Jim Sinur's take on BPM in China

Scott Francis
Next Post
Previous Post
Jim Sinur has his usual pro vs. con argument with himself on the issue of BPM in China. The anti-BPM argument:  lots of cheap labor, 300k+ engineers turned out every year -so why invest in BPM when we can throw bodies at the problem. The pro-BPM argument (presumably Jim’s take):
While I value lower labor costs, I think the battle is producing higher gross domestic product (GDP) with less hours per GDP dollar. Eventually Chinas cost have to go up. It’s already happening in India. Don’t throw out BPM; throw out the programmers !!! It’s probably different in the west where the labor costs are higher.
Actually I think this is a tension that takes care of itself.  China (more accurately, firms within China) will invest in BPM when they feel the pressure to do so, and likely not often before that point.  That pressure might be higher labor costs, higher quality standards (not all quality improvements can be fixed by more manpower), or increasing pace of change – the same kind of pressures that apply here.  But I don’t think, at this point, that China’s goal should be higher GDP with less hours of labor – that is a byproduct of other good data, not a goal in-and-of itself. For now, labor costs are not pressuring China to explore BPM, perhaps. But that picture is likely to change as the economy grows in China at a rapid clip.  But BPM is a “pull” not a “push” sale at this point – the customer has to realize they have the need before you are likely to sell them on the virtues of BPM as the way to satisfy that need.

Related Posts

Gartner Warms up its BPM Message
As if by Magic
Will 50% of BPM Programs Fail?