links for 2009-04-22

  • Jim Sinur quotes some cases of social networking inside enterprises, and attempts to get a conversation going on combining BPM and social software. I smell some new Gartner research coming; they should be taking a look at some of the other links in today's post.
  • A paper by Petia Wohed (who I met at the BPM conference in Milan last year) and her colleagues outlining their project on integrating BPM and social software. This attempts to address some of the shortcomings of BPMS, namely lack of context, inflexible decomposition of work activities, lack of differentiation between work distribution and authorization, push-oriented perspective, and single case focus. In their project (over 3 years), they'll be designing a set of services for integration BPMS and social software. I'm hoping that Petia will be presenting on this at the BPM conference in Ulm in September.
  • Discussion of flow-directed versus goal-directed processes, with some interested comments from readers. My comment stated "Many processes need to be a combination of flow-directed and goal-directed: parts of the process need a pre-defined path for regulatory reasons or to guide tasks done by less-skilled or outsourced workers, whereas other parts need considerably more flexibility for knowledge workers to make choices about what steps to take in order to achieve the goals."
    (tags: bpm)
  • Enterprise 2.0 starts to look more at the enterprise concerns than at the technology, and also considers how to integrate with structured business processes (BPM), a topic that I've written and presented on in the past. This is good news for both BPM and Enterprise 2.0: these concepts and technologies need to come together to really address the business process needs of enterprises.
  • Tom Baeyens presentation on what's coming up in jBPM 4.
    (tags: bpm)

3 thoughts on “links for 2009-04-22

  1. Sandy, here is another recent post on how processes should ideally have traits of being “defined” and “dynamic”.

    I am seeing the topic of “dynamic” processes having quite a buzz as of late. Process modeling and process discovery has always had great value and is practiced by many. But I have to also wonder if today’s reduced workforce in a company, resulting in more people wearing multiple hats, is resulting in greater reliance in “unstructured” process needs.

  2. Chris, the article states that “We caution ITOs and business professionals to ensure they pay close attention to the importance of designing process models that accurately reflect how work ‘really gets done’-or how it will be done if the process includes moving to a ‘to be’ state of improvement.” — not exactly breaking news. I agree with your point about dynamic processes, but I’m not sure that reduced workforces will result in more unstructured process needs: in general, as people have to pick up tasks that were done by their former colleagues, they may need a more structured process to ensure that it’s done correctly since they are not as familiar with the process.

  3. I happen to agree on the increased buzz around dynamic processes. I don’t think it has as much to do with reduced workforces (as Sandy states) but less “low hanging fruit”. Repeatable processes that are well documented tend to be easier to automate. Dynamic (or unstructured, ad-hoc, etc) processes tend to be a lot harder to codify by nature, so companies seem to have optimized the easier ones first. With those efficiency gains under their proverbial belts, they have nowhere to turn but to the more complex problems to try and shave cost and increase productivity.

Leave a Reply