September 30, 2009
Posted by Robin Meehan under Process Modelling
| Tags: BluePrint
, Business Modeller
, Business Space
, Process Server
I had a demo of Lombardi’s business process management (BPM) tooling the other day – Lombardi TeamWorks.
The first thing to note is that the tooling is Eclipse based and uses BPMN notation – in fact at first glance I thought it was IBM WebSphere Business Modeller as I’m more familiar with this! It looks very similar, and all the concepts are equivalent. I guess BPM is BPM and so the “problem space” is what it is and so they will all tend to look the same. The difference is down to the quality of the implementation between vendors. It certainly looked easier to use than WebSphere Integration Developer (WID) – the Java code was all hidden from the designer until you get to wanting to put custom controls in JSPs or invoke external services. Debugging a process flow fired up quickly, no booting up a test instance of WAS required etc. Also, there is no real mention of BPEL, unlike in WPS (WebSphere Process Server).
There is also a SaaS modelling environment for business users called Lombardi BluePrint – this uses a simpler subset of BPMN, and so is essentially a clever online Visio-style tool. You can can pull models from BluePrint into the Eclipse dev tool and flesh out the process with more technical/implementation detail, as you might using WID for Modeller models.
There’s a business portal web app for business users to launch business processes, see what’s “in their inbox” etc – very similar to the ‘Business Space’ portal that WPS v6.2 now has, so I think IBM have caught up a bit here as the ‘human task management’ part of WPS has up until now been a weak area.
Inbuilt rules engine support is weak apparently (like in WPS IMHO, hence IBM bought iLog and got JRules, amongst other things), so you’d need to integrate with external “decision services” if a strong capability was needed.
The other vendor in this space that keeps coming up in our customer engagements is Peg a (strong in the business rules area), and in general my view is that are all pretty much capable of doing the job. One word of caution is that I’d have thought that as an almost “single product” vendor, Lombardi must be at risk of being acquired at some point, which could lead to consolidation into the acquirer’s existing product lines etc.
July 2, 2009
Posted by Robin Meehan under Cloud Computing
, IBM WebSphere
, Process Modelling
| Tags: BPEL
, Business Modeller
, Business Space
, Enterprise Service Bus
, Process Server
After a journey characterised by a conspiracy between parking meters and failed tube signals, I made it yesterday to IBM’s Hursley Park for the WebSphere Integration User Group meeting. Here’s the photo at a sunny Winchester station as proof…ok…so Jamie and I forgot to take any photos at the event.
The key note presentation was from Kevin Turner – ESB and Messaging Technical Strategy Manager. He covered IBM’s Smarter Planet initiative and then moved on to future architectural trends – the noteworthy points were:
The 2nd wave of SOA is coming – there’s a significant number of ’1st wave’ adopters out there now who have been through the joy and the pain, and have now fully understood the upfront investment required and the potential benefits. This 2nd wave is likely to consist of organisations trying to join up their islands of SOA (probably built along departmental lines due to a sensible pragmatic strategy of ‘baby steps’ SOA), and so federation of multiple ESBs will be a key theme. Governance will be crucial here if these islands are ever to be consolidated into a virtual enterprise bus that solves the problems of visibility of services across ESBs, end-to-end security and manageability etc.
Patterns – IBM are working on building some integration patterns support into their tooling (presumably WebSphere Business Modeller, WebSphere integration Developer etc) to allow an expert from an organisation’s ICC/ICoE to define the standard ‘pattern’ and therefore accelerate the development of instances of that integration pattern. The integration developer might just have to supply the pattern parameters for example, with many of the decisions such as how to manage errors etc already consistently solved for them.
There were a couple of presentations about specific MQ-related Supportpacs (MO71 and IH03) which I expected to be dull due to their nature, but the presenters managed to bring them alive – especially Paul Clarke. It was clear that he’d written and refined quite an impressive beast of an application over many years and was rightly proud of it.
Kevin mentioned CloudBurst during his keynote, and I managed to get some time with an IBMer later in a hastily arranged session to discuss it some more – I’ll post details in another blog post later as there’s quite a lot to report.
That means I missed the start of the next session about the developments in the WebSphere Process Server product to better support the human interaction aspects of BPEL processes (which have been sorely needed in our experience!). Paul Smith demoed the Business Space web app from WPS v6.2 which goes some of the way to addressing these shortcomings, with better human ‘override’ control of processes (skipping a step, repeating a step etc) and better visualisation tools for business users to use to understand where a particular process instance has got to, etc. This is clearly still a developing area of the product set though.
The last session I attended was a demo of rules from the recent iLog acquisition by IBM. An ex-iLogger Lenny Bromberg gave a very engaging demo which involved my colleague Jamie playing the role of “business user” to dynamically change rules that influenced the behaviour of a mock motor insurance quotation app. An interesting aspect of Lenny’s “pitch” was that essentially rules engines are 10 a penny, there’s several good open source ones out there if you want one, but what rules provides is a Business Rules Management System (BRMS), i.e. all the significant extras wrapped around the actual runtime rules execution environment that you need to make it really workable, manageable and governable. This includes rule development/editing environments (developer IDE and business facing), rule versioning, rule comparison tools, audit, simulation environments etc. Some other observations:
- Lenny’s experience from previous projects where they have integrated with BPM solutions (like WPS etc) is that they often find that the business process definition/BPEL has become ‘spaghetti’ as the business rules are not clearly separated from the business process – and so the use of an external rules engine enforces a good business process automation design practice, and leads to more maintainable BPEL etc.
- This is related to BRMS’s in general and not specifically iLog rules, but a weakness that I could see is that the rules rely on a good, stable business object model and we know from experience with numerous customers how difficult it is to get enterprise data models together and agreed. This is the potentially shifting sand that the rules are all built upon.
Many thanks to Mike Wyvill and Keith Guttridge and others for organising the event. Well worth the £28… :o)