dith u J By

r rite w ior n e ld s r o W KM , t on m a L

M P B
g s t e x e fl

e l ib

usiness process management (BPM) solutions and their predecessor workflow products have been used effectively over many years to automate and streamline processes that range from routine administrative tasks to complex transactional ones. BPM has fostered consistency by enforcing the appropriate routing of tasks and supported decision-making through documented business rules (see sidebar on page 7). Whatever the level of complexity, processes that are predictable can be modeled and subsequently automated. Less amenable to management are unstructured processes, which cannot be reflected in a set of business rules. Knowledge workers often encounter such requirements in their daily work. The process may be a new one that has not been modeled, but still requires tracking and auditing. One example is the disposition of action items contained in minutes of a board of directors meeting. Without a method for tracking them, those tasks can get lost in an exchange of e-mails or buried in documents. Some in the industry claim that 80 percent of processes are unstructured, a claim challenged by Clay Richardson, an analyst at Forrester (for rester.com). It depends on how you measure, he says. Our data show that less than 20 percent of processes are truly unstructured, but these are typically the most complex and costly processes. Therefore, the value of improving their efficiency is also high. Several methods have emerged for contending with those ad hoc processes. One is to allow greater involvement by business users in changing portions of the overall process, so that new sub-processes are easy to add. Another is the case management or adaptive case management approach, which moves a set of documents through a process that may vary from case to case.

and is accessed primarily through Outlook and Word. Many workers use those applications as their primary work environment and feel most comfortable operating within them. ActionBase is launched from within those applications as well as from Adobe (adobe.com) PDF documents, and is focused on human processes, rather than transactional processes. IEC uses ActionBase for managing audits, following up on meetings, and tracking incident reports and quality assurance. We chose ActionBase because it can be embedded in Outlook, which is a tool in everyones office, says Sarit Margel, IT product manager at IEC. Also, we can use it for each process that needs to be tracked, without having to model it ahead of time. This gives us the flexibility to cater to the needs of various departments in the company.

The process
To initiate a process, a user drags an e-mail into the ActionBase folder, which resides within Outlook. At that point, the message becomes ActionMail, which assigns a process step to an individual. The user can see whether the item has been forwarded and acted on, Margel says. New items are in bold, and those that are overdue are shown in red. The user can then open ActionMail to see an audit trail of everything that happened related to the process, including exchanges among the participants, along with attachments and any sub-processes that have been initiated. Then the user can take action with respect to the process, such as responding to requests, accepting tasks, providing data, adding attachments or getting more people involved as needed. Similarly, a process can be initiated from within a document. The user highlights the document section related to the process and clicks on the ActionBase menu. That brings up an ActionMail template with the highlighted information from the document. The user can choose process participants and add text, attachments, due dates or any other information needed by the process participants. When the user saves the document, the processes defined are initiated automatically through ActionMail. As the process advances, the user can at any time open the original document and request a report on the status of the actions related to those processes. The report is presented

Familiar territory
The Israel Electric Corp. (IEC, iec.co.il) generates and distributes nearly all the electricity consumed in Israel. It has a network of 17 power sites, employs more than 12,000 people and has annual revenue of about $5 billion. As a utility, the company must comply with a wide variety of financial and technical regulations. To track compliance and other activities, Israel Electric selected ActionBase (action base.com), a software platform that manages unstructured processes. ActionBase is integrated with Microsoft (microsoft.com) Office

KMWorld

February 2011

www.kmworld.com

DNA Offender Tracking System (DOTS)

In 2004, California (ca.gov) passed a regulation that law enforcement officials must take DNA samples from individuals convicted of certain crimes, and in 2009, the law was expanded to include those arrested or charged with any felony. Los Angeles County (lacounty.gov), which has a population of more than 10 million people, processes 1,200 criminal arrests each day. The system needed to handle large volumes of information, operate on a complex set of rules that determined which suspects needed to provide DNA samples, ensure compliance with regulations and share information with other agencies. We were looking for a platform that was on one hand sophisticated enough to meet our business needs, but did not require us to write a custom application, says Ali Farahani, director of integration services at the LA County Information Systems Advisory Body (ISAB). ISAB found that Case360 from Global 360 (global360.com) provided most of the needed functionality right out of the box and, as a Java-based product, was flexible enough to allow any degree of customization that was required. The county implemented the DNA Offender Tracking System (DOTS) and has improved accuracy and reduced time for processing samples. For example, in the past, officers had to log into the criminal tracking system, get the record of arrest and prosecution (RAP) sheet, and read it to find out if DNA should be taken. Now, DOTS retrieves information from the criminal history reporting system and populates the DOTS data sheet automatically. Officers know immediately if the individual in custody is eligible for DNA testing. Global 360 offers both Case360, which has a case management emphasis, and Process360, which focuses more on process. Because Global 360 has a strong heritage in process and document management, says Jennifer Troxell, VP of marketing at Global 360, we have rich capabilities in both areas and can support the continuum of ad hoc to highly structured processes. Case360 is designed to be adaptive, supporting unstructured workflows, while Process360 is primarily model-based with some case management functionality.

within the document, overlaying the document content so that the status of the processes can be seen within the context of the original document. The Word document becomes a summary of the process, Margel says, and our users can push a button to see the Word document and its status in terms of what is open and closed. IEC has about 650 users, including groups that use ActionBase on their projects, and high-level managers who are monitoring enterprise performance. We are able to manage both flexible and well-defined processes, Margel explains, including very complex processes such as pre-projects. In addition, ActionBase allows templates to be saved so that processes that are repeated can be standardized. The intent of ActionBase software is to allow processes to be managed but not strangled, as Jacob Ukelson, CTO of ActionBase, describes it. Many of the processes in knowledge work are unstructured, he says. We keep the flexibility provided by e-mail while providing accountability, visibility into the process and a good audit trail. ActionBase is not designed to compete with transactional or structured BPM solutions but to provide a way of dealing with unstructured processes. It can be integrated with a traditional BPM system to serve as an exception handler, and can also invoke a BPM system to launch a structured process from the unstructured one.

From structured to adaptive

The Multi-Chem Group (multichem.com) produces specialty chemicals that improve the productivity of oil and gas drilling operations. The companys products deal with corrosion in pipes, bacterial growth and other problems. MultiChem has facilities throughout the world, and needed a way to create electronic forms that would replace a paper-based system for approving administrative processes. Although the company was initially focusing on a limited set of processes, it wanted to be able to expand the application to many others in the future. After developing a set of specific criteria, including being able to track the status of each form, send e-mail alerts and control user access, MultiChem narrowed its search to four products. Based on a comparison of features and cost, the company selected Process Director from BP Logix (bplogix.com). We began right away with a personnel request form (PRF), says Fernando Coronado, software applications manager at Multi-Chem. This form was initially used to manage the review process for hiring new employees. We later expanded the PRF to cover additional HR processes such as transfers and promotions, as well as others such as capital expenditures and construction activities. Now Multi-Chem is focusing on another critical area of its informa-

tion systems security. A good example is the decision about whether a new employee should have access to some of our chemical formulas, explains Coronado. Only a small percent of our employees should be able to see this proprietary information, but the rules for making the decision are difficult to model because each case is different. The next step will be to establish an unstructured process within the hiring process. That will allow reviewers to assess the benefits of permitting employees with access to the chemical formulas (or to other sensitive financial or personnel information) and help make a decision. Depending on the situation, a new employee might require approval from a number of reviewers, or just from one, Coronado says. Using Process Director will let authorized users set up a workflow to handle each case when additional review is required. It is easy to move into and out of an ad hoc process using Process Director, says Scott Menter, VP for business solutions at BP Logix. For example, users can check out a document, make revisions and return it to the structured workflow. In addition, the product itself is easy to install and use. About half the purchasers of Process Director are business users rather than IT departments, because they can configure it themselves rather than waiting in the IT queue.

More flexibility than you think

Traditional BPM is not necessarily rigid. It is something of a myth that everything in BPM has to be modeled, says Greg Carter, CTO of Metastorm (metastorm.com), which offers the Metastorm BPM platform and related products including Metastorm M3 for cloud-based enterprise modeling. Even for structured steps, the system needs to have collaborative and dynamic interactions where there is no process model. Case management for insurance is a good example, wherein an overall process is defined but the investigator might need to visit a scene, take a deposition and talk to a number of people, which cannot be predicted ahead of time. A lot of that dynamic BPM goes on and then the case goes back into a structured process, Carter explains. Dynamic BPM is a frequently used term for the concept in which the case takes a side trip and then returns to the main process. Although case management is not new, it has received more attention recently because of its flexibility and value to knowledge workers. The most important aspect of case management is its ability to incorporate the unpredictable, says Emily Burns, senior product manager for case management at Pegasystems (pega.com). It can also have
BPM continues on page 18 February 2011

www.kmworld.com

KMWorld

CAUTION continues from page 1

Even Paul Allen, Microsoft (micro soft.com) co-founder and owner of a super-yacht, is piling legal documents on the Mountain View, Calif., search giant, for alleged patent violations. Whether those allegations are accurate now depends in large part on the U.S. justice system. Google is in a legal sandwich. Lets look at the Oracle matter. I must confess that I thought the Java technology, which is widely used by many commercial enterprises, was open source. I assumed that I could download Java and use it. Obviously Oracle does not see Googles actions regarding Java as appropriate. The Paul Allen matter is equally fuzzy. What is clear to me is that Google, like a Panini, is in a grill and the heat is cranked up. Google has little choice but to defend itself. Those legal matters may be no more than a misunderstanding among mostly friendly commercial enterprises. But the Oracle matter seems to be a reversal of course with regard to Java. Oracle, at one time, was a reseller of some Google technology, including the Google Search Appliance. That tie-up may have wound down, but at one point a year or two ago, Oracle professionals were fast dancing with the Googlers. The Google Panini problem might be an example of Silicon Valleys version of tough love. As I understand the goal, Oracle believes that Google is or will make money from its Android platform. My view is that Oracle believes that the Java-like virtual machine Google created taps into some of Suns Java patents. Oracle owns the patents, and Oracle wants to be compensated for the technology Google has used without permission. The Teddy bear shaking may be a faux tantrum or petulant posturing to get Google to pay Oracle a technology toll. In Silicon Valley, lawyers can move egos as long as the Ford 150 arrives with a load of greenbacks. Does Oracle have a bigger goal in mind? Google and its Android are important in the short term, but the long-term issue could be Google in
BPM continues from page 7

the enterprise. Oracle does not want Googles freemium approach to gain traction in markets where Oracle has a reasonably secure cash flow and a well-oiled business model. Instead of letting Google disrupt the enterprise markets where the bulk of Oracles revenue originates, the legal action against Google could be a bigpicture, strategic move.

Defining correct
Oracles allegation is a particularly painful, even conflicted situation for Google. I have heard that Google has a number of former Sun Microsystems engineers on staff. Now Oracle owns Sun Microsystems and is free to change informal policies in place prior to the Oracle acquisition of Sun. Google may have fallen into a feather bed of assumptions about what Google engineers could do with Suns patented technology. When the parties to a legal dispute have fundamentally different views about what is correct, a cloud of uncertainty envelopes those embroiled in the matter. In this case, Google has to find a way to make the problem with Oracles claim of patent infringement go away. The longer the problem continues, the more difficult certain sales and marketing tasks become. Google has the cash to write a check to Oracle to settle the legal matter. A one-time payment may not satisfy the database giant. Oracle likes its present business model that pivots on clients paying for products and services on what I think of as an annuity basis or as a standing order. Stated simply, clients keep paying Oracle year after year. If I am correct, Oracle will want a regular stream of licensing fees and royalties flowing from Google for a long time. The company is currently caught between the heated plates of a really big panini grill. On one side is the heat from Oracle and other legal matters, and on the other is the heat from Googles need to make headway in the all-important enterprise software market. So the pressure is on. I am no expert on open source. I do know that there are different flavors model processes and create applications. Within SmartBPM is a case management module that allows for adaptive case management to handle unexpected requirements. The case management function provides a design by doing approach that allows users to save new processes as a template, rather than treat them as an exception.

of open source licenses. The implications of those different licenses are lost on me. Whats clear from the writeups like Oracle v Google: Why? by RedMonk analysts (http://redmonk.com/ sogrady/2010/08/14/oracle-v-google) is that the Google-Oracle matter may become the shootout at the OK Corral with regard to open source software. Oracle has already deep-sixed Open Solaris (opensolaris.com), and there is considerable consternation over Oracles owning the open source data management system MySQL (mysql.com). Is Java the next technology that will be morphed into a proprietary system and method? The uncertainty is likely to make Googles enterprise sales more difficult. That is not desirable, particularly if Googles online advertising revenue begins to soften.

tially very large iceberg. It wants to navigate around MySQL, avoiding a catastrophic collision. Oracle may want to take steps to put open source in a cage, lock the door and throw away the key. A failure to achieve that goal could threaten Oracles core revenue flow.

Possible freeze?
Second, in the mobile space, Oracle does not have the same momentum that SAP (sap.com) and Sybase (sybase.com) are working hard to achieve. As a result, finding a way to derive revenue from the Android (acquired by Google) juggernaut may be a particularly attractive opportunity. With Android already positioned as open source, Oracle might see a way to generate mobile revenues quickly, easily and with somewhat reduced risk. The repercussions of throwing a spanner into the humming Android machine could add some zest to the Panini. Third, in the enterprise, Oracles Java matter could give some potential Google customers pause. The high profile of the Google-Oracle dispute could cause naturally conservative organizations to focus on commercial software until the open source issues are resolved. A freeze or slowdown for Googles Enterprise group could be just what Oracle needs to cast doubt on the wisdom and potential risk of open source enterprise software solutions. Google wants to build its enterprise business. Java and Android are key gears in the Google enterprise machinery. If Oracle can turn off the machine or reduce its momentum by dumping sand into the delicate internals, Oracle helps itself, puts a thumbscrew on the pesky open source software initiative and bolsters its bottom line. Google has to find a way to escape the Panini machine before it gets burned, becoming singularly unappetizing to investors and enterprise customers alike.
Stephen E. Arnold is a consultant whose Web site is www.arnoldit.com. His blog Beyond Search is at arnoldit.com/wordpress.

Open source threat

Lets assume that Oracle gets a deal with Google for Java and the variants, workarounds and clean room engineering the Googlers performed. Will that make Oracle happy with open source software that could challenge its core business? In my opinion, Oracle will not be satisfied without extracting appropriate concessions. A complete victory over Google might be Oracles objective. Java, Google-style, is simply the focal point of Oracles preemptive effort to protect its core business. Open source software threatens Oracle on several levels. So Google is a particular instance of Oracles emerging policy toward open source. First, in the data management and database world, open source software dangles a tasty piece of bait in front of corporate executivesfree. Thats right. No license fees for software. No handcuffs to prevent an organization from changing code. RedHat (redhat.com), for example, makes software available without charge and then sells value-added services and specialized components. Open source-centric companies, therefore, have a different marketing angle and business model. Oracle sees open source products like MySQL as the tip of a potenCompanies have numerous ways of achieving flexibility in business process management, says Forresters Richardson. Solutions need to be built to support a specific problem, he says, but they should be designed for change. Dynamic BPM and case management provide a framework for flexibility, where the emerging standards do not mandate a predefined sequence.

structure, but you can define the structure as you go. Some work might start out as unstructured and then as you understand the process, you can migrate to some rules and formal processes. Pegasystems SmartBPM is designed to allow business users to

Forrester sees the increased focus on customer service and regulatory complianceboth requiring maximum flexibility and adaptabilityas key drivers for BPM adoption for the foreseeable future.
Judith Lamont, Ph.D., is a research analyst with Zentek Corp., e-mail jlamont@sprintmail.com.

18

KMWorld

February 2011

www.kmworld.com

Copyright of KM World is the property of Information Today Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.