I touched a while back on the problem with SharePoint trying to be all things to all people and in our offering to clients this has recently taken shape in a meaningful way. With 100 million (yes, 100,000,000) or more seats sold over the last some years there is no getting away that SharePoint has a powerful place in the business software landscape.
The CEO of our author partner - FlowCentric - has published a white paper on turning SharePoint from Good to Great. This harks back to my previous points that it attempts to be all things to all people and in doing so fails to be great at anything.
In reality as we see Microsoft mature its marketing message it appears to move away from the quite exact terms in 2007 of "Streamline Processes" and "Business Intelligence" to more generic terms in 2010 of "Composites" and "Insights". Reading between the lines this suggests to me an acknowledgement that all-things-to-all people is not a viable path to success. Rather it shows an acceptance that SharePoint is a framework and perhaps the plumbing that underpins an array solution sets delivering outcomes to end users.
In the area of Streamline Processes/Composites this allows for and supports the existence of specialist fit-for-purpose tools to address composite areas across the business whilst standing firmly on the foundations that SharePoint brings in the server layer.
So how do we turn it from good to great? By bringing worthwhile and tangible benefits to the key stakeholders - more control for the IT department, better and more visible process outcomes for the business, less confusion for end users.
Get a copy of the whitepaper "FlowCentric turns SharePoint from Good to Great" here.
Showing posts with label BPM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BPM. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Will you respect SharePoint in the morning?
I think SharePoint is one of those software applications that has the potential to be a spectacular disappointment - perhaps undeservedly so. Rarely does one hear or read about an organisation that has easily been able to harness it to its best abilities. It always seems to be "just not quite there".
I think there are a couple of points worth discussing and although this post by Bjorn Kuruknap speaks a lot of truth and left me with tears in my eyes I don't think I'll quite take the same hard position.
Firstly anything that sets out to be all things to all people sets out to fail. The maxim for success is "focus" and SharePoint just doesn't have it. It purports to do document management, knowledge management, process management, content management, business intelligence/insight, portals etc but it really doesn't crack it for any of them.
Secondly when you get something for free (thinking the WSS flavour here rather than MOSS) it doesn't earn much respect from you - so it can easily be treated in a casual or dismissive way. Just because the software came for free doesn't mean you can plug it in, switch it on and expect to get happy users and a quality outcome.
The threat of SharePoint is the viral spread of poorly formed and executed team sites and processes that leverage and further entrench the likes of Word and Excel based forms and edge-to-edge thinking in an unmanageable and un-auditable environment. For business it means no better control and little discovery of areas crying out for improvement (no "lightbulb moments"). For IT it means added drain and chaos in support and significant challenges when the time comes for upgrades. For end users it means confusion in where to go to do what and an enforcement of an unnatural place to go to do things (personal note: I live in email and I hate being forced to go to a portal/website to do something - "don't make me go somewhere, just let me do something").
Like any multi user application/framework, you need to understand your requirements, priorities and your desired outcomes. From that you need to consider what is an appropriate approach to addressing your needs and then you need to plan and design how to achieve the best results. All of this entails the hard slog of thinking and communicating, not website development.
With the proper due diligence in place you are in a strong position to start looking at possible solutions. SharePoint may very well be the right answer, or more likely part of the answer. Your due diligence will help you identify its weaknesses and strengths for your specific purposes and help identify if other tools are needed to fill the gaps. But thinking is harder than hard work and most organisations don't apply themselves in a coherent way to the challenge so SharePoint ends up being a spectacular disappointment.
I think there are a couple of points worth discussing and although this post by Bjorn Kuruknap speaks a lot of truth and left me with tears in my eyes I don't think I'll quite take the same hard position.
Firstly anything that sets out to be all things to all people sets out to fail. The maxim for success is "focus" and SharePoint just doesn't have it. It purports to do document management, knowledge management, process management, content management, business intelligence/insight, portals etc but it really doesn't crack it for any of them.
Secondly when you get something for free (thinking the WSS flavour here rather than MOSS) it doesn't earn much respect from you - so it can easily be treated in a casual or dismissive way. Just because the software came for free doesn't mean you can plug it in, switch it on and expect to get happy users and a quality outcome.
The threat of SharePoint is the viral spread of poorly formed and executed team sites and processes that leverage and further entrench the likes of Word and Excel based forms and edge-to-edge thinking in an unmanageable and un-auditable environment. For business it means no better control and little discovery of areas crying out for improvement (no "lightbulb moments"). For IT it means added drain and chaos in support and significant challenges when the time comes for upgrades. For end users it means confusion in where to go to do what and an enforcement of an unnatural place to go to do things (personal note: I live in email and I hate being forced to go to a portal/website to do something - "don't make me go somewhere, just let me do something").
Like any multi user application/framework, you need to understand your requirements, priorities and your desired outcomes. From that you need to consider what is an appropriate approach to addressing your needs and then you need to plan and design how to achieve the best results. All of this entails the hard slog of thinking and communicating, not website development.
With the proper due diligence in place you are in a strong position to start looking at possible solutions. SharePoint may very well be the right answer, or more likely part of the answer. Your due diligence will help you identify its weaknesses and strengths for your specific purposes and help identify if other tools are needed to fill the gaps. But thinking is harder than hard work and most organisations don't apply themselves in a coherent way to the challenge so SharePoint ends up being a spectacular disappointment.
Monday, September 28, 2009
It's been a year ....
How did that happen? I took my eye off the blogging for a minute and 12 months slipped by.
Getting back into it now, and what a year it has been, I'm not going to bother commenting other than to say "I don't think that is a sea bird sitting on the bow, there must be land nearby".
What is really coming into its own now is the whole business process management story - the "do less with more - leverage your existing investments - get efficient, get smart" mode of thinking. We are seeing a lot of companies under pressure to maintain and improve their customer service whilst still reeling from one or more bouts of cost cutting in the last 12-18 months. And of course "cost cutting" for many means less people, either through deliberate reduction or non-replacement of attrition.
But they are not pulling the lifeboat up on the beach just yet. There are few plans to initiate major projects. What is of interest is the opportunity to cost effectively extend the footprint of the existing solutions, to reach out to different stakeholders and include them in a controlled and efficient way, to start a process in the way they wish it to be completed - accurately and audit-ably.
And that is a BPM sweet spot.
Some of the recent projects of note we have been delivering for customers include:
- better asset management to reduce additional capital purchases
- better employee onboarding to get people generating revenue earlier
- better invoicing processes to shorten the time to cash
- better spend control to reduce unnecessary costs
All very focused "do less with more - leverage your existing investments - get efficient, get smart" activities that have bring rapid results and tangible return on investment.
Certainly looks like a coastline in the distance.
Getting back into it now, and what a year it has been, I'm not going to bother commenting other than to say "I don't think that is a sea bird sitting on the bow, there must be land nearby".
What is really coming into its own now is the whole business process management story - the "do less with more - leverage your existing investments - get efficient, get smart" mode of thinking. We are seeing a lot of companies under pressure to maintain and improve their customer service whilst still reeling from one or more bouts of cost cutting in the last 12-18 months. And of course "cost cutting" for many means less people, either through deliberate reduction or non-replacement of attrition.
But they are not pulling the lifeboat up on the beach just yet. There are few plans to initiate major projects. What is of interest is the opportunity to cost effectively extend the footprint of the existing solutions, to reach out to different stakeholders and include them in a controlled and efficient way, to start a process in the way they wish it to be completed - accurately and audit-ably.
And that is a BPM sweet spot.
Some of the recent projects of note we have been delivering for customers include:
- better asset management to reduce additional capital purchases
- better employee onboarding to get people generating revenue earlier
- better invoicing processes to shorten the time to cash
- better spend control to reduce unnecessary costs
All very focused "do less with more - leverage your existing investments - get efficient, get smart" activities that have bring rapid results and tangible return on investment.
Certainly looks like a coastline in the distance.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Operating in a constrained resources environment
With employment hovering around 4% in Australia these days the brutal reality is that the people available for work quite frankly can't or won't. Many businesses, my employer included, are scrambling to find quality people to fill the vacant positions throughout the company.
This brings two interesting issues to the fore:
- you need to be efficient and effective in what you do
- you need smart tools and systems for people to work with
Why?
Efficiency and effectiveness enables your people to do more with less or the same. It allows people to process the 80% straight through activities with the least amount of perturbation and confusion. It frees time for the smart and skilled people to focus on the issues of importance, the 20% exceptions that really need the rigour and focus of the human touch.
Smart tools and systems encourage people to see the value that is placed in their own skills and experience. If you seduce new hires into the business and then present them with fractured and flawed processes that demand they spend an unreasonable amount of time and effort in administration they may well decide to look around again for somewhere that respects them more.
So what can we do as businesses to become better employers of choice then the next guy? Well my employer takes part in the Hewitt Best Employer initiative which measures and reports on the work force engagement across a wide range of focus areas - this is a great initiative and well respected within the business.
At an operational level over the last few years we have implemented a number of improved business management systems including time sheeting and CRM. We have also automated a wide range of internal finance and HR processes within FlowCentric that have radically improved the content gathering, verification and delegated approval activities and unbelievably reduced the time lag. These processes including adding and changing financial customer and supplier records, personal expense claims amongst others. This is an endless journey, there are always new processes to automate and improvements to make to the existing ones.
Interestingly the change management was not as challenging as we had thought it would be. The take up of these improvements and the employee survey feedback has been extremely positive. The web and email environment for the automated processes reduce to virtually zero the amount of face-to-face training required. The speed of process initiation and execution has been pretty much universally welcomed. Indeed now the level of expectation has risen to a point where what was "special" has become just "business as usual".
We are proud of the process improvement solutions we bring to market, we use them ourselves, they work well and deliver genuine and measurable benefits. Our people are more efficient in their jobs and respected in their workplace. We know we have to operate in a constrained resources environment for the foreseeable future and we continue to focus on improving.
Try it out for ourselves - we could deliver a measurable benefit in a key process in your business within 30 days - not must risk or cost in that.
This brings two interesting issues to the fore:
- you need to be efficient and effective in what you do
- you need smart tools and systems for people to work with
Why?
Efficiency and effectiveness enables your people to do more with less or the same. It allows people to process the 80% straight through activities with the least amount of perturbation and confusion. It frees time for the smart and skilled people to focus on the issues of importance, the 20% exceptions that really need the rigour and focus of the human touch.
Smart tools and systems encourage people to see the value that is placed in their own skills and experience. If you seduce new hires into the business and then present them with fractured and flawed processes that demand they spend an unreasonable amount of time and effort in administration they may well decide to look around again for somewhere that respects them more.
So what can we do as businesses to become better employers of choice then the next guy? Well my employer takes part in the Hewitt Best Employer initiative which measures and reports on the work force engagement across a wide range of focus areas - this is a great initiative and well respected within the business.
At an operational level over the last few years we have implemented a number of improved business management systems including time sheeting and CRM. We have also automated a wide range of internal finance and HR processes within FlowCentric that have radically improved the content gathering, verification and delegated approval activities and unbelievably reduced the time lag. These processes including adding and changing financial customer and supplier records, personal expense claims amongst others. This is an endless journey, there are always new processes to automate and improvements to make to the existing ones.
Interestingly the change management was not as challenging as we had thought it would be. The take up of these improvements and the employee survey feedback has been extremely positive. The web and email environment for the automated processes reduce to virtually zero the amount of face-to-face training required. The speed of process initiation and execution has been pretty much universally welcomed. Indeed now the level of expectation has risen to a point where what was "special" has become just "business as usual".
We are proud of the process improvement solutions we bring to market, we use them ourselves, they work well and deliver genuine and measurable benefits. Our people are more efficient in their jobs and respected in their workplace. We know we have to operate in a constrained resources environment for the foreseeable future and we continue to focus on improving.
Try it out for ourselves - we could deliver a measurable benefit in a key process in your business within 30 days - not must risk or cost in that.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Where do you start the BPM adventure?
I have had a number of conversations recently with an array of different people - colleagues, partners and clients - all on the topic of "where do you start?". How do you choose what activities and operations in the business are the best candidates for review and improvement? The answer of course is "it depends" (spare me the classic MBA speak please!).
We have a little team of experts that have all sorts of clever tools to help work that out through impact, risk and benefit matrices and I will cover some of that another time. But I think there is a very fundamental issue that rapidly focuses down on the BPM ground zero. "It depends"..... on who the project sponsor is.
It appears to me that there are typically two ends of the business that foster process awareness - cost and customer service. And when I say "cost" I bundle into that the areas of risk, governance and compliance as well. Invariably the project sponsor will be either someone focused on tightening the way things are done to drive down the cost or they will be focused on improving the customer experience.
Neither is the right or wrong place to start - each is the appropriate arena of influence for the sponsor, for the person who cares. And that is actually what it comes down to, someone in the business must care enough about what their responsibilities and goals are to look outside of "what is" and consider "what could be".
We have a little team of experts that have all sorts of clever tools to help work that out through impact, risk and benefit matrices and I will cover some of that another time. But I think there is a very fundamental issue that rapidly focuses down on the BPM ground zero. "It depends"..... on who the project sponsor is.
It appears to me that there are typically two ends of the business that foster process awareness - cost and customer service. And when I say "cost" I bundle into that the areas of risk, governance and compliance as well. Invariably the project sponsor will be either someone focused on tightening the way things are done to drive down the cost or they will be focused on improving the customer experience.
Neither is the right or wrong place to start - each is the appropriate arena of influence for the sponsor, for the person who cares. And that is actually what it comes down to, someone in the business must care enough about what their responsibilities and goals are to look outside of "what is" and consider "what could be".
Friday, August 24, 2007
Hope is not a strategy
Quoting from a recent Cynthia Rettig article ..."TECHNOLOGY has always been about hope. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, businesses have embraced new technologies enthusiastically, and their optimism has been rewarded with improved processes, lower costs and reduced workforces. As the pace of technological innovation has intensified over the past two decades, businesses have come to expect that the next new thing will inevitably bring them larger market opportunities and bigger profits. Software, a technology so invisible and obscure to most of us that it appears to work like magic, especially lends itself to this kind of open-ended hope." Read the full article here.
And as Rick Page says "Hope is not a strategy".
Cynthia (and many other IT pundits) cites examples of organisations wasting tens of millions of dollars on unsuccessful implementations, and you know, in the small-mid tier market it is just as frustrating and disastrous wasting tens of thousands of dollars on a bad outcome.
The problem so many times as she well articulates is that most systems available now are blindingly sophisticated and complicated and come with so much potential customisation that the implementation projects invariable run off the rails and frequently very early on in the time frame. This is exacerbated by the fact that there may not be a clear definition of what is to be done and how, and even if it was defined it may well have changed between system selection, project initiation and implementation.
The hairy-chested challenge for any organisation is to be able to meaningfully define their system requirements in the form of people, processes, systems and outcomes (and to keep it up to date) and to be able to articulate these requirements in a way that allows 1) potential solution partners to understand and affirm that they can deliver a solution and 2) for the company to be able to compare a number of potential solutions, do a gap analysis and assess the risks and rewards of each offering prior to making a selection.
It's a big ask and one that is generally too hard to both achieve at the start and keep current through the project - so the requirements tend to be boiled down into a request for information/tender document as lines of "yes/partially/no" compliance for feature/function wish lists. It is very hard to describe a business objective and supporting end-to-end process in this manner and even harder for a solution partner to respond at any level of reliable detail. There can be an awful lot of "it depends" in any RFI response. So invariably there are some (or many) iterations of this as questions are asked and answered as a part of the qualification stage for both parties.
Upon system selection the maddening customisation journey begins and again there are challenges to all parties to keep focused on achieving the objectives that were not really defined well enough to start with. And there goes the budget, the time line and the project managers hair.
So is there another way? We think so. Use a process modelling tool to map, model and describe what the overall system requirements and objectives are. Involve stakeholders from throughout the business to add accuracy to their areas of specialisation. Give them a simple tool that allows them to depict what they require within the constraints and standards of the overall framework. Save this into a navigable website that allows everyone to traverse through end to end processes and track what the actual objectives and desired outcomes are and then issue that as part of your RFI/T pack and use it to assess the responses and do the gap analysis. Get really smart and issue a simple tool to the RFI respondents allowing them to truly relate their solution to the specification.
It moves the system requirements and fulfillment process into a new world and brings great transparency and clarity to the task for all stakeholders. The effort invested upfront pays dividends all the way to the end of the implementation as there is an accurate and consistent benchmark to work against for the life of the project.
This sort of approach removes the "hope" from your systems selection and implementation strategy.
And as Rick Page says "Hope is not a strategy".
Cynthia (and many other IT pundits) cites examples of organisations wasting tens of millions of dollars on unsuccessful implementations, and you know, in the small-mid tier market it is just as frustrating and disastrous wasting tens of thousands of dollars on a bad outcome.
The problem so many times as she well articulates is that most systems available now are blindingly sophisticated and complicated and come with so much potential customisation that the implementation projects invariable run off the rails and frequently very early on in the time frame. This is exacerbated by the fact that there may not be a clear definition of what is to be done and how, and even if it was defined it may well have changed between system selection, project initiation and implementation.
The hairy-chested challenge for any organisation is to be able to meaningfully define their system requirements in the form of people, processes, systems and outcomes (and to keep it up to date) and to be able to articulate these requirements in a way that allows 1) potential solution partners to understand and affirm that they can deliver a solution and 2) for the company to be able to compare a number of potential solutions, do a gap analysis and assess the risks and rewards of each offering prior to making a selection.
It's a big ask and one that is generally too hard to both achieve at the start and keep current through the project - so the requirements tend to be boiled down into a request for information/tender document as lines of "yes/partially/no" compliance for feature/function wish lists. It is very hard to describe a business objective and supporting end-to-end process in this manner and even harder for a solution partner to respond at any level of reliable detail. There can be an awful lot of "it depends" in any RFI response. So invariably there are some (or many) iterations of this as questions are asked and answered as a part of the qualification stage for both parties.
Upon system selection the maddening customisation journey begins and again there are challenges to all parties to keep focused on achieving the objectives that were not really defined well enough to start with. And there goes the budget, the time line and the project managers hair.
So is there another way? We think so. Use a process modelling tool to map, model and describe what the overall system requirements and objectives are. Involve stakeholders from throughout the business to add accuracy to their areas of specialisation. Give them a simple tool that allows them to depict what they require within the constraints and standards of the overall framework. Save this into a navigable website that allows everyone to traverse through end to end processes and track what the actual objectives and desired outcomes are and then issue that as part of your RFI/T pack and use it to assess the responses and do the gap analysis. Get really smart and issue a simple tool to the RFI respondents allowing them to truly relate their solution to the specification.
It moves the system requirements and fulfillment process into a new world and brings great transparency and clarity to the task for all stakeholders. The effort invested upfront pays dividends all the way to the end of the implementation as there is an accurate and consistent benchmark to work against for the life of the project.
This sort of approach removes the "hope" from your systems selection and implementation strategy.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Disney Process Magic
Yes yes - its been a while since I last blogged - a busy time on the work and home front - not least being a few weeks holidays with the family that had us slog through my all time favourite place - Heathrow airport - not once but three times - we'll come back to them.
One stopover was a trip to Tokyo Disney Land - a magical place for the true believers under 8 years old and also surprisingly a magical place for those of us interested in customer service and process driven things. I have been triggered today by someone elses visit to an American Disney franchise here.
Let me start by saying that Disney Land is not for the feint hearted as it is perhaps at the pinnacle of American commercialisation however the Tokyo location is almost surreal as it wraps a lovely Japanese-ness around the rapacious American core. Then again it is very much a Japanese domestic tourist destination and as an international tourist with none of the local language maybe I missed the more subtle nuances of how they extract extra cash from the wallets of the day's "guests".
Let me tell you what Disney Land is brilliant at - people processing. Yes, there are queues but they obsessively (and happily) tell you how long you will have to wait from check points - you knowingly choose to wait that long (we were generally at the "only 5/10 minutes from this point" on a rainy midweek day but there are plenty of "only 45 minutes from here" signs which would make for a very slow day). Yes, there are barriers setup to allow the daily parades to occur but they are very low key and are erected so subtly and disassembled so rapidly that they barely interfere with the crowds. Everytime you think "where is ...?" or "how do I ...?" or "I wonder if ...?" there is a smiling and willing "Cast Member" at hand to guide the way and with a charmingly over the top little flourish which I gather is the "Disney way" of giving directions throughout the franchise - and always with as genuine a smile as you could expect in this sort of environment - more of that great global training that Tom Hoobyar refers to. As a queue grows beyond the guide rails to contain it as if by magic additional rails are smoothly and quietly clicked into place to bring control back to the crowd. They know where they want the queues to form and they manufacture the queue in such a way as to get best space efficiency and least interference to the other spaces in the vicinity. The place is spotlessly clean and I got the impression that if you did drop any litter (deliberately or otherwise) a smiling sweeper would appear out of nowhere to pounce on it with glee. There isn't even a chip missing in any of the thousands of bench seats scattered everywhere. I was told by Ariel's (one of 6 apparantly) boyfriend in the queue at Narita on the way home that the maintenance crew works 24x7 to keep everything in near perfect condition - and it shows. As you walk around what is one of the top tourist destinations in the world there is no sense of shabbiness, over use, wear and tear or threadbare - the place is like new despite the millions of bodies that surge through it every year.
Now let's compare that to my nemesis - Heathrow - where do you start - 2 ends of the spectrum. Sure Disney is a commercial enterprise very focused on maximising the dollars it can extract out of your pocket and a destination you have actively chosen to visit - and Heathrow is probably neither of those - but does that excuse their unwillingness or inability to be efficient and effective at what they do? Just about any customer centric business (and what isn't these days) could benefit from a Disney-like culture of cast member engagement and obsession with efficiency. The Disney "successful guest outcome" was surprisingly seductive for this sceptic.
One stopover was a trip to Tokyo Disney Land - a magical place for the true believers under 8 years old and also surprisingly a magical place for those of us interested in customer service and process driven things. I have been triggered today by someone elses visit to an American Disney franchise here.
Let me start by saying that Disney Land is not for the feint hearted as it is perhaps at the pinnacle of American commercialisation however the Tokyo location is almost surreal as it wraps a lovely Japanese-ness around the rapacious American core. Then again it is very much a Japanese domestic tourist destination and as an international tourist with none of the local language maybe I missed the more subtle nuances of how they extract extra cash from the wallets of the day's "guests".
Let me tell you what Disney Land is brilliant at - people processing. Yes, there are queues but they obsessively (and happily) tell you how long you will have to wait from check points - you knowingly choose to wait that long (we were generally at the "only 5/10 minutes from this point" on a rainy midweek day but there are plenty of "only 45 minutes from here" signs which would make for a very slow day). Yes, there are barriers setup to allow the daily parades to occur but they are very low key and are erected so subtly and disassembled so rapidly that they barely interfere with the crowds. Everytime you think "where is ...?" or "how do I ...?" or "I wonder if ...?" there is a smiling and willing "Cast Member" at hand to guide the way and with a charmingly over the top little flourish which I gather is the "Disney way" of giving directions throughout the franchise - and always with as genuine a smile as you could expect in this sort of environment - more of that great global training that Tom Hoobyar refers to. As a queue grows beyond the guide rails to contain it as if by magic additional rails are smoothly and quietly clicked into place to bring control back to the crowd. They know where they want the queues to form and they manufacture the queue in such a way as to get best space efficiency and least interference to the other spaces in the vicinity. The place is spotlessly clean and I got the impression that if you did drop any litter (deliberately or otherwise) a smiling sweeper would appear out of nowhere to pounce on it with glee. There isn't even a chip missing in any of the thousands of bench seats scattered everywhere. I was told by Ariel's (one of 6 apparantly) boyfriend in the queue at Narita on the way home that the maintenance crew works 24x7 to keep everything in near perfect condition - and it shows. As you walk around what is one of the top tourist destinations in the world there is no sense of shabbiness, over use, wear and tear or threadbare - the place is like new despite the millions of bodies that surge through it every year.
Now let's compare that to my nemesis - Heathrow - where do you start - 2 ends of the spectrum. Sure Disney is a commercial enterprise very focused on maximising the dollars it can extract out of your pocket and a destination you have actively chosen to visit - and Heathrow is probably neither of those - but does that excuse their unwillingness or inability to be efficient and effective at what they do? Just about any customer centric business (and what isn't these days) could benefit from a Disney-like culture of cast member engagement and obsession with efficiency. The Disney "successful guest outcome" was surprisingly seductive for this sceptic.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Be audacious and start small with BPM
Time and again we see a pattern re-playing in our business process management projects - attacking these things at an enterprise level for most organisations is just a bridge too far. The budget, resources, buy in and intellectual and emotional stamina required are simply too great for a successful project.
Having an audacious goal is laudable and an important part of the impetus to get started, however BPM is a marathon not a sprint and it generally succeeds by achieving small, digestible wins along the way rather than a big bang burst.
Find a point pain that has vocal stakeholders and tangible but modest value to the business (modest value = modest risk) - possibly an internal or backoffice process. Map, model and automate it. Communicate the success and recruit the next volunteer. After a couple of below-the-radar operations a queue of patients will materialise outside the surgery door with increasing benefits and value to the business - commonly in the customer facing area.
Don't think you will get it right first time around - map, automate, deploy, learn, modify - progressive improvement is the reality. Oh, and any number of unexpected events can come along and turn it upside down overnight - celebrate them, embrace them - automated changes are much quicker and easier to deploy and far less upsetting for people than manual process changes.
Having an audacious goal is laudable and an important part of the impetus to get started, however BPM is a marathon not a sprint and it generally succeeds by achieving small, digestible wins along the way rather than a big bang burst.
Find a point pain that has vocal stakeholders and tangible but modest value to the business (modest value = modest risk) - possibly an internal or backoffice process. Map, model and automate it. Communicate the success and recruit the next volunteer. After a couple of below-the-radar operations a queue of patients will materialise outside the surgery door with increasing benefits and value to the business - commonly in the customer facing area.
Don't think you will get it right first time around - map, automate, deploy, learn, modify - progressive improvement is the reality. Oh, and any number of unexpected events can come along and turn it upside down overnight - celebrate them, embrace them - automated changes are much quicker and easier to deploy and far less upsetting for people than manual process changes.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Cubicle Commandos
This is an interesting little book recently published which will get stacked up on my bedside table. The premise is that for those people who have an entrepreneurial spirit but not the courage or resources to go out and do it alone, there are still strategies for making a difference and influencing change from within a corporation. It is a celebration of, and encouragement for, all those souls that strive to improve a business from the inside.
I can strongly relate to this idea and its under-the-radar practitioners - time and again at seminars and user groups we meet people struggling to do better within their circles of influence. They look for ways to improve what they and others around them do and protect the business from repeatedly falling into holes. Most improvements sought are based around changes in how the people and processes operate in the business, and sooner or later that comes to product (applications) - the 3P holy trinity of business process management.
The challenge for many Cubicle Commandos is that although they're close to the action and know what can be done to improve they frequently are not in senior decision making roles nor do they have discretionary budget to call upon. So they struggle through the bureaucracy and red tape in the business to get some localised improvement over the line. Then they have to go out and do it all over again.
If you are a decision maker and budget holder, take time to seek out your Cubicle Commandos - nurture them - they might make a big difference to your day. Looking beyond the localisation, there may be a way to clean up a process end-to-end rather than edge-to-edge.
I can strongly relate to this idea and its under-the-radar practitioners - time and again at seminars and user groups we meet people struggling to do better within their circles of influence. They look for ways to improve what they and others around them do and protect the business from repeatedly falling into holes. Most improvements sought are based around changes in how the people and processes operate in the business, and sooner or later that comes to product (applications) - the 3P holy trinity of business process management.
The challenge for many Cubicle Commandos is that although they're close to the action and know what can be done to improve they frequently are not in senior decision making roles nor do they have discretionary budget to call upon. So they struggle through the bureaucracy and red tape in the business to get some localised improvement over the line. Then they have to go out and do it all over again.
If you are a decision maker and budget holder, take time to seek out your Cubicle Commandos - nurture them - they might make a big difference to your day. Looking beyond the localisation, there may be a way to clean up a process end-to-end rather than edge-to-edge.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
EBIT = Earnings Before IT
Thoroughly enjoyed the Christmas User Group and drinkies at one of our partners this week. They produce a fantastic process mapping and modelling suite that just goes from strength to strength - some very smart guys. This tool is becoming pivotal in how some of our clients approach their business improvement and I will elaborate a bit more another time.
One of the team was regaling us with stories from a previous job in the retail space - he had a client that referred to EBIT as Earnings before IT. Before IT they opened the shipping container, counted up what was in there, shipped to the stores, put a price tag on it and sold it - easy, cheap, very profitable.
Then they grew beyond the "mom and pop" size and started installing technology driven systems - and this is where they claimed their problems started. The system demanded that you receipted the container contents based on what was ordered and what was on the bill of lading. Unfortunately most of the suppliers were shipping from China where the main aim was to fill the container and get it off the dock rather than worry about little things like PO details.
In the old days, the retailer didn't really care what arrived as long as the container was full and on time (DFOT rather than DIFOT!), but "IT" didn't like this - if the order says "100 widgets" and the bill of lading says "100 widgets" then there better be "100 widgets" or we have an exception situation. Up went the costs, down went the profits - "bring back the Earnings Before IT".
We all shook our heads and had a good laugh - but it is a salient point to remember - don't try to lock down the business rules around what "should" be if the business doesn't really aspire to live to those rules in the first place.
One of the team was regaling us with stories from a previous job in the retail space - he had a client that referred to EBIT as Earnings before IT. Before IT they opened the shipping container, counted up what was in there, shipped to the stores, put a price tag on it and sold it - easy, cheap, very profitable.
Then they grew beyond the "mom and pop" size and started installing technology driven systems - and this is where they claimed their problems started. The system demanded that you receipted the container contents based on what was ordered and what was on the bill of lading. Unfortunately most of the suppliers were shipping from China where the main aim was to fill the container and get it off the dock rather than worry about little things like PO details.
In the old days, the retailer didn't really care what arrived as long as the container was full and on time (DFOT rather than DIFOT!), but "IT" didn't like this - if the order says "100 widgets" and the bill of lading says "100 widgets" then there better be "100 widgets" or we have an exception situation. Up went the costs, down went the profits - "bring back the Earnings Before IT".
We all shook our heads and had a good laugh - but it is a salient point to remember - don't try to lock down the business rules around what "should" be if the business doesn't really aspire to live to those rules in the first place.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Old pain salved, new pain surfaces
Process improvement is a funny old thing when you look at it over an extended period of time. When the journey started the focus was about relieving some very explicit "pain" in the system and all thought, money and effort would have been addressed to that task. Over time that pain was dulled and was replaced by another "pain" further along the system. Again with time and money this second pain abated - only to be replaced by a third and a fourth etc etc.
As you travel around the continuous improvement mouse-wheel you never get to the end of the pain and of course in reality you probably never will. There is always something else that is the "next best pain" to salve.
The frustrating part for the pain doctors can be the lack of thanks from the patients. Very occasionally you come across people who have been there from the start and still vividly remember the excruciating pain that triggered the whole relationship in the first place - and they realise that the current pain is invariably far less than those of times gone by - and they know it will get eased - and they thank you with a smile and their patience and understanding around the challenges of today - and it is a pleasure.
As you travel around the continuous improvement mouse-wheel you never get to the end of the pain and of course in reality you probably never will. There is always something else that is the "next best pain" to salve.
The frustrating part for the pain doctors can be the lack of thanks from the patients. Very occasionally you come across people who have been there from the start and still vividly remember the excruciating pain that triggered the whole relationship in the first place - and they realise that the current pain is invariably far less than those of times gone by - and they know it will get eased - and they thank you with a smile and their patience and understanding around the challenges of today - and it is a pleasure.
Monday, November 20, 2006
The 80/20 improvement kicker
Another comment by one of the BPMG Sydney chapter attendees was very pertinent - he claimed in a recent process improvement project that 98% of the benefits came from only 2% of the improvements and all of them were human related process improvements. Now that is a huge ratio and if you were the sponsor looking back at that you would probably be frustrated at the return on investment (ROI) for the other 98% - that budget could have been spent on something else.
I am a big proponent of the 80/20 rule (officially known as the Pareto Principle). Just for the fun of it let's say that most projects have the same outcome, 80% benefit from 20% of the improvement. Turning that into value, 80% ROI comes from 20% investment - as opposed to the other side where only 20% ROI comes from a massive 80% investment.
So 80/20 gives you a 4 times payback whereas 20/80 gives you a measly 0.25 payback - I know which bank I would invest in.
The challenge of course is identifying in the project planning stage where that truly valuable 20% improvement goldmine actually is.
Do that and your project will soar with the eagles.
I am a big proponent of the 80/20 rule (officially known as the Pareto Principle). Just for the fun of it let's say that most projects have the same outcome, 80% benefit from 20% of the improvement. Turning that into value, 80% ROI comes from 20% investment - as opposed to the other side where only 20% ROI comes from a massive 80% investment.
So 80/20 gives you a 4 times payback whereas 20/80 gives you a measly 0.25 payback - I know which bank I would invest in.
The challenge of course is identifying in the project planning stage where that truly valuable 20% improvement goldmine actually is.
Do that and your project will soar with the eagles.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
BI is nothing without process focus
We hosted the BPMG Sydney Chapter meeting this evening and there was some spirited discussion on a range of topics - the one that tickled my fancy was a forceful statement from a Professor in academia.
" BI is nothing without process focus" - and it rings so true - in fact I have blogged it separately here. You can measure to your hearts content and configure dashboards and guages and graphs and "top 10's" until you are blue in the face but until you link the data source to process and the decision outcome from the metrics back to process they are all pretty meaningless.
If you are going to build a BI capability then it may be wise to consider the various levels of KPI applicabale in the business. There will be the strategic KPIs pointing to market share, territory volume sales etc, then there are the process group style KPIs such as inventory management etc, and then there are the individual task KPIs such as supplier invoices with POs declared, DIFOT ratios etc.
When looking at KPIs you need to know how they interrelate to each and what the actual value chain of the business is. Then as the metrics show signs of offending benchmarks you know where to go looking down the line for the problems - and those problems will always be process issues. You have to link performance and process together for both a healthy, wholistic view of the business and also to know how to react when things show signs of stress.
My B-Performance-M = B-Process-M hypothesis was reinforced.
" BI is nothing without process focus" - and it rings so true - in fact I have blogged it separately here. You can measure to your hearts content and configure dashboards and guages and graphs and "top 10's" until you are blue in the face but until you link the data source to process and the decision outcome from the metrics back to process they are all pretty meaningless.
If you are going to build a BI capability then it may be wise to consider the various levels of KPI applicabale in the business. There will be the strategic KPIs pointing to market share, territory volume sales etc, then there are the process group style KPIs such as inventory management etc, and then there are the individual task KPIs such as supplier invoices with POs declared, DIFOT ratios etc.
When looking at KPIs you need to know how they interrelate to each and what the actual value chain of the business is. Then as the metrics show signs of offending benchmarks you know where to go looking down the line for the problems - and those problems will always be process issues. You have to link performance and process together for both a healthy, wholistic view of the business and also to know how to react when things show signs of stress.
My B-Performance-M = B-Process-M hypothesis was reinforced.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Talk about an NAO headache
I've covered New Account Opening here before and the other week I had a meeting with a client that has a monster NAO headache. They are a global organisation running a centralised implementation of SunSystems with 200+ separate operating entities in the enterprise.
Many of the businesses operate in common territories so the rationalisation and management of suppliers is a fiscally and administratively sensible strategy. Easier said than done of course because after you have decided to trade with a new supplier you have a monster job to update all the relevant businesses in the territory with a great potential for human error - oh, and did anyone mention SOX compliancy?
Workflow for SunSystems to the rescue - they "get it" and they got it and they are rolling it out for Christmas!
Browser delivered process automation for core operational tasks like this is a no-brainer. It covers all corners of the threat trinity - risk, cost and compliance. The install is quick, the uptake is quick, the wins are quick and the ROI is a pleasure.
Many of the businesses operate in common territories so the rationalisation and management of suppliers is a fiscally and administratively sensible strategy. Easier said than done of course because after you have decided to trade with a new supplier you have a monster job to update all the relevant businesses in the territory with a great potential for human error - oh, and did anyone mention SOX compliancy?
Workflow for SunSystems to the rescue - they "get it" and they got it and they are rolling it out for Christmas!
Browser delivered process automation for core operational tasks like this is a no-brainer. It covers all corners of the threat trinity - risk, cost and compliance. The install is quick, the uptake is quick, the wins are quick and the ROI is a pleasure.
Monday, October 16, 2006
The difference from LHR to Kingsford Smith in Sydney
Time has passed and I have calmed down over the Heathrow shocker (although it still gets me hot under the collar when I think of it) sufficiently to do a little comparison with the people and processes at the airport in my home town of Sydney.
We have a tricky thing called curfew here that restricts flight arrivals prior to 6.00am - and fair enough, the airport is close into the city and surrounded by residential areas. So at 6.01am planes start to pour out of the sky into the airport - we were 3rd to touch down and I watched out the window whilst we taxied to the terminal and there seemed to be one ever 2.5 minutes back to back, headlights twinkling in the distance.
So duty free, immigration and customs are swamped as thousands of people pour down the aisles. Generally the queue moved quickly and efficiently - first sign of a problem at the immigration desk and the offender was whisked off to a separate area for processing and the bulk of us weren't held up. (There is a bit of smarts in the commercial sector as well - the exit from duty free (booze, perfume and tobacco products mainly) funnels you into a dedicated passport/immigration queue rather than back into the main queue which means you aren't penalised for stopping for that last minute gift - now that's joined-up thinking.)
Baggage pick up is a tricky area and a little slow and that is due partly to every bag being xrayed on its way from the plane to the carousel. Then there is the queue through the green and red customs channel and this is where the queue really built up last trip. Australia has very strict quarentine laws, we don't have many of the agricultural nasties that the rest of the world has - think mad-cow, foot-and-mouth, rabies for starters - and customs takes a very hard line on stopping unprocessed foodstuffs entering the country with international travellers. Unfortunately many arriving passengers either don't understand, don't "get it" or don't care and forget to mention the fruit/dairy products/pigs innards that are in their luggage as gifts for their Aussie mates.
You approach the customs queue with a little declaration card you filled in on the plane. This is where Sydney whips Heathrow big time - there were people all the way down the line checking the forms, guiding you into the correct queues, confirming your understanding of the rules and regulations, pointing out the dump bins for discarding those forbidden fruits.
So there could be no mistaking where you were to go and what was expected of you long before you got to the top of the queue. That's the way it should be done - good signage and cheery, friendly people - a completely different experience.
These ushers had a little delegated authority as well. Scattered amongst the tourists were obvious local business travellers who know all the rules, have the frequent flyer baggage tags etc and they (including me!) were efficiently weeded out of the thronging mass and sent on their way after a swift bit of questioning.
This international travel thing is no longer any fun but the pain can be salved with a bit of common sense and courtesy. For some of course, hard work is easier than thinking.
We have a tricky thing called curfew here that restricts flight arrivals prior to 6.00am - and fair enough, the airport is close into the city and surrounded by residential areas. So at 6.01am planes start to pour out of the sky into the airport - we were 3rd to touch down and I watched out the window whilst we taxied to the terminal and there seemed to be one ever 2.5 minutes back to back, headlights twinkling in the distance.
So duty free, immigration and customs are swamped as thousands of people pour down the aisles. Generally the queue moved quickly and efficiently - first sign of a problem at the immigration desk and the offender was whisked off to a separate area for processing and the bulk of us weren't held up. (There is a bit of smarts in the commercial sector as well - the exit from duty free (booze, perfume and tobacco products mainly) funnels you into a dedicated passport/immigration queue rather than back into the main queue which means you aren't penalised for stopping for that last minute gift - now that's joined-up thinking.)
Baggage pick up is a tricky area and a little slow and that is due partly to every bag being xrayed on its way from the plane to the carousel. Then there is the queue through the green and red customs channel and this is where the queue really built up last trip. Australia has very strict quarentine laws, we don't have many of the agricultural nasties that the rest of the world has - think mad-cow, foot-and-mouth, rabies for starters - and customs takes a very hard line on stopping unprocessed foodstuffs entering the country with international travellers. Unfortunately many arriving passengers either don't understand, don't "get it" or don't care and forget to mention the fruit/dairy products/pigs innards that are in their luggage as gifts for their Aussie mates.
You approach the customs queue with a little declaration card you filled in on the plane. This is where Sydney whips Heathrow big time - there were people all the way down the line checking the forms, guiding you into the correct queues, confirming your understanding of the rules and regulations, pointing out the dump bins for discarding those forbidden fruits.
So there could be no mistaking where you were to go and what was expected of you long before you got to the top of the queue. That's the way it should be done - good signage and cheery, friendly people - a completely different experience.
These ushers had a little delegated authority as well. Scattered amongst the tourists were obvious local business travellers who know all the rules, have the frequent flyer baggage tags etc and they (including me!) were efficiently weeded out of the thronging mass and sent on their way after a swift bit of questioning.
This international travel thing is no longer any fun but the pain can be salved with a bit of common sense and courtesy. For some of course, hard work is easier than thinking.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Process chaos at London Heathrow
Having had the misfortune to pass through London Heathrow airport twice in the last few weeks I can personally vouch for the chaotic, careless, rude and unprofessional way in which that airport is processing its customers since the latest round of safety threats regarding UK to US flights and the threat of liquid explosives.
I fully acknowledge the (unfortunate) need for enhanced security measures and the added stress this entails for all parties in the international travel supply chain - however, the operations and behaviour I witnessed and experienced by the Heathrow systems and people was dismaying and disgraceful.
I traveled through LHR almost 3 weeks, and then again 4 weeks, after the security alert regarding liquid explosives occurred and I naively thought that they would have had their act together and systems and processes in place to be able to efficiently handle the congestion that the enhanced security measures would cause. I was sadly, badly and madly wrong - this place is a disaster. I am writing this 10 days later and it still makes me angry.
Let's just quickly summarise those additional security measures (which weirdly enough were rather inconsistently applied):
OK - fair enough - restrictions were called for - although the smaller hand baggage allowance was certainly very inconsistently applied as I looked at people going through ahead of me all booking into similar flights and destinations - however I digress.
The nightmare started at dawn when arriving at Terminal 4 and transferring to Terminal 1 for a connecting flight. The human congestion was so bad that even the transfer buses were backing up, unable to disgorge their tired and grumpy passengers due to the queues ahead in the processing area. And this is where the shocking process and behaviour occurred.
Imagine a queue of many hundreds if not thousands, of passengers pouring in from all destinations and connecting on to many more being funneled into a single queue for security processing at the very front - idiocy. I got to the top of the queue to be told that my hand luggage, that had been acceptable out of Australia, was now too big for the new regime, so I had to join a different queue to check it in to the hold for my connecting flight. That's OK, I am happy to do that, but why have me wait in a line for 45 minutes to get that instruction? A sign and a size tester at the start of the queue would have had me processed and out of the way in seconds. Madness. And it was the same for fluids and pastes, only when you got to the top of the queue were you told there was another queue for those (and a tiny table on which to dump your offending liquids absolutely groaning under the pile of discarded items - this was not day one of the change - where was the big dumper bin?).
Throughout this nightmare a couple of uniformed comptrollers paraded up and down rebuffing all pleads for assistance in meeting tight connecting flight times - I literally heard an official snarl to an elderly woman in tears "that is your place in the queue now stay there" - disgraceful. (At another potential "flash point" area the supposed crowd management official was sitting behind a desk reading a novel whilst queue jumpers barged the doors and elderly couples started to faint).
So - that is my rant - but could I have done better? I don't know, I don't work in the business, I don't understand the constraints of the location, staffing, job demarcation, emergency legislation etc and haven't been exposed to their disaster/emergency planning and change management challenges. However, call me old fashioned, call me a fool, some simple "streaming" via large (and cheap) signage and cheery folk guiding and advising at the start of the queue would have been a massive productivity improvement in my opinion.
"If your bag doesn't fit in the size-slot go right - If you have fluids and pastes go left - If you have connecting flights within X mins from now join that queue - Everyone else join this queue". Not rocket science, not expensive, not hard, not training intensive.
How about having announcements in the buses on the way to the terminals - "you will soon be arriving at Terminal 1 and the security procedures are as follows ...... Please note that these will strictly be enforced and we advise you to pay attention to the signs and officials as you get off the bus" - hey, have it in a couple of languages too.
The Heathrow passenger processing methods were disgraceful, their communication was shocking, their people training would appear to have been appalling and there was no sign of improvement a week later when I did it all again so there was no intention of improvement. Very sad and a lesson in "how not to" for all of us interested in process.
I fully acknowledge the (unfortunate) need for enhanced security measures and the added stress this entails for all parties in the international travel supply chain - however, the operations and behaviour I witnessed and experienced by the Heathrow systems and people was dismaying and disgraceful.
I traveled through LHR almost 3 weeks, and then again 4 weeks, after the security alert regarding liquid explosives occurred and I naively thought that they would have had their act together and systems and processes in place to be able to efficiently handle the congestion that the enhanced security measures would cause. I was sadly, badly and madly wrong - this place is a disaster. I am writing this 10 days later and it still makes me angry.
Let's just quickly summarise those additional security measures (which weirdly enough were rather inconsistently applied):
- reduced size hand luggage (a wooden board was attached to the top of the steel "does your hand baggage fit in here" frame - basically halving the width of the acceptable bag. Interestingly if your bag had soft sides and malleable contents and you could literally wrestle it through the slot that was OK! And business/first class was not restricted - I don't think terrorists intent on personal annihilation would be concerned about the price of the ticket they bought but obviously not a concern for LHR.
- no liquids or pastes of any sort allowed in hand luggage - very distressing for a lot of women who had to abandon their perfume and cosmetics
- all pocket contents, belts and footwear to be scanned at the security checkpoints into the departure areas
- thankfully they had relaxed the "no notebooks, cameras, mobile phones etc" policy as apparently a huge volume of these had been stolen during the period this was applied and I didn't want to join that statistic (says a lot about the security vetting in the HR recruitment process and exit controls for employees when thousands of expensive, portable items can be willfully stolen so easily).
OK - fair enough - restrictions were called for - although the smaller hand baggage allowance was certainly very inconsistently applied as I looked at people going through ahead of me all booking into similar flights and destinations - however I digress.
The nightmare started at dawn when arriving at Terminal 4 and transferring to Terminal 1 for a connecting flight. The human congestion was so bad that even the transfer buses were backing up, unable to disgorge their tired and grumpy passengers due to the queues ahead in the processing area. And this is where the shocking process and behaviour occurred.
Imagine a queue of many hundreds if not thousands, of passengers pouring in from all destinations and connecting on to many more being funneled into a single queue for security processing at the very front - idiocy. I got to the top of the queue to be told that my hand luggage, that had been acceptable out of Australia, was now too big for the new regime, so I had to join a different queue to check it in to the hold for my connecting flight. That's OK, I am happy to do that, but why have me wait in a line for 45 minutes to get that instruction? A sign and a size tester at the start of the queue would have had me processed and out of the way in seconds. Madness. And it was the same for fluids and pastes, only when you got to the top of the queue were you told there was another queue for those (and a tiny table on which to dump your offending liquids absolutely groaning under the pile of discarded items - this was not day one of the change - where was the big dumper bin?).
Throughout this nightmare a couple of uniformed comptrollers paraded up and down rebuffing all pleads for assistance in meeting tight connecting flight times - I literally heard an official snarl to an elderly woman in tears "that is your place in the queue now stay there" - disgraceful. (At another potential "flash point" area the supposed crowd management official was sitting behind a desk reading a novel whilst queue jumpers barged the doors and elderly couples started to faint).
So - that is my rant - but could I have done better? I don't know, I don't work in the business, I don't understand the constraints of the location, staffing, job demarcation, emergency legislation etc and haven't been exposed to their disaster/emergency planning and change management challenges. However, call me old fashioned, call me a fool, some simple "streaming" via large (and cheap) signage and cheery folk guiding and advising at the start of the queue would have been a massive productivity improvement in my opinion.
"If your bag doesn't fit in the size-slot go right - If you have fluids and pastes go left - If you have connecting flights within X mins from now join that queue - Everyone else join this queue". Not rocket science, not expensive, not hard, not training intensive.
How about having announcements in the buses on the way to the terminals - "you will soon be arriving at Terminal 1 and the security procedures are as follows ...... Please note that these will strictly be enforced and we advise you to pay attention to the signs and officials as you get off the bus" - hey, have it in a couple of languages too.
The Heathrow passenger processing methods were disgraceful, their communication was shocking, their people training would appear to have been appalling and there was no sign of improvement a week later when I did it all again so there was no intention of improvement. Very sad and a lesson in "how not to" for all of us interested in process.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Continuing the BPM journey - is it a map or a script?
So here you now sit with a finely honed process model in your hot and sticky hands. What do you do now? Well the first question to ask yourself is probably - is this a map of how to get somewhere or a script of how to do something? How you answer this will radically direct your next steps.
A map is the easy one - this process flow records the path that is taken to get from one point to another in the business continuum. It is something to be referred to if you lose your way or are starting on the journey and want to understand what the destination is. In effect this is a reference document and can be managed appropriately - published on the Intranet? Or bound into a handsome manual? How about laminating it and sticking it on the wall? (I know one company that was driven to dementia by the abuse of the kitchen facilities and the mess they were always being left in. So an impressive, colourful and explicit process map was drawn up that clearly identified the role of the dishwasher and the wiping cloth to those who were in doubt. Laminated of course for easy cleaning!). By the way, remember to keep it up to date as the landscape changes as there is nothing more frustrating to the intrepid traveler than an out-of-date map (this issue of currency is invariably a painful and tedious process and something I will be coming back to in due course).
The script is the harder answer to deliver against - for this means the process is to become procedural law, every time we perform this process, no matter by whom, these are the rules and regulations that are to be followed. This of course is the great challenge - how do you get everyone in the organisation to follow these laws? How do you communicate them? How do you implement them? How to you entice, enforce and police them? How do you handle the crises of non-compliance? This is the area where technology and the automation of business processes comes into their own - the land of the Business Process Management System/Suite.
But beware, before you launch off on the next great technology hunt, spare a thought for the herd of white elephants that may already be cluttering up your cupboards, there is little room in there for another, choose wisely and choose well!
A map is the easy one - this process flow records the path that is taken to get from one point to another in the business continuum. It is something to be referred to if you lose your way or are starting on the journey and want to understand what the destination is. In effect this is a reference document and can be managed appropriately - published on the Intranet? Or bound into a handsome manual? How about laminating it and sticking it on the wall? (I know one company that was driven to dementia by the abuse of the kitchen facilities and the mess they were always being left in. So an impressive, colourful and explicit process map was drawn up that clearly identified the role of the dishwasher and the wiping cloth to those who were in doubt. Laminated of course for easy cleaning!). By the way, remember to keep it up to date as the landscape changes as there is nothing more frustrating to the intrepid traveler than an out-of-date map (this issue of currency is invariably a painful and tedious process and something I will be coming back to in due course).
The script is the harder answer to deliver against - for this means the process is to become procedural law, every time we perform this process, no matter by whom, these are the rules and regulations that are to be followed. This of course is the great challenge - how do you get everyone in the organisation to follow these laws? How do you communicate them? How do you implement them? How to you entice, enforce and police them? How do you handle the crises of non-compliance? This is the area where technology and the automation of business processes comes into their own - the land of the Business Process Management System/Suite.
But beware, before you launch off on the next great technology hunt, spare a thought for the herd of white elephants that may already be cluttering up your cupboards, there is little room in there for another, choose wisely and choose well!
Friday, August 25, 2006
Deconstructing BPM journey (1) and (2)
To read my previous posts on starting the BPM journey you could be mistaken in thinking any old fool could do this and what is the big deal about it all. Unfortunately the reality is that these type of improvemnet projects have a glorious history of failure or catastrophic under delivery. We recently ran an internal workshop of the core stakeholders of our own improvement project and the following points are straight from that forum - warts and all.
- these things take time and it needs to take time, you will not see all the options and complexities in the first pass
- look for the key influencers in the various pools of employees and look for high levels of involvement with these individuals
- the level of involvement of these indviduals will signify the level of takeup and enthusiasm later
- some people are habitual sniffers and just sit around the edge waiting for things to be proven for them
- without the support at least one of senior management and the business management the project will fail
- maintain credibility through the project - come clean about missed targets, changed objectives, challenges faced and not yet overcome etc
- you can only force people to turn up - they must be personally interested and motivated in improving the process (particularly if it is cross functional) to be able to achieve a quality outcome - if they don't give to the project then they will not achieve all the benefits possible to them
- people always underestimate the amount of time they will have to commit to the project - it is not a one meeting wonder session
- Visio is a reasonable one-dimensional tool and easy to use but the challenge is to cover all the interconnected layers of people, process and applications in a digestable and manageable ways - there are modelling tools available that do this better - we have now selected one to move forward with
- be prepared to be flexible and don't be surprised if things change around on you
- face reality as it is not as you would like to be
- communicate regularly and at appropriate times
- have the resources as available as possible when they are required for the project - if everything goes into stasis waiting for resources then the project is going to suffer in credibility
- do iterative boardroom prototype workshops with clear thinking stakeholders - more than once
- don't just follow the "happy path", question hard around where things go wrong, exceptions occur etc
- There are complicators and simplifiers - always hunt out the simplification - and be aware - it's amazing how complicated cultural issues can be
- think about the level of tolerance to compliance requirements that you may be happy to live with in line with your capacity just to "do business" - for some processes there may be zero tolerance, others may be less rigid
- you can't abdicate your process improvement to third parties - all good athletes have coaches and mentors but they have to run the race themselves - don't try to outsource the project, only the business can do it for itself
- think about setting up a "process office" so that as people come in and out of the project they are situated appropriately within the team for their involvement
- be organised and be seen to be so - if that is a problem for you then you are probably the wrong person to be managing this project
- "fight" for this internal project as hard as you would fight for a customer project
- An interesting point - when you get properly involved stakeholders workshopping around the table it is quite likely that technologies and BPM application/solutions etc don't get discussed
- Name the project other than the technology platform - problems are invariably people rather than application system issues but the project will be tarnished unfairly if it is named the same as any technology component being implemented.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Starting the BPM journey (2)
So you have chosen the correct path for your business vis-a-vis drive down admin costs or attack high value/risk operations and for good or for bad you now need to "do something".
Common and worthwhile advice is to map out the process "as is" - this means draw out the logical steps and decision points of the process as it currently exists and you understand it today. Invariably this means setting up workshops with the various stakeholders, recording their comments and then extrapolating your notes into a pictorial representation of actions, responsibilities and directional flows (perhaps prepared in Microsoft Visio or - shudder - PowerPoint. There are some very powerful tools to help here - more on this later).
So now you think you know what the process looks like and you may be able to identify some of the problems/challenges/breakdowns/fractures/bottle necks etc.
Next step for most if not all protagonists is to map out the process as you would like it "to be". Look to iron out the wrinkles, reduce the number of handovers, drive down human errors and remove the areas that cause iterative queries, rework and indecision. Especially look for where things get stuck in the lifecycle and concentrate on driving down time wasted whilst nothing happens (time lag).
Now what? Workshop it - take it into the boardroom and expose it to the rigour of team thought. Allow the stakeholders an opportunity to assess and critique your thoughts and plans and give you guidance on improvements and problems. Take them seriously - you will get a better outcome. This is a good change management tactic too - people involved in the design of new ways, and educated early on why and what any changes will be, are invariably more willing and supportive of the change when it comes.
Rework the "to be" and re-workshop it. When all done start asking the stakeholders to commit to some service levels around the handover points from one org-chart responsibility to the next (or be more radical). If you go on the premise that "the customer deserves a quality experience" at each point (starting with the real end-customer and working back through the supply chain) then at each handover point you will be able to identify a factor that directly impacts on the quality experience of the customer-end of each handover. A sales manager may say "my team will commit to placing correct orders on service delivery 100% of the time". That's a good start, now work back from there. (You will need to measure these commitments so keep them tangible and objective).
Looking good - you now have a documented, commonly understood, consultatively honed and improved process ready to be implemented with service level agreements for quality at each responsibility point in the process lifecycle.
Whew, take a break, you deserve it!
Common and worthwhile advice is to map out the process "as is" - this means draw out the logical steps and decision points of the process as it currently exists and you understand it today. Invariably this means setting up workshops with the various stakeholders, recording their comments and then extrapolating your notes into a pictorial representation of actions, responsibilities and directional flows (perhaps prepared in Microsoft Visio or - shudder - PowerPoint. There are some very powerful tools to help here - more on this later).
So now you think you know what the process looks like and you may be able to identify some of the problems/challenges/breakdowns/fractures/bottle necks etc.
Next step for most if not all protagonists is to map out the process as you would like it "to be". Look to iron out the wrinkles, reduce the number of handovers, drive down human errors and remove the areas that cause iterative queries, rework and indecision. Especially look for where things get stuck in the lifecycle and concentrate on driving down time wasted whilst nothing happens (time lag).
Now what? Workshop it - take it into the boardroom and expose it to the rigour of team thought. Allow the stakeholders an opportunity to assess and critique your thoughts and plans and give you guidance on improvements and problems. Take them seriously - you will get a better outcome. This is a good change management tactic too - people involved in the design of new ways, and educated early on why and what any changes will be, are invariably more willing and supportive of the change when it comes.
Rework the "to be" and re-workshop it. When all done start asking the stakeholders to commit to some service levels around the handover points from one org-chart responsibility to the next (or be more radical). If you go on the premise that "the customer deserves a quality experience" at each point (starting with the real end-customer and working back through the supply chain) then at each handover point you will be able to identify a factor that directly impacts on the quality experience of the customer-end of each handover. A sales manager may say "my team will commit to placing correct orders on service delivery 100% of the time". That's a good start, now work back from there. (You will need to measure these commitments so keep them tangible and objective).
Looking good - you now have a documented, commonly understood, consultatively honed and improved process ready to be implemented with service level agreements for quality at each responsibility point in the process lifecycle.
Whew, take a break, you deserve it!
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Starting the BPM journey (1)
A noisy and opinionated little group of us were "workshopping" (shooting the breeze) the perennial problem for most companies which is where to start the BPM journey. Peeling away the layers of enthusiasm and passion and looking at the hard cold facts we have seen around the traps there seems to be two schools of thought:
(1) under the radar, low cost-low value, administration/HR style processes
(2) pick a strategic process involved in delivering high cost services to an important client
The first option takes a path of least resistance approach and builds an inoffensive, but perhaps undervalued, reputation for the project which may cause it to stumble when the real meaty challenges are faced.
The second option takes a braver stance in the business and needs a visionary to see it through however the final outcome has much greater potential.
Comparing two professional services firms we know - one desired the benefits around automating their HR and admin processes vis-a-vis employee benefits and the like - the other was dismissive of that and was far more driven towards a commoditised process to build a new line of revenue by packaging existing practices. Horses for courses.
Based on our watercooler conversation it all came down to the business imperative and the project champion - are you looking to drive down basic costs and increase consistency, predictability and visibility or looking for strategic opportunities for revenue generation and high value transaction commoditisation?
(1) under the radar, low cost-low value, administration/HR style processes
(2) pick a strategic process involved in delivering high cost services to an important client
The first option takes a path of least resistance approach and builds an inoffensive, but perhaps undervalued, reputation for the project which may cause it to stumble when the real meaty challenges are faced.
The second option takes a braver stance in the business and needs a visionary to see it through however the final outcome has much greater potential.
Comparing two professional services firms we know - one desired the benefits around automating their HR and admin processes vis-a-vis employee benefits and the like - the other was dismissive of that and was far more driven towards a commoditised process to build a new line of revenue by packaging existing practices. Horses for courses.
Based on our watercooler conversation it all came down to the business imperative and the project champion - are you looking to drive down basic costs and increase consistency, predictability and visibility or looking for strategic opportunities for revenue generation and high value transaction commoditisation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)