Comments for eXeedTechnology.com http://exeedtechnology.com Sat, 27 May 2017 20:09:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 Comment on Some Thoughts on Blogging by xbox games 360 http://exeedtechnology.com/some-thoughts-on-blogging/comment-page-1#comment-115227 xbox games 360 Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:48:52 +0000 http://exeedtechnology.com/some-thoughts-on-blogging#comment-115227 <strong>best xbox deal...</strong> Five reasons why I keep texting you: 1. You have made me feel welcomed 2. You've made me smile 3. You appreciate my thoughts 4. You make payment for time reading my messages 5. Di ako kuripot tulad mo!... best xbox deal…

Five reasons why I keep texting you: 1. You have made me feel welcomed 2. You’ve made me smile 3. You appreciate my thoughts 4. You make payment for time reading my messages 5. Di ako kuripot tulad mo!…

]]>
Comment on Process vs Innovation? by Jeff http://exeedtechnology.com/process-vs-innovation/comment-page-1#comment-1791 Jeff Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:48:07 +0000 http://exeedtechnology.com/?p=95#comment-1791 Jacob .. totally agree. The opportunity to innovate and improve process is nearly bottomless. There isn't a single BP that can't be improved and as you say understanding exceptions is often a good way to do that. Sometimes,of course implementing the process change requires more investment than the resulting benefits .... but that's a blog for a different day! Jacob .. totally agree. The opportunity to innovate and improve process is nearly bottomless. There isn’t a single BP that can’t be improved and as you say understanding exceptions is often a good way to do that. Sometimes,of course implementing the process change requires more investment than the resulting benefits …. but that’s a blog for a different day!

]]>
Comment on Unstructured, Semi-Structured and Structured Processes by Jeff http://exeedtechnology.com/unstructured-semi-structured-and-structured-processes/comment-page-1#comment-1607 Jeff Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:33:45 +0000 http://exeedtechnology.com/unstructured-semi-structured-and-structured-processes#comment-1607 Jacob, totally agree. Having tried process modeling a fair number of times, and tried instantiating those models in software and/or business rules, I find there are always exception conditions not thought of or the process exceeds normal operating conditions in some fashion. Having said that, after a period of time, as more logic is added or rules refined, one can get very close to a full structured process! It's always a process of refinement.... Jacob, totally agree. Having tried process modeling a fair number of times, and tried instantiating those models in software and/or business rules, I find there are always exception conditions not thought of or the process exceeds normal operating conditions in some fashion. Having said that, after a period of time, as more logic is added or rules refined, one can get very close to a full structured process! It’s always a process of refinement….

]]>
Comment on Dynamic Business Applications and HPM by Mahesh Iyer http://exeedtechnology.com/dynamic-business-applications-and-hpm/comment-page-1#comment-1380 Mahesh Iyer Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:44:14 +0000 http://exeedtechnology.com/dynamic-business-applications-and-hpm#comment-1380 Hi Can i have a copy of the ActionBase whitepaper ? I work for an early software product company which is in the enterprise mobility (for want of a better definition!) space. Our product actually mobilizes the enterprise in a very contextual manner. Very briefly, it: - delivers alerts / notifications based on an event in the enterprise system or external event; - enables you take action around the context so set, -- pull more relevant information , if you so need, and -- provide access to relevant people in the enterprise, for collaboration and communication. Regards Mahesh Iyer Hi
Can i have a copy of the ActionBase whitepaper ?
I work for an early software product company which is in the enterprise mobility (for want of a better definition!) space. Our product actually mobilizes the enterprise in a very contextual manner. Very briefly, it:
- delivers alerts / notifications based on an event in the enterprise system or
external event;
- enables you take action around the context so set,
— pull more relevant information , if you so need, and
— provide access to relevant people in the enterprise, for collaboration
and communication.
Regards
Mahesh Iyer

]]>
Comment on Dinosaurs or Cockroaches by Jacob Ukelson http://exeedtechnology.com/dinosaurs-or-cockroaches/comment-page-1#comment-1110 Jacob Ukelson Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:12:47 +0000 http://exeedtechnology.com/dinosaurs-or-cockroaches#comment-1110 Thanks for the comment, I couldn't agree more. I like the term "Human Centric Processes" which I think is a good descriptive name. I know that Human Interaction Management is also used - but for me that lacks the connotation of a process (business or otherwise) with some expected output ot outcome. McKinsey has used the term "tacit interactions" for the type of work done by knowledge workers. So I guess "Tacit Interaction Management" is a possible name - or maybe "Tacit Interaction Management for Enterprises" or "TIME" :) ActionBase, one of our companies, has been working in this area for a while here in Israel - and has over 100 customers - mostly in Israel, but is now starting to move into Europe and the US. Let me know if you want some of their case studies. Thanks for the comment, I couldn’t agree more.
I like the term “Human Centric Processes” which I think is a good descriptive name. I know that Human Interaction Management is also used - but for me that lacks the connotation of a process (business or otherwise) with some expected output ot outcome. McKinsey has used the term “tacit interactions” for the type of work done by knowledge workers.
So I guess “Tacit Interaction Management” is a possible name - or maybe “Tacit Interaction Management for Enterprises” or “TIME” :)

ActionBase, one of our companies, has been working in this area for a while here in Israel - and has over 100 customers - mostly in Israel, but is now starting to move into Europe and the US. Let me know if you want some of their case studies.

]]>
Comment on Dinosaurs or Cockroaches by Roeland Loggen http://exeedtechnology.com/dinosaurs-or-cockroaches/comment-page-1#comment-1106 Roeland Loggen Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:33:42 +0000 http://exeedtechnology.com/dinosaurs-or-cockroaches#comment-1106 Great to see your blog posts on dynamic processes. As a BPM consultant I encounter knowledge intensive, collaboration intensive more or less adhoc processes more and more, and BPM thinking + BPM technology is currently falling short. Enabling companies to greatly improve these processes from a productivity perspective (process participants) as well as visibility/control (manager), agility and compliance is the biggest challenge for the coming years. I especially link it to the quote of Peter Drucker, who said: "The most important, and indeed the truly unique contribution of management in the 20th century was the 50-fold increase in the productivity of the manual worker in manufacturing. The most important contribution management needs to make in the 21st century is similarly to increase the productivity of knowledge work and the knowledge worker.” We are also looking into this area with research and case studies (although we call it "Human Centric Processes" and "Human Interaction Management" Input always welcome. Regards, Roeland Loggen Great to see your blog posts on dynamic processes. As a BPM consultant I encounter knowledge intensive, collaboration intensive more or less adhoc processes more and more, and BPM thinking + BPM technology is currently falling short.
Enabling companies to greatly improve these processes from a productivity perspective (process participants) as well as visibility/control (manager), agility and compliance is the biggest challenge for the coming years. I especially link it to the quote of Peter Drucker, who said:
“The most important, and indeed the truly unique contribution of management in the 20th century was the 50-fold increase in the productivity of the manual worker in manufacturing. The most important contribution management needs to make in the 21st century is similarly to increase the productivity of knowledge work and the knowledge worker.”

We are also looking into this area with research and case studies (although we call it “Human Centric Processes” and “Human Interaction Management” Input always welcome.

Regards,
Roeland Loggen

]]>
Comment on More on Naming HPM by Jacob Ukelson http://exeedtechnology.com/more-on-naming-hpm/comment-page-1#comment-923 Jacob Ukelson Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:31:10 +0000 http://exeedtechnology.com/more-on-naming-hpm#comment-923 I agree. Standard email in its current form won't cut it, but still that is how people are choosing to actually "manage" these type of processes today. So I think a good solution is to let people remain in their email environment, but with some additional implicit and explict tools for managing these human processes. I think it will be a while until Wikis replace email (if ever). That is why I like ActionBase's approach and is what led us to invest in them - its ActionMail product provides a repository of process information in context, a system of record for the process and its related information, a single copy (per process) of all the process related correspondence and documentation, and of-course management and monitoring of the process - all within the user's familiar email (MS Outlook) environment. It is a way to provide them a managed version of email's agility that can be used to manage their human processes. I agree. Standard email in its current form won’t cut it, but still that is how people are choosing to actually “manage” these type of processes today. So I think a good solution is to let people remain in their email environment, but with some additional implicit and explict tools for managing these human processes. I think it will be a while until Wikis replace email (if ever).
That is why I like ActionBase’s approach and is what led us to invest in them - its ActionMail product provides a repository of process information in context, a system of record for the process and its related information, a single copy (per process) of all the process related correspondence and documentation, and of-course management and monitoring of the process - all within the user’s familiar email (MS Outlook) environment. It is a way to provide them a managed version of email’s agility that can be used to manage their human processes.

]]>
Comment on More on Naming HPM by Sandy Kemsley http://exeedtechnology.com/more-on-naming-hpm/comment-page-1#comment-922 Sandy Kemsley Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:44:59 +0000 http://exeedtechnology.com/more-on-naming-hpm#comment-922 I'm in complete agreement on the difficulty of changing processes within existing BPMS -- that's why rules play so heavily in agility, since they provide a relatively simple, bounded, parameter-driven way of allowing a business participant to fine-tune the behavior of the process. This, of course, is not the same as actually changing the process, but that's what passes for agility in today's BPMS. Email is problematic for so many reasons, however: multiple copies, little control, etc. Wikis, providing a common repository of knowledge, are a better paradigm for this. I’m in complete agreement on the difficulty of changing processes within existing BPMS — that’s why rules play so heavily in agility, since they provide a relatively simple, bounded, parameter-driven way of allowing a business participant to fine-tune the behavior of the process. This, of course, is not the same as actually changing the process, but that’s what passes for agility in today’s BPMS.

Email is problematic for so many reasons, however: multiple copies, little control, etc. Wikis, providing a common repository of knowledge, are a better paradigm for this.

]]>
Comment on More on Naming HPM by Jacob Ukelson http://exeedtechnology.com/more-on-naming-hpm/comment-page-1#comment-921 Jacob Ukelson Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:27:31 +0000 http://exeedtechnology.com/more-on-naming-hpm#comment-921 Thanks for the clarification. I think actually enabling most BPM systems for process change by any role would be very difficult on many different levels, given the way most BPM systems work today. Being able to think about processes that get modified in flight is in itself a big leap for many process designers, and being able to actually define the change needed at a granular and detailed enough level so the BPM engine could execute the change would be beyond the capabilities of most people in the process. On top of that there is the issues of testing, storing and managing all the processes variants as they arise. That is what lead me to the conclusion that in the end most BPM systems will just add rules (a good thing), but that won't actually make them truly agile, or capable of handling the ad-hoc, unstructured human processes. It will just make them more flexible, better architected BPM systems for structured tasks. I think moving toward BPM folks will need to think differently about these types of agile processes, and there is a need to marry email (or in the future wiki) based HPM systems and BPM systems as the only way that could actually lead to truly agile process management. Thanks for the clarification. I think actually enabling most BPM systems for process change by any role would be very difficult on many different levels, given the way most BPM systems work today. Being able to think about processes that get modified in flight is in itself a big leap for many process designers, and being able to actually define the change needed at a granular and detailed enough level so the BPM engine could execute the change would be beyond the capabilities of most people in the process. On top of that there is the issues of testing, storing and managing all the processes variants as they arise. That is what lead me to the conclusion that in the end most BPM systems will just add rules (a good thing), but that won’t actually make them truly agile, or capable of handling the ad-hoc, unstructured human processes. It will just make them more flexible, better architected BPM systems for structured tasks.
I think moving toward BPM folks will need to think differently about these types of agile processes, and there is a need to marry email (or in the future wiki) based HPM systems and BPM systems as the only way that could actually lead to truly agile process management.

]]>
Comment on More on Naming HPM by Sandy Kemsley http://exeedtechnology.com/more-on-naming-hpm/comment-page-1#comment-916 Sandy Kemsley Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:37:33 +0000 http://exeedtechnology.com/more-on-naming-hpm#comment-916 Gartner's take on Dynamic BPM isn't exclusively about rules, although that's a part of it: it's the ability to support process change by any role, at any time, with very low latency. It's really agile BPM, but Gartner has to have their own names for everything ;) Gartner’s take on Dynamic BPM isn’t exclusively about rules, although that’s a part of it: it’s the ability to support process change by any role, at any time, with very low latency. It’s really agile BPM, but Gartner has to have their own names for everything ;)

]]>