Jim Sinur of Gartner poses this question in a blog post the other day.

Actually, he phrased it as “Is XPDL 2.1 on the Edge of Becoming a Dominant Process Standard”.  I think the answer is a “no (not yet).”

(this may just be because my definition of where the edge is, or what dominant means, is different than Mr. Sinur’s, or it may be because we disagree on some of the background material – either way, here’s my take)

Some arguments in favor of XPDL are cited by Mr. Sinur, and by others (Keith Swensen in a previous post as well), and by WfMC.  The primary argument in favor is the portability of the activity models.  And, a pretty inclusive vendor list that supports XPDL.

I’m not against XPDL at all.  I won’t even mind if it becomes the dominant process standard. But here are the arguments working against it for now:

1. First, keep in mind that these portable activity models are stripped of their execution attributes/elements – those elements are not, according to Mr. Sinur, part of the portability of XPDL 2.1.
2. Second, the processes that are ported are also devoid of the implementation of human activities (and typically, system activities), which are presumed to be implemented outside the BPMN model.  (See John Reynolds thoughtful post on this subject here)
3. When I look at the “implementations” of XPDL on the list above, I found a few problems with it:  the references aren’t dated (and may, therefore be out of date or obsolete), and several of the implementations are for tiny pieces of the software or companies being mentioned, and don’t represent full support of XPDL.
4. According to Gartner, the two leading BPM vendors are Pega and Lombardi.  I looked through that list and I couldn’t find either of them on the XPDL bandwagon.  If the two leading vendors in the space don’t find it necessary to support the standard, then I’m doubting that it becomes the dominant standard.

All that said, XPDL could still become the preferred format for model exchange if BPMN 2.0 doesn’t fit the bill.  Or Gartner could ratchet up the pressure on the vendors that haven’t supported XPDL so far to begin doing so – by weighting that support higher on evaluation criteria for the next Magic Quadrant (though that is quite a ways off, it probably gives these vendors no excuses if they haven’t delivered it by then).  Currently the vendors not on the XPDL list seem to be waiting on the BPMN 2.0 to be released.  If that spec doesn’t live up to the billing, I can imagine vendors supporting XPDL for model interchange as a backup plan.  But I don’t see those vendors investing in two solutions for interchange if they don’t have to.  And I can’t see calling a format a “dominant” format if the leading vendors aren’t fully supporting it.

I think the portability of XPDL, and the compliance tests they’ve put together, are a big step forward for the BPM community.  But that conclusion is regardless of whether XPDL in fact, dominates over BPMN, or vice versa.  Either way, the BPM community wins.  Because I’m sure some of the enterprising XPDL vendors will come up with a mapping from BPMN2 to XPDL 2.1… (These XML formats do lend themselves to being translated after all…)

I’ve read a couple of articles recently related to business process visualization.  I think this topic is particularly interesting because most people think they have what they need once they buy a BI tool or a good enterprise reporting tool (and there are several that are quite good).

But the thing that makes process visualization so interesting is the context of the process in which the data is generated.  John Reynolds’ Thoughtful Programmer blog has a good post on the topic of Visualization.  In it, he makes a few great points that should resonate with anyone pursuing BPM excellence.  The dream that everyone working in a business will not just understand the activities for which they are responsible, but the role of those activities in the business processes they impact.  It has been shown that feedback loops improve performance by focusing on how individual performance affects overall results.

John also hits on another favorite of mine:  the idea that the same model should support views/layers/aspects that allow different users to understand the model and interact with it ways that are different, but compatible (and enabling).  He also references Phil Gilbert’s dream of BPM on every desk in an enterprise- which makes sense when you think how most processes are executed today – via email/paper/fax – and every single desk in an organization is involved in its business processes… they just don’t have the right tools to support the processes they execute (at least, in many cases!).

So, I think John does a great job of making the case for why visualization matters.  But I think if one hasn’t read his other posts, you might miss some of the context:  that the reason this visibility matters is precisely because of the process context.  It is the lack of context that makes using existing BI and reporting tools challenging.  You can get the data, but does your IT staff know when (in the process) to collect the data? Can the business articulate this need to IT?  Often these decisions are driven as much by convenience as by design because no one has the right answer with respect to the process.

Another issue to discuss with respect to visualization is the lack of standards.  While some vendors use very easily read/used/manipulated data formats for their process information, they are still considered to be “proprietary” formats by customers and the industry (proof that the definition of proprietary continues to evolve.  Once upon a time, just having your data accessible in a published relational database schema was considered being “open” rather than “proprietary”!  Now, if you don’t adhere to some industry standard schema you are closed or proprietary… even if such a schema doesn’t exist yet… )

This brings me to an article on The Business Process Analytics Format (BPAF).  Good read, and a good reminder that there are folks out there trying to put standardized formulations around the Business Process Data that feeds into analytics.  I’m encouraged that the format appears to be consistent/compatible with the tools I’m familiar with, but of course some of the terminology could use a BPMN overhaul (or at least a primer for those who are more familiar with other BPM* standards).

For example, there is a focus on the Business Process Audit Format XML… Which has a defined Business Process Analytics Format Event. In isolation this is a good naming convention, but I think it would help everyone see the relevance if the standard also related this Audit event to where it might occur in a BPMN-defined diagram – is it a standalone event in that diagram, or is it an artifact of other items in the diagrams – and if so, which ones?

Even without this context in terminology, BPAF might turn out to be important.  After all, if you can standardize on what a measurable “event” looks like, then you can actually build analytics that are cross-vendor and consume BPAF compatible events.  Eventually you  could have standard analytic packages… But of course the goal isn’t to have standard packages… the goal is for people who run businesses (and manage processes), to be able to visualize, comprehend, manage, and improve their processes.  That makes visualization central, if not the heart, of what will make BPM relevant to every desktop in the enterprise, even if it is dependent on delivery of executable processes to have full process context in that visualization.

Keith has put out a series of articles (possibly more to come) that lay down a great marker for how to evaluate Modeling strategies and how these approaches compare (strengths and weaknesses of each, across several dimensions).

It started with this post, which set the table for further discussion.

Following that were posts on Analytics, Round-tripping, Performance, and Simulation.

I recommend reading them all if you want a better understanding of some of the BPMN – BPEL debates (without even mentioning those terms), and understanding implicit tradeoffs in a product that the vendor may not (or may not be able to) articulate explicitly.

If your company has already ventured down this road you probably realize that standardizing processes, especially core business processes is in fact NOT easy. There are many reasons why this is a heck of a lot harder than one may think. Let’s start with the big question first – What do we mean by standardization and what is the real business objective in doing it (i.e. who is asking for it)? I have seen quite a few flavors of this over my career; most recently I spent the better part of a year working with a very large insurance company who wants to standardize their claims process across all of their products and regional markets.

When I asked “why standardize?” I received different answers from lots of different people. “We want to make the claims process cheaper and more efficient,” while another person said “We want to be able to centralize the processing of claims,” and yet another “We want the customer to have the same experience in their claims handling regardless of where they are or who they talk to.”  Are they all saying the same thing in different ways? Are these really the same objective? Perhaps, but I and a few others were not convinced. The implication of this question is huge as this will without a doubt dictate what approach will be needed to achieve the goal. Yes, it’s those details again that quite often nobody really wants to face but without them then the whole exercise is just academic and everyone can just standby for a journey that could take a decade to realize, all the while managing ongoing change as the business climate shifts (i.e. competition, regulations, new markets, etc.).
So what does “standardizing” really mean? If we look at the definition of standard and exclude “a grade of beef below good” as one of them, then we see “a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated”. So said in more of the context of a business process, it is to achieve a baseline measurement and reference model for process performance. So this has less to do with centralizing a process and much more to do with achieving a consistent performance profile to meet customer and/or business requirements.

So then another big question hits home. Do we really need everyone to perform the tasks in the exact same way? Or can it be that we don’t really care how they do things at a procedural level as long as they consistently meet the needed SLA’s, thus making the measurement the real standard? Maybe think of the latter like a technical standard such as J2EE, as long as a software vendor can deliver the functions required that make it J2EE compliant, it doesn’t matter how they actually implemented it. And as we all know there are very big differences between J2EE products. That becomes yet another big question. At what level of a process, if you think in terms of value-streams, should be considered the standard and what can be tailored in any fashion just as long as it can deliver to the specified requirements?As you can see, this whole notion of process standardization creates some very big questions that any company pursuing this strategy will have to answer, and it is not easy. From experience I can tell you that achieving the benefit of standardization does NOT unequivocally equal everyone at all levels of a process doing things the same way.

In fact, that is usually why this work can get very, very hard. Rationalizing activities from an end-to-end standpoint without knowing quantifiably what the performance standard needs to be is a recipe for some major headaches. So maybe another way of approaching standardization is by backing in to it, such as we need to process x-type claims in 72 hours in all markets we serve. Focusing on it from a measurement standpoint is the best way to understand at what levels of a process and more importantly what are the few key activities at those levels which really need to be rationalized. Versus what I have seen so many times, a blanket objective of everyone who is involved in the process must do things the same way. If you are reading this post, then you have probably been in those meetings where you need everyone to agree on “how the process should work”, now multiply that effect by 100 when you begin talking standardizing across products and geographies.
Ironically, everyone agreeing and doing the same work doesn’t guarantee that the measured result will meet the standard, but that is often the implicit assumption in such endeavors…

Happy 4th of July everyone, and think about our armed forces today. Our deepest thanks go out to all of you.