I'm sure that we all know what the intent of 'Digital' is in this moniker, but Digital is ones and zeros, yes and no, black and white. That doesn't say 'Business' to me.So what do you think?
- Peter Schooff
- BPM Discussions
- Thursday, 04 May 2017
- Subscribe via email
As John Reynolds writes in this discussion:
0
Accepted Answer
Pending Moderation
Well, I'm sure in DBP acronym, the "B" says plenty of "Business". So, I think "Digital" today is just a more interesting, catchy, consumery word for "IT" (it's also more comprehensive, as it includes UX etc).
And that's just fine - after all, Application Service Provider never really caught on until someone decided to replace it with the catchier "cloud" moniker.
DBP is fine with me. But it doesn't actually say much to an outsider - every word in it is just very generic.
And that's just fine - after all, Application Service Provider never really caught on until someone decided to replace it with the catchier "cloud" moniker.
DBP is fine with me. But it doesn't actually say much to an outsider - every word in it is just very generic.
CEO, Co-founder, Profluo
Comment

- John Reynolds
- 2 years ago
- #3874
For my generation, "Digital" brings to mind the PDP-10 and it's paper-tape readers ;-)

- John Morris
- 2 years ago
- #3877
Because you mentioned PDP, I will share that I have a bunch of orange plastic front panel toggle switches from a PDP-11. : )
- more than a month ago
- BPM Discussions
- # 1
Accepted Answer
Pending Moderation
Digitalization of Business?
That's sure to grow the market :-)
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/digital-business-platform-best-we-can-come-up-john-reynolds
That's sure to grow the market :-)
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/digital-business-platform-best-we-can-come-up-john-reynolds
Founder at John Reynolds' Venture LLC - Creator of ¿?Trules™ for drama free decisions
Comment
- more than a month ago
- BPM Discussions
- # 2
Accepted Answer
Pending Moderation
As I described previously every word will mean something to business. It is a TLA and DBP goes well with BPM.....we do need such a descriptor for the Platform software to deliver operational digital processes. Like the word operational which still gives the business function tag....maybe ODP or DOP... ?
Comment
- John Reynolds
- 2 years ago
- #3875
I completely agree that every word in a TLA should mean something to the business David.
Have you encountered businesses that use the term Digital when expressing what they want from their Business Processes?
That's not even in the top ten in my experience, so I'm curious to hear from others.
Have you encountered businesses that use the term Digital when expressing what they want from their Business Processes?
That's not even in the top ten in my experience, so I'm curious to hear from others.
- more than a month ago
- BPM Discussions
- # 3
Accepted Answer
Pending Moderation
Could we use a term that we all agree on - "BPM"
Comment
- more than a month ago
- BPM Discussions
- # 4
Accepted Answer
Pending Moderation
"IT".
OK, @Bogdan already said it. DBP is "technology".
DBP is just the technology we use for business, so we can say "business technology" or "information technology" or whatever.
I'm concerned that the whole idea of DBP gets us away from taking responsibility for the technology; ultimately we end up with magical thinking. Arthur C. Clarke is famous for saying that "any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". This is a danger (and Mr. Clarke, being the creator of the idea of the HAL 9000, was on to something) because magic is the antithesis of responsibility and vision and what management and modernism is all about..
Let's compare to a simple technology, that of a shovel. It's the stuff of humour to call a shovel an "personal landscaping enhancement" or something like that -- which takes us away from the shovel-as-shovel and the hard work that is usually associated with shovelling.
For sure the idea of a DBP is based on genuine technological developments; a DBP delivers emergent properties to corporate sponsors. But in parallel with real emergent technology, I see a danger of social mystification.
OK, @Bogdan already said it. DBP is "technology".
DBP is just the technology we use for business, so we can say "business technology" or "information technology" or whatever.
I'm concerned that the whole idea of DBP gets us away from taking responsibility for the technology; ultimately we end up with magical thinking. Arthur C. Clarke is famous for saying that "any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". This is a danger (and Mr. Clarke, being the creator of the idea of the HAL 9000, was on to something) because magic is the antithesis of responsibility and vision and what management and modernism is all about..
Let's compare to a simple technology, that of a shovel. It's the stuff of humour to call a shovel an "personal landscaping enhancement" or something like that -- which takes us away from the shovel-as-shovel and the hard work that is usually associated with shovelling.
For sure the idea of a DBP is based on genuine technological developments; a DBP delivers emergent properties to corporate sponsors. But in parallel with real emergent technology, I see a danger of social mystification.
Comment
- Bogdan Nafornita
- 2 years ago
- #3878
I think that are far more serious dangers of social mystification than DBP - to name a few: low/zero-code, AI/ML, IoT, cybersecurity :-)
Net - I believe the debate is quite useless - our clients don't care how we call it, as long as we make it happen.
Net - I believe the debate is quite useless - our clients don't care how we call it, as long as we make it happen.
- John Morris
- 2 years ago
- #3879
+1 @Bogdan a list of dangerous terms. And emphasizing the importance of what clients want. I recall selling RAD software; it was painful to explain to some people that most of our customers didn't really care about our fantastic RAD Technology -- to your point.
There is the perennial debate of course about "jargon" for any specific domain. Jargon can be efficient. And the idea of ML or AI etc. may be useful in terms of focusing on decisions related to the emergent properties of ML or AI. Again a comparison to accounting. An SME buys accounting services not only "for the outcome", but also because accounting is a language of business; it has a reality as a symbol system for helping managers do their jobs.
Especially in early stages of various technologies, end-user execs necessarily need to take responsibility for more than just outcomes. For any technology. there is the technology itself, there are outcomes -- and there are those who would rather ignore either side of the equation while they indulge in comforting mysticism, all the better to spend more time golfing.
There is the perennial debate of course about "jargon" for any specific domain. Jargon can be efficient. And the idea of ML or AI etc. may be useful in terms of focusing on decisions related to the emergent properties of ML or AI. Again a comparison to accounting. An SME buys accounting services not only "for the outcome", but also because accounting is a language of business; it has a reality as a symbol system for helping managers do their jobs.
Especially in early stages of various technologies, end-user execs necessarily need to take responsibility for more than just outcomes. For any technology. there is the technology itself, there are outcomes -- and there are those who would rather ignore either side of the equation while they indulge in comforting mysticism, all the better to spend more time golfing.
- David Chassels
- 2 years ago
- #3888
John is right about the much broader responsibilities but unfortunately because vendors focused on the "inside out" silo based systems the accountability of the place where new information is created people and their day to day processes was lost...hence the emergence of BPM recognising that gap. Digital in business now brings a focus on delivery to cover that gap where old IT failed. Business are very cynical about enterprise software with so many broken promises, high costs, inflexibility, lock in and high failure rate in projects. This next generation software to support the BPM thinking needs to have a clear understandable message. Getting this message over requires change in attitude where research must dig deep on how it will work not just repeating vendor marketing hype....Analysts need to be quite independent of vendors working for end buyers ...This is more important than establishing a new TLA BUT at this early stage establishing a credible tag will help .....what ever must be understandable by business and recognised by IT to attract attention....?
- more than a month ago
- BPM Discussions
- # 5
Accepted Answer
Pending Moderation
I think Cordys were the ones to try and acclimatize the BOP ( "Business Operations Platform" ) acronym? Maybe too vague and has no clear reference to IT?
Anyway, now it's buried deep somewhere...
Anyway, now it's buried deep somewhere...

CEO, Co-founder, Profluo
- more than a month ago
- BPM Discussions
- # 6
Accepted Answer
Pending Moderation
The folks who invent these three-letter terms cause me to overuse four-letter terms.
For me, DBP is total nonsense.
I have an app right now that involves protection of critical infrastructure (radar, sonar, drones, vibration detection) and we plan to use "BPM" to manage all of this.
Each individual technology has it's own data collection/dashboards but what is lacking is the integration and "smart" interpretation of the incoming signals
e.g. there is a fire, you call the fire department, then, as the fire department is arriving, your noise detection technology tells you to call city hall to complain about the noise that is the result of your own prior action - we want action on the 2nd alarm to be suppressed.
e.g. you get a vibration detection alarm at a fence, Five minutes later a facial recognition (FR) system says you have an intruder, Chances are the perpetrator first came up to the gate and THEN tried the fence. Important to get the chronology right (facial recognition takes time to do matches)
How is this relevant?
The above clearly not a standard BPM application, unless you widen the meaning of "business".
We are not doing any process management, mostly it's decision tree navigation, But, the app does qualify as "decision support/management". And BPM. processes/rules are core.
If we were to have Business Performance Management instead of Business Process Management, my new app would have a better fit.
Not suggesting we go from the frying pan to the fire.
For me, DBP is total nonsense.
I have an app right now that involves protection of critical infrastructure (radar, sonar, drones, vibration detection) and we plan to use "BPM" to manage all of this.
Each individual technology has it's own data collection/dashboards but what is lacking is the integration and "smart" interpretation of the incoming signals
e.g. there is a fire, you call the fire department, then, as the fire department is arriving, your noise detection technology tells you to call city hall to complain about the noise that is the result of your own prior action - we want action on the 2nd alarm to be suppressed.
e.g. you get a vibration detection alarm at a fence, Five minutes later a facial recognition (FR) system says you have an intruder, Chances are the perpetrator first came up to the gate and THEN tried the fence. Important to get the chronology right (facial recognition takes time to do matches)
How is this relevant?
The above clearly not a standard BPM application, unless you widen the meaning of "business".
We are not doing any process management, mostly it's decision tree navigation, But, the app does qualify as "decision support/management". And BPM. processes/rules are core.
If we were to have Business Performance Management instead of Business Process Management, my new app would have a better fit.
Not suggesting we go from the frying pan to the fire.
Comment
- more than a month ago
- BPM Discussions
- # 7
Accepted Answer
Pending Moderation
A box full of stuff to help you keep adapting your processes to what and how your customers want to do business with you.
Make your own acronym, if you like.
Make your own acronym, if you like.
Sharing my adventures in Process World via Procesje.nl
Comment
- more than a month ago
- BPM Discussions
- # 8
Accepted Answer
Pending Moderation
I do agree with John that the term "digital" is somewhat misleading. Digital opposed to analog? For me this also extends to "digital transformation".
Besides that, there would be also the point that Digital Business Platform doesn't contain the word "Process", at all. That in turn makes me imagine that DBP was meant to describe something more overarching, evolved and encompassing than just BPM. So maybe DBP is trying to describe something like mutually integrated BI, BPM, CRM, ERP, CMS and SMM platforms that can be managed through a unified, multi-role command center... If something like that were to be the case, DBP may be fitting.
But if it is just a trend term (especially "digital" ) to describe enhanced features in BPMS, I do concur with Ian and we should stick with BPM...or maybe go as far and brand it BPM 3.0
I do think however, its our responsibility as professionals, working in the field of BPM, to try and define the exact criteria a methodology and/or software has to meet in order to deserve a specific term. That may evolve into an ongoing discussion but at least provides the end users with somewhat of a guideline.
So, if that term would be DBP (or something else), what would a software or product have to offer to deserve that "badge", in addition to what workflow (0), BPMS (1) and iBPMS (2) already brings to the table?
The only real "new things" (there was already a discussion here about that), I can think of are features like CMMN, DMN, AI, Robotic BPM. Maybe machine learning where it applies.
Besides that, there would be also the point that Digital Business Platform doesn't contain the word "Process", at all. That in turn makes me imagine that DBP was meant to describe something more overarching, evolved and encompassing than just BPM. So maybe DBP is trying to describe something like mutually integrated BI, BPM, CRM, ERP, CMS and SMM platforms that can be managed through a unified, multi-role command center... If something like that were to be the case, DBP may be fitting.
But if it is just a trend term (especially "digital" ) to describe enhanced features in BPMS, I do concur with Ian and we should stick with BPM...or maybe go as far and brand it BPM 3.0

I do think however, its our responsibility as professionals, working in the field of BPM, to try and define the exact criteria a methodology and/or software has to meet in order to deserve a specific term. That may evolve into an ongoing discussion but at least provides the end users with somewhat of a guideline.
So, if that term would be DBP (or something else), what would a software or product have to offer to deserve that "badge", in addition to what workflow (0), BPMS (1) and iBPMS (2) already brings to the table?
The only real "new things" (there was already a discussion here about that), I can think of are features like CMMN, DMN, AI, Robotic BPM. Maybe machine learning where it applies.
NSI Soluciones - ABPMP PTY
Comment
- Karl Walter Keirstead
- 2 years ago
- #3882
+1 @Kay, for putting forth a practical interpretation i.e. " . . . makes me imagine that DBP was meant to describe something more overarching, evolved and encompassing than just BPM".
Sounds close to a description of ACM where you have BPM as a core technology, as part of a "platform" that is able to easily adapt to include hosting CRM, CMS.
I hesitate to include legacy ERP as most of the implementations seem to have been of the "all-singing'-all dancing" (i.e. bloatware) type.
Any ERP system one might undertake to develop today would probably have something like JIT as it's core functionality, with in/out links to "other functionality".
The thing is that BPM, as a background technology to, say, Case, that is able to also host CRM, CMS, RALB, FOMM and interconnectivity probably can do everything any new/old ERP system is/was capable of.
Seems to me Alexander and others, have, on several occasions addressed " . . .define the exact criteria a methodology and/or software has to meet in order to deserve a specific term" but we need to have a term that makes sense to practitioners and customers without this being too general. It has been pointed out several times that customers / top management don't care/want to hear about processes" .
CPM (Critical Path Method) is excellent to once through initiatives (any initiative, any industry) because "finding the critical path" is key to getting things done on time and within budget.
I think what we are all doing is "workflow management", with "operational effectiveness" as the desired outcome.
Sounds close to a description of ACM where you have BPM as a core technology, as part of a "platform" that is able to easily adapt to include hosting CRM, CMS.
I hesitate to include legacy ERP as most of the implementations seem to have been of the "all-singing'-all dancing" (i.e. bloatware) type.
Any ERP system one might undertake to develop today would probably have something like JIT as it's core functionality, with in/out links to "other functionality".
The thing is that BPM, as a background technology to, say, Case, that is able to also host CRM, CMS, RALB, FOMM and interconnectivity probably can do everything any new/old ERP system is/was capable of.
Seems to me Alexander and others, have, on several occasions addressed " . . .define the exact criteria a methodology and/or software has to meet in order to deserve a specific term" but we need to have a term that makes sense to practitioners and customers without this being too general. It has been pointed out several times that customers / top management don't care/want to hear about processes" .
CPM (Critical Path Method) is excellent to once through initiatives (any initiative, any industry) because "finding the critical path" is key to getting things done on time and within budget.
I think what we are all doing is "workflow management", with "operational effectiveness" as the desired outcome.
- more than a month ago
- BPM Discussions
- # 9
Accepted Answer
Pending Moderation
I like Emiel’s approach – let us describe that "thing" (now called DBP), agree on its capabilities and then name it.
From my list of capabilities, I would call it Corporate Unified Business Execution (CUBE) platform. To emphasize that it is different from tools for shared economy - see ref1.
Thanks,
AS
From my list of capabilities, I would call it Corporate Unified Business Execution (CUBE) platform. To emphasize that it is different from tools for shared economy - see ref1.
Thanks,
AS
Comment
- Karl Walter Keirstead
- 2 years ago
- #3883
CUBE has a good look/feel - anyone asking what it means (aside from Corporate Unified,... ) we could just say "3D-BPM" implying something more advanced that 2D
- Karl Walter Keirstead
- 2 years ago
- #3884
The ACM folks should not be against this - what it maps to is a platform that accommodates management of multiple cases of multiple instances of multiple process map templates
- Karl Walter Keirstead
- 2 years ago
- #3885
and, are not the "three dimensions" 1) time 2) cost and 3) performance?
Many corporations "optimize" this way - it explains why your TV breaks down the day after the warranty expires.
Many corporations "optimize" this way - it explains why your TV breaks down the day after the warranty expires.
- Dr Alexander Samarin
- 2 years ago
- #3889
3 dimensions? For example, Enterprise Digital Execution. 3 optimization dimensions - Time, Cost, Quality or time-to-market, cost-of-execution, customer-delight
- more than a month ago
- BPM Discussions
- # 10
Accepted Answer
Pending Moderation
Here's an interesting definition from Gartner, which I think summarizes well how DBP is different from previous platform breeds (eg iBPMS):
"Digital Business is the creation of new business designs by blurring the digital and physical worlds"
Do you agree?
"Digital Business is the creation of new business designs by blurring the digital and physical worlds"
Do you agree?
CEO, Co-founder, Profluo
Comment
- Dr Alexander Samarin
- 2 years ago
- #3890
Good point - IoT capabilities are provided by NNN platform as well.
- Bogdan Nafornita
- 2 years ago
- #3891
I'd draw two conclusions from the above definition:
1/ DBP supports business model (re)design rather than business process/data design.
2/ DBP is not a Digital Platform for Business, but actually a Platform for Digital Business. This is a significant nuance that has escaped me so far.
1/ DBP supports business model (re)design rather than business process/data design.
2/ DBP is not a Digital Platform for Business, but actually a Platform for Digital Business. This is a significant nuance that has escaped me so far.
- John Morris
- 2 years ago
- #3892
+1 @Bogdan for highlighting the Gartner definition -- and making the distinction between the concepts. So, comments based on your observations:
a) Re: "business model design" -> can we say that a DBP (based on Gartner's definition) is an instantiation of enterprise architecture? Weaponized architecture? That we are now in @Samarin's CUBE space? I mentioned above about "emergent properties"; thus a DBP is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as we recognize it for what it is.
b) Re: "new business designs by blurring the digital and physical" -> again per my earlier comments above, it's just technology. The arrival of (the telephone, the fax machine, the Internet, email, EDI and ecommerce, your choice) were all technologies that enabled new business models. Outsourcing as an outstanding example of new business model enabled by new technology.
c) Re: "IoT as example of blurring" (again per @Samarin) -> for sure this is good example of the evolution of technology to be more ubiquitous. From the perspective of Gartner however, how is the process of technology diffusion anything new?
There has always been the dream of total automation married to management control (interesting examples are cybernetics and in the 80's Information Engineering, more recently Enterprise Architecture). But the real complexity of the task has overwhelmed inadequate technology. We are seeing now a new generation of more powerful automation tools (and the use of the term ontology is now no longer forbidden in business contexts, apparently). Let's see how far we get this time; there's real excitement about this possibilities.
So the arrival of more powerful technology opens up the possibility -- even the necessity -- of exploiting new business models. And by all means, read analyst reports as signposts for action. Don't "fetishize the new" however; management of change is just management's job. Good management of technology, mastery of domain business models, excellence in operations, all the things that serve executives well will continue to serve them well.
a) Re: "business model design" -> can we say that a DBP (based on Gartner's definition) is an instantiation of enterprise architecture? Weaponized architecture? That we are now in @Samarin's CUBE space? I mentioned above about "emergent properties"; thus a DBP is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as we recognize it for what it is.
b) Re: "new business designs by blurring the digital and physical" -> again per my earlier comments above, it's just technology. The arrival of (the telephone, the fax machine, the Internet, email, EDI and ecommerce, your choice) were all technologies that enabled new business models. Outsourcing as an outstanding example of new business model enabled by new technology.
c) Re: "IoT as example of blurring" (again per @Samarin) -> for sure this is good example of the evolution of technology to be more ubiquitous. From the perspective of Gartner however, how is the process of technology diffusion anything new?
There has always been the dream of total automation married to management control (interesting examples are cybernetics and in the 80's Information Engineering, more recently Enterprise Architecture). But the real complexity of the task has overwhelmed inadequate technology. We are seeing now a new generation of more powerful automation tools (and the use of the term ontology is now no longer forbidden in business contexts, apparently). Let's see how far we get this time; there's real excitement about this possibilities.
So the arrival of more powerful technology opens up the possibility -- even the necessity -- of exploiting new business models. And by all means, read analyst reports as signposts for action. Don't "fetishize the new" however; management of change is just management's job. Good management of technology, mastery of domain business models, excellence in operations, all the things that serve executives well will continue to serve them well.
- Dr Alexander Samarin
- 2 years ago
- #3897
Re Bogdan's item 2 - we already have double interpretation with BPM. Why repeat the same error with DBP?
- more than a month ago
- BPM Discussions
- # 11
Accepted Answer
Pending Moderation
The perfect TLA came to me... Intelligent Business Management - IBM - um, no - Integrated Business Management - IBM - wtf?!?
I just can't escape my former employer
I just can't escape my former employer

Founder at John Reynolds' Venture LLC - Creator of ¿?Trules™ for drama free decisions
Comment
- Bogdan Nafornita
- 2 years ago
- #3893
As a former CFO there, I can feel your pain... I had a pitch with the European Commission VP for Digital, Mr. Ansip, and in the crowd there was an account executive from IBM taking pictures of every slide :D
- Karl Walter Keirstead
- 2 years ago
- #3894
Intelligent Business Management might actually end up being a good choice.
At first glance, one might think that would limit the appeal, but it appears there are only three classes of prospective users of technology 1) intelligent 2) those who think they are intelligent 3) those who don't know that they are not intelligent.
See John Cleese's analysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
At first glance, one might think that would limit the appeal, but it appears there are only three classes of prospective users of technology 1) intelligent 2) those who think they are intelligent 3) those who don't know that they are not intelligent.
See John Cleese's analysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
- John Reynolds
- 2 years ago
- #3896
My South American IBM colleagues, who will otherwise remain nameless for obvious reasons, assured me that IBM stands for "Incredible Bolsa de Mierda" ;-)
- more than a month ago
- BPM Discussions
- # 12
Accepted Answer
Pending Moderation
Business platform
Is "digital" prefix exactly mandatory? I suppose now every business exist in one or another digital form. Of course, it does not apply to production facilities, workforce and other physical aspects. But in organizational terms, it is hard to imagine a business today, which entirely lacks any digital representation, more or less elaborate. Thus, maybe two words combination is already sufficient.
Is "digital" prefix exactly mandatory? I suppose now every business exist in one or another digital form. Of course, it does not apply to production facilities, workforce and other physical aspects. But in organizational terms, it is hard to imagine a business today, which entirely lacks any digital representation, more or less elaborate. Thus, maybe two words combination is already sufficient.
Comment
- more than a month ago
- BPM Discussions
- # 13
Accepted Answer
Pending Moderation
The discussion does highlight the need to truly understand what "digital" is in any business environment (includes production workforce etc) it is where data is created, used and collected and presented by to users (which could also be machines) as required. One version of the truth horizontal flow reflecting how business really works...just highlights the need for a Platform of supporting software across the organisation?
Comment
- Karl Walter Keirstead
- 2 years ago
- #3900
Karl Walter Keirstead
@David .. I don't think such a thing exists ("a Platform of supporting software across the organisation") for the simple reason that individual software systems typically have user security to prevent access except via official interfaces.
There are three official interfaces I know of
1. UIs with roles/rights [back end app or portal},
2. import/export routines that expect "friendly access".
3. arbitrary requests that rule sets will 'sniff' and refer anything unusual to a human gatekeeper for action.
What is possible are "Platforms supporting data across the organization" and the design approach here is
1. encapsulate a reasonable subset of functions/capabilities that make work easy.
2. Set up strong linking between two sets of functions/capabilities.
3. Allows messaging by and between systems where the frequency of access is not high or where different organizations or departments own the systems.
Example:
One integrated application where Applicants/staff, in a setting where workers apply, are hired, then laid off, then come back as and when work picks up. Otherwise, have to jobs app separate from the staff app.
Strong link between a task management\time recording system and a separate payroll system.
A standalone algorithm that accepts messages, performs processing and then returns or makes available the results of such processing.
I don't think any app designer today will let external systems/apps "poke" data to database fields (bypasses security) or even allow "reads" (most of these systems need to maintain logs on who accessed what, when).
@David .. I don't think such a thing exists ("a Platform of supporting software across the organisation") for the simple reason that individual software systems typically have user security to prevent access except via official interfaces.
There are three official interfaces I know of
1. UIs with roles/rights [back end app or portal},
2. import/export routines that expect "friendly access".
3. arbitrary requests that rule sets will 'sniff' and refer anything unusual to a human gatekeeper for action.
What is possible are "Platforms supporting data across the organization" and the design approach here is
1. encapsulate a reasonable subset of functions/capabilities that make work easy.
2. Set up strong linking between two sets of functions/capabilities.
3. Allows messaging by and between systems where the frequency of access is not high or where different organizations or departments own the systems.
Example:
One integrated application where Applicants/staff, in a setting where workers apply, are hired, then laid off, then come back as and when work picks up. Otherwise, have to jobs app separate from the staff app.
Strong link between a task management\time recording system and a separate payroll system.
A standalone algorithm that accepts messages, performs processing and then returns or makes available the results of such processing.
I don't think any app designer today will let external systems/apps "poke" data to database fields (bypasses security) or even allow "reads" (most of these systems need to maintain logs on who accessed what, when).
- David Chassels
- 2 years ago
- #3901
Karl
The capability exists and having one Platform delivering data and UI has significant efficiency and cost benefits. Also ensure that Adaptive capability is real! Agree the need to have logs of activity all built in as is the communication with existing functional processing such as payroll. You make good point about apps but if they are important part of operations they will require to link into a formal process at some stage. The Platform is there to supply and accept data from such apps with designer building user friendly forms with strong marketing image?
The capability exists and having one Platform delivering data and UI has significant efficiency and cost benefits. Also ensure that Adaptive capability is real! Agree the need to have logs of activity all built in as is the communication with existing functional processing such as payroll. You make good point about apps but if they are important part of operations they will require to link into a formal process at some stage. The Platform is there to supply and accept data from such apps with designer building user friendly forms with strong marketing image?
- Karl Walter Keirstead
- 2 years ago
- #3903
David.. Agree, no problem having one Platform delivering data and UI.
My response related to the difficulty and inadvisability of trying to have "a Platform of supporting software. . ."
- more than a month ago
- BPM Discussions
- # 14
Scott Francis
Blog Writer
Accepted Answer
Pending Moderation
I can't tell if the question is more about what to name something, or whether that "something" is a thing or not.

Comment
- more than a month ago
- BPM Discussions
- # 15
Accepted Answer
Pending Moderation
With more than 30 billion devices connected to the internet by 2020, the complexity. The digital platform strategy will vary from company to company. What makes sense for their organization and long-term business goals is depend totally on the company strategy.
Comment
- more than a month ago
- BPM Discussions
- # 16
- Page :
- 1
There are no replies made for this post yet.
However, you are not allowed to reply to this post.
However, you are not allowed to reply to this post.
Please login to post a reply
You will need to be logged in to be able to post a reply. Login using the form on the right or register an account if you are new here. Register Here »
Join the Discussion
Tag Cloud
2019
CX
IT Department
rpa skills
Red Hat
BPM 2019
Business Process
Open Source
RPA 2019
The Year Ahead for BPM
process automation
artificial intelligence
business process integration
swimlanes
Process Architecture
right brain thinking
ACM
process management
end-to-end processes
RPA standard
process maps
Business Processes
Business tranformation
hype cycle
CXO
BPM Year Ahead
The Year Ahead for Digital Transformation
processes
big data
IBM
BPM Skills
IT
case management
BPM Challenges
Business change
leadership
Robotic process automation
DT challenges
Process Re-Use
Virtual Duct Tape
BPM and Intelligent Automation
Intelligent automation
employee experience
voice recognition
data
AI
Explainable Artificial Intelligence
RPA
agile
disruption
IA
process
Automation
customer experience
BPM Buzz
process improvement
BPM
Customer process
simple process
business process management
XAI
digital transformation
Business Process Management 2019
business process models
Year Ahead
BPI
customer service
skills
process modeling
transformation
change management
process mapping
DT
Also on BPM
- First Impression: FlowForma Process Automation
- Intelligent Automation
- Beyond Agile: the Studio Model
- Winners Announced in 2019 WfMC Global Awards for Excellence in Business Transformation
- AI For CXOs -- Redefining The Future Of Leadership In The AI Era
- Understanding Explainable AI
- Turbo Charge AI with Right Brain-Based Reasoning
Latest Replies
From what we've seen so far, I think Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning have become the biggest part of people's lives these days. The only thing that stays uncertain for many people is how ...
As ever important before you start is doing research on capabilities that can deliver as summarised in the definition in the on line book Intelligent-Automation " A true intelligent automation...
There is a great impact of mobile apps on the BPM market. With the increase in the utility of mobile applications, its markets are also experiencing a great difference as earlier. The use of mobile ap...
Time to Move on From Agile?
Replied by David Chassels
With the proven delivery of enterprise level Adaptive applications without need for coding the concept of Agile changes to one where the direct input from users into the build environment intuitively ...
Time to Move on From Agile?
Replied by Juan J Moreno
Allow me to kindly disagree with Anthony Blackham
There are now cloud BPMs absolutely focused on the business user. These products allow that dose of agility, defining and delivering processes qu...