Talk:Business process management
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| B | rated as b-Class on the assessment scale |
| High | rated as high-importance on the assessment scale |
This article should probably be merged with process management.
I would disagree, as this subject has far more specificity than process management while it is also increasing in scope and depth at a rapid pace. Also I disagree in that WORKFLOW software is a very specific thing, whereas Business Process is broad. If you have a business process of course you manage it, however BPR and CPI are facets of that management that may or may not include workflow software.
The first comment refers to the original article before it was rewritten. As I rewrote it, I agree, of course, that BPM is a more specifc topic than process management.
Under Process Monitoring I do not understand the paragraph "There is also a growing interest ... analysis that is typically not available.". Can anybody (the original author?) clarify what is meant here?
08.06.05 I have removed some vendors, who IMHO did not seem to really be BPM vendors. I am unsure about Virtuoso Universal Server which probably would be better situated in the service oriented architecure age.
15.June.05 - This article reads a bit like a vendor sales pitch, in that it is full of superlatives stating that the software is absolutely marvellous. I would suggest toning it down for a more NPOV. Also tie to the word workflow.
26.June.05 - I agree fully with the previous comment, this is more a sales pitch than a Wikipedia article.
02 July 05 - Removed Fuji Xerox Australia from web resources. The web resources were intended to point a reader to sites with a (hopefully) neutral point of view. The products section was intended for vendors (and even here I’ve noticed that vendors creep in without any real relevance to the topic). This brings me on to the last two comments. When I rewrote the article I tried also to avoid a sales pitch. Do the authors of the previous two comments have any thing particular in mind which could be changed?
29 Nov 05 - Somebody out there has placed back the text concerning "relational data" pretty quickly after I have deleted it. My reason for deleting it was that I (and others) could not understand it (see previous entry here). Could the author maybe clarify what it means?
[edit] Trying not to have the article in limbo
I think the biggest problem with BPM is that there is still a big "disagreement" of what BPM encompases. Maybe the best thing todo is to add links to blogs of the current "thought leaders" in the space, like (Bruce Silver, Phil Gilbert, | Ismael Galimi, Sandy Kemsly and others). I'm just worried that vendors will fight over what the "current advances" are and this article will be ruined. -- Mortenmo 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vendors??
Is it usual to have list of commercial vendors on pages about processes? Are there any guidelines about this? Ansell 08:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- It is only usual because it is usual for commercial vendors to obsessively add their name and link to these pages :) They shouldn't be there unless they are vital to a discussion of the topic, and should always be removed. I have removed what I felt was every commercial vendor from this page, and left links that seemed helpful and not commercial (for example, many directory sites exist only for commercial purposes - these are not appropriate). -- Renesis13 18:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Keeping this "clean" of commercial vendors is a tiresome effort. Maybe instead there can be another page for "BPMS Vendors" similar to the List_of_BPEL_engines and let the commercial vendors have their fun there? -- Mortenmo 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Visio link
The inclusion of a link to Microsoft Visio, while I can see why it could be there, may not be the best example, as it does not produce system-readable models. It simply produces graphics. A better example would be a designer which can be translated into a system readable form. [1]
Ansell 12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Does this site worth to be mentioned?
Business Process Management Initiative (BPMI.org)
I have also found some of the product vendors for the subject. Would any gurus in this field please find time to review them?
http://www.lombardisoftware.com/bpm-resource-center.php
http://www.capterra.com/business-process-management-software
- My attitude with regards to external links is that they are not there to "promote" people. They are immediately relevant to the subject of the page in an encyclopedic sense, as opposed to an advertising sense. Which leads me to think that all of the links are going to be rejected for use on the main page. Ansell 07:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with mentioning vendors is who is going to decide which is out and which is in? There are over 200+ vendors that has some claim to this area and only a small fraction is probably legit. People just want to be on Wikipedia pages to get higher google pagerank scores. It will fast turn into advertisement instead of informational. If there is some limit, who sets it? One can use Forrester Research BPM-Wave or Gartners BPMS magic quadrant leaders, but it will be hard to enforce. But this is just my opinion; it is better just to leave it out. -- Mortenmo 01:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- If I am not mistaken, linking to pages from here do not affect pagerank. There is an instruction to robots that tells them "'robots' content='noindex,nofollow'", and hence pagerank of links from the page is not affected. There is still the obvious advertisement quality as Wikipedia pages tend to be in the top ten more regularly than not for topics, and there is no restriction on people following links out after that. Ansell 05:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
In terms that who is in and who is out, the information providved by the Web of Science is more authentic and scientific than other commercial site, at far as I know.
If I was able to access to the WOS content, I would provide unbiased review as accurately as possible
- I have access to WOS, what would you be looking for specifically. Note, you should be able to browse Abstracts without having a subscription, so you should know what you need to see. I actually think that IEEE and LNCS also have very good material btw, from my research in the area. Ansell 07:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Buzzword bingo
I will be perfectly honest. I tend to think that many articles about business management are thinly veiled consultant spam, and written in such vaguely abstract terms as to be entirely devoid of worthwhile information. This one is another.
I've been asked what specific problems I have with the prose in this article, but in fact the article is so vaguely and abstractly phrased that it is hard to make any suggestion for concrete improvements. Passages like:
- The activities which constitute business process management can be grouped into three categories: design, execution and monitoring.
remind me of Monty Python's theory about the brontosaurus, that it was thin on both ends and fat in the middle. This entirely a rhetorical tautology. It tells us in effect that any acts compassed in "business process management" involve either thinking them up, doing them, or watching them being done. Anyone given with sufficient leisure and a vocabulary of vaguely abstract words can think up this sort of bollocks. The sentence just contains no information.
- This encompasses either the design or capture of existing processes. In addition the processes may be simulated in order to test them. The software support for these activities consists of graphical editors to document the processes and repositories to store the process models.
- An emphasis on getting the design of the process right will logically lead to better results as the flow on effect of problems at the design stage logically affects a large number of parts in an integrated system.
This too is incredibly vague and abstract, all about "processes" and "systems." But all of a sudden a relatively concrete noun - software! - appears, even though nothing about the vague talk about systems and processes even suggests that software is needed. I suspect that all of the process and systems talk is an attempt to glorify the output of flowchart software, and to make vaguely grandiose claims about how more flowcharts will improve anything and everything about your business. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I fear that the very statements which you claim are vacuous are the very ones which, if understood, would invalid your later remarks. The passage you assert as a rhetorical tautology actually states that BPM consists of three groups of activities, i.e. not one or two, but all three. The activities are explained later in the article. Understanding this means that flowcharting software alone is only part of business process management. The claim that the article is an “ … attempt to glorify the output of flowchart software ...” is therefore just simply missing the point.
-
- Secondly you imply that the word “process” is too vague and abstract. Although process has not been defined in the article, a reference is made at the beginning to another Wikipedia article.
-
- Thirdly, I find the use of the word “bollocks” rather offensive. Perhaps this has something to do with my origins and age (born in the UK in the middle 50s) - adoble 17:50, 6 December 2006 (CET) (This edit was made by 194.45.150.17)
- I disagree with your notion of buzzwords. Processes and systems are concrete nouns. I just completed my honours thesis dealing with this area, and it was not dealing with buzzwords. Calling an academic discipline, and it most certainly is an academic discipline recognised by universities, and written up in journals, "bollocks" is not be the best reason for a tag such as the buzzwords tag.
- The statement about the three areas involved, which you think of as a tautology, is a simple description of the area. Feeling that the description is too simple should not imply that it does not contain content.
- The python joke is misleading in this case. It implies that the whole area is so easy that anyone could actually do it using common-sense, where it is not actually that simple. I will remove the buzzwords tag unless someone has an academic reason why it should remain. Ansell 23:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] =
Context and Precision of Phrases
The comments of "Ihcoyc" are sharp and at places impolite but they highlight the need to identify the context and bring precison to the terms and phrases (like Data, Information, Knowledge, Software Architecture, Semantics, Meaning, Content...) in current publications, particularly to "Business Process Management".
If the words "Business" "Process" "Management" are defined elsewhere and used, they should be quoted. Then the author(s) should explain what is special about the phrase that the constituent words do not convey.
The words "System","Process" and "Management" are very well defined in ISO 9000 Vocabulary with sufficient precison and scope for general applicability, and so to "Business Process Management". It should be sufficient to define what sub-class of "Process" "Business Process" is. The methods, tools and techniques of "Management" could be many, and they can be named and elaborated without changing the definition of "Business Process Management".
I invite the users Ihcoyc and Ansell to interact with me to edit and refine this article.
Best wishes,
````putchavn1946, Putcha V. Narasimham, putchavn@yahoo.com May 11, 2007
[edit] =
[edit] New BPM definition
The BPM group (www.bpmg.org)has attempted to define BM as : "Business Process Management" (BPM) is a natural and holistic management approach to operating business that produces a highly efficient, agile, innovative, and adaptable organization that far exceeds that achievable through traditional management approaches".
Although spanning the business / IT divide is an important component, it is not the main focus of BPM. It is the client. The next big aspect is decentralisation - giving control closer to the front end and less requirement to go to board rooms for decisions. The third is to harness collaboration in an efficient and effective manner. And finally, BPM should assist by creating "fork-lifts for the mind” by allowing technology to interface with people in new ways (the way users might imagine it – and try it).
Removing the coding task, optimising IT projects and getting business sponsors closer to IT development is all fine and good but BPM is way more than this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.47.245.252 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Business Process != Process
I only would like to note that a "Process" is a fairly generic concept. There are chemical processes, manufacturing processes, etc. A "Business Processes" is a very specific thing. When Michael Hammer coined the term "Business Process Reengineering" he meant that a "Business Process" is specifically a process of office work. It was an attempt to get the business world to think of all the different tasks being done by people in the office as a process; that is as being linked together to produce an overall goal. He wanted specifically to distinguish this from all the other kinds of processes out there, because it is a different subject, and the conclusions that can be drawn from business processes can not necessarily be applied to all processes as well.
I read the page on Process Management and indeed this page is mostly about "Business Processes". Perhaps *that* page is misappropriately named. We should not mix up process management in general, with business process management, which is specifically about office workers working together to accomplish a business goal.
[edit] Big Generalization
I read on the page "The value in BPMS is not in automating very simple or very complex tasks, it is in modeling processes where there is the most opportunity." I would like to change this line as it has been my experience, over the better part of a decade that I have been in the BPM field, that different organizations find weight the value of different aspects of BPMS based on thier individual needs. I would say this statement is a bit over the top and may in a real world sense only apply to between 25-50% of those orgainisations using BPMS Happyfish 15:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Goflow6206 17:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)goflow6206
[edit] Organization idea for some of the 'Process' related articles
I am by no means an expert to know where all of these terms should fall next to each other. That is to say, which is the most important, and, which are the umbrella terms that encompass the others. I propose a project between those who would consider themselves experts in this area (i.e. professors or consultants in the field) and people who know something and want a bit more logic in the whole experience with these terms. My end proposal would be something like: What do you all think about having a type of Portal page which would put all of these terms in one place, give a representation of a) which are the most important, and b) which are the umbrella terms that encompass others. I am on this talk page because my first guess is Business Process Management might serve as a title for this portal page i am proposing, because it seems it can encompass a some of the other topics.
See also: Business process management • Business Process and Business Process Modeling • Business Process Automation • Business-driven development (BDD) • Business process interoperability • Business rules approach • Business intelligence • BPDM • BPMN • Event-driven Process Chains • Performance management • Process management • Six Sigma • SUPER • Total Quality Management • Workflow • XPDL • YAWL • BPEL • Lean • Toyota Production System
See also: Process management
• Operating System Operations • Business Process Improvement • Business Process Management • Human Resource Management Systems • Management • Manufacturing process management • Process Architecture • Project Management • Total Quality Management • Program management • Business and Company Operating Manuals
Has anyone else gotten this sensation from these topics and agrees with me or has another idea? Have I left out any articles that you might recommend to be included on this portal page? Thanks, --Pointblankstare (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Process Simulation Engines
It would be very useful to have a list of process simulation engines that used standard XML formats like BPEL. --Dan 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Business Process versus Process
The bridge between Process Management and Business Process Management has to do with the change in thinking from Industrial Age to Informational Age. We need to acknowledge that. Business Process Management is not exclusively Informational Age or "Office Process". It is a hybrid between Shop Floor, Shipping, Receiving, Storage and Billing, Accounts Receivable, Sales, Marketing, etc. Business Process gives validation and observation to what "white collar" workers do in addition to what "blue collar" workers do. Work happens, and we need to manage it to the best of our ability. (Although the idea of different color collars is increasingly blurred.) --Loaferman 14:48, 19 March 2008 ````
[edit] Suggestions by Putchavn
The following working commentary was inserted directly into the article; I've moved it here. Please note that the article is 'live', and not intended to be a marked up draft. Thanks. Kuru talk 11:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Contribution by putchavn:
It is better to use ISO 9000:2005 Definition of "Process" which is very comprehensive and clear. Then one can qualify it with "Business"
ISO 9000:2005 term 3.4.1 process
A Process is a set of interrelated or interacting activities, which transforms inputs (of given specifications) into outputs (of defined specification).
The comments within the parentheses are added for clarification.
Suggested definition of "Business Process"
A Business Process is a process (3.4.1) in which the output is either a product or service that is of value to a customer or client. A Business Process may be constrained by pre-conditions and post-conditions (as per the principles of use case definition and concept of contract). A process needs process resources, other than inputs, which are essential to set up and activate a process. For a business process, some of the process resources are space, energy, infrastructure, human resources, computational & knowledge resources.
The overview may be rewritten thus:
The phrase "Business Process" is an extension of ISO 9000:2005 definition of "Process (3.4.1)" which is very comprehensive and clear.
Quote:
A Process is a set of interrelated or interacting activities, which transforms inputs (of given specifications) into outputs (of defined specification).
Unquote.
The comments within the parentheses are added for clarification.
Accordingly, "Business Process" is a "process (3.4.1)", in which the output is either a product or service that is of value to a customer or client. A Busines Process may be constrained by pre-conditions and post-conditions (as per the principles of use case definition and concept of contract). A process needs process resources, other than inputs, which are essential to set up and activate a process. For a business process, some of the process resources are space, energy, infrastructure, human resources, computational & knowledge resources.
Representation of a Process:
A process may be represented by a "Process Map" which is a network in which the Nodes are Activities and the connections are paths through which material, energy, people, data (M,E,P,D)may flow. A simplified representation as a graph is not expressive enough to allow the flow of M, E, P, D. There should be a provision to represent process resources.
Every process must have a supplier of inputs and receiver of outputs which are external to the process. The parameters of inputs and outputs must also be specified for accurate representation.
Putcha V. Narasimham
