Standalone BPM: alive and kickin’
June 18th, 2010 by Alex NeihausRecently, we’ve had a disagreement with Activiti over the value of what they call “standalone” BPMS. “Standalone” BPMS is a non sequitur, because by definition, BPMSs manage multiple people and systems. By virtue of what they actually do, BPMSs are the antithesis of standalone systems.
In Aciviti’s lexicon, however, an “embedded” BPMS is the answer to a set of problems involving cost. But the real answers to the cost issues Activiti raises aren’t primarily technological…because those issues come from BPMS vendors’ business models and their product design (or, in the case of BPMSs cobbled together by acquisition, lack of product design). Naturally, we believe we have licked these problems in ActiveVOS.
OTOH, there are some serious, fundamental problems with the embedded BPM approach Activiti promotes. And the webinar replay attached to this post explores these issues. We hope you enjoy it.
Using BPM and ECM together [65:38m]: Download (251)
Using BPM and ECM together: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (203)
Using BPM and ECM together [65:38m]: Download (28)
June 18th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Just watched the webinar. I like and applaud the CMIS-based integration approach.
I have to admit that I don’t get why you’re being so defensive and vitriolic about Activiti. it amazes and confounds me, Alex, that you came out with guns blazing a few mere hours after Activiti was launched…
For my part, I don’t agree with Tom Baeyens’s assertions that “Standalone BPM is dead”. I think we can all agree that many processes can encompass business activities that transcend different silo’ed systems (ECM, ERP, CRM, etc.) and it’s therefore preferable for certain organizations to have a BPM system that lives “outside” and can orchestrate these activities.
If it’s just Tom’s comments that have your feathers ruffled, be comforted in knowing that those are simply the opinions of an individual, no need to attack the Activiti project (or Alfresco) based on that.
I do have some points to make with regard to your webinar…
In the presentation, Mike Monitz incorrectly suggests that ECM vendors see all processes as being composed of content. I believe this to be a fallacy, more importantly, it’s an attempt at invoking FUD to try to make such assertions.
I would go as far as to accuse Mike of creating a point of contention where, in fact, none exists. I know, how dare I accuse a VP of Marketing of such a vile thing!
When wielding the BPM hammer, not all problems are BPM nails and I’ve never known an ECM vendor to claim that the workflow engines they embed are intended to supplant the need for external, standalone engines.
At Alfresco, we embed JBoss JBPM and will switch to Activiti when the time comes. This offers us the opportunity to continue to offer powerful document-centric workflow processes while leveraging the newer BPMN spec and switching to Apache licensed code instead of LGPL, something our customers and OEMs desire.
Too bad ActiveVOS isn’t open source, it would’ve made things easier.
Making a case for “embedded” BPM, I noted in the webinar recording that someone asked about UI integration and you answered that such a thing was not possible.
- Why should I leave the ECM UI just to review or approve a document?
- How does one edit document metadata from within a process step? What if the metadata model changes, must we update the process to support it?
- How does authentication and authorization get seamlessly handled?
- What if the process need not touch systems outside of the ECM repository?
While I would love it if we could get deep UI integration, metadata editing and SSO with ActiveVOS and other standalone BPM engines, it’s easier and more practical for customers when we can include an embedded BPM engine can address these needs.
Past experience with Alfresco’s customers has taught me that a great many processes can be entirely executed within the context of just the ECM as they’re internal to how content is produced. What that tells me is that while there may be overlap in some areas, there are justifiable reasons for having either embedded BPM, standalone BPM, or more likely, *both*!
I conclude my diatribe with the following:
I’m tired of hearing about mutant chicken-fish and I would appreciate less trash-talking and more constructive discussion and debate.
Alfresco and ActiveEndpoints had been in partnership conversations prior to the Activiti announcement but things have gotten quiet. I’m extending an olive-branch to see if we can rekindle the relationship and address the actual needs of customers (UI integration, SSO, deeper metadata support, etc.) and not the needs of our respective egos.
Finally, the diagram seen on slides 9 & 10 of the webinar is copyrighted Alfresco images, kindly cease using it. Busted!
Regards,
Luis Sala
Alfresco Software, Inc.
June 22nd, 2010 at 9:38 am
Thanks for your comments, Luis.
We’re simply answering the gauntlet you (plural) have thrown down. When you announce a project and give it a mission — in this case to replace BPMSs — you have to be prepared to take the resulting discussion.
What call “trash talking;” we call it making our points in an clear, forceful way. Interestingly, the Activiti people have stopped engaging. Is that how an open source community deals with feedback it doesn’t like? How about we have a conference call, invite the community and let Tom and Michael discuss it?
We used only content that had been presented jointly and which has been posted here on our blog for months.
Alex