Talking about Pictures Part 2

And that other place entirely is: process

There has been some recent blogospheric discussion driven by Ross Mayfield's declaration of the end of process. In fact, what Ross advocates is:

At best, a process should serve as a reference model. Something that others can reference when completing a task. Something that can be leveraged for innovation, a boundary condition for experimentation at the margin.

They are the rules in stone that innovative types must always battle against.

Brushing aside whether the constant recreation of process is always a good idea ("Hey, screw the manual, we're going Open Source on the operation of this nuclear power plant - who wants to start a wiki?"), this position assumes that the processes in question are clearly documented and well understood by those involved in them.

This is not always the case. Rarely are we mindful of the processes we forge or follow.

We need to be able to describe it and/or visualise. If this sounds like I'm getting Buddhist on your ass - well I am.

Now, there is veritable tower of Babel of process description languages - ADF, UML, EPCs, CUL8R (I may have made that last one up). An attempt to forge an Esperanto (altho one that people actual use) of process mapping can be found in the Business Process Modeling Notation project.

What has this got to do with character? Well, process models are all about decisions. Here is one for Sydney cab drivers: "If the traffic light is green keep going. If the traffic light is yellow, then accelerate wildly in attempt to beat it. If the traffic light is red then hit the brakes and swear loudly".

Or as Robert McKee calls them: choices.

(To BE CONTINUED)