!Process Cafe Process Cafe

The most important part of BPM

After reading a couple of posts recently on 'the next big thing in BPM', and predictions about the future of the capability, I had to chuckle a little. Mainly because if history has taught us one thing - especially with BPM - it's that history is not a good indicator of things to come and most prognostications are wrong. Did anyone predict 'Social BPM'? No - at least not until it was amongst us and then the predictions were related to how it would proliferate.

So I was tickled to read details of The Hottest BPM Trends you MUST Embrace and seeing things such as 'Connecting BA to BPM to create a realistic road map for process transformation', and 'Move the needle on BPM Skills for key process roles'. Not that these are wrong - in fact these all form part of what I call 'The Common Sense Approach to BPM', but they are just that: common sense. Basically the predictions are saying 'Get the right people involved at the right time with the right training, give them the right tools and responsibility and make sure it's aligned with what the business wants'. Of course when the rubber hits the road that's when all the best laid plans go awry.

But as I was contemplating all this it occurred to me that a large amount of the prognostications and predictions, the prophecies and the trends are all missing one vital focus area: Actually doing process discovery.

It's all very well telling people that they need a great BPMS or similar system to help them manage their processes, or that they need to have a well-oiled governance process to manage the change control around them, or that they need to identify the key, customer-focused processes and use social media to help run them more efficiently. It's even fine to tell people that processes are not isolated and that they are all parts of a larger continuum. But what very few people seem to actually be telling people is 'Here is how you do good process discovery'.

Think about it. All the systems, governance, tools, expectations and roadmaps will be for nought if the process that is captured and recorded is incorrect. But do we all use good process capture methodologies? What are the good process capture methodologies? Would we know a good one if it jumped up and bit us in the face?

I've told this story before but it bears repeating:

I worked with an organisation looking to outsource part of their internal process. Prior to that they decided to bring me in to capture the process so they would know exactly which part would be taken over by the third-party company and which would stay in-house. I spent two days with the group and we went through the whole process mapping exercise. Starting with the department in question I asked them who else they spoke to as part of this process. The mentioned that they speak to Finance. I got Finance into the session. Then I went 'old-school' and started with post-it notes and brown paper on the wall. This was useful  for a number of reasons. Firstly it allowed everyone to identify what they thought was in scope for this process. Secondly it allowed everyone to identify what they did either as an individual or as a department. It basically gave me an acceptable scope to work with (I talk about the process I use in my post on 'The Art of Process Facilitation'). After about a half day we had mapped out the process as the different groups in the room felt it occurred. Then we stood back and looked at what we had created. The first big 'ah ha' came when we tried to match the Finance part of this process to the non-Finance part. There appeared to be a big discrepancy between when the department sent information to Finance and when the Finance department needed that information (The White Space, anyone?). Both groups looked across at each other as if to say 'Why didn't you tell us that before?' But it was obvious from the discussion that this wasn't a topic that had ever come up in conversation.

The result of this discussion was that not only were we able to appropriately capture the business process as it occurred inside the department but we were also able to modify it to make the flow between the departments more streamlined and efficient. This was a win-win situation for both groups. Only at that point did we turn to the process capture software we had and start to drop the tasks into there.

Appropriate process capture is key to having good processes. It doesn't matter whether you use Post-It notes and brown paper, Visio diagrams, excel spreadsheets, or if just note things down on big pieces of A3 paper, you have to have a good methodology to capture processes and you have to be thorough.

I sense (though I have no empirical data just anecdotal data from my work) that a lot of larger companies rely too much on the tool they have purchased to help them with defining the process, when in actual fact the tool will just capture the process that is entered. This may not be the correct, complete, or appropriate process.

If this is the case then I can make one prediction for 2011 and beyond: "We'll never get the full value of BPM unless we improve our process discovery methods"

.

Reminder: 'The Perfect Process Project Second Edition' is now available. Don't miss the chance to get this valuable insight into how to make business processes work for you. Click this link and follow the instructions to get this book.

All information is Copyright (C) G Comerford See related info below

Illusion and reality in BPM

Over the weekend I was reading through a couple of blog posts written by various BPM bloggers. One of these in particular stood out to me as it very succinctly highlighted one or two of the human nature issues that plague BPM.

The post in question was written by Keith Swenson and was entitled "Structure is in the eye of the beholder". In the post Keith talks about certain illusions that are ingrained into the human psyche which can effect the way people perceive and understand their world. This is particularly important when it comes to mapping it from a business point of view.

For example: When I look at a landscape I see the ground, the hills, the sky and the trees. There are no definite demarcation lines between each of these pieces, but when I draw them I tend to draw a line to indicate the horizon, a line to indicate the hills, and the trees are outlined to separate them from the background. In other words there us a tendency to add separation when - in reality - no separation exists. Translate this to business process and you have a situation where we try to compartmentalise things. As Keith says :

In reality activity is continuous and without distinct boundaries.  It is the mind that interprets the activity, and draws in the boundaries between different activities.  Without drawing these boundaries, it would be impossible to talk about what it being done, yet we should not forget that they are merely the result of analytical reasoning about the activity
Furthermore there is the ability of the mind in hindsight allowing us to know and understand things that we didn't know or couldn't understand at the time things were happening. This manifests itself in the form of complete knowledge and understanding of something after the fact but an inability to appropriately describe or map it during the heat of battle. With hindsight people can't understand why it was so difficult to map a process when - in fact - it was merely the fact that it was mapped and understood that made the hindsight so clear.

The summary of these two pieces of human nature is the fact that we tend to try and put artificial boundaries around things that shouldn't have them, and tend to misunderstand how complex things really are after we have mapped them by thinking that we could have done a lot of the mapping in advance.

Does this mean that our efforts at mapping processes are all for nought? Are we doomed to fall into traps set by our own human nature? Will we forever fail at being able to make sense out of the reality of our life? Well, without this turning into a philosophical treatise (and I believe it could quite easily do so) we must remember that there will never be a perfect solution for problems such as these. The key is to know that there is a potential issue and to understand what impact that will have. Human nature will always play a major part in events when humans are involved. It's the same reason why 80% of people think they are good drivers but in reality this can't be true. But we know that this is how people rate themselves because it's human nature. As long as we take this into account we will be in an appropriate position to understand the reality of a situation rather than the perceived reality of the situation.

My thanks to Keith for his insightful post.

==========================================

Some housekeeping:

In one of my top posts from last year I wrote about '10 BPM Blogs you should follow'. After seeing the response to this post I have revised some of the entries following feedback and will be producing a curated list of top BPM bloggers that I am referring to as 'The BPM Blacklist'. This list will be available within the week and I will produce a post and a link to both the list, the feeds and the twitter accounts (where available)


.

Reminder: 'The Perfect Process Project Second Edition' is now available. Don't miss the chance to get this valuable insight into how to make business processes work for you. Click this link and follow the instructions to get this book.


All information is Copyright (C) G Comerford
See related info below

Top posts for the year on The Process Cafe

Here are the top ten posts for the year 2010 as indicated by my analytics package.

(Note that some of these may date from earlier than 2010, but have all appeared in the timeline for 2010 according to the analysis)

1. Silo thinking and why it is bad for you

  • Some thoughts on the issues of why organisations tend to try and keep things very insular within departments and what problems that can cause.


2. Your criteria for choosing a BPM tool

  • A post resulting from an entry on the BPM Nexus asking what people look for when deciding which BPM tool to use. Quite a popular discussion at teh time and the results are still valid today


3. Review Lombardi Blueprint Modeling software

  • My own review of the features and failings of the Lombardi Blueprint  Modeling software. This is an out-of-date review now, but a lot of the good points are still relevant.


4. 10 BPM Blogs you should be following

  • Having had the good fortune to discover a number of excellent BPM bloggers I produced a list of those that I think produce the best content and the best writing. This list will be updated regularly.


5. What's the difference between ERP and BPM?

  • I can't take credit for this. Jim Sinur at Gartner has produced a post discussing some of the main differences between these two acronyms. This links to that post.


6. The Gartner BPM Magic Quadrant: My thoughts.

  • A quick discussion on the contents of the Gartner BPM Magic Quadrant.


7.  BPM: The truly useful capability you must have.

  • A statistical and anecdotal look at why BPM is a capability you should be looking at within your organisation. Quotes some reference work and research indicating the potential ROI on projects.


8. Why Saas Pricing will kill BPM in the Cloud

  • A few thoughts on some of the issues of pricing SaaS in the cloud that will have an adverse effect on the usage of cloud-based BPM products.


9. White Space and BPM: The invisible problem

  • It is a widely known but rarely acknowledged fact that the main process issues in organisation appear in 'The white space', that is the areas between two processes or two parts of the process. This post discusses this issue.


10. The Pregnant woman thinking in BPM

  • If one woman can have a baby in nine months then nine women can have that baby in a month. Why thinking like this is affecting your processes.

Let me take this opportunity to wish all my readers a very happy holiday season and I hope to see you all back here next year with more discussions on BPM and process management

Gary





All information is Copyright (C) G Comerford 2010

See related info below

The great 'Outside-In' debate.

Adam Deane has started an interesting debate over at his blog on the subject of outside-in.

His comment - and one I tend to align with - is that outside-in is a nebulous concept and one which is very difficult to pin down in real life. He states that he has been unable to identify examples of where Outside-in has specifically benefited an organisation. The companies often noted as being OI exemplars (Best Buy, Apple, Southwest airlines) are also ones that benefit from having a good underlying product. Therefore is this a case where OI has given them the edge or where the edge has been there already and OI has piggy-backed into it?

My personal example - and one which I stated In the comments to Adam's post - is Ryanair. They are deemed to have successfully emulated good customer outcomes through OI, and yet they have the worst service of any airline I have ever flown. Craig, The Process Ninja, comments that customer outcomes and customer service are not the same thing, and maybe this is where my understanding falls down. But is it just the case then, that OI is merely any BPM practice which looks at the customer when creating processes?

Regardless of this I would recommend you head over to Adam's blog, have a read of the entry and decide for yourself whether OI is a genuine BPM discipline, or just a different way of looking at something that's already there. Make sure, too, to read The Process Ninja's rebuttal.

I'm really, really on the fence about OI. If I look at something like Six Sigma (or 8 Omega) I can see a strict methodology and something that I can put my hands on and say 'This is ....(fill in the blanks)". But if I try to do the same for Outside-In I can't. The Process Ninja himself states that "Whilst I agree that outside-in is a philosophy, it is more than that and I understand Adam's frustration in not being able to get a hold of "a methodology". In the deep recesses of my mind I can't help but think that OI is a generic term given to any company that happens to be doing well.

The other thing I can't seem to get over is that there doesn't seem to be any comment in the blog from anyone who is an OI guru. There are one or two comments from people who have done the training course, but nothing from the people who create and propagate this 'approach'. I would really like to get some impartial advice on this rather than comments which just tell me I'm wrong. The last thing we need is The Zealots coming into this with their "I'm right and you're wrong" approach.



All information is Copyright (C) G Comerford See related info below

The TSA and their process

(DISCLAIMER: Whilst I used to be a very regular traveler both in Europe and the US, it is now almost 3 years since I took a flight anywhere so have not had to subject myself personally to any of the upgraded electronic security reviews. I have, in my time, been subject to the 'removal of belt, shoes and jacket' review as well as the 'open laptop and start it up', and the 'No liquids to be brought on board' review)

There is a lot of discontent brewing across the US - and possibly the rest of the world - in relation to the TSA scanners which use new-fangled technology to see through people's clothes.

The issue as far as I see it is this: The scanners were sold to the public on the promise that a) there would be no way of aligning the scanned images with any individual and b) None of the images would be saved.

It now transpires that both of these statements are untrue. There are stories of TSA agents radioing in to the person doing the scan that "There's a hottie' coming through", and saved copies of scans have been obtained through freedom of information act requests and released on the internet. Naturally this is causing a lot of people a lot of consternation. Allied with this is the fact that whilst it is allowable to refuse to go through a scanner when asked, any person refusing to do so is then being subject to a fairly intimate physical 'frisk' which some say is akin to sexual assault.

But being the process person that I am I can't help thinking that maybe the issue is what I call 'if all you have is a hammer then every problem is a nail' syndrome.

Let me explain.

Security checks at airports have been around for many, many years. El-Al, the Israeli airline instituted  them back in the 1970's to counter Palestinian hijack attempts and since then there have been no terrorist alerts on Israeli planes. Since September 11th US airlines have reacted to potential security threats by implementing a series of tougher and tougher checks on passengers prior to boarding. The aim of these has been two-fold a) They attempt to offer some protection against future terrorist attacks b) They offer re-assurance to the public that the authorities are attempting to combat terrorism in our skies.

However, a number of high profile 'misses' by the security checks have resulted in tighter and tighter standards being implemented at airports. We are now at the stage where - in many cases - the security checks prior to boarding the plane are taking longer than the flights themselves.

As a means of improving this the TSA implemented the full body scanners. These were meant to be attempts to speed up the security process by removing the need to individually check shoes, belts, underpants (!) etc. In theory the concept is sound. but in practice it has raised a whole new set of issues.


I am of the opinion that the TSA are viewing these scanners as 'the tool that will help the process go quicker'. This is akin to saying "I have Microsoft's Excel package on my PC therefore that's what I am going to use to run my accounting system". It isn't necessarily, the right tool for the job although it will do the job. If all you have is a hammer then every problem is a nail

The TSA have fallen into the trap of thinking that the tool they have is the right one for the job when in fact it is just a tool. There need to be processes around the tool to ensure it is appropriately implemented and managed.

Let me be perfectly clear about this before I go any further: I think that security checks at airports are a vital and necessary part of flying. The events of 9/11 (and multiple hijacks prior to that) have illustrated that this is the case. Where I differ with official opinion is in how these checks are performed.

Earlier on in this article I mentioned that El-Al have had stringent security checks in place for over 30 years. They do not involve full body scans, nor do they involve intimate physical body searches. But they have been successful in eliminating any type of terrorist attack on Israeli planes since they were instituted. Yes, the security checks take some time. Yes they do, often, involve racial profiling. But they also use old-fashioned method such as existing metal detectors, face-to-face questioning and baggage scans prior to loading.

If one of the most security concious (and successful) airlines in the world doesn't use body scanners, why should any other?

Let's look at this from a process point of view (which is what El Al have done). Airlines want to identify and eliminate any potential threat as early as possible. This is done through intelligence prior to booking, research once passenger names are known, vigilance and questioning at the airport and surveillance on-board. The whole task of frisking passengers for dangerous articles is only a minor part of this. So why is it taking on such significance?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most US airlines follow this process at the moment anyway? At the end of the day the objective is to stop someone either hijacking a plane or setting a bomb off on board. Identifying potential hijackers prior to boarding is preferable to identifying them on board. Cockpit doors are now reinforced and locked. Sky Marshalls now board all (?) planes in the US. Since 9/11 there has not been a single terrorist attack on a plane. Of course there have been several attempts (The shoe bomber and the underpants bomber, for example) But these have all been  stopped by passengers and none of them have been caught by the airport security checks.

Whichever way you look at it the process is broken.

Thoughts and comments below please.



Reminder: 'The Perfect Process Project Second Edition' is now available. Don't miss the chance to get this valuable insight into how to make business processes work for you. Click this link and follow the instructions to get this book.


All information is Copyright (C) G Comerford  
See related info below

The Curious Case of the iPhone process

In an earlier post I talked about my day in London and the process issues I had with agencies.

A little later on in the day I went to buy an iPhone at the Apple store in White City, West London. I wondered into the store. It was quite empty. I played with the iPhones for a while and then went to the counter. There was a sign saying 'Queue for your iPhones here'. I queued. I waited about 6 minutes for a free station. Then I asked for an iPhone. I was asked if I had a reservation? I said 'No'. I was told I couldn't get an iPhone without a reservation. But I was also told I could make a reservation using one of their machines. I did and was able to make a reservation for about 45 minutes time.

But it got me thinking of the process behind this.

Apple have obviously decided they want to manage the flow of iPhones.So in order to do this they have restricted sales of iPhones to people who have a reservation. Is this to manage demand? Maybe. But having made the reservation there was obviously sufficient stock to allow me to pick one up within the hour therefore it wasn't a demand issue. In fact if they had enough stock in - which they obviously did - they could allocate a proportion out to those who had reservations and still keep a 'slush' stock on hand for walk ins like me.

My thought on the whole reservation issue was this "If I'm on-line making a reservation for an iPhone, why wouldn't I just go to the on-line Apple store and order one for home delivery?".

To me the whole 'reserving an iPhone' process seems flawed. Your thoughts?




Reminder: 'The Perfect Process Project Second Edition' is now available. Don't miss the chance to get this valuable insight into how to make business processes work for you. Click this link and follow the instructions to get this book.

All information is Copyright (C) G Comerford See related info below

Is process scaleable?

Wednesday this week was a day of process frustrations for me.

Let me explain.

I went into London with one aim: To re-register with two agencies who assist in getting acting jobs for me. (For those who don't know, I am an actor as well as a Business Process consultant). The concept is very straightforward - in each agency you fill in a form, sign a document, and have your measurements and pictures taken.

The first agency I went to was ill-prepared for the day. Even though they had booked appointments from 9am, they were not even ready to start until 9.30. Then they had people unsure about which order they had to be processed in. The process itself was unclear in terms of who did which part in which sequence. Photos were being taken randomly before people had been fully processed and it was generally a shambles. I was in there for well over 1 hour.

Contrast that with the later appointment at a different agency. On arrival a row of chairs was ready, each one equipped with a clipboard, pen and appropriate forms. Names were noted for the record and people were processed in arrival sequence. Each person was taken to a measuring station, then to a computer screen, then to a photo studio. I was in there for about 15 minutes.

Fundamentally the process each of these agencies was using was identical, but the implementation of the process was seriously flawed. Actually, on reflection I think the first agency was not using a process. They were just running things on and ad-hoc basis.

It got me thinking about scalability of processes. Agency 1 was a smaller than Agency 2 by quite a margin. The number of people they were processing was considerably less. So, in fact, their process should have been slicker and easier to manage than Agency 2's. But is this in fact the case? Could I have taken the process flow from agency 2 and dropped it into agency 1 without an issue?

Was the process scaleable?

Is process scaleable in general? Can a process which deals with 30 people/widgets/forms per hour be upscaled to deal with 3000 people/widgets/forms per hour without obvious detriment? (Obviously this assumes that it is physically possible to process the appropriate number of items in the given time).

Your thoughts?




Reminder: 'The Perfect Process Project Second Edition' is now available. Don't miss the chance to get this valuable insight into how to make business processes work for you. Click this link and follow the instructions to get this book.


All information is Copyright (C) G Comerford
See related info below