Start a Discussion
BPM
user-pic

What core capability would you like to see added to BPM?

Vote 0 Votes
What core capability would you like to see added to BPM?

13 Replies

| Add a Reply
  • I'd like BPM added back as a core capability of BPM simply because we've added everything else to it and pushed what the core was out to the periphery.

  • Integration with THE business user tool-Excel. To start processes, to capture data, to control alerts and so on...

  • I find myself in a very agreeable mood today. Theo is spot on, we have drifted away from the core of BPM, business process management, with bells and whistles and features and functions. And Daniele puts it eloquently and succinctly that we h ave moved away from the business need.

    For my part: I'd take a hybrid view of the Theo and Daniele. We have to move the power of BPM INTO the hands of the business. How much more empowered are the business because of MS Excel? BPM should be as easy to use as MS Excel and Visio. We need to let the business run with the technology and be there to guide and support.

    Automate the business and you automate for a day: teach an executive to automate and you automate for life.

  • I guess all the bells and whistles somehow fulfill the needs of people. However, I fully agree that BPM just isn't BPM anymore. Business Process Management nowadays is perceived as process design, optimization (i.e. Lean Six Sigma), modeling, rules management, requirement based development, auditing, management methodology, process automation, BI, analytics, etc.... I would suggest to redefine BPM and come up with a clear definition that is used throughout the BPM world. Afterwards we can discuss what core capabilities actually belong to BPM.

  • Did someone just say Excel ???
    It's not April 1st yet surely......

    • Funny, because I am actually in the midst of preparing a project that includes a significant Excel component. (Process Director enables you, inter alia, to use the contents of a spreadsheet to fill out parts of an eForm.) What we've found in general, somewhat to my surprise, is that Excel does not necessarily go away just because a BPM solution is available. Rather, Excel goes back to being what it actually is—a platform for complex calculations—and stops trying to be something else—a business process data collection tool.

  • Always thought BPM is a "discipline" that "IT" used to describe people and process which should result in being able to digitise such processes. All the BPM variations to support have been a distraction to that core thinking. It is inevitable technology advances catch up with real life requirements for people at work but let's stick to the basics BPM is a discipline where technology will always need to advance to support?

  • Agree with Theo, & Emiel has just so succinctly pointed out what matters.

    Technological capabilities would continue to evolve, but we need to bring the focus of BPM back to the core. What's the core, any more? I thought that was the question :-)

    http://ashishbhagwat.com/2011/03/06/what-comprises-the-definitive-core-of-bpm/

  • Multi-media collaborative annotation capabilities.

  • I think the quip of adding Excel to BPM is really way off from a functional perspective. But it does document that BPMS don't really do what they promise. Excel is a tool for knowledge workers and not for BPM performers. Adding an Excel sheet to a process is on the other hand really not that difficult given the right kind of software. So the request really says: 'let me do the process the way I want to do it.' If you want to add Excel, you also want to add MS-Word documents. So we talk about data and content in the process context. That is in effect the whole point of ACM the way I have proposed it years ago.

    Peter, I think it would be important that if you propose questions in future you make sure that you clarify if you refer to BPM as discipline or BPMS as a software solution. Clearly, processes as defined in BPM are meant to deliver an outcome. As it happens, orthodox BPMS do not deliver outcomes but well defined, highly automated process flows that by definition DO NOT focus on outcomes but on executing the flows as efficiently as possible. What a BPMS is supposed to deliver is defined outside the BPMS in the governance bureaucracy. The perfomer operates mostly blind ...

    It is also quite useless to talk about the 'core of BPM' or the 'pure-play-BPMS' as some refer to it. The core of BPMS is to create fairly hardcoded applications. Data inside an Excel sheet are hidden to the process - by definition. That creates the situation that the process does not know about them and can't use the data in any sensible way. A process can only deal sensibly with data that have been defined as Business Data Entities and can be used in forms, in content, in rules and in goals. The same is true for content. Put the content into a Word document and it remains hidden from the process. Because BPMS can not deal with that, performers do Excel and Word and while they are at it they also send it by email. The process is broken and no one knows.

    One thing that BPMS need to add to fullfil the needs of BPM is GOAL-orientation as a part of the process definition. The other one is to make data and content objects accesible as process entities that can be modified by the performer as needed. Which also means that one can't simply define a flow. Adding ad-hoc task or collaboration capabilities to a rigid flow does not offer 'adaptive or dynamic' capabilities as many claim. It typically BREAKS the process apart and destroys the only benefit that a BPMS-defined flow might have.

    Process management needs to evolve from hard-coded flows to a collaborative approach the has well defined goals. It is not milestones, or process-fragments, or other means to structure the rigid process elements. It is about making the goals of the process transparent to the performers and allow them to execute=collaborate it until the goal=outcome is reached.

    What does BPM need? Data and content must become an integral part of the process and be handled through user-definable configuration without going to programming. Users must work towards goals and not according to flows. Then the whole shebang of analyze/design/implement/deploy/execute/monitor/improve can finally be thrown out the window.

    GOALS, DATA and CONTENT are the process, controlled by states and rules and most certainly not by predefined flows.

    Many BPMS vendors now refer to ad-hoc tasks as being 'adaptive' or 'dynamic' or 'collaborative' and unfortunately most BPM 'experts' have no clue what that means. Buzzword marketing at its best!

  • I would like to see some leadership added to BPM initiatives.

Add a Reply

Recently Commented On

Monthly Archives

Blogs

ADVERTISEMENT