Ep. 76: "AI-Driven Business Model Innovation: Can Traditional BPM Keep Up?"

Ep. 76: "AI-Driven Business Model Innovation: Can Traditional BPM Keep Up?"

In this special guest episode, Russell and Caspar welcome Michel Kirsch, a 22-year-old final-year international business student at the University of Paderborn, whose fresh perspective on AI and business process management challenges conventional thinking. Michel discovered BPM through the BPM winter school and is currently researching AI-driven business model innovation for his bachelor thesis. The conversation centers on Michel's provocative thesis: that while AI is a powerful strategic resource, it's also becoming a commodity, and the real competitive advantage lies in how companies leverage AI through business model innovation—yet traditional BPM thinking may actually constrain this radical innovation. The discussion explores the fundamental difference between how startups approach business models from a greenfield perspective versus how established incumbents struggle with legacy structures and capabilities. Russell and Caspar examine the tension between BPM's traditional operational excellence focus and the need for radical business model rethinking in the AI era. They debate whether BPM should expand beyond process optimization to encompass broader operating models, enterprise architecture, and digital twins of entire companies. Michel introduces the concept of "nudging" as a transformation technique and raises the challenge of measuring exploration and innovation—metrics that don't fit traditional BPM's operational KPI frameworks. The episode concludes by questioning whether future business model innovation will require rethinking traditional BPM practices entirely. 5 Key Takeaways: 1. AI Is Strategic but Increasingly Commoditized: While AI represents enormous strategic potential, nearly universal access means competitive advantage no longer comes from having AI—it comes from how companies translate AI into new business models and value propositions through thoughtful innovation. 2. Traditional BPM Can Actually Limit Radical Innovation: Process-focused optimization works well for operational excellence but can constrain the kind of radical business model rethinking needed in the AI era—incumbents stuck optimizing existing processes may miss transformative opportunities that startups embrace with greenfield thinking. 3. Greenfield vs. Brownfield Determines Innovation Capacity: Startups can design business models from scratch for AI and innovation, while incumbents must navigate existing structures, capabilities, and constraints—the key question is: which legacy capabilities enable future value, and which become anchors that must be shed? 4. Expand the Frame Beyond Processes to Operating Models: A complete "digital twin" of the company requires more than just process documentation—it needs operating models, enterprise architecture, capability mapping, and strategic positioning to give AI something meaningful to optimize and reimagine. 5. Innovation Metrics Don't Fit Operational KPI Frameworks: Traditional BPM excels at measuring efficiency and compliance, but measuring exploration, experimentation, and innovation requires different metrics entirely—organizations need new frameworks to balance operational excellence metrics with innovation and capability development indicators. If you have suggestions or questions, please reach out to us via questions@bpm360podcast.com [questions@bpm360podcast.com] If you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe… we do appreciate that…

Ep. 75: "Conscious Change Leadership: The Human Reality Behind Process Transformation"

In this special guest episode, the hosts welcome Dr. Linda Ackerman Anderson—known as "Dr. Change"—a pioneering leader in organizational transformation with nearly five decades of experience in the field. Linda shares her remarkable journey from organizational development training through helping pioneer the "transformational change" field in the early 1980s, when practitioners recognized that a fundamentally different type of change was occurring in organizations. She discusses her work with massive organizations including Sun Petroleum Products and her development of the Conscious Change Leadership framework alongside her husband Dean Anderson, which goes beyond traditional change management to address the deeper human and cultural dimensions of transformation. The conversation centers on three critical conversations that must occur in any transformational change: content (business process design), people (their readiness, beliefs, and understanding), and process (the change methodology itself—how to move people through transformation). Linda emphasizes that change happens from the inside out, requiring people to emotionally, intellectually, and behaviorally embrace new ways of working, not just comply with directives. Through candid discussion, she explores how process transformations often reveal deeper organizational structure issues, and how turning project resistors into ambassadors through powerful questioning can unlock valuable insights. The episode provides practical wisdom on creating psychological safety and choice in transformation rather than mandate-driven compliance. 5 Key Takeaways: 1. Three Conversations, Not One: Transformational change requires simultaneous attention to content (business process design), people (readiness, beliefs, skills, understanding), and process (the change methodology)—treating change as only a technical exercise while ignoring people and change methodology virtually guarantees failure. 2. Change Happens Inside-Out, Not Outside-In: Telling people what to do (external communication) is necessary but insufficient; genuine transformation requires creating experiences and safe spaces where people emotionally get it, intellectually understand it, and choose to do it rather than feel obligated—this is the difference between compliance and commitment. 3. Readiness Has Three Dimensions: Before designing change interventions, assess people's awareness (do they know change is coming?), knowledge (do they understand what's needed?), and mindset/beliefs (do they believe it's possible and beneficial?)—addressing all three dimensions determines whether people can actually embrace new processes. 4. Turn Resistors into Ambassadors Through Powerful Questions: Instead of marginalizing project opponents, recruit them by asking questions that shift their thinking—"What do you see that we don't see?" and "Why do you think this won't work? What's necessary that isn't in place?"—this offloads resistance energy and converts their expertise into valuable contributions. 5. Process Transformation Reveals Organizational Structure Issues: When stakeholders engage deeply with new business processes, structural inefficiencies often emerge (excessive signature levels, redundant layers, unclear authority)—rather than treating these as out-of-scope, view them as opportunities to redesign organization alongside processes for genuine transformation. Links to Dr Linda's books: Beyond Change Management: https://shorturl.at/kZlGY [https://shorturl.at/kZlGY] Change Leaders Roadmap to Organization Transformation: https://shorturl.at/Qt5nf [https://shorturl.at/Qt5nf]

Ep. 74: "Beyond BPM and EA: Why System Science Is the Missing Foundation"

In this special guest episode, Russell and Caspar welcome Petros Panagiotidis, a deeply experienced BPM and Enterprise Architecture practitioner from Greece with four decades of professional experience and a PhD in Systems Science. Petros shares his unconventional academic journey through Business Administration, Computer Information Systems, Business Systems Analysis and Design, culminating in doctoral research on digital transformation and Industry 4.0. The discussion reveals Petros's counter-intuitive thesis: BPM and EA are fundamentally the same discipline, just using different terminology and marketing language. Through a systems science lens, he demonstrates how all the buzzwords around frameworks and methodologies—BPMN, TOGAF, and others—represent surface-level manifestations of deeper systemic principles. Petros introduces cybernetics and system dynamics as the foundational sciences that explain why processes exist and how they behave. He uses the elegant metaphor of water flowing through a river to describe how processes (the water) move through organizational architecture (the riverbed), making clear that process architecture provides stable structure while individual processes represent the flowing events. The conversation explores feedback loops—both negative (deviation correction toward targets) and positive (exponential amplification)—as the deep structure underlying all organizational systems. Petros emphasizes that understanding these foundational principles from systems science would transform how practitioners approach BPM and EA work, moving beyond tool-centric and marketing-driven thinking to genuine systemic understanding. 5 Key Takeaways: 1. BPM and EA Are Fundamentally One Discipline: What we call Business Process Management and Enterprise Architecture are essentially the same thing expressed in different dialects—the distinction exists primarily for marketing purposes around tools and methodologies, but the underlying systemic logic is identical. 2. System Science Provides the Foundation BPM Lacks: BPM and EA have a ceiling beyond which they cannot fully explain organizational behavior; system science (particularly cybernetics and system dynamics) reveals why processes and architectures exist and emerge the way they do at a deeper structural level. 3. Feedback Loops Are the Deep Structure: Two types of feedback loops—negative (correcting deviations from targets) and positive (amplifying deviations)—create the underlying structure from which all organizational processes and architectures emerge as visible manifestations; understanding these explains organizational behavior at a fundamental level. 4. Process Architecture vs. Process Events Are Interdependent: Process architecture provides stable structure and guardrails, while individual processes are the flowing events that move through this structure—like water finding its way through a riverbed; both are necessary and neither alone is sufficient. 5. Stafford Beer and System Dynamics Should Be Foundational Reading: Business schools and BPM practitioners should study Stafford Beer's work on organizational cybernetics and the viable systems model (five subsystems that enable organizational survival), plus system dynamics literature from the 1970s-80s—these foundational concepts should underpin all contemporary BPM and EA thinking rather than being overlooked in favor of current buzzwords. If you have suggestions or questions, please reach out to us via questions@bpm360podcast.com [questions@bpm360podcast.com] If you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe… we do appreciate that…

Ep. 73: "The Performance Analyst: From Data Dashboard Maker to Intelligence Detective"

In this final episode of their BPM roles mini-series, Russell and Caspar examine the performance and KPI analyst role—also known as the process intelligence analyst—responsible for ongoing measurement of process performance, designing KPI frameworks, maintaining dashboards, and turning process data into actionable insights. The discussion reveals this role encompasses two distinct functions: the architectural design of performance indicator frameworks that align with organizational strategy, and the operational analysis of process data to understand root causes and effects. They explore the critical distinction between KPIs (strategic, aggregated outcomes) and PPIs (process performance indicators that measure operational health), using examples like on-time-in-full delivery rates versus quality inspection lead times. Through detailed conversation, they examine how effective performance analysis requires understanding causal dependencies throughout end-to-end processes—recognizing that a bottleneck in one subprocess directly impacts strategic KPIs downstream. The episode emphasizes that this role sits at the intersection of data science and business context, requiring both technical capability to work with data and sufficient operational understanding to design meaningful indicators. They debate whether organizations actually staff this role adequately or whether the framework design responsibility simply doesn't exist in practice. The hosts conclude by positioning this as a "unicorn" role that combines process intelligence tools, root cause analysis skills, and the ability to facilitate dialogue between process owners about where to set indicators for aligned performance across the value chain. 5 Key Takeaways: 1. Two Functions in One Role: The performance analyst must both design the architectural framework of performance indicators aligned to strategy (what should we measure and why) and perform operational analysis of process data (what's actually happening and what does it mean)—these are distinct skills packaged into one position. 2. PPIs Drive KPIs, Not the Other Way Around: Process performance indicators (PPIs) measure operational process health—like quality inspection lead time or credit check duration—while KPIs are strategic outcomes like on-time-in-full delivery; effective analysis connects how operational PPIs aggregate up to impact strategic KPIs. 3. Understand Causal Dependencies Across Processes: The core value lies in understanding how process elements affect each other throughout the end-to-end chain—a three-day delay in quality inspection directly causes late delivery to customers, connecting a seemingly minor operational metric to customer satisfaction. 4. Intelligence Means Root Cause Analysis, Not Just Reporting: Moving from dashboards to actionable insights requires detective work using process intelligence tools to prove points about variance, identify bottlenecks, and understand why processes perform as they do—not just displaying what happened. 5. Prevent Local Optimization at the Expense of End-to-End Performance: Without proper indicator framework design and end-to-end visibility, individual process steps optimize toward the wrong targets—everyone becomes reproducibly fast at the wrong thing, landing on the "left-hand side" of the bell curve when they should be elsewhere for overall chain performance. If you have suggestions or questions, please reach out to us via questions@bpm360podcast.com [questions@bpm360podcast.com] If you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe… we do appreciate that…

Ep. 72: "The BPM Technology Manager: From Tool Guardian to Integration Orchestrator"

In this episode, Russell and Caspar examine the BPM technology and tooling manager role—a position that has evolved dramatically from its origins as a technical gatekeeper to today's integration-focused facilitator. They explore how this person manages the BPM platform ecosystem including process repositories, modeling tools, automation platforms, and process mining solutions while ensuring they remain fit for organizational purpose. The discussion reveals how the role's importance has shifted over time, from the days of on-premises systems requiring deep database schema knowledge and complex upgrades to today's cloud-based environments where new features appear automatically. The hosts debate whether one person typically owns all BPM tooling or if modeling, mining, and automation platforms are managed by different specialists in larger organizations. Through candid conversation, they examine the tension between becoming a product expert wedded to one vendor versus maintaining objectivity and vendor independence to serve the organization's needs. The episode explores critical character traits including technical adaptability, the ability to train users appropriately without overwhelming them with advanced features they'll never use, and understanding how BPM tools fit into the wider enterprise application ecosystem. They emphasize the importance of working collaboratively with BPM architects to extend methodology and integrate with other systems like risk management, quality management, and project management tools. This is essential listening for understanding how the BPM technology manager role has transformed from maintenance-focused to integration-oriented in the modern cloud era. 5 Key Takeaways: 1. The Role Has Evolved Dramatically: BPM technology managers have shifted from being on-premises system gatekeepers who controlled upgrades and configurations to cloud-era facilitators who focus on integration, user enablement, and ecosystem management—the old model of "you must come to me for everything" is history. 2. Vendor Independence Is Critical: The tooling landscape changes rapidly and this person must evaluate options objectively rather than becoming emotionally attached to a single vendor's roadmap—the job is serving organizational needs, not defending a particular product or becoming its evangelist. 3. Train for Actual Use Cases, Not Product Mastery: Like teaching household budgeting versus investment banking in Excel, BPM training should focus on what users actually need (typically 10-15% of tool capabilities) rather than overwhelming them with advanced features they'll never use—practical enablement trumps comprehensive product knowledge. 4. Integration Thinking Beyond BPM: Modern tooling managers must understand how BPM platforms connect with the wider enterprise ecosystem—JIRA for project management, document management systems for quality, process mining tools, risk and control systems—and facilitate smooth integration rather than treating BPM as an isolated island. 5. Partner with Architects for Evolution: The technology manager and BPM architects must work hand-in-hand to expand capabilities—architects need technical feasibility input for methodology extensions, while tooling experts need architectural context to propose automation, dashboards, and integrations that make ambitious use cases practically achievable. If you have suggestions or questions, please reach out to us via questions@bpm360podcast.com [questions@bpm360podcast.com] If you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe… we do appreciate that…