Big-P Process is Dead; Long Live Configuration Agility!

Ronald G.  Ross
Ronald G. Ross Co-Founder & Principal, Business Rule Solutions, LLC , Executive Editor, Business Rules Journal , and Co-Chair, Building Business Capability (BBC) Read Author Bio       || Read All Articles by Ronald G. Ross

It's been said that I claim the procedural paradigm won't scale anymore.  Guilty as charged!  Let me explain.

Procedural vs. Declarative

In the big scheme of things, you have two basic choices for conceptualization, and ultimately implementation, of business capabilities:  procedural vs. declarative.

Let's make sure we agree on what these terms mean.  I'll draw directly on Merriam-Webster Unabridged to make sure we're on the same page.  If the terms don't mean what they're supposed to mean, all bets are off.  But I guess that goes without saying, doesn't it?

procedure: 1a: a particular way of doing or of going about the accomplishment of something 1b (1): a particular course of action (2): a particular step adopted for doing or accomplishing something (3): a series of steps followed in a regular orderly definite way

You can spot the seeds of the scalability problem right away with repeated use of the word "particular" and with the phrase "regular orderly definite way" in the definition.  Given the degree of product/service customization consumers demand today, and the accelerating rate of change, how much business activity still occurs in a particular and regular orderly definite way?  The answer, of course, is less and less all the time.  'Exceptions' have become the rule.

The essential characteristic of procedures is that they flow.  The flow comprises the steps by which a thing is intended to become a different thing (or the same thing in a different state).  The essence of 'procedure' is therefore that something will be hopefully transformed.  For sure, that's a very basic, very important, very necessary part of any business capability.  The problem arises taking procedure beyond that point.

Something declarative, in contrast, doesn't flow.  It just states something that must (or should) be true.

declarative: 2: having the characteristics of or making a declaration : ASSERTIVE;  specifically : constituting a statement that can be either true or false

Business rules are that way; they simply give guidance.  They don't do anything.  They don't flow anywhere.  They can't be anything other than true or false.  In short, business rules are fundamentally different than procedures.

Big-P Process

The traditional procedural paradigm (I'll call it Big-P Process) embeds business rules in procedures (and in process models and in procedural code).  What happens when you treat things that could be declarative in a procedural way?  You get bloat.  You lose business intent.  You produce needless complexity.  And you also get what I call configuration stagnation.  As you scale, these problems grow exponentially.

How many business rules are we talking about?  Any given business capability easily has hundreds, sometimes thousands of business rules — especially when you begin to factor in the know-how needed to make smart operational business decisions.  And don't our businesses increasingly depend on ever more complex know-how?  Is there any end to that trend in sight?

At the scale of today's business, the Big-P Process paradigm simply doesn't work.  It results in ungovernable business operations and unretainable know-how.  Big-P solutions are like setting the business in concrete.  It's all so unnecessary and so counterproductive.  It's just not smart.

Configuration Agility

The key question for agile business capabilities is how the business is configured (and quickly reconfigured) for operation at any given point in time.

In the Big-P paradigm, the building-blocks become thoroughly entangled with flow (procedure).  The result is essentially a semantic dead zone.  Because things that could be expressed declaratively aren't, the opportunity is lost to use logic to automatically evaluate business rules (read 'business practices') for conflicts, anomalies, and other logical defects.

The future clearly does not lie in that direction.  Instead, it lies with granular, declarative, semantically-rich specification of business configurations in building-block fashion.  It lies with the paradigm that can produce the optimal configuration agility.

In addition to procedures, smart configuration models will feature at least these other building blocks for business capabilities, all specified at the business level:

  • business rules,
  • operational business decisions,
  • structured business vocabularies (concept models, also known as fact models),
  • business goals and risks,
  • business events.

From an engineering perspective, the secret to agile configuration is 'late binding' — that is, bringing all the pieces together for execution (i.e., performance of procedures) as late as possible.  That way, performance can be as up-to-date and as flexible as possible.

Smart configuration models[1] should be the new mantra for business architecture.  In a world of constant and accelerating change, I simply see no alternative.  Doing more of the same is just not going to work anymore — and already hasn't been for a good, long while!

References

[1]  Smart configuration schemes also address business governance and compliance — essential in a world of constant change — and just-in-time (JIT) delivery of know-how for operational workers.  In our new book, Building Business Solutions
(see www.brsolutions.com/b_building_business_solutions.php)
we call systems built using smart configuration models business operation systems (as opposed to 'information systems'). return to article

# # #

Standard citation for this article:


citations icon
Ronald G. Ross , "Big-P Process is Dead; Long Live Configuration Agility!" Business Rules Journal Vol. 13, No. 10, (Oct. 2012)
URL: http://www.brcommunity.com/a2012/b673.html

About our Contributor:


Ronald  G. Ross
Ronald G. Ross Co-Founder & Principal, Business Rule Solutions, LLC , Executive Editor, Business Rules Journal , and Co-Chair, Building Business Capability (BBC)

Ronald G. Ross is Principal and Co-Founder of Business Rule Solutions, LLC, where he actively develops and applies the IPSpeak methodology including RuleSpeak®, DecisionSpeak and TableSpeak.

Ron is recognized internationally as the "father of business rules." He is the author of ten professional books including the groundbreaking first book on business rules The Business Rule Book in 1994. His newest are:


Ron serves as Executive Editor of BRCommunity.com and its flagship publication, Business Rules Journal. He is a sought-after speaker at conferences world-wide. More than 50,000 people have heard him speak; many more have attended his seminars and read his books.

Ron has served as Chair of the annual International Business Rules & Decisions Forum conference since 1997., now part of the Building Business Capability (BBC) conference where he serves as Co-Chair. He was a charter member of the Business Rules Group (BRG) in the 1980s, and an editor of its Business Motivation Model (BMM) standard and the Business Rules Manifesto. He is active in OMG standards development, with core involvement in SBVR.

Ron holds a BA from Rice University and an MS in information science from Illinois Institute of Technology. Find Ron's blog on http://www.brsolutions.com/category/blog/. For more information about Ron visit www.RonRoss.info. Tweets: @Ronald_G_Ross

Read All Articles by Ronald G. Ross
Subscribe to the eBRJ Newsletter
In The Spotlight
 Jim  Sinur
 Ronald G. Ross

Online Interactive Training Series

In response to a great many requests, Business Rule Solutions now offers at-a-distance learning options. No travel, no backlogs, no hassles. Same great instructors, but with schedules, content and pricing designed to meet the special needs of busy professionals.