Comments on: On Spreadsheets, Clean Handoffs, and a Dinner Bet

By: tombaeyens

tombaeyens — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:52:45 +0000

I’m not sure the two visions are that far apart. I see the clean handoff as an extension to the collaborative vision: http://jboss.org/jbossBlog/blog/tbaeyens/2006/07/26/Clean_handoff_Collaboration_and_Pluggable_Process_Constructs.txt

By: ECM-BPM Corner » Archives » Processus métier et application Excel, même combat ?

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:40:20 +0000

[...] Le sujet a été en fait initié par Keith Swenson, et repris depuis par Phil Ayres, Jesper Joergensen, et même Bruce Silver, sur leurs blogs respectifs. Sandy elle n’a pas encore réagi, mais elle me semble bien occupée ces jours-ci . [...]

By: BPMS Watch » One Notation to Rule Them All

BPMS Watch » One Notation to Rule Them All — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:31:27 +0000

[...] Paul Harmon of BPTrends weighs in on a worthy topic, how many perspectives do we need to describe a business process? He acknowledges that while “alternative approaches” like Role Activity Diagrams or the Flores-Winograd interaction model used by Action Technologies are useful in special cases, most of the time it would be better to standardize on a more conventional workflow perspective such as BPMN or UML Activity Diagrams. Sandy Kemsley expresses her agreement, while Derek Miers (in comments on BPMS Watch) has expressed the opposite view. [...]

By: Derek Miers

Derek Miers — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:22:19 +0000

When you thuink about it, most spreadsheets used by people have some sort of “business process” model about them. Even the cash flow I have been working on assumes an implicit process model.

Have to say that I think that the essential ingredient is for buisiness people to understand their processes (which is somewhat different from model them at an appropriate level for process execution). The problem is that most people involved in this industry (wrongly) assume that a single procedural view of activity icons strung toogether is sufficient to allow people to step outside of the “way things get done around here”, allowing them to see the process for what it is. As I have said many times, the business person needs contrasting views of how work happens - not just a single simplistic view (a la BPMN), but also the interactions that occur between roles (how the roles change state and how these affect the way the process unfolds), how the thing moving through the process changes state (as a result of the actions and interactions that occur).

Having understood the process, it is then possible to identify the 20% of the process that should be initially implemented (tgiving 80% of the value), leaving the rest to iterative development. It is also a relatively simple exercise to implement this 20% on the chosen BPMS by someone who is trained to do it (whether that be a biz person, a biz analyst or an IT Developer).

The development of those high-level contrasting views of the process should be time-boxed (to a matter of a few weeks) to ensure that people dont get lost in the weeds. It is my firm belief that this understanding phase should be entirely separate from the implementation phase … i.e. dont think about translating those models onto the BPMS, by definition 80% of it is wrong anyway or at least irrelevant going forward

By: Stefan Farestam

Stefan Farestam — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:00:08 +0000

Bruce,
It’s a good question. Does TIBCO’s tools support the proper level of abstraction and is the abstraction aligned with business users? I would say they do, but needless to say I’m partial. For BPM to be effective though, you need to provide properly abstracted models on multiple levels so that business process owners need not be concerned with low level implementation details. I think that’s where the “rubber hits the road” in terms of being successful with SOA and BPM.

By: bruce

bruce — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:10:08 +0000

Stefan,
I think your “really important point” is a good one, whether the issue of business-driven implementation is misdirected or not. Since I see from your email you are a Tibco person, is there anything in your tools or methodology that encourages this abstraction alignment?
–Bruce

By: Stefan Farestam

Stefan Farestam — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:49:00 +0000

I think the discussion of whether or not a business person can design a process model that can be executed is misdirected. The really important point is that when the abstraction level used during a business level discussion of a process matches the abstraction level used in the actual implementation, then the feedback loop (between business process owners and engineering) becomes very rapid and much less room is left for implementation mistakes. It also means that any process metrics that is captured is likely to make sense and be reliable.

By: phil_ayres

phil_ayres — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:17:00 +0000

Bruce,

Thanks for letting me clarify where I stand on the users that can and can not build executable processes. I agree with the concept that the “process model is the implementation”, with a little control to prevent a three step: “model, save, go-live”

As I also wanted to extend my discussion of how spreadsheets really are used for modeling business processes, and are ripe for improvement by the business users as you suggest, here is a link to my post for the day. Its a little out of scope of your original discussion, but relevant for anyone that was confused my post yesterday!

Cheers
Phil

By: IT|Redux » Why we Need a Free BPMS

IT|Redux » Why we Need a Free BPMS — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:02:56 +0000

[...] Last but not least, I will report progress on the BPMS Challenge. Bruce Silver is running with it as official referee, and I got his assurance that he will thoroughly investigate the claims made by a couple of vendors who believe they won the challenge. Knowing the products in competition, I must express very serious doubts about it, but I would love to be proven wrong, as long as the game remains fair, and I trust Bruce that it will. In the meantime, Intalio is actively working on its product in order to participate to the challenge later this year. [...]

By: bruce

bruce — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:10:06 +0000

Phil,
I think we’re getting to the heart of the matter. When I talk about “the business” doing modeling, design, or anything else in BPM, I don’t mean any Joe Blow hanging around the water cooler. I mean business people whose job it is to do these things, with some amount of training in the tool and methodology, and certainly knowledge of the business process and its objectives… but not trained as a programmer or technical specialist. But I wouldn’t rely on Joe’s spreadsheet either…

Nobody’s trying to say anyone who can load up an ipod should be designing executable processes.
–Bruce