Now, do I care? Not really! This is not a banking system playing with my account balance. It is not a medical records systems saying, “You’ve got cancer!… Wait… No…it’s a hang nail.” It’s not an on-line order entry system about to accidentally ship 1000 Barbie dolls to my house. Roy Schulte and I used to joke about that kind of process debacle, in those exact terms. No.. It’s not important. It’s just me, posting, “LOL! That was funny!” This system is not life-or-death.

This is the difference between Enterprise Class computing and Global Class computing. My buddy Daryl Plummer loves to talk about this. If you have not read his research on same, you really should. Bottom line: In the enterprise, we know you and we know you have expectations for quality of service. We also control you. Outside the enterprise…. we’ll, we don’t really know you and we certainly don’t control you. We also know that you will tolerate crappy performance in exchange for something important to you: access, information, collaboration, social interaction, etc.  Now, we don’t want to deliver crappy performance… but… well… stuff happens, eh? You Global Class participants will forgive us… you always do…

Global Class vs. Enterprise Class – A major design issue in 2009 and likely in 2020. Go figure.

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…

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.

1. Complexity – How hard is it to use one of these techniques? How much work do I have to do to make it work for me?

1. Linguistic Power – What do I get in return for my hard work? How close can I come to representing the real language dynamics that real speakers use when talking about business rules?

The research analyzes each alternative approach and advises on how users and rule developers can optimize the complexity-versus-linguistic-power dichotomy.  Watch for the research, and if you have any comments, fire away.

Business Rule Representation: A Tradeoff of Complexity and Linguistic Power

Source: Gartner

The Emergence of Real-Time Rule: Mind if We Plug in?

We Fellows do a lot of Unconventional Thinking.  At the time, this piece was considered pretty far-fetched, but I believed it 100% then and still do.  Today, it almost seems like a foregone conclusion that this is indeed where we’re heading.  I might change some of the details, but I wouldn’t change the tone or premise.

Take a look at this CNN story and consider how much closer we’re getting to the level and style of monitoring I envisioned.  Now, imagine another six years go by.  It’s 2015.  My fear is that 2015 will see you yawn and say, “Real-time rule?  Oh, everyone knows that. There’s nothing new there.  That’s just how things are done.”

Debate the details, quibble with the fine points, but don’t miss the obvious trend:  If it can be done, it will be done.

It can and it will.

Count on it.

I have one of our research teams looking into what methodologies are out there – those targeted specifically to cost cutting.  If you have input, fire away.  Based on some first blush insight, we may have to relax the definition of “methodology” a bit here.  Even if your methodology simply consists of a checklist and/or a set of best practices, that’s still of interest to me.

Thank you for your consideration.

You also know that BPM has more going for it than hard-core cost reduction.  BPM has plenty of intangible benefits.  Intangibles are great, but they tend to be downplayed when cash is King and the King has abdicated his throne.  There is a bit of a Maslow’s Hierarchy at work when it comes to benefits.  Call it a Hierarchy of Benefits.  When times are good and cash is flush, the intangibles at the top of the pile – employee satisfaction, greater flexibility, etc – are sweet and honored in their own right.  But, when times are tough, you see a resurgence of interest in the hard, cold, tangibles that reside at the foundational layer of the hierarchy.  And nothing is more tangible than Euros, Dollars, Pounds and Pesos.  Everyone looks at the bottom of the hiierarchy and wants to see bottom line tangible results.  If they can’t see those, then their eyes do not even bother looking any higher at the intangibles.  At least, that’s been my experience in this space.

Both classes of benefits – tangible and intangible – are available from BPM.  Our working group is going to nail the storyline on tangible benefits and remind our clients of the importance of the intangibles.  In short, we are going to have our cake and eat it too.  Tangible and intangible – both are available from BPM and both are needed during 2009, like never before.

Comments on this topic are welcome.  While the output of our research working group effort will be targeted to our clients through our traditional research channels, I am happy to engage in a lively discussion here and look forward to the give and take.