Jim SinurThe problem with IT folks defining the next generation of the BPM discipline, is that IT folks come with technology and architectures biases. The process folks want to process model the world, data and content folks want all the data and states predefined, the rules folks want to define all the logic ahead of time and the events folks want to look for events they deem interesting beforehand. The application math formulas to static data by the business intelligence folks requires a fragile environment. What’s wrong with this picture. None of these approaches are balanced and none are flexible by nature.
![MP900442686[2]](http://blogs.gartner.com/jim_sinur/files/2011/07/WindowsLiveWriterSocialBPMRequiresBalanceandFlexibility_C37EMP9004426862_2.jpg)
Social BPM will require a flexible and integrated approach to these four facets. Dynamic BPM technology is the process answer to the next generation of BPM but that’s not good enough alone. Adjustable content management is the content/data answer to the next generation of BPM, but that’s not good enough alone. Boundary constraints is the policy/rule answer to the next generation of BPM, but that’s not good enough alone. Complex events management is the event answer to the next generation of BPM, but that’s not good enough alone. Real time BI that leverages in-flight data is the BI answer, but that is not good enough alone. Are you catching a pattern here? Flexing each individual approach is good but falls short of the goal.
Net-Net:
The intelligent application of all of these approaches will be necessary going forward. Biases will have to be left at the door and the intelligent inclusion of all of these aspects to tie human and machine interaction in the next generation of BPM technologies and disciplines will be the way of the future.
Category: BPM Business Process Improvement Business Rules Optimization Simulation Social Strategic Planning Virtualization Tags: BPM, Business Rules, Optimization, Simulation, Social
6 responses so far ↓
1 Dave Duggal July 11, 2011 at 7:10 am
Great point. I agree, structured process, rules and data represent a form of premature optimization.
Structures set at design-time in a fixed way, are gratuitous in the sense they don’t allow flexibility in light of user context. Whenever we get trapped, as a customer or employee, in non-responsive processes/rules/information we immediately recognize that as bureaucracy.
I really appreciate that you go beyond describing an emergent behavioral process, to suggest a generative process capability. This requires a fundamentally different technological approach to business processes, a system that reacts to users rather having them conform to a static model. This makes process ‘conversational’ a 2-way street, rather than the one-way road it has been.
2 Chris Taylor July 11, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Good blog, good comments by Dave. We need to move beyond the mindset that IT creates a technological version of something humans currently do (thus all of the assumptions at design time). This mindset has been the bias that underpinned automation technologies for thirty years and we don’t let go of the familiar all that easily.
The generative process capability has been coming for some time, as users have been asking for and getting configurable interfaces at an accelerating rate (with things like Salesforce.com as a great leap forward), but Social concepts are speeding things up as the gatekeepers’ (managers, marketing, etc.) role changes to one of coordinator. Social media also allows the like-minded to come together and discover that their expectations aren’t unique, pushing the boundaries even farther, faster (think: Arab Spring).
The thing I’d like the most is the one thing no one has invented yet…the ability to see how all of this will be sorted out. Lacking that tool, I will try to be as flexible with my own biases as possible so that I’m not an impediment to progress with my coworkers and customers.
3 Pearl Zhu July 13, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Hi, Jim, great posting, I also enjoy both Dave and Chris’s comments, yes, I think the future of BPM have to be more focusing on the process innovation, beyond today’s automation, any one single discipline improvement can not make it happen, it need base on the revitalized EA/Modern Data Management/BI/Cloud., etc, to orchestrate more holistic solutions.
I look forward to reading your further blogs later.
thanks.
4 Social BPM Update | Collaborative Planning & Social Business July 20, 2011 at 11:22 am
[...] Sinur steps into the discussion with “Social BPM Requires Balance and Flexibility.” He critiques the IT folks for wanting to predefine everything according to predictable [...]
5 Next Gen BPM: Making Your Processes Smarter August 8, 2011 at 3:58 pm
[...] http://blogs.gartner.com/jim_sinur/2011/07/10/social-bpm-requires-balance-and-flexibility/ [...]
6 Alberto Manuel August 9, 2011 at 6:15 am
Hello Jim:
Picking with your first paragraph the IT vs Business battle, I think it’s difficult trying to design a framework to manage social complexity.
On holidays I had some more time to read books, one of them was Empowered: Unleash Your Employees, Energize Your Customers, Transform Your Business, this book advocates a framework to knowledge workers empowerment – basically IT departments should provide collaboration tools, content and work applications people need, and on the other hand provide tools to manage security risks.
For those who read the book and for some others that advocate that IT blocks innovation, people should be set free and choose it’s path to do the work.
I think this is not so black and white.
Unfortunately London is facing riots, and on these days riot control (by the police) and riot coordination (by the rioters) is being done using social media tools.
Yesterday a very interesting article by Fast Company and others is British newspapers where saying that rioters have been using BlackBerry Messages because they are encrypted, but RIM disclose the content and it’s working with the police to investigate the content and control the riots. On the other hand the police is screening messages on social media and communications to in a dynamic hunt for crucial information to restore order and arrest people.
For me is quite clear that this so called empowerment approach cannot be set in place on a self service basis, like the rioters (your people) can choose a dangerous way to collaborate, on the other hand punting strictly security rules actually blocks ways that people need to work together.
More than Enterprise Architecture, Rules and Frameworks, that fail to understand this dynamics, business people and IT people need to work very close together to figure it out how to provide the right environment to people to collaborate. I think this is more an ad-hoc human transaction until some best practices can be put in place rather than a prescriptive method to achieve such empowerment paradigm that adaptive case management likes to support.
Some more thoughts around social collaboration can be found here:
http://ultrabpm.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/astc-adaptive-support-for-team-collaboration/
Regards:
Alberto Manuel