The proposed Software Ag acquisition of IDS Scheer raises a lot of information-technology (IT) investment research questions (e.g., why didn't the guys to the east in Walldorf acquire them rather than the guys up the autobahn in Darmstaad?).
But for business process management (BPM) decisions in your company, the issue is pretty clear. Another leading BPM point product will bite the dust, raising the question whether there is a future for BPM point products. IT managers and staffers have to ask--again and constantly--do I want to bet my job and my enterprise's success on BPM point products anymore? Or is it time to move to a BPM suite? (Forgetting the technical, functional or philosophical arguments for point products, I'm not sure that all the point product suppliers don't want to be acquired anyway.)
Particularly if you are the user of an IDS Scheer BPM partner (Oracle, SAP NetWeaver, TIBCO, etc.), do you want to base your business process modeling on the modeling software that will eventually be optimized for Software Ag/WebMethods BPM? If the answer is no but you want a point product (that is, you want your models separate from your execution engine), your options are getting fewer and fewer.
Of course if you finally bite the bullet on the BPM suite philosophy issue (vs. BPM point product), why not go all the way and buy into the entire Oracle, SAP, TIBCO--and now Software Ag--stack (vs. a BPM suite from a BPM supplier that does not develop and market an entire stack)? Scott Francis of bp3--coincidentally I think--this week commented on an old full stack enterprise-software vendor vs. BPM vendor blog post of mine. He was linking in turn to a post by Phil Gilbert of Lombardi criticizing IBM 'BPM in the stack' priciing/marketing tactics.
But don't compare the IBM deal Phil writes about with all IBM deals. As I said in my earlier blog post, don't compare IBM with Oracle, SAP, TIBCO, etc. And don't compare sales/marketing tactics with value.
-- Dennis Byron
Dennis -
respectfully, I disagree with a few points - in particular the last one- that we should NOT compare one deal to others, one vendor to others. you asked for a bit of evidence, and now that you have it, you dismiss it, rather than entertain the possibility that it could be just the tip of the iceberg. Again, I'm not passing moral judgment on the tactics, I'm just trying to get consensus that these tactics exist, they are used, and they are used frequently... and with good reason- often, historically, the tactics have worked in other markets.
Scott
ps - my response is here: http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2009/07/stack-vendors-vs-pure-plays-round-iii-continued/
Scott's disagreement is of course his opinion as is my blog post.
But be careful not to make important BPM or IT decisions for your company based on one data point, which is what Scott is urging me to do.
Not only is it one data point but it is what they call on Law and Order "hearsay evidence."
Not only is it hearsay evidence, but it comes from a --can't remember what they call it on TV -- a witness with an agenda (Phil Gilbert, the CTO of Lombardi; nothing wrong with him having an agenda of course but he does have one)
And not only is it all those things, but it misses my point (for which I apologize for the poor written expression):
My point is that it is always about the value of BPM to you.
-- Dennis Byron
Dennis-
I'm backing up my common sense generalizations of big company behavior with someone else's data point. Your own argumentation is also "hearsay" by your definition, and your big-company bias has also been pretty clear in the past.
And I wasn't missing the point. It *is* about the value, but free may not equate to value (my qualifier on your point).
Also, it revisits an old argument you and I had about whether or not stack vendors engage in these practices. You said no. I say yes. You haven't presented any data to the contrary, and my conclusions fit the motives of the companies in question better than your conclusions do. I've explained how it works pretty clearly and at length, and basically you just say "no that isn't how it works, the product groups wouldn't let that happen" as if they have any control of what the sales folks do - I assure you they have no such influence. At a customer site I shared your article, and the folks onsite literally laughed. They were incredulous that you really believe what you are writing. I tried to assure them that you are serious :) Still, they preferred not to go on the record.
scott