To me, this is like answering the question, “Is she the best salesperson in Washington state,” by hemming and hawing, and then pointing out that she really lives in Vancouver, and therefore, she’s not even eligible. You don’t really answer the REAL question, now do you? But, it does shut everyone up for a while. I’m pretty sure that’s what’s just happened here, but – again – I’m not a lawyer.

Your thoughts on Bilski v. Kappos welcomed

• Personnel has become Human Resources (HR)
• Employees have become associates, partners, colleagues, team members, etc
• Soup has become broth, consommé, bisque – why can’t you just sell me some dang soup?

Ok, that last one was a bit personal… but It just goes on and on. Once good words are being pushed aside due to some inherent flaw in the original word. Sometimes, that flaw is simply the fact that the word has cobwebs. Other times, it’s because of political correctness, a false sense of intimacy, or some need to introduce change. Actually, we no longer introduce change. We now transform, renew and revitalize. Ick! So, when does BPM get the ax?

Perhaps, BPM will be pushed aside and replaced by a jazzier term. BPR was once a term we all used. But, BPR was poisoned with down-sizing and right-sizing, so it had to die. BPM doesn’t seem to have that same bile. But, time marches on…and words meet their doom.

In 2018, we will certainly be talking about the THINGS that we currently call PROCESSES. We will be talking about how they relate to BUSINESS and how they can be MANAGED. But… will be we talking about BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT (BPM) in one collective mouth-full? I wonder. To be fair, we might be calling cloud by different names; services by new tags; events by jazzier labels. Nothing resists change… er, I mean… Nothing resists transformation.

Labels are the spawn of marketing and we are become a market-driven economy. But, labels are real and powerful, so we cannot ignore BPM’s future, and we cannot leave it to the whims of some Ketel One drinking ad exec to come up with a sizzling new term for us.

What alternative terms can you imagine to describe that which we currently define by BPM? I don’t care about being right. I just want to see where we might go with this.

Think… and thanks for playing.

Scenario 2: At the doc’s.  You know the drill.  Fill out the paperwork and swear that you have read the copy of the HIPPA rules they gave you.  Only, they didn’t give you any.  So, you ask for the rules and get a strange look like you are from Mars.  Who asks for HIPPA rules?  What was I thinking?

Analysis:  Stop lying with processes, ok?  If you create a process to protect children, the process has to be followed from end to end. It’s no good to do the front-end “aren’t we the careful company” stuff and then skip the part that really matters.  And if you mention a process step in your documentation – “I certify I have read the provided forms” – then don’t freak out when someone actually asks you to provide the forms… the ones you said you already provided.

It’s things like this that could drive me to drink.  Only, I would probably drink too much and then have to go to the doctor’s and have to pretend to read some regulation they didn’t give me.  That would add insult to injury.  Instead, I think I’ll just go grab a pizza, get a UV stamp, and run in and out the exit door, just for fun.  No one will notice.  That’s because some people build processes without any regard for whether they actually work.

Now, BPA… would that be a good way to describe BPM efforts that MUST rely on run-time software tools that we call Business Process Management Technologies (BPMT)?  It would help distinguish those who see BPM as ‘the act itself’ and those who think that BPM MUST use technology to implement a process flow map.  I was with a company in Texas last week. They said, “We can’t do BPM because we don’t have a process engine.” Well, that’s wrong.  BPM can be done without any technology. But what if we used BPA to refer to BPM that specifically targets model-driven, run-time solutions? Would that help or hurt?

Don’t forget that BPA also means Business Process Automation… these terms are heavily overloaded.

I don’t want to start a language war, but we do need some way to distinguish between the class of BPM that involves model-to-engine delivery and the class of BPM that is nothing more than continuous improvement that makes no use of BPMS engines, etc.  At least, it would be helpful for some companies in Texas. 

Thoughts?  How do you distinguish this nuance, or do you even see it as an issue?  This is a minor issue of language but it can be a roadblock to communication.

This framework with its related set of research notes is not a step-by-step cookbook.  What we offer is a set of best practices on governance, selecting and prioritizing cost optimization opportunities, hot spots to examine for cost savings, how IT should “clean its own house first,” and numerous other points that help you frame your intervention. 

The lead piece in a spotlight is known as the Article Top View (ATV).  That’s what Barb and I wrote to tie all the other research together into a cohesive unit.  The ATV is called Method to the Madness:  Applying a Methodological Approach to Cost Optimization and can be found here.  Note, you will not automatically see the document unless you are logged-in as a Gartner client.  Our research on this topic does require a fee or subscription.  It’s my humor that comes without cost… unless you count the psychic toll that results from reading too much.

If you have costs to cut, don’t.  Optimize them instead.  There is a huge difference between cost cutting and cost optimization.  You need to know the difference and then apply a methodological framework to your activities.  To that end, I suggest you start out with our research.

cheers!

1. murky patent rulings affecting processes,
2. protecting process IP when dealing with BPO and other external providers,
3. protecting your own process innovations, etc.

This is not normally a topic that gathers a lot of steam except among a few twisted souls in process land.  Is this a topic of interest to you, oh mass of unseen process mavens?  Would you come to see this kind of presentation?  Or would you first run to the nearest coffee station and suck down three cups of leaded to stay awake?

I think it would be a blast… but then, I write passion-filled posts about socks and car mats.  I am not to be trusted…

No one will respect your agile moves if you are knocking down his entrenched walls as you go about your actions.  So, if you thought success with agility was mainly hinged on technical brilliance,  you are only about four percent correct. The remaining 96 percent is just plain old politics.  Just like most of life, agility is easier to talk about than it is to deliver.  Remember – agility does not excuse you from doing change management and change management is at the heart of business process excellence.  So, don’t divorce your agility efforts and your process efforts.  They are too highly intertwined.

Have you seen this too, or do I just have a jaded view of reality?  Not that those are the only two options…

Scenario 2:  Van marked “Police” races past me and runs a full red light while I stop.  This was a “work detail” van – roadside trash collection with prison labor. No burglary in progress.  No crime to prevent.  Just a red light to run.

For whom are rules, laws and processes created?

Are they only created for those of us who are ruled, governed, managed or directed?

Or, are they created for all of us?

Think of this the next time you in management create a rule, process, directive, mandate, etc.  Are you to be subjected to this same set of policies?  Are you part of the picture?  Or, are you just a glorious ruling body, passing down dictates that you don’t have to follow and won’t follow?

Never trust a disembodied ruler.  Never trust someone who pours medicine down your throat while they keep their own teeth clinched behind tight, pursed lips.

As an exercise, write down the five processes that you hate the most.  Then annotate the top three reasons that you hate each process.  Here’s mine to kick it off:

PROCESS: Car Browsing/Buying Process

1. Why I hate it #1 – It feels like a game where I’m a pawn, the dealership has all the bishops, and I can’t remember how en passant works.
2. Why I hate it #2 – It feels unfair, even when I have Edmunds.com’s prices and negotiating points memorized.
3. Why I hate it #3 – It feels random, as if reality is somehow distorted by the excess presence of bad haircuts and drug store cologne.

Why go through this effort?  First, this list-making exercise is highly therapeutic – ask any licensed psychologist.  Second, it makes you assess your own process ethics.  For instance, if you see my list and say, “Hey!  Those are good process attributes for a seller-buyer relationship,” then you view processes as weapons, and you are obviously not “the buyer.” I view processes as social interactions. It’s nice to know where we each stand.  Third, a list like this will make you pay more attention to your own process design criteria.  If you don’t like it, then don’t do it to someone else. 

So, maybe I’ll buy a car in 2010 or so.  First, I have to let my skin heal.  Lye soap really burns.

No concern for rules, regulations or compliance – The Stooges never let the law get in their way.  They never worried about legality, best practices, rules, regulations, compliance or anything that smacked of proper protocol.   Think of how much time that mentality would save on your process efforts.  No need to address someone else’s concerns or requirements.  Never mind that The Stooges were constantly being arrested or threatened with arrest.  Look at the time savings if you just shoot from the hip! “Nyuk!”

No concern for change management – The Stooges were masters at the quick change, but terrible at change management.  Their view of change was simple: “Put on a dress and sneak past the bad guys!” I bet they would bring that mentality to the BPM world.  Just change it.  Do it! Do it now!  Don’t worry about the impact, you knucklehead!  “Nyuk, Nyuk!”

No concern for quality – The Stooges never really cared about the final quality of their products or services.  They would pretend to be fine waiters, or service station attendants, or pest control experts, but they invariably failed.  They would serve old shoes to their diner patrons, blow up a car by pouring gas in the radiator, or tear all the plaster out of a house as they chased a single mouse.  They pretended to care, but really didn’t.  Anything to get the job done – that was the motto.  That was the heart of The Stooges’ comedy.  “Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk!”

The Bottom Line?  The Stooges would have been great as BPM experts in a comedy short, had the actors lived long enough.  There would be nothing funnier than seeing Moe smack Larry with a copy of Steven and Derek’s BPMN book.  And imagine Curly taking a crowbar to a business rule engine!  Priceless.  That’s fine comedy, regardless of your genetic structure.

But the real bottom line is this: “Are some of your process efforts reminiscent of the work of The Stooges?”  Have you overlooked rules, regulations and compliance? Have you skipped the change management details?  Are you serving up old shoes instead of process innovation?  Are you running a comedy show and calling it a Business Process Competency Center? 

If you look at your current process efforts and a little voice in your head goes, “Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk!”  you might want to rethink what you’ve done so far, before you get a poke in the eyes or a 2×4 across your backside.  Leave the classic Stooge’s comedy shorts to the DVD player.  This isn’t the 1930s and you’re nowhere near as skilled at comedy as the late team of Howard, Howard and Fine, rest their brilliant, silly souls.