An ebizQ Article on BPM and the Supply Chain
- April 13, 2009
- 0 Comments
Dennis Byron published this article back in March, but I missed it. Part 2 of 2, the focus was on the CFO’s requirements.
From our perspective, the key passage is right here:
As mentioned above, through your CFO’s (or CEO’s) intervention, your company’s partners may affect your BPM-enabling technology choice. In addition, CFOs may be interested in the partners of your BPM suppliers. Often the association of a BPM software supplier with a big-name consulting firm such as Bearing Point, Patni or Accenture will provide CFOs peace of mind even if you actually use the services of smaller BPM consultancies.
For example, a professional services supplier such as bp3 has a close but non-exclusive relationship with Lombardi Software, and you might want to look for such product-complementary partners once you have finalized a choice of technology supplier.
(Our emphasis on BP3, above)
I happen to agree with this point, and clearly our customers do as well. Often as our customers are choosing a software vendor, partnerships with big consulting or outsourcing firms are part of the evaluation criteria. Equally often, they are interested in BP3 (or companies like ours) doing a piece of the work or being responsible for the core BPM delivery. Customers want to know that they aren’t “locked in” to a single consulting provider, and they also generally want access to boutique firms that are really experts in the area, in addition to the big, generalist, firms.
I went back and read part 1 as well, and its a good read, with broad mention of vendors in the space and their pedigree- and proof that there is still no shortage of software vendors to the BPM space! Which, I think, just proves that business process touches everything. I suspect we’ll see a whole wave of BPM software in OEM deals and arrangements going forward, to put BPM closer to the many problems that other software already (mostly) addresses. I thought it was interesting how many of the software vendors mentioned were previously service providers. For service companies entertaining becoming software companies, I’d recommend reading a previous post on this subject (you can skim by reading the first two paragraphs and the last three paragraphs if your time is limited).