“Workflow”. Not entirely, mind you; the workflow concept is still a vital part of what BPM does. But we are doing so much more than that (and at the same time much less, as in various case management scenarios). When we refer to the digital applications we're building on BPM platforms, “workflow” just doesn't do justice to the scope of the accomplishment.
I think, the problem not with some "BPM words" but with the absence of a proper concept system. See "Concepts crisis in IT and siter domains" [ref1]
I don't really have any word or acronym that hops out as bad jargon. I think we need to look at it from another angle and ask what jargon could we introduce to help make the BPM space more accessible to everyone. I think the term Citizen Developer is a good example of creating new jargon to help average people understand a term. I would challeng us to think about better words for BPMN terms like "Sequence Flow", "Lane", "Pool", etc.
If we want average people to play our BPM game, let's make it easier to understand.
How about let's rewind to an empty list?
Then, add terms that end-users will be able to understand and relate to (i.e. workers who are the main beneficiaries of BPM and management who benefit indirectly from BPM), with a resolve to strongly resist any attempt to add jargon.
The term "Center of Excellence" should not be used for business units that spew out bafflegab or provide "advice and assistance" that subjects audiences to incantations.
BPMS....BPM is the discipline to collect information on how to achieve required business outcomes putting people first. The S has deflected that important message whether it it's System Software or Suite. Let's call the result application what it does with that required and essential adaptive tag...or anyone got a better one....? The point is let's not confuse business buyers and keep BPM pure and focused.
I have actually no recollection of overusing BPM jargon - in all our projects we don't describe technically what everything on the BPMN chart does, we just follow along with the flow. We target basic audiences which would be immediately alienated by CIO blabber.
So the only ones that really bug me are standard management speak around the BPM bullshit bingo contest: "efficiency", "streamlining", "customer is first", the list is endless.
However, since we know how the BPM industry is NOT tackling it's ADD, shouldn't we be equally wary of the new slang that seems to be creeping up: "bots", "zero code", "agile", "MVP", "social" that seem to be plastered onto BPM not because it's relevant, but just because it's hip.
Maybe that would be the subject of a separate question?
I think we need to provide a new perspective to the whole space as most people alluded on this thread. While the existing technology can be the basis for this next wave, the message needs to be adjourned and restated towards the end users and a new look from a consumer angle would be ideal in my humble opinion. BPM (using the current term) should not be something only owned and managed by IT, but a broader solution to its end users or consumers.
Agility. Is there any software application less agile than the BPMs? Oh and any use of the term "maturity model" which is just analyst speek, condescending and an attempt to upsell the customer a load of other non essential capabilities.
How about "style"?
I'm hesitant to propose this term for disfavour though, because BPM style is an important requirement for BPMS users to master.
But the phrase hides something as well, which is that much of what BPM style concerns is work-arounds for imperfect technology. And the effect on a BPM team of business analysts is to define BPM as more difficult than it needs to be.
Consider again "accounting" -- there are accounting best practices and GAAP and well-designed charts of accounts and great cashflow management etc. etc. -- but not really a body of knowledge or behaviour known as "accounting style". I suspect that at some point in the future the need for this term might diminish and it will be shown to be an artefact of developing technology.
Lots of valuable material here.
If we move forward and clean up BPM jargon, no point doing this without a parallel initiative for ACM jargon and, to an extent, CEM jargon.
How many at this discussion support the idea that . . .
1. b2b today no longer has a singular focus on end-to-end processes, the focus has shifted to "process fragments".
2. Objectives can no longer conveniently be parked at process end points (i.e. there are very few of these).
3. Work is now a mix of process fragments and ad hoc "processes of one step each", threaded together by users, software and machines.
4. We need an environment capable of hosting work..
5. A reasonable solution is "Case" which can accommodate any number of objects (digital data, doc/pdf, spreadsheet, even video recordings), as well as host objectives (i.e. objectives have moved from plan side to run time side).
6. BPM becomes a core component of Case (with easy accommodation, by the way, of CEM).
7. Case hosts the work (structured interventions as well as ad hoc interventions);it also hosts Case objectives and tools such as FOMM (non-subjective assessment of progress toward meeting Case objectives).
8. Case supports Adaptive Case Management which is capable of providing orchestration and governance in respect of the performance of work at Cases and management of workload across Cases.
9. As Emiel has pointed out, we probably need to define Case more sharply (lots of blog articles on this at www.kwkeirstead.wordpress.com for anyone who wants to dive in).