Summary:
I have a number of general but critical issues with the proposed Weber/Curtis/Gardner BMI standard for business process maturity. They are listed below in no particular order. (1) Input seems to be mostly from technically oriented or software based companies. The whole thing has a technical/systems feel with implication of direct relationships with ERP/system implementation. BPM in a holistic sense is so much more than this but you wouldn't know it from the proposed model. (2) What consultation with un-related non-technical or software oriented companies and industry experts and practitioners has occurred during the development and consultation process? A number of indiviudals/companies that I have spoken to about the proposed model are less than impressed with the lack of consultation and feel that pertinent BPM issues are not addressed. (3) It does not seem to address fundamental issues in the BPM domain (from a business perspective). In part I think this arises from the inconsistent use of terminology and interpretation within the BPM domain but I can't see how any standard can be (meaningfully) introduced until such time as this fundamental issue that plagues the domain are addressed. Why don't we address the issue of terminology and interpretation first so that everyone is on the same page before muddying the waters further? (4) It is convoluted and difficult to digest. Therefore it is reasonable to think it would also be difficult and timeconsuming for a company to implement. I struggle to see how this will maintain relevance in a dynamic and constantly changing organisational environment. Certainly, some I have spoken to have been cynical that it is little more than a consulting based money making venture for those involved. (5) I do not think the proposed model even addresses (holistic) BPM very much at all. When reading some of the areas/descriptions I get the feeling that any functionally based/oriented company would answer yes to the questions and I find myself asking what does this add to existing management practices that is beneficial and distinguishing to "process management" as opposed to the "management of processes" which has always been what management is about anyway. (6) The whole prescriptive approach to BPM is questionable with some issues that are fundamental to (holistic) BPM being addressed only vaguely at levels 4 and 5. This seems to be a long time to spend trying to improve processes are managed only to find out they are not of strategic relevance anyway. (7) Whilst I can see the arguement "get something out there and work with it"...did the number of additional CMM's that were subsequently developed prior to being integrated in CMMI not teach us something about getting practical, business input from a range of sources? Sorry, I don't mean to sound negative but I get the feeling the whole process is being rushed through the OMG process and would ask why? Even the name of this form "Issues/Bug" reporting has a technical/systems feel to it