Comments on: It isn’t Black and White, Can or Can’t

By: air jordan 19

air jordan 19 — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:19:01 +0000

Leisure is more and more important in the life. Here I know a lot of leisure that is good at me. Adjust our life interest, bring us the enthusiasm of exercise. The post is very well. By the way I know some websites is very well such as XXXXX. Disscount fashionable item is hotting on sale!

news-need.com

By: Links for May 8 « Thoughts on Collaborative Planning

Links for May 8 « Thoughts on Collaborative Planning — Sun, 09 May 2010 22:39:37 +0000

[...] Francis: It isn’t Black and White, Can or Can’t. He argues that a BPMS is flexible enough to handle all process needs, so why invent something [...]

By: sfrancis

sfrancis — Thu, 06 May 2010 19:24:18 +0000

Thx for the response, love the term “in-situ” :)

To the first point – I think we're in agreement, that people have been “designing by doing” without the software/technology support for probably a long time – but, as we turn to look at BPMS vendors and products like ActionBase – I think there's no question that ActionBase is a more pure form of this approach than the typical BPMS (I will refrain from saying “all” because my information isn't perfect :)

I know that the BPMS vendors are talking about supporting this kind of design by doing processing, but the question to me to a software vendor is always: “what does your software do, specfically, that makes this type of work or task easier than it would be otherwise (with other software, or without software)?” …

By: ActionBase

ActionBase — Thu, 06 May 2010 15:30:29 +0000

Scott,
Good comments. The kind of iterativeagile method you describe is certainly a way to approximate “design by doing” (and in my opinion is the right way to go about implementing any process technology).

My point was more about BPMS vendors, than BPM as a methodology. For me “design by doing” isn't just about iterative implementation of the process – it is about having existing tools that let process design emerge from everyday work as it is being done “in-situ”. If true “design by doing” becomes possible then process design isn't a point in time exercise, but a way for real-world processes to change and morph as needed, but still be managed.
As far as I can tell most BPMS vendors don't see this as their purview – their works starts with the existence of a rigorous model. Good practioners can get around that limtation – but why should they need to?