<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The missing links</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.column2.com/2008/07/the-missing-links/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.column2.com/2008/07/the-missing-links/</link>
	<description>BPM, Enterprise 2.0 and technology trends in business.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 07:37:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Sandy Kemsley</title>
		<link>http://www.column2.com/2008/07/the-missing-links/#comment-8415</link>
		<dc:creator>Sandy Kemsley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:44:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.column2.com/2008/07/the-missing-links/#comment-8415</guid>
		<description>Mike, see &lt;a href="http://www.column2.com/2008/06/oracle-bea-versus-ibm-filenet-the-borg-versus-death-by-a-thousand-cuts/" rel="nofollow"&gt;this post that I wrote about the IBM-FileNet acquisition&lt;/a&gt; (comparing it to the Oracle-BEA acquisition): I believe that IBM is gradually marginalizing FileNet BPM in favor of WebSphere BPM. As WebSphere adds human workflow capabilities, the need for FileNet BPM becomes less and less: although it is integrated with the content repository, it's not such a tight integration that you couldn't do it with any other BPM product (including WebSphere). At the time of the acquisition, I thought that IBM should have taken FileNet BPM and moved it over to become the human-facing side of WebSphere BPM, but they've gone another route that will see FileNet BPM die a slow and lingering death.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike, see <a href="http://www.column2.com/2008/06/oracle-bea-versus-ibm-filenet-the-borg-versus-death-by-a-thousand-cuts/" rel="nofollow">this post that I wrote about the IBM-FileNet acquisition</a> (comparing it to the Oracle-BEA acquisition): I believe that IBM is gradually marginalizing FileNet BPM in favor of WebSphere BPM. As WebSphere adds human workflow capabilities, the need for FileNet BPM becomes less and less: although it is integrated with the content repository, it&#8217;s not such a tight integration that you couldn&#8217;t do it with any other BPM product (including WebSphere). At the time of the acquisition, I thought that IBM should have taken FileNet BPM and moved it over to become the human-facing side of WebSphere BPM, but they&#8217;ve gone another route that will see FileNet BPM die a slow and lingering death.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Hill</title>
		<link>http://www.column2.com/2008/07/the-missing-links/#comment-8413</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Hill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:14:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.column2.com/2008/07/the-missing-links/#comment-8413</guid>
		<description>Why do you say good-bye FileNet in relation to the WebShere offering?

Mike</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why do you say good-bye FileNet in relation to the WebShere offering?</p>
<p>Mike</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carter Lusher</title>
		<link>http://www.column2.com/2008/07/the-missing-links/#comment-8406</link>
		<dc:creator>Carter Lusher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:06:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.column2.com/2008/07/the-missing-links/#comment-8406</guid>
		<description>Sandy, Thanks for the link.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sandy, Thanks for the link.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
