Will a new generation of processes designed from the outside in transform BPM?

If looking at the customer perspective when designing processes and applications is classed as 'new generation' then I'd love to question what the hell we've all been doing for the past decade or two....Craig's terminology is either misleading or a statement of BPM today and we're all at fault.

It's true that a more fluid and dynamic organisational entity needs to exist and emerge from the ashes of hierarchical incompetence, but only when that happens will the real 'next generation' of processes exist.

Make it so.

There is a quote that analysts are like eunuchs in a brothel.

They watch it done every. They talk to people who can do it. They can talk about the different ways you can do it. A long time ago they could do it, but sadly they can't do it anymore.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make some assumptions. Specifically, I'm going to take outside-in vs. inside-out to mean configuring software to reflect your processes vs. adapting your processes to work with inflexible, expensive, large-footprint packaged apps.

Guess which side I'm on? :)

I'm also going to assume that Craig's comments weren't directed at the BPM community. We already know the answer: packaged apps' dominance is fading fast.

Yikes, I think I'm going to avoid this discussion for fear of being labeled an analyst-cum-eunuch.

I can't help myself though, and I have to say that the reason that Forrester, Gartner, et. al. succeed in saying stuff like this is *because it sells*. Guys like Theo and Emiel are perceived to be "off the reservation". Most of the customers of these big firms are having a hard time getting the left hand to know what the right hand is doing. Shining examples are easy to identify, but few in number. Therefore broad, non-commital gestures in BPM still sell analyst reports, subscriptions, and participation in studies.

We're doing VOC right now for our next research study and far-and-away the most popular topic among our audience is "breaking through silos," which is effectively a 25+ year old discussion that organizations STILL want to have.

I'm motivated by guys like you Theo and Emiel. I want to be on the ranch drinking beer. I want my ranch to put out high quality research reports that people actually use. But how can I start gently nudging people toward the areas that matter and move the state of the art forward?

What John said. I would most certainly qualify myself as being off the reservation and care not one whit whether I'm on the inside looking out or the outside looking in. What I do care about is delivering solutions and having a referenceable client at the end of the day. And we're still talking about "breaking through silos" after thirty years (how long I've been in IT) because big organizations... turn... very... slowly, regardless of what they may espouse otherwise.

Dear Analysts,

I am sorry for the things I said. I was wrong.

Because suddenly I realize it must be a hard job being an analyst firm.

On one hand you got the real world, struggling with day to day business and trying to implement the basics of BPM (and that is not just IT, maybe that is why it is so difficult)

On the other hand you got all the software vendors who are inventing new technology every day. You have to tell the market that is the newest state of the art way of doing BPM!

Real life vs Fantastic Future, It's hard to balance. I didn't realize that. Sorry.

Can I be on the reservation again? Please.

(Translation: I am working for a software vendor and my boss told me to apologize)

Have a nice weekend!

Emiel, usually its me to do some analyst bashing ...

In this case I would say that Craig LeClair is quite on the spot with his proposition. My agreement is not surprising as I have been voicing exactly that 'dynamic' (aka as ADAPTIVE) process approach since 2001 with our inbound/process/outbound concept. I feel that there isn't much to show for in research except some die-hards like me banging there heads against analyst office doors to be heard. Yes, the world is moving on and 'we need to control this with BPM' is not working, right? Well they say, if you can't beat them ... JOIN THEM! Gartner Group is doing the same with the iBPM misnomer.

OUTSIDE-IN as a term for focusing on customer outcomes is good, but how will you know what those are? More governance? Hasn't helped BPM much so how would it make DCM more agile? I don't agree at all the these untamed processes are 'lurking in the shadows and dark corners'. They have been there in the broad daylight and brightly lit at night ever since. Neither are they untamed, which would indicate that they can be tamed, meaning controlled, meaning turned into predictable process flows with those 'packaged and custom-built on-premises apps'. Neither do these processes have anything to do with big-data or have-to-have predictive analytics.

Excuse me, but in what way will those 'non-ERP-but-still-packaged' solutions be 'adaptive or agile' and deal with the dynamics and goal orientation that is required? They will be difficult and expensive to build and reek of 'large integration projects' that will turn into foul mush as the projects one after the other produce no more than revenues for consultants and integrators.

USER ADOPTION needs simplicity for the user and while the underlying technology can be quite complex it won't be a mix-and-match of technologies from different vendors that will provide such simplicity in reasonable time and cost to the business users. How will such solution stay in line with the changes that businesses and their markets will go through? Never touch a running system will still be norm.

My recommendation: Never build a system that requires more than one responsible group/vendor/partner to maintain! You can't break through silos by building ANOTHER COMPLEX SILO! You are once again freezing the status quo. These businesses will still be stuck in the cement of cement of those 'packaged and custom-built on-premises apps'. I propose it will need a new truly adaptive, model-driven platform approach that does not need custom building.

Let's face it: Those 'untamed processes' are in reality the core business activities of the most important knowledge carriers and decision makers of the business that perform the high-value, low-volume knowledge work that makes or breaks your business. There is no need to tame them but you need to finally UNLEASH these people! You need to link their execution with business strategy and how adaptive that is supported by technology will define how adaptive and resilient your business is. FULL STOP.