Papyrus CMIS Adapter (OASIS Standard)

ISIS Papyrus is a Foundational Sponsor of OASIS and has commited to supporting the CMIS Standard. The Papyrus CMIS Adapter is available.

The Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) OASIS standard defines a domain model along with Web Services and Restful AtomPub bindings that can be used by applications to work with one or more Content Management repositories/systems. The CMIS interface is designed to be layered on top of existing Content Management systems and their existing programmatic interfaces. It is intended to define a generic/universal set of capabilities provided by a CM system and a set of services for working with those capabilities. CMIS enables content sharing across heterogeneous archiving systems. CMIS is vendor- and technology-neutral.

The Papyrus CMIS Adapter architectural foundation is well suited for the purpose since it promotes standard interfaces over proprietary APIs, and open protocols over custom ones. Adapters come with a library of predefined templates, to foster rapid installation and deployment cycles. To no surprise, CMIS Adapter features an out-of-the-box template, which connects the Papyrus installation to CMIS clients in few mouse clicks. CMIS Adapter contains a Server-side interface and a Client-side interface.

The Papyrus CMIS Service primary use is to extract documents from Papyrus  in order to archive them externally, and to instantiate documents in Papyrus.

The Papyrus CMIS Client primary use is to retrieve documents from an external archiving system and to store them in Papyrus. It allows to retrieve documents from third-party CMIS archives. SOAP binding publishes CMIS service URLs through a WSDL document. Once documents are imported in Papyrus, they  can trigger workflows, or be stored in Papyrus Archive.

The CMIS data model in a nutshell:

CMIS specifies a core data model to define the type system and supported operations, and includes a set of services to access and manipulate the derived entities.

CMIS provides four base types (no additional base type can be defined) upon which more types can be derived if needed by the implementation. A type defines attributes, properties and operations that the instance must/can implement:

  1. Document object type: this is the base type for physical document entities, and is arguably the most important type. Documents have attributes like: name, objectId; and properties like: creation date, content stream Id, etc.
  2. Folder object type: CMIS exposes a file-system oriented interface, and the Folder type is the container of “file-able” objects, which include folder objects themselves and documents. Folders therefore organize documents in a tree structure. The Root folder is one of a kind, since only one root exists and it cannot be created through CMIS operations.
  3. Relationship object type: represents an instance of relationship between two objects. This describes for example a mapping between customers<=>contracts. The parent-child relationship doesn’t need a dedicated relationship entity, since it is implicit with the folder<=>document link, see above.
  4. Policy object type: represents an administrative right, which may be “applied” to one or more “controllablePolicy” objects. CMIS refers to a “textual description” property, and does not commit to any precise semantic significance or vendor-specific implementation.

CMIS services are used as follows:

  • Repository service: the Papyrus Platform exposes a logical name that identifies the container accessed through CMIS. The name is a customer-defined string, and is used to reference any subsequent calls to the same target location.
  • Navigation services: CMIS Adapter supports the CMIS Navigation service and offers a simple, yet efficient way to match the CMIS model. Documents retrieved from Papyrus are directly referenced under a Root folder. The Root folder can be a physical container, like a Queue, or a logical container, like the result set of a PQL query.
  • Object services: Papyrus CMIS Adapter exposes Read and Create operations on documents, since this is the primary reason to communicate between archives.
  • Multi-filing services: multi-filing is optional to CMIS, but is a native feature of Papyrus Objects (multiple parent references is the default setting).
  • Discovery services: Papyrus Objects is a non-relational, Object-Oriented system therefore  SQL syntax is not the most natural way to interface with it. We don’t plan to support SQL queries in CMIS Adapter (service), but we may support this interface in a future release of Papyrus CMIS Client since third-party archives may be conveniently accessed in this way.
  • Versioning services: Native support for version control in Papyrus Objects is implicitly accessed through CMIS (a document can be retrieved in its Active or Development version depending on the Role of the connected User).
  • Relationship services: relationships between CMIS entities may serve to query the links between documents (for example, to link a customer together with its contracts).
  • Policy services: CMIS policy services are not implemented in Papyrus CMIS Adapter since “policies” are fully defined by the integrated Papyrus Objects role-based access control system.
  • ACL services: The list of “allowable actions” returned with each object (Object services) fully defines what methods are permitted and what are not.

Papyrus CMIS Server configuration:

  1. Instantiate the CMIS Web Service template from the Library
  2. Setup Web Service parameters like URL, and give the CMIS Repository a name
  3. Design the CMIS tree for navigation (more about this, below).

The Papyrus Repository defines a specialized class (“CMIS folder”) exposing logical links to documents (children); therefore, documents are grouped following the ontology dictated by business requirements. Documents are “connected” to the appropriate folders without need to modify physical links nor to change existing workflows: every CMIS Folder defines what documents are available beneath itself. Therefore, a CMIS tree is not a static representation mirroring database relations or file-based links; instead, CMIS folders are freely combined and nested in multiple levels for optimal user accessibility and logical aggregation.

Authorizations are handled through the Papyrus built-in authorization subsystem, based on Roles Policies and Privileges. Therefore, CMIS Clients will perform the desired actions only on those documents and folders whence permissions are granted.

Interoperability tests

Papyrus CMIS Adapter has been tested on WebServices/SOAP binding with the following third-party CMIS connectors:

  • OpenCMIS from Apache Chemistry
  • CMIS OpenWorkdesk Community from  WeWebU
  • Microsoft SharePoint 2010 CMIS Connector
  • IBM FileNet

We have proposed test with other vendors but have not been invited to do so. If you are interested to test CMIS interoperatibility please contact us.


The ISIS Papyrus ACM Vision Statement

The subject of an enhanced form of case management is gaining momentum. So the effort of Keith Swenson and all contributors put into our book ‘Mastering the Unpredictable’ about Adaptive Case Management seems to be paying off.

Forrester Research has produced: ‘Dynamic Case Management- An old-idea catches fire.’ He does teleconferences with AIIM on ‘Support Your Information Workers by Understanding and Implementing Case Management’ or Forresters own TCs as well. Forrester lists ActionBase, Appian, Cordys, EMC, Global 360, IBM, Pallas Athena, Pegasystems, Singularity and … whoa … even CRM maven Sword Ciboodle as their entrants for the next DCM Wave. The likes of Fujitsu, HandySoft, Ideate, OpenText, and Oracle (!!!) will only make it into the ‘Ripple’. Us and Whitestein Technologies are also listed in that second group, but we are the only ones who actually provide GOAL-oriented processes! There are vendors with products that have to be integrated, others who are simple application tools, email-collaborators, but hardly anyone who does embedded content. But then OpenText is jumping now on the ACM bandwagon and promotes ECM as case management. Virtually every BPM vendor now wants a piece of this DCM market especially as the frustration about hyped-up benefits claims of BPM sets in. Read about Dr. Rashid Khan’s assessment of BPM Simulation and Optimization that is a perfect add-on to my own perspective on the problems with flowcharts.

Gartner Group has another, long-term view to offer that includes Social Media and how work will change in the next ten years. I covered it in this post about ‘The De-routinization of Work.’ Makes you wonder why anyone still bothers with BPM in the first place.

So BPM claims to be agile and now case management claims to be dynamic, goal-oriented, adaptive and more! How can a normal IT person figure out what to do? The best way is to actually do a proof of concept installation. The focus must be on how flexible a system is in terms of integration into your environment and how the business users can work with the solution to create proceses and case work with all resources (data, content, rules, tasks, GUI) themselves! That is the whole trick!

I need to point out that what Forrester defines as DYNAMIC case management is by far not yet ADAPTIVE. Forrester  defines dynamic case management to be semi-structured and collaborative, dynamic, human-centered, information-intensive processes undertaken around a given context, while being driven by events, requiring incremental and progressive responses. So what is different about ADAPTIVE Case Management? The key point is not just runtime dynamic changes, but Just-In-Time creation of the process and resources WITH embedded learning, which means that knowledge of a previous case can be autmatically used by people in a later case or process! As a further point Forrester does not use the term knowledge worker but rather (information-) I-worker, which is anyone who uses a computer at his job. I see ACM mostly for knowledge workers who apply their specific skill for case resolution or process execution. Craig also now points to the link between business architecture, strategic objectives and operational metrics that I have been talking about for some time.

Maybe the follwoing video will make the difference between dynamic and ADAPTIVE clearer:

I also propose that ACM has to deal not only with goals but with complex, captured content, dynamic embedded content, user definable business rules and is mostly event driven, but these are  Complex Business Events. I recently posted my view on how BPMN and rules relate to CBE.

Verify if BPM or case management product supports unpredictable  (semi-structured) processes with complex events in an ADAPTIVE manner by means of the following:

  • Does the system enable the definition or reuse of a business and process architecture to provide the base infrastructure for business driven process creation based on strategic objectives and operational metrics?
  • Does the modeling capability allow direct linkage of objectives, metrics to the process goals and business data in the process/case and therefore embedded verification of goal fulfillement?
  • Can properly authorized business users assemble the process/case from data objects, inbound and outbound business (with mapped data) content, user-defined rules, and GUI components (widgets?) without needing to be BPMN or flowchart experts and execute and modify at will?
  • Can unexpected events or data be handled by means of new tasks, rules, performers and goals being added to the existing process to handle them without causing disruptive exceptions ?
  • Can the signatures of unexpected events be auto-discovered and linked to the context patterns?
  • Does the CBE capability identify fuzzy patterns of similarity between events and suggests goals, tasks or actions to handle them?
  • Are business user decisions related to events fed back into the CBE pattern matching mechanism?
  • Can new performers be added into the case/process at any time and existing or newly defined tasks with associated resources be assigned to them in a social media like, but fully secure collaboration?
  • Can ‘expert’ case participants be selected manually from a skills profile or will the system recommend exeperts based on an automatic match between case and skill or due to past selection by other participants?
  • Can goals, milestones, SLA values and rules be embedded by the business user to verify compliance, efficiency and cost and take direct influence on the execution/routing/modification of the process?
  • Can the business user created processes, goals or milestones be saved at the end of the execution as new templates into the repository (with all resource templates)?
  • Can business users write rules in natural language (no technical syntax) with automatic verification of rule syntax and validity by data object and content mapping based on the business architecture?
  • Are all resources for content (capture and creation), process, rule and GUI are version controlled through a single dev/test/deploy/suspend mechanism? Does this ensure that the maintenance meta-processes for resource templates are decoupled from execution?

If you want to know how ACM can put your organization on the track to business innovation then contact us for a demonstration in which we will build the processes that are relevant to you as we demo.

Papyrus ACM embeds goal-oriented BPM methdology

On the subject of Papyrus ACM versus BPM, there are a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions and some intentional misinformation. When businesses ask about ACM, everyone wants to be ACM, but when I try to define what it actually is, no one wants to truly participate to not be suddenly left out in the feature checklist. A similar thing happens when we try to distinguish what ACM is in difference to other TLA’s and most commonly to BPM. No one wants to alienate the BPM crowd, analysts, consultants and IT architects alike. Everyone chickens out, and is to afraid to have an opinion. We are all buddies, it is all good and we sell it all because obviously customers need it all. ‘We convince others with our passion and ideas.’ Wishy-washy nonsense. You are not standing up for anything. I admire Adam Dean, because he had the guts to say: ‘This is what I think about ACM compared to BPM.’ Great! Stand up and fight! Let’s have a discussion, but let’s not get personal. People attack other people directly as a matter of last resort. They have no other arguments left. Just like in a political campaign. And there is a lot of politics in the ACM versus BPM debate as well.

Yes, I am passionate about my ideas too and my idea is that BPMS-flowcharting (note the ‘S’ for suite or software) is a flawed concept applied to anything more but the most simple, banal process needs. Why should I not say that? I would have to say: ‘While flowcharts are good we developed something else anyway.’ Absolutely not. Why not compare? Where would Apple be today without the hilarious adverts of two guys posing as Macs and Windows PCs? Where would Oracle be without its blunt, full-page adds with checklist comparisons to its competitors? Get a grip on life people, its competitive! All experts who blog are selling themselves too as experts in their fields. For scientists too its either publish or perish! Others post on LinkedIn to find a better job. Let’s stop this pretense and simply be openly and honestly competitive.

It is no secret that I am the Chief Architect and co-owner of a successful, established enterprise software business. There is full disclosure. I don’t sell what I have, but I develop what I propose to be the best solution for my prospective enterprise customers. Like Apple, I don’t develop according to market research. Customers always just ask for more features in a product, but they won’t ask for a new solution they can’t imagine. Nevertheless we are extremely customer-oriented, because there are no hard-coded applications that we deliver. All our out-of-the-box capability is modelled and can be configured and changed without programming!

We are in many ways like Apple, just that we aren’t in a mass market. Apple owns the complete stack of functionality and can control it. The ISIS Papyrus Platform owns the complete stack and can control it too. But then you are not OPEN and STANDARD I am told, but neither is Apple! You can buy BMWs and Superyachts as accessories to the proprietary iPod/iPhone plug! Openness must not be about providing open technology interfaces, but about opening solution functionality to the business users. We use SOA or anything else that will provide data. We can read or create any XML file, but so what? Standards must not be about some XML files that users could not care less about, but giving a standard user interaction to all business users for a consolidated customer experience in the organization. Give them the ability to create processes on the fly without going through a technical and management bureaucracy.

But we aren’t even talking about product features. The subject is a very principal question. Do you want to put your people and business into a flow-charted straightjacket or not? Yes, go for BPMS flowcharts. No? You need something that empowers the business user for goals and outcomes, but not just in theoretical Balanced Scorecards and Powerpoints and then monitor some disconnected KPIs. Real-world, real-time, real product! Maybe some BPMS can do that too? Great, show me!

As an example, here is a segment of a ‘Purchase to Pay’ end-to-end process created in just a few hours by a non-technical person using the ACM capabilites and goal-oriented processes. (To watch the video in high-resolution, don’t forget to press HD in the right upper corner and then switch to full-screen in the right lower corner.)

Let me close by saying that Papyrus ACM is certainly not anti-BPM, because my solution proposal clearly focuses on PROCESS OUTCOMES. We also have a BPMN compliant flowchart editor, but I am also clearly saying that one cannot guarantee outcomes in customer interaction with rigid processes. You can certainly put a lot of BPM governance bureaucracy in place to manage the analysis and design BEFORE execution and the monitoring and optimization AFTER execution, but what it really needs is that both are moved INTO execution. And that is the key difference between ACM and BPM, while ACM also follows the BPM principles. What I am personally opposed to is to try and map how your business works into low-level, step-by-step flowcharts. But if that’s what you  really want to do, you can do that with our Papyrus platform too and you have all the master data, content, event and rule handling included for free. You don’t like that? Well, enjoy your integration projects!

The final point to make is that we are just talking about silly acronyms. I wish we would not need to, but it is the market fragmentation by analysts that causes it. There is also the wish of some businesses to be given simplistic choices so they don’t have to understand what they are buying. I suggest to focus on real-world business needs and not the assumed scope of an acronym. There are thousands of BPM methodology messiahs who have a serious problem with how BPMS technology is used. I am no different. I just propose a technology solution to the problems and that’s where the conflict with other vendors comes in. So its really just a storm in a waterglass.

Master Data for Process, Content and Relationships

I want to elaborate here on the EA to MDM and BPM, CRM, ECM relationship as discussed in my related Real World post.

My 1997 system design used a business repository as the design-end of the application platform. Any change made to the data definitions in the repository will translate to changes in all parts of the applications for CRM, CRM, BPM and SOA interfaces as soon as they are tested and deployed. We actually execute the models! I proposed the combination of inbound and outbound document management ECM with BPM in 2001. We proposed the merging of CRM and BPM in 2005.

When we change a CLASS definition (which is not C++ or Java code, but a OO model description in the repository) because for example the data definition of an SOA interface changes, then this change will be effective through all applications that use that CLASS. Therefore the integration of silos by means of SOA and Eclipse/Java to map the SOA to internal programs creates the huge ‘investments’ that stop products from being OPEN. Linking best-of-breed software with SOA will not produce a best-of-breed system. Clearly integration – and why not by means of SOA – is an essential capability for any product. We joined OASIS to be able to influence the direction of CMIS, for example. We typically install and integrate with ECM, CRM and BPM products, but SOA integration does not yet give you a common user interface and end-to-end processes.

One argument against the consolidated solution that I propose is that ‘we have a substantial investment in XXX’. So what? I am told that businesses do not want to be dependent on a single vendor and prefer OPEN and STANDARD products, when there is no such thing. People have ‘invested’ substantial amounts of gas into their cars and still go out and buy a new one. Enterprises have invested substantial amounts in ECM and still go out and buy Sharepoint, despite all its incredible limitations. Now they ‘invest’ in Sharepoint custom coding … and there is nothing OPEN about Sharepoint at all. That is the reason why we are also offering Sharepoint integration and all processes/cases defined in Papyrus can be accessed through a Sharepoint WebParts GUI.

Businesses have bought ECM, CRM, BPM and ‘you name it’ and they are always ‘locked-in’ because none of these products are OPEN in the sense that you can replace them with another OPEN solution for a reasonable effort and retain all the capabilities. Especially those products with substantial investments, because that means a lot of customizations. OPEN does never happen. Not in my pragmatic ‘real world’.

While the market is slowly waking up to the possibilities, we started to develop a consolidated solution in 1997 and installed the first large healthcare application (3500 users!) on the Papyrus Platform in the US in 2001. My tries to convince US analysts at the time that merging ECM inbound and outbound content (which are the most essential process resources not mentioned by any of the above) with BPM and CRM processes was met with blank eyes. Until we added the BPMN process view in 2009 to our state/event/rule driven processes no one was willing to even consider us BPM. And having functionality across-market fragments is too difficult to grasp for analysts, so they still don’t know where to put us …

Attaching BPMN Flows to Goals in ACM

In fact the modeling power of the Papyrus Repository is so great that anything that any DoDAF specs can be modeled. If there is graphical representation, then a view/edit frontend can be added as we did for UML, RAD Role-Acitivity Diagrams and finally BPMN. Yes, BPMN was not encoded into Papyrus, but modeled (mostly using XPDL attributes) and is executed as such. Therefore it was easy to expand it with the artifacts that represent the resources, activities, capabilities and performers of for example the high-level concepts in  DoDAF proposed by Michael zur Mühlen. We also added Balanced Scorecard strategic objectives and operational targets and linked them to the process goals.  Our customers can use the adaptive process capability to manage business innnovation programs or IT projects. I know that the business planning side can be TOP-DOWN graphically modeled in for example ARIS and you need a huge project bureaucracy to get there because of it.

With Papyrus you can MODEL AND EXECUTE inside a fairly simple adaptive process framework. The main difference is that I see the transparency for strategy coming TOP-DOWN, the customer outcomes OUTSIDE-IN, management targets INSIDE-OUT, and how to execute from the BOTTOM-UP. That substantially reduces bureuacracy and makes the business REAL-TIME ADAPTIVE.

As Craig LeClair of Forrester said to me once: ‘Max, Papyrus can’t be everything.’ My answer was: ‘Yes it can, you just can’t imagine it.’

Do we need ‘Jack-in-the-Box’ Software?

I just posted on my ‘Real World’ blog about IT project failures under the title ‘Perceptions are Reality’.

A long conversation with Michael Krigsman, who analyses reasons for IT project failures, brought back the old, old subject of ‘What does software do ‘Out Of The Box’? To me that is like asking: ‘Where does a car drive by itself right after you bought it?’

IT projects are not really about technology, effectiveness and efficiency. They are about perceptions and expectations, because how do business users choose sofware? Mostly by three criteria: 1) cute user interface, functional familiarity, and the lowest possible price. Is that wrong? No, that is perfectly fine if you are buying software ‘in-the-box’ or by its other popular name ‘shrink-wrapped’. Well, who would want software that was packaged by a psychiatrist (aka shrink)?

Surprise! Hidden costs with 'Out-of-the-Box' Software.

Ok, seriously again. The above criteria are ok for personal software but not ideal when we are talking about enterprise grade solutions.  Why? First, if it is not ONE individual making a choice but a large number of business users, apart from the lowest price how do you find the consensus among the users what ‘cute’ and ‘familliar’ actual means. The software options are radically reduced by trying to find the common denominator. But even cost is not as simple as it seems, because it is not just the cost of the product or the initial installation, but rather runtime cost in terms of adaptation. If there is a large group of business users they will want their own custom GUI and functionality. Eventually there will be a lot of customization going on.

Let’s also not forget the cost of integration. That is not just related to linking some backend data, but also  to integrating customer facing processes. Most software that is being bought out of the box for enterprise purposes doesn’t remain like that for very long, but sooner than later it starts to get modified. Many businesses have paid dearly for that. So total cost of ownership isn’t that easy to judge either. Sharepoint is such a standard software that works out-of-the-box, but does not really do much. As soon as you want to go beyond simple content sharing, you end up in complex software development and integration work. This backed by research that finds that Sharepoint users are very unhappy. That is typical ‘Jack-in-the Box’ software, where the true conseqences are hidden in the box under the smiley-face.

The author John Ruskin wrote: “There is hardly anything in the world that a man can not make a little worse and sell a little cheaper. It’s unwise to pay too much, but it’s also unwise to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money…..that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do.” It sounds as if he predicted Sharepoint …

I have had my share of experiences over the years despite the much smaller project sizes – not in functional scope but just manpower – of typcial Papyrus projects. Our software is simpler to implement, but we still need to close the organizational gaps between sales, installation, implementation and production through a unique PQA Project Qaulity Assurance team. After 22 years we yet have to have a project that failed or was cancelled, because our software or consultants could not deliver. The PQA main function is therefore not technical support, but to be a project coach, moderator and intermediary between business, customer IT and the various ISIS departments. Because we are not robots we encounter some of the people problems described by Michael Krigsman in the ‘Devils Triangle’ and he has not even mentioned the dreaded inhouse corporate politics and ‘change angst’ applicable to projects of any size. Therefore we avoid to work with system integrators (SI). SIs don’t like us because there is not enough manpower to be sold with our product and customers become fairly independent of the SI. That is not the integrator’s business model. Analysts on the other hand rate our lack of a huge partner network negatively, when we don’t like or need one.

In a current project, we are facing just that problem of perceptions described in my post. Being midway in the project, we are completely confident that we can deliver despite not everything being yet fully defined. IT is also confident that they made the right choice, but the business departments are frustrated that we are still working on infrastructure and architecture as foundations before we start putting up walls (aka defining GUIs). It seems that business has taken the empowering ‘Ease-of-Use’ proposition of our solution and simply applied it to the project itself. Well, a model-preserving approach is different, but how should they know when to expect what? They are jaded from years of experience of projects failing. Business simply translated ‘Ease-of-Use-Later’ to ‘Plug-and-Play-Now,’ when it means ‘we first have to install the plugs so you can play without IT in  future.’ Because there are just a few ISIS consultants and customer personnel involved – despite a rollout to 2000 users – those perceptions will be easier to solve, but a conscious effort has to be made to realign their expectations. Not to get less, but to clarify what they can get how and when. If not the project would fail.

The Papyrus Platform  is purely standard software that is not being customized for one individual customer and we do not even allow customizations or provide APIs. It uses a model-preserving application technology to avoid programming projects. We only allow integration by loosely coupled messaging interfaces to remain flexible, platform independent and upward compatible. Applications are defined and loaded into the platform as so called Framework Apps. Because the application is defined through object models and rules that are also fully documented in the repository, it remains  maintainable by non-programmers and to some extent even by business users. That is referred to as adaptation.

To make an application business user adaptible, it has to be defined in a certain way and the users have to be authorized to make those adaptations. Adaptation can happen at runtime ONCE only or it can be performed on templates for ALL future executions. Because the platform directly links to the business data and content, a data model, content structure and business organization model has to be defined to make the frameworks match the business needs. It is important that business users understand these concepts so that they do not have the wrong expectations of  standard ‘out-of-the-box’ software.

Yes, pereceptions are the reality for the individual. The IT department doesn’t know what is best for the user and  standardization for cost reasons will cause the ‘Ruskin effect’. While users might employ three strange criteria to choose solutions, we have to understand that this is all they are looking for! It is up to us to translate and amend those user needs to define a solution that will also fit the long-term requirements of the business. Thats what we have delivered with the Papyrus Platform: a standard ‘out-of-the-box’ solution that with very little effort can provide whatever business users need. And that statement alone can create a variety of unwanted expectations and perceptions … 😉

The User-Trained Agent has an EYE on Goals

This is Papyrus Platform specific information related to ‘Adaptive Process and Goal Orientation‘.

Rather than the approach chosen by Social-BPM or other collaborative process design tools, Papyrus pushes for ‘Design by Doing’ where the users are empowered to create processes interactively without analysis and then can execute or change as required. Therefore the Papyrus ACM (Adaptive Case Management) implementation is especially suited for the knowledge workers who produce the high-value, innovation workload of a business – without which it will not survive or at least fall behind against the competition.

ISIS Papyrus Platform and Adaptive Case Management utilizes adaptive technology to provide business user access to data and content in structured and unstructured processes. Authorizes user can at any point in time add data entities, content, rules, or participants and assign work tasks to them. The tasks can be standalone or linked by dependencies or rules to other tasks. Because of the object-oriented models stored in the object-relational database, all elements of an executed process are available and can be archived. The process can even be ‘restarted’ and resimulated while watching it play out as it was executed along a timeline scale. A Gantt chart is used to display the process as a PLAN with activities and GOALS. But at any point in time it is possible to turn to the BPMN chart display, that will show all tasks, even the ones that were added by the UTA on the fly. This is how flexible the direct model execution is to man and machine.

Papyrus ACM – BPMN View in user Inbox

Papyrus uses the patented User-Trained Agent that will recommend next steps to the business users based on choices made by previous user roles. These choices are however not made in terms of which steps were followed in which sequence, but which data patterns were the repeated pattern for a follow-on action. The process is termed Transductive Training. Even without the User-Trained Agent, the process engine will expose to the user all the possible next steps in terms of fulfilled prerequisites and — if so defined — will select the fastest or lowest-cost step leading to the same goal outcome. Actor roles can be assigned to act based on shortest work queue or round-robin.

All aspects and information of the execution runtime is exposed within the system and therefore it is very easy to define charts displays to show process execution monitoring, activity monitoring or performance indicators from the real business data in real-time. Users can enter business rules at runtime to create additional goals and monitor their effectiveness immediately. Using sample data, processes can be simulated in a safe TEST sandbox environment.

User presentation of the processes, goals and outcomes is through the Papyrus EYE Widgets user interface that presents all data entities in a user-definable manner. The presentation is either through the Papyrus EYE Desktop or the Payprus EYE GUI in Flash. Other graphics engines are also being developed as is presentation to Mobile platforms such as the WebArchive support for the iPhone. Because all data entities are modeled in the repository it is simple to create GUIs, rules, content and validate them for correctness.

ACM Dashboard in Papyrus Platform

A key difference to all other BPM and Case Management products (adaptive, agile or dynamic) is the state-of-the art embedded content management capability of the Papyrus Platform. The inbound and outbound content software functions can be instantiated on any node and mostly any number of times. A complex network of automated and intelligent agents can be set up to execute in any kind of complexity required. Peer-to-peer node communication powers the Papyrus enterprise service bus with its long list of messaging (i.e. SOA) adapters and database type-managers. All changes to the process, including its content is fully change and version managed with automatic deployment and roll-back to any number of users. Depending on the setup, processes that are already being executed can be selectively updated with new functionality. All process execution elements are archived and remain fully auditable. Any process can at any time be reinstantiated and continued should the process concept allow for that.

The technology of the Papyrus Platform is unique with its object-relational database and distributed execution engine in a peer-to-peer kernel developed in platform portable C++. It was designed in 1997 and became first available in 2001 in major installations with up to 5000 users. As a unique niche player, ISIS focuses on complex and exceptional projects and needs rather than a let’s-do-it-all mass market.

The Papyrus Platform is unique in the sense that it is an application modeling and model execution infrastructure that supports the creation of standalone business applications, integrated GUI front-ends for desktop and portal, as well as a powerful goal oriented business process environment.  It is most likely that a mix of all three types of user interaction will be the norm in the future.

Papyrus Supports New OASIS Open Standard CMIS 1.0

The OASIS international consortium today announced the approval of Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) version 1.0, a new open standard that enables information to be shared across Enterprise Content Management (ECM) repositories from different vendors. Advanced via a collaboration of major ECM solution providers worldwide, CMIS is now an official OASIS Standard, a status that signifies the highest level of ratification.

The OASIS CMIS 1.0 ratification is an important first step to enable businesses to freely make important solution choices for ECM, BPM and CRM applications without being limited to the functionality of the underlying archive system vendor. We hope that subsequent releases will reach beyond access to content and metadata, and we are positive that this emerging standard – which Papyrus Platform already supports – will be widely adopted and increase motivation for continuous expansion to full content interoperability in process-oriented environments.