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.

1. Do you do project-level investment analysis of any kind (payback period, ROI, IRR, etc)?
2. Do you calculate a predicted ROI or IRR for your BPM projects before they are started?
3. Is a formal, predicted ROI or IRR a requirement for approval/funding?
4. Do you measure post-implementation ROI or IRR?
5. As you calculate the present value of your net benefit stream for your investment measures, do you cap the number of future years you will project out?
6. How long (number of years) is the typical benefit stream that you feel comfortable calculating?
7. What discount-rate ranges (interest rates, cost of capital, etc) do you use for your NPV calculations?
8. What investment levels (e.g., IRR levels) do you consider borderline for project approval?
9. What investment levels make you dance with glee?

Well over a decade ago, we determined that workflow projects met or exceeded ROI expectations about 90% of the time.  A BPMS is not a workflow tool, and this is 2009 – a lot of the low-hanging fruit is gone.  Are you seeing the same level of investment performance?

Let me hear from you, and thanks!

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.

Well, the old rules came back, didn’t they? 

Now, we hear the same message: “The old rules don’t apply.”  Stocks only go down, income only goes down, house prices only go down.  How long do beans and rice last in storage?  No one will buy, no banks will survive, nothing works.  The old rules don’t apply.  No one to lend, no one to borrow, no assets, no future.  We are on the cusp of a new economy – everything is new and different.  The old rules don’t apply.

Well, the old rules will come back, won’t they?

They will.  The rules never really went away. We just forgot them.  We just subdued them. We just didn’t grasp the bigger picture of economic cycles and waves and mistakes and remission and recovery and rebirth.

The underlying economic, social, cultural, political and ethical rules are a lot harder to change than we give them credit for.

The rules still apply.  Ride the current economic wave with dignity and with perspective.  The rules are still there, and they are still at work.  We are not the ones who will break the system.  We are not.

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.

I got to thinking… “What if we did something similar in BPM land.  What if we expected a specific, defined level of due diligence and certification for our top process practitioners?”  The idea intrigued me…  even though the parallel between ordination and process certification is not a great one – flawed as it is on so many levels.  Also, I am not talking about any of the Six Sigma belt kinds of certification here.  I am strictly interested in BPM certification that is generic in nature, not tied to a specific methodology (vendor or otherwise), and – in reality – only just emerging as a topic of credible interest. Brett Champlin, head of the ABPMP, and I recorded a few podcasts last year on BPM certification.  We agreed that BPM certification is a cool idea.  But – cool aside – is it something you consider of value?  When the time comes, and certification has legs, is it something for you?

Thoughts?

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

Who’s On First? – One team tossed the bat – upside down – and the big cheese on the other team caught the fat part of the bat where you normally would smack a ball.  Then – taking turns – you each raced hand-over-hand up the bat to see who got to the very top (er, bottom?) of the handle.  The top guy (the guy holding the end of the handle) was then declared the winner or had to defend your one attempt to knock the bat loose.  If you remember this, you know how hard it was to defend when your top grip was basically three knuckles and a bruised thumb.  If you have no idea what I’m talking about, it’s probably because you grew up ATS – After Tang’s Supremacy.  Also, my reference to guys is not sexist.  We didn’t have any girls on the team – ever.  They weren’t interested and neither were we… I… think…  Well, they weren’t interested, ok?

That little back-and-forth with the bat was probably good training for you BPM Champions, and a pretty good metaphor, too.  It goes like this:  If you’re a senior executive and the BPM Champion, your life is pretty good, unless someone higher in the food chain is anti-BPM.  Then – hand-over-hand it goes – they trump you and make your life and mission miserable. Better to have the higher-ups be neutral, but if there’s a vocal anti-BPM opponent, you either have to let him/her bat or you try to knock the bat from his/her grip.  A good Champion will always try to knock the anti-BPM forces back.

This is a pretty good metaphor isn’t it?  So, while we always advise that BPM success requires a Champion, I think you need to remember the corollary.  Just having a Champion doesn’t assure success.   A Champion is necessary but not sufficient.  If the Champion is overshadowed by a naysayer from a better perch on the org chart – an Overlording Anti-BPM Champion – it might be like having no BPM Champion at all; like matter and anti-matter… <poof>… unless you offer a challenge.

I knew there were good reasons we all played ball during the summer when Gilligan was in re-runs.  You play ball too. Take on your top naysayer, knock the bat from his or her hands.  I can assure you of this:  Anyone who is an anti-BPM Champion in 2009 is holding on with a lot less of a grip than three knuckles and a bruised thumb.  He or she hasn’t got a chance.  Take your best shot, and batter up! And, when you win, celebrate with a glass of Tang.  It’s never to late to take up the habit, you Champion you!

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.

As you view the model, think of the most recent corporate scandals (lower right) and corporate espionage (upper left).  Then think of where your efforts need help based on this model.

Now, on to Tech!