Comments for MWD's Insights blog http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog Thoughts on BPM, collaboration, analytics and information management, technology trends and the business value of IT Sat, 04 Feb 2012 07:21:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Developing process applications: a place for everything, and everything in its place by Process Quotes of the week « Adam Deane http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2012/02/developing-process-applications-a-place-for-everything-and-everything-in-its-place.html/comment-page-1#comment-5544 Process Quotes of the week « Adam Deane Sat, 04 Feb 2012 07:21:12 +0000 http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/?p=1588#comment-5544 [...] Process Application Maintainability – Neil Ward-Dutton ..vendors prefer to focus on sexy things like support for mobile devices, [...] [...] Process Application Maintainability – Neil Ward-Dutton ..vendors prefer to focus on sexy things like support for mobile devices, [...]

]]> Comment on A new, confident IBM at Lotusphere 2012 by Mike Spradbery http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2012/01/a-new-confident-ibm-at-lotusphere-2012.html/comment-page-1#comment-5543 Mike Spradbery Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:45:30 +0000 http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/?p=1577#comment-5543 Angela - it was great to spend time with you at Lotusphere and this blog entry is a really good summary of the event. I would be interested in your views of the Web Experience demos and announcements too, e.g. Social Intranets (combining process and applications with social software) and the new tools for marketing professionals to easily create, manage and analyse sites / content. Thanks for your comments and analysis. Mike. Angela – it was great to spend time with you at Lotusphere and this blog entry is a really good summary of the event. I would be interested in your views of the Web Experience demos and announcements too, e.g. Social Intranets (combining process and applications with social software) and the new tools for marketing professionals to easily create, manage and analyse sites / content.
Thanks for your comments and analysis. Mike.

]]> Comment on TIBCO nears the $1bn mark – so what’s next? by Neil Ward-Dutton http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2012/01/tibco-nears-the-1bn-mark-so-whats-next.html/comment-page-1#comment-5542 Neil Ward-Dutton Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:33:43 +0000 http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/?p=1568#comment-5542 Belatedly - thanks very much for the comment Chris! Belatedly – thanks very much for the comment Chris!

]]> Comment on Systems of co-ordination: greasing the wheels of engagement by Neil Ward-Dutton http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2012/01/systems-of-co-ordination-greasing-the-wheels-of-engagement.html/comment-page-1#comment-5541 Neil Ward-Dutton Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:32:16 +0000 http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/?p=1571#comment-5541 Hi Richard, Thanks for the comment! See my comment to Adam below - perhaps I should have taken more care to define what I mean when I say "BPM"... I'm not just referring to structured workflow automation plus a bit of monitoring/dashboarding but a much wider practice that employs a spectrum of work coordination tools. Re: Clearvale's task management - this is a good start, and I'd be interested to find out how far it goes (and whether customers are looking to take things any further). Lastly, as a side note: I took a look at Mark McGregor's post - I think he makes a couple of decent points, but I think his analysis is too simplistic - for one thing, he collapses the distinction between types of work / business activities down into one dimension, and there are at least two in play [ie he doesn't distinguish between operational activities, management activities, and strategic activities; instead mixing them up]. I do agree, though, that different flavours of design/automation strategy and technology are required to support different kinds of work - supporting a highly structured back office process isn't the same as supporting something more in the realm of "knowledge work". Hi Richard,
Thanks for the comment!
See my comment to Adam below – perhaps I should have taken more care to define what I mean when I say “BPM”… I’m not just referring to structured workflow automation plus a bit of monitoring/dashboarding but a much wider practice that employs a spectrum of work coordination tools.
Re: Clearvale’s task management – this is a good start, and I’d be interested to find out how far it goes (and whether customers are looking to take things any further).

Lastly, as a side note: I took a look at Mark McGregor’s post – I think he makes a couple of decent points, but I think his analysis is too simplistic – for one thing, he collapses the distinction between types of work / business activities down into one dimension, and there are at least two in play [ie he doesn't distinguish between operational activities, management activities, and strategic activities; instead mixing them up]. I do agree, though, that different flavours of design/automation strategy and technology are required to support different kinds of work – supporting a highly structured back office process isn’t the same as supporting something more in the realm of “knowledge work”.

]]> Comment on Systems of co-ordination: greasing the wheels of engagement by Neil Ward-Dutton http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2012/01/systems-of-co-ordination-greasing-the-wheels-of-engagement.html/comment-page-1#comment-5540 Neil Ward-Dutton Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:23:21 +0000 http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/?p=1571#comment-5540 Adam, thanks very much for the thoughtful comment. I suspect that the root of the issue here is our differing definitions / perspectives of "BPM". I perhaps wrongly decided to avoid getting too deeply into that question in the post... Without wanting to put words into your mouth, my suspicion is that you're using a definition of BPM that's focused on tools for automating (and perhaps improving) structured, planned processes through up-front design? My working definition is probably a bit unfashionable, and comes about because I'm not comfortable with the business of inventing new TLAs. I use "BPM" to refer to a practice of improving work that draws on tools providing automated software support in operation; but I don't only focus on approaches that revolve around upfront static design of highly structured processes. In other words my definition encompasses a spectrum of technology and tool approaches, capturing what some people might call DCM/ACM as well as what many would call BPM... I don't see a widely accepted term that captures what is common across these approaches, so I've decided just to stick with "BPM" for now. Have you seen use of a term that works? Adam, thanks very much for the thoughtful comment.
I suspect that the root of the issue here is our differing definitions / perspectives of “BPM”. I perhaps wrongly decided to avoid getting too deeply into that question in the post…
Without wanting to put words into your mouth, my suspicion is that you’re using a definition of BPM that’s focused on tools for automating (and perhaps improving) structured, planned processes through up-front design?
My working definition is probably a bit unfashionable, and comes about because I’m not comfortable with the business of inventing new TLAs. I use “BPM” to refer to a practice of improving work that draws on tools providing automated software support in operation; but I don’t only focus on approaches that revolve around upfront static design of highly structured processes. In other words my definition encompasses a spectrum of technology and tool approaches, capturing what some people might call DCM/ACM as well as what many would call BPM…
I don’t see a widely accepted term that captures what is common across these approaches, so I’ve decided just to stick with “BPM” for now. Have you seen use of a term that works?

]]> Comment on Systems of co-ordination: greasing the wheels of engagement by Adam Deane http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2012/01/systems-of-co-ordination-greasing-the-wheels-of-engagement.html/comment-page-1#comment-5539 Adam Deane Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:45:29 +0000 http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/?p=1571#comment-5539 Hi Neil, I agree, up to a point. I agree that social collaboration technologies have some really exciting roles to play in driving business improvement. I agree that we need to invest in systems and cultures that allow technology to help actively coordinate how work gets done between people, departments, and companies I agree that we need to invest in systems that gather intelligence and metrics that organisations can use to improve coordination and drive better business results. But in today's world, the emphasis has shifted from managing data, to managing complexity. In an organisation, using systems to engage with people on complex issues is not always successful. Trying to replace human interaction with communication systems won't help resolve complex issues that require people sitting down and thrashing it out, and I'm not sure that using BPM here is the correct solution. BPM technology is perfect for the co-ordination of routine work, but it struggles dealing with complex work (impact analysis and root cause analysis), human nature (ego, internal politics, resistance to change) and engaging people to decide on complex issues. People collaborate to "get work done". Neither systems of record nor systems of engagement have anything to offer in this respect. BPM's offering is good, but far from a complete solution. Cheers, Adam Hi Neil,

I agree, up to a point.

I agree that social collaboration technologies have some really exciting roles to play in driving business improvement.

I agree that we need to invest in systems and cultures that allow technology to help actively coordinate how work gets done between people, departments, and companies

I agree that we need to invest in systems that gather intelligence and metrics that organisations can use to improve coordination and drive better business results.

But in today’s world, the emphasis has shifted from managing data, to managing complexity.

In an organisation, using systems to engage with people on complex issues is not always successful. Trying to replace human interaction with communication systems won’t help resolve complex issues that require people sitting down and thrashing it out, and I’m not sure that using BPM here is the correct solution.

BPM technology is perfect for the co-ordination of routine work, but it struggles dealing with complex work (impact analysis and root cause analysis), human nature (ego, internal politics, resistance to change) and engaging people to decide on complex issues.

People collaborate to “get work done”.
Neither systems of record nor systems of engagement have anything to offer in this respect.
BPM’s offering is good, but far from a complete solution.

Cheers,
Adam

]]> Comment on Systems of co-ordination: greasing the wheels of engagement by Richard Hughes http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2012/01/systems-of-co-ordination-greasing-the-wheels-of-engagement.html/comment-page-1#comment-5538 Richard Hughes Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:29:57 +0000 http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/?p=1571#comment-5538 I have found it very interesting to find the number of people referencing Geoff Moore's systems of record, systems of engagement increase a lot over the last year. When I first wrote about it in Nov 2010, there were very few references to it on the web, but now it is regularly discussed, usually in the context of social networks in the enterprise. I think that perhaps the reason that this layer of co-ordination you talk about is overlooked is that there is a perception that the engagement layer is typically person-to-person and not very structured. I like the terminology that Mark McDonald at Gartner uses, "mid-office processes"(http://blogs.gartner.com/mark_mcdonald/2011/03/30/its-time-to-start-talking-about-the-middle-office/). If you look at his examples of mid-office processes, these are not things which typically lend themselves to BPM (or at least, BPM in my limited understanding of the subject). Geoff Moore also talks about "moments of engagements", times when an exception occurs and people have to react quickly - these are not typically things that BPM can co-ordinate either. But that is not to say that all "engagement" is a chaotic mess of person-to-person communication. It *does* benefit from some level of orchestration. The question is whether BPM is flexible enough to provide this, or whether a lighter-weight mechanism is more suitable. That's what we have done with Clearvale - added a relatively simple task management capability into our social network product. It's not BPM by any stretch of the imagination, but does provide a certain amount of co-ordination capability. I have found it very interesting to find the number of people referencing Geoff Moore’s systems of record, systems of engagement increase a lot over the last year. When I first wrote about it in Nov 2010, there were very few references to it on the web, but now it is regularly discussed, usually in the context of social networks in the enterprise.

I think that perhaps the reason that this layer of co-ordination you talk about is overlooked is that there is a perception that the engagement layer is typically person-to-person and not very structured. I like the terminology that Mark McDonald at Gartner uses, “mid-office processes”(http://blogs.gartner.com/mark_mcdonald/2011/03/30/its-time-to-start-talking-about-the-middle-office/). If you look at his examples of mid-office processes, these are not things which typically lend themselves to BPM (or at least, BPM in my limited understanding of the subject). Geoff Moore also talks about “moments of engagements”, times when an exception occurs and people have to react quickly – these are not typically things that BPM can co-ordinate either.

But that is not to say that all “engagement” is a chaotic mess of person-to-person communication. It *does* benefit from some level of orchestration. The question is whether BPM is flexible enough to provide this, or whether a lighter-weight mechanism is more suitable.

That’s what we have done with Clearvale – added a relatively simple task management capability into our social network product. It’s not BPM by any stretch of the imagination, but does provide a certain amount of co-ordination capability.

]]> Comment on TIBCO nears the $1bn mark – so what’s next? by Chris Taylor http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2012/01/tibco-nears-the-1bn-mark-so-whats-next.html/comment-page-1#comment-5536 Chris Taylor Sat, 07 Jan 2012 18:11:05 +0000 http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/?p=1568#comment-5536 Full disclosure...I work for Nimbus, now part of TIBCO. I get to see what you are saying from the inside and I have to agree with you. I've worked at big companies and small and have been in the business rules/BPM space since leaving Accenture in 2003. TIBCO is benefitting from the intersection of fast-moving business change, Big Data (and a powerful need for filtering), real-time analytics, social explosion, and mobile expansion. It is a great time to be in software but only if your company is positioned to capitalize on this moment. Good write up. Full disclosure…I work for Nimbus, now part of TIBCO. I get to see what you are saying from the inside and I have to agree with you. I’ve worked at big companies and small and have been in the business rules/BPM space since leaving Accenture in 2003. TIBCO is benefitting from the intersection of fast-moving business change, Big Data (and a powerful need for filtering), real-time analytics, social explosion, and mobile expansion. It is a great time to be in software but only if your company is positioned to capitalize on this moment. Good write up.

]]> Comment on Can Oracle finally succeed in the enterprise collaboration market? by Can Oracle finally succeed in the enterprise collaboration market? – MWD's Insights blog | KKundK - Technology and Change | Scoop.it http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2011/12/can-oracle-finally-succeed-in-the-enterprise-collaboration-market.html/comment-page-1#comment-5531 Can Oracle finally succeed in the enterprise collaboration market? – MWD's Insights blog | KKundK - Technology and Change | Scoop.it Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:31:49 +0000 http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/?p=1560#comment-5531 [...] Can Oracle finally succeed in the enterprise collaboration market? – MWD's Insights blog [...] [...] Can Oracle finally succeed in the enterprise collaboration market? – MWD's Insights blog [...]

]]> Comment on 2012 Outlook: Business Process Management by Alberto Manuel http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/2011/12/2012-outlook-business-process-management.html/comment-page-1#comment-5528 Alberto Manuel Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:12:23 +0000 http://www.mwdadvisors.com/blog/?p=1549#comment-5528 Hi Neil: Regarding the - Centers of excellence - COE, the companies that are mature on BPM, will continue to use it as a leverage token to cascade and nurture process management, but the ones that did not setup a COE or are evaluating the setup will drop it, for the reason that today, rather than 10 years ago, business is much more dynamic and improvement programs, or major restructuring is managed on a project oriented manner rather than using a COE. Some companies I'm talking lately are saying there is not time and room for COES because of the time it takes to put up and running, and the processes need to be fixed and fine tuned, but on the other hand the mature companies managed to adapt to the speed of light and will keep it because is already on the company roots. Regards. Alberto Hi Neil:

Regarding the – Centers of excellence – COE, the companies that are mature on BPM, will continue to use it as a leverage token to cascade and nurture process management, but the ones that did not setup a COE or are evaluating the setup will drop it, for the reason that today, rather than 10 years ago, business is much more dynamic and improvement programs, or major restructuring is managed on a project oriented manner rather than using a COE.

Some companies I’m talking lately are saying there is not time and room for COES because of the time it takes to put up and running, and the processes need to be fixed and fine tuned, but on the other hand the mature companies managed to adapt to the speed of light and will keep it because is already on the company roots.

Regards.

Alberto

]]>