Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #35: Boundary events in BPMN 2.0

• 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.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #32: BPM Standards Update

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.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

BPM Summer Camp session 3 webinar replay

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #31: SOA — from concept to SOAP opera, part 2

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #30: SOA — from concept to SOAP opera, part 1

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

Active Endpoints posts record sales in Q2 2010

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.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

Next on “CTO Tuesdays:” SOA – from concept to SOAP opera

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.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #29: Oracle’s misguided approach to BPMN and BPEL

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.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

BPM and BI: mix thoroughly for best results

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.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #28: Debunking the myth of conflict between BPMN and BPEL

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.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

Debunking the myth of BPMN conflict with BPEL

Michael Rowley discusses how WS-HumanTask, coupled with capabilities provided by JSON and AJAX make it possible to eliminate presentation tier services on application servers for worklist management and process initiation in BPMSs.

It’s a look into how the browser, courtesy of AJAX techniques, has become so powerful for presentation logic that it has obviated the need for extra server-side work. While that may not be the latest news, what is fascinating is the application of these capabilities to BPM — and the inside look at the protocol enabled by the move of presentation logic to the client.

A note: I had a problem with the recoding of this podcast. The bad news is for the first couple of minutes, you’ll hear me give my welcome and introduction to the webinar, but you won’t see my PowerPoint slides. The good news is, once Michael begins his talk, you will see everything perfectly.

Update: During the Q&A in this episode, a user asks about parsing JSON on the server side. One of our engineers, PJ, heard that question and offers this answer:

Here’s a link to the JSON specs and libs and links to for parsing in Java, C, C++, ASP, PHP, etc.: http://json.org/

In ActiveVOS, you do not need to parse JSON because it is automatically converted to XML by the ActiveVOS engine and passed into the Receive (or onEvent) activity in your process. So, in ActiveVOS, one works with XML using XQuery & XPath.

For those using REST based services and want to parse JSON or respond with JSON, they can use the following extension functions:abx:jsonToXml(jsonStr) -> returns XML element
abx:xmlToJson(xmlElement) -> return JSON string

For more information, in ActiveVOS’s Expression dialog picklist, see Functions->BPEL->ActiveVOS->JSON

PJ also notes that we have documentation on using JSON in ActiveVOS at http://www.activevos.com/dev/sdks/XML-JSON-Binding/docs/Part1-ActiveVOS-XML-JSON-API.html and sample code in our SDKs at http://www.activevos.com/developers-sdks.php.

Thanks, PJ.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #26: Eliminating the presentation tier

Der Video-Podcast gliedert sich in drei Teile:
1. Übersicht über die Einsatzmöglichkeiten von ActiveVOS
2. Demonstration der BPMS-Kernfunktionalitäten (Live-Demo)
3. Frage und Antworten

Für die vereinfachte Wiedergabe bieten wir vier verschiedene Multimediaformate an. Falls Sie ein iPhone, iPod touch und/oder iPad besitzen, empfehlen wir den Download des mv4-Formats. Alternativ steht das Video selbstverständlich auch als Flash-Datei, bzw. WMV für die Wiedergabe im Windows Media Player 9 zur Verfügung. Die Folien der Präsentation können zusätzlich zu den einzelnen Videos als PDF heruntergeladen werden.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

Deutschsprachige Demonstration von ActiveVOS

That’s what we’ll explore  on CTO Tuesdays for Tuesday, May 4, 2010. We’ll be discussing more complicated correlation examples and offer tips and techniques for using BPEL correlation to support a very wide range of processes.

Please join us at noon ET, 9am PT and 16:00 GMT. You can register to watch the podcast live and participate in the Q&A discussion by registering at http://www.activevos.com/ctot.

We look forward to seeing you on the podcast.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

Tomorrrow on “CTO Tuesdays:” Complex correlation scenarios

Well, I’ve been waiting a very long time to write a blog post that mentions that in the ABC TV series “Lost” the famous hatch where the button had to be pushed every 108 minutes had some very retro, old-school tech in it.

After searching and searching, I finally found a still on a fan website from the show’s second season that clearly shows a pair of IBM 3420 mainframe tape drives. Say what?

The Dharma Initiative was using IBM mainframe technology on the island in 1974? What did they need data storage for? Why are the tape drives always empty? What do those cool lights shining up from the bottom of the unit mean? (There were no lights there on the original 3420s.) How come I am the only person to have noticed these antiques in the hatch? (OK, not the only one. But a lot more people are wondering about the meaning of the smoke monster, or whether the Island is Hell — and all I want to know is what OS they were running on these things..MVS, VSE or the progenitor of all things virtual, VM/370.)

Lemme tell ya, these babies could store up to 150MB per 10″ tape reel! And to speed access, the drive “sucked” the tape down into the vacuum columns you can see on either side of the lighted area on the bottom of the tape drive. And, believe it or not, these things “burped” when you unloaded them — which depending on the version of the operating system the mainframe was running, sometimes had to be done manually.

So, what’s all this have to do with the content of CTO Tuesdays #21? Easy: for all the jokes about outdated mainframe(rs) and their never-very-cool reputation compared to the then-nascent PC, mainframes matter. They mattered then…and, to the surprise of no one who’s ever worked on them, they matter today.

On this episode of CTO Tuesdays, Michael Rowley turns the con over to Rob Morris and Dusty Rivers of GT Software, who describe an elegant and practical way of linking everything on a mainframe — CICS transactions, IMS queues, VSAM keyed datasets, raw 3270 data streams…you name it — to a modern BPMS like ActiveVOS. This is done via standard web services, using WSDLs to define available mainframe services.

Simply, if you have mainframe technology in your organization (and, frankly if you are in financial services, telecommunications and/or entertainment & media, we’d bet you do) and you want to write business processes that live up to the promise of flexibly integrating both people and systems, you gotta watch this podcast.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #21: Building business processes with mainframe inclusion

Details of how AAPT has used BPM to change the way it develops applications are in the press release attached to this post.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

Australian Telecom AAPT goes live with ActiveVOS applications

REST (for “representational state transfer“) has become a popular style of creating applications in a services-oriented environment. But many development teams are less familiar with REST than they could be. On CTO Tuesdays for April 13, 2010, Active Endpoints CTO Michael Rowley will provide an easy-to-understand overview of REST and show examples of its use. Register at http://www.activevos.com/ctot to join for this exciting look at REST. CTO Tuesdays is presented live at noon ET, 9am PT, 16:00 GMT.

CTO Tuesdays is a weekly podcast about the technology of BPM. Each week CTO Tuesdays tackles a single technical topic and delivers the education development teams want to learn how to create a new generation of process applications. Register for the next episode of CTO Tuesdays here.”

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

Tomorrow on CTO Tuesdays #20 for April 13, 2010: Using REST in BPM

The topic for CTO Tuesdays, the BPMS podcast, for Tuesday, March 30, 2010 is “Email-based approvals in a BPMS.”

One of the most common tasks in business processes is to request that something be approved or denied. In some cases, it is appropriate to request approvals by email rather than require that the approver log into a task management system. This talk will show how to include such approval tasks in business processes.

Register to join us live at http://www.activevos.com/ctot.

What is CTO Tuesdays?

CTO Tuesdays is about the technology of BPM. Because Active Endpoints believes that people need to change the way they do things, it’s up to us to help them understand what they need to in order to have them welcome that change. BPM technology is a new thing for many people…and we have an obligation to educate users about this new way of thinking and doing. So, each week we tackle a single topic in some depth – but limit the technical discussion to 30 minutes or so. The idea is to give people enough to tickle their curiosity and allow them to explore more on their own. 30 minutes is about right because, once you strip away the novelty, BPM concepts are just not that hard. The BPM technical talk is followed by a lively panel Q&A. CTO Tuesdays is not an ActiveVOS commercial – though when we illustrate a concept in the podcast, we obviously use ActiveVOS.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

Tomorrrow on “CTO Tuesdays,” the BPMS podcast

This episode is the second of two on persistence and compensation. If you haven’t seen the previous episode, you might find it interesting to review before watching this one.

Four files are attached to this post. Three are video recordings of the podcast in different formats; the fourth is a PDF of the slides Rowley presented.

Please be sure to sign up for our next CTO Tuesdays, scheduled for March 30, 2010 at noon ET. The topic will be “Handling approvals by email in business processes.”

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #17: How BPMSs support long-running business transactions

There are three formats attached to this post. First, an iPod touch/iPhone-formatted .m4v. We also have a Flash file that can be streamed from the blog and a Windows Media 9-encoded .wmv.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

VOSibilities podcast #45: An introduction to T-Impact

But you’d be missing a really interesting and, dare I say it, fun topic. Trust me.

This week Michael Rowley tackles bugs in BPMSs. Bugs are just a part of life when creating business applications. But what about when you are creating process applications using a model-based BPMS? What happens then? How does the BPMS help you identify — even prevent and eliminate — bugs? Watch this episode to find out how standards like BPMN 2.0 and BPEL work together to help make designing and executing process applications more error-free.

As always, we have three formats of the podcast posted. There’s an iPod touch/iPhone .m4v; a Flash file that can be streamed from the blog and a Windows Media 9 .wmv.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #14: Preventing problems through static analysis of business processes

But what is the state of BPMN 2.0 usage in the real world? This webinar, originally broadcast on February 18, 2010, offers some answers.

The bottom line? BPMN 2.0 usage is gaining traction — it’s becoming the modeling notation of choice for everything from documentation to creating executable process applications. If you are interested in what BPMN can do for you, you will want to watch this webinar replay to learn more about BPMN and how people are using it today. Watch Sandy Kemsley show you how not to create BPMN models as she parades models from the “BPMN modeling hall of shame.” And you can also watch as Michael Rowley shows you how to make BPMN executable with BPEL. At the end of the webinar is a very stimulating Q&A in which Kemsley and Rowley discuss the future of the BPMN specification and answer attendees’ questions.

A variety of formats are attached to this post, including a Flash format that can be streamed from the blog. Also, the slides Sandy and Michael presented are available in PDF form.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

VOSibilities podcast #44: The state of BPMN: an update from the real world

That’s how we feel about business process management systems (BPMS) and enterprise content management systems (ECM). These two important technologies are made for each other.

If you have an important business process you want to automate, it’s likely to have people, processes and documents that all need to work together. And, you are likely to want everything to work together based on open, industry-wide standards. We’d go so far as to say, it’s an absolute requirement that the BPMS and ECM be totally based on standards.

That’s what Alfresco and ActiveVOS offer together. The best capabilities; the most openness.

Watch the replay of this webinar — and the absolutely brilliant demo of ActiveVOS BPMS and Alfresco ECM working together — to see how you can quickly, easily and compatibly produce better process applications for your organization.

There are three formats attached to this post, along with a PDF of the slides presented in the webinar. First is an iPod touch/iPhone-formatted .m4v. Second, a Flash .flv file that can be downloaded or played from the blog. Third, a Windows Media 9-encoded .wmv is available.

We hope you enjoy this introduction to combining BPM and ECM technologies.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

VOSibilities podcast #43: Combining BPMS and ECM for better process applications

XPDL 2.1 is already supported by many tools, including ActiveVOS, so extending XPDL to support the new constructs in BPMN 2.0 will provide the fastest path for most vendors to achieve some level of interoperability of their BPMN 2.0 models.

Nonetheless, I’ve found that most people who have asked Active Endpoints about model import/export formats have been people who have the wrong idea of how to work with a BPMS. These are people who are trying to hold on to their old waterfall methodology for building software, where there are separate tools for building process models during analysis from the development tools that are later used to create the software. In that world, there is a constant need to translate back and forth between the tools as changes may occur on either side.

And there’s the rub. The roundtrip translation always loses so much information that the effort to keep the separate representations in sync and accurate outweighs the value of using the automatic export / import functionality. Eventually, changes made on the analysis side get redone on the implementation side by hand, and vice versa.

The right way to work is to let the BPMS own the model. Yes, you may want to allow early requirements gathering to use simpler modeling tools, but those tend to be fairly informal flow charts anyway. Once you get involved in real modeling you should use the modeling capabilities of your BPMS. By “real modeling”, I mean that you are at the stage where the precise semantics of the notation used is important, since it is going to drive the actual semantics of the resulting software.

In the early phases, the process models are diagrams where the labels on the diagram are what really matter. For example, the arrows coming out of an activity might formally imply that both directions can be followed at once, but the labels on the arrows have labels that imply that one one of them will happen. This is OK during the early stages of modeling, since it is another human who is going to be reading the model and they can guess what was really meant (or they can ask, if they aren’t sure).

Once you are ready to do real modeling, it is time to get the BPMS involved. That way the process model you create will go the rest of the way through the lifecycle of the project without need for translation, much less round-trip translation. How you get from the informal stage to the formal stage of process modeling isn’t really all that important. Yes, you can use XPDL 2.1, but it doesn’t really even matter if you have to redraw it from scratch. Drawing it is very fast in a capable designer like ActiveVOS, and the person doing the modeling is already going to have to be carefully considering each jot and tiddle of the original diagram to determine how to correctly model what the user really wanted to begin with.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

The BPMS owns the model

Attached to this post are three versions of the webinar. First is an iPod-formatted .m4v file. Second, a Flash .flv. Third, we have attached a Windows Media 9-encoded .wmv. Finally, we have also attached a PDF of the presentation John delivered.

We hope you enjoy this episode of CTO Tuesdays. We hope, over time, to have additional guest CTOs on the podcast to talk about complementary technologies. And we’d love to hear your suggestions for topics as well as your comments and feedback.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #12: ECM and BPMS Working Together

Three versions of the webinar are attached to this post: an iPod-formatted .m4v file, a Flash .flv file and a Windows Media 9-formatted .wmv.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #11: Structured and unstructured BPMN modeling

There are three formats available. First, an iPod-formatted .m4v. Second, a Flash .flv file which can be streamed directly from the blog or downloaded. Third, a Windows Media 9-encoded .wmv. The .wmv file is about 55MB in size; the other two are about 96MB.

Please feel free to request an evaluation of ActiveVOS to begin to apply what you see and learn in this webinar to your business processes.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

VOSibilities podcast #41: ActiveVOS 7 and IBM Rational Requirements Composer

However, we realize that this is a very inconvenient time for people in Asia-Pacific and some other time zones. So, we occasionally record the most recent webinar and post it to the blog. Attached to this post are three versions of the same recording. One, a .m4v file, is intended for iPod touch/iPhone users and is also available in our podcast feed. Second is a Flash .flv file (which can also be played directly on the blog). Finally, there’s an Windows Media 9-encoded .wmv. These files are large, because the webinar lasted over an hour. But the content is worth the download time.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

VOSibilities podcast #40: ActiveVOS 7 demonstration

We have posted three formats of the webinar replay. First is an iPod-formatted .m4v file. Also, a Flash file that can be played from the blog and/or downloaded. Finally, we have included a Windows Media 9-encoded .wmv file.

Please join us every week at noon ET, 9am PT and 17:00 GMT for CTO Tuesdays.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #10 Using requirements gathering tools with a BPMS

In our first episode of the new year, Active Endpoints CTO Michael Rowley covers some basic theory of how complex event processing (CEP) works and makes the case for integrating a CEP engine directly into the BPM engine. Topics covered include the Event Processing Language (EPL), time windows as a method of correlating disparate events and event streams. In short, a fascinating — and accessible — introduction to a hot technical topic.

We have attached several formats of the webinar replay to this post. First, for iTunes subscribers, we have a .m4v file, perfect for taking along on your iPod. RSS feed subscribers will automatically receive this file. Also, there’s a .flv file which can be played directly on the blog (click where it says “click here” to play it). Also, we have attached a Windows Media 9-encoded .wmv file. Finally, the slides Michael presented are attached as a .pdf.

Be sure to join us live every Tuesday at noon ET, 9am PT, 17:00 UTC for a new topic. You can always register for the upcoming CTO Tuesdays webinar at http://www.activevos.com/ctot. Replays are usually posted here on our blog within 48 hours.

We have an exciting agenda of upcoming episodes, and later in the first part of Q1, we hope to guest CTOs join us for their perspectives on technical topics. We hope you will join us live each week.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #9: BPM as an event source for CEP

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

ActiveVOS Experiences Rapid Sales Growth in Q4 2009

In this episode, Active Endpoints CTO Michael Rowley gives what might be the most concise, “digestable” overview of BPMN 2.0 available on the Web. If you are new to BPMN and want to see what it can do for you and your organization, this content is for you. In this webinar, Rowley discusses basic BPMN notation, including activities, events and gateways. And, in an expansive Q&A following the presentation, Rowley answers questions about the use and capabilities of BPMN.

There are four attachments contained in this post. First, an iPod-formatted .m4v recording of the webinar. This is for subscribers to the podcast in iTunes (search on “vosibilities”). Next, is a Flash .flv file which is intended to stream from the blog, though at the small size I have to limit the player to on the blog (416×312), it’s not the best experience. The .flv file itself is at 640×480, so feel free to download it if you want to play it locally. Next we have the original-sized Windows Media 9-encoded .wmv file. Finally, a PDF of the slides Rowley presented are attached.

We hope you find this content useful. You can always access the replays of CTO Tuesdays here on our blog, www.vosibilities.com in the “CTO Tuesdays” category, in our podcast on iTunes and via www.ctotuesdays.com or, for an RSS feed, www.ctotuesdays.com/feed. We’re trying to make it easy to find and use this content, so if there’s a method you prefer we haven’t accounted for, please let us know.

CTO Tuesdays will return to our every-Tuesday-at-noon-ET schedule in early January, 2010.  Next year we have some exciting additions planned, including guest appearances of CTOs from other leading technology companies. Make sure you sign up to attend every week. You can always sign up for the next episode at www.activevos.com/ctot.

Finally, in answer to a question we had in the Q&A, here’s a link to the OMG specification for BPMN 2.0. In Annex A of this document, you can find the differences between BPMN 1.2 and BPMN 2.0.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #8: An Introduction to BPMN

This episode takes a look at how it is possible to meld the “Wild West” control flow of BPMN 2.0 with the more buttoned-down control flow of BPEL. Rowley gives an example of a BPEL extension that effectively marries these two standards in a way that preserves the best of both BPMN modeling and BPEL execution.

There are two versions of the webinar replay file attached. First is an iPod-formatted .m4v. Also available is a Windows Media 9-encoded .wmv file.

You can always register for the upcoming CTO Tuesdays webinar at http://www.activevos.com/ctot. Registration is free. Access replays on the Wednesday following the webinar at http://www.ctotuesdays.com or via RSS feed at http://www.ctotuesdays.com/feed.

Be sure to join us next Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at noon ET, 17:00 UTC, 9am PT for a very special CTO Tuesdays in which Michael Rowley will deliver an introduction to BPMN 2.0. If you are interested in BPM and BPMS technology, you won’t want to miss this episode.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #7: Adding Looping Links to BPEL

We welcome your comments and feedback on this topic.

Also, we would also like to invite you to our weekly webinar CTO Tuesdays. Every Tuesday at noon ET, 17:00 UTC, Active Endpoints CTO Michael Rowley discusses a single technical topic in 30 minutes, followed by a Q&A from the audience. In the recent past, we’ve covered topics like the BPMN 2.0 diamond control flow and engine-managed execution. Our most recent webinar delved into the the issues of dead path detection in BPEL and how to model in BPMN 2.0 to avoid duplicate activity execution.

You can always find the replays of the webinars on this blog in the “CTO Tuesdays” category (RSS feed here). Registration for the next CTO Tuesdays webinar is always available here.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

searchSOA.com on the BPMN 2.0 with BPEL discussion

CTO Tuesdays has been getting great feedback from our growing audience, and I’d like to offer this week’s episode as a good example of why. The discussion of BPMN 2.0 and BPEL flows is something you might not find elsewhere, delivered in an objective way and surrounded by stimulating questions and discussion with attendees. I hope you will join us every Tuesday at 17:00 GMT and participate as well. You can register at http://www.activevos.com/ctot. The replays are always available at http://www.ctotuesdays.com or via our RSS feed at http://www.ctotuesdays.com/feed

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #6: Diamond patterns in BPEL and BPMN

Still?

The BPMN 2.0 spec just went to beta in August and no vendor yet has an implementation of the new BPMN 2.0 execution language. So at this point the debate is just getting started. We can only compare what exists (BPMN 2.0 with BPEL execution) with the theoretical idea of a product that will someday implement the new BPMN 2.0 execution language.

At that point we will be able to get a real side-by-side comparison. Until that time, we have to guard against “shiny-new-thing syndrome,” where the newly envisioned technology gets to paint a wonderful picture looking toward the horizon, while actual working technology has to compete against that vision bearing the stains that come from living where the rubber meets the road.  Although, in this case, even the horizon envisioned by the BPMN 2.0 execution language is tainted by some pretty scary-looking smoke.

Bruce dismissed my assertion that BPMN 2.0 on top of BPEL is simpler than the new BPMN 2.0 execution language with the following:

Simpler for whom?  When you sort it all out, he’s actually saying BPEL is simpler for an engine vendor because it doesn’t have overlapping or alternative constructs like BPMN does.  No one would argue with that, but who cares?  No engine vendor is going to support every possible BPMN 2.0 element and attribute called out in the metamodel.  And I’m not saying just in the first release.  Not ever.  In that sense, BPMN 2.0 is not a self-contained execution language like BPEL is.

We disagree. Because we’ve actually built an execution engine, we know that it is actually pretty easy to implement alternative overlapping language constructs. This debate about simplicity isn’t about what a vendor can build — it’s about what the ultimate impact of that engine technology is on the user who designs and deploys processes on that engine.

My concern is for the poor person who is trying to figure out what is going wrong with a process that occasionally gets stuck. Forward progress for a process that uses the BPMN 2.0 execution language depends on a complex interplay between a huge number of constructs: event handlers, correlation mechanisms, data-flow with optional and required data, and token-based control flow that has to account for multiple tokens flowing simultaneously on a single sequence flow.

The problem with a language that is large and complex is that it is hard to have any confidence that what you’ve created will always work the way that you expect it to in production, especially when you can only test a small subset of the exponential number of possible execution scenarios.

Bruce’s admission that “BPMN is not a self-contained execution language” is noteworthy and I hope people pay close attention to it. Why do people care about standards for the languages that they use for their software? The answer is portability – primarily portability of skills but also portability of code and interoperability of tools. Basically, they are looking for an ecosystem around the language.

I love the fact that portability of skills will be enhanced by the standardization of BPMN as a notation, but for all of the constructs that are necessary to get the thing to actually execute, it seems like there are two choices: use BPEL, which is (despite assertions to the contrary) quite portable, or use some vendor’s subset/interpretation of the new BPMN 2.0 execution language. By “interpretation” I mean that even strict conformance to BPMN 2.0 admits incredible levels of freedom that are counterproductive to the creation of a language ecosystem. The most egregious example of this is the fact that the type system is pluggable. Few things are more important in a language than the type system, and yet BPMN 2.0 allows vendors to choose their own.

Bruce’s attack on the use of BPEL with BPMN rests on the assumption that: “BPEL is inherently block oriented, like a computer program, while BPMN is inherently graph oriented, like a flowchart.” Actually, BPEL supports both styles (although with some caveats). Here is a process built using ActiveVOS that is standard BPEL:

Doesn’t this look like a flow chart to you?

The one caveat that BPEL put on this style is that the loops have to be nested. This is where I agree with Bruce – without any extensions, BPEL does have an issue with “interleaved loops.” From my experience, interleaved loops are not the most common case, but if you do have a process where interleaved loops are the most natural way to represent it, what do you do? You have two choices: 1) with the use of variables, you can always rework the graph so that the loops aren’t interleaved; or, 2) you can use an extension to BPEL that removes the looping links restriction. This is an extension that is supported by both Active Endpoints and IBM and does away this nagging issue in the mapping between BPMN and BPEL. And it does this without thowing the entire language out the window and starting from scratch to make a bigger, more complex language.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

BPMN 2.0 with BPEL — the debate is just starting

Active Endpoints CTO Michael Rowley then demonstrates using a BPMN 2.0 modeler to create executable BPEL processes.

A panel with Jeffrey and Michael follows the presentations.

Attached to this post are three files. An iPod-encoded .m4v file, a Windows Media 9-encoded file and a PDF of the slides that Jeffrey and Michael presented.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

VOSibilities podcast #39: Modeling process applications with BPMN 2.0

BPEL is complex and BPMN is simple, right? After all, BPMN has a nice graphical notation. The BPEL standard only specifies what the language looks like in XML. That alone ought to be enough claim the prize for BPMN.

However, what if you use BPMN’s notation for a process but use BPEL for the executable representation? This removes the graphical vs. XML distinction and can “hide” the non-graphical BPEL as represented in XML. You end up with a BPMN model everyone can understand and a BPEL model your computers can execute. It’s like the two sides of a coin: there are different pictures on each side, but the coin itself is always both sides at once.

However the question of which is simpler gets more complicated when you also consider that the new BPMN 2.0 specification includes hundreds of constructs in its meta-model that have no graphical representation. Now, which is simpler, BPMN with BPEL or BPMN with the new BPMN 2.0 execution language? What may seem obvious (BPMN with BPMN 2.0 execution) isn’t the slam-dunk choice many people might expect it to be.

BPMN 2.0 has two different — but equal — compliance points for execution: BPEL Process Execution Conformance and Process Execution Conformance. This means that BPMN 2.0 standardizes the use of BPEL as the execution language for BPMN, but it also offers the option of making BPMN executable by using new constructs that have been added to the BPMN notation specifically to support execution. These new constructs depend on the execution semantics that have been defined for almost everything in BPMN.

So, which is simpler? Believe it or not, using BPMN with BPEL execution is dramatically simpler than trying to execute processes using the new BPMN 2.0 execution language. I know this sounds counter-intuitive, so I will justify it in this post and a series of follow-up posts on the same subject.

Before I get into the details of why I believe BPMN with BPEL is better, a little history might help clarify the question. There are some factors that caused the BPMN 2.0 standard to eventually become more complex than BPEL. (I know, I know, BPEL has the reputation of being far too complex…but hear me out.)

BPMN was designed to be a language for communicating from one person to another, not from a person to a machine. Languages used for human communication have a natural, and appropriate, tendancy to grow. Whenever people find that they frequently need to convey something that is awkward to express with their current vocabulary, they invent a new word. English, which is especially amenable to such growth, surpassed one million words last year. Just consider “unfriend” or “netbook,”  new words to express new ideas.

The same is true for graphical modeling languages. Look at UML (Universal Modeling Language). It started as the unification of three fairly simple graphical notations (best known by their respective primary inventors: Rumbaugh, Coad & Yourdan, and Grady Booch). Once they unified their modeling languages and people started using them in earnest, they grew larger and larger, with new diagrams and new elements on those diagrams with each successive version. Sure there was always overlap in what could be expressed by different diagrams or different elements, but in each case, there were situations where one was more natural to the reader than the other. The fact that different constructs have imprecise overlapping meanings is of little concern in a language meant for people, since people are comfortable with choosing among a variety of ways of expressing the same thing, each with their own nuances and connotations.

But while notation creep is a useful way of expanding spoken languages or graphical notations, it is not such a good thing for a language that must be directly executable on a computer.

That’s because it is always a problem to take such a large language and give it formal executable semantics. The problem usually isn’t with a lack of rigor in the definition of any one construct. The problem is with the exponential number of combinations of those constructs.

Good programming languages typically add new fundamental primitives very cautiously. Consider how much hard preparatory work was done in the Java community before Java introduced generics into the language, or the hand wringing that is gripping that community as they grapple with the addition of closures to the language. The way it typically works is that some eminently-respectable, highly-credentialed expert (like Neal Gafter, in the case of closures) will make a seemingly very well-thought-out proposal that describes how the new construct will simplify the lives of so many programmers. Then another equally eminent expert (like Josh Bloch, in this case) will find unintended consequences of the new construct when it is used in combination with other things in the language.

That was just for one language feature. The BPMN 2.0 execution language has dozens of features that have never really been used together in an execution language. For example, the BPMN 2.0 execution not only has a variety of ways of handing the control flow for multiple incoming sequence flows, activities also can’t execute until all of the required inputs from one of the activities input datasets has become available. In other words, it has a fairly complex data flow model intertwined with its control flow model.

Another example is message correlation. BPEL has, in the past, been criticized for the complexity of its approach to correlation, but BPMN has two different correlation mechanisms. Key-based correlation is basically equivalent to BPEL’s correlation mechanism, although the standard has invented all new terminology for the various components. It then defines a new concept of context-based correlation. Rather than trying to convince you that it is complex, I’ll just include the complete explanation of it from the BPMN 2.0 specification (yes, in a 500-page specification, there are no examples or additional explanations for these concepts):

In context-based correlation, the Process context (i.e., its Data Objects and Properties) may dynamically influence the matching criterion. That is, a CorrelationKey may be complemented by a Process-specific CorrelationSubscription. A CorrelationSubscription aggregates as many CorrelationProperty-Bindings as there are CorrelationProperties in the CorrelationKey. A CorrelationPropertyBinding relates to a specific CorrelationProperty and also links to a Formal-Expression which denotes a dynamic extraction rule atop the Process context. At runtime, the Correlation-Key instance for a particular Conversation is populated (and dynamically updated) from the Process context using these FormalExpressions. In that sense, changes in the Process context may alter the correlation condition.

Confused yet? Are you wondering not just why BPMN 2.0 needed to define and redefine an important concept like message correlation, but also wondering how, precisely, to implement BPMN correlation?

These are just a couple of the ways that BPMN’s new execution language is more complex that using BPMN with BPEL. BPEL is now a known commodity. It’s widely implemented. Many production applications are running BPEL today. There are many people with experience with it and the concepts in the language are well understood. With BPMN 2.0, it now has a standardized notation, so there is no need to work with a new language that is a big bag of language constructs whose interactions have never been exercised together.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

Which is simpler: BPMN or BPEL?

There are two attached versions of the webinar replay (an iPod-formatted .m4v and a DivX-encoded .avi). As always, you can register for the next episode of CTO Tuesdays at http://www.activevos.com/ctot. We look forward to your comments, suggestions and feedback.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #5: Engine-managed correlation

The bad news is that due to a technical issue, the audio for the host, our own Sonal Rajan, wasn’t recorded. This is shame because at the end of each topic, we always have an open Q&A session on the current topic to amplify the technical discussion. Unfortunately, these replays won’t have that Q&A because there’s no audio for the moderator. However, the actual presentation about message correlation was recorded just fine.

In the two attached versions of the webinar replay (an iPod-formatted .m4v and a DivX-encoded .avi), I have edited most of the silent introduction and the Q&A.

As always, you can register for the next episode of CTO Tuesdays at http://www.activevos.com/ctot.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #4: Message correlation

First, lets assume that you are convinced of the value of BPEL. You see that it is a great high-level language for creating business processes and orchestrating services. Its service-centric approach is simpler and better for long-term manageability and reuse than other approaches to business process management. It is an accepted OASIS standard with multiple vendor implementations, so investments in BPEL processes are not tied to a single vendor and you can find people who already know the language without having to train them from scratch.

But if you are convinced you want BPEL, why should you care about BPMN? There are two main reasons:

1) To get the value of a standard notation;

2) To improve collaboration with a wide variety of stakeholders in the process, since BPMN is a significant simplification over existing notations used for BPEL.

When WS-BPEL 2.0 was standardized, the OASIS Technical Committee chose not to standardize a graphical notation for it. This was unfortunate, since no one creates a business process by writing BPEL in XML, which is the only standardized representation. Every vendor, and every BPEL developer, creates their processes using a graphical representation, but that representation is different for every tool.

And the notations used by these tools haven’t really been very good. They typically provide a one-to-one correspondence between control flow constructs in BPEL and things on the canvas. However, if you use the BPMN notation, it shows a notation that can mostly be understood without any knowledge of BPEL or even BPMN for that matter (as long as the labels are chosen carefully).

Let me make both of these points with the help of a trivial process example. Take a look at the BPMN representation of a process that I’ll call the “Question” process.

(Click on each image to see a larger version)

It is trivial to follow what is going on, especially if you know the standard notation. You can’t tell by looking at this diagram, but I’ve used two different BPEL mechanisms for getting to the next activity. I use a BPEL link to get from “Receive Q” to the first diamond (the beginning of the BPEL if statement). I use a BPEL sequence to get from the second diamond (the end of the if) to the “Record Answer” activity.

The user who is looking at the graphical representation of the process doesn’t need to know about the distinction between these two mechanisms, so the diagram doesn’t show a difference. The developer may want to know about the difference, so ActiveVOS highlights them differently on mouse-over and shows them differently in the “process outline view”, but that isn’t really important for today’s discussion.

What is important is how different the process is represented in different tools due to the fact that no notation had been standardized. I’ll show what this process looks like in three different BPEL process designers.

Here is how ActiveVOS would represent this process in previous versions of the product (or using the optional “classic” style in 7.0):

Here is how the Eclipse BPEL Designer represents it:

And, here is how the designer for Oracle’s BPEL Process Manager represents it:

In all three of these representations, each of the paths through the if statement are represented by a bounding box. The problem with this representation is that nested if statements can result in so many nested bounding boxes that it is hard to follow what is going on. BPMN simply has arrows through each path and the paths merge back into a single control flow at a gateway diamond.

Also notice the differences in the handling of links vs. sequences. Both ActiveVOS classic and Eclipse represent sequences with their own bounding boxes, then any arrow that is a direct child of a sequence box is known to belong to the sequence, rather than being a real link. Eclipse also draws the links in different color. The extra sequence icon and corresponding bounding box just interferes with the ability for non-technical users to follow what is going on in the process.

Oracle’s designer is odd in this respect. Sequences are not shown in a bounding box, so they don’t clutter up the control flow (a good thing in my opinion), but links aren’t shown at all! There is a link from the “Receive_Q” activity to the if statement, but there isn’t any representation of it on the diagram. It shows the “Receive_Q” and the if as if they happen in parallel. You have to look into the properties of “Receive_Q” to discover that it has an outgoing link, and further rummaging to find out where it goes.

The BPMN representation is, by far, the easiest version of this small process to understand. The process illustrates just three constructs whose representation is simpler with BPMN than with other approaches: ifs, sequences and links. The other BPEL constructs are generally as easy or easier for non-technical users to understand than previous approaches.

But, as valuable as the improvement in readability may be, the greater value that BPMN brings to be BPEL is probably consistency. Having different tools represent similar constructs in such different ways is detrimental to one of the key values in having a standard: skills portability. With a common notation, people will be able to carry their knowledge of how to understand and work with standards-based business processes between vendor tools. It will also create a greater incentive for people to learn these technologies and for schools to teach them. After all, people aren’t usually to thrilled about investing a lot of energy into learning proprietary technologies, and no school really wants to be teaching proprietary technologies.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

Why use BPMN for BPEL?

I think you will find Michael’s explanation of BPMN 2.0 event notation especially valuable.

I have attached two versions of the recorded webinar to this post. The first is an iPod-formatted .m4v. Also attached to this post is a Windows Media format .wmv file.

We have also made signing up for CTO Tuesdays and accessing the replays much easier. You can always sign up for the upcoming session of CTO Tuesdays at http://www.activevos.com/ctot. Replays are always available at http://www.ctotuesdays.com. And, an RSS feed of the replays is available at http://www.ctotuesdays.com/feed.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #3: BPMN and BPEL events

Attached to this post are three files. A PDF of the slides Dr. Rowley presented, an iPod-formatted .m4v file (which requires QuickTime or iTunes to be installed) and a more-or-less standard .avi file. The .avi is the larger of the two video files.

Due to a technical error (I didn’t press “show” on GoToMeeting), the first few minutes of the video show Michael’s slides, not the ones I am discussing. Since this is just an introduction, you won’t miss anything. I’ve put those “missing” slides into the .pdf file, so you can follow along if you want to.

We had a very lively panel discussion at the end of the presentation; I hope you’ll have the time to listen to the discussion that follows the presentation.

As always, we are very interested in your feedback, comments and topic suggestions.

One more note: you can always register for the upcoming CTO Tuesdays session by visiting http://www.activevos.com/ctot. We hope you join us for next week’s webinar.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #2: Introduction to WS-HumanTask

Every Tuesday, Active Endpoints’ CTO Michael Rowley, will present a topic of interest to BPM users. Our inaugural topic was an explanation of the meaning and uses of the BPMN 2.0 diamond symbol. If you are interested in learning BPMN 2.0 — or if you just want to brush up on some of the more advanced considerations in using this basic BPMN symbol — you will find this recording very instructive. Concepts are demonstrated in ActiveVOS 7’s new BPMN 2.0 modeler.

Attached to this post are two versions of the webinar: an iPod-formatted .m4v file our podcast subscribers will automatically receive and an H.264-encoded .avi file (which is much larger at about 113MB).

We welcome your input and suggestions for CTO Tuesdays. Contact us via email at editor at activevos dot com. Today, the best way to be notified of upcoming CTO Tuesdays is to be on our mailing list. And, the best way to get onto our mailing list is to download a trial of ActiveVOS. You can also register for upcoming CTO Tuesdays by clicking on the link in the right hand column of any interior page on www.activevos.com.

We are working hard on making registering for CTO Tuesdays easier. But because of the demand for education on topics like BPMN 2.0, we started the webinar series without waiting to dot all the “i’s” and cross all our “t’s.”

Update: You can now register for CTO Tuesdays by clicking the link in the right-hand column of any page on www.activevos.com except the home page. So, just navigate into the site a little and you’ll get a little reward: easy access to registration for CTO Tuesdays.

Updated update: You can now always register for the upcoming CTO Tuesdays at http://www.activevos.com/ctot.

We hope you enjoy this recording and that you will join us as your schedule permits for the live CTO Tuesdays every Tuesday at noon ET, 9am PT, 16:00 GMT (17:00 GMT after the end of US daylight savings time in November, 2009).

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

CTO Tuesdays #1: The BPMN diamond

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

Dennis Byron on ActiveVOS 7 BPM

“BPM suites that focus on business users, they don’t get technical enough,” said Alex Neihaus, VP of marketing at Active Endpoints. “They become islands of computing and sit off by themselves. And with BPMS for architects and developers, the level of cost and complexity is beyond the level of what most people are willing to undertake.”

This “third way” between the cost and complexity of stacks from Oracle and IBM and the unfulfilled promises of Lombardi and Pegasystems to integrate easily across the enterprise are why we believe we have become so popular among development teams. Looking past old buying habits and the new politics of “end user” BPM, our customers are seeking great technology at an affordable price that can be used to create integrated processes as that are themselves services.

You can read Rob’s entire blog post here.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

SOA Talk blog covers ActiveVOS 7

As we promised in part 1 of of our discussion on the new features in the ActiveVOS 7 BPMS, we are delighted to post part 2 of a conversation among me (Alex Neihaus), Luc Clément and Michael Rowley. In this second podcast, Michael and Luc cover topics that are of interest to enterprise architects, developers and operations staff. Topics include continuous development (including support for the open-source Hudson project) and new features in the BPMN designer that improve productivity and operational enhancements.

We hope you enjoy this podcast.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

VOSibilities podcast #38: ActiveVOS 7.0, part 2

We’re very excited to be able to post a sneak preview of the brand-new BPMN 2.0 designer that’s coming in ActiveVOS 7.0.

We’ve also posted a screenshot tour of our new ActiveVOS Central application.

We hope to have additional screenshot galleries up soon.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

A sneak peek at BPMN 2.0 and ActiveVOS Central in ActiveVOS 7

This version is a draft of the What’s New in ActiveVOS 7.0 document. Please check back frequently for updated versions.

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

What’s New in ActiveVOS 7.0

Post from: VOSibilities, the Active Endpoints BPMS blog

Learn more about ActiveVOS

Michael Rowley to present SCA at UCLA Java Users Group