The question at a LinkedIn BPM Group discussion read as follows . . .
“So what software would people recommend for mapping out business processes where they are complex, interdependent and split across multiple disciplines”
And my recommendation was …
Absolutely no point setting a singular focus on mapping.
Once you have mapped a complex process, you have two options : stare at the paper process (to accomplish what exactly?) or subject the map to pattern recognition (e.g. compilation of the map) and forward feeding of process steps to an automated resource allocation, leveling and balancing environment.
Clearly, the compilation should be a one-click exercise, not some hay-wiring initiative, so this tells you that if the mapping environment does not accommodate tagging of steps with skill attributes, easy access to step-specific HELP, and instant access to any form(s) needed to collect data relating to performance of steps, you are not in the right environment.
Some BPM systems accommodate this, others seemingly do not.
A rough rule of thumb I use is that if a person performing tasks has to worry about WHAT the next step is along a process, WHO should perform it, WHERE, WHEN, HOW, and occasionally WHY, or what document is needed for data collection and as proof of completion of a step, the environment being used is not quite there and may or may not ever be there.
Then, we have the issue that for any work that involves knowledge workers, these people need to be able to skip steps, perform steps out of order, invent new steps that were not in the BPM template, revisit already committed steps, so the combo of Adaptive Case Management (ACM) and BPM works better for this than either of these two methodologies on their own.
See “Doing the wrong things the wrong way” at http://wp.me/pzzpB-f4 for a discussion on the relative merits of BPM and ACM and when one should be used versus the other.