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

The Changing Definition of a BPM Vendor: Does Microsoft Qualify?  
# Monday, November 27, 2006
 
Definitions of business process management tend to divide into two streams: the business meaning and the technical meaning. From a purely business perspective, BPM commonly refers to viewing an organization as a set of processes that can be defined, managed, and optimized. What technology is used to implement those processes, if any, need not be part of the discussion at all. To technical people, BPM typically refers to a group of technologies focused on defining, executing, and managing process logic. While applying both kinds of BPM in the same organization might well make sense, it's not obligatory. Each one has value on its own.

For the technical view of BPM, the one I'm most interested in, the next challenge is to figure out exactly which technologies should be included. I'd argue that the list looks something like this:
  • Workflow, including both system workflow (connecting software) and human workflow (connecting people)
  • Graphical tools for defining workflows
  • Integration technologies, such as adapters used to connect different kinds of software together, data mapping tools, and more
  • Business rules engines
  • Business activity monitoring

Categories like this are typically defined by the analyst firms, such as Gartner and Forrester. Most often, the analysts base these definitions on existing products. This makes good sense, since the goal of a category is to provide a way to think about the area and to compare different offerings. For BPM, this definition has largely been driven by small firms, the companies that are sometimes called "pure-play" BPM vendors. As big companies adopt the BPM terminology, however, the definition of this category is changing.

For example, Microsoft provides everything on the list above, but not in the same way as the smaller BPM firms. Rather than supporting human and system workflow in a single engine, for instance, Microsoft splits them in two: human workflow is provided by Windows SharePoint Services (and Microsoft Office SharePoint Server), while system workflow is supported by BizTalk Server. Similarly, a good number of people would argue that to qualify as BPM, the tools used to define workflows must be usable by business people, not just developers. Once again, Microsoft's view is different, as its tools are targeted more toward technical people.

Given these differences, it's possible to argue that Microsoft doesn't qualify as a vendor of BPM technologies. Yet this is a difficult position to support for a couple of reasons. First, most of Microsoft's customers probably will see it as providing BPM, whatever the analysts think. I've put this question to hundreds of them in my recent talks, and a large majority (although not all) believe that what Microsoft offers certainly is BPM. The second reason to view Microsoft as part of the BPM world stems from the point mentioned earlier: in new categories, the original definition is commonly driven by small firms, then changes as major vendors enter. A great example of this was the application server category, which wound up looking almost nothing like the original products that carried this label. Arguing that Microsoft's products don't qualify as BPM because they don't exactly match the original definition seems as odd as claiming that WebSphere Application Server doesn't deserve to be called an application server because it's so unlike the Kiva or NetDynamics products that originally gave this category its name.

As new products appear, especially from major vendors, they change the definition of a category. Expect to see this happen once again with the definition of BPM technologies. And whatever analyst firms might say, expect to see Microsoft perceived by most of its customers as part of the BPM world.



6 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

The products you have named are giving customers to have good BPM applications, but do you really believe that Microsoft communicates good about these products? I bet most of customers believes that BizTalk is a data transfer tool that can handle varius problems and sharepoint is just a nice content management system. I believe the image of the products and how Microsoft puts them on the self until now is a bit far away from BPM and the capacity of the products.
 

I agree, Jan--Microsoft hasn't typically presented these products under the BPM banner. This is changing somewhat, however: see www.microsoft.com/bpm. Whether they'll continue with this perspective isn't clear yet, but from a purely technical point of view, I believe that what they're doing fits into the BPM category.
 

Dear all,
Microsoft is building now the infrastructure and will be availble for all users with next months,
since with new Framework V 3.0,microsfot support different kinds of workflow,as well as very stable intergration services not only by Biztalk but also by WCF (Windows Communication Foundation).

i like these kinds of dicussion which let all of us to get the right vision for what's going on plus the vision of each software vendor.
 

In a future blog entry, could you discuss what security features BPM vendors should be implementing in their products?
 

I am yet to see Successful Enterprise wide BPM Implementations( except one off Implementations in Insurance and Financial Services, but cant really call them successful) ? Do you know of any good BPM implementations in Retail, Pharma and Manufacturing Industries ? Which business problems did they tackle , and how can they be justifiably called BPM implementations as opposed to SCM implementations ?
 

Talk to any BPM vendor--Metastorm, Lombardi, Savvion, etc.--and they'll give you plenty of case studies. Most are internal, too, not supply chain management.

Perhaps you have a very agressive definition of "BPM" or "enterprise-wide", and so none of these examples will meet your criteria. Still, must a solution be deployed enterprise-wide to have value? I don't think so. The truth is that in big organizations, almost nothing works across the entire enterprise. The key to a project's success is often carefully circumscribing the domain that's targeted.
 

Post a Comment


<< Home