Talk:Workflow

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I think that would make sense. -- Renesis13 17:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of external links 

message: Call me old fashioned if you will but is a workflow not composed of the following three parts? : 
#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)
thread_title:  theory? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Action Workflow 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Workflow != sequence of steps, dependent upon choices made 

message: i found the above two comments (e.g.: Shannock9 (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggetion to rewrite the whole article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Workflow is the equivalent of a Ford production line