Frank Michael Kraft’s post on Taylorism is interesting, in that it is a response to Jakob Freund’s post on the same subject, but with a different perspective, and a pretty balanced view.

Since I mostly agree with his post I’ll just focus on a few of my nitpicks:

“We cannot conclude that if a management style is good for physical production that it is good for brain work as well.”  We also can’t conclude that if a management style is good for physical production it is NOT good for brain work as well.  Or vice versa.  That requires more data and analysis than has been discussed on the blog posts linked above.

Kraft goes on to say that we should use “the right type of tool for the right type of work.”  To my mind, BPM has always been about that.  In my experience it includes mind maps, BPMN, BPEL, interaction diagrams, Failure Mode Effects Analysis, and other tools of the trade.  Not to mention the data analysis, simulation, optimization side of things.   Most of what I hear about ACM sounds like tools of the trade people have been using in BPM projects for quite some time (which is why, to me, they aren’t that differentiated).

He also has a nifty graphic:

And he’s right, when he makes the point that the arguments about BPM and ACM often sound like mutual exclusivity – only one can be right.  But I think the argument between these advocates is more along these lines:

• ACM proponents: ACM is different and separable from BPM as a method, and (less consensus) a tool set. Corollary: the language used often implies it is just better and more important than BPM.
• BPM proponents:  ACM is fine. But it is clearly one of the tools in your BPM tool belt, rather than its own distinct and separate market (tooling), and methodology.

It is easy to mistake the first group’s arguments as saying BPM doesn’t matter, or that ACM is “the only thing”.  Clearly it does matter, and the staunchest proponents of ACM will also say and write that.  It is easy to read the second group’s arguments as saying “BPM is the only thing.”  But the argument is a bit more subtle, it is just that BPM is the umbrella in these advocates minds.  Maybe this is consistent with “BPM is the only thing” – but only because the BPM proponents likely have a more flexible notion of “what is BPM” than the ACM group.

Finally, we see this from Kraft:

And – what we need is a “process funnel” – as I tried to depict in the diagram. That is – a process that today is a completely unmanaged process (only by email) should become an ACM managed process. After a while – if it is a mature process – it can become a BPM managed process (for example by exporting it from an ACM system and importing it into a BPM system). After a while – if the process has further matured – it may become part of an ERP system.

I think Mr. Kraft is essentially correct, and most people would benefit from adopting some kind of funnel, just as he describes.  However, there are two small issues, which don’t detract from the main point he’s making – but the inconsistencies between these layers may not be obvious in a casual read, while they do affect how you approach the funnel:

1. ERP is a tooling (or software package), without a methodology.  In essence, the “methodology” is to standardize on a big software package.  That may also include giving up on differentiation, but it doesn’t have to.
2. ACM and BPM “methodologies” can both be accomplished with the same tool sets (software packages), even if you accept that the methodologies are distinct.
3. As a result, the transitions from one layer to the next have different degrees of friction with your IT and Business groups.

The funnel itself makes perfect sense.  In fact some of the customers and IT staff we’ve worked with prioritize their process work this way: by forcing new project ideas to go into the funnel starting with a fairly loose “ad-hoc” definition, and only with volume does it move into the more structured definitions more commonly considered “BPM”.

As usual, a strong contribution to the body of thought from Mr. Kraft, around ACM, BPM, and Taylorism.

Jakob Freund has written an interesting defense of Taylorism, and he makes a few interesting points that I don’t recall seeing in previous discussions about ACM v BPM.

Actually, when I am driving, I am a zombie worker most of the time. Sometimes, of course, there are “unpredictable” events, like a child running over the street, or an alien spaceship landing in the middle of the highway. Then I become a knowledge worker, handling that case with my horribly flexible brain.

No, I don’t mean the point about alien spacecraft, I’m referring to his point that being able to operate on auto-pilot leaves our mind free to focus when we really need to, in value-added situations.

So the bottom line is: Making the world more predictable (yes, it can be done), and then applying axiomatic systems to it, is nothing invented by Taylor and somehow an “accident” of the 20th century, but it is a central component of human evolution. It has always been there, and it will always be there, as long as people are interested in less work and more free time.

This is also an interesting argument.  A bit too much credit has gone to Taylor over the years for putting into words what might already have been in progress.

The central thesis seems to be that reducing “knowledge work” to scalable process work is one of the key imperatives of scaling a business.  It is an interesting take on things, and fits a lot of the process efforts that focus on efficiency as a goal.  And it is a refutation of much of the hype around ACM as being something shiny and new.

So Jim Sinur really opened a can of worms the other day with his missive on BPMN, literally calling for it to burn baby burn – nothing like a gentle start like that to initiate a moderate discussion of the finer points of BPMN.  I couldn’t help but respond both within his blog as well as on our own blog.  I feel like Jim is letting the business off the hook – as he puts it – they don’t care about process, and they’re too busy making money to worry about process.  I think this is a cop out.  There is a comment thread on Jim’s blog that I’d recommend reading for the follow up discussion, and the original “burn baby burn” statement got walked back somewhat.

But the debate didn’t stay contained there.  Keith Swenson chimed in, taking advantage of the opportunity to pile on BPMN.  I can’t accept the black-and-white approach he is taking to the discussion, and so of course we had a bit of back-and-forth about whether BPMN is appropriate for no one in the business (his contention) or at least some people (my contention).  I was challenged to name people within the business who read or write BPMN, which was quite easy to do, because this is the kind of stuff we do every day for work.  I think the comment thread on his blog, and on Jim’s, or incredibly telling.

But there was also a great post from Neil Ward-Dutton on the subject, that captures my perspective perfectly:

Or – in other words perhaps – surely it’s not too much to ask non-IT participants in BPM initiatives to take a little time to learn some fairly straightforward modelling technniques?

From our case study work here I think what Scott is saying leads to a sensible, middle-ground answer – which is, that the applicability of BPMN depends on a number of factors; saying that BPMN (especially BPMN 2.0) either is, or is not, suitable for “the business” is too simplistic and black/white. It’s like saying Cloud Computing is the future of IT. Firstly it supposes that we have to talk about BPMN as an all-or-nothing proposition; secondly it supposes that “the business” is some kind of homogeneous organisation with one set of skills, experiences and inclinations.

I literally could not have said this better myself. He goes on to make another important point I agree with:

At the same time, though, there’s significant evidence to suggest that a core subset of BPMN symbols are absolutely usable by business analysts with experience in high-level analysis and design and provide great results in terms of delivering a common language across multi-disciplinary teams. I’ve come across many BAs who know and use (aspects of) BPMN as part of their armoury. They’re not “IT people” – they have business backgrounds and they work in line-of-business departments.

Great read from Neil.

In the comments on this one, Keith takes a nice shot at my assertion that understanding just a few BPMN shapes will allow you to read someone else’s thoughts on a process, or to communicate your own basic processes to others:

Also funny is the comment that learning six (or 7) shapes means that you understand the non-trivial interactions between those shapes at run time without needing the programmer’s insight into how systems function. That would be a little like saying that learning 26 letters makes you a Shakespeare, or able to read all western European languages. (But I must avoid use of similes since this apparently is sometimes confusing.) BPMN certainly is useful is some situations, it simply isn’t useful in all situations.

For the record, I don’t find Keith’s “similes” confusing at all.  I find them inaccurate, misleading, and misrepresentative.  And when we turn the analogy on its head, I think that proves how pointless they are.  In practice, when people read Shakespeare they’re usually in school and get help from cliff’s notes, teachers, and fellow students.  Not unlike those working with business processes and BPMN … and other tools (six sigma, lean, value stream, etc.  ).  Once again, I’ll point out that analogies are illustrative, they simply don’t constitute proof or refutation.

Jakob Freund of Camunda commented on Keith’s blog and summed up a reasonable reader’s interpretation of both Jim’s post and Keith’s post:

I think the main problem is that in both blog posts (Jim and yours) this very important distinction between “all” business professionals and “business (process) analysts” was not made. Analysts are not programmers but very often part of a business department, therefore a subset of “business professionals”. To throw all “business professionals” in one pot judging there skills in working with BPMN (or whatever) makes a good headline, but does not say anything useful.

Furthermore, there has not been made any distinction between “creating” and “reading” BPMN diagrams, and between the extremely different grades of complexity a process diagram can bear (please excuse my bad English).

But those are exactly the parameters you always have to look at when judging modeling approaches (no matter whether they are control flow – based, grids, prosa or what ever).

I guess it just comes down to this: BPMN is quite useful.  It is even useful to people most of us would consider as “business professionals”.  But there are other quite useful tools in our business process management space, and there’s no reason not to use each one when appropriate.  I also recommend as practical reading, this post on practical application of BPMN by Jakob on his own Camunda blog.  I liked how he closed his last comment:

cheers from my customer’s office in Germany (currently introducing BPMN in a 80k-people company, and huh, it works for Business people, but it’s bloody hard work to make that happen  ).

Similarly, as I was writing on the same comment thread, I was about to head in to visit my customer, which also uses BPMN to communicate broad requirements between business stakeholders and IT.  Regardless of what the theory says, the practical reality is our customers’ businesses are using this stuff.