The challenge most BPM vendors (and software vendors in general) face is that the types of change you’re suggesting run far deeper than simply putting a pretty face on things or adding a new widget in their suite.

Changing how a user gets their work done requires a deep commitment to user-experience design, solid research, and an understanding of how people actually use the system. While this might seem \intuitively obvious to the most casual observer\, I’m still surprised how unusual it is. The point Nik makes above about users not wanting to be fed mindlessly with tasks is a prime example. How many BPM vendors intimately understand how their loan processors really do their jobs?

The key is to give companies a head start by providing as much capability and flexibility as possible out of the box. Whether the user-experience is a portal, a workbench, or an office app, it’s about providing users with the tools to get their work done and allowing them to \make it theirs\ so that we maximize their productivity.

The same could be said of unstructured process support. This is about so much more than just having a list of tasks and calling it unstructured. It’s also about understanding that while some processes benefit from a structured process engine, a large number need more flexibility than a conventional BPM solution offers (I fully support your estimate of 80%).

Further, most processes benefit from a blend of structured and unstructured capabilities. Think about the Underwriter in your workbench example. Experience tells me that the differences between entry level and experienced were in the amount of flexibility those folks needed to be effective. We can deal with some of that with business rules, but too often we hamper their work by enforcing a \standard\ approach. As processes mature or become commoditized, we can increase the structure as appropriate without compromising the intent.

Last point in a long comment is that I think the two concepts you’ve introduced, while separate and distinct in concept, are inter-related. In the end it’s about providing people with a better way to get their work done and keeping them from creating workarounds. Some of that is through an enhanced work experience and some is through supporting the way they do their work if it’s not easily structured.

I agree that supporting people working on BPM solutions with enhanced, fit for purpose “work experiences” is essential. One way that this can be achieved today is by complementing BPM technology with enterprise mashups that focus specifically on creating task-based user interfaces and applications for users.

This approach works by creating user-centric integrations that combine the needed functionality into screens and guides the user through the right steps / options. Crucially they can be easily defined and changed along with the business process itself by applying the idea of “composition” to the UI. They also offer the opportunity to achieve the kind of flexibility needed to support unstructured human activities within defined and governed boundaries.

Regards
David

thanks for the numbers. But now I am a bit lost. If it is actually that high, how do you define an unstructured activity?

Is that any activity we don’t have a rule or instruction for or are we talking any activity triggered by an outside event like a phone call or an incoming invoice?

Thanks, Nik

The estimates of unstructured activty range from 60-90%. I would bet around 80%, but I do not have scientific proof yet.

There is activty around linking project management and BPM. Vendors with a vision are Appian, IVIS and Handysoft. Also a number of the bug tracking/help desk vendors are headed towards BPM. BMC and Symantec have offerings, though Symantec has a visionary offering that leverages collaboration.

Jim

there are probably a couple more points, like potential for automation but the above mentioned points are -no doubt- very important.

When we started implementing a workflow software in our company, one of the big issues was that the employee had no more paper file and relied on the tasks given to him. He/She did not know where in the process he/she was and what else might needs to be done.

You can wipe the argument of the table and say “do not care about that!”. But the majority of our employees is interested and smart. They think about what they do and they don’t want to fed mindlessly with tasks.

Therefore giving them the process transparency to understand the task they are working on completely is very important.

Re. the ‘Unstructured Activity’.

I would actually be interested in statistics about the number of unstructured activities vs. process activities. I could imagine that the number of unstructured activities is fairly high, depending on the industry and their process maturity.

Maybe we see an integration of project management and bug tracker software into workflow platforms in the upcoming years. At least, I would bet on it.

Regards, Nik