Casewise; Taking a Fresh Look

Yesterday I was invited to attend a meeting of the Casewise User Group in Watford. As many of you know I am of course more familiar with the offerings from Popkin, MEGA and Proforma, having worked for those organizations. So it was good to have the opportunity to hear what one of my former competitors has been up to and I have to tell you I was very pleasantly surprised.

In the first instance the company who I had always seen as being in a bit of backwater, now seems set to shake the modelling world up again, just as it did when the company was launched 20 years ago. I was amazed by how many of the people that work there I already knew! I met people I knew from MEGA, Popkin and ID, all of whom seemed genuinely excited by the new developments taking place at the company. This year has seen major management changes and new people from inside the industry joining to add impetus to the company's growth. As I understand it there are even more people from their competitors waiting in the wings to join Casewise, this is certainly a different story to the one I was hearing about just 2 years ago.

Modelling, in the professional sense has always been a passion of mine. So to see companies in the space doing well always warms my heart. However, with the current economic problems, technology companies across the globe have been feeling the pinch and cutting back on staff. So it was nice to hear that Casewise had won over 100 new customers so far this year and had actually been increasing revenues and headcounts, a sure sign that more organizations are waking up to the true benefits that modelling can afford them.

Alex Wentzo, the COO for EMEA is an unassuming sort of person with a strong belief in customer service and quality. It is these strengths that have seen him take Casewise from being almost invisible in France to being seen as one of the dominant players in the French market. He also suggests that part of Casewise's appeal to global companies is the number of languages they support natively, apparently the tool is available in 14 languages. He also suggests that as a company with growing revenues and cash in the bank Casewise are in a better position to capitalize on the current market challenges.

What Alex does not say is that their success is, in part at least, due to the impressive range of new products the company now have to better serve their clients and prospects. To the best of my knowledge the company's Corporate Synergy Product is the only process execution offered by a modelling tool vendor into the market. Other vendors have partnerships with BPMS vendors, but the Casewise approach is to offer their own solution to their customers. The product being sold and supported by them directly means that customers only have to deal with a single vendor and a single development team, always a big plus. During the meeting we were treated to a customer case study on the Corporate Synergy product, and it seems that the customer in question has achieved some very impressive results in a very short space of time. I will talk more about this in a later post.

Many vendors in the modelling space talk about Web based modelling, SaaS solutions, hosted solutions or interfacing with Visio, but it seems that Casewise now offers their customers all of these. Of particular interest to me was the company's V-Modeller product. Here they have not simply provided a Visio interface, but actually provided their customers with the ability to use Visio as an alternative means of modelling. They are working on the premise that the true value of a repository based approach can only be realized if all the data is contained in the repository. So by allowing customers to use Corporate Modeler, Visio or Web Modeler they can make it easier for their clients to roll out the modelling based paradigm to a wider audience. A brave move and one which this writer certainly hopes and believes will pay off handsomely in the months and years ahead.

With the increase in interest in process modelling you could argue that the market is coming back to Casewise. Process modelling is where they started 20 years ago and although latterly the company has become better known for the strength of their Enterprise Architecture offerings, I think it will be the strength of their process modelling that will again provide the impetus to the company. As well we all know successful EA projects are increasingly finding process at the heart of their success, SOA and BPM projects can't succeed without clear process understanding.

Whilst there are many vendors in the space, independent vendors in modelling seem to come and go, Casewise certainly impressed me with how far they have come in the last two years and with other information they shared that is not appropriate for me to publish I think they may once again rise to prominence in the industry. As long as they do more to get the word out and become more visible!

If you would like to understand more about the Corporate Synergy and V-Modeller offerings, simply click the clicks to find out for yourself what has impressed me.

“Chunking” as a Tool for Effective Process Communication and Change

The principle of "Chunking" is said to have first been put forward in the 1950s by George A. Miller, a Harvard psychologist. Most people today will be familiar with the theory he put forward "The Magical Number Seven", Plus or Minus Two". The original research was related to our short term memory, how many numbers we can remember a few minutes after being told them only once. However, his work has gone on to be applied far beyond numbers. The principle of seven plus or minus two, is now well established as a "Golden Rule" for presenting, selling or communicating information to people. We know that we should try to follow the principle on slide bullet points, written communication and oral presentations, but "Chunking" has other applications that are vital for effective business and process improvement projects.

Beyond traditional means of communication it can be, and has been, successfully applied to the creation of maps and models e.g. no more than nine activities/ processes/ objects in a single map/model. If we have more than nine then we should break them down into manageable "chunks". The application of chunking to our maps and models aids comprehension and ensures readability.

"Chunking" is also used in a completely different way in Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). It is this alternative use of Chunking that is extreme value in our process improvement or BPM type projects. I am starting with the assumption that many people struggle to either get buy in for change or to have the proper level of detail required in order to be able to implement a solution. In my own experience this has certainly appeared as the conundrum on many projects. Well perhaps you might find the answers you are seeking in the NLP concept of chunking.

In NLP "Chunking Up" refers to our moving to more general or abstract information, while "Chunking Down" means moving to more specific or detailed information. Whilst this may be similar to the point discussed above regarding maps and models, it is in fact quite different. The focus on the techniques in this case is on how we reach agreement with people or how we can elicit greater levels of specivity from people.

Learning the technique and practicing thinking about it will greatly enhance your ability negotiate more easily, to find common areas in order to reach agreement, generate new ideas and to identify the details that matter.

In order for us to chunk up on a particular piece of information we could use questions such as the following;

• For what purpose?
  
• What is the intention?
  
• What is this a part of?
  
• What is this an example of?
  

As an example, let us use sport and I assume that you are an avid fan of soccer, while I, for my sins, think cricket is the best sport. We could spend hours debating and arguing the relative merits, without ever being able to reach any form of agreement, or we could use the technique of chunking to quickly and easily reach agreement. So the example questions might now be:

• What are soccer and cricket both examples of? – Team sports?
  
• What is the intention of a soccer or cricket match? – To win?
  
• What is the purpose of a soccer or cricket match? – To entertain?
  

Thus, we might quickly establish that we both agree that team sports are good, we might agree that we find them entertaining and that we enjoy our team winning.

We can apply the same principle to methods and approaches to process improvement. All over the world people are still arguing or debating Lean vs. Six Sigma vs. BPM, vs TQM etc. What, though, might happen if we asked everyone to apply the following questions to their preferred approach or technique?

• What is the purpose of (Lean, Six Sigma, BPM etc.)? – To improve a company's performance
  
• What is the intention of (Lean, Six Sigma, BPM etc.)? - To deliver performance improvement through the optimization of processes
  
• What are (Lean, Six Sigma, BPM etc.) examples of? – Structured approaches for identifying and removing waste
  

You may have other answers but hopefully you will agree that when we chunk up like this we can see that the essence of all the approaches is the same. In my examples we have reached similarity on one step, but for more complex examples it may be necessary to chunk op to or more levels in order to reach the level of agreement. The principle of chunking up allows us to focus on the "forest" rather than be stuck with the "trees".

At other times we are in need of additional information or detail so we can use the technique of chunking down, examples of questions that can assist in this would be;

• (How, what or who) specifically?
  
• What is an example of this?
  
• (How or what) is a good way of doing that?
  
• When would we use/do that?
  

Going back to our sports example let's assume that I do not want to debate your love of soccer, instead I want to understand more about it, then I might ask the following example questions;

• What specifically do you like about soccer? – Playing it
  
• What is a good way of doing it? – Joining a team
  
• What is an example of this? – I play for the company team
  

If we chunked up as above we could reach agreement, but we might still be missing vital facts, in this case by chunking down we can increase our understanding. Of course we could then chunk back up from here based on playing, teams and the company and it is possible we would reach an even stronger agreement. Even if agreement was not the purpose we would still now have more useful information.

With our examples around methods and tools for process improvement we might enquire;

• What specifically is it you like about (Lean, Six Sigma, BPM etc.)? – A structured approach to change
  
• What is an example of this? - the way we restructured our complaints process
  
• How specifically? – we provided knowledge to enable one touch resolution
  

Here we can see that rather than talking about a method (abstract) we moved down into what it is used for and then drilled down to an example of how it had been used and what we specifically used it for. So now we can talk about the benefits of the approach, rather than simply selling the approach itself.

The examples presented here are kept simple to aid clarity, but chunking is also invaluable in getting us to think laterally. Lateral thinking is often taught and used as a way of getting us away from problems and into solutions. To effectively use chunking in this scenario one simply chunks up one or two levels and then chunks down again. As an example suppose you have to take a package to a particular destination and you do not wish to use your car. To identify alternatives, first chunk up, i.e. what is driving your car an example of? One possible chunk up is a mode of transportation. Now chunking down, you can easy identify many different modes of transportation which are on the same logical level as car i.e., Motorbike, train, airplane, walking, etc. And you can select the mode that meets your other needs.

The principle of chunking is widely used in negotiation and mediation to great effect, which is also the objective of many of our change efforts, and so is extremely useful to process and performance related projects.

Additionally in NLP teaching we make use of two models which help with and can facilitate better Chunking. They are the Milton Model – which uses vague or abstract language – to help us in chunking up and the Meta Model – with a number of different language constructs – which help us in obtaining specifics and thus helps in chunking down.

To summarise "Chunking" can be thought of as organizing or breaking down some experience into bigger or smaller pieces. Chunking up involves moving to a larger, more abstract level of information. Chunking down involves moving to a more specific and concrete level of information. Chunking laterally involves finding other examples at the same level of information. It can be used to reach agreement, obtain additional and accurate detail, to move people from one plane of thinking to another and many other useful ways. I consider it as an important skill in effective process analysis, design, improvement and change.

N.B. "Effective use of Chunking" is one of the many tools and techniques taught in Mark McGregor's 5 Day "NLP for Change Professionals" and 2 Day "The Process of Change" courses, for more information on these please email Mark directly

The Process of Change

With the phenomenal pressure on organizations to make changes and fast, it is inevitable that processes are increasingly seen as a key to success. If you like me spend time talking with people about how they will go about understanding and improving processes, then you will know that pretty quickly the discussion turns to methods and tools. We soon find ourselves discussing the relative merits of BPM vs. Lean Sigma vs. Six Sigma, of EFQM* vs. AQPC*, of which modelling tool to use or which BPMS* vendor talk with.

Very soon people are talking about how they are going to analyze processes and problems and how they are going to improve or automate them. Keep talking and listening and eventually two things will come up. Firstly, there will be a discussion around how the method or technique needs to be applied without the associated training, "because we don't have the budget for training" and "we know how to do it but people are simply not buying into the change". Of course other issues such as communication and lack of management support are also factors, but in some ways these factors also relate to the issue of change.

I have found it fascinating over the years just how few people or organizations have in place or have even studied the "Process of Change." If change is so important to us and is such an ongoing thing, then why does every organization not have a well documented and well exercised process for change? Why do people not understand that effective change begins no t by analyzing the problem, but instead by elaborating the opportunity or eventual goals/aims? Perhaps it is something to do with the lack of breadth of our studies, or perhaps it is because the people we rely on to do the work are analysts and so naturally they are good at analyzing problems.

This reminds me a little of the ongoing debate between those with a background and training in psychotherapy and those who believe in NLP. There are many in the psychotherapy field that have no time for and are dismissive of NLP, they believe in their own approaches which in some cases can take years to produce results in their patients, they diligently work away analyzing their patients problems and slowly trying to chip away at the causes. They suggest that it is crazy to think that people with only a few weeks of training can produce life saving changes in people with only one or two sessions. They suggest that it makes no sense how people can help others without having to know all about the background and circumstances that bring them to where they are today. Yet all over the world there are people who have had their lives changed for the better in a matter of hours, who did find that good practitioners have taken them to where they want to go in one or two hours, after they had spent years in therapy. There are always new ways of doing things, the old is not bad, just old, new does not have to be good, just new. The art is to blend what works from the old with what works from the new and that delivers the best results in the shortest practical time (with the least possible pain)

Within the IT and Process space I am often amazed at just how narrowly people study, we might learn everything about our chosen method and spend a fortune on our chosen tool, but we seem to only pay lip service to other bodies of knowledge. Areas such as creativity, innovation, communication and facilitation are not learned or taught as an everyday part of Business, Systems, or Process Analysis, or when they are it is only to a small degree. I wonder just how many analysts have read Daniel Pink's "A whole New Mind" or Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" and then combined that reading with things like Robert Cialdini's "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" and Marcus Buckingham's "First Break all the Rules" – these are just examples of reading that cause as to have a wider perspective, there are many others and types to choose from.

Personally, I have been fascinated at look at process improvement through the eyes of Psychology & Neuro Linguistic Programming, through the eyes of nature & energy healing, in addition to the more traditional approaches. My reasons and guiding principles have been simple; in the words of Einstein ""We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." So we need to look wider than the traditional ways of doing process analysis and design and of J. Krishnamurti "If all problems are problems of the mind, then surely all solutions are solutions of the mind, in which case if we spent as much time focusing on solutions as we do on discussing problems, we would find that solutions would come with equal measure." So how can we help people focus more on thinking about solutions and new ways of doing things as opposed to simply analyzing where they are now.

Over the past 20 years I have read studied and practiced many aspects of NLP*, I have also been fortunate to learn from many great teachers, but I have also been able to study the subject directly from one of its creators, Dr Richard Bandler. In NLP training we are taught an extensive range of tools and techniques that can help people make changes in their life, overcome fears and phobias, break down emotional barriers and to create the life of their dreams. What tends not to be taught explicitly though is the process of change, it is implicit in the training, but few people seem to notice it. A part of the original thinking in NLP was that if we could find a way to codify how great people achieved the results they did, then we could find ways of learning those patterns and teaching them to others. It was with this in mind that I took the opportunity, two years ago, to discuss with Richard the process of change and to ask him to validate my process for change. What follows is the discussion we had.

"Richard, we have learned many new skills and we have had plenty of opportunity to practice those skills. You have taught us how to make changes, many of which we have seen can be quite profound, yet I am not sure that people really understand what the process of change is, I mean how to consistently apply the learning and techniques such that good results can be obtained across a wide range of issues." To which Richard, as you would expect replied, "An interesting statement, do you have a question?" "Yes" I said, "May I repeat to you what I understand that process to be and have you comment on it?" "Sure" he said "Fire away."

"Firstly, you seem to focus on discovering what it is that somebody wants, have them describe their compelling vision of the future or positive view on why their life will be better. Then you have them go into detail on this in such a way as to have them really associate with it. During this you listen very carefully for clues and challenge them so as to ensure that they really do want to make changes and test for the level of seriousness. Once you are satisfied you appear to move on to the next step. This is when you start to analyze, to ask questions of them to understand more about what might be stopping them achieving the results they desire. Also, to think about which of the tools, techniques or patterns might be the most appropriate to achieve the results they are looking for. Once you are happy that you understand what they want and how you might help them you design an approach to achieve the desired result. Before actually performing any change work, you then check in with them to validate that they are totally happy to make the changes and will be comfortable with the results, only when you are sure that you have total agreement do you move on. If you don't have full agreement, you appear to go back to the first step and once again try to rediscover, analyze and design before one again trying to validate. Now, with their full agreement you undertake the change work, you implement the changes with them and lead them to the point where they are learning new habits, behaviors and changes for themselves, you are providing them with new choices and helping them get a different perspective on things. Once they have come to their own realization, or had their own 'aha' moment, you help them to integrate those learning's. Help them generalize the learning out into other areas of their life, areas where they believe that the new choices will serve them better. Having integrated the change, you provide them with techniques to ensure that they can hold on to the gains they have made to control the changes and themselves. Finally, you have them look at other areas of their life where the new perspective can serve them better, to have them generalize and improve those things that will serve them more usefully in the future."

"Yup!" said Richard "That seems to sum up what we actually do to make effective changes"

So, if this appears to be the process by which one of the most successful change agents of our time uses, and the one on which most other successful personal change personalities have based their own work and businesses, then why is it that we seem to try and avoid using the same process in business? The process of change is universal and the above can easily be adapted to business and process problems. The longer we try to avoid such a process then surely the longer we are going to take to successfully embed a culture of change within our organizations.

Now the question is, where will you look to enhance your understanding of the process of change? How can taking a different perspective enable you to be even more effective than you are now?

If you would like to read and learn more about NLP from the creator, then Richard has released two excellent books this year "Get the Life You Want: The Secrets to Quick and Lasting Life Change with Neuro-Linguistic Programming" and "Richard Bandler's Guide to Trance-formation: How to Harness the Power of Hypnosis to Ignite Effortless and Lasting Change", both of which I would highly recommend.

 

* Abbreviations used

EFQM (European Framework for Quality Management)

AQPC (American Quality & Productivity Center)

BPMS (business Process Management System)

NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming)

 

 

FREE Mapping & Modelling Survey Report Now Available

At last, after weeks of poring over the details and reading the responses, the report is now available. The report gathers together the thoughts and responses from over 500 people around the globe, making it probably the most comprehensive report on the subject to date. In addition to the collation of the survey response I have also included commentary on a number of the topics raised by the survey.

The report at 48 pages provides a detailed analysis of what tools people are using, which methods they are using and what features they rate or use in their tools. Some of the results may surprise you, they certainly surprised me!

Process mapping and modelling is a key skill for successful BPM or SOA projects, yet it is still one of the least understood and least valued disciplines. Given the long history this might be surprising, but it also seems that at least some of the indifference may be down to the number of methods in use and the large number of people who do non-technology process improvement and for whom many of the tools are just too complicated and too expensive.

One of the early readers of the report Dave Curry, Director of Process at Vertex says "The report provides an excellent analysis of survey results relative to the use of process modelling tools. The comparison of perceptions by end users, consultants, and vendors along with the commentary analyzing the results provides the added value." While Jerome Pearce, Executive Director Process Mapping Pty Ltd added "This is fascinating. I don't think I have seen the results of a survey that interested me quite as much."

It was certainly fun to contrast the views of end users with those of vendors and consultants and I am very grateful to all those who shared their thoughts and opinions so freely.

You can access your own personal copy of the report from http://www.markmcgregor.com/report.htm

Effectual vs. Efficient

This particular blog article has been running around in my head for some weeks now. But having listened to Barack Obama's speech to congress this week and come across an article by the BBC business editor, Robert Peston. I decided that I could delay no longer. Originally I was planning to write about effectiveness vs. Efficiency, but as you will read even those terms did not get across the key difference.

Some of the very positive feedback I received in the Cost vs. Waste article started to make me worry. The reason for the worry was that people were very positive about chasing out waste and the benefits that will bring to them. Many of them even relating to the damage caused by previous cost cutting campaigns. People were still looking to use it as a technique to increase efficiency.

So why would people doing great work in chasing out efficiency worry me? It worries me because I see people around the globe using efficiency to try and rescue/recover/grow their organizations. The danger being that we are using the same mindset that created the problem to solve it. Something which Einstein warned us against with his quote ""We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

So, as with other articles in the series let's start by taking a look at some dictionary definitions. As we can see at first glance the differential between the terms efficiency and effectiveness is not as clear cut as in other areas we have considered.

ef·fi·cien·cy

a) the quality or degree of being efficient

b) efficient operation

c) effective operation as measured by a comparison of production with cost (as in energy, time, and money)

d) the ratio of the useful energy delivered by a dynamic system to the energy supplied to it

ef·fec·tive

a) producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect <an effective policy>

b) impressive , striking

c) ready for service or action <effective manpower>

d) actual <the need to increase effective demand for goods>

e) being in effect : operative <the tax becomes effective next year>

Again I am using the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as the reference point. Further reading of the definition of "effective" produces, to my mind at least, the bigger clues to the differential. From the reading of the synonyms we can see that while efficient is all about "avoiding" (loss, waste, energy, money etc.) something we need to do. Effectual is about actually "accomplishing" desired results.

synonyms effective ,effectual, efficient mean producing or capable of producing a result.

1. effective stresses the actual production of or the power to produce an effect <an effective rebuttal>.
   
2. effectual suggests the accomplishment of a desired result especially as viewed after the fact <the measures to stop the pilfering proved effectual>.
   
3. efficient suggests an acting or a potential for action or use in such a way as to avoid loss or waste of energy in effecting, producing, or functioning <an efficient small car>.
   

Now, do we need to be efficient, well of course we do! But, what if we are efficient without being effective? One of my favored examples here is the auto industry. Whether we consider the ailing US firms or the almost totally non-extant UK firm is of no consequence. In both cases in response to pressure from Asian car companies the US/UK manufacturers seemed to chase two things in particular. Quality, they woke up to the fact that they needed to drastically improve their quality and efficiency, they tried (and are still trying) to become more efficient, producing their cars at lower costs. They have all to a greater or lesser degree made some major strides in both of these areas.

However, notwithstanding the current financial crisis, as Barack Obama says, they have still not made the changes they need to in order to give themselves a real shot at long term survival. To my mind unlike their Asian counterparts they were too focused on efficiency and not enough on being effectual. If we look at the world market for auto's over the past 10-15 years we see that it is Japanese companies who have consistently delivered the products that customers wanted, not merely trying to find innovative ways of getting customers to buy what the manufacturers wanted to make!

Another way of looking at the difference between the two is that efficiency tends to be an inside out perspective - what can we do to be more efficient (improve OUR processes, cut OUR costs, remove waste from OUR system). On the other hand effectual is an outside in perspective - it does not matter what we want to do, what does the customer want from us and how can we deliver it to them to the quality they seek at a price they are willing to pay (causes to only do the steps we need to and therefore eliminates unnecessary work and doing things that customers won't pay for.

Anyone who has spent time on process analysis will have countless stories to tell of how when they looked at a process from the outside in the waste became obvious. Going further when the process is looked at properly from end to end the amount of "craziness" that exists in organizations is sad.

Truly successful organizations in every sector have proven that understanding what the customer wants and will pay for is critical. To operate processes that deliver to these criteria makes sense. To then identify ways of ensuring that the required activities are executed efficiently is obvious. It is these things when taken together that means we are and can be effective and makes our processes effectual. To do anything less is to waste time, money and other resources and to risk the entire health of the enterprise.

By way of an example of how "efficiency" by itself can be misleading, consider the following quote:

"RBS was a slightly odd organization in those days. In many ways, it appeared remarkably successful. Having acquired NatWest and expanded massively in the US, it was one of the world's biggest and most profitable banks. But it was always rather secretive and surprisingly defensive: I'm struggling to remember a single on-the-record interview given by Goodwin to a broadcaster or newspaper. It was more inward looking than most huge international companies, and was very prickly about even mild criticism. That said, many in the City, and many journalists,
admired the bank for its efficiency and Goodwin for his "Fred-the-shred" moniker - his reputation as perhaps the most fearsome and effective cost-cutter in UK corporate life. So it's striking that the new chief executive, Stephen Hester, has identified some £1.5bn to £2bn of cost savings at the bank, which are apparently above and beyond what has already been disclosed. And Hester will announce as much this Thursday"

Robert Peston, BBC Business Editor in Feb 2009

Here Peston is talking about a company that was seen as successful as measured by its industry peers and its apparent efficiency. The key points being that it was defensive, unwilling to accept criticism and inwardly focused. How many organizations can we think of that these terms could apply to?

Had they been more focused on being "effectual" I suggest that they would have been better able to find the learning from criticism, would have been more open about their failures and would have been thinking about their business from the outside in. Now, given the problems in the whole financial sector, it would be naive to suggest that these things alone would have prevented failure, but, I strongly believe that they would have a) made even more profit on the good days b) reduced some of the bad lending c) won even more customers as a result of being easy to do business with and d) had a more understanding ear from governments, shareholders and customers when things went wrong.

As a footnote to the story it is also interesting to note that even one of the most apparently efficient organizations in their industry can mysteriously find such amazing amounts of additional savings when push comes to shove.

I suggest the questions we need to pose of our organizations, as well as each of us as individuals is

1. Are we willing to take and learn from criticism? - If not what can we change now so we can

2. What is it that customers really need? - What do we need to do to ensure that we only conduct operations that do just that.

3. How can we be more open - With our customers, staff and other stakeholders.

If we start to approach business in this way then we will start to be more effectual, it will also cause us to change the way we think about business and avoid the perils as suggested by Einstein above.

On the flip side if we don't then we will I am certain enter a death spiral of "Legislation which will increase business costs. Increased business costs will cause price increases. Increased prices will mean losing customers. Losing customers will result in decreased profits. Decreasing profits will reduce investment. Reduced investment will stifle innovation. Lack of innovation will cause stagnation - all of which will cause governments to think passing legislation!" - Hardly what we could call evolution or progress methinks Charles Darwin would be turning in his grave!

Finally as a reminder to those who are looking at saving struggling businesses by removing waste (cost if they prefer), it is probably already too late. Companies like GE, Toyota, South West etc. never stop removing waste and they know that the time to really keep your foot on the gas is while business is booming and you still have the resources you need to restructure and make changes. Sure these companies will struggle too, but I would bet on them coming out stronger in the upturn. Of course in the process community this is not news, in fact it is history repeating itself. The same could be said for many of those who came late or not at all to the Business Process Reengineering (BPR) party in the early 90's.

Mapping vs. Modelling

If we think about maps the most familiar to us is the road map. Then we can have many maps together and create a road atlas. These are great for allowing us to see where we are and where we might want to go. We could even use our maps to trace a route in order to plan a journey. However, if there had been a new road built or an old one dug up, we would at best waste time and at worst be unable to complete our journey. Our maps or atlases are static representations of the world and once drawn they are difficult to edit and change, especially if a change on one page or map has an impact on another. So in process terms if we are simply drawing pictures on a page then the chances are we are creating maps and most maps are just that – pictures. Visio and PowerPoint being the two most common mapping tools used today.

Something else that we should bear in mind about maps is that we can have many different types. We would not want to use a road atlas to go walking in the hills, or detailed ordnance survey map for driving. We know instinctively that each form of a map has a specific purpose. Maps are also only representations of the world as perceived by the creator of a map, think for a moment about how maps themselves have evolved over the years. You would not want to use a map from even 10 years ago to navigate around the world today.

If having created a map you wish to undertake any kind of analysis, be it impact, time, what-if, resource or any other kind then maps will not be suitable, in order to do this you will need a model. In today's world the best example of rich models which we use can be thought of as GPS Navigation systems. With these devices we can asses multiple route options based on a whole host of criteria. Compared to our road atlas the maps in these devices are seamless. It takes much longer to build a model than a map, as for each shape on the chart one will be required to input additional data about such things as resources, cycle times, wait times, costs etc. The richer the "definition" contained in the chart, then the then the richer the analysis that can be performed. In part this is why modelling tools are perceived as being harder to use, they are designed to provide a richer analysis experience and to allow the use of the computer to do some of the comparisons and calculations for you. Maps can only really be compared with other maps by using the human eye and a whole host of other spreadsheets and calculators. Even then such analysis is not especially efficient.

Whether to use a map or a model depends on your purpose, it may be that using a simple map as a first stage in knowing what the process is and how to simplify it is a good step. Indeed this is the approach taught in my classes and seminars, as first step tremendous waste opportunities can be discovered.

However, if you want to do more detailed analysis you will need to take the simplified map and enter it into a modelling tool for that to happen. It is also better in the long term to store maps in a modelling tool as it makes it significantly more practical to maintain both the map and the interdependencies. Many suggest that the effort to build models is not justified; perhaps what they are really saying is that they cannot be bothered to undertake proper analysis? Or maybe they do not care about calculating timing or cost information – this would be surprising today.

Certainly for those who wish to undertake any kind of automation the models will need to be built. The cost of implementing a badly designed process or procedure is just too expensive. There is also an assumption here that your business contains more than one process and that understanding the interdependencies would add value and enable better business decisions.

In summary, use a map to understand or define a process or problem, then use the map to look at waste reduction or other quick hit opportunities. Then when you have eliminated wasted activities, rules, moments of truth etc. then you would be better to capture the resultant map in a model, adding details as required.

Focus on Removing Waste not Cost

This is a repost of an article I did last year, it is being reposted a) because it is highly topical right now and b) because some nice person hacked it on the blog!

====

So at last, governments around the world have woken up to what businesses have known for a long time—we are in a downturn, which seems set to turn into a recession. So with everyone scurrying around looking for ways to minimize the effects and hoping that it won't turn out to be as bad as that of the late 80's / early 90's, what can we do to help?

Well, it is pretty certain that many organizations will look to Business Process Management (BPM) as a way of reducing costs and trying to manage their way out of the situation, and for some this may well be the correct approach. The challenge will be how well they manage the use of BPM; will they go with a sledgehammer to crack a nut, or will they look at the wider possibilities and allow themselves to position for success.

It will be fascinating to see whether we go for the history repeating approach or learn the lessons from the past. Those with long memories will remember that Business Process Reengineering (BPR) was seen as a way and used as a tool to help businesses out of the earlier recession, then as business picked up people said that BPR did not work and was too blue sky. The lesson, of course, is that everyone was focused on removing cost as opposed to removing waste; it is the removal of waste that will serve us when the upturn in the market starts.

Pretty well for the last 15 years or so we have seen steady growth in the economy overall and revenues and profits have grown with it, primarily as a function of scale and market sector growth, especially in newer sectors. Inevitably this means that businesses have not needed to be as efficient as they might otherwise be. Of course many would argue that they have been on top of efficiency or that they have always managed costs—well, I am sorry but this has not been my experience.

Now though, there is a need to chase efficiency and, whilst true to form, many will simply ask their purchasing people to squeeze their suppliers. I contend that this is a lazy approach and is management acting without managing. Simply taking costs out of a business across the board has never been seen as a successful long term survival strategy in the past and there is no reason to believe it will be the right strategy for the future.

Instead, managers should focus on getting a better handle on their cross functional or business processes and allowing their own staff to identify waste or non-value adding activities that can and should be eliminated. By removing waste as opposed to cost will mean that the company is not being damaged in any way and will, in fact, be in a better position to serve its customers in the market upturn. Some smart organizations may well realize that if they do this well, they may actually be able to go to their clients and offer cost reductions without being asked, thus forging stronger relationships and, potentially, even increasing the share of their customers business that they get. Now, wouldn't that be neat; remove waste, leading to lower costs which leads to higher revenues, seems like a win-win to me.

To benefit from waste or non-value add removal it is a simple matter of process analysis and redesign. I say a simple matter, because it does not require teams of analysts to be set running around taking months to report back before coming up with a redesign that is based purely on reduction or deduction. Instead it requires a few good coaches or facilitators to help people identify what they are doing now and get them thinking inductively about how they can make improvements. The caveat, as ever, is that managers need to focus on empowering and leading rather than controlling and managing.

The outputs from such exercises can literally save some companies millions for only a few days efforts. They also serve to provide IT people with a much better brief on what might be expected from, or required of, some kind of process automation. This in turn means cheaper system implementation costs, lower resistance to change and greater value from the IT part of the project.

Now, if we move forward and deliver on this vision people are certain to look make this time and say that BPM helped them deal with the issues and was indeed practical and results focused. In summary, we learned from the lessons of the past, focused on waste and helped to ensure the survivability of our organizations and ultimately our jobs!

Procedure vs. Process

In the course of undertaking the Mapping and Modelling survey a number of interesting areas of "uncertainty" or "confusion" became apparent. So I thought that maybe I would try and address one of them; the thorny issue of the difference between process and procedure. The issue has been hotly debated for many years, but to my mind became red hot at two points in time.

The first time was when the ISO9000:2000 standard for quality was published. This saw a shift away from companies simply documenting and following procedures, to needing to document and show plans for continually improving their processes. With apologies to those companies who did undertake the work required to make such changes, most in my experience simply undertook a global search and replace exercise and replaced the word procedure with the word process. Simply replacing one word with another, to my mind at least, meant confusing themselves, their staff and the rest of us in one fell stroke.

The second time was with the emergence of Business Process Management (BPM) Systems. The people in the software industry who told us that BPR was dead and that brown paper and post it notes would not cut it. The people who told us we needed to draw our models in tools so that we could push buttons to generate software applications. For many of these people process was a nasty thing with a lack of rigor. So they used and continue to use the word process, when actually what they are drawing or requiring are procedures. At risk of over generalizing, while business people can talk about process, IT people have to bring it to procedure. The reason being that if you want to execute something programmatically then you have to have it precisely defined, e.g. converted into a procedure. So perhaps BPMS should really stand for Business Procedure Management Systems. Indeed, my old friend John Pyke has frequently reminded people that for the most part BPMS still the same old work-flow systems that were created in the 80's dressed up as something different (we know that there are now some exceptions, but still the language is confusing)

In order to explain more fully my perspective I would first like to take a look at some dictionary definitions of the two words, they are defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as follows:

Process

(1) progress , advance

(2) something going on : proceeding

(3) a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result

(4) a continuing natural or biological activity or function

(5) a series of actions or operations conducing to an end ; especially : a continuous operation or treatment especially in manufacture

Procedure

(1) a particular way of accomplishing something or of acting

(2) a series of steps followed in a regular definite order <legal procedure> <a surgical procedure>

(3) a set of instructions for a computer that has a name by which it can be called into action

(4) a traditional or established way of doing things

As can be seen from these definitions they are clearly not the same thing. Process may be seen to refer to a series of actions, but it does not place a particular order on those actions. Procedure on the other hand is very much focused on steps, order and instruction. When we take these two definitions we can see that while a process may contain order, it does not require order to be a process. If we take away the order from procedure then we don't have a procedure, but we may still have a process.

Personally I quite like the idea that Process is very much talking about "What we do" as opposed to Procedure talking about "How we do it" - There are those who suggest that the what and how are actually synonyms, but in researching this article using sites like synonym.com and others I did not come up with any suggestion to support that suggestion.

So perhaps it is time to look at some examples of how the two may coexist but talk about different things. The first example I use is that of "Paying Phone Bill" (a process), you could list the actions you might need including the following;. Decide where to pay from, decide payment method, decide payment date - but these actions could be undertaken in any order as long as all were complete before you decided that the process was complete. Alternatively if we had our "Paying Phone Bill" (a procedure) we would have to take the following actions in order; log on to internet bank, select account to pay from, select payee, enter amount to transfer and then complete the transaction. These last tasks have to be undertaken in a specific order, either because a system dictates it or because to do it another way makes no sense. But we can certainly seeing in this case the process can be seen as a higher level of abstraction. We may even have two procedures "Paying Fixed Line" and "Paying Mobile Phone"

The second is another similar example, but this time illustrating it in a non-technical way. The example might be that of "Arranging a Party". Our process might include; Make a guest list, send out invites, Arrange for catering, Arrange for music, Wait for guests to arrive. Here we can see we need to send the invites after we have a guest list and that it is a good idea to have sent the invites and arranged food and entertainment before the guests arrive :-) but does it matter whether the invites are done before the catering, of the music before the invites? Not really, but our process still has all the actions (abbreviated here). So let's consider our procedure, or indeed just one of the procedures that might apply to this process, in this case the "Send Out Invites" here we find the following steps; Buy invitations, Write the invitations, Put it in an envelope, Address the envelope and then Post the envelope . With the exception of stuffing and addressing the envelope that could be switched, everything else has to have that definite order if we are to be successful.

My final example is a much larger one, but is real and taken from a well known manufacturer of sealable plastic containers - a world brand - the story was told to me many years ago, so it may not still be exactly true today, but, I hope you will agree that it illustrates quite well the distinction between the two. The company in the story is known throughout the world for its sealable plastic containers and it is Tupperware. Wherever you go in the world most of the products they make are available to you. Yet as you might imagine depending on your country the demand for a particular type of container will very immensely. However in order to maintain quality and their enviable reputation they always want to make sure that the same "Process" is used across the world for making their products. Now in Holland where demand is high for a container, this means ensuring that the right molding tool is loaded into a machine, that the machine is correctly fed the right type and quantity of plastic and obviously a hundred other things so as to enable a production run to take place. In order to do this they have a "Procedure" for carrying this out. Now switch to somewhere like a small country in South America, where the requirement is for only a handful of the same product and the "Procedure" does not work. Here they have person who will collect the mould from the store (not a machine mould but a hand mould), they mix the plastic to the right recipe and then fills the moulds by hand. Thus he executes the same Process but with a different Procedure. It may even be that within these two extremes the company may have many other "Procedures". The Procedures contain the tasks or work instructions with the order and detail as to how to perform them. The Process though is at a much higher level of granularity and is focused on the inputs, the outputs and any quality or control measures that are applicable. So as we have seen the same process can and should be undertaken differently according to the requirements.

To conclude, I still very much believe that we need to be more careful how we use the two terms. There are certainly benefits in reviewing and updating procedures to ensure that they constantly reflect how the work is actually taking place in an organization. But in documenting and improving procedures we are certainly not going to drive out the big wins that people are looking for from Business process Management. Conversely, by understanding and improving processes better we can ensure that our processes are lean and effective, thus delivering on the business benefits.

From a systems perspective, I suggest as ever, that we should first examine the process, drive out waste and improve effectiveness. Having done this we can examine the activities left in the process, document the procedures and then consider whether and how to automate them. At risk of touching a another thorny issue (BPMN) then this idea to me sits well, after all a procedure contains nothing more than a set of tasks and in the order and detail to carry them out, the very same thing that appears to be supported by the BPMN symbol set and notation.

Getting More From The Same

Last month I was invited to join a panel of speakers at the launch of a new report into productivity. The report by the Management Consultants Association and sponsored by Trinity Horne, makes very interesting reading. One of the facts that I found quite amazing was that only around 30% of organizations expected to increase productivity by 30% or more over the next 3 years, this seems a very small percentage in my opinion, especially when one asks the same question of others in different markets.

I am sure that it will be of no surprise to those of us who promote BPM as a management philosophy to find that 40% of respondents suggest a failure to engage and motivate employees as the main reason for a lack of productivity improvements. While another 20% are apparently satisfied with their current levels of productivity, I wonder whether given the current climate those companies still feel the same. Of course the rest of is I am sure would love to know who they are in order to go compete in that space.

Trinity Horne are a specialist consulting firm headquartered in Ireland with offices in the UK and India, they have a pretty innovative approach to helping firms improve the productivity of the staff and management. CEO Brendan Cahill working with a leading Business School has created a unique productivity index that compares the relative performance of leading organizations' around the globe.

You can get a copy of the report "Getting More From The Same" from the following link.

http://www.trinityhorne.com/press/Productivity%20Improvement%20Report.pdf

New Mapping & Modeling Tool Survey

What is really happening out there in the Business Process Mapping and Modelling market, are people actually buying and using tools? Are they using specialist tools or just the modeling front ends that come as part of their BPMS suite? Is the modeling market saturated with free tools? These are just some of the questions that I get asked as I travel around the world.

It is now quite a few years since a really comprehensive study of the mapping and modeling tool market has been undertaken. So I thought that as the year drew to a close it would be nice to do one. The aim of the survey is to look at what tools people are actually using and find out how they are being used. For me it will be fascinating to see how people differentiate BPM from BPMS or whether people actually understand the difference between mapping and modeling (initial indications suggest there is still much confusion around this) Hopefully this will help us all to get a picture of real world utilization, rather than just the usual marketing story. It will also be interesting to see how the real world usage compares to the Analysts perspectives of which tools are being used most widely. I would ask that as many people as possible take the time to complete the survey and indeed pass the link on to others. You can access the survey via the following link:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=5zzVg5I4HCC8bU7v4COqsw_3d_3d

Already the survey has been taken by a few hundred people and the data is making fascinating reading.

By way of a thank you/incentive then there are prizes on offer for those who complete the survey. There are two first prizes of an in-house 4 Day BPM Certification course (all expenses to be met by the client and a maximum of 15 delegates will be accommodated) and 10 runners up will receive a copy of "Thrive – How to Succeed in the Age of The Customer." In addition all those who participate will be entitled to a free copy of the report once it is complete.

Prize winners will be notified by the 10^th January 2009 and the report will be published by the end of January 2009.

In order to qualify for entry into the prize draw all questions will need to be answered properly.

Conferences Galore!

The conference circuit seems to be even busier this autumn than those that have gone before. With the major Gartner BPM event having taken place in the USA in September and events by IRM and Management Events in the UK. Personally I only attended the Project, Program and Process Challenge event in London in September (www.projchallenge.com) it was truly amazing to see the level of interest in process at this event, which I suggest may actually be the largest such event that takes place in the UK. Free to attend it has been consistently drawing in around 1,000 plus people per event (the event runs twice a year – spring in Birmingham and autumn in London). This year the process program, a series of free sessions delivered over two days drew in some pretty large audiences, the organizers tell me that there was an average of 60 plus attendees per session across the nine presentations given in the zone, providing great exposure for the speakers and vendors who were present.

This autumn's event saw an even greater emphasis on the people side of change and the soft issues surrounding process success, which as regular readers will know is music to my ears. So if you are looking at a great way to keep current and at the same time meet with a wide range of exhibitors then I strongly urge you to give the show a look. With no cost, other than your time and a speaker line up every bit as good as many of the paid conferences you can't help but win.

As I prepare to head out to Vienna next week for the 4^th Annual BPM in Telecoms event (http://www.jacobfleming.com/conferences/telecom/4th-annual-quality-and-bpm-in-telecom), I have to share with you that it was great to attend their earlier conference on HR this month. With so many of the issues of BPM success being centered around People and Communications, it was great to have had the opportunity to directly work with and communicate with one of the key groups in any real change management initiative. I just hope that in my interactions I helped them understand a little more of the key roles we need them to play in helping us transform our businesses using BPM.

Process Management in The Boardroom

The success of CEOs like Sam Walton (WalMart), Fred West (federal Express), Herb Kelleher (Southwest Airlines) and Jack Welch (GE) has been pretty amazing. They have delivered some outstanding results for their shareholders. Unlike many CEOs they have delivered this through customer understanding rather than pure financial and risk- based management approaches. The result is not only that costs are kept under control for enhanced productivity, but also that sales revenues have grown impressively above the norm.

In the current climate there is much focus on Process of Business Process and the how and why it is needed in order to improve and transform business. For the most part, however, the responsibility for doing the work and delivering the results has been delegated down the organization, or in some cases outsourced altogether.

There is no doubt that a well-managed process- centric company is more agile, more able to keep costs under control and to better understand the value of any investment it might make. But are such companies in a better position to deliver real growth? My contention is that, in the final analysis, revenue growth will deliver the ultimate long-term returns that investors seek, while also providing the security of employment that employees want. To merely utilize Business Process Management (BPM) in any form purely as a strategy for cost or risk reduction is to squander the real competitive advantages that it can bring.

It is also pertinent to ask at this stage if boards of directors really believe that, when outsourcing under the label BPO (Business Process Outsourcing), they are really outsourcing processes? A quick scan through the financial and business press will reveal many deals, but in reality these firms are just outsourcing departments or functions based on the traditional structure. Indeed, for many organizations outsourcing processes is probably impossible. Why? Because few organizations have actually mapped their business processes – and, if they don't know what or where the processes are in the organization, then how can they be outsourced?

On the other hand, if process-centric management enables greater agility and better financial control, then you can see the value in making use of techniques in this area. Presumably all can agree that revenue growth is key to long-term financial success. That is the truth emphasized by the customer-centricity of the CEOs mentioned above; each attributes much of his success to an intimate relationship with and understanding of customer needs.

Perhaps it seems that the combination of customers and process equates with increased revenue. Certainly these two factors have a major bearing, but studying successful organizations brings out another two factors as well - those of culture and organization itself. It appears that the equation for long-term success looks more like:

Customer Knowledge + Customer-Centric Processes + Culture of Service + Customer-Oriented Organization = Superior Profitable Revenue Growth

The business model looked at in this way shows that it is not a responsibility to be delegated or outsourced. This equation should be managed from and by the CEO and the board of directors.

Outsourcing of non-care activity has a valuable part to play in serving customers and investors efficiently; all customers want to know that they are getting products and services at the best possible price. But customers do not expect the responsibility for serving them to be outsourced.

Process Management can, of course, be delegated within an organization. Indeed, in some ways this leads to far better execution; the further down the organization you go the better people are able to address any inefficiency. But again customers expect management to take the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all parts of the organization operate as single coordinated units. Process Management that uses the customer as key focus and customer-related metrics as the key measures tends to simplify organizations, leading to lower costs and better service. The customer benefit is clear, meaning that supplier and customer are more likely to continue to do business in the future (and with customers more likely to tell others about the supplier's virtues).

Customer knowledge is not about surveys and second-hand evidence; it is about meeting customers to understand their real problems and needs – and then using this knowledge to develop products and services. It is about creating an intimate relationship in which customers are truly valued.

Directors need to answer a question or two. You may be a top-tier member of numerous frequent flier and hotel guest programmes, but how valued do you really feel? When did you last meet with or talk to the executives of those companies? It is not enough to go spouting words and putting out gold loyalty cards. Customers appreciate suppliers that provide the most important commodity of all - someone's time and a listening ear that responds with action.

The CEOs mentioned at the start are each reported to spend upwards of 30% of their time meeting with and talking to customers. The rest of their customer input comes not from management, but from the front-line staff who deal with customers everyday; these staff are such a valuable source of information, but are usually treated as just some kind of blunt instrument.

A culture of service appears to be sadly lacking in the Western business world these days. There is so much focus on numbers that staff have forgotten how to serve. Yet companies like Tesco and Virgin stand out, not only for their financial success, but also because these results have come about through a deep-rooted culture of serving customers well. This trait is evident in many Asian companies. As a customer, how fast will you choose to move your spend to organizations that do understand service?

The culture of service also touches on the issue of delegation. While you can't delegate the overall responsibility for customers, you can at least empower staff to resolve customer issues at the point of impact, without the need to refer to management. You can ensure that staff work with processes that are designed to enable them to serve customers better. And you can change reward structures so that staff are better rewarded for serving customers than for hitting purely financial targets or other non-customer relevant KPIs (Key Performance Indicators).

A culture of service is also far easier to achieve if you take the time to change your organization chart from a functional hierarchy to one that is organized along process lines. This will enable your teams to support customers better.

The combination of these changes is what enabled those four celebrated CEOs - Sam, Fred, Herb and Jack - to grow more successful organizations than others in the same market. But these Americans are not alone, for as noted Virgin's Richard Branson and Tesco's Terry Leahy share many of these beliefs. The list could also feature leaders like Sergey Brin and Larry Page of Google, Bill Gates of Microsoft, and Andy Grove of Intel – and there are several others. All are examples of what can be achieved if the responsibility for business and process management begins in the boardroom and is married to successful customer outcomes throughout the business.

Product Innovation Alive and Well (and Living in Scotland!)

For many years now I have watched UK Software industry seem to wither away. The software jobs being outsourced around the world or pulled back to "Head Office" locations. There has never been an issue of inventiveness, just one of funding and cost. So it was with great pleasure that last week I had the opportunity to meet with Graham Twaddle and some of his team at Corporate Modelling (www.corporatemodelling.com) in Glasgow.

As I thought about it, it struck me that in some ways perhaps Scotland is more the home of UK software development than "Silicon Valley" in the South of England. In the area of Business Process, we already have CRM/BPM vendor Graham Technology, and in the Simulation space Simul8 (www.simul8) and I am sure many others that I don't know of. To my family north of the border this would of course surprise no-one because of Scotland's long history of invention – Television, Telephone, The Steam Engine, Iron Bridge, The Kelvin Scale of Temperature being among the more significant, while of course Golf may be the most popular!

So to Corporate Modelling, I have to say that while the name was familiar, the company was not. I was put on to them by an old friend at Forrester, who suggested that I should talk to them. The first thing that surprised me was their pedigree. CEO/CTO Graham Twaddle has spent quite a number of years in the Business Process space and is credited as the driving force behind the success of Sherwood Internationals achievements in the process arena, especially within the insurance and finance sectors, he and his team have an amazing amount of experience in this area. In fact many of the people at Corporate Modelling were part of the core team that developed and supported the Amarta and LogicWare systems. Graham also co-authored a book, Business Process Implementation, way back in 1997 with Michael Jackson of Jackson Structured Programming fame.

So it is with a deep understanding on the insurance business and a track record in delivering solutions to that sector, which Corporate Modelling sets out to address the Business and Process needs of an organization. There offerings include a range of products, covering everything from the modeling, through to the implementation and monitoring, not just of business processes, but of rules and all the other associated parts of an organization that are needed to deliver successful monitoring and change programs.

The company, although in relative infancy, is already starting to build quite a reputation for delivering programs and systems that meet the needs of the 21^st century businesses.

Another area of interest for the company is grid computing and they are leading, along with Microsoft, the Financial Services Grid Initiative, which seems to offer some promising solutions to age old problems, you can learn more about this at www.fsgrid.com

With the number of vendors in the BPM space being high and the names fluctuating it would be easy to suggest that there may not be room for another, but given the background and pedigree of the team at Corporate Modelling it would be foolish to ignore them. Their strength comes not just from the technology, but also from their deep understanding of their target audience, not something that can be said of many of the vendors in the space.

Are You Really Doing BPM

In Europe as in the States, the conference market around Business Process Management (BPM) has been buzzing for a while. They can be great places to mix with "real people" and to hear what they are actually doing rather than what we the analysts and commentators suggest they are doing. The contrast between events can be quite startling. While the something like the GBPF event was a full blown conference with a mix of expert input and user case studies, the Gartner events have mainly analysts and, the IQPC Exchange was made up almost entirely user case studies, and focused on the financial sector.

What I found particularly interesting at the latter, was that over 80% of the audience claimed to be doing BPM, while less than 5% saw it as involving the executives. There can be no doubt that with over 20 highly interesting user case studies and presentations being made, serious work is obviously being undertaken. But, in my mind this begs the question "Are they really doing BPM?"

Listening to the presentations, many from some of Europe's leading financial institutions, it very quickly became apparent that companies who focus on Business Process can deliver some quite amazing bottom line business results. At the same time however it also became apparent that many of the projects undertaken were focused mainly on workflow and process automation. I guess in an industry that deals with low margins and high transaction costs that even the smallest saving multiplies the benefits to a point where the apparent savings are huge. But, again the question by simply focusing on the cheaper, faster better school of process are they really doing BPM?

It was the banks from South Africa and India that particularly impressed me. Companies from these Countries talked far more about BPM as an enabler. They saw BPM as a way for them to identity new and different ways of doing business, a way of creating white space between them and their competitors. It was this desire to seek new and innovative ways of doing business that both impressed and scared me. For, if we too cannot rise to that challenge then the chances are that we will increasingly lose market share to these more innovative companies. Of course, they too were also saving money through automation as well it was simply that they did not see it as the end goal.

As an aside I heard a great line from the Director of an Irish Bank "We did not set out to save costs or improve revenue, we set out to improve customer service. But as a result we wound up making far larger savings and drove revenues far higher than we might ever have expected." a great lesson in the value of focusing on the customer.

It is this focus on the customer that perhaps truly differentiates those doing real BPM work from those who are just focused on process mapping, documentation and automation. These are the companies who are really looking at themselves from the outside in and questioning everything they do and asking whether it really makes a difference in the eyes of the customer.

This external focus is one of the key points in BPM, others would include the fact that it is a management discipline and therefore needs to be supported by if not driven by the most senior levels of management within an organization. Additionally, if you are truly doing BPM then you must be looking across functions, not just carrying out incremental process improvements within them. Of course, incremental improvements are not to be belittled or ignored, they play a valuable part in consistent improvement, but neither should they be confused with true BPM.

I should point out that while these comments are aimed quite generally, some of the presenters were from companies who were achieving stunning results and had organized themselves in such a way that they were able to combine all of the various facets of process in such a way as to provide an extremely comprehensive toolkit. Again for example I can recollect a South African Bank who had created a specialist team whose role was to facilitate and mentor process teams, taking with them high level views of the business to put context around any given project. This team is also trained in techniques like Six Sigma and so is able to assist teams in creating measures, whilst also having the ability to encourage creative thinking in order to ensure that all solutions are considered, not just the obvious ones.

In summary, if you are working on process improvement or automation and delivering business benefit you are to be applauded, improvement is never a one shot process. If you are simply automating the existing processes without questioning them, then you may either be carrying unnecessary overhead or missing out on greater opportunities.

If the program you are working on does not create a culture of change within your organization then the chances are that you may find that people quickly slip into old habits and you can't retain the gains you make. People and culture are talked of as a cornerstone in process projects but very often get forgotten. I prefer to think of it as a three legged stool – the legs being made of People, Process and Systems – if only two are present (whichever two) then you don't have anything as it will simply collapse.

Lastly true BPM as we have said requires cross functional thinking and management, if you are not looking across your whole organization through the eyes of the customer, then the chances are that you are not really undertaking BPM. Of course in not doing so you are not alone, as we said at the beginning, the vast majority of projects being undertaken today under the guise of BPM are still nothing more than functionally based process optimization projects, and there lies the challenge – can history really judge whether BPM as a paradigm was successful or not when in reality we simply used the name and carried on doing what we always did?

Note: This article first appeared in June 2004 on Mark McGregor's "Postcard from Europe" Series of articles on BPTrends

BPMN and Executable Businesses: When Will We Learn

A quick look around the blogs and latest articles reveals a lot of discussion (again!) about BPMN and what it is and should be used for. We seem to have endless debates about why and how it is easy for business people vs. why it is not, now we are seeing increasing debate about whether it is the right notation/approach for Business Analysts – I think it is perhaps time for us to remember whose role is what in the organization and what they are supposed to be able to bring to the party, then we can consider what tools, notations etc. might be appropriate.

For the purpose of this post I want to draw the parallel with data modeling, a field that is well established and in which everybody has their part to play. At the lowest level we have our Database Administrator (DBA), they live in the land of "Physical Models" and know that they have to fine tune them, breaking some rules and adding others, so as to ensure that the "Database" performs at its optimal speed. So from a BPMS point of view we can see that there is a definite role for a BPM Administrator, someone who is very familiar with the engine and knows how to find tune the "Execution pr Physical Model" so that the system performs at its peak – For these people BPMN makes sense as a notation as it is very closely tied from the model/code/execute perspective. So I contend that BPMN is the right approach for these people.

Then stepping up a level we have our Data Analyst, these people live in the realm of "Logical Models", they take the inputs from Business and System Analysts and look at the business problems and system requirements from a data perspective and create the logical models from the conceptual models. They know that nobody would expect to implement an efficient database purely from their model and that it requires work and tuning in order to create the optimum physical model from the logical models they create, whether they use Chen, Bachman or UML for notation the Business or Systems Analysts don't really care, for that is the role and domain of the Data Analyst. Could BPMN be used in this area, yes it probably could and we could have BPMS Process Analysts to carry out this role. Again a specialist knowledge is required to ensure that the model is complete and consistent, helped of course by an appropriate modeling tool with model rules being enforced (A point worth noting is that for years many Data Analyst resisted using tools that forced rigor on them, with the result that hundreds and thousands of man hours were wasted building inconsistent models that could not be used to generate good physical models and databases).

Then we come up to our Systems Analysts, whose role was always to look at the business requirements and translate those that required systemizing into specifications that could be implemented, these are the people who also start to take into account hardware platforms, software applications and corporate standards for databases etc. It is their job to help to create and put together the systems that will solve the business problems at hand. As inputs they may well have the "Conceptual Data Model" among other things. But, we know that the conceptual model was just that a collection of "things" that the business saw as relevant data with lines that indicated there was some kind of relationship between them, though not what the relationship was. So we would indeed need a similar role for our BPMS world a BPMS Systems Analyst.

Then we come up to the Business Analyst, whose role is to help the business in identifying and solving business problems which may or may not require systems or systemization. If we really think that we should be turning them into low level implementers then take a look at the IIBA website (www.theiiba.org) and review their Body of Knowledge. I have just finished reviewing the soon to be released version 2.0 and you will see that our Business Analysts has more than enough on their plate already, they have to learn a vast array of skills in order to be effective at what they do, to my mind the last thing they need to be expected to learn is another low level notation, just because some IT people find it too hard to learn the language that the business speaks.

So if we want to have an effective debate about modeling and notations for Business Process I suggest that we talk with true Business Analysts to see what sort of simple "Conceptual" approach makes the most sense for them. Then we can look at what the best way of creating "Logical" models is for our systems analysts and finally we can allow our BPMS Administrators to play till their hearts are content with the BPMN notation that is created and designed for them and for whom it is ideally suited.

Another group of people who I have not yet mentioned are "Architects", a group who are popping up increasingly, either from an Application, Software or Enterprise perspective, but most of whom seem to exist under the wing of the CIO. The business belongs to the business, the Chief Enterprise Architect role is already occupied in business, it is the CEO and contrary to what one senior enterprise architect told me recently – he suggested that I am too old fashioned and that I should just get used to the fact that process would all be automated and businesses would just do without people, that the 21^st century business model was a) Enterprise Architecture b) Business Architecture (using OMG MDA) c) Business Process Models (Using BPMN) and D) Automated Processes; without involving people – an executable business – it is people who will use the systems, it is people who own and run businesses and it is people that systems in the main are supposed to support. So a little more time speaking with people to find out what their problems are will make live a whole lot easier for people to get budget and resource to build and implement systems. If this thinking makes me old fashioned then so be it, but if we truly believe that we are moving to a world of pure system executable businesses without human intervention then it is a sad day for the human race (and one that poses some even more interesting change management issues and barriers)

Of course these are just my opinions and I am sure that there are many who will disagree, but for those that chose to do so, please don't write to me about the origins and purpose of BPMN, I was at the original meeting where the idea was first muted by two people from two vendors in the UK over a beer in London many years ago. I understand exactly why BPMN as originally created – I also accept that it has come a long way since then.

Destination Dubai

Last week saw me attending the IIR BPM conference in Dubai. The event which took place 19th-20th May, was my first opportunity to actual stay in Dubai, usually I am just passing through on my way somewhere else. The agenda seemed impressive and I was very much looking forward to listening to what was happening in the BPM sector in the region, and of course sharing my own observations.

The range of speakers was quite exceptional, as was the number of speakers talking about taking a top down, leadership led approach. If these companies can truly stay the course, then we should be seeing some pretty amazing results over the next few years.

One interesting thing was that many of the speakers came from manufacturing organizations or government agencies, this is in stark contrast to most other conferences I have seen where Banking and Telecoms are the dominate stories, perhaps in an ideal world we could see something that balances and blends the two camps better.

Overview of the Conference Messages

Rather than simply trying to paraphrase all the presentations I thought it might be nice to take pieces from each of them and try stringing them together in such a way as to give those who attended some picks and those who didn't an easy story of what we learned. So I thank all those speakers who either donated "words" or sparked the thoughts for what follows.

Success begins at the top with a promise from the executives "To be the best for the good of tomorrow". Of course all of our tomorrows will be based on the customer and they only exist outside of our organization. Every process and every project we undertake needs to be able to flex and adapt so as to ensure that they are finely tuned to deliver excellence for the customer. By delivering on our promise of excellence to our customers we will find that our costs are kept lower and that are revenues will rise faster.

These things can only be achieved if we are willing and able to continually challenge the current business practices and models and very rules by which we operate, this constant challenging is required if we truly believe that we can and will be world class, not just telling people that we are world class.

These ideals when taken together require us to change our culture, to a culture of change! Although they are driven from the executive suite and reinforced by the actions of business leaders, it is at the management and operational level that we actually need to make the changes that will make the difference. This requires us to provide suitable training and then coach our teams in how they can consistently deliver success. Nobody suggests that the path is easy, it requires persistence and commitment, but building a track record of small quick wins can help us to build credibility. Not all of the benefits we deliver can be seen as hard or concrete benefits, many are of a more softer nature, but even these can and should be quantified as they are very often the most useful ones, especially we are to engineer for constant improvement, and will be in many ways critical to the long term survival of our organizations.

In order to increase our chances of success there are a number of key things that we need to remember. First and foremost it is fundamentally about the customer and becoming even more customer centric, without them we will have no business and it is the delivery of successful customer outcomes that is the ultimate measure of both our corporate and process success.

Skilled Communicators

In addition to the attitude and behavior changes more important might be our skills as and ability to train others as great communicators that will really define how good we can become as organizations.

The great thing about teaching people real communication is that by doing so we are equipping them with skills for the whole of life. Every day in every way we are communicating, we are even communicating when we don't communicate! So the more we understand about what we are doing and saying and how we affect the people around us then the better we will all be.

Something to remember is that one size definitely does not fit all when it comes to communications, food for thought it is frequently stated that only 7% of our message is delivered through the words we use, 38% is delivered according to our tones and tonality and a whopping 55% is delivered through our physiology. So if we are avoiding sitting down with people in either meetings or workshops, then we are giving up on 55% of communication and limiting ourselves to only getting at most 45% of what is possible. Even if these statistics were out, there is still a good chance that words alone word still command only a relatively small percentage. When deciding on the means and manner of communication it is worth remembering that the meaning of communication is the reaction we get.

Putting all this together we realize that it is our ability or inability to communicate that not only decides how successful we will be, but also how successful those around us can be, we could be holding them back instead of helping them forward. These comments on communication serve as a nice reminder that as managers we need to learn to be leaders and to fire up our teams, point them in the right direction and then get out of the way and let them get on with it.

Additional observations

Sometimes we have to remember that Human Interactions is about just that; interactions between human beings!

One amusing comment was over the use of the term BPR, it was suggested that if people kept talking about it then they were still living in the ark, in fact many presenters talked about it, looked pretty human and did not look like they came off an ark, so I decided to have some fun with the "R" in BPR and use the "R" to describe the stages of a BPM process so first we have Realisation – we have a problem, then we have Revelation – analysis reveals the current state and the problems then we have a choice either Redesign or Rengineer the process, before we implement and test the Results to ensure the desired effect then Record and Remind to monitor and constantly improve. The point being it is not about the letters BPR or BPM or BPA or any of them, it is what we mean by it and what we do about it that will dictate our likely success.

BPM Without Technology

To many the idea of Business process Management (BPM) without technology is considered heresy, after all most of the marketing dollars that are spent promoting BPM are spent by the software vendors themselves. It is however something that I believe in passionately, the mantra upon which my work is based is that "People performing processes produce profit" – I am sorry but I do not subscribe to the school of thought that suggests that IT is the business or that IT should be driving the business.

Unlike many who preach or teach in the area of BPM, I have held executive positions in the areas of sales, marketing and product development, as well as sitting in the CEO chair, and I can tell you that in every one of those roles it was people and process that made the difference. Sure, technology was helpful, but it was not the business. In every one of those roles I was interested in how technology could assist people or help with process, but I was never willing to accede the way my business was to run to a computer. Fundamentally I believe that as a business owner it is my business and therefore any technology should be seen as a supporting infrastructure, albeit one that might enable me to do things I had never previously thought possible or that could help me enter new markets and serve new types of customers.

It is worth reminding people that me "BPM is a management philosophy for doing business differently, for producing extraordinary results, through innovation and creativity, aimed at serving the customer better and empowering people – this may then be supported by appropriate technology.". So when I hear people discussing how to use technology to get rid of people, or talking of Human Interaction Management (HIM) when they actually mean Human to Computer System Interaction, it actually makes my blood boil – who are these technologists to tell me how to run my business or to twist every business concept into an IT one?

One only has to look at organizations such as FedEx, SouthWest Airlines, General Electric and Wal-Mart to see that the very essence of their success has come through people and process, sure technology has helped, but it was not the essence. So when considering BPM, why focus on the detail of technology, when instead you can focus on the essence. In doing so you can create increased value for the business, ensure your customers are happier, and that staff morale is boosted – all of which seem, to my mind, to be the things that executives really do care about. Then when these things are taken care of, you can see what technology can do to help support the processes and people and make them even better.

So how to actually realize some of these benefits using BPM without technology. The approach used in my classes makes use of good old fashioned brown paper and post it notes, the approach that is taught is how to run a two or three day workshop where the users of the process map it for themselves and then analyze the process and present the actions they would like to carry out to improve the process. The role of the process or business analyst is merely that of a facilitator. When using these techniques with technology people you can imagine the resistance one gets from them. But for the most part they all list two particular obstacles they find in their daily work a) that they find people resistant to change and b) that people won't do as they are told. Funny that those same people who raise this also agree that they don't like being told what to do and they are resisting the very change we are working with J So the smart ones have an aha moment when they realize that if they don't like it then they can't expect others too.

It is an approach I have been using and teaching for some time now, but it was only last year after conversations with my good friend Dick Hilbert that I came to understand that the approach is very similar to the GE Work-Out approach. Something which Dick tells me is probably responsible for more savings and improvements at GE than any of the other fashion approaches which we all come to talk about when discussing GE, e.g. Six Sigma. Dick suggests that is the simplicity of having people at the sharp end focus on eliminating waste in a process that allows those doing things like Six Sigma to really hold on to the gains.

Indeed from my own perspective I have seen clients saving millions of pounds as a result of running these three day workshops, and they are just so easy to do. The benefits are nicely summed up by perhaps one of the techiest in the world, Bill Gates, when he said "a lousy process will consume 10 times as much work as the work itself." - So why wouldn't one want to make sure that the process was effective and remove waste before one even considers technology? Especially when the process itself leverages one of our key assets, our people.

So back to my original premise, if Business Process management is all about Managing our Business better and if we believe that processes are the key to how we actually do what we do, then technology is not a pre-requisite. It is merely a supporting act. Yes, we can document processes with it, best done after the initial improvement, it is far cheaper to capture what you will be doing than what you were doing. Yes, we can automate the process, but again let's automate the value, not the waste and finally the workshop approach links purpose, strategy, people and processes together to produce a more effective system – as opposed to focusing down at too lower level of detail.

I am certain that if more people approached the problem this way then they would find it much easier to engage with and become the credible partners for change of the business owners themselves.