David McCoy

Syncretism is a term that is often used in discussions of how one religion adopts aspects of another.  It’s not often used in a positive way, as in, “Wow fellow syncretist!  Aren’t you glad we’ve adopted all these alien practices and created a mish-mashed perspective that makes everyone happy?”  However excited I am about religious debates (and I am), discussing belief systems is the last thing I want to do in this blog.  Instead, I want to discuss what I’m calling “methodological syncretism” and its relationship to BPM.

New Term Warning – “Methodological syncretism” currently has 282 hits on Google.com.  Using a comparative trick similar to one which John Pescatore is famous for, I can also tell you that “whale pie” has about the same number of hits.  So, basically, this term is not well-known.  However, “methodological syncretism” is mentioned in a well-respected SAGE publication, so I can’t claim any ownership interest here (if it’s mentioned in SAGE, it must be real).  But, I do feel that I can co-opt the term for my own use in BPM.

Methodological syncretism within BPM – I’m defining this concept as, “The process by which two or more methodologies are blended to create an über-methodology that uses the best of each donor methodology toward a more effective delivery of process excellence.”  I believe this is an important concept.  In 2006, I did a case study where the enterprise was blending aspects of Six Sigma, traditional project management methodologies, and traditional SDLC.  It seemed to work for them.  Further, isn’t Lean Six Sigma a clear example of methodological syncretism?  I think it is.  I think this concept is very real and it’s probably pervasive.

Note on Methodology Engineering - There is a much more well-known concept called methodology engineering (ME) – or method engineering as it is known in Europe – which is very similar and certainly pre-dates my term.  I’m guest lecturing tomorrow night for its creator, Dr. Richard Welke – my very good friend.  Richard and I will be discussing this topic before the lecture, and we’ve been discussing it in email for the last week.  We see similarities between the two concepts but believe they are not the same.  I specifically wanted to use a term that was similar in intent to ME, but one that relaxed the definition – a lot.  ME is much more prescriptive as to how the methodologies are linked, requiring an underlying meta-model.  ME is a more well-defined approach.  My term is much looser and much less prescriptive, by design.  If ME is “the book on brain surgery,” methodological syncretism is merely “brain tinkering.”  Richard agrees with my analogy (and no, he did not suggest the analogy).  As I gather more insight, I will certainly discuss this topic further.

Call for Input – Do you see merit in methodological syncretism?  Don’t fret over the term – I don’t want to enter it into a beauty contest.  Just let me know which methodologies you’re blending.  As a thank you, I can send you a nice recipe for whale pie.