BPM.com
  1. Peter Schooff
  2. Sherlock Holmes
  3. BPM Discussions
  4. Thursday, 03 May 2018
  5.  Subscribe via email
Customer journey maps were big this year at bpmNEXT, with several companies trying to represent various parts of the customer journey visually. Like BPMN and CMMN, do you think we need a standard Customer Journey Model and Notation?
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
It would certainly be helpful if there was standardized notation for Customer Journeys... as well as guidance for the verbiage that's crucial to understanding them.

Until I'd seen a really well crafted set from one of my clients, I didn't fully "get" what needed to be captured. As the saying goes, a picture is worth 1000 words... But (the right) words + (the right) pictures are priceless.
Founder at John Reynolds' Venture LLC - Creator of ¿?Trules™ for drama free decisions
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 1
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
There is a more important question and that is whether BPMN needs to be overhauled. Has the industry shifted and a better graphical representation is needed? Does it go away and it's replaced by customer journey mapping? Yes. parts of BPMN are still useful and need to be leveraged. However, the context needs to shift. Given all the changes in platforms, low code and 'agility' needs, time is not on the side of lengthy analysis so the challenge is what tool/approach best aligns the context and modeling of the business to encapsulate into a DPA (BPM) platform? I will be interested to follow industry comments on the topic you have presented here and other channels on 'approach' to capturing the business model for purposes of BPM and DPA platform encapsulation.
Comment
  1. John Reynolds
  2. 7 months ago
  3. #5310
In my experience, BPMN is unable to effectively represent "ad-hoc" processes where activities can be revisited at any time.
This is where I think Journey Maps could be very helpful - If you look back on a map of your journey, it's clear if you revisited a location and it's clear how many times and from where you chose to revisit the location.

Most business processes aren't as structured as BPMN assumes (In my experience)
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 7 months ago
  3. #5315
@john: Looking back on a map of your journey (lik with gps tracking) sounds like something like process mining to me. And indeed, then you might see all kind of crazy paths ;-)
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 2
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
No. Customer is just a player in a process. It's weird to see a customer journey as something separate from your 'internal' processes.

So any process notation (choose one that best fits your type of process) will work.
Sharing my adventures in Process World via Procesje.nl
Comment
Agree.. " . . . any process notation will work"

I would add

"if your workflow/workload management system hosting background BPM for ‘internal’ processes requires virtually ‘no’ notation, then the customer journey will work with virtually ‘no’ notation.

Of course, we have to define what "no" notation means.

I would qualify two circles interconnected with a directional arrow as using two (2) notations. Then, part of essentials for BPM, we have 'branching decision boxes' and loopbacks constructs and assignment of a name to a circle is of course also a notation.

I would not consider performance skill level routings at "circles" or "nodes' as a notation, nor a rule set at a form at a node as a "notation" b/c you don't see these at the graphic mapping canvas. These can be described as attributes of nodes.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 3
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
We already have several notations to model the formal (and easier) part: steps, conditions, flows. We now need to represent, in order to analyze and improve, the soft side of the customer experience.

I think a customer journey notation would be useful, if and only if, it adds non-technical, non-structured elements, that better represent customer's mood, expected actions, expected reactions to different stimuli, etc.

And, in the same line, it'd be great to have some indicators (like a KPI) to measure the customer experience during the customer journey. What do we expect him to achieve? How do we measure it?

Best regards,
CEO at Flokzu Cloud BPM Suite
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 4
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
At least two viewpoints have to be considered.

1. Vendor of products and services (Thanks Emiel): Customer is just a player in a process.
2. Person: If you, Mr Vendor, have good products and services and I noticed them and I really need them now then I accept you being my supplier for this particular act of purchasing.

My guess: Person’s model is about a mixture of big-data algorithms and some cellular automaton patterns.

Thanks,
AS
Comment
@Alexander - I think the minimum viewpoints for a user population consisting of internal users, customers, and remote devices, all wanting to view data on a need to know basis, invoke processing on a need-to-know basis comprise:

a) an RDP or wired log-in for internal users,
b) a portal access for non-internals such as customers
c) an FTP or similar access method for remote devices, given these cannot launch a browser, go to a URL and then type in info\rmation.

We piloted an e-hub with a managed care company that automatically uploaded tomorrow's patient list for each of 100 clinics and downloaded every few hours the latest Case History entries at the e-hub (from all clinics). The uploads and downloads were totally automated (FTP up/downloads)

Result: Any clinic seeing a patient where the patient may have a relationship with a GP, a specialist, a lab will have the full suite of encounter recordings across all 100 clinics.

Of course, each clinic has to upload to the hub, a copy of all encounter recordings they make to their individual clinic EHRs.

This setup works/is useful for a managed care company where all of the clinics participating in the up/downloads are member clinics. Any labs that the MCC deals with also need to be "members" of the MCC e-hub.

The e-hub never made it to production status as the MCC got bought out by a larger MCC and, in typical fashion, the acquiring entity tossed out all of the technology that the acquired MCC had developed.

It often seems the purpose of an acquisition is to grab the customers and little else.



and the third viewpoint - consider a person also as a company and apply business-architecture for inter-company partnership (B2B).
@Karl, "tomorrow's patient list for each of 100 clinics " - this is an example of co-process pattern.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 5
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
With the growing focus on customers and the digital era, companies face enormous transformation challenges. In this context, it seems useful for me to create a market standard for representation and maintenance of the CX process, which can facilitate the approaches and support the decision making of the necessary investments.

Thanks,
Jose
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 6
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Not now. At the moment we need to focus on thinking harder about CX in general, and how we conceptualize it with respect to creating business applications.

Let's face it: even great companies often seem to have a difficult time seeing the world in the way that their customers do. As an example: iOS has devolved from offering the simple and understandable usability model it once represented, to a hilariously complex and oversensitive muddle of clicking (no, click harder! wait, not that hard!) and dragging (from the bottom, wait, not the very bottom, the ALMOST bottom).

A notation will inevitably bog down to primitives like user makes decision and moment of truth. We already understand these concepts. We need to worry about more abstract phenomena, like, user gets sick of trying to remember which combination of arbitrary gestures will pull up their boarding pass at security, and throws their phone against the wall. Not that's a standard I could get behind.
http://www.bplogix.com/images/icon-x-medium.png
-Scott
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 7
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Yes please. Let's have 240 different symbols and some complex apps to build the models so that we can magically create CRM systems from the models that are so complex only a few CJMN professionals can use. And then we can debate on the newsgroups why it never took off yet. But whilst all that is happening marketing automation apps are providing customer journey mapping for the masses for free.
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 8
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
The need of a customer journey map notation standard would really depend on the extend such map is intended to express the process details. In that sense, I would argue that it would be eventually helpful to have some standardization to easily differentiate between macro concepts (like perceived values, real life touch points, deliverables and so on), but not as much as a whole, dedicated notation. I think for customer journey maps, which by themselves are seldomly done as part of a BPM project anyways, flexibility of how to represent it, may be an advantage. This is mainly due to the large amount of possible use cases, for which different representation styles can be absolutely valid. For a retail store process, for example, an animated customer journey map can be more indicative for process improvements than a step matrix.
Also, if one would have to face BPMN, DMN, CMMN and then eventually a CJMN(??), this may lead to an unnecessary complexity during the analysis and design phase, eventually causing an analysis-paralysis, doing more harm than good.
NSI Soluciones - ABPMP PTY
Comment
@Kay .. I have a question re ". . . .customer journey maps, which by themselves are seldomly done as part of a BPM project "

Suppose I have a flow "order -> receive" and I want to expand this to

"order -> [start fabrication] -> [ready for pre-ship test] -> [ship] -> receive"

where the three steps in brackets are the supplier journey.

Companies like Lockheed who outsource a lot typically include touchpoints like this in their contracts with suppliers. Manytimes they want to do an onsite inspection so, the flow would further expand to this..

"order -> [start fabrication] -> [ready for pre-ship test] -> {on site test} -> [ship] -> receive"

where "on site test" is a step that requires the simultaneous presence of a customer inspector and a supplier technician.

So, why is there a perhaps general feeling that customer/supplier maps are "seldomly done as part of a BPM project"?
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 9
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I have always been puzzled as to the term "notation" as applied to a a "language" to build. The comments suggest relates to the map of what is required. Mapping processes existed long before BPM was created and used to look at existing processes and identifying weaknesses not to plan the future build of supporting structures. Just mapping a process in today's environment is a theoretical exercise unless the knowledge is available to quickly implement a build. This was the challenge we and many others saw in the 80s! So what happened. Here is an overview to put into context of standards and journeys...

When in the late 80s we embarked up on our "mission" to find a better way to build "applications" our starting point was to research the core needs for creation of new information. This of course put people at center and to our surprise and disbelief by many we discovered that there where less than 15 task types which reflect all business needs. Indeed such support for business logic has not changed nor will change in recognition of evolution of technologies supplying communications and security; the pony express is now the web! Of course the UI was a very important task as were the "links" to join all up as required which included rules of the business. We recognized the need to incorporate not just users but their roles and of course ability to link to legacy; all were orchestrated by a "process engine". We coded all as generic with capability to configure as required which removed need to custom code.

We decided that to co-ordinate all requirements we had to express such task as data and use the power of relational database technology. After this was coded it was only then we decided to reflect this build environment into a Graphical interface or the "model" and we used the long established icons to reflect the different tasks but with ability for customization if required. This allowed business skills to build direct with users with a declarative technique at a click from the model to the database ready to run. This architecture supports ready change which is vital for this front line "BPM" approach.

We were fortunate that we managed to get early adopters pre 2000 where we could learn and understand what we had and prove it worked...or not! By this time BPM was emerging but our thinking was with hindsight was so far advanced the analysts just did not get it....and some do not want to get it! Well it worked and even we were surprised at what could be built. However we talked business language not "IT" and we were decades ahead of the game! BUT we have proven that this simple but powerful approach has no limitations in the build of any business process simple or complex and all driven by less than 15 task types displayed in a model as some describe as "notation"! (not a term we would use).

So in context of a "customer journey" with 15 generic task types established as a "standard" it allows very quick of any custom customer centric process which in reality includes many internal processes. We would focus on customer experience with strong focus on the UI with need to enter new data only once and allow customer to be engaged in making the right decisions for them.

As for our "journey" despite many set backs including ridicule by many including analysts the technology is secure and as the market now moves our way we prepare. Will we set a new standard? Time will tell.....!
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 10
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Dr. Samarin mentions "cellular automaton patterns". This is an important clue concerning technology and customer journey. Customer journey is "the view from outside", and the outside can be either vendor or client organization. In either case a corporate (or SMB entity). And as for the "human being", they are merely red dots (sometimes) moving through the process as we track them.

The good thing about this discussion is that process is now seen as a general concept which can span organizational boundaries. That's a big step forward. And as has been suggested above, existing process modeling and execution tools are as good as any. Until they get even better.

So, what about automata? Or better, "autonomous human actors", or human beings? The view from "inside" the human being's consciousness? This is an interesting question. One can make a "Lego(R)" brick argument that great software could be built first of all from such a foundation. And then processes would be emergent behaviour by flocks of human beings. And sometimes flocks of human beings would be organized into corporate entities, and sometimes they are just swarming consumers.
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 11
  • Page :
  • 1


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