Comments on: Forrester Wave: Human-Centric BPM for Microsoft Platforms

By: Vikas

Vikas — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:20:11 +0000

Can we diffrenetiate 4 top BPMS(Savvion, Lomabardi,Pega,BEAAquaLogic)?

By: Column 2 by Sandy Kemsley : Business Rules Webinar Q&A

Column 2 by Sandy Kemsley : Business Rules Webinar Q&A — Sun, 04 May 2008 21:13:37 +0000

[...] I can’t recall if we were talking about BPMS or BRMS vendors here, so I’ll try to cover both. To hit the major vendors, take a look at which ones are included in the reports by the big analysts. Gartner includes the following BPMS vendors in its Magic Quadrant for BPMS, published in December 2007: Adobe, Appian, Ascentn, AuraPortal, BEA, Captaris, EMC, Fujitsu, Global 360, IBM, Intalio, Lombardi, Metastorm, Microgen, Oracle, Pegasystems, Savvion, Singularity, Software AG, SunGard, TIBCO and Ultimus. Forrester splits up the market into four categories with several vendors in each, which I’ve listed in a previous post. [...]

By: Jeff (Bluespring)

Jeff (Bluespring) — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:33:06 +0000

Agree with your point conceptually about how platform should not matter if you’re product is built on an SOA like most of the vendors listed are. However, the market realities (from a vendor’s perspective) are that there remain a large contingent of companies that choose on platform or rule you out based on platform. We still see it in at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the RFPs that we get roped into.

By: Sandy Kemsley

Sandy Kemsley — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:55:02 +0000

Hey, a girl can dream, can’t she?

By: Troy Worman

Troy Worman — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:04:25 +0000

Now, that would be truly magical.

By: Sandy Kemsley

Sandy Kemsley — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:04:37 +0000

Troy, I’m with you on preferring Gartner’s MQ over the Forrester over-segmented reports. However, Gartner’s model could be greatly improved by some interactive filtering, if it were converted to an online report rather than a static PDF/paper. Imagine that you could filter the MQ by any number of factors, such as platform or the presence of a specific functionality.

By: Troy Worman

Troy Worman — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:49:03 +0000

Clearly, Forrester’s segmentation of the market is an attempt to differentiate from Gartner. The question is whether or not it is helpful to anyone.

I’m sure many smaller or less sophisticated organizations welcome the simplification offered by Forrester’s Wave. And while my Fortune500 business partners are not concerned with technology platforms or EA or SOA or EDM, per se, I’m sure there are a lot of smaller companies wading into this space where business people are not only plugged-in to platform decisions, but clearly understand and drive them.

This said, personally, I prefer Gartner’s MQ.

By: links for 2008-01-11 « steinarcarlsen

links for 2008-01-11 « steinarcarlsen — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:19:55 +0000

[...] Forrester Wave: Human-Centric BPM for Microsoft Platforms (tags: cx bpm human-driven-processes) [...]

By: Sandy Kemsley

Sandy Kemsley — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:32:19 +0000

Mohan, I was surprised to see Cordys only categorized as IC as well — they play in both areas, which exactly highlights why I think that you can’t split up the market like this anymore.

The categorization as IC is likely due to their kick-ass mashup builder that’s part of the offering, although in reality, you’d use this to build a HC interface. I reviewed Cordys almost a year ago here.

By: Sandy Kemsley

Sandy Kemsley — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:28:52 +0000

Josh, I think that it’s good for a company like yours (K2) because it highlights the Microsoft platform players, but I’m not sure what you’d get if you overlaid the two human-centric reports — are the leaders in both still leaders if they were to be compared on the same criteria? As Phil points out in his comment, business users usually don’t care about the technology platform; it should be a filter on the results, not an initial dividing line.

As for splitting out “document processes”, I think that’s just plain dumb. Most of the human-centric processes that I see involve documents at some point along the way — that’s a big part of why they’re human-centric in the first place, since there’s unstructured information to be interpreted. I believe that the only thing that Forrester is doing with that report is pandering to the ECM vendors who want to play in the BPM space but don’t have the chops for it yet.

Interestingly, by splitting human-centric and integration-centric reports, Forrester is effectively trying to undo the past 7-8 years of Gartner’s efforts to just call everything to do with process “BPM”. Back in the good old days, we had workflow and EAI; now we have HC and IC BPMS.