Architecture + Goals = Adaptive!

hi

http://isismjpucher.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/architecture-model-adaptive/

 

Architecture + Goals = Adaptive!

July 10, 2010 by Max J. Pucher

The discussion about ADAPTIVENESS in processes or knowledge work leads to interesting avenues. Here are a few recent examples:

Jim Sinur – Gartner: ‘Got Social Processes’ proposes a range of process types from structured to ‘guiding’ processes with more and more social interaction. I wonder how others feel, but to me SOCIAL (or its kin E20) by its definition means open and uncontrolled interactions of people and not managed processes. I have posted a graphic about a similar spread of interaction types in March 2010 when I commented on Jeanelle Hills BPM predictions, but I see them as different technologies and concepts. Jim says that he wants to stay away from a technology discussions, therefore he does not consider HOW these technologies would practically integrate and interact. However integrated, adding ‘social’ free-text-snippets to orthodox BPM does not improve processes or make them adaptive. Only completely new technology can provide all these variants of process interactions. To become adaptive and thus allow any form of case or process, the BPM technology needs enable the user creation of new goals, tasks, rules, content and participants during execution. That has nothing to do with being ‘social’ and it isn’t ‘ad-hoc’ processes. You can read more in ‘Mastering the Unpredictable’!

Let me state here again that adding SOCIAL capabilities does not provide the dynamics, flexibility and adaptiveness that knowledge work requires. If that wouldn’t be so, then Lotus Notes would be the one and only system because it provided those social features a long time ago, including forms and collaboration.