Max, I would disagree with you that An ACM yetssm is an implementation of a goal-oriented BPM concept is missing the point.ACM has many services needed in order to function. A BPMS is one of those services since we don’t have a better way today of executing a process/task/process fragment/activity/emergent process/knowledge driven process/etc. If you have a tool that works and you can make a tasking model which runs in a BPMS then great.However, I think that a tasking model is the key here. No matter what it runs in BPMS or other from a runtime perspective. There is a true need (and many vendors are getting there) to have a flow of work not a workflow defined. The goal of a flow of work may seem the same as a workflow, but the driver of a flow of work is the case/knowledge worker not the yetssm as in a workflow.By the way, I have found this posting and the discussion thread very interesting here.
Jacob, I too enjoy the interchange of ideas Especially, I like how you set up the straw man, and then take a look from efdferint angles (which encourages me to do the same thing). But whenever I have a discussion with a mainstream BPM vendor, we seem to be talking at cross purposes. They logically understand what unstructured work is, but in their hearts they believe it is just structured work that people were really just too lazy to structure, and one of the main reasons to support unstructured work at all is to find out enough about it so that it can be structured. It may be more of a cultural issue than a technical issue. – I think this is the heart of why some of the ACM folks are disenchanted with BPM the mainstream or dominant BPM vendors often take these kind of stands which don’t really make sense to me or to you and are entirely too rigid. I think (someday) they’ll come around. Not soon enough for our tastes
©2013 CBS Local Media, a division of CBS Radio Inc. All rights reserved.