Following up on my post from last year http://blogs.msdn.com/jdevados/archive/2006/08/02/687269.aspx - I think there is a similar distiction that we can make for BPM.
Alex Moulas nails it in his column http://www.bpm.com/FeatureRO.asp - "A large, progressive company wants to be a more processed-focused enterprise. Best practice dictates combining business analysts with consultants from a major system integration firm to detail architecture and interview employees to capture the real business process. Plans are developed, and with methodologies in hand, significant initial progress is made. As weeks and months progress, more time is spent managing documents, drawing and re-drawing process maps, reviewing, correcting, checking interdependencies and trying to ensure consistency and uniformity. After 11 months, the combined teams are disbanded and no actions or conclusions are reached. Budgets exceed planned expenditures and frustration prevails. Ultimately, the entire project is put on the back burner or …
This is a typical “best practice labeled” engagement that will more often than not fail. Not because of poor planning, resource allocation or budget constraints, but because of a typical and traditional “top-down,” macro-view analysis" "
This is big BPM.
What he calls Business Process Discovery is what I think of as the real-world, emergent approach - what we could think of as little BPM. Driven by the community - "capturing the business process as it exists and is exercised daily in the enterprise, by users on IT systems. " - very well said Alex.