DemoCamp

I attended TorCampDemoCamp5 this week, my first DemoCamp and a great opportunity to see some new stuff, meet some new people and catch up with some acquaintances. The popularity of this forum is amazing: there were probably 130+ people there, some of them sitting on the steps of the lecture hall since there weren’t enough seats for all.

Best quote of the evening, from one of the presenters (sorry, can’t remember who at this point) when asked why he had developed the code in Rails, responded “It was like this code wanted to be written in Rails”, which evoked some laughter and a round of applause.

The most interesting presentation (to me) was DabbleDB — unfortunately not yet available — that did some of the coolest stuff with structured data that I’ve seen in a long time, like dynamic normalization and some really intelligent typecasting including calendaring based on data range fields. It’s not often that data manipulation can make me raise my eyebrows and declare it as cool (otherwise, this blog would be called Column 1 instead of Column 2), but this actually provides a potential path to putting some structure around and sharing all of that data that’s currently sitting in spreadsheets. You can read an independent review of DabbleDB here, watch a seven-minute demo (highly recommended, and similar to what was shown at DemoCamp) or a 40-minute presentation, or check out their blog. Written in Smalltalk, a language that I haven’t even thought about in years.

Also of interest was Unspace’s datagrid, a very Web 2.0 way of capturing and presenting formatted data.

Unfortunately, I had to head home and finish my taxes instead of heading off to the pub with the group afterwards, but I did have a chance to meet face-to-face with Markus Strohmaier, a Column 2 reader from Austria who is now in Toronto for post-doc research in his field of business process-oriented knowledge management. He initially alerted me to the BPOKI track at the International Conference on Knowledge Management.

SOA education

I listened in on an ebizQ webinar today, The Path to SOA Enlightenment, and some interesting points came up about SOA education. The sponsor of the webinar was the Integration Consortium, which of course has a vested interest in encouraging SOA education since they already offer training and certification, but there’s few who would disagree that we need better education about a number of integration-related areas. Here’s a few screen snaps of the audience survey responses gathered during the webinar:

The first of these allowed the audience to select more than one response, while the second only allowed the selection of a single reponse. The two above make sense together: if people think that it’s the integration specialists and architects who most need certification, then it follows that the biggest area of training would be concepts rather than technologies.

The next one, which also allowed more than one response to be selected, shows the topics that people feel are important in the training, and there’s a few surprises here, such as organization, policies and governance in first place with 88% of the vote. SOA design and standards almost tied for second with 75% and 73%.

The audience also responded that although only 34% of them have an integration or SOA methdology in place, 87% are interested in having one.

BPM Implementation Pitfalls

Although the AIIM E-DOC magazine site still shows the January/February issue, you can find the link to the article that I wrote for the March/April issue here (or check out the dead-tree version of the publication). In this article, I highlight three major pitfalls that can occur during BPM system implementations:

  • Over-customization
  • Allowing the business to design the solution
  • Applying the wrong BPM tool

A couple of oddities in the online version: the entire last section is in boldface, rather than just the first header sentence (“Apply the wrong BPM tool”) in that section; and my mini-bio at the end states “Sandy Kemsley has BPM experience from the lenses vendor, user, and, currently, consultant experience.” I have no idea what that means, but enjoy the article.

BPEL: just another language

Phil Gilbert’s post last week exposes the Emperor’s clothes for what they are: BPEL is just another implementation language:

It’s simply a new way to write code. It has nothing to do with the management of business processes. I don’t love it or hate it; other than that it is a distraction. BPEL isn’t necessary to achieve the benefits promised by business process management – and therefore it’s an impediment in the market conversations that are occurring with respect to business process management.

Yes, BPEL can make writing code to implement BPM easier, but don’t confuse that with anything to do with managing business, or with anything that allows the control of business processes to be moved into the hands of the business.

EA and process modelling

I saw this post by John Wu on the myth of business process-centric enterprise definition (via Lucas RodrĂ­guez Cervera), and I find it hard to see how anyone gets away with “defining the enterprise based on business process modeling in EA”. Business process modelling has a place in enterprise architecture, but it’s just one of many tools/techniques for creating the necessary EA artifacts. For example, if you’re a Zachman follower, you’ll find business models only in row 2 (business model/owner context), and something that could be described as a business process model really only in columns 2 (function) and 4 (people) of that row: two artifacts out of 30.

Wu proposes defining the enterprise from the aspect of mission (why), function (how), information (what), stakeholders (who), stakeholder location (where) and stakeholder demand (when) rather than the exhausted [sic] enumeration of business process modeling, which really seems just to be advocating an EA approach to defining the enterprise. And if you’re an enterprise architect, regardless of the framework that you use, you already know that business process models are just one aspect of that definition.

It’s important to understand business processes as part of understanding the enterprise, but I don’t agree with Wu’s statement that most EA projects use business process modelling as their primary understanding of the business, or that EA is just second-generation BPR.

Modelling processes without a BPMS

An article by Bruce Silver in Intelligent Enterprise discusses the recent spate of BPM vendors releasing their process modelling tools for free. He lists Savvion, Oracle and Intalio, but the trend is widening — TIBCO just announced the availability of their modeling tool, and although the press release doesn’t specify, I heard a rumour that it’s free as well (how could it not be, considering the competition?). These offerings, from companies who make their money on the BPMS engine side so can afford to give away the modelling tools, will certainly make a dent in the market share of some of the dedicated modelling tools, such as Proforma, although many of the dedicated tools provide more extensive enterprise architecture-type modelling, not just process modelling.

One significant problem with these free tools is that although the vendors assume that they will just spread to all the desktops in an organization like wildfire, most corporate IT departments lock down user desktop configurations so that you can’t install applications. Although this might seem like a bit of Big Brother, there’s a good reason for this: it’s completely impossible for a corporate IT department to support several thousand PCs if the users can just install anything that they want on them. A case in point: a few years ago, a workstation at a client of mine started freezing “randomly”, which they blamed on the BPM software that we had installed on it. After several service calls where the problem did not recur, followed by uninstalls and reinstalls, one of my engineers finally just hung around until the problem occurred. The culprit? A non-corporate-standard screen saver that showed an animated football game; the machine hung right around the first down when the cheerleaders came out. When we reverted to a standard Windows screen saver, the problem disappeared. Since then, I’ve never complained about the restrictions that corporate IT makes on standard user desktops, even though it keeps me from using Firefox at most customer sites.

What this means is that even if a vendor makes their software available for free, that doesn’t assure acceptance, because it’s not free for an organization to regression test that against their standard desktop environment(s) and all of the other applications with which it might coexist. There’s two possible solutions to this:

  • Create an entirely web-based process modelling tool. (Do BPMS vendors know about Web 2.0 yet?)
  • Use a modelling tool that is already on most users’ desktops, namely Microsoft Visio.

I had a chat with one of the BPMS vendors recently about the first option, and he asked if I felt that web-based was the way to go (I love it when BPMS vendors ask me my opinion on product direction 🙂 ). My reply:

I like web-based since it lowers the barrier to use… many people of the type that I see in my customers who are doing process modelling are doing so at their office location and could be doing it much more easily if they don’t have to get permission from their IT department to install something on their PC, but use a purely web-based tool.

We also discussed how an installed version was necessary for people who aren’t always connected, but most real process modellers aren’t doing it from 35,000 feet or at a trade show, they’re doing it from their desk with a high-speed corporate internet connection. Yes, you have to have something for the road warriors and your sales people, but ultimately you’ll be most successful if you build what’s best for the target audience.

Which brings me to the second solution: Visio. Last year, Bruce Silver had a couple of articles on using Visio for process modelling, referencing the itp-commerce product. I just had a demo of a competing product, Byzio from Zynium (which sounds like a fictional space alien and his planet, sort of like Mork from Ork), another Visio add-on that allows for more robust process modelling in that ubiquitous tool. Yes, you still need to install the add-on, but chances are that a corporate IT department will find it much easier to approve a Visio add-on for installation than a full application.

Basically, Byzio allows you to draw a process model in Visio, then export it to XPDL for import into a BPMS’ process modelling tool. [In case you’re not up on XPDL, it’s an XML file format used to store BPMN; BPMN is the graphic modelling notation.] You can use a BPMN stencil in Visio so that you’re using the standard BPMN shapes, but the real power of Byzio is in the ability to map from any shape to a BPMN/XPDL construct, so if you already have a corporate standard for what shapes to use in a process model, you don’t have to change that, you just have to set up the mapping. The really cool thing is that Byzio has the ability to use the text within a shape to assist in the mapping, for example, detecting the words “and” or “or” in a decision shape and choosing the correct decision type. The mapping setup, which includes a regular expression parser, is not something that you’ll want every user to be playing around with, but as long as everyone in a department is using some standard notation, you should be able to set up the mapping once and replicate it around.

Although XPDL is supposed to be a standard, every BPMS vendor has their own flavour of XPDL, so the Byzio installation has to be specific to the target BPMS: the version that was demonstrated for me was for Fujitsu Interstage, but they also list Appian and DST on their website and I know that there are others in the works. In the case of Interstage, after the XPDL file is exported from Visio using the Byzio add-on, it’s opened in the Interstage process designer, where it can be further enhanced with engine-specific parameters. Byzio also plans to support round-tripping, where the XPDL can be exported back from the BPMS process designer for import into Visio for rework — I think that there’s some serious challenges in making this happen, but it’s doable. Not as integrated as using the BPMS’ process designer directly, but it has the huge advantage of using software that’s already installed on every business analysts’ desktop.

I’m still torn on the best solution in the long run. I feel strongly that there’s a place for BPMS vendors to create fully web-based versions of their process modelling tools intended for use by business users: namely, versions of the tools that don’t include all the yucky technical details, but provide a business view of the process models as they exist in the BPMS — no importing/exporting required. However, Visio is used for so much more than just what’s going to be automated in a BPMS that it will retain its dominance in process modelling by business users for the foreseeable future. That being said, I’ll give the edge to Visio paired with add-ons such as Byzio or itp-commerce.

BPM en français

Jean-Christophe Dichant, an ex-colleague of mine from FileNet, is back to blogging about BPM (en français), and has the first in what he promises to be a series of posts on the major issues in organizations that can be addressed with BPM and ECM (enterprise content management):

  • Improving end-to-end processing times
  • Distributing work to ensure appropriate use of the workforce
  • Ensuring compliance

[JC, please correct my translation if I’ve mangled something here]

Although there’s nothing really revolutionary here, I wanted to point this out because it’s one of the few BPM-related blogs in French that I’ve found.

BPM Think Tank

I’ve just registered for the OMG‘s BPM Think Tank in Washington DC on May 23-25. The program is mostly about standards, which is a big focus for me right now. It will be a chance to see some people who I’ve met before, such as Phil Gilbert and Derek Miers, and meet a few others for the first time face-to-face, such as Bruce Silver, Keith Swenson (who I heard speak at the Gartner BPM Summit) and John Evdemon (who was referred to me by Harry Pierson when I met him at Mashup Camp).

If you’re going, look me up. If you haven’t signed up yet, discount registration fees for the BPM Think Tank are still available until May 1st.

OMG gets full marks for including bloggers when they’re handing out press passes; my thanks to Dana Morris and Stephanie Covert for their forward-thinking press relations policies. I’ll be blogging more about the event before, during and after.