I Had the Same Thought

  • June 20, 2013
  • Scott

But David Brakoniecki did a better job describing it:

I have yet to see the tool but, if the screenshots from this presentation are anything to go by, the resemblance between Effektif and the process automation pieces of Blueworks is uncanny.

Maybe it is that Dave and I have some common Lombardi-background experience factoring into our way of thinking.  Maybe it is because Blueworks Live is a frame of reference.  Dave has a couple other insights worthy of commentary:

IBM embedded these capabilities in BlueworkLive which is essentially a process discovery tool. It’s used by process improvement teams and business analysts. Obviously, the process automation features need everyone in the organization or at least the value stream to be users of the tool. Most people didn’t buy Blueworks with this use-case in mind. They licensed it to only their six sigma black belts to provide them with the best tools available.


IBM put these features into the wrong tool.

It looks like the current trajectory of Blueworks Live is to become a great tool for capturing process and business requirements – rather than Automation.

In that context, the automation features feel out of place. There was a hypothesis that the same people modeling processes might want to model, and automate, lightweight processes.  I don’t see the usage numbers for Blueworks Live, but it was a reasonable hypothesis to test.

And you just never know when IBM will turn their attention back to it.  In the meantime, Effektif is going to make the case for a dedicated tool for this kind of capability.

Related Posts
  • February 14, 2018
  • Ariana

Migration from BP3 on Vimeo. Director of BPLabs, Rico DiMarzio, details BP3's history with migrations and...

  • February 7, 2018
  • Ariana

Process Transformation and Artificial Intelligence from BP3 on Vimeo. Where does artificial intelligence ...

  • January 4, 2018
  • Scott

If you were wondering whether microservices architecture was coming for BPM engines, this post makes it pretty...

  • Bruce Silver

    I agree it seems a fish out of water. I think I recall a BWL product manager saying the idea was that the automation piece would be used to automate the discovery/publishing/governance process, but if that was the idea they could have put that specific feature within the “blueprinting” side of the tool. Regardless, it’s not clear that the market for ad-hoc situational process automation wants BPMN staring it in the face. Maybe something more like the TidalWave thing at bpmNEXT or the Banco Espiritu Santo generics from IBM Impact.

    • I like the new direction – great requirements capture for process and for decision management – but perhaps the new direction orphans a few features like the automation bit. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing – but without some re-imagining of the automation, that’s what it looks like right now. Of course, sometimes this happens when you grow the product every 6 weeks and react to the context around you – in the context of IBM’s strategy, BWL as a great requirements eliciting/gathering/documenting tool makes a lot of sense …

      As would investments in integrating with IBM’s downstream products (IBM BPM, ODM, etc.) … as would investments in reporting requirements for example… feeding into operational intelligence.