BPM Quotes of the week

On BPM and Control – Anatoly Belychook

People don’t want to be controlled, they need help in controlling really complicated processes. If you give it to them then there’d be no opposition, people will gladly use a BPM system. Verified by practice. Yet you’ll need to overcome their distrust on the way – no one at the shop floor a priory expects anything good when “business process” is mentioned

On BPM and Accounting Processes – Phil Ayres

It is perceived that any team that reports to the CFO is unlikely to have any money to spend on improving how they work. So BPM software vendors go the easy way – they look for the obvious issues that they can solve, then when they run out of the easy stuff they get stuck. So during a vendor’s decline, it goes down justifying to itself why it can’t address the thousands of other process problems that appear in a business, because the mind-set is still locked in the “can’t go near the Finance team” mode.

On BPM and Metrics – Jon G Ryder

How can one ever know if a process is working without smart metrics? Or put another way, how can one know if the mechanisms one has put in place to achieve the business goals and objectives are moving us in the right direction, as effectively and efficiently as possible?

On BPM Niches – Gary Comerford

the fact that so few people have a common understanding of what BPM means precisely. They know what BPM means to them and the know what they do when it comes to BPM. But to sit down and write a standard defintion of BPM that everyone can agree on is difficult. Because of this there have been a number of separate initiatives aimed at splitting BPM into component parts – or sub parts – to allow vendors, particularly, to attach to these niches and boost their own offerings. The phrase “Social BPM” has suddenly appeared in the BPM vernacular along with “ACM” or Adaptive Case Management.

On ACM – Max J. Pucher

I feel that we have missed the opportunity of truly advancing process management with the limited ACM approach. Dynamic Case and Process Management are now seen as like definitions to ACM. It should be however not just about ‘unpredictable’ work items, but about a more globally encompassing technology approach that is linked to business architecture and strategy. I defined what I saw as relevant for business – and not as market segments or product categories – shortly after the ACM acronym was chosen in a post on Adaptive Processes. But so be it. I rather be Brutus and end this senseless debate to focus on what businesses truly need.

On Adaptive Processes – Frank Michael Kraft

I am struggling to make the critique concrete enough. What is needed is an objective list of criteria that process software has to fulfill if it can be called “Adaptive”. So we need the patterns of knowledge work and by them we can judge any software XYZ if it performs well in the category. All of this is not yet established, but we need it.

On BPM Maturity – Mike Gammage

BPM went through a teenage phase when it was a bit obsessed by automation. Older and wiser, BPM now focuses on enabling operational excellence and continuous improvement – and, as a consequence, is converging with mainstream Lean and Six Sigma. BPM thinking now sees process as the language, and the BPM platform as the enabler, for the effective collaboration that underpins operational excellence and continuous improvement.