Convergence of BPM and BI - Column 2

« Software AG acquires webMethods | Main | Blogging from BrainStorm BPM »

April 05, 2007
Convergence of BPM and BI

We're 19 minutes into a webinar on "Adding Process Context to BI for Process Intelligence" that is supposed to be featuring Colin Teubner of Forrester, and the sponsor (Global 360) is still talking. Even worse, I'm not completely clear on how Global 360's new "Business Process Intelligence" initiative is really any different from anyone else's simulation, analytics and performance management offerings.

Colin did eventually get the floor, and talked about how BPM and BI are converging: at the basic level of implementation, they're quite distinct, but in advanced implementation, they're quite tightly intertwined. He spoke about the distinction between data-driven BI and process-centric BI, and how the latter (usually available as part of a BPMS) are sensitive to changes in a process and can self-adjust -- hence provide better information about business processes. Colin is pushing for the the idea that BI and BPM will eventually merge into a single product class, which I'm not sure that I agree with: I think that there are a lot of valid data-driven applications for BI that aren't, strictly speaking, process analytics. It is true, however, that there needs to be better BI integrated more closely with BPM, beyond the relatively simplistic BAM capabilities that are available out of the box.

The webinar was run by Shared Insights, but should be available for replay somewhere via the Global 360 website.

Posted by Sandy Kemsley at 02:59 PM in BI • BPM | Digg This | Add to del.icio.us

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ebizq.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1653

Comments

I could not help falling on the floor with laughter reading your first paragraph. Sponsors need to learn the art of shutting up fast.

I found your blog through [link removed] btw

Posted by: Tim Trent at April 5, 2007 07:01 PM

Tim, thanks for your comment, but I find it curious that you claim to have found my post through a third-party site (the link to which I have deleted from your comment).

First of all, that site was violating copyright by republishing my post in full, and the link back to my site was hidden at the bottom of the page in tiny type, so it seems unlikely that anyone could have found my post through that site.

Then, surprise surprise, when I checked the whois record for who owns that domain, your name popped up! So you illegally republished my post on your own site, then came over here and added a comment to link back to your site, claiming that you had found my site through yours.

The really funny thing is that your blog is called "Marketing by Permission", when you obviously have a lot to learn about permission.

Posted by: Sandy Kemsley at April 6, 2007 12:28 AM

The items are in the process of being removed. Copyright is checked carefully, and I can only assume that yours slipped through the net. Your work is interesting, and we felt it wholly appropriate for extra "airtime".

Posted by: Tim Trent at April 6, 2007 02:29 AM

There is no blogger that I know who would approve of having their posts reproduced in full, regardless of whether a copyright notice existed or not -- this practice is completely inappropriate behaviour on the internet.

Appropriate behaviour is to include only an excerpt, have a clear link back to the original post in the body of the entry, and to enable trackbacks so that the original author can see that you have referred to their post. You have done none of these.

Posted by: Sandy Kemsley at April 6, 2007 04:52 PM