|
Every BPM practitioner discovers early on, through reading
of related specification, books, and white papers, and
listening to presentations at meetings and conferences,
that there is no agreed-upon industry definition of
Business Process. Instead, there are multiple
definitions, each looking at the field from its own
unique point of view, concentrating on its own set of
concerns. It’s not a matter of one definition being
“right” and the others being “wrong”; because each is
useful in its context, the practitioner learns to focus
on the content of the source at hand instead of
critiquing the details of its definition, to maximize
the insight derived from the source. In fact, the
varying points of view virtually require differing
definitions: The precise, formal definition required by
a specification would not function well in a book or
white paper by an analyst or consultant.
Our goal for the OCEB (OMG-Certified Expert in BPM)
program is to certify practitioners whose knowledge and
skills in BPM are both broad and deep, increasingly so
as one proceeds up the ladder from Fundamental to
Advanced level. If we were to adopt and use only a
single, restrictive definition of Business Process in
our set of examinations, our ability to achieve this
goal would suffer. Necessarily, experienced
practitioners are familiar with many definitions of
Business Process, and able to adjust easily as the
definition shifts when they move from one context to
another. This is the point of view we adopted in OCEB:
In lieu of adopting a single definition, we have
provided, in the context of each question examining this
topic, enough information to eliminate ambiguity about
context and scope. Practitioners with the knowledge and
experience required to function effectively at each
level of certification should feel comfortable with the
range and types of processes discussed in the set of
OCEB examinations.
By way of example, here are a few of the definitions
used in our industry:
Rummler and Brache [1], early on, declared that a
Business Process was “the series of steps that a
business executes to produce a product or service.” If
it crosses department boundaries, it’s cross-functional.
If the product is for an external customer it’s a
Primary Process; otherwise it’s a Support Process. This
definition provides a good start but is so inclusive
that it requires additional context to be useful.
Martyn Ould [2]
defines (quoting here) a Process as a
coherent set of activities carried out by a
collaborating group to achieve a goal, where the
“chunking” (his word) of organizational activity into
processes must be driven by an understanding of the
business the organization is in. Ould completes his
definition by listing seven situations where
practitioners need to identify and deal with processes.
The situations range from support of Business Motivation
modeling and analysis, through workflow management, to
process improvement programs.
In their Terminology and Glossary document
[3], the
Workflow Management Coalition provides a useful
definition, saying that a Business Process is “A set of
one or more linked procedures or activities which
collectively realize a business objective or policy
goal, normally within the context of an organizational
structure defining functional roles and relationships.”
They follow up with a number of usage guidelines
outlining scope, triggering conditions and output, and
interactions, and point out that duration may vary
widely (contrast this with Smith and Fingar, next) and
that process activities may be either manual or
automated.
Smith and Fingar [4] say that a Business Process is
“the complete and dynamically coordinated set of
collaborative and transactional activities that deliver
value to customers.” They go on to assert that processes
are “characteristically” (and we’re quoting here) Large
and Complex; Dynamic; Widely distributed and customized
across boundaries; Long-running, Automated; and more.
The last item in their list, “Difficult to make
visible,” seems to imply a bias towards
as-yet-undiscovered As-Is processes but we’re sure they
didn’t mean to exclude well-documented, mature processes
from their definition. Smith and Fingar derive many
valuable insights in their application of this
definition even though it’s more restrictive than
others.
The usage in OMG’s Business Motivation Model
specification [5]
is, perhaps, the least restrictive. It
declares that “Business processes realize courses of
action. Courses of action are undertaken to ensure that
the enterprise makes progress towards one or more of its
goals.” This encompasses not only the usual cyclic
process (taking and filling an order, e.g.), but also a
well-defined process that runs only once. For example,
if the enterprise has decided to raise its process
maturity from BPMM Level 3 to Level 4, the execution of
the steps to do this would be a Business Process by this
definition. The BMM specification points out that you’ll
have to look elsewhere for details of Business Process
and, by implication, for its formal definition too.
We hope you didn’t read through this paper searching
for an official, definitive meaning of the term Business
Process. While a more naïve person might say that is a
search doomed to failure, we prefer to characterize it
as incorrectly formulated: Many different activities deal with
business processes, the scope of each being determined
by its goals and objectives: Are you modeling,
analyzing, improving, writing specifications about, or
something else? Processes in scope for one activity will
fall outside of scope for another. A familiarity with
the term Business Process, and its use in the
literature, will prepare you well for the OCEB
examinations and certification, and for the discussions
and projects you will face in your practice of BPM.
References:
[1] Improving Performance: How to
Manage the White Space in the Organization Chart,
by Geary A. Rummler and Alan P. Brache, Jossey-Bass; 2nd
ed (1995).
[2] Business Process Management: A Rigorous Approach, by
Martyn A. Ould, Meghan-Kiffer Press (2005).
[3]
http://www.wfmc.org/standards/docs/TC-1011_term_glossary_v3.pdf
[4] Business Process Management: The Third Wave, by
Howard Smith and Peter Fingar, Meghan Kiffer (2006)
[5]
http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/br_pm_spec_catalog.htm#BMM
|