David Chappell

  • September 2020
  • November 2017
  • April 2017
  • October 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • August 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003

Opinari

Get the Feed! Subscribe

BPM Heads for the Mainstream  
# Friday, December 10, 2004
 
I gave a presentation on BPM servers to a group of architects in Minneapolis this week. Drawn partly from my recent paper on this topic, the talk described the role that BPM technologies play in a service-oriented world. As with other groups I've spoken to recently, most of the people in my audience felt that this was, or very soon would be, a central issue for their company. BPM technology is heading for the mainstream.

What's moving this technology from the sidelines to the center is SOA. A number of small BPM-focused companies, the ones that Gartner refers to as "pure-play" BPM firms, have existed for several years. Most of them positioned their products as supporting a business-focused BPM initiative rather than building on the more technology-oriented push that SOA provides. This business-oriented approach is interesting, and it certainly has value. Still, it hasn't been enough to make BPM widely successful. For many of these companies, years of sales efforts have produced a customer base that wouldn't qualify as a decent beta for IBM or Microsoft. As SOA takes off, however, BPM technology is finally crossing the chasm.

Most of the small BPM firms probably won't make it across this market crevasse. The major vendors--IBM, Microsoft, BEA, SAP, and others--are in this market now, and it's hard to see how the little guys can survive. BPM technologies are typically used to support critical business processes, and not many organizations are willing to bet these on platforms from small, unproven companies. Some of these small vendors are reinventing themselves as makers of applications that run on multiple BPM servers, not just their own, or specializing in other ways. This makes sense, since no matter how good these small-vendor platforms might be, the competing BPM servers from IBM, Microsoft, and the others are (or will soon be) good enough. If the pure-play BPM firms don't find some kind of specialty, they're going to get crushed by the majors.

It can't be a happy time for most small BPM companies. For users, though, the news is all good. BPM technologies, including support for orchestration, integration with human workflow, business rules engines, and more, are becoming available from their trusted vendor partners. These technologies are also commonly integrated with the application servers they already use. Best of all, these BPM products fit well in the service-oriented environments that most organizations are striving to create. Ubiquitous BPM won't arrive in quite the way that its visionaries thought it would, but it will get here nonetheless. And soon, too.


0 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

Post a Comment


<< Home