Clearly, process automation technology is much more difficult to understand than e.g. database or communication technology. Moreover, there is not a fundamental model used by scientists, vendors and users. |
Not understood both at the level of IT and of operational divisions. What it does provides, and how it should be used are both very approxiamtely known, understood, and no real confidence in the technology exists so far.
|
Generally fairly well, although the distrinction between a process oriented approach to solution development and process automation tools is perhaps not so clear. |
On a scale of 1 to 10 I would suggest a 3. Most organizations understand process automation technology conceptually, but have a difficult time understanding the specific impact that it could have on their own organization or how to go about implementing workflow. |
research:
- modelling and architectural issues are well-discussed, but face continuous change due to new B2B models and advanced technology (e.g. Web Services)
- actual success factros are unknown
- potential for integrating workflow with concept such as cost management or knowledge management is under-researched |
on a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 is total understanding, I think we are at a 3 |
Our understanding of process automation technology is evolving. When I was working in this area 25 years ago, it was immediately obvious that users were not ready (e.g. they were afraid of the thing called a "mouse" and furthermore technology providers did not understand critical success factors of their technology. Things are MUCH more understood today, but we still have significantly more to understand. |
It is fairly well understood, in terms of what it is and what are its capabilities.
|
Not very well. Too many different opinions about what workflow should achieve. Too little interest in the business process once it has been automated. |
Local (embedded) process automation systems have reached a fairly high level of sophistication today. Systems that attempt to interconect different systems (distributed workflow) and to flexibly bridge between different technological approaches are only just beginning to emerge and to not allow productive use as of today. |
Poorly. |
The general concept is well-understood in the context of individual organizations/departments.
A number of aspects is still badly understood in practice, for example transaction management.
WFM across organizational boundaries is still in its infancy in practical situations and requires work in the research community. This holds even stronger in dynamic collaboration settings. |
Not well enough, people are still afraid of being displaced by machine rather than using their time doing other things that are more productive, |
Patchy - some organizations have a full and clear understanding of the technology - others believe it is simply and extension of EAI systems - others do not have a clue - more education is required and anything that will help remove the confusion would be good |
By whom? I think there was some real searching and trying to understand in the 80's, but through the 90's I think the basic concepts have been quite clarified and now such coordination technology is fairly well understood. This is all subjective to the terms you use ... what I call "process automation technology" may not be the same thing that someone else does. |
It is still new and understood poorly. Process thinking is generally lacking in most organizations. The work of Hammer and Champy did help in bringing some process thinking but a lot more needs to be done. |
25% |
Not very well. I think the technology is there, but the understanding of how it can benefit an organization is not understood. |
Within my organization, I believe that our technology has a good understanding of the systems available and benefits to process automation internally. However, our technology lacks the understanding of the impact and benefits of process automation to our clients. |
Not well given the fact that even easy business processes take a long time to implement and with high effort. |