Re: [bcm] Fw: [wsbpel] Defining Business Process Fusion

Title: RE: [bcm] Fw: [wsbpel] Defining Business Process Fusion

Michael,

 

Good post.  Yes - precisely.  I mostly 
like to keep tabs on Gartner-speak so I can refute it

if asked a question at a conference, meeting et 
al!

 

I think Howard did a pretty good job here already 
for us...

 

Thanks, DW.

  
----- Original Message ----- 

  
From: 
  Michael 
  Callahan 

  
To: 'David RR Webber' ; BCM 
  OASIS 

  
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 12:58 
  PM

  
Subject: RE: [bcm] Fw: [wsbpel] Defining 
  Business Process Fusion

  

  
Having observed the evolution of/into BPM/BCM/BPF for the last 
  several years, I'd also caution that we remember Gartner is primarily a 
  vendor-driven platform which "explains" nascent concepts to businesses and 
  users. As such, its perspective is almost entirely devoid of true 
  user/business unit perspective. If this group really believes in the words of 
  its brochure, it will continue and help to distinguish between business 
  process as a plumbing/technology issue (predictive, modeled) and business 
  process tools as a user empowerment (oh, that word) issue (freedom within the 
  process to solve problems because I have enterprise-wide visibility, capacity 
  for collaboration, a level of trust from IT, and the ability to construct 
  contextual data and tools at this moment as I need them).

  
Gartners and its vendors want to abstract the one entity which 
  can't and shouldn't be abstracted: users. 

  
By the way, I'm Michael Callahan everyone. Nice to meet you 
  all. Jean-Jacques Dubray is a co-worker of mine and introduced me to this 
  group. I look forward to learning a lot.

  
Michael Callahan 
Attachmate 
  Corporation 

  
-----Original Message----- 
From: David 
  RR Webber [mailto:] 
  
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 6:21 AM 
  
To: BCM OASIS 
Subject: [bcm] Fw: 
  [wsbpel] Defining Business Process Fusion 

  
Keeping tabs with gartner-speak here. 

  
DW 
----- Original Message ----- 
  
From: "Howard N Smith" 
  <> 
To: 
  <>; <> 
  
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 7:06 AM 
Subject: [wsbpel] Defining Business Process Fusion 

  
> JC asked: 
> 
> >Gartner is pushing "Business Process Fusion (BPF)" buzz, which 
  I view 
> >as 
very 
  synonymous to BPM. 
> >What are the significant 
  differences, if there are any? Or is BPF so 
vague that 
  it is hard to figure out 
> >what it really is 
  about? Please comment. Thanks, 
> 
> Analysts justify their existence by creating new acronyms to a 
  large 
degree. There is no law to 
> stop them doing this, but introducing BPF just as the industry had 
  
> settled 
on BPM seems 
  bizarre 
> to me. 
> 
> Business Process Fusion is one of 
  three Gartner "BPM" themes: 
> 
> Jim Sinur (a guy with rules background) has been most vocal about 
  BPM, 
done serious research and 
> defines BPM as a convergence of technologies such as workflow, 
  rules, 
portal, EAI etc. 
> 
> David McCoy (a guy with integration 
  background) was the BPM guy until 
> Jim 
  
took over. David continued 
> to 
  focus on integration/EAI solutions, and their evolution towards 
  
> BPM. 
Jim's MQ (magic 
  quadrant) and 
> David's MQ have different vendors 
  on them as a result. To distinguish, 
> Jim 
  
called his "pure play BPM". 
> In 
  fact, on Jim's chart, many vendors there are far from pure play. 
  
> Many 
are re-badged 
  workflow or rules 
> products for example. But all 
  the vendor use the term BPM to varying 
degrees. 
  
> 
> Simon Heyward is the 
  process fusion guy. He's into ERP. So, SAP 
> 
  Netweaver, 
xapps, Oracle process 
> connect, Siebel UAN, etc, are, for him, attempts to go beyond 
  current 
processes and digtize more and 
  
> more business. He uses the word fusion, I use the word 
  consolidation. 
> PLM 
is 
  part of that, or any 
> large scale cross enterprise 
  process. It's all about making more and 
> 
  more 
business digital, explicit, 
> not necessarily just to automate, but to manage, and improve, and 
  
> learn. 
> 
  
> At the heart of this, and influencing all these 
  different strategies, 
> is 
BPMS. You can see the influence 
> of BPMS on 
  the ERP guys, and on the EAI to BPM transition, and on the 
workflow to BPM transition. 
> Each vendor is 
  increasingly focussed on processes, with a different 
emphasis on different aspects of 
> the 
  process lifecycle. BPMS is defined (by me at least) as a native 
  
> and 
new technology that 
  puts 
> process at the heart. Processes are as new 
  as Objects were when we 
> first 
heard about them. But 
> they work better 
  than objects in my view in most respects. The 
significance is that without an abstract 
> 
  data type to capture processes (in all their glory) and based on a 
  
> firm 
foundation in 
  theory, process 
> digitization, or fusion, or 
  whatever we call it, cannot happen. This 
> 
  would 
be like different RDBMS vendors 
> having a different view of the relational model. 
> 
> BPMI.org was established to define a 
  model for BPM, process fusion, 
digitization, 
  representation, 
> management, call it what you 
  like. BPEL has got wrapped up in that 
> work 
  
which BPMI was doing 
> under the 
  BPML moniker. The BPML spec was the first part of our work 
> to 
define that model. 
> 
> Howard 
> 
> --- 
> 
> New Book - Business Process 
  Management: The Third Wave www.bpm3.com 
> 
  
> Howard Smith/CSC/BPMI.org 
> 
  cell +44 7711 594 494 (operates worldwide, dial UK) 
> office +44 20 8660 1963 
> 
  
> 
> To unsubscribe from this 
  mailing list (and be removed from the roster 
> 
  of 
the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php. 
  
> 
> 

  
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the 
  roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/bcm/members/leave_workgroup.php.