RE: [tamie] BPM standardization status review article

["Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

 

The Event-driven Business Webcast link from the page is also interesting.

 

The subtitle deserves attention too:

"Study finds organizations show growing interest in BPM, but some are challenged by the lack of standards between process modeling and execution "

 

As I doubt that such a standard will ever exist / be feasible, this demonstrates the need to validate that two different BPM engines that interpret the same (collaborative) process, will do so in an interoperable way.

So what is left as validation means? Monitoring + Testing.

I believe that's where the "missing standard" will be... standard event representation and test case scripting.

 

 

I also note:

"One reason that this issue exists, according to Mohammad Ketabchi, CEO and founder of Santa Clara, Calif.-based BPM vendor Savvion Inc., "

Savvion BPM generates events and has event correlation/analysis capability.

(Savvion was where I used to work just before joining Fujitsu :-)

 

Jacques

 

 

---

From: Moberg Dale [mailto:dmoberg@axway.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 12:57 PM
To: tamie@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [tamie] BPM standardization status review article

An article titled Outmoded BPM resources an issue for businesses found at

 

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/11/25/Outmoded_BPM_resources_an_issue_for_businesses_1.html?source=NLC-APPS&cgd=2008-11-26

 

notes the following:

 

…

 

Besides a lack of interchange standards, respondents also cited exception processing and interfaces as additional challenges

Specifically, organizations have difficulty creating an ad hoc workflow process that can also be monitored.