Comments on: Double Your Pleasure: Application Packages and BPM Together

By: Mark Norton

Mark Norton — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:10:06 +0000

Jim, I agree with your premise. In support of your point I would like to observe that it is always surprising to us just who is asking for vendor help with ‘best practice’ – we find that it is more likely to be a market heavyweight than a new entrant. The inference is that static systems are a market impediment that is protecting stronger brands at the expense of real innovators. When nobody can innovate quickly, then it becomes difficult to differentiate through evolving best practise. But when systems become more agile then brand and current market position will become less important – best practice will be driven by innovators, and they will start to drive the market.

By: BPM Delivers Better Practices and Best Practices

BPM Delivers Better Practices and Best Practices — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:33:44 +0000

[...] http://blogs.gartner.com/jim_sinur/2009/03/03/double-your-pleasure-application-packages-and-bpm-toge... Share and Enjoy: [...]

By: Applications or Processes: Which Comes First, the Chicken or the Egg?

Applications or Processes: Which Comes First, the Chicken or the Egg? — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:03:39 +0000

[...] We definitely need both to cooperate to make businesses run just like we need chicken and eggs to survive. See http://blogs.gartner.com/jim_sinur/2009/03/03/double-your-pleasure-application-packages-and-bpm-toge... [...]

By: Jim Sinur

Jim Sinur — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:41:25 +0000

This is an updated version as you noticed, but the question keeps coming up. It would be great if one would not be dependent on those IT folks that know how to leverage the package APIs.

I think that some intelligent wrapping of those APIs/composites as pseudo services with references in the service directory would be a good step forward for the commonly leveraged APIs. I don’t think the IT folks want to be in the way of process progress. This is not pure BPM driven by business types, but incrementally better than common parctice of the day.

By: Anatoly Belychook

Anatoly Belychook — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:40:22 +0000

Is this an updated release of your year-old article at bpmenterprise.com?
Anyway… The issue of processes embedded into applications is that you must be a specialist trained to this particular application (ERP, CRM whatever) to be able to reach process models. In case of standalone BPMS a business analyst owns the process model (except implementation details), in case of application-centric approach he depends on IT guys. This compromises the core BPM idea of bridging business-IT gap.

By: Jim Sinur

Jim Sinur — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:48:29 +0000

You are right on this issue. The application vendors do not provide a pure SOA solution for their existing application functionality, but they do provide a pseudo service approach that in some cases can support a benefitical business process implmentation. I tihnk this is a journey for the application vendors, but there are benefits in pariing the application functionality with BPM. It’s not perfect, but benefit delivering.

By: Akiva Marks

Akiva Marks — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:06:51 +0000

The question I ask is will the traditional application vendors decompose their big box departmental and enterprise applications down to a sufficiently granular business-process service level so that I can use BPM and/or application assembly tools to use them as transaction and process engines in the unique combinations of value to my business?

Will we see SAP and other major vendors using SOA primarily as an API for inputs and outpost of their big-box functionality (which is what we see today), or will they offer us granular processes we can compose as needed? Or even further, offer us a menu of business-processes we can buy as composable pieces?