8 Comments

  1. Scott Francis August 26, 2012 at 8:08 am

    Funny, you first made a complaint against these:
    There are Vendors*. There are Analysts**. There are Systems Integrators***
    As examples of who we shouldn’t listen to… and then you quoted and aspired to some of their vision 🙂

    The challenge is understanding the motivations behind the terminology and vision people are pushing. No one is “unbiased” but by understanding each bias you can piece your own version of the facts together 🙂

  2. Jaisundar August 27, 2012 at 12:12 am

    Good point – and I am myself from one of those! 😉

    What I am really trying to highlight is that the ‘social paradigm’ has opened up the possibility – maybe even a compulsion – for the enterprise to go through a radical re-organization. Till that new ‘structure’ is clear any attempt from us to imagine ‘Social BPM’ is bound to be irrelevant or at best, incomplete. Perhaps some of those attempts might even help it evolve, but you are absolutely right – midst of this radical rejigging, there is this thing of biases we need to be weary about.

  3. Neil Ward-Dutton August 30, 2012 at 12:39 am

    Hi Jaisundar
    If I try to play this back to you, it seems that you’re saying two things: (1) the ‘supply side’ is getting too carried away with ‘social BPM’ features and (2) regardless, success with social technologies *has* to come firstly through a preparedness to transform culture and organisational structures, reward structures and so on. Am I right?
    If so I would have no argument with you on either count, to a degree – but it’s important not to be too “black and white” about this I think.
    Just as it’s entirely possible to get value from a BPMS implementation without cultural change, in the scope of a well-defined project, I’ve seen organisations get some value from “social BPM” features and technologies without completely rewiring their organisations around non-hierarchical structures, etc etc etc.
    Do you agree?
    Neil

  4. Jaisundar August 31, 2012 at 12:38 am

    Hi Neil, Yes, that’s what I meant.

    And I see your point about not being too black and white about it. Yet, I feel we are still some distance from really comprehending what a truly ‘social enterprise’ would be, what it’s structure will be, what it will look like, operate, behave, how its constituents will be measured for effectiveness, how it will produce results…. And if that wasn’t enough by itself, Gamification is likely to be another big influence here. And so I really wonder if what we think as ‘social BPM’ today will really be the ‘Social BPM’ of tomorrow. But then, it is also possible that some of the features may not be as irrelevant as my suggestions make it seem….these features we are adding on to BPM today as may themselves contribute to the evolution of that Social Enterprise of tomorrow….

  5. Pingback: Social BPM : Time for a Reality Check | Bouncing Thoughts « Campbell Robertson's Blog

  6. Campbell Robertson August 31, 2012 at 1:15 am

    You should check out the AIIM report on Social Business Governance. Social Media will put pressure on existing processes, maybe we shift to a task focused model that ACM does advocate.

  7. Pingback: BPM Quotes of the week « Adam Deane

  8. Pingback: Liens de la semaine (weekly) | Bloc-Notes de Bertrand Duperrin

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published.