Good article on BPTrends regarding BPM standardization, and what motivates it:
Anyone involved in any aspect of a process change effort understands the need for a consistent use of basic terms to describe process work. Traditions like Lean, Six Sigma, Business Process Reengineering, Information Technology, and Business Process Management often use the same terms in slightly different ways.
These different usages confuse business managers, frustrate practitioners and make any discussions regarding the nature and benefits of BPM difficult to describe and communicate. A common, basic vocabulary and agreement on the major tasks, techniques and roles involved in process work would establish a foundation for the growth of the overall BPM market and would benefit all practitioners of BPM.
The need for such agreement is underlined by the growth of BPM programs in the academic community. Many universities are establishing business process curricula and courses, and some have established advanced degrees in BPM. If we cannot define the field in a more-or- less common way and build research programs to refine and extend common practices, the field will fragment and will gradually dissipate.
The article moves to a call for action:
The time has come to create an open, comprehensive process body of knowledge. BPTrends has joined with the BPM Group at Queensland University of Technology (QUT), the International Institute of Business Analysts (IIBA), Kemsley Design, and the Object Management Group (OMG), to establish the Process Knowledge Initiative. (www.processknowledge.org)
(And yes, this is the same initiative that Sandy Kemsley has been promoting on her blog and twitter? stream).