processi

about processes and engines

facilitators

Keith Swenson just wrote a great post entitled : “Human ‘Facilitator’ Processes”.

In one of his previous posts, Keith had introduced the concept of Automators and Facilitators.

we know that there are at least two distinct “camps” in the BPM field: those that want to support human work (”Facilitators”), and those that want to automate work that was previously done by humans (”Automators”).

The first comment to the “Human ‘Facilitator’ Processes” post goes :

the facilitator diagram represents the swan swimming gracefully on the lake, the automator diagram represent the swan’s not so graceful legs thrashing under water. You can’t have one without the other.

IMHO, you can get on without the automator diagram. Things like “convention over configuration” do help.

Being rather an “Abstractor” (more a Software Engineer than a Process Analyst), I tend towards the “Facilitator” view. Business processes should look concise.

The “Automator” diagrams feel like they contain the business process plus “Protocol” : ‘upon receiving an email, do that, check this, …’, does this belong to the business process ? Is it conventional ? Just plain Protocol that should not appear in the business process ? I think so and I will try hard to produce tools that fit this view.

Written by John Mettraux

September 29, 2007 at 4:04 am

Posted in bpm, bpmn, openwferu, rails, workflow

%d bloggers like this: