BPM.com
  1. Peter Schooff
  2. Sherlock Holmes
  3. BPM Discussions
  4. Thursday, 09 April 2015
  5.  Subscribe via email








From bpmNEXT to this forum, there have been distinct rumblings about BPM needing to rebrand and rename itself. So if BPM had a new name, what do you think it should be?
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

we just ran an april fool's joke at bp3 about naming our methodology :)


we could re-label BPM by naming it after the longest commenters in BPM.com history... short list of candidates....
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 1
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

The new name for BPM is whatever you have domain expertise in, and are able to build credible line of business "applications". So if you are experts in pharma R&D then call it a name those guys will recognise and relate to. If you are great at Customer Experience then pick a name that makes sense to CX or CS (Customer Success) managers.


If you look at the big BPM players such as Pega they call themselves "CRM evolved" and all their marketing reinforces that message including Alan Trefler's recent book.


If you are a generalist, then you are in trouble. In that case look at markets where your platform could be a player, and then go and find some partners (business consultants, not technical consultants) who have the domain expertise and can help you build a product offering.


 
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 2
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

I think it would make things easier if we go for 2 names separating the management aspects from the automation aspect.


Something like eg "Business Management" for all business related aspects: Modeling, BPA, BPR, change management etc.


And something like eg "Process Automation" or "Workflow Automation" refering to the act of creating software support for processes using a BPMS.


I believe it would resolve a lot of misunderstandings if we stop using the same name to refer to these distinct aspects.
Tom Baeyens
Signavio.com
Comment
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 3 years ago
  3. #741
Comment agree. Then I don't have to bite my tongue anymore when I read 'the process was implemented in the system'
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 3
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

We always referred to BPM in the "PRIDE"-ISEM methodology as Phases 3-7,


Phase 3 - "Sub-System Design" (includes preparation of testing criteria)


Phase 4-I - "Administrative Procedure Design" (writing people procedures)


Phase 4-II - "Software Engineering" (includes preparation of testing criteria for software)


Phase 5 - "Software Manufacturing" (includes unit testing) - Note: a separate Phase 5 is conducted for each program in the Sub-System.


Phase 6 - "Software Testing" (a string test of the programs in the Sub-System)


Phase 7 - "Sub-System Testing" (a complete test of the business process)





As to a sexy new name for BPM, I'll stick with what I know.
References
  1. http://www.phmainstreet.com/mba/ss050829.pdf
  2. http://http//timbryce.com/
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 4
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

I'm gonna go Steve Austin, $6M man here and go with "better, stronger, faster." :D
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 5
Brian Reale
Blog Writer
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

Workflow. It should have never been changed to BPM.


Although, I must say I 100% agree with Ian which begs the question - "who cares?" If your business model is a generalist business model, it doesn't matter if you are selling workflow, bpm, case management, adaptive case management - it will still be difficult to sell because you will not be directly solving the pain of the buyer. I think everyone in the industry knows this by now.






Comment
  1. Patrick Lujan
  2. 3 years ago
  3. #740
Yeah, that'd rile up the masses and take us back to c.1998-1999. I'm good with it, but the vendors would overrule us as BPM supposedly superseded workflow back around 2003, 2004 and is better than just straight through automation because it provides analytics and "continuous process improvement," though nobody really does both, much less do them well.
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 3 years ago
  3. #742
Work doesn't flow (ok no jokes about working on a ship), cases flow.

So I think case management is not such a bad name. You try to manage your case to bring it to good end. And to fo that, maybe the case flows from work to work.
  1. Brian Reale
  2. 3 years ago
  3. #744
It's good to revive the old styles. Let's be vintage and go back to circa 1998 :)
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 3 years ago
  3. #746
Actually I prefer the seventies. No smart things, no environment, just working and having a beer when coming home ;-)
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 6
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

DWYP Do what you promise. What else do you need processes (and maybe some management of it) for?


But indeed; BPM is a very vague term. Actually every company is managing it's processes each day. Only some suck in it and think they have to buy stuff to it better.  And many end up with a cupboard full of drills, whil the only thing they needed was a hole. 


Actually process management itself is strange. You don't manage processes; you manage cases and you execute a process for those cases. 


But in the end I don't care about the name because it should be, as said above by some,  brought into the context of an organization.  'We build cars'  'We repair legs'  etc. That makes sense to people.  


So every company does BPM. But they don't care about BPM; they care about the cases for which they execute THEIR processes. 
Sharing my adventures in Process World via Procesje.nl
Comment
  1. Patrick Lujan
  2. 3 years ago
  3. #743
It's a catch-all term. Clients invoke the term in broad, sweeping statements, but then they get down on the metal talking about this project or that initiative.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 7
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

How about Modernization of Business Operations?


There are so many instances of BPM being utilized to replace something that fails to meet modern standards. Process doesn't need to be "managed." It needs to be modernized. And that includes streamlining/automation/simplification, etc., taking something that might be clunky, but passably functional, and turning it into a shiny, newer, more useful product.


Of course the acronym MBO could be confused with the term "Management by Objectives," but those concepts still hold up and jibe nicely with the tenets of BPM, so why not?
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 8
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation




I like the idea of Ian in terms of marketing approach. However, to support this idea I suggest first identify the real customer pain, and then create a business solution in which we can articulate many concepts whenever necessary, as BPM, GRC, EA, etc.. In my opinion, the key is not sell each of these isolated concepts in a vendor perspective, but master them and know how to use them to solve concrete problems of each particular client, showing added value for his business.
Comment
  1. Patrick Lujan
  2. 3 years ago
  3. #745
It's called "solutions architecture."
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 9
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

BPM is boring, it's fact. Rebranding may help.


Besides it isn't very accurate. The word "business" isn't appropriate for e.g. government agencies. "We don't have any business here" - I was told exactly this at US Embassy.


Geary Rummler called himself "Performance Consultant" and he's good the point.


Some respectful process consultant position themselves as Business Transformation Experts. This makes sense, too.


iBPMS was a step too short to make a significant difference.


Digital Transformation overlaps with BPM on probably 90% and it seems to be more attractive to potential users. On the other hand, "Transformation" is associated with a one-shot project rather than a strategy.


Split it by verticals like CX or CRM? Interesting idea but I believe BPM is a horizontal disciplne. We are involved in very different projects in very different industries and corporate cultures but they all are BPM projects.


Workflow? Something from the last millenium. Even more boring than BPM ;)


The bottomline: BPM is bad term but current alternatives aren't better.
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 10
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

Let's remember that BPM is really a discipline with its origins in BPR not a software technology. Unfortunately the confusion, probably deliberate, has indeed caused some legitimate concern hence the question? I think the real issue is now to describe the supporting technology that will now be required to deliver at enterprise level yet keep BPM as the required thinking to establish the needs.


So we need a new "TLA" that says what the supporting software actually does. First A for Adaptive a tag in play and some definitions with ACM. Then reality is Digital is now high up in profile and need for businesses and of course is people centric. Then a "P" for either Process making the link to BPM or perhaps Platform recognising the needs to be complete in capability to build or maybe both....? So my suggestion is ADP or ADPP.
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 11
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

I really enjoyed Ian Gott’s comment about specialization and segmentation. Since the book ‘Crossing the Chasm’ was published, the idea of implementing study cases in particular industries seems to be a formula for success.


However, I don’t think that BPM should be renamed at all. It is the appropriate name because it summarizes and describes the discipline. And it is a common mistake, especially among vendors, to think of it as a technology. Are data bases industry related? No. And what about operative systems? Also no. Does their name specify what solution they offer? No. Specialization must come from every company and in addition to BPM.


Every BPM Suite can have a specific industry, but it should not be limited by it. An example which I am very familiar with is [url=http://integradoc.com/INGLES/index.html]INTEGRADOC[/url], a BPM product specialized in document-based business processes. It’s specific enough but it is not industry-limited. It’s specialized and it offers really short implementation times.


All in all, what’s really important is to find a specialization, whether it is by industry or process type to reuse knowledge, reduce implementation costs, gain future references and spread the use of BPM. Without changing any names J
References
  1. http://www.flokzu.com/en/
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 12
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

Re-branding the current mess is like putting old wine in a new bottle.


I think that the best way to “un-boring” BPM is to start changing ourselves first as the BPM community – have a commonly-agreed reference model, reference architectures, set of practical patterns, strong user community, etc. If this work then we may consider re-branding.


Thanks,


AS
Comment
  1. Patrick Lujan
  2. 3 years ago
  3. #747
Right! Let's get our own act together - common message - then take it to the street.
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 3 years ago
  3. #748
No, that would be putting all wine in millions of the same bottles.

I don't think BPM 'in general' does exist, so don't waste time on maintaining that illusion.
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 3 years ago
  3. #750
To explain above comment a little; I mean that you can easily make a general BPM story, but it doesn't make sense. It is cool on seminars, so it should be translated to the context of real processes.
RE "I mean that you can easily make a general BPM story, but it doesn't make sense. It is cool on seminars, so it should be translated to the context of real processes." - thanks for a perfect definition of the current mess - no actionable knowledge which can be re-used in practice without the author of this knowledge.

So, we are alchemists right now. It may be profitable for some individuals but very detrimental for the BPM (discipline, tools, practices, industry, etc.).

I am still waiting for volunteers to make together new BPM.

Then we may re-brand it as, for example, Really Useful Better Lighter Experience (RUBLE).
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 3 years ago
  3. #752
We all do BPM each day, so maybe it's better to share all the do's and don'ts instead of trying to make some kind of general definition. That's like making a definition of 'human'. That's easy but probably will not apply to many.

But about the do's and dont's; I must admit, you might be right that we need a context for that. And maybe you already wrote that context in your comment; discipline, tools, practices etc.

Then the context comes in because then general BPM ideas touch ground in specific industries and for specific problems.
I use the "iceberg" analogy - understanding of its visible part is not enough to decide about its behavior and thus do's and dont's

RE "context" - for example - http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.ch/2010/02/bpm-reference-model-fragment-01.html
Common understanding (WHY, WHAT and HOW) among all people (governors, managers, architects, operators, service providers, etc.) involved helps to improve operations (including enabling innovations, reduce risk, etc.) thus achieve better CX. Tested via looking after a mentally handicapped child for 20+ years.
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 3 years ago
  3. #758
Yes agree, and I also use general concepts/pictures when doing a workshop/project.


For example toe xplain the difference between process improvement (locker room talk) and process management (daily business) http://www.procesje.nl/cycle.jpg

But after that it's all about; how ambitious do you wanna be in managing your processes and what do we have to set up to make it happen in real life.

So, rethinking all that I've written here; I think that is what I miss often in BPM world; how to apply all those cool ideas. How to solve problems with it. BPM world sometimes seems quite academic.
RE "how to apply all those cool ideas. How to solve problems with it. BPM world sometimes seems quite academic." I would say that BPM is very powerful but not enough - a combination of several methodologies and technologies is necessary, e.g. http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.ch/2014/10/e-government-reference-model-gegf2014.html
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 13
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

In the great tradition of finding acronyms that depict a departure from an established norm just to find ways to plug it back into the same norm years later, I would call the new BPM:


[b]NoBPM[/b]
(Not-only BPM)


Reasons:


1. This would make acronyms like iBPM, SPA, ACM, CJM, CRM, SCM, HRM etc immediately obsolete. They're all not-only BPM!


2. This would give everyone freedom to continue to safely mix business processes, technical processes, systems, methodologies and architectures.


3. Max will finally say
[b]yes[/b]
to this one type of BPM.


4. Years later people not adopting this acronym will be regarded as the few wisemen that envisioned that the mainstream world, tired of long acronyms, will go back to simply "BPM"


5. Years later there will be rebel factions deploying
[i]NewBPM[/i]
,
[i]NuoBPM, NoBPM-done-right, No-BPMN[/i]
and other poisonous gifts to the unsuspecting customers.


Have a great weekend everyone :-)
CEO, Co-founder, Profluo
Comment
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 3 years ago
  3. #760
Argument 3 makes this the winner! ;-)
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 14
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

If we're going for a new cool shoe shine for BPM, I'm pretty sure that we should also think about creating a Manifesto to go along with it :-P


People like Manifestos :D
Comment
  1. Patrick Lujan
  2. 3 years ago
  3. #763
And cookies. They like cookies.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 15
  • Page :
  • 1


There are no replies made for this post yet.
However, you are not allowed to reply to this post.