Tag Archives: Model Strategy

Model Strategy Slidecast

Posted on by
2

I gave a presentation on the Model Preserving Strategy / Model Transforming Strategy comparison at the Process.gov conference in Washing DC on Jun 19.  I have put the slides on SlideShare and for the first time I figured out how to attach an audio track to make it a “SlideCast“.  An experiment at this point, but it seems easier than video.  Let me know if you think this works well or not.

Good advice to avoid process micromanagement from Anatoly Belychook with his post on a Process Anti-pattern: One Man Show.   A process should include things are relevant to the group, and avoid all things that are not.

Don’t miss next week’s Virtual BPM Tech Show on July 7 thru 9.  It is a good way to get some real details on how different products work — all from your regular desk chair.  (While you are there, be sure to ask whether the products take a Model Preserving Strategy or not.  🙂

Process Anti-pattern: “One Man Show”

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 →

WYDIWYE: The Answer to BPEL Transform Problems

Posted on by
15

I just want to highlight an excellent post by William Vambenepe on the subject of BPMN to BPEL: going to battle with one hand tied? He does a very simple experiment: draw a meaningful diagram in BPMN, in this case a fairly simple one involving an Inclusive-OR branch, and then attempt to convert this to BPEL. He does this conversion and presents the results is quite obviously a diagram that fails in fact to capture the exact meaning. He says he has no solution to this problem. Continue reading →

Throw Out the Diagram?

Posted on by
3

I ran a “Round Table” at the BPM ThinkTank on the subject of BPMN and XPDL. There always is the question: “Why not use BPEL?” Then I explain how XPDL holds the graphical layout, the X & Y coordinates, the size the nodes, the paths of the lines. BPEL has not support for the graphical layout.

“But you don’t need to save the graphical layout!” Continue reading →