« semantic web, documents and knowledge | Main | extreme business planning (again) - you're nobody's market and embrace failure »


Ian Prince

Interesting post Sig, as always.

I'm wondering whether you can equate:

Business Process = Top-Down Process
Business Practice = Bottom-Up Process.

My small business is nearly all Business Practice/Bottom-Up Process. By definition Top-Down is easy to define and model, but Bottom-Up is *hard* to define as it "Just Happens".

Which leads me to wonder if Bottom-Up "learning" or "automatic modelling" could be a killer feature for Thingamy, getting it in-the-door for little up-front investment.

'Cus hand-modelling the Business Practices – whilst nice in theory – is just too hard in practice (no pun intended).




Ian, not a bad idea, top-down vs. bottom-up... although I sort of lean towards more linear vs all-over-the-place...

The best part is that any of those "linear" and proper processes have unplanned for hiccups so the Practices have to be set in gear. Guess it becomes a "practice" after it has happened a few times as such usually do. And "best practices" (hear now Thomas!) when it has happened so often that one have managed to get some idea of how to do it halfway properly.
But "best practice" is not even half way - still cracks to be seen (Oops, forgot!) and no furthre building of knowledge and Intellectual Capital to speak of.

And definitely, this seems to be the area of interest for first use of thingamy - not my plan - but I love it! Nothing real to compete with, really easy to model as a working start for later tweaks and bettering... thus extremely low risk for the early adopter. And of course, the perfect gate to squeeze in the Trojan Horsy ;)

Ian Prince

I agree that getting thingamy through the door aimed at the Practice/Bottom-up/All-Over-the-Place processes is low risk.

However, low risk does not equal low cost because modelling these process is *hard by definition*.

Which is where I thought some kind of "modelling-through-doing" functionality in thingamy might provide some form of "instant gratification" without having to spend hours (days?) on modelling first.


Ian, but of course! Modeling? Bah, humbug!

1) Do not analyse current processes or practices.
2) Think "why are we doing this?" about the practice.
3) Build accordingly a ridiculously simple first flow.
4) Tweak and expand at will :)

Ian Prince

For "3) Build accordingly a ridiculously simple first flow", would it be possible for thingamy to build the flow *for me* by watching me actually *doing* the flow, along the lines of applescript "record"?

Ideally thingamy would record *all* the ad-hoc flows and based on aggregation propose generic flows for user validation (and tweaking).

It's written in lisp right ;-)


Ian, sure, sitting next to you that is :)

Actually a "user story" is much more useful, that allows for some cheeky questions like "Why do you do that? What's the purpose?" with the inevitable follow-up creative sounds of "hmmm... ah!".

Never a bad idea to revisit, remember that the "way you do things today" is a method created using pen, paper, post, faxes, meetings, phones... you know, the pre-it methodologies! No need to keep that at all, in fact, better to scrap as principle and reintroduce if really good after all!

Start with a simple no-nonsense flow that does what it should do in it's simplest form, the start asking "what if" questions to generate the ad-hoc parts of the flow.

Hehe, yep, CL yes, you/we find a need that is not covered (and is generic) we add in a snippet ;)

myspace design

Interesting article. Great to have stumbled upon your blog.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo


  • Phone: +33 6 8887 9944
    Skype: sigurd.rinde
    iChat/AIM: sigrind52

Tweet this

Thingamy sites

  • Main site
  • Concept site

Tittin's blog


Enterprise Irregulars


Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter


    • Alltop, all the cool kids (and me)


    Blog powered by Typepad
    Member since 01/2005