As far as I know, any process-centric solutions comprises several artefacts, such as events, roles, screens (or forms), rules, goals, data, documents, coordination techniques (flow-chats, case folder, check-lists, etc.), audit trails, KPIs, reports, services, processes and automation scripts. Ideally, all of these artefacts are explicit, versionable and externalisable to quickly assemble a business solution. Modern BPM-suites are trying to be (at least) good with all mentioned artefacts.
I think that force.com is very good with data, screens and automation scripting; maybe also with some ad-hoc coordination. What’s about other artefacts?
[i]rename the frigging tabs[/i]in his app... man, this still hurts my brain) and it occupies some BPM space out of sheer logic: CRM
[b]is[/b]a business process.
Salesforce is a weird company - it combines a high-touch enterprise sales process with an SaaS delivery model. I think this is the main reason they keep bleeding cash from an operating standpoint. They can still get away with it as they bully other enterprise spaces with their stock exchange cash, but this is not sustainable.
I would bet my money on a BPM player that does CRM too, rather than on a CRM player that reinvents itself as BPM.
And while I'm at it, I'd actually bet my money on a Case Management player that does BPM too. Where are they? :)
Some day . . . hey if anyone wants to build a killer CRM package that when released will overnight become the personal sales platform for a million professional reps, let me know. (I just reviewed a very large number of today's hottest CRM packages, from the low-end on up. With few exceptions, most people don't get it. And the few exceptions have failings that make them unusable. My sense was that a lot of CRM designers aren't really strong on "normalized" conceptual modeling.)
This is a deeper question than it seems. Trouble with SaaS and in particular the big players such as SFDC and Workday is that they are not making profits! So the model has a fundamental flaw and something needs to change? Would you allow your mission critical front end process to be “owned” by an unprofitable thus inherently unstable company?
SaaS should be seen as a payment method without a “lock-in” so once “lease” payment reach end of contract there needs to be an option is to ”move” hosting which includes of course bring back in-house?
Looking at “BPM” supporting software this requires customisation and in built easy change which for most hardcoded vendors will be a challenge and expensive to support. Will SFDC be able to support? I doubt it. Sure their marketing department will make claims but buyers better understand just “how” it works and make sure you can get you processes back not just your data!
However, the big, megalomaniac SaaS companies have a massive and expensive salesforce, a convoluted business model and an unhealthy appetite to swallow any competing small business as margin sweeteners, with operational integration being an afterthought. This turns to very high operating costs that more than offset the high margins, and this almost defeats the purpose of deploying via cloud.
- Salesforce is only unprofitable due to its insane marketing and M&A spend driven by a goal of $20bn rev
- Salesforce does not have BPM in its DNA. Marc certainly doesnt. They have BPM tools but they get little or no marketing.
- BPM is becoming irrelevant because it is too generic, is a platform and not an "outcome". CX, increased sales, better service, compliance achieved and analytical insights are results that business buyers will pay for. BPM is/was bought by IT and they are no longer in the driving seat.
I get the impression that we don’t really want to answer the question of whether Salesforce occupy the BPM market, perhaps because we don’t see Salesforce as a potential BPM platform or, as Bogdan puts it, a company with ‘a business process DNA’. But perhaps they will make progress anyway.
Meanwhile, the questions of whether Salesforce
[i]should[/i]occupy part of the BPM market is interesting too. After all, from the point of view of Salesforce users and BPM specialists, it probably doesn't have to.
Max notes that CRM and BPM are complementary, and that CRM needs adaptable processes. If you're thinking about integration, which is where I'm coming from, then this sounds like an integration problem: it's better to integrate complementary tools than try to make one big tool that does everything. It’s may well be easier to integrate Salesforce with a BPM solution than it is for Salesforce to add process management without making the whole product less usable.
Note that the fact that Salesforce is SaaS doesn't really change anything, compared to more traditional integration scenarios. If anything, integration is easier with cloud-based services whose APIs are more public and better-documented than in-house solutions’.
Finally, Ben speculates about BPM platforms getting involved. From my point of view, this means integrating with Salesforce so that it can participate in processes managed by an external process engine. This shouldn't be a surprise, because Salesforce offers APIs that make various interesting things possible. Also, for what it’s worth, Effektif has just got started with [url=http://www.effektif.com/news/effektif-adds-salesforce-integration/]Salesforce integration[/url].
So to return to the original question: although anything’s possible, there are three good reasons to believe that the answer is no:
Salesforce isn’t a BPM company and will struggle to provide compelling process management
BPM doesn't have to be inside Salesforce, because of the integration alternative
Betteridge’s law of headlines (see [url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines]Wikipedia[/url]) :)
As my little experience stretches; SFDC doesn't support my processes at all. It made them only worse. Maybe it was the implementation, but man, I think throughput times are 10 times higher now. So BPM? Maybe, but not so exciting.
But to be honest; since SFDC I have more data entered than I have ever dreamt of.
They’ve approached it from the Customer angle and CRM directly
They have comprehensive BAM options
They’ve understood and implemented complete cloud-based solutions from the outset
They understand customer interaction and workflow design
They have social media and mobile platform integration
They’ve now introduced the modelling capability to tie it all together
By creating the customer focused product strategy and then eventually leading back to the process design it seems a cleaner solution than how some BPMS vendors have gone about it, in fact it almost makes ‘us’ look as if we’ve been stumbling about in the wilderness for a number of years and are only just emerging from the edge with the Social BPM charge.
- Page :
However, you are not allowed to reply to this post.
Join the Discussion
Also on BPM
- Market Report: Analysis of Process Automation Investments and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
- The Three R's of Intelligent Automation
- Intelligent Automation: How Robots And AI Are Redefining The Rules
- Puppy Dogs and AI: Training Automation for Relevance
- The Future of Business is Now: Appian's Malcolm Ross Makes the Case for Intelligent Automation
- The Year Ahead for BPM -- 2019 Predictions from Top Influencers
- Winners Announced in 2018 WfMC Global Awards for Excellence in Business Transformation