1. Peter Schooff
  2. Sherlock Holmes
  3. BPM Discussions
  4. Thursday, 15 September 2016
  5.  Subscribe via email

BPM has been around a long while and has many old and overused words that clearly show their age. So on that note, what BPM words, jargon or management-speak does everyone need to stop using ASAP?

Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

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

Damn Peter, that was my first option too ;-)

Ok, then I'll go with END-TO- END
Sharing my adventures in Process World via Procesje.nl
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 2
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
"Management" as in Business Process "Management" everything is managed, except businesses processes...
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2334
Why do we have 15 people in a Center of Excellence for that, then?
  1. Walter Bril
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2336
@Emiel, most COEs are instantiated, and run from, the technical side to disseminate knowledge on a given BPMS in a centralized manner because the number of people running around with the requisite experience on a given platform aren't the same number required to go effect the applications being contemplated on the platform. The business side, including the "management," is usually not done to the same degree of efficacy because the business LOBs usually don't get heavily enough involved in their own solutions beyond saying "give me a system that does 'x'." That's usually the "management" problem I see having been on four different COEs now at varying levels. Some "share the wealth" well, some not so much.

Pick on 'em all you want - COEs - but they have their time, place and usage and, like most everything else, it usually comes down to execution.
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2350
@patrick you're right, so I think I have to explain that the word "BPM center of Excellence" brings up memories of 15 people maintaining process models in Aris...
.@Emiel BTDT, railed against the machine. My claim to fame on COEs is keeping bad apps from getting into production.
RE "everything is managed, except businesses processes..." - BPM is not about management of business processes, but management of business by (or via) processes.
How about "ACM is not about management of business processes, but management of business by (or via) Cases".?
"Cases", though, has it's own set of problems (a patient case works, insurance claim case, law envorcement investigation case) ,but blank stares usually result from trying to call a aircraft unit under MRO a "case", or a manufacturing order. The list of bad fits exceeds the number where "case" is readily understood.
Karl, sometimes, I use the word "case" to avoid the "template vs instance" problem, i.e. "process instance" is case and process "process template" is process (as an explicit logic of how some work should be done or a plan). Thus "management of business by processes and cases" works fine.
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2381
I look to it the same as Alexander.

Cases are the things flowing through your processes (emiel who ordered a pizza, Patrick who requested a mortgage, Rick who applied for a permit, etc)

And an organization has processes to bring those cases to a good end. And when all the cases are the same, you could have a standardized process, if not you might need some more flexibility.

In the end it's all process to do what you promise to your customer, only processes can be executed and managed in different ways.

@Emiel, +1

Interesting to see the different ways of looking at cases/processes.

You have "Cases flowing through processes" -

How would you / do you relate to a Case as . . . .

a) a repository


b) an environment that hosts process templates

with data flowing through (or along) process templates that are in or at a Case, with a copy of each date/time intervention going to the Case History?.

The notion of a Case "flowing" is perplexing to me. I view Cases as stationary.

I see Emiel, the individual, as a Case at "Real Pizza", the pizza entity, Patrick as a Case at the "Easy Mortgage" entity and Rick as a Case at the "Legal Permits".entity. Each is a customer record position in a database.

If Emiel orders a 2nd pizza, Real Pizza continues to have only one Case record called Emiel, inside of which we now have two date.timestamped transactions at the Emiel Case History.

If new customer Patrick orders a pizza from Real Pizza, then Real Pizza needs to add a 2nd Case record called Patrick.

With this perspective of Case, CEM.can be easily accommodated. No need for separate software for CEM.

Real Pizza can anticipate CEM reachout to Emiel simply by including, plan-side, a step that has a Role="Emiel". the reachout posting goes to a portal UI, not to an InTray UI that employees of Real Pizza would look to for task assignments/workload management each day.

Real Pizza can also reach out to Emiel at run-time via insertion of an ad hoc step encoded to "Emiel".

If Emiel is, instead, a restaurant called "Emiel's Fine Dining" (EFD) that outsources pizza preparation, then we need an Entity called EFD.

In the EFD Entity, "Real Pizza" becomes a Case.

For each order placed by EFD on Real Pizza, we would have an order placement transaction at EFD\Case Real Pizza and an order fulfillment transaction at Entity Real Pizza\Case EFD.

Not too far away from blockchain if we get both Entities to append to a public ledger.
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2397

I see it completely different indeed. Probably because I always approach BPM from the business side.

To me, Emiel ordering a pizza the second me is just a new case entering the process "deliver pizza". So that case flows through the process.

To me cases are absolutely not static, it's the thing an organization is working on (and making some money with)

"A pizza delivery order" is what I would call a case type.

Cases to me are like the balls flowing through the process in process mining. All the balls are individual cases being processed. Balls of the same colour might be of the same casetype.

See this article I wrote


(just static pictures, but it makes clear what a case means to me)

Agree Cases are not static - they have a timeline, there may be lapses of time where nothing is happening but otherwise they are dynamic.

In healthcare, staff historically kept the Patient Case file in one central location (i.e. stationary). They would ask "where's the chart?" and spend a lot of time looking for it. Today all they know is that it's somewhere in the cloud, accessible from anywhere.

A physical paper Case for a custom-build snowmobile could indeed "flow" along a production line (i.e through a process).

Where we differ is on the notion of a process running within a Case versus a Case flowing along a process.

Presumably, the result is the same - in both, the Case knows who did what, when, where, how.
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2400
@karl, talking about a case the way you do, is very confusing to me ;-)
@Emiel, I have the same problem

"Cases" are pervasive in law enforcement and healthcare and have "case managers" whose job it is to bring cases to completion.

Before computers, the "case" was a file folder, everything went into this file and each time a new person is assigned to a case, they need to read the file to see the status. Nothing much changed going from paper to electronic in terms of the need to have easy access and have everything in one place.

A an example of a Case in law enforcement is - "United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) 5 The totality of circumstances in this case established a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was transporting illegal drugs; hence, the investigative stop without a warrant was valid"

In healthcare, "Karl" is an example of a Case. He has a car accident and the hospital sets up a Case with a sub-case of "trauma, with internal bleeding" - the sub-case is an "episode". A year later he has a gall bladder operation and the steps relating to this result is a new episode called "gall bladder removal: - because one episode can derive from another, it is important to the extent possible (same hospital) to not open a new case per episode.

What is common across the two industry areas is that the focus is on the legal dispute (always at least 2 parties) or the healthcare service rendered (one patient), not the specific processes accessed to advance the cases to completion.

I do see the value, for the purpose of improving a process, of tracking which cases used a process but the history for "United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) 5" or for "Karl" needs to be in one place i.e. at the Case hence the convenient notion that processes execute WITHIN these Cases.

The argument goes that the process needs data, the data relating to each Case is in the Case, therefore it seems logical (to me) to put an instance of a process template IN the case and record the results of executing steps along the instance of the template AT the Case.
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2404
Karl's accident would be Case 1 to and gal blatter surgery case 2. Other trigger, new case.

"Karl" to me, is just your patient file where everything is stored about you and your cases, but I wouldn't call that patient file a case in itself (unless it;s a suitcase where everything is stored on paper;-)

The hospital is working on case "fix Karl from his accident" and later on case "Fix Karl's blatter". They are not working on your patient file. That's just information to support the execution of process.

In the Netherlands it is called "Zaakgericht werken" but that's a little bit hard to translate ;-)

Let me guess; will a future question on the forum be, "what is a case"? ;-)
The question "What is a Case?" has been addressed a number of times over the past few years

Se3e "The Case of the Missing Case" (2011/12/18)

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

“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.
Scott's opinions only. Logo provided for identification purposes only.
+1. You think BPM has problems with terminology? That one word - "workflow" - has so many different meanings to so many different people for so long now.
  1. Peter Hilton
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2343
Patrick’s right. It might be nice if everyone understood the same distinct meanings for ‘BPM’ and ‘workflow’ but that’s never going to happen, so we might as well just call it all ‘work’ and say what we mean when that’s not specific enough.
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2344
And that is what I have with consultancy talk like END-To END ;-)

What end? Please be clear about your process results!
"END-To END" someone is usually trying to talk about something holistically, but not being specific enough in what they're communicating per Peter's comment. It's a big one with consultants as you say. Usually in a conference room with a deck up on the projector and some business people in the room who don't know better when gobbledygook is being proffered.
I have a problem with "the workflow concept is still a vital part of what BPM does" and would suggest "BPM is still a vital part of workflow"

i.e. workflow/workload management is what advances you to Case objectives, but the mix of ad hoc interventions to structured can be 5/95% at one case and 95/5% at the next Case.

We can get around this by saying that each ad hoc intervention is a "process of one step", so all interventions become "processes".
I think I understand where you're coming from, in the sense that all of these things are part of the workflow (in the original, non-BPM meaning) of people engaged with one another to some shared purpose. But in this context it means something a lot more specific; after all, if a "workflow" can be anything from one step to everything everybody ever does, then the term is content-free. If it's something else, then let's distinguish it from applications built using the various tools and techniques we think of as BPM.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 4
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation


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]


  1. http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.ch/2015/10/concepts-crisis-in-it-and-sister-domains.html
I usually just say the platform name - "PegaPRPC," "IBM Case Manager," "IBM BPM" etc, barring a project name or acronym. One of the first things I throw in any artifact (strategy, blueprint, technical design, whatever) is a glossary.
@Patrick, thus users will say "We doing PEGA, IBM ,etc." instead of saying "We are doing management by processes".
@Alexander, By all means, BPMs is dated.

It implies that at some point along the 95/5% structured versus 5/95% structured mix, one should manage the work in a different environment.
@Alex, instead it is PEGA, IBM who is doing them :-)
@Bogdan, yes, also they define our application architecture :(
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 5
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

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.
Back to glossaries. And ontologies, and taxonomies, and thesauri, and...
That being said, I usually reserve terms like "sequence flow, "lane" and "pool" to discussions with the technical, delivery team. Consultants are notoriously bad at jargon in front of the business client and when I see it I usually whack 'em and call for the bailiff.
  1. Rick Willis
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2376
Hah! Thesauri

That could be the first time I have ever seen that word. I agree with calling the bailiff, too.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 6
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

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.

Thus each local glossary will be perfect, and all other glossaries will be classified as jargon.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 7
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

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.
My definition of a COE is "best practices and lessons learned standardized and codified into a framework and repeatable methodology." In practice it's mentoring (experience), re-usable assets and governance, with the last being most important. No teeth, no control.

Just my tuppence.
I'm OK with "mentoring", OK with "re-usable assets"..

As fir governance, seems to me that would come in the form of global rule sets (i.e. not rule sets at individual Cases) from top management via IT, not from any BPM COE.
  1. KM Mukku
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2394
I would also add that service industries in IT should never ever use the term Centre of Excellence to tag any service they provide.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 8
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

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.

Why "people first?" for business processes when industrial process control puts people last?

i.e. the objective in industrial process building is to end up with a process where all steps, save a few awkward ones, are totally automated. We then get people to perform the awkward ones.
BUT even automated industrial process are built by people remember Volkswagen..and sure a machine will pick up data and create an outcome people use. However point made you need to recognise machines can also create data as part of process and this needs to be incorporated into the end to end BPM thinking before build which should be capable of handling any data feed.
@David, You made an important point here.

We do have to make sure that outside (e.g. machine) data can be detected at run time and the only way I can think of to make sure that happens is to make provision "before build".

How, becomes a question. - the outside data flows into the case via a data exchanger and will just sit there in the Case unless processes take pains to consult this data.

So, if you are about to engage processing at a process template instance you need a process control point step that looks for the presence/absence of context/situational appropriate outside data and either facilitates or impedes the processing.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 9
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

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
[b]new slang[/b]
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?
CEO, Co-founder, Profluo
A whole 'nother question. I could live without "outcomes" and "low code." "Agile," capitalized or not we're never gonna get rid of.
Your statement suggests that all the items you referred to as "slang" are just fades and do not provide value. Is that your intention?

Platforms that provide "low code"/ "zero code" solutions to businesses can have meaningful process elements integrated into them and they may never be referred to as BPM. On the other hand, things like "bots" mixed with machine learning, may provide a quality alternative to businesses whom have been paying premiums for consultants.

That being said, I do agree it is a separate question :-)
"Low code" is only an interesting differentiator when some of the players in the industry are doing "high code".

I have no problem with "agile" when this refers to a) the run-time ability to skip steps in a structured sequence, re-visit completed steps, insert steps and record data at not-yet-current steps and b) the ability to quickly roll out a new version of a process.
@Karl are you saying there are no players in the industry doing "high code" (aka code only)?
@Veron.. I suspect there are players doing "throw-away-code" (each process is a custom build).

Then. in the middle (a wide middle) players doing what I called "high code" (i.e. takes a long time, requires tech resources, cannot be done by "ordinary" end-users)

Then, others doing what seems to be called "low code", where end users are able to map but need help from IT in two main areas.

a) building complex rule sets
b) bridging data to/from local and remote systems and applications.

Of course, you can have "low code" yet require months of training to get to where you can map because of not-easy-to-use mapping environments.
@Vernon, no, those things do produce value and we use them as well. I take issue with the way they are being hyped right now, in ways that are misleading, disingenuous and chase market newcomers away. As said, "plastered" to the BPM industry, without actual contextual awareness of how much more complicated a BPM problem tends to be. Indeed, hopefully this would be a separate question - we would have a lot to talk about.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 10
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

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.
  1. John Morris
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2377
Agreed Eduardo. And if I may propose my favourite comparison: accounting technology, which is "owned" by business cadres (a phrase perhaps preferable to "users"). This is a model for what can happen over time as BPM technology improves to the point that business cadre ownership is actually possible. Then of course there will be all sorts of new business governance issues.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 11
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

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.
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2364
Yes, yes "maturity model" how could I forget that one?

"Hello Lady, you know I score a 4 on BPM maturity"
  1. Rick Willis
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2370
There is a whole lot more money in prolonging the problem. Oh, I mean up-selling.
@Rick .. During the years I lived on airplanes, I never found personally that prolonging the problem generated more money.

It seemed that a quick in/out, with others then assigned to provide annual support, resulted in more revenue that I was could hope to earn as a one-trick pony.

I wrote an article on this six years ago . ."Good O/I Consultants Go In and then they Go Out"

  1. Rick Willis
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2375
@Karl I can't follow up Emiel with anything but sarcasm.

I haven't had any luck with finding "good" consultants either. Their incentive has always been to drag out the engagement to benefit their hefty hourly rate. The title of your article suggest we are in agreement on the right way to do it.
  1. John Morris
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2378
Peter, surely you jest! : )

I would say that most software is "less agile than BPMS", all things being equal.

From monster platforms (ERP) to apps coded-from-the-ground-up almost anything is less agile that what is possible with BPM. Lets exclude of course "Hello World" from the comparison; as soon as there is any substantial work to be done, BPM beats code. And ERP is hardly agile to begin with . . . : )
  1. Rick Willis
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2383
@John Hey, all you have to do is ask for a demo of Fuse :) We can show you actual agile software. www.drvsystems.com
RE "most software is "less agile than BPMS"" - Sure! Pleas see "Better application architecture (#apparch) with #microservices and #BPM (as APaaS)" http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.ch/2016/08/better-application-architecture-apparch.html
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 12
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

What part of the current state of BPM is not Jargon to the business?


As @Karl suggested above, if we were to start with an empty list, what would be different in our vocabulary if we allowed the business to define the terms/concepts as it makes sense to them?


I realize the purpose of standardizing terminology is so that we can talk about concepts without having to explain the words. In the process of creating a standard we overlooked the entire business. Meaning, the average person in a business needs someone to explain BPMN or a process model to them in terms that are different then how it is documented.


In my opinion, a missing piece is awareness. Let's say you are a business owner, you have never heard of a BPM or BPMS, but you know an existing process is inefficient. How does the business owner in this situation become aware of the practice of bpm? Googling "BPM" is likely not the first thing that happens.


I also agree with @Eduardo, the end user/consumer angle is very different than the current state of tools and offerings.
Businesses (industrial, at least) understand work, workstations, workflow..

In b2b, you are likely to avoid raised eyebrows with policy, procedure, steps/tasks, pre-requisite/post-requisite steps, performance roles, documents, forms, appointments/meetings, deadlines, audits, compliance.

Hardly conclusive on short notice but we could probably build a proper set and resist efforts to extend this..

BPM+AI is likely, over time (we have been waiting since 1985), to take us in the direction of "driverless cars"
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 13
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

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.
HI, John.. what on earth is "style"? Can you provide examples or a link to some article?
  1. John Morris
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2384
Hi Walter, good question. So here some thoughts.

First, concerning a reference. The following article is fascinating, dealing as it does with improving the quality of process models for syntax, semantics and pragmatics:

Styles in business process modeling: an exploration and a model [2013]

Second, moving to the business space, Bruce Silver's canonical course in BPM Method and Style is highly recommended for any organization that wants to ramp up a successful BPM programme. Mr. Silver explicitly is concerned with how BPM style practices lead to good BPM models.

One might now ask, "Well John, I thought you were advocating against 'style', what gives?" Which would be another good question -- but also note my original hesitancy.

Certainly good style is important for BPMN models as it is for good programming or coding (the labeling of the GOTO statement as bad style was probably the first software-related style rule).

But this is the point. Programming or coding, and currently BPM, is dependent on good style -- because the technology is indeterminate. It is absolutely possible to produce "bad code" and "bad process structure" or "process models which don't validate". And we have to minimize the risk of bad code and bad process models.

Note that sometimes poor process models are bad ("invalid") only because of the limitations of BPMN or the underlying execution engine -- not because the process idea doesn't make business sense. But our use of the word "style" validates these limitations as if such limitations are forever. And these limitations then are seen as inherent limitations to BPM technology, to the detriment of BPM technology adoption.

So I suppose "style" is BPM jargon that we can't get away from.

But at least when we use the term (and the idea of "style" has to be used very early in any new BPM adoption programme) we should be aware of the limitations of the term.

Good BPM needs good BPM style. But BPM style is not BPM.
OK, I certainly cannot disagree with "good style is important for BPMN models as it is for good programming or coding "

I am thankful our group does not build BPMN models or do BPM programming/coding.
I remember an informal definition of a good programming language - simple things are easy, difficult thing are possible. Does your process modelling style follow this maxim? Mine - yes, because I think that practical process patterns (please do not mix them with workflow patterns) are the key for process modelling. They are more important than "style".
@Alexamder .. Re "practical process patterns" - does this refer to an inventory of processes clustered in some way for easy access/use or a feeling of deja vu on the layout when you move from one process to another, or something else?
@Karl, they are good business practices expressed as process fragments. For example, the patter “Double Check” or “4 eyes check” (some important data or documents have to be checked by two different people having the same role) was observed in many different sectors: accounting, publishing, research, real estate, healthcare, etc. See http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.ch/search/label/practical%20process%20patterns

We notice that modelling processes with knowledge of these patterns leads to “clean” models, easier modelling and more concertation on particular business specific aspects.
  1. John Morris
  2. 4 years ago
  3. #2398
Alexander -- your comment you have noticed "that modelling processes with knowledge of these patterns leads to 'clean' models, easier modelling and more concentration on particular business specific aspects" is super important. Interesting that it should come up in a discussion about jargon -- but then jargon in the best sense concerns efficient, specialized domain-specific language.
@John, Jargon is a DSL which is used in a wrong context (or not in the domain of a particular DSL). The BPM domain, being enterprise-wide, has several DSLs:
- as a management discipline to manage by processes, this BPM DSL1 is business and industry domains independent and must be good for anyone in any enterprise.
- as a tool for implementing process-centric application, unfortunately, each vendor has their own “DSL” although it will be possible to reach a common BPM DSL2. The main users of this DSL is IT departments.
- as practice/architecture, this DSL is for people designing processes (business architects, middle managers, etc.). Note: process patterns are an integral part of this BPM DSL3.
@Alexander, alas there is a trend today in programming / modelling languages to make simple things even easier at the expense of making complicated things less possible.
@Bogdan, this specialisation of programming languages can be supported by polyglotism of microservices – it is possible to combine some programming languages (“horses for courses”) for building an application.

Unfortunately the situation is slightly different for modelling languages which are used for various architecture viewpoints. Geometrical viewpoints of buildings are viewed side by side — as a composition, while architectural viewpoints are often originated by different people — thus they must be aligned to be used together. It means that a central-meta-multi-dimensional viewpoint and modelling languages for it are necessary but they do not exist yet (or maybe they hide very well).
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 14
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

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).

  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 15
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

[b]1) OOTB - Out-of-the-Box[/b]

eg: "The social media integration connectors are available OOTB in IBM BPM 8.5.5"

[b]2) Lean[/b]

  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 16
  • Page :
  • 1

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