Comments for BPM Research

Comment on Who is at fault - the language or the speaker? by Will BPMN 2.0 have “Model Portability”? « Go Flow

Will BPMN 2.0 have “Model Portability”? « Go Flow — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:38:21 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

Comment on How much BPMN do you need? by craig

craig — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:00:57 +0000

In our implementations we really only use about 20% of the constructs consistently. The problem is for the other 80% we will probably need a couple for a typical implementation BUT the couple are never consistent so we still need the entire set to be sure we can deliver a project.

Comment on What every Enterprise Architect should know about BPM and Workflow by promosyon

promosyon — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:44:37 +0000

This is very useful, thanks

Comment on Common Sense in Short Supply by daniel

daniel — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:47:32 +0000

Thank you for the article. I am new in the BPM area, but I think it is the first approach I’ve seen, which suggests a ‘better’ process workflow in which failed client request should contain ALL failure reasons. All others stated something like: if client form misses an ID, inform him immediately about the missing ID and exit. And this is so simple and natural.

As for Absurdistan, I live in Romania - maybe you can visit us sometime…

Comment on How much BPMN do you need? by The Leprachaun

The Leprachaun — Wed, 21 May 2008 17:58:33 +0000

YES AND NO

I am the CEO of Process Master and the vast vast majority of users are only using 20% of the available stencil

However, BA’s and process specialists are using it all - which is the beauty of BPMN

So using BPMN for the production of maps and documentation, only needs a fraction of the stencil - and it expands naturally to 100% if you are using it for automation or indept BPI

There is a video of all this on http://www.ProcessMaster.com

Cheers

Alan

Comment on How much BPMN do you need? by Has BPMN delivered the expected benefits? « Managing Change – Improving Performance

Fri, 09 May 2008 12:41:54 +0000

[...] process; therefore it may not be a surprise that a recent research conduct by Michael zur Muehlen: How much BPMN do you need? found that “the average BPMN model uses less than 20% of the available vocabulary”; suggesting [...]

Comment on Who is at fault - the language or the speaker? by Mark McGregor

Mark McGregor — Fri, 02 May 2008 17:12:14 +0000

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.

Comment on How much BPMN do you need? by Andrew Warner

Andrew Warner — Fri, 02 May 2008 02:43:21 +0000

Hi there,
I think your first two conclusions, recommending pragmatism on the part of practitioners and vendors, make a lot of sense. Why would you spend a lot of time and effort, not to mention expense, learning things that will only form a small subset of your work. Particularly when you can fill in the gaps as needed.

The third seems fine on the face of it but consider an analogy. Would the technicians designing and building an airbag system or anti-lock braking system for a car gloss over it because it’s only ever used in 0.1% of car journeys? Obviously not. To have a complete car, which functions as you would like it to in all circumstances, you need all those systems. So saying we don’t need a complete modelling language based on a statistical analysis of diagrams may not be valid.

Using those data to say that the OMG should not spend a lot of time understanding and defining the most complicated and intricate, if least used, elements of a modelling notation is, in my view, a mistake.

Comment on How much BPMN do you need? by BPM HOJE » Blog Archive » O BPMN é muito grande

BPM HOJE » Blog Archive » O BPMN é muito grande — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:52:25 +0000

[...] foi surpresa, portanto, ler o artigo “How much BPMN do you need”, de Michael zur Muehlen e Jan Recker. Esse pessoal analisou 126 diagramas BPMN desenhados por empresas e consultores diversos e procurou [...]

Comment on What every Enterprise Architect should know about BPM and Workflow by Bogdan Borza

Bogdan Borza — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:41:10 +0000

Loved the presentation!

Mind if we use it on our website? With all credits to you, of course!