In this guest episode, Russell and Caspar welcome Ahmad Daliri, a process management specialist working at NN in the Netherlands and author of multiple BPM books, for a conversation about the intersection of artificial intelligence and business process management. Ahmad shares his unconventional journey from mechanical engineering to falling in love with BPM after discovering the missing link between operational work and strategic objectives. The discussion explores Ahmad's current work on "BPM AI orchestration"—a concept focused on how AI can make process management more effective and accessible rather than just automating existing processes. The hosts examine the shift from traditional process modeling to AI-assisted approaches, including the emerging capability of converting voice conversations into process models. Ahmad introduces his framework of five layers for BPM AI orchestration: voice-to-BPM conversion, context understanding, rules and responsibility interpretation, intelligence and decision-making, and user interface design. The conversation highlights the critical importance of context and quality data in training enterprise AI agents to understand organizational boundaries and process standards. They debate the current maturity level of AI in BPM, acknowledging that while the technology shows promise, we're not yet ready for fully autonomous AI-driven process management. The episode concludes with insights on preparing for the paradigm shift in how process work will be conducted in the coming years.

5 Key Takeaways:

1. BPM AI Orchestration Is About Making BPM Easier: The goal isn't just automating processes with AI, but using AI to make process management itself more effective and accessible for process specialists—reducing manual work in modeling, analysis, and documentation.

2. Voice-to-Process Modeling Is Emerging: AI is enabling the conversion of natural language conversations with subject matter experts directly into process models, potentially transforming how process knowledge is captured from interviews and workshops into structured BPMN or other notations.

3. Context and Quality Data Are Critical: For enterprise AI to work effectively in BPM, it needs high-quality contextual data including documented processes, compliance frameworks, and operational standards—this organizational knowledge becomes the guardrails that keep AI aligned with requirements.

4. Five Layers of BPM AI Orchestration: Ahmad's framework includes voice-to-BPM conversion, context and knowledge understanding, rules and responsibility interpretation, intelligence and decision-making capabilities, and user interface design—all necessary for comprehensive AI integration in process management.

5. We're in Transition, Not There Yet: While AI shows significant promise for transforming BPM work, the technology isn't mature enough for 100% autonomous process management—the industry is currently in a paradigm shift that requires preparation and gradual adoption rather than immediate wholesale replacement.

In case of questions: please reach out at questions@bpm360podcast.com.

If you like our content, please like, rate and subscribe. We appreciate that.

In this episode, Russell and Caspar begin their deep dive into perhaps the most talked-about yet misunderstood role in BPM: the process owner. They immediately tackle the central paradox—being accountable for end-to-end process performance while lacking direct authority over the departments involved. The discussion clarifies a critical distinction: process owners are accountable for improving process performance through optimization and standardization, not for operational outcomes like sales numbers or market conditions. Through detailed exploration, they examine the difference between operational management (filling the sales pipeline) and process ownership (improving pipeline conversion rates through better processes and systems). The hosts distinguish between functional process owners who oversee specific domains like procurement or manufacturing, and end-to-end process owners who orchestrate cross-functional flows like order-to-cash or procure-to-pay. They debate optimal organizational structures, exploring whether end-to-end ownership should be a separate role or combined with functional ownership to avoid role proliferation. The conversation highlights the unique challenge of cross-functional influence—process owners must drive change across organizational boundaries without hierarchical power. This first part sets the foundation for understanding a role that many organizations struggle to implement effectively, with part two promised to cover required experience and enablement strategies.

5 Key Takeaways:

1. Accountability for Process Performance, Not Business Outcomes: Process owners are accountable for improving process metrics (cycle time, quality, compliance) through optimization and standardization—not for operational results like sales numbers, which remain the responsibility of functional managers.

2. Influence Without Direct Authority: The defining challenge of process ownership is driving improvement across departmental silos without hierarchical control—success requires cross-functional influence, credibility, and the ability to facilitate change through persuasion rather than directive power.

3. Functional vs. End-to-End Ownership: Organizations need both functional process owners (procurement, manufacturing, sales) who own vertical domains and end-to-end process owners (order-to-cash, procure-to-pay) who orchestrate horizontal flows across multiple functions.

4. Avoid Role Proliferation Through Dual Assignment: Rather than creating separate positions for functional and end-to-end ownership, allocate end-to-end ownership to one of the functional owners within that flow—for example, the procurement process owner also owns procure-to-pay orchestration.

5. End-to-End Ownership Delivers the Real Value: While functional process ownership is common, the biggest benefits of process management come from establishing effective end-to-end ownership that breaks down silos and optimizes complete business flows from customer request to fulfillment.

In case of questions or suggestions, please reach out to us via questions@bpm360podcast.com

If you enjoy our content, please like, rate and subscribe to our channel.

In this episode, Russell and Caspar continue their BPM roles series by shifting focus from implementation to steady-state operations, examining the role of the COE (Center of Excellence) lead or head of process excellence. They explore how this role differs fundamentally from the BPM program manager, requiring a shift from project-focused execution to long-term organizational influence and credibility building. The discussion reveals the paradox at the heart of this role: building a COE that people actually come to for help rather than view as a compliance burden takes years of demonstrating value and earning trust. The hosts examine whether successful program managers can successfully transition to COE leadership, given the dramatically different mindset required—from short-term project delivery to strategic patience and sustained organizational change. Through candid conversation, they debate whether the COE lead role becomes dispensable once process management is fully embedded in organizational culture and career paths. The episode explores the critical importance of this role during disruption—when new technologies, market changes, or strategic shifts challenge established process management practices. They discuss how the COE lead must balance maintaining steady-state operations with preparing for and responding to transformative changes. This is valuable listening for anyone building or leading a process management function beyond the initial implementation phase.

5 Key Takeaways:

1. Strategic Patience Over Project Speed: The COE lead requires fundamentally different character traits than a program manager—shifting from time-and-budget focused execution to years-long credibility building and organizational influence that creates lasting process discipline.

2. Building Trust Takes Years: Creating a Center of Excellence that people actually come to for help, rather than viewing as a compliance function, requires consistent demonstration of value, gravitas, and persistence—this cannot be rushed or mandated from above.

3. The Long Game Mindset: Unlike program managers focused on defined deliverables and timelines, COE leads must embrace uncertainty about long-term direction while maintaining momentum—similar to captaining a ship on a voyage with evolving destinations rather than completing a construction project.

4. Potentially Dispensable in Maturity: In truly mature organizations where process management is embedded in culture, career paths, onboarding, and daily operations, the dedicated COE lead role may become unnecessary—success means working yourself out of a centralized leadership position.

5. Essential During Disruption: The COE lead's most critical value emerges when disruption (new technology, market changes, strategic shifts) challenges established process management practices—they must regroup, reform, and provide direction when the house is burning and existing approaches no longer work.

If you have questions or suggestions: find us at questions@bpm360podcast.com

If you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe, we do appreciate it!