December 15, 2007

E.R.P. vs. B.R.P. or, is s.a.p. about to buy thingamy?

money05A.jpg
For the last cou­ple of years I’ve been a very minor sha­rehol­der in my friend, Sigurd Rinde’s ERP soft­ware com­pany, Thin­gamy.
Not being the ERP busi­ness, Sig doesn’t tell me much about what’s going on with Thin­gamy. Seems to me he has spent the last year or so mainly in his cave, tin­ke­ring away.
Then sud­denly I’m noti­cing a whoosh of thought-provoking acti­vity in the blo­gosphere.
1. First, Sigurd posts about the dif­fe­rence bet­ween ERP [ he calls it, “Easily Repea­ta­ble Pro­ces­ses”] and what he calls BRP [“Barely Repea­ta­ble Processes”}:

I. The Easily Repea­ta­ble Pro­cess (ERP for me)
Pro­ces­ses that hand­les resour­ces, from human (hiring, firing, pay­roll and more) to parts and pro­ducts through supply chains, dis­tri­bu­tion and pro­duc­tion. The IT sys­tems go under catchy names like ERP, SCM, PLM, SRM, CRM and the big­gest pla­yers are as we know SAP and Oracle plus a long ros­ter of sma­ller firms.
[…]
II. The Barely Repea­ta­ble Pro­cess (BRP)
Typi­cally excep­tions to the ERPs, anything that invol­ves peo­ple in non-rigid flows through edu­ca­tion, health, sup­port, govern­ment, con­sul­ting or the daily unplan­ned issues that hap­pens in every orga­ni­sa­tion. The acti­vi­ties that emplo­yees spend most of their time on every day. Pro­ces­ses that often starts with an e-mail or a call. A pro­cess volume, mea­su­red by time and resource spent at orga­ni­sa­tions, pro­bably lar­ger than for the Easily Repea­ta­ble Processes. 

2. Then I notice our mutual friend, James Gover­nor pic­king up on it:

Accor­ding to Sig, ERP actually stands for Easily Repea­ta­ble Pro­cess: “Pro­ces­ses that handle resour­ces, from human (hiring, firing, pay­roll and more) to parts and pro­ducts through supply chains, dis­tri­bu­tion and pro­duc­tion. Known to be rigid, but handle events and tran­sac­tions with pre­ci­sion and in volume. Sys­tems deli­ver value through exten­sive reports and full con­trol over resour­ces. Resource orien­ted, tran­sac­tio­nal, event dri­ven sys­tems. Deli­ve­red by sys­tem ven­dors with roots in accoun­ting using up to 25 year old tech­no­lo­gi­cal solu­tions.” But Sigurde is far more inte­res­ted in the Barely Repea­ta­ble Pro­cess (BRP): “Typi­cally excep­tions to the ERPs, anything that invol­ves peo­ple in non-rigid flows [like] the daily unplan­ned issues that hap­pen in every orga­ni­sa­tion. The acti­vi­ties that emplo­yees spend most of their time on every day. Pro­ces­ses that often start with an e-mail or a call.

3. Then it seems the for­mer Edi­tor of Har­vard Busi­ness Review, Nick Carr has pic­ked up on it, as well:

Gover­nor quo­tes Doug Merritt, a guy from SAP who appa­rently has been up in the alps with Sig recently: “I don’t worry about IBM and Oracle. I worry about Goo­gle, Ama­zon, and Face­book.” Then again, Merritt says, “the ‘con­su­mer’ com­pa­nies haven’t fully rea­li­sed the change that’s upon us yet.” Bingo twice over. You need the BRP for the peo­ple and you need the ERP for the ins­ti­tu­tion — and you need them tied together in a seam­less web-wise bundle with a pretty rib­bon that doesn’t scream “soft­ware!” at you. Gover­nor thinks the twain shall meet in SAP’s upco­ming offe­rings. “SAP deli­ve­ring 37Signals ad-hoc colla­bo­ra­tion with real enter­prise pro­cess data and objects is sexy,” he says: “‘Wow. We only just hoo­ked up — and you’re going to let me see your … purchase order …’”

So what’s going on? Is there some kind of new para­digm I don’t know about? Is BRP the future of wha­te­ver? Is SAP trying to long-term out­flank of Mic­ro­soft and Oracle? I have no idea. Sig won’t tell me one way or the other, mainly because of the rela­ti­vely high volume of rea­ders I get on my blog, as he simply doesn’t want too many peo­ple fin­ding out too much about Thin­gamy too quickly.
But I do know, from rea­ding his blog, that he’s been up to see the boys at SAP a few times this year, with flights and hotels paid for by them.
My guess is that Sig is in talks with SAP about acqui­ring Thin­gamy, or at least, having talks about having talks. My guess is that some peo­ple within SAP sees some kind of unrea­li­zed future in BRM. I look for­ward to Sigurd giving us the skinny.
[Afterthought:] Whilst we were tal­king about my invol­ve­ment with Mic­ro­soft, Sig said to me, “Every­body misun­ders­tands Mic­ro­soft because they think they’re in the Con­su­mer soft­ware busi­ness. They’re not. They’re in the Enter­prise busi­ness.” Food for thought etc.

11 Responses to “E.R.P. vs. B.R.P. or, is s.a.p. about to buy thingamy?”

  1. sig says:

    Hehe. Even if I didn’t know anything, Hugh, I still wouldn’t tell you ;-)
    p.s. Fact: Been invi­ted three times by my friends there is right, although only as a mere tech blog­ger, alas…

  2. phil jones says:

    That’s one hell of a rumour.
    Seems like SAP are get­ting into some very cool things at the moment, but still looks like that’s around the edge … eg. encou­ra­ging new Wii/Flash wid­gets to inter­face to their back-end. (Very smart and sen­si­ble, of course)
    But Thin­gamy wants to throw that back-end away enti­rely. Not sure if SAP could cope with that.
    Don’t get me wrong, I think Sig’s a visio­nary, and I’m a fan. I’d like to see this all work out for him. But I can’t ima­gine that SAP could do anything with Thin­gamy at the moment.
    My hunch would be that SAP (or IBM) would just put it in limbo. Mic­ro­soft would … pro­bably try to inte­grate it with Sha­re­point something. :-(

  3. intriu­ging but as I read this I can’t help thin­king BRP sounds a lot like Infor­ma­tion Work(ers) which isn’t anything new.
    also pretty sure that Mic­ro­soft is in *both* the con­su­mer and enter­prise soft­ware busi­nes­ses :)
    ho hum…I may be com­ple­tely mis­sing the point here though

  4. Phil Gomes says:

    From my pers­pec­tive, I’m just glad that enter­prise soft­ware mar­ke­ting has evol­ved from the “pro­tec­tion rac­ket” mes­sa­ges of the mid-to-late 1990s.
    It’s been a while (2002?) since I’ve been in that par­ti­cu­lar hunt, but I just remem­ber that the sales pitch for enter­prise soft­ware — always to the CEO — went something like:
    Ven­dor: “Buy our soft­ware.”
    CEO: “No. It’s too expen­sive and, besi­des, I’ll have to pay your con­sul­tants $3 for every $1 of soft­ware I buy.”
    Ven­dor: “If you don’t buy our soft­ware, then we’ll just sell it to your clo­sest com­pe­ti­tor and, in just a year, they will abso­lu­tely crush you with the ope­ra­tio­nal effi­cien­cies that they will achieve using our seam­lessly inte­gra­ted, feature-rich, end-to-end, robust solu­tion.”
    CEO: “Ummm… Uhhh… Where do I sign? And is it cus­to­mary to *tip* the con­sul­tants?”
    Seems we’ve come quite some way since…

  5. hugh macleod says:

    “I may be com­ple­tely mis­sing the point here though”
    I pretty much feel the same way about ALL soft­ware, Steve ;-)

  6. sig says:

    Ho hum Steve!
    It’s the P in BRP that is the crux — the acti­vi­ties have been there fore­ver and email, office sui­tes, wikis, Mon­day mor­ning mee­tings, colla­bo­ra­tion soft­ware etc runs them. Pre­cious little pro­cess struc­ture in those… and with that a bit of lac­king accoun­ta­bi­lity, dan­ger of pro­cess falling into cracks (oops, for­got to ans­wer mail), and without pro­cess cap­ture a lost oppor­tu­nity to build much of the know­ledge nee­ded to get bet­ter in what the orga­ni­sa­tion is _doing_!
    And of course, MS is in con­su­mer, hehe, duh-to-me etc. Think the quote should be more like “much of the “con­su­mer” stuff is really “enter­prise”, more than what the first impres­sion is”… or something along those lines…

  7. Gordon says:

    mmm ok so what was the BRP to do with BRM.…:)…and we still need dreams.…but now we know what to dream about :)

  8. Ben Tamblyn says:

    Can’t help but think that most BRP today is done in Office. This is really about addres­sing all facets of busi­ness inte­lli­gence. ERP sys­tems and for that mat­ter many LOB appli­ca­tions are com­mon in that they’re able to address only a frac­tion of the infor­ma­tion that we need to access to help us become more pro­duc­tive and make bet­ter deci­sions. They’re tied to the ERP sys­tem, the data warehouse, the dif­fe­rent tran­sac­tio­nal sys­tems that we have all over our orga­ni­za­tions.
    They’re hard to use — and har­der to main­tain, and are often res­tric­ted to a few peo­ple or groups in the orga­ni­za­tion. Why? Most often, the tools don’t reflect how we want use this information.

  9. Joe says:

    Actually, Sig has a good point. Most soft­ware pro­ducts aim to auto­mate pro­ces­ses that are easy to auto­mate. The next level of value-addition will be in auto­ma­ting the pro­ces­ses that _need_ to be auto­ma­ted.
    Think about an appli­ca­tion like Docu­men­tum. Docu­ment sto­rage is an ERP. For that mat­ter, Docu­ment inde­xing and retrie­val is an ERP. Workflow…the pro­cess of gene­ra­ting docu­ment from draft to deliverable…that’s more like a BRP, and actual imple­men­ta­tions reflect that. Food for thought.

  10. Susie says:

    What does “up in the alps” mean? Seems like coide for something boring or illi­cit or both.

  11. shel israel says:

    I know abso­lu­tely nothing about this as an SAP con­sul­tant, but I just love you pos­sibly blo­wing the cover on a com­pany you’ve inves­ted in. I love it even more that Sig should have fun with it. Only Sco­ble could be more transparent.