A good dust-up in BPM
Lombardi’s Blog Site, and Bruce Silver responded with an equally good post here. I couldn’t resist commenting on Bruce’s post… I hope he won’t mind since I haven’t been a regular contributor of comments to his (or any other) blogs lately, but I hope to be more involved in the future. To sum up my three basic points more quickly:Not too long ago Jim Rudden posted a fun read at
- Not having a stack is rarely a sales problem for the pure-plays once they are in an evaluation with a customer. (clearly, it is an advantage for the stackers to have a big customer-list to go calling on and get evaluations started… but once a multi-vendor evaluation is going, not having a stack is just not perceived as a problem by buyers).
- The whole point of SOA is interoperability. So having bought a Stacker’s SOA stack just has very little bearing (technically speaking) on whether I buy any of their other products that bolt onto that. I evaluate each of those products against other products in that space from both other Stackers, and from pureplays. This isn’t just true for BPM, but also for doc management and J2EE servers and databases and content management…
- Time-value-of-money still favors the pure-plays. If you have a process implementation that can save you $1M/quarter, you can’t afford to wait 2 years to get the software you need from your Stack Vendor. That software will have cost you $8MM (assuming no growth in your business nor worsening of the process in question) before you give one dime to the software vendor. By all means, buy software that works today and save as much of that $8MM opportunity as you can!