[ad]
As a general consideration the underlying problem discussed in the executable modeling debate is this: If Process Modeling is done, there are different purposes for it, as I already stated:
http://www.bpmnforum.net/blog/bpmn/bpmn-in-practice/process-modeling-purpose/
and
http://www.bpmnforum.net/blog/bpmn/bpmn-in-practice/more-on-modeling-purpose/
And yes – most BPMN models today are done for documentation purposes. But ImhO this is quite natural.
BPMN modeling is always done with a purpose. It is done or is most prudently done within a context of a BPM strategy that includes a BPM transformation. For a discussion about this see for example (1). One part of this BPM transformation is the as-is modeling of processes – for which a process documentation is needed. So in such a phase BPMN can serve as the as-is analysis modeling language – which it mostly does as of today. But that is not the whole purpose of the BPM transformation. It is a first step. The subsequent steps are shall-be process design and realization of the shall-be process. The realization is not necessarily done or always done with IT systems. But even for a process execution within a non-IT context consistency and completeness of a process model makes sense. Furthermore the more a process model goes into being the foundation of an IT realization, the more it must become executable – or at least be usable for development and ideally for model driven development. Therefore as the maturity of BPM transformations is progressing with time, the importance of the executable modeling aspect increase.
Bibliography
1. Snabe, Jim Hagemann, et al. Business Process Management – the SAP Roadmap. Bonn, Boston : Galileo Press Inc., 2009. ISBN 978-1-59229-231-8.