Tom C. • Connie's points are excellent and on target.

Robert S. • What a profound question - it's almost as if Peter Drucker were alive again! I can imagine Peter asking questions in his trademark shotgun style, such as: "What will your business processes look like in 2020? How will they touch the customer? How will they keep your customers coming back? How will your processes become an integral part of the customer experience? . . ."

In the end it's never about the technology, it's always about the customer and remaining relevant to the customer. How will your processes need to work in 2020? Consider the iTunes store as a good bellweather. The technology is so fused into the business process - they become one - and they are totally focused on the customer experience - the successful customer outcome. I am reminded of the quote "There are no IT projects only business projects that rely on IT" and that is our future.

Regards,

Bob

Robert T. • Interesting take on the future of BPM. The header on the article says "The rules of the game have changed. The customer is center stage and everything will be aligned to achieving Successful Outcomes - processes, people, systems and strategy. It is BPM and beyond!"

I've just completed Matthew Stewart's polemic entitled "The Management Myth" and discovered that the management gurus, according to Stewart, have failed to deliver any substantial contribution to managing large enterprises. He discusses "management science" from Taylorism to Drucker to Peters and provides first hand experiences from management consulting. His conclusions fly in the face of the bromides and sloganeering offered by the like of Peters, Collins and any number of "experts" in management science.

That said, I wonder about the substance of 7 points as identified by "10 major thought leaders at large global organizations". As with much that passes for knowledge or informed opinion in the business process management space, this list of "informed opinions" about BPM is obviously of the same genre as "management science"; if middle management can just get their act together, so the pitch goes, the world will certainly be "standardizing processes across the globe" in no time flat.

There is value to be gained from implementing management systems, tools, technologies and methods within organizations. Unfortunately many organizations fall victim to the unrealistic, nay imaginary, promised lands of the next big thing. Rational, well managed organizations will not gamble on largely unspecified gains, unless of course the intent is to enrich the C-Suites at the expense of the future of the company (Enron, CountryWide, WorldCom, Lehman, etc., etc.). That may be rational in a sick sort of way, but unethical as I understand business purposes at large.

I am a proponent for BPM and I believe that when it is properly applied, BPM can generate great benefits to the organization and even networks of organizations. I am, however, dubious that BPM or its successors - and there will be successors - can deliver the hyper functioning global network of friction-less capital to ready ("shovel ready anyone") and able labor markets. This is of course my humble opinion on the topic and I hope to hear others.

Thomas O. • Comparing Connies findings to the current state of process thinking makes the remaining 9 years seem rather short for some companies.

Andy L. • it will not run well by itself without your necessary consideration

Deepak G. • Forrester's Trends are spot on. Interesting to read that technology no longer is the worrying element, but getting the customer to the center of everything we do is the concern!!

Russell S. • I think that BPM has seen its days. It doesn't deliver like it should and it's time for a re-think.

Information first, process second.

Adrian G. • Great share Steve, totally agree with the point about tech not being the issue now or in the future and thanks for your comments both Roberts, I thought they were very interesting!

Tom C. • Russel, rethink BPM? Really? Isn't this a little like re-thinking 'air.'" One can argue that certain prescriptions or uses of certain approaches under the umbrella of BPM may or process management have had their day. But based on my "travels" and feelings about best practices in process management, BPM is alive and well. Just my thought!

Peter Piotr P. • BPM is a great paradigm. But this is opinion shared, sadly, mainly by BPM professionals From where I am, the question remains why so few decision makers buy the idea. It is still "centric" inside-out" way of thinking with deep roots in tradition and taught still in business schools (EPS and not the customer being major goal)? Or cultural changes imposing too high hurtle for narrow minded, effort spanned over horizon of next quarterly businsss targets?
The future of BPM does not depend so much on the power of the paradigm but on mind-set of future management.

Russell S. • @Tom

Re-think? No. More a new-think.

I see processes as mostly SSS and information as AAA. I'll expand.

Processes usually map activities that are sequential, symmetrical and synchronous, in other words work generally 'flows', is rarely hugely different while it flows and has predictable or scheduled timing for each flow.

By contrast, information is usually asynchronous - you don't know when it will arrive or when you will need it -, asymmetrical - you don't know whether it will be good or bad, major or minor -, and asequential - you don't know what order it will arrive in - lots of bad, some good, some bad, lots of good, etc.

As Karl concurs on another thread...

http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=65903526&gid=1062077&commentID=51424167&trk=view_disc&ut=3SVjbu-VS_EkU1

...the result is that it is practically impossible to reduce all informationals to processes. Rather keep them as informationals and adapt activity ad-hoc or real-time to suit the situation. Much more effective.

Information first, process second.

Karl Walter K. • @Russell . . . with many workflows, ad hoc interventions involving real time lookup of information are commonplace.

Example: client is on a buy-and hold investment path, the broker receives a call from the client asking for advice and assistance re whether to move to a new strategy, the broker needs market information so that a discussion with the client can take place, with the possible outcome of exiting the client from that pathway and being streamed onto a new pathway.

Russell S. • @Karl

Spot on! A lovely example of information-based occurrences.

Information doesn't flow, only communication of information flows, so a 'work-flow' shows what must be communicated between steps, but it does NOT show what information caused the work-flow to exist in the first place. They can't, they are entirely different things. One is largely AAA and the other largely SSS. They are totally incompatible.

Dave D. • Nice to see a variety of opinions from a mix of sources.

Tom - I agree, 'Business Process Management' the phrase will still be used a decade from now, but it will allude to a different paradigm. BPMN/BPMS is a successful, but limited technology. We'll see BPMS morph in response to new technologies that disrupt the sector.

Peter - Culture is always a big part of change, but I think the other driver is corporate sustainability. Slow change companies are dying - its natural selection at work. Studies by John Hagel of Deloitte's Center for the Edge show that the 'topple rate' for Fortune Companies has gone from 50 years to 15 and it is still declining.

Russell - I'd say the GOAL comes first, though I appreciate that the goal itself is a piece of information/context. I agree that information should drive control flows - the sequence and requirements of next steps. I'm not clear on where you are going with when you say a workflow "does NOT show what information caused the workflow to exist in the first place".

Russell S. • @Dave

A work-flow is a series of activities designed to achieve an outcome. It may apply, for example, to the manufacture of bowling shoes, but no amount of analysis of the process will tell you the reasons why the soles and uppers have to be of a particular shape or colour and are thus different from a regular shoe. Or the other example I quote, deconstructing the 'work-flow' in a motor car will not tell you why we drive on the side of the road that we do.

Processes are not information, that would be like comparing apples and ashtrays, they are COMPLETELY different.

And yes, a goal is information. Goal first, activity second. Information first, process second. Not a chicken or egg situation.

Richard I. • Not sure there is a need to emphasize the difference between Information and Process here. My view is that Processes are a sequence of activities/tasks to achieve outcomes based on defined GOALS. So, yes one could also say that Information can trigger a Process (sequence of activities/tasks) to start and that Information could be rendered in defined goals, policies (what and why), business rules, etc.
On the example that "...deconstructing the 'work-flow' in a motor car will not tell you why we drive on the side of the road that we do.", I would say the answer lies not in the process work-flow, but in the Policy and Rules of the Process.
So, Processes without informational inputs can be useless. There is no real value in emphasizing the differences between the two :-)

Tom C. • I agree with Richard. Let's refocus on process recognizing that there are a large number of surrounding issues affecting process. I think comments such as "information first, process second" has us all thinking -- thanks Russell -- but information alone doesn't get anything done unless it is acted upon. Let's get back to the "future of process" recognizing that information and many other things are crucial.

Dave D. • Russel - thanks for elaborating, I just wanted to see if I was missing something. I agree conceptually, but I'm not sure what the argument is or with.

I'll throw in a twist relative to Future of Business Processes - In our system, everything is data, and we generate processes dynamically mashing up events, data, rules and capabilities on-demand. In this way, the sequence and nature of tasks are situationally-aware, driven by interaction context for the most relevant response.

Since there is no design-time flowchart, just dependencies that get injected, there is no process to break. This enables run-time change with in-flight approvals, version control, detailed audit history, and rollback capability.

This allows the system do deliver the best and latest information and the user, based on permissions, to modify the instance to optimize for goal.

Russell S. • @Dave

That's the best way to run a realtime organisation with a real-time strategy. I wish there were more like you.

@Richard

You wrote, "...There is no real value in emphasizing the differences between the two...". So you are happy to put up with the 70+% failure rate of the process approach whilst admitting that Policies and Rules (informationals) are essential ?

Doesn't that seem strange to you? Or is your paradigm showing?

@Tom

The future of process is nonexistent without a future of information. Why aren't people demanding informational management tools whilst they cry out for process management tools?

Thomas O. • Russel,
the fact of the matter is that companies and people are getting away with it - at the very least they don't make the connection between process-related decisions taken now (or not taken) and the consequences that may only come to light several years later.

Process are a fine topic to talk about, it's only when it comes to having a deeper understanding of the subject that decision makers are happy enough to keep processes as a vision only and turn to other more pressing issues instead.

What I noted here: http://taraneon.de/blog/2011/09/13/bpm-take-me-to-your-leader/ is as true as it is representative.

The fear factor often used like "bad processes will lose you clients" or "in 2014 2 companies will go bust because of avoidable process problems" just doesn't work....unfortunately!
Thomas