Comments on: Tom Baeyens on Blending Process and Rules http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2010/01/tom-baeyens-on-blending-process-and-rules/ A Blog about Enterprise BPM and Business Process Improvement by the folks at BP3 Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:30:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: uberVU - social comments http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2010/01/tom-baeyens-on-blending-process-and-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-1365 uberVU - social comments Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:20:39 +0000 http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/?p=1640#comment-1365 <strong>Social comments and analytics for this post...</strong> This post was mentioned on Twitter by bp3bpm: Blog Post: Tom Baeyens on Blending Process and Rules http://bit.ly/6mrWK9... Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by bp3bpm: Blog Post: Tom Baeyens on Blending Process and Rules http://bit.ly/6mrWK9...

]]> By: Scott Francis http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2010/01/tom-baeyens-on-blending-process-and-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-1364 Scott Francis Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:14:08 +0000 http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/?p=1640#comment-1364 JT- It does seem like consensus is arriving, just wish it had shown up sooner...! I think the end-result is fairly self-evident if you've spent a significant time with technologies from both points of view (starting from a process point of view on the one hand, and starting from a rules point of view on the other hand). They are clearly such complementary technologies. Good post, btw, enjoyed reading your blog entry on the topic. JT-
It does seem like consensus is arriving, just wish it had shown up sooner…! I think the end-result is fairly self-evident if you’ve spent a significant time with technologies from both points of view (starting from a process point of view on the one hand, and starting from a rules point of view on the other hand). They are clearly such complementary technologies.

Good post, btw, enjoyed reading your blog entry on the topic.

]]> By: Scott Francis http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2010/01/tom-baeyens-on-blending-process-and-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-4693 Scott Francis Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:14:00 +0000 http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/?p=1640#comment-4693 JT- It does seem like consensus is arriving, just wish it had shown up sooner...! I think the end-result is fairly self-evident if you've spent a significant time with technologies from both points of view (starting from a process point of view on the one hand, and starting from a rules point of view on the other hand). They are clearly such complementary technologies. Good post, btw, enjoyed reading your blog entry on the topic. JT-
It does seem like consensus is arriving, just wish it had shown up sooner…! I think the end-result is fairly self-evident if you’ve spent a significant time with technologies from both points of view (starting from a process point of view on the one hand, and starting from a rules point of view on the other hand). They are clearly such complementary technologies.

Good post, btw, enjoyed reading your blog entry on the topic.

]]> By: JT on EDM http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2010/01/tom-baeyens-on-blending-process-and-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-1358 JT on EDM Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:51:31 +0000 http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/?p=1640#comment-1358 <strong>Business processes and decisions – an emerging consensus?...</strong> Bruce Silver wrote a couple of interesting posts on this topic – Integrating Process and Rules – Part 1 and Part 2. Reading Bruce’s posts, and thinking back on the various posts I have written about business process and business decision ma... Business processes and decisions – an emerging consensus?…

Bruce Silver wrote a couple of interesting posts on this topic – Integrating Process and Rules – Part 1 and Part 2. Reading Bruce’s posts, and thinking back on the various posts I have written about business process and business decision ma…

]]> By: James Taylor http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2010/01/tom-baeyens-on-blending-process-and-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-1357 James Taylor Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:22:57 +0000 http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/?p=1640#comment-1357 I think we are rapidly converging on a common understanding of how processes and decisions should be used together. The role of business rules to both help manage processes (routing, escalation etc) and automate critical decision points within the process is also becoming clear. One added bonus of this is that event-centric approaches can easily be integrated, with decisions/rules being shared across process and event scenarios to ensure consistency and compliance. I think we are rapidly converging on a common understanding of how processes and decisions should be used together. The role of business rules to both help manage processes (routing, escalation etc) and automate critical decision points within the process is also becoming clear. One added bonus of this is that event-centric approaches can easily be integrated, with decisions/rules being shared across process and event scenarios to ensure consistency and compliance.

]]> By: James Taylor http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2010/01/tom-baeyens-on-blending-process-and-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-4692 James Taylor Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:22:00 +0000 http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/?p=1640#comment-4692 I think we are rapidly converging on a common understanding of how processes and decisions should be used together. The role of business rules to both help manage processes (routing, escalation etc) and automate critical decision points within the process is also becoming clear. One added bonus of this is that event-centric approaches can easily be integrated, with decisions/rules being shared across process and event scenarios to ensure consistency and compliance. I think we are rapidly converging on a common understanding of how processes and decisions should be used together. The role of business rules to both help manage processes (routing, escalation etc) and automate critical decision points within the process is also becoming clear. One added bonus of this is that event-centric approaches can easily be integrated, with decisions/rules being shared across process and event scenarios to ensure consistency and compliance.

]]> By: Scott Francis http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2010/01/tom-baeyens-on-blending-process-and-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-1355 Scott Francis Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:53:08 +0000 http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/?p=1640#comment-1355 @ronald - ah, i see. yes the other bpm tools aren't necessarily better for deployment to production. the Teamworks 7 release has a new/better deploy functionality that is a significant step forward, but it has only been out there for a few months. Most of the tools, you still do xml export, import for the model, then migrate all the file assets and java and what not that supports your process.... not too bad if you know ant scripting :) And yes, those were some of the screenshots, plus I did some reading of the roadmap you linked to yesterday. I think all the tools (if smart) will offer simpler alternatives to the spec at implementation details level because, as you say, there are some aspects of the spec that are overly complicated. I look forward to taking advantage of the magnificent support on the user forum! :) @ronald – ah, i see. yes the other bpm tools aren’t necessarily better for deployment to production. the Teamworks 7 release has a new/better deploy functionality that is a significant step forward, but it has only been out there for a few months. Most of the tools, you still do xml export, import for the model, then migrate all the file assets and java and what not that supports your process…. not too bad if you know ant scripting :)

And yes, those were some of the screenshots, plus I did some reading of the roadmap you linked to yesterday. I think all the tools (if smart) will offer simpler alternatives to the spec at implementation details level because, as you say, there are some aspects of the spec that are overly complicated.

I look forward to taking advantage of the magnificent support on the user forum! :)

]]> By: Scott Francis http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2010/01/tom-baeyens-on-blending-process-and-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-4691 Scott Francis Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:53:00 +0000 http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/?p=1640#comment-4691 @ronald - ah, i see. yes the other bpm tools aren't necessarily better for deployment to production. the Teamworks 7 release has a new/better deploy functionality that is a significant step forward, but it has only been out there for a few months. Most of the tools, you still do xml export, import for the model, then migrate all the file assets and java and what not that supports your process.... not too bad if you know ant scripting :) And yes, those were some of the screenshots, plus I did some reading of the roadmap you linked to yesterday. I think all the tools (if smart) will offer simpler alternatives to the spec at implementation details level because, as you say, there are some aspects of the spec that are overly complicated. I look forward to taking advantage of the magnificent support on the user forum! :) @ronald – ah, i see. yes the other bpm tools aren’t necessarily better for deployment to production. the Teamworks 7 release has a new/better deploy functionality that is a significant step forward, but it has only been out there for a few months. Most of the tools, you still do xml export, import for the model, then migrate all the file assets and java and what not that supports your process…. not too bad if you know ant scripting :)

And yes, those were some of the screenshots, plus I did some reading of the roadmap you linked to yesterday. I think all the tools (if smart) will offer simpler alternatives to the spec at implementation details level because, as you say, there are some aspects of the spec that are overly complicated.

I look forward to taking advantage of the magnificent support on the user forum! :)

]]> By: Ronald van Kuijk http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2010/01/tom-baeyens-on-blending-process-and-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-1354 Ronald van Kuijk Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:08:16 +0000 http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/?p=1640#comment-1354 Oh, I fully agree regarding the designer tools. In that area there is certainly a major difference (which even was there 4 years ago, pre 'bpmn'). Being able to e.g. use a repository of services and use those seamlessly in your tools, or being able to select organizational groups from your identity management system when assigning swimlanes is another. There certainly is room for improvement in that area. One of the areas where tools are going to be needed in BPMN2 is the service task... What a mess... Well, no not a mess, just way to BPEL/WSDL oriented, way to 'we can always add another layer of abstraction, just in case we want to reuse it on another level'. That should have been left out of the spec and when defining a webservice task (the default (!?), just reference a WSDL and give the opportunity to define it differently for other types of services. Have a look at the way a java service task is defined in bpmn (http://docs.jboss.com/jbpm/v4/devguide/html_single/#serviceTask) and compare that to jpdl, http://docs.jboss.com/jbpm/v4/userguide/html_single/#java. I would not be surprised if beside the spec compliant solution jBPM will provide a non-spec compliant alternative for this. I'm curious what screenshots you mean btw, is it http://jorambarrez.be/files/blog/bpmn2_sneakpeek/ ? What I was referring to was more about getting the actual process running outside a local development environment. Lots of procedures to follow, technical issues to tackle (firewalls, authentication to services, billing issues and lots more). Just designing the process is sometimes (relatively) 'easy' compared to everything around it, sometimes, not always... Oh, and if you do find the time and have question... the support in the jBPM user forum is magnificent if I may say so ;-) Oh, I fully agree regarding the designer tools. In that area there is certainly a major difference (which even was there 4 years ago, pre ‘bpmn’). Being able to e.g. use a repository of services and use those seamlessly in your tools, or being able to select organizational groups from your identity management system when assigning swimlanes is another. There certainly is room for improvement in that area.

One of the areas where tools are going to be needed in BPMN2 is the service task… What a mess… Well, no not a mess, just way to BPEL/WSDL oriented, way to ‘we can always add another layer of abstraction, just in case we want to reuse it on another level’. That should have been left out of the spec and when defining a webservice task (the default (!?), just reference a WSDL and give the opportunity to define it differently for other types of services. Have a look at the way a java service task is defined in bpmn (http://docs.jboss.com/jbpm/v4/devguide/html_single/#serviceTask) and compare that to jpdl, http://docs.jboss.com/jbpm/v4/userguide/html_single/#java. I would not be surprised if beside the spec compliant solution jBPM will provide a non-spec compliant alternative for this.

I’m curious what screenshots you mean btw, is it http://jorambarrez.be/files/blog/bpmn2_sneakpeek/ ?

What I was referring to was more about getting the actual process running outside a local development environment. Lots of procedures to follow, technical issues to tackle (firewalls, authentication to services, billing issues and lots more). Just designing the process is sometimes (relatively) ‘easy’ compared to everything around it, sometimes, not always…

Oh, and if you do find the time and have question… the support in the jBPM user forum is magnificent if I may say so ;-)

]]> By: Ronald van Kuijk http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2010/01/tom-baeyens-on-blending-process-and-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-4690 Ronald van Kuijk Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:08:00 +0000 http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/?p=1640#comment-4690 Oh, I fully agree regarding the designer tools. In that area there is certainly a major difference (which even was there 4 years ago, pre 'bpmn'). Being able to e.g. use a repository of services and use those seamlessly in your tools, or being able to select organizational groups from your identity management system when assigning swimlanes is another. There certainly is room for improvement in that area. One of the areas where tools are going to be needed in BPMN2 is the service task... What a mess... Well, no not a mess, just way to BPEL/WSDL oriented, way to 'we can always add another layer of abstraction, just in case we want to reuse it on another level'. That should have been left out of the spec and when defining a webservice task (the default (!?), just reference a WSDL and give the opportunity to define it differently for other types of services. Have a look at the way a java service task is defined in bpmn (http://docs.jboss.com/jbpm/v4/devguide/html_single/#serviceTask) and compare that to jpdl, http://docs.jboss.com/jbpm/v4/userguide/html_single/#java. I would not be surprised if beside the spec compliant solution jBPM will provide a non-spec compliant alternative for this. I'm curious what screenshots you mean btw, is it http://jorambarrez.be/files/blog/bpmn2_sneakpeek/ ? What I was referring to was more about getting the actual process running outside a local development environment. Lots of procedures to follow, technical issues to tackle (firewalls, authentication to services, billing issues and lots more). Just designing the process is sometimes (relatively) 'easy' compared to everything around it, sometimes, not always... Oh, and if you do find the time and have question... the support in the jBPM user forum is magnificent if I may say so ;-) Oh, I fully agree regarding the designer tools. In that area there is certainly a major difference (which even was there 4 years ago, pre ‘bpmn’). Being able to e.g. use a repository of services and use those seamlessly in your tools, or being able to select organizational groups from your identity management system when assigning swimlanes is another. There certainly is room for improvement in that area.

One of the areas where tools are going to be needed in BPMN2 is the service task… What a mess… Well, no not a mess, just way to BPEL/WSDL oriented, way to ‘we can always add another layer of abstraction, just in case we want to reuse it on another level’. That should have been left out of the spec and when defining a webservice task (the default (!?), just reference a WSDL and give the opportunity to define it differently for other types of services. Have a look at the way a java service task is defined in bpmn (http://docs.jboss.com/jbpm/v4/devguide/html_single/#serviceTask) and compare that to jpdl, http://docs.jboss.com/jbpm/v4/userguide/html_single/#java. I would not be surprised if beside the spec compliant solution jBPM will provide a non-spec compliant alternative for this.

I’m curious what screenshots you mean btw, is it http://jorambarrez.be/files/blog/bpmn2_sneakpeek/ ?

What I was referring to was more about getting the actual process running outside a local development environment. Lots of procedures to follow, technical issues to tackle (firewalls, authentication to services, billing issues and lots more). Just designing the process is sometimes (relatively) ‘easy’ compared to everything around it, sometimes, not always…

Oh, and if you do find the time and have question… the support in the jBPM user forum is magnificent if I may say so ;-)

]]>