Steve Towers, BPM guru asks the same unthinkable (by most vendors) question that I have asked for many years.
Bits that I find very true:
It was very misleading and again over simplified the effort and knowledge required. In reality, process simulations are usually only useful when the process is repetitive and the resources are costly. Finding processing constraints usually does not require process simulation.Could not agree more
I have seen bad simulation data can mislead managers and that make incorrect and costly assumptions.
I spend a lot of time as a consultant helping organizations recover these projects and training clients to be self sufficient.Oh, yes!
In my own experience, there is very little connection between the simulation and reality. This in itself is probably the best argument against the usefulness of simulation. What we really need, and I think this is what Steve is referring to when he says "Finding processing constraints usually does not require process simulation." is to make the process better. Making it better, again in my experience, is reducing the effort required by users, increasing the accuracy, and improving the resulting information (not enabled by processes usually, but data). Accountability is another valuable point made in a comment by Brian Martin:
Even though I also have a geekish background, the greatest improvements that I have seen come with the socialization of the operations data, coaching people, and holding people accountable to operational targets. Some of the basic operations problems are a lack of coaching which is not related to simulation at all.
What simulation do we require? Well, in these cases, no simulation will help. What is we do is 'Prototype the Process' to ensure it will work the way we want.
Posts
