BPTrends has released a new version of their BPM Suites report (free, signup required). I haven’t had time to review it in detail yet, although I’ve noted that it does include information on several new BPMS vendors: Clear Technology, Graham Technology, Handysoft, Oracle and Singularity (some of which prompt the questions “who?” and “why?”). The first 38 pages (which I identified in my post on the V1.0 report as the part that’s really worthwhile) appear identical in the two reports, so unless you’re interested specifically in the new vendors, no need to rush for the new version.
-
Pages
-
Feeds
-
Categories
- BAM
- BI
- blogging
- BPA
- BPM
- BPM history
- BPM standards
- BPMG-BPTG
- BRM
- business
- CEP
- compliance
- EA
- EAI
- ECM
- Enterprise 2.0
- ESB
- Links
- mashups
- off topic
- open source
- outsourcing
- Rant
- SaaS
- Six Sigma
- SOA
- Software design
- torcamp
- Vendors
- Web 2.0
- ·conferences
- AppianForum
- Architecture&Process
- ARISProcessWorld
- BEAparticipate
- BPMGProcess2006
- BPMThinkTank
- BrainStorm2007
- BusinessRulesForum
- E2.0 conf
- E2.0 TTW
- ExperienceTech
- FASTforward08
- ForresterITLeadership
- Gartner BPM
- IIR BPM
- InnovationWorld
- IntlBPM
- IQPC BPM
- IT360
- LombardiDriven
- mashupcamp
- NewSoftwareIndustry
- PegaWorld
- ProformaVision2006
- SAPevents
- SharedInsightsPCC
- TransitCamp
- TUCON
- Ultimus
- UserNet2005
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
-
{ 2 } Comments
Sandy, I do feel it is important to comment at this point that the BPM Suites Report by BPTrends is a “Pay-for Play” report. This means if a vendor “ponies up” $5,000.00 (US), then they are reviewed by BPTrends. Hopefully that helps answer your questions of “who and why”. Conversely, if a vendor did not pay, they were not included. The sad part about this report is that while the author does point out that vendors paid for the inclusion, it is not readily marketed as such, thus presenting a false set of “leading BPM players”. For the record, as the Director of Marketing at Fuego, I do feel it is important to point out that Fuego generally does not pay to participate in reviews such as these, and as such we were not included.
Sincerely,
Wayne R. Snell
Wayne, I agree with all of your comments — in fact, I pointed out in my post on the original BPTrends report that it was pay-for-play (see the link to it from this post), which in general I disagree with. I stated in both posts that the only part really worth reading was all the introductory material, and that the parts on the vendors was nothing that you couldn’t find out from the vendor websites.
Post a Comment