Business processes are not your business

Get Feed

Description

BPM is hot, but has some limitations and deficiencies. In this presentation, we explore the need for a more interaction-focused approach that we call Business Interaction Management (BIM)

Original URL

http://www.slideshare.net/marbuy/business-processes-are-not-your-business

http://www.slideshare.net/marbuy/business-processes-are-not-your-business

Comments

• Public Comments

  • Kurt Laitner

    8 months ago

    
    
    

    of course slides don't tell the whole story, but what is an interaction, other than a complex process? perhaps we need a new meme to encourage new behaviors? is it a criticism of the implicit machine like nature of a defined process? isn't every box a 'go do something human and let me know when you are done'? can we solve this problem through careful abstraction leveling to ensure we leave human action in the loop? can you codify emotional engagement? at the end of the day you cannot use a map the size of the country, so we abstract. Nothing about process modeling precludes or obscures interactions, though certainly it is state (task) centric rather than message centric.
    
    thought provoking, thanks Marc.

    of course slides don't tell the whole story, but what is an interaction, other than a complex process? perhaps we need a new meme to encourage new behaviors? is it a criticism of the implicit machine like nature of a defined process? isn't every box a 'go do something human and let me know when you are done'? can we solve this problem through careful abstraction leveling to ensure we leave human action in the loop? can you codify emotional engagement? at the end of the day you cannot use a map the size of the country, so we abstract. Nothing about process modeling precludes or obscures interactions, though certainly it is state (task) centric rather than message centric.<br /><br />thought provoking, thanks Marc.

    • Some HTML is allowed.
    • Reply
    • Cancel
    • Submit
    Commented in: Business Interaction Management (BIM)

    • Marc Buyens

      8 months ago

      
      
      

      Hello Kurt,
      
      Thanks for the comments. You are of course right, but you are a BPM-guy.
      
      Let me tell you a bit about the background of this.
      
      Several years ago, I participated as a coach in the e-Business Strategy training program of the Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School in Belgium. This was a 10- or 12-day program that ran over a period of 3-4 months. At the end of the training, participants were asked to identify an interesting e-business opportunity for their company or department and to develop a strategic plan for it. Coaches, such as me, assisted the participants developing their plan by giving feedback, challenging the approach, etc. We also were the “evaluators” at the end of the training when all plans were presented.
      
      Now, whatever the quality or the lack of quality of these plans, they always had one thing in common: the presenter was never able to articulate why he/she had chosen that specific initiative. “We thought it was a good idea”, “Company xyz is doing it also”, “I read about it”... were the most common answers.
      
      So, I developed some kind of method that guided a person through a thinking process that would bring him/her in a structured and documented way to the “best choice” opportunity.
      
      I will not go into the details on this, but for our discussion here, it is important to know that at a given stage of the approach, participants are asked to envision possibilities for process change in the specific context of the exercise.
      
      In order to assist them in such thinking exercise, I used the different types of process change as described by M. Hammer in his “Business Process Reengineering” (process improvement, process extension...) as some kind of guideline.
      
      To some extent, this gave a “visual” context while trying to identify interesting ways of changing existing processes. Still, it remained a difficult exercise. Most people really have problems handling conceptual things such as “processes”. At least, that is my experience.
      
      Today, I am not involved in BPM or process change exercises myself, but what I hear from other consultants is that they experience the same thing. Very often, it is the consultant who brings the idea for process change. And it should not be that way.
      
      So, this gave me my next challenge: develop an approach that will guide a random non-specialist group of people through a thinking process that will allow them to “automatically” identify interesting opportunities for project change that are way beyond the obvious.
      
      So, this has finally brought me to the interaction stuff.
      
      For me, focusing on the interactions with partners and customers does not increase complexity; it reduces complexity since we leave a lot of the real processes stuff behind. In addition, these interactions are special since they are the only points in the process where the company can really make a difference. The internal business processes that reach into these contact points can of course be optimised so that they become more efficient or more cost effective, but in general, such changes do not influence the view of the customer or partner. Only the border crossings matter.
      
      I now have a basic framework that tries to achieve this and I am trying to refine it to support the more complex forms of process change. As said, this method is not for BPM-guru's but for process dummies.
      
      The next step that I envision is to use similar concepts behind the firewall to model interactions between knowledge workers. Past experience has clearly shown that traditional knowledge management where we capture and store "knowledge" into databases does not do the job. I think that managing interactions between knowledge workers does.
      
      Unfortunately, none of this is paying my bills, so this is all time-permitting...
      
      Have fun,
      
      MarcB

      Hello Kurt,<br /><br />Thanks for the comments. You are of course right, but you are a BPM-guy.<br /><br />Let me tell you a bit about the background of this.<br /><br />Several years ago, I participated as a coach in the e-Business Strategy training program of the Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School in Belgium. This was a 10- or 12-day program that ran over a period of 3-4 months. At the end of the training, participants were asked to identify an interesting e-business opportunity for their company or department and to develop a strategic plan for it. Coaches, such as me, assisted the participants developing their plan by giving feedback, challenging the approach, etc. We also were the “evaluators” at the end of the training when all plans were presented.<br /><br />Now, whatever the quality or the lack of quality of these plans, they always had one thing in common: the presenter was never able to articulate why he/she had chosen that specific initiative. “We thought it was a good idea”, “Company xyz is doing it also”, “I read about it”... were the most common answers.<br /><br />So, I developed some kind of method that guided a person through a thinking process that would bring him/her in a structured and documented way to the “best choice” opportunity.<br /><br />I will not go into the details on this, but for our discussion here, it is important to know that at a given stage of the approach, participants are asked to envision possibilities for process change in the specific context of the exercise.<br /><br />In order to assist them in such thinking exercise, I used the different types of process change as described by M. Hammer in his “Business Process Reengineering” (process improvement, process extension...) as some kind of guideline.<br /><br />To some extent, this gave a “visual” context while trying to identify interesting ways of changing existing processes. Still, it remained a difficult exercise. Most people really have problems handling conceptual things such as “processes”. At least, that is my experience.<br /><br />Today, I am not involved in BPM or process change exercises myself, but what I hear from other consultants is that they experience the same thing. Very often, it is the consultant who brings the idea for process change. And it should not be that way.<br /><br />So, this gave me my next challenge: develop an approach that will guide a random non-specialist group of people through a thinking process that will allow them to “automatically” identify interesting opportunities for project change that are way beyond the obvious.<br /><br />So, this has finally brought me to the interaction stuff.<br /><br />For me, focusing on the interactions with partners and customers does not increase complexity; it reduces complexity since we leave a lot of the real processes stuff behind. In addition, these interactions are special since they are the only points in the process where the company can really make a difference. The internal business processes that reach into these contact points can of course be optimised so that they become more efficient or more cost effective, but in general, such changes do not influence the view of the customer or partner. Only the border crossings matter.<br /><br />I now have a basic framework that tries to achieve this and I am trying to refine it to support the more complex forms of process change. As said, this method is not for BPM-guru's but for process dummies.<br /><br />The next step that I envision is to use similar concepts behind the firewall to model interactions between knowledge workers. Past experience has clearly shown that traditional knowledge management where we capture and store "knowledge" into databases does not do the job. I think that managing interactions between knowledge workers does.<br /><br />Unfortunately, none of this is paying my bills, so this is all time-permitting...<br /><br />Have fun,<br /><br />MarcB

      • Some HTML is allowed.
      • Reply
      • Cancel
      • Submit
      Commented in: Business Interaction Management (BIM)

      • Kurt Laitner

        8 months ago

        
        
        

        "You are of course right, but you are a BPM-guy." when you say it like that I feel so objectified :-)
        
        "Most people really have problems handling conceptual things such as “processes”."
        you are right here, and I think the language is not helpful, nor is the precision required of a documented process. thinking in a critical very careful way is not part of most people's day. rather they are presented with a problem, and naturally problem solve their way around it with such heuristics as 'have I solved a problem like this before with no negative feedback, then do that' if I don't know the answer, can i ask someone without risking looking stupid, do I know anyone I trust who may have solved this problem before and so on.. this kind of decision making can not be put on a graph. partly because it is sloppy thinking, but that is the norm. organizations try to replace sloppy thinking with canned thinking and get no thinking in return.
        
        that said, not to be overly negative, because once people realize that their sloppy thinking can be represented as critical precise thinking, without sacrificing flexibility, they start to think in terms that a process geek can get with - and now we can translate freely between real world messiness and precise abstraction, and where needed bump the abstraction up and say 'do stuff here and let me know when you're done'
        
        'develop an approach that will guide a random non-specialist group of people through a thinking process that will allow them to “automatically” identify interesting opportunities for project change that are way beyond the obvious.'
        
        this will be very similar to group brainstorming techniques I would think this area may bear fruit for you. I will see if I can find some links that have crossed my desk.
        
        "consultant who brings the idea for process change. And it should not be that way."
        the consultant through the nature of their job experiences many ways to solve the same problem through their multiple clients, as such they are uniquely positioned to provide Perspective, a key ingredient in creativity. the business people when properly coached with a brainstorming or perspective altering technique (like the framework for thinking you proposed) find it much easier to 'step outside' their mental habits to look with fresh eyes on the problem. The freshest eyes of all are the interns though no one tends to pay any attention to this priceless resource.
        
        Our templated lives are in fact sucking the creative potential out of us and so it is perhaps unfair to expect worker drones to suddenly become creative when management decides to throw them in a room. it is in fact my primary purpose as the ba to break down the cynicism, habitual thinking, and oh this again attitudes to allow the participants to be fully human, fully alive. Peter Senge in his later years has embraced a new humanism and makes the point in somewhat etherial terms in his book Presence, of how a group of stiff dead drones can be awakened and become a creative force. It is a process, a delicate one, but it happens, usually within a week.. this is extraordinary when you think about the conditioning that has taken years to suck the life out of them.
        
        I VERY MUCH like your focus on the 'interface' if you will, the conversations in more human terms, that define an organization.. you are quite right that no matter how well you do the behind the scenes work, it is the interaction that defines your brand, and it is the people interactions that make or break you.
        
        Finally there is no internal or external, it is merely a way to think by creating a scope and boundaries. These are gateless gates, they are put there as a crutch. Defining your processes is like drawing a circle on an infinite blank page. You are not forced to remain in, on, or outside the circle, but it defines the space in a way that makes it useful.
        
        I also feel your disdain for 'guru's' and truly there is no room for guru-ness in process work, in fact I could walk in and 'donate' the process for 90% of the organizations needs, but even knowing the destination, in order to be truly effective the people in each and every room have to walk through the forest and around the mountain themselves to return home, just so they can assimilate and own the solution. This is facilitation, not instruction.
        
        Everything in life, unfortunately, is time permitting.
        
        I hope you will share your further work, even if over a private channel, it interests me greatly.
        
        Thanks again Marc

        "You are of course right, but you are a BPM-guy." when you say it like that I feel so objectified :-)<br /><br />"Most people really have problems handling conceptual things such as “processes”." <br />you are right here, and I think the language is not helpful, nor is the precision required of a documented process. thinking in a critical very careful way is not part of most people's day. rather they are presented with a problem, and naturally problem solve their way around it with such heuristics as 'have I solved a problem like this before with no negative feedback, then do that' if I don't know the answer, can i ask someone without risking looking stupid, do I know anyone I trust who may have solved this problem before and so on.. this kind of decision making can not be put on a graph. partly because it is sloppy thinking, but that is the norm. organizations try to replace sloppy thinking with canned thinking and get no thinking in return.<br /><br />that said, not to be overly negative, because once people realize that their sloppy thinking can be represented as critical precise thinking, without sacrificing flexibility, they start to think in terms that a process geek can get with - and now we can translate freely between real world messiness and precise abstraction, and where needed bump the abstraction up and say 'do stuff here and let me know when you're done'<br /><br />'develop an approach that will guide a random non-specialist group of people through a thinking process that will allow them to “automatically” identify interesting opportunities for project change that are way beyond the obvious.'<br /><br />this will be very similar to group brainstorming techniques I would think this area may bear fruit for you. I will see if I can find some links that have crossed my desk.<br /><br />"consultant who brings the idea for process change. And it should not be that way."<br />the consultant through the nature of their job experiences many ways to solve the same problem through their multiple clients, as such they are uniquely positioned to provide Perspective, a key ingredient in creativity. the business people when properly coached with a brainstorming or perspective altering technique (like the framework for thinking you proposed) find it much easier to 'step outside' their mental habits to look with fresh eyes on the problem. The freshest eyes of all are the interns though no one tends to pay any attention to this priceless resource.<br /><br />Our templated lives are in fact sucking the creative potential out of us and so it is perhaps unfair to expect worker drones to suddenly become creative when management decides to throw them in a room. it is in fact my primary purpose as the ba to break down the cynicism, habitual thinking, and oh this again attitudes to allow the participants to be fully human, fully alive. Peter Senge in his later years has embraced a new humanism and makes the point in somewhat etherial terms in his book Presence, of how a group of stiff dead drones can be awakened and become a creative force. It is a process, a delicate one, but it happens, usually within a week.. this is extraordinary when you think about the conditioning that has taken years to suck the life out of them.<br /><br />I VERY MUCH like your focus on the 'interface' if you will, the conversations in more human terms, that define an organization.. you are quite right that no matter how well you do the behind the scenes work, it is the interaction that defines your brand, and it is the people interactions that make or break you.<br /><br />Finally there is no internal or external, it is merely a way to think by creating a scope and boundaries. These are gateless gates, they are put there as a crutch. Defining your processes is like drawing a circle on an infinite blank page. You are not forced to remain in, on, or outside the circle, but it defines the space in a way that makes it useful.<br /><br />I also feel your disdain for 'guru's' and truly there is no room for guru-ness in process work, in fact I could walk in and 'donate' the process for 90% of the organizations needs, but even knowing the destination, in order to be truly effective the people in each and every room have to walk through the forest and around the mountain themselves to return home, just so they can assimilate and own the solution. This is facilitation, not instruction.<br /><br />Everything in life, unfortunately, is time permitting.<br /><br />I hope you will share your further work, even if over a private channel, it interests me greatly. <br /><br />Thanks again Marc

        • Some HTML is allowed.
        • Reply
        • Cancel
        • Submit
        Commented in: Business Interaction Management (BIM)

  • Kurt Laitner

    8 months ago

    
    
    

    oh yes, one more juicy self serving quote
    "chasing game without a guide leads one into the bush"

    oh yes, one more juicy self serving quote<br />"chasing game without a guide leads one into the bush"

    • Some HTML is allowed.
    • Reply
    • Cancel
    • Submit
    Commented in: Business Interaction Management (BIM)
  Add a Comment

Here's a list of the HTML tags we allow: