Re: BPM vs. BPMS: How To Think Big and Act Small

This is a reply to http://isismjpucher.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/bpm-vs-bpms-how-to-think-big-and-act-small/ blogpost.

Thanks Max for a good post which is commented below from my "managing by business processes (BPM) methodology" (www.samarin.biz/book and http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.com/).

I disagree with you that BPM == "flow-charting". Certainly, BPM may use several coordination techniques – see http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.com/2012/07/coordination-techniques-in-bpm-social.html 

Also, I disagree with you that "adaptive processes" are not possible in BPM – see http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.com/2010/12/illustrations-for-bpm-acm-case.html

I agree with you that BPM as discipline and BPMS are very different things. In my experience, they can be perfectly used within a proper architecture (i.e. “to think big”).

My experience relative “The NINE Contradictions in BPM Implementation Principles” (BTW, what is the origin of those principles?) is below.

• If BPM would be capable of being business-driven then there is no need for executive enforcement.
  AS: It is possible to be business-driven if BPM is properly architected.
• If the implementation of processes would really happen through users there is no need for governance.
  AS: It is for business to decide. Some governance is always necessary, maybe business one not IT one. 
• As business users can maybe draw a flow-diagram but can’t make it executable, the BPM stages are all performed by experts, actually reducing agility.
  AS: Not necessary “reducing”, as the IT agility maybe higher (thanks to the architecture) than the business agility. 
• Both BPM methodology and BPMS ignore that users understand processes in terms of content and context and not in flow-diagrams.
  AS: Not at all. Processes are positioned as the help for the users to carry out their work including also the handling the content. 
• To change business culture is a long term prospect and collides with short ROI time frames.
  AS: BPM applications are the best example of agile projects. The ROI is great. 
• What kind of culture change should be necessary to motivate people to follow flow-diagrams all day.
  AS: Again, disagree that BPM == “flow-diagrams” 
• To reduce scope creep and ensure ROI, governance limits end-user requirements and achievable quality.
  AS: IT governance or business governance? In any case, late changes of user’s requirements are very welcome. 
• A holistic BPM methodology is then fragmented over many different software products for implementation.
  AS: Yes, BPM is vendor-driven so far. 
• As the fragmentation requires governance, any change requires long-term planning and therefore reduces actual business agility.
  AS: The architecture enables the agility. 
• If a BPMS is chosen to match current needs and maturity level then it has to be replaced frequently as the business matures.
  AS: The architecture also helps with this. 

At the same time, I agree with your “ ...the following is needed to make BPM work” list.

Obviously there are several different BPMS, few BPM methodologies, a huge number of BPM implementations, but still missing parts are BPM reference model and BPM reference architectures.

Thanks,
AS

Practical process anti-pattern: DOUM

Avoid the "DOUble Master" (DOUM) anti-pattern (section 5.6 of my book "Improving enterprise BPM systems")

As coordination can be carried out by an application or by a process engine, we have to be very careful to avoid the “double master” anti-pattern. At any moment in time there must be only one master responsible for the coordination of a particular process instance. (Of course, the coordination role may be delegated if appropriate.) This is analogous to a well-organised meeting where the chairperson decides who talks next.
Also well-coordinated work improves the security and integrity of data. It can be a useful design pattern to consider that only the person who has accepted a particular human activity can modify the business objects associated with that human activity. This is a dynamic granting/revoking of permissions which is synchronised with the process. Something like in the diagram below (which is not a valid BPMN as there are no "claim" and "unclaim" events defined).

The non-recognition of this anti-pattern can be very costly. We have observed a BPM solution which allowed the modification of data by a process engine, by an interactive application (i.e. by a human) and by a batch at the same time. The coordination of activities was based on data and, if necessary, the application or the batch could “correct” the process. The process engine was used mainly for the handling of three human activities, and the implementation of this solution (for a relatively simple business process) took several man-years.

Thanks,
AS

Practical process pattern: DAM

Delegation of Authotirty Matrix (DAM) is a popular corporate tool which specifies what role is authorized for what functions in particular case. For example, a Director can approve purchasing of some services for less than 50’000 USD; more costly services must be approved by a Vice-President. Of course, the corporate approval logic must be a unique service and not “implemented” by a few gateways in each process.

The following diagram shows a possible usage of DAM.

Thanks, 
AS

Practical process pattern: SAAP

Servicing As A Process (SAAP) pattern was observed in “implied” business processes (http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.com/2012/07/practical-process-pattern-mimo.html). It is implied that an organisation-unit-oriented (or functional) process is invoked from a bigger (almost end-to-end) process. Actually, the former is invoked to serve client’s requests and servicing of different request may overlap in time. Thus, each service invocation should be a separate instance (see the diagram below).

So, there are elements of a mass service system – an input flow of requests for service has to be served in accordance with a potential SLA and by a limited number of servicing slots. (Like a barber shop.)

In the diagram above, the several coordination techniques (http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.com/2012/07/coordination-techniques-in-bpm-social.html) were used, namely: template-based, event-based, instance-based, and information-based (to manage the number of available slots – in an implicit way).

Thanks,
AS

Practical process pattern: MIMO

Pattern Multiple Instances Multiple Objects (MIMO) is observed in some business process diagrams provided by the business as documentation for their business processes. I call such business processes “implied”. Typical case is the institutional (corporate) procurement process which is described as the following:

1. Submit Purchase Requisition (PR)
2. Choose Supplier 
3. Issue Purchase Order (PO) 
4. Receive Goods / Services
5. Pay Invoice

It looks very straightforward. But a PR may contain many positions which can be sourced by different methods: 

1. From the stock 
2. From a known (preferred) supplier 
3. From an unknown (via a bid) supplier 

And each of those methods requires its own process. So, multiple objects in the instance of “Submit PR” process may initiate multiple instances of sourcing processes (see the diagram below).  This effect of is implied in the user’s documentation. 

Events, generated by the “Submit PR” process, can be treated as describe in http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.com/2011/01/explicit-event-processing-agents-in.html 

Thanks,
AS

Quick delivery of solutions via a PEAS-architected platform

The aim of this post is to outline how to organise the quick delivery of solutions via a platform architected in accordance with the PEAS enterprise pattern.

The business need

Users’ demands are typically numerous, have many overlapping features and will be implemented with different pace (because different users’ units work with different speed). The challenge is to achieve the synergy between different demands and capabilities of the platform. It can be addressed by a proper combination of architecture (PEAS enterprise pattern), governance structure and implementation practices.

Decomposition into several basic functionalities

Vast majority of users’ demands correspond to several basic functionalities or combinations of them. For example, in an ECM-platform such typical functionalities are:

• Information site 
• Collaboration site 
• Workflow 
• Data collection 
• Common storage 
• Business manual (a la wiki)
• Public site 
• Extranet site 
• Integration with Outlook 
• Securing documents 
• Access from iPad 
• Integration with archive 
• Integration with SAP 

Readiness review

Potential projects are in rows and functionalities are in columns. Each project requires some functionalities for its 1st and 2nd parts (phases). Each functionality is at the different level of readiness: green, yellow and red. This allows estimating the readiness for 1st and 2nd parts of each project. The popularity of each functionality can be estimated also.

Governance structure

There are two primary types of activities:

1. On-going and centralised platform governance: evolution of architecture, evolution of features, evolution of solutions, evolution of practices.
2. Rapid implementation of solution as a mini-project – light specifications, quick prototyping, consistent configuration, fast procurement, agile development, and re-use of existing tools and habits.

The platform governance is carried out by an inter-organisational-units coordination committee (Platform Coordination Committee – PLACOCO).

Mini-projects are carried-out by solution architects (business analysts, technical staff, super-users from the business units, etc. - depending on their complexity).

Platform implementation resources (programmers and configurators) are provided by the IT department and by a set of authorised service providers (platform vendor and its authorised partners).

Operational team provides integration and release of solutions into production.

Implementation practices

Implementation practices should be as light as possible without any internal barriers. In any case, we will work with the speed of the users.

1. Users’ demand is understood by the business analyst (BIZAN).
2. If the BIZAN finds that this demand is too complex then it is escalated to the PLACOCO to assign another solution architect (SA) otherwise the BIZAN acts as the SA.
3. The solution dossier is prepared by the SA with the help of other staff members. A prototype is prepared if necessary.
4. If the solution dossier shows that a proposed solution is NOT straightforward (a set of rules to be defined and it can evolve over the time) then the PLACOCO evaluates it and approves any new features/extensions (if necessary).
5. The solution dossier is transferred to the internal pool of platform implementation resources to come up with the resource allocation.
6. If internal resources are not adequate (too busy or/and lack of expertise) then the solutions dossier is escalated to the external pool of platform implementation resources.
7. Mini-project team (including super-users) is formed and it iterates with the users to finalise the solution.
8. Solution is operationalized following the change management process.

Thanks,
AS

Coordination techniques in BPM, Social, ACM, etc.

Considering the definition of a process as “explicitly-defined coordination of services to create a particular result” this post shows how some explicit coordination techniques (rows) are employed by different “methodologies”  (columns) for managing the business by processes.

	Classic WF	Classic BPM	ACM	Social NNN	EPN
template-based	++	++	--	--	-+
event-based	-+	+-	+-	-+	++
rule-based	++	++	+-	-+	+-
role-based	++	++	+-	-+	-+
information-based	-+	-+	+-	+-	-+
intelligence-based	-+	-+	-+	+-	--
community-based	--	--	-+	++	--
goal-based	--	--	+-	-+	--
instance-based	--	-+	--	--	--
interprocess (used instance-based)	--	--	--	--	--
managerial (tacit-knowledge-based)	--	-+	--	--	--
resource-based (follow the resource life-cycle)	--	-+	+-	--	--
inter-organisation	--	-+	--	--	--
state-based ??	??	??	??	??	??

A combination of some of them may provide "predictive analytics".

Ideally  – like in the chess game – use must the right combination of coordination techniques in a particular case at the particular moment. But, not all process-centric tools offers all coordination techniques. 

Also a related post about BPM and ACM - http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.com/2010/12/illustrations-for-bpm-acm-case.html.

Thanks,
AS