@John . . . Hopefully, there were/are few "Human Centric BPM platforms" I would find it a challenge in such a platform to pitch "automation".

I suppose a good test of a modern "business process platform" is whether it can handle a workflow where NONE of the steps require human input.

I really don't get "Digital Business (Process) Platform" - can anyone describe a business process platform that is not "digital"?

Both CRM and BPM plus ECM, to me, were "soapbox" solutions looking for problems.

Not sure about ERP (planning, purchasing, inventory, sales, marketing, finance and human resource) - the designers appear to have had "platform" in mind. It seems ERP got a bad name because of lack of flexibility.

I like "microservices and breaking things into component parts that have defined interfaces, play well together, and are replaceable"

"As a result you see a move to microservices and breaking things into component parts that have defined interfaces, play well together, and are replaceable." Thomas Erl called and...

RE "We've seen it before: ERP, CRM, BPM. " but, now, it is a different view - processes in ERP and CRM are explicit and machine-executable b BPM and BPM-suite tools.

Very good about microservices being replaceable (not only reusable)!

"Case" on the other hand, is an open box, subject only to

a) corporate governance (is this Case following policy/procedure/practice?)
b) pre-conditions to steps within Cases (should we yes/no engage processing at this step?)
c) rules at steps (is the recorded end time later than the recorded start time?)
c) post-conditions on exit from steps (did we get results that were expected?)

+1 @Karl re: case-as-opening-up-the-black-box-of-work . . .

I've gone back in time thirteen years and am looking at the logical architecture model for a reference architecture.

:D

+7 @Alexander, your excellent list eliminates any need to continue to argue about BPM. 1-yes; 2-yes; 3-yes; 4-yes; 5-yes; 6-yes; 7-yes

7 thanks @Karl.

@David . . . Interesting comment re "ability to link to legacy data and useful systems like book keeping"

Linking to "legacy data" can mean linking to legacy data within a Case where there is only one sub-case (in an orders management environment, one order placed by a customer, for example), OR it can mean linking to legacy data relating to other sub-cases in the same Case (multiple orders) OR other case data / case sub-data (other orders placed by other customers). Did I miss any here?

Case Histories can give you easy access to legacy data within any one Case/sub-Cases but for cross-Case data analysis, it seems best to look to a Data Warehouse for searches/reports (for structured data) and to a Kbase (for free-form searches).

Accordingly, seems to me the best data collection protocol is to

1) automatically build Case Histories and, contemporaneously
2) export a copy of all data to a Data Warehouse, and
3) export summary data to a Kbase.

Linking to book keeping systems from Cases saves the users of such systems a lot of time - you can, for each transaction added to a Case, easily store the organization's code of accounts and tag transactions with debit/credit pairs.

All Case exports should, in my view, go to a generic data exchange for pushout or pickup by local and remote systems and applications, including a corporation's Data Warehouse (just one more data subscriber)

Use of a generic data exchanger greatly simplifies security issues - prospective subscribers to data register with publishers by providing their internal data element names for data they want/need - this input can be the basis for sharing (i.e no name, no sharing).

Use of a generic data exchanger also increases uptime/support calls across all trading partner systems in that it simplifies push/pull (i.e. none of the partners gets to effect direct reads/writes at sources/targets, so the addition of a new data element or renaming of an existing data element by a supplier does not impact any data subscriber).

In the absence of standard data transport formats, subscribers do need formatters/parsers - fortunately, these are easy to develop and, in the case of some data patterns, a sniffer can scan a format and write a parser the extracts the data to the data exchange. Same for formatters needed for outbound data.

David, would you prefer a tag DUBE - Digital Unified Business Execution? (sounds like "oak" in Slavic languages)

Alexander I think needs Platform for building Business Digital BPM requirements....and a TLA....which the industry loves....!?

Whilst I do understand your points the reality is "digital" is a current focus involving interactions with users via web forms. Also it is clearly about digital in business....sadly IBM misused the term "smart" associated with BPM and a term that can have multiple association resulting in confusion.....which suits suppliers....and annoys buyers. As for cognitive ....? yes sounds like an IBM marketing term....

Hold on.. maybe the digital age actually started 5,000 years ago with the abacus?

After all, you ran it using your fingers, it was used for business, and it was a platform . . .. (Digital Business Platform)

Digital in today's environment refers to end users using / creating data from anywhere in today's connected world. Business focuses on the need to record creation use and storage of data to run any organisation. Platform is the software capability in a single architecture to build all those business requirement supporting people and their processes at work. All terms business could understand and now will be able to understand how such DBP could deliver through the orchestration of back office data on to the UI. Time has come to name and investigate Platforms that deliver ...preferably without coding...!?

OK, looks like Digital Business ("Digital business is the creation of new business designs by blurring the digital and physical worlds.") was coined by Gartner.

Success with Digital Business, according to Gartner requires 'A merged virtual/physical world will need an enormous amount of new infrastructure. CIOs will succeed in digital business only if they contribute to civilization infrastructure and the digital society it enables."

There are apparently five domains of "civilian infrastructure'

http://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/plan-for-the-scale-of-civilization-infrastructure/

More confusion and complexity from Gartner who fail miserably to do real research on new technologies......but they thrive in this environment as business frustration grows.....

Bravo @Karl the myopia of the modern, as one might say.
I recall that "modern art" typically refers to Cubism and Constructivism and other such things popular in the West from 1900 to 1930 or so. Interestingly, one of the aspects of modern art that most people are familiar with is the disassembly of images, the better to rearrange things in a novel order. Picasso's portraits are an example.
Why bring this up?
Because the idea of the modern is to take responsibility for our life and work beyond the comforts of culture. Modernism is inherently revolutionary. Modernism is about not accepting the way things are, but re-arranging how we view things in novel ways, for various reasons..
I see BPM as having this potential too, but only if as true modernists we do the work of disassembling our work into its constituent parts, the better to re-assemble for greater efficiency and effectiveness. The definition of BPM technology I've proposed takes this "from the ground up" approach.
Any DBP that neglects the atomic constituents of whatever the platform is intended to support is thus anti-modern. A DBP is justified if based on science and responsibility. Otherwise it's marketing hype and black-box managerialism.