Monthly Archives: February 2009

Far Flung Analytics – BPAF

Posted on by
5

Michael zur Muehlen has written a short article on “The Business Process Analytics Format (BPAF)“. This is a portable format that will allow the history events from multiple BPM servers to be aggregated together to a single process analytics server. It can be used to connect one vendor’s process engine to another vendor’s analytics server. This proposed standard will be a critical element for gaining insight into how well your processes are running, especially when you have workflow engines from multiple vendors in your enterprise. Continue reading →

Model Strategy & Simulation

Posted on by
2

Most BPM systems offer some form of simulation capability. Simulation capabilities range from the very simple ability to walk through a process, to very sophisticated case-arrival/activity performance models, and even to goal-seeking optimization capabilities.  In this post I explore the relationship between simulation and Model PReserving/Transforming Strategy.  Continue reading →

Model Strategy & Performance

Posted on by
3

In an earlier post, I introduced the concept of a “Model Preserving Strategy” versus a “Model Transforming Strategy” and defined them as two approaches that a BPMS can take in the lifecycle of a business process. I then posted a couple of situations where the Model Preserving Strategy is a better choice, but it is not always a better choice. This post is dedicated to those situations where the Model Transforming Strategy shines.

The main reason for transforming a model into another form, is to realize performance improvements. Continue reading →

Model Strategy, Round-Trip & Agile Development

Posted on by
3

We often talk about the process “round trip”. The process lifecycle is explicitly about moving the process through different people with different specializations. The business analyst draws a high-level model and the systems integrator includes details for connecting the systems. Another dynamic is the continual process improvement that occurs when you assess how effective the current process is, make a change at the high level, and take that change through the lifecycle again. Continue reading →

Model Strategy & Analytics

Posted on by
2

A by-product of automating work is the records is made that indicate precisely when each task is started and completed. Analytic information about how your organization is working can actually be far more valuable than the cost savings derived from the automation. A lot can be learned from this analysis that can help you improve your organization. Some claim that this is the principle benefit of BPM.

In an earlier post, I introduced the concept of a “Model Preserving Strategy” versus a “Model Transforming Strategy” and defined them as two approaches that a BPMS can take in the lifecycle of a business process.  This post delves into how process analytics are effected by model strategy. Continue reading →

Model Strategy: Preserving vs. Transforming

Posted on by
16

It started out as a casual conversation over drinks at the Oct 2008 BPM Tech Show in DC, late in the afternoon, after the tutorials and presentations had finished. We wanted to know: “why is there such a variation in different BPM systems?” This expanded into a breakfast meeting the following morning on the topic of “What are advantages/ disadvantages of either preserving or transforming a BPM model?” We found that most existing systems tend to follow one of two possible strategies. Existing BPM Systems (and their associated methodologies) can be categorized as supporting either a “Model Transforming Strategy” or a “Model Preserving Strategy”.

It was remarkable how passionate people were about their position. Continue reading →

Is the BPMN/BPEL Debate a Dead Horse?

Posted on by
8

Bruce Silver’s latest post “Reframing the BPMN vs BPEL Debate” calls to question whether it is worth continued discussion of the definition of BPM. Like most of Bruce’s posts, it is insightful and well worth reading. This is in response to a post by Boris Lublinsky on “BPEL: Who Needs It Anyway?”

I am a little surprised by Bruce’s response,  Continue reading →