The true crutz of process to execution is to be able to use technology to physically “translate” from a modelling notation (e.g. EPC, Event-Drive Process Chains,BPMN, Business Process Modelling Notation or even UML’s Activity Diagrams) to something IT can use to compile into some engine or code. Example? BPEL – Business Process Execution Language.

Many vendors and technologies actually already allows this “no-loss-in-translation-type” transformation. Concepts great and simple! I’ve model my process design and requirements in a comfortable business-type notation and somehow it gets translated into something IT can understand and “do something with”, IT-wise to get it working. Great!

However, many people don’t talk about the details… The real transformation! It’s like trying to translate English into Mandarin or vice-versa. Because the anatomy of the language is essentially different, there are things that are required and are lost when it is actually translated. Some level of “massaging” is required… Some simple examples below:

1. “Wait events” in business terms indicate that there is a time lapse involved. From an IT view that could be asynchronous or just simply another (IT) process. This context then gets ignored or lost.
2. (IT) processes operate in a very “transactional” way. The concept of multiple start and end events triggering itself or others is quite foreign to BPEL. Workaround is again to ignore this as it is something business needs to know but when IT puts it together, it doesn’t really matter.

There are a few more interesting qwerks when we transition from Business into IT. I suppose these “qwerks” transend into many levels both socially and technologically!

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 8th, 2009 at 1:40 am and is filed under Definitions, Rantings. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.