BPM.com
  1. BPM
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. Thursday, 25 July 2019
  4.  Subscribe via email
Jim Sinur in Turbo Charge AI with Right Brain-Based Reasoning states:

Since Left-brained analytic and approaches require precision, they are purer text language-based and not open-ended. They require all possibilities to be covered and dealt-with ahead of time. Right-brained approaches are more open-ended and somewhat of “close fit” or “similar patterned”. Reasoning requires a more model-driven approach, but not a static model. Right-brained approaches require more fitting, approaching dynamic limits and in-flight adjustments. To make judgments and to reason requires adjustments plus precision used in unison.


Yet, most process models are created by very left-brained software engineers. If Jim's case has merit, how do we go about implementing right-brained thinking in the models to come?
Find me at BPM.com.
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
This is a very difficult challenge and an opportunity for right and left brained people to join forces, look at the scenario they face with different perspectives, and come to a common place where creativity and innovation can be implemented. Some may refer to "lateral thinking" as the approach to take, breaking away from the linear or step-by-step method.

One example I will use here may seem outdated, but it may help put things into perspective. This was back in the early days of online forms. A business was trying to manage growth in application processing. Typically this had been a paper form completed and submitted by a prospective client, then sent in to the business for processing, review, and eventually approval or rejection. The volume was increasing steadily, presenting a challenge to keep up. The immediate reaction was to buy more scanners, recognition software, and hire new people to run them.

While discussing this internally, one of the employees from the business unit, who had experienced using online forms, suggested that the business look into this as a possible resolution to their problem. When presented to IT, the idea was challenged, not due to technology but unfamiliarity with online forms, but was in agreement that this may be a good solution that could address current and future processing requirements.

Together the business unit and IT researched this approach, made their selection, trained in how to implement and maintain the new technology, and implemented it. As a result, within six months, they realize a return on their investment. Had they continued on the path to expanding the number of scanners, etc., they indicated a real possibility of facing this challenge again in the near future.

My point here is that both right and left brained thinkers have a place and when teamed, can produce amazing results.
Bob Larrivee
President and Founder
Bob Larrivee Consultancy
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 1
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I'm not sure what we mean by the left and right brain in this context... might be related to logical and creative thinking or how to deal with variation in the process. Depending on the situation we might design the process to manage all different cases in detail. In many cases though this is not possible and human adjustment is needed especially in knowledge-intensive service situations.

We need to understand that BPM might over-rationalize reality. My advice is not to try to design the process in detail when we try to describe people collaboration. People interact in so many different levels (rational, emotional and spiritual) that it is not possible to model it in meaningful way.... the traditional IT systems are a different story... AI might change the situation somewhat.

br Kai
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 2
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
The more pattern recognition and none structured data based side of (process/data) analytics are often thought to be related with the evolutionary steps of reaching cognitive analytics by having first mastered the descriptive, predictive and prescriptive aspects.
I think that holds true also for AI and process automation in general as it relies on similar, underlying statistical methods, especially regression analysis. So, in a sense the more evolved the overarching data sources and statistical models, the closer a company can get to cognitive analytics, as a possible synonym for the right brain thinking.
NSI Soluciones - ABPMP PTY
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 3
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Logic and creativity are essential sides of any successful business model. On one hand, business model must be exact to ensure precision in processing and compliance. On another hand, model must allow flexibility, which is essential for quick and successful adaptation of business to evolving economic environment. Due balance of both the dimensions is crucial for the success of the model.

To empower creativity, business model must have sufficient coverage and depth. It is common when organizations document and model only their basic routine processes. Then every not documented process is considered as deviation or violation. However, in practice exactly these anomalies often contain most promising business opportunities. To ensure proper response to unforeseen challenges business model must include wide palette of reserve scenarios.

In well established business model there is always place for intuition and creativity due to wide choice of variant models, which can be effectively combined for optimal business outcome. Illusory contradiction between logic and creativity in BPM appears due to formal and insufficient modeling or due to improper usage of existing models.
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 4
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I think it boils down to using empathy when designing processes. And it's not only observing jobs-to-be-done or designing intuitive interfaces.
It's about deeply understanding if it makes sense to do something and if it can be done in a more meaningful way.

Our customers appreciate that we're not merely asking for process specs to be developed, tested and deployed - we challenge the specs, we propose better alternatives, we ask meaningful questions so that the customers clarify their own requests.

It's also about asking, at each step, what could go wrong - and offer ways to deal with it. And we embed this in our platform - we offer native ways for the customer to change their minds, to correct data, to revert steps, to change behavior on the fly.

And no, it's not ACM. It's just business.
CEO, Co-founder, Profluo
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 5
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Good point as in real world of work there will be situations where right brain action is required for a good outcome. Yet we need such activity to be embedded into the system as very likely the resultant data/outcomes will be required in the accountability for the end to end process. I see it as informal activity where people use their skills as appropriate and should be recognised by the software where perhaps the only reporting on activity is time which will ensure is undertaken within agreed time limits. All activities formal and informal can be readily embedded in the intelligent automation build in a model readily understood by all users ensuring benefits of real empowerment without compromising accountability.
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 6
  • Page :
  • 1


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