This was the same paragraph that struck me, only it raised some questions. BPM suites all include workflow/tasklist capabilities so that manual activities can be included in the process. As I read this, it tells me that those efforts are a waste of money, since they are not fully automated. Am I misinterpreting this? To me, it's more about whether the process is well defined or not than whether it can be fully automated. Of course, one could argue that if it can be well-defined, then it is a likely candidate for automation.
Ron, could you clarify this for me? -tb On Jan 13, 2006, at 4:00 AM, Keith Harrison-Broninski wrote: > ZapThink wrote (Zapflash of Jan 12): > >> And, speaking of business processes, when humans are involved, it >> makes very little sense to have a centralized, computer-based system >> coordinating business processes on behalf of humans. The notion of >> centralized business process runtime engines only works for fully >> automated processes. When a human is responsible for making decisions >> about where and how to fulfill Service requests, a centralized, >> orchestrated runtime process engine only gets in the way. Indeed, >> each >> Service requester or provider might know more about what the next >> step >> in the process is than some central flow-control engine, since a >> human >> might be responsible for fulfilling or generating Service requests. > > +1 with knobs on! I couldn't agree more - see http:// > www.humanedj.com. > Thank you and well done for describing this so succinctly, chaps at > Zap. > > -- > > All the best > Keith > > http://keith.harrison-broninski.info > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
