This is the final post in the 12-post, Interaction Profiling series.  It summarizes the previous 11 posts in a recap and presents a set of conclusions for consideration.


The first introductory post in the Interaction Profiling series outlined the concept and promised the benefits that are cited in the summarized conclusions below.  Hopefully, if you have browsed through all prior 11 posts, you will concur with these conclusions.  The designs for the Interaction Profile metadata and the persistence of the validation and BPM data in the database was the focus of posts 2 through 4. The designs are relatively simple, but the table-driven designs make maintenance a simple and User-managable task with little or no involvement from IT.


Security and Auditing were detailed in posts 5 and 6, integrating the Interaction Profiling framework with User and Role administration and incorporating the ubiquitous requirement for an audit trail within the framework.  These designs are also simple, yet they provide so much capability to an Interaction-Proiling-enabled application.  They extend the business process task management with capabilities that include workload balancing across the Organization, automated transaction routing, and much more as described below.  The business managers are also enabled with User-maintainable profile-level programs and reporting that can be simple and quickly implemented, again with no IT involvement.


Post 7 took a very brief look at the additional work for the BA during the investigation and design project phases, that is implied by the Interaction Profiling paradigm.  Although there is an enforced need for greater detail in BPM investigations and the validation rule determination, this is a good thing.  The quality of the User Requirements will be enhanced by this more rigorous approach and the risk of failure will be mitigated as well.  There is more work required in this area to formalize and merge the Interaction Profiling metadata with the functional and data specifications for a new system.


Posts 8, 9 and 10 took a closer look at the first Interaction-Profiling-enabled application, the hypothetical Sales Order Processing System, SOPS.  The actual, relevant application screens were depicted with explanations that demonstrated the simplicity of the metadata maintenance and substantiated the claim that the User community would be quite capable of undertaking this job.  The tenth post also presented the actual BPM screens. Although not obviously enhanced by Interaction Profiling, the actual required task sequencing and allocations for every transaction are all automated (with User override as necessary).  The reporting in the prototype is also illustrated showing the use of report filtering using a profile dropdown as one of the criteria, both on the general report filter screen and in all of the pivot chart style reports.  The capability for simple, easy-for-the-Users ad hoc reporting is also introduced, as the profile attribute definition criteria provides this capability out-of-the-box.


The previous post, 11, documented the prototype application metrics and indicated the considerable scope of the interaction Profiling framework, which is at least as good as, if not better than, existing BPM software in terms of actual benefit to the Organization. The post also analyzes the application development objects and highlights the impressive (at least in my somewhat-biased opinion) statistic that almost three-quarters of SOPS is included in the fully re-usable Interaction Profiling framework.  The prototype database design is also presented, again indicating the significant portion of SOPS that is a re-usable Interaction Profiling framework.


Based upon the preceding material and analyses, the following conclusions are proposed for consideration.

  1. Interaction Profiling provides a quantum leap forward, simplifying the approach to BPM within an Organization.  The re-usable framework provides considerable functionality to subsequent applications once the initial framework is constructed or acquired.
  2. The encapsulation of the validation rules and BPM logic in a table-driven manner empowers the Users to take control of their business processes in a much more comprehensive and comprehensible manner.
  3. Interaction Profiling effectively provides business-relevant control at user-definable profile levels.
  4. Much code and data redundancy is eliminated as information can be recorded at the profile level.
  5. Operations such as transaction routing, workload balancing and monitoring, task sequencing, bring forward reminders are fully automated, eliminating manual delays, errors and omissions.
  6. Service to Clients can be improved with improved efficiency and accurate completion estimates.
  7. Managerial control is greatly enhanced, with workload monitoring, bottleneck detection, productivity reports, trends, gap analyses and annual reports, graphs and pivot tables, plus marketing, communications and new programs that are easy to implement at user-definable profile levels.
  8. Reporting is facilitated by intelligent filtering, including profile-based breakdowns.
  9. A truly simple ad hoc reporting capability is inherent in the Interaction Profiling concept.
  10. Future application development effort will be reduced significantly, possibly as much as 50% or more.
  11. On-going maintenance costs will also be considerably reduced because of the flexibility and User-maintainability inherent in the Interaction Profiling concept. This is conservatively estimated at 33% on-going, after the production of the first framework.
  12. The concept is implementation neutral. Desktop, browser and portable device applications can all benefit. It is also transparent to the design paradigm whether a system is cloud-based or not.


Interaction Profiling is a brand new concept. It is in its infancy, yet the first prototype clearly demonstrates that the potential benefits are significant, not just to BPM but also to other, common application system features. Questions, comments, criticisms, suggestions and any other feedback is welcome.


All Previous Posts:

Better BPM – 1  Success Through Simplicity

Better BPM – 2  Interaction Profiling Definitions and Design

Better BPM – 3  Table-Driven Validation Designs

Better BPM – 4  Table-Driven BPM Designs

Better BPM – 5  Interaction Profiling Security Designs

Better BPM – 6  Interaction Profiling Auditing Provisions

Better BPM – 7  Determining interaction Profiles for an Application

Better BPM – 8  Sales Order Processing Prototype

Better BPM – 9  Profile Metadata Maintenance

Better BPM – 10 Prototype Sample Screens and Reports

Better BPM – 11 Prototype Design Framwork Scope and Metrics


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *