Good discussion, but I'm not sure that the question is anything else than another version of "what good is BPM?" (I read the original article referenced from Forbes; it was more general than I hoped.)
If BPM is just another technology among many, however powerful BPM technology may be, then all our argumentation about the meaning of BPM takes place in a closed BPM talk shop, without any sense that the wider world should pay attention.
On the other hand, if BPM is acknowledged as "the technology that explicitly addresses the question of the organization of work", where work and its products, including profits, are the purpose of business or any organization, then BPM is interesting and the wider world should take notice. And eventually will.
And with the acknowledgement of the importance of BPM, BPM will be taught in schools along with debits and credits. At such point one could say that BPM should be one of the first things you do when you set up a company, along with defining your chart of accounts.
As it is, BPM as a technology or as a discipline is not yet sufficiently powerful to bear that burden. If I had to place bets I'd say that we'll get closer to that goal when BPM and systems theory meet up.