BPMThinkTank – Page 4

The rip-off that is hotel internet access

I was just about to start crowing over how I haven’t paid for internet access since I arrived in the Bay area last Tuesday — the ratty old Best Western in Mountain View had free wired access as well as being in the Google wifi zone, and the Hilton in San Francisco’s financial district doesn’t charge for wifi, the first Hilton that I’ve ever been in that didn’t — but I’ve arrived at the Hyatt Regency near San Francisco airport for the BPM Think Tank conference and find myself having to buy access through T-mobile.

When are the organizers of technology conferences going to start to insist on only booking at hotels with free internet access? When that starts becoming a competitive differentiator for their bread-and-butter conference bookings, the hotels will start to listen.

California bound

I’m attending Mashup Camp on July 17th-18th, then staying on in the Bay area for the BPM Think Tank on the 23rd-25th. If you’re going to be at either of these, let me know or look me up when I’m there.

Any suggestions for what to do in the intervening three days are welcome.

Mark your calendar: BPM Think Tank 2007

I attended this year’s OMG BPM Think tank, blogged extensively about it, and generally concluded that it was a great conference with excellent opportunities both for learning and for participating. The dates for the 2007 BPM Think Tank have now been announced as July 23-25, with a general theme of “Developing Your BPM Success Factors Roadmap” (a buzzword-enabled conference title if I’ve ever heard one). No venue announced yet, although the last two were in the Washington DC area.

From the announcement email:

The Object Management Group™ (OMG™), in partnership with BPTrends, and OMG’s BPMI Steering Committee encourage you to “Save the Date” for BPM Think Tank 2007: Developing Your BPM Success Factors Roadmap. The event will be held July 23-25, 2007.

This popular annual event will once again feature presentations by leading experts and roundtable discussions actively involving attendees. BPM Think Tank 2007 will gather together experts and practitioners alike to discuss the practical application of BPM standards, technologies and practices to achieve successful business results. A unique format with roundtable discussions, as well as technology exhibits, case study presentations and expert panel sessions, will allow participants to gain uncommon insight into BPM in the real world, within the standards community, on the IT drawing board and in the process owner’s office.

This year’s theme, “Developing Your BPM Success Factors Roadmap” will focus on issues of interest to those who have recently started a BPM initiative or who are just now evaluating BPMS (Business Process Management Systems), as well as those experienced with BPM who want to get to the next level.

Conference Overview

BPM Think Tank 2007 will feature a full day of beginning tutorials and two days of advanced roundtable discussions with experienced “been there and done it” people, leveraging their knowledge to develop real-world roadmaps for delivering business value using BPM. At BPM Think Tank 2007, learning will be action-oriented around a success factors template.

For businesses, the case study approach will be used by presenters from businesses that have implemented BPM and have real “lessons learned” to share. Participants will discuss those lessons, the costs and the benefits with their peers, as well as gain an understanding of the practical value of BPM standards.

For vendors, participants will interact with other vendors who have implemented BPM technologies and competed in the market. Participants will discuss not only the “whats” of the main BPM standards, but also the “hows,” the “lessons learned” and the “shortcuts.”

The unique, highly interactive BPM Roundtables are small group sessions moderated by subject matter experts who will facilitate group discussion around specific topics as diverse as BPM Project Governance and A Roadmap for BPMN. Presenters will include technical specification authors, as well as senior process managers and individuals in charge of their company’s IT architecture and application development. These BPM Roundtables have been a highly acclaimed feature of the BPM Think Tank in the past and clearly differentiate this event from others in the BPM marketplace.

This year’s BPM Think Tank 2007 is being co-chaired by Phil Gilbert, Chair of the OMG’s BPMI Steering Committee and Paul Harmon, Founder and Executive Editor of BPTrends.

For more information, visit http://www.omg.org/e-tt/. BPM Think Tank 2007 is produced by the Object Management Group in partnership with BPTrends (www.bptrends.com). Exhibit space is available; for more information contact Kevin Loughry at [email protected], +1-781-444 0404. Sponsorship opportunities are available; contact Ken Berk at [email protected], +1-781-444 0404.

Webinar: the business value of BPM standards

Although labelled “The business value of BPM”, this is really a webinar on BPM standards as a wrap-up of the recent OMG BPM Think Tank, which I blogged extensively about.

Since I was at the Think Tank and have a lot of opinions on the subject of BPM standards, I’ll be presenting at this webinar (as opposed to my previous role as moderator) along with Connie Moore from Forrester and Jeanne Baker from OMG and Sterling Commerce. Connie will be covering the business value of standards, Jeanne will be doing a wrapup of the Think Tank, and I’ll be doing an interactive discussion between the three of us on the future of BPM standards.

Being a presenter on this webinar prompted me to finally update my bio on the ebizQ site; a few people who I’ve met lately assume that I work for ebizQ, which I don’t, so this should clear it up.

The webinar is on August 9th at noon Eastern, and you can sign up here.

SOA in OMG newsletter

The Spring OMG newsletter is available online (direct link to PDF) with a 2-page article “OMG and Service-Oriented Architecture”:

In essence, SOA is an architectural approach that seeks to align business processes with service protocols and the underlying software components and legacy applications that implement them.

So far, so good. Then they go on to say:

Both processes and services need to be carefully coordinated to assure an effective SOA implementation. You can’t really do SOA without a clear model of the business process to be supported.

Not sure that I fully agree with that: you have to have a clear model of your business process before you can implement SOA? Aren’t the underlying services supposed to be reusable even if the business process changes? Isn’t that really the whole point of SOA?

And you can’t link your business processes to your service models without the modeling standards the OMG is developing as part of its Model Driven Architecture® (MDA®).

Oh, I get it now.

They do include a nice diagram showing where the OMG standards fit in one representation of an SOA environment (see the newsletter for the full-size version). You can see where BPMN, BPDM and BPEL fit in, which I talked about in my posts from the BPM Think Tank last week, plus other standards such as SBVR (Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Rules) for business rules.

I also like that they’re platform-independent about this, and that they don’t equate SOA with WS-*.

You can check out the newly-formed OMG SIG on SOA if you want to get involved in discussing this MDA approach to SOA.

BPM Think Tank wrapup

Since I only finished posting about yesterday’s sessions at the end of this morning, I decided to just do a final conference wrapup instead of separate wrapups for yesterday and today.

In general, the BPM Think Tank was great, and I’ll definitely attend again in the future. I learned a lot about some of the standards that I didn’t know much about before (like BPDM), and met some really smart people with lots of opinions on the topic of standards. It’s been so long since I was involved in any sort of standards work (AIIM in the early 90’s, and topographic data interchange formats for the Canadian Council of Surveying and Mapping back in the late 80’s), and I had forgotten about both the frustrations of dealing with standards committees and the excitement of being able to contribute to a little bit of computing history that will make things work better for a lot of people.

I’m still mulling over the XPDL/BPDM conundrum (and, to a lesser extent, BPEL), but the fact that different standards bodies are all here participating is a good indicator that there is the collective will to head off problems like this. At last year’s Think Tank, discussions between BPMI and OMG around the competing graphical process models of BPMN and UML activity diagrams helped lead to the absorption of BPMI into OMG, and the championing of a single standard, BPMN, being put forward by the merged organization. We can only hope that something similar will happen with XPDL and BPDM in order to avoid future problems in the BPMN serialization domain.

I had the chance to meet several people who I had connected with online but never met face-to-face: Dana Morris of OMG, Bruce Silver, John Evdemon (who I’ll be having ongoing discussions with about BPM and Web 2.0) and others. Jeanne Baker, who did such a great job at keeping things moving along during the sessions, even remembered one of my posts from last year about a webinar that she gave on standards — she turned to me at lunch yesterday and asked “Did you write that blog post called ‘Alphabet soup for lunch‘?” — proof that people will remember if you mention them in print. I missed other people completely in the crowd (Phil, where were you?).

There were a few logistical problems (conference rooms way too cold, no free wifi, not enough herbal tea, and no free t-shirts with vendor logos, about which I heard a lot of whining when I got home), but these were only minor annoyances in an otherwise well-executed conference with excellent content.

BPM Think Tank Day 3: BPDM technology roundtable

The last of the four roundtables that I attended was on BPDM, led by Fred Cummins. I started with my (by now) usual question about the distinctions and overlap between XPDL and BPDM: his response was that XPDL is an XML specification, and BPDM is a metamodel that can be exported to XML via XMI. He seemed to imply that they could coexist, but given that BPDM will include a serialization specification for BPMN (in addition to other models that can be represented in BPDM), I’m not sure I see the need for both in the standards world. He later stated that there is an expectation that people will model in BPDM (as visualized by BPMN or other visualizations as appropriate) and transform to an execution language such as BPEL, rather than BPDM being an interchange format; this seems to leave no room in the landscape for XPDL if you adopt BPDM, unless you need it as a legacy interchange format.

Moving on to other points about BPDM, it will include both orchestration and choreography (process flow, messages and collaboration), and will include more concepts than can be represented in BPMN, hence will support other views, e.g., process dependency diagrams, roles/organization view, choreography. A draft submission of the standard is due on June 5th, with a rough plan to finalize the underpinnings to provide BPMN support within 3-4 months, although there is no plan to issue a version with just the serialization as a preliminary release. In order to complete the release, they will likely do BPEL export from BPDM and a UML mapping to BPDM in order to demonstrate usability of the standard on a broad enough basis to initiate its acceptance.

When Cummins provided a summary of all of his roundtables at the end of the conference, he pointed out a couple of questions that had arisen during the discussions:

Is there a potential for executable BPDM? [I say that if there can be abstract BPEL then why not executable BPDM?]
Is there a way to achieve compatibility between XPDL and BPDM? [I think that there better be]

BPM Think Tank Day 3: XPDL technology roundtable

This afternoon, I attended technology roundtable on XPDL led by Keith Swenson.

Keith went around the table and asked how we (or our customers) are modelling processes now. The biggest faction by far use Visio, but PowerPoint (!), UML activity diagrams (using the IBM/Rational tools) and proprietary/internal tools specific to an industry were also mentioned. For the most part, people are concerned with sharing processes between tools, not between organizations, since most organizations are very protective of their processes. A major issue with most of these tools is round-tripping and process lifecycle issues, since in many cases it’s a one-way trip from the modelling tool to the execution engine. We talked about Byzio, the Zynium add-on to Visio that allows BPMN to be modelled in Visio, and a mapping from either a BPMN template or any other Visio set of shapes to XPDL. I reviewed Byzio several weeks back, and Keith is quite familiar with the product too.

We discussed how XPDL could be used to aggregate process models from disparate BPMS’ that might be in use within the same organzization.

In discussing BPEL, Keith felt that XPDL provides all of the support for everything that BPEL can do with respect to the interface to web services; this further pushes the issue that BPEL is not really required if it’s not being used as an execution language and if there is a transformation from XPDL to the specific engine’s execution environment (which implies that the BPMS vendor’s design tool can import the XPDL file).

XPDL provides support for extensions modelled in a BPMS vendor’s design tool that are specific to that engine; these are preserved in XPDL and should not be affected if the XPDL is manipulated by another process design tool. This is critical for supporting round-tripping from a design tool to the BPMS vendor’s engine (via their design tool) and back again, since the design tools should preserve the extensions even if they don’t interpret it. An example of such an extension is assigning colour to swimlanes (which Fujitsu allows in its design tool): the file can be read into a tool that doesn’t interpret the colour information, but when it is saved and read back into the design environment that does support colour, the colour’s there. Vendor extensions such as this may be brought forward at XPDL TC meetings for inclusion in future versions of the standard.

The most recent set of major changes to XPDL were BPMN-related enhancements including X-Y coordinates of lines, topology, etc.; however, they forgot to include scale, since some measures are in real-world units (inches/cm) and some are in pixels. This caused further discussion on the separation of presentation and logic data, since both are included and intermingled in XPDL when it’s used to serialize BPMN, and if logic and presentation be versioned separately, since some purely cosmetic changes can be made to presentation without affecting logic. Other presentation-related information includes a “page” indicator, since a process may span multiple pages when visualized.

We had a lengthy discussion on additional versioning information that could be included in XPDL, and how this ties in with SOA governance initiatives for maintaining the integrity of interfaces and functionality.

I repeated what I said in an earlier post about blaming the large analysts for forcing (sometimes inappropriate) standards by creating RFP checklists that are used (somewhat blindly) by customers — Keith agreed with this view.

We ended up with a bunch of ideas that deserve more thought: Should Java be extended to subsume BPEL functionality? XPDL is graph oriented, and BPEL is block structured; BPEL4people implies that you can extend a block-structured language to represent human-facing process flows which are inherently graph-oriented. Should BPDM be the metamodel behind XPDL? (This is not a viewpoint endorsed by OMG since XPDL uses some notation not recommended by OMG, and BPDM has a broader scope that inclues BPMN serialization.) If XPDL were made MOF-compliant, could it replace the need for BPDM?

BPM Think Tank Day 3: Nancy Craft keynote

Following this morning’s panel, Nancy Craft of Volvo gave a keynote on Process Integration in the Supply Chain. She works for the IT department that supports three different truck brand divisions (Volvo, Mack and Renault), and they initiated a business process innovation project for sharing and optimizing their Order to Delivery processes while still maintaining separate identities for the brands.

They used Proforma’s ProVision as a modelling tool, but found that it was complex and they struggled with the tool especially when they tried to use it interactively during meetings. She recommends having a trained modeller in the room if you’re going to try to do this while gathering the information, and not letting the documentation get behind.

They made use of SCOR from the Supply Chain Council in order to drive their modelling, starting with the identification of 50 best practices before the study even started as a comparison. They modelled their processes to level 3:

Level 1 = process types = the scope and content within each business domain
Level 2 = process categories = strategy or capability for level 1 process types
Level 3 = decomposed processes = process elements layer, used by companies to fine-tune their operations strategy

It appears that SCOR was a big part of their success in these modelling efforts by providing a framework for the information to be captured, standard language, and best practices. I don’t typically work in supply chain or manufacturing, so the SCOR details were new to me, but there’s obvious benefits from such a framework in terms of analyzing and optimizing processes. She later highlighted it as a “significant accelerator”.

She covered off their analysis and design techniques, and gave some fascinating insights into how to get people from these three competing brands to collaborate on improving business processes: more than just working with different business cultures between divisions, but the harder task of overcoming the desire for secrecy between competitors.

They’ve also put together a six-year roadmap for improving the Sales to Order, Order to Delivery, and Delivery to Repurchase processes (which is essentially all the processes in the organization), which had a very enterprise architecture-like view of mapping from the strategic direction and business drivers to business processes, then used that to push through to IT requirements. Their initial take on this turned out to be much too complex (what she referred to as a “horrible methodology”), and they ended up with a simpler model to map busines objectives through to specific IT application implementation projects. Not quite so EA-like, but at least providing some alignment between business and IT.

The rest of today will be the remaining to roundtables — XPDL and BPDM for me — and ongoing discussions, so the rest of my posts about the conference may be delayed until tomorrow.