Comments on: Future of BPM: Replacement or Extension?

By: Anatoly Belychook

Anatoly Belychook — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 04:01:39 +0000

AND better architecture of course.

By: AS

AS — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 10:48:56 +0000

Or better architecture?

Thanks,
AS

By: Anatoly Belychook

Anatoly Belychook — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:30:35 +0000

Bruce

No way thank YOU. Hope to meet at the event.

By: Bruce Silver

Bruce Silver — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:25:48 +0000

Anatoly,
Thank you.
Bruce Silver

By: Anatoly Belychook

Anatoly Belychook — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:37:46 +0000

Neil

Absolutely. Two issues:
1) Over-stretching term “BPM” to anything even slightly related to business processes e.g. pure diagramming.
2) Equipping a mainstream BPM with some add-ons and relabelling it by a new acronym e.g. IBO.

Both confuse customers and hence are no good for the industry.

By: Neil Ward-Dutton (@neilwd)

Neil Ward-Dutton (@neilwd) — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:15:23 +0000

Anatoly, I completely agree - best for everyone if we talk about “extending” core BPMS capabilities.
I’ve talked to quite a few clients who find the incessant need of some to try and say “XYZ is dead” very annoying and harmful to their case. If you’re someone trying to “sell” BPM internally and convince your managers or peers to assist in an investment, this kind of stuff is pretty unhelpful.