Inverting the 80/20 Pareto Principle

In a recent discussion with an ECM/BPM expert hethese 20% groups are not related in any way. In any
brought up the commonly used principle that BPM cancase it can also be 15/85 and it does not even have to
be justified by the 80/20 Pareto Principle. I accept thatadd up to a 100.
it would be too expensive to define and manage aThis idea of looking at 20/80 rather than 80/20 would
100% of business processes so if you manage 80%mean that we need to monitor ALL processes to
then BPM is justifyable. I thought about that for a littleidentify which 20% make 80% of revenue and which
while. When Italian economist Vilfredo Paretoones cost. Analysing and encoding all processes to do
discovered that 20% of people own 80% of all wealthso is not feasable and it would anyway ruin the
he was surprised that the distribution was the same inbusiness. Quality, revenue and profit are a complex
other countries. It is probability of distribution inherent tobalance and not easy to achieve with a common
complex adaptive systems that is most likely related toapproach. As I said before: In times when we look to
the Gauss curve. I admit that this link is intuitive off theincrease business agility, it seems foolhardy to reduce
top of my head.people agility by insisting on vertical applications or rigid
I propose that this is maybe used the wrong way inprocesses.
BPM (and other scenarios). The Pareto Principle wouldOur approach at ISIS Papyrus is to model business
for example suggest that 20% of customers produceentities in metadata and empower users to collaborate
80% of revenue. If we now apply it the same way toin processes freely while enabling monitoring and
BPM then 20% of processes would produce 80% ofauditing. The Papyrus User-Trained Agent can perform
revenue? That makes a lot of sense to me. Thatsuch interactive process discovery and then guide
does NOT imply that these 20% of processes haveusers. It is simple to add cost/time/quality/value fields to
to be rigidly controlled. Are these the same 20% thatprocesses and fill them with federated operational
make 80% of profit? Maybe there are only 20% ofbusiness intelligence and thus identify the 20% groups.
processes that need 80% of control effort? PossiblyAs discussed above not all processes can be
there even 20% of processes that cause 80% ofmonitored and tuned to the same principles.
cost? Also seems to make sense. It is most likely that