The BPMS Finds Its Home

The way that many BPM Suite (BPMS) vendors tell it, the BPMS will be the business in the future. The BPMS will empower process owners out there in the BUs to manage graphical models that translate directly into executable code and live applications. With ever-higher degrees of automation, not much of any consequence would be managed outside of the BPMS, which would eventually subsume or even replace today's ERP environment. 

And, in some limited circumstances, that BPMS vision may be possible in practice - though there will always be wider issues around governance and change management, for instance.

Janelle Hill, Gartner Research VP, made some interesting observations at the BPM Summit in London this week that suggest that the BPMS is finding its true role.

Janelle started with the good news [for BPMS vendors] that they have crossed Geoffrey Moore's chasm and will make it into the mainstream this year. As evidence, she cited market data that we all know - such as the acquisitions of Lombardi, Savvion and IDS Scheer - as well as her recent client dicussions, one with an auto parts vendor with a $30m budget for a BPMS initiative.

But she went on to burst the bubble for believers in BPMS World Domination. She defined the sweet spot for a BPMS implementation vis-a-vis an ERP alternative, and went on to advise that any BPMS selection should be related to the needs of a particular project, not as an enterprise platform:

'The right answer in selecting a BPMS is often three BPMSs, based on the particular projects' needs.'  

So the BPMS seems to be finding its natural home - as one part of the CIO's portfolio of capabilities in applications infrastructure.  Perfect for some applications, not suitable for others.  And very probably, for the immediate future at least, sitting within that portfolio alongside one or more ERP and competing BPMS platforms.

But this immersion of the BPMS in the increasingly heterogeneous mix of automation capabilities poses real issues for what we mean by Business Process Management.

Out in the real world, business processes are only partly automated, and they need to be made visible and managed and improved end-to-end.  If BPM is seen as being focused on just one part of the CIO's portfolio of automation capabilities, then we've surely lost the plot.

Maybe it's time for a new language and new definitions - something like the Business Operating System - to describe the end-to-end holistic framework within which business really operates. 

Comments

[Davethinkingaloud.blogspot.com]

First ... does it matter (much $$$) that 3 separately funded products buy 3 different products with a common root feature set. It may not be a major issue compared with the cost and risks of of selecting one BPMS to satisfy all.
Second ... I agree that the holistic framework is needed but how far are we away from a definition of that with say BPMN, SVBR and other existing standards?

see more at http://davethinkingaloud.blogspot.com/2010/03/right-answer-in-selecting-bpms-three.html

[Davethinkingaloud.blogspot.com]

oops
that should have been ...projects buy ...