links for 2007-03-29
-
A new social networking site for rating and reviewing your neighbourhood. Still pretty empty, it will need a lot of user-generated content to make it at all worthwhile.
I’ve just booked my flight to Chicago for BPMInstitute.org’s BrainStorm BPM conference on April 10-11, so you’ll see me live blogging from there (wifi permitting) under the BrainStorm2007 category.
No, this isn’t some new dish from the Swedish Chef, it’s a new way to fool around with domain names to get them to actually spell something: en.terpri.se (using a Swedish domain name). Following in the etymological footsteps of del.icio.us, en.terpri.se is a site launched by BEA to showcase their Enterprise 2.0 tools: Pages for web authoring (including wikis and blogs), Ensemble for mashups, and Pathways for information discovery via tags, bookmarks and activity analysis.I haven’t seen a demo yet, but you know I want one.
These all fall under the AquaLogic family, and were previously known as Project Builder, Project Runner and Project Graffiti, respectively; it remains to be seen whether this is something new or just the old stuff with some rounded corners. They’re showing all this off at the O’Reilly Emerging Technology conference this week.
Although it’s not yet on their website, Gartner issued a press release this morning stating that BPMS will be among the fastest growing software markets over the next five years: from $1B this year to $2.6B in 2011.
And I thought that hockey (stick) season was over.
Earlier this month was the second meeting of the Toronto BPMG chapter, following a successful turnout at the first meeting. Unfortunately, this one fell on a Friday after a large snowfall when the city had warned people not to travel unless necessary, which encouraged many people to take a snow day in spite of it turning out to be a sunny day with all of the snow melting. (For those of you who live in places where you don’t have snow days, try to imagine the pure delight of missing a day of school and spending it at the local park sledding down the hills, then apply that feeling to missing a day of work. Of course, everyone claims to be working at home…) The result: all the vendors and consultants struggled through the slush and made it to the meeting, and almost none of the “practitioners” (end-customers) did, resulting in an embarrassing total of three practitioners — including the speaker — out of about 25 people. It was funny to hear, however, that three people at the meeting said that they attended because they read about it on my blog.
As with the last meeting, Jim Baird talked about BPMG, then Ultimus (the meeting sponsor and the vendor to our speaker) gave a short overview of BPM without too much of a product plug. The main speaker was Jodi Starkman-Mendelsohn of West Park Assessment Centre, who I had heard speak earlier that same week at the Gartner conference in San Diego. Although I had heard some of the WPAC story, this was in much more detail:
The big success story that Starkman-Mendelsohn talked about at Gartner and here was what happened to them when SARS hit Toronto in 2003. Although SARS didn’t affect most of us in Toronto all that much, it had a severe impact on health-care facilities, where all but critical services were cancelled. Although a private business, WPAC operates within a public healthcare facility, which meant that they were shut out of their own offices with very little warning. Prior to their new systems, this would have put them out of commission for the entire seven weeks of the lock-out, costing them $600K in direct revenue and untold damages in lost opportunity; with all of their applications available online via web interfaces, however, they were managing their business processes as usual by the next day, and two days later had outfitted space in a local hotel with examining tables and equipment to allow them to continue business as usual. Since they’re not capturing the patient files electronically, they still needed access to the paper files, but were allowed to send one person back into their offices once per day to fetch the necessary files.
I created a short course on business continuity planning last year, and I talked about exactly this issue: how having your business processes and other applications online can save your butt when disaster hits. If you have mostly manual processes, consider that that process is actually embodied within the worker’s heads, and likely in paper files on their desk or notes saved only to their local PC. Take away the physical desk, and they might have a hard time reconstructing a particular instance of a business process. Take away the specific worker as well, and you can forget about reconstructing that process instance until you can get access to either their desk or the person. If the business process is online, however, most of the notes and other instance-specific data is captured within the online process, making it possible to replace the original worker and/or remove them from their physical working environment with a minimal impact on their ability to complete the business processes, as long as they have access to the online systems.
Starkman-Mendelsohn talked about challenges that they are facing now due to recent deregulation in the auto insurance industry: first of all, one part of their business is likely to decrease because of changing rules around the use of assessment centres for resolving insurance disputes. Secondly, if someone is required to have an assessment, there is now a maximum distance that they’re required to travel. They were able to change their business processes to suit the new requirements and remain competitive — although the decreased business has resulted in reduced staff numbers — and set up four satellite locations, enabled by the ability to access the business applications remotely. In other words, the easy adaptability of the systems is providing them with the business agility that they require in a rapidly-changing business environment.
She finished up by noting that a BPM system needs to evolve over time, it’s not a one-time project — a big vote for not over-customizing your systems. She also said that involve their subject matter experts in process mapping and implementation was a big part of their success, and resulted in good staff buy-in.
And the final big win for them: the Infoworld 100 Awards named them as a winner in the health-care sector in November.
After several weeks of receiving emails saying “Good news! We expect to have your account activated within the week.”, I received this:
Is there something that Lombardi doesn’t want me to see?
I’ve been meaning for a while to to go back and add some detail to Appian’s software-as-a-service offering, Appian Anywhere. I mentioned the release last month when it was announced, but since then, I’ve had a chance for a conversation with George Barlow, GM of the Appian Anywhere unit, I saw it in action at the Gartner BPM summit a few weeks ago, and Phil Larson discussed it briefly on our BPM and Enterprise 2.0 panel.
Appian has taken their software code base and created simplified sign-on and admin (and presumably some multi-tenancy functionality) to create Appian Anywhere, but will be keeping their enterprise product and the SaaS offering in synch. Since their entire BPM suite is already browser-based, this appears to be more of an issue of adding on some functionality rather than having to rewrite significant portions of the existing product.
In alpha this quarter, in beta in Q2 with a few selected partners and customers, it’s scheduled to be generally available in Q3. There will be a couple of pricing options: an entry level for around $15/user/month, running within a shared instance and with some storage limitations, and a level that runs within a separate instance and has more storage available for $25-30/user/month.
Appian Anywhere is currently hosted on Amazon EC2 (which provides computing capacity) and Amazon S3 (which provides storage), which gives them a lot of flexibility in terms of scaling: as more customers come on, the Amazon services scale up seamlessly, and Appian just pays them on a utility model, like buying electricity. This is smart: Appian recognizes that although they do want to be in the business of running a SaaS operation, they’re not in the business of owning hosting infrastructure, and they can just buy cycles from Amazon (or wherever they end up with their production hosting) instead of buying gear.
They’re working on some ideas similar to Salesforce.com’s AppExchange, where there will be a marketplace of add-on applications (created by Appian or third parties) that can be purchased on a subscription basis as required by Appian Anywhere customers. Customers can also build their own applications from scratch or using a wizard, or modify one of the pre-built applications included as templates. If you want to link any of your in-house applications together with Appian Anywhere, you’re going to do it via web services calls, same as we’re seeing with most other SaaS applications. I’m wondering — although with no data for or against — whether or not this is going to provide adequate performance for user-facing steps within a process.
I did see Appian Anywhere briefly at the Gartner conference, although it was still early days for demos, and we were mostly seeing the latest version of their enterprise product. I was watching their über demo god hold court with a small group when he looked over and saw my eyes riveted on that new little RSS icon on their interface. Oh my god, after all these months of nagging lobbying vendors about adding feeds to their BPM products, someone finally did it, at least for process models. Our eyes met across the crowded booth. He smiled, and said “we wanted to surprise you with it”. I think I’m in love (with process feeds).
It’s been an Enterprise 2.0 sort of week (or two). First, this post by Dan Farber points to an Enterprise 2.0 meme map by Stephen Danelutti, and also to some of Dion Hinchcliffe’s latest, including 10 predictions for Enterprise 2.0 in 2007. Although Hinchcliffe’s entire list is worth reading, #7 stood out for me:
It will be a make or break year for the first round of Enterprise 2.0 tools that add a process aspect. While SOAs and even Web 2.0 apps tend to be more about services and capabilities, the world of business is much more about processes. This has triggered some discussion that the best way to add enterprise context to consumer tools may be to make them more process-oriented. Thus, a number of upcoming Enterprise 2.0 tools have a process bent to them including the above mentioned Itensil, but also the nascent BPM 2.0 movement which can be enabled with these same tools. By the end of next year, we should have a good feeling if this is a good bet or not. My guess: A new market leader in this space will begin to emerge.
This week, the buzz is all about the Under The Radar conference “Why Office 2.0 matters” in Mountain View today, where a few people who I know from the TorCamp community are presenting their enterprise collaborative solutions: Firestoker, a blog-like platform for the enterprise, and ConceptShare, for online design collaboration.
2007 is shaping up to be an interesting year for Enterprise 2.0. As Hinchcliffe puts it, “2007 will probably be the year that will uncover the issues, and determine the fate of one of the more interesting offshoots of the Web 2.0 phenomenon.“
Update: congrats to Scott and the boys at ConceptShare for winning both the judges and audience vote in the Web Sharing category at UTR. If you’re doing geographically (and/or temporally) dispersed collaboration on a design process, check out their hosted solution.
I just listened in on To BPEL or Not To BPEL, the title of which I believe resolves the pronunciation issue once and for all: although the presenter (Danny van der Rijn, principal architect at TIBCO) said “BEH-pull”, clearly it must be “BEE-pull” to make the title work.
Intended for those with a technical interest in BPEL, van der Rijn went through the history of BPEL from its origins as a melding of IBM’s WSFL and Microsoft’s XLANG, through the BPEL4WS 1.0 specification in 2002, 1.1 in 2003 and the soon-to-be-approved WS-BPEL 2.0. More importantly, he looked at why BPEL emerged: basically, the web services stack didn’t do enough to allow the orchestration of processes.
He then talked about what you’re not going to do with BPEL — it’s not a process modelling notation, it’s not for service creation — and stated that it’s not for portability: he mentions XPDL as a solution in that area (with no mention of BPDM). What I’m seeing, however, is that although BPEL may not have been intended as an interchange format, that’s exactly what it’s being used for in many cases. For many BPM engines, the “E” in BPEL is apocryphal: BPEL is a format that’s used to import process models from other applications, but it’s then converted to an internal (proprietary) format for the actual execution.
He covers off all the changes in 2.0: data, scoping model, message handling, activities and more, and walks through the basic BPEL components in some amount of detail. Overall, a good technical introduction to BPEL.
Unfortunately, about 40 minutes into the presentation, I received an “Invalid Flash Player Version” stating that I needed Flash Player version 8 to view the current content, and I lost all audio and video of the presentation. Flash? I was supposed to be using the Windows Media Player version of the presentation! On24.com really needs to get their act together: changing system requirements mid-presentation is not cool. Even when I installed the new Flash version and did a successful test, I wasn’t able to get back in. Guess that I’ll have to see the last bit in reruns.
Tagged BPELA couple of interesting reports on MIT Sloan Management Review today: The Future of the Web, including an article on “Beyond Enterprise 2.0″ by Andrew McAfee, and Measuring to Manage, including an article by Michael Hammer (a.k.a. “Mr. BPR”) on “The 7 Deadly Sins of Performance Measurement and How to Avoid Them”.
Both are currently free to download, although you need to pay if you want permission to copy them.
Time for another Enterprise 2.0 event in Toronto, this time in conjunction with Toronto Tech Week. Our last one was a less formal, more camp-like event back in January; this one will be a breakfast panel with Anthony Williams (co-author of Wikinomics) followed by a camp-style workshops for the remainder of the day. As Tom Purves puts it:
The plan is to bring together the worlds of the leading minds from the technology and consulting side of Enterprise2.0 with business leaders (CxO’s, executives and IT/HR professionals) to bring a practical and real-world perspective to these ideas.
It will be interesting to see how — or if — the “business leaders” interact in an unstructured, unconference environment.
I don’t usually blog about someone getting a new job, but this one was interesting: webMethods has hired Bruce Williams (who, according to their press release, is a Renowned Process Improvement Expert, but I’d never heard of him prior to the Gartner conference) as VP and GM for BPM solutions:
Drawing upon all of the company’s global resources, including product engineering, marketing, industry solutions, professional services, and business development, Williams will direct webMethods’ go-to-market strategies, solution development and customer evangelism for the BPM market.
I saw Williams speak at the recent Gartner conference, and I didn’t find that he had much to say about BPM: he seems to be a Six Sigma expert rather than having any direct experience in BPM, which makes him (in my opinion) an odd choice for what is essentially a BPM product marketing leadership role.
An interesting bit on the WfMC site comparing XPDL and BPEL that was highlighted in a WfMC mailing this week:
BPEL and XPDL are entirely different yet complimentary standards. BPEL is an “execution language” designed to provide a definition of web services orchestration, specifically the underlying sequence of interactions, the flow of data from point-to-point. For this reason, it is best suited for straight-through processing or data-flows vis-a-vis application integration. The goal of XPDL is to store and exchange the process diagram, to allow one tool to model a process diagram, and another to read the diagram and edit, another to “run” the process model on an XPDL-compliant BPM engine, and so on. For this reason, XPDL is not an executable programming language like BPEL, but specifically a process design format that literally represents the “drawing” of the process definition. To wit, it has ‘XY’ or vector coordinates, including lines and points that define process flows. This allows an XPDL to store a one-to-one representation of a BPMN process diagram. For this reason, XPDL is effectively the file format or “serialization” of BPMN, as well as any non-BPMN design method or process model which use in their underlying definition the XPDL meta-model (there are presently about 50 tools which use XPDL for storing process models.)
A good distinction between the best uses of BPEL and XPDL, except for one point: very few vendors are using BPEL as an execution language; they’re using it as an interchange format, which is causing a lot of confusion about what format to use (XPDL or BPEL) to move process maps between a modelling and execution environment. As the above paragraph points out, XPDL maintains the graphical drawing information as well as the execution-specific information; it also supports everything that can be modelled in BPMN (which BPEL currently can’t).
There’s also an article by Jon Pyke of WfMC in Computer Business Review Online where he smacks them down for calling XPDL a failure in a previous article, and states that XPDL is “often incorrectly perceived to be competitive with the business process execution language, BPEL, standard”. XPDL and BPEL aren’t competing in the sense that someone would elect to use one over the other, but they are competitive in that they’re both used as interchange formats, just for different types of processes or in different tools. Unless your BPM engine actually uses BPEL as an execution language (which few do), you’re not going to go from BPMN to XPDL to BPEL and then on to your BPM engine’s proprietary execution language, because there’s no value added from an additional data transformation: you’d do BPMN=>BPEL=>[BPM engine execution language] (obviously skipping the last transformation if the native execution language is BPEL) for web services orchestration-type processes that can be described completely using BPEL, or you’d use BPMN=>XPDL=>[BPM engine execution language] (where the latter may or may not be BPEL) for the larger set of functions supported by XPDL, like human-facing steps. In many cases, the choice of XPDL or BPEL is dictated by what’s supported by the tools that you use for processes modelling; those tools intended to model processes of web services orchestrations are more likely to support BPEL, whereas those targetted at the “BPM suites” market are more likely to use XPDL.
Tagged BPELThree months ago, I wrote about how the free BIJ (Business Integration Journal), formerly EAI Journal, was becoming Business Transformation and Innovation — available only as a paid subscription. I believe that my comment at the time about paying for mostly vendor-written and vendor-sponsored material was “hahahahaha”. And my comment on the new name was “it doesn’t actually mean anything”.
This week, I received an invitation for a free subscription to Align Journal (their tagline is “Aligning IT and Business Strategy”), and when I went to the site (and the online PDF version of the Jan-Feb issue), it looked familiar, so I dug into their About page:
Align Journal is the next step in the evolution of Business Integration Journal (BIJ). Over the past two years, the focus of BIJ was broadened to bring a business perspective to the use of technology for gaining such benefits as faster time to market, governance, increased agility to pursue new opportunities, improvements in managing business processes, and cost savings through the reuse of application components. Since the editorial focus of BIJ had evolved to no longer be strictly focused on integration topics, it was time to also evolve the magazine’s name to Align Journal.
No mention of BTI, although if you go to the BTI URL that was advertised back in December when I wrote my post about it, it redirects to Align Journal.
If this first issue is any indication, it’s definitely trending away from purely integration topics: the table of contents divides the articles into Business Strategy (3 articles), Leadership/Communication (3 articles), Technology (2 articles), Innovation (1 article), and Governance/Compliance (1 article). It’s not clear to me, however, why “Maximizing IT for Effective Inventory Management” falls under Business Strategy, while “Leverage SOA to Increase Your Revenues” falls under Technology.
The paid subscription model is gone, unless you want the print copy and you’re outside the U.S., and the digital copy is provided in a PDF that allows printing, but unfortunately not content extraction (so you won’t see me quoting from it here — I’m too lazy to retype what they’ve already published). And the name still doesn’t actually mean anything.
Eleven months after I used the phrase “BI 2.0″ in a blog post (and James Taylor loved it), Intelligent Enterprise used it in an article. Doing a Google blogsearch on the phrase shows a lot of other use in the last few months.
An inevitable naming trend, but I like to think that I was there at the beginning. ![]()