This openness is nice but I’m a long-time TM1 guru and this allows the uneducated to catch up. What gives?
Actually this is happening anyway. The market is awash with people of limited experience. And now customers are understanding the unique value of TM1 and demand for TM1 and good implementation skills are at an all-time high. This is good!
Your experience is everything. Your references from past implementations will allow you to differentiate yourself from those just joining the TM1 bandwagon and charging lower prices with lower skills. Contribution to the community is a good way to show your experience. It is also a good value-add to show your customer that you are adopting standards and are open yourself – and not creating a black box. It is classic long-termism vs short-termism.

The licencing is great in that it is free to use and sell. But it says that credit must be given. What if I just take an idea or a line of good code - do I have to name-check
We would hope that you will be using much larger assets like complete Bedrock TI processes, but if you choose to cherry-pick ideas/approaches or snippets of code we would hope that you do the right thing. In reality, it is extremely unlikely that you would be held accountable – it just boils down to an integrity issue. Remember that you will not be the only developer building the system in the future and others may call you out on your usage of someone else’s “inspiration and perspiration”!

What’s the point of crediting and what is the point of a standard in TM1?
Crediting the source is helping to set the standard. Others will see it, pick up on its inherent value to the customer and with luck, contribute. The alternative is just another version of the TM1 wild west with terrible systems built, little continuity and value to the customer. If we want to improve TM1 implementations we owe it to ourselves to create a standard. The more we show TM1’s unique value of being able to scale with business complexity, the more we win against SAP, Microsoft and Oracle. The enabler is better knowledge and standards.

The licensing asks that there is no repetition of the code/information online. Why?
Without this caveat there is risk of dilution (ie mass duplication) and standards would branch and become…not standards!

Will there be a forum to ask questions?
There are no plans for a forum as this stage. There are many online forums for TM1 at the moment. The most common (and reliable) is

Some “assets” have their own copyrights on them. Do they adhere to the licensing?
Yes, anybody contributing can have their copyrights on them but they are implicitly agreeing to the terms of the site. ie open sharing

Why doesn’t IBM do this?
Traditionally, almost all of the expertise in terms of how to implement TM1 has resided within the TM1 Partner community and End Users of TM1. We believe that something like this had to come from outside of IBM. However, we hope that those at IBM with deep experience in TM1 will also contribute to this project.

Why "Bedrock"? Isn’t that where the Flintstones lived?
For those who do not have English as a native language, the word "Bedrock" may be a bit strange. You may not be able to distinguish it from "Cabinetstone" and "Tablebrick", for example. Basically, it is a synonym for "solid foundation". This is what Bedrock TM1 is – a reliable, solid foundation of TM1 best practice on which you can confidently build applications.


Stay updated with email updates