BPM Standard

Post em BPM group.

A comunidade está a mover-se para criar um standard em definitivo para acabar com confusão.

I think that most of bpm professionals, mentors, process managers know at bpm is. There is a lot of material, books, paper about it.

In my opinion is necessary a standard to clarify what is:
• Business Process Management;
• Business Process Management Roles;
• Business Process Modeling – is critical a specification in order to anyone draw a process the same way. To many standards (process flow, epc, bpmn);
• Business Process Improvement Techniques - Lean, Six Sigma, Reengineering, Automation. How to choose the right one to the problem the process is facing.
• Business Process Implementation.
• Business Process Analysis and Monitoring – KPI’s and stuff.

This standard will bring guidance to the people at it should be published by an organization like ISO (please don’t laugh). Otherwise it will be one more paper, one more book from someone who want to get commercial advantage on the subject. Soon others will try to reinvent the wheel.

Comentários

Ligurio disse…
Thanks Manuel.

Peeps, some of the topics I feel should definitely be included inside the Accord, so will update the current TOC and include some of Manuel's suggestions.

What we don't want is for this to turn into 'one more book' as Manuel states, and certainly there will be no commercial advantage since anything produced and agreed will be free to use and adopt throughout. And that's where the true power lies in what we're trying to achieve.

Vive la revolution ;)
Anónimo disse…
Apologies if this is a side issue, but the lack of an appropriate international body appears to be a significant barrier. Most management organisations are national. and even the international ones have some limitations (e.g. Academy of Management is predominantly North American with an academic rather than a practitioner bias. Evidence-based research would be an important foundation, but by itself will not build the coalition necessary to get to an agreed framework and set of standards. Maybe we should apply some of the BPM tools to the problem and identify barriers to change, root causes etc.?
Anónimo disse…
believe the question of international standards bodies for management practices is spot-on the real problem. Even broader, I think it's about organizational practices, and not the fractured disciplines they have become (like PMI, BPM, ITIL, CMMI, etc.). The elephant is far too complex for one person to understand, so we split it into parts and attempt to infer the whole. Generally, though, if you cut up an elephant, you get a bunch of elephant parts, and not much understanding of how an elephant works. :=)

I see the problem space like this: Either there is an underlying structure that governs organization interactions, or there isn't. If there isn't, then any attempt at standardization is doomed, unless it admits that there can be multiples realities that govern organizations. Sort of like saying that there are multiple laws of physics and unified field theory is a sham. But if there is - if there is a single underlying metastructure for all things related to organizational existence - why, then, we are indeed getting peeks at the underlying structure through every discipline, and we are all looking for the same structure. I'd like us to aim at that target - the underlying truth of organization interaction.

The point about one architecture, with many views, resonates deeply with me. Because is there isn't a unified field theory of organizations (yet), it feels like we're just talking about different elephants in different ways, and we'll never reconcile our perspectives.

I also believe that management theory is more complicated than other fields of study, and is still maturing. Frequently, organizations focusing on management tend to focus on best practice rather than underlying structure - perhaps because folks who are attracted to that field of study tend to see the world intuitively rather than systematically. Me, I'm just a sucker for structure. ;=)
Anónimo disse…
Sticking with the elephant for a moment. Surely the whole point is that it's called an elephant (or whatever elephant is in any other language) so that, when spoken of, the listener is able to recall an image. The quality (accuracy) of that image is entirely dependent on how it was constructed for the listener: picture, toy, trip to the zoo, etc. So we start with a word and an image, and are educated (over time) with detail of what the image represents - the step from toy to real thing can be as jaw-dropping for an adult as it can be for a child (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmU_q5xrnto).

So the 'word' is elephant and we, each of us, have an image (of variable accuracy) that springs to mind on hearing 'elephant' - With Father Dougal and Iain Douglas-Hamilton at either ends of the spectrum.

I believe the responsibility we have is to determine what is unambiguous fact in relation to BPM (the 'word', or snake in Gary's analogy) and present it in such a way that, blind or not, wherever you grab it, you know what you've grabbed and where you are in relation to the rest of it. We then I think need to develop some controls around how to describe the variables i.e. the elephant's maturity and how it relates to it's environment.

Mensagens populares deste blogue

BPMN can bring death to your process data

26-08-2016 - Cape Town - Return to Zuid Afrika

5th November 2016 - Frankfurt - She is in parties