Phil Gilbert gave the keynote for Day 2 of the OMG BPM ThinkTank 2008 conference.? Using a combination of facts and humor, Phil made a great case for community governance intellectual property, to be developed in the near future (fall 2008?).? The key benefits were to reduce friction/drag on the overall process of chartering projects and resolving resource conflicts.? For example:? How does the integration team decide whether to allocate someone to the $500k BPM project or the $100M legacy system replacement project?? It is too easy for IT teams to simply freeze up and only tackle these huge projects and not address any of the smaller quick-benefit solutions.? On the budgeting/approval side:? chartering 1 big project has the same overhead as chartering 20 smaller projects.? To reduce the drag, one can allocate an investment to a BPM capable team, with an expected return.? Then that team can, in turn, charter projects in an expedited way.? As Phil points out, the incentives have now been flipped, such that the incentive is to ACT, rather than to veto or stall, because the goal is an outcome, not a budgetary one, but a results-oriented outcome. This is pretty neat stuff if we can take it from philosophy to actionable framework.? In fact, it occurs to me that a good governance framework can help with several of the "effects" that act as barriers to BPM adoption (the sophomore effect, for example, and potentially the bus brake effect). Good Q&A session afterward as well, ranging from governance to BPM and SOA playing nice together.? Phil did a great job of tying it back to these governance issues.? Looking forward to seeing the next level of detail on this... I'm not sure if its the yellow brick road but it does seem like it has some promise.? Look to Phil's blog for more details and for upcoming updates.