Description

"Is BPM the Scapegoat for AI Failures? A Critical Look at Process Management's Future"

Summary

In this candid episode, Caspar and Russell tackle the uncomfortable question: Is BPM destined to become the scapegoat for failing AI initiatives? They dive into Deloitte's Tech Trends 2026 report, which predicts that 40% of AI projects will be cancelled, and explore BPM's role in these failures. Russell questions whether there's a fundamental flaw in BPM methodology that prevents widespread adoption, while Caspar argues it's too early to blame a use case that's only 18 months old. The conversation takes an intriguing turn when they examine the tension between agile methodologies and process governance, with both hosts agreeing that organizations need structure at higher levels while allowing agility at granular levels. They discuss the challenge of integrating BPM into organizations already saturated with methodologies like Lean Six Sigma and Scrum. A key insight emerges: never appoint a perfectionist to lead your BPM project—generalists should be at the top with perfectionists handling the details. They also explore the complexity of defining process ownership, especially the critical role of end-to-end process owners, and debate whether BPM practitioners should adapt their standard role frameworks to fit existing organizational structures. The episode concludes with a promise to tackle the controversial topic of process taxonomy and SAP's influence on enterprise architecture in their next discussion.

5 Key Takeaways

1. The Scapegoat Risk: With 40% of AI initiatives predicted to fail by 2027, BPM risks becoming the fall guy despite the BPM-for-AI use case being only 18 months old—too early to judge its effectiveness.
2. Agility Needs Structure: Organizations should allow agile methodologies at granular levels (individual products or use cases) but maintain structured governance at higher levels to prevent chaos across 127+ development tribes.
3. Generalists Lead, Perfectionists Execute: Never appoint a perfectionist to lead BPM initiatives—put pragmatic generalists at the top and save perfectionists for detailed, lower-level work where precision matters.
4. Adapt to Existing Structures: Rather than imposing standard BPM roles on organizations already saturated with methodologies (Scrum, Lean Six Sigma), start with defining the end-to-end process owner and build around existing organizational capabilities.
5. Value Comes from Connections: The true value of BPM isn't in having models—it's in understanding the dependencies between enterprise artifacts (activities, roles, applications, risks) to prevent unintended consequences from changes.