this is indeed an interesting observation. I would agree that while a page count surely isn’t an overly adequate measure of complexity, it nevertheless makes me worry. Even if the extra pages are devoted to explanations and clarifications, wouldn’t it be easier to make the specification less ambiguous, more succinct and more readily understandable in the first place?
While the whole issue may sound rather minor, I believe specification complexity is an important issue that vendors and standardization bodies should carefully consider. When we consider how innovations diffuse and are accepted and adopted by end users - there has been a lot of research in this area, most notably Roger’s theory of innovation diffusion (just google it…) - we find that concepts such as user-friendliness, ease of learning and adoption curves are crucial for a successful uptake. In my opinion, standardization should not only be technology- and specification-oriented. What is lacking in the current standardization efforts in the BPM industry, is very simply an end user focus.
Admittedly, there has not been too much research into BPM end user behaviour either, but hopefully we can contribute to this aspect in the future, and hopefully vendors and standardization bodies will choose to listen…