The wave of successful implementations, stories of agility and huge ROI, and the unparalleled need for rule-based systems has been well documented. The likelihood for this trend to continue was anticipated as far back as 2004 when Gartner suggested that “1 in 3 applications would employ some form of variable business rules by 2007.” Think about the prediction for a moment – 1 out of every 3 applications having variable business rules. That’s a staggering number.
The wave of successful implementations, stories of agility and huge ROI, and the unparalleled need for rule-based systems has been well documented. The likelihood for this trend to continue was anticipated as far back as 2004 when Gartner suggested that “1 in 3 applications would employ some form of variable business rules by 2007.” Think about the prediction for a moment – 1 out of every 3 applications having variable business rules. That’s a staggering number. But where will that growth and expansion happen?
It’s clear that over the past decade early adopters of a business rule approach have been major players in industries where markets are dynamic, competition is strong, and complexity of policies is high. The mortgage, insurance, telecommunications and banking industries have all been active for quite some time. The litany of users includes names such as Freddie Mac, Travelers Insurance Group, Verizon and Credit Suisse. Notice a common theme in that list? These are all large companies with a significant investment in IT and staff.
The fact of the matter is that jumping into a business rule solution is still an expensive proposition. While the software packages offered by the leading BRMS (Business Rule Management System) vendors are increasingly sophisticated and ease the technical barrier to entry, it is quite expensive. Systems residing in a J2EE environment require additional software to support those needs. Throw in a database and you’re looking at a sizeable investment! Skilled business rule development resources – while becoming somewhat more accessible – are still a scarce and costly commodity. So where does that leave companies in markets where business rule agility is no longer a luxury but a mandate? How do small- and mid-sized companies get in the game? In the mortgage industry, some estimates have suggested that only 10% of the lenders can afford the investment to acquire, implement and maintain their own BRMS. Fortunately, there are some alternatives emerging.
Realizing the dilemma that faces many companies, some vendors have moved to provide industry-specific turnkey solutions based on rules. By being able to shrink wrap a rule execution and management system that is populated with common industry rules, these vendors can provide the needed capabilities at a lower cost. This certainly brings much of the needed rule agility to their customers. However, it does so at the cost of true flexibility and still requires users to have the expertise to manage their rules.
If we can’t give them the solution, why don’t we just give them the rules? I’ve heard this question many times. It seems like a simple proposition. The CEO of one of the major BRMS vendors has expressed his desire for a world where executives one day exchange rules where they now exchange spreadsheets. Unfortunately, it’s not that easy and it boils down to one major reason: there is not yet a common standard for expressing business rules. Each BRMS vendor relies on their own proprietary syntax for specifying and executing rules. At this point in time, rules written in one vendor’s language will not execute in another. However, there is some movement in this area. There have been several attempts at an XML standard for business rules (RuleML, SRML, BRML) but nothing that really emerged as a leader. More recently, the W3C has initiated work on standards for rule interoperability. This work is extremely promising but has a long way to go.
Several of the industries we’ve discussed here have moved to provide their own business standards. ACORD (global insurance standards) is a framework that incorporates messages, forms, and XML standards which are used across the insurance industry. It also adds business process services, and the creation of a common business dictionary to be used across all lines of business. MISMO was initiated to develop, promote, and maintain voluntary electronic commerce standards for the mortgage industry. What do these have in common? They have been created to facilitate the sharing of information amongst diverse platforms. In the case of MISMO, applications build upon the XML data specifications, providing technical specifications, implementation guides, and recommendations for true electronic mortgage processing. Why is this important for business rules? Simply because this provides a common vocabulary and set of attributes against which rules can be written. Companies compliant with the standards will have XML documents and data models in place to handle this content. This brings the prospect of a set of common industry rules much closer to reality. Not surprisingly, some BRMS vendors have moved to have themselves certified with these standards.
If we can’t have technical rule compatibility but perhaps can look at some industry standards, where might we go next? Perhaps the specification of a new standard defining the Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SVBR) by the OMG is an answer. As opposed to the more technically-oriented standards discussed earlier, the SBVR specification is designed to support interchange of business vocabularies and rules among organizations. SBVR is being designed for business people and intended to be used for purposes independent of specific systems designs. This is certainly a positive move that, in conjunction with the industry specific standards, can provide a strong platform for collaboration.
For the most part, the activities we’ve delineated here describe the future. One answer for today lies in a technical concept discussed quite frequently: service-oriented architecture (SOA). If the cost to bring rules to mid- and small-sized companies is too great, perhaps they can be brought to the rules. Imagine a scenario where a completely disparate transactional system handles rule execution and a third party is responsible rule management. Services for common functionality are established based on industry standards (e.g. MISMO). This would allow smaller organizations to reap the benefits brought by increased agility while not requiring massive up front investments – they only need pay for the transactions they send. A central rule repository ensures consistency in representation and coverage.
Rules are clearly here to stay. Now it’s just a matter of letting everyone play by them.
