Historic Software Vendors are struggling to deliver something more sustainable than just a BPM glued on their EAI/ESB. It is high time for them to suggest added values! They understand that something is happening beyond their legacy IT bricks. That’s good news, but I am afraid they are still immature when I see their strange strategies.
Software AG has acquired a MDM solution and states they will integrate it with their BPM offering. But what about the business rules handle by processes? What is the interest of having flexibility at the levels of processes and data if business rules still remain implemented with a hard coding approach?
And what can we say about the Progress Software's strategy which is quite different from SAG? Indeed, Progress Software is working on the integration of their BPM with their very powerful CEP solution; it means Processes + Events and BRMS. They call that RPM: Responsive Process Management. But what about the data governance needed to bring reliable ref/master data to the CEP/BRMS, and then the BPM?
I think that IBM could build a relevant architecture as they hold the Ilog BRMS and strong BPM solutions, but they face a big concern with their heavy and ancient MDM offerings. There are too many software with insufficient integration. This is quite the same worry about Oracle, with a clear weakness in the MDM and data governance field. Tibco is not well positioned as their BRMS offering is just an OEM with Corticon and I don’t see any integration with their MDM as it is more an IT oriented data management system than a real and open data governance solution to business users.
Informatica still remains in the IT data integration area as their recent acquisition in the “MDM” landscape is not a real multi-domains MDM and more a type of CDI/PIM without the ability to integrate full BRMS and BPM approaches. SAP is not a player in the agnostic IT infrastructure landscape; they have to struggle against platforms as a service stemming from the cloud, such as Salesforce and force.com. I firmly believe they would have a strategic interest in implementing a real data governance and rules governance but I don’t see them moving on this market today.
In synthesis, we can say that the offerings of historic Software Vendors are really immature. Indeed, we should never forget that the Sustainable IT Architecture is based on a chain of agility: processes rely on business rules, and these later rely on ref/master data. Therefore the natural integration path is as follows: MDM first, then integration with the CEP/BRMS, and at last integration with the BPM.
Avoiding the blind alley means to deal with MDM and Data governance first.
Thanks to a good command of ref/master data management, it becomes relevant and sustainable to work on the integration with a BRMS, and then with a BPM.
By the way, this is what we promote at Sustainable IT Architecture and what we deliver at Orchestra Networks.
Pierre Bonnet
www.pierre-bonnet.com
Software AG has acquired a MDM solution and states they will integrate it with their BPM offering. But what about the business rules handle by processes? What is the interest of having flexibility at the levels of processes and data if business rules still remain implemented with a hard coding approach?
And what can we say about the Progress Software's strategy which is quite different from SAG? Indeed, Progress Software is working on the integration of their BPM with their very powerful CEP solution; it means Processes + Events and BRMS. They call that RPM: Responsive Process Management. But what about the data governance needed to bring reliable ref/master data to the CEP/BRMS, and then the BPM?
I think that IBM could build a relevant architecture as they hold the Ilog BRMS and strong BPM solutions, but they face a big concern with their heavy and ancient MDM offerings. There are too many software with insufficient integration. This is quite the same worry about Oracle, with a clear weakness in the MDM and data governance field. Tibco is not well positioned as their BRMS offering is just an OEM with Corticon and I don’t see any integration with their MDM as it is more an IT oriented data management system than a real and open data governance solution to business users.
Informatica still remains in the IT data integration area as their recent acquisition in the “MDM” landscape is not a real multi-domains MDM and more a type of CDI/PIM without the ability to integrate full BRMS and BPM approaches. SAP is not a player in the agnostic IT infrastructure landscape; they have to struggle against platforms as a service stemming from the cloud, such as Salesforce and force.com. I firmly believe they would have a strategic interest in implementing a real data governance and rules governance but I don’t see them moving on this market today.
In synthesis, we can say that the offerings of historic Software Vendors are really immature. Indeed, we should never forget that the Sustainable IT Architecture is based on a chain of agility: processes rely on business rules, and these later rely on ref/master data. Therefore the natural integration path is as follows: MDM first, then integration with the CEP/BRMS, and at last integration with the BPM.
Avoiding the blind alley means to deal with MDM and Data governance first.
Thanks to a good command of ref/master data management, it becomes relevant and sustainable to work on the integration with a BRMS, and then with a BPM.
By the way, this is what we promote at Sustainable IT Architecture and what we deliver at Orchestra Networks.
Pierre Bonnet
www.pierre-bonnet.com
RSS Feed