Whats Up With That?
Recently I was talking to someone about our technology and they commented that we should get some analyst coverage. Well, that is interesting because the analysts don't want to cover us (unless we give them some money!). When we tell them that we have solved the problem of fully integrating mapping with business rules with screen modification and a process engine, they laugh and tell us that if the bigger BPM players have not done that yet, then it is impossible for us. They won't even take the time to view a web demo. What's up with that?
Well, I actually fully understand the dilemna. For years analysts have been trying to define the BPM market. They began to include all sorts of vendors that had products related to process - mapping, BI, integration, etc. This lead to a strange conglomeration of various tools defined not by the market itself, but rather, by the analysts. Because each of the major tools used in BPM were developed by different companies the ability to "play well with others" gave rise to several standards that would hopefully insure interoperability. These loosely integrated tools are called BPM Suites. If all goes well, and using standards, your process map could be exported into a process engine that could call a process business rule engine and then use certain application pages or web pages as the user interface. Analysts are now telling us that a fully integrated tool that merges mapping with business rules and the process engine is the wave of the future. Of course, that day has not yet arrived.
But actually, it has.
Lets say that a new BPM vendor was emerging on the scene today. In order to create this fully integrated tool, if the new vendor used the current standards such as BPMN or BPEL, they would seriously limit the capability of their product. In fact, it stands to reason that an emerging vendor could NOT build a product based on the current standards because none of the standards take into account that the tools (i.e., functions) are integrated. Thus, a process map would not contain business rule or screen information. Thus, an emerging product would have to abandon the current standards to build this new product. Why? Because the existing standards would drive product development to the least common denominator. This is why vendors keep saying that a fully integrated product is still several years away.
But I have good news! Ingenuus has integrated mapping with business rules with screen design and integrated it with a process engine. Yes, it does not export the process map into BPMN. Nor does it export into BPEL. The resulting files would contain less information rendering the resulting process useless. In fact, Ingenuus has integrated the major components into a single seamless system:
So, why aren't the analysts looking at us? Go figure...
Recently I was talking to someone about our technology and they commented that we should get some analyst coverage. Well, that is interesting because the analysts don't want to cover us (unless we give them some money!). When we tell them that we have solved the problem of fully integrating mapping with business rules with screen modification and a process engine, they laugh and tell us that if the bigger BPM players have not done that yet, then it is impossible for us. They won't even take the time to view a web demo. What's up with that?
Well, I actually fully understand the dilemna. For years analysts have been trying to define the BPM market. They began to include all sorts of vendors that had products related to process - mapping, BI, integration, etc. This lead to a strange conglomeration of various tools defined not by the market itself, but rather, by the analysts. Because each of the major tools used in BPM were developed by different companies the ability to "play well with others" gave rise to several standards that would hopefully insure interoperability. These loosely integrated tools are called BPM Suites. If all goes well, and using standards, your process map could be exported into a process engine that could call a process business rule engine and then use certain application pages or web pages as the user interface. Analysts are now telling us that a fully integrated tool that merges mapping with business rules and the process engine is the wave of the future. Of course, that day has not yet arrived.
But actually, it has.
Lets say that a new BPM vendor was emerging on the scene today. In order to create this fully integrated tool, if the new vendor used the current standards such as BPMN or BPEL, they would seriously limit the capability of their product. In fact, it stands to reason that an emerging vendor could NOT build a product based on the current standards because none of the standards take into account that the tools (i.e., functions) are integrated. Thus, a process map would not contain business rule or screen information. Thus, an emerging product would have to abandon the current standards to build this new product. Why? Because the existing standards would drive product development to the least common denominator. This is why vendors keep saying that a fully integrated product is still several years away.
But I have good news! Ingenuus has integrated mapping with business rules with screen design and integrated it with a process engine. Yes, it does not export the process map into BPMN. Nor does it export into BPEL. The resulting files would contain less information rendering the resulting process useless. In fact, Ingenuus has integrated the major components into a single seamless system:
- Process Mapping
- Business Rule Engine
- Integration Server
- Business Activity Monitoring
- User Screen Modification
- Document/File Repository
So, why aren't the analysts looking at us? Go figure...
posted by Ingenuus CEO at 10:11 AM
0 comments
