Talk:Workflow

Hi - I'm in a bit of a quandary, and I think maybe you folks are in a position to answer it. I suspect this sort of question isn't apropos, but I'm going to take a chance. I've written a little software program called TheHat - n find it listed on the home page at fedorahosted.org (I won't link to it). It interactively guides users through a directed graph of steps which users ungate by completing items. I have been *calling* it a "workflow guidance" system, but having read this article, I now fear that the word workflow is far too overloaded and that I should be calling it something else. Does anyone have any suggestions? Again, I'm sorry to ask here, but I don't know of a better form.

SVDasein (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no activity on this page since Feb 2006, I have decided to take on the task of broadening the entry on workflow to be truly representative of all its connotations, and with a view to documenting a notion of workflow that is useful to discussions of a variety of phenomena ranging from outsourcing, globalization, open-source work practices, version control and the like. It appears that the previous contributors to this page limited themselves to the notion of workflow in IT. I will attempt to retain their contributions as I evolve this, but if there are conflicting opinions on this broadening effort, I suggest that the word "workflow" be used for the broader sense, and if there are people interested in maintaining a more focused definition relevant to IT, they should fork off an "Workflow (Information Technology)" entry, since I think the broader sense should define the unqualified term "Workflow."

VenkateshRao 22:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well-developed article. It seems to me though, that it is a little computer/software centric, and doesn't get at the broader connotations of workflow as understood in ethnography, time-and-motion studies and the like. I'll see if I can start evolving this to be broader. If this is likely to make the article unwieldy, what is the best refactoring?

VenkateshRao 13:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever tried to find a "cut the crap, this is what workflow truly is" description of workflow on the web? I haven't found it yet. Every description is very flowery and high-browed...not much help.

Oh well :(

I had this definitional problem several years ago when I needed an answer to the question what is the difference between a process and a workflow? Never received a satisfactory answer; I'm hoping we can clarify this a bit here. In practice, I've basically concluded that processes are the top-down flow structure and conceptual, whereas workflow is bottom-up and tangible; the two don't necessarily ever meet in a defined middle ground.

The article states: A process is a more specific notion than workflow, and can apply to physical or biological processes, for instance. This seems contradictory. I only know the term workflow from information systems design, and in that context, a workflow is clearly (the structure of) a particular type of process, not the other way round. How to fix this? Rp (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure wikipedia is a good example of workflow, seems to be a good example of the opposite, a lack of structure

Well, I think the major difference is the team: usually workflows aren't carried out by half a World of people... ;)

_________

I tried to cover both of these with a new opening sentence, I'd be interested to know if you think it's an improvement Andrew Kay 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bare bones definition of workflow is when one or more things get done one or more other things are alerted that it is their turn. Wikipedia is a good example of a workflow with only one step, and the same step may occur over and over again. BTW I commonly interchange the words workflow and process as do many within the industry. The difference to me atleast is that one begins with the letter p and the other w. Some others have said BPM is workflow that can integrate with other external systems.Happyfish 07:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between process and workflow: process is a broader, more generic term: there are manufacturing processes, chemical processes, OS processes, etc. Workflow on the other hand focusses on processes that include people in them doing office work; people perform activities as steps of the process, and those activities are things you might see done in an office. A manufacturing process might involve steps that people do manually on the factory floor, but this would not make it workflow. Workflow involves office work. Goflow6206 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)goflow6206[reply]

I must say I do not agree with the definition of "workflow" given on the wikipedia workflow page. I have been working in workflow for 15 years, so I know quite a bit about it. The wikipedia workflow page describes a particular view of workflow held by a fraction of the workflow community. I hold a very different view of what "workflow" means, but to honest this view is also held by a fraction of the community. Given that there are different definitions for the same term in the industry, what does something like wikipedia attempt to represent them all? Or do we just pick one and go with that? Goflow6206 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)goflow6206[reply]

Commercial Links[edit]

Happyfish,

Would you please refrain from persisting in adding commercial links? Just because there is a list of external links about Workflow and Workflow products, does not mean any product should be added. The official policies in What Wikipedia is Not need to be followed:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox (Propaganda, Self-promotion, Advertising)
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files (collections of external links or Internet directories)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business.)

I appreciate your positive contributions to Workflow, please keep that up. As far as the external links section, we are trying to clean it up, not add to it! If you feel that the removal of products you added is unfair, instead of re-adding them, remove other products that may also not qualify for the guidelines of Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), or in other ways qualify as Wikipedia:Spam. Thank you, -- Renesis13 17:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renesis13 I am simply adding in links that I feel are the most relevent. As an expert (self proclaimed) in workflow I feel that the list should better reflect what workflow products are in use. The open source products are not used very often. In other words they are far less relevant to the reader than what I imagine are most readers want to see. So I guess what I am saying is either all products should be gotten rid of commercial and non-commercial or there needs to be some sort of discussion as to what would be the most relevant products to put here. In my wanderings through the web I see many of the same names associated with worflow some of the times because of thier advertising but other times because of independent research groups such as gartner feel that they are the most relevant products. Maybe a workflow products page needs to be created or something else (OK maybe that is not a good idea but may be worthy of discussion). Because as it is right now people will simply continue to add products until the cows come home. I am not sure how many people view this page but I would be interesting in somehow polling they to see what they are trying to find out about workflow when they do come here.

PS just to stir the pot isn't adding a reference to a book a commercial link?

Yes, adding a reference to a book would likely be a commercial link. It looks like the references section has become and advertising vehicle for workflow books. That needs to be cleaned up. I have merely been trying to maintain this page and prevent it from becoming an internet directory for Workflow products. Those links existed before, and if they seem merely commercial and not encyclopedic, feel free to remove them. I have no problem with more relevant links being added, as long as this does not simply become an advertising list. Here are a few points that I feel need to be adherred to to keep/move this article closer to Wikipedia's policy and standards:

Remember that what people who visit this page might be looking for is not the correct goal for content. The ideal for this page would be to consider what an encylopedia article on Workflow should contain. If you simply can't mention workflow without mentioning Product X, then include a link to Product X. If Product Y is merely one player among hundreds or thousands in the software game for this topic, then they should not be mentioned.
Data from independent research groups on the most relevant products should be considered if they fit the same criteria as any other source on Wikipedia, such as validity, neaturality, and verifiability. If the source is not simply informative, but does research for business, such as being asked by software vendors to review their product, then it is not a valid source for Wikipedia.
Never link possible search terms to external links. It is common knowledge that linking "Workflow software" to a vendor's web site on a high traffic site such as Wikipedia is very helpful to that vendor's search ranking in Google and other search engines. This is why Wikipedia is such a high target for spam. If a vendor is indeed appropriate to mention on this topic, then include only their name in the text of the hyperlink. In the past day someone else has again added "Web and Flo" but this time with the link "Workflow Software". This is never appropriate.
The external links should be less than one third of what it is now.
Most importantly, remember that Wikipedia is not an internet directory. I can see the temptation to say that if such-and-such a product is listed, we might as well list this, this, and this too. Instead, we ought to consider if the first one should be listed at all.

I appreciated your help as a workflow expert. Might I suggest expanding the article first? Your help in trimming down the external links section would also be much appreciated. Thanks. -- Renesis13 16:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doh Doh Doh. I accidently switched the name and Web and Flo with the Link Workflow Software. I am sorry for that.

First off I dont want to step on your toes in this section as it sounds like you are the voluntary admin. Next in the workflow tools section the main ones, although I am only one person are handysoft, skelta, windows workflow foundation, SAP, Captaris, Lombardi, Web and Flo, Ultimus, Oracle and Websphere. The other ones have very little market share as far as I can tell. So that is my recommendation and you can edit as you see fit.

Additionally I can suggest alot of other external links for papers such as neural workflow, the rate of workflow adoption, reasons to use workflow, reasons not to use workflow, etc. Please tell me if you wish these included or not. Happyfish 22:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a community and I definitely don't have ownership over the page. I have just been watching it to make sure the External Links section doesn't get out of control. Thanks for your input on the major players in the tools section. The links that have very little market share were probably spammed in there by the companies themselves a long time ago. Here is my recommendation, and with your knowlege, you'd be great to do this if you have the time:

Remove all but the top players from this article. That would be anyone who would actually be worth mentioning in the article — companies whose products have had a large influence on the landscape of software for workflow. I'm guessing this would be Websphere, Oracle, SAP or Microsoft.
Create an article called "List of workflow software" or something - unless one already exists.
Set up the list similarly to List of project management software. To keep it under control, only allow links to articles. This will be a good rule to keep out the incidental spam. Some companies will go further and create an article and then link to it. Those article will be kept under control by careful watch and listing them for deletion if they don't fit WP:CORP for notability.
Link to the list from this article, and only allow new links that have been mentioned in the article. Such as if a paragraph was added that said "Lame Duck Software created a product that brought a new approach to workflow management." If this is actually notable and not added by a representative of Lame Duck Software (WP:AUTO), then a link could be created in External links something like this:

Lame Duck Software (official site)

You could even go the route that Project management software has gone and have no external links to products. This might even be preferable. As I said, links like that only really belong in the article if the article is incomplete without a mention of that product. Again, thanks for your help. -- Renesis13 22:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the major players while Websphere, Oracle, SAP and Microsoft are all big players they are not big workflow players, or are not the biggest. In fact Microsoft only came out of beta a couple weeks ago. SAP and Oracle are workflow components but are not workflow systems by themselves. Some other software like skelta is downloadable so it is harder to determine how big they really are but the come up number one when you type in workflow into google. For what its worth I think the link to list of project management software is the best option. Happyfish 23:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the sentence: While the concept of workflow is not specific to information technology, support for workflow is an integral part of document management and imaging software.

Seem a bit awkward? I cant think of anything better to suggest tho. I think it is trying to cover two different things in one sentence. Happyfish 03:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My thoughts are that the sentence is trying to say that workflow isn't limited to IT but it is most common for people to think of workflow in the context of IT. I think the reference to document management and imaging software is oblique at best and at worst (tinfoil-lined conspiracy theory hat on) may have been an attempt to justify placing commercial links for that type of software. If a type of software is going to be mentioned, project management software makes more sense to me. Andrew Kay 05:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My 2c on commercial links: Every link in your section is for some company or product and the reader does not learn more about workflow from them. If someone needs to purchase a workflow solution, then a simple Google search will help them to locate vendors. I always compare Wikipedia to paper encyclopedias and Britannica would not include this kind of info. An encyclopedia serves to educate, not punt. I can see in the history as well that the links section has been edited many times with links coming and going, yet none of the remaining ones are different from the ones removed. They all serve to benefit a vendor or group, not to educate. I suggest simply removing every single link. It is not required. If you can find something in Wikipedia, you can also find something use a search engine. Stick to the rules.

Just wondering if there is any more consensus on the commercial link aspect. I am leaning for the separate page of all products commercial or otherwise. Although simply deleting all products and the tools section is probably the easiest way to go from an admin perspective. Happyfish 06:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking it upon myself to move the commercial links to another page unless someone can supply me with a reason not to do so before end of March (one week) Happyfish 05:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the best way to go would be to remove them altogether. I don't actually see what purpose such a page would really serve. I think Wikipedia is best served by having them removed completely. Again, thanks for your help. -- Renesis13 16:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As promised I moved the links for the products into a different page called workflow tools. That page was deleted by someone after a few hours. Oh well maybe for the best. Happyfish 14:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that. The page is much better without the mess of external links. -- Renesis13 19:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of external links[edit]

I have taken onboard both sides of this discussion.

As an end user I found the links to the typical software very helpful. When these were taken off I thought I was going mad. That is until I looked at a previous revision.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_project_management_softwarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_project_management_softwarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_project_management_software

Software helps me find out about a topic. I realise it can constrain it, as it is only one company/organisation's take. These links also had open source software in them.

Please can they be kept there in some format or other. It was most helpful. (may be the project management way)

PS This is my first post, so I must feel quite strongly about it :)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia, at least as a new editor. While I can appreciate that the list was helpful, a list such as that fits into several categories discussed on the page What Wikipedia is not (not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, not an indiscriminate collection of information, not to be used for advertising). There are many possibly helpful things which could be included on Wikipedia but shouldn't be, because of Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopedia. One problem with such a list is that it can be added to by anyone and as such, the main contributors to the list are those with connection to the product itself. Also, no one person, even if such a person was available and willing to take on such a huge job, could tell you which products are relevant and deserving and which are spam. Google is a far better source of such information, since it has hundreds of factors that determine relevancy. There are many software directories that list such products as well. -- Renesis13 16:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I am suggesting is similar to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_project_management_software as I mentioned above. How can this wiki be different in different areas. imho the links were useful and well rounded if it had said microsoft microsoft microsoft, then I would agree it needs balance. How can this wiki not become outmoded in these areas, if it doesnt suggest software? Then for the lazy of us out there, link to it.(Dredwerker 17:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The problem is, it's not about being unbalanced. Wikipedia is simply not a directory service. List of project management software has links to articles only. No external links and no summaries are allowed on that page. Even that system is abused, with articles that don't belong on Wikipedia being created just to advertise and be linked to. Articles about software companies should fill WP:CORP requirements, just like any other company. Software products should be notable. It isnt a matter of Wikipedia becoming "outmoded" - it has no place listing every non-notable software product in the first place. -- Renesis13 19:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You win - it was useful to me but we can't have it. I agree about relevancy but the things that were posted here seemed a fair reflection. This is the land of petty bureaucracy. Google was next to useless when searching for workflow software. One of the first page refers to here. This page is next to useless to me without mentioning notable software, the links supplied that. It may well become useful again once I have found some software, only then ironically, as a jump off point to external links. --Dredwerker 13:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I apologize if I'm coming across like I'm trying to kill your search for Workflow products. Isn't there some directory out there? With the amount of spam that was on this page you'd think the companies releasing the products would be equally diligent in listing their products in some directory. I know that's how it goes with project management software, such as at [www.web-based-software.com]. In any case, the list that was on the page is preserved in the history at [revision 45865562], if that still helps you. I just feel the links should be removed from the page going forward, because a list such as it was just attracts spammers and not anyone actually wishing to improve the article or even the balance of products. Anyone, hope you can find some use from the historical version. -- Renesis13 14:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, First off I am the guy who moved the products to a different page. That page was very quickly deleted and the person who deleted it said it was because it was just a collection of external links and didn't really add value. And he/she was pretty much correct. If you are really interested I may have the list somewhere, also there is always dmoz. From memory it is http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Workflow/

Should we make it so you can not click on the authors who dont have a page in wikipedia? It doesnt really make sense. Happyfish 13:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would make sense. -- Renesis13 17:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows workflow foundation isn't a language more of a framework or an Add-On to visual studio IDE

theory?[edit]

Call me old fashioned if you will but is a workflow not composed of the following three parts? [1]:

task specification
task coordination requirements
correctness

I don't have time to add this in though. Alex.g (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Action Workflow[edit]

First of all my deep respect for the work put in so far. However I believe the article is missing one important dimension. Of course the truth is probably somewhere in between :). An unsigned contribution above asks "What is a Workflow?". I'd say that it's a process description with the addition of (or emphasis on) actors, so as to include coordination steps such as requesting, committing, notifying and accepting which are often not shown on a pure process diagram. As a practicing business analyst the questions I depressingly frequently have to ask when I'm shown so-called workflow documentation are "Who executes these steps? Who asks them to? Whom do they tell when they have finished?" and most tellingly "Who agrees that the work has been done?". This is not original research - please look at Reassessment of the Action Workflow Approach: Empirical Results especially section 2.2. See also swimlane and search that article for "cheating".

To fit this dimension into our article as it stands, could we emphasise that a process is only considered a workflow if it involves multiple actors (and/or computer applications/components which is already hinted at)? The intent is to exclude a flowchart for an activity of just one person or program. Then Action Workflow can be brought in as one more Workflow improvement theory, and the article I cited above added to the references. On notability, there are other published works on Action Workflow but you have to pay to read them. For standard works (Winograd, Flores) see the references within the cited article. I'll watch this page for a bit for responses.

BTW, in that Workflow improvement theories section , it should say "...effectiveness and efficiency...". Typically modellers (and their sponsors) are looking for process failures as well as inefficiencies.

Shannock9 (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Workflow != sequence of steps, dependent upon choices made[edit]

The structure of a workflow can be more complex than just a sequence: choices can be made, iterations are possible, parts may be run in parallel. Rp (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anoher problem with the introduction is that workflow is described as an abstracted description of work - I believes it usually refers to work itself that is structured in such a manner. Rp (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

suggetion to rewrite the whole article[edit]

i found the above two comments (e.g.: Shannock9 (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC) and Rp (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)) more informative than the original article itself. subjective or not i had the uneasy feeling while i read the article that it is just the usual bogus science self-proclaiming stuff. so i suggest at least adding the definition from the above 2 comments as a definition/specification of the "work flow" as meant in the article. or even get rid of the whole article and replace it with said definition/description. 80.98.114.70 (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Workflow is the equivalent of a Ford production line[edit]

Workflow is the equivalent of a production line, just like it was in the Ford car plant, which was the first to use a production line, which initiated the industrial revolution. Thanks to the use of the Workflow module in IT systems, it is possible to increase work efficiency similar to the use of production automation using a production line. The implementation of IT systems automates office and customer service processes in a similar way to how the implementation of a production line automates production processes. This is where the added value from implementing IT systems comes from. Konsul28 (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]