Latest Updates: Workflow RSS

  • Brian

    Workflow Software, BPM Software, and ERP Software - How does it all fit together?

    brian 9:02 pm on February 4, 2010 | 1 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Great Plains Software, JD Edwards Software, , Purchase Request, Purchase Request Process, Workflow

    It is nothing new to state that Business Process Management Software (BPM Software or Workflow Software) and ERP software go hand in hand.  In fact, I can probably count on one hand the number of meetings I have had with private companies in which ERP wasn’t discussed in the initial BPM meeting.  In private industry, the ERP and the BPM or Workflow solution are inextricably intertwined.  So much so, that the BPM consultant will end up discussing the client’s ERP within the first 30 minutes of the very first consultative meeting.

    Today I was in a meeting with a small company (100 employees) that had developed their own in house ERP software.  Present in the meeting were the executive president, numerous technical managers, and a number of different business area managers.  As is often the case, the president was not very technical.  He started the meeting by talking about the company system (he didn’t call it an ERP) at a very high level and how this system was designed to handle all of the company processes.  He hadn’t yet seen our BPM Software, but he ended his initial remarks by asking, “If we already have a main company system (i.e., ERP)  that handles all of our company processes, then why would we need BPM Software or a Workflow system?”

    This is a very good question.  The question points to a general weakness of the BPM Software Industry and a strength of the ERP industry.  ERP vendors have positioned their software as the system of systems.  They claim that this is the system that will run your business.  It manages your accounting, materials, inventory, and production process.  Once you have it installed you will have an efficient, modernized company.  And yes, it will even make your coffee.

    Of course, that sort of sales pitch is effective.  It goes to the heart of the insecurities of every General Manager or President, especially those that aren’t so familiar with the latest acronyms and systems jargon.  That is why the ERP vendor has historically been able to convince these businesses to fork over hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars and go through a traumatizing process of installation that will usually last many months if not years.

    Of course, the ERP solution is important.   I am by no means suggesting that companies can forgo this investment.  However, the result is that when the BPM vendor or workflow software provider rolls in to town, the reception is usually one that begins with a strong bit of skepticism.  So, the question is, how does the BPM sales person now explain to this decision maker that there really is a need for a new business process system.  Hell, the BPM vendor doesn’t even have new language to describe what he/she is selling - it sounds just like the “other” system the company already has installed.

    This is a real problem when dealing with SMEs because of the limited attention span the decision makers usually have when it comes to technologies.

    I don’t have an easy answer.  I watched today as one of the sales guys on our team sloshed his way through a standard BPM explanation.  I would have kicked him under the table had I been sitting closer in order to tell him to just get on with the demo.  The description just wasn’t doing justice.  However, as is often the case, 30 minutes later as we were wrapping up the demo, the customer’s face had changed, and he was now rattling off ideas on where his business could implement BPM Software.  Why is BPM so difficult to describe yet often so easy to demonstrate?

    In the case of this customer we were demonstrating a Purchase Approval Process.  Of course, the customer’s ERP manages the purchase process - every ERP vendor will tell you that their software has a purchasing module whether it is SAP, JD Edwards, Great Plains, or Openbravo.   But it usually isn’t until many months after the ERP solution is installed that the company managers realize that an important part of their purchase process still isn’t automated.  Yes, the ERP will record the purchase of the product, create the appropriate accounting entries, produce the Purchase Order, allow for the reception of money, deduct the product from inventory, and confirm the delivery of the goods or services and receipt of payment.  But what about all the company best practices that go into the act of making the decision to make the purchase?  Ahh, that just sort of got let out as an after thought.  Or maybe it was specifically left out so that the ERP vendor could try and go back a year later to sell another product?  (I am really not a conspiracy theorist).  Either way, most businesses sooner or later come to the conclusion that their ERP still left them with a lot of Process Problems.

    This is where workflow software or BPM software (there is no difference - that was another marketing blunder) adds a much needed layer of process management to the company.  Let’s take the Purchase Process. In this company, the process went something like this -

    1. Employee makes a Request
    2. Request stake into consideration existing products and reference pricing
    3. Based on the reference pricing either one or two levels of management approval is needed
    4. Once approved, the purchasing manager sends out 3 Quote requests to approved vendors
    5. The quotes come back and need to be compared
    6. Final decision and a final approval ocurr

    Following best practices in this business process could save hundreds of thousands of dollars in the case of this company.   But time and time again the company didn’t follow best practices because the process was executed differently every time.

    I’ll let you know next week if they decided to buy the BPM Software…  :)

     
  • Brian

    BPM Software Vendor Buying Spree continues with Savvion being acquired by Progress Software Corporation

    brian 10:50 pm on January 11, 2010 | 0 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , BPM acquistions, Progress Software, Savvion, Savvion compared to Lombardi, Workflow

    The BPM land grab continues.   For those that follow me on EbizQ and other sites, you might remember that I was probably the first in the BPM and Workflow Industry to predict that the IBM acquisition of Lombardi would set off a small BPM Software and Workflow Software Vendor buying frenzy in 2010 as other large software vendors look to stake claims in the deservedly hyped BPM/Workflow space (See my original prediction here).

    Of course, I drink my own coolade, I just didn’t think it was this highly concentrated.   It is an understatement to say that both VCs and Industry Execs have a herd mentality.  Of course they do.  This is for obvious reasons - some good and some bad.  There is a feeling of safety in numbers and there is a general belief of the wisdom of the herd in venture investing.  Furthermore, most VCs worry about the market health first, executive team second, and then the strength of a particular product suite third.  In other words, if the market is good, VCs will continue making bets on it and not necessarily all in the same company.

    So, what does this second major BPM company acquisition announcement in less than 30 days mean?  Well, let’s look at the numbers.  In the case of this acquisition, we’ve got a publicly announced price tag - $49 million.  There isn’t a BPM CEO on the planet tonight that isn’t trying to calculate multiples based on Savvion’s revenues and profit margins.  Every industry needs benchmarks to know how to value companies in that particular industry.  Now we’ve got two cases (albeit Lombardi’s is still unknown) and two sets of possible metrics.

    I’m sure in the next couple of days we will get some good clarity on Savvion’s exact numbers.  However, in the announcement by Progress Software, they claim that Savvion had 350 customers (and 24 Fortune 100 customers).

    According to a write up by Timothy Prickett Morgan, he calculated Savvion revenues at around $18 million, i.e. 2.7x annual revenues, based on a revision in sales forecasts by Progress Software.   Tony Baer seems to suggest the acquisition was a 1.5x multiple in his column.  Other writers suggest that Savvion was growing very slowly during recent years and either in or near red numbers.

    Funny, if we look at a product brief by Upside Research published in 2007, it claims that Savvion had $25 million in Revenues and 25 Fortune 100 customers in 2005.  What - something does not add up?  Was Savvion just taking the piss out of Upside and its readers back then? Or did Savvion undergo a serious erosion in their business model?  I have to assume it is mostly the former (which will raise some eyebrows and require Upside Research to do some fast explaining).

    So, here is my initial conclusion and comparison of the back to back acquisitions.  IBM acquired a strong and growing market Leader probably paying 5-8x revenues.  Saavion was probably a more desperate sale of a company that despite a booming market was starting to stumble and lose its way.  The business was probably being shopped to strategic buyers who realized that Savvion would nicely fill out their customer strategy and allow them to participate more fully in a very extended and still not very “neat and contained” market.  So, Savvion probably felt that they were getting a nice bounce thanks to the market and a renewed chance as a company inside a larger entity instead of one that would be going it alone in a quickly changing landscape.  Some cash and some stock options in the new company probably looked like the best way to keep moving forward.

    This brings me to my next blog (coming in the next few days!) regarding how BPM acquisitions will continue but may have less to do with BPM and more to do with complex customer acquisition strategies and more holistic product ecosystems.  But, I’ll get some sleep and leave that one for later this week.

     
  • Brian

    The 3 Most Important Reasons Why IBM acquired Lombardi and Why the BPM Market is so Hot

    brian 10:50 pm on December 29, 2009 | 1 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: BPMN, , IBM, Lombardi, Workflow

    The Business Process Management market segment just got a whole lot hotter thanks to IBM’s announcement of their proposed acquisition of Lombardi - a tier 1, independent BPM vendor.   Twitter and the blogosphere have been jumping over the last week or so for anyone who follows BPM and related markets.   And the acquisition has given the BPM and workflow journalists and analysts a nice New Year’s bonus of news to talk about.

    After reading lots of the analysts out there, I must say I am dumbfounded.  Almost every analyst or blogger I have read seems to have missed the main point of this acquisition.  Then again, maybe I’m just seeing the acquisition through the eyes of someone who runs a BPM company and not as a journalist or self acclaimed BPM pundit.

    According to Bruce Silver, the acquisition was bound to happen.  But he seems to imply that IBM made the acquisition for technological reasons.  Even stranger is the implication he makes that Lombardi probably needed to accept the offer because the IPO market looks grim these days so this might be the best offer they would get.  Are you kidding me?  What market is Bruce referring to?  The Dow dipped below 6,500 right around March 6th of this year.  9 months later the market is now back over 10,000.  That’s a pretty nice run if you ask me.  If you have a company that is riding high on a cresting market then now is not a moment of desperation by any means.  And if ever there was a market that will be hungry for IPO’s it will be next year’s market (especially for a leading BPM company).

    Clay Richardson has also focused too much on the software and the potential overlap.  He gets a little closer to the business side of things by citing something he heard from Lombardi President Phil Gilbert regarding how “Lombardi is doubling down on delivering more powerful tools for business stakeholders to collaborate on scoping and discovery for enterprise process initiatives.”  This is a pretty insightful take away if you look at the way IBM sells and has always sold.  Their consultative sales approach is made for taking advantage of an ever greater depth of tools that can be sold to stake holders working on enterprise process initiatives.  And, it’s pretty obvious that any VC backed BPM company is going to be highly focused on “enterprise initiatives” because this is the place that ARPU is highest and where growth is the most sustained.

    Neil Ward-Dutton also seems to get stuck focusing on the product overlap.  He can’t seem to get past the fact that there is lots of product overlap.  Neil says, “Although the strengths of Lombardi’s tools are different from IBM’s there is almost 100% product overlap. What’s more the design philosophy of Lombardi’s offering is almost diametrically opposed to that of IBM’s offering…”

    I can certainly appreciate why it seems everyone is focused on how these products will get mixed together and if Lombardi will die a slow death inside the behemoth IBM or not.  And sure, BPMN 2.0 might make it easier for these products to work together in the future as Bruce points out.  But, I think these guys are totally missing the business perspective here.  And these types of purchases aren’t made by techies, they are made from a business perspective.

    THE THREE THINGS THAT MATTER IN THE IBM ACQUISITION OF LOMBARDI

    1) MARKET SIZE

    2) CHANNEL STRATEGY

    3) THE END GAME

    I’m not going to say anything more about whether Lombardi’s SaaS product is any good, whether BPMN 2.0 means the Lombardi product can eventually work with other IBM initiatives or not, and I certainly won’t talk about product overlap.  None of these issues matter.  So let’s look at what does:

    1) The Market - Market research outfit IDC estimates that the market for business process management (BPM) software and services will hit $3 billion by 2013, more or less doubling in size from where it is today at around $1.7 billion.  Ok, so every other blog mentioned this, nothing new right?  But nobody seemed to stop and look at these numbers.  This market size is significant…i.e. every VC in software knows these numbers and every VC will want to get in on this game.  The market is a multi-billion dollar market which means there will be some big exits in the coming 12-36 months.   Also, there are some related markets that will affect almost every VCs portfolio.  Namely, ERP, SOA, EMC - etc.  These are all inextricably tied to BPM.  So, if you’ve got investments in one or the other, you are going to have to invest in all of them just to make sure you’re not throwing money off the table.  I got a call from a VC last week looking to make an investment in a BPM company for the sole reason that he had just invested in a DMS company and realized that their segment was growing very fast and literally throwing cash off to supporting BPM solutions.  So their conclusion was that they needed to take a stake in an appropriately positioned BPM company.

    2) Channel Strategy.  If you look back at an analyst call that Lombardi had on 11/18/2008, there is an interesting bit of information hidden in the summary.  In the Column 2 summary of the call, you’ll read that from “a services standpoint, [Lombardi's] own professional services staff is increasing, and they’ve moved from having 5-7 partner staff delivering billable services around Lombardi solutions for every one Lombardi billable professional services staff, to having about 15 partner people to one Lombardi professional services person. They expect this ratio to grow further, and are increasing their efforts in training and certification to support this partner growth.”  Just think about this for a moment.  BPM, ERP, and related software does not get installed by software vendors; it gets installed by partners.   No BPM vendor has a huge number of clients.  How many did Lombardi have when the acquisition was announced.  Maybe a thousand?  Maybe less?  So, how do you really grow a BPM company to the $200-$300 million in revenue mark?  The answer:  partners.  If you want your BPM company to successfully implement in Mexico, Brazil, and China - you better damn well have partners there.  So, if Lombardi was truly able to more than double their ratio of Lombardi staff-to-partner-staff per deployment in 2008, then it means they were becoming very successful in this area.  This ties in well with their focus on their training programs.  So, should I keep going with this line of argument or is it clear?  What does IBM really have globally?  You got it - a pretty nice Channel.  They sell lots of competitive products and that’s ok.  They just need to make sure they have the right solutions so that their “consultative approach” works.  Look at their new Smart Market initiative and BPM - there’s several BPM products being offered on that box ( my company included).

    3) The End Game - So what is the End Game for BPM?  That’s just it - NOBODY KNOWS.  This market is very fragmented, growing nicely, and there are no clear leaders.  BPM has not reached anything close to the maturity of ERP.  Most of the buying market still doesn’t even know what BPM stands for - Beats per Minute (no DJs out there?), Business Process Monitoring, Business Process Management, Business Performance Management?  So, if you are a portfolio investment company (yes, IBM is no longer really a software company), then you had better have a number of slightly competitive, slightly overlapping products in order not to get caught with your pants down if the market starts to slide in a slightly unanticipated direction.  Also, if the market is as fragmented as it is, then the only way to get a more interesting piece of the $3 billion market to be is to own a couple of key players.  If you aren’t sure which horse is the winning horse, then you want to have several horses which will all place, right?

    You are certainly free to disagree with me.  But think about the way GE makes acquisitions.  They usually are not trying to fit the individual pieces together; rather, they are simply fitting the pieces into the markets.

     
  • Brian

    The Leave of Absence Request Process - Not so simple for many BPM and Form Vendors

    brian 8:33 am on November 19, 2009 | 0 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , HRM, Human Resources Management, , , Time Off Request, Workflow

    Ask your BPM vendor to give you a demo of his/her Leave of Absence Request Process (he might call it a Vacation Request Process or Time Off Request Process, but it is all the same).  This is the simplest process in the book, right?  Think again.  This relatively simple process can be very difficult for lots of so called “top” BPM vendors and is nearly impossible to do correctly for all of the electronic forms providers.  Let’s figure out why.

    Many vendors will show you a Leave of Absence Request Process which has a Leave Request Form which gets routed to a supervisor and the supervisor either approves or rejects the request.  Seems simple.  But is that really the way a Leave Absence Request works?  No, not at all.

    PROCESS MAP

    Here is an image of a Leave of Absence Process that has been designed correctly:

    Leave of Absence Request Process

    Leave of Absence Request Process

    This is generally what a Leave of Absence or Time off Request should look like.   It is not as simple as just sending a form to your boss.  He/She needs to be able to approve or reject the request.  But notice that rejecting the request is not the same as killing it and putting it in the trash.  A rejection normally needs to go back to the employee so that the employee can correct it, resubmit it, or do something else.  The important point here is that this is a decision that should rest with the originator of the request.  Think about how it would work with an old fashion paper paper request.  If you take a request to your boss and he/she rejects it, does your boss take the request and crumple it up and throw it out?  No, your boss will hand it back to you and give you a reason why it is being rejected.  At this point, you can make your decision how to proceed.  You could throw it out yourself or you could fix it and resubmit it.

    Next comes a part of the process that almost everyone leaves out.  Once you come back from your time off, the amount of time off you really took needs to be verified.  What if you come back a day early?  What if you come back a day late?  How does the system know this?  For this reason, there needs to be another step to “report the actual leave taken.”  This then needs to be verified by the boss, and only then can the record be updated.

    Now this begs the question about “updating the record.”  Do you already have an HRM (Human Resources Management) system, or do you need your BPM system to manage this information.  Larger companies will tend to have a separate HRM system, but smaller ones might not.  In this case, it is nice if your BPM system allows you to create internal tables.  In this way you can associate custom tables with your user tables and maintain leave data for each employee.  Of course, you will also need to setup an auto scheduled process which will affect these tables.  This process should automatically add additional days to each employee’s account based on their anniversary date.  For example, if your policy is to add 2 weeks of vacation time to each employee after they have been with the company for 12 months, then this process needs to happen automatically and needs to automatically adjust the leave taken tables.

    Finally, you will need to be sure that your leave tables have an audit log.  At some point you will need to look at a record of events that affected this accounting of leave taken.

    FORMS

    With regards to the design of the workflow, let’s look at a sample initial form:

    Leave of Absence Form

    Leave of Absence Form

    The important thing to note about this initial form is that the employee, time, date, employee’s boss, leave available, and leave already taken should all be auto-filled by the system.

    APPROVAL AND MANAGEMENT VIA EMAIL

    Another feature to ask about is email response/approvals.  Management generally doesn’t want to spend time logging into more web based systems.  So why not give them the ability to approve or reject a request directly from their within their email.  Here is an example of the type of email they could receive for a leave request:

    Email Leave of Absence Request Form

    Email Leave of Absence Request Form

    As you can see, even for a seemingly simple workflow such as a Leave of Absence Request, there are a number of things to consider in the design and implementation of the process.  Failure to consider these issues will result in a system that is discarded within a few weeks and never really used by the company.  This is a very common occurrence in the world of software, but one that can be avoided with good planning, testing, and implementation practices.

     
  • Brian

    BPM Gold - Discovering and Exploiting a Vertical Workflow Software Niche

    brian 8:39 pm on October 10, 2009 | 2 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , business process managemnet, vertical workflow apps, worflow automation, Workflow,

    As a leading BPM Software Company, we often get approached by small to mid-sized companies that want to develop a specific vertical industry workflow application inside our BPM Software so that they can sell it to others in their industry.   I really love it when I am fortunate enough to be in on the meeting or phone call with these prospective customers.

    90% of the calls we get from customers are from Process Consultants, VPs of Process Re-engineering, CFOs, of Process Managers of one sort of another, etc.  These users are interested in deploying a BPM Software Suite in their companies to improve efficiency, eliminate paperwork, and reduce costs.  This is, of course, exactly what Workflow Software and Business Process Management Software is meant to do.  So, from a vendor’s perspective our role in answering the potential customer’s questions is quite standard and we understand it well.

    But every now and then, we get a call from a business owner, usually of a small business, and they aren’t just interested in automating their company’s workflows.    These business owners have usually heard about BPM software and they have probably watched one of our BPM diagramming videos, and then a giant Light Bulb probably turned on..  They no longer see simply a solution to their own efficiency problems, rather they see an enormous opportunity.  They see an opportunity to become the underlying Operating System (the DOS or Microsoft Windows) of their industry.  They may even see a way to get out of the rat race they are running with their competition and actually become a supplier to their competitors.

    I call this realization - “striking BPM Gold - the discovery of a Vertical Niche.”    There are still hundreds or thousands of these epiphanies out there and waiting to happen.  They usually require an entrepreneur with a slight inclination towards technology.  I would say they have to have creativity and an appetite for starting new projects - but then again all entrepreneurs tend to posses these traits.  These entrepreneurs suddenly realize that they can build a digital solution which can automate not only their business, but their industry vertical segment.  And then they realize that if they don’t do it someone else will.  Usually, the next step in their mind is to create a workflow solution, own the workflow solution, brand the workflow solution, and offer it as a hosted service/solution.

    I really love to be on these calls myself because I love to hear about new industry segments, and I love to hear the excitement of the entrepreneur as he comes to the realization of how quickly he can implement such a solution and how “automatic” he can make his business and industry segment.   As a Business Process Management solution provider, we love to be part of these solutions.  And the beauty of Open Source BPM and Open Source Workflow is that the entrepreneur can really control his destiny by designing his own vertical application.  He has access to the code and can easily combine it with other software when and if necessary.

    So, if you are out there in a relatively paper based industry where you have many years of experience and know exactly how your industry should work - have a look at BPM Software.  Do your research into workflow automation, and figure out if you are sitting on some BPM Gold.  Find the right BPM software vendor partner, and then go for it!  Remember, if you don’t do it, your competitor probably will.  If he does, you will probably be paying him a small fee each month in the very near future to keep your business running on his software platform.

     
  • Brian

    "Born Free" - THE ECONOMIST and the emerging threat to Open Source Software

    brian 9:12 am on June 5, 2009 | 0 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , fsf.org, , Paas, Workflow

    I suppose that when Matt Asay is quoted in the Economist, then Open Source truly has gone mainstream.  Although I would be inclined to say that this is definitely good news for all of us Open Source Software companies out there, the Economist does allude to an interesting problem regarding “message/brand” dilution.

    The Economist article says, “Indeed, open source is so widely accepted that traditional software firms are beginning to dabble in it, while some open-source firms are starting to sell proprietary add-ons to open-source programs instead of charging to provide support to firms using open-source software. If current trends hold, traditional software firms and their open-source rivals will soon be hard to tell apart.”

    I’ve heard this point alluded to before and there is both a good and a bad side to the story.  If Open Source fades away because all software becomes truly open, this would be a good thing.  It would mean that the open source movement had in fact succeeded and was effectively no longer needed.  I don’t think this will happen anytime soon and this is not what the the point The Economist is making.

    The risk is that open source starts to get used by software vendors as a cheap gambit to trap consumers into buying proprietary software. 

    In fact, it is already happening to a large degree.  Just ask the average software user the following question:

    Which one of the represents open source Software?

    A) Offering a free and open version of your software while trying to convince users to buy a per user licensed version of your software with additional enterprise features.

    B) Offering a free and open version of your software while trying to convince users to buy a commercial plug-in (based on a one-time fee instead of a per user license) which provides some additional features for your software.

    C) A  solution which is totally free to try online for up to 10 users but if you want more than 10 users you need to pay.

    D) Gmail

    E) None of the above

    (See end of article for answers)

    If you are confused, you are definitely not alone.  And this will represent an ever increasing challenge for organizations like the Free Software Foundation.

    The role of the FSF.org will begin to transform.  It will not just be tasked with informing an uninformed public, but it will have the even more difficult task of informing a MISINFORMED public.  As every politician knows, this second task is much more difficult and represents an even greater threat to the Free Software Movement.

    The Cloud is a great example of a new threat of misinformation that will affect Open Source Software in a big way.  “The Cloud” is slowly reshaping the entire vocabulary around software in general.

    Remember, free software follows four basic tenets:

    • The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    • The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
    • The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

    Software in the cloud is almost entirely not Open Source because1) Your vendors don’t give you access to the source code

    2) Your vendors might not even give you access to your data when things turn sour.

    Remember what happened to Coghead and all of its users when Coghead went belly up?  Coghead was a cloud competitor of ProcessMaker.  Like ProcessMaker, it was a BPM/Workflow solution and a PaaS (Platform as a Service) provider.  The scraps were purchased by SAP.  Coghead failed overnight and left their users and their user’s data stranded (see my comments in this ZDNET Article).

    So, what is the answer?  I think it all starts with getting the right information out there.  In other words - make your contributions this year to the Free Software Foundation (and tell them I sent you :).

     
  • Brian

    PM Mobile, the iphone, 3G, and the coming mobile revolution

    brian 12:34 pm on January 26, 2009 | 0 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , handhelds, mobile computing, , Workflow

    Hold the Press!  ProcessMaker mobile is now available on a mobile phone near you.  And it is a Killer App.

    You might be asking yourself, “Did I miss a release?  When did this come about?”

    Well, truth be told, it has only a little to do with our own fantastic ProcessMaker developers and a lot to do with general industry timing.  In the pre-iphone days, the idea of offering a  mobile BPM or Workflow solution meant building a specialized client application which had some synchronization methodology for passing information captured on the handheld device back to the server.  In fact about 2 years ago, we had a client that requested such an application as part of a complex, multi-party workflow for surveying Art Museums around the world.  In retrospect, we realized that the request and the project came at the moment of a pretty big paradigm shift in the mobile world, and the iphone was its prophet.

    For this particular client and at this particular juncture, we decided that our best alternative was to approach a mobile forms/survey provider and then integrate with this provider through Web Services.  We thought briefly about building the application ourselves but then realized partnering was the best option.

    This project project started off well, but the client continued to make lots of changes in their mobile forms which caused the project to drag on.  Additionally, the continued changes added new costs from the mobile solution provider.  About half way through the project the iphone was released.  We continued down the path we were on with this client.  We thought that it wouldn’t be wise to change course based on the whims of an unproven new technology.   But as we moved forward, so did the iphone.  They didn’t hit 10 million units of sale as fast as Jobs predicted, but they were certainly becoming more and more ubiquitous.  Oh, and then they were put on a 3G network.

    So why was this so important?  After all, a serious enterprise application like ProcessMaker wasn’t going to announce that it was offering Mobile workflow on the iphone (a highly targeted consumer device), or would it?

    Well, it all boils down to one pretty important detail - that unbelievably beautiful browser!  When the iphone hit the streets, one look at the gorgeous browser and the team at PM thought, “wow, this is amazing!”  And more importantly, our next thought was inevitably, why would I browse any other way?  Well, we wouldn’t and we won’t.  Apple set the bar, and now no one can go lower.  The acceleration in the browser wars on mobile devices means that everyday more usable browsers (unlike the one I have on my Blackberry 8800) become ever more present.  This means that as an application provider that is entirely based in the browser (no client/server architecture), quite suddenly our potential audience of users is growing at an exponential rate.

    That’s right, with no real changes in our application, users can now build sophisticated, custom workflows and execute them in mobile environments like the iphone.  And that eliminates a whole host of other issues.  Now we are truly agnostic with regards to how our users use PM - mobile and desktop to us are one and the same.  And once you’ve tried truly clientless computing there is now going back.  After using Zimbra, I could never go back to Outlook.

    So, if you have a mobile component to your workflow, don’t look any further.  Why pay other vendors tens of thousands of dollars to license their mobile workforce solutions?  It just doesn’t make sense.  ProcessMaker now gives it to you and it’s Open Source!

     
  • Brian

    Process Discovery, Software Design, and Summiting Everest

    brian 10:28 pm on May 27, 2008 | 3 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , process discovery, Workflow

    I ran across an interesting article by Michael zur Muehlen and Jan Recker on BPM.com entitled, “Asking the Wrong Questions: Process Discovery on a Rainy Day.”

    The interesting part of their article was their citation of a survey by Wolf and Harmon that organizations reported that more than a third of the time spent in their BPM projects went towards “process discovery.” There are two amazing things about this statement:

    1. Every BPM Software Company or BPM Consulting company knows this in their bones
    2. Not a single customer knows this (before they start a BPM project)

    This is the central tenant on why BPM consulting and especially BPM project sales can be so tough. Anytime you have a gap between reality and expectations, you have disappointment. And points #1 and #2 above point to a classic “expectations gap,” as I like to call it.

    Somehow the BPM implementation consulting team has to convince a company that it needs to first pay to “discover its processes” And this process is incredibly important (especially the payment part). I think a corollary to the Wolf and Harmon citation is that BPM projects that don’t spend AT LEAST 30% of the time on “process discovery” are bound to fail.

    But should we be surprised?

    No, not really. The same corollary holds for any type of software development. I’ve seen the statistic dozens of times regarding the percentage of all software design and development projects that fail. The number always changes but it is always somewhere near 50%. In fact, I think the odds a climber has of summiting Mt. Everest are greater than the odds of any given company having a successful software development and implementation experience on a given project.

    The reason for failure in both cases is usually due to a lack of correct design and discovery and needs assessment. In other words, software almost never fails because of a software bug that just can’t be fixed. The same is true for BPM. Most good BPM Software out there on the market today (like ProcessMaker !) performs pretty well. The problem is in correctly identifying the processes to automate and integrate.

    However, even more of a problem is that many companies (especially in the SME sector) will try and cut corners on the design and discovery phase. Everybody likes a web interface and a line or two of code and that is what most companies want to pay for. The result is that the initial 30% gets cut to about 15% and in the end the BPM software fails, or so says the disappointed client.

    So the real challenge is how to get the customer to pay adequately for this initial phase. After all, your time is money if you’re a consultant or a software company. And you need to figure out a way to get this phase done correctly and to be paid for (otherwise you can never scale your business).

    So, how is that done? That will be the topic of the next blog post, of course.

     
  • Brian

    OSBC 2008

    brian 12:30 am on March 28, 2008 | 0 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , Wiki, Workflow

    Colosa just finished a fantastic OSBC. It was our first time exhibiting at the event, and we were very pleased with the interest ProcessMaker generated. Personally, I didn’t get to go to very many of the conference seminars, but I did spend a lot of time hanging out in the hallways with lots of other cool open source vendors. We had some great conversations around integrating with some of these solutions so I’d like to let you know a little about what we will be up to shortly.

    We’ve done a number of important “client requested” ERP integrations in the past, mostly with SAP but also with lots of different regional ERPs (mostly in South America). The thing about workflow and BPM is that it usually has something to do with other systems. And more often than not those other systems are…well ERP systems. A couple classic examples would be a Purchase Request Approval Workflow or a Return Merchandise Authorization Workflow (RMA). So, Fernando and I had a very nice chat with Paolo Juvara, Chief Products Officer at Openbravo - the clear leader in open source ERP and a terrific product.

    The result of the talk was an decision to begin testing an integration between Openbravo and ProcessMaker. I believe the result could be a killer mashup. The ProcessMaker workflow, we believe, will add lots of interesting value around the ERP system and vice versa.

    Another interesting mashup we are looking at doing is with Mindtouch’s Deki Wiki. If you don’t know it, this is a super cool wiki. So cool, that we are planning on moving our own website to it! The product uses html in a whole different way in the wiki environment and makes the whole experience much richer.

    So what will this integration mean to the user? Well, from our perspective, we work with organizations that are trying to create standard, repeatable, automated processes. Usually, the people performing these processes are people that tend to rotate in and out of the positions where they fill out the forms in our processes. This means that often times there is an information gap created surrounding the processes. How do you keep your organization informed about best practices that have to do with these processes. Well, if you in bed our ProcessMaker forms in the Deki Wiki then you’ve got a sort of living, breathing, growing manual around your process. Imagine how much smoother paperwork would flow with this type of information easily updated in the system? No more clumsy tags for manuals, etc. That’s the idea.

    The third mashup we are really excited about is with WSO2. We already have a full web services interface in ProcessMaker, but these guys are really the kings of Web Services. So, the idea is simple. We do workflow and user level stuff really well. But the user level workflow inevitably interacts with lots of systems. So the idea is we will create a rock solid connection to WSO2 and then let WSO2 help us connect to all the different systems that our users want to use. We think this will take ProcessMaker to a whole new level of utility in the Enterprise space!

    Well, all in all a great OSBC. Of course, we also got to hang out with our good friends at Knowledgetree and talk to lots of users already very excited about our recently launched plugin with Knowledgetree which now allows organizations to store all of their ProcessMaker generated or uploaded docs in the Knowledgetree Document Management System - a truly powerful combo.

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
esc
cancel