Comments on: Who is at fault – the language or the speaker? http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/ Standards, Research & Innovation around Business Process Management and Workflow Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:38:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: BPMN 2.0: no longer for Business Professionals | On Collaborative Planning http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/comment-page-1/#comment-5412 BPMN 2.0: no longer for Business Professionals | On Collaborative Planning Wed, 01 Sep 2010 07:11:39 +0000 http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/#comment-5412 [...] done on the usefulness (see How much BPMN do you need? and Who is at fault – the language or the speaker?)  have not had much effect on the new version of the language.  The BPMN standard group has been [...] [...] done on the usefulness (see How much BPMN do you need? and Who is at fault – the language or the speaker?)  have not had much effect on the new version of the language.  The BPMN standard group has been [...]

]]> By: Will BPMN 2.0 have “Model Portability”? « Go Flow http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/comment-page-1/#comment-457 Will BPMN 2.0 have “Model Portability”? « Go Flow Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:38:21 +0000 http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/#comment-457 [...] to cover all cases.  Studies are being done today at the Department of Defense and universities on what symbols are needed most often, and what can be left out.  We know that some symbols are redundant, and that there are multiple [...] [...] to cover all cases.  Studies are being done today at the Department of Defense and universities on what symbols are needed most often, and what can be left out.  We know that some symbols are redundant, and that there are multiple [...]

]]> By: Mark McGregor http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/comment-page-1/#comment-389 Mark McGregor Fri, 02 May 2008 17:12:14 +0000 http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/#comment-389 Excellent post! I particularly like the parallel you draw with Linguists, because when it come to whose it fault remember "Communication is the reaction you get" - This to me suggests that those taking aim at the excellent piece you have are forgetting about the fact that it is the audience of a model that decide whether it is a good model or a bad model, so whilst Bruce may be right if the audience is IT and they are looking to implement a system. However, if process documentation is all you desire and the users can recognise the process as theirs then the smaller sub-set makes sense. For my mind this is still why the majority of process work does not use BPMN. It reminds me of the old days when everyone said UML was THE standard and Rational was THE tool, the facts were that while Rational was the dominant player with say 60% of the market, the other fact was that less that 10% of those who could use a modelling tool were doing so, meaning that Rational actually only penetrated around 5 to 6% of the market and I think the same is true for BPMN, it may be the majority use it, but only the majority of those who are looking at "standard" notations, which is likely to actually still only be a small minority of those that could use it. Excellent post! I particularly like the parallel you draw with Linguists, because when it come to whose it fault remember “Communication is the reaction you get” – This to me suggests that those taking aim at the excellent piece you have are forgetting about the fact that it is the audience of a model that decide whether it is a good model or a bad model, so whilst Bruce may be right if the audience is IT and they are looking to implement a system. However, if process documentation is all you desire and the users can recognise the process as theirs then the smaller sub-set makes sense. For my mind this is still why the majority of process work does not use BPMN. It reminds me of the old days when everyone said UML was THE standard and Rational was THE tool, the facts were that while Rational was the dominant player with say 60% of the market, the other fact was that less that 10% of those who could use a modelling tool were doing so, meaning that Rational actually only penetrated around 5 to 6% of the market and I think the same is true for BPMN, it may be the majority use it, but only the majority of those who are looking at “standard” notations, which is likely to actually still only be a small minority of those that could use it.

]]> By: The Right Amount of BPMN « Go Flow http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/comment-page-1/#comment-165 The Right Amount of BPMN « Go Flow Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:11:44 +0000 http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/#comment-165 [...] responded with a thorough post which can be brutally rendered as: “Like it or not this is actually how [...] [...] responded with a thorough post which can be brutally rendered as: “Like it or not this is actually how [...]

]]> By: Light BPM http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/comment-page-1/#comment-152 Light BPM Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:13:22 +0000 http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/#comment-152 After reading Bruce Silver's article "Organizing Complex BPMN Models" I was asking myself at some point why should life be so hard? For example: "Exceptions at child levels should be propagated to top level to return a response..That often requires propagating the success or failure indication from its source at a deeply nested level up to the top level, and then sending the response from there..." Why does such a complexity has to be drawn? Isn't it better at some point to eave the graphical tools? I figure that if we need to write code to such case, we would do it in a much more elegant way. I guess the true need for the visual language is caried to the wrong places. I must confess that I am still considering myself a BPM beginner, but I punched on cards my first Fortran program. After reading Bruce Silver’s article “Organizing Complex BPMN Models” I was asking myself at some point why should life be so hard?
For example: “Exceptions at child levels should be propagated to top level to return a response..That often requires propagating the success or failure indication from its source at a deeply nested level up to the top level, and then sending the response from there…”
Why does such a complexity has to be drawn? Isn’t it better at some point to eave the graphical tools? I figure that if we need to write code
to such case, we would do it in a much more elegant way. I guess the true need for the visual language is caried to the wrong places.
I must confess that I am still considering myself a BPM beginner, but I punched on cards my first Fortran program.

]]> By: BPMN : jusqu’où aller ? | BPM Bulletin http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/comment-page-1/#comment-146 BPMN : jusqu’où aller ? | BPM Bulletin Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:36:08 +0000 http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/#comment-146 [...] avec les interventions des experts en la matière, entre autre Bruce Silver, avec une réponse de Michael, Sandy en parle sur son blog également. Si vous avez un avis, ne vous privez donc pas [...] [...] avec les interventions des experts en la matière, entre autre Bruce Silver, avec une réponse de Michael, Sandy en parle sur son blog également. Si vous avez un avis, ne vous privez donc pas [...]

]]> By: Column 2 by Sandy Kemsley : The Great BPMN Debate http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/comment-page-1/#comment-143 Column 2 by Sandy Kemsley : The Great BPMN Debate Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:49:58 +0000 http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/#comment-143 [...] Michael responded to Bruce’s post by pointing out that the aim of their research was to find out how people actually use BPMN, not how vendors, consultants and standards bodies think that they use it (or think that they should use it). Michael restates his three implications in greater detail, the first two of which seem to align with what I thought that he said (and stated in my comment on Bruce’s original post). His clarification on his third point was interesting: We actually like BPMN’s advanced vocabulary. But have you asked end users what they think? Well, we did. Not only in this study but also in Jan’s large-scale BPMN usability studies we did find that users are in fact very troubled by the sheer number of, for example, event constructs. Are they used at a large scale? No. Do users understand their full capacity? Typically not. Why is this not at all reflected in BPMN development? That is exactly our point. Sure, our argument is a somewhat provocative statement. But if it helps to channel some attention to end usage, that’s fair by our standards. [...] [...] Michael responded to Bruce’s post by pointing out that the aim of their research was to find out how people actually use BPMN, not how vendors, consultants and standards bodies think that they use it (or think that they should use it). Michael restates his three implications in greater detail, the first two of which seem to align with what I thought that he said (and stated in my comment on Bruce’s original post). His clarification on his third point was interesting: We actually like BPMN’s advanced vocabulary. But have you asked end users what they think? Well, we did. Not only in this study but also in Jan’s large-scale BPMN usability studies we did find that users are in fact very troubled by the sheer number of, for example, event constructs. Are they used at a large scale? No. Do users understand their full capacity? Typically not. Why is this not at all reflected in BPMN development? That is exactly our point. Sure, our argument is a somewhat provocative statement. But if it helps to channel some attention to end usage, that’s fair by our standards. [...]

]]> By: Tom Baeyens http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/comment-page-1/#comment-140 Tom Baeyens Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:09:35 +0000 http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/#comment-140 Great discussion! Kudo's for having it openly. An opinion from the field: http://processdevelopments.blogspot.com/2008/03/hottest-bpmn-process-modelling-debate.html Great discussion! Kudo’s for having it openly.

An opinion from the field: http://processdevelopments.blogspot.com/2008/03/hottest-bpmn-process-modelling-debate.html

]]> By: BPMS Watch » Michael Elaborates http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/comment-page-1/#comment-139 BPMS Watch » Michael Elaborates Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:50:30 +0000 http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/10/who-is-at-fault-the-language-or-the-speaker/#comment-139 [...] zur Muehlen posts a lengthy response to my post On How Much BPMN Do You Need.  He elaborates on his data analysis procedure - their [...] [...] zur Muehlen posts a lengthy response to my post On How Much BPMN Do You Need.  He elaborates on his data analysis procedure – their [...]

]]>