BPM360 Podcast - Covering Every Angle

Odcinki

• 
  BPM360 Short on the ARIS roadshow 2026 16.09.2026 10min

  Russell reports live from the ARIS Roadshow in Frankfurt, where the vendor is publicly repositioning its process repository from a process documentation tool to a context provider that enables AI agents to deliver business outcomes. The roadshow messaging centers on how comprehensive organizational models—spanning processes, enterprise architecture, and balanced scorecards—create the "digital twin" of a company that AI systems require. Russell observes that ARIS is articulating exactly what Caspar and Russell have been theorizing in their context mini-series: different types of information (why, now, temporal, stakeholder) must be combined to create the context that AI needs to operate effectively and compliantly.A critical shift is emerging across the vendor and customer ecosystem: process models are no longer the end goal of BPM initiatives but rather delivery mechanisms for contextual information that powers AI and drives genuine business transformation. Russell notes that this represents a fundamental reorientation away from traditional BPM's focus on tool features and user capabilities toward outcome-based thinking where value is measured by business impact, not by model creation or certification.The conversation highlights the acceleration of market dynamics and the need for rapid feedback loops between vendors, partners, and customers to navigate the AI transformation successfully. Russell emphasizes that customers, vendors, and consulting partners now must engage in deeper discussions about which context dimensions matter most for their specific use cases and how to operationalize context across platforms and tools—these conversations are just beginning but represent the real work ahead.5 Key Takeaways:Process repositories are being repositioned from process documentation systems to context layers that fuel AI decision-making and business outcomes.Process models are transitioning from deliverables to delivery mechanisms—the goal is no longer the model itself but what the model enables AI and humans to accomplish.Complete organizational models spanning processes, enterprise architecture, and balanced scorecards create the "digital twin" context that AI agents require to operate compliantly and effectively.Business outcome and transformation impact are now heavily stressed by vendors and customers, displacing the traditional BPM focus on tool features and process modeling skills.Vendors, customers, and partners must engage in dialogue about context dimensions and operationalization rather than assuming tools automatically provide the context AI needs.If you have suggestions or questions, please reach out to us via [email protected] you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe… we do appreciate that…
• 
  Ep. 82: "Temporal and Seasonal Patterns: The Fourth Dimension of Process Context for AI" 15.09.2026 38min

  In this fourth episode of their context mini-series, Caspar and Russell examine temporal and seasonal patterns as critical dimensions of process context essential for AI decision-making. They begin with a powerful real-world example: the Ever Given container ship blocking the Suez Canal created a temporal disruption that reverberated through global supply chains—an event that AI systems without proper temporal context cannot account for or mitigate. The discussion establishes that "when" matters profoundly in process interpretation: the time of day, day of week, shift patterns, and seasonal cycles all influence how data should be understood and how processes should respond.Russell introduces the concept that temporal patterns operate at multiple granularities—from intraday variations between day and night shifts to seasonal cycles spanning months or years. The hosts explore how cultural and operational factors amplify these patterns; for example, sales behavior differs dramatically during holiday seasons, and production capacity decisions must account for predictable seasonal demand fluctuations. They debate whether these temporal and seasonal elements are essentially the same thing (both affecting process behavior over time) or distinct phenomena requiring separate treatment in context models.Caspar shares a compelling case study from supply chain forecasting where incorporating three years of historical data with seasonal pattern analysis improved forecast accuracy from 20-34% to 85%, enabling far more effective production planning. The hosts conclude that while recurring seasonal patterns are data-driven and mathematically manageable for AI systems, disruptive temporal events remain the harder challenge—balancing the ability to predict regular cycles with preparing for unprecedented disruptions is where context models prove their greatest value.5 Key Takeaways:Temporal and seasonal patterns are distinct context dimensions: temporal refers to one-off disruptive events (like ship blockades), while seasonal reflects recurring cycles that repeat predictably across time periods."When" data occurs matters as much as "what" or "where"—intraday timing, day-of-week effects, cultural calendars, and shift patterns all change how process behavior should be interpreted and managed.Recurring seasonal patterns are easier for AI to manage through data analysis because they can be mathematically identified, validated against historical data, and converted into reliable predictive rules.Disruptive temporal events remain AI's greatest challenge because they're non-recurring, unprecedented, and their ripple effects across business systems are difficult to predict or model in advance.Accurate forecasting combines both dimensions: baseline seasonal patterns provide the foundation, while exception reporting from domain experts captures the disruptive temporal variations that pure data analysis cannot predict.If you have suggestions or questions, please reach out to us via [email protected] you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe… we do appreciate that…
• 
  Ep. 81: "The Now Layer: Real-Time State Meets Documented Context" 08.09.2026 32min

  In this third episode of their context mini-series, Caspar and Russell explore "the now"—the current state and condition dimension of context essential for real-time process intelligence and AI decision-making. They establish that understanding where a process currently exists requires bridging two seemingly separate elements: operational data showing what is actually happening (revealed through process mining), and documented processes showing what should happen according to design and policy. Russell introduces a critical challenge: raw operational data is just noise without context to interpret it—knowing inventory levels means nothing without understanding acceptable ranges, product-specific targets, and organizational policy constraints. The hosts explore how process mining captures the "now" operationally, revealing actual process paths over recent periods, but this alone cannot explain business constraints, road closures (policy changes), or alternative routes that haven't been traveled. They distinguish between stable contextual elements like strategic objectives and business models (valid over months or years) and volatile operational state (real-time), requiring different update frequencies and persistence timelines. Caspar emphasizes that AI needs all available information—from operating models through process landscapes to automation data—to contribute meaningfully to strategic targets. They conclude that process documentation, long overlooked in favor of operational metrics, is making a critical comeback as the essential framework for interpreting operational reality and providing AI with genuine context.5 Key Takeaways:The Now Requires Both Operational Data and Documented Context: Raw operational state (throughput times, inventory levels, process status) is meaningless without context to interpret it—you need both what's actually happening (process mining) and what should happen (documented processes and policies) to understand the real "now."Process Mining Reveals Only Traveled Paths, Not All Options: Mining tools show which routes were taken and patterns over time, but they cannot explain policy changes (road closures), compliance constraints, or alternative pathways that organizational policy permits but hasn't been executed—documented processes provide this missing framework.Context Has Multiple Validity Horizons Across Time: A strategic business model may be valid for years, annual targets for 12 months, quarterly adjustments for 3 months, and real-time operational state updates continuously—effective context architecture must accommodate these different refresh rates and validity timelines simultaneously.Interpretation Rules Form the Bridge Between Data and Insight: Business rules, policies, and KPI targets are the frameworks that transform raw operational data into actionable intelligence—without these interpretation rules, data becomes noise and AI recommendations lose legitimacy and business value.Process Documentation Is Essential Infrastructure for AI: The documented operating model, process landscape, system architecture, and policies have always existed but were overlooked for AI purposes; they're now recognized as critical context infrastructure that AI requires to move beyond hallucination and provide grounded, strategically aligned recommendations.If you have suggestions or questions, please reach out to us via [email protected] you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe… we do appreciate that…
• 
  Ep. 80: "The Why Layer: Beyond Data to Decision Logic and Business Guardrails" 01.09.2026 44min

  In this second episode of their context mini-series, Caspar and Russell dig deep into the "why layer"—the business logic and decision drivers that form the foundation of meaningful context. They begin by analyzing how major ERP and BPM vendors define context, discovering that most remain introverted, limiting context to data within their own systems rather than understanding the broader organizational landscape. Russell raises a critical distinction between "content" and "context," questioning whether they're the same thing or fundamentally different. The hosts establish that context is not simply data, but rather multiple types of content plus the crucial relationships and dependencies between them. They emphasize that the "why layer" encompasses the rules, compliance requirements, and constraints within which organizations must operate—the parameters that define what's actually possible and permissible. The conversation explores how understanding why decisions are made, rather than just what happened, is essential for both human decision-making and AI reasoning. They introduce the "Five Whys" methodology as a practical tool for uncovering genuine business logic beneath surface-level explanations. The hosts propose that an "overlord agent" orchestrating multiple systems needs the "why" as its ultimate decision-making context, though guardrails are necessary—the "why" cannot simply reduce to "make money" without considering compliance and organizational values. They conclude by proposing to revive the Balanced Scorecard as a model specifically designed to capture organizational "why" context.5 Key Takeaways:Context Is More Than Data—It's Structure and Relationships: Vendors typically conflate context with their internal data, but true context requires understanding dependencies between different types of content plus the rules and constraints that govern decisions—raw data without this structure is just noise.Distinguish Between Content and Context: Content is raw data and information; context is that content plus the relationships, rules, compliance parameters, and dependencies that make it meaningful and relevant to decision-making—AI and humans both need this structured context, not just content.The Why Layer Is About Decision Logic, Not Just Compliance: Understanding why decisions are made goes beyond compliance rules and includes business policies, risk tolerances, organizational priorities, and strategic objectives—this decision logic is what enables proper interpretation of data and aligned AI reasoning.Use the Five Whys to Uncover Authentic Business Logic: Most organizations struggle to articulate their actual decision-making rationale; applying the "Five Whys" methodology systematically reveals the true business drivers beneath surface-level explanations and builds genuine "why" context.Why Needs Guardrails to Prevent Misalignment: An overlord AI agent making decisions based on organizational "why" context requires guardrails—a purely profit-maximizing why without compliance, ethical, and stakeholder considerations will produce decisions that harm the organization despite being logically aligned with stated objectives.If you have suggestions or questions, please reach out to us via [email protected] you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe… we do appreciate that…
• 
  Ep. 79: "Defining Context in BPM: Six Dimensions to Enable AI and Intelligence" 25.08.2026 33min

  In this introductory episode to a new mini-series, Caspar and Russell tackle a concept everyone discusses but few truly understand: context and context models. They reveal that while organizations constantly invoke the need for "context," most stakeholders make vague assumptions about what context actually means without rigorous definition. The hosts outline their research-driven framework identifying six distinct dimensions of context essential to modern BPM: the "why layer" of business logic and decision drivers; state and conditions representing the current process status; temporal and seasonal patterns that vary across business cycles; stakeholder and role perspectives that differ by geography and function; performance baselines and anomaly contexts that define normal versus exceptional; and explainability and audit trails that prevent AI black boxes. The discussion explores implementation challenges beyond the technical, including organizational "ego"—the resistance from vendors and systems to share data in neutral platforms. Russell introduces the concept of a "context orchestrator" that governs how data across multiple enterprise systems relates to each other, without requiring centralized data warehouses. They emphasize that proper context architecture enables AI and intelligent decision-making but requires thinking beyond traditional approaches. The episode sets the stage for a 7-9 episode deep dive into each dimension and how organizations can practically build comprehensive context capabilities.5 Key Takeaways:Context Has Six Distinct Dimensions: Proper context goes far beyond process models and includes the "why layer" (business logic and compliance), current state and conditions, temporal patterns, stakeholder perspectives, performance baselines, and explainability—each requires separate consideration and governance.Process Management Alone Doesn't Provide Complete Context: The assumption that process management automatically provides sufficient context is incomplete; it's merely one component. Organizations need deliberate, multi-dimensional context architecture that spans business logic, performance data, and organizational perspectives.Organizational "Ego" Is a Major Implementation Barrier: Consolidating context requires extracting data from multiple vendor platforms and systems, which triggers resistance from vendors protective of their data and organizations comfortable in siloed systems—overcoming this ego-driven resistance is as critical as solving technical integration challenges.Context Orchestration Without Data Centralization Is Possible: Rather than copying everything into a new data warehouse like old BI approaches, modern architecture should establish a context governance layer that knows where data lives, how different systems' data relates, and enables referencing across platforms through APIs and connections.Context Enables AI Without Restrictive Performance Requirements: For most organizations (outside high-frequency dealing rooms), context doesn't need to be instantaneously centralized; slightly slower reference-based access to distributed data sources is acceptable—this enables practical architecture that respects existing systems while enabling intelligent orchestration.If you have suggestions or questions, please reach out to us via [email protected] you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe… we do appreciate that…
• 
  Ep. 78: "Process Modeling Is Dead—Long Live the Process Model: Context and Orchestration in AI Era" 04.08.2026 38min

  In this episode, Caspar and Russell explore the fundamental transformation of process modeling's role in business and technology. They trace the evolution from the 1990s-2000s when process models were primarily project deliverables to today's paradigm where process models serve as essential working assets providing context for AI implementations. The discussion reveals how process mining rediscovered the critical importance of process models—not as decorative outputs, but as context providers that enable proper interpretation of data and intelligent decision-making. Russell emphasizes the shift from "working towards" a process model to "working with" process models throughout transformation journeys. They examine the philosophical evolution in vendor strategy, highlighting that the real competitive differentiation won't come from individual tools (modeling, mining, automation, workflow) but from orchestration philosophy—how vendors integrate these tools into a cohesive ecosystem. The conversation explores how AI systems require richer, more complete models than humans need, challenging the traditional approach of "simplifying for readability." They debate the necessity of agnostic AI layers that coordinate across multiple specialized AI tools rather than siloed point solutions. The hosts conclude that vendors demonstrating true understanding of orchestration, context modeling, and holistic ecosystem philosophy will define the next era of BPM and process intelligence, while others will fade in relevance.5 Key Takeaways:Models Are Working Assets, Not Project Deliverables: The fundamental shift is from treating process models as the end goal of a BPM project to understanding them as continuously evolving working assets that provide context throughout transformation, mining, automation, and AI initiatives.AI Requires Richer Models Than Humans Need: Process models must now serve machine interpretation for AI and mining, not just human understanding—this means models need to capture complete context, handle edge cases, and answer technical questions that traditional simplified business models could ignore.Process Mining Revalidated the Importance of Models: Process mining initiatives forced organizations to recognize that accurate interpretation of process data requires quality process models as context—mining alone produces data, but models transform that data into actionable business insights and transformation guidance.Orchestration Philosophy Determines Vendor Relevance: The competitive differentiation won't come from individual point solutions (modeling tools, mining tools, workflow automation) but from vendors that architect holistic ecosystems with agnostic AI coordination layers that orchestrate across specialized tools and maintain consistent context.Central Context Models Enable Optimal Decisions Across the Value Chain: Organizations need a single unified context model with an agnostic orchestration layer on top, rather than multiple disconnected AI systems—this architecture enables coordinated optimization across the entire process ecosystem rather than local optimization within individual silos.If you have suggestions or questions, please reach out to us via [email protected] you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe… we do appreciate that…
• 
  Ep. 77: "Secure AI and Quantum Agents: Building Guardrails for the AI Autobahn" 07.07.2026 1godz 5min

  In this technical deep-dive episode, Russell and Caspar welcome Francis Allan Beechinor, a 20+ year AI and quantum computing expert and serial entrepreneur with multiple patents, who shares his unconventional journey from working in the "uncool" fields of governance, security, and compliance to becoming an inventor of cutting-edge secure AI and quantum computing solutions. Francis discusses his latest venture, EmergeGen, which focuses on creating Secure AI working in parallel with quantum computing and quantum agents—solutions designed for high-end, complex problems that require finesse rather than flashy marketing. The conversation reveals a critical insight often missed in AI hype: AI is still in its infancy in terms of real adoption, despite decades of cycles and recent data-driven breakthroughs. Through concrete examples like high-frequency trading, Francis demonstrates why deterministic, reliable decision-making matters more than sophisticated-sounding hallucinations. The hosts explore the fundamental tension between speed of adoption and safety guardrails, using the automotive metaphor of driving on the Autobahn—you can go fast, but you need airbags, seatbelts, and a reliable vehicle. Francis emphasizes that Small Language Models trained on domain-specific data provide safer, more trustworthy outputs than large language models prone to hallucinations. The episode concludes with discussion of making secure AI accessible to mid-sized companies and "hidden champions" rather than just large tech corporations, with a vision for open-source quantum agents enabling broader adoption.5 Key Takeaways:AI Is Still in Infancy Despite the Hype: Despite four AI winters and recent successes, AI adoption is still in its early stages—cultural acceptance of technology through smartphones and satellite infrastructure has enabled current adoption, but we're nowhere near mature deployment for mission-critical systems.Hallucinations Make Large Language Models Unreliable for Critical Decisions: Standard LLMs with their tendency toward hallucinations and nuanced but incorrect outputs are fundamentally unsuitable for high-stakes decisions requiring deterministic yes/no binary outcomes—security, medical, financial, and operational use cases demand better alternatives.Small Language Models and Domain-Specific Training Provide Safer AI: By training smaller language models on specific organizational data and domain knowledge (via "super ontology" structured knowledge), you eliminate hallucinations and ensure AI makes decisions based on actual facts rather than probabilistic guessing.Security Infrastructure Must Match Adoption Speed: As companies move fast with AI implementation, security, governance, risk controls, and process guardrails must evolve completely—the responsibility lies with providers to highlight risks and build in safeguards, even when clients pressure for rapid deployment without proper infrastructure.Secure AI Is Accessible Beyond Big Tech: Secure AI and quantum agent solutions are not limited to Google and mega-corporations—approaches like fixed-price consumption models and planned open-source quantum agents enable mid-sized companies and industry-specific "hidden champions" to access and build on enterprise-grade secure AI technology.#AI #BPM #Governance #SecureAIIf you have suggestions or questions, please reach out to us via [email protected] you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe… we do appreciate that…
• 
  Ep. 76: "AI-Driven Business Model Innovation: Can Traditional BPM Keep Up?" 30.06.2026 52min

  In this special guest episode, Russell and Caspar welcome Michel Kirsch, a 22-year-old final-year international business student at the University of Paderborn, whose fresh perspective on AI and business process management challenges conventional thinking. Michel discovered BPM through the BPM winter school and is currently researching AI-driven business model innovation for his bachelor thesis. The conversation centers on Michel's provocative thesis: that while AI is a powerful strategic resource, it's also becoming a commodity, and the real competitive advantage lies in how companies leverage AI through business model innovation—yet traditional BPM thinking may actually constrain this radical innovation. The discussion explores the fundamental difference between how startups approach business models from a greenfield perspective versus how established incumbents struggle with legacy structures and capabilities. Russell and Caspar examine the tension between BPM's traditional operational excellence focus and the need for radical business model rethinking in the AI era. They debate whether BPM should expand beyond process optimization to encompass broader operating models, enterprise architecture, and digital twins of entire companies. Michel introduces the concept of "nudging" as a transformation technique and raises the challenge of measuring exploration and innovation—metrics that don't fit traditional BPM's operational KPI frameworks. The episode concludes by questioning whether future business model innovation will require rethinking traditional BPM practices entirely.5 Key Takeaways:AI Is Strategic but Increasingly Commoditized: While AI represents enormous strategic potential, nearly universal access means competitive advantage no longer comes from having AI—it comes from how companies translate AI into new business models and value propositions through thoughtful innovation.Traditional BPM Can Actually Limit Radical Innovation: Process-focused optimization works well for operational excellence but can constrain the kind of radical business model rethinking needed in the AI era—incumbents stuck optimizing existing processes may miss transformative opportunities that startups embrace with greenfield thinking.Greenfield vs. Brownfield Determines Innovation Capacity: Startups can design business models from scratch for AI and innovation, while incumbents must navigate existing structures, capabilities, and constraints—the key question is: which legacy capabilities enable future value, and which become anchors that must be shed?Expand the Frame Beyond Processes to Operating Models: A complete "digital twin" of the company requires more than just process documentation—it needs operating models, enterprise architecture, capability mapping, and strategic positioning to give AI something meaningful to optimize and reimagine.Innovation Metrics Don't Fit Operational KPI Frameworks: Traditional BPM excels at measuring efficiency and compliance, but measuring exploration, experimentation, and innovation requires different metrics entirely—organizations need new frameworks to balance operational excellence metrics with innovation and capability development indicators.If you have suggestions or questions, please reach out to us via [email protected] you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe… we do appreciate that…
• 
  Ep. 75: "Conscious Change Leadership: The Human Reality Behind Process Transformation" 23.06.2026 57min

  In this special guest episode, the hosts welcome Dr. Linda Ackerman Anderson—known as "Dr. Change"—a pioneering leader in organizational transformation with nearly five decades of experience in the field. Linda shares her remarkable journey from organizational development training through helping pioneer the "transformational change" field in the early 1980s, when practitioners recognized that a fundamentally different type of change was occurring in organizations. She discusses her work with massive organizations including Sun Petroleum Products and her development of the Conscious Change Leadership framework alongside her husband Dean Anderson, which goes beyond traditional change management to address the deeper human and cultural dimensions of transformation. The conversation centers on three critical conversations that must occur in any transformational change: content (business process design), people (their readiness, beliefs, and understanding), and process (the change methodology itself—how to move people through transformation). Linda emphasizes that change happens from the inside out, requiring people to emotionally, intellectually, and behaviorally embrace new ways of working, not just comply with directives. Through candid discussion, she explores how process transformations often reveal deeper organizational structure issues, and how turning project resistors into ambassadors through powerful questioning can unlock valuable insights. The episode provides practical wisdom on creating psychological safety and choice in transformation rather than mandate-driven compliance.5 Key Takeaways:Three Conversations, Not One: Transformational change requires simultaneous attention to content (business process design), people (readiness, beliefs, skills, understanding), and process (the change methodology)—treating change as only a technical exercise while ignoring people and change methodology virtually guarantees failure.Change Happens Inside-Out, Not Outside-In: Telling people what to do (external communication) is necessary but insufficient; genuine transformation requires creating experiences and safe spaces where people emotionally get it, intellectually understand it, and choose to do it rather than feel obligated—this is the difference between compliance and commitment.Readiness Has Three Dimensions: Before designing change interventions, assess people's awareness (do they know change is coming?), knowledge (do they understand what's needed?), and mindset/beliefs (do they believe it's possible and beneficial?)—addressing all three dimensions determines whether people can actually embrace new processes.Turn Resistors into Ambassadors Through Powerful Questions: Instead of marginalizing project opponents, recruit them by asking questions that shift their thinking—"What do you see that we don't see?" and "Why do you think this won't work? What's necessary that isn't in place?"—this offloads resistance energy and converts their expertise into valuable contributions.Process Transformation Reveals Organizational Structure Issues: When stakeholders engage deeply with new business processes, structural inefficiencies often emerge (excessive signature levels, redundant layers, unclear authority)—rather than treating these as out-of-scope, view them as opportunities to redesign organization alongside processes for genuine transformation.Links to Dr Linda's books:Beyond Change Management: https://shorturl.at/kZlGYChange Leaders Roadmap to Organization Transformation: https://shorturl.at/Qt5nf
• 
  Ep. 74: "Beyond BPM and EA: Why System Science Is the Missing Foundation" 02.06.2026 1godz 5min

  In this special guest episode, Russell and Caspar welcome Petros Panagiotidis, a deeply experienced BPM and Enterprise Architecture practitioner from Greece with four decades of professional experience and a PhD in Systems Science. Petros shares his unconventional academic journey through Business Administration, Computer Information Systems, Business Systems Analysis and Design, culminating in doctoral research on digital transformation and Industry 4.0. The discussion reveals Petros's counter-intuitive thesis: BPM and EA are fundamentally the same discipline, just using different terminology and marketing language. Through a systems science lens, he demonstrates how all the buzzwords around frameworks and methodologies—BPMN, TOGAF, and others—represent surface-level manifestations of deeper systemic principles. Petros introduces cybernetics and system dynamics as the foundational sciences that explain why processes exist and how they behave. He uses the elegant metaphor of water flowing through a river to describe how processes (the water) move through organizational architecture (the riverbed), making clear that process architecture provides stable structure while individual processes represent the flowing events. The conversation explores feedback loops—both negative (deviation correction toward targets) and positive (exponential amplification)—as the deep structure underlying all organizational systems. Petros emphasizes that understanding these foundational principles from systems science would transform how practitioners approach BPM and EA work, moving beyond tool-centric and marketing-driven thinking to genuine systemic understanding.5 Key Takeaways:BPM and EA Are Fundamentally One Discipline: What we call Business Process Management and Enterprise Architecture are essentially the same thing expressed in different dialects—the distinction exists primarily for marketing purposes around tools and methodologies, but the underlying systemic logic is identical.System Science Provides the Foundation BPM Lacks: BPM and EA have a ceiling beyond which they cannot fully explain organizational behavior; system science (particularly cybernetics and system dynamics) reveals why processes and architectures exist and emerge the way they do at a deeper structural level.Feedback Loops Are the Deep Structure: Two types of feedback loops—negative (correcting deviations from targets) and positive (amplifying deviations)—create the underlying structure from which all organizational processes and architectures emerge as visible manifestations; understanding these explains organizational behavior at a fundamental level.Process Architecture vs. Process Events Are Interdependent: Process architecture provides stable structure and guardrails, while individual processes are the flowing events that move through this structure—like water finding its way through a riverbed; both are necessary and neither alone is sufficient.Stafford Beer and System Dynamics Should Be Foundational Reading: Business schools and BPM practitioners should study Stafford Beer's work on organizational cybernetics and the viable systems model (five subsystems that enable organizational survival), plus system dynamics literature from the 1970s-80s—these foundational concepts should underpin all contemporary BPM and EA thinking rather than being overlooked in favor of current buzzwords.If you have suggestions or questions, please reach out to us via [email protected] you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe… we do appreciate that…
• 
  Ep. 73: "The Performance Analyst: From Data Dashboard Maker to Intelligence Detective" 26.05.2026 37min

  In this final episode of their BPM roles mini-series, Russell and Caspar examine the performance and KPI analyst role—also known as the process intelligence analyst—responsible for ongoing measurement of process performance, designing KPI frameworks, maintaining dashboards, and turning process data into actionable insights. The discussion reveals this role encompasses two distinct functions: the architectural design of performance indicator frameworks that align with organizational strategy, and the operational analysis of process data to understand root causes and effects. They explore the critical distinction between KPIs (strategic, aggregated outcomes) and PPIs (process performance indicators that measure operational health), using examples like on-time-in-full delivery rates versus quality inspection lead times. Through detailed conversation, they examine how effective performance analysis requires understanding causal dependencies throughout end-to-end processes—recognizing that a bottleneck in one subprocess directly impacts strategic KPIs downstream. The episode emphasizes that this role sits at the intersection of data science and business context, requiring both technical capability to work with data and sufficient operational understanding to design meaningful indicators. They debate whether organizations actually staff this role adequately or whether the framework design responsibility simply doesn't exist in practice. The hosts conclude by positioning this as a "unicorn" role that combines process intelligence tools, root cause analysis skills, and the ability to facilitate dialogue between process owners about where to set indicators for aligned performance across the value chain.5 Key Takeaways:Two Functions in One Role: The performance analyst must both design the architectural framework of performance indicators aligned to strategy (what should we measure and why) and perform operational analysis of process data (what's actually happening and what does it mean)—these are distinct skills packaged into one position.PPIs Drive KPIs, Not the Other Way Around: Process performance indicators (PPIs) measure operational process health—like quality inspection lead time or credit check duration—while KPIs are strategic outcomes like on-time-in-full delivery; effective analysis connects how operational PPIs aggregate up to impact strategic KPIs.Understand Causal Dependencies Across Processes: The core value lies in understanding how process elements affect each other throughout the end-to-end chain—a three-day delay in quality inspection directly causes late delivery to customers, connecting a seemingly minor operational metric to customer satisfaction.Intelligence Means Root Cause Analysis, Not Just Reporting: Moving from dashboards to actionable insights requires detective work using process intelligence tools to prove points about variance, identify bottlenecks, and understand why processes perform as they do—not just displaying what happened.Prevent Local Optimization at the Expense of End-to-End Performance: Without proper indicator framework design and end-to-end visibility, individual process steps optimize toward the wrong targets—everyone becomes reproducibly fast at the wrong thing, landing on the "left-hand side" of the bell curve when they should be elsewhere for overall chain performance.If you have suggestions or questions, please reach out to us via [email protected] you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe… we do appreciate that…
• 
  Ep. 72: "The BPM Technology Manager: From Tool Guardian to Integration Orchestrator" 19.05.2026 40min

  In this episode, Russell and Caspar examine the BPM technology and tooling manager role—a position that has evolved dramatically from its origins as a technical gatekeeper to today's integration-focused facilitator. They explore how this person manages the BPM platform ecosystem including process repositories, modeling tools, automation platforms, and process mining solutions while ensuring they remain fit for organizational purpose. The discussion reveals how the role's importance has shifted over time, from the days of on-premises systems requiring deep database schema knowledge and complex upgrades to today's cloud-based environments where new features appear automatically. The hosts debate whether one person typically owns all BPM tooling or if modeling, mining, and automation platforms are managed by different specialists in larger organizations. Through candid conversation, they examine the tension between becoming a product expert wedded to one vendor versus maintaining objectivity and vendor independence to serve the organization's needs. The episode explores critical character traits including technical adaptability, the ability to train users appropriately without overwhelming them with advanced features they'll never use, and understanding how BPM tools fit into the wider enterprise application ecosystem. They emphasize the importance of working collaboratively with BPM architects to extend methodology and integrate with other systems like risk management, quality management, and project management tools. This is essential listening for understanding how the BPM technology manager role has transformed from maintenance-focused to integration-oriented in the modern cloud era.5 Key Takeaways:The Role Has Evolved Dramatically: BPM technology managers have shifted from being on-premises system gatekeepers who controlled upgrades and configurations to cloud-era facilitators who focus on integration, user enablement, and ecosystem management—the old model of "you must come to me for everything" is history.Vendor Independence Is Critical: The tooling landscape changes rapidly and this person must evaluate options objectively rather than becoming emotionally attached to a single vendor's roadmap—the job is serving organizational needs, not defending a particular product or becoming its evangelist.Train for Actual Use Cases, Not Product Mastery: Like teaching household budgeting versus investment banking in Excel, BPM training should focus on what users actually need (typically 10-15% of tool capabilities) rather than overwhelming them with advanced features they'll never use—practical enablement trumps comprehensive product knowledge.Integration Thinking Beyond BPM: Modern tooling managers must understand how BPM platforms connect with the wider enterprise ecosystem—JIRA for project management, document management systems for quality, process mining tools, risk and control systems—and facilitate smooth integration rather than treating BPM as an isolated island.Partner with Architects for Evolution: The technology manager and BPM architects must work hand-in-hand to expand capabilities—architects need technical feasibility input for methodology extensions, while tooling experts need architectural context to propose automation, dashboards, and integrations that make ambitious use cases practically achievable.If you have suggestions or questions, please reach out to us via [email protected] you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe… we do appreciate that…
• 
  Ep. 71: "The Process Owner Part 2: Experience, Leadership, and Finding Your Sweet Spot" 12.05.2026 32min

  In this continuation of their process owner series, Russell and Caspar dive deep into the experience requirements and organizational positioning needed for successful process ownership. They explore why this is fundamentally a senior role that requires solid operational management experience combined with cross-functional influence capability. The discussion tackles the challenge of finding the organizational "sweet spot"—identifying leaders who are senior enough to command respect and drive change but not so consumed by executive responsibilities that they cannot focus on process excellence. Through candid conversation, they examine how experience requirements vary by domain and whether someone needs to be promoted from within or can be brought in externally with relevant domain expertise. The hosts debate the balance between operational hands-on knowledge and strategic thinking, emphasizing that process owners must understand the work deeply while maintaining enough distance to drive improvements objectively. Russell shares a powerful anecdote about entering sales without traditional experience, illustrating how ambition, authenticity, and the right mindset can sometimes matter more than years of experience. The episode provides practical guidance on evaluating candidates for process ownership roles and recognizing that while experience is valuable, the combination of drive, empathy, openness to change, and leadership capability can enable someone to grow into the role successfully. This is essential listening for organizations nominating process owners and professionals considering whether they're ready for this challenging but rewarding responsibility.5 Key Takeaways:Find the Organizational Sweet Spot: Process owners need to be senior enough to influence across boundaries and command respect, but not so senior (like managing directors or founders) that they're too consumed by executive duties to focus on operational process excellence.Solid Operational Experience Is Non-Negotiable: Candidates must have deep hands-on understanding of how the process domain actually works—theory alone won't suffice for driving meaningful improvements and earning credibility with frontline teams who know when someone lacks real operational knowledge.Domain Expertise Matters More Than BPM Expertise: Process owners don't need to be BPM methodology experts, but they must be comfortable with process data, governance concepts, and have legitimate domain expertise—someone with strong procurement standardization experience can be a great purchasing process owner even without formal BPM training.Process Owners Are Change Leaders: This role requires the mindset, skills, and experience of a change leader—not just maintaining status quo but driving continuous improvement, adapting to market changes, communicating strategic direction, and serving as a role model for transformation.Experience Plus Mindset Beats Experience Alone: While operational experience is important, the combination of drive, ambition, empathy, authenticity, and openness to learning can enable someone with less experience to succeed—stay true to yourself, bring what you uniquely offer, and grow into the role rather than waiting until you feel perfectly qualified.If you have suggestions or questions, please reach out to us via [email protected] you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe… we do appreciate that…
• 
  Ep. 70: "The Psychology of Change: Why Beliefs Drive BPM Success More Than Process Maps" 05.05.2026 56min

  In this guest episode, Russell and Caspar welcome Thierry Muller, an IT veteran turned change management expert, for a deep conversation about the human side of transformation projects. Thierry shares his unconventional journey from one failed SAP implementation to discovering his true calling in change management when tasked with changing DSM's corporate culture. The discussion explores why every project is fundamentally a change management project, even when organizations try to separate the two disciplines. Thierry reveals how understanding the psychology behind change—particularly the role of beliefs in driving behavior—transformed him from a technical project manager into an effective change leader. The conversation examines why traditional approaches focusing only on communication plans and training fail to create genuine adoption and commitment. Through candid examples, including a continuous improvement program where employees feared their ideas would be used against them, Thierry demonstrates how beliefs shape outcomes more powerfully than any process documentation. The hosts and guest debate the distinction between compliance and commitment, exploring how change managers must work at the belief level rather than just the behavior level. Thierry emphasizes that successful change requires understanding what people believe about the change, not just what they know about it. The episode provides practical insights on creating psychological safety, building trust, and shifting organizational beliefs to enable genuine transformation rather than superficial compliance.5 Key Takeaways:Every Project Is a Change Project: You cannot separate project management from change management—any project that requires people to work differently is fundamentally about changing human behavior, beliefs, and culture, whether you acknowledge it explicitly or not.Beliefs Drive Behavior More Than Knowledge: The brain doesn't distinguish between beliefs and truth—what people believe determines how they act, so successful change management requires working at the belief level, not just providing information or training on new processes.Start with "Why Change Culture" Not "Make People Comply": When leadership frames transformation as "changing culture" rather than "making people do what we want," it creates the right foundation for genuine change management instead of forced compliance through top-down directives.Compliance Without Commitment Fails: Getting people to follow new processes out of obligation (compliance) is fundamentally different from getting them to embrace changes because they believe it benefits them (commitment)—only the latter creates sustainable transformation.Psychological Safety Enables Improvement: Continuous improvement programs fail when employees believe their ideas will be used against them (more work, job loss)—changing this belief to "improvements benefit me and my team" is essential, as demonstrated by Toyota's guarantee of promotion rather than termination.In case of questions or suggestions, please reach out via [email protected] you enjoy our content, please like, rate and subscribe...
• 
  Ep. 69: "BPM AI Orchestration: Building the Next Generation of Process Management" 28.04.2026 48min

  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: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.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.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.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.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 [email protected] you like our content, please like, rate and subscribe. We appreciate that.
• 
  Ep. 68: "The Process Owner Part 1: Accountability Without Authority Across Silos" 21.04.2026 38min

  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: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.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.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.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.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 [email protected] you enjoy our content, please like, rate and subscribe to our channel.
• 
  Ep. 67: "The COE Lead: Strategic Patience and the Long Game of Process Excellence" 14.04.2026 44min

  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: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.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.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.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.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 [email protected] you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe, we do appreciate it!
• 
  Ep. 66: "No Bullshit BPM: Walter Bril on Keeping Process Management Practical" 07.04.2026 53min

  In this special guest episode, Russell and Caspar welcome Walter Bril, co-creator of Universal Process Notation (UPN), for a candid conversation about making process management practical and useful rather than academically perfect. Walter shares his journey from UNIX administrator to process management thought leader, explaining how he became intrigued by the patterns and thinking behind business operations rather than just faster technology. The discussion centers on UPN's philosophy of simplicity—using fewer symbols and making process models more accessible to non-technical audiences while maintaining the ability to capture essential business logic. Walter challenges the notion that more complexity equals better modeling, advocating instead for "good enough" documentation that people actually use. The conversation explores the tension between BPMN's comprehensive but complex approach versus simpler notations that prioritize adoption and practical value. They examine how AI and automation are changing the documentation game—from generating initial models from unstructured information to enabling process analysts to shift from creation to validation. Walter emphasizes the importance of getting out of the "dark corner" by demonstrating business value rather than forcing process models down people's throats. The episode provides refreshing honesty about what works in real-world BPM implementations. This is essential listening for practitioners tired of academic approaches that don't translate to business results.5 Key Takeaways:Keep It Practical, Not Academic: Don't pursue mathematically correct or theoretically perfect process models—focus on what businesses can actually use and benefit from, even if it's not as comprehensive or precise as academic standards would demand.Automate Documentation Creation: The future of process modeling is shifting from manual creation to automated generation using process mining, configuration mining, and AI extraction from unstructured information—analysts should focus on validation and refinement rather than starting from scratch.Simplicity Drives Adoption: Using fewer symbols and simpler notations (like UPN's approach) makes process models more accessible to business users and increases the likelihood they'll actually be used, which matters more than comprehensive technical detail.Don't Force Processes Down People's Throats: Early in his career, Walter learned that telling people "you must look at these diagrams because processes are important" doesn't work—models must demonstrate clear business value to gain organic adoption and escape the "dark corner" of the organization.Documentation Is Not Automation: Process models and notations serve primarily as communication and understanding tools, not as automation specifications—don't confuse the purpose of business process documentation with workflow automation or orchestration requirements.If you have questions or suggestions about our podcast, please shoot us a message at [email protected] you enjoy our content, please like, rate, subscribe and follow us on LinkedIn, Spotify, SubStack or whatever rocks your boat. Enjoy this episode...
• 
  Ep. 65: "The Process Mining Analyst: Detective Work Between Data and Reality" 31.03.2026 39min

  In this episode, Russell and Caspar conclude their implementation phase roles series by examining the process mining and analysis specialist—a role that sits at the intersection of data science and process expertise. They explore whether this role is truly necessary during BPM implementation or belongs more in the operational phase of process management. The discussion reveals a common organizational pattern: process mining initiatives often emerge from IT and data-driven teams while process documentation efforts originate from compliance and quality management, creating parallel but disconnected efforts. They examine the evolution from "process management" to "process intelligence" as mining and traditional BPM converge into integrated capabilities. Through a detailed war story, they illustrate the detective work required when data patterns don't match expectations—persistence in connecting data anomalies to real-world business practices and custom processes. The conversation highlights the critical skill of making sense of mining tool outputs by connecting data patterns to actual business operations and root causes. They debate the balance between quick wins from standard connectors versus deep custom analysis that requires SQL expertise and system knowledge. The episode emphasizes that while data doesn't lie, it requires human interpretation and dialogue with process owners to understand what it's truly revealing. This is essential listening for organizations trying to integrate process mining capabilities into their BPM programs effectively.5 Key Takeaways:Mining and Management Often Start Separately: Process mining initiatives typically emerge from IT and data-driven teams while process documentation comes from compliance/quality groups—this parallel evolution creates missed opportunities for integration that mature organizations must address.Think Mining Into Your BPM Organization Early: Even if you're not immediately implementing process mining, include this role in your BPM capability planning from the start—waiting until later risks creating siloed initiatives that don't connect to your broader process architecture.Standard Connectors Enable Quick Wins: For common ERP systems like SAP, standard process mining connectors can deliver fast results without deep technical skills—this makes mining accessible during implementation for baseline understanding and validation of documented processes.Deep Analysis Requires Detective Persistence: The core capability is connecting data patterns to business reality through dialogue with process owners—analysts must persist in understanding anomalies, even when explanations involve custom business logic or non-standard practices that aren't obvious in the data.Data Shows Symptoms, Not Root Causes: Process mining reveals patterns and deviations, but humans must interpret what the data means—the specialist's value lies in translating mining outputs into actionable business insights by understanding both technical systems and operational context.If you have comments, topics to be discussed or questions, please email us at [email protected] you like our content, please like and subscribe...
• 
  Ep. 64: "AI, Orchestration, and First Principles: Rethinking Work in the Age of Intelligence" 24.03.2026 55min

  In this special guest episode, the hosts welcome Jan Scheele, a serial entrepreneur, TEDx organizer, blockchain expert, and World Economic Forum digital leader, for a wide-ranging conversation about AI's impact on work and communication. Jan shares his journey from teenage coder to running multiple ventures across digital agencies, crypto startups, and speaker coaching, offering unique perspectives on staying productive while managing diverse commitments. The discussion explores how AI is rapidly transforming enterprise workflows, moving from simple content generation tools to sophisticated agents that can orchestrate complex business processes autonomously. Jan introduces the concept of becoming an "orchestrator" rather than a specialist—someone who can coordinate AI agents and tools rather than performing tasks manually. The hosts examine how traditional presentation and communication skills remain crucial even as AI handles more routine work, emphasizing the irreplaceable value of human connection and storytelling. The conversation touches on practical AI implementation strategies, from using tools like ChatGPT and Claude for daily workflows to thinking about enterprise-wide deployment with proper guardrails. Jan advocates for first principles thinking—starting from zero-based assumptions rather than retrofitting AI into existing processes—drawing inspiration from mental models used by leaders like Elon Musk. The episode concludes with insights on adapting to rapid technological change while maintaining focus on what truly matters: execution, efficiency, and human-centered communication.5 Key Takeaways:Become an Orchestrator, Not Just a Specialist: The future belongs to professionals who can coordinate and direct AI agents and tools rather than performing all tasks manually—companies are already hiring "AI orchestrators" instead of multiple specialists in fields like law, development, and marketing.AI Agents Are the Next Frontier: We're moving beyond simple prompt-based AI tools to autonomous agents that can execute complex, multi-step business processes independently—early adoption of agentic workflows will create competitive advantages as the technology matures rapidly.Human Communication Skills Matter More, Not Less: As AI handles routine tasks, the ability to tell compelling stories, present ideas persuasively, and create genuine human connections becomes increasingly valuable and differentiating—these uniquely human skills cannot be automated.Apply First Principles Thinking to AI Integration: Instead of asking "where can we plug AI into existing processes," start from scratch using zero-based thinking to reimagine workflows entirely—this mental model approach yields more transformative results than incremental improvements.Process Intelligence Provides AI Guardrails: In enterprise environments, your documented processes, compliance frameworks, and operational standards become the essential boundaries that keep AI aligned with organizational requirements—process management is fundamental to responsible AI deployment at scale.In case of questions or suggestions, please reach out to us on [email protected] you like this content, please like and subscribe! Thank you...