I like undergrads.  When I guest lectured in Hong Kong a few years ago, I met some very sophisticated kids who were the cream of the Asian crop.  Even so, as I lectured, they were busy with cell phones, instant messaging, sleeping, etc. – typical undergrad fare.  Tonight’s group had its share of typical undergrads too – there were a few drooping eyelids, and a lot of screen-gazing going on as I spoke.  I have come to expect this kind of audience behavior when I lecture to undergrads.  As a disclaimer, I too was a typical undergrad.  I got some of my best snoozes in Political Science – sometimes I even went to class to do my snoozing.  I imagine myself as a 20-year-old in a lecture hall, hearing some geezer go on and on about integration brokers, message warehouses, event correlation, batch file transfer…  opps, sorry.  I just put myself to sleep.  Even with a topic as dry as dust – it was still a lively session and we had a lot of fun.

I have a few observations from tonight’s venture:

1. College kids know the economy is in trouble and they are concerned about the job market and making money when they graduate.  Some of them see BPM and “process stuff” in general as a nice potential for making a difference – and a buck.
2. Some colleges are doing a great job preparing undergrads for a career in BPM.  This group had been working with BPMN, building models, learning simulation, gathering insight that some enterprises have not even started working on.  Not every college has tackled the BPM challenge.  GSU is one that has.
3. These guys are going to be tomorrow’s process owners, process analysts, process consultants.  They will be buying process tools, extolling process virtues and generally, carrying the process torch.

As I have mentioned before in this blog, there is new blood coming to market every graduation season.  You should check out what they are learning.  Imagine hiring someone who doesn’t have to ask, “Ugh… just what is a process?”  Imagine hiring someone who cut her teeth on BPMN as an undegrad…

When did you first touch BPMN?  Yeah.  Me too.  Good luck with your degrees guys.  We need you out here.  Hurry up and graduate and get those resumes on the street.  And catch a good snooze in PoliSci if you can – for old time’s sake.

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.

I just searched for “without winning Missouri” on Google.com.  You don’t have to be smart to search nowadays – all you have to do is enter the key snippet.  Lots of results, most saying effectively the same thing: “Wow! How did Obama win without Missouri?”  Apparently, a Democrat being elected president has always coincided with Missouri’s going Democratic (but not the other way around – Missouri has predicted a Democrat and been wrong, as several sites bemoan).  Whoopee!  A way to predict the winner!   If a Democrat won then Missouri must have gone Democrat.  But this time, it failed.

Failed indeed. This is a fine example of pure statistical hype.  Good stats classes teach ways to avoid this kind of math mistake.  Missouri was never a validated predictor of the Democratic wins, and the so-called “American opinion.”  “What?  It aligns so perfectly.  How can you say that?”  Even if the next 10 Democrats carry Missouri and win the presidency, it is still an invalid predictor in my book.  I can’t even muster a reasonable case for real covariance. This was just the same bad math that has sportscasters saying:

“Well Tom… following a line-drive single, this batter has never hit the second pitch from a left-handed pitcher on a Tuesday night in the third inning”

Richard Feynman would have loved this one.  It’s the same mentality that makes people see faces in cookies and pancakes.  The brain wants to spot patterns – it is desperate for pattern detection.  When you take a big ol’ bunch of data – like all the state-by-state election results since who-knows-when – and you start to look for patterns, you know what?  You are going to find a few patterns.  Some of those patterns may hide a great predictive model – this is what well-cross-validated discriminant analysis is all about.  However, just digging in the data to find a pattern – any pattern – is a fool’s errand.  You will always find some alignment that looks like it’s predictive, but in reality, it’s just the randomness of life at work.  What real predictive capability takes is a lot of work on defining the precise criterion you are measuring, a lot of construct validity checking, and a lot of work on cross-validation against the criterion, etc.  Oh, and a little solid theory on the relationship between the independent and dependent variables wouldn’t hurt either.  In other words, sometimes what you see is just a nice reflection in the mirror, but there is nothing on the other side.

Missouri is a cool place.  And Missourians may be so close to the pulse of America that their collective voice echoes the blended wishes of the other 49 states.  But I don’t see the proof.  I don’t see the validity that I would want to see, and, in my opinion, Missouri is not a valid oracle for the American pulse, even if it names the right presidential party for as long as I live.   And that pancake that you keep locked in that safe is not a spitting image of Barney Fife.  Sorry, it’s just not real.  Come back to me with a rock-solid, statistically sound case on why Missouri is “the bellwether” – so called – against the loose criterion “How America Will Decide” and we can talk.  Do the hard work, show me how you cross-validated your predictive, discriminant model, and prove your point, and I will back down.  My stats are rusty – you may be able to take me.  But, don’t come to me with some interesting presidential election patterns and say that proves Missouri is the guide to all-things-American. Until then, just enjoy the pretty pictures randomness can draw.

P.S. Don’t get me started on “historically the stock market has always outperformed other investments” statements being used to predict a rosy future either… not that you would anytime soon.

This is not a very threatening sign.  When I grew up, signs were a lot more threatening.  I especially remember cardboard signs that said, “Trespassers Will Be Shot!”  There was something definite about that, especially with the hand-drawn underline (or two).  The sign in the photo just hints at prosecution.  Yawn…  We might do something, or we might not.  We haven’t decided, but we reserve the right to think about it and get back to you.  Maybe.

“May” is so modern isn’t it?  Murderers may be punished.  Drug dealers may be prosecuted.  Lying, thieving politicians may be kicked out of office.   May, may, may. 

I long for the unequivocal days of right and wrong, of firm laws and firm enforcement of the laws.  When it comes to modals, I want to see more “wills” and fewer “mays.” I guess I’m an anachronism in that respect.  The children of the ’60s smoked most of the good words and left us with a taste for permissive language.  May, may, may.

I can’t control society (so my doctor keeps telling me) – however, when it comes to business rules, there are two lessons I can teach:

1. English language is tricky – May, can, shall, might, etc. – these are the words that power loopholes.  If you’re going to write a business rule, use firm, precise language.  Don’t weasel around with sissy words.
2. Don’t confuse rules with suggestions – If you don’t use precise and firm wording, you’re not writing a business rule; you’re writing a business suggestion.  That’s cool – if what you want is a conditional kind of expression (e.g., customers may apply for in-store credit on transactions of $250 or more). However, if you want to write an iron-clad business rule that has no loopholes, watch out for some of those loose modals that run around in our vocabularies.

I may see you tomorrow.  I may post something tomorrow.  I just may.  On the other hand, I may go dump some trash in front of this sign and see what happens.  Maybe…

The one thing that I didn’t hear was a lot of talk about great successes in process-level security.  This was especially worrying since we were told that application-level attacks are rising.  Vishing is a good example.  To a vished customer, the criminal’s process can feel just like your business process.  For all the customer knows, he was using your processes and giving you his trusted information over the phone – his trusted phone.  No one can hack that, right?

A few years ago, I co-keynoted a user conference with Kevin Mitnick.  I was a little uneasy at first, Kevin being such a well-known, former black hat. But, if he had no problems co-keynoting with a well-known Methodist, who was I to complain.  Kevin gave a roaring talk and demonstration with a strong focus on social engineering. Social engineering came up a lot yesterday too. Is social engineering the most obvious security threat that is most routinely overlooked by your business process analysis and design efforts?  I’m just speculating, but I’ll bet your processes – and, critically, your process participants – are exposed as sitting ducks, waiting to be blown out of the water. Or do you know something that a panel of security experts didn’t?  I know who I’m betting on.