The True Meaning of the 80/20 Pareto Principle

In a recent discussion with an ECM/BPM expertrelated in any way. In any case it can also be 15
he brought up the commonly used principle that85 and it does not even have to add up to a 100.
BPM can be justified by the 80/20 Pareto Principle.This idea of looking at 20/80 rather than 80/20
I accept that it would be too expensive to definewould mean that we need to monitor ALL
and manage a 100% of business processes so ifprocesses to identify which 20% make 80% of
you manage 80% then BPM is justifyable. Irevenue and which ones cost. Analysing and
thought about that for a little while. When Italianencoding all processes to do so is not feasable
economist Vilfredo Pareto discovered that 20%and it would anyway ruin the business. Quality,
of people own 80% of all wealth he wasrevenue and profit are a complex balance and not
surprised that the distribution was the same ineasy to achieve with a common approach. As I
other countries. It is probability of distributionsaid before: In times when we look to increase
inherent to complex adaptive systems that isbusiness agility, it seems foolhardy to reduce
most likely related to the Gauss curve. I admitpeople agility by insisting on vertical applications or
that this link is intuitive off the top of my head.rigid processes.
I propose that this is maybe used the wrong wayOur approach at ISIS Papyrus is to model
in BPM (and other scenarios). The Pareto Principlebusiness entities in metadata and empower users
would for example suggest that 20% ofto collaborate in processes freely while enabling
customers produce 80% of revenue. If we nowmonitoring and auditing. The Papyrus User-Trained
apply it the same way to BPM then 20% ofAgent can perform such interactive process
processes would produce 80% of revenue? Thatdiscovery and then guide users. It is simple to add
makes a lot of sense to me. That does NOTcost/time/quality/value fields to processes and fill
imply that these 20% of processes have to bethem with federated operational business
rigidly controlled. Are these the same 20% thatintelligence and thus identify the 20% groups. As
make 80% of profit? Maybe there are only 20%discussed above not all processes can be
of processes that need 80% of control effort?monitored and tuned to the same principles.
Possibly there even 20% of processes that causeOriginally published on my blog: Welcome to the
80% of cost? Also seems to make sense. It isReal (IT) World!
most likely that these 20% groups are not