Skip to content

{ Category Archives } BPM

Another Call for Papers: Americas Conference on Information Systems

Although it’s very well-hidden on the information site, the 16th Americas Conference on Information Systems, to be held in Lima in August, will have a mini-track on BPM (it’s within the Systems Analysis and Design track):

This mini-track seeks contributions that discuss the management of business processes as well as technologies for process automation. We encourage submissions from both a
managerial as well as a technical perspective.

Suggested topics include, but are not limited to, the following:

-Business process automation and workflow management systems
-Business process and rule modeling, languages and design patterns
-Strategies for business process design and innovation
-Service-oriented architectures for BPM
-Resource management and capacity planning in BPM
-Information security and assurance in BPM
-Business process monitoring and controlling
-Process mining and its applications
-Business process governance, risk and compliance management
-Management of adaptive and flexible processes
-Management of ad-hoc and collaboration processes
-Management of knowledge-intensive processes
-Formal evaluation of BPM methods and technologies
-BPM adoption and critical success factors
-BPM maturity
-Standardization of BPM, web services and workflow technology
-Industry case studies on BPM technology or BPM applications

March 1st is the submission deadline for papers.

Tagged

BPM 2010 Call for Papers: Research, Education and Industry

I’ve previously extolled the benefits of attending the annual international research conference on BPM, and for those of you in North America who just weren’t ready to shell out for a trip to Europe, you’re in luck: it’s coming to Stevens Institute in New Jersey in September. Although this has always been an academic research conference, rife with papers full of statistical analysis, this year the organizers are creating an industry track for practitioners to discuss the adoption and use of BPM:

The industry track will provide practitioners with the opportunity to present insight gained through BPM projects. We are particularly interested in case studies from the perspective of user organizations. While contributions from consultants and vendors are appreciated, pure product demonstrations, method tutorials, or vendor showcases will not be accepted in the industry track. All contributions to the industry track have to describe experiences with BPM methods and/or technologies from the viewpoint of the adopting organization.

This is not the usual conference PowerPoint deck: you have to actually write a paper. If you want to present in the industry track, you must submit an abstract by February 15th.

If you’re submitting a paper for the regular research tracks, the paper (not just an abstract) is due by March 14th. You can also submit a paper in the new education track, specifically about education and training methods for the BPM professional, also due by March 14th.

Even if you’re not giving a paper, I highly recommend that BPM vendors send along someone from their design/engineering team. This conference shows BPM research that (in some cases) indicates where product functionality could go in the future; best to get in there and see it first hand.

What To Expect From The BPM Market in 2010

Active Endpoints hosted a webinar today with Dennis Callaghan from the 451 Group on the business and technology factors of where BPM is headed. In an interesting echo of a comment that I heard at the time of the Progress-Savvion acquisition, Callaghan links the idea of Progress losing Lombardi as a partner to them acquiring Savvion, although this all happened in such a short time frame that it’s not clear that was the primary driver. He gave some estimates of annual revenue – $30M for Lombardi, $21M for Savvion – that are likely based on the final securities filings around the acquisitions, so may be reasonably accurate. In a follow-up question at the end of the webinar, he stated that Progress paid $49M for Savvion (which is public knowledge), and that 451’s unconfirmed estimate is that IBM paid $170M for Lombardi: a big difference if you consider relative revenues. He said “we have no evidence that IBM and Progress were in a bidding war for Lombardi”, although no one actually asked that question…

Not much else from Callaghan: he walked through an extremely brief overview of the remaining pure play vendors (Pegasystems, Active Endpoints, Intalio, Appian, Metastorm, Ultimus and Global 360), including such jewels of analysis as “Metastorm – still waiting for IPO”, then continued on to point out that BPM needs to bridge business and IT, and that SOA, BPM and CEM/CEP are starting to come together.

By quarter past the hour, we were into an activeVOS demo, and I’m not sure if it left me feeling more-ish or relieved. Don’t get me wrong, the demo was fine, just not what (I thought) I signed up for. You can see a replay of this webinar and many more on their iTunes podcast channel (direct iTunes link, watchable on iTouch/iPhone or on your computer) or on their website. Personally, I’m waiting for yesterday’s CTO Tuesday podcast to be posted, which had John Newton of Alfresco Software making a guest appearance to discuss linking content management and BPM using CMIS.

Disclosure: I have done a paid webinar for Active Endpoints in the past, although my future in that regard is likely in question after writing this blog post.

Appian Analyst Briefing: 2009 Overview and Future Outlook

Appian issued a press release last week on their growth in 2009, and had an analyst call today to provide more detail and answer questions. I attended their user conference in October, and was interested to hear their plans in the wake of recent BPM acquisitions.

In short, their 2009 performance was the best in their history:

  • 67% increase in software license revenues
  • 59% increase in international revenues, expanding beyond their UK base to Australia, New Zealand and the Middle East (which shows an obvious bias towards English-speaking countries that they’ll need to better address at some point)
  • 112% increase in number of new customers, including a significant win at Amazon over Lombardi and Pega
  • Signed 6 major VAR/OEM relationships for both on-premise and SaaS products, including RICOH’s business process automation group

In addition to new product releases and their cloud-based offering, Appian Anywhere (which is now responsible for 10% of their revenue), they’ve productized their professional services framework and implementation methodology, and have launched a free (but closed) online community for their customers and partners. Although they still have a significant base in the US federal government, deployed in 22 agencies and departments, they’ve expanded into financial services, insurance, telecommunications and logistics.

Matt Calkins gave us his view of their future, starting with “Appian Is Not For Sale” and contrasting their position of almost 100% self-funded growth, with only recent venture capital infusions that will not force their hand any time soon, against that of recently-acquired BPM vendors who may have run out of road with their long-time VCs and forced to sell. He sees the BPM fight as now being between themselves and Pega, pitting their rate of innovation and ease of use against Pega’s dominant market share. The stack vendors are certainly serious competition, but a customer’s decision to go with a stack vendor versus a BPM suites vendor is usually made so early in the evaluation cycle that Appian rarely finds themselves in a short list head-to-head against a stack vendor. I found that to be a refreshingly realistic view of the market: BPM isn’t a homogeneous market where every customer always looks at every vendor; the vendors are passed through many filters along the way, and the true battles are between those that end up on the same short list. The higher-level strategy, of course, is to change those filters.

Appian will be a company to watch this year, as one of only a few remaining players in a still very competitive BPM space. They would be well-served by opening up their online community to non-customers (although possibly reserving product-specific portions of it for customers) in order to better show off their market leadership. They’re also in a position to achieve dominance in the SaaS BPM market (which they already claim to lead), although there’s still a lot of discussion about the actual utility of cloud-based BPM.

IBM-Lombardi Deal Closes

That was fast! Proving my predictions to be ever so inaccurate when I said that it could be months before this closed, the IBM acquisition of Lombardi has closed less than six weeks after it was announced. Good news for IBM, Lombardi, and Lombardi customers.

Not surprisingly, IBM has toned down the “departmental” rhetoric that they initially used when talking about how Lombardi fits into their portfolio; there’s now only a mention of departmental managers rather than branding the software suite as being targeted only at departmental applications:

Lombardi adds a new dimension to IBM’s enterprise-wide BPM capabilities by giving organizations the ability to quickly adjust their business processes to support sudden and changing needs, especially those that rely heavily on collaboration to complete a task or project. Lombardi strengthens IBM’s capabilities in automating these processes, while empowering managers at the department level to change already running processes on the fly, eliminating the need for complicated and time-consuming technical intervention.

Of course, this now makes BP3’s upcoming bpmCamp an IBM user group conference. :)

More BPM Acquisitions: Progress Buys Savvion

BPM acquisitions must be in the air: today, Progress Software announced that they’ve bought Savvion for $49M. This is hot on the heels of IBM’s announcement last month that they’re buying Lombardi, with one huge difference being that Progress doesn’t already have a BPM product in their lineup, whereas IBM has two. Of the three mid-range BPMS-only vendors that I would most commonly name – Appian, Lombardi and Savvion – that’s two out of the three announcing acquisition in less than a month. With the economy just starting to pull out of a huge pit, that’s telling news: as I mentioned in my post about Lombardi, if the economic climate were different, these would be IPOs that we’d be seeing rather than acquisitions. These acquisitions by larger companies, however, changes the BPM market landscape pretty significantly, since this makes it significantly easier for Lombardi and Savvion (under the IBM and Progress banners, respectively) to get a foot in the door of larger customers who rely on their major vendors to bring them enterprise solutions, rather than considering a smaller company. One advantage that Progress/Savvion have at this point in time is that the acquisition is actually closing today (or later this week), whereas IBM/Lombardi went the pre-acquisition announcement route, and will endure several months of limbo before the deal closes. [Update: I’ve received a few tweets and emails indicating that the IBM/Lombardi close will happen very soon, possibly around February 1st, although I haven’t heard a final date. My “several months” was based on past experience.]

I had an early morning call with Dr. John Bates (CTO of Progress) and Dr. Ketabchi (CEO of Savvion), but a few people obviously had earlier time slots: Neil Ward-Dutton has already posted his initial thoughts, as has Jason Stamper. I agree with Neil that this is a smart move for Progress: a good fit of products with minimal overlap, directly addressing some of the challenges that they’re hearing from their customers in terms of achieving operational responsiveness. The existing suite of Progress products allows for determining what happened within an organization – a rear-view mirror approach – but not much that allows the organization to quickly change how they’re doing things in order to drive efficiency or respond to changing conditions. Bringing BPM into the fold allows them to change that, primarily through tying Progress’ Apama CEP with Savvion BPM, but also by leveraging the rest of the Progress SOA and ESB infrastructure, including data and application integration.

Savvion’s had a couple of internal shakeups in the past two years: in early 2008, Savvion axed contractors, most of their marketing department and some salespeople, ostensibly in order to shift towards a solution focus, although at the time I said that they could be positioning themselves for acquisition. They’ve had a strong push on their vertical solutions since that time, wherein they develop frameworks for vertical applications, then allow partners – or even customers – to built vertical solutions on those common frameworks.

Like many BPM vendors, Savvion has often sold to the technology side of organizations but have shifted focus to the business side recently. Progress is still a very technology-focused set of tools, so it will be interesting to see how well they can bring together the different marketing messages. In my conversation with him this morning, John Bates said that they’re moving towards more of a solutions-oriented approach rather than product-oriented: although this is an easier sell to the business side, it can be used to mask a number of disparate products being clumped together without much natural cohesion (cf. “IBM BPM”).

There will need to be some product integration points to be able to really sell this as an integrated suite of tools rather than a “solution” patched together with professional services. First, they need to bring together a common process modeling environment. Ditto for an event/process monitoring environment. Third, they need to consider the touchpoints within application development: although data integration and application integration will be designed using the existing Progress products, these have to be seamlessly integrated into Savvion’s process application development environment. There are likely also areas of integration at the engine level, too, but getting the developer and analyst-facing tools integrated first is key to acceptance, and therefore sales, of an integrated solution.

Another consideration will be a software-as-a-service offering: Savvion already has inroads in this with their BPO market, although they haven’t yet announced any consumer-facing SaaS products. Bates stated that Progress considers SaaS “an important paradigm”, which I would translate as “we know that we have to do it, but aren’t there yet”. Pushing BPM and CEP to mid-range and smaller companies is going to require a strong SaaS offering, as well as providing a platform for larger enterprises to use for piloting and testing.

Because the acquisition has already closed, or is closing within the next day or two, Progress and Savvion sales and partner channels are already being brought together; the same will happen soon for marketing teams. As always happens in this case, there will be some losses, but given the small degree of overlap in product functionality, they’ll probably need most of the skills from both sides to make this work. Dr. K. has stated that he’ll stay with Progress, although his role hasn’t been announced.

The BPM+CEP equation is becoming increasingly important as organizations focus on operational responsiveness, and I think that it’s particularly significant that Progress appointed Bates – formerly co-founder and CTO of Apama before their acquisition by Progress – to the CTO position during the time when they must have been negotiating to acquire Savvion. Clearly, Progress sees BPM+CEP as an important mix, too.

 

Disclosure: Savvion has been my client within the past year, for creating a webinar and internal strategy reports, although we have no active projects at this time.

Participate in a BPM Research Survey

Strangely, this message was sent to the BPM Arena Google Group on December 7th, but just delivered to my email this morning. Two students from the University of Applied Sciences
Ravensburg – Weingarten are doing a research survey about BPM usage, and are looking for participants.

I realize that many people have left for the holidays already, but if you haven’t, you probably have plenty of time to take the 15 minutes required to fill it out. Spread the Christmas cheer, and help a couple of students with their research:

We are 2 Bachelor students from the University of Applied Sciences
Ravensburg – Weingarten in Germany.

In cooperation with the Technical University of Eindhoven
(Netherlands), we are performing a study, in which we analyze possible
correlations between organizational characteristics and the success of
BPM projects.

In order to analyze selected issues, we decided to conduct an online
survey.

We write you today to ask you to participate in this survey if you
have experiences in using  BPM technologies or if you have
participated in BPM projects. Almost all questions are simple
multiple choice questions.

Their answering should not last more than 15 minutes. The
questionnaire is available via the following link:
http://sites.google.com/site/bpmsurveyen/home

The survey is online until Christmas 2009. The evaluation of the
survey results is anonymous.

Each participant that denounces a valid email address will get a free
report that summarizes major results of the survey. This report will
be sent to the participants in March 2010.

If you have questions regarding the study, feel free to contact us by
email to:
christian_waibel@gmx.de  and edgarrot@yahoo.com

We would be very grateful if you would help us with our study.

Thanks in advance for your support and kind regards.

Edgar Rot and Christian Waibel

As they mention in their email, if you include your email address when filling out the survey, you’ll receive a summary of the survey results.

IBM Buying Lombardi: A Bauble on their BPM Christmas Tree?

I was on the analyst call this morning to hear about IBM’s acquisition of Lombardi – a pretty significant acquisition in the BPM space. Lombardi is the best known of the mid-range BPMS vendors, and if the economic climate weren’t quite so dreary, I imagine that they’d be doing an IPO rather than being acquired, or at least staying as an independent rather than become part of an organization that offers what Phil Gilbert (president of Lombardi) recently described as not BPM, but “Orwellian marketing rhetoric”. Given that Phil has done everything except call IBM the “evil empire”, it’s hard to imagine the drivers behind this acquisition.

Lombardi will become part of the WebSphere team, which is what I said that they should have done with FileNet’s BPM three years ago when that acquisition happened; maybe they’ll do this one right so that the product actually becomes an integral part of IBM’s BPM offering rather than a poor cousin. Obviously, the motivations for this acquisition are much different than that of FileNet: in FileNet’s case, they were buying it more for the content management capabilities, and I think that they just didn’t know what to do with the BPM product except reposition it as content-centric and leave it there; they were also buying a huge portfolio of FileNet enterprise customers where they were directly competing. With Lombardi, however, they’re clearly after the great software, both Blueprint for collaborative process modeling (which will benefit GBS, IBM’s professional services arm) and Teamworks for human-centric process execution. IBM already has a strong integration-centric offering with WebSphere Process Server (WPS), to which they’ve been attempting to add human-centric capabilities; done right, they will slide Teamworks in as a fully-integrated, human-centric part of WPS rather than keep it as a separate product offering. Neil Ward-Dutton’s first reactions this morning (prior to the analyst call) make some excellent points about the overlap in IBM’s BPM portfolio:

Although the strengths of Lombardi’s tools are different from IBM’s there is almost 100% product overlap. What’s more the design philosophy of Lombardi’s offering is almost diametrically opposed to that of IBM’s offering – many of Lombardi’s strengths come from its tightly-integrated toolset and repository. It’s not straightforward to see how these things can come together to form a coherent portfolio – unless they’re basically fenced off from each other and positioned as supporting different kinds of BPM scenario (with Lombardi focused on “people centric” processes, WebSphere on “system centric” processes). That brings its own challenges though, particularly for FileNet.

When Judith Hurwitz asked about the alignment of this with the existing IBM BPM portfolio, IBM responded with how they’ve done a lot of work already to integrate Lombardi with WebSphere (which, of course, doesn’t answer the question), then firmly upheld IBM’s position of having multiple overlapping products that will make it difficult for customers to decide which product is best for them, and easy for customers with a big pocketbook to buy multiple products to do almost the same thing, much as they do now with FileNet BPM and WebSphere Process Server. Sure, there are some use cases that are particularly well-matched to one of the three, but Lombardi’s position has always been (and many of the analysts agree, to a point) that they can manage the full range of BPMS functionality, and adding the ability to use the WPS underpinnings for better SOA management governance should be used to improve that position, not make it a competitive offering.

Amy Wohl asked about how IBM will position the Lombardi offering within the market; they see it as a BPM entry route into departments, which might then be shifted to another BPM platform as it works out. IBM’s GBS sees it as filling the layer between business and application development, rather than as an end in itself, and one of the IBM slides stated that Lombardi “brings simple, collaborative and business-driven capabilities for departmental BPM”. That seems to indicate that IBM plans to use this as a relatively low-end offering to get their foot in the door, then bring in the big WPS guns along with a huge portfolio of GBS services. That seems completely counter to the Lombardi philosophy, although I’m sure that they’re not driving the bus at this point.

Tony Baer asked about Blueprint versus BlueWorks; although there is some overlap, I see this as less of an issue since BlueWorks has been somewhat light on process modeling and more about the community. To do this right, I think that they can bring Blueprint’s modeling capabilities into BlueWorks community to replace the BlueWorks modeling; if not, there’s going to be a lot of confusion around this.

James Governer asked about the potential for integration with Lotus, where IBM’s collaboration capabilities are centered; it seems that Lombardi is being positioned as part of the WebSphere suite, so although there might be some synergies (as IBM replied in a somewhat hand-waving way), I’m not sure that that potential will be fully realized.

You can find IBM’s press release here, Lombardi’s press release here, and Phil Gilbert’s blog post about the acquisition here which, somewhat shockingly, finishes with “And remember, like I’ve always said, ‘if it’s BPM, it’s IBM.’”, an interesting counterpoint to his post that I refer to above where he states the “IBM doesn’t do BPM” as part of his long-running anti-stack vendor campaign. That about-face is definitely Orwellian.

I did have to laugh at the email from IBM to analysts this morning, which invited us to tweet using the hashtag #BPM, as if this were the only thing happening in the BPM space today. On the other hand, maybe it is.

OutSystems Agile Platform 5.0 Adds Process Modeling

I’ve reviewed a lot of BPM systems, and one of the most common weak points is in developing the part of the process application that isn’t generated from the process model: user interfaces, data models, security, business logic and integration with legacy systems. Some of this is improving, with the addition of graphical forms builders for UI, and integration of business rules engines, but these are typically the places where you have to drop out of that lovely BPMS environment and write some Java UI code, or hand-craft a data model. Although the process models might be easy to change, as soon as you start writing code, your BPMS turns from agile to brittle.

BPMS vendors tend to focus on process modeling and generating an executable process from that model first, then later tack on features to expand into a full application development suite. OutSystems has taken the opposite approach: they’re an Agile application development suite vendor that’s adding business process management as a feature in their application development toolkit.

Backing up a bit, OutSystems makes a model-driven application development suite called Agile Platform, that allows for rapid development of web-based applications that involve complex system integration and rich user interfaces. Headquartered in Portugal, they developed a strong European customer base before entering the North American market in 2007, and helped boost adoption by offering a free community edition. Agile Platform manages the whole application lifecycle: following the model-driven development, you deploy and manage your applications directly from it, and there are tools for collecting user feedback directly within the executing applications to feedback to the developers for potential changes.

With Agile Platform 5.0, released earlier this week, they’ve added business processes to the application development mix. Since their product is targeted at developers, their process modeler isn’t for a non-technical business analyst: it’s a capability within the model-driven application development environment, just like data modeling and UI development. Other application artifacts, such as screens, can be integrated with the process to show the the interrelationship between the process and application.

OutSystems Agile Platform - process modelThe process modeler isn’t BPMN, but a simple flowchart format without swimlanes, and with a small but adequate set of flow elements: start, conditional start, human activity, automated activity, execute process, send email, wait, decision, end and comment. The start event may be triggered by user input on a form or by some simple events include database triggers, but there are no intermediate or end events. Since you’re working in an integrated application development environment, there are data modeling tools allowing you to create the process instance data model and view it as an entity-relationship diagram: this is just part of the overall application data model, and treated as such. Similarly, you can create a user interface, drag fields onto it from the data model, add the screen flow logic, and bind it to a step in the process. If you want a quick demo, there’s a screencam on their site showing how to build a business process in 30 minutes (although it only runs 9 minutes since there’s some fast-forwarding through the boring bits).

The process and application are deployed as a single unit for execution, since the process is just an extension of the application. Agile Platform generates and compiles standard .NET or Java code from the models, updates databases with the data models and deploys the code on the application servers in a single step. If you want to stop using Agile Platform at some point, you can take the generated source code (which looks pretty clean) and work directly with it. Since this executes as compiled code, it’s fairly efficient: they reported one of their beta customers as having 16 high-level processes with more than 200 activities each, and 3.8 million activities in flight at any given time.

An interesting user interface feature is that if you’re anywhere in the application/portal and you have uncompleted tasks, you’ll see a little floating box showing a counter of your incomplete tasks; click on it to list the tasks, then click on one to open and process it. After completion, you’re automatically returned to where you were in the portal before processing the task. That means that occasional process participants don’t need to keep checking their process inbox to see if they have tasks assigned to them.

They’ve also included a predefined analytical model for process reporting and have some monitoring capabilities in the enterprise edition, although I didn’t see that during the briefing.

To be clear, Agile Platform does not offer full BPMS functionality: there’s no true orchestration, no event handling (aside from a few start events), and no process reusability. Their intention is to provide “good enough” process management for primarily human-facing processes, in the context of a web-based business application. The application is primary; process is just another feature of the application. Although process-centric BPM types might recoil in horror from that idea since it violates the idea of end-to-end processes independent of applications, this is how many businesses view things: users think about performing a function in the CRM application without much awareness that they are participating in the order-to-cash process, and developers want a single application lifecycle to manage for both applications and related processes.

The opposite of BPMS vendors who have been building (often substandard) application development environments to extend their process modeling and execution, Agile Platform adds process modeling and execution to a robust application development environment. They have a proven track record in doing application development right; it remains to be seen if they’re doing BPM right as well.

Fujitsu Interstage BPM in the Cloud

In the Fujitsu briefing last week, I also heard about their cloud BPM offering. Interstage BPM has supported multitenancy for some time, allowing them to provide private BPM cloud infrastructure, most commonly used by business process outsourcing firms. Multitenancy is a key feature of true software as a service: a single software instance supports multiple clients by virtually partitioning the application and data, rather than setting up an independent instance of the software for each client.

Multitenancy is also key when you want to productize it on the web, since it allows for fast and easy provisioning of new accounts, and that’s exactly what Fujitsu is doing with the launch of InterstageBPM.com, which puts the full power of their BPM suite on the web. They have two free versions: a trial version allows for unlimited applications and process instances for five users, but only lasts for 30 days; and a team version, that allows for unlimited applications but only 250 process instances per month on an ongoing basis. Presumably, the team version is for developers, while the trial version is for a full production test or proof of concept. Above that is a single tier of paid licensing: $50/user/month for unlimited applications and 10,000 process instances per month. There’s another tier for solution providers, but pricing and details aren’t spelled out: that would more of a BPO or application development offering. All versions provide 99.88% availability – you’re not going to run your trading systems on this, but that’s fine for many human-facing business processes – and the paid enterprise version is supported by email and phone but currently only during US Pacific business hours. They also make it simple to move applications between the cloud and on-premise versions, similar to what Appian is doing, by providing an easy method to create an application package and move it between different instances and versions.

InterstageBPM.com

I find the cutoff of 10,000 process instances per month in the enterprise version interesting: that must be where Fujitsu feels the tradeoff is between cloud and on-premise systems. For smaller organizations, the usage model will likely be to use the free team version for development, then deploy on the enterprise version; larger organizations will more likely use either the team or enterprise edition for development, then deploy on premise. The cloud versions are also appropriate for third-party application developers, developing process applications on the Interstage platform that can be sold in the online marketplace to end-user organizations.

Aside from the usual arguments for cloud-based offerings, BPM in the cloud makes a lot of sense when you’re participating in processes that originate with multiple organizations. Having an RSS feed for any task list in the cloud-based BPM means that you can consolidate your view on multiple BPM instances from different organizations into your feed reader, for example, or push multiple feeds to a dashboard for monitoring. And although cloud-based BPM isn’t a prerequisite for large-scale federated processes, it can help to make things integrate more smoothly.

There’s a few reasons why this sort of offering makes sense from a company like Fujitsu. First, they’ve served the BPO market for quite a while, so they understand the practical issues of multitenancy in a way that few other BPMS vendors do. Second, this all runs on their own data centers, which also provide managed data center services for many customers in many countries. That means that they have a proven track record at keeping systems up and running, and they’re running on their own gear so there can be no finger-pointing in the event of a failure. Third, with 85 Fujitsu data centers around the world, they won’t be making the mistake of many other US-based cloud vendors by offering US-only data centers, which is an unacceptable solution to many non-US organizations (including all of my Canadian financial customers): although the initial version of their cloud offering is running in their US data center, they’ll be rolling it out to the others around the world.

Fujitsu Interstage BPM V11

I had a briefing this week on Fujitsu’s just-released Interstage BPM version 11 as well as an update on their cloud platform. I’ll cover the cloud platform in another blog post, since this one is getting a bit long.

Collaboration within a structured processVersion 11 has a lot of new features for handling ad hoc, collaborative, knowledge-intensive work; this isn’t surprising, since the analysts and many of the vendors have woken up to the fact that not all processes (or all parts of all processes) are structured, and sometimes people need to be able to create their own processes or just find the right person to which to send a task. In fact, Fujitsu, like many others, consider that the bulk of the processes done today are ad hoc, collaborative and knowledge intensive, with a much smaller portion structured people-centric work, and an even small portion purely automated system-centric processes.

Fujitsu is calling this “sense and respond”, where the “sense” part is about finding the right person for a task, and “respond” is about being able to dynamically create an ad hoc subtask. There’s a lot in the “sense” part that I haven’t seen in other products, such as making recommendations/selections of a person to perform a task based on their past performance at this task; this reminds me somewhat of the research that Ben Jennings is doing on establishing reputation within a social network by examining past behaviors, in addition to just doing assignments based on a predefined skills matrix or assigning tasks to people who you know. In addition to past performance, it also takes into account future tasks assigned to people in order to predict workload, and makes recommendations on due dates based on historical data.

Creating a subtaskThe key functionality for what Fujitsu is calling “dynamic BPM” is the ability for process participant to add subtasks at a point in the process, or create any entirely new process by specifying the tasks involved. This allows a process participant to stretch the process to fit their needs by creating one or more subtasks from any task that is assigned to that user, specifying a task name and description, assigning it to one or more users, and specifying a priority and due date. Control is passed to the subtask(s), then returned to the calling task when all subtasks are completed, after which the process can continue on its previously defined structured path. The status for the subtask is shown along with the task status, which provides the necessary transparency and auditing: the big problem with the way that ad hoc tasks are done now is that users typically just send an email, or make a phone call, in order to involve another person, and that deviation from the structured process is never captured.

A user can also create an entirely new process dynamically, too: they just give it a name, description, priority and due date, then add subtasks to that process in the same manner as adding an ad hoc subtask to a structured process. There is no routing or flow management, however, in either dynamic task creation scenario: subtasks are independent from each other and run in parallel, and the calling task (or dynamic process) waits for all subtasks to complete before proceeding. The recipient of a subtask can further divide it into more subtasks, and assign them as they see fit. The expected use case for a completely dynamic process, then, is for one person to create subtasks for the high-level activities and assign them, then have the recipients of those subtasks create their own subtasks required to complete the block of work assigned to them. Process outline tool for simple flow controlIf you’re in an environment where the activities don’t have dependencies, this would work well; however, if there are dependencies between the subtasks, it would have to be manually coordinated.

If you need to have more flow control in the processes, you can step up to the Process Outline tool intended for non-technical process analysts and business users. This shows the tasks in a tabular representation with timelines, and allows the creation of dependencies between the tasks. It wasn’t clear, however, the degree of control offered here, and the interoperability with the simpler subtask creation method.

The really cool thing, however, is what happens behind the scenes with these dynamic processes during execution: Changing the sensitivty to show only more frequent paths traversedthe automated discovery engine, which is now part of the analytics, tracks all the ad hoc subtasks, and can make suggestions on improving the process based on how the process was actually executed including the user-created subtasks, rather than how it was originally designed. Just as with the desktop application, this bit of Flash allows you to view how many times each path was traversed in the process, and dial it back so that only the most common paths are shown. I think that Fujitsu has done some very interesting things with their process discovery tool – which they can use on the system logs of pretty much any system, not just a BPM system – and it’s a natural fit integrated into their BPM suite. Working together with the dynamic subtask creation, this allows you to see how a process really executes, rather than how your process analyst thinks that it works.

There are some other collaborative features that have been highlighted in this version: discussion threads on process instances (really just a nicely-formatted comment feature, and it would be nice to add tags here to allow for searching the history based on the text within process instance discussions), and wiki pages within the community to allow process documentation. The community portal pages can also link to external portals such as MyYahoo, and incorporate a feed such as a Twitter stream. Users can also get an RSS feed of their tasks, which allows them to consume them in a different interface, if they don’t want to use the Interstage BPM portal.

A few other vendors are starting to think about processes as projects, and Fujitsu has added some of this to Interstage as well, by allowing a process to be viewed as phases and milestones – although not, from what I saw, in a standard GANTT chart representation that allows easy visualization of the critical path – then see which milestones were met or missed.

They’ve added some new dashboard and analytics features, too, but the big win for Fujitsu in this version is the combination of ad hoc task creation and automated process discovery.

21st Century Government with BPM and BRM #brf

Bill Craig, a consultant with Service Alberta, discussed their journey with process and rules to create agile, business-controlled automation for land titles (and, in the future, other service areas such as motor vehicle licensing) in the province of Alberta. They take an enterprise architecture approach, and like to show alignment and traceability through the different levels of business and technology architecture. They used a number of mainframe-based legacy applications, and this project was driven initially by legacy renewal – mostly rewriting the legacy code on new platforms, but still with a lot of code – but quickly turned to the use of model-driven development for both processes and rules in order to greatly reduce the amount of code (which just creates new legacy code) and to put more control in the hands of the business.

They see 21st century government as having the following characteristics:

  • customer service focus
  • business centric
  • aligned
  • agile
  • assurance
  • management and controlled
  • architected (enterprise and solution)
  • focused on knowledge capture and retention
  • collaborative and integrative
  • managed business rules and business processes

BPM and BRM have been the two biggest technology contributors to their transformation, with BRM the leader because of the number of rules that they have dealing with land titles; they’ve also introduced SOA, BI, BAM, EA, KM and open standards.

In spite of their desire to be agile, it seems like they’re using quite a waterfall-style design; this is the government, however, so that’s probably inevitable. They ended up with Corticon for rules and Global 360 for process, fully integrated so that the rules were called from tasks in their processes (which for some reason required the purchase of an existing “Corticon Integration Task” component from Global 360 – not sure why this isn’t done with web services). He got way down in the weeds with technical details – although relevant to the project, not so much to this audience – then crammed a description of the actual business usage into two minutes.

One interesting point: he said that they tried doing automated rules extraction from their mainframe applications to load into Corticon, but the automated extraction found mostly navigation rules rather than business rules, so they gave up on it. It would be interesting to know what sort of systems that automated rule extraction works well on, since this would be a huge help with similar legacy modernization initiatives.

BPM, Collaboration and Social Networking #brf

Although social software and BPM is an underlying theme in a lot of the presentations that I give, today at the Business Rules Forum is the first time that I’ve been able to focus exclusively on that topic in a presentation for more than 3 years. Here’s the slides, and a list of the references that I used:

References:

There are many other references in this field; feel free to add your favorites in the comments section.

BPM Customer Panel #appianforum

The first day of Appian Forum ended with a panel of Appian customers – Archstone, AGF, Enterprise Rent-A-Car and Mercer Outsourcing – hosted by Clay Richardson of Forrester. Clay started with a question about which BPM project to do first: instead of the old “start small, think big, act fast” mantra, many organizations are choosing to start with a bigger project where they’re experiencing a lot of pain. Not, however, the organizations represented on the panel: they all indicated that they either started with a smaller project, or started with a big one and regretted it. I think that the key is balance: select a big enough project to be meaningful and use an iterative approach so that you don’t get swamped by it.

The discussion continued on to include data integrity/cleansing and return on investment, and the audience chimed in with questions on testing BPM applications to ensure correctness (getting a working system in front of the users earlier for validation and testing helps, as do frequent releases), production support (often done by original project team, which cuts into time for new development and CoE activities, but ideally project team is second line of support and leverages shared services support for underlying server and network infrastructure) and business change management/buy-in (requires communication, participation and vision). I think that my presentation on BPM centers of excellence that immediately preceded this had an impact: a couple of the questions directly referenced what I was talking about, particularly in the last question on process asset reusability across projects (difficult unless there is a CoE that manages an asset repository or otherwise governs reusability).

My job here is done: tomorrow is a more in-depth day for customer product training, so I’m headed back to Toronto tonight.

Benenden Healthcare Society BPM case study #appianforum

Ian Grant of Benenden Healthcare Society, a UK not-for-profit, user-pay healthcare provider with almost a million members. They had a need to improve their business agility, and identified that they needed a new case management system as well as better auditability of the decisions made within processes. They reengineered their processes first, then had their three short-listed vendors build out those processes to see how quickly (and well) it could be done; Appian was the unanimous choice of the selection panel.

They created Service Management System (SMS) to document and manage all interactions with members. Typically, when a member calls in, the service rep accesses all previous case data for this member, gathers some information about what is wrong with the member in layman’s terms – so that the service rep doesn’t have to be a clinical expert – then the rules and processes built into SMS present the services available to that member, and generates the necessary paperwork and follow-on processes. When they go live (soon), they expect to reduce their service rep training time from months to three weeks, and improve their customer satisfaction rating from 95% to 99%. They’ve created some lightly-customized user interfaces that allow for fast information gathering and problem resolution.

During implementation, they completely ignored the current state, and only considered the to-be processes and functionality. Although they had a waterfall requirements process up front with formal signoff, they moved into a more iterative prototype development cycle (although one that seems to have taken a year, so not so agile).

They’ve already achieved two million GBP in savings through renegotiations with their service providers based on their expected future-state process, as well as seeing some improvements across all processes. This is fairly common, since the act of examining and reengineering a business process almost always has the effect of improving it since many of the inefficiencies will be exposed and resolved even before any technology is brought to bear on the processes.

They have involved 85% of the entire user base in some way in the creation of the new system, which has resulted in a high degree of user buy-in since they developed the requirements themselves. They’ve already identified their requirements for the next phase, and are creating the development plan now to deliver that by the end of next year.

I’m left with the impression that there is still a lot of waterfall methodology at Benenden; whether that hinders their efforts will be seen once they’ve rolled out the first version.

Appian 6 Release #appianforum

Malcolm Ross was up next to give us an update on Appian 6, being released in GA this week. I had a briefing a few weeks back, so I’ll include my notes from that here for a more complete view.

Appian 6 application marketplaceTheir claim is that Appian 6 is the fastest way to deploy process applications through rapid design and collaboration, rapid deployment, rapid process improvement cycles; they claim that they can complete a production pilot before the big BPM vendors can install their product (I think that they could have the pilot complete before the big guys could sign a contract, but that’s another story). In a nice illustration, one of the Appian tech guys installed and configured Appian 6 on another screen while Malcolm was giving his 30-minute presentation, including deploying an application with process models, forms, rules and reports.

They have some unique technology differentiators to support their speed claims: an integrated portal for creating composite applications and zero-code model-driven design for implementation speed; in-memory architecture for execution speed; easy import and export of applications between Appian systems and the Appian Forum online community using a marketplace paradigm; and seamless migration between their SaaS and on-premise solutions for scalability or changing requirements. To support that, they have a services team and methodology with a CMM-like maturity model built in, including a center of excellence for sharing best practices.

Appian 6 composite app including the ubiquitous Google mapThere have been a number of improvements to the end user interface: intuitive URLs for navigating directly to specific applications, collaborative discussion forums, and realtime user presence. As we heard earlier, the UI has been simplified with tabs across the top to access different applications and areas; in general, there is a lot more glue to pull together the components into complete applications. The portal allows for mashups to be created not just of Appian components and applications, but of other widgets using JSR168 and WSRP, and an application can include different composite interfaces for different roles: in my previous briefing, I saw an application that included different user interfaces for a loan representative, IT staff member, and IT manager, displaying the same data in a different manner depending on the role. Controls to edit the dashboard and create ad hoc reports can be exposed to specific user roles so that they can modify their own working environment; other roles are limited to what the application designer provides to them. The key thing about a composite application built in this environment is that it is task-driven: the process is baked right into the application.

One of the things that I like about this release is the ease of packaging, deploying and exchanging applications. An entire application, including all of its components such as processes and rules, can be exported at XML; this can be managed in a source code control system, or imported into another Appian system while maintaining unique IDs for the components across all systems. This allows applications to be easily moved to and from the Appian Forum marketplace, an on-premise Appian system and a SaaS Appian instance.

Clayton Holdings BPM Case Study #appianforum

Clayton Holdings, which provides risk analysis, loss mitigation and operational solutions to the mortgage industry, have been using Appian’s SaaS solution, Appian Anywhere, for more than a year, and John Cowles from Clayton was here to tell us about their experiences. They have 135 users over 3 business units, with another business unit coming online soon, kicking off 40,000 process instances per month across 50 different process models. They’re doing all of the build and maintenance with 2 primary resources; considering that their first roll-out only took about six weeks, they’re doing a lot quickly without a lot of resources.

They had a number of business challenges, many of them triggered by the meltdown of their financial/mortgage client base that reduced the amount of work that they had and called for tighter controls. They didn’t have a lot of visibility into their processes and metrics, and many of their key processes were manual; typical training time for the business processes was about six months, yet they had a high attrition rate that meant that people were leaving just as they became capable at the processes. With little internal IT bandwidth and slashed budgets, they decided on a SaaS solution to allow them to try out BPM without a lot of up-front costs or IT efforts.

They had some specific goals for their BPM implementation, particularly around having process visibility (and auditability) and reducing training time, plus reducing process variability by making decisions based on metrics. Their initial project team was the EVP of business operations, about eight subject matter experts, two process efficiency team members and one business analyst.

They do monthly releases with new or modified process models or UI enhancements; most processes are kicked off using web service calls driven by exceptions from Clayton’s internal systems, although they don’t integrate from Appian process instances back to the internal systems. Users can also instantiate processes manually from their dashboard as required, but most are created from the nightly batch of web service calls.

They see Appian Anywhere as a platform for building applications, and hope to replace some of their traditional development with assembly of components into applications using Appian.

Some of their benefits: 38% less headcount in spite of an increased workload to manage delinquencies, 100% more average value adds (e.g., where they detect a previously-overlooked revenue opportunity for their customers such as a penalty payment) per FTE, and the ability to shift the workload to geographic areas with lower costs because it’s all in the cloud. They have much better process monitoring, including reporting on their key metrics, and because of that have identified other process improvement opportunities.

Their lessons learned and best practices:

  • Focus on change management and process management early
  • Find net promoters and over-communicate rather than under-communicate
  • Limited or no system integration in first releases
  • Prototype everything
  • Frequent releases, e.g., monthly
  • Challenge the desire to simple push current variability into the new tool, i.e., don’t just pave the cowpaths
  • Emphasize the reporting desires up front since it influences design
  • Resist temptation to start at detailed level of a process

In the future, they plan to bring in another business unit and focus on integrating Appian with internal systems in order to reduce manual rekeying of data between systems. They’re also going to look at some internal process, such as HR and Legal.

Appian Corporate Update #appianforum

Matt Calkins gave us a brief address at the customer dinner last night, but there are many more people here today, and he provided a more in-depth review of the corporate picture. Amongst other indicators are a revenue increase of 150% and active customer increase of 58% in 2009: I’m seeing numbers like this from many of the midsized BPMS vendors, supporting my impression that the BPM market continues strong even in the face of an economic downturn.

Their new corporate slogan is “BPM Accelerated”, referring to both speed of creation and operational speed. Speed to create results in quick ROI and reduced risk while satisfying constituencies; speed to operate results in customer satisfaction, better cost structure and enables the optempo opportunity to adapt to changing conditions. Given their new professional services offerings “Live in 10” and “Live in 20” – meaning a fully operational production system in 10 or 20 days – supports their goal of implementation speed.

Appian is creating a new BPM implementation methodology based on the idea that great processes evolve, they’re not invented: the ability to gradually change a process in order to optimize it is a key factor. I completely agree with this very Agile tenet: if you can’t change your processes gradually over the first few months of operation, they will be unable to properly support your business.

He highlighted some of the new features in Appian 6, such as an application focus both in user interface and deployment. He also emphasized the benefits of their real-time architecture, that allows for subsecond response time for process data, rules and reports from the instance data stored in Appian’s proprietary database combined with the full business data in a relational database. They’ve taken a page from Google’s book and made their UI as minimalist as possible, displaying only the features that the user really needs, in order to make BPM as easy to use as email.

The old Appian Access online community has been rebranded as Appian Forum, and expanded to include a library of free applications (created by Appian, partners and customers) with a starting point of 25 applications contributed by Appian based on customer requests: again, speeding time to implementation for these types of processes.

Software AG Technology Innovation Fair

For once, I don’t need to travel to see a (mini) vendor conference: Software AG has taken it on the road and is here in Toronto this morning. I wanted to get an update of what’s happening with webMethods since I attended their user conference in Miami last November, and this seemed like a good way to do it. Plus, they served breakfast.

Susan Ganeshan, SVP of Product Management, started the general keynote with a mention of Adabas and Natural, the mainframe (and other platforms) database and programming language that drive so many existing business applications, and was likely the primary concern of many of the people in the room. However, webMethods and CentraSite are critical parts of their future strategy and formed the core of the rest of the keynote; both of these have version 8 in first-customer-ship state, with general availability before the end of the year.

First, however, she talked about Software AG’s acquisition of IDS Scheer, and how ARIS fits into their overall plan, following on today’s press release about how Software AG has now acquired 90% of IDS Scheer’s stock, which should lead to a delisting and effective takeover. She discussed their concept of enterprise BPM, which is really just the usual continuous improvement cycle of strategize/discover and analyze/model/implement/execute/monitor and control that we see from other BPMS vendors, but pointed out that whereas Software AG has traditionally focused on the implement and execute parts of the cycle, IDS Scheer handles the other parts in a complementary fashion. The trick, of course, will be to integrate those seamlessly, and hopefully create a shared model environment (my hope, not her words). They are also bringing a process intelligence suite to market, but no details on that at this time.

Interesting message about the changing IT landscape: I’m not sure of the audience mix between Adabas/Natural and webMethods, but I have to guess based on her “intro to BPM” slides that it is heavily weighted towards the former, and that the webMethods types are more focused on web services than BPM. She also invokes the current mantra of every vendor presenter these days about how the new workforce has radically different expectations about what their computing environment should look like (“why can’t I google for internal documents?”); I completely agree with this message, although I’m sure that most companies don’t yet have that as a high priority since much of the new workforce is just happy to have a job in this economy.

She discussed the value of CentraSite – or at least of SOA governance – as being a way to not just discover services and other assets, but to understand dependencies and impacts, and to manage provisioning and lifecycle of assets.

A few of the BPM improvements:

  • Also a common message from BPMS vendors this week, she talked about their composite application environment, a portal-like dynamic workspace that can be created by a user or analyst by dragging portlets around, then saved and shared for reuse. This lessens the need for IT resources for UI development, and also allows a user to rearrange their workspace the way it best works for them.
  • They’ve also added ad hoc collaboration, which allows a process participant to route work to people who are not part of the original process; it’s not clear if they can add steps or subprocesses to the structured process, or whether this is a matter of just routing the task at its current step to a previously unidentified participant.
  • They integrate with Adobe Forms and Microsoft Infopath, using them for forms-driven processes that use the form data directly.
  • They’ve integrated Cognos for reporting and analytics; it sounds like there are some out of the box capabilities that run without additional licensing, but if you want to make changes, you’ll need a Cognos license.

Since the original focus of webMethods was in B2B and lower-level messaging, she also discussed the ESB product, particularly how they can provide high-speed, highly-available messaging services across widespread geographies. They can provide a single operational console across a diverse trading network of messaging servers. There’s a whole host of other improvements to their trading networks, EDI module and managed file transfer functionality; one interesting enhancement is the addition of a BPEL engine to allow these flows to be modeled (and presumably executed) as BPEL.

They have an increased focus on standards, and new in version 8 are updates to XPDL and BPEL support, although they’re still only showing BPMN 1.1 support. They also have some new tooling in their Eclipse-based development suite.

She laid out their future vision as follows:

  • Today: IT-driven business, with IT designing business processes and business dictating requirements
  • 2009 (um…isn’t that today?): collaborative process discovery and design; unified tooling
  • 2010: business rules management and event processing; schema conformance
  • 2012: personalized, smart-healing processes; centralized command and control for deployment and provisioning
  • 2014: business user self-service and broad collaboration without organizational boundaries; elastic and dynamic infrastructure

She finished up with a brief look at AlignSpace for collaborative process discovery; I’m sure that someday, they will approve my request for a beta account so that I can take a closer look at this. :) Not only process discovery and modeling, however, AlignSpace will also provide a marketplaces of resources (primarily services) related to processes in particular vertical industries.

They have a complete fail on both wifi and power here, but I no longer care: my HP Mini has almost six hours of battery life, and my iPhone plan allows me to tether the netbook and iPhone to provide internet access (at least in Canada).

Tagged , ,

AIIM webinar on content and process

I’m the headline act in an upcoming webinar, Content: Meet the Business Process, hosted by AIIM and sponsored by SAP, on November 11th at 2pm ET. Although I spend a lot of my time focused on BPM, I have a pretty strong background in content management as well: almost every client that I work with has to deal with content and process together.

I’ll cover some of the key benefits of bringing together content and process, walk through a couple of case studies, and end up with some suggestions on getting started with content-centric cross-departmental processes.