Reframing BPM Automation
Neil reframes the discussion of Automation and BPM – often people think that BPM is only about automation – and in so doing, resolves much of the potential conflicts for anyone that can agree with his framework:Neil, always a thoughtful writer in our little corner of the world where business meets technology, has another note out about BPM and Process Automation not being a binary choice. I couldn’t agree more. So many times we are presented with false choices, that are incredibly binary – but the world isn’t really like that. The world is full of gray. Moreover, disagreements are often an issue of framing. If you frame the discussion just a bit differently, there isn’t nearly as much disagreement, because now all parties have a new way to establish context to their arguments and perhaps see where the other folks are coming from.
It might seem like this is a bit of an academic way of looking at things, but it becomes particularly useful as a frame of reference, I think, in the context of discussions that are currently swirling around concepts like Advanced Case Management, Dynamic BPM, etc etc. I’ve seen a lot of debate about whether the scenarios described as being relevant in ‘Advanced Case Management’ can be addressed by ‘BPM technology’ and the only answer I can come up with is “it depends on how you scope your definition of ‘BPM technology’”. In my mind (and I agree with Ian Gotts here, as well as with many others) the four aspects of software automation in BPM are independent of each other.(emphasis added by me) Well said. The four areas of automation Neil identifies:
- Automated direction of the flow of work
- Automation of the work tasks themselves
- Automation of support functions that help with monitoring/managing work
- Automation of the definition of work