Skip to content

{ Monthly Archives } June 2008

Canadian Copyright — or is that Copywrong?

Off topic for Column 2, but hey, it’s Friday.

For those of you who have never seen Canadian government at work, it can be pretty entertaining sometimes, and never more than when there’s a lively debate going on during Question Period. Our big debate now is the newly-introduced copyright bill, which blatantly panders to the U.S. media industry; not surprisingly, a lot of us have pretty serious problems with it, and have been talking to our government representatives. Jim Prentice, the Industry Minister who presented the bill, either doesn’t really understand it or just isn’t very good at speaking about it:

The best source for information about what’s happening with the bill is Michael Geist’s site, a law professor who has analyzed the proposed bill in great detail and blogs about what it would mean to the average person, but you’ll also find a lot by Cory Doctorow on Boing Boing, who is Canadian and very vocal against any government interfering in its citizens rights. We’re also starting to see independent artists speak out against this, who feel that this prevents people from easily discovering them, and know that most of the money collected from lawsuits just goes to the lawyers anyway.

If you’re Canadian and care about this issue, join the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group and take the time to send your MP a letter, using the Copyright for Canadians template if you can’t think of what to write yourself. This isn’t just a techie issue, as both Geist and Doctorow explain: it criminalizes day-to-day activities of anyone who makes a backup copy of their DVDs as a guard against damage, or scan and email their kids’ class photo to their relatives, or rip your music CDs for your iPod if the CD has any sort of copy protection on it.

Lombardi Driven: Lessons Learned

Toby Cappello, Lombardi’s VP of Professional Services, led a breakout session on lessons learned in implementing BPM. He breaks them down into three categories: project/delivery, training/mentoring and program/enterprise.

Project/delivery:

  • BPM is about productivity and visibility
    • Metrics, KPIs and SLAs should be part of the define phase
    • Don’t scope out metrics [i.e., don't remove metrics from the scope]
    • Remember visibility drives improvement
  • Integrations, integrations, integrations
    • Don’t underestimate and start early
    • Don’t forget the focus should be on business value
    • Be willing to make a trade-off for the first release
  • “One and Done”
    • Iterative approach…continuous process improvement
    • Phase is NOT a 4-letter word
    • Trade-offs, but don’t always trade-off the reports
  • Requirements documents are not process analysis
    • Consider all options for capturing requirements
    • Don’t over-do the requirements (define) phase
    • Include process analysis skills on your team early
  • A project longer than 90 days is not a failure
    • Self-sufficiency can extend project timelines
    • Some projects are more complex
    • Timelines can be dependent upon the sophistication of the process

Training/mentoring:

  • Java (.Net) developers aren’t all you need
    • Have the right mix of resources on the team
    • Understand the value of face-to-face engagement
    • Identify good pools of talent for developers (BPMC’s)
  • Self-sufficiency requires dedication and commitment
    • Don’t allocate partial FTE’s to the core project team
    • Make sure all of the right skills are represented
    • Don’t mix self-sufficiency with tight deadlines

Program/enterprise:

  • Fund to value, not first release
    • BPM is about CPI
    • BPM should be programmatic
    • Funding model should contemplate projects and the program
  • Collaboration between business and IT is critical
    • Consider carefully for the first project
    • Do not maintain the “wall”, i.e., the physical and/or cultural separation between business and IT team members
    • Leverage the playbacks
  • Ownership (BPM BPMS, process)
    • Processes are business-owned
    • BPM is the discipline/program
    • BPMS is the enabling technology

Cappello had lots of great anecdotes and examples of how these lessons have been applied at their customers, but they’re all generic enough for any BPM project; in fact, most can be applied to any sort of business-IT project.

Some audience discussion raised the point that integration is the single biggest point of risk in any BPM initiative; I’ve seen this a lot, especially in cases when you could trade off by continuing to do part of a process manually for a while instead of undertaking a time-consuming and expensive integration in the first phase. “Broad, then deep” is the way to go in terms of implementing processes.

That’s my last session for Driven, and my last conference (I hope) until September. Now I’ll have a chance to catch up on my real work (the stuff that pays the bills) as well as the partially-written product reviews that I have sitting in Live Writer.

Tagged

Lombardi Driven: Cross-Organizational BPM panel

I attended a panel with two Lombardi customers, Kim Hearn of PHH Arval and Gene Rawls of Wells Fargo, speaking about their experiences with building a cross-functional BPM capability. As it turned out, it wasn’t really a panel, it was two mini-presentations on the same topic with a joint Q&A.

Hearn started out with a list of critical success factors for BPM projects which were not fundamentally different from any project, e.g., strategic alignment, getting the team right, culture, governance. Her slides were dense with text and moved very quickly, so a bit hard to capture many of the specifics while following along, but much of this wasn’t particularly innovative in terms of best practices. By following good practices, however, they were able to reduce their cycle time of their core business process from several days to under a day, redeploy 15% of their headcount, reduce penalties and have a better workforce utilization.

Rawls was up next to discuss Wells Fargo’s experiences. I spoke to some of the Wells Fargo team yesterday, although haven’t had time to document our discussions, but this promises to be a higher-level view of how they’ve worked with BPM. They had a long time frame from their original process improvement initiatives to the acquisition of Teamworks, but eventually developed a set of roles involved in BPM projects: process leader, SWAT (their acronym for BPM initiatives) developer, BI developer, and business process owner. He walked through their process, starting with with the business identifying the need and defining the opportunity. They use an iterative lifecycle and the agile playback technique to engage the end users in the development process, building collaboration and producing new processes faster.

There was a question about production support; Hearn said that they rotate people out of the agile development team into production support in order to train the support people. Someone in the audience said that they pulled in their support people during testing, then cycled back to support when the system deploys, which sounds like it would work well, too.

Like the other sessions, there was a lot of great audience participation: everyone realizes that they’re amongst friends and talks quite openly about their issues and solutions.

Lombardi Driven: Rich Phillips keynote

The second part of the keynote was by Rich Phillips of Maritz Loyalty Programs — I saw him speak last year at the Forrester Technology Leadership conference — talking about business strategy, technology strategy and how those impact market differentiation. Maritz Loyalty Programs runs affinity programs such as credit card points programs, and hence is involved both in establishing long-term relationships with their customers, as well as providing incentives to the end consumers who belong to these programs.

He had some comments about competition and markets in their business, such as the need for speed and agility in offering incentives to consumers, collecting better information in order to make better decisions, and creating more transparency and engaging with customers in social media; he sees BPM as having a role in all of these.

Lombardi Driven: Phil Gilbert keynote

Phil kicked off the second day of the conference talking more about moving from a project focus to a program focus, and reinforced that we need to reach out and engage the business people. Yesterday, when I wrote that the keynotes appeared to indicate that having IT-led BPM projects was a good thing, Phil took the time to comment on one of my posts to say that it wasn’t a good thing, but it was the current reality.

He showed us some of the UI changes to Teamworks 7, including an iTunes-like (his analogy, but quite apt) repository view in the left sidebar that’s much easier to navigate. He showed some other navigation improvements, including snapshots of processes as they are deployed in your environment, and made the point that although this is still in Eclipse, it may be unrecognizable as such: instead of just using the standard Eclipse interfaces as most design tools do, they’ve used it as a platform to build a much easier to use interface.

Teamworks is positioned as a platform for BPM execution:

  • Multiple authors working together on dozens of simultaneous process applications
  • A new paradigm for source control and deployment
  • Built for the implications of massive asset re-use

Blueprint is positioned as a platform for BPM communication:

  • Creating a culture of process information
    • Rich analysis and diagramming for experts
    • Rich documentation for authors and readers alike

I’ve committed to Dave Marquard (and now publicly in front of all of you) to actually spend some time with Blueprint this summer, since I have no travel until September, so watch for my results from my test drive.

Phil went on to discuss the skills that Lombardi’s services team brings to customers, and the BPM roles that they provide: program management, BPM analysis, BPM consultant, and technical consultant. They also have some new roles in their engagement team: a “client partner”, who is a non-billable resource that interfaces with the services group, in addition to the account executive. As mentioned yesterday, they have four fixed-price, fixed-outcome offerings: inventory, assessment, analysis, and playback one (which includes the transition into Teamworks).

This three-part formula — platform for execution, platform for communication, and know-how to make it all work — is the key message coming out of Lombardi at this conference.

Tagged

Lombardi Driven: Day 1 Wrapup

The last session of the day was a short one with the two platinum sponsors of the conference,  Michael Melenovsky of Satyam Consulting and Hub Vandervoort of Progress Software, with a quick plug for their products and services. I realize that these guys pay a lot to be here, so I’m not going to fault them for taking advantage of this opportunity.

Something that I discovered partway through the day: the wifi in the conference area is sponsored by Capability Measurement, one of the conference’s gold sponsors. Kudos to Lombardi for coming up with the idea of hitting up one of their sponsors for this essential service. I know that hotels and conference centers charge outrageous rates for wifi, given the tiny actual cost to them to run a wifi network, and having it as a sponsored part of the conference just like the breaks and receptions is a great idea.

All in all, I’m finding the conference well-organized and useful for customers. I think that they underestimated the interest in one of the sessions, which was held in the small of the breakout rooms to an over-capacity crowd, but otherwise the logistics worked well. More importantly, there’s lots of time left in each session for audience Q&A, and the audience is participating in full. This is a small conference — about 200 customer attendees — and that size is great for encouraging people to ask questions. There’s also lots of time between sessions to allow for informal discussions without eating into the session time. The small number of attendees and the relatively narrow focus of the audience does mean that there are only two concurrent sessions so not a lot of choice, although the schedule shows a couple of tomorrow’s sessions with three concurrent sessions.

Lombardi Driven: BPM Project Delivery Panel

It’s another episode of The Dating Game, with three customers who mostly don’t want to be named, although I’m sure that you already know about the detailed breakout session agenda. The topic here is how different companies structure their BPM teams.

Bachelor #1 (from a large US-based automotive company) discussed how their BPM team is a split of business and IT working collaboratively. Bachelor #2 (from a global, Fortune 500 heavy equipment manufacturer) is part of a process center of excellence, also made up of business and IT working together. In both cases, they stressed how having the business and IT people on the BPM team collocated is important in ensuring that there’s the right degree of collaboration: if you’re right beside each other, it’s much easier to take advantage of the casual interactions that can occur.

Bachelor #2’s company is starting to push the creation of processes further into the business side of the team; he said that they have some processes now that are not touched by IT at all until final review and deployment, which is the rarely-realized vision of every BPM vendor and customer.

Bachelorette #3 (from a global semi-conductor company) is using the playback session technique for working with their users in order to float new ideas and get early feedback, which they have found to be a key to success. This is similar to Agile methodologies where users are involved early and often in order to fine-tune the development to meet changing user needs and wants, set priorities on customizations, and avoid any huge surprises when the system deploys.

The issues that they have include insufficient internal resources, trying to standardize processes across business units (especially in different countries), and the division of labor between the different team members, although none of these appeared insurmountable. There was a discussion around the problem with upgrades and changes to the business process, and seem to have found that they have to flush out their process before upgrading the process; this is expected to be addressed better in future versions of Teamworks, but this is a difficult problem that not many BPM vendors do well.

Lombardi Driven: Blueprinting Business Processes

Dave Marquard and Kalvin Stollznow of Lombardi gave a presentation on using Blueprint; Dave, who I’ve met previously, is the product manager of Blueprint, and Kalvin is a principal BPM analyst in the services group. We had a quick demo of Blueprint, with Kalvin talking through the business scenario while Dave drove; I suspect that there’s a lot of Teamworks customers in the room who haven’t had time to do much with Blueprint yet, and this is their first real introduction to it.

The context for the demo was in discussing their “2 x 6 workshop” engagement for process discovery, and how a tool like Blueprint can help to facilitate this. The new services offering are an obvious focus for Lombardi these days, so it’s not surprising to see a couple of the sessions on what they’re offering in these front-end discovery, analysis and design packages. They finished up with a description of the packaged process definition service offerings: inventory, assessment, analysis and playback one. The playback one package is an addition to the first three, which were announced back in April, and it’s focused on showing the users what the new process will look like.

The presenters are being asked to keep to a 30-minute presentation in a 45-minute time slot in order to allow for lots of time for audience questions, making the presentations a bit lightweight; even so, I found this a bit too sales-y, although the Q&A dug into some good points about functionality and availability of new features.

Tagged , ,

Lombardi Driven: Executive Roundtable

We had a short session just before the morning break with He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named from a large US-based automotive company discussing their BPM projects. They’re implementing multiple BPM projects, including an engineering resource change management system, and are even using BPM to run the program of BPM projects.

Next up was a panel with Rod Favaron, Phil Gilbert and three customer executives. One of the panelists made a crack that this was either like the Dating Game or Oprah, so I’ll just refer to them as Bachelor #1 (from the afore-mentioned automotive company), Bachelor #2 (from a global, Fortune 500 logistics and relocation company) and Bachelor #3 (from a mid-western US travel company). Instead of prepared presentations, this was structured as an audience Q&A session.

Bachelor #3 responded to a question about the teams required for BPM by stating that you don’t need your “best” developers (by which I think that he means the hard-core Java developers) to do BPM development, since the development is lightweight compared to other development projects that you might have going on. Interestingly, I had a conversation with a customer at the break who has found that they have had to do a lot of custom UI work not because the Lombardi tool lacks functionality, but because their user community is accustomed to having a specific look and feel for certain applications, and is willing to pay more and wait longer to have custom interfaces developed that will eventually result in longer and more expensive maintenance cycles. I’m not at all surprised by this, since I see it all the time at my customers; although I always try to put forward the “take it out of the box and use it naked” philosophy, some companies don’t consider the trade off between the one-time hit of having employees learn a new system versus the ongoing costs of custom systems.

In response to a question about using a BPMS versus off-the-shelf software versus custom build, Bachelor #2 talked about how they use the BPMS to manage change and manage risk better, since there’s little off-the-shelf software that addresses their core business needs. They had 23 different processes across 3 legacy applications plus manual procedures, and are gradually replacing the processes in the legacy systems. #3 added that BPM also gives them connectivity across the enterprise, that is, connecting up the siloed packaged applications within different functional areas. #1 said that there are many areas where BPM should be a part of a complete solution that will combine custom-built services and packaged applications in more of a hybrid solution.

An audience member asked what to you do when the BPM projects start to move from being a business-led process improvement project to an IT development tool. This was interesting, because of Rod and Phil’s earlier statements that we’re in an era of IT-led BPM programs, and they seemed to think that this was a good thing. The customers, however, still think that business should be driving this: #3 feels that bringing together business and IT and eliminating the boundaries between them is the key to pushing this to a collaborative effort, and #2 concurred and stated that both the business and IT parts of the BPM projects report up to him, the CIO. Phil chimed in that there’s a need to break the usual application development mentality; the key thing is that if IT sees BPM as just another application development tool, it will fall into the domain of IT, but if business and IT both see BPM as a tool for collaborating on process implementation, then it will remain a cross-functional responsibility.

There was a question about failures and lessons learned during their Lombardi implementation. #2 said that they were too ambitious in terms of project scope, trying to take on too much in their first projects. #1 agreed with this, saying that the minor exceptions during those initial implementations slowed them down and forced them to reduce scope. #3 said (pointing out that this was more of a lesson learned than a failure) was that they should have started the process instrumentation earlier.

The final question was about using the BPMS as a system of record: #1 said that it’s their philosophy not to use the BPMS in that way, but to push all permanent data back to the core systems, although transient data may be persisted in the BPMS until a process instance completes. I agree completely with this, and am always uneasy when a lot of data is unnecessarily replicated into a BPMS and not synchronized back to the core operational systems.

Lombardi Driven: Rod Favaron and Phil Gilbert Keynote

I’m not sure what possessed Lombardi to hold their user conference in Austin in June — it’s going to 39C here today — but a couple of hundred customers have gathered for a couple of days about Lombardi’s products and the customers using them. There’s the usual difficulty in figuring out how to deal with new media, and I’ve been somewhat muzzled on giving the names of customers who are speaking here, although if you had half a brain, you could check the agenda and figure out who I’m referring to when I use the approved verbiage “a large US-based automotive company”. Of course, if there’s customers here who blog (or comment on blogs) or Twitter, then likely they haven’t been given the same explicit instructions, so no restrictions for them. :)

After a few opening remarks from Jim Rudden (who was kind enough to ask for my suggestions on what makes a conference great several months ago, and appears to have actually implemented several of them), Rod Favaron kicked things off with a discussion of the evolution of BPM over the past 6 years. Lombardi has a new focus on BPM programs within organizations, and sees the evolution of business-led projects to today’s IT-led programs to a jointly-led culture of process in the future.

Phil Gilbert then took the stage to talk about how to deal with the period of transition that most businesses find themselves in now. He reinforced this new Lombardi message of moving from projects to programs: in 2006, everyone was doing projects, and are now trying to take a few discrete projects and move it to a larger scale in order to achieve economies of scale and shared resources. This isn’t about making the projects bigger, it’s about how to roll out many small (90-day) projects efficiently so that BPM can become part of the enterprise’s DNA. A part of this is having people understand cross-functional issues, since most are still focused on their own department’s processes, and don’t think about the end-to-end process; Phil feels that IT has a better perspective on cross-functional business processes than the business does, which I don’t completely agree with. I think that IT has the potential to have a better perspective on the cross-functional business processes, but doesn’t reach that potential in most organizations.

He had an interesting quote from a customer: “I used to think that BPM is the glue around my applications. Now I know that the applications revolve around BPM.” This indicates the shift that is happening in how people see BPM, from EAI-type infrastructure to the portal through which people manage their work. Another customer stated that BPM is challenging their fundamental business model, allowing for less-costly decentralized processing — including home-based work — while maintaining a high degree of visibility and control over the processes.

He reinforced Rod’s earlier message that we’ve moved from business-led projects to IT-led projects and programs today: it appears that Lombardi thinks that this is a good thing, although I think that we still need a stronger business pull for BPM rather than an IT push. He talked briefly about the upcoming release of Teamworks, how Blueprint fosters BPM collaboration, and Lombardi’s service packages building on the service offerings that they announced a few months ago; I’m sure that there will be a lot more about this over the next two days.

Phil’s going to be posting a series of charters for BPM governance on his blog, starting today, which he hopes to open source in order to get involvement from the larger BPM community:

  • Charter for BPM platform sharing (rules for access among projects, entities)
  • Charter for BPM democracy (access, visibility, dialog)
  • Charter for BPM budget transparency: top down, bottom up, peer review – ex ante, ex post
  • Charter for BPM “conflict situations” (BPM and SOA, interface definition)
  • Charter for BPM investment (maintaining the infrastructure, upgrading, maintenance)

He believes that these charters for governance are necessary in order to figure out how to run many BPM projects simultaneously as part of a cohesive program. I look forward to participating in the development of these ideas.

The usual logistics: there’s wifi, which is some combination of the hotel’s paid wifi and what appears to be some free access in the conference area. However, there’s no power near the tables so I’m offline most of the time to preserve battery. I’ll scout around for a seat near a plug for the later sessions.

Tagged , , ,

Fujitsu Interstage BPM Version 10

Fujitsu is releasing version 10 of their Interstage BPM, and I had a chance for an in-depth demo a few weeks ago in advance of today’s announcement. On the design side, their new version of Studio now allows business analysts and IT to work together, and includes forms development. In terms of end-user functionality, there’s some improvements to workflow to enable collaboration, and new dashboard functionality. Most exciting (I think) is full support for multi-tenanting in order to allow for shared services and SaaS.

Key new features in Studio V10:

  • Interstage process designerFull application development rather than just process modeling in Studio: create AJAX forms (rich user interfaces) to be attached at a point in the process, BAM designer, and simulation.
  • BPMN compliance, including annotation capabilities for inline documentation, plus some extensions to the notation in order to show things such as the presence of a form attached at a step. I explicitly asked which BPMN objects are not supported, and got a sort of fuzzy answer, that is, that they support all the BPMN objects required for their modeling paradigm. There are two other BPMN views besides the baseline standard: one showing the role at each step — which assumes that you’re not using swimlanes for roles — and one version with coloured swimlanes.
  • WYSIWYG forms designer allows widgets to be dragged and dropped from the palette, including complex widgets such as Google maps, breadcrumbs, and file uploaders: this is almost a mashup builder rather than just basic forms. There’s also BPM-specific widgets to allow you to easily add controls both for a work item’s metadata as well as functionality. You can add validation rules to fields.
  • Once a form is created in the forms designer, it can be dragged onto a workflow step to assign the form to that step.
  • The analytics designer is a separate perspective in Studio that allows creation of alert rules that will fire based on conditions in a workflow, then take an action: open an alert window to a user, generate a chart, or trigger another action. Charts are defined as independent objects, then a presentation dashboard can be built including a selection of charts, including role-based security.
  • There’s a built-in decision tables functionality that separates rules from processes, so that process-related rules can be changed independently and will affect work in progress. I still don’t like this approach as much as an external rules system, but this is much better than using just a simple expression engine with “rules” embedded at points in the process. Interstage can, of course, also support third-party rules engines plugged in for more comprehensive rules capabilities.
  • Simulation based on predefined values or historical values, plus the specification of resource costs. No tools for automatically identifying areas requiring improvement, although they hinted that this was in the works.

End-user interface updates:

  • Interstage custom app with form, Google mapThe user interface is now created primarily using the forms created in the new form designer. In the sample that I saw in the demo, there was a multi-page form to represent a process instance, where the first page was text fields, and second page was a Google Map with the property location related to the process instance tagged on it: a nice example of the actual use of a Google Maps mashup in a business application. The form provides access to the instance metadata and any attachments, then allows the user to fill out additional form data and complete the task.
  • Depending on the user’s privileges, there’s an administrator’s view of the process, and a browser-based (Flash) process designer to allow either complete process modeling or (more likely) to modify a process in flight. Changes made to a single process in this environment can be migrated to all process in flight.

Interstage BPM enforces stringent J2EE compliance, such that any process model, rule, etc. built automatically become a web service that can be exposed.

Application partitioning capabilities to allow for SaaS: support for multiple applications on a single BPM instance with fully partitioned data, security and administration so that it appears as a private BPM instance, and utilization can be tracked by application. This is great for large enterprises that want to run virtual independent BPM environments for different divisions or applications, as well as companies that might want to use Interstage as a foundation for a SaaS BPM offering.

Tagged ,

Enterprise 2.0: Town Hall Wrap-up

A short closing session for the conference, primarily to gather ideas and feedback from the attendees. Yes, we all thought that the wifi sucked, it was too cold in the conference areas and the vendor dog-and-pony shows have to be cut, but lots of kudos on the sessions. I didn’t attend any of the unconference sessions this week, but one person in this wrap-up commented that the regular sessions are a bit of a vendor-fest and a bit lightweight, and that the unconference sessions offered an alternative for more in-depth discussion on a topic. If you want to see some other discussions on the conference and content, check the Twitter stream (or at least the part of it where people used hashtags) here.

For many of us, the face-to-face networking and hallway meetings at the conference is a big part of it: there are many people here who I have known online for some time, and am meeting “in carbon” for the first time this week, plus many who I’m happy to be seeing again.

I still have to write up my excellent interviews/demos with Serena Software and Bungee Labs, which both had innovative (and very different) mashup goodies to show me; watch for those over the next day or so.

Enterprise 2.0: Micro-blogging Panel

Dennis Howlett hosted a panel on micro-blogging (with a strong focus on Twitter, but not exclusively) that also included Chris Brogan of CrossTechMedia, Loren Feldman of 1938 Media, Rachel Happe of IDC and Laura Fitton of Pistachio Consulting. Although not explicitly stated in the session description, the focus was on the adoption of micro-blogging in the enterprise.

Fitton and Happe feel that micro-blogging allows us to exploit the power of weak ties. It changes the velocity of when we get to the value, or “a-ha”, moment. It’s like a gateway drug to social media, demonstrating the value of social media quickly. It allows for serendipity in business relationships, where people who you might not think of including in a project will see what you’re twittering about it and self-select themselves into it, or leverage your ideas in their own work. Fitton also live-tweeted her ideas on the advantages of micro-blogging in the enterprise (these are copied directly from her Twitter stream, hence are in reverse chrono order):

  • Instant field reports from remote sites, conferences, meetings…
  • (You may not know the answer, but you know someone who does.)
  • Fast, powerful way to query your own experts/source unique solutions by getting the question to the right niche expert quickly
  • Flatten hierarchies
  • Cultivate mentoring opportunities
  • Foster camraderie and esprit de corps
  • Share ideas
  • Create versatile mobile communications networks around sales teams, events, global projects and other geographically dispersed teams/groups
  • Create opportunities for collaboration, contextualization and spreading ideas fast
  • Tap into and create a powerful network of loose ties within your organization

Feldman took the opposite tack, saying that he thinks that micro-blogging will never take hold in the enterprise because of the openness and the brevity of the medium — the very things that people love micro-blogging — and Brogan mostly agreed that it would likely only be used for internal technical communications. In fact, Feldman referred to Twitter as “dopey” (he’s a video guy) and thinks that text, particularly 140 characters at a time, isn’t rich enough for the sort of immediate communication that Twitter is trying to provide. As someone who drives thought processes through writing, I don’t agree: I consume (but rarely create) audio and video at times, but text is a much more useful medium for me.

There was a lengthy discussion, including both the panelists and the audience, on whether enterprises would do this on a purely internal system, or on a public system like Twitter, and the relative advantages. There is no suggestion that micro-blogging would entirely replace other methods of enterprise communication, but it can augment them for cases when you want asynchronous but nearly-instant communication to a very broad audience in a public manner, with the capability for interaction between a large number of participants. It can change the velocity of business, critical in today’s market. It can also be a distraction, if people are micro-blogging (or IM’ing or Blackberry’ing) during a meeting or conversation, but that’s a matter of protocol and culture. I don’t even take interview notes on my computer because I think that it gets in the way between me and the interviewee in a face-to-face situation, so I’m very unlikely to ever micro-blog while in a small group, but others are more comfortable with that. If you’re micro-blogging in the context of real-life conversation, then it’s really no different than taking notes on paper in terms of attention.

Enterprise users are using social networks, whether their enterprise masters like it or not. If their work environment gets locked down so that they can’t use them there, they’ll use them from their mobile device (hence the popularity of platforms like Twitter, which is easily consumable on a mobile browser or purely through SMS). Enterprise computing policies will never go away, but it’s time for enterprises to realize that they might actually gain an advantage through their employees participating in social applications like micro-blogging. At the end of the day, I’m not convinced about the value of micro-blogging to me, but I’m not ready to write it off: I likely just haven’t had my a-ha moment yet. That being said, this week is the first time that I met someone who, on hearing my name, told me that they just started following me on Twitter.

Enterprise 2.0: Enterprise Mashups Technical Deep-Dive

Nicole Carrier of IBM, who was on the enterprise mashups panel yesterday, returned this morning to dig into more of the details behind mashups, particularly as implemented on their platform, Lotus Mashups (which I believe started life as QEDwiki). She started by defining mashups and widgets, then outlined what makes a mashup unique in terms of scope, process, users and technology. There are some key differences between mashups on the consumer internet and within the enterprise, however: enterprise mashups typically need to access enterprise systems, which might need to be unlocked/wrapped for accessibility (e.g., create widgets and feeds to access that data or functionality), and enterprise assets available for mashup need to be cataloged in some way.

She walked us through building a mashup with Lotus Mashups, pulling in widgets and feeds from various data sources as well as Google gadgets and arranging them on a page. More than just a portal interface, this environment allows you to create “wiring” between the objects on the page in order to allow data or selections in one widget to impact or filter another one. Once created, pages can be shared with others by publishing in a catalog, and other users can be given read-only or edit permissions on pages.

Joel Farrell, the chief architect of IBM’s InfoSphere MashupHub, joined Carrier to show how some of the data sources are discovered and/or created for use in mashups, and how they’re shared with others.

This quickly turned into an in-depth review of how to use the IBM mashup products, and a lot of the audience started to bail out. Including me.

Tagged ,

Enterprise 2.0: RSS and Business Processes at Wallem

For the last breakout today, I went to the session featuring of Patrick Slesinger of Wallem (a shipping company). I don’t know anything about shipping, but their requirements aren’t different from a lot of other organizations: involvement and transparency to customers into business processes, internal decision support, long-term accessibility to event data. They needed to make their processes mobile and make the right information available anywhere, without using email.

Their solution, using K2 for BPM, Attensa for RSS and SharePoint as a content repository, integrates process-driven applications with managed RSS. The solution uses K2 to manage processes, then pushes the process event log (or some filtered version of it) over to the Attensa feed server, where it can be served up to a web interface or delivered by email. The advantage of using a feed server for this is that it provides complete device/platform independence for consuming the event feed, as well as providing multiple formats for consumption. An enterprise RSS feed server provides things such as integrating your LDAP database for defining users and groups, and allows for easy assignment of specific feeds to users and groups. Users can have feeds assigned to them, which they can’t unassign, but they can use the same tool for reading other feeds as well. They can read a specific feed item on one platform, and it’s marked as read everywhere (as you would expect). The system also tracks who reads which feeds, when and for how long, making it possible to track what information is actually being used, and ensure that users are accessing the relevant information before making decisions.

Slesinger showed a demo of the system, showing how tasks that are assigned to a user show up in their feed reader; clicking on the details in the feed item pulls them into a web form to complete the task. There are many BPM products now that allow a feed to be created for any user’s inbox or other queues; his earlier architecture diagram led me to believe that they’re not doing that (if K2 is even capable of it), but extracting events from the K2 event log instead. In the example shown, the captain of a ship was actually participating in a workflow where he received task notification through a feed reader rather than in email or directly through the BPM product’s inbox.

The results:

  • Increased visibility into systems and information sources
  • Mobile connected process and feedback loops
  • Alignment of information and process creating knowledge and value
  • Email clutter reduced
  • Understanding what information is required: who, what, when, where, why

Their customers — the ships’ owners — saw huge savings as well: using timely information and appropriate processes for deciding where ships take on fuel and oil, the annual customer savings are about $400M. They’re looking to do more with this in terms of analytics, search, and expanding the mobile RSS capabilities.

I’ve been blogging for a couple of years about how RSS and BPM could work together, and many of the vendors have integrated in the functionality, but this is the first real case study that I’ve seen of the two working together on this scale.

Tagged

Enterprise 2.0: Enterprise Mashups Panel

David Berlind hosted a panel on enterprise mashups, with Michalene Todd of Serena, Nicole Carrier of IBM, Lauren Cooney of Microsoft (recently of IBM) and Charlotte Goldsbery of Denodo. I was supposed to moderate this panel, but when the vendors started treating it like a sponsored panel by switching out participants, and the conference organizers refused to kick in for any of my expenses (in an outrageously biased policy where they pay some speakers’ expenses but not others depending on who you complain to), I decided that it wasn’t worth the hassle and bowed out. David’s a great moderator and knows a lot about mashups, but ultimately, I think that he allowed this panel to be hijacked by the vendors, with the exception of Lauren, who speaks her own mind rather than the Microsoft party line. Serena totally screwed up on this one by bumping Kelly Shaw off the panel — a panel that’s described as being full of “girl uber-geeks” — and replacing her with a non-technical corporate marketing person who was out of her depth, and Denodo didn’t do much better by putting in a self-described salesperson.

There was an interesting discussion about how data is exposed to be consumed by mashups, e.g., ATOM/RSS, and the implications with respect to the security of the underlying data, the ability of mashup platforms to consume that data, and how to appropriately encapsulate data so that a non-technical person creating a mashup can’t do evil things to the underlying data source, like doing a search on a non-indexed field in a large database table. You need to consider the interfaces for accessing the data and services: SOAP, RESTful services, web services, etc.

Realistically, business users still can’t do mashups, in spite of what the vendors tell you: there’s just too much technical stuff that they need to know in order to do mashups still. Although it’s easy to drag and drop things within a graphical environment, that’s not the issue: it’s understanding the data sources and their interactions that’s critical. The real target for many of the mashup platforms, as I’ve stated many times before, is for the semi-technical types within business units who are now creating end-user computing applications using Excel, Access and other readily-available tools. I don’t think that’s anything to be ashamed of, and striving for the goal of allowing any business user to do mashups is unrealistic. I was at a client site recently, and of all the claims adjusters and their managers who I talked with there, I can’t imagine that a single one of them would be inclined to even try to create a mashup or — without intending any insult to them in any way — have the skills to do so. Likely the closest that business users will come to building mashups will be configuring their own personalized portal within an existing framework, similar to iGoogle; a proper mashup framework may also allow the portal widgets/gadgets to interact, such as using selections in one widget as a filter for another on the same page. A lot of the good business applications, the things that are now being handled by other MS-Office-based end-user applications, are spreadsheet-like in nature; data visualization is a critical part of mashups, but there’s rarely a Google map involved.

Another issue is whether mashups are ready for prime time: are they really intended to be deployed as production applications, or are they just an easy-to-use prototyping environment? What about underlying data sources that aren’t under your control (like Google Maps) in terms of SLAs and fault tolerance? Although internal systems can also have failures, at least you have some degree of control over your own IT resources in terms of high availability of applications and their data sources, and any critical external services that you use — whether in a mashup or any other type of application — has to come from a company with whom you can nail down a believable SLA.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Enterprise 2.0: Mid-day update

Today I have several briefings with vendors and haven’t been at a lot of sessions; since I take briefing notes on paper, those won’t be published until I’ve had a chance to organize them into posts.

The only session that I was at this morning was Andrew McAfee’s panel with several organizations who have implemented Enterprise 2.0, talking about the reality of its adoption and how the corporate culture impacts that, but I always find it hard to blog about panels.

One interesting comment from a CIA analyst on the panel talking about Intellipedia: the hardest thing to do is to give up control, but if you give up control, your employees will do you right; resist allowing management or IT to lock down the system or otherwise restrict participation. If the US intelligence community can learn to do that, I have hope that any organization can, too.

There was another comment on identifying applications for wikis: check your email to see where the most “email volleyball” is going on where the emails have attachments, and consider moving the content of those attachments (and the process of their updates) to a wiki.

Tagged ,

Enterprise 2.0: Stowe Boyd on Web Culture

Last session of the day before the cocktail party — always a difficult spot — but I’m fascinated by Stowe Boyd’s topic of web culture and the changing ethos of work. His work focuses on the “anthropology of the web” (although I think of it also as the sociology of the web).

Boyd’s presentation style is low-key and his slides are typically a single word with a simple graphic, but his message is compelling. We’re finding new ways to communicate on the web. This is bottom-up growth that we’re building for ourselves, without any blueprint or centralized control; in fact, no one really knows how many servers are even on the web. That’s not different, conceptually, from what’s happening inside enterprises as social applications take hold: it’s a grassroots revolution.

He talked about the disappearance of the “third space”; most people typically have three spaces that they inhabit: home, work, and a social location like a barbershop, a pub or even church. With the rise of both television and suburbia (see Clay Shirky’s recent Web 2.0 presentation for more about this), we started spending less time at our social location, a bit more time at work, and a lot more time at home watching TV. In order to fulfill that basic human needs for socializing, some of us started taking that socializing online, spending less time watching TV in favor of online social networking.

He harkened back to Henry Ford, who once fired someone for laughing while working in the assembly line, positing that anyone working for a large conservative corporation should keep their online identity discreet, quoting others who recommend blogging anonymously if you work for a big company. Many large enterprises are disturbed by the idea of their employees having any sort of public persona that doesn’t follow company guidelines, and social networking inside the enterprise is a huge stretch. These are the same companies who didn’t want to give employees internet access, IM, external email, or (in a long-ago world) a telephone on their desk because it might affect their productivity, without considering that it might actually increase their productivity as well as their creativity.

There’s a lot of power moving from the center to the edge: it’s happened with news reporting and media (the fact that you’re reading about the Enterprise 2.0 conference on the blog of an independent analyst is proof of that), but it’s also happening inside companies and in all walks of life. That doesn’t mean that things are chaotic, since often some sort of order will emerge in spite of the fact that there’s no centralized control. We create networks and pseudo-kinship with those who we socialize with online, where community and participation means more than titles and position. Old culture is disappearing due to these grassroots efforts and web culture: media, government, religion and other areas are shifting from centralized control to social collaboration. The tools are driving the group dynamic, e.g., group decision-making changes vastly when you collaboration using IM and other online tools rather than face-to-face.

Many of us “edglings” work in virtual environments: I have customers in countries other than my own, who I’ve never met face-to-face, yet with whom I collaborate effectively to complete projects. “Centroids”, on the other hand, tend to work in more structured authoritarian environments. Boyd ended the presentation with a table that’s reprinted from his blog post of a couple of years ago, Edglings: A Well-Ordered Humanism and the Future of Everything, comparing the centroid and edgling views: well worth checking out.

After spending a day in sessions where every second person has a laptop open, I’m struck by the fact that people are just as rude with their laptop sounds as they are with muting their cellphone ringtone. Hey people, the only one who wants to hear that cute squishy noise when you get an instant message is you. Please, find that mute volume control on your laptop.

Tagged

Enterprise 2.0: Oracle’s Initiatives for Enterprise 2.0

Steve Diamond, an Oracle product manager for on-demand CRM, led a breakout session on their Enterprise 2.0 initiatives. I’m attending a dinner tonight with Oracle executives tonight and will undoubtedly hear more about this.

After 30+ minutes of lightweight “here’s what Enterprise 2.0 is and why it’s important”, he finally started to talk about what new and exciting things that they’re doing, but I’d mostly nodded off by then. Guess I will have to pay attention tonight. He did talk about their Social CRM application and about what’s happening in their internal AppsLab skunkworks, but it just wasn’t enough to hold my attention and I slipped out early.

The buzz around here seems to be that Oracle doesn’t have enough of their Enterprise 2.0 story sorted out yet, and I’m still waiting for Oracle to prove that notion wrong.

Tagged

Enterprise 2.0: IBM’s Social Networking Directions

I had a great opportunity today at lunch for a one-hour session with Jeff Schick, VP of social networking at IBM, and Joan DiMicco who came to IBM after doing media studies at MIT and is one of the key people behind Beehive. There were only seven of us plus these two quite technical IBM’ers in a suite upstairs in the hotel, giving us an opportunity to have an informal roundtable discussion: a sort of social networking nerd heaven.

We started out with a discussion about Beehive — a sort of enterprise Facebook that IBM has developed for internal use — which has gained 33,000 users in less than a year since internal release. That’s 10% of IBM’s workforce, which is a pretty significant adoption rate considering that it’s not required for creating any sort of work product. Beehive is purely a social platform, not a work platform, to allow IBM employees to create social and personal connections. I have friends within IBM, mostly former FileNet people who were absorbed during the acquisition, and one of them speaks glowingly of Beehive as a way to find other people with similar interests to her in order to find people whom with to collaborate.

Schick said that people are starting to be freer with the information that they share on Beehive, and we had a discussion about whether this additional degree of sharing tended to increase the camaraderie amongst co-workers. They’re seeing a blending of personal and professional information published on Beehive, which tends to enrich the communication between people since you have a more multi-faceted view of someone who you’ve met only online. He also talked about adding social concepts to business applications, for example, being able to link directly from someone’s name on a specific business transaction to other information that they have shared, such as shared files or profile information.

Jeffrey Walker of Atlassian was also in attendance, and he asked about the issue of having multiple social networks and how he really just wants a filtered version of Facebook for the enterprise, not yet another social platform. DiMicco responded that people who do external social networking in addition to Beehive tend to create very different profiles in, for example, Facebook and Beehive: they might post photos of their kids within Beehive but not in an open Facebook photo album. In other words, they use Beehive and other social networks for different reasons. Schick added that you can have links to your other social network profiles on your Beehive profile, so if you already have a lot set up elsewhere, you can link to it rather that replicate it, but that (in my opinion) devalues it somewhat since you don’t have federated searching across all of someone’s profiles if they choose to keep only a minimum in Beehive. Later, we heard about Fringe, a sort of internal FriendFeed to aggregate all of the internal and external information sources to provide some level of federated search, which does ease some of those concerns.

The interesting thing about IBM and Enterprise 2.0 is that IBM definitely eats their own dogfood; in fact, they eat it long before they consider serving it up to their customers. A few years ago, I heard about IBM’s Dogear (a social bookmarking tool, like Del.icio.us for the enterprise) at a Toronto-based Enterprise Camp; at the time, I tried to dig around and figure out when it would become available as a product, but they used it extensively internally before finally productizing it. Similarly, there are plans to productize Beehive and Fringe as behind-the-firewall social applications for enterprises under the Lotus Connections brand, now that they’ve had a chance to polish off the rough edges through their own internal use. These aren’t just for big enterprises: some smaller companies are using them as well.

The interesting opportunity is that IBM puts a stamp of credibility on the whole social networking space by offering applications to enterprises, which will undoubtedly benefit other social application vendors as the tide rises. They also see (rightly) that their social technology is far ahead of Microsoft’s, although it is being positioned against SharePoint in some cases. Schick sees content management as a key part of collaboration, and integration between the Lotus Connections products and ECM platforms such as FileNet, Documentum and SharePoint will allow them to make that even stronger.

Tagged , , , ,