Neil Ward-Dutton of MWD Advisors is attempting to uncover for their customers the true differentation between BPM vendors.  This isn’t easy – partly because they can all hide behind a common modeling paradigm (BPMN, among others), and an expert in any one of them might be able to build a solution to a given business process problem.

But to actually deliver on the promise of re-use, agility, and scale, if the BPMS doesn’t support your efforts organizationally you will run into roadblocks that have consequences… We’ll get to those in a moment… Here’s Neil’s take:

Most of what I’ve heard in discussion around this point focuses primarily on implications for the time to deliver projects: in other words, don’t think that once you’ve created a BPM and model your even close to finished application for real-world deployment. However there is a bigger issue at stake here, which is: exactly what kind of provision a given BPM technology platform makes for the specification of those items in the list above – and specifically, to what degree you’re encouraged to design and (when necessary) code these items so that each kind of concern is kept separate from all the others.

The quality of this “separation of concerns” in design might not make a huge amount of difference when you first start in implementation, but it can become incredibly important over time. And support for it turns out to be one of the most important (to my mind) differentiating points between BPM technology platforms.

Neil has hit it exactly.  The separation of concerns seems like quibbling between different philosophical approaches at first – but it is more important than that.  But when the separation of concerns is poor, or when the support for agility is poor, what are the consequences?

• The level of product and technical expertise you need to maintain your solutions goes up.  You can’t easily integrate people who are new to BPM to your project, and even when you do they have to be incredibly skilled computer scientists.
• The level of specific knowledge required of your business (and your technical hacks) is too high to easily bring new people into the project.  Anything they touch may have unintended consequences – sometimes far reaching and affecting more than just the process they intended to affect.
• Fear of change.  If a small change can have broad negative consequences or unintended side-effects outside of the process we’re editing, we will fear changing it.  We lose agility.  We might abandon a common implementation in exchange for process-specific implementations – and therefore losing the benefits to efficiency that re-use provide.
• Testing overhead.  If a small change in one process or process area can affect a broad array of other processes, the testing overhead is quite high.  Essentially I have to re-test everything.

But these are just the tactical problems. The real problem is that your BPM team won’t achieve the business outcomes you’re looking for – the I in ROI will be more expensive, the time to market slower, and the R lower.  It can wipe out much of the promise of BPM in the first place.

You can see some of this differentiation when you hear pundits and gurus talk about how “rigid” BPMS’ are – this says more about the BPMS they’ve been using than it does about the notion of a BPMS.  Meanwhile, some of us are pretty happy with how flexible our BPMS is… draw your own conclusions.

Neil’s next point:

Of course, because almost all BPM technology platforms centre implementation work around a graphical process model there is always likely to be a clean separation between definition of process and all of the other important design elements I’ve listed. But whereas some platforms provide a rich, well structured asset repository and clean design tools that implement the principle of “a place for everything, and everything in its place”, other platforms really provide quite weak facilities of this kind. With this latter group of platforms, it’s still theoretically possible to create process applications that are relatively easy to maintain; but designers and developers are going to be pushing against the tools available rather than working with them.

Reading this, it reminds me how much hue and cry there was over a certain company with a BPM product, buying an upstart company with an allegedly overlapping BPM product…. There was real differentiation in the process repository and in the basic architecture of the design environment.  But it was the kind of differentiation that customers and analysts would often miss – because the value isn’t as apparent in iteration 1 of project 1 (although it is apparent if you do them side by side).  It becomes much more apparent in iterations 3 and 4, projects 5 and 6.  If you’ve owned a BPM product for more than a year and you’re still looking at getting process #1 deployed, I’d recommend two things:

1. See about getting some professional help from a boutique consultancy focused on project success.  If you’re already working with one, consider a new one.
2. If that doesn’t get you on the path to more productivity and better use of your product, consider a different BPM platform.  You might have picked the wrong one.

Meanwhile, keep an eye on MWD’s research and their attempts to delve into the real differentiation between BPM vendors, and don’t just get caught up in the bright shiny features they’ll parade in front of us.

A new blog post from Forrester‘s Frank Gillett inadvertently illustrates why it makes sense to focus on iOS first when building mobile apps for the enterprise.  Already 1 in 5 (20%) of the global workforce is using Apple products (for work)!

Have you noticed an increased presence of Apple products in public spaces and workspaces in the last few years? Turns out that 21% of information workers are using one or more Apple products for work. Almost half of enterprises (1000 employees or more) are issuing Macs to at least some employees – and they plan a 52% increase in the number of Macs they issue in 2012.

But that’s just Macs.  The numbers are actually more stark for iPads and iPhones. 11% of the workforce using iPhones, 9% using iPads, and 8% using Macs.  The trends are most highly supported by execs and managers – who use Apple products at twice the average rate (over 40%), and with the youngest workers, who also use Apple products at twice the rate.  Great trends for Apple products in the work place.  Think about that – you can reach the most influential members of business – 40% of them and growing – via Apple product-focus.

So the debate of which mobile OS to target first for your mobile app has been an interesting one.  Last year (actually late 2010) Fred Wilson came down on the side of Android first.  But while this might have been a good “by the numbers” recommendation, there are some subtleties that I would have argued made iOS still the place to start for most mobile apps:

• iOS device owners spend more money on apps (and content in general).
• iOS device owner demographics trend toward higher income brackets ( desirable demographics to sell to and advertise to )
• Apple’s iPhone and iPad had healthy halos around them that made them attractive “launch” vehicles for an app.  Wherever you look at ads for an institutions “mobile app” the premier imagery features a prominent iPhone.  Later on these institutions started including Android phones that look… well, they look just like iPhones anyway.

Finally, regardless of which OS you target first, or even if you’re cross-platform from the beginning, you might as well release on each platform one at a time – and get the press release mileage out of it.

Articles like the Forrester article, and of course Apple’s amazing Q4 performance, are reminders that the iOS platform is still the one with cachet, with the halo.

What a great blog post from Chris Dixon, “Who should learn how to program?” :

Businesses all over the world need more programmers. Every company I know is hiring engineers (e.g. see this list of NY tech startups). Top programmers can make $100K+ right out of college. Yet there were only about 14,000 computer science (CS) majors last year. Meanwhile about 40,000 people got law degrees even though demand for lawyers has been shrinking. America is suffering from what economists call structural unemployment:  jobs are available but our labor force isn’t trained for those jobs.

Plentiful job opportunity is just one great reason for people to learn how to code (program).  Unfortunately, after the dot-com bust, the news media and many cynical people convinced many college students that software jobs were going overseas and never coming back.  It was a classic market-driven overreaction to a correction. In places where students have good data about market dynamics (e.g. Stanford) the number of computer science majors are up double-digit percentages each of the last 3-4 years.  Additionally, there’s been a big increase in software-related fields, not typically classified as Computer Science (like Symbolic Systems, electrical engineering, and certain types of engineering and product design).

Chris also points out that programming is a great foundation for starting a tech company.  Hard to argue with that.  If your goal is to start a company, knowing how to code will give you a much better chance of achieving that dream than just about any other skill.  Taking BP3 as an example-  a services company that you might not think requires programming skills to start: I have a computer science background, and Lance knows how to write code, though it isn’t part of his job description(!).  Knowing how to code and being able to do it were what allowed us to start BP3.  And those skills translate well to nearby fields like statistics, that require structured or algorithmic thinking.

Programming is good for your brain – to misquote (slightly) Steve Jobs, it is like a bicycle for the mind. You’ll be amazed at how well you can remember not only where specific lines of code are in your work, but by how long you can retain this knowledge, often even years later being able to trivially skim through your code to the right spot to fix a defect.

An even better point Chris brings up is this one:

  Programming is an important part of being “culturally literate.”

It is hard to underestimate this today.  I’m raising two children.  We’re exposing them to an immersion school that teaches them to speak fluent Spanish (as well as their native English).  But the school (and through some help from outside of school) we’re also teaching them Mandarin (and a little Cantonese).  If our children graduate from college fluent in English, Spanish, and Chinese – they’ll be able to do business almost anywhere in the world and converse with people from all over the world.  They’ll be much better off than their monolingual father, to face the challenges of the future.  But there are two more “languages” I will try my best to pass on to them:

• programming.  If our children learn how to write software, it will open up vast opportunities to them.  It isn’t about how many software languages they learn – even one will be a big head start heading into college.
• product design.  I don’t think it matters if it is physical design or software design, but I want to impart to the kids something of the language of design – the terminology, the flavor, the subtlety of how you talk about it.  I once compared “design language literacy” to the way chefs talk about food and cooking.  If you want to communicate with a chef (or a foodie) about food, you need to learn their language and vocabulary.  Similarly, for design, we need to learn the vocabulary and thought processes to communicate effectively – even if we don’t intend to become a designer.

These programming and product design skills are “meta” languages in a sense.  They transcend national borders and historical language affiliation.

The comment section of Chris Dixon’s blog puts the exclamation point on the value of this post to the general school of thought about coding.

So who should learn how to write code?  You should.  Your children should.

The highlight (for me) of last year’s SXSW-interactive conference was the Lean Startup SXSW – a whole day of planned content, mainly in one room (in the AT&T executive center) focused on the idea of “the lean startup”.  Eric Ries and team did a phenomenal job bringing together a set of topics and speakers that you just normally wouldn’t get exposure to in a single day.

Leveraging the success of that forum, SXSW has created the Startup Village this year.  The 4th floor of the Hilton will be converted to startup mecca.  I thought the “Lean Startup SXSW” track might have gone away in favor of this modified (and bigger billing) approach.  Apparently not so.  Today SXSW.com announces that they’re bringing Lean Startup SXSW back – and some of the chief instigators are involved again – Eric Ries, Dave McClure, Steve Blank, 500 Startups, et al:

The Lean Startup SXSW will take place on Saturday, March 10th from 9:30am – 6:00pm at the Downtown Hilton (across from the Convention Center), and the most up-to-date agenda can be found here.

So, more central location, same Saturday location in the schedule (good call).  The agenda already has enough speakers identified for me to plan my Saturday schedule.

Once again, good evidence of how SXSW adapts and co-opts good ideas from the outside.  Congrats to the organizers, I’m looking forward to it.

Editor’s note: This is reposted with permission of the Author.  Gary Samuelson’s original post can be found here.

Forward

If you haven’t already done so I highly recommend you “tool up” for iOS (iPhone) or Android development. Speaking more on the Android platform with this point, but Android is based on Linux – meaning that the Android “smartphone” is a small, pocket-sized Linux computer. And, behind this tiny, touch-screen UI, we have an event-driven framework suited for wireless IO (communication) and  distributed client (end-user) services. This makes a good fit for BPM mobility as it applies focused, via platform constraints, user-to-process interaction.

So, in warming up to enterprise-scale BPM Mobility, I want to first walk through a few system architectures – this prior to diving into the details of Android computing. Goal being a build-up towards mobile device UI/IO requirements: from current state to future capabilities.

BPM Desktop Client: Web-portal, JSP Struts/Tiles

The portal has been with BPM practically from the very beginning and it exists today mostly in its original form as a JSP STRUTS/Tiles web-application.

Though somewhat dated in its technology, we must give credit as it has been and still is the BPM workhorse: delivering process execution, management, tracking, and reporting to our end-users. However, the portal leaves us wanting. Today’s users require a “rich web” experience – something beyond the reach of traditional architectures (form based: HTTP get/post). And, though the BPM Portal remains unsurpassed in features it simply cannot function as a mobile application.

For example, with the portal loaded into a 10″ tablet web-browser, there are just too many active features and UI elements for reasonable touch-screen interaction. I found myself constantly zooming in for navigation and then back out again to review effects and options. However, dashboard and charting elements do work well when broken out on their own as separate elements.

IBM-BPM v751 – Advanced: Dojo, Widgets, ReST API

Business Space enhances end-user experience with iWidgets and supporting dojo infrastructure.  Users now have rich web-applications without the downside of additional overhead costs required for custom in-house web development.

New BPM ReST APIs also opens the door to previously unattainable (within reason) web capabilities. Fully in-browser, JavaScript libraries now have direct access to process management. This leads to better performing web applications with reduced UI-interrupting side-effects caused by (legacy) HTML “post” and “get” operations.

Though very close, I’m not sure that we’re at mobile computing. I need to qualify this however because Business Space runs well on Tablets. The catch is that it requires screen real-estate, network bandwidth, and additional CPU. Honestly, these are negligible on today’s desktop/laptop computers. Even reasonably powerful tablets are fully capable of running Business Space over WIFI.

Business Space on a smart-phone though does spot-light a few problems.

Screen real estate is tight on smart-phones! Slow performance is also noticeable as the phone’s CPU just doesn’t seem to keep up and deliver on the same snappy performance previously experienced on both desktop and tablet execution.

Phones require their own native BPM application.

Mobile Applications for Mobile Process Management

Writing native applications feels counter-intuitive but it’s our only alternative given the constraints and limitations for mobile computing. Moving task services to Android (for example) significantly improves performance. Execution latency and UI “lag” disappear as timings drop into sub-second range.

With local execution, we’re looking at:

Reduced IO traffic via local application loading

• Discrete JSON server requests via ReST APIs.
• Native (java) run-time execution
• Local device data-storage. For example, Android includes a database usable for both caching and offline process execution.
• Local application services. These include: notification, document viewers, contacts, identity, and geo/mapping.

Conclusion

In working towards an architecture suitable for mobile BPM we take into account accompanying constraints and capabilities. We’re on a different path in that we’ve re-focused on building native phone applications.

Smartphones require discrete UIs, optimized coding techniques, and light-weight network IO. These challenges though are well worth the investment as mobility advances user-to-process interaction to near-personal proximity.

Acknowledging the tens of millions of new users purchasing smartphones, new expectations are set/re-set on almost a daily basis. Now’s the time to revisit our architecture and build-in these future capabilities.

I liked Dave Brakoniecki’s analysis of OpenText’s December comments on their BPM strategy. Like Dave, I find it interesting that they think they’ll be most often running into Pega and IBM.  Dave’s thoughts:

OpenText probably need to acquire some rules technology to really compete with Pega and IBM. Shame that Progress snapped up Corticon a few days ago.

His analysis is spot-on in that without a rules engine, OpenText has a chink in the armor that the other vendors can exploit.  And they’re not exactly a pure play vendor that can appeal to the “best-of-breed” argument with their customers.  It just looks like a tough hill to climb.

Rules engines aren’t that complicated, per se.  It is thinking through the design of user interface and maintenance of these rule systems that is where the value is, and where the challenges are.  Incorporating them with a BPM suite is another interesting problem to solve, though one option is obviously to leave them loosely coupled.  I think OpenText has their work cut out for them to differentiate themselves in this market, but we’ll certainly have a chance to see how it develops.

IBM has released a new update to BlueworksLive, on December 17th.  We had a preview just two days before it went live to discuss some of the thought behind the features. What interests me isn’t just the outcome but the thought and direction behind it.  Once again the specific features seem “small” but have interesting consequences and implications.

Starting with the shorter topics first:

The Word Export is much more pleasing to the eye than previous versions.  Having the graphics of severity and the diagram itself exported are a big help to the overall readability of the document.

The expand-all/collapse-all functionality in the Process Diagram is also convenient – especially when prepping to export a large diagram.

The BPMN export API works as advertised.  This is an important step to allow people to use BlueworksLive without feeling locked in.  After all, in a cloud “rental” model, one of the big fears is that your data is residing on someone else’s servers.  IBM needed to provide a clean way to get at that data and make it portable.  Not to mention, this lets customers apply some of their more standard SDLC to their requirements production in BlueworksLive.

First, there was quite a bit of attention given the Decision Discovery feature added to BlueworksLive.  I’d heard that this was coming, but I was picturing it as something that would be added to the automation features of BlueworksLive – I should have realized that the “Discovery” in the name implied that it would be part of the modeling (“Blueprinting”) part of the product.

The premise is that you set up a few Considerations (one or more).  The combination of these considerations is like a truth table.  However, BlueworksLive also lets you provide more than one conclusion – which is nice.  When modeling, we can label the column headers smartly, allowing the contents of each cell to be concise and simple (Yes/No, >$500/<$500, etc.).  Finally, we can label the conclusions well- “Adjustment Required”.  If we have more than one conclusion, it gets its own column to keep ideas separate.

A couple of surprising perks:  you can reorder columns and rows with a simple drag-and-drop.  Look, this makes sense given the point of the tool – flexible discovery of decisions.  But this is the kind of fit-and-finish often missing in enterprise software.

I also appreciated that they thought through why the cells should be free-form rather than constrained to integers or strings or a particular data type. The goal is to leave discovery unconstrained.  Plenty of time for constraints when you move into modeling for execution (had this been targeted at execution, you can bet there would have been tight treatment of data types).

Like David Brakoniecki, I think BlueworksLive is showing that it will live up to its promise as a BPM discovery tool.  Not because it does everything it needs to do today, but because IBM have shown that they’ll keep turning the screws until they get there.  His take on the impact of tiny changes at this point in the maturity of the product:

Now, at the push of a button, the process documentation and process diagram can be exported into a single word document. Basically, this document becomes the high-level scope of any potential BPM deployment or process improvement initiative. All of the great power of Blueworks around social collaboration and process discovery now can painless produce a document to playback to the client or business teams for review and iterative improvement.

SaaS products really emphasize the benefit of incremental improvement.

Yesterday’s post on the Cosmonaut has me thinking about how new products are developed and released into the wild.  We focus so much on startups and processes in the software and virtual world, but Kickstarter has exposed a new process for physical products:

1. Come up with an idea for a product that you think people will want, but you don’t see satisfactorily provided to the market.  (ideas are often for art projects or music albums, not just consumer products like this)
2. Build a prototype and put together a pitch video to sell the idea
3. Do the research to figure out how big a production run you need to do to make the object “affordable” (whatever that means for what you are pitching).
4. Put your kickstarter project page together, including a fundraising goal that supports your minimum requirements.
5. Wait to see how many people and $ show up to support your project.
6. When (if) project funds, get started building the product (or producing the benefits the contributors are entitled to).
7. Ship it.  If it sells well, consider selling more of the product online, knowing that you now have won over an early adopter fan base.

It favors small production runs, prepaid by motivated customers.  The magic is that you don’t put capital at risk until buyers have paid (up front!) for the product.  It is a great way to get pre-commits from a motivated community. And to my way of thinking, this is just a new (and better) process for finding demand when you don’t have the capital to “build it and hope they come.”

If we relate this to the Lean Startup, or specifically to Steve Blank’s incarnation the Lean Launchpad – one of the key tenets is to “get out there and talk to customers”.  Moreover, to find paying customers.  Not just customers who say they will buy it, but customers who will literally write checks to you.

And when they do this – in great dollar amounts or numbers of customers – then you move into production. Kickstarter gives the product team a chance to do this with physical goods in a way that was nearly impossible 10 years ago.  It also allows an innovative team to address niche demand in a way that they previously couldn’t.  In the same way that eBay allowed people to find markets for niche products, so does kickstarter – in one case auctioning used goods, in the other case contributions toward products that don’t yet exist!

This moves physical products into the realm of a process that looks like:

1. Design
2. Sell
3. Build

Which is much more capital efficient than

1. Design
2. Build
3. Sell

As it allows for less waste (building products that no one wants- akin to getting the requirements wrong in software and BPM projects).  And it allows for some feedback loop between design and selling, before moving into the build phase.

It feels like something that could be truly transformative for small business product development.  I have several friends in the business of producing physical objects for sale (furniture, productivity tools, gadgets), and I’m telling all of them they have to try this process and see if it works for their business, and reduces the risk for them.

As a buyer, the other thing that is really fascinating is the exposure to the process, or craft, behind the production of these objects.  The videos and written updates about the procedures are quite educational.  As a process guy, I see it all through the lens of repeatable process with, typically, an irreplaceable human component.  Gratifying craftsmanship.

(Editors note: this is part product review, part examination of a new process emerging)

Well, we know Steve Jobs was not a big fan of the stylus.  And I’m happy Apple didn’t design touch interfaces that required them.  But like many others, I still want to be able to draw my ideas on an iPad with more precision than my fingers will allow.  There are a bunch of these products on the market now, but at the time the kickstarter project for Cosmonaut was kicked off, I hadn’t seen one that didn’t look cheap yet.

Marco Arment has done us all the favor of reviewing the Cosmonaut – “I’ve tried a lot of iPhone and iPad styli, and I haven’t liked any of them before. But this one’s very different.” and also trying out lots of other products.  I haven’t personally used any other stylus for the iPad, but I agree with Marco’s general sentiments:

• First, that the packaging is excellent, and nice branding to boot.
• Second, that the wide grip of the Cosmonaut is a big advantage – because you really do use it more like a whiteboard marker than a pen or pencil.
• Third, that it is the first product I’ve used that actually feels good when you use it. The rubber tip requires just the right amount of pressure to register with the iPad, and glides effortlessly and smoothly across the surface (even if that surface has the sticky finger prints of your 2yo son on it).
• It exudes quality.  And since we were part of the kickstarter project, we know why.  The creators were meticulous about finding the right materials.  They switched manufacturers more than once.  Getting the right grip, the right aluminum core, and the right tip were all quite time consuming (to, I think, the frustration even of the creators).

Choice quotes from Marco’s review:

There’s no foam anywhere in it. The soft rubber tip gives slightly when pushed, because there’s a small air pocket between it and the solid aluminum core.

and:

It doesn’t feel like a brick of solid plastic writing on glass, and it doesn’t feel like a flimsy sponge on a stick. It feels like a marker, as designed.

I forgot to bring it with me on vacation (I switched laptop bags) and I’m actually annoyed.  I was hoping to try out additional drawing applications. I’ve used penultimate and a few others. But the feature I really want is an “infinite” canvas, or at least a canvas much larger than the screen.  That way I can use rough handwriting with the stylus, then shrink the whole thing down to fit on a screen and reduce to “normal” writing size.  Hopefully I can find an app that does this without too much trouble – it would make a perfect companion to the Evernote note-taking app (though truly, I wish Evernote would just solve both problems… a rare case where you want the app to do two things well, rather than just one).

At the end of the day, the team at Studio Neat worked hard to produce something that looks deceptively simple.  It just looks like a rubber stylus.  But it has the right heft, the right feel, the right size.  It takes a lot of work to produce the right, simple, product.

Good news, you can now buy your own here.

No doubt the Cosmonaut will come in handy for me when I need to sketch an idea or process while attending a meeting.  But my daughter’s first contribution to the blog is a bit of artwork… what surprised me is how much better it is than what she usually sketches with her finger, and the process she used to draw it.  First she colored everything blue, by hand (she could have done this by changing the background color, which I’ve seen her do before… she told me she liked the texture).  Then she drew the clouds and flowers on top… green shoots first, then flowers, then a bit of yellower grass at the bottom.  This is a process that works much better in software than it works with pen and paper, though you can do something similar (with some mess) with crayons.  But try drawing white on top of blue in almost any medium – it doesn’t work too well!  Her work is already better than some of my process drawings!

There are lots of arguments for and against Apple’s integrated approach.  As I recall from economics and watching certain industries, there’s an efficiency to horizontal scaling of an industry. But, we’ve seen the design benefits of the integrated approach with Apple.

But if you’re trying to put products into consumers’ hands, or customers’ hands, there’s a cost to depending on horizontal layers of industry to delivery much needed components into your end-device or product.  The risks are manifest in RIM’s reported results this quarter:

RIM just announced on its earnings call today that it won’t be ready to release new smartphones running the QNX-based BlackBerry 10 OS until late 2012.  [...]

Co-CEO Jim Balsillie said the company is waiting for new chips that will allow RIM to make dual-core phones with LTE. Those chips won’t be ready until late next year.

So… the phones were first late in the upgrade cycle, waiting for the work to get software ready on QNX… then they were later still waiting on dual core chips (as of early this year).  Now they’ll be an additional year late… because they’re still waiting on dual core chips.

Of course, one wonders why they can’t release these phones with 3G and dual-core chips.  Seems to work okay for Apple.  Maybe it is just a smoke screen.

But if it isn’t, it is a cautionary tale against building product plans against moving targets.  Don’t assume another vendor’s components will be there for you unless they already exist or can be produced in volume today.  Apple’s approach to getting deeply involved in the supply chain pays dividends by helping avoid these kinds of public delays.

(So does not announcing a product release until you are, you know, actually releasing a product)

Analysts were predicting more consolidation in 2011, and it looks like the late-year acquisitions are happening again.

First, doc capture specialist Kofax has acquired Singularity, a BPM and case management provider.  Kofax has been part of many a BPM project, whether they realize it or not, as the doc capture element.  Almost every BPM project needs that transition from “physical world” to “electronic bits” or “process world” – and document capture is a common entry point.

Neil Ward-Dutton, of MWD, comments:

In a call first thing today, Kofax CEO Reynolds Bish highlighted that he expected the acquisition to double the size of the company’s addressable market – in large part through the expansion of sales coverage and effort for Singularity’s products, which Singularity itself had largely confined to the UK.

In other words, Kofax expects to expand the reach of Singularity, as well as of their product set itself.  Interesting, to me, was that Singularity’s revenue mix was 50% services, and that Kofax intends to adjust that downward.  Good news for Singularity partners or services experts.

Meanwhile, in another corner of the BPM world, Progress has acquired Corticon, a pure-play rules management (BRM) vendor:

Progress is pitching Corticon as a crucial ingredient as it continues to develop its RPM story, and this makes sense. Progress’ Savvion BPM technology already had a fair business rules capability (BizRules) as an integrated component, but my view is that Corticon’s technology is more widely-applicable, as well as being widely acknowledged for a very strong ease-of-use story, enabled by its heavily model-driven and graphical approach to rule specification. Its open stance towards rule management repositories will also serve it well, as Progress seeks to blend Corticon’s tools into broader capability mixes.

In a previous life, we used Corticon for rules for a while.  We didn’t find it particularly compelling and ended up writing our own, similarly non-compelling rules solution.  More often than not, customers would use ILOG or Fair Isaac or Drools. But it has been several years now, and no doubt Corticon has made some progress in that time (pun intended!) on their rules capabilities.

The conclusions I’m drawing from these acquisitions:

1.  BPM and Rules are a natural combination.  BPM seems to be the value driver, as it is the rules vendors getting gobbled up.

2.  BPM and Content Management or Document Management combinations are also happening.  But the major BPM vendors have (largely) already purchased Doc Management or Content Management solutions… So the remaining players in these spaces are forced to go pick off the weaker BPM vendors instead (OpenText acquired two of them, Lexmark acquired Pallas Athena, and now Kofax is in on the act).

3.  There’s still a lot of shakeout to occur in the market – and execution at a detailed level for each vendor is really going to matter.  At this point it isn’t all marketing fluff – real differences in product are apparent.  But the target keeps moving.  A well-integrated solution that is coherent to the end-user is going to win the day.

Interesting review from John Reynolds, of the Kindle Fire.  He’s underwhelmed mainly by the form factor, and the lack of access to non-Amazon content.

People often criticize Apple as having a “walled garden” – but if you read the following from John, and you use Apple products, the difference is obvious:

The Kindle Fire experience doesn’t feel like you’re connecting to the web – it feels like you’re looking through a keyhole into one little room of the web… or perhaps you’re trapped in a hallway with many doors and many keyholes.  Many of the keyholes are blocked.

That’s when it hit me… Amazon isn’t giving me access to ‘The Cloud’, they’re giving me access to ‘Their Cloud’.  Everything that I purchase from them resides in ‘Their Cloud’.  The same is true for Apple. The stuff I buy from Apple ends up in the ‘Apple Cloud’…  Flash forward in time and I see myself carrying both an iPad and a Kindle, juggling them from one hand to another in order to access ‘My Content’ in ‘Their Clouds’.

Actually, the same isn’t true for Apple, though I can see why he said that. Apple’s iTunes content seems to be locked to iTunes… but it isn’t.  As much of Apple’s content that they can make DRM-free has been made so – only the studio labels stand in the way of DRM-free content.  From my iPhone and iPad I can access gmail, google docs, netflix, amazon’s store, Kindle content, etc. (In fact, I don’t own a Kindle, but read Kindle books on my iPhone and iPad all the time).  The addition of “iCloud” added features and functionality to my use of Apple’s devices, but didn’t remove any.  My iPhone config can now be backed up to the cloud.  Contacts, email, calendar invites now synchronize better between devices. But I also still synch those items with Google Apps. Having said that, I like John’s vision for “MyCloud” even better than what Apple, Google, Amazon, or anyone else is yet producing:

If the Universe was fair, which it isn’t, whenever I created any content it would be stored in ‘My Cloud’.  Whenever I purchased anything it would be stored in ‘My Cloud’.  Facebook, Google+, Apple, and Amazon would have to pull that content from ‘My Cloud’ to use it in their apps, and I would set the policies regarding access to ‘My Content’.

From what John is observing, it sounds to me like Amazon has produced an “Amazon tablet” not a general purpose tablet.  There’s nothing wrong with that, per se… but I don’t think that that’s what people were expecting when they pre-ordered.

It isn’t hard to think about the analogies applicable to cloud BPM offerings…

Bruce Silver reports that IBM is following through on its promises with respect to BPMN 2.0 in its next release, IBM BPM 7.5.1, which ships this week.

Not that IBM is covering EVERY corner of BPMN 2.0, but it is a significant advance – in that they are surprisingly supporting import and export of BPMN 2.0 XML from the Process Designer:

In a recent post, I talked about what “BPMN 2.0 support” really means, in both non-executable and executable model contexts.  It’s not primarily about the notation, although a few shapes and symbols – notably non-interrupting events and event subprocesses – are new in BPMN 2.0. BPMN 2.0 support is really about the XML serialization, the ability to export the process model according to the XSD and rules of the spec, and ideally import from the XML as well.  IBM BPM 7.5.1 can do both.

[...]

The important thing, though, is not just the palette of shapes but the fact that Process Designer supports export and import of the BPMN 2.0 standard XML format.  (Oracle BPM 11g has had the BPMN 2.0 shapes for a year and a half and still cannot do that.)  I haven’t seen the XML yet but I believe that the export includes data objects, data inputs and outputs, data association mappings (assignment), and other details of executable BPMN 2.0. At least I hope it does.

A few new palette items have been added as well, though as Bruce notes, we’re still missing explicit representation of message flows.  I happen to agree with Bruce that this could improve the readability of IBM BPM models. And knowing how things are implemented underneath, I believe I’m qualified to say there aren’t really any technical barriers to having this “transparently” implement message flows, except to update some of the assumptions that go into the process canvas.

Great news, and great recap from Bruce.

I got a kick out of reading Ben Farrell’s post on Appian’s blog today,  “What a Difference a BPM Software Acquisition Makes: A Look into the Wayback Machine“.  I think Ben thinks he’s really caught out Phil Gilbert, formerly President and CTO of Lombardi, now VP of BPM at IBM:

“Today one of our customers said they were told by IBM: “why spend your money with Lombardi, we’ll give you our BPMS for free.” I finally agree 100% with IBM on something: their BPMS is worth nothing. Getting a cheap BPMS is like buying a dancing elephant for a dollar: cool, but who can afford to feed it?”

That’s Phil Gilbert talking. Or rather, Phil Gilbert back when he was president and CTO of Lombardi. Today’s Phil Gilbert is head of BPM at IBM. Say it again, Phil: “Their BPMS is worth nothing.”

And then later on he takes on the new IBM-Lombardi combination, IBM BPM:

The fact is that nearly two years after its acquisition of Lombardi, IBM has still failed to outline a clear path for its BPM customers. Yes, it made a marketing-oriented announcement about a roll-up of its disparate BPM portfolio into IBM BPM 7.5, but that is a unified offering in marketing-speak only.

I wonder after reading this if the only wayback machine is Appian’s blog publishing.  Maybe this is something they wrote in 2009 when the acquisition was announced?  or in 2010 when many analysts were unhappy with IBM’s lack of communication about the plan for Lombardi and WPS integration?  Or in 2011 springtime when Clay Richardson dissented from all other analysts and customers present at Impact by referring to the integration as “a new coat of paint”? At any of these times, Ben could have piled on with his post in a (somewhat) timely fashion.  But no, two years later he’s finally hit “publish”.  Maybe he missed all the Lombardi and IBM news the last two years and is just trying to catch up?  Maybe he’s just burned about losing a deal to IBM?  (this post also reads like a “mad because we lost a deal” post) Or maybe he doesn’t like Phil.

Appian has some good things going for it, and they made a bet on mobile/cloud that was “early” in the BPM space, relative to competitors.  But this whole David vs. Goliath thing is a bit of an art.  Phil was pretty good at it, Ben still needs some work – more edge, less sour grapes.

Regardless, he clearly doesn’t understand what happened vis-a-vis IBM and Lombardi.  Lombardi was, at times, in heated competition with IBM.  Given that IBM bought Lombardi, one could infer that IBM learned a bit about BPM from Lombardi and Phil, and realized that there was another take on BPM in the market – Lombardi’s – that would be better received than IBM’s current portfolio, and would create more value with IBM’s resources behind it for both IBM and Lombardi shareholders and customers.

If you look at IBM’s BPM vision (also commented on here, and here, and here) – which Ben derides without knowing it – IBM has adopted Lombardi’s vision of BPM and added some pieces to the puzzle that create additional value (ILOG, Integration Designer, the message bus, Business Monitor, etc).  And the key thing that IBM and Phil had to do when bringing Lombardi and WPS and ILOG together was not a technical problem, it was a business problem.  They had to define the go-to-market strategy – edit the value propositions to a manageable number that IBM’s huge sales force can really leverage.  Of course lots of development effort went into creating IBM BPM – but to get the integration “right” without understanding how to take the products to market would be an utter failure to the market, customers, and shareholders.  Now, it could have gone the other way.  Lombardi might have been swallowed up by IBM, discontinued, and chalked up as a “technology buy”.  But it wasn’t.  It became the centerpiece of a new strategy and BPM go-to-market for IBM.  Phil did get the change he wanted – from the inside.  And that change is ongoing, with a few more surprises yet to come.

Customers aren’t “forced to figure out their own path” – the upgrade path is clearly defined and actually well-supported by IBM.   Unsurprisingly, Ben’s role doesn’t include knowing the real story behind IBM’s products and strategy.  That’s not corporate communications’ job.  But you’d think he’d be a little more timely with his shots across the bow, if not more accurate in his firing solution.  I tell you one thing, I know what corporate communications folks are really good at: cherry picking.

Bruce has left no stone un-turned in his review of IBM BPM 7.5.  In his words:

IBM is the big dog in the BPMS landscape.  BPM 7.5 combines the old WebSphere Lombardi Edition and WebSphere Dynamic Process Edition (aka Process Server) in a single offering.  More than two separate products in a single box, there is real integration under the covers, in the form of a shared Process Center repository.  Find out all about it in my latest Industry Trend Report, available here.  You’ll need to be registered on BPMS Watch to access it.

Registration is simple but you might miss the link in the lower right-hand corner of the site (or just search for “Registration” on the page).  It is a comprehensive report and if you’re considering IBM BPM, this is worth a read.

So John Gruber of Daring Fireball fame picks up on Seth Weintraub’s report that two-thirds of Google’s mobile search revenue comes from iOS devices.  John’s analysis echoes our own thoughts on the subject:

I’ve speculated for years that by making Apple into an enemy, Google could wind up losing money with Android, long-term, compared to a hypothetical world where they’d kept Android as a BlackBerry-ish OS rather than an iPhone-ish one. iPhone users are the cream of the crop, demographically.

It isn’t at all clear that Android is a net-positive for Google’s bottom line given the relative marketshare of Android devices vs. iOS devices, and the relative search share (which is where Google’s revenue comes from), and the costs of supporting and defending Android (not to mention, buying a manufacturer).

It just feels like Google hasn’t been editing itself enough.  And prematurely it is taking on more fights than any company would rightly be interested in taking on.

To put it in perspective, right now Google is likely making twice the revenue from search on iOS than it is for search on Android.  I would have guessed at (and have always assumed) rough parity between Android and iOS devices, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.  With competitors like these, who needs friends?

http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2011/08/its-also-about-what-you-dont-do/

Well, if Sandy doesn’t have the best coverage of the conference, it is by far the best coverage of the bloggers I follow.

First up:  IBM Case Manager, IBM Content Manager, and IBM BPM -

 

• Extend IBM BPM processes with content, using document and list widgets that can be integrated in a BPM application. This does not include content event processes, e.g., spawning a specific process when a document event such as check-in occurs, so is no different than integrating FileNet content into any BPMS.
• Extend IBM BPM Advanced (i.e., WPS) processes with content through a WebSphere CMIS adapter into the content repository. Ditto re: any BPMS (or other system) that supports CMIS being able to integrate with FileNet content.
• Invoke an IBM BPM Advanced process from an ICM case task. Assuming that this is via a web service call (since WPS allows processes to be exposed as web services), not specifically an IBM-to-IBM integration.

Next, up, transformation in the era of Big Data, perhaps a business case for “Watson”?

Some of IBM’s future of big data analytics is Watson, and Manoj Saxena presented on how Watson is being applied to healthcare – being demonstrated at IOD – as well as future applications in financial services and other industries. In healthcare, consider that medical information is doubling every five years, and about 20% of diagnoses in the US have some sort of preventable error. Using Watson as a diagnostic tool puts all healthcare information into the mix, not just what your doctor has learned (and remembers). Watson understands human speech, including puns, metaphors and other colloquial speech; it generates hypotheses based on the information that it absorbs; then it understands and learns from how the system is used. A medical diagnosis, then, can include information about symptoms and diseases, patient healthcare and treatment history, family healthcare history, and even patient lifestyle and travel choices to detect those nasty tropical bugs that your North American doctor is unlikely to know about. Watson’s not going to replace your doctor, but provide decision support during diagnosis and treatment.

And third, what’s new in IBM ECM products :

There was a question about why BPM didn’t appear in the ECM portfolio diagram, and Clayton stated that “BPM is now considered part of Case Manager”. Unlike the BPM vendors who think of ACM as a part of BPM, I think that she’s right: BPM (that is, structured process management that you would do with IBM FileNet BPM) is a functionality within ACM, not the other way around.

I think the BPM referenced here is with respect to Filenet BPM, rather than “IBM BPM”, but this is one area where Sandy and I probably agree to disagree.  I think the race between BPM and ACM was essentially over before it started.  Managing a business is going to more likely be called “BPM” than “ACM” for one thing.  I think BPM is going to win the war of acronyms.  The go-to-market strategy is going to include “ACM” functionality in a BPM offering.  This isn’t some inside-scoop at IBM, this is just my judgment on the market in general.  I may be wrong, but the market will show that one way or the other in the next few years.  So far, to me, it looks like the BPM firms are winning the argument.

(Which isn’t to say that ACM proponents haven’t influenced BPM product direction – they have.  But my feeling all along is that it just wouldn’t be hard for BPM vendors to fast-follow ACM vendors, such as they are).

Finally, Sandy covered the IBM Filenet BPM updates:

The Process Engine (PE) was ported completely to a standard Java application, with some dramatic performance increases: 60% improvement in response time through the Java API, 70% (or more) reduction in CPU utilization, near-linear growth in CPU utilization for vertical scaling (i.e., more processes on a single server), and constant CPU utilization on horizontal scaling (e.g., twice as many processes on twice as many servers).

So… one danger I see for IBM in general in the BPM space – is focusing too much on speeds and feeds.  Not that these aren’t important. They are.  Especially when you have customers the size of IBM’s customers.  But they also need to solve real business problems and value propositions that aren’t driven by IT metrics.

It reminds me of a conversation we had with a customer once.

US:  So, what reports do you think we need to support the business’ needs? There aren’t really any business-facing reports defined yet.

THEM:  I think we have all the reports we need already.

US:  You do?  Which reports do you already have that the business uses?

THEM:  Well, the timing reports on webservice performance and user interface performance, for example.

US:  hmmmmmmm.  How about measuring vendor quality, vendor response time to RFPs, and pricing estimation to final-price accuracy?  Might tell you who your best vendors are or how much it is costing you to work with a vendor that isn’t fulfilling your business on time.

THEM:  Yeah, but the business isn’t asking for that.  They really want to know how fast the webservices and UIs are running.

Needless to say, we weren’t talking to the right person, and speeds and feeds were just not the right focus.  Faced with that situation, you just have to back up and regroup and find the right focal point closer to a real business problem.

Thanks for the great coverage Sandy -

Steve Blank’s two-part series on the iPhone is definitely “a different perspective”:

The concept of yearly “improvements”, whether styling or incremental technology improvements, every model year gave GM an unbeatable edge in the market. (Henry Ford hated the idea. He had built Ford on economies of scale – the Ford Model T lasted for 19 years.) Smaller car makers could not afford the constant engineering and styling changes they had to make to keep competitive. GM would shut down all their manufacturing plants for a few months and literally rip out the tooling, jigs and dies in every plant and replace them with the equipment needed to make the next year’s model.

The title of the series is “How the iPhone Got Tail Fins”, using GM and Ford as foils for the smart phone businesses competitors.  A fascinating way of understanding the market, and how business processes can affect strategy, or vice versa.

Jacob Ukelson has a fantastic critique of Agile Software – he lists the 4 pillars of Agile, but then points out:

These are all good, important points but they ignore the business perspective! [...]

• Business Value. Software must deliver business value, and that isn’t always completely aligned with user experience or any of the immersive points Mike lists. A application can have a great user experience but bring no value to the business, which means it will either be killed or die from lack of attention. In most cases business value needs to come first, and foremost.
• Platform. Software (even what ends up as applications software) is either a platform itself, or built on (and used to enrich) a platform. This is both a business and technical decision, and can greatly affect the long term success of any software.

He has a point.  My interest isn’t so much in critiquing Agile Software methods – they’re pretty useful to BPM efforts, particularly if you keep the business value element in mind.

But the rest of the post makes a few interesting points, as he then turns the lens on BPM platforms to see how they stack up against both the 4 pillars of Agile, as well as the 2 additional “business” pillars:

• Parallel – the modeling process is a bottleneck, but once completed things can be implemented in parallel

This is interesting.  I suppose in some BPMS environments, modeling itself is a single-threaded activity.  In IBM BPM and IBM BlueworksLive, modeling is a parallel activity.  In meetings reviewing BlueworksLive models you’ll often see multiple editors in action at once capturing feedback or updating the model in real-time.  In IBM BPM, the locking is at a very granular level, allowing for simultaneous editing. In earlier versions, the locking was more coarse-grained but still allowed for quite a bit of parallel modeling because subprocesses were not locked by editing other subprocesses or the parent process. On each of the rest of the points he makes, I agree with his assessment.

He sums up with:  “The problem is the distance between theory and practice. Most BPM suites try too hard to make themselves of value to the business side, and miss a lot of what is needed on the high-end development side.”  I don’t know if developers will ever lean toward using BPM suites independent of BPM efforts, but I do maintain hope that BPM suites will continue to add developer-friendly features as well as business-friendly features.  So far, I’m encouraged by the progress I see.

I missed this update due to a busy work schedule last month, but the September update to BlueworksLive has a few interesting tidbits:

• Better Word document export options (allows including subprocess details, and increases the amount of detail available on a given process).
• Customized Branding – so that you can have BlueworksLive reflect more of your own company’s branding rather than IBM/BlueworksLive’s branding… I’ve experimented with this for BP3 and while it does work, you have to have a really good transparent logo at a height of 45pixels… not a lot of room to work with if your logo is taller than it is wide.  But it does let you change up color scheme nicely and also customize the logos included in things like document exports (a big plus).
• And single sign on- which allows you to configure the issuer/entity ID, the email domains, login page, etc.  That’s a great feature for enterprise customers who don’t like to have to administer additional login/pwd information.  (This feature is in limited roll-out, but you can contact their support team to expedite access to it).

This blog post itself is probably just in time to pre-date the next BlueworksLive update!