Time For Enterprise 2.0 To Get Enterprisey

The funny thing about “Enterprise 2.0”, or social business software, is that it’s not very enterprisey: yes, it is deployed in enterprises, but it often doesn’t deal with the core business of an enterprise. You hear great stories about social software being used to strengthen weak ties through internal social networking, or fostering social production by using a wiki for project documents, but many less stories about using social software to actually run the essential business processes. Andrew McAfee recently wrote about his experience talking to a group of CIOs, and how they were seeing social software as becoming mainstream, but one comment struck me:

[The CIOs] weren’t too worried that their people would use the tools to waste time or goof off. In fact, quite the opposite; they were concerned that the busy knowledge workers within their companies might not have enough time to participate.

The fact that the knowledge workers had a choice of whether to participate tells me that the use of social business software is still somewhat discretionary in these companies, that is, it’s not running the core business operations; if it were, there wouldn’t be a question of participation.

At the Enterprise 2.0 conference in June, my only blog post was something of a rant on the emperor having no clothes, since I believe that this has to be about the core business or it’s just not very interesting (and likely won’t survive an economic downturn). Interestingly, Michael Idinopulos of Socialtext was at the same conference, and saw some evidence of the shift towards the idea that ”social software delivers business value when it integrates with business process” (I wish I had been in some of the sessions that he was, since he obviously saw evidence of this opinion being further along than I did).

I’m starting to see some similar opinions emerging from a variety of sources, or maybe the recent Enterprise 2.0 conference in Santa Clara has just heated up the same discussion again. Klint Finley of ReadWrite Enterprise, hearkening back to Idinopulos’ post, thinks that enterprise 2.0 needs to be tied to business processes. Tom Davenport recently wrote about the need to add structure to social in order to bring enterprise value:

Well before personal computers enabled online chatter, they helped bring structure to work. Transaction systems like ERP and CRM, tools for workflow and document management, and project management systems all made it more clear to people what they need to do next in their jobs. That capability has undoubtedly led to productivity gains.

But work effectiveness also demands that people share their knowledge and expertise with each other. That’s where social media comes in. It makes it easy to reach out to others for help in making a decision or taking an action. And the transfer of knowledge through social media doesn’t require a lot of difficult knowledge management work in advance.

Be sure to read Davenport’s example of what’s happening at Cognizant, where they’re combining project/task management and social resources: effectively combining social and core business processes.

Meanwhile, while the social business software vendors have been stumbling towards process, the BPMS vendors have been stumbling towards social. I first presented on the ideas of social features in BPMS in 2006, and while a lot of what I predicted then has come to pass, there are many things that I didn’t even imagine four years ago. Although many vendors focus on the social aspects of process discovery and design, I don’t think that’s where the true impact will be felt: social process execution is the key to bringing together the productivity, governance and quality improvements of BPM with the networking and cultural aspects of social software. Having social features at runtime as innate capabilities for all process participants – through the entire spectrum from structured processes to unstructured collaboration – is what will really make social software (or rather, social features of enterprisey software such as BPM) mainstream.

What concerns me is the divide between social business software and enterprise software vendors. I don’t think that most social business software is capable of managing industrial-strength core business processes. I also don’t think that most BPM software is capable of doing social collaboration really, really well – at least, not yet. However, the BPMS vendors have already done the heavy lifting of creating tools to manage business processes and gaining the trust of customer to manage those processes, and I expect that we’ll continue to see rapid expansion of the social features of BPMS, through acquisition or organic internal development. Although there’s still undoubtedly a place for social business software as a standalone category, those companies looking to take on the social aspects of core business processes may want to position themselves for acquisition by one of those deep-pocketed BPMS vendors.

Customizing the IBM Case Manager UI

Dave Perman and Lauren Mayes had the unenviable position of presenting at the end of the day, and at the same time as the expo reception was starting (a.k.a. “open bar”), but I wanted to round out my view of the new Case Manager product by looking at how the user interfaces are built. This is all about the Mashup Center and the Case Manager widgets; I’ve played around with the ECM widgets in the past, which provide an easy way to build a composite application that includes FileNet ECM capabilities.

Perman walked through the Case Manager Builder briefly to show how everything hangs together – or at least, the parts that are integrated into the Builder environment, which are the content and process parts, but not rules or analytics – then described the mashup environment. The composite application development (mashup) environment is pretty standard functionality in BPM and ACM these days, but Case Manager comes with a pre-configured set of pages that make it easy to build case application UIs. A business analyst can easily customize the standard Case Manager pages, selecting which widgets are included and their placement on the page, including external (non-Case Manager) widgets.

The designer can also override the standard case view pages either for all users or for specific roles; this requires creating the page in the mashup environment and registering it for use in Case Manager, then using the Case Manager Builder to assign that page to the specific actions associated with a case. In other words, the UI design is not integrated into the Case Builder environment, although the end result is linked within that environment.

Mayes then went through the process of building and integrating 3rd party widgets; there’s a lot of material on the IBM website now on how to build widgets, and this was just a high-level view of that process and the architecture of integrating between the Mashup Center and the ACM widgets, themes and ECM services on the application server. This uses lightweight REST services that return JSON, hence easier to deal with in the browser, including CMIS REST services for content access, PE REST services for process access, and some custom case-specific REST services. Since there are widgets for Sametime presence and chat functionality, they link through to a Sametime proxy server on the application server. For you FileNet developer geeks, know that you also have to have an instance of Workplace XT running on the application server as well. I’m not going to repeat all the gory details, but basically once you have your custom widget built, you can deploy it so that it appears on the Mashup Center palette, and can be used like any other pre-existing widget. There’s also a command widget that retrieves all the case information so that it’s not loaded multiple times by all of the other widgets; it’s also a controller for moving between list and detail pages.

This is a bit more information that I was counting on absorbing this late in the day, and I ducked out early when the IBM partner started presented about what they’ve done with custom widgets.

That’s it for today; tomorrow will be a short day since I fly home mid-day, but I’ll likely be at one or two sessions in the morning.

Forrester BP&AD Forum Keynote: The Empowered Future

I’m in DC at the Forrest Business Process and Application Delivery Forum – always a good conference in my experience – and Connie Moore opened the event with the morning keynote on business transformation and IT transformation. She showed some really great imagery about agility: a video clip of running water to represent where we should be, moving easily within a fluid environment, then a still shot of boot-covered feet mired in concrete. Also a good quote from someone at Linklaters:

Business transformation is not a series of discrete process improvement efforts.

That’s a great point, since we sometimes get too focused on a specific process improvement project and lose sight of the bigger picture of improving our entire organization.

Up next were John Rymer and Mike Gualtieri to talk about succeeding – and leading – in the empowered future. Empowerment is a big theme here, which I’m sure isn’t exactly a coincidence, given the recent release of Empowerment by Forrester’s Josh Bernoff and Ted Schadler. They talked about the rise of social media in empowerment, such as how Heather Armstrong kicked Whirlpool’s butt over a new broken washing machine via her hugely popular blog (although they neglected to mention why she ended up with 1.5 million Twitter followers, which is a great story on its own), and about finding the empowered people within your company and your customer base. They point out that empowered people accelerate everything; by creating crises (I admit to doing that sometimes myself 🙂 ) and by publicly promoting those who respond appropriately. We need to have empowered (or rather, empowering) technology and empowered employees in order to properly engage with empowered customers; otherwise, we risk missing out on the conversation altogether and allowing an empowered competitor to take over.

For many organizations, the old non-agile ways haven’t been working all that well. Business is going around IT to get things done, and innovation is at a standstill. They have four recommendations for achieving a newer, more responsive organization:

  1. Design for faster change. This allows you to change at the pace that the business requires it, which virtually assures business-IT alignment. The keys here are flexible platforms and tools that enable continuous transformation, and allow business professionals to share the responsibility of delivery. Create ever-evolving programs that deliver streams of value.
  2. Get passionate about people experience. Experiences need to be useful, usable and desirable, allowing people to accomplish their goals, easily perform tasks, and enjoy their tasks. That’s right, enjoyment of the experience actually makes a difference, both for your customers and your employees.
  3. Deliver smart solutions. This is about creating solutions that have a lot of flexibility built in to allow the business people to configure and extend them, through goal-driven processes rather than strictly structured processes. Events and analytics have a big part of this, by delivering key information at the right time to process participants, using suggestions for guided experiences as well as awareness of the process context. The result: huge productivity gains, both for IT (who do less development) and business (who can do more without having to wait for IT to change the applications).
  4. Make proposals to the business. Innovation comes from a combination of business and technology knowledge, and IT needs to learn the business in a very deep way in order to be able to recommend new technologes that will really make a difference. I can personally attest to this: my work with clients, which is a lot about helping implement BPM technology, relies on me having a deep understanding of what the business does; otherwise, I can’t visualize a solution that will have a significant impact on their business. That means that by the end of a project, I can do the job of half the people in the business area: knowledge that I’m unlikely to use everyday, but invaluable in helping them to innovate their business. To generalize, the right combination of analytic skills, technology know-how and business knowledge allows IT professionals to propose breakthrough innovations that the business just won’t come up with on their own because they didn’t even know that they were possible.

They were directly addressing the IT professionals in the crowd; given that this is also a conference on business process, I’m not sure that’s all who’s here, but great suggestions nonetheless.

They finished with some thoughts on changing language from the old school IT speak as part of creating the new empowered ways:

  • “User” becomes “Person” to stop some of the alienation between business and IT
  • “Project” becomes “Program”, which requires a change in focus as well as language
  • “Application” becomes “Business capability”, since the iPhone has ruined the word “app” for us 😉
  • “IT (Information Technology)” becomes “BT (Business Technology)”, since it’s really about the business, not just the information underlying the business
  • Industrial metaphors becomes creative metaphors, since we’re not just cogs in the wheels of business – a message on the Twitter stream suggested that we do away with “Lean” while we’re at it

This was a call to arms for IT to do things better, and lead us to the empowered future.

Handbook on BPM

Just in time for next week’s BPM 2010, Springer’s International Handbook on Business Process Management is ready to ship. It includes papers by people from both academia and BPM practice, and I’m honored to join their ranks with an article on the drivers and impacts of collaborative BPM.

From my abstract:

This paper discusses the main aspects of Enterprise 2.0, how they are already impacting BPM, and how BPM is likely to evolve into a more social environment in the future. In particular, the impacts include cultural effects of collaboration during process modeling and process execution, as well as technological impacts of newer user interface models, development techniques and delivery mechanisms. In turn, these have economic impacts for both development and delivery models that become more relevant during the current economic recession.

This all started at BPM 2008 in Milan, when I met Michael Rosemann and somehow ended up agreeing to contribute a paper to this publication that he was organizing; given that he had used my blog as an example in his presentation that day, he asked me to take on the subject of Enterprise 2.0 and BPM.

I’m looking forward to seeing the finished product, and meeting up with a number of the authors next week in Hoboken, NJ.

Dancing With Elephants: Webinar on Agile and Social Processes

Keith Swenson and I will be presenting a webinar this Thursday at 2pm ET, sponsored by Fujitsu, on the topic of agile and social BPM. You can register here.

From the description:

Think that Agile Business Process Management (BPM) is not for you because you don’t have simple processes that follow the same path every time? Think again.

Agile BPM moves process improvement out of that “pre-defined & predictable box” into handling those difficult cases that elude traditional formalized process management techniques.

Do you want a hand in improving performance of your organization, but find that:

  • Unpredictable is more the norm than the exception in your business?
  • You are not able to change your business processes quickly enough for your changing business practices?
  • Your knowledge workers need to focus on achieving goals rather than performing the same actions every time?

If yes, then this webcast is for you! Join us as we illustrate how Agile BPM allows you get results by striking the right balance between structure and flexibility in processes and how Fujitsu’s Agile BPM solution can help you to achieve that goal.

Topics covered include:

  • Why the need for Agile BPM Platforms? What are the benefits?
  • How is it different from traditional BPM?
  • How do companies use Agile BPM Platform? Where is the fit?
  • How can Agile BPM be effective in response to change in your business?

I’m going to start with a presentation on Agile and Social BPM, Keith will show what they’re doing in these areas with Fujitsu’s Interstage BPM, then the gloves will come off for a lively discussion (just kidding about the gloves, although not the lively discussion).

TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM In Depth

Back in May at TIBCO’s TUCON conference, I had a chance for a briefing on their new ActiveMatrix BPM, although not a full demo. Since then, however, I’ve had about three hours of demo sessions with Roger King to see more of what they’re doing with ActiveMatrix (which I will refer to as AMX) BPM and Silver BPM, the cloud version. King has been at the core of TIBCO’s BPM products for a long time: he was at Staffware long before their acquisition by TIBCO, and now heads up BPM product strategy and product management, so is in a position to not only give a thorough demo, but to provide context for where they’ve come from and where they’re going in BPM. He also does a mean Austin Powers imitation, which is kind of funny when you consider that he’s a Brit imitating a Canadian who is imitating a Brit, all for the amusement of a Canadian. 🙂

AMX BPM Architecture

ActiveMatrix BPM ArchitectureThe AMX BPM platform has five components – Workspace, Work Manager, Event Collector, Process Manager, and Openspace – wired together using public services, which allows anyone to use those same services to replace or augment the components. In fact, the BPM platform and AMX BPM applications are all just AMX composite applications.

There is a common administration interface for all AMX products, and when we’re in the AMX Admin interface, the common nature of the platform becomes more evident: you can see the AMX platform, AMX BPM, sample applications and organizational models that we’ll be looking at in the demo. Selecting the AMX BPM application, you’ll see the underlying five components as well as all public services available.

The AMX service governance and management tools share common components with AMX SOA, but are not included in AMX BPM.

What this new architecture means is that Business Studio can be used to create services using combinations of components, services and other object types, which allows processes to be embedded as part of any application: process is not a separate thing used to orchestrate applications, but part of the application itself.

Organizational Models

Business Studio, as the design/modeling environment for composite model-driven process applications, now supports five model types: process, page flow, organizational, data and form. Organizational models are considered a key starting point: an organizational model becomes a functional overlay on your corporate LDAP, and can include multiple organizations such as trading partners in order to define organizational scope during runtime. Metadata is defined on a per-organization level, which can be used to partition visible information if people from multiple organizations participate in a process at runtime.

Busines Studio organization model privileges assigned to positionOrganizational models allow you to define Positions, which represent roles that can be used for work assignment in a process, e.g., all CSRs or all Life CSRs in the insurance claims scenario that’s provided as their sample organizational model. A position can include capabilities such as language skills, and privileges such as ability to authorize claims, scoped to an organization and assigned at an instance level to a process model. You can also define groups, e.g., Managers, and assign capabilities and privileges with groups, as well as access to system actions. Resources in the organization model can be mapped to LDAP attributes at runtime using queries. Later, during process modeling, positions are used to assign participants to a step in a process model, and to perform capability-based routing.

On the end-user side, the model appears in the Organization Browser within the ActiveMatrix Workspace if the user has permissions to see this: an admin, for example, might be able to see all of the organization models for multiple organizations, see the participants that are part of any position, and view or create the queries that bind the resources from the underlying LDAP. A regular user may see only their own organization’s structure, without the ability to modify the participants in a position or any other resources.

Business Object (Data) Models

Business Studio define business object modelTIBCO isn’t the first BPM vendor to jump on the process data model bandwagon, and they won’t be the last: the link between MDM and process instance data needs to be firmly established so that you don’t end up with data definitions within your BPMS that don’t match up with the other data sources in your organization.

In Business Studio, you can define a business object model – a sort of simplified UML data model – that allows structured data models to be shared within or across packages and applications The business object model can have subclasses as well as data relationships, and supports a hierarchy of data models. Even better, you can import it from UML, XSD, WSDL or directly from a database, and can export it to XSD or WSDL.

A business object model is then attached via an external reference to a process model to become part of the process instance data. Access control (in/out/bidirectional) can be set for that business object at each step in the process, as with any other instance parameter, in order to control whether the process step can read and write to the instance data defined by the business object. If you create scripts (which are Javascript in AMX BPM) to manipulate the instance data, the script editor will look up attributes and type directly from the business object model, which means that it’s fully-accessible instance data, not a blob that you need to decode manually.

Page Flow Models

One optimization that BPM vendors are starting to learn from application development environment products is the idea of screen flow: a stateless mini process model that runs in the web tier to handle a series of screens/pages for a single user in a monolithic operation. Think of it as the underpinnings for a wizard-type interface, where the user is stepped through multiple pages of information and data entry in order to complete a single task in a process. This is similar to the capabilities emerging in web application platforms such as NetSuite’s SuiteFlow, Salesforce’s Visual Process Manager and the process modeling within OutSystems, except in this case, the page flow is what happens at a single step in a larger process model. It contains a lot of the functionality of a process model, including gateways, conditional logic, data access, service calls, etc., but when the page flow completes, it returns to process engine to be sent on to the next step in the orchestration.

Business Studio page flow editorPage flows are another important efficiency improvement in BPM systems architecture; otherwise, you end up doing a lot of dequeuing and enqueuing of work items to and from the process engine, which has a lot of overhead. Some systems have had ways to kludge this for many years by binding together several sequential steps in the process model, such that the work item was dequeued at the beginning of the first step in the group, then not enqueued again until the end of the last step. In the case of TIBCO AMX BPM, the page flow looks almost like a subprocess call, with the monolithic step shown in the process map, then the steps in the page flow shown in a limited version of what looks like the process modeler. The alternative to using something like a page flow in any BPM environment is to build that capability into the user interface for that process step, which tends to make the UI very complex, and embeds far too much of the business logic (including routing logic) into the UI rather than in the process and data flow models.

An interesting use case that we discussed was to create a page flow for the start node of a process and expose that as a business service: since the start node page flow can include steps, forms and data access/validation before instantiating the (stateful) process, it provides an environment for initial data gathering at the start of a process without having to use some other web form to gather the data necessary to kick off a process instance. This can then be published as a business service to call from other appslications and environments, wherever you want the process to be invoked.

User Interface Form Models

User interface forms can be assigned to each step in a process model, and will be auto-generated for the specific task based on the process instance data, which could be a business object model. The default form that is generated – and will be rendered in General Interface to preview the user interface at that step – isn’t that pretty, but it’s fairly straightforward to then pretty it up in the forms editor, adding master-detail structures and different control types, and associating objects with CSS classes for styling.

Although you may not end up using these auto-generated forms without some amount of customization, they remain invaluable for rapid prototyping of processes.

It’s also possible (although only feasible in simple cases) to specify no form URL attached to a process or page flow step, which will generate a form at runtime based on the process instance data exposed at that step.

Process Patterns in Process Models

We didn’t spend much time on the Business Studio process modeler, since there is a lot of common functionality with most other process modelers (although Roger will cringe to hear me say that), but just focused on a few new features.

One of these features is a set of predefined process patterns, similar in functionality to what you might do with business rules, but more visually associated with the process model. We looked at two of these: chaining, where subsequent human tasks for same item are worked by same person if they are capable, but can be assigned to others if the first participant can’t perform all of the tasks; and separation of duties, where subsequent tasks (e.g., work and QA) must be done by different people.

At the time that I saw the demo, chained events were visualized as embedded subprocesses, and patterns couldn’t be combined; these need to be fixed in order to make the patterns more visually accurate as well as more functional.

ActiveMatrix Workspace

AXM BPM new claims work items in OFFERED stateThe ActiveMatrix Workspace is the web-based end-user environment, with views of the work available to the current user as well as views of the organizational model as discussed above. Taking a look at the work views, however, is where we see some of the first major changes to the underlying process engine: there are no more physical queues; rather, what appear as logical queues (or work lists) to users are created with dynamic queries. In the old days – and in the old architecture of iProcess and some of its competitors – segregating work items into explicit queues was necessary for performance reasons; today, faster hardware and in-memory software allows this to be done dynamically. When I think of all the times that I’ve have to work around queuing mechanisms in BPM systems, both for work assignment and reporting purposes, this is huge since it provides much easier slicing and dicing of the work items. For example, a standard work view for a supervisor would be “Supervised Work”, which shows all work items that are both available but not yet assigned to a user, plus those that have been allocated to specific users: in effect, a view of the unassigned and assigned work in progress, regardless of its logical queue location. Now, you could argue that queues in most BPMS are usually implemented as database constructs anyway, which is mostly true; however, access to work except by queue is often not very efficient in these queue-oriented systems.

In addition to the Work Views and Organization Browser, the Workspace includes the following user views:

  • Business Services, which is a user view of process-based composite applications, so that user doesn’t think about kicking off a process, but about doing a business function. In the sample insurance scenario that we were looking at, this included functions such as “First Notice of Loss Notification”.
  • Process Views, which shows a view of the executing processes.
  • Event Views, which shows an administrator-like view of login/logout and other system events, plus events related to process instances such as access and update. This is tied closely to the Process Views, which links back to the Event Views in order to show instance events.

We walked through the invocation of a business service in the Business Services view, which essentially kicked off a process instance. However, the first two steps of the “process” were actually screens in a page flow: the simple data entry screens were auto-generated, and the process wasn’t actually instantiated until after the Submit button was clicked on the second screen. We followed the process through the remainder of the steps, which showed off most of the capabilities that we had seen in Business Studio during design:

  • Looking at the Work View, the new claims show up in an OFFERED state (meaning that they aren’t yet claimed for work by a participant) in all CSRs’ work lists. Each user’s view of the work list depends on their group membership, so it completely dynamic.
  • Data is entered by the CSR for the work item to record the claim; the UI in this case was generated from the business object, including multi-entry field types such as multiple claimants for one claim.
  • A language filter based on capability is used to assign work for the Customer Interview step; this step also used a 2-screen page flow to gather information while on the phone with the customer.
  • The work item is processed through the Assess Claim step, and that work item is excluded from same user for the Pay Claim task using the Separation of Duties process pattern.

TIBCO Silver and Silver BPM

TIBCO’s big splash at the TUCON conference this year was around Silver, their cloud environment based on Amazon EC2, and specifically Silver BPM, their cloud-based BPM offering. This is not a cloud-based process discovery or modeling tool; this is the actual processes executing in the cloud.

Setting Silver BPM apart from some of the other cloud BPM environments is the shared design tool, Business Studio, that can connect simultaneously to both on-premise AMX environments and Silver environments. The same models, applications and other services built in Business Studio can be deployed to either environment without having to export and import them into another design tool. This immediately suggests an obvious use case of Silver for development and testing of process applications, even if they are going to be deployed on premise, since each member of the development and test teams could have their own virtual AMX servers, if desired. Although there is no guarantee of the ActiveMatrix and Silver BPM platforms providing exactly the same functionality at any point in time, I would guess that TIBCO will have to keep them fairly closely aligned in order to support this dev/test use case. IBM uses exactly this strategy for marketing their Smart Business Dev/Test environments (although not for any of their BPM products), and the potential cost reductions for these non-production environments is starting to resonate with enterprise clients, not just smaller businesses. That’s not to say that you can’t use Silver BPM for production environments, just that I am imagining that many larger enterprises won’t yet trust the cloud for core production capabilities.

Although EC2 is underneath Silver, the customer only needs to set up their Amazon EC2 account, enable the EC2, S3 and RDS services, and pay their Amazon bill at the end of the month: all other provisioning and administration is done through the Silver Center console. Silver customers are on a one-year or three-year subscription license with TIBCO (as usual, I forgot to ask about pricing) that is an additional cost above the Amazon services.

Silver BPM create a new instance - select softwareFrom within Silver Center, you can create a new Silver BPM instance using the following steps:

  1. Name the instance, then select the product group (e.g., Silver BPM) and software version.
  2. Enter the name and passwords for the database administrator, user and sample user accounts.
  3. Specify the underlying EC2 properties: size/memory configuration, geographic zone, some security parameters and whether to use an elastic (fixed) IP address.

This will start a new EC2 instance that combines a basic Linux image with the selected Silver BPM software image, which takes about 20 minutes to provision and boot the virtual server.

Once up and running, the Silver Administrator and Silver Workspace look amazingly similar to their on-premise ActiveMatrix counterparts: if I didn’t look at the top banner or the URL, I would not have been able to distinguish them. Even from within Business Studio, once you set up the connection parameters, a Silver BPM server looks pretty much like an AMX server, and you can connect to multiple of each type from Business Studio. Business Studio Silver server connectionThen, you deploy models to any of the servers by dragging and dropping them onto the server.

There are some obvious holes in the current Silver BPM offerings. First, they have cloud-based execution but no cloud-based discovery or modeling: Business Studio is an Eclipse-based desktop application, with models stored in a local workspace and shared primarily through the use of a Subversion repository (more commonly used by developers for source code control). This is not process discovery/modeling for the masses, and doesn’t contain the collaborative features such as interactive sharing of process models that we see emerging in many other tools.

Second, there is no multi-tenancy, but only a 1:1 relationship between Silver BPM and EC2: an EC2 instance can contain only one Silver BPM instance, and a Silver BPM instance cannot span multiple EC2 instances. In the future, they will allow for 1:many and many:1, but for now, this is really more like dedicated cloud resources rather than multi-tenancy hosting.

Third, there is an LDAP server created within the Silver BPM instance, but you need to manually upload your enterprise LDAP and use appropriate tools in order to keep it in sync. You can, however, use your corporate LDAP if you use Amazon Virtual Private Cloud.

TIBCO’s not the first to provide process execution in the cloud – Appian, Fujitsu, Intalio, Cordys and others have come before them – but having a big BPM name like TIBCO enter the cloud BPM market helps to further validate the use of the cloud for process execution. In fact, I’ve had a discussion with one of the more established cloud BPM vendors since my briefing with TIBCO, and I advised them not to think of TIBCO only as a competitor, but as a collaborator helping to expand this market. I don’t imagine that we’ll see many Silver customers before next year’s TUCON, but TIBCO will be out there building the cloud mindshare.

openspace

We finished our marathon demo sessions with a look at AMX openspace, TIBCO’s gadget-based container application for building composite user interfaces. In short: a mashup builder.

The standard AMX/Silver Workspace is fine for some users, while others need a highly-customized UI created by developers for advanced functionality; there is, however, a third category that prefer to roll their own user experience. I first blogged about the potential for enterprise mashups in early 2006, and attended the first MashupCamp in 2006 (and the second one in 2007), so it’s no surprise that I’ve been impatiently tapping my foot waiting for many of the larger BPM/enterprise software vendors to catch up with this trend. True, the customers aren’t there yet, but they’re not going to get there on their own, they need to see mashup/portal builders in action to recognize the value that these tools can bring to experienced users and administrators.

AMX openspace with process monitoring gadgetsThe basics: openspace supports a number of different gadget standards, including Shindig, OpenSocial, iGoogle and GWT, and uses a publish-subscribe model for inter-gadget communication. Gadgets are arranged on tabs/pages within the openspace application, and can be added from the predefined palette of gadgets, from the gadget store hosted on the server, or by specifying the URL and any required parameters for external gadgets such as Google Maps. Each gadget can be themed independently, although that just seems like a recipe for a graphic design nightmare. Once created, openspace pages can be published for other users to use.

This ties back into AMX BPM with the availability of BPM gadgets: process participation gadgets such as Business Services and ToDo List, basic monitoring and reporting gadgets for end users and supervisors, and Spotfire gadgets for more advanced analytics and visualization. You have to be licensed for all the underlying software such as AMX BPM and Spotfire; this just provides a new way to visualize and interact with those tools.

Summary

If you read my previous post on AMX BPM, you already know that I was impressed with what I saw. There are a number of BPM products launched around the same time as Staffware’s product (which became TIBCO’s iProcess) in the early 2000’s, and although most of these need a complete architectural overhaul to bring them up to date, this is the first that I’ve seen of a vendor biting the bullet: AMX BPM is not an iProcess upgrade; it’s a completely new next-generation BPM product. Although they gain immensely in product capabilities, they are leaving behind their existing iProcess customers, although I’m sure that they’ll offer some sort of migration assistance. There are unlikely to be many enhancements to iProcess in the future, but there are no plans for end of life, and it is expected that many current customers will keep their legacy applications on iProcess while looking to AMX BPM for new applications and functionality.

With AMX and Silver, TIBCO have leapfrogged many of their newer competitors in terms of architecture and functionality. Their challenges lie in shifting their existing customers’ new development onto AMX or Silver, and convincing potential customers that they’re no longer part of the BPM old guard.

TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM - 2010

The BPM Daily

Dennis Howlett has a post today about paper.li, a service to create a daily roundup of the content collected by the people who you follow on Twitter. Sound confusing? Click through to read Dennis’ article and the one that he points to by Neville Hobson. Basically, if I follow you on Twitter and you tweet a link to an interesting article on social BPM, then that article on social BPM will be on the paper.li “newspaper” that I create based on the people who I follow on Twitter.

I follow too many people for too many different reasons to promote a paper.li page built on all of them (although there is one built by default for me at paper.li/skemsley), but I have a @skemsley/BPM Twitter list (which you can also follow directly) that I’ve used instead to create the BPM Daily. As I add or remove people from my BPM Twitter list, that will impact the future editions of the BPM Daily. Every time that the BPM Daily is updated, it will be tweeted in my Twitter stream, or you can just go and check it out directly.

paper.li also allows you to create a newspaper based on any Twitter use and the people who they follow, or a Twitter #hashtag.

Metastorm M3 Demonstration

I had a briefing on Metastorm’s M3 collaborative modeling and Smart Business Workspace two weeks ago, and last week we had a follow-up demo. This is the start of a push towards a full BPM suite in the cloud, providing collaborative process modeling and the end user runtime hosted on Azure, but Microsoft still needs to add some planned functionality to Azure in order to allow Metastorm to move the BPM engine there as well. When that happens, however, the Azure Fabric Connector will allow the BPM engine to connect to on-premise systems and data sources, regardless of whether the Azure instance is on-premise or hosted elsewhere.

We first walked through M3, which provides self-registration for a modeling account. This isn’t just process modeling, however; based on their Provision acquisition, there are 11 different types of models available: Workflow, Organization, Goal, Location, System, Capability, Activity, Deliverable, Project, Requirement and Rule. Although I have seen multiple model types in some of the other collaborative modeling tools – such as strategy and capability maps in IBM’s BPM BlueWorks, this goes beyond that in scope, and has a more robust backing of the ProVision metamodel, allowing the models to be exported from M3 and imported into the full version of ProVision. It’s also possible to create associations between different model types: for example, linking an activity in a workflow model with a measurement or location. Models can be exported in ProVision’s CIF (Common Interchange Format) only, although there are tools to transform a process model in CIF to XPDL or BPEL.

We also viewed a sharing session, which is a synchronous collaboration of two or more people that allows for interactive whiteboarding and chat. Although users in an interactive whiteboarding environment will more likely use telephone as their primary communications tool rather than chat, the chat is useful because it is logged as part of the session history, so can be used to record decisions and notes. A shared session can be played back using a VCR-like control to see how a model evolved over the session.

M3 provides extensive help for modelers, including best practices and strategies for modeling, and will continue to be augmented with feedback from the online Metastorm community. There’s not a direct link to that community, which would be useful; it seems like some of the best practice sections in the help have just been copied from the community site, not directly linked.

Metastorm M3 - 2010

The second part of the demo was on Smart Business Workspace, Metastorm’s Silverlight-based composite application development (mashup) environment. Except for the fact that it’s based on Silverlight (which may not be considered an advantage in some circles), there’s not much different here than most other mashup environments except for the inclusion of their own BPM and model widgets. There’s a role-based starting point for the workspace, and pages can be fully personalized if the user has the appropriate permissions. Widgets are dragged on from a predefined palette, and can be dynamically sized and the general page layout changed. Administrators and page designers can lock down specific pages and widgets for a more controlled environment. Depending on the type of widget, there is publish/subscribe wiring between the widgets to allow for standard use cases such as list-detail or map display of data. Branding and general appearance of the workspace can be styled with CSS and .Net resource files.

Smart Business Workspace allows you to add any Silverlight widget, but does not support other widely-used widget standards. Although you can add any webpage as a “personal widget”, these are really more like unwired portlets than true widgets; you’ll have to use the widget designer to turn something into a first class widget.

Metastorm Smart Business Workspace - 2010

Metastorm New Releases: Collaborative Modeling with M3 and Smart Business Workspace Application Builder

Although we didn’t have a chance for a demo, I had a quick briefing with Greg Carter, Metastorm’s CTO, on the announcements that they made today.

M3 Collaborative Modeling

We discussed M3, their cloud-based collaborative process modeling tool. This is one of the first BPA/BPM offerings that I’ve seen on the Microsoft Windows Azure platform, allowing for a variety of hosting options: private hosted, private on-premise or public cloud, all accessed via a browser. Unlike many of the cloud process modeling tools available that offer fairly simple workflow and interaction models, Metastorm has taken advantage of the rich modeling capabilities from the Provision acquisition and are offering multiple model types, objects and viewpoints for more complete business models. Their rich object-based models allow more information to be attached to objects in addition to more model types and the ability to associate objects with multiple model types: for example, a goal model will include the definition of measurements, and those same measurements can be associated with a related process model.

Their press release lists the model types available:

Modeling capabilities for 11 different model types: goal, organization, capability, system, process/workflow, activity, rule, project, requirement, location and deliverable; providing 23 modeling objects and viewpoints beyond just a process model to deliver more comprehensive, holistic business improvements that factor in a full range of enterprise assets

Metastorm M3 Sharing SessionM3 also includes a number of collaboration features: you can share models (with different levels of access control) with other users, and have an interactive modeling session between multiple users. The entire session is available for playback, including any chat conversations that occurred during the session.

The big question is how this will fit into their existing portfolio of modeling tools: ProVision EA for full enterprise architecture modeling; Provision BPA, a subset of EA that includes 12 models used for process modeling; and the process designer within Metastorm BPM. These are all desktop applications without explicit collaboration capabilities, providing a greater range of modeling and analysis functionality than M3: ProVision has more model types, plus analytics and simulation, and the BPM process designer includes service and integration management.

Metastorm’s answer to this is that the three products (if you consider ProVision EA and BPA as a single product) are targeted at three different personas: M3 is for the casual, untrained user that needs to do some lightweight modeling and process discovery; ProVision is for the trained analyst or architect to do more comprehensive analysis and optimization of the models; and BPM is for the developer to hook up all the technical underpinnings to the model in order to make it executable. That’s a reasonable split of capabilities, although there are a couple of issues with that: model portability/round-tripping, and vastly different user experiences. They are approaching the model portability problem by moving towards directly sharing models in a common repository; this will require that BPM be modified to use the ProVision metamodel (M3 already uses the same metamodel), then bring them together into a shared repository. Once that is done, a model could be started in M3, then worked on in ProVision and/or BPM directly. As for the multiple user interfaces, Carter said that they would likely deprecate one of the modelers in the future; I would expect to see the BPM process designer replaced by additional functionality in ProVision, for example, although he didn’t say that.

The Azure platform provides a multi-tenant environment that can be run in the public cloud, or as a private cloud either hosted or on-premise. Process models created in the public cloud version can be shared with an on-premise version of ProVision; in the future, this will be done using Azure’s app fabric to make it more seamless. Microsoft is also implementing features in Azure that allow for data location control, so that specific data objects can be defined as being held in a specific geographic region.

The public cloud version of Metastorm M3 is free to existing Metastorm customers in 2010, and subscription pricing will be introduced in 2011. The M3 product page includes a “Register for an Account” link at the bottom if you want to try it out.

The market place for collaborative process modelers is very busy right now, with long-time players like IBM (Lombardi) Blueprint and a raft of more recent entrants, but I wouldn’t call the market mature at this time: there is definitely room for new players, especially if they can offer a richer modeling experience such as Metastorm is claiming to provide.

Smart Business Workspace

We also discussed Smart Business Workspace (SBW), Metastorm’s entry into the rich internet application/mashup development area. Based on Microsoft Silverlight, it provides an environment for integrating Metastorm applications and any other applications into a common user environment. It’s not just for creating standard mashup pages, however: driven by metadata, it can change the environment based on the user’s role, skills and other information.

Metastorm SBW Multiple Layouts

Metastorm publishes the specifications for widgets that can be used in SBW, and provides a widget designer, but doesn’t interface with JSR168, Google widgets or other existing standards. So although you can, in theory, integrate any application or data, it’s likely going to take a bit of work.

Although it seems like M3 and SBW are completely different products, they’re actually quite closely related: M3 is based on SBW, so all the hosting and collaboration features discussed for M3 can be generalized to any SBW application: public and private cloud, plus chat and shared whiteboard sessions.

This is Metastorm’s start to creating a workspace in the cloud. Although SBW based in the public cloud can’t yet make a connection to on-premise Metastorm BPM, that will be available in a future release. Also, there are plans to move Metastorm BPM into the cloud using Azure, making it easy for business process outsourcers to offer process as a service.

Does The Enterprise 2.0 Emperor Have No Clothes?

It’s noon, the keynotes have been going on all morning, and I have only just been inspired to blog. I’m not saying that standalone Enterprise 2.0 initiatives have jumped the shark, but there’s only so much rah-rah about enterprise collaboration that I can take before I fall back on three thoughts:

  1. Collaboration is already going on in enterprises, and always has: all that Enterprise 2.0 does is give us some nicer tools for doing what we’ve already been doing via word of mouth, email, and other methods.
  2. Collaboration is just not that interesting if it doesn’t directly impact the core business processes.
  3. The millennials are not going to save us.

People collaborate inside enterprises when they care about what they do. In other words, if you make someone’s job interesting and something that they have passion about, they will naturally collaborate using whatever tools are at hand in order to do it better. Andy McAfee’s keynote included a point about Enterprise 2.0 cargo cults, where organizations believe that deploying some tools will make the magic happen, without understanding all of the underlying things that need to be in place in order to make benefits happen: I strongly believe that you first have to make people care about their work before they will engage in creative collaboration, regardless of the shiny tools that you give them.

That brings me to the second point, that this has to be about the core business, or it’s just not very interesting at the end of the day. It’s not about providing a platform for some fun Facebook-for-the-enterprise; it’s about providing tools that people need in order to do their job better. In the 90’s, I was often involved in projects where people were using Windows for the first time in order to use the systems that we were creating for them. Some companies thought that the best way to train people on Windows was to have them play Solitaire (seriously); I always found it much more effective to train them on Windows using tools that were applicable to their job so that they could make that connection. We risk the same thing today by teaching people about enterprise social software by performing tasks that are, ultimately, meaningless: not only is there no benefit to the enterprise, but people know that what they’re doing is useless beyond a small amount of UI learning. I’m not saying that all non-core enterprise social functionality is useless: building an enterprise social network is important, but it’s ultimately important for purposes that benefit the enterprise, such as connecting people who might collaborate together on projects.

The millennial argument is, not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit, and I’m tired of hearing it spouted from the stage at conferences. You don’t have to be under 28 to know how to live and breathe social media, or to expect that you should be able to use better-quality consumer tools rather than what a company issues to you, or to find it natural to collaborate online. Many of us who are well north of that age manage it just fine, and I don’t believe that I’m an outlier based on age: I see a large number of under-28’ers who don’t do any of these things, and lots of old fogies like me who do them all the time. It’s more about your attitudes towards contribution and autonomy: I like to give back to the community, I’m an independent thinker, and I work for myself. All of these drive me to contribute widely in social media: here on my business blog (occasionally cross-posted to Intelligent Enterprise and Enterprise Irregulars), my personal blog, on Twitter, on Flickr, on Facebook, on YouTube, on FourSquare… wherever I can either connect with people who I want to be connected with, or where it amuses me to broadcast my thoughts and creations. For those of you who don’t do any of this, wake up! Social networking is your personal brand. You just need to accept that as truth, and take advantage of it. The ones who don’t, and use their age as an excuse for it, just don’t get it, and you shouldn’t be listening to anything that they say about social media.

To wrap it up: enterprise collaboration is good when it has a business purpose, and anyone can do it.