Column 2

Software AG Technology Innovation Fair

For once, I don’t need to travel to see a (mini) vendor conference: Software AG has taken it on the road and is here in Toronto this morning. I wanted to get an update of what’s happening with webMethods since I attended their user conference in Miami last November, and this seemed like a good way to do it. Plus, they served breakfast.

Susan Ganeshan, SVP of Product Management, started the general keynote with a mention of Adabas and Natural, the mainframe (and other platforms) database and programming language that drive so many existing business applications, and was likely the primary concern of many of the people in the room. However, webMethods and CentraSite are critical parts of their future strategy and formed the core of the rest of the keynote; both of these have version 8 in first-customer-ship state, with general availability before the end of the year.

First, however, she talked about Software AG’s acquisition of IDS Scheer, and how ARIS fits into their overall plan, following on today’s press release about how Software AG has now acquired 90% of IDS Scheer’s stock, which should lead to a delisting and effective takeover. She discussed their concept of enterprise BPM, which is really just the usual continuous improvement cycle of strategize/discover and analyze/model/implement/execute/monitor and control that we see from other BPMS vendors, but pointed out that whereas Software AG has traditionally focused on the implement and execute parts of the cycle, IDS Scheer handles the other parts in a complementary fashion. The trick, of course, will be to integrate those seamlessly, and hopefully create a shared model environment (my hope, not her words). They are also bringing a process intelligence suite to market, but no details on that at this time.

Interesting message about the changing IT landscape: I’m not sure of the audience mix between Adabas/Natural and webMethods, but I have to guess based on her “intro to BPM” slides that it is heavily weighted towards the former, and that the webMethods types are more focused on web services than BPM. She also invokes the current mantra of every vendor presenter these days about how the new workforce has radically different expectations about what their computing environment should look like (“why can’t I google for internal documents?”); I completely agree with this message, although I’m sure that most companies don’t yet have that as a high priority since much of the new workforce is just happy to have a job in this economy.

She discussed the value of CentraSite – or at least of SOA governance – as being a way to not just discover services and other assets, but to understand dependencies and impacts, and to manage provisioning and lifecycle of assets.

A few of the BPM improvements:

Also a common message from BPMS vendors this week, she talked about their composite application environment, a portal-like dynamic workspace that can be created by a user or analyst by dragging portlets around, then saved and shared for reuse. This lessens the need for IT resources for UI development, and also allows a user to rearrange their workspace the way it best works for them.
They’ve also added ad hoc collaboration, which allows a process participant to route work to people who are not part of the original process; it’s not clear if they can add steps or subprocesses to the structured process, or whether this is a matter of just routing the task at its current step to a previously unidentified participant.
They integrate with Adobe Forms and Microsoft Infopath, using them for forms-driven processes that use the form data directly.
They’ve integrated Cognos for reporting and analytics; it sounds like there are some out of the box capabilities that run without additional licensing, but if you want to make changes, you’ll need a Cognos license.

Since the original focus of webMethods was in B2B and lower-level messaging, she also discussed the ESB product, particularly how they can provide high-speed, highly-available messaging services across widespread geographies. They can provide a single operational console across a diverse trading network of messaging servers. There’s a whole host of other improvements to their trading networks, EDI module and managed file transfer functionality; one interesting enhancement is the addition of a BPEL engine to allow these flows to be modeled (and presumably executed) as BPEL.

They have an increased focus on standards, and new in version 8 are updates to XPDL and BPEL support, although they’re still only showing BPMN 1.1 support. They also have some new tooling in their Eclipse-based development suite.

She laid out their future vision as follows:

Today: IT-driven business, with IT designing business processes and business dictating requirements
2009 (um…isn’t that today?): collaborative process discovery and design; unified tooling
2010: business rules management and event processing; schema conformance
2012: personalized, smart-healing processes; centralized command and control for deployment and provisioning
2014: business user self-service and broad collaboration without organizational boundaries; elastic and dynamic infrastructure

She finished up with a brief look at AlignSpace for collaborative process discovery; I’m sure that someday, they will approve my request for a beta account so that I can take a closer look at this. 🙂 Not only process discovery and modeling, however, AlignSpace will also provide a marketplaces of resources (primarily services) related to processes in particular vertical industries.

They have a complete fail on both wifi and power here, but I no longer care: my HP Mini has almost six hours of battery life, and my iPhone plan allows me to tether the netbook and iPhone to provide internet access (at least in Canada).

Windows 7 launch Toronto #CDNwin7

I was invited to the Windows 7 launch in Toronto today, where Steve Ballmer is here in person. Instead of being in the live presentation, I’m hanging in the press Tweet Lounge with my torcamp peeps @davidcrow and @AccordionGuy, watching it on a big screen; this gives a lot more flexibility in terms of walking around, chatting and getting coffee during the presentation. So far, I’ve had an offer from a Microsoftie to upgrade my HP Mini to Windows 7 on the spot, and I’ve heard that it will extend the battery life by another couple of hours, which is definitely of interest to me.

Ballmer is talking about the need for efficiency in the new economy; I’m thinking that this is a veiled reference to getting past the Vista bloat, especially when he quotes users who claim that it’s simpler and more responsive without actually stating the point of comparison for simplicity and response time. These issues are key for end user efficiency, along with the improvements in handling wireless, but there are also improvements in desktop security that make it more efficient for the IT people who have to manage large installed bases of PCs. There are new versions of the Windows Server (2008 R2) and Exchange Server (2010) products, too, particularly with respect to virtualization, although I try to make everything beyond my own keyboard as virtual as possible so don’t have a lot of interest in the server products: my mail, files and backup are in the cloud, not on a server in my office. That being said, Microsoft is launching a number of cloud-based tools, including the web-based Office suite (still very early and barely functional) and SharePoint Online to complement their Exchange Online offering; although they have some significant clients here, likely the biggest impact is that they are validating the cloud model for email and collaboration, which will benefit their competitors as much or more than themselves.

Windows 7 has had about 8 million beta testers since they released it for download several months ago, and have collected a huge amount of feedback from the early adopters: some are estimating a savings of $100-200 per person per year in reduced support and maintenance costs, although YMMV.

After a brief speech, Ballmer opened it up for questions, and the first one was about upgrading existing hardware to run Windows 7; he responded that any machine that runs Vista well will run Windows 7 (although I thought that the problem was the Vista didn’t run all that well on any platform, hence the crappy adoption rates), but those running XP may require upgrades or replacement. I think that it’s fair to say that a huge part of my customer base – the rather conservative financial services and insurance industries – haven’t even touched Vista, so that could mean some significant hardware investment to support Windows 7; Microsoft can expect to see widespread Windows 7 adoption rates in these industries only when XP support is cut off. Ballmer’s betting on people being excitedly motivated to move to Windows 7, not forced through XP end of life; I think that’s a bit delusional given that he admits that they’re still supporting Windows 2000 for some customers. In the last question, he stated that Windows 7 will not be the last 32-bit OS from Microsoft because of the recent popularity of the Atom processor.

They’ve moved on to the customer videos now, so I’ll wrap this up and wander around the demo stations (and the tea table). In the spirit of full disclosure, Microsoft fed me breakfast this morning but did not otherwise compensate me to be here. I’m still hoping for a free copy of Windows 7.

Update: Scored my free copy of Windows 7 Ultimate on the way out the door. Headed home to install on the netbook.

AIIM webinar on content and process

I’m the headline act in an upcoming webinar, Content: Meet the Business Process, hosted by AIIM and sponsored by SAP, on November 11th at 2pm ET. Although I spend a lot of my time focused on BPM, I have a pretty strong background in content management as well: almost every client that I work with has to deal with content and process together.

I’ll cover some of the key benefits of bringing together content and process, walk through a couple of case studies, and end up with some suggestions on getting started with content-centric cross-departmental processes.

Process Design Slam 2009 – The Final Judgement #SAPTechEd09 #BPXslam09

To wrap up the proceedings from last night, I was asked to critique the efforts of the groups and pick a winner: as it turned out, I was the only judge. Each of the groups did great work, and I want to call out some of the specific efforts:

The Business Use Case group had a great written story, including a lot of cultural and social background for our fictional city in order to provide context for the implementation.
The BPM Methodologies group had excellent documentation on the wiki, including graphics and charts to make it clear how the methodologies fit with the other groups.
The Business Rules group were stars at collaboration with the other groups, in part because everyone quickly realized the importance of business rules to data, UI and process, and solicited their input.
The UI and Dashboards group created mockups of monitoring dashboards that provide a starting point for future design slam work.
The Collaborative Modeling group led at international collaboration, using Gravity (process modeling within Google Wave) interactively with team members in Europe during the session, and produced a business process model.
The Service Implementation group also kicked off implementation, creating a service orchestration process model as a starting point.

In general, everyone seemed to have a good understanding of the importance of data, rules and process, but there could have been better cross-pollination between the groups; in future design slams, that could be helped by requiring some group members to move partway through the evening in order to ensure that there is a better understanding on both sides, something that is fairly common in real-life businesses where people are seconded from one department to another for part of a project. Although a certain amount of collaboration did occur, that was one area that requires more work. I saw one tweet that referred to the design slam as crowdsourced rather than collaborative, although I’m not sure that I would say that: crowdsourcing usually has more of a flavor of individuals contributing in order to achieve their own goals, whereas this was a collaboration with common goals. However, those goals were a bit fragmented by group.

Another issue that I had was the lack of an architectural view of process design: although all of the groups are contributing to a common process (or set of processes), there is little thought around the transformations required to move the process list developed by the Business Use Case group to the process model developed by the Collaborative Modeling group to the process design developed by the Service Implementation group. In enterprise architecture terms, this is a case of transforming models from one layer to another within the process column of the architecture (column 2 if you’re a Zachman fan); understanding these transformations is key so that you don’t reinvent the process at each layer. One of the goals of model-driven design is that you don’t do a business-level process model, then redraw it in another tool; instead, the business-level process model can be augmented with service-level information to become an executable process without recreating the model in another tool. In reality, that often doesn’t happen, and the business analysts draws a process in one tool (such as Visio, or in the case of the design slam, Gravity), then IT redraws it in a tool that will create an executable process (NetWeaver in this case). I have a couple of suggestions here:

Combine the Business Use Case and Collaborative Modeling groups into a single group, since they are both doing high-level business analysis. This would allow the process list to be directly modeled in the same group without hand-off of information.
Reconsider the use of tools. Although I have a great deal of appreciation for Gravity (I am, after all, a geek), the fact that it does not share a model with the execution environment is problematic since the two groups creating process models were really off doing their own thing using different tools. Consider using NetWeaver 7.2, which has a business analyst perspective in the process composer, and having the business use case/collaborative modeling group create their initial non-technical models in that environment, then allow the service implementation team to add the technical underpinnings. The cool Wave collaboration won’t be there, or maybe only as an initial sketching tool, but the link will be made between the business process models and the executable models.

When it came down to a decision, my choice of the winner was more a product of the early state of the design slam rather than the efforts or skills of the group: I suspect that my view would change if I were judging in Vienna or Bangalore when the process is further along. I selected the Business Use Case group as the winner at this point based on the four judging criteria: although they failed to include alternative media, their story was clear and well-written, it fit well with the other groups’ efforts, and they used good social and collaborative methods within their group for driving out the initial solutions.

The winning team was made up of Greg Chase, Ulrich Scholl and Claus von Riegen, all of SAP, with input from a few others as subject-matter experts on public utilities and electricity production, and started the discussions on pricing plans that ended up driving much of the Business Rules group’s work. Ulrich also has solar cells on his house that connect to the grid, so he has in-depth knowledge of the issues involved with micro-generation, and was very helpful at determining the roles involved and how people could take on multiple roles. They leveraged a lot of the content that was already on the wiki, especially references to communities with experience in micro-generation and virtual power plants. Besides this initial leg up on their work, they were forced to work fast to produce the initial use cases and processes, since that provided necessary input to the other groups to get started with their work, which left them with more of the evening to write a great story around the use case (but, apparently, not enough time to add any graphics or multimedia).

There was a huge amount of effort put into the design slam, both in the preceding weeks through conference calls and content added to the wiki, and at the session last night in Phoenix. I believe that a huge amount of groundwork has been laid for the design slams upcoming in Vienna and Bangalore, including process model, service orchestration diagrams, business rules decision tables, and monitoring dashboard mockups.

I had a great time last night, and would happily participate in a future process design slam.

Process Design Slam 2009 #SAPTechEd09 #BPXslam09

8pm

We’re just getting started with the Process Design Slam: one of the face-to-face sessions that make up the collaborative design process that started a couple of months ago on the Design Slam wiki. Marilyn Pratt has identified the six groups that will each work on their part of the design, collaborating between groups (a.k.a. poaching talent) as required, and even bringing in people from the Hacker Night and Business Objects events going on in the same area.

Business Use Case, led by Greg Chase
Collaborative Modeling, led by David Herrema
Business Rules, led by James Taylor
Service Implementation, led by John Harrikey
BPM Methodologies, led by Ann Rosenberg
UI and Dashboards, led by Michelle Crapo

Right now, everyone has formed into initial groups based on their interests, and is having some initial discussions before the food and beer arrives at 8:30. Since there was an initial story and process model developed by the online community, everyone is starting at something close to a common point. Participants within a group (and even the leaders) could change throughout the evening.

By the end of the night, each team will have created a story about their work, and give a 5-minute presentation on it. The story must include additional media such as video and images, and in addition to the presentation, it must be documented on the wiki. Each story must also be related to the output of the other teams – requiring some amount of collaboration throughout the evening – and include pointers on what worked and didn’t work about their process, and what they would do differently in the future.

At that point, the judging panel, which includes me plus Marc Rosson, Uli Scholl, Ann Rosenberg and Dick Hirsch, will render our judgment on the creations of the groups based on the following criteria:

Clarity and completeness of the story on the wiki, particularly if it could be understood without the presentation.
Creative use of media.
How well this story ties into the overall storyline of the night.
The social process that was used to create the story.

I’m floating around between groups to listen in on what they’re doing and some of their initial thoughts.

8:30pm

Beer o’clock. The Business Rules team is still deep in conversation, however, and Business Use Case comes over to them to ask for help in bringing the business rules and business use case together. Business Use Case outlines the actors that they have identified, and the high-level business processes that they have identified in addition to the initial business process of bringing new consumer-producers online.

9pm

BPM Methodologies has a much wider view than just this project: developing methodologies that can be used across (SAP) BPM projects, including assessing the business process maturity of an organization in order to determine where they need to start, and identifying the design roles. In the context of the design slam, they will be helping to coordinate movement of people between the teams in order to achieve the overall goals.

9:30pm

Service Implementation – viewed by groups such as Business Use Case as “the implementers” – have revised the original process map from a service standpoint; looking at the services that were required led to a process redesign. They are using the Composite Designer to model the service orchestration, including the interfaces to the services that they need and external services such as FirstLook, an wind assessment service based on location data. In their service orchestration process, they assume that the process is initiated with the data gathered from a user interface form, and they focus primarily on the automated process steps. Ginger Gatling doesn’t let me leave the table until I tell them what they have to do to win; I advise them to update the wiki with their story.

9:50pm

The Collaborative Modeling group is modeling the business process using Gravity, online with a couple of participants in Europe. This is a process model from a business standpoint, not an executable model; there is no concept of the linkage between this and what is being done by the Service Implementation team. I suggest that they should head over there to compare processes, since these should (at some level) just be different perspectives on the same process.

10pm

Business Use Case is identifying the necessary processes based on their earlier collaboration with Business Rules: this has given them a good understanding of business case, goals and incentives. They’re considering both human and automated usages, and have fed their results to the UI, Business Rules and Collaborative Modeling teams.

10:10pm

Business Rules states that they’ve had to gather information from numerous sources, and the challenge is to sequence it properly: data is captured by the UI, but is driven by the Business Use Case. They didn’t work with the Collaborative Modeling group directly, but there are links between what they do and what’s happening in the process. They’re also interested in using historical usage data to determine when to switch consumers between usage plans.

10:20pm

UI and Dashboards managed to recruit a developer who is actually coding some of their interfaces; they were visited by many of the other groups to discuss the UI aspects, since the data gathered by the UI drives the rest of the process and rules, and the data generated by the process drives the dashboard interfaces. They feel that they had the best job since they could just be consumers and visualize the solutions that they would like to have.

10:35pm

Presentations start. Marilyn Pratt is being the MC, and Greg Chase is wrangling the wiki to show what has been documented by each of the groups. Half of the Service Implementation team just bailed out. I have to start paying attention now. Checking out the wiki pages and summarizing the presentations:

Business Use Case worked with the UI, Collaborative Modeling and Business Rules teams, since those teams required the business use cases in order to start their work. They developed a good written story including cultural/social background about the fictional city where the power generation plan would go into effect. They defined the roles that would be involved (where one person could take on more than one role, such as a consumer that is also a producer), and the processes that are required in order to handle all of the use cases. They did not use any presentation/documentation media besides plain text.
BPM Methodologies had excellent documentation with the use of graphics and tables to illustrate their points, but this was a quite general methodology, not just specific to this evening’s activities. They worked briefly with the other groups and created a chart of the activities that each of these groups would do relative to the different phases in the methodology. I found the methodology a bit too waterfall-like, and not necessarily a good fit with the more agile collaborative methods needed in today’s BPM.
Business Rules focused on the rules related to signing up a new user with the correct pricing plan, documenting the data that must be collected and an initial decision table used to select a plan, although no graphics or other non-text media. They worked with the Business Use Case team and the UI team to drive the underlying business use cases and data collection.
UI and dashboards created the initial mockups that can be used as a starting point for the design slam in Vienna in a couple of weeks. They worked with Business Rules and Business Use Case in order to nail down the required user data inputs, and what is required for monitoring purposes, and included some great graphics of the monitoring dashboards (although not the data collection form).
Collaborative Modeling used Gravity (process modeling in Google Wave) not just for modeling with the group around the table, but also with participants in Germany and the Netherlands. They included photos of the team as well as screen snaps of the Gravity Wave that they created, although the text of the story documented on the wiki isn’t really understandable on its own. I’m not sure that they spent enough time with other groups, especially the Service Implementation group.
Service Implementation talked to the Business Rules and UI teams to discuss rules and data, but felt that they were running blind since there wasn’t enough of the up-front work done for them to do any substantial work. They used placeholders for a lot of the things that they didn’t know yet, and modeled the service orchestration. The documentation in the wiki is very rudimentary, although includes the process map that they developed; it’s not clear, however, how the process model developed in Collaborative Modeling relates to their map.

11:30pm

And now, on to the judging – I’ll write up the critique and results in a later post.

NetWeaver BPM update #SAPTechEd09

Wolfgang Hilpert and Thomas Volmering gave us an update on NetWeaver BPM, since I was last updated at SAPPHIRE when they were releasing the product to full general availability. They’re readying the next wave of BPM – NetWeaver 7.2 – with beta customers now, for ramp-up near the beginning of the year and GA in spring of 2010.

There are a number of enhancements in this version, based on increasing productivity and incorporating feedback from customers:

Creating user interfaces: instead of just Web DynPro for manual creation of UI using code, they can auto-generate a UI for a human-facing task step.
New functions in notifications.
Handling intermediate events for asynchronous interfaces with other systems and services.
More complete coverage of BPMN in terms of looping, boundary events, exception handling and other constructs;
Allowing a process participant to invite other people on their team to participate in a task, even if not defined in the process model (ad hoc collaboration at a step).
The addition of a reporting activity to the process model in order to help merge the process instance data and the process flow data to make available for in-process analytics using a tool such as BusinessObjects – the reporting activity takes a snapshot of the process instance data to the reporting database at that point in the process without having to call APIs.
Deeper integration with other SAP business services, making it easier to discover and consume those services directly within the NetWeaver Process Composer even if the customer hasn’t upgraded to a version of SAP ERP that has SOA capabilities
Better integration of the rules management (the former Yasu product) to match the NetWeaver UI paradigms, expose more of the functionality in the Composer and allow better use of rules flow for defining rules as well as rules testing.
Business analyst perspective in process modeler so that the BA can sketch out a model, then allow a developer to do more of the technical underpinnings; this uses a shared model so that the BA can return to make modifications to the process model at a later time.

I’d like to see more about the ad hoc runtime collaboration at a task (being able to invite team members to participate in a task) as well as the BA perspective in the process modeler and the auto-generation of user interfaces; I’m sure that there’s a 7.2 demo in my future sometime soon.

They also talked briefly about plans for post-7.2:

Gravity and similar concepts for collaborative process modeling.
Common process model to allow for modeling of the touchpoints of ERP processes in BPM, in order to leverage their natural advantage of direct access to SAP business applications.
Push further into the business through more comprehensive business-focused modeling tools.
Goal-driven processes where the entire structure of the process model is not defined at design time, only the goals.

In the future, there will continue to be a focus on productivity with the BPM tools, greater evolution of the common process model, and better use of BI and analytics as the BusinessObjects assets are leveraged in the context of BPM.

SAP research overview: Gravity #SAPTechEd09

We had a blogger roundtable today with Soeren Balko, VP in the SAP NetWeaver BPM architecture and design group, and Marek Kowalkiewicz from the Brisbane section of SAP Research with an overview of the research and special projects going on at SAP. Innovations tend to emerge from the research centers – in conjunction with the universities with whom they collaborate and customers – then the product development groups become involved in order to determine how to productize the ideas.

The hot thing in their research right now is Gravity: the collaborative process modeling environment that they created within Google Wave. The process modeling is done purely with tools created in Google Web Toolkit; this is not SAP NetWeaver BPM embedded within Google Wave, it’s a BPMN modeler created with GWT. The process models can be exported to the BPMN 2.0 format for import into a BPMS (or another modeling tool). The Wave playback capability is especially nice for seeing how the process model was built, and different colored shadows on the model objects to denote which participant created the object.

There are bots that can be added to processes in order to check the process integrity, export process models, and to detect portions of the process flow that could potentially be collapsed into a subprocess. It makes sense that there will be other bots created in order to perform other automated checks and actions on the process model.

They’re not supporting the full BPMN 2.0 object set, but have a subset that can at least be used for simple models and as a proof of concept around the idea of a modeler within Wave.

James Taylor was at the table too, and we got into a discussion of modeling rules in a similar manner: although this is a BPMN modeler, so there’s no opportunity to model rules here, there may be an opportunity to take the NetWeaver BRM rules modeling paradigm and create a similar sort of prototype that allows for rules modeling within Wave.

We’ll be seeing more of Gravity tonight at the Process Design Slam, and if I ever get my freaking Wave account (2 invitations already on their way, but not arrived yet), then I can actually try it out for myself.

We also had a brief overview of Yowie, a project that we saw at DemoJam last night, that uses SAP text analytics to act as an intelligent agent either as a bot in Wave or when receiving emails regarding enterprise applications and assets; and BirdsEye, which receives the GPS signal sent from an iPhone (or any geopositioning RSS feed) to do near-real-time positional tracking for applications such as delivery optimization.

Process Design Slam preparation #SAPTechEd09 #BPXslam09

I was sitting in the blogger room this morning at SAP TechEd in Phoenix, and heard Marilyn Pratt mention my name over at another table: usually something that makes me perk up my ears, since Marilyn is a primo community builder, and I had the feeling that I was about to be recruited for something. 🙂 I’m already signed up as a judge/critic for the Process Design Slam event here tonight, which is the culmination (along with the TechEd events in Vienna and Bangalore) of a three-month virtual community collaboration for applying BPM tools and methodologies to solve a specific business challenge.

The selected process, from the design slam wiki:

Automating business processes related to forming virtual community-based power plant made up of resident’s personal solar wind generation.

The idea is to describe a process that allows a homeowner or business to come online as a micro generator within a township and the various steps (human and automated) that are required. Sustainability gets better over time, the more neighborhoods choose to generate power from green sources to supply the very power this neighborhood consumes – and in pretty much the same timeframe. This also reduces the losses of transporting power over longer distances. Thus, power companies will more and more become brokers, and less actual suppliers of power.

After a chat with Marilyn, we’ve decided that I’ll interview the winners (briefly, since it will be after midnight, which is 3am in my time zone) and write a short blog post about their winning contribution. This will definitely break my standard rule that everything is off the record once the bar opens.

The community has already done a lot of the work, including creating and agreeing upon a process map using NetWeaver BPM 7.1:

and rules in NetWeaver BRM 7.1:

Keep an eye on the #BPXslam09 hashtag on Twitter for up-to-date news as the day progresses.

NetWeaver update #SAPTechEd09

Marge Breya is responsible for a huge portfolio of SAP products, including SOA, BPM and the BusinessObjects BI unit – that is, pretty much all the SAP stuff that I’m interested in. 🙂 At an analyst/blogger roundtable this afternoon, she gave a quick overview of the high-level strategy for NetWeaver, and had Wolfgang Hilpert and Thomas Volmering there to talk more about the BPM side.

From a platform standpoint, they’re trying to do some major renovations to build the best possible platform for SAP to run on. In orchestration, there are new things in master data management as well as business process and the models within them; when I reviewed the NetWeaver BPM platform, I talked about the strong process instance data models that they include, which is critical for appropriate monitoring and management of processes. She also mentioned Gravity, the combination of Google Wave and some SAP process discovery/modeling to allow for collaborative process modeling by what one person at the table called “mere mortals”.

From the Business Objects side of the portfolio, she also mentioned the advances in analytics and end-user experience, and how ideas being generated there are pushing forward the related technologies in other areas of the portfolio. There was a discussion about in-memory analytics; this has obvious implications for complex event processing and BPM as well as just analytics. Creating methods for users to configure their own user interface allows the business to start creating their own experiences rather than waiting for IT to do it for them.

The message that every new user entering the workforce now is a digital native comes through clearly in more than one of the conversations that I’ve heard today. SAP must be feeling the pinch of having some pretty outdated user interfaces in some of their product lines, because they seem to be taking this as a serious threat and addressing it head on.

This was more of a discussion than a presentation, but some good ideas about what’s coming up.

This is my first post from SAP TechEd in Phoenix; SAP has paid my travel expenses to be here, but is not otherwise compensating me and has no editorial control over what I write (in fact, they look downright nervous as I type).