Integrated Service Oriented Architecture Governance with ITIL ® v3.0

Integrated Service Oriented Architecture Governance with ITIL® v3.0 Jaka Sembiring*1, Fitri Susanti2 School of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesha 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia School of Applied Science, Telkom University, Jl. Telekomunikasi Terusan Buah Batu, Bandung 40257, Indonesia *1

jaka@itb.ac.id; 2fitri.susanti@tass.telkomuniversity.ac.id

Abstract Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) governance is essential for a company who implements SOA to gain maximum benefit.

One of major failures in SOA implementation is the lack of SOA governance. There are apparent weaknesses in SOA governance, such as no systematic process to manage service reuse; no guidance to determine what services should be created; no system to validate the sustainability of design and implementation result; and no complete guidance for change management system. In this paper, we propose a new SOA governance framework where we create the structure of SOA governance based on Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL®) v3.0. We deduce a SOA governance lifecycle and elements to analyse the strength and weakness of several existing SOA governance. Then we propose a new structure of SOA lifecycle and elements, where we map the structure with ITIL® v3.0. The result is a new concept of SOA governance which is adapted to the objectives of business in terms of optimization of service reuse for business agility. We elaborate the decision model, rules implemented, roles and responsibility, metrics, and procedure in SOA governance from ITIL® perspectives.

Keywords ITIL v3.0; SOA; SOA Governance; SOA Governance Lifecycle

Introduction It is widely understood that Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) is developed to increase technology efficiency and business agility (Bieberstein, N., et. al., 2008). This is achieved through service reuse which is a key issue in SOA. Service reuse is based on the concept of service, service interoperability, and loose coupling (Josuittis, N. M., 2007). With service reuse, the implementation of services can be effective, efficient and business agility can be achieved. It is possible for companies to gain benefits from SOA implementation, such as business agility, flexibility and service reusability (Van de Berg, M., et. al., 2007). However, (Heffner, R., 2009) has shown that upon implementing SOA, not many companies succeed in achieving maximum benefit where only around 25% get the maximum benefits, 36% get some benefits, 20% does not get the benefits and would not continue using SOA until the SOA failure problems were found, 17% could not determine the result of implementation, and 1% of companies did not get the benefit at all. Some failures of SOA implementation have been identified such as: (i) the implementation approach dominated by a technological perspective, hardly any view from a business perspective; (ii) not properly handling the major changes as a result of SOA implementation; (iii) failing to implement SOA governance; and (iv) the service architecture design driven by IT vendor (Kavis, M., 2008). Others have shown that those SOA failures are related to the lack of SOA governance (Ott., C., et.al., 2008). The research result from (Janiesch, C., et. al., 2009) shows that SOA governance is an important factor for SOA implementation. But in his research, (Braun, C., 2007) has pointed out that there are still apparent weaknesses in SOA governance, such as failing to provide a systematic process to manage service reuse, no guidance to determine what services should be created, no system to validate the suitability of designing and implementation result, and no complete guidance of change management. As a result, there are various altenatives for SOA governance models such as from (Niemann, M., et. al., 2008), and companies like IBM, HP or Oracle. But these alternatives still possess deficiencies mentioned by (Braun, C., 2007), so that there is still some room for improvement for the model.

In this paper, we propose a new model of SOA governance by taking advantage of interconnection between SOA 16 International Journal of Advances in Management Science, Vol. 4 No. 1, August 2015 2169‐7558/15/01 016‐10, © 2015 DEStech Publications, Inc. doi: 10.12783/ijams.2015.0401.02

Integrated Service Oriented Architecture Governance with ITIL® v3.0 17

governance and IT governance framework of Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL®) v3.0 which is the best practice of IT governance framework (Taylor, S., 2007). It is widely understood that the SOA governance is a part of IT governance, so that the process and components of IT governance can be used as guidance for service management (Bieberstein, N., et. al., 2008). Through mapping procedure we have shown that the processes in ITIL® v3.0 could complete the processes in SOA governance (Susanti, F., 2011). Based on the mapping result we propose a new SOA governance general model which is capable of managing SOA more effectively and efficiently, and able to overcome problems or apparent deficiencies found in the previous SOA governance model.

Mapping SOA Governance with ITIL® v3.0 To design an integrated SOA governance based on ITIL® v3.0, first we need to create and analyze the mapping between services based on SOA governance structure with ITIL®. Before we can create a mapping, we need to define the structure of SOA governance based on the general concept of governance. This step is presented in order to avoid the failing of SOA implementation as mentioned in the previous section. With this linkage the problem of overburden to the organization or business unit will be minimum. The SOA governance should guarantee the SOA lifecycle and service lifecycle. To define the SOA governance structure, we analyze the relation of service lifecycle, SOA lifecycle, and SOA governance lifecycle through comparing the works of (Van de Berg, M., et. al., 2007), (Earl, T., 2005), (Bieberstein, N., et. al., 2008), (Web Methods, 2006), and (Simanta, S., et. al., 2009). We deduce that the lifecycle should contain service planning, design, development and operation. Then by using keywords and comparing the works of (Josuttis, N. M., 2007), (Van de Berg, M., et. al., 2007), and (Bieberstein, N., et. al.), we can construct the main elements of SOA governance. Using lifecycle and main elements obtained, we analyze three models of SOA governance, i.e. governance for profit organization (IBM SOA, 2006), for non‐profit organization (SOA CoE Core Team, 2010) and general version from (Niemann, M., et. al., 2008). We can obtain the strength and weakness in each model. We deduce that to create a holistic approach for SOA governance we must include the following aspects: (i) planning, (ii) design, (iii) implementation, (iv) controlling, (v) measurement and (vi) improvement. Furthermore the main elements should be comprised of (i) policy, (ii) role and responsibility, (iii) metrics, (iv) decision, and (v) process. The main objectives of SOA governance are to align the IT, in particular implementation of SOA, with business objectives. The specific business objective is business agility based on service reuse. As a result, the SOA governance lifecycle and elements in service environment have several characteristics which separate themselves from other frameworks. We derive that the SOA governance lifecycle consists of five phases: 

Planning, to develop a service strategic planning,



Design, to design a service architecture,



Implementation, to transform the service design into production,



Control, to focus on day to day service, and



Improvement, to evaluate the operation of the service.

Furthremore it can be derived that the SOA governance lifecycle has five elements: 

Policy, including the policy to manage the service, the roles and responsibility, the service architecture planning, the service from economic perspective, and policy to manage the processes in each phase,



Procedure, including the procedure to plan service reuse, establish service, prioritize service, calculate service cost, implement service, manage service operation, measure the service, improve the service,



Role and responsibility, including the definition of who is responsible in each phase and existing process,



Metrics, consisting of measurement value of verification process of the implemented procedure, measurement value of monitoring achievement of governance and governance implementation,



Decision, including determination of service to be developed, service architecture, role and responsibility, action for service control, service evaluation and service improvement.

With this SOA governance lifecycle and main element structure we proceed further with mapping them with ITIL® v3.0. The complete methods and mapping result can be found in (Susanti, F., 2011). A high level interconnection can be seen in Fig. 1.

18 JAKA SEMBIRING, FITRI SUSANTI

FIG. 1 HIGH LEVEL MAPPING OF THE PROPOSED SOA GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE WITH ITIL® V3.0

Integrated SOA Governace with ITIL® v3.0 Based on the analysis on SOA governance lifecycle, elements of SOA governance and mapping of SOA and ITIL® v3.0 in the previous section, we propose a new SOA lifecycle consisting of five phases: (i) Plan, (ii) Design, (iii) Implement, (iv) Control, and (v) Evaluate. The main objectives of the SOA governance is to manage the implementation of SOA. To satisfy this objective the characteristic of each phase can be described as follows. 

Planning phase, to identify all service demands, to assess the existing service and to formulate a strategic plan to make sure the service is developed to answer the business demands,



Design phase, to design service requirement as a solution for business needs,



Implementation phase, to transfer the design into operational services ready to be implemented in a real environment,



Controlling phase, to monitor operational services, and



Evaluation phase, to analyse the measurement results dan to recommend improvement at all phases.

The next step is to determine the elements of governance in each phase. This elements is also derived from the mapping with a specific objective of service reuse. The elements should be able to satisfy reqirements such as: What is to be considered to satisfy service reuse? What kind of service should be developed so that it can be reused?

What process should be available? What policy should be considered? Who should be responsible to plan, create and manage the services. The elements that could satisfy the above requirements consist of (i) Decision, (ii) Rule and Policy, (iii) Procedure, (iv) Role and Responsibility, and (v) Metrics.

FIG 2. THE PROPOSED MODEL OF INTEGRATED SOA GOVERNANCE WITH ITIL V3.0. THE MODEL CONSISTS OF FIVE LIFE CYCLE PHASES, WITH FIVE ELEMENTS, AND MAINTAINING THE ALIGNMENT OF BUSINESS GOALS WITH IT IMPLEMENTATION IN GENERAL, SOA IMPLEMENTATION IN PARTICULAR. ®

Integrated Service Oriented Architecture Governance with ITIL® v3.0 19

The complete model graphically can be seen in Fig. 2. In line with the objectives of general IT governance, from Fig. 2, it can be seen that the objective of SOA governance is to align the business objective with IT implementation in general and SOA implementation in particular.

In Planning phase, the analysis for the existing condition is very important. We need to catalogue all the existing services. The objective is to understand the condition as a reference to evaluate whether a service can be reused, recomposed or a new service should be created. The result of the evaluation should be documented in service portfolio and recorded in service registry. For service reuse, we need to consider service priority, service cost and service budget. In Design phase, basically the activities concentrate on designing service covering its reuse characteristic. Implementation phase is related to two processes, i.e. service configuration management and implementation of related technology. Control phase consists of activities related to service operation management, handling of service incidents/problems and service report.

The final phase, Evaluation, deals with the measurement and verification of operational services. Measurement is created as a matrix that relates the CSF and KPI with business objectives. This measurement is an important factor for continuous improvement and for monitoring efficiency and effectivity of operational services.

The derived model can be included in the general governance of the enterprise, and in fact it complement the governance structure. We elaborate the decision model for Integrated SOA governance based on ITIL® v3.0 as shown in Table 1, the rules as in Table 2, the roles and responsibility as in Table 3 and metrics as in Table 4. For roles and responsibility we can derive the complete description for each role and related processes. We show the sample result in Table 5. For procedure, we can derive 31 procedures and 78 sub procedures. The sample of detail procedure can be seen in Table 6.

TABLE 1. DECISION MODEL IN THE PROPOSED SOA GOVERNANCE

No

1

Phase

Decision

Plan

2

Design

3

Implement

4

5

Control

Evaluate

Description

Service Reuse

Determine which service can be reused

Service Prioritization

Determine which service should be implemented

Service Value

What is the value of the service delivered to user

Service Portfolio

Determine which service to be implemented to fulfill business requirement, and documented in service portfolio

Service Financial

Calculate the cost, budget and ROI for the service

Service Asset

Determine which asset already available as the first step in service reuse

Service Architecture

Determine the service architecture

Service Model

Service modeling

Service Configuration

Determine the service configuration

Service Validation

Determine the service validation

Service Release

Determine the development and testing process, service capability adjustment

Service Monitoring

Determine the processes for service monitoring

Service Problem Management

Determine the action to be taken in case problems and failure occurring

Service Report

Day to day reporting of service

Service Measurement

Measurement of agreement between service performance and target

Service Improvement

Recommendation on service improvement which will be taken in Plan, Design, Implement and Control phase

TABLE 2. RULES IMPLEMENTED IN THE PROPOSED SOA GOVERNANCE

No Phase

Rules Service value is aligned with business objectives The service to be implemented should be able to respond to the business demands Employing reuse standardization and principle for service implementation

1

Plan

Service implementation should have modular andloosely coupled characteristics Balancing the service development with availability of budget Service development priority is aligned with business requirement, service asset and service financial All of the developed service should be defined in service portfolio and service level agreement Each service has service owner who is responsible for service implementation

20 JAKA SEMBIRING, FITRI SUSANTI

Implementation of balanced design between resources and service functionalities

2

Design

Optimization of reuse principles in process, system, service architecture development Attention to accuracy and quality of the results of service design, IT architecture and their agreement with time accuracy, service capability and service availability Agreement between service strategic plan and service design Holistic approach for defining service requirement Mapping between designed service and technology to be adapted Service report should satisfy SMART principles: Specific, Measurable, Relevance, Timely

3

Implement Optimization of process and system reuse Alignment between service transition and business demand Capability to detect incidents shortly

4

Control

Staff arrangement with appropriate skills for handling service incidents/problems Service time agreement to resolve service incidents/problems and documentation for service desk Good communication between operational team and other units to solve the service incidents/problems

5

Evaluate

Evaluation and improvement process is integrated with enterprise culture Clearly defining what and why to measure; measurement criteria TABLE 3. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITY IN THE PROPOSED SOA GOVERNANCE

No Phase

Roles and Responsibility IT Steering Group

1

Plan

Financial Manager Service Portfolio Manager Service Catalogue Manager Service Level Manager Service Owner Service Design Manager Application Analyst Technical Analyst

2

Design

Risk Manager Capacity Manager Availability Manager IT Service Continuity Manager IT Security Manager Compliance Manager IT Architect Change Manager Change Advisory Group Change Owner Project Manager

3

Implement Application Developer Release Manager Configuration Manager Knowledge Manager Test Manager Incident Team Problem Team Service Request Fulfilment Group

4

Control

Access Team IT Operation Manager IT Operator IT Facilities Manager Technical Support CSI Manager

5

Evaluate

Process Owner Process Manager

Integrated Service Oriented Architecture Governance with ITIL® v3.0 21

TABLE 4. METRICS FOR PROPOSED SOA GOVERNANCE

No Phase

1

2

3

4

5

Metrics Percentage of new services to be developed Number of services with high value category Plan Agreement of service development with agreed budget Percentage of developed services with cost‐benefit consideration Number of services with SLA supported by OLA Number of reuse services Design Agreement of service architecture with business demand Number of loosly coupled services Frequency of service verification Number of changes reviewed by Change Advisory Group (CAG) Number of emergency changes reviewed by CAG Number of Requests for Change (RFC), submitted, accepted and rejected Number of released services Time duration needed to deploy service until completed Percentage of service failures at acceptance test after released Implement Number of errors found at service testing Percentage of service acceptance tests rejected by customer Time needed to resubmit service to be released Frequency of service verification agreed with Configuration Management System (CMS) Time duration needed to process service verification Number of error free CMS Percentage of service component configuration included in CMS Number of escalated service incidents as a result of incident solution longer than agreed time Control Mean time needed to completely solving incident Number of directly solved service incidents recorded in service desk Number of user complaints accepted and processed Result of client satisfaction at certain period Number of service evaluation at certain period Number of identified weaknesses as a result of service evaluation Evaluate Number of bench marked process, maturity assessment and audit result at a certain period Number of process evaluation at certain period Number of identified weaknesses as a result of process evaluation Number of improvement initiatives as a result of weakness identification on service evaluation and process evaluation TABLE 5 SAMPLE OF ELABORATION OF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED SOA GOVERNANCE

No

Phase

Roles

Responsibility

Processes

Determine the IT service guidance and strategy 1

Plan

IT Steering Group

Review the business and IT strategy to guarantee their All Processes alignment Determine the priority for service to be developed

Service Manager

Catalogue Responsible for managing the service catalogue, make sure Service Catalogue Management that all data in the catalogue is up‐to‐date Negotiate and make sure the compliance of SLA

2

Design

Service Level Manager

Make sure all IT processes, OLA, and contractual documents Service Level Management, Service Validation and Testing agree to SLA Monitoring all service design and reporting

3

IT Architect

Create the blueprint for future technology development IT Architect Management considering the availability/existing service and technology

Project Manager

Responsible for planning and coordination of resources in Project Management service project implementation

Application Developer

Develop the service application and systems that provide functionalities in line with the demand in IT services, Application Development and including development, maintaining and customization of Customization software/systems

Implement

22 JAKA SEMBIRING, FITRI SUSANTI

Configuration Manager

Incident Team 4

Control

IT Operator

Manage the information of configuration of each product, Change Management service and application Concentrate on handling/resolving the service incidents which cannot be resolved by Technical Support Responsible for effectivity and efficiency of the Incident Management implementation of the process in the Service Incident Management IT staffs who responsible for day to day operation of the Event Management, IT Operation service, data back‐up, make sure the process in line with the Management, schedule, service instalation Rrelease Mangement Manage service improvement and its processes

CSI Manager

Measure the performance of the service regularly, design the Service Evaluation, Service improvement for the processes, services, and infrastructure Initiative, Monitoring to increase effectivity and efficiency of the services

5

Evaluate

Make sure each process is agree with its objectives Process Owner

Responsible for continuous improvement and measurement Process Evaluation of the processes Plan and coordinate all activities in the Process Management

Process Manager

Coordinate all process and service changes, and make sure Process Evaluation all services working properly

TABLE 6. SAMPLE OF ELABORATION OF THE PROCEDURES IN THE PROPOSED SOA GOVERNANCE

No

Phase

1

Plan

2

Design

Procedure

Objectives

Subprocess

Description Input Output Identification of assest valuation in the form of Service Asset resources (management, Valuation of IT existing condition in the enterprise Identification organization, people, knowledge and Service Asset, Service including system, capabilities) Service Reuse Assessment infrastructure, service aligned with and supported Identification of high Service High business objectives value services as a Value Business goals, consideration for service Identification business resuse requirements, Determine the needed business Determine the needed service, service process, Service service for SOA Service classification (service Service Requirement business budget Requirement implementation including its requirement core/ service support) allocation specification and service specification Combination of utility (fitness for purpose) and warranty (fitness for Determine the value for Service Value Service Value use). Consideration Service Value every service factor includes resources, service capabilities and ROI service Main focus of this process is to create a structured document Management of service Service Service with content consists of catalogue including all Catalogue Service Catalogue Catalogue all information of created information related to Management Management services including how Business needs operational services to deliver the service to & Service users and service Requirement, specification Service Prioritization, Service Architecture, Identification Service of Service Identification of users Service Model, Portfolio Negotiation on the Requirements Service Design Service Level agreement of service to be Package, Service Management developed, target to be Level Agreement, Decomposition Decomposition of achieved Operational Level of Business business process to Agreement, Service Service service to be provided Acceptance Criteria

Integrated Service Oriented Architecture Governance with ITIL® v3.0 23

Business Impact & Analysis Risk identification, valuation and controlling, including Risk asset valuation for business, Management Risk Mitigation threat identification, asset risk, vulnerability evaluation

Risk Monitoring

Manage all the change, determine that the change Change taken is beneficial, and Management minimalize the impact of change to the service 3

Implement

Request for Change (RFC) Classsification & Assessment Change Evaluation

Release Planning, controlling, Management Release & coordinating resources, and Support Deployment testing the service in the real Management Release environment Deployment

Measurement of business impact and determine the possible threat and vulnerability in the service and business asset Determine the action for risk mitigation and Process, Asset determine the risk owner Valuation who is responsible for implementation and maintenance Monitor all possible risk.

Monitor process/ activities and corrective action when needed Determine the priority of the proposed change and determine whether accept or reject certain Request for RFC Change Evaluate and verify the change that has been done Provide guidance to develop service release

Risk Analysis, Risk Log

Change Model, RFC Template

Post Implementtaion Review Release Policy

Service Release Release the service in the real environment

Release Record

Maintenance of Control the service Event mechanism so that it Monitoring function properly Categorizing dan filtering Event event that occur in order to Management determine the appropriate action Event Filtering

4

Control

Provide and control user Access access to the service, and Management conduct the established policy

5

Catagorizing, filtering event that is considered unsupported to the operation of the service, and analyzing relation amongst events to identify certain trend

Maintenance of Management of user role User Roles & to prevent user access Profile abuse User Identity Request, Process the addition, Request for change, termination user Manage User Access Right access and make sure Access Request appropriate user access is granted to the user Collect the user complain Complaint as a base for service User Complain Management improvement

Service Evaluation

Evalaute service quality regularly. Identify under performed service to be improved later. Make certain User the SLA is in agreement with Satisfaction business need Survey

Service Initiative

Recommendation for service and process improvement Service Create plan for service based on the result of service Initiative Plan improvement and process evaluation

Evaluate

Service Event, Service Configuration, Change Management

Conducting user satisfaction survey, analyze the result to find User Survey the expectation of the Response user which is not yet provided by the service

Event Record, Event Trends/ Even Patterns, Event Categories, Event Relation

User Identity Record, User Role, User Access Profile, Access Right

Complain Log

User Survey Evaluation

Service, Process Service Evaluation Improvement Plan Report

24 JAKA SEMBIRING, FITRI SUSANTI

Since we deduce the design from the most general criteria of SOA governance, it means that when we consider service reuse as a main consideration, the main structure is still intact functioning as a governance framework. To further validate the result, we distribute a questionnaire to three experts in the field, and receive their comments on the structural design and completeness. The result is favorable to our proposed framework. For further works, it is valuable to have a comparison with other works other than the ones that are already mentioned in this paper, such as TOGAF framework based.

Conclusions We proposed a new framework for SOA governance with emphasis on the service reuse. This is the most important aspect in SOA implementation. It is closely related to SOA implementation objectives to create service reuse to make business more agile. We derive the framework by mapping SOA lifecycle with ITIL® v3.0. We elaborate the decision model, rules implemented, roles and responsibility, metrics, and procedure in SOA governance from ITIL® v3.0 perspectives. By deduction we can show that the proposed framework is designed to overcome several apparent weaknesses in the previously published SOA governance.

REFERENCES

[1]

Bieberstein, N., R. Laird, K. Jones, T. Mitra. Executing SOA: A Practical Guide for the Service‐Oriented Architect.

Washington: IBM Press, 2008.

[2]

Braun, Chrstian, Robert Winter. “Integration of IT Service Management into Enterprise Architecture.” Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. Seoul, March 11‐15, 2007.

[3]

Brown, C., and R. Winter. Succeeding With SOA, Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture. Addison Wesley.

2007.

[4]

Earl, Thomas. Service Oriented Architecture. Prentice Hall, 2005.

[5]

Heffner, R. “Survey Results Show SOA Governance Improves SOA Benefit.” Accessed January 10, 2011. http://www.soavalueassessment.com.

[6]

IBM SOA. “IBM’s SOA Governance Model.” IBM Corp. 2006. Accessed February 17, 2015. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/ sos/research/areas/upload/GovernanceIntroduction.pdf.

[7]

Janiesch, C. et.al. “Conceptualisation and Facilitation of SOA Governance.” The 20th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 2009.

[8]

Josuittis, N. M. SOA in Practice: The Art of Distibuted System Design, 11‐24. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media Inc., 2007.

[9]

Kavis, M. “Ten Mistakes that Cause SOA to Fail.” 2008, Accessed January 10, 2011. http://www.cio.com.au.

[10] Niemann, M., J. Eckert, N. Repp, R. Steimetz. “Towards a Generic Governance Model for SOA.” Proceeding of the Fourteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems. Toronto, ON. Canada August 14‐17. 2008.

[11] Ott, Christian, Axel Korthaus, Tilo Böhmann, Michael Rosemann, Helmut Krcmar. “Towards a Reference Model for SOA Governance.” 2010, http://eprint. qut.edu/au.

[12] Simanta, S., E. Morris, G.A. Lewis, S. Balasubramaniam, D.B. Smith. “A Scenario Based Technique for Developing SOA Technical Governance.” 2009. Technical Note CMU/SEI‐TN.009, http://www.sei.cmu.edu.

[13] SOA CoE Core Team. “Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) Governance Model.” Franchise Tax Board, State of California.

May, 2010. Accessed February 17, 2015. https://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/Projects/ITSP/SOA_Governance_Model.pdf.

[14] Susanti, F., J. Sembiring. “The Mapping of Interconnected SOA Governance and ITIL v3.0.” International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics. 2011.

[15] Taylor, S., S. Lacy, I. Macfarlane. ITIL v3.0 Publication Framework: ITIL Service Support, Service Desk, Service Strategy, Service Design, Service Transition, Service Operation and Continual Service Improvement. Office of Governance Commerce (OCG), 2007.

[16] Van de Berg, M., N. Bieberstein, E. Van Ommeren. SOA for Profit – A Manager Guide to Success with Service Oriented Architecture. IBM & Sogeti, 2007.

Integrated Service Oriented Architecture Governance with ITIL® v3.0 25

[17] WebMethods. “SOA Governance: Enabling Sustainable Success with SOA.” 2006. Accessed March 17, 2011. http://www1.webmethods.com/PDF/whitepapers/SOA_Governance.pdf.

Jaka Sembiring earned the Bachelor’s degree in 1990 from Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB), Indonesia, Master’s degree in 1997, and Doctoral degree in 2000, from Waseda University, Japan, all in electrical engineering.

He is now an associate professor at the School of Electrical Engineering and Informatics (SEEI), ITB where he joins the Information Technlogy Research Division. His main interest is on the application of stochastic system in information technology related field. His working experiences includes: Head of Data and Information Division, The Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Indonesia, Vice Director of Information Technology Center, ITB. His current position is The Vice Dean for Resources Affairs, SEEI, ITB. He has already written around 50 technical papers in stochastic process theory and its application in enterprise architecture, risk analysis, robotics and agent systems.

Dr. Sembiring is an active member of IEEE and ACM. Fitri Susanti was born in Duri, 21th June 1984. She earned Bachelor’s degree from Department of Informatics Engineering, STT Telkom Bandung in 2007. In 2012, she earned her Master’s Degree in information technology from Department of Informatics Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung.

During her study at STT Telkom Bandung, She was actively participating in lab works as lab assistant, both at Mathematics & Statistics Laboratory and Database Laboratory. From 2008 until now, she is a lecturer at Telkom University, teaching algorithm and cloud computing related courses. Her research interests are including but not limited to SOA and Cloud Computing.

Fitri Susanti., M.T. is an active member of the Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (SDIWC).