Talk:Process modeling: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:04, 23 August 2006

Latest revision as of 00:00, 24 February 2024

(24 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=

Regarding the possible merge:

{{WikiProject Systems|importance=high |field=Scientific modeling }}

"Process modelling" is also a term used by chemical/process engineers to refer to their efforts to model chemical processing plants. BPM should therefore be specified fully, not shortened as in the present article.

}}

== Regarding the proposed merge (of [[Business process modeling]] into [[Process modeling]]) ==

;Please sign your comments with the Wiki code <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at the end of your comments!

"Process modelling" is also a term used by chemical/process engineers to refer to their efforts to model chemical processing plants. BPM should therefore be specified fully, not shortened as in the present article. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:129.94.6.30|129.94.6.30]] ([[User talk:129.94.6.30|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/129.94.6.30|contribs]]) 00:21, August 23, 2006</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:I do not see why, the chemical processing plant is still a business, and as such the modelling of its workings fits within the business process modelling paradigm. [[User:Ansell/Esperanza|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Ans<span style="color:#009000;">e</span>ll</span>]] 07:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the process modeling for process engineering refer to mathematical models which mimics the actual process. For example, a process model for a blast furnace (used to make steel) would capture all the physico-chemical reactions and try to predict the temperature and completion of various reactions during the charge descent. This is surely not a business process modeling. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:219.64.92.39|219.64.92.39]] ([[User talk:219.64.92.39|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/219.64.92.39|contribs]]) 12:04, September 13, 2006</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:If this is true, the article surely does not reflect any of what you said (no mention of chemicals, blast furnaces, steel making, or tempature) and only refers to how it's used in a ''business''. [[User:Radagast83|Radagast83]] 20:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please be more clear about "the possible merge [of what??]" above? It appears that this is a discussion that's been going on for a while but much of this history has been removed, making it more difficult for newcommers to follow.

== About the redirect from Business Process Modeling to this topic ==

There are currently two articles: [[Process modeling]] and [[Business process modeling]]. This is further confused by the entry for [[Business Process Modeling]] which redirects to [[Process modeling]]. I'd like to remove the exiting [[Business Process Modeling]] redirect. Does anyone object? [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)]] [[User:Karlhauth|Karlhauth]] 13:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

: Update to the comment above. There are not two articles. There is one article and a redirect. --[[User:Nickmalik|Nickmalik]] ([[User talk:Nickmalik|talk]]) 16:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

::There should be no redirection. Process Modelling and Business process modelling are in some way similar, but they are no way the same. Please leave them separated. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:82.131.44.226|82.131.44.226]] ([[User talk:82.131.44.226|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/82.131.44.226|contribs]]) 09:25, April 11, 2007</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

: Update to the comment above. The request was to keep things seperate that are not, in fact, seperate. I interpret this to mean "seperate these" things --[[User:Nickmalik|Nickmalik]] ([[User talk:Nickmalik|talk]]) 16:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Business Process Modeling or BPM is the currently accepted nomenclature for business-specific modeling exercises. While process modeling can be executed for anything, there are specific challenges present when working within in the business arena. It would be of benefit to the business community to address those specifics here. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:VSJMortensen|VSJMortensen]] ([[User talk:VSJMortensen|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/VSJMortensen|contribs]]) 13:08, April 18, 2007</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

'''It is not the same.'''' Keep the subjects separate. They are realy not the same.

[[User:Telgeniaal|Telgeniaal]] 10:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:Update to the comment above. The request was to keep things seperate that are not, in fact, seperate. I interpret this to mean "seperate these" things --[[User:Nickmalik|Nickmalik]] ([[User talk:Nickmalik|talk]]) 16:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

'''Keep separate.''' The [[Process modeling]] page is general, and this is one of only several meanings/contexts. In order to keep [[Process modeling|that page]] from becoming overlong, this article is best kept individual IMHO. [[User:Davidbspalding|David Spalding]]&nbsp;(<big><span style="color: darkred;">[[User talk:Davidbspalding|<span style="color: darkred;">☎</span>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/Davidbspalding|<span style="color: darkred;">✉</span>]]&nbsp;[[Special:contributions/davidbspalding|<span style="color: darkred;">✍</span>]]</span></big>) 16:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

::Business Process Modeling (BPM) should be kept seperate. While there are obvious commonalities, BPM must take into account human factors and constraints. I, for one, have argued that BPM does not go far enough in taking human constraints into account. Anyone interested in this point of view should contact me directly for the recently releases white paper, "Improving the Business Process Model." --mlefcowitz 11:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mlefcowitz|Mlefcowitz]] ([[User talk:Mlefcowitz|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mlefcowitz|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I would like to add that it is clear, from these comments, that the editors have reached consensus that the term 'process modeling' is not the same as 'business process modeling.' Therefore, we SHOULD remove the redirection from the term 'Business Process Modeling' to this topic. At the same time, we should keep two topics, one to cover process modeling in general, and another to cover business process modeling in specific.

:That said, the majority of the content of this topic is wildly misplaced. The contents of the topic are largely duplicative of the Business Process Modeling topic. I would like to suggest that the BPM-specific content be moved to the BPM page, and this page should retain ONLY sufficient information as pertains to process modeling in general, especially as it pertains to manufacturing and chemical processes (which are not covered in the Business Process Modeling topic).

:[[User:Nickmalik|Nickmalik]] ([[User talk:Nickmalik|talk]]) 03:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC

== Comment - general ==

The current article is not well written, confuses much of the concepts of Business Process Modeling into the more generic topic of process modeling, and fails to clearly define the non-business types of process modeling in a coherent manner. The term Business Process was coined by Michael Hammer to differentiate Business Process from Manufacturing Process or Chemical Process.

Therefore, I would suggest that the Systems project would focus only on Business Process Modeling, not process modeling in general, and that the content from this article that is specific to business process modeling be moved to the Business Process Modeling topic.

I'm not sure that a topic on process modeling in general is going to be a particularly interesting one.

--[[User:Nickmalik|Nickmalik]] ([[User talk:Nickmalik|talk]]) 03:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

== New subsection ==

I just read this some more after I made the next talk item. I wanted to express my ideas here first, before I got into other peoples ideas. You are suggesting here, I repeat:

# The BPM-specific content be moved to the BPM page,

# This page should retain to process modeling in general, especially as it pertains to manufacturing and chemical processes.

Now I agree on both suggestions and will proceed to do so sone, because nobody was agains you proposal.

I do think this article should focuss on all process modeling in general. As you said:

* Process modeling to manufacturing processes.

* Process modeling to chemical processes.

And also

* Meta process modeling

* [[Function model]]ling

* Software process modeling

And what ever other fields exist here. I think we can develop a article around this with a general intro and a section about types of process modeling. -- [[User:Mdd|Marcel Douwe Dekker]] ([[User talk:Mdd|talk]]) 00:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

== Multiple issues ==

I think this current article see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_modeling ''here''] has multiple issues:

* There is a long rather undetermined introduction, which doesn't explain to what filed of science it is related, what exact mening it gives to process modelling, and what kind of process modelling, and process modeling exist

* Halfway a section starts focussing on Business Process Modelling, what seems much more detailled.

Now I noticed an older version, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Business_process_modeling&oldid=140846800 ''here''] of the [[Business process modelling]] has been merged here 1 July 2007 by Radagast83. I wonder if it would be better split the both and develop both articles separately some more. -- [[User:Mdd|Marcel Douwe Dekker]] ([[User talk:Mdd|talk]]) 00:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

== Comment on the Introduction ==

I was looking for a description to put in the disambiguation page [[Process]], which has a link to this article. I had to look far into the article for a good description or definition. The introduction needs to be improved.

[[User:Obankston|Obankston]] ([[User talk:Obankston|talk]]) 22:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)