In my Links post last Friday, I linked to a post on Mike Gammage’s blog that quoted Janelle Hill of Gartner speaking at the recent Gartner BPM Summit in London:
The right answer in selecting a BPMS is often three BPMSs, based on the particular projects’ needs.
I commented that this seemed to indicate that Gartner is bowing to pressure from platform vendors that have multiple fragmented BPM offerings (e.g., IBM), and that it’s not a good thing for customers.
Just before midnight that night, I received a reply from someone who I met at a conference last year:
Regarding your links today – and the Sourcing Shangri-La post featuring the Janelle Hill/Gartner quote : "The right answer in selecting a BPMS is often three BPMSs, based on the particular projects’ needs."
Couldn’t agree with you more on how disappointing this is. This is a very unfortunate message that I seem to be hearing more and more lately. For those of us out there getting muddy in the trenches, who use and implement a BPMS for business processes executed by [humans] that have [document] and line of business system [integration] inputs and outputs required for most activities within a single business process, this "three different BPMSs " reasoning doesn’t make any sense at all. It does make a convenient pitch, however, if you’re a vendor trying to explain why you’ve acquired products that overlap in a confusing way and perhaps don’t want to lay out the money to integrate them. Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m a little stunned that it seems to be so widely accepted.
As long as vendors (and research VPs) continue to put this out there, the vendors (like Pega) who would never punish their end users or application support teams in a single organization with three different BPM suites to deal with will continue to see results like this (in a severe recession, no less):
“Feb. 22, 2010 – Pegasystems Inc. (NASDAQ: PEGA), the leader in Business Process Management (BPM) software solutions, today announced financial results for the year and fourth quarter ended December 31, 2009. Revenue for 2009 increased 25% to $264 million compared to 2008. Net income for 2009 nearly tripled and increased to $32.2 million.” (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0589312.htm)
Couldn’t have said it better myself.