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.

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.