Product Description

Process modelling is an essential part of understanding the complexities and communication issues inherent in any business. However, this process modelling is often naive and overly simplified, leading to inaccurate, inefficient or entirely inappropriate process definitions. Many process modelling approaches consist of a single flow-chart style view that provides a basic representation of logical order and the input and output of each process, but this is, in most cases wholly inadequate. Consider the analogy of a magician performing a card trick - the process is easy to follow but impossible to replicate from the audience's point of view. To replicate such a magic trick it is necessary to understand several different views of the trick, rather than simply looking at it from the audience's point of view. A full understanding will require some degree of domain knowledge concerning magic and sleight-of-hand, and insight into the hidden complexities behind the trick and a knowledge of the mis-communication devices employed by magicians. The challenge, therefore, is in creating an accurate and concise model of a process - a task that is plagued with complexity and difficulty in understanding the often-buried processes and communication trails that exist. Despite the dynamic behaviour of organizations, they can be thought of as operating or behaving as a number of interrelated processes. Purchasing Process Modelling software is often perceived as the starting point to defining business processes, but unless this is underpinned with a solid and complete understanding of how each process works, results will always be inefficient. "A Pragmatic Guide to Business Process Modelling" provides practical advice on how to model business processes effectively, drawn from the author's vast consulting experience. To truly understand how an organization functions, just considering information flow is never enough. The stakeholders involved in the process must be considered, along with the information produced (and the relationships between this information) all of which depends upon a clear understanding of the terminology being employed. Of course, no amount of process modelling will help if the basic reason why the processes is needed - the requirements - are not fully understood. Process modelling must also apply to procedures, standards, work instructions, guidelines as well as the business processes themselves. In turn each of these needs to be analysed, mapped, measured and documented to gain an understanding of the organization in its totality. "A Pragmatic Guide to Business Process Modelling" helps you specify, visualize, and document your business processes, so that you can analyse your future requirements and design solutions that meet them. Jon Holt's approach to business process modelling provides insight and clarity for business people, whilst providing information sufficiently detailed to develop the requirements of any kind of computer information system. "A Pragmatic Guide to Business Process Modelling": covers all aspects of process modelling from process analysis to process documentation; includes examples of processes: standards, work instructions, guidelines and general business procedures; features practical examples and detailed case studies from a variety of industries; and provides practical guidance for directors and managers on business process modelling to improve processes, productivity and profitability. "A Pragmatic Guide to Business Process Modelling" applies visual modelling techniques to process modelling, using the Unified Modelling Language (UML), an ISO standard which is used increasingly by businesses globally. Although many people are using UML for process modelling, most organizations only use a single diagram - namely the activity diagram which shows a flowchart-style view of processes: the input through to output. The techniques in "A Pragmatic Guide to Business Process Modelling" show how to realise far more benefits, by also using other diagrams to give different views of the business, from high level overviews, to the seeing the system form a single user's perspective. Process Modelling has become a core competency for anyone involved in managing or influencing change; whether improving communications, reducing an organization's complexity, managing risk or supporting good corporate governance. But, to model effectively, you need Jon Holt's "A Pragmatic Guide to Business Process Modelling".

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #148299 in Books
• Published on: 2005-09-26
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 192 pages

About the Author
Jon Holt is the founder-director of Brass Bullet Ltd, a software and systems engineering consultancy company based in Swansea, South Wales. He holds a number of positions at universities both in the UK and the USA and is a Fellow of the BCS and the IEE. His work interests include all aspects of process modelling, standards and education.

Customer Reviews

UML v. Other Notations - a Question of Purpose
I think the debate about using UML v. other notations or methods should be considered from the point of view of what is the purpose and objectives of your modelling. If you are developing process models for a process improvement type initiative, where diagrams need to be shared and reviewed by a large audience of non-technical business users, then UML, in my experience, is probably not the right approach.

UML is an excellent approach when it comes to systems / software engineering, system architecture design and requirements management; but not as a method for sharing and communicating business process models across the organisation.
A more easy to understand notation will be much more effective, and it seems that BPMN has now become a well established approach for this purpose. Additionally, I think that the fact that the OMG chose to develop the BPMN standard in addition to UML speaks for itself (as you may know, the Object Management Group - OMG, is responsible for the development of both standards). Therefore, in my opinion the approach offered in the book is more suitable for technical analysts not for people running a business focused process modelling initiative.

However, I do agree with the author's key point about the fact that in order to fully understand the process complexities there is a need to document more then just the process flow (conduct a 360 modelling, but which comes more under the domain of Enterprise Architecture not purely process modelling).

Furthermore, various process modelling tools today do offer the ability to easily capture many additional dimensions then just simple flow diagrams. I found the approach advocated by Ian Gotts in his book "Common Approach, Uncommon results" highly effective for getting organisations to document their processes and gain the benefits from doing so.

Don't be fooled by the title
I bought this while studying for the British Computer Society exam on process modelling - expecting a good practical book like many other BCS publications. Instead what the book provides is a somewhat esoteric / academic mediation on the nature of business process models, expressed (sometimes in a rather contrived way) through UML.

It might be interesting, I may come back to it - but it certainly wasn't going to help me though my exam so it went on the bookshelf. If you are looking for a practical hands on guide - as the title implies - look elsewhere.

To join in the mini-debate here of course you can use ULM for business process modeling. I have been doing so for 10 years, and no business users don't run a mile - they find use case and activity diagrams immensely useful and practical tools in expresing busines process.

I just don't think this is a particulalry helpful book on using UML with business people, try UML Xtra-Light by Milan Kratochvil and Barry McGibbon instead.

Author's response to previous review (I had to put in a star rating - sorry!)
First of all, thank you for buying the book.

I am sorry that you disagree about using UML for the modelling notation, but I would strongly disagree with your criticisms, and would like to offer a reasoned response to your points.
The main point of the book is promote the use of different views to model a process. First of all, the book clearly states that you can use any notation whatsoever to realise these views, and explicitly mentions several other notations, including BPMN. However, if you choose to use BPMN, for example, to attempt to realise these views, then you will only be able to realise two out of the seven. Without wanting to enter into a major debate about the differences between UML and BPMN, I would suggest that people look to a presentation recently given at the IET (formerly the IEE) seminar on `UML for process modelling', where Simon Perry provides an analysis and evaluation of the two approaches. However, a few salient points here - BPMN has no concept of a requirement for the process, cannot represent stakeholders explicitly, nor the relationships between artefacts, nor will it allow you to model concepts and terminology.

Also, the description of UML presented here by the reviewer as being `a suite of 15 or so diagramming notations used for object-oriented design and development of computer systems, and can't be applied to the domain of business process modelling' is incorrect. Sure, the UML has its roots in the software engineering community (and has 13 diagrams) but it has been used very widely on a number of different applications, including requirements engineering, process modelling, architectural frameworks, mental mapping, risk assessment, project management etc.

As a final point, the reviewer may think that my approach is `well meaning' but `flawed' but many people disagree with this, including the British Standards Institution (BSI). In fact, this approach is now being promoted by the BSI, supported by a series of training courses on how to use these techniques. A good quote form the BSI web site is: `The approach advocated and taught here is based on the world-leading UML modelling notation and is currently the only course that teaches process modelling as used and applied by the BSI.' Don't take my word for it, talk to the official UK standards body.

So there we have it, an approach that is clearly not to everyone's taste, but one that is recognised by the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), published by the British Computer Society (BCS) and adopted by the British Standards Institution (BSI).

I hope that this clears up any misconceptions that may have arisen from this review.

Jon Holt