It's Business Management, Not BPM

  • April 2, 2013
  • Scott
  • 3 Comments

In John Reynold’s talk at bpmNEXT, he focused on “data-centric-BPM” – by which he meant modeling business entity lifecycle, and not just the processes that intersect or interact with the Business Entity Lifecycle (BEL).

A key takeaway from the talk that had heads nodding was his comment that we need to drop the P from BPM, because it isn’t just Business Process Management, it is Business Management.

As the discussion made clear, business doesn’t care about “process” per se, they care about results and managing to those results.  And so we can’t really ignore the data that feeds processes, and the visibility and governance associated.

Related Posts
  • June 15, 2017
  • Krista
  • 0 Comments

We are excited to announce our first customer speaker for Driven 2017. Quang Ton, leader of Schlumberger's pro...

  • June 12, 2017
  • Scott
  • 0 Comments

We had the pleasure of presenting Brazos CX Insights to the bpmNEXT 2017 conference in April.  As we've previ...

  • June 11, 2017
  • Scott
  • 2 Comments

Anatoly does a great job of explaining the event types and why you really only need 5 or 6 of them to fully ex...

  • John Reynolds

    Thanks for the shout-out Scott… The most concise plea for BEL + BPM that I’ve come across can be found here: http://www.togaf-modeling.org/models/data-architecture-menu/data-lifecycle-diagrams-menu.html

  • Business may care about processes, but it’s weird for business people to “start a process”. They enter customer’s order, initiate some resource planning etc. These actions do start a process but it shouldn’t be done under the carpet. The typical BPMS user interface item “start an instance” is ridiculous.

    • Good point, Anatoly – “process” is too abstract a term. Concrete actions like order, planning, etc. make more sense.

      Couldn’t agree more about “start an instance” terminology 🙂 sounds like something you might need antibiotics for 🙂