BPM in Action

Earlier this month, IBM announced that it has integrated its FileNet BPM offering with Cognos 8 (which IBM also owns) and its business intelligence features. The company has also transformed its January acquisition of AptSoft into IBM WebSphere Business Events, a “BPM Suite” designed to ease and speed the integration of BPM, BI, and event processing.

Whatever one wants to say or argue about whether or not this is a suite or a portfolio, and whether or not it represents a new set of solutions or old wine in new bottles, this is a meaningful development. It demonstrates that:
1. IBM is serious about integrating its FileNet technologies with BI solutions;
2. IBM is serious about integrating event-related features and processing with BPM and BI; and
3. IBM is committed to integration of BI, BPM, and event processing with/via service-oriented architectures (SOAs).

This mirrors the continuing evolution of The Big Mash-Up in enterprises of all sizes and types. Increasingly, by my lights, anyway, users are seeing BI, BPM, and analytics as tools for answering questions about “who, what, where, and why,” event-driven features and event processing as tools for answering “when,” and SOAs as answers to “how.” A construction that may be a bit inelegant, but begins to shed light on some of the forces driving The Big Mash-Up.

And IBM isn’t the only vendor heading down this path. BEA Systems, for example, is talking increasingly about the “Event-Driven SOA.” Oracle offers an “Event-Driven Architecture Suite,” an element of what the company calls “SOA 2.0.” And there’s more to come, from familiar and emerging vendors.

This is a big and growing deal. If you’d like to read more about it, check out my Aberdeen Group Analyst Insight, “Building Event-Driven Architectures: Many Paths, One Mountain.” And if you haven’t yet done so, check out my Benchmark Study, “Performance in a Service-Oriented Architecture World,” while it’s still available at no cost for a now-VERY-limited time, as the marketeers like to say. (If you’re quick and have 10 minutes to spare, you can still take my survey on application and infrastructure monitoring and management, which entitles you to FREE copies of the SOA performance study AND the report to be based on the survey when that’s published. Such a deal, as we former Brooklynites like to say!)

Posted by mdortch in BPM • Business Knowledge Management • Current Events • Enterprise Information Integration • Event-Driven Architecture • IBM • IT Infrastructure Management • SOA • The Big Mash-Up  |  Permalink  | Comments (0)  | TrackBacks (0)

As I’ve mentioned here previously, I (along with some other industry observers whose opinions I respect, sometimes more than my own) fervently believe we’re watching the colliding convergence of multiple technologies. These include, but are not limited to, BPM, event-driven architectures (EDAs), enterprise information integration (EII), information lifecycle management (ILM), master data management (MDM), and service-oriented architectures (SOAs).

This time out, I want to throw out some more detailed musings about the forces driving BPM closer to EII, ILM, and MDM. While these latter three areas are overlapping and often only vaguely defined, they all attempt to address the same core needs. As I see it, there are two that matter most.

Need the First: The ability to base every business action, decision, and process on the most accurate, consistent, secure, and timely information available, without fail.

Need the Second: The ability to answer the “Journalism 101” questions about that information – who’s using what, when, where, why, and how – accurately and completely, on demand at any time.

These are the needs underlying increasing industry focus on “one version of the truth,” a phrase cited frequently by those focused on tasks or goals such as data quality or management of customer or product information.

But meeting these needs as completely and consistently as possible is also essential if BPM is to succeed and deliver maximum business value. Processes developed, enforced or revised based on inaccurate, inconsistent, or just plain wrong information are opportunities to make what we called sardonically in my young analyst days “career-limiting decisions.”

But don’t just take my word for it. Recent survey-based research conducted by me and my august colleagues at Aberdeen Group finds that companies using or planning MDM know more about “time to information,” the time between business activity and delivery of useful information to decision-makers, than those with no MDM activities or plans. Aberdeen research also finds that most companies are pursuing EDA plans, and that those companies also pursuing SOA and/or MDM plans are going after EDAs more aggressively.

Now, even if you could build an EDA or an SOA without BPM, I’m not sure I’d want to see the results. And even if you have no plans for EDAs or SOAs, the more business-critical your processes become, the more they require effective management, and the more that management requires the best information available.

Drop me a line if you’d like to see the Aberdeen research I’ve mentioned. Also please drop a line or post a comment if you’re pursuing BPM initiatives in concert with EII, ILM, and/or MDM, or if you have supporting or contrarian ideas about this particular element of The Big Mash-Up.

Posted by mdortch in BPM • Business Knowledge Management • Enterprise Information Integration • Event-Driven Architecture • Information Lifecycle Management • SOA  |  Permalink  | Comments (0)  | TrackBacks (0)

Dennis Byron, my new ebizQ BPM “blogmate” and one of my favorite pundits, wrote recently about Appian and Enterprise Rent-a-Car. I love the idea of “renting BPM,” and agree with Dennis completely that it’s something we could sooner rather than later, and not necessarily just from Appian.

I found another recent announcement equally interesting. In February, Vitria announced M3O, an environment it claims “empowers business users to directly model, manage, monitor and optimize their business processes.”

If you talk with senior executives at other BPM companies, as I have done recently, you hear several terms and variations repeated with increasing frequency. A distillation of what I’ve heard, without quite so much release-related rigor, comes out very close to the Vitria announcement.

That is to say, what users apparently want and need – or at least what vendors think users want and need now – is the ability to model processes, then execute those model processes immediately and directly, with as much IT cooperation as available and as little required IT intervention as possible.

A single view of the process, the data it accesses, and its effects, in a secure “sandbox” that allows near-real-time manipulation and optimization, without disrupting business operations. Rapid collaboration between and among the businesspeople driving processes and the IT people managing the infrastructures that enable those processes.

You get the idea. Think of it as a kind of “BPM Live.”

Now, Vitria’s not the only vendor of BPM or related solutions pointing in this general direction. I expect to see more such announcements soon and frequently, especially as more “rental”/software-as-a-service (SaaS) alternatives for BPM and related functions appear. I think you should expect the same, as part of what I, Joe McKendrick and other members of the “punditocracy” appear to be predicting with greater frequency – something I’m calling, at least for now, “The Big Mash-Up.” That’s BPM, plus event-driven architectures (EDAs), enterprise information integration (EII), information lifecycle management (ILM), master data management (MDM), and service-oriented architectures (SOAs), among other significant IT initiatives.

Research I’m conducting at Aberdeen Group is unearthing high levels of interdependency and “cross-pollination” among such efforts. You can read more about it in the recent Aberdeen reports I wrote on EII and SOA performance, both of which are available at no cost at the Aberdeen Group Web site for, as they say, a limited time only.

More to come on this. Lots more. Stay tuned – and make sure to make Dennis feel welcome, too!

Posted by mdortch in BPM • Business Knowledge Management • Current Events • Enterprise Information Integration • Event-Driven Architecture • Information Lifecycle Management • SOA • Software as a Service  |  Permalink  | Comments (0)  | TrackBacks (0)

In the aftermath of the end-of-2007 “holidaze,” I’ve had multiple opportunities to attempt to return gifts and other items purchased online, and to launch inquiries with vendors online, via e-mail and on-screen, at-site Web forms.

I’m disappointed.

Apparently, in 2008, there are still companies that have not yet figured out how to ensure that real-time online chats with “service agents,” e-mails, and phone calls get integrated into a single workflow and prioritized according to the same business rules. So, for example, when I filled out the paper form I had to download to prepare a return, and said I wanted a working replacement for the product in question – yes, it was a “DOA” digital camera, why do you ask? – what I got instead was a credit to the account I used to make the original purchase. And no, I never got any communication, by any medium, informing me of this unilateral decision by the vendor, before or after the decision was made.

In the case of another gift I purchased online for my wife, I have yet to see a confirmation of the return from the vendor, although I know they got it thanks to the online tracking provided by their shipper. So I’ve got to follow up with the multiple e-mails and physical documents and items I’ve sent with a phone call, a fax, or both. I’ll likely also have to explain my sad, sordid tale from the beginning at least once.

Now, this has historical resonance for me. Back in the day, I used to write about a company called Mustang Software, one of the earliest purveyors of tools for building and operating bulletin-board systems or BBSs. These were the progenitors of everything from every portal you’ve ever seen to LinkedIn, MySpace, and Facebook. One of Mustang’s coolest products was the Internet Message Center (IMC), software that routed inbound e-mails to available agents, like call center software routes inbound calls. In fact, companies could use IMC to route both e-mails and phone calls to the same agents, most of whom sat in front of connected computers or terminals anyway.

This was in 1997. Eleven years ago. And yet, here I – and we – sit.

The Take-Aways:
1. Make sure any business process implementations or refinements on your radar address the entire scope of the challenge or opportunity being addressed.
2. Put yourself in the place of the user or other stakeholder to be affected BEFORE casting any processes or planned refinements in stone.
3. Model and test each and every candidate process and process change, to try to get a handle on all likely consequences, intended and unintended, before any of those consequences become real enough to create problems.

Oh, and by the way: if you’re interested in RFID – and if your business is using or considering RFID and you’re a process-focused kinda person, you SHOULD be interested – I’m slowly building up a library of interesting research at www.aberdeen.com. Search the site, or drop me a line and I’ll point you at some examples, in exchange for you agreeing to provide feedback. Thanks in advance!

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

Let’s see, what have I missed lately?

Oracle and BEA: In January, the two companies finally reached agreement on Oracle acquiring BEA. As my Aberdeen Group colleagues wrote, the deal has multiple implications, not the least of which involve the synergies between BEA’s BPM strengths and Oracle’s SOA-related offerings. The BEA AquaLogic platform is basically a mash-up of an SOA platform and BPM tools. Oracle’s SOA solutions and emerging Fusion Middleware should combine well with BEA’s offerings. Now, all we need is a road map for how BEA’s Project Genesis and its focus on “Dynamic Business Applications” links up with Fusion Middleware – and those actual applications Oracle sells these days…

Sun and MySQL: Also in January (busy month), Sun acquired MySQL. As my Aberdeen Group colleagues and I wrote, that deal has some interesting implications for the BPM-related areas of business intelligence (BI) and analytics. That’s because Sun can combine MySQL software with its Open Solaris operating environment, its high-performance hardware, and offerings such as those from partners such as Greenplum. (Sun and Greenplum have already developed a pretty nifty data warehousing/BI appliance.)

What it all means (at least so far): Beyond the specific companies mentioned and their current competitors, these deals are also evidence of the continuing convergence of BPM with BI, analytics, and SOA-related efforts. These are also increasingly affected by the growth in range and functionality of open source technologies such as MySQL, OpenSolaris, and the core of Greenplum’s database management software, PostgreSQL. BPM decision-makers must pay close attention to relevant developments, in the marketplace generally and within their own enterprises. Alignment of these efforts is a sure step towards maximizing the business returns of all of them – and failing to align them almost guarantees frustration.

More soon. Really.

(P.S.: I’m writing a survey-driven Aberdeen Group study on SOA performance. If you’re involved in SOA decisions or initiatives, please take 10-15 minutes to take my survey, and help yourself to some free Aberdeen Group research. Thanks.)

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

Aside from its sterling reporting and analysis, one of my favorite features of The Economist is that it names columns about regions after figures important to that region’s history. So the column on what is now called the European Union (EU) is named Charlemagne, after “one of the continent’s great unifiers,” and the first crowned Holy Roman Emperor, according to the Economist.com Web site.

Always good to begin with a digression thinly disguised as background. But I…well, you know…

Anyway, the Nov. 17 edition of the Charlemagne column, “A dissertation on Romanian pork,” seemed to me directly relevant to the art and craft of business process management. In brief, it turns out that the animal-welfare requirements stipulated for EU membership fly in the face of long-held traditions among Romanian farmers. The farmers are allowed to kill pigs at home for personal consumption, as they have for some time – but only if they use an EU-specified animal-stunning device, something most of Romania’s millions of subsistence/family farmers can’t afford. (It’s also risky to combine electric stunning devices with the snow and wet ground common to Romania during winter, when the traditional ritual pig-killing takes place.)

Anyway, the Romanian farmers appealed for exemptions similar to those granted by the EU to Jewish and Muslim butchers, but were turned down, according to the column. The reason? That exemption applies only to religious rites, while the EU says the Romanian tradition is, well, “only” a tradition. Even though the pigs in question are traditionally killed around the end-of-winter feast of Saint Ignatius and Christmas holidays, which seem more religious than mere traditional associations to this admittedly distant observer.

Of course, this whole thing involving human beings, compromise is being sought. One possibility is having veterinarians screen the pigs for trichinosis and “throw in pig stunning free,” as The Economist so pithily put it. Meanwhile, at least some of the same farmers who are struggling to comply with the animal-welfare strictures are welcoming greater restrictions on potentially harmful pesticides. And so it goes.

The Take-Aways:
1. No process is ever developed, managed, revised, or retired in a vacuum.
2. No person or team is ever smart enough to predict the consequences of every such action completely accurately each and every time.
3. Unintended consequences are at least as difficult to plan for/around as they are to avoid.
4. Unintended consequences CAN be managed around, however, given clearly defined goals, clear consistent communications, and active inclusion of and participation by all affected stakeholders.

Please adjust your collaboration, communications, documentation, and/or process management tools and policies accordingly.

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

So my long-time industry colleague James Gaskin, in a profoundly impressive piece of analyst double-bagging, manages to quote both me and another industry colleague of whom I’m a big fan, Andi Mann of Enterprise Management Associates (EMA). In a recent piece for security.ITworld.com, James discusses Andi’s idea of an organizational “culture of security,” and why inculcation of such a culture would likely benefit almost any organization. Wisely, I believe, James argues vigorously that such inculcation requires leadership from senior executives.

Mere days later, in an ITworld.com piece entitled “Process Versus Culture,” James graciously quotes yours truly, and laments the dark side of the fact that culture almost always changes – and therefore must almost always be changed – from the top down. “Bad ides, like waste products, flow downhill” is a phrase with some impressive visual imagery and staying power, and a useful summary of some of James’ salient points.

He quotes, or rather paraphrases, me as saying that culture beats process every time. Actually, as it was explained to me by a senior IT decision-maker at a large financial institution years ago, at many if not most organizations, “culture eats process for lunch every day.”

I’m not trying to pick on James, but to make what I think is a critical point as clearly as possible. It doesn’t matter one whit how great your processes are on paper or its electronic equivalent. Nor does it matter how flexible, robust, and/or scalable your IT-empowered process management solution(s) is/are. If process management efforts do not make room for and/or are not informed by acknowledgement of cultural issues, those efforts will fail.

Invariably. Always. Without question. (Not that I have any strong feelings about this or anything.)

I want to thank James publicly for encouraging my behavior, at least in this specific arena. I also want to take the opportunity to refer you to my earlier musings on the subject of culture and process in this space – specifically my April 6 outing, “Success with BPM: A 'CPR' Approach.” (“CPR” in this case stands for “culture, process, results;” you’ll actually have to read the blog entry for more details.) I then encourage you strongly to take just such an approach to everything you do that’s process-related at your organization – which is just about everything, really. Do let me know how it goes…I promise you, it won’t be boring.

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

When it comes to risk and security management for BPM and more broadly, users represent both the greatest allies and the largest potential problems. After all, if a business can convince its users that it’s in those users’ best interests to contribute to maximizing security and minimizing risk, everybody wins (except the bad guys.) But this is much easier said than done.

Of course, this is really yet another process problem. Said problem has historically been is exacerbated by solutions and policies that come across more like “Big Brother” than like aids to greater user flexibility and productivity. However, users find themselves increasingly surrounded by and reliant upon technologies to do their jobs (and live their lives outside of work). As this trend continues, they become more receptive to being engaged in the protection and security of the resources they use.

So, how best to take advantage of this? Well, some useful steps include informing users of the risks at which they can place corporate intellectual property out of ignorance or lack of attention. (Remember bringing in that file your kid downloaded I mentioned previously?) Another set of useful steps might focus on communicating regularly to users that protection of corporate information is in their own personal, selfish interests. When information isn’t at risk, it’s more available, accessible, and trustworthy, which makes those using it more productive.

It can also help tremendously if those responsible for managing and overseeing the processes affecting information protection and security communicate more regularly with users. Such communications can combine summaries of relevant external and internal news and events with specific recommendations and tips, all intended to increase user awareness. A weekly e-mail, periodic posts on the company intranet, sessions at company meetings – all of these present opportunities to “market” and “sell” information protection processes.

There are a wide range of tools that can help address the security challenge as well. More to come…

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

Well. It’s been a while. Hope you’re well – you look great!

Anyway, sorry it’s been a while since you’ve heard from me…unless you’re not, in which case, never mind. A new job, several conferences, blah, blah, blah. And now, back to business.

As I’d been ranting previously, best practices argue strongly for starting from a sound set of first principles with BPM – making sure everything’s working, fixing what’s not, trying to figure out what people are actually doing, those sorts of things. The goal is to reach a Nirvana-like state of continuous improvement, but before that can happen, some incredibly important first principles and best practices should be focused on the twin challenges of risk and security.

(At many enterprises I’ve seen, these are taken together with issues related to regulatory compliance, forging what I have called and heard called the “three-headed monster” of compliance, governance, and risk (CGR) management. However, as many of you likely work at enterprises where compliance and governance are not (yet) as immediately pressing as risk and security management, so I will focus here on those two issues.)

It used to be that where IT and, to some extent, business security were concerned, the primary goal was to “keep the bad guys out.” Today, the most consistently bedeviling security challenges are from internal users, many of them authorized and legitimate. Many a virus has been introduced into a company by a legit user bringing in something they got from one of their kids, who got it at school or from YouTube or Facebook – something that turns out to be a carrier of a virus or some other malware.

So security policies and practices must be implemented and/or enhanced to address this reality, as well as striving to forestall threats from without. In some cases, companies implement solutions that prohibit the loading of any and all external media into the network, or the automatic quarantining of such introductions for inspection and validation. If there is insufficient budget and/or bandwidth to explore, select, and deploy such solutions where you work, it’s still a good idea to implement and enforce policies that discourage such introductions among authorized users.

This is only part of the larger security/risk management picture, however. A bigger, more important, and more tricky part is getting users to understand and accept that these are issues that matter to them, and that they can play major roles in addressing effectively. More on this soonest!

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

Before I being the current tirade, my abject apologies to everyone at ebizQ, especially all of you readers out there – all five of you – who’ve been wondering where I’ve been. (My even more abject apologies to those who didn’t even miss me, for returning.) Let’s just say settling into a new job is challenging and time-consuming, promise it won’t happen again without more warning and faster recovery, and leave it at that. And now, back to business…processes, that is!

So The TJX Companies, owners of TJMaxx and Marshalls, among other retail chains, loses credit card information and other private data for thousands of customers. The company goes to court, and hammers out a settlement that basically offers gift certificates to victims of its failure in multiple business processes, notably those related to IT and intellectual property (IP) protection and security.

So in effect, in exchange for losing my personal data and forcing me to cancel and replace all of my credit and identity cards, I’m welcome to come back to the store with the new ones, and spend more of my time and money? If all of this happens again, am I officially permitted to stop referring to it as isolated incompetence, and to begin instead calling it a business practice?

Wal-Mart, meanwhile, has embarked on a campaign to reduce human-to-human customer interactions, according to reports on National Public Radio and elsewhere. The company has removed from its Web site its former customer service number, saying that answering the volume of calls it was receiving was getting to expensive.

So it’s too expensive to help those people who are unable or unwilling to go online, but who are able and/or willing to make their way down to a Wal-Mart store and spend time and money there. Next, Wal-Mart will be telling those same customers to stop using cash and checks, because those transactions cost too much to process.

Or, maybe both companies will come to their collective managerial senses, and realize that one can squeeze operational costs out of an environment in ways that create costs and risks elsewhere. Like the costs associated with reputational risk, when a retailer is seen as insensitive to the people it depends on for its revenues.

What can we learn? If you’re a business and/or IT decision-maker, don’t summarily change or remove something just because you decide it will make things work better, even if it will. Just because a change makes things work better doesn’t mean it will compel the people using those things to work better, not without clear communication with and inclusion of those affected.

Posted by mdortch in BPM • Business Knowledge Management • Current Events • IT Infrastructure Management  |  Permalink  | Comments (2)  | TrackBacks (0)

I'm taking a brief break from my recent continuing diatribe about BPM first principles, to prepare for transition to a new job (which I'm thrilled to say will not affect my blogging for ebizQ), and to suggest that you might want to take a close look at a company called Autotask Corp.

As the name implies, the company's software is designed to automate a set of tasks. The set of tasks the company has chosen to automate are those used by providers of managed IT services to run their businesses. Specific processes and services supported range from management of customer relations, projects, and service desks to billing, dispatching, reporting, and time-tracking. And it's Web-based software as a service (SaaS), which means it's accessible from almost any browser-equipped, connected system Microsoft Windows-compatible connected device, optionally including handhelds, and it's available on demand. (No mention of Apple Inc. Macintosh or Linux support, but I'm sure these are coming – and will try to confirm same directly with the company.)

In addition, the company offers several other options, including the option of building other options, via its AutotaskExtend set of application programming interfaces (APIs), tools, and Web services. Autotask customers also have access to the AutotaskExtend Network (AXN), an online community and catalog of available Autotask extensions. (I'm a big fan of this approach, as exemplified by the Altiris Juice network, Salesforce.com, Inc.'s AppExchange and Apex Developer Network, and of course, the Java community pioneered by Sun Microsystems, Inc.)

Now, I understand that many if not most of you are probably not providers of managed IT services. However, I believe solutions such as those from Autotask can provide a wealth of information and market-proven experience that can help you to craft strategies for automating and managing IT operations and practices, whatever business your business is in. And given the flexibility and configuration options, Autotask can probably be put to work effectively in almost any IT organization, (And since free trials of the software are available, it's probably worth the exploration.) Also, the company offers numerous case studies and success stories at its Web site. These can help those of you leading IT and/or BPM efforts, too, by providing examples of how best to pursue initial deployments, and to “market” initial successes.

Every IT organization is increasingly called upon to act like a service provider or utility. In some cases, this actually means bidding and competing with outside alternative providers for enterprise projects. Whatever those of you responsible for such efforts can learn from those who are succeeding as commercial services providers cannot help but be helpful. At the very least, you should make sure that any IT service provider used or considered by your enterprise manages its business with Autotask or some similarly comprehensive and integrated set of solutions and practices.

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

What IT-empowered tools are best to use for collecting information about who's using what when, where, why, and how? Well, as every industry analyst tries to answer almost every question, “that depends.”

If you've already got IT infrastructure monitoring and/or management tools in place, explore them carefully for their abilities to generate useful workflow-mapping information. Remember, the goal is to gather information without intruding on those workflows, or coming across like “Big Brother” on electronic steroids. (This is why process is more important that tools in this endeavor.)

Also note that numerous vendors are starting to focus more and more on features that specifically enable capture and mapping of user-driven workflows. Altiris, now owned by Symantec Corp., has made several moves in this direction, and made a lot of noise about workflow just after the acquisition closed in April. Expect more such noise later this year and beyond, especially at the company's ManageFusion event in Las Vegas in October (where I plan to be speaking, by the way).

Beyond client-side management, vendors of solutions for monitoring and screening of e-mail, instant messaging (IM), and other forms of collaboration and sharing of enterprise intellectual property (IP) can also be used to identify and map what users are doing with what. Some such solutions, such as those from companies such as FaceTime Communications, Inc., Orchestria Corp., and Workshare Inc., offer both useful workflow-mapping information and immediate security benefits. This combination may make them strong candidates at enterprises considering deploying software for such functions.

And of course, there are tools dedicated specifically to the capture and mapping of business workflows and processes, including my current favorite, GemWorX FlowModeler, mentioned here previously. Whether or not such purpose-specific tools can be cost-justified depends on a variety of factors. However, it's critical to note that the lack of such tools should not be seen as making such capture and mapping efforts impossible. Perhaps more cumbersome, but still doable, and worth doing.

Ultimately, the goal is to combine good processes with effective tools, to capture and map as accurately, easily, and unobtrusively as possible what users are doing, and with what they're doing what they're doing. Such information is absolutely essential to development, deployment, and management of effective business processes. It's also essential to IT's continuing efforts to provide maximum beneficial support to all key business tasks and processes.

If you've got comments about specific tools you like and/or don't like in this context, or relevant questions, post'em below and/or e-mail'em to me. Meanwhile, I'll start thinking about what happens next, after you know more about who's doing what with what for whom at your enterprise...

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

Figuring out what users are using and how they're using what they're using is a critical first principle for effective BPM. However, doing so is both straightforward and complex, and both obvious and subtle. This apparently self-contradictory state is possible because...well, because humans are involved.

When you run into a friend or acquaintance, greet one another, and exchange pleasantries, it's typically a brief, simple conversation. However, dozens if not hundreds of conscious and subconscious verbal and non-verbal internal and external communications support each such apparently simple exchange. (Simple examples include the ability of each participant to recognize one another, to determine and use the right verbiage for the exchange, and to understand multifaceted constructs such as “go to lunch” and/or “have a drink.”)

When someone decides to create a new report at work, sits down, opens a new document, and starts scouring the enterprise's intellectual property (IP) for source data, a similar situation ensues. Yet at many if not most enterprises, there is no documentation guiding that worker, nor any formal, proven, repeatable processes for that person to use as a starting point. Oftentimes, there isn't even an accurate, complete catalog of reports that have been generated previously. The result is much frustrating wheel-spinning and unnecessary, potentially conflict- and confusion-producing wheel reinvention.

However, it is unwise, if not impossible, to impose processes intended to capture every piece of information about every task performed by every user. Such processes, unless very cleverly crafted and implemented, will almost always come across and odious and intrusive, and evidence that the company has little to no trust and/or confidence in its workers. This situation typically leads to workers ignoring or “working around” such processes, and not being very happy with their jobs or bosses. Since retention is easier and cheaper than acquisition and assimilation, and higher worker productivity and satisfaction cheaper than the alternatives, the impetus to avoid such disgruntlement is great.

Instead, IT decision-makers must collaborate with line-of-business decision-makers and, where practical, directly with workers. The goal of such collaboration is to convince those constituents that greater knowledge about what they do and how they do it will help IT to help them better. Then, IT must demonstrate willingness and commitment to include input from users in decisions that affect those users, and to take that input seriously. A good start is to work with users and their leaders to determine how best to collect such input in the first place. Combinations of online and in-person interviews and surveys, both anonymous and personal, are all options worth considering. Final choices must be made based on the specific information needed and desired, and the preferences of the subjects. But all such discussions must begin with and be framed by processes that focus on the shared goals of greater IT efficiency and user productivity and satisfaction.

At many enterprises, a first useful step toward these goals is the formation of a team that includes IT and business decision-makers, as well as users or user representatives chosen by users. (IT sometimes attempts to select or provide these representatives. When this happens, the information they gather from users is almost always filtered and interpreted in ways that create mismatch between what users actually want and need and what IT delivers.)

If you've got ideas for processes that can help IT decision-makers gather useful information about real-life human workflows, or questions about such things, do let me know. Meanwhile, thoughts on relevant tools to come...

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

No, those ain't typo's in that headline – I MEAN “IT,” as in “information technology,” and not just a generic “it.” As you may have read here previously, I believe one of the first basic principles those pursuing BPM and BI excellence must address is finding and fixing what's broken. Once that's done, the very next basic set issues to address should answer the musical question, “How well is IT supporting the business?”

An immediately obvious follow-up question reminds me of a joke. What's the world's greatest invention? The Thermos(r) bottle. Why? Because it keeps hot things hot and cold things cold. Why does that make it the world's greatest invention? How does it know? (Insert pained groans here. I'll wait. Enjoy. Now, back to work.)

That is to say, if you're going to figure out how well or poorly IT is supporting the business, how would you do so? Well, the only reliable way I know is to assess how people are using IT to do their work today, and how well those efforts are working.

This is easy to say, but like much about BPM, BI, and business-driven IT, tricky and challenging on many levels to do. Basically, it requires processes and solutions that help business and IT decision-makers to answer those questions many of us were told in our youth that every good news story should answer – who, what, when, where, why, and how. In this context, that means knowing who's using what IT-enabled resources, as well as when, where, why, and how those users are using those resources. Journalism 101, applied to the business IT infrastructure. On demand. Everywhere. No pressure.

This is a big goal. However, every step toward it can help you know valuable information about how well your business IT investments are actually contributing to business success – or how poorly. And while you're building, documenting, managing, and refining processes aimed at this goal, vendors are toiling mightily at delivering solutions that can help. More about both processes and tools for capturing and leveraging real-life workflows to come!

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

Last time was about processes intended to help you and your colleagues figure out what applications, resources, services, and workflows were most critical to your business, and how well and/or not well IT is supporting them. This time is about tools intended to enable and support said processes.

Regarding tools, well, you've got to start with what you've got, on the assumption that there isn't budget or bandwidth to go out and find, then deploy and manage something new. This is especially true before investing significantly in any particular BPM and/or BI solution, even if it's "free." Free software, as valuable and powerful as it is, still requires time and energy, and sometimes money, to deploy effectively. And it requires just as firm and solid an operational foundation as anything else that's critical to your business.

Fortunately, you can learn a lot about what's working well and what's not by gathering and analyzing any and all available information about the IT and intellectual property (IP) resources people use to do their jobs. This information, coupled with data about things like common support problems and their resolutions, can help tremendously in efforts to identify and prioritize business-critical tasks and resources, and the IT and IP elements that enable them. This is something one can literally begin with little more than sticky notes, spreadsheets, and/or text documents.

However, if there are more sophisticated tools available for infrastructure and/or operational monitoring and/or workflow mapping, this is the time to use'em. In fact, this information-gathering process is so important and potentially valuable, it may justify investing in such tools where they are not already in place. This is particularly true given the growing number of open source and trial software offerings in this ever-evolving space.

Whatever tools are used, it can also be both helpful and illuminating for IT to share the findings of these information-gathering efforts with the users and line-of-business decision-makers those IT people are supporting. This presents the opportunity to refine and enhance those statistical findings and aggregations with anecdotal and/or survey-based "real-life" user input and feedback. This is likely to be much more reliable than the results of the sadly common and commonly ineffective practice of designating IT staffers as user ambassadors or representatives. It is also a way to demonstrate that IT is ready, willing, and able to listen and respond effectively to users, something many users and some IT people seriously doubt, I assure you. Let the users speak for themselves!

With both processes and tools, start small and focused, but start. Gather this information, and develop processes and solutions for gathering, managing, and taking advantage of it in the future. Not only can and should it inform your determinations about what's really critical to your business, it can help begin an effective dialogue among business, IT and senior executive decision-makers. Even if your enterprise is sufficiently compact and flat that those are all the same person.

By the way, there's some very interesting and refreshing additional takes on working with what you've got in a recently published book, by my industry colleague and ebizQ blogmate, decision management expert James Taylor (with co-author Neil Raden). The book is "Smart Enough Systems: How to Deliver Competitive Advantage by Automating Hidden Decisions," and the title only hints at the breadth and depth of common-sense, actionable advice you'll find within. (You can visit Amazon.com to examine some of said advice from the comfort of your Internet-connected computer.) And in an interesting bit of synchronicity, the book came out on June 29, the same date as the iPhone, one of which you can qualify to win by completing the ebizQ event processing survey. See? Good processes really do help tie everything together better!)

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

In case you're just stumbling across this particular line of thought/discourse/diatribe on my part, I'm currently focused on the argument that effective BI, BPM, and related goals begin with some basic first principles. Preferably before any significant investments are made in any particular "solution." And if this isn't new to you, welcome back, and to our next installment. Thanks for buying into the argument as made so far. Or at least remaining curious enough about it to have come this far. You might need to get out more often, but I do appreciate the support.

My first first principle is to find what's broke, fix it, and put processes into place that make the processes of finding what's broke and fixing it consistent, replicable, and scalable. No mean feat, but just a beginning.

I offer as the next most important first principle the ability to figure out if IT as deployed is delivering maximum business benefit. This is important because almost every critical function of almost every business on the planet relies on IT, at least in part. So once the IT and business infrastructure leaks are repaired, it's time to compare the current course with all relevant maps and plans.

Of course, success with this endeavor requires both robust processes and effective, well-designed tools. Regarding processes, as I've said previously, effective process management relies heavily on Socratic, question-and-answer dialogue. This means it would be helpful here to start with a set of basic questions the answers to which will provide foundations for effective processes.

The fundamental question to be asked and answered here goes something like this: Are all elements of the infrastructure providing optimal support to all business-critical applications, goals, requirements, and services? But here are just some of the questions you'll need to ask and answer before coming close to being able to answer that fundamental question effectively (in no particular order).

What are the applications, goals, requirements, and services critical to the business? Which are the most critical? How do I/we know? What are the most relevant metrics for making these determinations, and how are they applied and their results evaluated?

Do I/we know the answers to all of the above questions, whenever we need to know them? If so, what are the processes and tools that make this knowledge possible, and how well and regularly are they reviewed and tested? If not, how do I/we know that, and what can and should I/we do (and/or not do) to best address this deficit?

And of course, the always-popular recurring imperative – are the processes for determining the answers to these questions agreed upon, documented, enforced, managed, and subject to regular review and refinement?

That's enough about process in this context – for now, anyway. Next time: tools! Meanwhile, if you have opinions, reactions, or relevant experiences to share, please post them below and/or e-mail them to me. Thanks, and come back soon. This could get interesting…

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

As I've been prattling on about recently, it's critical to start down the path toward BPM, BI, and related goals by focusing first on some basics. By my lights, one of the first and most important of these is to find, identify, repair, and report on anything and everything that's broken in the IT and/or business infrastructure.

This is as critical as ensuring that you've got a firm and sturdy foundation underneath you before attempting to build anything substantial and stable. And to achieve this goal effectively, you're going to need documented, effective, enforced, and proven processes, just like you need for everything else. Otherwise, every break or failure becomes a fire drill, and every effort to address every problem will likely end up reinventing wheels that already exist. This ad hoc approach works sometimes, but only inconsistently. It also opens up your enterprise to the risk that what fixes Problem A breaks the fix that was implemented to resolve Problem B. Or vice-versa.

You've probably already seen this happen, when a software "update" meant to patch or fix a previous problem creates a new one. Well, imagine the same thing happening dozens or hundreds of times a week or month, depending on the size of your enterprise, and you can begin to see the true scope of the problem. Without processes focused on finding, fixing, and ultimately avoiding infrastructure problems, those problems will consume precious resources that should be focused on helping people do more work better, and refining the processes underlying that work.

Process-driven infrastructure problem-solving is also the only way I've seen to achieve real, sustainable reduction of problems that hinder operations and drag down technological and user performance. Once there are processes in place for addressing problems effectively, those processes themselves can be expanded and refined to reduce or eliminate problems that stubbornly recur.

Of course, to find and fix problems in your infrastructure, you need knowledge about said infrastructure. This is where tools for monitoring, alarms, and alerts can be very useful on the IT side of things. When combined with input from businesspeople about the frequency and relative severity recurring problems, such tools can be focused on those problems, in ways that lead to effective problem-solving processes. These can then be adapted and applied to other tools and other problems, leading eventually to a consistent, enterprise-wide, process-driven approach to finding and fixing problems across entire IT and business infrastructures.

At least, that's what I think. More on both relevant processes and tools coming up shortly. Meanwhile, do let me know your thoughts on this important matter, and how effectively or ineffectively it's being addressed where you work. Maybe together, we can implement more effective, consistent processes for talking about this particular challenge, here and at your workplace.

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

What the heck am/was I talking about last time out?

Here's what I was and am talking about. I, along with many of my fellow BPM and BI industry observers, are apparently increasingly finding the same kinds of things. One of the most prevalent of these: business processes are difficult if not impossible to manage if there are no formal processes (not to mention useful tools) in place to capture and document said business processes.

And beyond capture, there's documenting, which includes all of the links connecting all of the key processes with their sub-processes and supporting IT processes and tools. Then there's achieving consensus on the priorities and importance of the most strategic processes. And managing and maintaining up-to-date information about all of the above. And this is all just top-line, broad-brush stuff. All of these things get recapitulated repeatedly as decision-makers and their teams drill further down into this morass.

Now, there are several really good tools to help with all of this – but those tools are without business value until and unless they are accompanied, supported, and surrounded by strong, repeatable, well-documented processes. Such processes are even necessary to identify, compare, and select candidate solutions and vendors, and to manage relationships effectively with those vendors that get chosen.

What all of this means is that effectively, every business task and decision ought to start from a process-centric foundation, to be consistent with corporate policies and goals, and to be easy to repeat and scale as necessary. Which brings us back to the "first principles" I mentioned previously.

In the field of content and intellectual property management, one of the most persistent and pervasive problems is information capture. That is to say, it's relatively easy to impose content management rules and tools on newly created, electronic content. The real sticky challenges come with trying to impose those rules and tools on already-existing (often paper) information. It's difficult to do, but if it's not done, content management is inconsistent, creating all kinds of risks and opportunities for error.

The same thing is true with process management. Until and unless it is sufficiently pervasive, ubiquitous, and invisible to users, it will not be applied equally to every resource, task, and user, creating significant opportunities for operational, technological, and other business risks. This is, in essence, the "first-mile" problem that bedevils and challenges many if not most efforts at business analysis, business intelligence (BI), BPM, and what I and others refer to as business knowledge management (BKM).

And it's not just me thinking these things. Check out this quote from an e-mail sent to me by Mark Talaba, VP of marketing and sales at Global Enterprise Managers, Inc., makers of GemworX FlowModeler, in response to my initial rant on this current "back to basics" theme.

"In dozens of conversations with 'BPM-seekers', I have been told that organizations do not feel they are "ready for BPM." Why? Because they are (and have been, for a long while) having a hard time just documenting their human-driven processes. I believe that this stems from the IT/software development orientation of most BPM toolsets. Both the methods and the notation are distracting and intimidating to those on the business side."

I'll have more to say about GemworX FlowModeler soon. In the meantime, though, please keep in mind that until and unless you and your organization go back to first principles, no investment in any BPM tool or solution will deliver maximum business value – if it delivers any. And those first principles, whether the ones I outlined previously or others, must include efforts to capture, define, prioritize, and rationalize the critical business processes already in place. These steps are essential to building the common vocabulary and taxonomy necessary for productive, inclusive conversations among business and IT people about BI, BKM, BPM, continuous improvement, enterprise transformation, and the like.

Speaking of business processes, ebizQ is conducting a survey on event processing, which can also contribute valuable fundamental information to process capture, documentation, and improvement efforts. And, every complete response is eligible to win an iPhone! So if you haven't yet, please take the survey here, while waiting for more rants from me…

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

I have of late been following numerous parallel event and development tracks regarding BPM and related areas of interest. One of the things that becomes increasingly clear to me is that there are a lot of companies and decision-makers out there who are seriously on the fence, behind the curve (or the 8-ball), and/or all of the above regarding BPM.

I understand. BPM is challenging and complex. One of the primary reasons for this is that it is neither fish nor fowl – or, perhaps, it's fish that thinks it's fowl, or vice-versa. (I'm already confusing myself here, but will press on valiantly nonetheless.)

BPM is a set of human-centric business problems that often masquerade as or are confused for decisions and issues focused on IT solutions and systems. And vice-versa. Moreover, effective IT decisions must be made within a context defined by effective business processes.

So, to get BPM right, it is often necessary to go back to basic first principles to make the best possible decisions. One of those basic first principles comes in the form of a single compound question – what is BPM, and how is it supposed to help our business run better?

Well, I'm glad I asked me that, and hope you are or soon will be glad, too. After much cogitating about first principles for business and IT operations, here's what I've come up with so far.

At its core, BPM is really intended to answer some basic questions, in the order listed, cyclically and on demand as needed.

1. What part or parts of the IT and/or business infrastructure are not working, and can they be fixed non-disruptively? If not, what should be done instead? If so, in what order should they be fixed, and what resources are needed to fix what's broken?

2. Once all critical infrastructure disruptions are addressed, are all elements of the infrastructure providing optimal support to all business-critical applications, goals, requirements, and services? If so, how do we know this, and how can we demonstrate and measure it? If not, how do we know that, and how can we determine how best to fix the situation?

3. Throughout the life cycle of business and IT infrastructure elements and the resources they consume and support, business and IT practices and infrastructures must minimize risk, maximize security, and ensure business-mandated and regulatory compliance. To achieve these goals, do we always know who is using what IT and intellectual property (IP) resources, when, where, why, and how?

4. As basic business goals and requirements are being met, how best can the business and IT infrastructures be improved to enable and support future goals and requirements? And how can this cycle be repeated and refined in ways that lead to continuous positive transformation of business and IT processes and practices – starting again from the beginning of this list?

I'm going to be devoting more time and space here to delving into these and other related basic issues that must be addressed effectively if BPM is to have any real business value. I'm hoping these excursions will provide, over time, an increasingly rich and helpful context within which more specific BPM decisions, both operational and technological, can be made more effectively. We'll see. Stay tuned…

(PS: Yes, the headline of this post is a clumsy, annotated paraphrasing of the late, great Edwin Starr's classic, "War." And yes, we all really, really need to get out and hear newer music more often…)

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

As reported here at ebizQ, Lombardi, a leading provider of BPM solutions, has forged an alliance with a company called Gordian Transformation Partners. (According to legend, whoever could untie the Gordian Knot would become king of ancient Asia Minor. Alexander the Great, legend continues, when stymied by the failure of traditional knot-untying processes, took a different approach – he cut the knot in half with his sword. A straightforward, if unexpected solution to a knotty problem, and a great metaphor for BPM challenges.)

Under this new alliance, the companies will combine Lombardi's Blueprint collaborative process planning tool and Teamworks BPM suite with Gordian's expertise in process transformation and business performance improvement. Gordian has also joined Lombardi's Certified Partner Program, which provides assistance with honing partner BPM skills and identifying revenue opportunities.

Frankly, I am enthusiastic about this alliance, and expect to see more of them among BPM and BI solution vendors during the next 18 months and beyond. BPM and BI solution vendors tend to have expertise that is more focused on their solutions and horizontal business needs. Specialty consultants such as Gordian, in contrast, tend to have deep, focused, business-centric expertise in one or more specific markets. The combination means that companies focused on specific businesses can work with a knowledgeable partner to craft custom-tailored, finely tuned BPM and BI solutions from proven technological elements.

This is a win for all concerned. The BPM/BI solution vendor doesn't have to become another Accenture or IBM Global Services to compete effectively for business in particular markets, but can partner with "boutique" business experts instead. And such business experts don't have to risk getting drowned out or ignored when seeking to ally with a much larger and more broadly focused technology partner. Users, meanwhile, can acquire integrated, focused combinations of technology and expertise that help get them closer to true BI and business knowledge management (BKM).

The biggest potential obstacle? Expertise can still be relatively expensive to deliver and share, in part because it almost always involves putting people who command high hourly rates in front of other people who command high hourly rates. This may explain why the Lombardi-Gordian alliance seems focused primarily on so-called "Fortune 500" companies.

The next frontier? Figuring out how to combine software as a service (SaaS) with "expertise as a service," then to deliver both using IT instead of planes, trains, and automobiles. This is a hot emerging area with a lot of potentially important themes, variations, and players. I suspect I and my ebizQ blogmates will have more to say about it and related subjects, soon and more and more often. So do stay tuned…

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

I have just read the recent posting by my learned colleague and ebizQ blogmate Joe McKendrick, in which he summarizes some of the high points of the panel discussion that wrapped up the recent BI in Action Virtual Conference. I of course agree completely with what he and the other participants had to say about the links connecting BI, BPM, and service-oriented architectures (SOAs). I have in fact referred to what I and some others call "business knowledge management" (BKM) as the "missing link" connecting these three critically strategic areas. (You can read about BKM in more detail in some of the research located in the RFG section of the ebizQ Analyst Corner, as well as in previous postings of mine here, particularly this one, and at the "BI in Action" blog, where you will find a reprise of this very entry as well.)

However, I, perhaps as usual, have something to add.

It is equally critical, I believe, to remember that most useful BI, as well as most of the actual "heavy lifting" regarding BPM, resides in the hearts and minds of actual individual human users. Yes, of course, there's a lot of relevant "intelligence" resident in data and documents, and even within the IT systems and connections that support access to and manipulation of these. But all of that "stuff" is done by people who are trying to do jobs that drive the business. Those people are the ultimate consumers and beneficiaries of most if not all of the most significant services provided by SOAs as well.

I know that Joe and everyone else involved in the BI in Action Virtual Conference knew and knows this. However, it can be too easy to take away from discussions about BI, BPM, and/or SOAs that some mix or subset of these technologies can simply, "automagically" improve things for users and/or the business.

Would that it were that easy.

BI, BPM, and SOA efforts must include specific, concrete elements focused on incorporating user input and feedback, from the earliest stages of development and deployment. Of course, all such initiatives are perhaps cavalierly assumed to be "designed with users in mind." However, IT and business decision-makers must also make overt and explicit efforts to incorporate user input and feedback, and include in their project plans steps and metrics focused on user productivity and satisfaction.

BI, BPM, and SOAs are elements of larger business-technology ecosystems, within which things that affect some elements directly and/or indirectly affect all other elements. In such a context, users can represent the most maddeningly difficult elements of all to manage and integrate. (I have heard many engineers say without a trace of irony that a particular project or system would work just fine, if they could just keep users away from it. This may be true, but kind-of misses the point of the exercise in a business setting.) However, users and IT people in an enterprise are like cast and crew in a play. They may not understand or be able to stand one another, but without either constituency, you got no show. So make sure that everything you do (and most everything you say) regarding BI, BPM, and/or SOAs includes and addresses users adequately and directly. It may make things a bit more complicated, but it will help to ensure that they support rather than combat or ignore your efforts.

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

The wait is over. Now, the wait can begin.

There is a standard known as Web Services Business Process Execution Language, or WS-BPEL. It's promulgated by the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information (OASIS), a broadly supported and widely respected international consortium. WS-BPEL is now at version 2.0. It's very good at providing a framework for orchestrating so-called "composite applications," ideally composed from multiple already-written applications or application elements. WS-BPEL is not very good at providing a framework for human workflows – and those human workflows often have significant, yet difficult-to-predict effects on business processes, as well as application and services workflows.

After a bunch of work for a bunch of time, there is now BPEL4People, a Web Services specification that describes ways to model human workflows. Initial supporting vendors include Active Endpoints (provider of BPEL support tools for SOA developers and architects), Adobe Systems, Inc., BEA Systems, Inc., IBM Corp., Oracle Corp., and SAP AG.

An element of BPEL4People, Web Services Human Task, intends to depict human actions as activities that can be "consumed" by applications and services. This could, then, bridge and significantly narrow the gap between service-oriented architectures (SOAs) and the humans attempting to use the services to do work that makes the business go.

BPEL4People, in essence, intends to help integrate the management of processes that describe and govern the behavior of applications, services, and systems with that of those processes that describe and govern human behaviors. For those of us who have been yammering about and clamoring for human-centric BPM – or "business knowledge management," or "people process management," or whatever you want to call it – this is great news.

But it is only a beginning. Because now, the vendors supporting BPEL4People have to do three things, and they have to do them quickly, transparently, and well. First, they have to attract more vendor support and endorsement of the specification, especially among their software-developing partners. Second, they have to deliver products that make real the promise of the specification. Third, they have to get the specification transmogrified by OASIS into a formal industry standard. Preferably before too many "early implementations" and "enhancements" make interoperability too slippery a slope for too many prospective developers and users.

You can read more about BPEL4People here at ebizQ, and in the Oracle news release. You might then want to contact your top three incumbent and/or prospective IT and BPM solution providers, and find out their plans for support of BPEL4People. I intend to do some of that myself. Let me know what you find out, and I'll share and compare findings in future outings here. Could be good; it's just a question of when, and how good…

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

In previous outings in the space, I've written about a framework for strategic IT decision-making and initiatives based on what we at RFG calls the Seven Ps. These are, alphabetically, people, planning, platforms, processes, products, projects, and portfolios. I've already discussed people, processes, and platforms as they relate to BPM. This time, four at once – planning, projects, products, and portfolios.

Planning is so essential, it should be unnecessary to say much about it. But I will say this. As my sainted mother used to say, "If you fail to plan, you must be planning to fail." So how best to plan for BPM initiatives, especially when the ultimate goal is to render BPM details and specifics invisible to most users most of the time?

Here's one way. Plan each significant IT project as if the goal is to produce one or more products or services. This means that each is to be provided to some set of users and supported and serviced, just like any other IT product or service, from inside or outside the company. As part of this effort, incorporate BPM features and support into each project and planned resulting product and/or service. As projects and products proliferate, group them into logical portfolios, by type, by user group, or some other sensible criteria. Establish metrics for performance and success, and use these to refine plans, products, projects, and portfolios, as well as their management. Repeat as necessary.

Of course, some assembly is, as they say, required. But the real take-away point here is that you must address the seven Ps in a consistent, holistic, and integrated way if you hope to have a chance of approaching BPM – or any other strategically important IT initiative – in a consistent, holistic, integrated way. Which is a critical success factor in deriving business benefits from such efforts.

The Seven Ps are not the only way to achieve this goal. However, your plan should be based on a consistent, holistic, integrated framework, whether developed by or at your enterprise or imported from elsewhere and adapted to fit. And whatever framework you choose, it must include elements for assessment, management, and re-alignment as needed of the underlying processes that define, enable, and support the framework itself.

I'm sure some level of BPM success can be achieved with no such planning or framework. After all, when most timepieces had hands, it was said that even one that was broken showed the right time as often as twice a day. However, if your goal is to build an effective, repeatable, and scalable architecture for BPM today and tomorrow, I'd recommend a different approach. One that is – say it with me now! – more consistent, holistic, and integrated.

There are several RFG Research Notes offering more on this and closely related subjects in the RFG section of the ebizQ Analyst Corner. Check them out, use what you can, and let me know how it's going.

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

According to a recent story published and posted online by the San Francisco Chronicle, 400 Cathay Pacific Airways passengers sat on a flight for more than seven hours – before the flight was canceled. Several passengers reportedly said that they received no information for at least three of those seven hours, and that when the flight was finally scrapped, there were no airline representatives to help disembarking passengers with rebooking. In contrast, the airline, according to the article, "described the evening as something akin to a well-stocked slumber party while the crew scurried to find a part to fix a mechanical problem."

Well. A slight difference in perception there, eh? Some process alignment might be in order here.

In a similar vein, on June 13, the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that RC2 Corp. had begun a "voluntary" recall of 1.5 million wooden "Thomas the Tank Engine" toys that had somehow been decorated with toxic lead-based paints. RC2 – providers of "compelling passionate parenting and play for all ages," according to its Web site – is an Illinois-based company with manufacturing facilities in China, where the tainted toys were reportedly made. (Just today, National Public Radio (NPR)'s "All Things Considered" program reported that an inspection by China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine had discovered 23,000 cases of bad food and closed 180 factories.

On June 24, the Chicago Tribune reported that a complaint about lead paint on some of the company's metal Thomas toys had been filed in 2006. The person who filed the complaint with the CPSC never heard from that agency, and RC2 says CPSC never notified the company about the complaint, as required by law. Other than that, and saying that it had "reviewed all relevant manufacturing procedures" and found no other products that exceeded safe lead levels, RC2 has basically stonewalled.

My question is, has none of the leaders of either Cathay Pacific or RC2 ever heard about the Tylenol poisoning scandal that made worldwide news in 1982? Cyanide-laced Tylenol capsules killed seven people, but the company recovered. How? New technology – tamper-proof packaging – and big-time, public apologies and active leadership by senior executives.

So what can we learn about BPM from these incidents?

1. Bad processes and bad process management create significant risks – financial, operational, and reputational. Reputational risk is the hardest to quantify, but can be the most significant and damaging overall.

2. Every business process and process management initiative affects one or more constituencies. Those constituencies deserve and require clear, direct communication about what's happening and why, what's expected of them, and what they can expect. This is in addition to any "marketing" and/or "sales" necessary to win support for the initiative.

3. If you break something – or if something breaks on your watch, even if it's not your fault – apologize. Then explain what you can, and take responsibility for fixing it, getting it fixed, and/or communicating frequently about progress toward resolution.

4. Ensure that all BPM efforts include and support goals of accessibility of decision-makers, clear, consistent communication, and transparency. Your life will only be easier as a result. And if things go really well, such practices will find their way into other aspects of your company, if they aren't there already.

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