Hidden object or flip book

Even more so, if the thoughts of the author are based on ancient things such as the operating accounting sheet. Admittedly, the theorems of the ancient Greeks around Pythagoras are still valid today. But to claim that the process modeling according to the visualized thoughts of subject, predicate and object is superior to the decision process chain and its derivatives, that can't really be serious!

In this respect, it is certainly irrelevant to note methodologically and epistemologically that the decision or process flow from one activity to the next is something different from the exchange of information that arises with the activity itself.

Shortly before noon, I retreat to the "lunch" process and see: The horizontal flow of information between mother and son is actually something different than the vertical process flow from activity to activity. Decisions are made from the top down, while information flows between the players involved - and sometimes you even talk to yourself.

Now I remain sitting at my desk, growling, but notice from the hypoglycemia that still nothing changes: This example from the nursery of thinking can hardly be a hint that adult processes at steel stoves, pill makers, lime burners, carbon bakers, silicon founders ... can be modeled more accurately and understandably with exactly this pattern than under the label Process Mining or Business Process Intelligence.

In the meantime, I wonder how I came up with the audacious idea of following the suggestion of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung: "The struggle for the word is the struggle for the thought." And already the next aphorism falls over me, because because "a picture is worth a thousand words", the standard for finding the better explanatory model continues to rise.

If we accept these premises as the guiding principles for evaluations, then E-3 magazine has by no means declared a non-serious contest for "Germany's Next Process Model," but a genuine competition in the spirit of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Incidentally, also in the sense of the mischievous Zurich exile with the flying gray hair: "You have to make things as simple as possible. But not simpler."

At this moment of writing, I dare to invoke Sir Karl Raimund Popper as referee in the video cellar of philosophy of science: Theories are scientific when they better explain conditions. A scientific theory exists only if it is so clearly and thereby systematically articulated that it can be falsified.

I know, I am threatening to slip into the serious subject again instead of offering light fare. But, dear Mr. Färbinger, you now invite to the match with players who make their moves as participants, i.e. make decisions and execute activities which are then followed by information flows. The acting player (= subject) executes his move (= activity). As a consequence, he initiates a flow of information to the receiver, from whom the next activity is expected.

Various participants (passive players, spectators, referees, coaches, scouts, player agents, later decision-makers) receive information as messages. The receiver (only one can have the ball!) is expected to make the next move with decision and action. One move is followed by the next; one player brings the next into play. Sometimes a player even kicks the template to himself, i.e. sets the next task for himself.

Brought to the core, the model shows the players and their roles in the action in the columns. The activities are arranged in rows. The vertical process flow maps the sequence of decisions and activities. The horizontal information flow visualizes who interacts with whom. Double-clicking on a row leads to the detailed process for the activity.

There again there are players and their activities; a sequence of decisions and information flowing between the players. The match plan with players and activities with drilldown to objects and G/L accounts continues through customizing to the SAP tables. Reading data there and reporting on it is a good thing - but then, of course, according to the rules of the International Business Communication Standards (IBCS).

A good match plan sees itself as a collection of moves with as few rough edges as possible (visualized vertically as a process flow) and clear information flows between the participants. A smart match plan arranges events sequentially, top-down into game segments, with each successive sequence following the same pattern with players, acting (subject) and receiving (object) participants, game moves (decision as well as action) and information flows.

An efficient match plan ensures consistency so that word and image successively become analog as well as digital instructions for man and machine. An effective match plan leads to a successful result.

The core method organizes the events into two flow variables: 1. information flow with the information types messages (for example texts), price, quantity, value. 2. process flow as a step sequence of activities with decisions (and, or, xor) to perform the activities.

This order can easily be applied to the SAP world, and suddenly this cosmos becomes clear, simple and beautiful in the sense of Einstein. The process picture is ordered according to the pattern subject-predicate-object. Each activity (predicate or verb) between subject (sender) and object (receiver) can be refined. The "drilldown" visualizes the quantity flow, followed by the value flow via G/L accounts.

With this guiding principle, I propose to use the sentence building blocks of our word language - subject, predicate, and object consequent - as the syntax of a visual language for business and booking processes. With this word and image pattern, we can speak simply and clearly, consistently and consistently, visualize, model who does what and (then) interact with whom. Now we can test and evaluate whether a collection of hidden pictures or a flip book promises success in terms of clarity, intelligence, efficiency and effectiveness.

SAP follows the old and new motto of offering a solution for integrated business processes. Of course, no one wants to conjure up the primeval times of R/1, R/2 or R/3. Technology has come a long way, performance is breathtaking, new user front-ends open up design opportunities for efficient and inviting usability, and something is coming "on top" at every turn. But at its core, the issue remains the same: How do we interact with each other? How do we talk to each other?

Which persons, instances, account assignment objects, technical systems are involved in the process and in which role? Which activities and business transactions do they perform? What effects are created for prices, quantities, values, messages? With which transactions are the activities executed? In which tables is the transaction data (prices, quantities, values) posted?

With a little distance and then viewed as a whole, the core method as a model for the visualization of business processes is a natural part of our everyday life - after all, we have always thought and spoken this way. This gives this method its superior ability to reproduce complex events in a reduced form, i.e.: to bring them down to the core.