A Practitioner’s Perspective: Models not Modules—Keeping Your Process Models “Human-readable”
In his Column this month, Alec Sharp asks how we can ensure that our models communicate with the people involved in process change before we transition to models that support process automation. To answer the question, he first identifies the three most common modeling practices that interfere with understanding process models and follows with three tips to avoid these problems.
Alec Sharp
Alec Sharp has managed his consulting and education business, Clariteq Systems Consulting Ltd., for close to 30 years. Serving clients from Ireland to India, and Washington to Wellington, Alec's expertise includes facilitation, strategy development, data management, and of course, business analysis and business process improvement. His popular workshops and conference presentations on these topics, conducted globally, consistently receive "excellent" ratings. Alec is the author of the recently-released second edition of "Workflow Modeling" (Artech House, 2008) which is widely used as a university text and is a best-seller in the field.
Contact Alec - asharp@clariteq.com.
Latest posts by Alec Sharp (see all)
- Practitioner’s Perspective: What’s Wrong With This Process? – A Closer Look at Assessing Business Processes - November 3, 2014
- Using Scope Models for Process Analysis—Fast Results for a Hurry-up World - May 5, 2014
- A Practitioner’s Perspective: Now’s Your Chance – What to Cover in an Executive Briefing on Business Processes - January 5, 2014
- A Practitioner’s Perspective: Peace Accord Reached! Process vs. Capability Debate Ends with a Whimper - October 1, 2013
- Practitioner’s Perspective: What’s in, what’s out?—Thoughts on Scoping Models - April 2, 2013
