When Processes are really Networks

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Fran

unread,
Aug 17, 2010, 4:04:49 PM8/17/10
to Value Networks
Verna Allee has a new blog post - When Processes are really Networks:
Reveal hidden patterns of interaction and predict process performance.
http://tiny.cc/4lrxc

The key to visualizing a process as a human-centric value network is
showing the roles that are responsible for each activity and for
generating the specific outputs of the process. This is nicely
illustrated with a sequenced diagram of scheduling procedures in a
healthcare clinic.

Also read about a query-based governance process that allows for
monitoring of workflow performance and optimizing performance in
complex work environments.

Jeff Lindsay

unread,
Aug 17, 2010, 10:52:48 PM8/17/10
to value-n...@googlegroups.com

Processes as networks is an important concept for those managing businesses processes but also for all those within them. Taking note of the informal conversations that propel us forward in a process can help us more quickly identify roadblocks and systemic gaps that interfere with information flow. Value Network Analysis tools are great for visualizing all this. Thanks for the article!





Jeff Lindsay
Director of Solution Development
Innovationedge  
 
http://innovationedge.com
Email:
jlin...@innovationedge.com
LinkedIn:
http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/jefflindsay
Blog:
http://InnovationFatigue.com
Office: 920.967.0466  
 Mobile: 920.428.1878   Fax: 920.967.0463
1526 S. Commercial Street, Suite 200
  Neenah, WI  54956

Hot off the press: Conquering Innovation Fatigue by Jeff Lindsay, Cheryl Perkins, and Mukund Karanjikar (John Wiley & Sons, 2009). See
http://tinyurl.com/nofatigue.

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, proprietary and / or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copy of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and destroy any printed copy. Thank you.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Value Networks" group.
To post to this group, send email to value-n...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to value-network...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/value-networks?hl=en.

Michael _P

unread,
Aug 18, 2010, 3:15:33 PM8/18/10
to Value Networks
I am terribly sorry, but I cannot share the enthusiasm expressed by
Fran. I have no found anything new in the Verna post and, on a
contrary, think about some possible confusions.

Here is the first paragraph of Verna post: "The idea that processes
are networks seems counterintuitive. After all, processes are linear
aren’t they? Not necessarily. Consider this simple Wikipedia
definition of business process as “a collection of related, structured
activities or tasks that produce a specific service or product (serve
a particular goal) for a particular customer or customers. It often
can be visualized with a flowchart as a sequence of activities.”"

To those who work with processes every day the idea that processes are
networks is quite intuitive because the process and network are both
very regulated entities. Then, processes are never or 'almost' never
linear: every step in the process ends by a decision point, which
leads to, as minimum, 2 new branches. If the decision point uses
business rules, number of possible brunches is unlimited (but
predefined). Wikipedia, unfortunately, is not a 100% trustful resource
- given definition is rather a definition of a business service
because it omits one of the most important characteristics of the
process - the ordered sequence of activities. This order is the
essence of the network.

People may not like the order but the order does not concern with the
people thoughts until it is changed.

If a process has any "hidden network patterns", this process is either
incomplete or poorly designed. If a VNA can find these hidden patters,
it is a great help but there are many other methods for this task
exist.

Also, I have not understood how SaaS relates to the published topic
and previous text. 15 years ago, I had all these in a regular network
engineering: "The SaaS Enterprise Edition includes a low-effort, query-
based governance process that allows for continuous and easy
monitoring of workflow performance. Network indicators go beyond the
linear- and time-driven indicators of workflow performance. It
provides full analytics and easily manipulated reports with predictive
network analytics and alerts." How this relates to a human factor in a
process? Human do not exist at the level of Network in SaaS.

Finally, one of the reader of the original post wrote: "this reference
to the fact that processes must be defined in terms of the roles of
each actor and that there are networking standards behind the business
processes, which in turn can easily come to the fore with the analysis
of the value network, is extremely important to my work." Indeed, it
is very important for a Master Degree because "processes must be
defined in terms of the roles of each actor and that there are
networking standards behind the business processes" is the 101 of the
process design: the design starts with Who does What in Which Role at
What moment and Where (physical location).

Since a process is very (sometimes over-) regulated set of sequential
activities, it does not fit well with VN, especially with intangible
values. Sorry, but this is the fact.

Thank you,
- Michael Poulin


On Aug 17, 9:04 pm, Fran <f...@vernaallee.com> wrote:
> Verna Allee has a new blog post - When Processes are really Networks:
> Reveal hidden patterns of interaction and predict process performance.http://tiny.cc/4lrxc

Laurence Lock Lee

unread,
Aug 18, 2010, 7:16:01 PM8/18/10
to Value Networks
Hi Michael .... thank you for your critique, we need your sort of
input to enliven the discussion. I certainly agree that if you follow
the development of business process management and into the systems
thinking world, then the tools to describe processes as networks,
complete with feedback loops, has all been there for a long time. One
could argue that a VNA approach may uncover some "human centred"
activities that might normally be overlooked by a business process
analyst who tends not to have intangible human process at front of
mind when looking for process efficiencies. I want to pick up on your
last sentence though..."Since a process is very (sometimes over-)
regulated set of sequential
activities, it does not fit well with VN, especially with intangible
values". This is exactly what drew me to VNA in the first place! Being
able to talk about intangibles in the same paragraph as process
centred tangibles is what I believe is the core value VNA brings to
the table. Our application of VNA is more around Stakeholder
Engagement. We are just finalising a whitepaper on this topic and
suggesting that this could indeed form a much needed bridge between
established BPM activities and the emerging social networking/media
phenomena. We do have a narrated presentation on our web site though
www.optimice.com.au.

So maybe I've taken the discussion off the topic a little ... but I
think its important that we continue to debate and discuss these
topics to hunt out what the unique value we can gain from the
different approaches and how they can complement, more so than compete
with each other.


Laurence Lock Lee PhD
Partner, Optimice Pty Ltd
Ph: +61 (0)407001628
www.optimice.com.au
Blog: http://governanceandnetworks.blogspot.com/

Learn to network, then network to learn

Verna Allee

unread,
Aug 19, 2010, 3:28:21 AM8/19/10
to Value Networks
Hi Michael, I am puzzled by many of your observations and think we
must be talking apples and oranges. The goal here is not to design the
perfect process - the goal is provide the very best process support
network where processes can continually be refined in a continuously
changing environment.

You said:
> To those who work with processes every day the idea that processes are
> networks is quite intuitive because the process and network are both
> very regulated entities.

When you say that both process and network are regulated entities I
must assume that you are referring to technology networks? Human
network interactions can rarely if ever be tightly regulated,
otherwise they are not networks.

You said:
> Every step in the process ends by a decision point, which
> leads to, as minimum, 2 new branches. If the decision point uses
> business rules, number of possible brunches is unlimited (but
> predefined).

Processes are usually depicted as branching, but branches or "trees"
structures form only a hierarchical network patterns. We find when we
trace the process by roles they are not hierarchical in most cases.
When they are are people "work around" the hierarchy through informal
interactions in order to address exceptions.

You said
> one of the most important characteristics of the
> process - the ordered sequence of activities. This order is the
> essence of the network.

Yes, there is an order to sequence of interactions, although there can
of course be parallel sequences in time or multiple simultaneous flows
or processes within any process network. In fact - it is this very
aspect of multiple flows that is drawing people to mapping processes
as networks with multiple pathways
'
You said:
> People may not like the order but the order does not concern with the
> people thoughts until it is changed.

In complex, context sensitive environments the process or order is
always changing! That is the problem. The dirty little secret of BPM
is that once things start to get complicated nobody really follows the
process. We are very good at "gaming" the process but that does not
mean it is actually working well.

> If a process has any "hidden network patterns", this process is either
> incomplete or poorly designed. If a VNA can find these hidden patters,
> it is a great help but there are many other methods for this task
> exist.

The hidden network patterns of the process are not "mistakes" they are
a reflection of the very natural way that people really work. It is
far more productive to optimize these hidden network patterns
underlying the processes than try to eliminate them. The fact that we
have viewed human interactions as "noise" and a distraction is what
has created unworkable organizations where people are trying very hard
to reintroduce collaboration, networks and open up innovation.

The whole goal of process engineering is to drive out variation. In
complex work environments variation is not only a given, it is
desirable. Innovations emerge only through variation and variation
allows people to be more creative, responsive and agile.

With VNA people better understand exactly when, where and how
variation is permissible.

You said:
> Also, I have not understood how SaaS relates to the published topic
> and previous text. 15 years ago, I had all these in a regular network
> engineering: "The SaaS Enterprise Edition includes a low-effort, query-
> based governance process that allows for continuous and easy
> monitoring of workflow performance. Network indicators go beyond the
> linear- and time-driven indicators of workflow performance. It
> provides full analytics and easily manipulated reports with predictive
> network analytics and alerts." How this relates to a human factor in a
> process? Human do not exist at the level of Network in SaaS.

I do not understand this statement or your question. I was referring
to the SaaS Value Network Insights application. There is ample
information about predictive analytics on the valuenetworks.com
website. The premise of our predictive analytics is that human
interaction and process network patterns are indicators for when
processes are at risk of breakdown.
>
You said:
> Since a process is very (sometimes over-) regulated set of sequential
> activities, it does not fit well with VN, especially with intangible
> values. Sorry, but this is the fact.
>
This holds true only for the most simple, fully automated processes.
The environments where VNA are most powerful are when business
processes are complex and depend upon human decisions, actions and
interactions for their success. We are finding that these "intangible"
interactions are the real drivers for process performance. A primary
example of this is in customer support where there are clearly defined
processes for handling technical support issues, yet collaboration,
coordination, human interactions and decision making are essential.

Verna

Charles Ehin

unread,
Aug 19, 2010, 2:07:27 PM8/19/10
to value-n...@googlegroups.com
Hi Michael,
 
I'm afraid you completely forgot to include the informal networks that are part of every enterprise and function on self-organizing principles. In these emergent system is where most of the work takes place as they interpret what and how the formal processes need to be managed or modified. You may want to read http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=3056 to get a better idea of what I'm suggesting.
 
Best,
Charlie 

Michael _P

unread,
Aug 19, 2010, 3:41:30 PM8/19/10
to Value Networks
Hi Laurence,

when I talk about processes, I mean business, manual or semi-automated
processes only, no technical tools at all.

I do agree with "a VNA approach may uncover some "human centred"
activities that might normally be overlooked by a business process
analyst who tends not to have intangible human process at front of
mind when looking for process efficiencies." As I said, this help is
great and it means a problem in the process. This means (to me) that
properly designed business process (no technology references here,
please) put instructions for everything and does not leave a room for
intangible values during normal execution. However, millions
instructions do not help the process in the extremal situation where
people step forward ahead of the instructions. I think this is the
point of the major advantage of VN and VNA - the modelling and
analysis of irregular situations in the process (I do not mean trivial
errors and their compensation).

Also, I fully with you when you talk about a Stakeholder engagement. I
would be very interested in reading your whitepaper in the future. The
aspect I am looking for is moment of transformation (bi-directional)
between a service-oriented view of the Stakeholders on the process
('out-in') and the process-oriented view ('in-out') of the process
workers onto the external Stakeholders. What intangible values may be
generated in this transformation and how they can help or destruct the
Stakeholder engagement.

Thank you,
- Michael

Verna Allee

unread,
Aug 19, 2010, 3:13:00 PM8/19/10
to Value Networks
Also Michael there is a bit of a contradiction in your posting when
you say:

>To those who work with processes every day the idea that processes are
networks is quite intuitive

Yet on the other hand you insist that:

> If a process has any "hidden network patterns", this process is either
> incomplete or poorly designed.

So if it is intuitive that processes are networks, then network
patterns aren't really "wrong," are they?

Regards,
Verna

Verna Allee

unread,
Aug 19, 2010, 3:08:58 PM8/19/10
to Value Networks
More on understanding business process as networks.

Business Process Networks
Sequencing reveals the hidden network patterns
http://valuenetworks.com/public/blog/207582

Verna

Michael _P

unread,
Aug 19, 2010, 3:52:16 PM8/19/10
to Value Networks

Charlie,

when we deal with business processes only poorly designed processes
include informal networks. Based on the definition of the business
process any possibility of 'informal' should be eliminated. Why?
Because informal relationships do not guarantee repeatable results,
i.e. cause deviations, and the deviations in the process is the sin #1
in the process world. It is not an issue whether a process has been
explicitly designed or appeared as a self-organised; when it completes
organising, it becomes immutable. BTW, this is exactly the reason why
I try to promote an idea that process-centric organisation and
management is inadequate market conditions that change massively and
frequently; processes are enemies to any changes.

Thank you,
- Michael


On Aug 19, 7:07 pm, "Charles Ehin" <Kal...@msn.com> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I'm afraid you completely forgot to include the informal networks that are part of every enterprise and function on self-organizing principles. In these emergent system is where most of the work takes place as they interpret what and how the formal processes need to be managed or modified. You may want to readhttp://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=3056<http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=3056> to get a better idea of what I'm suggesting.
>   > On Aug 17, 9:04 pm, Fran <f...@vernaallee.com<mailto:f...@vernaallee.com>> wrote:
>
>   > > Verna Allee has a new blog post - When Processes are really Networks:
>   > > Reveal hidden patterns of interaction and predict process performance.http://tiny.cc/4lrxc
>
>   > > The key to visualizing a process as a human-centric value network is
>   > > showing the roles that are responsible for each activity and for
>   > > generating the specific outputs of the process. This is nicely
>   > > illustrated with a sequenced diagram of scheduling procedures in a
>   > > healthcare clinic.
>
>   > > Also read about a query-based governance process that allows for
>   > > monitoring of workflow performance and optimizing performance in
>   > > complex work environments.
>
>   --
>   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Value Networks" group.
>   To post to this group, send email to value-n...@googlegroups.com<mailto:value-n...@googlegroups.com>.
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send email to value-network...@googlegroups.com<mailto:value-networks+unsubscri b...@googlegroups.com>.
>   For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/value-networks?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/value-networks?hl=en>.

Michael _P

unread,
Aug 19, 2010, 5:35:06 PM8/19/10
to Value Networks
Hi Verna,

I allow a possibility that we were talking apples and oranges.

I understand and accept the goal you kindly explained now. Please,
allow me to put some stresses on your description from the structural
viewpoint. The key aspect of any process is its definition and the
only factor that defines any process is its process logic. If one
changes/refines the process logic, then one process gets replaced by
another new process. At the jargon level, a process is used
interchangeably with the goal of the process or business Real World
Effect, which are quite different things.

The same business Real World Effect may be reached by may absolutely
different processes. This means that when VNA finds new patterns, it
kills one set of processes and causes a new set of process (which is
not true fro services that always stay the same regardless of their
implementation).

Then, all business process that properly defined are fully regulated;
I explained this in my other posts in this thread. People working in
these processes - process workers - may have relationships between
themselves and with people 'from' other processes but a network of
these relationships is fully constrained by the fixed processes, which
makes the network related to these processes fixed as well
(unfortunately).

I do not think that multi-branched process are hierarchical and the
process roles are not hierarchical at all. We should not mix the
administrative roles (the hierarchy of administration/management) with
the roles in the process. For example, if a clerk in the process gets
into the process logical point that requires special approval for the
nest step and this approval may be done by a Director only, the
process's role 'Approver' does not care if the person performing this
approval is a Director, or a VP, or another clerk - who are assigned
into the role 'Approver' those work in certain point of the process.

I do not understand the statement: "it is this very aspect of multiple
flows that is drawing people to mapping processes as networks with
multiple pathways". Multiple process flows are still process or sub-
processes and they have to be as formal as any other processes. If
networks are informal, there is not point for mapping between them
(again, if the processes and flows are done right because if they are
done wrong or incomplete, the only thing that can save these processes
is the informal intangible values of people relationships).

The 'people games' with complex process is well known BPM problem.
This is another argument on my account confirming that the process-
centric organisation is not the right one for the frequently changing
environment. Instead of improving it, it is much more economically
feasible to replace it with the 'right tool for the task' - with
services. The service allow a self-organising of implementation/
process defining only inputs/outcomes and goals/results.

Regarding "We are finding that these "intangible" interactions are the
real drivers for process performance" I can only say that the
performances of the process are embedded into the process design.
Informal and intangible values help process performances if either the
process is not properly defined or people omit process rules.

I am sorry but I reacted to SaaS in the expression "SaaS Value
Network", which in technology stands for 'Software as a Service'. If
your abbreviation has the same meaning, it would be helpful (to me) to
understand what does it mean in combination with Value Network.

Thank you,
- Michael

Michael _P

unread,
Aug 19, 2010, 5:36:57 PM8/19/10
to Value Networks
No, the network patterns are certainly not wrong, but hidden patterns
should not have a place in the properly designed process.

thanks,
- Michael

Laurence Lock Lee

unread,
Aug 19, 2010, 8:20:03 PM8/19/10
to value-n...@googlegroups.com
Just a couple of points from my perspective. Your comment:

The 'people games' with complex process is well known BPM problem

I think this reflects our differences in points of view. 'People games' suggests that people are "gaming" the system, avoiding compliance and in that way contributing to sub-optimial performance, as designed into the process. I would argue that itn most instances they are working around the designed process because its not working for them. In other words, the area is complex enough to render the process definition tools that we have inadequate to capture the full subtlety of the work activity.

this is reinforced by your comment: 

Regarding "We are finding that these "intangible" interactions are the
real drivers for process performance" I can only say that the
performances of the process are embedded into the process design.
Informal and intangible values help process performances if either the
process is not properly defined or people omit process rules.

While I don't disagree with this statement, but I could offer an alternative statement from a different point of view:

"It is the informal, intangible value flows that drive exceptional performance. Formal process designs can contribute to performance in selected areas where human endeavour might be wasted in conducting menial routine and mechanical processes"

Now this might look like a "process vs practice" face off, with an acceptance of some middle ground. But my argument for practice over process is that I think BPM has reached its natural limits. There have been very sophisticated process capture, modelling and implementation technologies out these for over a decade now. I see little evidence of widespread adoption or compelling case studies now that the obvious automation opportunities have already been done.


Laurence Lock Lee PhD
Partner, Optimice Pty Ltd
Ph: +61 (0)407001628
www.optimice.com.au
Blog: http://governanceandnetworks.blogspot.com/
 
Learn to network, then network to learn




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Value Networks" group.
To post to this group, send email to value-n...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to value-network...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/value-networks?hl=en.


Charles Ehin

unread,
Aug 20, 2010, 2:17:00 PM8/20/10
to value-n...@googlegroups.com
Michael, you say, "when we deal with business processes only poorly designed processes
include informal networks." There is no process on this planet which includes people that is perfect! Further, every enterprise that has a human element has an informal social system without exception. In addition, no two people think exactly alike including identical twins. Of course, at the quantum physics level systems and processes don't perform precisely as intended either but that's another matter.
 
Unfortunately, some administrator run their organizations as if they had a perfect system and the people under them suffer considerably. I suggest you take a close look at the new field of social neuroscience as well as anthropology and evolutionary psychology. Most people have very little idea what human nature is all about yet they design all kinds systems in which people must work in.
 
Again, there are no perfect processes/system that include people. Even two different pilots flying the same airplane don't perform exactly the same way. That is physiologically impossible.
 
Charlie  
To post to this group, send email to value-n...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to value-network...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/value-networks?hl=en.

Michael _P

unread,
Aug 20, 2010, 3:15:43 PM8/20/10
to Value Networks
Laurence, I agree with your approach:

> "It is the informal, intangible value flows that drive exceptional performance. Formal process designs can contribute to performance in selected areas where human endeavour might be wasted in conducting menial routine and mechanical processes"

under one condition related to "in most instances they are working
around the designed process because its not working for them".
Apparently, here we deal with very,very old problem: who is for whom -
employer for employees or opposite. If I have a perfect process but
hire 'wrong' people, should I change the process or hire new people?
If I has come to the employer, why his/her process has to work for me
instead of I have to work for the process? BTW, in my current project,
I architect a semi-automated process around mission critical business
process in the company and we call people working in this process not
users (that IT traditionally call them) but workers. My process
integrates both manual and automated steps.

So, my condition for the " intangible value flows that drive
exceptional performance" is exceptional respect to process discipline.
If you see something not working well, do not short-cut it but report
and escalate, i.e. request changing the process by the better one.

As of BPM, I also agree that it is near its limits. If we elevate
processes into the services (where only the results are valued) and
allow people to figure out themselves how to provide those results (a
sort of pre-defined 'sweet-spots'), I think everybody will win.

Thank you,
- Michael
> ...
>
> read more »

Michael _P

unread,
Aug 20, 2010, 3:33:59 PM8/20/10
to Value Networks
Charlie,

you are absolutely right about perfect/not_perfect people and
processes. The right, absolutely right process design to me is the one
where every step is defined and any possible and impossible outcome is
considered and directed to this or that next step. By 'defined step' I
mean: step task, step input, step outcome and access to the process
logic for the next step. How a person or a system does this step (with
left or right hand, in Java or COBOL) does not matter. If in a
healthcare process a nurse is required to check the medication against
prescription every time before giving this medication to you, she/he
must do it even if it takes more work than just remember you and your
prescriptions from your previous visits. We do not care how the nurse
performs this checking - by reading or by listening somebody's else
reading and in the processes like this the nurse suffering is
irrelevant.

I am trying to say that different types of process require quite
different approach and making the phrase "a process is for people" the
rule without defining what these people are is very dangerous thing
(in my example the process was for the patients, not for nurses). I do
not argue that any process that involves people "has an informal
social system". I argue that intangible social values always drive the
process, sometime, in certain contexts, the process must drive the
informal social system.


Thanks,
- Michael
>   On Aug 19, 7:07 pm, "Charles Ehin" <Kal...@msn.com<mailto:Kal...@msn.com>> wrote:
>   > Hi Michael,
>
>   > I'm afraid you completely forgot to include the informal networks that are part of every enterprise and function on self-organizing principles. In these emergent system is where most of the work takes place as they interpret what and how the formal processes need to be managed or modified. You may want to readhttp://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=3056<http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=3056<http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=3056>> to get a better idea of what I'm suggesting.
>   > > On Aug 17, 9:04 pm, Fran <f...@vernaallee.com<mailto:f...@vernaallee.com<mailto:f...@vernaallee.com%3Cmailto:f...@vernaallee.com>>> wrote:
>
>   > > > Verna Allee has a new blog post - When Processes are really Networks:
>   > > > Reveal hidden patterns of interaction and predict process performance.http://tiny.cc/4lrxc
>
>   > > > The key to visualizing a process as a human-centric value network is
>   > > > showing the roles that are responsible for each activity and for
>   > > > generating the specific outputs of the process. This is nicely
>   > > > illustrated with a sequenced diagram of scheduling procedures in a
>   > > > healthcare clinic.
>
>   > > > Also read about a query-based governance process that allows for
>   > > > monitoring of workflow performance and optimizing performance in
>   > > > complex work environments.
>
>   > --
>   > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Value Networks" group.
>   > To post to this group, send email to value-n...@googlegroups.com<mailto:value-n...@googlegroups.com<mail to:value-n...@googlegroups.com%3Cmailto:value-n...@googlegroups.com >>.
>   > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to value-network...@googlegroups.com<mailto:value-networks+unsubscri <mailto:value-network...@googlegroups.com%3Cmailto:value-networks +unsubscri> b...@googlegroups.com<mailto:b...@googlegroups.com>>.
>   > For more options, visit this group
>
> ...
>
> read more »

Laurence Lock Lee

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 2:48:26 AM8/22/10
to value-n...@googlegroups.com
What I am referring to is situations where you elevate to services
from BPM more so than incompetent staff. So how do you decide to not
design a process but to define a service instead?

LLL

Sent from my iPhone

Michael _P

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 5:30:29 PM8/23/10
to Value Networks
Method of service of domain service-oriented design (DOSOM) helps in
this matter. In short, any design should start with defining business
goal, objectives and, actually, business function to be realised (this
relates to both design for manual or automated solutions). When the
business aspects are clear and accompanied with input and outcome
information, we need to decide what other entities around us may/
should be engaged to solve our task and who we will serve (the
category of our consumers).

At this point, the first decision 'service vs. process' has to be
made. Particularly, if your mindset is service-oriented and you
welcome interactions and delegation of tasks to others (i.e.
dependency), you will definitely go with service. I have to note here
that intangible values of available informal networks can help in
searching for to-be-engaged services a great deal.

If your mindset is about owing everything that your results may be
dependent, your might go with the process until you meet with your
consumer. For the consumer, your process, i.e. ordered sequence of
activities, means nothing; the consumer is interested in your offer of
provided business functionality and results. That is, you are set into
the position to act as a service again.

The optimal combination is, actually, when in any case you start with
a service and use process (orchestration) as the service
implementation if you need several engaged providers whose results
should be processed in certain business logical manner.

Elevation from the process-centric mind to the service-centric mind is
equal to abstracting process. This abstraction is very convenient and
easy for: 1) manipulations, 2) changes, 3) planning, 4) extensions,
etc. and is based on very flexible combination of tangible and
intangible values (vs. the process, which does not leave a room for
intangible values in its process business logic).

Thus, decide that everything serves everything, some serving may be
realised as processes that, in turn, engage other services (as
Actions), which can be realised as processes again , and so on.

If this does not make sense, please, let me know :-)

Thanks,
- Michael



On Aug 22, 7:48 am, Laurence Lock Lee <llock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I am referring to is situations where you elevate to services  
> from BPM more so than incompetent staff. So how do you decide to not  
> design a process but to define a service instead?
>
> LLL
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>

Laurence Lock Lee

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 10:24:41 PM8/23/10
to value-n...@googlegroups.com
Tks Michael ..... This makes a lot of sense to me...particularly the
comment:

> The optimal combination is, actually, when in any case you start with
> a service and use process (orchestration) as the service

> implementation if you need several engaged providers whose results...

I think we have convergence and I've learnt some new language

Thank you


LLL
Sent from my iPhone


On 24/08/2010, at 7:30 AM, Michael _P <m3po...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Method of service of domain service-oriented design (DOSOM) helps in
> this matter. In short, any design should start with defining business
> goal, objectives and, actually, business function to be realised (this
> relates to both design for manual or automated solutions). When the
> business aspects are clear and accompanied with input and outcome
> information, we need to decide what other entities around us may/

> should be engaged to solve our task and who we will serve (thephi...@irm.com.au

>>> netw...@googlegroups.com.

TOBUN BABATUNDE

unread,
Aug 24, 2010, 8:03:09 AM8/24/10
to value-n...@googlegroups.com
nice.................ok

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Value Networks" group.
> To post to this group, send email to value-n...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> value-network...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/value-networks?hl=en.
>
>


--
Your satisfaction is our business

This E-Mail is strictly confidential and intended solely for the
person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the
intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action
in reliance on it. If you have received this E-Mail in error please
notify us as soon as possible and delete this E-Mail and any
attachments.

This message has been checked for viruses, however we
cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is
virus free or has not been intercepted or amended.

Michael _P

unread,
Aug 24, 2010, 4:01:21 PM8/24/10
to Value Networks
Thank you, Laurence.

- Michael

On Aug 24, 3:24 am, Laurence Lock Lee <llock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tks Michael ..... This makes a lot of sense to me...particularly the  
> comment:
>
> > The optimal combination is, actually, when in any case you start with
> > a service and use process (orchestration) as the service
> > implementation if you need several engaged providers whose results...
>
> I think we have convergence and I've learnt some new language
>
> Thank you
> LLL
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 24/08/2010, at 7:30 AM, Michael _P <m3pou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Method of service of domain service-oriented design (DOSOM) helps in
> > this matter. In short, any design should start with defining business
> > goal, objectives and, actually, business function to be realised (this
> > relates to both design for manual or automated solutions). When the
> > business aspects are clear and accompanied with input and outcome
> > information, we need to decide what other entities around us may/
> > should be engaged to solve our task and who we will serve (thephil.d...@irm.com.au
> ...
>
> read more »
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages