So I’m reading Bruce Silver’s blog about something to do with BPMN method and style or some-such and it strikes me that they (the BPMN zealots) are really fighting a losing battle.
Why? Because they haven’t understood that to be sure of winning your battle you need to understand your competition, then define your battle field and terms of engagement very carefully. If you don’t, you risk trying to fight too big a war that you just can’t win, ask any military type.
Let me explain with a historical analogy: Esperanto…
BPMN is, regardless of what the OMG (oh my god?) say, a graphical programming language. If you don’t believe me I won’t labour the point, just read some of the definitions of the objects (anybody fancy an intermediate boundary interrupted compensation event?).
So why-oh-why would you try to take a language designed for silicon-based intelligence, artificially simplify it (BPMN Lite or whatever it’s called) and then say that carbon-based lifeforms should use it as well? Makes no sense at all.
Esperanto didn’t work – translators and interpreters still make a pretty good living – guys learn the lesson!! you will never get the countless millions of normal business people to learn a completely new language, just because you want them to, sorry.
BPMN people, listen up: your battlefield should be limited to getting all the BPMS folks to buy-in to your language, imlement it and use it as a standard for the cool silicon-based stuff that they build. Trust me, that is a big enough battle to be fighting anyway, but it is one that you could win.
You can’t win the ‘everybody’ battle so stop trying, you only confuse the issue and annoy normal business people (like me for example… :-))
P.S. a word about what the carbon-based language could be in a later post.