VOSibilities

Service-oriented BPM is all about using and providing services. Even tasks done by people are modeled as services. Services use and return XML documents. This means that every decision, every loop condition and generally every use of data has to be able to pull the appropriate data out of XML documents. This is the job of XPath. Many people only have a rudimentary knowledge is XPath, letting their tools generate it for them, but a more complete understanding of the language can help you make simpler processes and allow you a greater understanding is what is going on at runtime. Use the links below to either view a recording of this episode of CTO Tuesdays or just read the slides (the last link).

 

 CTOT 34: XPath [48:27m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (51)

 CTOT 34: XPath [48:27m]: Download (49)

 CTOT 34: XPath: Download (6)

Active Endpoints, Inc., the leader in affordable, service-oriented BPM that development teams love, today announced that John Cingari has joined the company as Chief Marketing Officer, Tyler Drolet as Chief Financial Officer, and Henry Ancona, who has served on the boards of Pegasystems, Computervision (acquired), and OneSource Information Services (acquired), to the Board of Directors. In addition, René Bonvanie, Vice President, Worldwide Marketing, Palo Alto Networks and former Oracle, SAP, Veritas, and Serena Software executive, joined the Board of Directors in February of this year.

These industry veterans, who have created and managed both rapidly growing private and public companies, joined the company because of Active Endpoints’ unique vision to deliver affordable, service-oriented BPM in order to take advantage of strong demand in this segment of the large and growing BPM market.

The company continues to show significant traction, confirming customers want an alternative to traditional, complex and expensive BPMS’s. For example, revenues grew over 100% in the 1st half 2010 compared to the 1st half of 2009. In addition, the customer base continues to expand in all geographic regions and industries, including Telecommunications (Tele2), Media and Entertainment (itfc), Government (Naval Research Labs), and Financial Services/Insurance (Desjardins General Insurance Group).

Download the Active Endpoints press release below for more details.

 Active Endpoints Attracts Industry Vets: Download (39)

Western Governors University is an online university that was facing student management challenges as it continued to grow at a significant pace. The university is in a rapid growth state, and was looking for a BPM solution, one that would be based on standards and could incorporate human tasks with automated processes.

The IT organization at WGU launched a search for a BPM system that was standards-based, supported a services-oriented architecture and easily deployed and maintained on their own. After considering several of the other solutions (including JBoss jBPM and coding a solution themselves), WGU selected the ActiveVOS business process management system (BPMS) from Active Endpoints.

This Upside Research Implementation Brief takes a closer look at the university, its challenges, and its decision to select a model-driven BPMS over a set of non-integrated propriety tools as the foundation for its SOA architecture. It also examines the business impact of its BPM deployment.

Download the Active Endpoints Press Release below for more details.

 WGU Saves 80% with Active Endpoints BPM System: Download (90)

In this week’s CTO Tuesday, I addressed the question of whether the architectural style called “REST” is well suited to BPM. I’ll save you the suspense and tell you the answer is no. That isn’t to say that ActiveVOS doesn’t support REST. It does. But if you have a choice, should you follow that style? That is where the answer is no.

Contrary to many of the APIs that call themselves REST-based, REST means more than using HTTP GET to call the service and getting plain XML documents back as results. The talk describes the five key principals of REST, including the most important one, which is called HATEOAS. It is an interesting principal that works well for the Web, but it is antithetical to design-time type checking. In fact the REST style is, in general, in conflict with any kind of design-time typing (Roy Fielding refers to typing as “out-of-band” information that creates a tight coupling between client and server).

However, design-time typing is just part of a well-defined service contract and good service contracts are one of the most important characteristics of a service-oriented architecture. I describe this more fully in the talk and also describe the critical value of design-time typing for BPM. I also show how fragile business processes become when they have to depend on REST.

You can view the talk using one of the formats below or just look at the slides (the PDF at the bottom).

 

 CTOT 33: is Rest Right for BPM? [35:10m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (105)

 CTOT 33: is Rest Right for BPM? [35:10m]: Download (76)

 CTOT 33: is Rest Right for BPM?: Download (70)

A number of standards efforts related to BPM are nearing completion of major milestones. This includes 4 standards efforts in 3 different standards development organizations:

• OASIS: BPEL4People 1.1 and WS-HumanTask 1.1
• OMG: BPMN 2.0
• WfMC: XPDL 2.2
• OASIS: SCA 1.1

In this week’s CTO Tuesdays, I describe the current state of each of these efforts along with a brief description of the history and main goals of these standards. Here is a recording of the presentation and a copy of the slides.

 

 CTO 32: BPM Standards Update [50:26m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (177)

 CTO 32: BPM Standards Update [50:26m]: Download (87)

 CTO 32: BPM Standards Update: Download (117)

This summer, Active Endpoints CTO Michael Rowley and industry analyst, blogger and BPM expert Sandy Kemsley presented a series of webinars focusing on the “human aspects” of BPM.

On Thursday, July 22nd, in the final episode of the series, Sandy presented Five Things You Should Never Ever Try in Process Development. Rather than concentrating on best practices, which often devolve into motherhood-and-apple-pie statements, Sandy was able to compile a succinct list of process development practices that she has seen in real organizations, but which should never ever be done. Michael Rowley then demonstrated how those bad practices can be avoided and good ones followed in a live demonstration of the ActiveVOS BPMN process designer. The audience asked questions of both Sandy and Michael, which prompted some excellent discussions. A replay of the presentation is attached to this post below.

 

 BPM Summer Camp session 3: Five things [70:09m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (180)

 BPM Summer Camp session 3: Five things [70:09m]: Download (147)

 BPM Summer Camp session 3: Five things [70:09m]: Download (44)

 BPM Summer Camp session 3: Five things: Download (71)

In this recording of CTO Tuesdays, I describe the history of the key standards that are important for SOA, such as XML (starting back with SGML), XML Schema, SOAP, WSDL and BPEL. I also describe some of the key architectural characteristics of SOA that drove the standards, as well as some of the standards-making politics that was peculiar to service-oriented standards. If you are curious about the history of SOA and its related standards, you may find this talk to be interesting.

 

 CTOT 31: History of SOA, part 2 [43:07m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (180)

 CTOT 31: History of SOA, part 2 [55:20m]: Download (53)

 CTOT 31: History of SOA, part 2: Download (73)

 CTOT 31: History of SOA, part 2: Download (93)

In this recording of CTO Tuesdays, the BPMS podcast, Michael Rowley describes how we got here — taking a special look at previous attempts to solve some core development problems. Whatever your interest: SOA, BPM, application development, even just a passing historical curiosity, you will want to watch this (and future) episodes.

 

 CTO Tuesdays #30: SOA , part 1 [50:32m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (277)

 CTO Tuesdays #30: SOA , part 1 [50:32m]: Download (78)

 CTO Tuesdays #30: SOA , part 1: Download (144)

 CTO Tuesdays #30: SOA , part 1: Download (111)

We are very pleased to announce that, once again, ActiveVOS BPMS grew substantially in Q2 2010. BPM users around the world are looking for a new kind of BPMS — one that is easier to master and use. And they are finding it in ActiveVOS. The attached press release has the details of the BPMS’s growing momentum.

 Active Endpoints posts record sales in Q2 2010: Download (142)

OK, OK…I know. The pun on SOAP and soap opera is a little much. But doesn’t the SOA world feel like a never-ending, overwrought daytime TV drama?

I mean, c’mon. Nobody can decide if SOA is dead or alive…if it’s a product (or set of products) or if it’s JBOI (just a bunch of ideas, a pun on “JBOD.” I just can’t help myself.).

So, starting tomorrow on CTO Tuesdays, the BPM podcast, Michael Rowley will begin another “miniseries” within the larger podcast that begins with the very basics of SOA and builds over time to paint a complete picture of this much discussed and often misunderstood development approach. We intend this as a primer for both new and expert users and we are excited that the recurring SOA topics will expand CTO Tuesdays’ regular line-up of BPM technology talks.

Register for CTO Tuesdays at http://www.activevos.com/ctot and, as always, you can return to this blog for replays. But we hope you can join us live because we expect the discussion after Michael’s presentation on these topics to be very lively and we hope to have you join in the discussion.

If you’ve been attending the live recordings of CTO Tuesdays, our BPM podcast, and/or watching the replays, you know that we have stuck to our knitting for the most part: detailed technical discussions of BPM technology.

Starting with last week’s CTO Tuesdays and continuing with the episode posted below, we have increased our range to crucial technical decisions for BPM users which may have very long-term effects.

We are, to put it bluntly, very concerned that the marketplace is receiving — and accepting — incorrect information about the real relationship between BPEL and BPMN 2.0. Last week, Michael Rowley dispelled this myth in the abstract. This week, Michael has gone further: he actually shows what a two-toolset, two-engine BPMS environment with only a fig-leaf of integration looks like, using Oracle’s BPM Suite 11g and SOA Suite 11g as the poster children.

Yes, Oracle is a competitor. And yes, we have a “dog in the hunt,” as they say. Therefore, for sure, we have an opinion.

None of that undoes the fact that users should consider alternative points of view — views based, as we attempt to do, on the exact text and meaning of the BPMN 2.0 specification. And the fact that we have an opinion — and a product based on that belief — doesn’t undo the fact that much of the argument that BPMN should execute directly and that BPEL is passe is as self-serving as anything we may say.

So, I urge you to watch the replay of CTO Tuesdays attached to this post and to consider the alternative arguments we make. We’re not going to convince everybody, but we truly believe that the people who do consider their long-term BPMS strategy will find that BPMN as notation with BPEL execution is the better alternative.

 

 CTO Tuesdays #29: Oracle: BPMN and BPEL [41:20m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (304)

 CTO Tuesdays #29: Oracle: BPMN and BPEL [41:20m]: Download (78)

 CTO Tuesdays #29: Oracle: BPMN and BPEL [41:20m]: Download (260)

 CTO Tuesdays #29: Oracle: BPMN and BPEL: Download (137)

BPM practitioners emphasize collaboration in the design and development of process applications.

Among the many benefits of using a BPMS to manage collaboratively designed processes are that the BPMS has abundant knowledge about those processes.

Take that data…couple it with the end user’s awareness of the process (because he or she helped design the automated process) and you have possibly the richest source of information imaginable for reporting and visualization.

In this webinar replay, you can see how the ActiveVOS BPMS uses Actuate BIRT to deliver integrated reporting. And, you will learn how it is possible to put even greater control of reporting and analysis directly into the hands of the same users who designed an organization’s automated processes.

 BPMS and BI: Better decision-making [76:31m]: Download (238)

 

 BPMS and BI: Better decision-making [76:31m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (214)

 BPMS and BI: Better decision-making [76:31m]: Download (94)

 BPMS and BI: Better decision-making: Download (138)

If you follow Active Endpoints and ActiveVOS on the web and/or in social media, you know we aren’t timid about…well…anything. We try hard, however, to make sure that as we forcefully make our points we are backing them up not just with emotion (a remarkably clarifying attribute often missing vendors’ discussions of technology) but also with hard facts.

You can see the very best of that loud-but-authentic aesthetic at work in episode 28 of CTO Tuesdays, the BPM podcast.

For too long — and, frankly, for reasons that mystify me — some voices have spoken of a “conflict” between BPMN and BPEL. It has always seemed to me that those points of view — that BPMN 2.0 is somehow a “successor” or “replacment” for BPEL –  have an agenda that’s more about their preferred results in the marketplace than about the “best” or the “right” thing for users. IOW, politicking is at play.

But, as we all know, in politics, negative campaigning works. “BPEL is dead;” “BPMN 2.0 execution obviates BPEL.” These misstatements have gained far more attention than they deserve. They have escalated to the level of myth — or worse, conventional wisdom — both of which can have lives very separate from reality.

Our response: BPMN 2.0 is better with BPEL execution for users for a plethora of reasons. Far from dead, BPEL’s fundamental mistake of not specifying a visual notation is cured by BPMN 2.0. And BPMN 2.0 achieves its highest likelihood of success when coupled with BPEL execution.

Still, the myth that these two crucial standards are in conflict persists. Watch this podcast replay to see and hear Michael Rowley debunk these myths — passionately and accurately.

And be sure to join us next week for episode 29, titled “Oracle’s misguided approach to BPMN and BPEL” for even more myth-busting. Register at http://www.activevos.com/ctot.

 

 CTO Tuesdays #28: BPEL BPMN myths [56:26m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (156)

 CTO Tuesdays #28: BPEL BPMN myths [56:26m]: Download (39)

 CTO Tuesdays #28: BPEL BPMN myths [56:26m]: Download (222)

 CTO Tuesdays #28: BPEL BPMN myths: Download (90)

Every once in a while I find someone repeating the common myth that BPMN and BPEL are in conflict – that you have to choose one or the other. The most recent place I saw this was in Tom Baeyens’ rebuttal to my criticism of his microkernel-like approach to BPM engine development for Activiti. In that article he references an article by William Vambenepe that shows a completely invalid example of a conflict. I will show the mistake made there, but before I do I’d like to make a more important point on this subject:

BPMN 2.0 Complete Conformance can only be claimed by an engine if the engine also supports the BPEL Process Execution Semantics Conformance Type.

The phrases in bold are the names of conformance classes in the latest public draft of the BPMN 2.0 standard specification. The conformance section of the specification defines multiple conformance types; one of which is the “BPEL Process Execution Semantics Conformance Type”, which defines how to use BPEL to execute a standard BPMN model. The last BPMN conformance type is called “complete conformance” and it also requires support for BPEL.

So, back to the article that Tom Baeyens’ linked to when he claimed that that “the translation step from BPMN to BPEL is very problematic to say the least.”

As it turns out, William Vambenepe misunderstood the semantics of the BPMN construct that was supposedly in conflict with BPEL. He references this snippet of BPMN:

But he describes it this way:

The customer quote can be reviewed by the region manager, the country manager or the VP of sales. At least one of them must review the quote. More than one may review the quote.

He then goes on the show how hard it is to represent the at-least-one requirement in BPEL. The problem is, the above BPMN snippet has no at-least-one semantic.

Here is what the BPMN 2.0 specification says about the inclusive gateway: “each path is considered to be independent, all combinations of the paths may be taken, from zero to all. However, it should be designed so that at least one path is taken.”

This means it has the exact same semantics as BPEL’s concept of conditional links out of an activity: any subset can be followed, including none.

People also sometimes claim that the problem comes from the fact that BPMN is unstructured while BPEL is structured. Actually, the problem is that some tools don’t know about the free-form style that is permitted in BPEL. BPEL supports both structured constructs and unstructured flows. Oracle BPEL Process Manager, for example, does not show the links in unstructured flows (no arrows), so they are basically worthless in that tool, but the standard does allow them and ActiveVOS supports them fully.

So, are there any processes that can be represented in BPMN that are difficult or impossible to map to BPMN? Yes, there is a restriction in BPEL against cycles in flows that make it difficult to represent interleaved loops in standard BPEL (although I haven’t actually seen an example of this pattern in a post about the mismatch between the two languages). However, this restriction in BPEL is not is fundamental to the language. Active Endpoints has implemented this simple extension that removes that restriction and we encourage all BPEL engines to also support the elimination of that restriction.

Let me finish by quoting the first two paragraphs of the BPMN 2.0 specification. Note especially the second paragraph.

1. Scope

The Object Management Group (OMG) has developed a standard Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN). The primary goal of BPMN is to provide a notation that is readily understandable by all business users, from the business analysts that create the initial drafts of the processes, to the technical developers responsible for implementing the technology that will perform those processes, and finally, to the business people who will manage and monitor those processes. Thus, BPMN creates a standardized bridge for the gap between the business process design and process implementation.

Another goal, but no less important is to ensure that XML languages designed for the execution of business processes, such as WSBPEL (Web Services Business Process Execution Language), can be visualized with a business-oriented notation.

Clearly the specification writers see no conflict between BPMN and BPEL.

Next Tuesday, June 22, at noon EDT, Active Endpoints CTO Michael Rowley will present “Debunking the myth of conflict between BPMN and BPEL.”

In this talk, Michael will address the fact that some people believe that there is a conflict between using BPMN and BPEL for business processes. He will show how in the latest 2.0 version of the BPMN standard, substantial work has been done to bring the two into alignment and how, according to the latest public draft of the standard, “complete conformance” for BPMN actually requires that it be executable using BPEL.

As they say, you’ve heard the rest…now come listen to the best. We are going to clear the air for users about this myth, which has sometimes been perpetrated by folks with an agenda for BPMN that’s different from what the standard actually intends.

Register for CTO Tuesdays at http://www.activevos.com/ctot. Seats aren’t limited…and you don’t have to hurry.

But I do want to encourage you to join us for the recording of the June 22 podcast because the discussion is sure to be lively. Plus, you’ll want to be caught up on podcasts because the next podcast after this one will be even more incendiary. Michael will be nominating a poster child for a poor approach to integrating BPMN and BPEL: Oracle BPM Suite 11g.

So, that’s two not-to-be-missed episodes of CTO Tuesdays that’ll “hot up” your summer. Who’s made you a better offer lately?