Linkedin: ACM is a very naughty boy

<discussion ref="http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=34067598&gid=2452802&trk=SD">

@Syed “BPM as a business discipline (not as a technology) should consists of at a high level two different kind of process architecture patterns, sequential (e.g. flow charting) and non-sequential & ad-hoc processes”

If we go back a reference model and define BPM as “process-oriented management discipline to help an enterprise to realise its vision, by managing the flow of business activities in a holistic way thus considering together modeling (or planning), automation, execution, control, measurement and optimization of business processes” then we can see that there is no fundamental difference between “sequential” and “non-sequential” processes. All depends on how OFTEN those 6 BPM functions (model, automate, execute, control, measure, and optimise) are applied:
  • once before many process instances
  • once before each process instance
  • a few times within the process instance or
  • before/after each activity in the process instance.
Classic BPMS (BPM as technology) do well the first option. The business want to have a possibility to change option as necessary (similar to the gearbox). So, no need for yet another process-oriented discipline – “just” make better tools based on a good theory (which is still lacking a reference model and reference architectures).

See also http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.com/2010/04/let-us-architect-use-of-existing.html

No comments: