BPM in Action

This may seem counterintuitive, but Salesforce.com, Inc. says it wants to help to create and nurture future competitors.

Yes. To itself.

The company's ability to deliver software as a service (SaaS) for customer relationship management (CRM) and other critical business functions is well proven. It has opened up its SaaS delivery architecture and its development tools, to enable creation of applications custom-tailored for specific businesses, their needs, and their processes. It is now offering a Platform Edition of its architecture, for those who want to deliver on-demand applications other than those which Salesforce.com itself offers. It has created a rapidly growing online AppExchange and supporting business model, to help others market and find such applications. (The folks at Forbes.com called the Salesforce.com AppExchange "the iTunes of business software" and one of the "top 10 disruptors of 2006.")

Now, Salesforce.com has created the AppExchange Incubator. It's (initially) a single physical building. It currently houses 32 ventures – some start-ups, some extensions of already established companies – in various stages of, well, incubation. Salesforce.com business and technical resources and expertise are immediately available to them on demand, as are all the support services you'd expect to find in a modern office/start-up facility.

The upshot of this should be rapid and broad development of applications that focus on specific combinations of specific business types and supporting processes. A broad range of specific combinations. Resulting in an expanding marketplace of pre-built and easily customizable process-aware, process-enabled, and process-enabling applications. Applications that can be deployed as needed, with minimal infrastructure investments, just like Salesforce.com's core, proven applications.

This should also result in a lively online ecosystem of technology- and business-focused folks with growing bases of experience in designing, building, and deploying such applications. An ecosystem that becomes an easily tapped fount of knowledge, skills, and talent for those seeking help with their own applications. And so on. And so on.

But enough of what I think. What does the company itself say about its plans? This – it wants to "[b]ecome the trusted business and technology platform for empowering the next generation of on-demand."

And what do the "incubatees" think? Well, I spoke with several of them during my visit to the Incubator yesterday. They all said a bunch of interesting things, but the most interesting was one they almost all said in almost the same way. A lot of other vendors are saying the right things about SaaS, on-demand applications, and integrating business processes within those applications. But only Salesforce.com has proven the ability and the willingness to "walk the talk," and to bet their entire corporate strategy on enabling and supporting success with on-demand applications.

I think the Salesforce.com strategy could help accelerate progress toward that wonderful day when we can stop worrying about how to manage business processes explicitly. Instead, we can focus on managing people and the IT resources they use to do their jobs, confident that many if not all of those resources are delivering the functionality and information we need to integrate process management with management of those people and resources.

Sigh. We'll see. Meanwhile, dreams are good, right? (And let's not forget, others such as WebEx are contemplating similar strategies.) What's it all mean? Let me know what you think...

Posted by mdortch in BPM • Business Knowledge Management • Collaboration • Software as a Service  |  Permalink  | Comments (0)  | TrackBacks (0)

If people won't do what they should do voluntarily, sometimes, what they should do must be built into the tools they use. That's why things I think things like BPM and business knowledge management (BKM) have to be woven into the IT infrastructures supporting business users – invisibly to those users wherever possible.

Well, apparently, so does Jeff Lazerson, a mortgage broker in Orange County, CA, according to an article at the San Jose Mercury News' SiliconValley.com (located here, at least as of this writing). Lazerson has launched an online mortgage application processing service that eliminates the possibility of that most onerous of business processes – redlining. That's willful discrimination against financially sound applicants by mortgage brokers, for whatever reasons, none of this historically positive or pleasant. (OK, OK – class, gender, and race, predominantly. But I bet you knew or suspected that.)

Anyway, Lazerson's MortgageGrader.com strips away the personal information that makes redlining possible before submitting applications to participating lenders. Those lenders – currently about 15, including "marquee" names Chase and Washington Mutual – only see borrowers' personal information after pricing the prospective loan. Borrowers are pointed at the least expensive loan that fits their situations. Lenders are motivated to offer competitive rates to all qualified borrowers, and can't easily refuse sound borrowers for unsound reasons. Lenders also can't attempt to push borrowers who qualify for less expensive, so-called "prime" loans into more expensive "sub-prime" loans to make more money.

This is a "prime" example of how innovative IT can unobtrusively enforce consistent adherence to business processes and policies, and deliver significant business benefit as a result. What savvy lender wouldn't like the obvious PR boost that would come with anything that let them demonstrate that their commitment to being "equal housing lenders" was more than lip service?

This is also a great example of how innovative thinking can result in approaches to process enablement of IT-powered business tools that deliver more than consistency and greater operational efficiency. When it's done right, the combination of IT and human-centric thinking can actually help a business – or perhaps any number of businesses, or markets – do measurably better at doing well, by doing good.

If you're involved in or considering any IT-empowered BPM initiatives at your company or for your clients, keep this example in mind. You might come up with some things at least as innovative and beneficial to business success as Jeff Lazerson has. And even if you don't, the effort is almost guaranteed to improve your ability to generate support for your efforts among those likely to be affected – and to affect your own abilities to succeed. And if you come up with, consider, or hear about any other innovative combinations of IT and BPM or BKM, do please let me know. And I'll try to do the same.

Posted by mdortch in BPM • Business Knowledge Management  |  Permalink  | Comments (0)  | TrackBacks (0)

As discussed here previously, a "CPR" approach that addresses culture, process, and results is a solid path towards success with BPM and business knowledge management (BKM). And that CPR approach works best with a focus on seven interconnected factors – processes, people, platforms, products, planning, projects, and portfolios. Having addressed processes previously, the next issue to approach is people.

People are the second most critical success factor to any BPM, BKM, or strategic business or IT initiative. No, not the first. That's because without clear and clearly defined processes, people tend to mill about aimlessly, at least but not necessarily exclusively metaphorically. (We could debate this from the perspective of the people necessary to craft and enforce those processes, but fortunately, this is not a blog devoted to philosophy or organizational dynamics. Though it does touch on both from time to time, I will admit.)

So processes are needed to ensure that the right people are included in the capture, creation, documentation, management, and refinement of effective business processes. Processes are also needed to ensure that all observers, participants, and stakeholders in the success of BPM/BKM efforts understand their roles, and are willing and able to play them. And processes are also needed to evaluate how well those people are doing, and how best to align people and resources for continuous improvement.

People need processes to succeed with almost anything, and especially with the multi-faceted challenges to effective, human-centric BPM and BKM. In turn, processes need to reflect and support the concerns and goals of the people capturing, creating, and using those processes. Initial efforts at ensuring that processes are in place to address the people-centric concerns above are good, solid first steps – but they are only that. Ideally, they lead to the collaboration, communication, and consensus necessary to navigate the rest of the seven Ps successfully.

More to come soon. If you have comments, suggestions, or horror stories to share about the "people" dimension of BPM, do please let me know.

Posted by mdortch in BPM • Business Knowledge Management • Collaboration  |  Permalink  | Comments (0)  | TrackBacks (0)

OK, so we're moving merrily along towards a "CPR" ("culture, process, results") approach to success with BPM and business knowledge management (BKM). Such an approach must address seven interconnected factors to succeed. These are processes, people, platforms, products, planning, projects, and portfolios – the seven Ps. Previous outings have addressed processes and people. Next up: platforms.

Platforms are more than particular configurations of hardware or operating systems. Where users are concerned, the applications they rely upon to do their jobs are the only platforms they care about. Which is exactly as it should be in almost all cases I've seen. In case you were wondering.

So the key questions that need answering are these.

1. What are the key application and service "platforms" that matter most to those who make the business go?

2. Are those application and service platforms "BPM/BKM-enabled?"

What "BPM/BKM-enabled" means can vary from situation to situation. However, at a high level, what it means encompasses things like the ability to audit usage patterns in ways that help to capture, document, and identify useful BPM/BKM elements. If BPM/BKM tools are in place, such enablement also means appropriate, bidirectional interoperability with those tools, and whatever tools are used to manage them.

This is also an area in which another potential "platform" becomes important – the so-called "common/configuration management database. This is often referred to as a "CMDB," although the definition of the "C" varies (as does the number of "Cs," at least in IBM Corp.'s case, which calls its permutation a "change and configuration management database" or "CCMDB." Sigh.)

Anyway, if there is a management database in place or under consideration, it, too, must be appropriately BPM/BKM-enabled. In this case, what that means is that the database must be sufficiently extensible and flexible to support easy addition of information that is more BPM/BKM-related than focused on particular technological minutiae. Eventually, such databases appear destined to become the central management points for all critical responsibilities, restrictions, rights, roles, and rules governing access to and use of business IT and intellectual property (IP) resources. This means that management and optimization of business processes and knowledge, and of the human interactions that surround and rely upon these, will likely rely heavily on such databases. This makes now the time to start thinking along these lines, whether or not your chosen solution vendors are doing so yet or not.

Finally, if BPM and BKM efforts are to work, they have to touch and be touched by every resource important to the business. This means that BPM and BKM solutions and processes absolutely must be technologically platform-agnostic, natively and/or through interfaces compliant with open, industry-supported standards.

More on platforms later and/or offline, if you'd like. Just let me know. Next up: products (and services) – and not (just) those you buy or sell, either…

Posted by mdortch in BPM • Business Knowledge Management • Collaboration  |  Permalink  | Comments (0)  | TrackBacks (0)

As a short break from my emerging, multi-entry rant about the seven pillars of enterprise transformation, I thought I'd take a shot at answering a question I received from an attendee of a recent BPM Webinar conducted by my employer, Robert Frances Group (RFG). The question, from an educator, asked if I knew of any BPM textbooks worth recommending.

Frankly, where IT and related subjects are concerned I don't look at textbooks very often any more. First of all, there are all those college-day flashbacks. Second, I worry that the fast pace of IT and BPM evolution makes it difficult, if not impossible, for most textbook publishers to keep up. So I offered some alternative suggestions.

Of course, any or all of the blogs here at ebizQ that address BPM, business intelligence (BI), business knowledge management (BKM), and related subjects can be helpful and interesting. "Helpful" and "interesting" are, in my experience, two hallmark characteristics of the best textbooks. In any case, if anyone interested in the above subjects can head for the ebizQ blog list, scan it for relevant recent entries, read a selection of them, and not learn something helpful or interesting, I'd be very, very surprised. (By the way, in case you haven't seen it yet, ebizQ's "BI in Action" Web site is live, featuring blogs by Joe McKendrick and yours truly.)

Among other blogs, I'm a big fan of Ismael Ghalimi, co-founder of Intalio. Intalio makes one of the only enterprise-class, open source business process management solutions, and offers its process modeling software for free. Ismael, is also a deep thinker about BPM, among other subjects, so his blogs (some of which have appeared at ebizQ, in fact) should offer much food for thought. They also offer lots of links to other blogs and similarly worthwhile textbook substitutes and adjuncts.

I'm also a fan of what I've found at the Web site for Role Modellers, whose founder, Keith Harrison-Broninski, is a founding thinker about human interaction management (and another ebizQ "blogmate"). He describes it as "human-driven" process management, not just what Forrester Research and others call "human-centric."

As I think I understand it, a key difference is that so-called human-centric processes can still be boringly similar and repeatable, while human-driven processes almost always involve variations and the unexpected. But I'm still trying to figure out what I do and don't understand about all of this, as you will doubtless read here soon and often. Meanwhile, Keith's Web site at www.human-interaction-management.info also offers some great textbook-like content.

I believe IT in general, and BPM in particular, represent subjects where the timeliness, as well as the diversity of opinions and viewpoints, all make online resources superior to textbooks. (Yes, I understand that it's possible to publish perfectly good textbooks more quickly now, thanks largely to advances in IT. But there's still a significant delay. Not to mention having to kill all those trees. Or buy all that recycled paper. Or figure out how to get electronic substitutes into the hands of schools that can't even always afford current textbooks. But I digress.) After all, if all of this stuff is really moving at "Internet speed," whatever that means, information, opinion, and intended guidance about it should, too…

Having said all of that, read any good books about BPM and/or IT lately? Please let me know…

Posted by mdortch in BPM • Business Knowledge Management • Collaboration  |  Permalink  | Comments (1)  | TrackBacks (0)

Does it seem weirdly recursive to discuss the need for processes to manage processes? (Don't worry; it's a rhetorical question.)

My ebizQ blogging colleague, Keith Harrison-Broninski, is engaged in a friendly debate about processes engendered by a response to one of my recent entries here by David Chassels, head of Procession plc. I'll have more to say about this debate in the future. For now, however, I'll say this. The debate has inspired me to refine some of my thinking about the interactions linking people and processes.

I think I now think there are two classes of processes – task-driven and human-driven. I think I also now think that task-driven processes define and/or how tasks get done, often by IT systems and resources, while human-driven processes define and/or describe how people do things. Both are essential to successful business operations. However, they are very different from one another, and cannot likely be equally effectively addressed by any common set of processes or technologies. For example, it seems likely to me that it's easier to automate task-driven processes than human-driven processes. I'd bet that often, the most IT can hope to do to support human-driven processes is to capture information about them in ways that make it possible to document and build upon them.

So what's needed are processes designed to take all of this into account in ways that enable consistency, manageability, and rationalization with business goals and requirements – and how people do things. Because after all, BPM and BKM are, at their core, about how people do work, work that typically requires them to perform tasks that manipulate information. Clear so far? Good!

It often helps efforts intended to enable effective BPM and BKM to use each of the seven Ps to frame and prioritize enterprise-specific questions focused that particular P. Here are some examples of such questions for processes.

• Are all knowledge/process management processes sufficiently aligned with one another, and with those governing business and IT goals, operations, and services? If not, how can they be so aligned?
• Are processes governing IT solution assessment, deployment, and integration sufficiently informed by process/knowledge management efforts?
• Are processes that govern other initiatives, projects, and tasks designed to support and comply with knowledge/process management processes and goals? If not, how can they be so aligned?

These are just examples of starting points for discussions of process/knowledge management processes at your specific organization of choice. The most important bits are to start the conversation, and to use it and the results of it and related initiatives to expand and refine your portfolio of business/knowledge management processes.

There are six more Ps to go, and each has a significant processes-specific component. Keep these things in mind while addressing the other Ps, and getting to effective BPM and BKM just might be a little easier for you and your colleagues. Do let me know, please, either way…

Posted by mdortch in BPM • Business Knowledge Management  |  Permalink  | Comments (3)  | TrackBacks (0)

So you've decided to take a shot at the "CPR" approach to BPM and business knowledge management (BKM) outlined here previously. You agree that culture, process, and results represent a potentially effective strategy for engendering support for BPM and BKM initiatives. But, you're probably asking yourself, how best to proceed?

Well, I've also mentioned here previously, in a mini-rant on BPM and marketing, what I believe to be a strong candidate approach. My colleagues at Robert Frances Group (RFG) and I have found a focus on seven interconnected key factors forms a firm foundation for such initiatives. And conveniently for lovers of alliterations, all of them start with the letter "P." The "seven Ps" we believe are in fact pillars of enterprise transformation are listed (at least quasi-)logically and briefly summarized below.

• Processes are the basic building blocks of excellence, in BPM, in BKM, and in almost every other significant, strategic business and IT endeavor.
• People must be measured and organized in relation to process fulfillment.
• Platform support must be unified and integrated in terms of both people and process. (Platforms must be rendered invisible, keeping the focus on people, tasks, and information.)
• Products (and services) are what and how IT delivers business value. Each is constructed of a number of processes and interconnected IT and intellectual property (IP) elements. (They are not the products and services proffered by vendors to support enterprise initiatives. Just to be clear.)
• Planning addresses the evolution and growth of all of the other "Ps," and their alignment with business goals.
• Projects are how strategic initiatives are parsed into achievable, interconnected steps toward continuous improvement of business and IT operations, and of IT-business alignment.
• Portfolios are the means of organizing and cataloguing projects as well as IT and IP assets. Portfolios often serve as the lingua franca for IT-business collaboration. (Portfolios of IT products, projects, and services, for example, often represent the underlying elements supporting and enabling specific business services.)

The above focus areas can be customized to reflect the priorities and goals of note at any particular enterprise, and should be. They also represent headings under which specific questions need to be cataloged and prioritized. These categories of questions can then be used to foment the conversations within IT and between IT and business leaders necessary to get to successful, business-driven, human-centric BPM and BKM.

I will, perhaps unsurprisingly, have more to say about each of the above focus areas, and their particular relevance to BPM and BKM, in future outings in this space. Meanwhile, if you have experiences, opinions, or other relevant thoughts to share, do please let me know.

Posted by mdortch in BPM • Business Knowledge Management • IT Infrastructure Management  |  Permalink  | Comments (0)  | TrackBacks (0)

Anyone who has heard me speak at an industry event, live or online, has probably heard me tell this story – but I think it's so important to success with business processes, I'm going to keep telling it.

At an event hosted by my august employer Robert Frances Group (RFG) a while ago, a client from a large financial services company spoke out during a roundtable discussion. Basically, the client complemented us and industry analysts generally, for understanding how vital IT is to most businesses, and how good processes are essential to success with IT. However, the client then chided me, my colleagues, and our industry, for missing something both blindingly obvious and incredibly significant.

At most companies, year in and year out, this client asserted, "culture eats process for lunch every day."

Well. I could just stop here and say, "Thanks for coming out, everybody, drive carefully on your way home, and goodnight!" You should be so lucky.

BPM and similarly strategically important, IT-empowered business initiatives share the trait described by the client quoted above. Every such initiative is by definition collaborative. And in almost every collaboration I've ever seen or been part of, at least some stakeholders come away disappointed. And that's OK. Because as Mr. Spock and Captain Kirk conclude in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan," the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few – or the one. (Never let it be said that I have any shame or modesty when seeking out newly strained analogies or boldly going where no metaphor has gone before!)

But the above aphorism only holds true once every affected constituent is convinced that their concerns are taken seriously. And that is in fact a cultural, political issue. Precisely the type of issue that challenges technically-focused folk tremendously. I didn't say this would be easy.

What I've come up with is something I'm calling a "CPR" approach. Make all the gratuitous connections to life support and resuscitation you feel appropriate here.

"C" stands for "culture," meaning those cultural, personal, and political issues that, when unaddressed, invariably sabotage even the most well-meaning, benefit-laden initiative.

"P" stands for "process." To be effective, processes must be, among other things, broadly adopted and supported. They must therefore be reflective and supportive of how people do work in real life. Which means they must acknowledge and address relevant cultural, political, sometimes personal issues – in ways that are dispassionate, non-personal, and focused on the business.

"R" stands for "results." Those promoting particular initiatives and/or processes must demonstrate their real-life business value, via one or more pilot deployments that produce credible, unambiguous results. These will not always be positive, but if they are credible and unambiguous, they will contribute to the credibility of the overall initiative – and its proponents.

IT and business decision-makers at every enterprise – even when they're different parts of the same individuals – must come together around this approach, or something with similar focus, if they hope to achieve truly effective management and optimization of business activities, knowledge, and processes. That's not just my opinion, nor is it just the opinion of other observers. In my experience, I have never seen a strategic initiative achieve sustained success without taking an approach very much like this one.

What have you seen? How has or might this approach work for you and your enterprise? Let me know, and do expect to read more about this here. Can't say you weren't warned...

Posted by mdortch in BPM • Business Knowledge Management • Collaboration  |  Permalink  | Comments (0)  | TrackBacks (0)

As reported by ebizQ, OutlookSoft Corp. announced the availability of a new Business Process Flows (BPF) Marketplace. This is basically a "community repository" that gives users of the company's OutlookSoft 5 performance management solution new choices. Those users can configure BPFs for their enterprises based on the BPFs included with the software. Or they can browse the BPF Marketplace for BPFs constructed by others, but closely aligned with specific business requirements at those users' own enterprises.

BPFs, according to OutlookSoft, add performance management features to traditional workflows and managed business processes. BPFs can therefore help users spend less time tweaking software, and more time actually managing and optimizing their businesses.

By my lights, OutlookSoft's BPF Marketplace is both a potentially valuable announcement for OutlookSoft users, and another harbinger of the continuing confluence of business analytics, intelligence, and process and performance management and optimization. (Whew!) BPFs are, in fact, elemental "maps" of business processes and their interdependencies. So they should aid any efforts to capture and document business processes, or to assess their effectiveness in real life.

In addition, the ability to seek out BPFs that can be easily adapted to specific needs and goals could help many OutlookSoft users achieve some highly desired but often elusive goals. These include "out-of-the-box" business value and more rapid "time to success" and return on investment. So if your company's an OutlookSoft user, you should definitely check out the BPF Marketplace. If your company is not an OutlookSoft user, you might want to check the software out – and to ask your current performance and/or process management and/or optimization software vendor about their plans, if any, to offer anything similar. And as always, I'd be passionately interested in what you're told and how you react, so please let me know.

Meanwhile, since it's almost time to file your tax returns (or extension requests), did you know that cosmetologists are required to have government-issued licenses, but that tax preparers are not? This may help to explain why the U.S. Department of Justice is suing 24 people at five Jackson Hewitt Tax Services franchises. Franchise owners and their colleagues allegedly fostered an environment that encouraged the filing of fraudulent returns, and then turned a blind eye towards the fraud, according to numerous news reports. The Justice Department claims the fraud resulted in more than $70 million in revenues lost to the U.S. Treasury, and seeks to bar "the franchises and other defendants from preparing tax returns for others."

Jackson Hewitt, which has more than 6,500 locations nationwide, claims that the 125 supposedly involved in the shady practices represent only about 2 percent of the company's total revenues. I infer that this is supposed to indicate that the problem is not that big a deal, at least to the company's overall financial performance. However, I believe that those who are caught and punished for filing the fraudulent returns might have different views of the severity of this problem – a problem caused, I affirm, by failed and inadequately enforced business practices.

In related, similarly disturbing news, more than 500 U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) laptops are reportedly missing, while many others are poorly protected by weak, easily cracked passwords, according to news reports. The IRS says there have been no reported cases of private personal or financial information being compromised or stolen as a result of these problems. To which I add one word: "yet."

Make sure business processes at your business reflect ethics that wouldn't shame your parents, partners, or spouses. And make sure those processes come with consequences, and are enforced, and are clearly documented. And also make sure that every user of every computer understands the need for both strong passwords and constant vigilance over corporate intellectual property (IP) – especially where personal or private information is concerned. And a happy, relaxing Tax Time to you and yours!

Posted by mdortch in BPM • Business Knowledge Management • Security  |  Permalink  | Comments (0)  | TrackBacks (0)

I am now the happy recipient of several comments in response to and/or in the same "neighborhood" as some of my recent posts here. Those comments come from David Chassels, CEO of a company called Procession plc. Procession specializes in "task-oriented" applications that embody the principles of human interaction management and are intended to deliver the business benefits promised by BPM. A standards-based process engine provides integration of disparate processes, and process-controlled data transformation. This enables implementation of integrated processes without expensive, clumsy custom adapters. And by my lights, what else you get is the ability to build applications that don't just support business processes – which are driven largely by how and why people interact at work –but are based directly upon them.

Neat. But at least as neat, at least to me, are David's thoughts about where BPM fits and does not fit, and what works and does not work where BPM implementation is concerned. In response to my recent post on business process profiles, David said that he thought I was generally "on the right track." He then went on to say that a common mistake is to think that a modeling tool will answer all the questions and challenges related to capturing and documenting business processes. Such tools often "try and address too many audiences with different agendas – the business, the analyst, the systems architect, the programmer and IT support," David said. The result: a "broad overview, but for none the detail required to take [their specific issues and challenges] forward."

"I can only speak from application build in our [BPM-enabled application-building environment], and nothing beats the good old-fashioned…direct discussion with business to establish who does what at each step, what information do they need, what are they allowed to do (and not do) and what reports do they need to create. [A]s you suggest, word processing or even a writing implement will do the job [of capturing this information] quite adequately. Armed with this detail the application can be built in days with no coding or compiling. It is not rocket science as some would like to promote! But it only works because there are only two parties involved – the business person and the business analysts who builds in a dynamic environment with the business involved at every step. All too simple…but it works!"

If, as I've written here before, BPM needs to be human-centric, pervasive, and invisible to users, it's got to get woven into the fabric that makes up the applications and services people use to do work. I think David and Procession have a very powerful spin on this idea, an approach worth noting whether you're an IT decision-maker trying to make BPM work at your enterprise, or a vendor looking to compete…or partner. (Procession recently entered into a "collaborative business relationship" with Atlas GOSS, a provider of support services to global outsourcing service providers (OSPs).)

So how, if at all, are you integrating or planning to integrate into your enterprise's applications or services, whether your enterprise buys or sells such things? Do let me know, so we can continue this evolving, fascinating, and timely conversation. Meanwhile, I appreciate David publicly, for writing, for allowing me to quote from his comments, and for convincing me that even if I'm crazy regarding this stuff, at least I'm not alone.

(By the way, a new RFG Research Note summarizes and expands upon several of my recent blogs about BPM-related vendor evolution. Please check out the Note in the RFG section of the Analyst Corner of ebizQ. As always, your thoughts welcome.

Posted by mdortch in BPM • Business Knowledge Management  |  Permalink  | Comments (1)  | TrackBacks (0)