Category: DM

decision management

Business Rules Forum: Ron Ross keynote

The good news is that it’s a lovely sunny, breezy and cool day: perfect fall weather for Toronto. The bad news is that I’m in Orlando, and was hoping to wear shorts more than sweaters this week. However, I’m here to attend — and speak at — the Business Rules Forum, not sit by the pool.

Ron Ross started the conference with a keynote called From Here to Agility; agility, of course, is one of the key reasons that you consider implementing business rules, whether in the context of BPM or other applications. It’s pretty well attended — probably 200 people here at the opening keynote, and likely a lot of vendors off setting up their booths for later today.

He started with a couple of case studies, both of companies that could really use rules due to the lack of agility in their legacy systems, and of companies that have successfully implemented rules and achieved their ROI on the first project. He then looked at what might be motivating people to attend this conference and what they can expect; a bit of an unnecessary sales pitch, considering that these people are already here.

He talked about the importance of decisioning, and how it’s a much better opportunity for business improvement than process; I’d have to agree that it’s a much greater contributor to agility, but not necessarily a better opportunity for improvement overall. I’ll have to think that through before my presentation this afternoon on mixing rules and process. He did have some convincing quotes from Tom Davenport’s “Competing on Analytics”, such as Davenport’s conclusion that automated decisioning will be the next competitive battleground for organizations.

The goals to creating business agility:

  • No artificial constraints in the representation of business products and your capacity to deliver them to customers — this is primarily a cultural issue, including a vocabulary to define your business practices, not a technical issue.
  • All operational business practices represented as rules.
  • All rules in a form such that they can be readily found, analyzed, modified and redeployed by qualified business people and product specialists.

Examples of operational business decisions:

  • How do we price our product for this transaction?
  • What credit do we give to this customer at this point in time?
  • What resource do we assign to this task right now?
  • Do we suspect fraud on this particular transaction?
  • What product configuration do we recommend for this request?
  • Can we confirm this reservation?

Note that these really are low-level, moderate complexity operational decisions, not strategic decisions: thousands or even millions of these decisions may be made every day in your business processes, and having agility in this type of decision can provide significant agility and competitive differentiation.

James Taylor and Neil Raden will be here later to talk about enterprise design management (EDM), but Ron gave us some of the basics: closed-loop decisioning that captures data about decisions, analyzing that data, then uses those results to make changes in a timely manner to the operational decisions. The “in a timely manner” part of that is where business rules come in, of course. That round-trip from analysis to deployment to execution to capture is key: we talk about it in BPM, but the analysis and deployment parts often require a great deal of an analyst’s time in order to determine the necessary improvements.

He went on to talk in more detail about why a focus on “business process” isn’t enough, since it doesn’t make the business adaptive, create consistent and reusable rules, or a number of other factors that are better served by business rules. To achieve business agility, then, he feels that you need:

  • Business-level rule management: having the business make changes to rules
  • Business-level change deployment: having the business in charge of the governance process for changing and rolling out changes to rules
  • Business-level organizational function to support the previous two activities

Looking at the problem decisions in existing legacy systems, look at the redundant, overlapping and conflicting rules; these could manifest as data quality problems, frequent change requests, or customer service problems. In many cases, these conflicting rules may be running on different platforms and address different channels. The key is to externalize these rules from the legacy systems into a decision service: a business rules management system that maintains the rules repository and is available to any application via a standard web services interface. This allows for a gradual transition from having these rules embedded within the legacy systems to centralizing them into a common repository that ensures consistent results regardless of channel or application. This provides consistency across channels, selective customer treatment and competitive time-to-market as well as rather painless compliance since your policies are embedded within the rules themselves and the rules management system can track what rules are executed at any given point in time.

Now, think of your BPMS as your legacy system in the context of the above paragraph…

Logistics: no wifi (there is wifi in the conference area but BRF didn’t spring for the password), requiring a trip to the lobby or my room in order to post — obviously, that will delay things somewhat. No power at the tables, which is not a big deal since I don’t use a lot of power with the wifi off. My blogging will be a bit light today until after my presentation this afternoon.

Ultimus: V8 technical demo

FlobotI ended up wrapped up in a discussion at the break that had me arrive late to the last session of the day; Steve Jones of Ultimus is going through many of the technical underpinnings of V8 for designers and developers, particularly those that are relevant to the people in the audience who will be upgrading from those old V7 systems soon.

A nice way to integrate with web services, where the WSDL can be interrogated and a data structure matching the interface parameters created directly from that; most other systems that I’ve seen require that you define the process parameters explicitly then map from one to the other. Of course, there’s lots of cases when you don’t want a full representation of the web services interface, or you want to filter or combine parameters during interface, but this gives you the option for setting up a lot of web services really quickly.

The integrated rules editor allows you to drag and drop process variables — including recipients — onto a graphical decision tree; you don’t have the full power of a business rules system, but this may be enough for a lot of human-centric processes where most of the complex decisions in the process are made by people rather than the system.

For interfacing with any of the external components, such as the email connector or a form, it’s possible to drag and drop data fields from the process instance schema or org chart/ActiveDirectory directly to assign variables for that component, which is a pretty intuitive way to make the link between the data sources and the external calls. They’ve also eliminated some of the coding required for things like getting the current user’s supervisor’s email address, which used to require a bit of code in V7.

Ultimus provides a virtual machine with the software pre-installed as part of their training offerings, which is a great way to learn how to work with all of this; I don’t understand why more vendors don’t provide this to their customers.

I looked back to some old notes from early 2007 when I had a demo of Ultimus V7; my impression at that time is that it was very code-like, with very little functionality that was appropriate for business analysts; V8 looks like a significant improvement over this. They’re still behind the curve relative to many of their competitors, but that’s not completely surprising considering their management upheavals over the past year. If you’re a pure Microsoft shop, however, you’ll likely be willing to overlook some of those issues; Forrester placed Ultimus in the leaders sector (in an admittedly small field) in their report on human-centric BPM on Microsoft platforms. In the broader market of all BPM vendors, Gartner placed them in the visionaries quadrant: good completeness of vision, but not quite enough ability to execute to make it into the leaders quadrant, although this latter assessment seemed to be based on the performance of the previous management team.

Steve spent a bit of time showing the V8 end-user interface: reconfigurable columns in task lists, including queries and filters; shared views to allow a personal view to be shared with another user (and allow that other user to complete work on your behalf); and the ability to run reports directly out of the standard user environment, not a separate interface.

They’ve also done some performance improvements, such as moving completed process instances to a separate set of tables (or even archived out to another database) for historical reporting without impacting the performance of work in progress.

That’s it for me for the conference (and the week); tonight, we’ll be down by the Riverwalk drinking margaritas while listening to a Mariachi band. Tomorrow is an Ultimus partner day and I’ll be on an early morning flight home. Next week, I’ll be at the Business Rules Forum in Orlando, where I’m giving a presentation on mixing rules and process. The following week, I’m headed to Miami for the Software AG analyst/blogger roundtable and a day at their user conference, a late addition to my schedule.

Ultimus: V8 Technical Deep Dive

Chris Adams is back for a somewhat longer session — I think that he zipped through the previous overview session in about 5 minutes to make up time on the schedule — to give us a lot more detail on the V8 product features. Some of this will only be of interest to Ultimus customers, but I find that it gives some good insight into how the product works and the directions that they’re taking.

ultimus-bpm-suite_2966204861_o

First, he discussed what’s already in the released 8.x product:

  • Flobot connectors are now reusable. “Flobots” are the Ultimus connectors to other systems, with about 10 types available out of the box including web services calls (and I now have a very cool Flobot USB key); previously, you had to reconfigure each connector for every use. For example, for the email connector, you had to set up all parameters for the email connector (ports, authentication, etc.) each place it was used in the process, and change it whenever there was a change to, for example, the recipient. Now, they’ve allows for a reusable connector that has some or all of the parameters predefined to allow that to be more easily used in the process.
  • XML data storage replaces the V7 spreadsheet data structure that was previously used (which previously limited each data element to 255 characters, a limit that I sense from the audience was a sore point). My first reaction was “you used to keep your process instance data in a spreadsheet?”; sometimes you only find out about weirdnesses in a product when you hear about their upgrade out of that state.
  • A new Ultimus rules engine replaces event conditions, with a graphical representation of the rules. Rules actions can be related to steps in the process, or call .Net code or web services. Previously, the event conditions were kept in the spreadsheet data structure, and you had to reference the spreadsheet cell address rather than a schema variable name within rules. Now, you can add rules to processes directly in-line using the process parameters in the rule definitions.
  • Native ActiveDirectory support, so that you can (for example) assign a step to a group that exists in AD. You can still use their org chart functionality to create groups directly in Ultimus.
  • Attachments to process instances have been moved off the BPM server, and into SharePoint. You can use another content repository, but they do SharePoint out of the box and feel that it’s the best integrated solution.

Coming up in 8.2 in December:

  • BPMN support, although you can still convert back and forth to the Ultimus shapes if you’re more familiar with them. He showed a screenshot that looked pretty rudimentary, but it’s not released yet so I’ll reserve judgement until I see the final version.
  • Increased visibility into process incident history, to be able to step through exactly what happened in any particular process instance, including which rules that fired. You can actually playback
  • Enhanced development environment by adding Ultimus awareness to Microsoft Visual Studio for a single environment.
  • Fully exposed APIs, that is, access to the same APIs that the out of the box system is built on to allow you to build the same functionality into your own custom applications, with any function that you see in a pop-up menu also available through an API.

He showed us some architecture diagrams showing their new open architecture, including the client services for building custom client applications, BI services for custom reporting applications, and Flobots for external connectors.

IBM to acquire ILOG

IBM and ILOG announced today that IBM will be acquiring ILOG for €10/share, or about $US340 million in total.

IBM’s goal is to integrate ILOG’s business rules technology into their existing BPM and SOA offerings:

When completed, the acquisition of ILOG will strengthen IBM’s BPM and SOA position by providing customers a full set of rule management tools for complete information and application lifecycle management across a comprehensive platform including IBM’s leading WebSphere application development and management platform.

The funny part is that the IBM press release take two paragraphs to explain what BPM is, and how business rules are used in the context of BPM, indicating just how niche these technologies still are in the broader business scope.

This may not be good news for ILOG’s other BPM partners; one less independent BRMS company means less choice when it comes to putting your processes and rules together.

Business Rules Forum

The Business Rules Forum is coming up on October 26-30 in Orlando, and I’ll be back there again this year to speak. You can find my coverage of last year’s event here, and my presentation on BPM, BR and BI is available here. I found last year’s event definitely worthwhile, although I was left with the feeling that we still had a long way to go in terms of creating the necessary about of synergy between BPM and BR. A lot has happened in a year, and this year I’m speaking on mixing rules and process:

There are many techniques for combining rules or decisioning capability with business process management (BPM), ranging from using simple expression engines embedded within a BPM system to a full integration between separate BRM and BPM systems.

This session takes a close look at what rules functionality that the BPM systems offer, and the key characteristics that identify which rules and decisions should remain in the domain of the BPM system, and which should be entrusted to a full-strength business rules management system. What you will will learn:

  • The current state of BPM and BRM
  • How BPM and BRM interact
  • Where your rules belong

You can find the conference brochure/schedule here, and online registration here. The organizers have offered my readers 10% off the conference registration if you use the promotional code 8SPSK when you register, and you can also get an early bird discount if you register by September 19th. I don’t get a referral fee from this, it’s just there as a courtesy for any of you who are interested in attending, although in the spirit of full disclosure, my travel expenses to attend are covered by the conference since I’m a speaker.

Business Rules Management and Business Process Management: Turning Policies into Action

Recently, I wrote a white paper for Corticon Technologies on the synergy between BPM and BRM. From the introduction:

The mantra of today’s business environment is “build for change”, driving many process improvement initiatives. Businesses must realize, however, that the decisions within the business processes are at least as critical in the search for agility, since the decisions change more frequently than the processes. Combining business rules management and business process management provides that agility by allowing the decisions, and their underlying rules, to be changed independently from the processes, often in real-time by business managers.

This white paper examines the intersection of business rules management and business process management: what they are, how they interact, and why this is important to the agility, accuracy, cost and compliance of your business processes.

You can find the white paper on their site here (available as a link from their Solutions / Business Process Management page), no registration required.

Oracle BEA Strategy Briefing

Not only did Oracle schedule this briefing on Canada Day, the biggest holiday in Canada, but they forced me to download the Real Player plug-in in order to participate. The good part, however, is that it was full streaming audio and video alongside the slides.

Charles Phillips, Oracle President, kicked off with a welcome and some background on Oracle, including their focus on database, middleware and applications, and how middleware is the fastest-growing of these three product pillars. He described how Oracle Fusion middleware is used both by their own applications as well as ISVs and customers implementing their own SOA initiatives.

He outlined their rationale for acquiring BEA: complementary products and architecture, internal expertise, strategic markets such as Asia, and the partner and channel ecosystem. He stated that they will continue to support BEA products under the existing support lifetimes, with no forced migration policies to move off of BEA platforms. They now consider themselves #1 in the middleware market in terms of both size and technology leadership, and Phillips gave a gentle slam to IBM for over-inflating their middleware market size by including everything but the kitchen sink in what they consider to be middleware.

The BEA developer and architect online communities will be merged into the Oracle Technology Network: Dev2Dev will be merged into the Oracle Java Developer community, and Arch2Arch will be broadened to the Oracle community.

Retaining all the BEA development centers, they now have 4,500 middleware developers; most BEA sales, consulting and support staff were also retained and integrated into the the Fusion middleware teams.

Next up was Thomas Kurian, SVP of Product Development for Fusion Middleware and BEA product directions, with a more detailed view of the Oracle middleware products and strategy. Their basic philosophy for middleware is that it’s a unified suite rather than a collection of disjoint products, it’s modular from a purchasing and deployment standpoint, and it’s standards-based and open. He started to talk about applications enabled by their products, unifying SOA, process management, business intelligence, content management and Enterprise 2.0.

They’ve categorized middleware products into 3 categories on their product roadmap (which I have reproduced here directly from Kurian’s slide:

  • Strategic products
    • BEA products being adopted immediately with limited re-design into Oracle Fusion middleware
    • No corresponding Oracle products exist in majority of cases
    • Corresponding Oracle products converge with BEA products with rapid integration over 12-18 months
  • Continue and converge products
    • BEA products being incrementally re-designed to integrate with Oracle Fusion middleware
    • Gradual integration with existing Oracle Fusion middleware technology to broaden features with automated upgrades
    • Continue development and maintenance for at least 9 years
  • Maintenance products
    • BEA had end-of-life’d due to limited adoption prior to Oracle M&A
    • Continued maintenance with appropriate fixes for 5 years

For the “continue and converge” category, that is, of course, a bit different than “no forced migration”, but this is to be expected. My issue is with the overlap between the “strategic” category, which can include a convergence of an Oracle and a BEA product, and the “continue and converge” category, which includes products that will be converged into another product: when is a converged product considered “strategic” rather than “continue and converge”, or is this just the spin they’re putting on things so as to not freak out BEA customers who have put huge investments into a BEA product that is going to be converged into an existing Oracle product?

He went on to discuss how each individual Oracle and BEA product would be handled under this categorization. I’ve skipped the parts on development tools, transaction processing, identity management, systems management and service delivery, and gone right to their plans for the Service-Oriented Architecture products:

Oracle SOA product strategy

  • Strategic:
    • Oracle Data Integrator for data integration and batch ETL
    • Oracle Service Bus, which unifies AquaLogic Service Bus and Oracle Enterprise Service Bus
    • Oracle BPEL Process Manager for service orchestration and composite application infrastructure
    • Oracle Complex Event Processor for in-memory event computation, integrated with WebLogic Event Server
    • Oracle Business Activity Monitoring for dashboards to monitor business events and business process KPIs
  • Continue and converge:
    • BEA WL-Integration will be converged with the Oracle BPEL Process Manager
  • Maintenance:
    • BEA Cyclone
    • BEA RFID Server

Note that the Oracle Service Bus is in the “strategic” category, but is a convergence of AL-SB and Oracle ESB, which means that customers of one of those two products (or maybe both) are not going to be happy.

Kurian stated that Oracle sees four types of business processes — system-centric, human-centric, document-centric and decision-centric (which match the Forrester divisions) — but believes that a single product/engine that can handle all of these is the way to go, since few processes fall purely into one of these four categories. They support BPEL for service orchestration and BPMN for modeling, and their plan is to converge a single platform that supports both BPEL and BPMN (I assume that he means both service orchestration and human-facing workflow). Given that, here’s their strategy for Business Process Management products:

Oracle BPM product strategy

  • Strategic:
    • Oracle BPA Designer for process modeling and simulation
    • BEA AL-BPM Designer for iterative process modeling
    • Oracle BPM, which will be the convergence of BEA AquaLogic BPM and Oracle BPEL Process Manager in a single runtime engine
    • Oracle Document Capture & Imaging for document capture, imaging and document workflow with ERP integration [emphasis mine]
    • Oracle Business Rules as a declarative rules engine
    • Oracle Business Activity Monitoring [same as in SOA section]
    • Oracle WebCenter as a process portal interface to visualize composite processes

Similar to the ESB categorization, I find the classification of the converged Oracle BPM product (BEA AL-BPM and Oracle BPEL PM) as “strategic” to be at odds with his original definition: it should be in the “continue & converge” category since the products are being converged. This convergence is not, however, unexpected: having two separate BPM platforms would just be asking for trouble. In fact, I would say that having two process modelers is also a recipe for trouble: they should look at how to converge the Oracle BPA Designer and the BEA AL-BPM Designer

In the portals and Enterprise 2.0 product area, Kurian was a bit more up-front about how WebLogic Portal and AquaLogic UI are going to be merged into the corresponding Oracle products:

Oracle portal and Enterprise 2.0 product strategy

  • Strategic:
    • Oracle Universal Content Management for content management repository, security, publishing, imaging, records and archival
    • Oracle WebCenter Framework for portal development and Enterprise 2.0 services
    • Oracle WebCenter Spaces & Suite as a packaged self-service portal environment with social computing services
    • BEA Ensemble for lightweight REST-based portal assembly
    • BEA Pathways for social interaction analytics
  • Continue and converge:
    • BEA WebLogic Portal will be integrated into the WebCenter framework
    • BEA AquaLogic User Interaction (AL-UI) will be integrated into WebCenter Spaces & Suite
  • Maintenance:
    • BEA Commerce Services
    • BEA Collabra

In SOA governance:

  • Strategic:
    • BEA AquaLogic Enterprise Repository to capture, share and manage the change of SOA artifacts throughout their lifecycle
    • Oracle Service Registry for UDDI
    • Oracle Web Services Manager for security and QOS policy management on services
    • EM Service Level Management Pack as a management console for service level response time and availability
    • EM SOA Management Pack as a management console for monitoring, tracing and change managing SOA
  • Maintenance:
    • BEA AquaLogic Services Manager

Kurian discussed the implications of this product strategy on Oracle Applications customers: much of this will be transparent to Oracle Applications, since many of these products form the framework on which the applications are built, but are isolated so that customizations don’t touch them. For those changes that will impact the applications, they’ll be introduced gradually. Of course, some Oracle Apps are already certified with BEA products that are now designated as strategic Oracle products.

Oracle has also simplified their middleware pricing and packaging, with products structured into 12 suites:

Oracle Middleware Suites

He summed up with their key messages:

  • They have a clear, well-defined, integrated product strategy
  • They are protecting and enhancing existing customer investments
  • They are broadening Oracle and BEA investment in middleware
  • There is a broad range of choice for customer

The entire briefing will be available soon for replay on Oracle’s website if you’re interested in seeing the full hour and 45 minutes. There’s more information about the middleware products here, and you can sign up to attend an Oracle BEA welcome event in your city.

Business Rules Webinar Q&A

It was a busy week last week at TUCON and I completely forgot about the questions from the Business Rules Forum Q&A from the webinar that I did on the 24th. I’m not sure if the replay is available yet, I’ll post a link when I hear about it.

Here’s my answers to the questions that came up during the presentation, although I responded to some of these at the end. Where the question wasn’t clear, I took a stab at an interpretation; if I missed the point, please add a comment to this post with your clarification and I’ll follow up.

Explain the relationship between business models and BPM.

Not sure of the exact intent, but I think that this is asking about the relationship between business (process?) modeling and BPM. Business models of various sorts, including business process models, are often created by an organization to provide a high-level, business-oriented view of their operation. From an enterprise architecture standpoint, these are the models in the highest level of the architecture that may be created by, and are always understandable by, a non-technical business analyst. In the case of business process models, these are created to model the flow of a business process, usually in a flow-chart or swimlane type of diagram. In many cases, these are created in a standalone modeling tool — either a simple desktop application like Microsoft Visio, or a more comprehensive tool such as IDS Scheer’s ARIS — but may also be modeled directly in the process modeling environment of a BPM suite (BPMS). In this latter case, a process model can be directly translated to an executable process.

Is there any benefit to implementing a BRM without a BPM?

Yes, there are many cases of using a BRMS separately from BPMS: the rules/decisions may be accessed directly as part of a manual process, where a user enters in the required parameters and is given a decision back in return, or they may be called from other applications such as a CRM.

Please mention vendors or products by name, even if caveats apply.

and

Can you name products that support what has been presented?

and

What are the methods & technology tools used for BRM & BPM?

I can’t recall if we were talking about BPMS or BRMS vendors here, so I’ll try to cover both. To hit the major vendors, take a look at which ones are included in the reports by the big analysts. Gartner includes the following BPMS vendors in its Magic Quadrant for BPMS, published in December 2007: Adobe, Appian, Ascentn, AuraPortal, BEA, Captaris, EMC, Fujitsu, Global 360, IBM, Intalio, Lombardi, Metastorm, Microgen, Oracle, Pegasystems, Savvion, Singularity, Software AG, SunGard, TIBCO and Ultimus. Forrester splits up the market into four categories with several vendors in each, which I’ve listed in a previous post.

On the BRMS side, Forrester recently issued a report on BRMS vendors in which they evaluated CA, Corticon Technologies, Experian, Fair Isaac, Haley Limited, ILOG, Innovations Software Technology, InRule Technology, Intelligent Results, Pegasystems, and SAP.

There are other vendors of both types, but this covers the major players. Also notice that Pegasystems plays in both markets — and in fact is a leader in both — since its BPMS is based on a rules engine.

Who are some of the vendors with tight integration between BPM and BRM?

Pegasystems is the obvious starting point, since they use a rules engine as an underlying platform for their BPMS. Many BPMS vendors don’t want to talk about a tight integration with a third-party BRM since that implies a weakness in their own rules capabilities. All BPMS vendors, through their support for invoking web services, can integrate loosely with BRM.

In your opinion, have any BRMS suites achieved robust BPM capabilities?

Only Pegasystems, to my knowledge. It’s more likely that a BPMS will achieve BRM capabilities rather than the other way around, in my opinion.

How could you change a business rule and have it only affect new BPM processes and not in flight process instances?

There are two ways to do this. First, if all parameters that drive the rules are known at the beginning of the process, the process instance could invoke the rules immediately after it is created, and store the decision results until they are required; since the rules are executed at the time that the process instance is created, the instance will not be affected by any changes to rules while it is in progress. Second, a process can call a specific version of a rule, assuming that the BRMS supports rules versioning. That way, any process instances created from a specific version of a process definition can call a specific version of a rule, even if the rule has changed since then. Newer process definitions could be changed to call a later version of the rule.

You said that a BPMS will call a BRMS (typical scenarios). How would the BRMS know the scope of what needs to be checked? For example, if you have the rule "some applicant of each loan application must have a credit score of 600". When the business process for loan applications calls the BRMS, how does it determine the set of applicants that need to checked?

I think that the question is about where the BRMS gets its information that is used as parameters for the decisions. This would typically be passed to the BRMS from the calling application, in this case, the BPMS. The BPMS may need to make calls to other systems in order to get this information, then forward it to the BRMS: remember that part of the role of the BPMS is to orchestrate multiple systems and pass data along between them, including the BRMS.

Do you normally see that the same business users are maintaining both the processes and rules or are they normally different business users?

If you’re talking about the business analysts that would be designing the processes or rules, it is best if they are the same — so that they can decide what happens in a process versus what happens in a rule — but often are different people due to the training requirements. If these are separate roles, then the process analysts need to learn enough about rules to know when to request that a rule set be created for them to call from their processes.

How would you define the relationship between BPM, BRM and RBA (Run Book Automation)?

I’m not that familiar with RBA, but it is focused on IT and systems processes, not business processes. At TUCON last week, however, one of the presentations was on how they used TIBCO products for IT processes, although he didn’t refer to it as RBA.

Do you agree that BRM and BPM have to be married with the SME from the business side and the SME from the IT side to be successful?

I’m unclear on what this question means. "SME from the business side" means, to me, someone who is an expert on the business being performed; I’m not sure what "SME from the IT side" means. Both BRM and BPM are most successful when there is collaboration between business and IT: the business analysts doing the high-level modeling of the rules and processes to ensure that they meet the business requirements, and IT making sure that the technical underpinnings (such as calls to web services) are in place.

Do you have a list of feature set for BRM and BPM for product evaluation?

and

Could we get a list of recommended BPMS and Rules Management systems and why they are recommended?

Gartner and Forrester both publish comparative reports on BPMS and BRMS, I suggest that you start there.

What is the difference between BRM and procedures / governing document / policies? Give examples of BRM.

Policies, procedures and governing documents are the "rules" by which the business operates, but may not be automated in any way: many organizations just have people refer to a policies and procedures guide to tell them what to do in a manual process. BRM allows you to codify those policies and procedures so that they can be automated, and are executed the same way every time.

What about open source offerings? Have you worked or reviewed any of those?

Drools (from jboss) and NxBRE are two open source BRMS offerings. jBPM (also from jboss) and Intalio are both open source BPMS offerings. I recently did a review of Intalio but haven’t yet published what I saw; I haven’t worked with any of the other products. Many open source offerings don’t have the full functionality of their commercial counterparts so may not be included in the analysts’ comparative reports; the recent Gartner Magic Quadrant for BPMS is the first one in which Intalio has been included, for example.

Can you provide a simple example of how BPM and BRM are applied in practice?

A typical example that I’ve seen is in claims processing. There are many specific policies and procedures that must be followed to process a claim, and many BPM implementations just leave the decisions based on those policies to a person who is participating in the process: for example, give the work step to a person and have them decide the type of the claim and what region should be processing it. By adding BRM, these decisions can be automated based on data that is already known

Do you feel BPM can be used as a tool to integrate compliance management systems? e.g. OSH, Environment, Quality etc.

I’m not a compliance specialist, but I see many organizations using both BPM and BRM to help with their compliance efforts, since both can help to standardize processes and allow for easy auditing of what was actually done. As for integration with compliance management systems, that would depend on those systems and whether they provide a web services interface or other API.

What are some of the software packages you can purchase for extracting business rules?

The major BRMS products typically include tools for mining business rules from existing systems; you’ll need to check their functionality against the particular systems and platforms from which you want to extract rules to see if they’ll work for you.

How are the BRMS incorporated with any testing tools?

Many of the BRMS vendors have simulation and testing tools as part of their suite, specifically to test if the rules are complete and non-contradictory.

BPM and business rules webinar

This fall, I’ll be back at the Business Rules Forum to make a presentation on business rules and BPM, but next week you can catch me online on a Business Rules Forum webinar speaking on the same subject:

Process improvement is a top priority for executives today, but business process management (BPM) alone doesn’t provide the whole answer. Although BPM does enable process improvement, it often doesn’t provide sufficient agility for today’s business processes.

To build for change, it is necessary to integrate business rules with BPM. This integration allows you to manage the decisions within your business processes, and easily modify those rules without recoding or changing the business processes.

In this webinar, you’ll learn about the business process management lifecycle, and how business rules can be integrated within it to greatly improve process agility. It also discusses how you can apply business rules consistently across multiple business processes and other applications.

Regular readers know that I’m a big fan of mixing business rules and BPM for maximum agility in your processes, and this webinar is an introduction to why you would want to do that, and how it works.