Well, I gave Bruce a hard time in our blog recently, and of course I should expect that if I do that, a fellow blogger and BPM guru like Bruce will return the favor!
Bruce writes an excellent follow-up piece with his recommendations to IBM vis-a-vis BPM. I can hardly find a word to criticize, but it was too good a read for me to ignore, either.? A few choice passages:
Scott also snickers at my statement that WebSphere Business Compass is a better BPMN tool than Lombardi Blueprint, says I?m the only one not employed by IBM to say that.? But I may be one of the only people not employed by IBM to have used both.
Ok, you got me there.? Bruce says Blueprint is dumbed down too much.? I agree - but I think the answer is to layer on the more BPMN-complaint modeling elements in Blueprint, rather than to try to make Compass more accessible.? I agree with Bruce they should merge these two. Versioning and collaborating are so much better in Blueprint that I can't see throwing that away.
Later Bruce continues with another great insight:
IBM?s mistake was always thinking BPM and SOA were kind of the same thing.? Remember those hexagons in the IBM marketecture?? (Before they went to the layer cake?)? The labels were slightly different in a SOA presentation versus a BPM presentation, but there was always just one hexagon.? There wasn?t a BPM hexagon operating in communication with (but independent of) a SOA hexagon.? Like there is in real life.? [...]
(I kind of thought those layered cakes were coasters... )
[...] The hard part of all this is instant playback.? How do you achieve the immediacy of Lombardi?s model it, play it, tweak it, play it again experience without compromising what Process Server does well?? I have no doubt that if IBM wanted to do this, it could.
Will they go this route?? I doubt it.? But it would be a killer product.
Couldn't have said it better myself.? Thanks, Bruce!