Gartner MQ ECM 2016 revisited

Den Gartner Magic Quadrant  Enterprise Content Management 2016 hatten wir oben ja schon verlinkt http://bit.ly/2g5z008, aber da man ja die Quadranten-Grafik nicht ohne Erklärung verwenden soll - sie ist letztlich nur eine mögliche Darstellung aus der dahinterliegenden Datenbank - hier noch ein paar Anmerkungen und Auszüge aus dem Report.

Annahmen für die strategische Planung

• "By 2018, 50% of enterprises will manage their content using a hybrid content architecture.
• By 2018, more than 20% of the enterprise content management solution sales will address multiorganization "ecosystem" content.
• By 2018, enterprise file synchronization and sharing will be a standard capability of enterprise content management and collaboration offerings.
• By 2018, at least 50% of the leading enterprise content management vendors will rearchitect their offerings into cloud-based platforms.
• By 2018, 20% of all business content will be authored by machines.
• By 2019, 70% of all business content will be nontextual, which will require organizations to invest more widely in analytics as part of their content management efforts.

​

Beschreibung des Marktes und Definition von Enterprise Content Management

Hier ist zunächst - wie immer - festzustellen, dass sich Gartner nicht an der allgemein gültigen Definition der AIIM international orientiert. Dies liegt auch daran, dass bestimmte Komponenten in die "Zuständigkeit" anderer Analysten bei Gartner fallen - so z.B. BPM Business Process Management, EIM ENterprise Information Management oder Archiving. So gesehen zeigt der Magic Quadrant füer Enterprise Content Management nur einen Ausschnitt der relevanten Funktionalität von ECM (siehe Wikipedia ECMS). Gartner definiert den Markt wie folgt und ändert dabei auch mal gleich wieder schnell den Fokus und die Definition:

"Gartner has traditionally used the term "enterprise content management" (ECM) to describe products with a range of capabilities for managing unstructured enterprise content. Although we still apply this term to such products, new technologies, external market challengers and digital business requirements are changing organizations' requirements for managing digital content. These changes are part of a functional evolution from a centralized, back-end, command-and-control focus on managing unstructured content to a more integrated approach that prioritizes content usability, processing and analysis. In response to these changes, Gartner has recast its definition of ECM to emphasize the strategic need for a more dynamic, flexible and adaptable approach to content within enterprises:

• ECM is a set of services and microservices, embodied either as an integrated product suite or as separate applications that share common APIs and repositories, to exploit diverse content types, and serve multiple constituencies and numerous use cases across an organization."

Die aktuelle Definition von ECM Enterprise Content Management basiert laut Gartner auf folgenden 8 Komponenten:

1. Document management (20%, unchanged from 2015) — For check-in/check-out, version control, security and library services for business documents. Advanced capabilities such as compound document support and content replication score more highly than basic library services. Extended capabilities include digital rights management (DRM) and metadata-driven views of documents, rather than strict taxonomy-based structures. Our scoring also values capabilities for mobile user experiences; integration with common productivity applications; access to, and version management, in noncore repositories (such as when managing documents in a file share, from mobile devices or in a cloud environment); and the ability for IT staff to customize the user experience.
2. Records management (10%, unchanged from 2015) — For long-term archiving, automating policies for retention and compliance requirements, e-discovery support, and ensuring legal, regulatory and industry compliance. The minimum requirement is an ability to enforce immutable retention of critical business documents, based on a records retention schedule. Higher ratings are given for certified compliance with standards such as the Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5015.2-STD, the Victorian Electronic Records Strategy (VERS) and Modular Requirements for the Management of Electronic Records (MoReq2010).
3. Image-processing applications (10%, down from 15% in 2015) — For capturing, transforming and managing images of paper documents. The reduced weighting reflects the maturity of image-processing technologies and their use within enterprises. We subtracted five percentage points from this functional component's weighting to make room for emerging content capabilities. For this function, the vendor must offer:
   Document capture (scanning hardware and software, mobile device capture, optical and intelligent character recognition technologies and form-processing technology) performed either using native capabilities or through a formal partnership with a third-party solution provider.
   The ability to store images of scanned documents as a native (nonrendered or converted) content type in a folder, and to route them through an electronic process. Extra credit is given for vertical or horizontal solutions, whether delivered directly or through partners.
4. Social content/collaboration (15%, unchanged from 2015) — For document sharing and file synchronization among devices (including mobile devices), and for collaboration and coordination among teams, for project management, extranet and knowledge management use cases. We also evaluate concurrent and co-authoring interfaces, office suite integration, blogs, wikis, and support for social online interactions such as commenting, rating and tagging. The volume of social content — externally shared and collaborative content, mobile app content, comments, video, images and audio — is growing rapidly as organizations realize its critical role in technology and digital workplace engagement strategies.
5. Content workflow (15%, down from 20% in 2015) — For supporting business processes, routing content, assigning work tasks, determining states and creating audit trails. The reduced weighting reflects the maturity of content workflow technologies and their use within enterprises. We subtracted five percentage points from this functional component's weighting to make room for emerging content capabilities. The minimum requirement is simple document review and approval workflow capability. Higher points are given to vendors with graphical process builders, and both serial and parallel routing. Many vendors use stronger process capabilities to deliver frameworks or templates as content applications, such as case management and customer communication management applications.
6. Packaged apps and integration (5%, new for 2016) — For extending content management capabilities, services and support to other workloads, business processes and vertical solutions. The integration can be native or via add-on components, connectors or technology partnerships. The focus should be on integrating with LOB and productivity applications and vertical solutions. We give extra credit for published APIs, open-source code and modular components that can be combined or used with external applications, content and data.
7. Analytics/BI (5%, new for 2016) — For analyzing file content and for the discovery or interrogation of enterprise content. We give extra credit for the ability to conduct analysis across repositories and information resources, including structured and unstructured content. We also give extra credit for analytics for ECM system performance, tagging patterns or user activity, especially if the analysis can assist with a business goal such as process optimization or discovery.
8. Extended components (20%, up from 15% in 2015) — These can include components for one or more of the following: digital asset management, web content management, enterprise search and EFSS. The increased weighting reflects the growing importance of the ability to extend ECM to accommodate diverse content uses and workloads, especially with the introduction of EFSS and enterprise search software.
    

Zum "Context" der Studie schreibt Gartner:

"Changes to ECM technologies and the ECM software market influence changes to organizations' business requirements. This Magic Quadrant reflects these changes by including:

• A refined definition of "enterprise content management" (see the "Market Definition" section)
• A revised list of the essential functional components of ECM products (see Note 1)
• Substantially revised inclusion criteria (see the "Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria" section)
• Criteria and weightings for measuring vendors' Ability to Execute and Completeness of Vision that have been expanded to meet evolving market and technological trends.

These revisions — especially those to the inclusion and evaluation criteria — result in a new lineup and arrangement of vendors in this Magic Quadrant, which should not be compared directly with the lineup and arrangement of previous editions.

Recommendations

Application leaders in charge of ECM should:

• Adopt a service management approach designed to orchestrate content delivery within their enterprise.
• Accept that enterprise content is distributed and diverse, not try to put everything into one silo.
• Use digital workplace, cloud, business process and/or data analytics initiatives to evolve their ECM strategy.
• Evolve ECM use cases from purely back-office support to support for how content is used by LOBs and the organization as a whole.
• Strive to gain new insights by using technologies that exploit content to deliver business value.
• Concentrate more on improving content access and content quality, and less on controlling the applications being used.

Application leaders in charge of ECM should use this Magic Quadrant as just one tool to help them select an ECM software vendor and product. It should not be the sole influence on their decision. It is important that they devise selection criteria for their organization's particular functional and technical requirements. It is not wise, for example, to choose a Leader or to reject a Niche Player simply on the basis of either label. A vendor in any one of the four quadrants could be the best choice for particular needs."

Genug der Vorbemerkungen!
 

Magic Quadrant

Die Bewertungskriterien sind wie immer im Bericht gut erklärt. Nimmt man sich die einzelnen Sektoren des Quadranten vor, dann erhält man im Vergleich zum Vorjahr (http://bit.ly/ECMMQ2015) folgendes Bild: 

Leaders
"Leaders have the highest combined scores for Ability to Execute and Completeness of Vision. They are doing well and are prepared for the future with a clearly articulated vision. In the context of ECM, they have strong channel partners, presence in multiple regions, consistent financial performance, broad platform support and good customer support. They are very strong in one or more technologies or vertical markets. They deliver a suite of technologies that addresses demand for direct delivery of most (if not all) of the eight essential functional components of ECM software, that is tightly integrated, and that is unique or best-of-breed in each area. Leaders demonstrate enterprise deployments; integration with other business applications and content repositories; incorporation of social, cloud and mobile capabilities; and vertical and horizontal solutions. Leaders drive market transformation."

Oben rechts ist es ziemlich leer geworden. Nur IBM und OpenText behaupten ihre Position. EMC darf sich etwas zu den Visionären absetzen, müsste aber eigentlich schon zu OpenText zugeschlagen werden. Nur von links rückt jetzt Onbase von Hyland in dieses Segment.

Challengers
"Challengers offer good functionality and have a substantial number of installations, but they lack the vision of Leaders. Nor do they, typically, possess all of the essential functional components of ECM software — or as many as the Leaders. Instead, they use partnerships to fill out their suites, or simply ignore some capabilities or markets altogether. Challengers may lack a broad ECM focus or wide geographical coverage, but they execute well, despite some product or market share limitations.

Oben links ist einiges gelandet, was früher sich bei den Leaders tummelte: Microsoft (endlich oben rechts raus), Oracle, Lexmark. Dazu noch Alfresco und Laserfiche. 

Visionaries
"Visionaries may offer all eight of the essential functional components of ECM software natively. Alternatively, they may supply some of them through partnerships with other vendors. In some cases, Visionaries need to integrate acquisitions into their existing product portfolios. Visionaries typically show a strong understanding of the market and anticipate shifting market forces. They may lead efforts relating to standards, new technologies or alternative delivery models, but they have less Ability to Execute than Leaders."

Unten rechts im Quadranten ist M-Files gut gelandet. Passt zum neuen Ansatz der Software. 

Niche Players
"Niche Players typically focus on specific categories of ECM technology (such as transactional content management technology), midmarket buyers, or supplements to the offerings of business application or "stack" providers. They may be vendors that are still ramping up their ECM efforts, or that have neither the Completeness of Vision nor the Ability to Execute to break out of the Niche Players quadrant. Some may be "boutiques" that serve only certain regions, industries or functional domains."

Warum der einzige deutsche Anbieter etwas abgerutscht ist, muss man wahrscheinlich in Detail-Daten gucken. Everteam und Objective können längst nicht mehr in der Oberklasse mitspielen. XEROX war schon mal besser positioniert. Aber Newgen aus Indien entwickelt sich gut und strebt in den Visionairies Quadranten.

Im Bericht finden sich zu jedem der Anbieter ausführlichere Beschreibungen, die auch die Einschränkungen beleuchten. Als weitere erwähnenswerte Anbieter werden Box und Docuware genannt (schön, ein weiteres deutschstämmiges Unternehmen) 

Market Overview

The dynamics of the global ECM market are changing. As a practice, ECM is evolving into a strategic framework for services that target specific use cases and audiences. Meanwhile, the ECM technology market is becoming more purpose-driven, with the emergence of specialized technologies that can integrate tightly with affiliated content systems.

This evolution creates new opportunities and options for application leaders in charge of ECM, especially those engaged in digital business initiatives that:

• Disrupt monolithic ECM solutions, which no longer meet organizations' fast-changing content requirements
• Demand increasingly distributed, more diverse, smarter and more contextualized content and use cases
• Emphasize business-driven requirements to draw on LOB content management investments

Gartner has responded to these new dynamics by refining its definition of ECM to emphasize a more flexible approach and by stiffening the criteria that determine whether vendors qualify for inclusion in this Magic Quadrant. The changes to these criteria make it inadvisable to directly compare vendors' inclusion and positioning on this Magic Quadrant with 2015's Magic Quadrant.

The ECM market grew by 9.4% in 2015 to a worldwide revenue total of $5.9 billion in constant currency. That compares with a 2014 growth rate of 6.2% and a worldwide revenue total of $5.4 billion. The top-three vendors lost market share in 2015, while their smaller rivals gained. More notably, best-of-breed, local and multicountry vendors accounted for 33.8% of the market in 2015, up from 27.9% in 2013. For more details, see "Market Share Analysis: Enterprise Content Management, Worldwide, 2015."

Vendors are also responding to the new market dynamics. In 2015, several of the larger ones announced strategic plans and actions to recast their ECM approach, including buyouts, spinoffs and a willingness to sell off software assets. A restructuring of the market is therefore likely.

Buyers' interest in cloud-based models increased in 2015. Cloud offerings accounted for over 8% of the market's revenue, up from approximately 5% in 2014. These offerings vary widely in their completeness and geographic availability.

Another important trend is for EFSS vendors to add a range of content management capabilities to their existing offerings. These capabilities are often good enough for specific enterprise use cases. For additional information, see "From EFSS to ECM: Consider the Spectrum of Needs in Your Content Management Strategy."

 Europe Context

Besonders interssant ist natürlich der Abschnitt mit den Informationen zum Markt in Europa (der dankenswerter Weise wieder sehr ausführlich geworden ist).

Market Differentiators

This report describes the key issues and requirements that clients should think carefully about when evaluating products and services related to enterprise content management (ECM). It also describes a number of vendors with specialist products and experience particularly suited to aspects of the European market.

• The European ECM market actually shrank by 6.8% during 2015, compared to growing 6.3% in the U.S. and 1.4% worldwide. Within Europe, there were differences: many nations including Germany and France showed a market decline of more than 10%. Only a small number of markets showed any growth, for example, the U.K. market grew just 2%. Most Western European economies have not yet returned to the ECM investment levels seen before the 2009 financial crisis.
   
• The recent U.K. referendum decision to leave the EU is likely to create further uncertainty about U.K. IT investments, which Gartner expects to be negative during 2017 (see "Smarter With Gartner: Understand the Brexit Impact on IT" ). The impact of Brexit on the IT spending of other European nations is unknown, but a further slowdown would not be surprising, thereby potentially limiting the growth of investment in this market over the next two years. In the longer term, Brexit may actually fuel IT spending as organizations reshape their physical and IT operations in reaction to Brexit's impacts and opportunities.
   
• Nonetheless, ECM remains an important issue for European organizations, especially in Western Europe where a mature market has few greenfield opportunities for ECM vendors. The continued consumerization of IT creates a demand for innovations that enhance the usability and adoption of existing ECM platforms. There is sustained interest in industry-specific ECM solutions in verticals such as financial services, life sciences and construction. Cloud-based ECM is also a major consideration for European organizations that are evaluating the extent to which they embrace public cloud offerings and cloud office, while maintaining control of sensitive content and adhering to European and national regulations and legislation.

Other key market differentiators are:

• Language:  Europe has many different languages, not all of which are supported by the large global vendors. This gives regional or national vendors the opportunity to concentrate on meeting the demands of local markets.
  Recommendation:
  Clients should ensure that the levels of localization are appropriate for their business needs and cover all aspects of the solution including the user interface, documentation, training and support services.
   
• Regulations and standards: The need for adherence to standards and regulations varies across Europe by geography and industry sector. There is no Europe-wide regulation for records management, but MoReq2010 provides a standard that is used by many organizations as a starting point in their specification of ECM capabilities. Local specializations also exist within individual countries. This compliance web creates opportunities for vendors to target specific regions and certifications. Data residency is another key concern for any cloud-based services, particularly since the European Court of Justice ruling invalidating the 2000 "safe harbor" agreement covering transfer of personal data between the EU and U.S. European vendors will provide in-region residency for cloud hosted data.
  Recommendation:
  Clients should ensure that vendors understand the specific regulations that apply to their country and sector, and that vendors can offer reference clients. Just because a vendor has a European headquarters does not automatically mean it has the necessary expertise.
   
• Localized Application Portfolios:  Organizations rarely deploy ECM in isolation; instead they require integration with other applications for operational or migration purposes. Small and midsize businesses (SMBs) often have a range of applications that focus on common business processes local to their sector and region (a social security process management solution for U.K. local government, for example). Vendors that have a good understanding of, and experience with, these specialized applications can help clients implement and integrate their ECM capabilities more efficiently, and with less risk. Large organizations often have application portfolios consisting of common, international, enterprise software products that are very familiar to the big ECM players (such as Oracle or SAP) so specialist integration knowledge is less of a differentiator. The same is true for migration. Local European vendors are likely to understand the best practices and the pitfalls in migrating from more niche localized applications, having done it before. By contrast, global ECM vendors may be primarily skilled in migrating customers only from the ECM software of their largest competitors.
   
• Industry and area focus: ECM software vendors that focus on the European market often specialize in one or more industries, or a particular political or linguistic area. For example, some vendors focus on the healthcare sector in a single country, while others concentrate on the multiple-country German-speaking area (Germany, Austria, parts of Switzerland and the Alsace region of France).
   
• Focus on open source: There is a growing focus on open-source software within the European market, particularly within the public sector. The EU has an equal-treatment policy for open-source solutions for internal systems, and there is a general preference (although not a mandate) from the U.K. government digital services for open-source software.

Considerations for Technology and Service Selection

• The vendor's product focus:  Although the global vendors in  "Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Content Management"  cover all aspects of ECM, local European vendors may cover only parts of it, often in response to specific client use cases. They may leave out aspects like analytics, enterprise search, process management and social components, and instead focus on highly specialized solutions to meet local regulatory requirements or business processes.
  Recommendations:
  Evaluate the vendor's capabilities to meet your specific business use cases and the specific regulatory requirements for your geographies.
  Strategize and forecast the content services you are likely to need in the future to support planned business growth, expansion into new markets and new types of content for digital business initiatives.
   

• The vendor's local support resources:  If the ECM project needs to meet international standards, or has the potential to be rolled out right across Europe or other world regions, a local German, French or Italian vendor might not have the necessary local support resources outside its main market(s). Equally, though, international vendors may also lack local support, or may work through partners with limited expertise. A distinguishing feature of the European market is that many customers still prefer to receive local, face-to-face support.
  Recommendation:
  Require vendors and implementation partners to demonstrate their capacity, scope and manner of offering regionalized product and customer support, the local languages spoken by support staff, and their effectiveness in face-to-face engagement.
   
• The vendor's financial viability and track record:  Over the past few years, large ECM vendors have acquired strong regional competitors (or system integrators/consultancies) to increase their presence in a specific geography or vertical market. These acquisitions could lead to the discontinuation of some codebases or product lines. If so, clients could be left facing an end-of-life situation for their product and a costly migration.
  Recommendation:
  Examine a vendor's financial viability, growth trends, track record of winning new business and visibility in the relevant market or industry to ensure the vendor is viable.
   
• Local vendors' advantages over larger, more generic global vendors:  In particular markets, local vendors may: 
  Have strong knowledge of local conditions and regulations, which can result in superior support.
  Have a deeper understanding of local or business-specific applications with which the ECM solution must integrate. This expertise can result in a faster, more-effective implementation and reduce risk.
  Speak their clients' local language, enabling their development teams to more quickly and efficiently work with customers to create complex customizations or meet other specialized requirements.
  Have cloud data centers within a single European country's borders, which makes it easier for them to comply with local or national data protection and privacy legislation.
  Recommendations:
  Research all relevant national regulations and standards that your ECM solution must address in your markets
  Work with ECM vendors to ascertain whether adherence to equivalent U.S. or international standards is sufficient, or if additional regionalized compliance is required.
  Require vendors to demonstrate, if needed, how they will support regionalized standards, data storage and regulatory compliance.

Notable Vendors

Vendors included in this Magic Quadrant Perspective have customers that are successfully using their products and services. Selections are based on analyst opinion and references that validate IT provider claims; however, this is not an exhaustive list or analysis of vendors in this market. Use this perspective as a resource for evaluations, but explore the market further to gauge the ability of each vendor to address your unique business problems and technical concerns. Consider this research as part of your due diligence and in conjunction with discussions with Gartner analysts and other resources.

• Alfresco
  Alfresco is a vendor of open-source ECM products with headquarters in the U.K. and U.S. It sells worldwide, but has a particularly strong presence in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the U.K. Alfresco concentrates on the financial services, national government and healthcare sectors, in which it competes both directly and via partners. Its strength lies in the open source nature of the platform (of particular importance in the U.K. public sector) and its many different connectors.
  
   
• Everteam
  The majority of Everteam's users are based in Europe. It covers a wide variety of on-premises use cases. A cloud version of its software can run in any cloud provider that the client chooses, allowing for flexibility for those EU nations with strict policies about data storage locations.
  
   
• Fabasoft
  Fabasoft, which is headquartered in Austria, offers on-premises and cloud-based ECM and business process management (BPM) solutions, as well as a private cloud ECM solution delivered as an appliance. The products are ECSA V3.0 and MoReq2 certified. Its strongest focus is on case management for local and national government, and regulated industries including financial and pharmaceutical businesses. It also offers the Mindbreeze enterprise search and content classification product as a boxed, turnkey solution. Fabasoft offers browser-based user interface for end users as well as administrators, mobile support, integrated ECM and BPM modules, and custom case management applications and business processes.
   
• M-Files
  M-Files is a Finnish vendor that has had strong growth across Europe over the last year. The vendor offers its ECM product in on-premises and cloud versions, with strong integration between the two environments. It can support very granular hybrid deployments. Its use of metadata for all aspects of its infrastructure, from security to navigation, gives it a lot of deployment flexibility. M-Files pursues localized certifications in many European countries.
   
• SER Group
  SER Group headquarters is in Germany with international subsidiaries throughout Europe, and is used predominantly for records management, compliance and process applications. Solutions are available installed with Doxis4 iECM suite, or as a cloud service with Doxis4 Cloud. SER Group is a strong partner for European organizations. Doxis4 Cloud is partially managed in Portugal and runs fully on Amazon EC2, but can be hosted in other jurisdictions according to customers' needs. SER Group meets many country specific standards found in European nations.
   
• Siav
  Siav has good coverage and expertise in many southern European countries. Based in Italy, it focuses on digital mailroom, case management, capture solutions and also workflow and invoice management with ERP integration, as well as document portals. It also offers a solution for collaboration, as well as file synchronization and sharing, called BlueDrive. Siav is very strong in government and provides ECM solutions to Italian government organizations and other multinational organizations headquartered in Italy. It has a relatively small number of clients outside its core market, but continues to show up on shortlists for regional use cases.

​

Das wars dann für den ECM Enterprise Content Management Magic Quadrant - mehr gibt es auf unserem Update 2017!

Herausforderungen zu EIM Enterprise Information Management

Auch zum Thema EIM Enterprise Information Management gibt es Neues von Gartner - anderer Bereich als die Kollegen von ECM und BPM. Hier zeichnen  Andrew White, Doug Laney and Michael Moran im Oktober 2016 für drei Toolkits verantwortlich: 

Information Management Ma­turity — Critical Challenges, Real Remedies

Dazu gehören 

• Enterprise Information Management Program Template
• Enterprise Information Management Maturity Self-Assessment
• Gartner’s Enterprise Information Management Maturity Model 

Leider alle drei nicht kostenfrei. Informationen zum PROJECT CONSULT EIM Enterprise Information Management Maturity Model (von 2013) gibt es hier in diesem Folienset: http://bit.ly/EIMmaturity

Also greifen wir einmal auf eine andere Gartner Ressource zurück und zeigen zumindest Mal die Grundlage des Enterprise Information Management Maturity Model:

Trends bei BPM Business Process Management

In unserem obigen Beitrag sind wir auf die Gartner Magic Quadrant Reports 2016 zu WCM Web Content Management und ECM Enterprise Content Management eingegangen. Natürlich gibt es auch zu anderen Branchen-Teilbereichen Untersuchungen - so z.B. zu BPM Business Process Management. Bei PROJECT CONSULT sind wir allerdings der Meinung, dass BPM Business Process Management eine wesentliche Komponente von ECM ist und bleibt. Ohne Prozessunterstützung geht bei ECM garnichts. Werfen wir einen Blick darauf, wie Forrester und Gartner diesen Markt sehen.

Gartner 2016

Magic Quadrant for Intelligent Business Process Management Suites

Der MQ von Rob Dunie, W. Roy Schulte, Marc Kerremans und Michele Cantara vom August 2016 bemüht erst einmal eine aufwändige Definition, was diesen BPMS-Markt ausmacht. Es geht gleich um Suiten und intelligent sollen sie auch noch sein.

Gartner: "Intelligent business process management suites provide real-time insights to achieve better business outcomes and help business transformation leaders, business process directors and solution architects improve business outcomes through process reinvention and transformation.
The intelligent business process management suite (iBPMS) market is the natural evolution of the earlier BPMS market, adding more capabilities for greater intelligence within business processes. Capabilities such as validation (process simulation, including "what if") and verification (logical compliance), optimization, and the ability to gain insight into process performance have been included in many BPMS offerings for several years. iBPMSs have added enhanced support for human collaboration such as integration with social media, mobile-enabled process tasks, streaming analytics and real-time decision management. For a more detailed description of business process management (BPM) platforms, see "Select the Right Type of BPM Platform to Achieve Your Application Development, Business Transformation or Digital Business Goals." For a more detailed description of technologies that help make processes more intelligent, see "Practical Ways to Make Business Operations More Intelligent."  An iBPMS orchestrates work to produce business outcomes that go far beyond typical process efficiency and performance measures. For Gartner's 2016 iBPMS Magic Quadrant, we evaluated platforms based on their ability to orchestrate increasingly complex work styles. 1 We see this ability to address a wider variety of styles as increasingly important, particularly in the context of digitalized processes (processes that coordinate the behaviors of people, processes and "things"/the Internet of Things [IoT]) — which require greater insight into context, are executed at an increasingly rapid pace, and span the virtual and physical worlds for both contextual insight and work execution. Greater contextual insight manifests itself at two levels:
(1) At the macro level, using on-demand analytics, such as critical path and workload volume analysis, to drive improvements in the process design, which is often useful in continuous process improvement and business transformation efforts
(2) At the micro level, using real-time analytics and decisioning (such as business rules and complex-event processing [CEP]) to drive improvements in the execution of a particular process instance, which is useful in ways that go beyond traditional business transformation to the execution of digitalized processes."

Die drei Platzhirsche mit größren Abständen untereinander sind wie so häufig Appian, IBM und Pegasystems. Bei PROJECT CONSULT mögen wir Bizagi, denn da gibt es eine freies Design-Werkzeug im Web für BPMN 2.0. Interessant auch, dass sich die Software AG von unten herankämpft. 

Magic Quadrant for BPM-Platform-Based Case Management 

In dem MQ von Rob Dunie and Janelle B. Hill vom Oktober 2016 geht es um eine "Abart" von Business Process Management: Case Management. In Deutschland würden wir sagen "Vorgangsbearbeitung" oder "Fall-bezogene Sachbearbeitung". In den USA meint man das Thema "Elektronische Akte und Vorgänge" halt neu zu klassifizieren. Letztlich ist die Erkenntnis, dass es sich auch bei Case Management um eine Art Workflow, äh, Business Process Management, handelt.

Gartner: "BPM-platform-based case management frameworks are configurable "apps" meant to help solution architects accelerate the delivery of unique and flexible case management solutions. 
Case management frameworks (CMFs) are commercial 1 software offerings designed to reduce the time and complexity of creating case-style process solutions by providing architectural patterns and at least some business domain capabilities "out of the box." Work is caselike when each work item — each case — requires unique handling, involving complex interactions between content, people, transactions and business or regulatory policies in order to deliver an optimal outcome. 2 Case-style processes do not progress in a serial or completely predictable fashion. 3 Rather, they often require multiple dependent workflows to be orchestrated, making them particularly complex to architect. Very often, caseworkers need the flexibility to decide the best next action for a case, rather than following a prescribed workflow.
The "case" metaphor for work handing is being embraced in many new industries and business domains. New "casework" is more decision-intensive, rather than content-centric. These shifting requirements have caused many buyers to look beyond past approaches — such as enterprise content management (ECM) systems' document workflow — and have triggered case handling as a growing use case for business process management (BPM) platforms. CMFs reflected in this evaluation represent a segment of the broader BPM platform market."

Das Feld beschreibt diejenigen Anbieter, die noch mit eigenen Produkten unterwegs sind (längst ist bei vielen anderen das Thema BPM in andere Standardsoftware integriert. Oben rechts wie meistens Appian, IBM und Pegasystems.

Critical Capabilities of BPM Platform-Based Case Management Frameworks

Ein weiterer Report vom November gibt dann noch Informationen zu "Performance" der wichtigsten Anbieter.

Forrester 2015/2016

Bei Forrester müssen wir zum Vergleich aktuell noch auf die entsprechenden Reports aus dem Jahr 2015 bzw. Februar 2016 zurückgreifen. Forrster hat einen anderen Veröffentlichungsrythmus als Gartner - und natürlich auch andere Kriterien.

The Forrester Wave™: BPM Platforms For Digital Business, Q4 2015

Die Forrester Wave zu BPM wurde vor ziemlich genau einem Jahr im Niovember 2015 von Clay Richardsen verfaßt. Wesentlich wird die Reduktion der Komplexität herausgestellt. Schwerpunkt ist die Integration in oder die Erstellung von Geschäftsanwendungen  mit BPM-Werkzeugen.

Forrester: "Appian, IBM, And Pegasystems Lead The Pack. Forrester’s research uncovered a market in which Pegasystems, Appian, and IBM continue to lead the pack. Software AG, Oracle, Newgen Software, OpenText, Bizagi, K2, and DST Systems offer competitive options. Red Hat and TIBCO Software lag behind.
The BPM Platforms Market Is Growing As EA Pros Accelerate Digital Transformation. The BPM platforms market is growing because more EA professionals see BPM as a way to address emerging challenges for customer experience and digital business. This market growth is, in large part, because EA pros increasingly trust BPM platform providers to act as strategic partners, helping them transform how they use technology to win, serve, and retain customers in the digital age.
Differentiators Include Rapid Development, UX Design, And Case Management. As legacy BPM technology becomes outdated and less effective, improved delivery speed and process flexibility will dictate which providers will lead the pack. Vendors that can provide fast ramp-up, flexible mobile experiences, and dynamic case management position themselves successfully to deliver speed and business agility to their customers."

Auch hier die üblichen drei "Verdächtigen" Appian, IBM und Pegasystems vorn.

The Forrester Wave™: Dynamic Case Management, Q1 2016

Und natürlich gibt es analog zu Gartner auch bei Forrester eine Wave zum Case Management. Diese stammt von Craig Le Clair aus dem Februar 2016. 

Forrester: "Pegasystems, Appian, And IBM Lead The Pack. Forrester’s research uncovered a market in which Pegasystems, Appian, and IBM lead the pack. Lexmark Enterprise Software, TIBCO Software, OnBase by Hyland, Isis Papyrus, Newgen, Software, OpenText, Eccentex, and DST Systems offer competitive options. Bpm’online, MicroPact, and Column Technologies lag behind. 
EA Pros Are Looking For Case Platforms To Support Knowledge Workers. The nature of work is transitioning from a production- and task-driven orientation to a knowledge- and context-driven one. The DCM market will continue to grow as more EA professionals see DCM as a way to address their top challenges. 
Analytics, Information-Led Design, And Runtime Evolution Are Key Differentiators. As workflow and business process management (BPM) become outdated and increasingly ineffective for less-structured work patterns, providers that offer improved analytics and information modeling will emerge as leaders."

"Langweilig" - schon wieder die Gleichen. Oder liegen alle Analysten mit Ihrer Einschätzung richtig?