Anne Stuart has run a very interesting forum rooted in the publication of Theo Priestley about social BPM. Innovations are always surprising either in their outcome from simple things or in their unusual nature. However, judging from perspectives of 'surprising', we have to distinguish between real innovation and a hype aiming satisfaction of personal ambitions.
If you question any two BPM specialists what 'social BPM' is, it is very unlikely you'll get the same responses. Moreover, you have to expect a question back - what the hell you are talking about. Why? Because this is so new thing, people are unaware of it yet. And somebody already asks why it failed in such conditions...
So, what we know about 'social BPM'? Not much besides enthusiastic proclamations. Forrester Research first introduced social BPM in their 2009 BPM Tech Radar report, which highlighted the use of Web 2.0 and social tools within BPM implementations. So, it was not social BPM as a special type of business process management but rather a tool that supported more uncontrolled collaborations between people. Did this collaboration related to the process? This is the question but a new buzz was coined.
Some people suggest that the problem with social BPM is personal perception that associates all 'social' prefixes with Facebook and Twitter that hardly applicable to internal corporate business processes. Others say that social media, where social BPM roots, is in its nature too unpredictable and watery to be seriously considered. Finally, people blame absence of acceptable definition and difficulties with the changes of organisational culture and process management. All these people do not have doubts that social BPM, at the enterprise level, has a sense at all. Well does it?
If we look closely, it is possible to note that enterprises use social elements in certain types of business processes, particularly, via e-mail and internal instant messengers. Some companies utilise the concept of Centre of Excellence to facilitate people initiatives and innovations. However, this relates to certain types of business processes only.
If 'social BPM' is a characteristic of some features of the business process, it is an ambitious and ambiguous name because it is not about business process management in general. If this term is supposed to identify the type of the business process, let's see what the place such process type can occupy in the enterprise.
The first and the most obvious position of social BPM exist with regard to client relationship management (CRM), i.e. where social element exists already without any BPM merits. The second position for social BPM is in the corporate management of strategic motivations of employees. These are known as people processes that also require business management.
Just alteration of existing business process with some social interaction tools does not create social BPM, IMO, though we haven't even got to a point where everyone agrees on what the term "Social BPM" means. (If it is just a new name for Web 2.0, I do not think it is productive).
By definition, dominant majority business process, as any process, is very strict ordered sequence of actions which absolutely concrete (if done right) business logic of the order. Spontaneous and unpredictable human behaviour called 'social' does not fit in this definition. What such processes can gain from socialising? For example, when a company produces medication by mixing component Alpha with Beta, it does not matter what and how people who do this mix say - Alpha and Beta must be mixed in prescribed proportion.
Business process management has Value Chain or streaming in its background. Because of this, each action or option in the process must produce a tangible business value. Can a social activity produce it? The Value Networks Analysis has concluded that the majority of intangible values (social values) never directly materialise, i.e. measuring particular value of social BPM may be very difficult if possible at all.
There is known game with words - Wikipedia identifies, at least, four types of business processes by coverage:
• Activity-oriented
• Product-oriented
• Decision-oriented
• Context-oriented
I would be very surprised if somebody would seriously demonstrated a process that were not product oriented, or oriented on activities instead of decisions, or decision-less process, or the process that ignores context. The same happens with social BPM - it is a combination of words that requires a lot of explanations. To me social BPM is a management of social processes, everything else is just a senseless label.
I do recognise social BPM as a part of collaboration during the building of the model of a business process. I do not agree that the most business processes should be "people processes"- instead, the outcome of the business processes should be people-centric. The last "people process" know was in the time of primitive food gathering at the sunrise of humans. After that, business process dictated people what, when and how to do to get the people products.
Certainly, the business process must be safe and possibly convenient for people. However, some processes are less convenient and social BPM is not the treatment for them.
As much as I like your article, I find the answer to its original question rather immediate: because it doesn't make sense.
There is no true logical relationship between "Social" and BPM hence people easily perceives it (Social BPM) for what it is: a white lie.
If companies were any serious about BPM we would be rather talking about "professional" BPM rather than "social".
To be on a job is not the same as being on holiday. While it makes sense to be social when on holiday, when on a job to be professional is/should make much more sense.
I do like "professional" BPM expression!