Jim SinurThere is an old joke that goes something like this. “What is the difference between a methodologist and a terrorist?” Wait …………… “ You can negotiate with a terrorist”. While this sounds trite, there is some truth to this when it comes to BPM methodologies. I suspect this will set off a flurry of discussion. Let’s explore the argument for a toolbox approach to BPM methodologies.
![MPj03865210000[1]](http://blogs.gartner.com/jim_sinur/files/2009/07/windowslivewriteratoolboxapproachtobpmmethodsisbest-a29bmpj038652100001-2.jpg)
Pro Toolbox:
Each methodology brings specific strengths that can be handy in BPM efforts. Six-Sigma really brings a strong measurement approach. Because Six-Sigma focuses on polishing stones rather than looking for new ones, many organizations have integrated the beliefs of Lean that continually looks for the better approach that may change what is important to measure. Rummler-Brache brings a strong use of “use cases”. Business Genetics brings a practical “What, Who, Where, Which and When” approach.There are strategy and goal driven approaches link business outcomes with process outcomes for processes. Variants of Information engineering have appeared in the scene that effectively link business, information and technical architectures in processes. Agile and Business Rules methods leverage iteration and agility in ways that leave other methods filing out paper instead of making progress. All of these methods have strengths that should be leveraged. Over time organizations will settle in on their own toolbox that leverages the strengths of several methods.
Con: The Pure Method;
Sticking to one method creates a consistent approach to BPM efforts. In order to assure a programmed success, one must stick with a single method. It is impossible to train on more than one method. Most of the methods are pretty close, so just pick one and run with it. There may be exceptional situations where the method falls down, but this risk is worth the consistency that is needed to spread the benefits of BPM. Besides who wants to risk failure while one assembles a toolbox approach. Many would bet their “black belts” on this approach 
I prefer a toolbox method because each BPM effort is different, but I like to start with a core starting method and look laterally to other methods for appropriate activities to include in the particular effort in front of me. Others might have a different approach.
Category: BPM Business Proces Improvement Business Rules Tags: BPM, Business Proces Improvement, Business Rules
3 responses so far ↓
1 Thomas J. Olbrich July 17, 2009 at 3:29 am
Jim,
isn’t the problem though that while many companies have become accomplished at using their BPM toolbox, they are starting to wonder if their tools are still the right ones?
I would have thought that a change of toolset – depending on what needs to be accomplished – might provide a better perspective than relying on tried and tested toolsets which don’t adress current problems.
The strategy of sticking to one toolset might explain the re-emergence of BPR, which sends shivers down my spine as this particular approach does anything but improve flexibility and allow for management of processes.
What’s needed is more transparancy about which toolset to use under which circumstances. Otherwise any initiative is bound to create motion instead of progress.
(Just my two cents worth)
Thomas
2 Jim Sinur July 17, 2009 at 9:20 am
Thomas,
I was talking more methods than tools, but I can see the same anology applying to tools. There are different kinds of BPM technologies, not just a BPMS. The latest features in the BPMSs are now supportnig a greater variety of process types going forward, however/ I am afraid of wholesale BPR as well, but some times it’s necessary.
Jim
3 Sylvain Astier August 3, 2009 at 7:49 pm
I am pro-toolbox as well. What you call the “Pure Methods” I regard as “Raw Methods.” For the creation of one’s own toolbox, one must consider the input material. A wise man once said that previous success is a recipe for failure. The assumption is that a business is a chaotic environment and therefore similar causes might have extremely different consequences. So, intuitively, I would assume that every raw method needs further analysis and customization before it can be enacted and undergo improvement cycles.
Still, it is a difficult and context-dependent decision. For instance, in health care, they have to follow strict protocols, and as a patient I would feel much better if they weren’t locally interpreted and customized.
Sylvain Astier
Product Manager, BPM
Axway