Since the first release of ARIS Connect, the concepts of publishing in ARIS have changed and lightweight workflows were introduced to provide basic support for the governance of process models. These new features have brought new and interesting experiences. However, feedback from ARIS customers with unique needs for rigorous process model governance indicated that more is needed than the lightweight workflows—like, for example, a workflow for publishing models in isolated repositories to ensure consistency for reporting and analysis. Although the gap left by the lightweight workflows can be filled by a fully-fledged ARIS Process Governance engine, budgets are often a barrier. On the other hand, manual administration (e.g. the handling of models across several repositories without the support of automation) requires a fair bit of maintenance.
In this interview with Stephen White, who was closely involved in the developed of the BPMN language, we discussed the myths that been swirling around the internet about BPMN. More specifically, we talk about some crowd-sourced myths and weaknesses that people had been discussing on the BPMN wikipedia page. Sandeep Johal: The first myth is that there is ambiguity and confusion in sharing BPMN models. Stephen White: To me this more of a tool vendor issue, perhaps. A lot of it just had to do with mobility or quality of the import export capabilities of the tool. I've soon tools that are very good at it, and other tools that are not as good at it. When you share a BPMN model, you might have issues importing it into a different tool. You might have to do some work after that, but I think that is a vendor issue. The specification itself gives the XML schema or metamodel behind it so that tools can do that. There were a couple of minor issues and I think that OMG has been addressing that. There's a committee that does interchange formats, and they've been working on that, and showing demonstrations at conferences. I think any of the technical issues are being solved, and I think it's mainly up to the tool vendors to support that .
As SaaS solutions become commonplace in several industries, the market has felt the effects. IDC research shows that SaaS technologies are projected to constitute a quarter of all new enterprise software purchases by 2016, while PWC estimates that SaaS delivery will make up approximately 14.2 percent of all software spending. Overall, the entire SaaS market is projected to expand at a compound annual growth rate of 21.3 percent over the next two years.” As a consultant working within a number of large and medium sized organisations over the past several years, I’m used to seeing common problems being solved over and over again, everywhere I go. Some big and some small, some more necessary than others and some with varying degrees of ‘fit for purpose’ tweaks. After all, every business is different and every implementation needs to fit the business context around what it supports. Shift toward ‘as-a-service’ However, there is a shift taking place and more and more businesses are starting to see the benefits of moving towards “as a service” type arrangements. The transformation isn’t necessarily a new one; the introduction of web based email and corporate social networks have become a staple of the modern organisation, as well as support and maintenance team products such as Sharepoint, Dropbox and Skype. All of these functions within the business which have begun the transformation to Software as a Service offerings have one thing in common which confuses the bigger picture. They generally still fall into the IT or technology bucket of the organisation. They perform well serving their single purpose but very often they support a technical role within the business - after all they are still technical tools.
An analysis on the next major paradigm shift. The goal of most business is to grow revenue, whilst reducing costs and increasing profits - sounds simple enough.