2009/6/6 htshozawa <[email protected]>: > > > --- In [email protected], Steve Jones > <jones.ste...@...> wrote: > >> Which is indeed true and why fixed BPM engines are often very poor as >> BUSINESS process engines as they don't allow flexible business >> decisions. >> > So, what is your suggestion on obtaining a flexibility in business process > technically or are you suggesting that we should be doing business > activities all by hand?
Nope, that we should recognise that some processes are explicit and fixed and therefore suited to BPM and others are implicit and guided and therefore better suited for MONITORING rather than formalising. As an example, Amazon don't formalise the "find a book" part of the process, its all over the place with lots of different options, but the do formalise the PAY part of the process. Too often companies (and IT departments) mistake process as being a fixed business thing rather than being a transition between states based on a shifting set of decisions and data and its the transitions that need to be monitored rather than the whole process being fixed. You can automate monitoring and it can deliver value, but if you seek to automate and formalise the whole process in a complex environment where individuals make decisions then you will destroy value. Put it this way, the chaps at Sony who created the Walkman admitted that every focus group would have said it was a crap idea, but they did it anyway. A BPM tool would have fixed the process and had the focus groups kill the product. Steve > > H.Ozawa > >
