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

Understanding Workflow in Windows SharePoint Services and the 2007 Microsoft Office System  
# Saturday, September 02, 2006
 
Windows Workflow Foundation (WF) is destined to be part of many Windows applications. Arguably the first really important example of using WF in software from Microsoft is the workflow support in Windows SharePoint Services 3.0. Focused on human workflow, the goal is to provide a platform for both application developers and less technical people to create workflow-based applications that run on SharePoint.

To add to this, the 2007 Microsoft Office System includes Office SharePoint Server 2007. Building on the workflow support in Windows SharePoint Services 3.0, this server adds things such as pre-defined workflows for common scenarios (e.g., approving a document) and the ability to interact with workflows using Office 2007 clients.

All of this has plenty of moving parts: WF, Windows SharePoint Services 3.0, Office SharePoint Server 2007, Visual Studio, the WF Workflow Designer, a new tool called Office SharePoint Designer, and more. I've written a Microsoft-sponsored white paper, available here, that gives a big-picture view of this new set of technology. If you're interested in Microsoft's approach to human workflow, you might find this paper interesting.


3 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

Interesting paper.

What do you think this means for Human Workflow vendors that are porting to WWF to stay competitive e.g. K2, PNMSoft?

How will they be able to differentiate themselves from each other and products from Microsoft i.e. Sharepoint 2007 and Biztalk (next version) if their engines are using the same "WWF parts"?

An example of this that I have come a cross are customers who are evaluating Sharepoint 2007 have typically commented that if Sharepoint 2007 has workflow why would they even consider using a 3rd Human Workflow application.

I would be interested to hear your views.
 

Any ISV who sells a horizontal product on Windows knows that Microsoft will continue to put more functionality in the operating system itself. They also know that they must track what Microsoft is doing--it's rarely a secret--and innovate accordingly.

What WF provides isn't the stuff that really differentiates workflow vendors, however. In fact, one could even argue that WF makes life better for workflow ISVs in the long run. They'll no longer need to devote resources to building the part of their product--basic workflow functionality--that probably provides the least differentiation. Instead, those resources can be devoted to adding value in unique ways.

And it's certainly true that the workflow support in Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 will obviate some people's need for third-party workflow products (although the combination of WSS 3.0 and Office SharePoint Server 2007 might be even more popular--we'll see). But it's also true that at least some organizations will have requirements that the Microsoft technologies don't address. Although it will be smaller, a role will still exist for third-party workflow vendors.
 

Honestly David I think you fail to appreciate the enormous functionality gap between WWF (and it's incarnation in MOSS '07) and true BPM applications such as Bluespring BPM Suite. We have already partnered with Microsoft/Avanade to close a joint MOSS '07 + Bluespring BPM Suite deal where MOSS' 07 alone would have lost to a competitor due to the inability to handle complex workflow scenarios without extensive coding. I'd encourage you to signup for our Webinar at http://www.bluespringsoftware.com
 

Post a Comment


<< Home