Комментарии: Главное не результат, главное процесс

Комментарий к записи Семинары BPMS.ru от Anatoly Belychook

Anatoly Belychook — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:56:42 +0000

Наталья

Могу только посочувствовать, но не вести протоколы, записи и трансляции было принципиальным решением. Понимаете, на семинар приходят как бы просто профессионалы: в свое рабочее время и представляя только себя. Но на самом-то деле мы все занимаем какие-то должности, и поэтому как только выступление становится публичным - надо заботиться о кофиденциальности и о соответствии официальной позиции компании. Откровенное обсуждение реальных проектов, сделанных на реальном инструменте у реальных заказчиков становится попросту невозможным.

Правда, для неконференции это неактуально, но там другая специфика: мозговой штурм требует не только вербального, но и эмоционального контакта. Это действие, происходящее здесь и сейчас.

Комментарий к записи Семинары BPMS.ru от Наталья

Наталья — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:47:09 +0000

Вот уж который раз читаю о семинарах и облизываюсь. Может быть будут сетевые общения?.. ну чтобы уж и регионы смогли поучаствовать.

Комментарий к записи Граница между инструментарием EA и BPMS от Bruce Silver

Bruce Silver — Fri, 28 May 2010 20:59:32 +0000

Anatoly,
Great piece (sorry I am just reading it today). I have been trying to get BPMS vendors who have good BPMN tools to add more BPA-like functionality - notably a business-oriented repository of modeling artifacts: organizations/roles, goals and metrics, rules, data, etc… with no success, largely for the reasons you state. And one you don’t state… That is, BPA vendors are in the tools business. They know how to sell software to an elite few for $5000 per seat. BPMS vendors are in the runtime business. If you can buy the tools at all without the runtime, they are essentially free. I think BPMS vendors know how to make a good BPA tool worth $1000 per seat (with excellent roundtripping to the BPMS)… but they don’t know how to make a business out of it.
–Bruce

Комментарий к записи Шаблоны и паттерны BPM от Anatoly Belychook

Anatoly Belychook — Fri, 28 May 2010 08:18:12 +0000

John

Interesting point. Frameworks and templates have are similar by nature but for me they differ in scale. A template refers to a single process while a framework should cover all processes of the given industry, more or less.

Комментарий к записи Шаблоны и паттерны BPM от John Reynolds

John Reynolds — Fri, 28 May 2010 07:53:33 +0000

After using Lombardi for many years, I finally spend some time with a Pega expert… and I finally “got” the difference - It’s related to the difference between patterns and templates that you’ve outlined.

Pega has many vertical market Frameworks - very much like your Templates. These are “80%” solutions… Fill in or customize the remaining “20%” and you are done.
Lombardi doesn’t have any “Templates”… but there are several “Patterns” that we tend to follow time and time again.
For example, I frequently find myself following a “Hierarchical Approval Pattern” or a “Parallel Approval Pattern” or a combination of the two.

I think of patterns as proven approaches… When I hear the business person describe the process, I think to myself “Ah… I can use pattern X”.

I think of template/frameworks as being purchase differentiators - “We’re in the banking industry, and are processes are pretty standard banking processes”. If you’ve got a good banking template, you have a big competitive advantage.

Комментарий к записи Шаблоны и паттерны BPM от Scott

Scott — Tue, 25 May 2010 22:36:44 +0000

Anatoly - this is an interesting post.
While the distinction seems subtle, it is important. I, too, have been skeptical of templates (though I have, at times, seen them work well). But it is hard for many people to understand how valuable design patterns are if it doesn’t mean that they can just “copy-n-paste and edit” the pattern as if it were template. Ie, the “re-use” in the design pattern is knowing well how to solve a problem with a pattern that has been proven over time to be a good one. The “re-use” of a template is using existing code with some additional configuration or editing, in my view.

The observer pattern is often one that you can explain to people - the template isn’t that useful because you don’t know exactly what the technical underpinnings of the pattern are (webservice? jms? db trigger? other? ) but the concept is highly re-usable. Notification patterns in general are good examples, I think, for the non-technical audience.

Комментарий к записи Шаблоны и паттерны BPM от Anatoly Belychook

Anatoly Belychook — Thu, 20 May 2010 06:14:34 +0000

David

Thank you for valuable input. I’m not a native speaker and can’t judge on these two terms usage in English. So it’s better to clarify each time “let’s call a template this and a pattern that”. OK then.

Luckily for us, in Russian they are two distinct terms. “Pattern” was borrowed from English not long ago. There were “behaviour patterns”, patterns in image recognition and now we also have “design patterns”.

Комментарий к записи Шаблоны и паттерны BPM от David French

David French — Thu, 20 May 2010 05:59:08 +0000

While I agree that there are two distinct concepts here, trying to separate them by the use of words “template” and “pattern’ is, I think, a mistake. Lifting our noses out of the mire of IT we would see that these words are synonyms with a long use as equivalents in fields such as engineering and fitting with your use of ‘template’. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a suitable alternative for pattern!

Комментарий к записи Различие между BPM и Workflow: не только технологии от anon

anon — Fri, 07 May 2010 07:27:11 +0000

The only place Automation is before Process Mapping is in the dictionary

Комментарий к записи Различие между BPM и Workflow: не только технологии от igor Fiodorov

igor Fiodorov — Tue, 04 May 2010 10:07:12 +0000

A nice comparison, but it misses a last but not least difference:
A Workflow stands for AUTOMATION while BPM means MANGEMENT.

Igor Fiodorov