Q5) What do experts at Capgemini find to be good maturity models to analyze organizations where BPM and SOA are to be implemented? The experts that were interviewed at Capgemini do not use any maturity models to analyze the maturity of organizations on behalf of SOA or BPM. However, the majority of respondents did know the maturity level of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM). Nevertheless, they prim


Question 6 (Q6)

How do these experts describe an optimal BPM/SOA environment? he experts describe the optimal BPM/SOA alignment (synergy) as an environment where SOA and its principles are employed

is fully extended towards the business domain and the advance of new chnological BPM tools will result in an environment where processes become less and less important. Because processes can ow be changed on a day‐to‐day basis, because they can be easily composed and adapted by managers utilizing these advanced

ation will increasingly focus on human activities. In effect, the BPM tools have to focus on the users of the ehavior and feelings of the

articipant in the process. The information should be presented in the way they can fully understand and process its value.

s. Information should be seamlessly shared roughout the eco‐systems and available everywhere to anyone with the appropriate authority.

uestion 7 (Q7)

s on the external environment; the customers and product portfolio. The organization should focus on their

output.

a multidisciplinary team of experts,

reements (SLA). When the service model is extended to the business domain, managers are able to mply report the SLA’s of the specific services and account owners of these services when results do not conform.

nt impediment is the lack of alignment between business and IT standards. There should be a certain required as defined by the business in the business models. According to the

xperts, the decisions about what to automate should be well defined and documented. As such, when certain aspects of the get, this information should be available for future

ess‐ntric view (how will it work).

Tby the business as well as IT domain. As such, the organization can build their entire business based upon services, that can be orchestrated in a flexible way by using BPM tools, supported by a large number of technical services. In effect, managers can use these tools to dynamically orchestrate new business services to establish and support business functions and their business service portfolio. This environment, where the service modeltentools, the organizprocess, instead on the applications. The environment should be human centric with a focus on the bpThus, IS/IT systems should adapt to the user instead of the other way around. Another important aspect is that traditional boundaries of the organization fadeth QHow can an optimal BPM and SOA situation be achieved according to these experts? According to the respondents, successful transformation towards a BPM/SOA environment requires significant change in the current organization its processes, governance and accountability model. An essential aspect in identifying the key business processes is to focucore competence, when building their service portfolio. While identifying the services, the business should think in black boxes; focus on what the service will deliver and what triggers are important. In effect, this should foster the integration process with SOA as it will improve the translation from business to IT services on a one‐on‐one basis. In addition, the cohesion between business services will be clearer, increasing understanding of managers in how these services deliver a certain The organization can truly benefit from the service portfolio when every service is accurately described in cost and delivery time. As such, new services can be used as building blocks that can easily be translated by the business in terms of costs and time‐to‐deliver. To achieve such benefits, services has to be defined and constructed bywith knowledge of tooling, technology and organizational resources. The traditional accountability model should also change. People should be held accountable for working within budget or performance related agreements. The accountability should move towards agreements around the services, which are captured in service level agsi Another importatraceability between what is delivered and ebusiness models currently cannot be automated, e.g. because of budimprovement projects. Tooling can support this requirement, it is however, still dependent on human actions. Therefore, this behavior should be stimulated. Another impediment is the transfer of business models defined by enterprise architects to BPM experts. Where the enterprise architects are currently modeling from a service‐centric point of view (what is required) the BPM experts model from a procce


The first problem is that there is still no method or technique to further refine the services defined by the enterprise architects.

p‐level support to design dynamic and flexible processes and there ould be an agreed modeling technique with enterprise architects and BPM experts in order to further refine the service

e

gile analysis?

s the result of Q3 describe, no BPM/SOA maturity models were available and there was no BPM or SOA maturity model that measuring the BPM/SOA alignment of an organization.

Sub question 8b (Q8b)

this construction, selection, and verification of the PM/SOA AMM, reference models were used that explicitly targeted important aspects that were discussed in the results of

sults of Q1, Q2, Q6 and Q7 served as a reference framework for the selection and refinement of e maturity levels, dimensions and key factors from the BPM and SOA maturity models.

thus could be applied as a quick scan.

thoroughly described. Subsequently, the assessment was performed at a large financial organization to validate the assessment activities, tool and time to assess the questionnaire.

The second is that assignments of BPM experts are mainly from a project basis and generally do not focus on creating flexible and dynamic processes. Thus, BPM experts should receive toshmodels. Managing and controlling the information interchange with business partners is a necessity in achieving the full potential of a BPM/SOA environment. Making explicit agreements about information artifacts throughout the value chain can foster the information interchange throughout the value chain, and can even decrease the need to control and manage information inconsistencies and compliance. In effect, when a component of a product shows deficiencies the responsible supplier can bderived by simply scanning the product code. Question 8 (Q8) Is one model directly applicable to measure the BPM/SOA maturity for the purpose of a Acould serve the purpose of

If not, how can the aspects of the various BPM and SOA models be combined to construct such a model? The results of the previous sub questions display that measuring the maturity of a BPM/SOA environment is a comprehensive subject. Identifying and demarcating the evolution of a BPM/SOA alignment from a low to synergetic state, selecting and mapping aspects of the various BPM and SOA maturity models onto this evolution and processing the requirements and success factors of the results of literature and experts interviews, requires more than merely combining aspects of the BPM and SOA maturity models. Therefore, the IS Research Framework (Hevner et al., 2004) is selected to serve as a foundation for the construction of the model to ensure a qualitative design research approach. In order to supportBthe research questions Q2 and Q7, namely: Enterprise Architecture, Business/IT alignment and governance. In effect, the following maturity models were used to address these subjects: the Enterprise Architecture Maturity model, Strategic Alignment Maturity Model and the SOA Governance Maturity model. The key factors and overall evolution of these models, together with the rethThis first version of the BPM/SOA AMM was refined by several validations with experts that were part of the semi‐structured interviews. Subsequently, the model was validated by three experts within Capgemini that were not involved in the construction of the model. Final, three experts, each from other external organizations, validated the BPM/SOA AMM for an independent perspective. Question 9 (Q9) How can the model be used as a quick‐scan? The following aspects of the model support the purpose of a quick scan: In the construction of the model, only holistic BPM and SOA maturity models were selected that had no comprehensive documentation,The questionnaire of the assessment has a maximum of fifty questions and can be assessed in a timeframe of one hour. The activities that need to be performed to asses an organization are


With the results of the sub research questions the main research question can be answered: “How can the BPM/SOA maturity of organizations be measured by means of a quick‐scan in order to establish a business driven service‐oriented enterprise which is truly agile and flexible?” This research has constructed the BPM/SOA Alignment Maturity Model that is capable of measuring the maturity of organizations on behalf of the alignment between BPM and SOA. The results of Q2 and Q7 emphasized that measuring this alignment is a wide‐ranging subject, especially from a holistic perspective. Therefore, models measuring the maturity of enterprise architecture, business/IT alignment and SOA governance are used as an extension to the key factors and elements of the BPM and SOA maturity models. In addition, these models

model. together with the results of Question 1, 2, 6 and 7 served as a reference framework to support the construction of theSubsequently, an assessment method is developed to structure and guide the assessment activities. This method is performed at a large financial organization to validate the questionnaire and application of the model. With the support of high‐level executives it is possible to perform the assessment method within two weeks, of which the first week focuses on the intake and planning of assessments. In the second week the assessments should be performed and results presented. However, when there are large number of respondents the method may take longer that two weeks.

10 Discussion

The pre‐literature study proved that there was no model applicable for the purpose of this research. In addition, results of the scientific literature study, focusing on the BPM/SOA alignment or business‐driven service‐oriented enterprise, showed that this research covered comprehensive aspects. Therefore, a structured approach was necessary to merge and combine several models, scientific literature and results of semi‐structured interviews. The IS Research framework (Hevner et al., 2004) was

BPM

he scope of the model is extended beyond factors and requirements defined in BPM and SOA models. From the results of ientific literature study, maturity models were chosen that focused on disciplines that are vital to achieve BPM and SOA

nt and IS/IT governance. Their components, key factors and general evolution are used in the selection of dimensions and establishment of key factors in the cells of the BPM/SOA AMM. In the selection of dimensions, the Strategic Alignment Maturity Model (Luftman, 2001) played an important role to select

els. This

• Many key factors of the various models were distributed over a maturity scale larger than 4 levels. Therefore, considerations had to be made which of those elements could be mapped to the maturity level notations of the BPM/SOA AMM.

• Key factors of many of the models did not consistently evolve throughout the maturity levels. Therefore, reference points provided a basis to select, merge and refine various key factors.

chosen as a starting point for the following reasons. First, because of its clear guidelines, structure and relationship between IS research, the environment and knowledge base. Second, it ensures a qualitative design research approach. Subsequently, to improve reliability of the study, which concerns whether operations of the research can be repeated with the same results (Yin, 2003), this framework is supported by the method engineering discipline (Brinkkemper, 1996). As such, this research employs a structured approach to define its activities, deliverables and contributions. By using maturity models that were related to the results of the literature study that focused on exploring the synergetic relationship between BPM and SOA, the scope of the model is extended beyond the factors and requirements defined in and SOA models. Therefore, it is less likely that important areas or aspects in achieving the full potential of a BPM and SOA alignment are not present. Tscalignment, namely enterprise architecture, business/IT alignme

dimensions that are important to BPM as well as SOA maturity models. The characteristics of the reference models together with key factors from the results of scientific literature study and semi‐structured interviews, established a basic reference framework to support the selection and refinements of the key factors from the BPM, SOA and reference modreference model was used for the following reasons:


• Because BPM/SOA alignment and achieving a BPM/SOA synergy requires important aspects like business/IT alignment, IS/IT governance, the key factors and global evolution of the reference models provided

ay not be incorporated by the BPM and SOA models.

component of the model, its maturity levels, dimensions and key factors, were iteratively validated by experts of the semi‐

three experts from external

the assessment, they provided a significant contribution to the validation of the

and with a larger number of

is to provide a quick scan to provide management a holistic view of the organization its current

ective of executive management. In effect, it provides

complex for the following reasons. and adapted to one another.

e highest or two

ve the appropriate experience and knowledge of ranging

on lite appropriate to establish the BPM/SOA AMM. However, this is issue

1 Suggestions for further research

enterprise architecture andimportant aspects that m

Eachstructured interviews to ensure that the model can be used in practice and represent the desired vision and elements of an agile and flexible business‐driven service‐oriented enterprise by means of BPM and SOA characteristics. Subsequently, three experts from Capgemini, who were not part of the interviews, validated the BPM/SOA AMM. Final,organizations validated the model. Their remarks and comments were described and processed. To validate the application of the model, it has been assessed at a large financial organization in the Netherlands. lthough only two respondents performedA

assessment tool and application of the model. The first version of the questionnaire has been thoroughly changed to extend the value proposition of the model and making the questions as clearly defined and consistent as possible. However, as it has only been applied at one financial organization its applicability to both the Financial domain and other domains as are still to be

further. Future research should focus on applying the model more in different domainsresearchedrespondents to validate the usability.

goal of this researchTheposition within the model. As such, it fosters awareness of the complexity of BPM/SOA solutions and what is necessary to align both practices and the opportunities and benefits its synergy provides. In addition, it presents a snapshot of how business and look at the current and desired situation in comparison to the perspIT

general activities to support the evolution towards their desired state, which can be used to evaluate their current improvement plan or establish a foundation for future improvement projects. Thus, it does not provide detailed or measurable

or KPI’s, as this is not the goal of the BPM/SOA AMM. activitiesAlthough the model provides a holistic perspective, it was perceived as comprehensive and

the organization evolves towards an environment in which BPM as well as SOA are matureFirst,Second, it evolves from a functional, silo view towards a highly collaborative partner within the eco‐system. Final, in thvel of maturity the organization has successfully aligned business and IT. Generally, maturity models only focus on onele

of these aspects. Therefore, it is of vital importance that an intake takes place with high level executives to explain the purpose, characteristics and opportunities of the model. They have to be informed about what type of high‐level respondents are

for assessment. This is necessary because the respondents must harequiredtheir practice and activities, as they have to indicate the as‐is and to‐be situations of wide‐ dimensions and factors. Because this research was of explorative nature with a focus rature study and semi‐structured interviews it could be

that there are maturity models that would be morepossibleis addressed by incorporating maturity models that focus on disciplines other than BPM and SOA.

1

Future research could focus on a new discipline, namely Human Interaction Management, and how this could be incorporated

l towards Human Interaction Management.

or fit into the BPM/SOA AMM. As the BPM/SOA AMM has a holistic perspective with a focus beyond merely BPM and SOA characteristics, its key factors could be adapted or added to tune the mode


12 Bibliography

Aalst, van der, W.M.P., Leymann, F., and Reisig, W. (2007) ‘The Role of Business Processes in Service Oriented Architectures’,

alst, van der, W.M.P., and Pesic., M. (2006). DecSerFlow: Towards a Truly Declarative Service Flow Language. BPM Center

ogies, Microsoft Corporation, Oblix Inc., pen Network technologies, Ping Identity, Reacticity, RSA Security, and Verisign, February (2005)

rmistead, C., Machin, S., & Pritchard, J. ‐P. (1997). Approaches to business process management. Journal of Managing Service

rsanjani, A., & Holley, K. (2006). The Service Integration Maturity Model: Achieving Flexibility in the Transformation to SOA.

d Electrical Engineering.

oden, T. (2004) The grid enterprise – structuring the agile business of the future, BT Technology Journal, Vol 22 No 1.

top of SOA: Experiences from the Financial Industry. In P. D. G. Alonso and M. Rosemann, editors, PM2007, volume 4714 of LNCS, pages 96–111. Springer, Heidelberg, 2007.

elopment methods and tools”. formation and Software Technology 38, pp. 275 – 280.

systems – Strategy and implementation. New York: Auerbach Publications.

harfi, A., & Mezini, M. (2004). Hybrid Web Service composition: Business Processes Meet Business Rules. Proceedings of the

hen, H, Towards Service Engineering: Service Orientation and Business‐IT Alignment, Hawaii International Conference on

s enabled business process anagement systems. Decision Support Systems , Volume 43, Issue 2, 530‐546.

97). H As s of Bu s neeri s Proc

B., Alden, J. (2007). BPM & Organizational Maturity. Business Process Trends. September 2007.

International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management, Vol 2, Nos. 2, pp.75‐80 AReport BPM‐06‐21, BPMcenter.org, 2006. Anderson, S., et al.: Web Services Trust Language (WS‐Trust). Public draft release, Actional Corporation, BEA Systems, Computer Associates International, International Business Machines Corporation, Layer 7 TechnolO AQuality , 6 (6), 48‐52. AIEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC'06) , 515. Bandara, W., ndulska, M., Sadiq, S., Chong, S., Rosemann, M., Green, P., (2004), Major issues in business process management: An expert perspective, School of Information Technology an Bea Systems Inc. (2008). The 2008 State of the BPM Market White Paper. Bea Systems, Inc. B Brahe, S. (2007). BPM onB Brinkkemper, S. (1996). “Method engineering: engineering of information systems devIn Chang, J. (2006). Business process management Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved 3 25, 2008, from CMMI : http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/ C2nd international conference on Service oriented computing, (pp. 15‐19). New York. CSystem Sciences, Proceedings of the 41st, pp 114‐114, 2008, Waikoloa, HI Chen, M., Zhang, D., & Zhou, L. (2007). Empowering collaborative commerce with Web Servicem Corrigan, S. (19 uman and Organizational pect siness Proce s Reengi ng. Busines esses Resource Centre . Curtis,


Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process Innovation ‐ Re‐engineering Work Through Information Technology. Boston: Harvard Business chool Press.

e new Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign, Sloan anagement Review (31:4), Summer 1990, pp. 11‐27

e Bruin, T., & Rosemann, M. (2006). Towards Understanding Strategic Alignment of Business Process Management.

, pp. 208‐219, 2008

point of iew on a decade of paradigm wars’, Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619‐654

& McCabe, T. (1997). How to stay flexible and elude fads. Quality Progress , 30 (3), 55‐60.

ution , 39 (10), 91.

t: Survey and Methodology. IEEE ransactions on Engineering Management , 24 (2), 119‐28.

ndrei, M., Arsanjani, A., Chua, S., Comte, P., & Krogdahl, P. (2004, 4). Patterns: Service‐Oriented Architecture and Web Services.

uting Series. 005: Prentice Hall PTR.

rwen, N., Lighthart, Art, van Rooij, R., Graave, J., (2005) Service‐Oriented Architecture: Een praktische leidraad oor invoering: Socrates., Ordina System Integration & Development B.V., Sdu Publishers B.V.

Information Strategies for Adaptive Enterprises. European Management urnal , Vol. 20, No. 5, p468‐494.

protocol for the OASIS security assertion markup language (SAML), V1.1. Committee ecification, OASIS, July 2003.

., Stockton, M., (2006) Enterprise Business Process Management – Architecture, Technology and Standards, LNCS 102, pp. 1‐15, 2006, Springer‐Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006.

September 2008.

2008, from Business Process Trends: ttp://www.businessprocesstrends.com/publicationfiles/10%2D04%20ART%20BP%20Maturity%20Model%20%2D%20Fisher%2

S Davenport, T.H., Short, J.E. ThM dAustralasian Conference on Information Systems. Adelaide. Decker, G., Barros, A., Interaction Modeling Using BPMN, BPM 2007 Workshops Denison, D.R. (1996), ‘What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s v DeToro, I., Donham, P. (2007). Aligning IT to Business Processes: How BPM is Complementing ERP and Custom Applications. Aberdeen Group. Doyle, M. (1998). Overcoming communication barriers. Transportation & Distrib Elzinga, Horak, D. J., Chung‐Yee, T., & Bruner, C. (1995). Business Process ManagemenT ERetrieved 2 22, 2008, from IBM Redbooks: http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg246303.pdf Erl, T., Service‐Oriented Architecture: Concepts, technology, and design. The Prentice Hall Service‐Oriented Comp2 Es, van, R.J., Gev Evgeniou, T. (2002). Information Integration andJo Farell, S., et al.: Assertions andsp Ferguson, D.F4 Fingar, P. (2008). BPM is Dead, Viva La BPM. Business Process Trends. Fingar, P. (2007 March). The Greatest Innovation Since BPM. Business Process Trends. March 2007. Fisher, D. M. (2004, 9). The Business Process Maturity Model ‐ A Practical Approach for Identifying Oppertunities for Optimization. Retrieved 2 22, hE.pdf


Gossain, S; Kandiah, G. 1998. Reinventing Value: The New Business Ecosystem. Strategy & Leadership. Vol. 26(5), pp. 28‐33

ical issues. Administrative cience Quarterlt, 40:309‐342.

mber 29, 2007)

Rules Approach. Wiley.

ammer, M., & Champhy, J. (1993). Re‐engineering the Corporation; A Manifesto for Business Revolution. London: Nicholas

armon, P. (2003). Business process change: A Manager's Guide to Improving,Redesigning and Automating Processes. Morgan

armon, P. (2008b). BPM vs. Process Improvement. Business Process Trends. Februari 2008.

Strategy, Products, and Architecture. Business Process Trends. December 2004.

P. (2004c). Evaluating an Organisation's Business Process Maturity. Business Process Trends. March 2004.

. 4‐16

ss Management. artner Inc.

evien, R. 2004. The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, novation, and Sustainability. Harward Business School Press, 225p.

, J. (2008). Business Process Management ‐ Practical Guidelines to Succesful Implementations. Elsevier Science.

on. Computers & dustrial Engineering , Volume 51, Issue 2, 321‐334.

iquity, (14), 2007. ACM Press.

Hackman, J.R. and Wageman, R. (1995). Total Quality Management: Empirical, Conceptual, and PractS Hagerty, J.: SOX Spending for 2006. AMR Research, Boston USA. (Nove Halle, B. v. (2001). Business Rules Applied: Building Better Systems using the Business Hammer M (2007). The process audit. Harvard Business Review. 85(4):111–123 Hammer, M. (1990, July‐August). Re‐engineering work: don't automate , obligerate. Harvard Business Review , 104‐12. HBrearly. HKaufmann. Harmon, P. (2008a). BPM, BPMS and SOA. Business Process Trends. May 2008. H Harmon, P. (2004a, December). IBM's BPM Harmon, P. (2004b). Business Performance Management: The other BPM. Business Process Trends. November 2004. Harmon, Harrington, J.J. (1995), Total Improvement Management – The Next Generation in Performance Improvement, McGraw‐Hill, New York, NY. Henderson, J.C, Venkatraman, N. (1993). ‘Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations’, IBM Systems Journal (32), pp Hill, F. M. and Collins, L. K. (1998). ‘The positioning of BPR and TQM in long‐term organizational change strategies’. The TQM Magazine, Vol 10, No 6, 438–46. Hill, J. B., Sinur, J., Flint, D., & Melenovsky, M. J. (2006, Februari 16). Gartner's position on Business ProceG Iansiti, M; LIn Jeston, J., & Nelis Jung, J.‐Y., Kim, H., & Kang, S.‐H. (October 2006). Standards‐based approaches to B2B workflow integratiIn Kamoun, F., A roadmap towards the convergence of business process management and service oriented architecture. Ub8


Kim L.W., Lim K.W. ,An approach to service‐oriented architecture using web service and BPM in the telecom‐OSS domain, Internet Research,Vol. 17 No. 1, 2007, pp. 99‐107, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 1066‐2243

88‐298

rprises, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg

l (BPMM), APWeb/WAIM 2007 Ws, LNCS 537, pp. 384‐395.

(3), 214‐25.

gner, C., Heutschi, R. (2007). SOA Adoption in Practice ‐ Findings from Early SOA Implementations. In: Proc. of European

win, R.; Regine, B. 1999. On the Edge in the World of Business. In Lewin, R. Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos. The

wis A., Morris E., Simantra S., Wrage L. (2007)Common misconceptions about service‐oriented architecture. Commercial‐off‐

5.

s. Academic Service.

management: Overview of cent advances and introduction to the special issue. LLC 2008, Springer Science, Business Media Inc.

ftman, J. N. (2000) Assessing Business Alignment Maturity. Communications of AIS, Vol. 4, Article 14, 1.

) Enablers and Inhibitors of Business‐IT Alignment, Communications of AIS Volume 1, rticle 11 2

research on information technology." Decision Support Systems 5(4): 251‐266.

gulius, D. (2006). SOA PLANNING: Sizing up Your Business Processes. InfoWorld , Vol. 28 Issue 11, p18‐24.

, pp 315‐315, California State Univ., Chico

Kiraka, R.N, Manning, K. (2005). Managing Organisations Through a Process‐Based Perspective: Its Challenges and Benefits, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol 12, No 4, pp. 2 Krishna Behara, Gopala. (2006). BPM and SOA: A Strategic Alliance. BPTrends. 2006. Land, op ‘t, M. (2008), Applying Architecture and Ontology to the Splitting and Allying of Ente Lee, J., Lee, D., Kang, S. (2007). An Overview of the Business Process Maturity Mode4 Lee, R. G., & Dale, B. G. (1993). Business Process Management: a review and evaluation. Business Process Re‐engineering & Management Journal , 4 Leeming, N. (2005). Business Process Management Implementation. The Journal of Enterprise Architecture , 1, 69‐91. LeConference on Information Systems (ECIS 2007) LeUniversity of Chicago Press, pp. 197‐211. Lethe‐Shelf (COTS)‐Based Software Systems, 2007. ICCBSS '07. Sixth International IEEE Conference on. 2007: IEEE Computer Society. Leymann, F. The (Service) Bus: Services Penetrate Everyday Life. In Third Int. Conf. on Service‐Oriented Computing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, volume LNCS 3826, pages 12–20, 200 Ligthart, A., Graave, J., Rooij, R. v., Gerwen, N. v., & Es, R.‐J. v. (2005). Service Oriented Architecture: Een praktische leidraad voor invoering: Socrate Liu C., li, Q., Zhao, X., (2008) Challenges and opportunities in the collaborative business process re Lu Luftman , J.N., Papp ,R., Brier,T. (1999A March, S. T. and G. F. Smith (1995). "Design and natural science1 Mar Maurizio, A. Sager, J. Corbitt, G. Girolami, L. (2008), Service Oriented Architecture: Challenges for Business and Academia, Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Proceedings of the 41st


Maurizio A., Girolami, L., Jones, P. (2007). EAI and SOA: Factors and methods influencing the intergration of multiple ERP systems (in a SAP enviroment) to comply with the Sarbanes‐Exley Act). Journal of Enterprise Information Management. Vol. 20. o. 1.Pp. 14‐31.

cAdam, R., & McCormack, D. (2001). Integrating business processes for global alignment and supply chain management.

cHugh, P. (1995). Beyond Business Process Reengineering ‐ Towards the Holonic Enterprise. New York: Wiley & Sons.

P., Hall, C., (2007 July). An Introduction to BPM Suites, BPTrends (2007).

ry Perspectives on Organizations: The Application of Complexity Theory to Organizations. Pergamon, msterdam. pp. 23‐50

oore, J.F. 1996. The Death of Competition: Leadership & Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems. New York, Harper

uehlen, zur, M., Ho, D.T.: Risk Management in the BPM Lifecycle. In: Bussler, C.J., Haller, A. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3812,

2007 (2007)

. Retrieved 3 5, 2008, from IT Service CMM: http://itservicecmm.googlepages.com/itscmm‐1.0rc1.pdf

itzsche, J., van Lessen, T., Karastoyanova, D., Leymann, F.: BPEL Light. In: Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Business

apazoglou, M.P. Web Services: Principle and Technology. Prentice Hall, July 2007.

pp. 412‐442

ternational Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering, pp. 3‐12

N MBusiness Process Management Journal , 7 (2), 113 ‐ 130. M Miers D., Harmon, Miers, D. (2005, July). BPM: Driving Business Performance. Business Process Trends . Mitleton‐Kelly, E. 2003. Ten Principles of Complexity and Enabling Infrastructures. In Mitleton‐Kelly, E. (eds.) Complex Systems and EvolutionaA MBusiness, 297p. Mpp. 454–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) Namiri, K., Stojanovic, N.: A Formal Approach for Internal Controls Compliance in Business Processes. In: BPMDS 2007. 8th Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support conjunction with CAiSE Niessinka, F., Clerca, V., Tijdinka, T., & Vliet, H. v. (2005). The IT Service Capability Maturity Model version 1.0RC12 NProcess Management (BPM 2007). (September 2007) Object Management Group, Business Process Modeling Notation v1.1, 2008, http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/1.1/PDF, accessed 27‐05‐2008 OMG, Business Process Modeling Notation Specification (version 1.0 Final Adopted Version) (2006) P Papazoglou, M., Heuvel, W.‐J. Van den (2007), Service oriented architectures: approaches, Technologies and research issues, The VLBD Journal, Vol 16, pp. 389‐415. Papazoglou, M., Heuvel, W.‐J. Van den (2006), Service‐oriented design and development methodology, International Journal of Web Engineering and Technology, vol. 2, no. 4, Papazoglou, M. (2003a), Web Services and Business Transactions, World Wide Web: Internet Web Inf Syst, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 49‐91 Papazoglou, M. (2003b), Service‐oriented computing: concepts, characteristics and directions, Proceedings of the 4th

In


Papazoglou, M., Georgakopoulos, D. (2003c), Service‐Oriented Computing, Communicatons of the ACM, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 25‐28 Paulk, M. C., Weber, C. V., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., The Capability Maturity Model, Addison‐Wesley, 1995. Porter, M. E., Millar, V. A. (1995) "How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage." Harvard Business Review 73, no. 4 (July‐

hool Press.

osemann, M., & Bruin, T. d. (2004). Towards a Business Process Management Maturity Model. Preecedings of the AIM Pre‐ICIS

adiq, S., Governatori, G., Namiri, K., Modeling Control Objectives for Business Process Compliance, Business Process

mith, H., & Fingar, P. (2003). Business Process Management the third wave. Tampa, Florida: Meghan‐Kiffer Press.

etrieved 3 25, 2008, from Sonic Software: http://www.sonicsoftware.com/soamm

e ool. In Service‐Oriented Computing – ICSOC 2007, Volume 4749. Berlin / Heidelberg: Springer .

zakal, A., Open Group Service Integration Maturity Model (OSIMM): launch presentation and notes from first working group .2.07. 2007. p. 18.

homas, O., Leyking, K., Dreifus, F. (2008): “Using Process Models for the Design of Service‐Oriented Architectures: ethodology and E‐Commerce Case Study” Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 09‐109, Waikoloa, HI, Januari 7th, 2008

he Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process, Carnegie Mellon University Software ngineering Institute, Addison‐Wesley, 1996

hurlow, C., Lengel, L. & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer Mediated Communication: Social Interaction and the Internet. London: age.

niversal Description, Discovery, and Integration (UDDI): Technical report, UDDI.ORG, September 2000. http://www.uddi.org.

August 1995). Porter, M., Fuller, M. (1986). “Coalitions and global strategy”. Competition in Global industries, ed., M. Porter, Boston: Harvard Bus. Sc Power, T.; Jerjian, G. 2001. Ecosystem: Living the 12 principles of networked business. Pearson Education Ltd. 392p. Ravesteyn, P. (2007). Business Process Management Systems: Hype or New Paradigm. In Conference Proceedings of IIMA. Beijing, China. Rosemann, M., & Bruin, T. d. (2005). Application of a Holistic Model for Determining BPM Maturity. BPTrends . RWorkshop on Process Management and Information Systems , 46‐60. Rothschild, M. 1990. Bionomics: Economy as Ecosystem. New York, Henry Holt and Company , 423p. SManagement 2007, LNCS 4717, pp 149‐164, 2007, Springer‐Verslag Berlin Heidelberg 2007 S SOA Maturity Model. (2006). R Sprott, D., The SOA maturity model. CBDI Journal, 2005(12): p. 4‐17. Strnadl, C. F. (2007). Bridging Architectural Boundaries Design and Implementation of a Semantic BPM and SOA GovernancT S1 TM1 TE TS U


Vinoski, S.: Business Integration Journal. Debunking the Myths of Service Orientation. April, 2005. Thomas Communications, Inc. 005)

ollmer, K., Heffner, R., Gilpin, M., & Shalie, A. (2006, March 10). Business Process Management Suites And SOA ‐ Enabling ments. Trends .

Werth, D., Leyking, K., Dreifus, F., Ziemann, J., and Martin, A. (2006): “Managing SOA through Business Services ‐ a business‐

ons: Design (WESOA06) at 4th International Conference on Service Oriented Computing Chicago, USA, December 4th,

Business Process Management ‐ Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer‐Verslag.

Weske, M., Engineering Woodley, (pp. 679‐688). Berlin / Heidelberg: Springer. Yin, R.K., Case study research: design and methods Zairi, M. (1997). Business Process Management: to modern competitiveness". Re‐engineering &

Zhang D: We r Pro 2004. Zhu, L., Osterweil, L. J., Staphles, M., Kannengies Reference Process, BPM 2007 Workshops, pp. 95‐107, 2008 Zimmermann, O., Doubrovski, V., Grundler, s Choreography in an Order Management Scen Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages

(2 VFlexible Process Improve

oriented approach to service‐oriented architectures.” 2nd Int. Workshop on Engineering Service‐Oriented ApplicatiCompositionand

2006. Weske, A. (2007).

der, A. v., W., M. P., & Verbeek, H. M. , 50, 1‐8.

(2004). Advances in business process management. Data & Knowledge

T., & Gagnon, S. (2005). BPM and SOA: Synergies and Challenges. In Web Information Systems Engineering – WISE

. Third ed. Applied social research methods series. 2003: Sage Publications.

"a boundaryless approach managem

ent Journal , 3 (1), 64‐80.

b Services Composition fo cess Management in E‐Business. Journal of Computer Information Systems 2, 83‐91,

ser, U., Challenges Observed in the Definition of

J., Hogg, K. (2005). Service‐Oriented Architecture and Business Procesario: Rationale, Concepts, Lessons Learned. Proceedings of the Conference on

and Applications. San Diego, California, October. Pages: 301‐312.


13 Appendix

13.1 Dimensions with the results of interviews and scientific literature Derived dimensions

Experts Supported by BPM/SOA Scientific Literature

Organization ‐ The traditional vertical structure should evolve towards a horizontal one, by focusing on the key business processes and services.

‐ Change in business model

‐ Communication should be between members of the same business process, not the same function or location (Armistead, 1996).

‐ To extend process integration throughout the supply chain there cannot be a fixed boundary between partners. The supply chain must be managed as a single organization (McAdam and McCormack, 2001).

‐ To ensure flexibility and responsiveness to changing business designs, the portfolio of services and the processes must be able to evolve independently (Ferguson & Stockton, 2006).

‐ Organizations should specialize on the value they deliver, stimulate innovation and shed those activities that are better performed by others (Brown et al., 2002).

Method ‐ There should be a standard method for BPM as for SOA within the organization.

‐ Lack of proper BPM methodology (Kamoun, 2007) ‐ Best practices are important to learn from (Brahe, 2007). ‐ Mature development process is crucial for successful BPM/SOA adoption

(Brahe, 2007). ‐ BPM has to be inspired by best practices to ensure that superior

competitiveness is achieved (Zairi, 1997). ‐ BPM relies on a systematic methodology supported by a problem‐solving

methodology to strengthen newly‐designed processes, to reinforce linkages between various functions and to ensure that optimum performance can be achieved (Zairi, 1997).

‐ Portfolio management is part of the SOA governance lifecycle, which ensure that a sound method is used consistently to decide which services need to be developed and how the necessary investments are prioritized (Schepers et al., 2008).

‐ Controlling the Service lifecycle relates to the principles used during the design, development and delivery of services. Including deciding on service granularity, change management procedures for services and on registration of available services in the SOA (Schepers et al., 2008).

Architecture ‐ Defining service‐orientation ‐ Defining standards

‐ A successful implementation requires a strong harmony between process design (Business‐driven) and IT architecture and applications (IT‐driven)(Kamoun, 2007)

‐ Key requirements for mapping the business architecture to the application architecture are well‐defined services, metadata and flexible binding (Ferguson & Stockton, 2006).

‐ Enterprise architecture provide the means to organize logic for business processes and IT infrastructure reflecting the integration and standardization requirements of the company’s operating model (Ross et al., 2006).

‐ Architecture is an important element in supporting the Governance in important IT decision making and investments as they provide the information about the coherence of information and IT resources within the organization (Smits et al., 2008).


‐ Consequences of changing a service are hard to predict since a service has many customers of which the service developer has no knowledge (Schepers et al., 2008).

‐ Structuring the criteria of the service portfolio is a prerequisite to efficiently control the development of services and defining their ownership. Grouping and structuring services can greatly simplify management as there are fewer artifacts to govern (Schepers et al., 2008).

Infrastructure ‐ Flexible infrastructure ‐ Supporting people in mobility

‐ Use of industry‐wide standards (Kamoun, 2007) Woodley, Gagnon, 2005)(Ferguson & Stockton, 2006).

‐ Support smooth integration of compatible tools and real‐time business processes, across heterogeneous deployment environments. (Kamoun, 2007)

Culture ‐ Change turf mentality

‐ BPM is an approach for cultural change and does not result simply through having good systems and the right structure in place (Zairi, 1997).

Governance ‐ Change in accountability model towards SLA’s.

‐ People should be stimulated to consistently use IS/IT systems.

‐ A proper governance model, which articulates a collaborative coordination between the business and IT, is vital for the successful adoption of BPM‐SOA best practices (Kamoun, 2007).

‐ The governance model should take into account the fact that a BPM‐SOA initiative should endorse a new state of mind that brings business and IT closer together (Kamoun, 2007).

‐ Process Integration Centers (PICs) or similar teams play a large role in implementation of BPM solution and the selection and management of the enterprise SOA (Woodley, Gagnon, 2005; Brahe, 2007).

‐ Empowered teams of process specialists need a clear direction to guide their decisions and strong support to promote the new ideas to the wider organization (McAdam and McCormack, 2001).

‐ Within each organization 2 fundamental questions should be addressed when establishing IT governance, ‘Who decides about what issues?’ and ‘What are the responsibilities and who is accountable?’ (Smits et al., 2008).

‐ A Steering group should be established to set the priorities, settle arguments and ongoing repository of knowledge for future BPM projects, carrying over lessons learned. This knowledge and experience can later form the foundation of BPM Center of Excellence (CoE) for the organization. (Miers, 2006).

‐ Creating a budget for SOA projects is difficult since benefits and costs of services are attributed to multiple organizational units (Schepers et al., 2008).

‐ SOA promises to deliver the capability for new business processes to be designed as needed using visual modeling tools (BPM) by a new kind of system architect – any manager who is familiar with the day‐to‐day operation of her business unit (Maurizio et al., 2008).

People ‐ People should be supported and facilitated in their work by customizable IS/IT systems.

‐ Getting the right mindset and proper education for the transition (Kamoun, 2007; Brahe, 2007).

‐ A person with business scenario understanding and knowledge of technology is crucial in bridging the gap between the business and IT and crucial in BPM/SOA projects (Brahe, 2007).

‐ BPM creates a focus on customers through horizontal linkages between key activities (Zairi, 1997).

‐ As SOA allows business activities to be encapsulated in services, which requires a change in the attitude from people. They need to see their job as a value‐adding service. (Schepers et al., 2008).

‐ The executives of the future need to be trained to recognize the need and posses skills that allow direct involvement in the management of the technology (Maurizio et al., 2008)(Porter, M., Millar, V E.., 1995).


‐ A common language should be created for business and IT people to discuss potential services and to foster ownership for specific business services (Deb M. et al., 2005).

Process ‐ In the identification of key business processes the organization should focus on their customers, services and portfolio.

‐ Create and structure flexible processes.

‐ The importance of processes should decrease, while focus on individual activities should increase.

‐ Business processes should be formally modeled, stimulating precise notation and reliable hand‐offs (Ferguson & Stockton, 2006).

‐ Business processes are the critical all assing activities of ‐encomporganizational functions which deliver quali end customers (Zairi, ty to the 1997).

‐ The organization should focus on loosely processes and on coupled outcomes, not on the way the job gets done 2). (Brown et al., 200

‐ Although process modeling has been around for some time, the combination of process modeling and SOA ough that analysts is new enand consultants often have strong and diffe nions about ring ideas and opibest practices (Maurizio et al., 2008).

Information T gyechnolo

‐ Tools should support traceability, reusability and feedback mechanisms.

‐ Tools should be able to support the orchestration of services.

‐ There should be explicit agreements about information artifacts.

‐ Information should be presented from a human‐centric perspective.

‐ The need for design‐ and run‐time process management support (Kamoun, 2007).

‐ Tools for testing proper orchestration of services and validation of process implementation against true requirements. (Woodley, Gagnon, 2005)

‐ Monitoring tied to SLA’s, with feedback mechanisms in BAM tools. (Woodley, Gagnon, 2005)

‐ Simulation and optimization to identify and solve process and service bottlenecks (Woodley, Gagnon, 2005).

‐ Gap between a solution model of a business process and the actual implementation as a workflow, which stimulates manual transformation (Brahe, 2007).

‐ Tools should provide a degree of flexibility to allow an enterprise to define and utilize its own modeling concepts and write its own transformations from model to implementation (Brahe, 2007).

‐ An service should represent the right abstraction that both IT and business care about (Archarya et al., 2005).

‐ Integrating human activities to BPM with more people‐friendly business process models will definitely better the controllability of business processes, and improve practical performance of business processes (Lui et al., 2008).

‐ Logging events in a SOA environment enables a wide range of process mining techniques ‘learning from observed process executions’ (van der Aalst et al., 2006).

‐ Organizations should be able to continuous benchmark and dynamically reconfigu es (Brown etre their business process al., 2002).

‐ A general problem category in SOA projects is the compliance to standards gislation, which requires a IT systems or le udit trails of(Schepers 08). et al., 20

‐ An impor in the control of the se played by tant role rvice lifecycle is services they manage the public define registries as ation of services andtaxonomi published service. Where tools only es of the service registries store refe pository tools actually hold and rences, re the data about serviceprovide to check chan e service auditing functions ges made to th(Schepers 08). et al., 20

‐

Metrics ‐ Monitor the SLA’s of services. ‐ Monitoring tied to SLA’s, with feedback mechanisms in BAM tools (Kamoun, 2007).

‐ BPM relies on measurement activity to assess the performance of each individual process, set targets and deliver output levels which can meet corporate goals (Zairi, 1997).

Table 32. Derived dimensions mapped to the statements and conclusions of experts and other scientific literature


1 justments to key factors of the model in the validation phase 3.2 Ad

Dimension Aspect number of the BPM/SOA AMM Added or changed

Methods (M) M.1, M.2 Added Architecture (A) A.1, A.2 Added Governance – Controls (G.S) G.C.5 Added Governance – Processes (G.P) G.P.1, G.P.2 Changed Governance – Responsibilities & Roles (G.R) G.R.1 (changed), G.R.3 (changed), G.R.4 (changed), G.R.5

(added) Changed, added

Information & technology – Support (I.T) I.T.S.1 Changed Information & technology – Information I.T.I.5 (changed), I.T.I.6 (added) Changed, added

Table Ch on rounds

33. anges throughout the validati

Aspect number

Description

G.P.3 These characteristics define in what way the organization perform process improvement. From ‘fire fighting’ to the continuous improvement of services throughout the eco‐system.

G.R.2 In the evolution towards a synergy between SOA and BPM the relation between the business and IT on behalf of their responsibility for the changes in IS/IT alters. In addition, to obtain the benefits of new technologies specialized/ new roles emerge.

O.P.1 There should be higher emphasizing on the awareness of people concerning the process/service performance related to the KPI’s.

O.C.4 Customer focus suggests that organizations should focus on external customers, thus perform a customer satisfaction strategy. However, organizations can also employ other strategies while being mature in BPM and SOA. In addition, the expert mentions that business units can also focus on external customers, like a Human Resource department. Therefore, the model should not focus on the external customer, but the customer of the process or service.

G.C.2 The process and cross‐process metrics in the collaborative level can be seen from a broader perspective by including the metrics in the decision making process.

G.C.4 As the model focuses on service orientation and not only on the IT/technology side of SOA, the expert states that mentioning IT investments would be to IT centric. A broader business and IT perspective can be taken by talking about assets, which could be business, IT or even human resource related.

IT.I.3 The third level of service selection states that ‘the business selects services’. However, according to the expert, the business domain already started with services on a business level in late seventies. Therefore, it should explicitly mention IT services.

M.1 Looking at the evolution throughout the model from project to eco‐system focus, primarily the last maturity level aspect could have a better fit with the eco‐system focus. Mentioning that the methods are shared throughout the eco‐system would be a significant added‐value, according to the expert.

Table 34. Short description, why certain key factors are changed or added

Dimension Aspect number Added or changed According to

Governance – Processes G.P.3 Added BPM expert

Governance – Responsibilities & Roles G.R.2 Added BPM expert

Organization ‐ People O.P.1 Changed. Global Architect

Organization – Culture O.C.4 Changed. Global Architect

Governance – Controls G.C.2 Changed. Global Architect

Governance – Controls G.C.4 Changed Global Architect

Information & Technology ‐ Information IT.I.3 Changed. Global ArchitectMethods M.1 Changed Global Architect

Architecture A.5 Added Global Architect

Table 35. Added or changed key factors according to the remarks of external experts


Aspect number

Description

These characteristics define in what way the organization perform process improvement. From ‘fire fighting’ to the continuous G.P.3 improvement of services throughout the eco‐system.

G.R.2 In the evolution towards a synergy between SOA and BPM the relation between the business and IT on behalf of their responsibility for the changes in IS/IT alters. In addition, to obtain the benefits of new technologies specialized/ new roles emerge. There should be higher emphasizing on the awareness of people concerning the process/service performance related to the O.P.1 KPI’s. Customer focus suggests that organizations should focus on external customers, thus perform a customer satisfaction strategy. O.C.4 However, organizations can also employ other strategies while being mature in BPM and SOA. In addition, the expert mentions that business units can also focus on external customers, like a Human Resource department. Therefore, the model should not focus on the external customer, but the customer of the process or service. The process and cross‐process metrics in the collaborative level can be seen from a broader perspective by including the metrics G.C.2 in the decision making process. As the model focuses on service orientation and not only on the IT/technology side of SOA, the expert states that mentioning IT G.C.4 investments would be to IT centric. A broader business and IT perspective can be taken by talking about assets, which could be business, IT or even human resource related. The third level of service selection states that ‘the business selects services’. However, according to the expert, the business IT.I.3 domain already started with services on a business level in late seventies. Therefore, it should explicitly mention IT services. Looking at the evolution throughout the model from project to eco‐system focus, primarily the last maturity level aspect could M.1 have a better fit with the eco‐system focus. Mentioning that the methods are shared throughout the eco‐system would be a significant added‐value, according to the expert.

Table 36. Short description, why certain key factors are changed or added according to the remarks of external experts.


13.3 BPM/SOA AMM overview


13.4 BPM/SOA Dimensions


1 dmap 3.5 Roa


Roadmap activities from Ad‐Hoc (Level 1) to Integrated (Level 2)

Architecture A.1 Establish architectural functions in departments.

A.2 Focus on IS solution architecture.

A.3 Create an application and product portfolio plan.

A.4 Connect and align the IT and Infrastructure architectures.


M.2 Implement methods and techniques for project management (e.g. Prince2), control and planning tools/methods.

M.3 Implement methods to support the BPM lifecycle management and parts of the Service lifecycle management.

Governance ‐ Controls C.1 Start linking the business & IT metrics.

C.2 Derive metrics from customer requirements.

C.5 Uniform way to deal with QoS.

C.6 Use metrics to measure process changes and the service reuse on a project level.

C.7 Focus funding on shared infrastructure services.

Governance ‐ Processes P.1 Model the business processes end‐to‐end and include automated process steps as a basis for the automated workflow.

P.2 Let the senior executives accept the enterprise model of the Architecture function.

P.3 Process improvement plan based upon KPI’s, processes & functional requirements.


R.1 Make functional / middle management responsible for process performance.

R.2 Establish the role of business analyst.

R.3 Establish CoE to support BPM projects.

R.4 Make process owners accountable for the individual process.

R.5 Accountability based upon performance.

Organization‐ People P.3 Set up training courses for the Business & IT.

Organization‐ Culture C.1 Promoting teamwork and cross‐functional teams.


Organization‐ Strategy S.4 Create service portfolio.

IT‐ Support S.1 Implement process aware systems with design‐time process support.

S.1 System should support monitoring to reflect process performance.

S.2 Enable people to access organizational resources and customer information through an intranet.

S.3 Inform managers and process owners with information about the status of the individual & overall process.

IT‐ Information

I.1 Cross functional teams should make agreements about programs and standards on a project level.

I.2 Establish a repository supporting data and content integration.

I.3 Let the IT domain select and create services of system functionality with a high reusability factor, providing successful pilots.

I.4 Start using the service registry across functions

I.6 Make corporate agreements about information integration and transfer, artifacts and definitions

IT‐ Infrastructure IF.1 Establish a shared technical platform, with cross‐functional integration between systems (RPC point‐point).

IF.1 Create an ESB on a functional level.

IF.2 Establish a security infrastructure enabling secure communication between cross‐functional departments.

IF.3 Establish a metadata management infrastructure across one or more departments.

Table 37. Activities to evolve from A e Integrated maturity level

d Hoc to th



Roadmap activities from Integrated (Level 2) to Collaborative (Level 3)

Architecture A.1 Create an architectural function on a enterprise level.

A.2 Focus the architecture on the business goals and requirements, like business, process and service modeling.

A.3 Create a service portfolio plan covering business services, foundation services and data services.

A.4 Align the Business, IT and Infrastructure architecture throughout the enterprise.


M.2 Use reference models and architecture methods like IAF / TOGAF.

M.3 Implement the BPM and service life cycle management methods on a enterprise level.

Governance ‐ Controls C.1 Link the Business & IT metrics throughout the enterprise.

C.2 Derive metrics from enterprise strategic goals.

C.5 Explicitly agree to QoS in SLA.

C.6 Use metrics to measure process changes, service reuse and performance at both the project and enterprise level.

C.7 Focus funding on enterprise applications.

Governance ‐ Processes P.1 Capture business processes into business services and include them into the automated workflow, supported by BAM tools.

P.2 Use the enterprise service model to drive project prioritization and link it with enterprise level technologies and data architectures.

P.3 Business service improvement planning based upon SLA and real‐time information.


R.1 Establish cross‐enterprise board that are responsible for overall performance of services.

R.2 Establish a business service analyst role, focusing on the optimization of business services and communication between business and IT.

R.3 CoE support & guide BPM/SOA programs.

R.4 Empower service owner to drive improvements and optimization of services and make them accountable for their performance.

R.5 Accountability based upon SLA’s.

Organization‐ People P.3 Connect training courses between business and IT.

Organization‐ Culture C.1 Extend and integrate teamwork.


Organization‐ Strategy S.4 Extend service portfolio with long term strategy.

IT‐ Support S.1 Make enterprise‐wide agreements about standards and programs in the Business and IT domain, between domains on a project level.

S.1 Support of runt‐time monitoring of usage, performance and compliance (SLA) of services and processes. Feedback mechanisms into BAM tools.

S.2 Enable people to manage their work activities in a flexible manner, anywhere at any time.

S.3 Let managers, service owners and performers receive real‐time information about the performance of the business processes and services.

IT‐ Information

I.1 Make enterprise‐wide agreements about standards and programs in the Business and IT domain, between domains on a project level.

I.2 Establish a central repository enhancing business applications with broad information access and facilitate BPM using analytical services.

I.3 Business domain defines which services should be constructed by focusing on the key business processes.

I.4 Establish an advanced, enterprise‐wide use of service registry to handle versioning, external publication and discovery.

I.6 Make agreements with business partners about information transfer, definitions and semantics.

IT‐ Infrastructure IF.1 Create a common middleware (ESB) promoting loose coupling between system interfaces in the form of services, supporting open standards and technological independent platforms.

IF.2 Establish a security infrastructure enabling messaging, events, routing, etc. throughout the enterprise.

IF.3 Establish a metadata management infrastructure supporting the enterprise.


Table 38. Activities to evolve from Integrated to the Collaborative maturity level


Roadmap activities from Collaborative (Level 2) to Synergetic (Level 3)

Architecture A.1 Establish an integrated architectural function in the enterprise.

A.2 Focus the architecture on integrated architecture.

A.3 Extend the service portfolio plan to a complete service and event portfolio across all major and second‐tier internal business processes, customers and partner interactions.

A.4 Align the Enterprise Architecture (EA) of the enterprise with the EA of business partners in the eco‐system.

Methods M.1 Optimize and adapt the implemented methods & best practices

M.2 Seamless integration of the methods and techniques throughout the enterprise

M.3 Use methods to manage the business service lifecycle management.

Governance ‐ Controls C.1 Interconnect the Business & IT metrics with business partners

C.2 Define metrics by goals of the eco‐system

C.5 Content‐dependent, business driven SLA

C.6 Use metrics to measure process changes, service reuse and performance at an eco‐system level.

C.7 Focus funding on creating reusable IT and business services

Governance ‐ Processes P.1 Include all processes and services in the automated workflow where they can be changed and deployed quickly and efficiently.

P.2 Connect the enterprise service model to customers and business partners and use it in strategy development

P.3 Continuous improvement of services


R.1 Create an interdisciplinairy management group with business partners.

R.2 Extend the role of business service analyst towards the eco‐system.

R.3 CoE support & guide BPM/SOA programs with business partners.

R.4 Interconnect the Business & IT metrics with business partners.

R.5 Use eco‐system SLA’s to drive accountability

Organization‐ People P.3 Connect training course between business and IT.

Organization‐ Culture C.1 Extend and integrate teamwork to business partners.

C.2 Support employees in the change process: training, education, and explicit communication

Organization‐ Strategy S.4 Extend service portfolio to business partners

IT‐ Support S.1 Implement a process aware system with full support for the process and service lifecycle.

S.1 Advanced process mining techniques, enabling the detection of hotspots & monitoring of misalignment between non‐functional business req. and IT implementation performance.

S.2 Mass customization: enable people to full customize their applications.

S.3 Inform business partners and customers in the eco‐system with real‐time information of the business services.

IT‐ Information

I.1 Have explicit agreements about information, semantics, meta‐data and data exchanges in and between domains and business partners.

I.2 Create a federate virtual repository throughout the eco‐system, supporting meta‐data integration and enables business process transformation with continuous information services.

I.3 Services should be defined on inter‐business collaborative basis (vertical, supply chain).

I.4 The service registry should be extended and shared with business partners of the eco‐system.

I.6 There should be a seamless integration and transfer of information within the ecosystem.

IT‐ Infrastructure IT.1 Establish a middleware framework supporting real‐time resource management and automated sense and respond applications with inductive and deductive event‐driven technologies. (Complex Event Processing)

IT.2 Create a federate security infrastructure to enable secure integration with business partners.

IT.3 Create a federate metadata infrastructure enabling seamless integration with partners.

Table 39. Activities to evolve from Collaborative to the Synergetic maturity level


13.6 Descriptions of some key factors in the BPM/SOA AMM Best practices

theBest practices establish conventions regardingalternatives

handling of certain situation. A thorough evaluation of the available the identification of the circumstances under which it is

state of maturity of notations, standards, practices and methods and their supporting tools in the ongoing

lected models and tools in the architecture at enterprise and individual roject level.

he repository serves as a storage facility, where people can search for content that is relevant for their work. Individual nts of the business process and domain models, which need to be assembled into a coherent

e stored business processes within the repository, enterprise architects can indentify enterprise key business for organizing and storing business processes models for easy access (Brown, 2008). age for the documentation, policies and metadata about versioning of the services on

service descriptions at a service registry, which in turn provides service requestor to select the particular situation. When selected, the service registry provides the service description to the

should contain the , and a specification

service description provides the service capabilities,

e is only interesting at development time, when it’s necessary to know how the service is the internal construction of the implementation (Papazoglou, 2003b).

n den Heuvel,

services (or resource) provisioning

and the selection of a preferred alternative along withapplicable should be required in its establishment (Brown, 2008). Enterprise architecture (EA) group This group tracks theevolution of e.g. technological changes. The enterprise architecture group determines when changes and the corresponding tool support should be introduced. They control the skill base for the process and domain modeling and are responsible for the establishment of standards used in business process and domain models, which influence the selection of tools (Brown, 2008). An important aspect is the integration of these sepAs this group is the keeper of the skill base, they are responsible for the training curriculum and for the quality of the training (Brown, 2008). Repository Tprojects generally work on fragmewhole. As a result, other projects can reuse and build upon the stored resources of previous projects. The enterprise architecture group should be responsible for establishing and maintaining the repository (Brown, 2008). By ranking thprocesses, and establish a frameworkThe repository can also serve as storwhich auditing functions can check any the changes made to a service. Service registry Service providers publish theirappropriate service for theirservice requestor, which in turn can connect to the service of the provider (Papazoglou, 2003b). Service interface This interface contains the description of the service, with the generally the following elements: itinformation how clients must invoke the service (i.e. a set of signatures of the available operations)describing all the interfaces of the (composed) service. As such, theinterface(s), behavior and quality (Papazoglou, 2003b).The implementation of the servicimplemented, its methods and Service management Service management concerns a variety of function, of which the following are most prominent (Papazoglou & va2007):

• Service Level Agreement (SLA) management

• Auditing, monitoring, and troubleshooting

• Dynamic

• Service lifecycle/ state management

• Scalability/extensibility.


Service Level Agreement (SLA)

se times, uptime percentage, etc. It is used to create transparency regarding the expectations and should be termined for each service (Schepers et al., 2008).

(Brown, 2008):

04).

chepers et al., 2008).

folio (management)

ement (SFM)

AtdeTh

SLA is a contract with the consumer of a service, in which is stated to what aspects the service has to comply, like quality of he service, respon

e SLA consists of three parts

• The specification of the key performance indicator (KPI),

• The specification of the performance goal with respect to the KPI,

• The specification of some form of penalty or reward based upon whether or not the performance goals are actuallyachieved.

For example, the SLA contract could state that if the KPI exceeds 30 minutes at a restaurant, the meal is free. The SLA can be monitored and integrated into tools, which can set thresholds for performance escalations over a set period of time. When these thresholds are breached, process execution statistics can be analyzed to determine the true cause on which the necessary actions can be taken (Boden, 20 Service level management (SLM) Concerns the evaluation of services and their SLA contract. An important aspect in the evaluation is the balancing the benefits that a certain service delivers and the related costs. The results of the evaluation can serve as an input for the service lifecycle management process (S Service portThe service portfolio concerns with the identification of potential services. ‘Portfolio management ensures that a sound method is used consistently to decide which services need to be developed and how the necessary investments are prioritized’ (Schepers et al., 2008). Service lifecycle managService lifecycle management is concerned with the principles during the design, development, and delivery of services. Aspects like deciding on service granularity, change management procedures for services and on registration of available services within SOA should be discussed (Schepers et al., 2008). BPM lifecycle management The lifecycle is centered on administration and stakeholders, who are responsible in managing, organizing and executing various tasks defined in the surrounding lifecycle phases. The BPM lifecycle contains the following phases and characteristics (Weske A. , 2007): Evaluation: Process mining, BAM tooling Design and analysis: Business process identification and modeling, validation, simulation and verification. Configuration: System selection, Implementation, Test and deployment Enactment: Operation, monitoring and maintenance. Process mining (techniques) Process mining techniques provides opportunities to learn from observed executions of a process. SOA enables a wide range of process mining techniques by analyzing services and their actual use based on the event logs they produce. Three types of process mining techniques can be identified (van der Aalst, Leymann and Reisig, 2007): Discovery: automatically extracting models from event logs Conformance: checking whether the modeled behavior matches the observed behavior. Extension: Extending an existing model by projecting information extracted from the logs onto some initial model. Metadata Metadata describes service requesters and providers, mediations and operations on the information that flows between requestors and providers in the discovery, routing and matchmaking and are managed in the repository (Chen, 2008).


Business Process Models Business process models define business processes, describing the activity models and execution constraints between them

Center of Excellence (CoE) The center of excellence or similar teams coordinates the strategy of process prioritization, automation and optimization. They drive the successful implementation of BPM solutions and play a big role in the selection and management of the enterprise SOA (Woodley and Gagnon, 2005). The CoE will perform the following roles and activities (Woodley and Gagnon, 2005): Analysis of opportunities: the CoE will bring a process‐centric perspective to the analysis performed by architectural teams. It will assess the relative demand for key services and processes and channel further development accordingly, identifying service opportunities. Drive communication on service development and availability: The CoE will keep the Business and IT organization informed of the available services, and the value created. Search for external service providers or standards organization: The CoE will search for industry quote interfaces and interaction standards to guide the BPM‐to‐service design. Support defining the standards and prototypes: By supporting the definition of standards and prototypes for the BPM solutions implemented and the services they invoke, the CoE prevents mismatches between SOA implementations and BPM solutions they strive to support. Enterprise Within an enterprise it is common that interactions take place among people of different organizations. Therefore, practices like governance and architecture, will take the interactions between business partners of different organizations into account (Brown, 2008). (Business) Ecosystem Moore (1996) describes an ecosystem as an ‘extended system of mutually supportive organization; communities of customers, suppliers, lead producers, and other stakeholders, financing, trade associations, standard bodies, labor unions, governmental and quasigovernmental institutions, and other interested parties. These communities come together in a partially intentional, highly self‐organizing, and even somewhat accidental manner’. Gossain and Kandiah (1998) compare the ecosystem to an integrated value chain, with an emphasize on the close symbiotic relationship between organizations. Other authors relate the business ecosystem to the natural (biological) ecosystem or see fundamental similarities (Lewin & Legine,1999; Iansiti & Levien, 2004; RothSchild, 1990). Lewin and Regine (1999) for example, state that ‘businesses do not merely resemble natural ecosystems, they share some fundamental properties’. Lansiti and Levien (2004) further elaborate this statement by with the analogy of biologic ecosystems to understand the business network, stating that they ‘are characterized by a large number of loosely interconnected participants who depend on each other for their mutual effectiveness and survival. [...] If the ecosystem is unhealthy, individual species suffer deeply. And as with business ecosystems, reversals in overall ecosystem include fragmentation, interconnectedness, cooperation and competition’ (Iansiti & Levien, 2004). In addition, Lansiti and Levien (2004) define three critical success factors of a business eco‐system. First, the business ecosystem should be sturdy in the recovery from internal and external negative influences on the eco‐system that threaten to destroy it. The eco‐system should be able to adapt to environmental changes and drawing competitive advantage from the resources within the eco‐system. Third, the business ecosystem has to be able create niches and opportunities for new firms. In addition, the actors within a business ecosystem should be ‘intelligent and capable of planning and seeing in the future’, ‘compete over possible members’ and are ‘aiming at delivering innovations’ (Iansiti & Levien, 2004). The ecosystem has also been discussed in literature from a social and technological perspective. Mitleton‐Kelly (2003) describes a social ecosystem as follows: ‘each organization is a fully participating agent which influences and is influenced by the social ecosystem made up of all related business, consumers, and suppliers as well as economic, cultural, and legal institutions’. Functioning like a community or ecosystem is crucial for the existence of firms and institutions Mitleton‐Kelly (2003). Power and Jerjian (2001) substitute the biological aspects of the biological ecosystems with technology, more specifically websites, as they state that the business ecosystem is ‘a system of websites occupying the World Wide Web, together with

(Weske A., 2007).


th which they interact. It is a physical community considered together with non‐living factors those aspects of the real world wi its environment as a unit’. of


13.7 Qu

ty model towae”

uestionnai

TheAligMoQuestionnIT related

ards BPM/SOA

ires

e BPgnmdel aire respondent

Alignment: “Es

PM &ment

ts

tablishing a Fle

& SOt Ma

exible and Agil

OA atur

e Business‐driv

rity

ven Service‐orieented


This is a questionnaire isThis questionnaire is private

an assessment tool for the BPM/SOA Alignment MaturityModel. and confidential, we don’t ask your name, so please be honest in answering the questions. It will

approximately take one hour of your time. When you have any questions, please feel free to ask. If you are unfamiliar with any rms or abbreviations, the list of explanatory descriptions at the end of the questionnaire may support you.

er the questions from an IT

te Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Date:..........................................………………………………………………………. Function:………………………………………………………………………………………….. IMPORTANT: Try to answ perspective. When you’re not sure, you don’t know or the question is not

your situation, discuss the issue with the attendant. Otherwise fill in No answer. applicable

to

IMPORTANT: There are 2 options: the As‐is and To‐be. You have to fill in the As‐is option, which is your current situation. When wers are optional. you know what the future, To‐be situation will be, you may fill in this option. The To‐be ans


Architecture

1. A.1) Is there an architecture function within your organization? A. We have some ad hoc architecture functions. B. We have a decentralized architectural function.

ntralized architecture function in the enterprise. D. here is an integrated architectural function within the enterprise. E. No answer.

hat can you tell about your architecture?

A. We have system development/solution architecture on project level. B. Our architecture focuses on Information System solution architecture. C. Our architecture focuses on business goals and requirements, like business, process and/or service

ning our architecture with that of business partners

some kind of portfolio plan?

plan covers the creation and management of business services, foundation services nd data services throughout the enterprise.

nal business

ascent architecture group becoming active in driving SOA in development and business

C. There is a substantial project acceptance of Enterprise Architecture practices and contribution to enterprise SOA.

D. Enterprise Architecture is fully transformed into business service delivery, with SOA embodied across development, security, management and operations.

E. No answer.

To‐be

C. We have a ceT

2. A.2) W

modeling. D. Our architecture focuses on an integrating and alig

within the eco‐system. E. No answer.

3. A.3) Do you haveA. We have none, or ad hoc application portfolio plan on a functional level. B. We have an application and product portfolio plan. C. Our service portfolio

aD. We have a complete service and event portfolio across all major and second‐tier inter

services, customers and partner interactions. E. No answer.

4. A.4) What can you tell about the architecture functions/groups and their interest in SOA?

A. We have some informal cross application architecture collectives. B. We have a n

communities.

As‐is

To‐bAs‐is

As‐is

To‐beAs‐is

To‐be

e


5. A.5) How are your Business, IT and infrastructure architectures aligned?

ecture. ughout the enterprise.

in the eco‐

A. We have separate Business, IT, and Infrastructure architectures. B. IT and Infrastructure architectures are connected and aligned, with a separate Business ArchitC. Business, IT and Infrastructure architectures are aligned and integrated throD. The Enterprise Architecture (EA) of the enterprise is aligned with the EA of business partners

system. E. No answer.

Methods

6. M.1) Do you use any methods or best practices throughout you organization?

ad hoc problem solving methods. A. We have someB. methodsOur and best practices are used only a functional level. C. methods and best practices are used and formalized on an enterprise level. D. methods and best practices we use are continuously improved and adapted to new situations and

experiences. ds and best practices are not only continuously improved and adapted (as in question 6D), but ared with business partners in the eco‐system.

F. No answer.

7. M.2) What kind of methods and techniques are used throughout your organization? mainly use ad hoc methods for project management, process design and management.

B. Our methods and techniques focus on project management (e.g. PRINCE2), control and

els and architectural methods p Architecture Framework (TOGAF).

ed throughout the enterprise.

OurThe

E. Our methoare also sh

A. We

planning/tools/methods. C. Besides the methods and techniques of question B, we use reference mod

like Integrated Architecture Framework (IAF) / The Open GrouD. Our methods and techniques are seamlessly integratE. No answer.

To‐be As‐is

As‐is

To‐be As‐is

To‐be


As‐is To‐be 8. M.3) Do you have any methods to support the BPM lifecycle management? cle. partially supports the BPM lifecycle on a functional level.

cross‐ functional level.

s for managing the BPM lifecycle are seamlessly integrated with service lifecycle

9. Do you have any methods to support the service lifecycle management?

part of the service lifecycle mainly on a functional level. level and are managed and

hods for managing the service lifecycle are seamlessly integrated with BPM lifecycle

A. We have no methods to support the BPM lifecyB. We have some ad hoc or initial methods whichC. Methods for managing a large part of the BPM lifecycle are used on aD. We have BPM lifecycle management methods on an enterprise‐wide level. E. Our method

management by means of a business service lifecycle management method. F. No answer.

M.4)To‐be As‐is

A. We have no methods to support the service lifecycleB. We have methods for managing an initialC. Our methods for service lifecycle management are on an enterprise‐wide

maintained. D. The met

management by means of a business service lifecycle management method. E. No answer.

Governance

CONTROLS

10. G.C.1.1) What can you tell about the purpose of your Business metricA. We

s?

uding

rarely measure IT investments and cost/unit is reviewed on occasion. B. Our business metrics are used to review, act on ROI and cost. C. Besides answer B, we also measure customer value. D. We use our Business metrics for the purpose of answer C, and use the Balance scorecard incl

partners. E. No answer.

11. G.C.1.2) What can you tell about the IT metrics? A. We only have technical IT metrics. B. We use the IT metrics to measure the technical costs, which are reviewed on occasion. C. We also use them to review and act on the technical ROI metrics. D. Besides answer C, we use the IT metrics to also measure effectiveness.E. Our IT metrics also measure business opportunities, HR and partners. F. No answer.

As‐is To‐be

To‐be As‐is


To‐be As‐is 12. How are the Business and IT metrics overall connected?

the

iness and IT metrics within the enterprise are interconnected with metrics of our business

cs defined? efined any process metrics.

B. metrics of the process are based on basic cost and quality measures. C. Our end‐to‐end process metrics are derived from the requirements of the customer of the particular

ess. D. Our process and cross‐process metrics are based on the enterprise’s strategic goals

goals of the eco‐system.

in to use metrics to manage and control IT processes?

ose; there is no actual relation to the business.

ive on an enterprise level.

ents? nd

sed. ess enabler

be cost effective.

ur Quality of Service (QoS)? ents are solved ad hoc, application by application.

B. ually decides how to fulfill the requirements.

C. Our QoS are explicitly agreed in Service Level Agreements (SLA’s). D. Our Service Level Agreements (SLA’s) can be described as context‐dependent, performance –driven

business SLA’s. E. No answer.

G.C.1.3)A. Value of the IT investments is rarely measured. B. Our Business and the IT metrics are not linked. C. Our Business and IT metrics are becoming or are occasionally linked. D. We have a formal link between the Business and IT metrics are reviewed and acted upon within

enterprise. E. Our Bus

partners within the eco‐system. F. No answer.

13. G.C.2) How are the process metriA. We haven’t d

Our

proc

E. Our process and cross‐process metrics are based goals defined by theF. No answer.

14. G.C.3) What is the purpose of the IT domaA. We have no metrics to manage and control IT processes. B. Our metrics have a purely technical purpC. The IT metrics of our IT domain are utilized to be more cost efficient. D. Our metrics are used from a financial point of view, to be more cost effectE. The purpose of the metrics is from a financial point of view, and is extended to business partners within

the eco‐system. F. No answer.

15. G.C.4) What can you tell about the management of IT investmA. Management of our IT investments are cost based or ad hoc, from erratic spending to operations a

maintenance focuB. Management of our IT investments are traditional; a procC. Our management of IT investment can be classified as a process driver; to D. IT investments are focused on the business value and extended to business partners. E. No answer.

16. G.C.5) How have you managed yoA. QoS requirem

We have a uniform way to deal with QoS, where the service provider us

To‐beAs‐is

As‐is To‐be

As‐is To‐be


As‐is

17. G.C.6) How are your metrics focused on processes and services?

ad hoc or functional metrics focused on process changes.

on cross‐functional process changes and service reuse is measured on a project

ct

ervice reuse, changes and performance are being measured throughout the eco‐system and hared with business partners.

G. o answer.

PROCESSES

processes or on an ad hoc basis. in order to improve insight in the

h are used

d workflow, BAM tools, providing effective monitoring and simulation.

E. We have the ability to dynamically (on‐the‐fly) construct and deploy sequences of business services to

ness process model?

r executive teams have accepted the enterprise process model. se service model is used to drive enterprise project prioritization, and is linked to enterprise

vel technologies and data architectures.

To‐be

A. We don’t use any metrics for processes or services. B. We have someC. Our metrics are focused on cross‐functional process changes with no metrics on service reuse. D. Our metrics are focused

level. E. Our metrics focus on process changes, service reuse and performance, and are measured at both proje

as enterprise level. F. Metrics on s

sN

18. G.P.1) How does your organization integrate business processes? A. We do not or model our business

To‐be As‐is

B. Our business processes are modeled with a focus on manual activities,overall process and to enhance control.

C. Our business processes are modeled end‐to‐end, and include automated process steps, whicas a basis for the automated workflow.

D. Our business processes are captured into business services and included in the automatesupported by

quickly deploy or change enterprise services in order to adapt to environmental changes. F. No answer.

19. G.P.2) Does your organization use a busiToAs‐is ‐be

A. We have no business process model, but key business processes have been identified mostly on a functional level.

B. We have a business process model on a functional level. C. Our senioD. The enterpri

leE. The enterprise service model is connected to customers and business partners of the eco‐system and is

used in strategy development. F. No answer.


20. G.P.3) How do you drive (process) improvement projects?

project level (fire

cesses and functional

d upon SLA’s and real‐time performances.

21. G.R.1) Which management or board is responsible for the performance of processes and/or services? A. We have a rigid hierarchical management structure; managing people without clear responsibility for

process performance or ad hoc. B. Middle management is responsible for process performance

e architects and

ghly aligned and cooperative in the form of a

really. g.

ablished an additional role which is responsible for the analysis and optimization of business ervices and bridges the business and the IT on an enterprise level, e.g. ‘business services analyst’.

co‐

there any individuals or specialized teams responsible for gathering expertise, guiding training

all groups, who drive process improvement

port BPM/SOA programs throughout the eco‐system with expertise, training recommendations.

To‐be As‐is

A. We mainly base our process improvement upon solving critical issues, mainly on afighting).

B. We have a process governance/implementation plan based upon KPI’s, proimprovements.

C. We utilize business service improvement planning, baseD. We continuous improve our business and IT services throughout the ecosystem based upon SLA’s and

real‐time performances. E. No answer.

ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

To‐be As‐is

C. We have a cross‐enterprise board of e.g. a group of information managers, enterprisbusiness analysts, who are responsible for supervision and overall performance of services.

D. We have an interdisciplinary management group that is hibusiness/IT alignment group, ensuring efficient and effective business and IT directives.

E. No answer.

As‐is To‐be 22. G.R.3) Is there a special role between the business and the IT domain within your organization? A. No, not B. One could say that we have a role that facilitates some communication between the business and IT (e.

business analyst or business architect) C. We have est

sD. This role of ‘business services analyst’ tunes and tweaks the business services throughout the e


23. G.R.4) Are

ToAs‐is ‐be and supporting project teams with specialized knowledge? A. We have some dedicated and committed individuals or sm

and performance on a functional level, but are not directly awarded for their effort. B. We have a Center of Excellence (or similar teams), which collects expertise and drives Business Process

Management projects in the organization. C. Our Center of Excellence has the authority to find problems, make recommendations and support

enterprise BPM/SOA programs and projects. D. Our Center of Excellence sup

courses and E. No answer.


To‐be As‐is 24. G.R.5) How does your organization manage the accountability of the employees? A. Employees are held accountable for working within budget. B. We also have agreed performance accountability, in the form of KPI’s, etc.

e.

stimulate service reuse, such as the in –and outsourcing of services.

C. Beside answer B, we use enterprise‐wide Service Level Agreements (SLA’s) to drive and account employees, with a focus on stimulating service reus

D. Besides answer C, We primarily use Service Level Agreements (SLA’s) throughout the eco‐system to drivethe accountability of employees and

E. No answer.

Organization

PEOPLE

25. O.P.1) How would you describe the understanding of the process/service owners?

ledge of the process on a functional level.

dual process and know the performance requirements (KPI’s) of al process.

D. a high understanding of the service and corresponding processes and performance requirements

the eco‐system, es.

e business and IT domain?

f business and IT domain have separate training courses, but there is no actual focus on BPM r SOA.

C. mployees of the Business and IT domain have separate training courses; the IT developers educated

concepts of Service Oriented aining about Business Process Management

er to improve s between their fields

eco‐system.

A. Process owners are able to name key business processes and identify key business processes, but have primarily know

B. They have limited understanding of cross‐departmental process needs and dependencies. C. Process owners are aware of the indivi

the individuThere’s(KPI’s).

E. Service owners can describe how their work affects the performance of the service inand are aware of how external market dynamics affect their service and process

F. No answer.

26. O.P.2) Do you provide any training/educational facilities to increase the knowledge, skills and understanding of employees in th

A. We do not provide any training facilities for our employees B. Employees o

oEabout SOA and the business about BPM related aspects.

D. Business architects and analysts are educated about the principles andArchitecture, and IT architects and service owners receive trmethods and concepts on an enterprise level.

E. Both domains, Business and IT, work together to extend and adjust training courses in ordeach other’s knowledge of semantics, concepts, methods and relationshipthroughout the

F. No answer.

ToAs‐is ‐be

ToAs‐is ‐be


As‐is To‐be 27. O.P.3) Do your employees feel supported by IS/IT systems?

A. I don’t think they really feel supported by the software and programs supporting their activities. t support in their daily activities by software and systems, it is mainly viewed

to the employees are seen as an added value in their activities,

e the programs and systems as an enabler and driver in their work, as it does not only suit, but is also adaptable to their needs.

E. No answer.

work? l basis, teamwork is done on occasion.

stly on a functional and project basis, within departments. common throughout our organization, as cross‐functional teams are stimulated and

regularly established. D. Cross‐functional teamwork is a norm for process performers and commonplace among managers within

teams are also formed with customers and

29. O.C.2) How would you describe the overall acceptance to change among employees A. Employees are reluctant to change, afraid of losing responsibilities and control.

s. rk activities.

e and dynamic in work activities and

on.

oing business.

business activity. ss activity.

B. Although they have sufficienas a burden.

C. The software and systems providedalthough there are some aspects of improvements.

D. Employees se

CULTURE

To‐be As‐is

28. O.C.1) How does your organization look at teamA. Our work is mostly on a individuaB. We work as a team moC. Teamwork is

the enterprise. E. We do not only work in teams throughout the enterprise, but

other stakeholders of the eco‐system. F. No answer.

B. There’s a growing acceptance to change among our employeeC. They are prepared for significant change in their woD. There is a readiness for multidimensional change, as they are flexibl

see change as a new challenge. E. Employees see change as inevitable and embrace it as a regular phenomenF. No answer.

30. O.C.3) How do you think the Business domain views IT in your organization? A. Our business domain regularly sees the IT as a cost of dB. The Business domain is beginning to view the IT as an asset C. IT is viewed as an important asset throughout the organization, enabling futureD. In our organization the IT domain is viewed as a driving force for future busineE. Business and IT are seen as inseparable; a vital partner in creating value. F. No answer.

To‐be As‐is

ToAs‐is ‐be


As‐is To‐be 31. O.C.4) What can you tell about the relationship/trust style between business and IT? A. Conflict and mistrust. B. Transactional relationship. C. IT is becoming a valued service provider. D. There is a long‐term partnership. E. There is a relationship/trust between partners, trusted vendors, or IT services. F. No answer

STRATEG

nctional planning.

33. O.S.2) What can you tell about the formal IT Strategy Planning? A. d hoc, or at unit functional level with slight business input.

your overall strategy in the time to react and adapt to market dynamics? A. want to be reactive to the market within 1‐2 years B. 12 months we want to be capable to react and adapt to environmental changes

3‐6 months

s in real‐time.

Y

32. O.S.1) What can you tell about the formal Business Strategy Planning? As To‐be ‐is A. Ad hoc, or at unit functional level with slight IT input. B. Some IT input and cross‐fuC. At unit and enterprise, with IT. D. With IT and partners. E. No answer.

A

As To‐be ‐is

B. Some business input and cross‐functional planning. C. At unit and enterprise, with business. D. With partners. E. No answer.

34. O.S.3) What is the role of IT in your overall Business strategy? A. IT is not involved in the strategic Business planning B. IT is an business process enabler or driver to the Business strategy.

ToAs‐is ‐be

C. IT is a Business strategy enabler or driver. D. The Business and IT strategies are co‐adaptive to quickly adapt to change. E. No answer.

35. O.S.4) What isWeWithin

C. Our goal is to be reactive and adaptive to market dynamics within.D We want to be adaptable and reactive to the market dynamics within weeks.

and reactive to the market dynamicE. We want to be continuously adaptiveF. No answer.

To‐be As‐is


erall Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) strategy?

A. have no SOA strategy. B. can say that we mainly perform a bottom‐up SOA strategy, mostly short term, as SOA is primarily

evolving from our IT department without formal top‐down support. have a top‐down SOA strategy, enforced by the Business with a long term strategy.

D. In our organization we generally do not perform a top‐down or bottom‐up SOA strategy, but mainly managed by the

and

r business processes.

D. e use the previous two answers (B and C), as we strive for a more‐complete set of business aligned

vice‐focused service portfolio as we undertake enterprise‐wide effort to create or acquire potentially useful services and then start a series of SOA projects to implement them. We

a solid, long‐term strategy and made upfront investments (e.g. service design methodology and

e creation and

organization best? s focus on Return of Investments (ROI) of local initiatives.

D. Our business objectives focus on speed to market: strategic agility. E. No answer.

36. O.S.3.1) Do you have some form of ovTo‐be As‐is

We One

C. We

meet‐in‐the‐middle: a long term strategy has been established and service creation isbusiness, while at the same time the IT develops IT services from the bottom‐up.

E. No answer.

37. O.S.3.2) What can you tell about your organizational SOA approach? A. There is no Service Oriented approach or architecture in our organization.

To‐be As‐is

B. We focus on building services on top of our legacy systems, working upwards to the requirementsbusiness process models.

cus on building services from scratch, repurposing existing services, and purchasing servicesC. We have a fo support outo

Wservices, consequently increasing our ROI.

.E No answer.

38. O.S.4) Which of the following descriptions fits your service portfolio best? A. We don’t have or use a service portfolio. B. Our service portfolio is project‐focused: services are created or acquired as required by projects,

providing short‐term returns, without much emphasize on how these services might be shared in the future.

C. We have a ser of the most

haveservice mediation platform).

D. Our service portfolio uses a balance between project and service‐focus: we aim our servicacquisitions on smaller IT projects with positive business cases and limited scope, while at the meantime complying with a target application landscape (SOA blueprint along the business domains) defined at the enterprise level.

E. No answer.

39. O.S.5) Which bA. Our objective

usiness objectives fits your

B. We focus on reducing IT costs. C. Cost and quality of business operations is most important.

ToAs‐is ‐be

ToAs‐is ‐be


Information and Technology

SUPPORT

40. IT.S.1) HowTo‐be As‐is

are you employees supported in the automation of business processes? s.

with design‐time process support, where managers use

pport, with run‐ring of usage, performance and compliance (SLA’s) of services and processes, and feedback into Business Activity Monitoring (BAM) tools.

D. completely supports the lifecycle of services and processes; it enables detection of hotspots & ents and IT implementation.

soever.

d employees are able to manage their work activities in a flexible manner, anywhere at any me and are supported by an user friendly interface, e.g. Workflow management.

D. mployees are completely free to manage their working hours, activities and are able to customize their themes, information dashboards,

cess on a vel.

B. anagers and process owners receive information about the status of the individual and overall process. C. formation about the status and performance of the services and processes are provided to the

and customers in the eco‐system are able to receive real‐time

A. Our business models are mainly documented on paper or in a program (only) for visualization purposeB. We have implemented a process‐aware system

monitoring to reflect process performance. C. Our employees are supported by a process‐aware system with design –and run‐time su

time monitomechanismsWmonitoring of misalignment between non‐functional business requirem

E. No answer

41. IT.S.2) In what way are employees supported by Information systems in their work activities? A. Employees can only work at the office, no flexibility in mobility, workplace or work activities what

To‐be As‐is

B. Employees are able to access organizational resources and customer information through a secure internet connection.

C. Managers antiEapplications fully to their needs (e.g. Portal functionality/services withetc.).

E. No answer.

42. IT.S.3) How are managers and process/service owners informed about the status of their process/service?

ToAs‐is

A. Managers and process owners receive ad hoc information about the status of the individual profunctional leMInmanagers, service owners and performers in real‐time.

D. The enterprise, business partnersinformation of the business services.

E. No answer.

‐be


INFORMA

ere are a variety of programs and standards within functions. nal

ins, ains are mostly on a project level.

D. We have standardized programs and agreements about information, semantics, meta‐data and data ges throughout the eco‐system (between domains and with business partners).

d content

C. e have a central repository throughout the enterprise, enhancing business applications with broad n access and facilitating business performance management using analytical services.

D. There is a federate virtual repository throughout the eco‐system, supporting meta‐data integration and continuous information services.

es.

ctor,

defined on an eco‐system collaborative basis (between domains and eco‐system). F. No answer.

n your organization?

vanced, enterprise‐wide use of the service registry to handle versioning, external discovery.

within the eco‐system.

TION

43. IT.I.1) What kind of agreements are there about the use of programs and standards throughout the As To‐be ‐is organization?

A. There is no discussion or consensus about which program or standard should be used throughout the organization. As a result th

B. Cross‐functional teams have agreements about which programs and standards are used on a functiolevel.

C. We have enterprise‐wide agreements about standards and programs in the business and IT domabetween dom

exchanE. No answer.

44. IT.I.2) Do you use a repository to store and share information? A. Our repository is ad hoc, experimental and mostly on a functional level. B. We have established a repository generally on a functional level, supporting data an

integration. Winformatio

E. No answer.

45. IT.I.3) How do you capture your business processes into services? A. We do not capture any business processes in servicB. We have some form of ad hoc service selection. C. The IT domain selects and creates services of (legacy) system functionality with a high reusability fa

mainly to provide successful pilots. D. The Business domain defines which services should be constructed by focusing on the enterprise key

business processes. E. Services are

46. IT.I.4) Is there some form of a service registry withiA. We have no service registry. B. We have some ad hoc service registry on a functional level. C. There is a initial use of a service registry across functions. D. We have a ad

publication andE. Our service registry is extended and shared with business partnersF. No answer.

To‐be As‐is

To‐be As‐is

To‐be As‐is


As‐is

4 How are the business models interpreted by the IT domain? A. IT domain does not really use the business models or on an ad hoc basis, its depends on the function.

ave some sability and stimulates the design of

with technical details.

al business requirements and the IT implementation/scalability can be monitored.

48. IT.I.6) How does your organization deals with information integration and interchange? A. Each department has its own definitions and semantics of information. B. There is a corporate agreement of information integration, transfer, artifacts and definitions. C. Seamless information integration and transfer within the enterprise and agreements are made with

business partners about information transfer, definitions and semantics. D. There is a seamless integration and transfer of information within the eco‐system. E. No answer.

INFRASTRUCTURE

49. IT.IF.1) How would you describe your infrastructure? A. Each department has its own independent, primarily legacy systems with integration only within

functions. B. There is a cross‐functional connection between systems by means of a tightly coupled RPC point‐to‐point

integration, focus on reusability and components. C. We have a middleware framework pilots (ESB) on project level. D. We have implemented a middleware framework (ESB), promoting loose coupling between system

interfaces in the form of services, supporting open standards and technological independent platforms. E. We have a middleware framework supporting real‐time resource management, automated sense and

respond systems, (e.g. Complex Event Processing (C.E.P.)), is open and shared with the eco‐system. F. No answer.

50. IT.IF.2) What can you tell about your security infrastructure? A. We have a local or ad hoc security infrastructure. B. Our security infrastructure enables secure communication on a cross‐functional level. C. The security infrastructure enables secure messaging, events, routing, etc., throughout the enterprise. D. We have a federated security infrastructure to enable secure integration with business partners of the

eco‐system. E. No answer.

To‐be 7. IT.I.5)

Our B. The business models are utilized by the IT domain. Nevertheless, it’s common that we h

inconsistencies in semantics or other problems which impedes reunew functional models.

C. The business models are seamlessly refined and extended by our IT domainD. There is a continuous traceability between our business models and IT deliverables; the gap between non

‐and functionE. No answer.

TAs‐is o‐be

To‐be As‐is

To‐be As‐is


51. IT.IF.3) In what way is the m nagement of metadata integrated in your infrastructure? A. We have a local or ad hoc metadata management infrastructure. B. The metadata management infrastructure is in use across one or more departments. C. have an enterprise‐wide metadata management infrastructure. D. Our metadata management infrastructure is enables seamless integration with business partners of the


To‐be As‐is a

We


ty model towae”

Capgemini B.V

TheAligMoQuestionnaBusiness re

ards BPM/SOA

V. & University o

e BPgnmodel

aire lated respon

Alignment: “Es

of Utrecht

PM &ment

dents

tablishing a Fle

& SO Ma

exible and Agil

OA atur

e Business‐driv

ity

ven Service‐orieented


This is a questionnaire is an assessment tool for the BPM/SOA Alignment MaturityModel. This questionnaire is private and confidential, we don’t ask your name, so please be honest in answering the questions. It will pproximately take one hour of your time. When you have any questions, please feel free to ask. If you are unfamiliar with any

ionnaire may support you.

IMPORTANT: Try to answer the questions from an Business

aterms or abbreviations, the list of explanatory descriptions at the end of the quest Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Date:..........................................………………………………………………………. Function:…………………………………………………………………………………………..

perspective. When you’re not sure, you don’t know or the question ndant. Otherwise fill in No answer. is not applicable to your situation, discuss the issue with the atte

IMPORTANT: There are 2 options: the As‐is and To‐be. You have to fill in the As‐is option, which is your current situation. When

nswer the questions from the perspective of your business unit. When there are multiple answers you know what the future, To‐be situation will be, you may fill in this option. The To‐be answers are optional. IMPORTANT: Try to aapplicable select the one that is commonly used.


Architecture

1. A.1) Is there an architecture function within your organization? A. We have some ad hoc architecture functions.

rprise. tegrated architecture within the eco‐system: working together with business partners in

utonomous architectural divisions.

itecture focuses on business goals and requirements, like business, process and/or service

D. ur architecture focuses on an integrating and aligning our architecture with that of business partners within the eco‐system.

E. No answer.

3. A.3) Do you have some kind of portfolio plan? A. We have none, or ad hoc application portfolio plan on a functional level. B. We have an application and product portfolio plan.

vices, foundation services

second‐tier internal business

B. There are architectural functions on a functional level. C. We have a centralized architecture function in the enteD. There is an in

aE. No answer.

2. A.2) What can you tell about your architecture? A. We have system development/solution architecture on project level. B. Our architecture focuses on Information System solution architecture. C. Our arch

modeling. O

C. Our service portfolio plan covers the creation and management of business serand data services throughout the enterprise.

D. We have a complete service and event portfolio across all major andservices, customers and partner interactions.

E. No answer.

To‐be As‐is

As‐is

To‐beAs‐is

To‐be


As‐is To‐be 4. A.4) What can you tell about the architecture functions/groups and their interest in SOA? e collectives.

s and contribution to

SOA embodied across t, security, management and operations.

E. o answer.

itectures aligned?

nd Infrastructure architectures are aligned and integrated throughout the enterprise. in the eco‐

A. We have some informal cross application architecturB. We have a nascent architecture group becoming active in driving SOA in development and business

communities. C. There is a substantial project acceptance of Enterprise Architecture practice

enterprise SOA. D. Enterprise Architecture is fully transformed into business service delivery, with

developmenN

5. A.5) How are your Business, IT and infrastructure archA. We have separate Business, IT, and Infrastructure architectures. B. IT and Infrastructure architectures are connected and aligned, with a separate Business Architecture. C. Business, IT aD. The Enterprise Architecture (EA) of the enterprise is aligned with the EA of business partners


Methods

6. M.1) DoA. We have

you use any methods or best practices throughout you organization? some ad hoc problem solving methods.

B. Our methods and best practices are used only a functional level. e level. apted to new situations and

ously improved and adapted (as in question 6D), but

r.

7. What kind of methods and techniques are used throughout your organization? gement, process design and management.

on project management (e.g. PRINCE2), control and

nce models and architectural methods cture Framework (TOGAF).

e enterprise.

C. Our methods and best practices are used and formalized on an enterprisD. The methods and best practices we use are continuously improved and ad

experiences. E. Our methods and best practices are not only continu

are also shared with business partners in the eco‐system. F. No answe

M.2)

A. We mainly use ad hoc methods for project manaB. Our methods and techniques focus

planning/tools/methods. C. Besides the methods and techniques of question B, we use refere

like Integrated Architecture Framework (IAF) / The Open Group ArchiteD. Our methods and techniques are seamlessly integrated throughout thE. No answer.

To‐beAs‐is

As‐is

To

To‐be

As‐is ‐be


As‐is To‐be 8. M.3) Do you have any methods to support the BPM lifecycle management? cle. partially supports the BPM lifecycle on a functional level.

cross‐ functional level.

s for managing the BPM lifecycle are seamlessly integrated with service lifecycle

9. Do you have any methods to support the service lifecycle management?

part of the service lifecycle on a functional level. level and are managed and

hods for managing the service lifecycle are seamlessly integrated with BPM lifecycle

A. We have no methods to support the BPM lifecyB. We have some ad hoc or initial methods whichC. Methods for managing a large part of the BPM lifecycle are used on aD. We have BPM lifecycle management methods on an enterprise‐wide level. E. Our method

management by means of a business service lifecycle management method. F. No answer.

M.4)To‐be As‐is

A. We have no methods to support the service lifecycleB. We have methods for managing an initialC. Our methods for service lifecycle management are on an enterprise‐wide

maintained. D. The met

management by means of a business service lifecycle management method. E. No answer.

Governance

CONTROLS

10. G.C.1.1) What can you tell about the purpose of your Business metrics?

Balance scorecard including

can you tell about the IT metrics?

B. We use the IT metrics to measure the technical costs, which are reviewed on occasion. C. We also use them to review and act on the technical ROI metrics. D. Besides answer C, we use the IT metrics to also measure effectiveness. E. Our IT metrics also measure business opportunities, HR and partners. F. No answer.

A. We rarely measure IT investments and cost/unit is reviewed on occasion.B. Our business metrics are used to review, act on ROI and cost. C. Besides answer B, we also measure customer value. D. We use our Business metrics for the purpose of answer C, and use the

partners. E. No answer.

11. G.C.1.2) WhatA. We only have technical IT metrics.

As To‐be ‐is

To‐be As‐is


To‐bAs‐is e 12. How are the Business and IT metrics overall connected?

the

iness and IT metrics within the enterprise are interconnected with metrics of our business

cs defined? efined any process metrics.

B. metrics of the process are based on basic cost and quality measures. C. Our end‐to‐end process metrics are derived from the requirements of the customer of the particular

process. ocess and cross‐process metrics are based on the enterprise’s strategic goals

E. Our process and cross‐process metrics are based goals defined by the goals of the eco‐system.

IT processes.

d to be more cost efficient.

d to business partners within

15. G.C.4) What can you tell about the management of IT investments? from erratic spending to operations and

IT investments are traditional; a process enabler driver; to be cost effective.

s partners.

G.C.1.3)A. Value of the IT investments is rarely measured. B. Our Business and the IT metrics are not linked. C. Our Business and IT metrics are becoming or are occasionally linked. D. We have a formal link between the Business and IT metrics are reviewed and acted upon within

enterprise. E. Our Bus

partners within the eco‐system. F. No answer.

13. G.C.2) How are the process metriA. We haven’t d

Our

D. Our pr

F. No answer.

14. G.C.3) What is the purpose of the IT domain to use metrics to manage and control IT processes? A. We have no metrics to manage and controlB. Our metrics have a purely technical purpose; there is no actual relation to the business. C. The IT metrics of our IT domain are utilizeD. Our metrics are used from a financial point of view, to be more cost effective on an enterprise level. E. The purpose of the metrics is from a financial point of view, and is extende

the eco‐system. F. No answer.

A. Management of our IT investments are cost based or ad hoc, maintenance focused.

B. Management of ourC. Our management of IT investment can be classified as a processD. IT investments are focused on the business value and extended to businesE. No answer.

To‐beAs‐is

As‐is To‐be

be To‐As‐is


ices?

ad hoc or functional metrics focused on process changes.

on cross‐functional process changes and service reuse is measured on a project

. ervice reuse, changes and performance are being measured throughout the eco‐system and

shared with business partners. G. No answer.

s?

processes are captured into business services and included in the automated workflow,

to

iness process model on a functional level. cutive teams have accepted the enterprise process model.

As‐is To‐be 16. G.C.6) How are your metrics focused on processes and servA. We don’t use any metrics for processes or services. B. We have someC. Our metrics are focused on cross‐functional process changes with no metrics on service reuse. D. Our metrics are focused

level. E. Our metrics focus on process changes, service reuse and performance, and are measured at both the

project as enterprise levelF. Metrics on s

PROCESSES

‐be ToAs‐is 17. G.P.1) How does your organization integrate business processe

G. We do not or model our business processes or on an ad hoc basis. H. Our business processes are modeled with a focus on manual activities, in order to improve insight in the

overall process and to enhance control. I. Our business processes are modeled end‐to‐end, and include automated process steps, which are used

the automated workflow. as a basis forJ. Our business

supported by BAM tools, providing effective monitoring and simulation. . to dynamically (on‐the‐fly) construct and deploy sequences of business servicesK We have the ability

quickly deploy or change enterprise services in order to adapt to environmental changes. L. No answer.

18. G.P.2) Does your organization use a business process model? As To‐be ‐is

A. We have no business process model, but key business processes have been identified mostly on a functional level.

B. We have a busC. senior exeOurD. The enterprise service model is used to drive enterprise project prioritization, and is linked to enterprise

level technologies and data architectures. The enterprise service model is connected to customers andE. business partners of the eco‐system and isused in strategy development.

F. No answer.


19. G.P.3) How do you drive (process) improvement projects? A. mainly base our process improvement upon solving critical issues, mainly on a project level (fire

pon KPI’s, processes and functional

. roughout the ecosystem based upon SLA’s and

ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

20. G.R.1) Which management or board is responsible for the performance of processes and/or services? A. We have a rigid hierarchical management structure; managing people without a clear responsibility for

performance or ad hoc. B. Middle management is responsible for process performance C. We have a cross‐enterprise board of e.g. a group of information managers, enterprise architects and

rvices.

ctive business and IT directives.

cial role between the business and the IT domain within your organization?

uld say that we have a role that facilitates some communication between the business and IT (e.g.

d optimization of business d bridges the business and the IT on an enterprise level, e.g. ‘business services analyst’.

D. his role of ‘business services analyst’ tunes and tweaks the business services throughout the eco‐

rting project teams with specialized knowledge?

y awarded for their effort. ss

nd problems, make recommendations and support

training s.

To e As‐is ‐b

We fighting).

B. We have a process governance/implementation plan based uimprovements.

C. We utilize business service improvement planning, based upon SLA’s and real‐time performancesD. We continuous improve our business and IT services th

real‐time performances. E. No answer.

process

business analysts, who are responsible for supervision and overall performance of se.D We have an interdisciplinary management group that is highly aligned and cooperative in the form of a

business/IT alignment group, ensuring efficient and effeE. No answer.

21. G.R.3) Is there a speA. No, not really. B. One co

business analyst or business architect) C. We have established an additional role which is responsible for the analysis an

services anTsystem.

E. No answer.

22. G.R.4) Are there any individuals or specialized teams responsible for gathering expertise, guiding training and suppo

A. We have some dedicated and committed individuals or small groups, who drive process improvementand performance on a functional level, but are not directl

B. We have a Center of Excellence (or similar teams), which collects expertise and drives Business ProceManagement projects in the organization.

C. Our Center of Excellence has the authority to fienterprise BPM/SOA programs and projects.

D. Our Center of Excellence support BPM/SOA programs throughout the eco‐system with expertise,courses and recommendation

E. No answer.

‐be ToAs‐is

To‐be As‐is

To‐be As‐is


23. G.R.5) How doToAs‐is ‐be es your organization manage the accountability of the employees?

the form of KPI’s, etc.

ng service reuse. wer C, We primarily use Service Level Agreements (SLA’s) throughout the eco‐system to drive

accountability of employees and stimulate service reuse, such as the in –and outsourcing of services. answer.

A. Employees are held accountable for working within budget. B. We also have agreed performance accountability, inC. Beside answer B, we use enterprise‐wide Service Level Agreements (SLA’s) to drive and account

employees, with a focus on stimulatiD. Besides ans

theE. No

Organization

PEOPLE

To‐be As‐is24. O.P.1) How would you describe the understanding of the process/service owners? A. Process owners are able to name key business processes and identify key business processes, but have

wledge of the process on a functional level. B. have limited understanding of cross‐departmental process needs and dependencies. C. owners are aware of the individual process and know the performance requirements (KPI’s) of the

ormance requirements

ce of the service in the eco‐system, and

provide any training/educational facilities to increase the knowledge, skills and u nding of employees in the business and IT domain?

A. e do not provide any training facilities for our employees re is no actual focus on BPM

ning courses; the IT developers educated

Oriented Process Management

concepts on an enterprise level. E. Both domains, Business and IT, work together to extend and adjust training courses in order to improve

relationships between their fields throughout the eco‐system.

F. No answer.

primarily knoTheyProcessindividual process.

D. There’s a high understanding of the service and corresponding processes and perf(KPI’s).

E. Service owners can describe how their work affects the performanare aware of how external market dynamics affect their service and processes.

F. No answer.

25. O.P.2) Do younderstaW

B. Employees of business and IT domain have separate training courses, but theor SOA.

C. Employees of the Business and IT domain have separate traiabout SOA and the business about BPM related aspects.

D. Business architects and analysts are educated about the principles and concepts of ServiceArchitecture, and IT architects and service owners receive training about Businessmethods and

each other’s knowledge of semantics, concepts, methods and

To‐be As‐is


O.P.3) Do ur employees feel supported by IS/IT systems? activities.

icient support in their daily activities by software and systems, it is mainly viewed

employees are seen as an added value in their activities, improvements.

as it does not only suit, aptable to their needs.

E. No answer.

one on occasion. project basis, within departments.

t our organization, as cross‐functional teams are stimulated and

nal teamwork is a norm for process performers and commonplace among managers within the enterprise.

E. We do not only work in teams throughout the enterprise, but teams are also formed with customers and

d you describe the overall acceptance to change among employees re reluctant to change, afraid of losing responsibilities and control.

B. There’s a growing acceptance to change among our employees. C. They are prepared for significant change in their work activities.

and dynamic in work activities and

nomenon.

28. O.C.3) How do you think the Business domain views IT in your organization? A. ur business domain regularly sees the IT as a cost of doing business.

ization, enabling future business activity. .

yoAs‐is To‐be A. I don’t think they really feel supported by the software and programs supporting their

B. Although they have suffas a burden.

C. The software and systems provided to the although there are some aspects of

D. Employees see the programs and systems as an enabler and driver in their work,but is also ad

CULTURE

To‐ As‐is be26. O.C.1) How does your organization look at teamwork? A. Our work is mostly on a individual basis, teamwork is dB. We work as a team mostly on a functional andC. Teamwork is common throughou

regularly established. D. Cross‐functio

other stakeholders of the eco‐system. F. No answer.

To‐be As‐is 27. O.C.2) How woulA. Employees a

D. There is a readiness for multidimensional change, as they are flexiblesee change as a new challenge.

E. Employees see change as inevitable and embrace it as a regular pheF. No answer.

O

As‐is To‐be

B. The Business domain is beginning to view the IT as an asset C. IT is viewed as an important asset throughout the organD. In our organization the IT domain is viewed as a driving force for future business activityE. Business and IT are seen as inseparable; a vital partner in creating value. F. No answer.


As‐is To‐be 29. O.C.4) What can you tell about the relationship/trust style between business and IT? A. Conflict and mistrust. B. Transactional relationship. C. IT is becoming a valued service provider. D. There is a long‐term partnership. E. There is a relationship/trust between partners, trusted vendors, or IT services. F. No answer

STRATEGY

nctional planning.

31. O.S.2) What can you tell about the formal IT Strategy Planning? A. d hoc, or at unit functional level with slight business input.

ler or driver to the Business strategy.

33. O.S.4) What is your overall strategy in the time to react and adapt to market dynamics? A. e want to be reactive to the market within 1‐2 years B. ithin 12 months we want to be capable to react and adapt to environmental changes

thin 3‐6 months eeks.

ptive and reactive to the market dynamics in real‐time.

30. O.S.1) What can you tell about the formal Business Strategy Planning? To‐be As‐isA. Ad hoc, or at unit functional level with slight IT input. B. Some IT input and cross‐fuC. At unit and enterprise, with IT. D. With IT and partners. E. No answer.

A

As To‐be ‐is

B. Some business input and cross‐functional planning. C. At unit and enterprise, with business. D. With partners. E. No answer.

32. O.S.3) What is the role of IT in your overall Business strategy? A. IT is not involved in the strategic Business planning B. IT is an business process enabC. IT is a Business strategy enabler or driver. D. The Business and IT strategies are co‐adaptive to quickly adapt to change. E. No answer.

WW

C. Our goal is to be reactive and adaptive to market dynamics wiD. We want to be adaptable and reactive to the market dynamics within wE. We want to be continuously adaF. No answer.

ToAs‐is ‐be

To‐be As‐is


erall Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) strategy?

A. have no SOA strategy. B. can say that we mainly perform a bottom‐up SOA strategy, mostly short term, as SOA is primarily

lving from our IT department without formal top‐down support. C. have a top‐down SOA strategy, enforced by the Business with a long term strategy.

gy, but mainly

roach?

cess models.

C. e have a focus on building services from scratch, repurposing existing services, and purchasing services support our business processes.

ligned

ng short‐term returns, without much emphasize on how these services might be shared in the

C. e have a service‐focused service portfolio as we undertake enterprise‐wide effort to create or acquire ost of the potentially useful services and then start a series of SOA projects to implement them. We

dology and n platform).

aller IT projects with positive business cases and limited scope, while at the meantime

37. OA. Our objectives focus on Return of Investments (ROI) of local initiatives. B. We focus on reducing IT costs. C. Cost and quality of business operations is most important. D. Our business objectives focus on speed to market: strategic agility. E. No answer.

34. O.S.3.1) Do you have some form of ovTo‐be As‐is

We Oneevo

WeD. In our organization we generally do not perform a top‐down or bottom‐up SOA strate

meet‐in‐the‐middle: a long term strategy has been established and service creation is managed by the business, while at the same time the IT develops IT services from the bottom‐up.

E. No answer.

35. O.S.3.2) What can you tell about your organizational SOA appToAs‐is ‐be

A. There is no Service Oriented approach or architecture in our organization. B. We focus on building services on top of our legacy systems, working upwards to the requirements and

business proWto

D. We use the previous two answers (B and C), as we strive for a more‐complete set of business aservices, consequently increasing our ROI.

E. No answer.

36. O.S.4) Which of the following descriptions fits your service portfolio best? To‐be As‐is

A. We don’t have or use a service portfolio. B. Our service portfolio is project‐focused: services are created or acquired as required by projects,

providifuture. Wmhave a solid, long‐term strategy and made upfront investments (e.g. service design methoservice mediatio

D. Our service portfolio uses a balance between project and service‐focus: we aim our service creation and acquisitions on smcomplying with a target application landscape (SOA blueprint along the business domains) defined at the enterprise level.

E. No answer. .S.5) Which business objectives fits your organization best?

To‐be As‐is


Information and Technology nformation and Technology

S PU OP RT

As‐is 38. IT.S.1) How are you employees supported in the automation of business processes? A. Our b

To‐be

usiness models are mainly documented on paper or in a program (only) for visualization purposes. e

n‐es, and feedback

into Business Activity Monitoring (BAM) tools. D. completely support the lifecycle of services and processes; it enables detection of hotspots &

monitoring of misalignment between non‐functional business requirements and IT implementation.

way are employees supported by Information systems in their work activities? er.

e

to manage their work activities in a flexible manner, anywhere at any supported by an user friendly interface, e.g. Workflow management.

D. mployees are completely free to manage their working hours, activities and are able to customize their pplications fully to their needs (e.g. Portal functionality/services with themes, information dashboards,

s/service owners informed about the status of their

s owners receive ad hoc information about the status of the individual process on a

d process owners receive information about the status of the individual and overall process. C. sses are provided to the

managers, service owners and performers in real‐time. D. The enterprise, business partners and customers in the eco‐system are able to receive real‐time

information of the business services. E. No answer.

B. We have implemented a process‐aware system with design‐time process support, where managers usmonitoring to reflect process performance.

C. Our employees are supported by a process‐aware system with design –and run‐time support, with rutime monitoring of usage, performance and compliance (SLA’s) of services and processmechanismsW

E. No answer

39. IT.S.2) In whatTo‐be As‐is

A. Employees can only work at the office, no flexibility in mobility, workplace or work activities whatsoevB. Employees are able to access organizational resources and customer information through a secur

internet connection. C. Managers and employees are able

time and areEaetc.).

E. No answer.

40. IT.S.3) How are managers and procesTo‐be As‐is

process/service? A. Managers and proces

functional level. B. Managers an

Information about the status and performance of the services and proce


INFORMATION

s and standards throughout the

the

a functional

prise‐wide agreements about standards and programs in the business and IT domains, between domains are mostly on a project level.

semantics, meta‐data and data

C. e have a central repository throughout the enterprise, enhancing business applications with broad formation access and facilitating business performance management using analytical services.

and

pture any business processes in services.

C. The IT domain selects and creates services of (legacy) system functionality with a high reusability factor, mainly to provide successful pilots.

D. The Business domain defines which services should be constructed by focusing on the enterprise key business processes.

E. Services are defined on an eco‐system collaborative basis (between domains and eco‐system). F. No answer.

41. IT.I.1) What kind of agreements are there about the use of programAs To‐be ‐is

organization? A. There is no discussion or consensus about which program or standard should be used throughout

organization. As a result there are a variety of programs and standards within functions. B. Cross‐functional teams have agreements about which programs and standards are used on

level. C. We have enter

D. We have standardized programs and agreements about information,exchanges throughout the eco‐system (between domains and with business partners).

E. No answer.

ToAs‐is 42. IT.I.2) Do you use a repository to store and share information?

‐be

A. Our repository is ad hoc, experimental and mostly on a functional level. B. We have established a repository generally on a functional level, supporting data and content

integration. Win

D. There is a federate virtual repository throughout the eco‐system, supporting meta‐data integrationcontinuous information services.

E. No answer.

43. IT.I.3) How do you capture your business processes into services? A. We do not caB. We have some form of ad hoc service selection.

ToAs‐is ‐be


44. IT.I.4) Is there some form of a service registry within your organization? A. We have no service registry.

level.

advanced, enterprise‐wide use of the service registry to handle versioning, external

some

ies in semantics or other problems which impedes reusability and stimulates the design of new functional models.

C. he business models are seamlessly refined and extended by our IT domain with technical details. ls and IT deliverables; the gap between non

lity can be monitored.

your organization deals with information integration and interchange? ent has its own definitions and semantics of information.

. There is a corporate agreement of information integration, transfer, artifacts and definitions.

. Seamless information integration and transfer within the enterprise and agreements are made with usiness partners about information transfer, definitions and semantics.

o‐be TAs‐is

B. We have some ad hoc service registry on a functionalC. There is a initial use of a service registry across functions. D. We have a

publication and discovery. E. Our service registry is extended and shared with business partners within the eco‐system. F. No answer.

45. IT.I.5) How are the business models interpreted by the IT domain?

To‐be As‐is

A. Our IT domain does not really use the business models or on an ad hoc basis, its depends on the function.B. The business models are utilized by the IT domain. Nevertheless, it’s common that we have

inconsistenc

TD. There is a continuous traceability between our business mode

‐and functional business requirements and the IT implementation/scalabiE. No answer.

46. IT.I.6) How doesTo‐be As‐is

A. Each departmBC

bD. There is a seamless integration and transfer of information within the eco‐system. E. No answer.


INFRASTRUCTURE

As‐is 47. IT.IF.1) How would you describe your infrastructure?

A. Each department has its own independent, primarily

o‐be T

legacy systems with integration only within

oss‐functional connection between systems by means of a tightly coupled RPC point‐to‐point integration, focus on reusability and components.

are framework pilots (ESB) on project level.

n standards and technological independent platforms. have a middleware framework supporting real‐time resource management, automated sense and

. and d .

ll about your security infrastructure?

of the co‐system.

In what way the management of metadata integrated in your infrastructure?

tructure. ata management infrastructure is enables seamless integration with business partners of the

functions. B. We have some middleware framework pilots (e.g. Enterprise Service Bus), or Proof of Concepts (PoC). C. There is a cr

D. We have a middlewE. We have implemented a middleware framework (ESB), promoting loose coupling between system

interfaces in the form of services, supporting opeF. We

respond, (e.g Complex Event Processing (C.E.P.)), is open share with the eco‐system G. No answer.

48. IT.IF.2) What can you teT ‐be As‐is o

A. We have a local or ad hoc security infrastructure. B. Our security infrastructure enables secure communication on a cross‐functional level. C. The security infrastructure enables secure messaging, events, routing, etc., throughout the enterprise. D. We have a federated security infrastructure to enable secure integration with business partners

eE. No answer.

49. IT.IF.3) T be As‐is o‐

A. We have a local or ad hoc metadata management infrastructure. B. The metadata management infrastructure is in use across one or more departments. C. We have an enterprise‐wide metadata management infrasD. Our metad



13.8 Abbreviations and explanatory descriptions

goal of these descriptions is to give you an idea of the vision of the model and its aspects. Its purpose is not The to give a aspects and/or requirements.

situation. A thorough evaluation of the available along with the identification of the circumstances under which it is

in its establishment.

group tracks the state of maturity of notations, standards, practices and methods and their supporting tools in the ongoing e.g. technological changes. The enterprise architecture group determines when changes and the corresponding

can reuse and build upon the stored resources of previous projects.

service for their particular situation. When selected, the service registry provides the service description to the r, which in turn can connect to the service of the provider.

monitoring, and troubleshooting, dynamic services (or resource) provisioning, service lifecycle/ state

r percentage, etc. It is used to create transparency regarding the expectations and should be

for each service.

Service level management (SLM) Concerns the evaluation of services and their SLA contract. An important aspect in the evaluation is the balancing the benefits that a certain service delivers and the related costs. The results of the evaluation can serve as an input for the service lifecycle management process.

detailed overview of all of the term his Business Process Management (BPM) A systematic, structured approach to analyze, improve, control, manage processes with the aim of improving the quality of

and services. products Service Oriented Architecture SOA is a business concept, an idea or an approach, about how IT functionality can be planned, designed and delivered as

ific business benefits. modular business services to achieve spec Best practices

handling of certainBest practices establish conventions regarding the and the selection of a preferred alternativealternatives

applicable should be required

terprise architecture (EA) group EnThisevolution oftool support should be introduced. They control the skill base for the process and domain modeling and are responsible for the establishment of standards used in business process and domain models, which influence the selection of tools. Repository The repository serves as a storage facility, where people can search for content that is relevant for their work. Individual

generally work on fragments of the business process and domain models, which need to be assembled into a coherentprojectswhole. As a result, other projects Service registry Service providers publish their service descriptions at a service registry, which in turn provides service requestor to select the appropriateservice requesto Service management

management concerns a variety of function, of which the following are most prominent; service Level Agreement (SLA)Servicemanagement, auditing,management, scalability/extensibility. Service Level Agreement (SLA) A SLA is a contract with the consume of a service, in which is stated to what aspects the service has to comply, like quality of

service, response times, uptimethedetermined


Service portfolio (management) The service portfolio concerns with the identification of potential services. Portfolio management ensures that a sound method is used consistently to decide which services need to be developed and how the necessary investments are prioritized. Service lifecycle management (SFM) Service lifecycle management is concerned with the principles during the design, development, and delivery of services. Aspects like deciding on service granularity, change management procedures for services and on registration of available services within SOA should be discussed. BPM lifecycle management The lifecycle is centered around administration and stakeholders, who are responsible in managing, organizing and executing various tasks defined in the surrounding lifecycle phases. The BPM lifecycle contains the following phases and characteristics: Evaluation: Process mining, BAM tooling Design and analysis: Business process identification and modeling, validation, simulation and verification. Configuration: System selection, Implementation, Test and deployment Enactment: Operation, monitoring and maintenance. Process mining (techniques) Process mining techniques provides opportunities to learn from observed executions of a process. Metadata Metadata describes service requesters and providers, mediations and operations on the information that flows between requestors and providers in the discovery, routing and matchmaking and are managed in the repository. Business Process Models Business process models define business processes, describing the activity models and execution constraints between them. Center of Excellence (CoE) The center of excellence or similar teams coordinates the strategy of process prioritization, automation and optimization. They drive the successful implementation of BPM solutions and play a big role in the selection and management of the enterprise SOA. Enterprise Within an enterprise it is common that interactions take place among people of different organizations. Therefore, practices like governance and architecture, will take the interactions between business partners of different organizations into account. (Business) Ecosystem Extended system of mutually supportive organization; communities of customers, suppliers, lead producers, and other stakeholders, financing, trade associations, standard bodies, labor unions, governmental and quasigovernmental institutions, and other interested parties. These communities come together in a partially intentional, highly self‐organizing, and even somewhat accidental manner.

A maturity model towards BPM/SOA Alignment - Department ...

Documents

Transcript of A maturity model towards BPM/SOA Alignment - Department ...