Microservices Expo Authors: Stackify Blog, Aruna Ravichandran, Dalibor Siroky, Kevin Jackson, PagerDuty Blog

Related Topics: Microservices Expo

Microservices Expo: Article

Love Affair with Web Services Waning?

Spending too much time on service rather than process

The Component Based Development Forum, an analyst firm and think tank covering business software creation, reuse, and management, recently wrote, "Service Orientation - So What?" They went on to explain,

"First we had Web Services. Then we realized that Web Services were simply a technology, and we needed architecture to manage the loose coupling of pretty much everything. For a time SOA was top of the toy box. Then we started to see Service- Oriented Programming and Service- Oriented Design. All very sensible, even if it is a bottom-up process of discovery. Of course the logical conclusion to this is that we are progressively establishing a comprehensive approach to architecture, modeling, design, programming, deployment, interoperability etc., that is service oriented."

We see something else. The industry is progressively establishing a comprehensive approach to business process discovery, design, deployment, execution, operations, analysis, and optimization. Web services technology-inspired terminology is clouding the fact. Take one prominent example:

There's a wonderful new book by Dr. Ravi Kalakota and Marcia Robinson entitled Services Blueprint: Roadmap for Execution. Despite the title and a chapter entitled "Services is the Mega-Trend," the majority of the book is concerned with business process management (BPM). Indeed, the book is replete with the word "process." Much of the book concerns itself with discussions of process configuration, process flexibility, process trends, process digitization, the composite process layer, the need for business process management, translating services into processes, linking processes via integration layers, from a technology focus to a process focus, better process automation, enabling composite processes, mapping processing into applications, process outsourcing, creating a process strategy with Six Sigma, moving from strategy to process design, picking a process improvement method, and customer-centric process transformation. The list goes on and on. And all this is taken directly from the table of contents!

If we venture inside the book we find that it too is largely concerned with processes. Explicit statements are made as to the significance of processes to the so-called "Services Blueprint." In Table 1.1, entitled "Historical Perspective: Changing Process Priorities," the year 2003 is tagged as "Services-Centric," but is then defined as "Digitization of Cross Enterprise Processes; End to End Supply Chain Enablement, Business Process Outsourcing and Business Process Management." Numerous examples of end-user companies that have executed on "process improvement" are given throughout the text and the authors correctly point to the logical next step in Six Sigma, "process digitization." Kalakota and Robinson point to the reality that

"there is a clear pattern that can be gleaned from the turmoil: non-stop digitization of business processes ... Digitization is the outcome of the non-stop business need to be more customer-driven and process-centric ... A successful digitization effort is one in which the company treats technology not as a sole solution, but as an enabler for innovating, improving and integrating business processes."

The dichotomy between Kalakota and Robinson's use of the title "services" in a book about "processes" is difficult to fathom when one considers other bold statements made in the text, such as, "Service platforms are the emerging foundation for integrating and digitizing end-to-end processes," "The emerging service platform is the quintessential process environment," "Translating customer's need into business objectives, business objectives into processes, and processes into interactions is the role of service platforms," "As a result, we need a much better understanding of how to create, deploy, maintain, and enhance cross-enterprise processes," and "For most companies, the next step in the digitization journey is setting these composite process in motion."

Kalakota and Robinson even point out the weakness of a services-based approach, stating that, "It is not enough to have multiple Web services scattered all over the place. You need a framework that can pull everything together and make everything talk to each other." This sounds like a process to us. They go on to state that, "Services are built from composite processes," and "In our opinion, the design, management, and integration of business processes are increasingly what separates the good companies from the rest of the pack." They give examples of emerging services platforms, describing them as "an approach for designing and developing cross-application business processes," and that this entails "A great deal of sub-process design," and "The services perspective helps to eliminate functional stovepipes and replace them with processes that focus on creating value for customers." Finally, they provide a message for business people and technologists when they correctly point out that, "People tend to trivialize the need for process management. This is where initiatives often fall into problems. Actually, process management is becoming a field unto itself."

Should the book have been called "Processes Blueprint: Roadmap For Execution"?

Can't We Just Call a Business Process a Business Process?
Where are the "services" in Kalakota and Robinson's book? What's in a name anyway? As they say on page 244, "The different operational lines of business speak the process languages of Lean Enterprise or Six Sigma." So why confuse readers by introducing terminology (services) inspired from Web services?

The notion of "service" in Kalakota and Robinson's book is really a synonym for three things.

First, they equate the need for services (a.k.a., processes) with the notion of a "focal point," another new term they introduce. They define "focal points" as business drivers such as "easy to do business with," "single voice of the customer," "low daily prices," "fast and responsive service," etc. But why introduce the term focal point? We think business people already understand the concept of a business driver.

Second, they equate service with process outcomes.

Third, they use the term "service platform" to refer to a new class of mission-critical enterprise software. But while some vendors who are developing infrastructure software may use the term "services platform" to refer to their software, we don't think what they are developing is what Kalakota and Robinson had in mind when they used the term. From diagrams in the book, we think Kalakota and Robinson are referring to business process management systems (BPMSs).

While vendors are free to describe their products using their own terminology, many, including those that used to call themselves EAI or workflow, are today using the term BPMS. Some have even adopted the standard symbol for a BPMS, a cube. The BPMS is a business application that allows the management of business processes without dipping into the technical plumbing, including Web services plumbing. A BPMS frees business people from infrastructure, integration, and other complexities, just as the relational database (RDBMS) freed ERP users from equivalent file system and data plumbing. In this sense, BPMS products are the combination of a service-oriented architecture (SOA) and a process-oriented architecture (POA). The former is a technical infrastructure, the other a breakthrough business application. SOA and POA enjoy a symbiotic relationship. This pattern of symbiotic relationship between a standards-based commodity platform and a new innovation has been repeated time and again in the IT industry.

One common example of an innovation and a paradigm shift built on a standards-based commodity is the simple, yet eloquent, spreadsheet. The convenience and low cost of the breakthrough was so striking that it led to the PC revolution in business. The spreadsheet could not have been successful had it not been for the fact that personal computers - a standards-based commodity - were spreading like wildfire elsewhere in society. To the business, the PC loaded with a spreadsheet meant a radical simplification of routine calculations, transferring to the average businessperson a function that had once required special programming skills. Quite literally, business people could not understand the value of a PC until they saw someone working with a spreadsheet.

Unix and the RDBMS is another example. No one in business knew what to do with mid-range Unix computers until they saw the value of departmental business data management using new-fangled mid-range relational databases. Today, few in business know what to do with Web services, until they see a team of business and technical architects working with a BPMS. While incumbent platform vendors continue to entice end users to invest in IT on a promise of Web services interoperability and reuse, CIOs are becoming increasingly aware that the ROI in Web services lies not in the infrastructure, but in the BPMS. The value of Web services lies in the technical infrastructure, the standards-based environment in which the BPMS, and other business applications, can thrive.

There are striking correspondences between diagrams in Kalakota and Robinson's book and the architecture of BPMS. But they continue to stress the word service. Toward the end of the book they claim that, "Clearly, we are in between eras. Everywhere, strategists, senior and mid-level managers are caught between process-centric models (current state) and service-centric models (future state)," and they urge businesses to bring "service thinkers" into process teams. But they then go on to list "seven points to ponder." The list includes the statements, "Organization outputs are produced through processes" and "A process improvement methodology is critical." What all this seems to boil down to is an assertion by Kalakota and Robinson that "services" and their corresponding "focal points" are useful ways to determine requirements for new end-to-end processes. Perhaps they are. If so, let's celebrate. But one cannot help feeling that this book, published in June 2003, was actually written during the peak of the IT industry's Web services hype curve... which was precisely the same time that the Web services technical community was waking up to the significance of business processes, culminating with the submission to OASIS by IBM and Microsoft of BPEL4WS (Business Process Execution Language for Web Services).

Was the book caught in the services-processes time warp of the past year and, as a result, unclear as to the terminology it should use? Did the editors wonder how to reconcile the difference in terminology between the Web services and BPM communities?

Kalakota and Robinson's enumeration of numerous business processes in each chapter is another indicator of the book's focus on processes, rather than services. Indeed, we hope that business people won't be put off the book based on its title, because the process content is quite relevant to them. Kalakota and Robinson give these processes catchy titles such as Order To Cash, Engage To Close, Transact to Fulfil, Build To Order, Plan To Produce, Resume To Work, Goal To Reward, and many others. But in the figures, where they place those end-to-end processes they are labeled the "Services Layer," even though they sound, and look uncannily like, business processes. Why not call a business process a business process? If we do that, business people will immediately understand what we are talking about, and that's a very good thing.

But perhaps the most obvious element missing in Kalakota and Robinson's otherwise excellent book is the process life cycle itself. For while attributing to services (and service thinking) many wonderful attributes, the book omits to say how services, or for that matter processes, are actually improved in line with business objectives. There is an assumption at the heart of the book that the business objective, the focal point, is somehow inviolate and never changing. Kalakota and Robinson's focal points are high-level aspirations, such as "easy to do business with." What they do not show is how a business changes from not being easy to do business with toward being easy to do business with, and how it maintains a constant improvement in being easier and easier to do business with. After all, a business is not going to wake up one morning, become "easy to do business with," and then forget about that topic thereafter.

So whether one calls things "services" or "processes," we ask how are they taken through the life cycle of process improvement, from discovery, to design, to deployment, to execution, to operations, to analysis and optimization? In short, where is business process improvement in Kalakota and Robinson's service model? Life-cycle management is itself a business process - and how does that process manifest itself in a technology-inspired service stack? We wonder how many business people have looked at technical architecture stack diagrams and wondered about this? It's not enough to create an end-to-end process at a moment in time, for it will surely change the minute it is created - that's just the way of business. Time, change, and improvement are the watchwords of BPM, not Web services.

Where Kalakota and Robinson explicitly refer to "BPM" they mostly assign it to a mid-tier of "integration software." They then align that to EAI technology, about which they say,

"Managers must understand process integration issues before they invest millions of dollars. Many find themselves frustrated when they discover that multi-million dollar investment they made in Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) software is not delivering the ROI the salesperson promised."

They then go on to say, "To lower the cost of integration, the newer-generation XML-based EAI is being engineered under the banner of business process management (BPM) tool kits." Such a perspective misses the essence of BPM, management of the complete life cycle of change within the business process.

Our conclusion: Despite having the wrong title, it's a great book. But if business people have to bow to IT industry gorillas for the terminology they use, perhaps there is a compromise to be made? Could G2000 firms persuade IBM and Microsoft to rename Web services, Web processes? Could BPEL4WS just be called BPEL and can it lose its 4 Web services tail? Could vendors stop attributing wonders to Web services technology (SOAP, UDDI, and WSDL) that are more rightly attributed to the ability of a BPMS to manage the life cycle of business process improvement?

To illustrate the difference in perspective between services and business processes, we have included here Figure 6.2 "Supply Chain Blueprint," from Kalakota and Robinson's book, and re-rendered it as conceived from a BPM viewpoint (see Figures 1 and 2).

Can't We Just Speak the Language of Process?
Over the first 50 years of commercial IT, the level of abstraction used in developing business information systems has continually moved higher and higher, from wiring plug boards, to assembly languages, to COBOL, to objects, to components, and finally to a business paradigm - the business process. Each new paradigm required its own terminology, and now it's imperative that we address the terminology business people use.

After 50 years of IT automating the business, the BPMS is the business analyst's CAD/CAM system that allows the business to automate IT. The significance of the BPMS is that BPM can now be of the business process, for the business process, and by the business process. This is the message of BPM and the message obfuscated by Kalakota and Robinson's book and an IT industry enamored with Web services technology and terminology. While the Harvard Business Review is telling business leaders that "IT doesn't matter," the IT industry continues to baffle those same business leaders with technology jargon. It's time to call a business process a business process. BPM isn't some technical integration layer buried in a Web services technology stack; it's the king of the hill, for what businesses really want is direct control of business process life cycle improvement, not by IT proxy.

For the business people who control IT investments and spending, Web services terminology is yet another foreign language they don't care to master - to them Web services don't matter. They do indeed understand business processes, more than many IT people care to admit, so perhaps it's time for IT to master their language, the language of process. To do so will require refactoring technical architectures with a process-oriented architecture.

A future article will describe the process-oriented architecture of BPMSs in more detail. The article will explain how the BPMS leverages past investments in IT and the way in which it interacts with its operating system, just as RDBMS was built on Unix. The operating system for the BPMS is IT's new commodity, the standards-based, networked operating system of the Internet era - Web services.


  • Kalakota, R.; and Robinson, M. (2003). Services Blueprint: Roadmap for Execution. Addison-Wesley.
  • Smith, H.; and Fingar, P. (November 2003). "Digital Six Sigma" BPTrends. com.
  • More Stories By Howard Smith

    Howard Smith is co-chair of the Business Process Management Initiative (BPMI.org) and CTO for Computer Sciences Corporation in Europe. He can be reached at [email protected] Howard is co-author with Peter Fingar of the forthcoming book: Business Process Management: The Third Wave (mkpress.com)

    More Stories By Peter Fingar

    Peter Fingar is an Executive Partner with the digital strategy firm, the Greystone Group. He delivers keynotes worldwide and is author of the best-selling books, The Death of "e" and the Birth of the Real New
    Economy and Enterprise E-Commerce. Over his 30-year career he has taught graduate and undergraduate computing studies and held management, technical and consulting positions with GTE Data Services, Saudi Aramco, the Technical Resource Connection division of Perot Systems and IBM Global Services, as well as serving as CIO for the University of Tampa.

    Comments (0)

    Share your thoughts on this story.

    Add your comment
    You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

    In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.

    @MicroservicesExpo Stories
    How is DevOps going within your organization? If you need some help measuring just how well it is going, we have prepared a list of some key DevOps metrics to track. These metrics can help you understand how your team is doing over time. The word DevOps means different things to different people. Some say it a culture and every vendor in the industry claims that their tools help with DevOps. Depending on how you define DevOps, some of these metrics may matter more or less to you and your team.
    For many of us laboring in the fields of digital transformation, 2017 was a year of high-intensity work and high-reward achievement. So we’re looking forward to a little breather over the end-of-year holiday season. But we’re going to have to get right back on the Continuous Delivery bullet train in 2018. Markets move too fast and customer expectations elevate too precipitously for businesses to rest on their laurels. Here’s a DevOps “to-do list” for 2018 that should be priorities for anyone w...
    If testing environments are constantly unavailable and affected by outages, release timelines will be affected. You can use three metrics to measure stability events for specific environments and plan around events that will affect your critical path to release.
    In a recent post, titled “10 Surprising Facts About Cloud Computing and What It Really Is”, Zac Johnson highlighted some interesting facts about cloud computing in the SMB marketplace: Cloud Computing is up to 40 times more cost-effective for an SMB, compared to running its own IT system. 94% of SMBs have experienced security benefits in the cloud that they didn’t have with their on-premises service
    DevOps failure is a touchy subject with some, because DevOps is typically perceived as a way to avoid failure. As a result, when you fail in a DevOps practice, the situation can seem almost hopeless. However, just as a fail-fast business approach, or the “fail and adjust sooner” methodology of Agile often proves, DevOps failures are actually a step in the right direction. They’re the first step toward learning from failures and turning your DevOps practice into one that will lead you toward even...
    DevOps is under attack because developers don’t want to mess with infrastructure. They will happily own their code into production, but want to use platforms instead of raw automation. That’s changing the landscape that we understand as DevOps with both architecture concepts (CloudNative) and process redefinition (SRE). Rob Hirschfeld’s recent work in Kubernetes operations has led to the conclusion that containers and related platforms have changed the way we should be thinking about DevOps and...
    While walking around the office I happened upon a relatively new employee dragging emails from his inbox into folders. I asked why and was told, “I’m just answering emails and getting stuff off my desk.” An empty inbox may be emotionally satisfying to look at, but in practice, you should never do it. Here’s why. I recently wrote a piece arguing that from a mathematical perspective, Messy Desks Are Perfectly Optimized. While it validated the genius of my friends with messy desks, it also gener...
    The goal of Microservices is to improve software delivery speed and increase system safety as scale increases. Microservices being modular these are faster to change and enables an evolutionary architecture where systems can change, as the business needs change. Microservices can scale elastically and by being service oriented can enable APIs natively. Microservices also reduce implementation and release cycle time and enables continuous delivery. This paper provides a logical overview of the Mi...
    The next XaaS is CICDaaS. Why? Because CICD saves developers a huge amount of time. CD is an especially great option for projects that require multiple and frequent contributions to be integrated. But… securing CICD best practices is an emerging, essential, yet little understood practice for DevOps teams and their Cloud Service Providers. The only way to get CICD to work in a highly secure environment takes collaboration, patience and persistence. Building CICD in the cloud requires rigorous ar...
    The enterprise data storage marketplace is poised to become a battlefield. No longer the quiet backwater of cloud computing services, the focus of this global transition is now going from compute to storage. An overview of recent storage market history is needed to understand why this transition is important. Before 2007 and the birth of the cloud computing market we are witnessing today, the on-premise model hosted in large local data centers dominated enterprise storage. Key marketplace play...
    The cloud revolution in enterprises has very clearly crossed the phase of proof-of-concepts into a truly mainstream adoption. One of most popular enterprise-wide initiatives currently going on are “cloud migration” programs of some kind or another. Finding business value for these programs is not hard to fathom – they include hyperelasticity in infrastructure consumption, subscription based models, and agility derived from rapid speed of deployment of applications. These factors will continue to...
    Some people are directors, managers, and administrators. Others are disrupters. Eddie Webb (@edwardawebb) is an IT Disrupter for Software Development Platforms at Liberty Mutual and was a presenter at the 2016 All Day DevOps conference. His talk, Organically DevOps: Building Quality and Security into the Software Supply Chain at Liberty Mutual, looked at Liberty Mutual's transformation to Continuous Integration, Continuous Delivery, and DevOps. For a large, heavily regulated industry, this task ...
    Following a tradition dating back to 2002 at ZapThink and continuing at Intellyx since 2014, it’s time for Intellyx’s annual predictions for the coming year. If you’re a long-time fan, you know we have a twist to the typical annual prediction post: we actually critique our predictions from the previous year. To make things even more interesting, Charlie and I switch off, judging the other’s predictions. And now that he’s been with Intellyx for more than a year, this Cortex represents my first ...
    "Grape Up leverages Cloud Native technologies and helps companies build software using microservices, and work the DevOps agile way. We've been doing digital innovation for the last 12 years," explained Daniel Heckman, of Grape Up in this SYS-CON.tv interview at 21st Cloud Expo, held Oct 31 – Nov 2, 2017, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA.
    The Toyota Production System, a world-renowned production system is based on the "complete elimination of all waste". The "Toyota Way", grounded on continuous improvement dates to the 1860s. The methodology is widely proven to be successful yet there are still industries within and tangential to manufacturing struggling to adopt its core principles: Jidoka: a process should stop when an issue is identified prevents releasing defective products
    We seem to run this cycle with every new technology that comes along. A good idea with practical applications is born, then both marketers and over-excited users start to declare it is the solution for all or our problems. Compliments of Gartner, we know it generally as “The Hype Cycle”, but each iteration is a little different. 2018’s flavor will be serverless computing, and by 2018, I mean starting now, but going most of next year, you’ll be sick of it. We are already seeing people write such...
    Defining the term ‘monitoring’ is a difficult task considering the performance space has evolved significantly over the years. Lately, there has been a shift in the monitoring world, sparking a healthy debate regarding the definition and purpose of monitoring, through which a new term has emerged: observability. Some of that debate can be found in blogs by Charity Majors and Cindy Sridharan.
    It’s “time to move on from DevOps and continuous delivery.” This was the provocative title of a recent article in ZDNet, in which Kelsey Hightower, staff developer advocate at Google Cloud Platform, suggested that “software shops should have put these concepts into action years ago.” Reading articles like this or listening to talks at most DevOps conferences might make you think that we’re entering a post-DevOps world. But vast numbers of organizations still struggle to start and drive transfo...
    Let's do a visualization exercise. Imagine it's December 31, 2018, and you're ringing in the New Year with your friends and family. You think back on everything that you accomplished in the last year: your company's revenue is through the roof thanks to the success of your product, and you were promoted to Lead Developer. 2019 is poised to be an even bigger year for your company because you have the tools and insight to scale as quickly as demand requires. You're a happy human, and it's not just...
    "Opsani helps the enterprise adopt containers, help them move their infrastructure into this modern world of DevOps, accelerate the delivery of new features into production, and really get them going on the container path," explained Ross Schibler, CEO of Opsani, and Peter Nickolov, CTO of Opsani, in this SYS-CON.tv interview at DevOps Summit at 21st Cloud Expo, held Oct 31 – Nov 2, 2017, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA.