Adam Deane's recent post about Keith Swenson's blog was quite interesting to me.
Keith has been blogging on BPM for the last 4 years.
The first couple of years were mainly around notations, standards and development.
The next year had an emphasis on BPM best practices.
His last year of blogging concentrates on ACM ? Adaptive Content Management.
Personally, I found the articles on BPM best practices ? the most interesting to read.
Clever observations and recommendations. They were also articulated very nicely.
I?m not a notation kind of guy, so the debate around standards and acronyms wasn?t exactly my cup of tea (XPDL,BPAF, BPDM, Wf-XML, BPMNEL, WYDIWYE and ? IJKLMN)
I'm not a notation guy either... but I found myself sucked into some of these debates anyway! Sometimes you just can't help it.? People often criticize the notation, when the real problem is the specific implementation of the notation that they're working with. (This same thing applies to people criticizing a space, like BPM, when the real complaint is with specific tools).
Of course, the part that really jumped out at me was almost buried at the bottom:
And I must admit that his latest obsession with ACM has got me a bit baffled.
I haven?t a problem with the ACM concept, but I do have a worry about the approach.
I agree with Adam that Keith's most interesting work (to me) was regarding BPM best practices.? I find the discussions on ACM too theoretical - with nothing practical to separate ACM from BPM in a meaningful sense (only in a theoretical and etymological approach).