Actually, I don't agree that Configuration Management on its own is a process in a strict BPM sense. We can demonstrate this by asking the following simple question: What is a Configuration and how do I know when I am done managing it? Not an easy thing to answer, is it? (BPM professionals generally dislike the use of the term "manage" as a process descriptor - it is ambiguous.)
The repeatable processes look more like:
But even these aren't fitting well as "processes" in my world - they are too granular, and don't deliver value on ther own. Instead, they are activities that slot into larger, true processes, such as
Fulfill IT Demand Request
Verify SOX Compliance
and so forth.
Configuration Management I believe needs to be built out primarily as neither a system, nor a process, but a capability or a service. As a capability, it provides a distinct set of small-grained, repeatable services/functions that can be re-used across a variety of true value-creating processes. This is essentially an SOA view of configuration management.
"Capability" is not a concept overly familiar to the ITIL discussion, but core to enterprise architecture as I practice it. (Capability contains function contains service in some views).
We've discussed that the ITIL discussion of data has been insufficient; what many do not realize is that the ITIL concept of process is also confused. Search Amazon on Rummler/Brache, Paul Harmon, and Alec Sharp for the state of art BPM thinking. It will make you view ITIL in a new light.