TIBCO platform for organizational intelligence

By adding tibbr to its established software portfolio, TIBCO has now extended its range of organizational intelligence technologies. Last week I spoke with Stefan Farestam of TIBCO to discuss the present and future prospects for TIBCO customers linking these technologies together in interesting ways.

We talked about three main technology areas: Complex Event Processing (CEP), Business Process Management (BPM) and Enterprise 2.0. For TIBCO at least, these technologies are at different stages of adoption and maturity. TIBCO's CEP and BPM tools have been around for a while, and there is a fairly decent body of experience using these tools to solve business problems. Although the first wave of deployment typically uses each tool in a relatively isolated fashion, Stefan believes these technologies are slowly coming together, as customers start to combine CEP and BPM together to solve more complex business problems.

Much of the experience with CEP has been in tracking real-time operations. For example, telecommunications companies such as Vodafone can use complex event processing to monitor and control service disruptions. This is a critical business concern for these companies, as service disruptions have a strong influence on customer satisfaction and churn. CEP is also used for autodetecting various kinds of process anomalies, from manufacturing defects to fraud.

One of the interesting things about Business Process Management is that it operates at several different tempi, with different feedback loops.

• A modelling and discovery tempo, in which the essential and variable elements of the process are worked out. Oftentimes, full discovery of a complex process involves a degree of trial and error.

• An optimization and fine-tuning tempo, using business intelligence and analytics and simulation tools to refine decisions and actions, and improve business outcomes.

• An execution tempo, which applies (and possibly customizes) the process to specific cases.

The events detected by CEP can then be passed into the BPM arena, where they are used to trigger various workflows and manual processes. This is one of the ways in which CEP and BPM can be integrated.

Social software and Enterprise 2.0 can also operate at different tempi - from a rapid and goal-directed navigation of the social network within the organization to a free-ranging and unplanned exploration of business opportunities and threats. TIBCO's new product tibbr is organized around topics, allowing and encouraging people to develop and share clusters of ideas and knowledge and experience.


Curiously, the first people inside TIBCO to start using tibbr were the finance people, who used it among other things to help coordinate the flurry of activity at quarter end. (Perhaps it helped that the finance people already shared a common language and a predefined set of topics and concerns.) However, the internal use of tibbr within TIBCO has now spread to most other parts of the organization.

The organization of Enterprise 2.0 around topics appears to provide one possible way of linking with CEP and BPM. A particularly difficult or puzzling event (for example, a recurrent manufacturing problem) can become a topic for open discussion (involving many different kinds of knowledge), leading to a coordinated response. The discussion is then distilled into a resource for solving similar problems in future.

TIBCO talks a great deal about "contextually relevant information", and this provides a common theme across all of these technologies. It helps to think about the different tempi here. In the short term, what counts as "contextually relevant" is preset, enabling critical business processes and automatic controls to be operated efficiently and effectively. In the longer term, we expect a range of feedback loops capable of extending and refining what counts as "contextually relevant".

• On the one hand, weak signals can be detected and incorporated into routine business processes. Wide-ranging discussion via Enterprise 2.0 can help identify such weak signals.

• On the other hand, statistical analysis of decisions can determine how much of the available information is actually being used. Where a particular item of information appears to have no influence on business decisions, its contextual relevance might need to be reassessed.

 The adoption of Enterprise 2.0 within the enterprise raises different challenges to the adoption of CEP and BPM. One reason for this is the tricky question of critical mass. Whereas it is possible to conduct a meaningful pilot for CEP or BPM in a small part of the business, it is much harder to get a sense of how Enterprise 2.0 tools will work across the enterprise from a small pilot, and much harder to see concrete return on investment. However, many of TIBCO's customers already have an objective to implement some form of Enterprise 2.0, and the demand is simply to satisfy this objective in the most effective way.
 

---

My eBook on Organizational Intelligence is now available from LeanPub. leanpub.com/orgintelligence

Related posts: Two-Second Advantage (May 2010), Embedding Intelligence into the Business Process (November 2010)

Embedding Intelligence into the Business Process

Is the business process evolving from bureaucratic workflow towards some form of flexible intelligence? Some of us have been predicting this for a few years now, but there are some hopeful signs that it may finally be starting to happen.

In this post, I'm going to talk about two specific aspects of this.

• Embedding business intelligence (BI) into the business process.
• Embedding Enterprise 2.0 into the business process.

---

Embedded BI

The idea of embedded business intelligence has been around for many years. See my blog on Service-Oriented Business Intelligence from September 2005. See also my slideshare presentation.

When software vendors talk about embedded BI, they often mean embedding BI functionality in other pieces of software - for example ERP applications - to allow these applications to produce more interesting reports. There are several niche BI producers in this space, including Jaspersoft, Pentaho and Yellowfin. Brian Gentile of Jaspersoft talks about this in his recent article The BI Revolution: Business Intelligence's Future. TDWI November 10, 2010. For an article explaining the difference between Embedded BI and Integrated BI, see Execution MIH.

For BI to be embedded in the business process, we need to have an understanding of the business process that includes some cognitive task, such as a complex decision, where some business intelligence capability can be used specifically to support this cognitive task. In some cases, the aim might be to make the process faster and more efficient, but more usually the aim is to make the process more powerful and effective.

Embedded BI in this sense can also be related to intelligent event processing, where analytic capability embedded in one process can trigger automatic as well as human responses in other processes. Brian Gentle talks about this in an earlier article The BI Revolution: A New Generation of Analytic Applications. TDWI October 20 2010. 

Beyond embedding BI in the business process, we might look forward to a state in which analytics is embedded in the entire enterprise, what Tom Davenport and his colleagues call the Analytic Organization. (See my review of Competing on Analytics.) This is the proper meaning of the term Pervasive BI, which Dave Mittereder defined in 2005 as "empowering everyone in the organization, at all levels, with analytics, alerts and feedback mechanisms" (Pervasive Business Intelligence: Enhancing Key Performance Indicators Information Management Magazine, April 2005).

---

Embedded Enterprise 2.0

In her piece Time For Enterprise 2.0 To Get Enterprisey, Sandy Kemsley takes a sceptical look at the extent to which Enterprise 2.0 is supporting the core business.

"You hear great stories about social software being used to strengthen weak ties through internal social networking, or fostering social production by using a wiki for project documents, but many less stories about using social software to actually run the essential business processes."

She quotes Andrew McAfee:

[The CIOs] weren’t too worried that their people would use the tools to waste time or goof off. In fact, quite the opposite; they were concerned that the busy knowledge workers within their companies might not have enough time to participate.

And comments:

The fact that the knowledge workers had a choice of whether to participate tells me that the use of social business software is still somewhat discretionary in these companies, that is, it’s not running the core business operations; if it were, there wouldn’t be a question of participation.

It seems to me that there are two possible interpretations of McAfee's remark. Sandy's interpretation is that busy knowledge workers simply don't find time to do any Enterprise 2.0 stuff at all, and she concludes that if the business process can still work without it, then the Enterprise 2.0 stuff is discretionary. An alternative interpretation might be that the business knowledge workers don't have enough time to do enough Enterprise 2.0 stuff to get as much intelligence (requisite variety) into the business process as the business really needs. (I happen to prefer the second interpretation, but I don't know whether this is what McAfee really meant.) In other words, it could be that there a trickle of benefit rather than a decent flow.

I'm presuming that the way Enterprise 2.0 is used within the business process is to support specific cognitive tasks, such as interpreting and making sense of events, and making complex decisions. These tasks may be done by an individual knowledge worker, possibly drawing on knowledge made available by co-workers, or may be done collectively by a network of knowledge workers. The quality of sense-making and decision-making doesn't necessarily increase just because you have more people spending more time on it, but with highly complex business situations the opposite is almost certainly true - the quality will be impaired if you have too few people devoting insufficient time and attention.

But I worry a bit when technology vendors merely invoke the magic words "business process" without demonstrating any real understanding. For example, Sandy's blog links to Klint Finley's piece on Tying Enterprise 2.0 to Business Processes, or Creating New Processes for the Social Enterprise, which doesn't say anything I can recognize as being about business process; as far as I can see, it is largely about activity stream filtering as a technical solution for integrating pieces of software. Finley's piece links in turn to a Monday Musing by R "Ray" Wang which states that 

Organizations seeking a marketing edge must digest, interpret, and asses (sic) large volumes of meta data from sources such as Facebook Open Graph.

I think there may possibly be a business process implicit in there somewhere, but exactly how this business process would be supported by Enterprise 2.0 is left to the imagination. I hope "asses" isn't a Freudian slip.

To be clear, I can see how the technologies Klint and "Ray" are talking about might possibly be embedded into a sociotechnical system to support a real business process. But they aren't actually making the connection, nor are they providing any evidence that anyone else is doing so. Even Michael Idinopulos, who at least sounds as if he knows what he is talking about in The End of the Culture 2.0 Crusade? fails to provide any concrete examples. He may have seen some evidence, but he's not telling us. So (not for the first time) it's left to Tom Davenport to say something useful. In a short blogpost for HBR, he provides a couple of examples of what can be done when the social and structuring aspects of technology are combined (Want Value from Social? Add Structure).

---

Note: some of the larger software vendors have a stake in several of these areas, and are trying to integrate different product lines. For example, IBM adds predictive analytics and social networking in Cognos 10 (SearchBusinessAnalytics.com, 25 Oct 2010). Meanwhile, the niche software providers may be developing interesting partnerships and collaborations - Brian Gentle emails me with a note about the embedding of Jaspersoft within eBuilder, a Swedish provider of an end-to-end B2B suite of Cloud Supply-Chain Management Processes, to produce what they call a Strategic Management Tool.

---

Places are still available for my Organizational Intelligence Workshop on December 8th.

Enterprise 2.0 inside the firewall?

@infovark 's Dean blogs why he thinks Enterprise 2.0 will fail, and claims that the case for E2.0 inside the firewall is considerably more difficult.

I think the main problem with the case for “E2.0 inside the firewall” is the word “firewall”, which represents an outdated but still common attitude towards maintaining organizational boundaries. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if an organization that relies on firewalls struggles to get the benefits from open distributed business and technology, including Enterprise 2.0.

Dean replies

"It’s true that many forward-thinking organizations are becoming more transparent, and the borders between them are becoming less distinct. Still, eliminating the firewall altogether would require a lot of infrastructure changes. ... An even bigger challenge is the political one. Changing the Internet from a 'network of networks' paradigm to a 'unified network' approach would require far more coordination than most companies — and countries — would be willing to undertake."

I agree that shifting away from firewall-based security is a significant strategic move for an organization, not just infrastructure but also political. There are some political issues that would have to be tackled, if the organization is to achieve any potential benefits from Enterprise 2.0.

But the shift away from firewall (sometimes called Deperimeterization) doesn't necessarily entail the second shift Dean mentions, from a 'network of networks' paradigm to a 'unified network' approach, and I am not advocating this.  There will perhaps always be limits to interoperability, and there will always be some structure to the network of networks, but this structure will be more open and innovative, and not driven primarily by an obsolete security architecture.