David S. Read

Today the Business Rules Forum (BRF) kicked off for its 12th year.  Gladys Lam welcomed us and set the stage for an enlightening and engaging three days.  Jim Sinur (Gartner) gave the keynote address.  His expertise surrounding the entire field of Business Process Management (BPM), Business Rules Management (BRM) and Complex Event Processing (CEP) gives him significant insight into the industry and trends.

Jim’s talk was a call to action for product vendors and practitioners that the world has changed fundamentally and being able to leverage what he called “weak signals” and myriad events from many sources was becoming a requirement for successful business operations.  As always his talk was accompanied with a little humor and a lot of excellent supporting material.

During the day I attended three sessions and two of the vendor “Fun Labs”.  For me, the most interesting session of the ones I attended was given by Graham Witt (Ajlion).  He discussed his success with creating an approach of allowing business users to document rules using a structured natural language.  His basis was SBVR, but he reduced the complexity to create a practical solution.

Graham did a great job of walking us through a set of definitions for fact model, term, fact types and so forth. Using our understanding of the basic components of a structured rule he explored how one can take ambiguous statements, leverage the structure inherent in the fact model, and create an unambiguous statement that was still completely understandable to the business user.

His approach of creating templates for each type of rule made sense as a very effective method to give the business user the flexibility of expressing different types of rules while staying within a structured syntax.  This certainly seems like an approach to be explored for getting us closer to a DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself) process that moves rules from the requirements into the design and implementation phases of a rules-based project.

The vendor labs were also interesting.  I attended one run by Innovations Software Technology and another by RuleArts. (more…)

This was the second of two pre-conference days offering a set of interesting tutorial sessions.  Although the choices were tough, I decided on Eric Siegel’s and David Luckham’s sessions.  Both were thought provoking.

Eric’s session, “Driving Decisions with Predictive Analytics: The Top Seven Business Applications” caught my attention due to its focus on analytics.  I have taken two data analysis courses as part of the Master’s program at Union Graduate College.  The courses, “Systems Modeling and Optimization” and “Data Mining” really piqued my interest in this field.

What was different about Eric’s presentation was its focus on real-world use of these techniques.  Understandably, he could not delve into the detail of a semester-long course.  He did a great job of introducing the basic concepts of data mining and then explored how these can be leveraged to build models that can then be used to drive business decisions.

Beyond explaining the basics around creating models (formatting data, algorithm choices, training, testing) he discussed how the resulting model isn’t a magic bullet that will generate business rules.  Rather from the model comes the ability to make decision, but those decisions must be created by the business.

I believe that leveraging predictive analytics will continue to grow as a key differentiator for businesses and a key feature leveraged in business rule engines.  Having a keen interest in this area, I look forward to assisting businesses derive value from the growing set of analytical tools and techniques.

My afternoon session choice, delivered by David Luckham, was titled, “Complex Event Processing in An Event-Driven, Information World.”  Complex Event Processing (CEP) is not an area with which I am familiar and David’s presentation covered a broad cross-section of the field.

Professor Luckham (Emeritus) at Stanford has an amazing amount of knowledge regarding CEP.  He discussed its market, history, technology and his predictions for its future.  He flew through several presentations that make up a CEP course he teaches.  Given the amount of material he has on the topic, he allowed us to help tune his presentation based on our particular interests.

It is clear that he has a passion around CEP and a strong belief that it will grow into a core, hence transparent, feature of all service-based networks.  He refers to this end state as “Holistic Event Processing”(HEP).

The power of the platform he describes would be amazing.  Although he did not compare the vision to Mashups and environments such as Yahoo Pipes, the power of HEP would seem to extend and go well beyond the operation of those tools.

It will be interesting to see how this field and the products being created become part of our standard enterprise infrastructure.  There is a long way to go before we reach David’s vision.

Tomorrow the Business Rules Forum launches in earnest with lots of presentations and vendor demonstrations.  I’m looking forward to a variety of interesting discussions as the week goes on.

I was fortunate to be able to attend Kathy Long’s (Innovative Process Consulting, Inc) presentation centered on the importance of working with business rules in the context of process.  This was a preconference tutorial for the 12th Annual International Business Rules Forum.  She did an excellent job of walking us through her experiences and thinking concerning process modeling and business rules.  The three hour session flew by!

Kathy spent a fair amount of time discussing four ways we typically model processes.  The four were Process Decomposition, Swim lanes (e.g. BPMN light), Full BPMN and IGOE (both and a high-level and as full flow models).  The IGOE (Inputs, Output, Guides and Enablers) was new to me and I think she anticipated that the majority of the attendees would not be familiar with their use.

We took some time using the IGOE approach with a couple of exercises.  This allowed us to understand the way these diagrams are used.  She pointed out some interesting strengths of using IGOEs versus swim lane-based flow diagrams.  I would recommend that people who document processes take a look at IGOEs.  They would seem to be a useful tool in the analyst’s arsenal.

Beyond the exploration of process documentation, Kathy discussed the need to consider business rules within the context of process.  She pointed out that we often embed decisions within our process flows as if they are separate from the processes themselves.  Of course this is wrong, the decisions occur as part of the process.

She showed us how the simplification of the flows, through the removal of the decision, makes the diagram clearer and more useful as documentation.  Rather than being tied to low level business rules, the process stands on its own.

I cannot do justice in describing everything Kathy walked us through in the course of the three hour session.  You should check out her articles, published in the Business Rules Journal (http://www.brcommunity.com/).

I am looking forward to more preconference tutorial sessions tomorrow!

For years I have struggled with the value of presentation software like Microsoft’s PowerPoint, OpenOffice’s Impress or AppleWorks, generically called presentationware.  Most presentations I see use presentationware to display the outline or script for the presenter.  I am certainly guilty of doing the same.  The slides being displayed don’t add any value.  Worse, when the presenter starts reading or reciting what is on the slide it makes the whole experience painful.  Is there a value offered through the use of this software during a live presentation?

Exploring this question, I just finished Presentation Zen by Garr Reynolds, a gift from my sister (thank you Beth!), and I have a fresh outlook regarding the use of presentationware.  Instead of viewing its role as a visual sort of “Cliff’s Notes” or outline version of my words, Garr suggests that it should augment my oration.

The core issue revolves around the value of the presenter and his or her participation in the process.  If the slides contain a significant amount of what the speaker intends to say, what value does the speaker add?  It is clearly less value if he or she is reading the slides or adding a small amount of information beyond the written content.  Also, the presenter’s value is further reduced if the audience is distracted reading a lot of text from the slide.  The audience members are forced to split their attention between reading and listening.

A presentation full of text also limits the ability of the presenter to adjust the message to the audience.  The presenter has laid out the script for a program and that is what the participants will expect to hear.  Removing this detail from the slide grants the presenter flexibility and it forces the audience to listen.  The requirement for the attendees to listen is a key concept to effective use of presentationware.

(more…)

My family has been using Chandler for about a year. Chandler, in case you haven’t heard, is a “Note-to-Self Organizer“. I am not convinced that this tagline does the application justice. It provides a task list, note management and calendar that are easily shared with others through server software known as the Chandler Hub. Further, the tasks, notes and calendar entries are easily reclassified.

Chandler provides two interfaces: 1) a rich client that is installed on a PC and 2) a web interface used to interact with the information via a user’s browser. The Hub also provides a web-based service that is used by the desktop application to share information among users.

The Chandler Hub is available for download, along with the Chandler Desktop, so groups can run their own Chandler service. For those not interested in running the server, the Chandler Project provides a free Chandler Hub instance.

Chandler’s interface is great for sharing information, and in my case schedules. Multiple calendars are easily overlaid. Further, the sharing of a calendar is done by sending people a URL that allows for either read-only or read-write access to the data.

(more…)