Archive for the ‘BPMN’ Category

Human task, meet computer. Both of you, meet happy development team

Wednesday, July 1st, 2009

machine-human-task

In a podcast we recorded last week,  Luc Clément — our product manager — mentioned in passing that we were about to post a new sample that describes in detail how to actually implement a human task in a business process.

Since we can’t post a link easily inside the podcast — and this sample is really something anyone considering a BPMS should see — I wanted to make sure to point out that the sample is now available here. If you want a trial download of ActiveVOS to walk through the sample in, please download it here.

ActiveVOS has become very popular among BPM users because it makes it easy to include human tasks in larger business processes. It’s obvious, of course, that no business process application would be complete without integrated human tasks. What’s been missing is a complete, standards-based way to combine automated and human tasks into a process as well as a standardized way to expose the work item list to real people. ActiveVOS’s standards-based implementation (using both BPEL4People and WS-Human Task) is detailed in this sample, which we recommend to anyone considering a BPM implementation.

You can work through the sample at your leisure. It’s a great way to learn how human tasks and processes work together in a modern BPMS. The sample is also a marked contrast to yesterday’s separate workflow systems which must be manually integrated with automated systems and which vary widely in the way the tasks are delivered to end users.

Thinking about BPM? What you should REALLY ask your BPMS vendor

Friday, May 8th, 2009

bpm-questions-you-should-ask-your-bpms-vendor

Keith Swenson has posted this interesting list of questions to ask a BPM vendor.  I liked his emphasis on standards, since it is so important that the hard work that goes into creating business processes not be trapped in proprietary technology.  However, I think he concentrated on the wrong standard — XPDL.  If you really care about safeguarding your investment in your processes, the standard that you should care the most about is BPEL4People.

Don’t get me wrong, XPDL has its place.  ActiveVOS can both import and export XPDL version 2.1 (the latest version).   But XPDL is not a technology that will allow you to take an business process that is executable on one vendor’s BPM engine and move it to another vendor’s engine.  It just won’t work.  If you are lucky, the resulting business process diagram will look recognizable because the “abstract model” (as XPDL calls it) will import successfully.  But don’t get your hopes up about saving all the work that you did on the executable details.

The problem is not that XPDL has no place to put those executable details — it does.  It just doesn’t put enough constraints on what should go there.  There are just too many different things you can do, so no two tools do the same things.   Also, the bar for being able to say that you support XPDL 2.1 is just too low.  If a tool exports something that conforms to the XML Schema (possibly with liberal use of extensions) and import doesn’t barf on any Schema-valid input, then the tool conforms.  But don’t look for guarantees that you will see, much less be able to execute, anything reasonable.

By contrast, users of ActiveVOS have had great success in using BPEL-based business processes that were created by either IBM, Oracle or TIBCO tooling.  They have also found that the BPEL generated by ActiveVOS can be used by the tools of those other vendors.  That is real investment protection.

I do like Keith’s idea of having a list of questions for BPM vendors to help in the evaluation process.  I think the best way to organize such an evaluation is around four key areas.

Are the key BPM standards supported?

  • Does the product generate executable WS-BPEL 2.0 processes?
  • Can you model processes using BPMN?
  • Does the product use the BPEL4People for activities that are handled by people?
  • Are worklists and tasks exposed through the WS-HumanTask standard?
  • Does it support the important enterprise web-service standards, such as WS-Security and WS-ReliableMessaging?
  • How about non-SOAP access to services, such as JMS, REST or plain Java?
  • Does the product import and export XPDL?

Does the development environment make the process developer highly productive, especially for processes that are larger than mere toys?  For some important examples, how easy is it to:

  • Incorporate existing web services into a process?
  • Detect changes to web service definitions and update the process accordingly?
  • Define services provided by the process (including defining XML Schemas and WSDL)?
  • Define new human tasks using existing data definitions (XSDs)?
  • Prepare the input data for human tasks or services?
  • Support services that “call back” into a running process, and specify the appropriate data to use for correlation?
  • Find all uses of a variable within a large process?

An executable process is deployed software.  What support is available for ensuring and maintaining its quality?

  • Is there test case generation?
  • Is there test suite support?
  • Is there remote debugging?
  • Is there Metadata for controlling the difference between staging and deployment?
  • Can you new versions without effecting existing process instances?
  • Can you deploy new versions that do change existing process instances?

What can be done to a running instance?  Can you:

  • See where it has been (with anotations on the process diagram)?
  • View current and historical data?
  • Change data?
  • Skip activities?
  • Single step through activities?
  • Rewind execution, optionally reverting all process data to what it was?

What kind of runtime console support is there?

  • Can you get reports with either operational or business information?
  • Can the end user create any kind of new report and incorporate it into the runtime console?
  • How powerful is the query capability to find a process instance you care about?

All of these characteristics of a BPMS will eventually be important to anyone that is creating the kind of critical business processes that will really transform a business.  Knowing the answers to these questions can help you to avoid making the wrong choice.

What do BPM users want?

Friday, February 6th, 2009

You have to admit that the economic news these days has become truly frightening. In the US, joblessness has reached levels not seen in decades. Across the planet, governments are being forced to intervene in their economies in unprecedented ways.

But this isn’t a blog about economics. Instead, it’s a blog about a technology — business process management (BPM) — that allows enterprises to respond to these challenging times.

Jim Sinur of Gartner wrote this week about how customers’ perceptions of what BPM can accomplish for them today have changed from what they were just before the current economic upheaval. And to nobody’s surprise, the economic climate has pushed aside technical benefits in favor of bottom-line considerations like reducing costs and improving quality.

We have just one suggestion to add to the mix: think about saving big bucks in the BPM system itself.  Consider the costs of having to integrate multiple “stack” products to achieve a BPM application — having to build the car from a kit before you can drive it. Consider the costs of BPMN-only systems which cannot directly execute the application without being either proprietary or adding megabytes of hand-coded Java. Consider, finally, the costs of delay because your company simply cannot afford millions for a BPM system.

We like to think that ActiveVOS is the ideal product for these times: open, comprehensive, all-in-one, easy-to-learn and -deploy. But most of all, affordable. Maybe the silver lining in all this economic turmoil is that customers’ costly-is-better price prejudice with respect to BPM will dissolve on the alter of necessity and allow them to discover BPM that’s both better and less costly. That’s ActiveVOS. And it’s one reason we’ve recently displaced IBM at a giant European insurer and why we continue to gain market traction. Do yourself a favor: see if your BPM vendor posts its prices. We do, right here. We want you to know going in what a great system costs.

When your company is looking to BPM applications to save more pennies, it only makes sense that you would want to squeeze costs out of the BPM system itself. And it’s pretty clear that what Jim’s clients were thinking, too.

Commodities Trader Trafigura Redesigns Core Systems with ActiveVOS

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

Today, Active Endpoints announced that UK-based commodities trader Trafigura, Ltd. has implemented a BPM application written in ActiveVOS for its risk assessment function. This application was written by Brown Study, Ltd., an Active Endpoints partner.

The press release and accompanying white paper are attachments to this post.

icon for podpress  Commodities Trader Trafigura, Ltd. Redesigns Core Systems with ActiveVOS: Download (268)
icon for podpress  Brown Study White Paper: Download (157)

Active Endpoints Announces New Learning Tool for Java Developers

Wednesday, January 7th, 2009

Today, we are announcing via press release the Vintage Old Stock demonstration application for Java developers who are interested in seeing how an SOA-based application is designed, built and deployed.

Details are in the press release attached below as well as in Luc’s previous pre-holiday post about the demo. Included in the press release are instructions on how you can download a customized version of the ActiveVOS demo to experiment with the application on your own machine.

icon for podpress  Active Endpoints Announces New Learning Tool for Java Developers: Download (340)

Giving SOA terminology a nip/tuck

Tuesday, January 6th, 2009

Do you know what this logo is?  It’s the new Pepsi logo. What does Pepsi have to do with SOA?

To start off 2009 with a bang, Anne Thomas Manes has written a blog post declaring the term “SOA” dead. Like her previous post on the “failures” of SOA, this post is certain to get a lot of attention.

But a careful reading shows Ms. Manes only wants to kill the term SOA, not, of course, the technological movement which it defines and which she asserts is still critically important to improving application development.

I’ve heard this desire to make SOA a dirty word a lot lately, even inside Active Endpoints. And, as a marketing person, I recognize it for what it is: message fatigue from the avant-garde.

Like the marketing guys at Pepsi, the cognoscenti are tired of talking about SOA. They need something new, something exciting, something…effervescent to talk about. It’s not that the term SOA is dead…it’s simply boring, pedestrian.

In a startup company, the biggest marketing danger is thinking that the “world” knows what you’re saying. When you are small, the noise level around you is so high and the competition is so stiff that your message can’t ever get out unless you stick with it. But creative people don’t like repetition. They thrive on the new. So many technology startups fools themselves into thinking that “everyone knows” what they do. And they move on…into obscurity.

Like a startup company, the thought-leaders that truly believe in SOA as a way of doing things are about to abandon the term at the exact moment it becomes a mainstream, accepted way of doing things.Their need for the new — at least new terminology — threatens consolidation of the very movement they championed. (And it risks generating cynicism among thought-leaders who get frustrated by the incomplete adoption of the “latest thing.” It’s a self-fulfilling cycle: how can something be completely adopted if pundits abandon technology before the movement is consolidated?)

Incomplete adoption is possible because the companies contemplating SOA now are the middle and late adopters. They aren’t the early people who conflated an ESB with SOA. Adopters today are not bleeding-edge customers. They let someone else suffer those pangs.

ActiveVOS’s success in 2008 was, in part, because customers aren’t interested in technological debates. Instead, they wanted modern, affordable, all-in-one technology to achieve their business objectives. They don’t “debate” SOA. They simply implement it.

And in a surprising number of cases in 2008, ActiveVOS displaced or was installed alongside the SOA offerings from IBM and Oracle. Why? Because the never-ending need for “newness” in those products…uh, excuse me…”stacks”…makes them indigestible for customers looking to actually achieve something with their application portfolios. Like the pundits, many big competitors of ours keep “revising the logo,” confusing their customers and delaying consolidation of the SOA movement into the mainstream.

So, would a new term help SOA? I don’t think so…it’s like the Pepsi logo. It makes a lot of leading-edge people feel great. (”Wow, isn’t that beauuuutiful?”)  But it unnecessarily confuses large numbers of people who thought they understood what was going on and who had just begun to dip their toes into the SOA water. 

“Bring SOA Home for the Holidays” contest extended to 12/31

Thursday, December 18th, 2008

‘Twas the night before New Year’s and all through the house
Not a process was broken, not even a browse.

The ActiveVOS users sat by their computers with anticipation
In hopes that the “Bring SOA Home for the Holidays” judges would like their contest submission.

When out in the judges’ office there arose such a clatter
Every Active Endpoints employee wondered what was the matter.

And what to their wondering eyes should appear
But the judges with the list of three lucky winners of some really cool Lenovo gear!

—————————————————————————————————–

I hope you enjoyed reading this little parody of “The Night Before Christmas” as much as I enjoyed writing it. Seriously, we have some good news. Because of the great response to our contest “Bring SOA Home for the Holidays,” we have extended the submission deadline to New Year’s Eve – December 31, 11:59pm.

It’s easy and fun! Download a supported 30-day trial of ActiveVOS, the world’s leading visual orchestration system, and tell us how you would use it in your SOA, BPM, BPEL or BPMN projects. Make this holiday season a winner for you and your company. Try ActiveVOS…win a Lenovo netbook! Visit www.soaholiday.com for details and contest rules.

Happy Holidays!

Active Endpoints Joins Web Services Test Forum

Tuesday, December 9th, 2008

Active Endpoints, in collaboration with fifteen other vendors and enterprises, announces formation of group to promote web services interoperability.

icon for podpress  Ebook: Download (287)

BPMN? BPEL? Both? What’s right for a process execution standard?

Monday, December 8th, 2008

Bruce Silver has written an excellent post about the current state of BPM standards (with an emphasis on the “M” being Modeling, rather than Management). I am going to nitpick a little, however.

Bruce writes:

Because BPEL is more “technical” than BPMN, it is favored by developers who find nothing more annoying than business-types wanting to “collaborate” on implementation.

I disagree that developers don’t want to collaborate with their business-minded colleagues. This is the stereotype, of course, but in my experience it really hasn’t been true. The real question is whether or not business analysts and developers need to work on same model. Neither the developer nor the business analyst really wants this since they have different needs.

Bruce talks about one of these differences: business people using unstructured graph-oriented control flow vs. the structured control flow favored by developers. It’s clear why these different users would need different ways to diagram control flow.

So these difference needs dictate different representations. With the unstructured control flow, it is pretty easy to get into trouble (where “trouble” is defined as something that’s unclear at execution time) . For example, some modelers prefer to use conditional sequence flow (small diamonds on outbound transitions) rather than XOR gateways. Kieth Swenson has a good example and a couple blog posts (here and here) that discuss this. Unfortunately, with the current semantics, it is easy to get into trouble.

Think about this process model:

The business analysts might not think very hard about whether the thing could be red and blue, so at runtime it turns out that both paths could be taken and then you would end up with two simultaneous executions of “D”. That is legal, but probably not what was desired and difficult to debug.

It is the transition from unstructured to structured — as the model is handed from the business analyst to the developer — that causes these issues to surface. The developer will still use something that uses the BPMN notation, but with limitations that basically make it look structured. So yes, round trip is hurt. The developer doesn’t hand back to the modeler the same picture. It has been unwound a bit. This is a less comfortable style for the business analyst, but it’s certainly still understandable.

I don’t think Bruce disagrees with most of this thinking, because what he concludes is exactly in line with my thinking:

We need to recognize that standards for process modeling and process execution have different purposes and benefits. They should be linked, but with proper attention to those differences.

Dana Gardner: Active Endpoints beefs up visual orchestration system

Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008

In this post, Dana Gardner has identified critical new reporting capabilities and added OS and platform support available in the latest version of ActiveVOS.

SearchSOA.com: ActiveVOS “…is beginning to show dividends”

Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008

Rich Seeley has written a very interesting article about how visual modeling of business processes enables IT to work more closely with business users. Rich also points out how ActiveVOS has achieved great results for Fastenal.

Active Endpoints ships ActiveVOS 6.0.2

Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008

Today, Active Endpoints shipped ActiveVOS 6.0.2 with additional enhancements along with expanded operating system and database support. Details are in the press release attached to this post. We invite everyone to try ActiveVOS via a 30-day, supported, free trial.

Also, there’s still time to enter the Bring SOA Home for the Holidays contest. Simply by downloading ActiveVOS and submitting your good ideas, you could win a very, very cool Lenovo netbook.

icon for podpress  Active Endpoints ships ActiveVOS 6.0.2: Download (316)

VOSibilities podcast #21: ActiveVOS and the WSO2 ESB: Mainstream SOA for tough economic times

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008

We are pleased to make available replays of our recent webinar with WSO2 entitled Mainstream SOA: Next-generation application development for the rest of us.

In this webinar, Paul Fremantle, CTO of WSO2 and Mike Moniz, product manager here at Active Endpoints, describe and demonstrate SOA development tools that precisely meet today’s requirements. With the global economic situation deteriorating daily, enterprises, organizations and governments need SOA-based application development systems more than ever to be able to do more with less and respond to these challenging times. SOA is a natural response to the crisis and therefore, SOA adoption is accelerating.

Better yet, because of the cost savings and productivity SOA-based BPM systems yield, tough economic times mean that more and more organizations are looking beyond the bloatware of proprietary systems from IBM, Oracle and SAP and towards open-source and standards-based SOA systems like ActiveVOS and WSO2 ESB. In this webinar, you will see SOA software products, based on open standards like BPEL and BPMN, that are at the same time accessible, affordable and offer capabilities far beyond the piece-parts solutions from old-line legacy SOA providers,

This webinar replay even has more than a little excitement in it. At about 50 minutes, we lost the voice phone bridge. You can either skip forward about three minutes, at which time we restored the audio or you can enjoy the drama in my voice as I switch first to VoIP, then back to the phone. We do recommend that you listen to the Q&A starting at about 54 minutes as there is some very good discussion in that part of the replay.

Finally, I’ve posted multiple versions of the webinar as well as a PDF of the slides we presented. Podcast subscribers will automatically received the iPod-formatted .m4v file. This file is about 137MB in size. Also available are a Windows Media 9-encoded .wmv file at about 95MB and a DivX-encoded .avi at 423MB. When you play the .m4v file on the blog, it plays at 320×240 so it will fit on the page. But the file itself plays at 640×280 in iTunes or in QuickTime. Both the .wmv and .avi have much higher resolution and if you have the bandwidth, please feel free to download any or all of these episodes.

We hope you enjoy learning about how you can affordably develop, deploy and manage BPM applications using the latest SOA technology, and we welcome your comments.

 
icon for podpress  VOSibilities podcast #21: ActiveVOS and the WSO2 ESB: Mainstream SOA for tough economic times [73:44m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (746)
icon for podpress  VOSibilities podcast #21: ActiveVOS and the WSO2 ESB: Mainstream SOA for tough economic times [73:44m]: Download (259)
icon for podpress  VOSibilities podcast #21: ActiveVOS and the WSO2 ESB: Mainstream SOA for tough economic times [73:41m]: Download (98)
icon for podpress  VOSibilities podcast #21: ActiveVOS and the WSO2 ESB: Mainstream SOA for tough economic times: Download (251)

Active Endpoints and WSO2 to host joint webinar

Monday, October 27th, 2008

WSO2 and Active Endpoints are hosting a joint webinar  focusing on ESB and how to use a BPEL- and BPMN-based BPM system for best results on Tuesday, October 28 at 2pm ET, 11am PT, 18:00 GMT. Details are in the press release attached below and you can register at http://www.activevos.com/mainstream.

icon for podpress  Active Endpoints and WSO2 present joint webinar: Download (318)

VOSibilities podcast #19: Why BPMN and BPEL were (unfortunately) separated at birth and what it means for SOA developers

Thursday, October 23rd, 2008

The VOSibilities podcast from Active Endpoints on BPM, BPEL, BPMN, BPM, CEP and SOA for service orchestration and Java developers

In this fascinating podcast, Michael Rowley, director of strategy and technology at Active Endpoints discusses the history of how the Business Process Modeling Language (BPMN) and the Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) were unfortunately “separated” at birth. He also describes why BPMN and BPEL belong together and what the current efforts in the standards organizations working on BPMN and BPEL are doing to re-unite these two critical standards for SOA-based development.

The good news is that SOA developers are the ultimate winners of the inevitable reconciliation of BPMN and BPEL, but as Rowley describes, the reconciliation isn’t intended — and indeed shouldn’t be — a perfect union.

Rowley concludes by describing what ActiveVOS 6.0 delivers today for SOA developers who want to work with BPMN and BPEL in a single, integrated, deployable product.

We hope you enjoy this podcast, and, as always, welcome your comments on this podcast.

 
icon for podpress  VOSibilities podcast #19: Why BPMN and BPEL were (unfortunately) separated at birth and what it means for SOA developers [19:41m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (420)