Steve > I'm talking not just about IT enabled processes but actual _business_ > processes. Taking an extreme scenario look at the Army. The person > in control gives a set of orders which the sub-ordinates follow to the > letter. This is centralised control of process, other examples would > be film directors, rescue services and many others. Also included > would be any process where the process is "when you finish that step > come and ask me what to do next". > What I'm saying is that there are real business processes that are > centralised via a controlling party.
I agree. But I think that, even in these cases, if "what needs to happen next" is primarily determined by the states of underlying objects, the type of modelling in the paper is appropriate. If you add a "business process" on top, with its own sequencing of events, you can run the risk of constraining the flow of events in the business in an arbitrary and unnecessary way. Though I doubt whether this argument would be enough to convince the Army to change its ways :-) > Which for me is actually technology because its assumed that the > solution is technology implementation. There needs to be design > (hopefully!) but the assumption is that technology implementation is > the end goal. I think you may be making the assumption that the models are models of a computerised solution. They are not -- they are just models of the business, and the rules and policies of the business. The fact that they are executable is a by-product of the fact that they are formalised and have behavioural semantics, but there is no implication or requirement that the actual business solution be computerised. I think that the key consideration before this kind of modelling is undertaken is whether the degree of formalisation of the business entailed is possible, appropriate and useful. I think that sometimes you can only find out by trying. > What I'd argue is that the paper you've written needs > to be set in a wider context that selects the right technology > implementation approach I don't have any problem with that. Rgds Ashley
