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

[Michael Callahan <MichaeCa@Attachmate.com>]

Title: 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:david@drrw.info]
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" <howard.smith@ontology.org>
To: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>; <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
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.