Using 7Enablers

The 7 enablers are all important. If just one is absent, problems occur:

figure

The journey … maturity:

figure

Rule of Threes – 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years

PO-PI Circles

 

Process Measurement

Enabler 2: Process Measurement

Source: Reimagining Management Series of Papers by Roger Tregear.
Source: Reimagining Management Series of Papers by Roger Tregear.

The 7 Enablers of BPM describe how process-based management reimagines the theory and practice of management. The second of these enablers, process measurement, is discussed in this paper.

A case for systematic measurement of process performance is simply made. It is not possible for any organization to create and deliver value to customers and other external stakeholders except via its cross-functional business processes. This is not just interesting; it is not optional. Products and services are delivered via collaboration across the organization, i.e. by cross-functional business processes. It is, therefore, vitally important that such processes be actively managed and continuously improved.

If processes are to be managed and improved, they must be measured.

Important insights are provided in this paper regarding the development and use of a coherent set of process performance measures. The theoretical requirement is proven, and then the ProMeasure methodology demonstrates practical application along with guidance to avoid common failure modes.

About this Paper

If there is no process performance measurement, there can’t be effective process management—and it will not be possible to know if processes are being improved.

Whether working at the individual process level or across an enterprise, too many BPM initiatives do not deliver on promises made—or, even if the promises are delivered, there is often no solid evidence and, in a skeptical, busy world, the work is dismissed. Staff are asked to be involved in process improvement. They are encouraged to innovate. Six months later, the post-it notes have fallen off the wall and the memories have faded. If strategic, operational and tactical decisions are not being made based on the measured performance of business processes, why would process management and improvement be taken seriously?

It doesn’t have to be like that. The discovery and use of effective process performance measures can be achieved. This paper describes an approach for the consistent definition of the most appropriate measures for the performance of a process and concludes with a discussion of barriers to process performance measurement and related countermeasures.

BPM initiatives that do not incorporate process measurement will fail. Process measurement is not always easy, but it is always possible.
This paper describes the purpose, approach, and use of process measurement in reimagining the management of contemporary organizations.

What you can expect to get from the paper

This paper will provide new insights into the measurement of business process performance and how this is critical to the process-centric view of management. The paper draws on both theoretical concepts, the Leonardo ProMeasure methodology, and practical case studies to illustrate a comprehensive and effective approach to organization performance management. Having considered the content of this paper, the reader will be able to:

  • understand the purpose and use of a process measurement
  • see the relationship between organization and process performance
  • prepare for the challenges of creating a process measurement system
  • improve the management of organizational performance
  • focus on what really matters—the creation, accumulation, and delivery of value to customers and other stakeholders.

Process Measurement

Why Measure?

Why measure process performance? Because, without measurement, all process analysis and management efforts are likely to prove a waste of time; there is no control over the things that really matter, and organizational decision-making can only be suboptimal.

The only reason for doing process analysis, improvement, and management is to improve organization performance in meaningful ways. No organization has a problem called we don’t have enough process models or process measures. Without measurement, it is not possible to know if there is improvement; it is not clear what is meaningful.

Business processes are the way an organization creates, accumulates, and delivers value to its customers and other stakeholders. On that basis alone, the argument for measuring process performance is easily made. Is value being delivered to customers in a way that impresses them and is sustainable for the organization? The plethora of measures about internal achievement – budget tracking, policy compliance, project completion, people management, etc. – often says little, if anything, explicitly about value delivery. Process performance says it all.

Process performance perspectives

Business processes are collections of cross-functional activities describing the actions required to achieve some outcome. Six operational and performance perspectives of a process are shown in Figure 3. These perspectives provide a balanced view of a process, taking into account both the needs of customers and other external stakeholders, and the equally real needs of internal stakeholders. They are defined as follows.

igoeInputs: all that is taken into a process and transformed into outputs.
Outputs: the results of process execution—the value delivered by the process.
Guides: things that guide or constrain the transformation of inputs into outputs.
Enablers: people, technology, and facilities used to transform inputs into outputs.
Flow: detailed activities within the process that develop and deliver the value.
Management: governance of all aspects of the process; oversight of the other five process performance perspectives.

Process performance management

Process performance measures are the ‘vital signs’ of organizational health, providing a current status assessment, giving clues to possible health issues, and showing progress towards recovery.

A government organization implementing a new service did a lot of planning, created a large number of process models, and had many sessions with a wide range of stakeholders. Green lights everywhere, so the service was launched with appropriate ‘ribbon cutting’. Two days later, all were relieved that the launch had gone well; two weeks later, there was a slowly rising murmur of complaint; two months later, service delivery was in virtual gridlock and the murmur was a cacophony. A month after that, it was finally discovered that a key process in the service delivery was often failing, causing significant rework and introducing inordinately long delays. Further analysis found ways to reduce the delays by 95%. After resolving the backlog, normal service delivery resumed. Customer, and staff, memories of the fiasco will, however, never be erased.

It didn’t need to be like that. Careful analysis of process performance expectations before launch, and appropriate measurement of process performance from launch, would have either avoided the problem completely, or detected it early and allowed resolution before it became a major issue.

A great deal can be gained from effective process-based management, but every organization has the right, indeed the obligation, to demand that those involved continuously demonstrate that the promised benefits have been realized. The process of process management also needs to be constantly improved. For this to be possible, there must be regular assessment of the effectiveness of the changes made. Process practitioners are not in the business of just making recommendations; their purpose is to make positive change—and to prove that they have done so.

Measuring business process performance delivers many benefits:

  • factual evidence of customer-service levels
  • better understanding of cross-functional performance
  • enhanced alignment of operations with strategy
  • evidence-based determination of process improvement priorities
  • detection of performance trends
  • better understanding of the capability range of a process
  • uncovering actual and latent problems
  • changing behavior based on factual feedback
  • improved control over the risks that really matter.

BPM initiatives that do not incorporate process measurement will fail. Process measurement is not always easy, but it is always possible.

Measurement-friendly culture

One of the most significant roadblocks to robust process performance governance—and subsequent process improvement and management—is the absence of a measurement-friendly organizational culture. In an organization where measurement is a precursor to the allocation of blame, the instinct is to measure as little as possible and to conceal the measures that are unavoidable. Where performance measures are collected to facilitate disparagement, enthusiasm for testing and reporting performance cannot be expected.

During a process-improvement project, a strange conversation happened with a senior manager. The project team was investigating a process with a customer satisfaction problem, and had developed three change ideas that would significantly increase customer satisfaction at quite low cost. Quite rightly, the team was pleased with its work. However, the senior manager pushed back and found reasons why the changes should not be made. This went on for several days, with the team dispatching each new objection as it came up. Finally, the manager took the project leader aside and explained that his real concern was that if customer satisfaction increased from 83% to 95%, he would get sacked. He was prepared to accept a new target of 85% and that, over time (a year or two), it might be “safe” to achieve the 95% mark. He was serious. This was a culture of continuous dissembling, not continuous improvement.

Most people will readily agree that continuous improvement is a noble aspiration and a practical objective. The other side of that same coin, however, is to be continuously finding aspects of the organization that are not performing as well as they might. This ‘negative’ perspective is not always as welcome. Explaining to a manager that there are ways to cost-effectively achieve significant improvement in the performance of one of her processes may not be received as the good news it was thought to be. The manager, and the organization, might see that as a past failure rather than an ongoing success.

To some extent, this happens in all organizations. When was the last time that finding a new performance problem triggered a celebration in any organization?

Measurement phobia, caused by an organization’s predisposition to use performance data to censure rather than improve, is the enemy of process improvement and management. The personal, team, and organizational culture must be such that all stakeholders are always looking for, and openly finding, things that need to be improved.

A measurement-friendly culture is a prerequisite for the success of process-based management. Such cultural change needs to be actively nurtured in parallel with the process performance measures discovery ideas outlined in this paper.

Leonardo ProMeasure

The Leonardo ProMeasure® methodology is shown in the schematic in Figure 4. It provides a consistent and coherent series of 12 steps in 5 phases: from process identification, through to a complete description of the important process performance measures, and their measurement methods, that meet the requirements of the key stakeholders.

Assigning correct performance measures to a process must not be a casual best guess; it should be the result of a systematic, efficient, continuously measured and improved analysis process.

The following sections describe the process performance measurement discovery approach using Figure 4 as a guide. These descriptions do not cover all of the details of the methodology elements, but seek to give an overview of the approach highlighting some of the important steps and tools.

promeasure
Figure 4: Leonardo ProMeasure methodology

Phase 1, Select: Which process?

It may seem trivial to say that the first step is to identify and select the process. Surely it must be clear which process is to be analyzed? Sometimes it’s not that easy. In any case, it is important to be sure that everyone involved has a shared understanding of the process in question and what the process is generally expected to accomplish.

It is necessary to identify the process and its purpose. These steps need not take long, especially for a process that is already well understood. Neglecting to assure this firm foundation, however, will make it impossible to determine the best set of performance measures. If the organization has a process architecture, then the process in question may have already been named and documented to some extent.

igoeTo facilitate development of a shared understanding of the process in question, it is useful to determine and document four of the six process perspectives as shown in Figure 5: inputs, outputs, guides, and enablers. This gives a sound understanding of how the process starts and finishes, to whom or what it delivers value, which systems, facilities, and people are involved, and any policies or regulations that need to be accommodated.

Phase 2, Stakeholders: Who cares?

Stakeholders are fundamental to process measurement and improvement. It is they who define what good performance is, and whether it is being delivered. Processes ‘perform’ for stakeholders—the value delivered by a process is delivered to stakeholders—so their performance aspirations must be the starting point.

It must be clearly understood who the process stakeholders are, and what they want from the process. This is not just a simple, vague list of stakeholder types, but a detailed analysis of stakeholders and their relationships to the process. Many of these will also be deeply involved in the definition of process performance measures.

Stakeholders can cover a wide range including not just the obvious direct customers, but also supplies, regulators, supply chain partners, government agencies, and any other person or organization with an interest in the performance of the process.

Not all stakeholders are equal. It is often difficult to meet the performance aspirations of each stakeholder; there may even be diametrically opposed requirements. Some stakeholders are more engaged with the process than others; some have more power and influence over the design and operation of the process.

Stakeholder Priority Matrix

stakeholdematrixFigure 6 shows four categories of stakeholder, arranged to show their relative engagement and influence. “Engagement” means the extent to which the stakeholder has personal or corporate involvement, directly or indirectly, in the execution of the process. A highly engaged stakeholder might be a key tactical resource in executing the process, or it might be that the process is of particular operational or strategic interest. High levels of power and influence mean the stakeholder is either a key decision maker, or has significant influence on decisions about changes to the process in question. Each of these four categories requires a different approach to stakeholder management.

PRINCIPAL: These are people with high levels of engagement and significant influence. These key stakeholders should be managed closely as they will have a major say in any change initiatives for the process.

BYSTANDER: Stakeholders with low engagement but high influence levels are not involved with the process in question now, but could easily become so, moving into the Principal category. They must be kept satisfied with information and updates.

FOLLOWER: Low engagement and low power means these stakeholders are unlikely to have any impact on process change decisions and actions. They’ll follow along and need little attention. The only action required is to monitor them in case their status changes.

CONNECTOR: Highly engaged stakeholders with low influence abilities are clearly very involved in the process and will be a good source of information and connection to all involved in process execution. They may also have a negative impact on change initiatives if not kept involved and informed.

All stakeholders above the line, i.e. Principals and Bystanders, will be important in approving any process changes that are proposed. Stakeholders below the line i.e. Followers and Connectors, are likely to be an important source of information about the process in question. In analysing a process to determine its correct measures, it will be useful to involve stakeholders from the two right-hand quadrants, i.e. Principals and Connectors, for their knowledge, as well as those above the line for their influence.

In discussions with the stakeholders, it is useful to take a top-down approach to determining the process performance measures. A discussion about what sort of performance is most important will identify key measurement themes, and an important outcome of such discussions is an early prioritization of what is most important. An organization can’t, and doesn’t want to, measure everything.
Based on a good understanding of stakeholder needs, a vision can be developed for the process performance. If the process is doing what key stakeholders require of it, what is it doing and how would that ideal achievement be best characterized?

Phase 3, Measure: Which measures?

ProMeasure began by creating a shared understanding of the process and agreeing on its purpose and boundaries. Then a deep insight into the process stakeholders and their performance needs was developed. Next, building on that sound foundation, an initial long list of potential measures is made.

Possible process measures can be collected and sorted by key stakeholders against the six perspectives of process performance identified earlier. At this stage, it is useful to capture as many reasonable measures as possible. The list will be rationalized in the next step. For now, it is important to capture every measure that the stakeholders would consider relevant and should, if possible, be satisfied.

An impressive sequence of thought leaders have travelled before us in seeking to understand what is really important about performance measurements—Pareto, Juran, Deming, Ishikawa, and many more. Pareto’s 80/20 ‘rule’ was more generally interpreted by Juran, giving rise to the concept of the “vital few and the trivial many”. Having previously created a long list of candidate measures, it is now necessary to rationalize them, to determine the vital few. This is not just a matter of neatness or simplification for its own sake. The more measures that are ultimately assigned to the process, the more data must be collected and assessed—Goldilocks theory5 applies: not too few, not too many, but just the right number of measures.

The long list of candidate measures can be rationalized by testing them for redundancy, importance, practicality, completeness, clarity, and fitness for purpose. Measures may also change over time; what is appropriate to measure now—perhaps immediately following a change—may not be the best measure in 12 months’ time.

Ultimately the question to ask is whether the process performance analysis and design work has created a viable set of the minimum number of important measures of actual process performance about which there is key stakeholder agreement, and for which there are measurement methods that can cost-effectively gather objective, accurate data against a well-defined target.

No process exists in isolation, and neither does a performance measure. Every process can be decomposed into component processes. It follows that every process is part of another at a higher level, up to the highest process architecture level. Although an organization may not actively do so, all processes at every level can be measured. Therefore, in parallel with the process hierarchy, there is a hierarchy of process measures.

The analysis issue at this point is to determine if there are any important misalignments between process measures at the same or higher levels. The key questions to be addressed include:

  • Does the set of process measures align with the next highest process level?
  • Are there gaps in the set of process measures compared to the next highest level?

It is a common occurrence to discover that personal performance KPIs are misaligned. A staff member with the objective to improve customer service and reduce cycle time might be in futile conflict with a supervisor whose main goal is to reduce costs.

Phase 4, Validate: Are these the best measures?

Now the list of candidate measures can be given a final test for completeness, practicality, and usefulness.

Stop the leaks

Performance leakage points (PLPs) are places and circumstances in the process where problems are more likely to develop. There is no certainty about this for a particular process in its unique circumstance, but experience shows that any process may have a problem at:

  • handover points
  • queuing points
  • places that create rework
  • customer touch points
  • points of complexity
  • time-critical activities.

Having identified proven or potential PLPs such as these, it is useful to consider whether the candidate process measures would effectively provide an alert to performance issues at those points. Where performance problems might develop, will the measures provide an early warning?

Imagine a commercial laundry where customers bring in clothes for washing or dry cleaning for same-day service. Where could that go wrong? Are there any measures that could act as an early warning of potential problems? The genesis of many problems might be found at the front counter. Should staff just keep taking in more clothes, pleased that “business is great today”? Alternatively, it might be useful to continuously measure capacity, looking to forecast the point at which the same-day service promise cannot be met. The process Clean Clothes has a finite capacity. If the customer is thinking I’ll pick this up at 5:15 and front counter staff are thinking we’ll do our best, that’s probably not going to end well.

Measurement methods

In assigning measures to processes, care must be taken that, for each measure, there is an effective measurement method. It is too easy to create a measure for which the data gathering is very difficult or costly, or perhaps just not practical. Where will the data come from? Does it already exist, or is a new process required to collect, collate, and analyze it? Is the measure quantified enough to allow effective data collection? If it was said that a service was going to be ‘the best in town’, what does that really mean? Perhaps it means that ‘98% of our customers will rate the service at least 8.5 out of 10’. Where will that data come from? How much? How often? At what cost?

For every process whose performance is to be actively measured, there needs to be a practical, reliable, accurate (enough), and cost-effective measurement method for each process performance measure.

Mistake-proof

If a process could be made to be ‘mistake-proof’ it would not need to be measured. If a process cannot fail to meet its performance targets, nothing needs to be measured. Unfortunately, that happy circumstance is not to be found in this world.

However, there are things that can be done to most processes that reduce the likelihood of poor performance. To the extent that a process can be made mistake-proof, even in a small way, the need to measure some aspects of performance is removed. Good performance cannot be measured into a process. Measurement for its own sake is waste, so removing the need for measurement should also be a goal. For example, efforts could be made to develop a better understanding, and ability to measure and forecast, process capacity utilization so as to avoid over-stressing the process. Automated responses might be triggered as a process nears a capacity limit, beyond which, performance problems would be inevitable. Other software or mechanical controls—such as calendar reminders, approval limits, checklists, restock indicators, pop-up information screens—may help reduce the possibility of performance errors.

Phase 5, Document : Record the measures

The importance of the final step is often underestimated. There is a need to collect the analysis artifacts to make them available to all who study, manage, and execute the process. This data may be in simple tabular form or part of the repository associated with an appropriate modelling tool. One example of the performance record data that might be collected is shown below, reflecting the steps in the ProMeasure methodology.

measuresrecord

Common failure modes

Most organizations do not do effective process performance measurement. Many don’t do it at all. An organization not measuring process performance, is not doing process management, and cannot know if it is doing process improvement.

There are many barriers to effective process measurement. Some are described below along with countermeasures. The approach described in this paper delivers such countermeasures.

Barriers

Countermeasures

Inappropriate measures

  • Use a consistent methodology for the definition and management of process measures
  • Avoid having too many, or too few, measures
  • Control the costs of performance data collection, analysis and publication
  • Connect process performance to strategic and operational management
  • Avoid a process measurement focus that is too narrow

Disconnection from value creation

  • Design process measures to reflect real needs of key shareholders
  • Regularly review process measures to ensure they continue to reflect stakeholder needs
  • Build process measures into management decision-making

Lack of accountability

  • Ensure that nominated roles/people are accountable for responding to performance data (i.e. maintain effective systems of ‘process ownership’)
  • Publish regular reports of process performance

Lack of confidence in performance measures

  • Ensure that process measures, targets, and measurement methods are well understood
  • Clearly define and publish the details of the ‘process of process measurement’
  • Regularly test the reliability of data sources
  • Continue to consult with key stakeholders

Fear of measurement

  • Develop a measurement-friendly culture
  • Focus on the performance of the process, not the people
  • Give positive acknowledgement to the discovery of problems
  • Publish success stories around improvements generated via process performance measurement and response

Achilles’ heel or cornerstone?

Organizational performance improvement means increasing the value exchanged with customers and other stakeholders. Process-based management offers the potential for significant, sustained, and controlled improvement in areas that really matter.

Organizations, and the people who work in them, must embrace the search for improvement that can only result from underperformance uncovered by measurement. Improvement and management of business processes demands that we determine performance targets, collect performance data, and make decisions based on process performance outcomes.

Measurement of process performance is the Achilles’ heel of many initiatives to develop a high-performance, process-centric enterprise. It must be the cornerstone.

To deliver on the promise of BPM, process performance must be measured.

The Ideas in Practice

There are many things that might be done in response to the issues discussed in this paper. Here are some practical steps to begin the development and use of a process performance ‘architecture’.

Combining these steps with the other enablers will initiate effective and sustained process-based management. In addressing the 7Enablers, a critical step is to design effective process performance measures, and measurement methods, so as to give practical substance to the need to manage and improve business processes.

Create the architecture
Document the process architecture to show context for the individual processes

While it is possible to work on a single process in isolation, it is much more effective to be looking at a process in the context of its overall ecosystem. Understanding the context, as well as the content, of a process will result in a better set of performance measures reflecting operational realities.

Engage stakeholders
Identify and engage those who care about the performance of the process

Processes deliver value (products and services) for stakeholders, so ultimately it must be the stakeholders who decide if the process is performing as it should. They need to be, not just identified, but engaged and involved in the analysis of the process, if the optimum performance measures are to be identified.

Document the measures
Find, refine, review, and document the measures and measurement methods

Of course, this is the difficult, time-consuming, and absolutely critical element. Start with a process architecture, at least a high level one, and develop performance measures from the top down. If these processes were working as well as the stakeholders require, what would they be doing and how would that be measured?

Report performance
Don’t hide the process performance results—good, bad, or ugly

An organization that proclaims a commitment to the ‘primacy of process’, and to measuring and improving processes, must report consistently, irrespective of the performance levels. While it might be tempting to do so, reporting only on the good news will not create a measurement-friendly culture or an urgency for change.

Respond
Do something if the reported process performance is not what it should be

Don’t just collect and report, do something with the information. The ultimate purpose of all process analysis is to improve organizational performance in meaningful ways, so the real work starts after the process performance is reported. Which process performance gaps need to be closed now, why those, and what will be the business benefits of doing so?

Create commitment
Do everything possible to create and sustain widespread buy-in to the measures

Implementing a new, and possibly challenging, set of performance measures is not easy. There will be resistance, especially if the performance results are initially below target. Persistence is required and that can only come from a deep understanding of, and commitment to, the need to measure and report process performance.

Leonardo ProMeasure® Methodology Overview

ProMeasure ensures that the most effective process performance measures, with maximum support from stakeholders, are discovered, designed, and documented, thereby allowing practical realization of the benefits of process-based management.

PHASE 1: SELECT

There is just one important step in this first phase. Which process should be analyzed and is there shared understanding about its purpose, scope, and context?

STEP 1 IDENTIFY PROCESS
Identifying and selecting the correct process for measurement may not be as simple as it seems. There are many considerations that need to be evaluated, including: problems, impact, priorities, resources, ROI.

PHASE 2: STAKEHOLDERS

Processes deliver value (products and services) to customers and other stakeholders. It is vital, therefore, to understand who they are and what they expect.

STEP 2 IDENTIFY STAKEHOLDERS
It is important to clearly identify, and appropriately involve, all important stakeholders to ensure their views are known and considered, and any disagreements resolved (or at least understood).

STEP 3 PRIORITIZE STAKEHOLDERS
Not all stakeholders are equal. It is important to know which stakeholders have high levels of authority and influence and which are the most involved in the process.

STEP 4 PROCESS VISION
If the process was working as well as the stakeholders would like it to, what would it be doing and how could that be known—what is the stakeholder vision of good performance?

PHASE 3: MEASURE

In this important phase measures are discovered, rationalized, and aligned to ensure a coherent set reflecting what the process should achieve to satisfy its stakeholders.

STEP 5 DETERMINE THEMES
There are many ways to measure the performance of a process. Before moving to specific measures, what is the general performance requirement of the process?

STEP 6 ASSEMBLE MEASURES
The long list of all of the possible measures across the six perspectives of process performance is formed reflecting current operational details, stakeholder requirements, observation, and reference models.

STEP 7 RATIONALIZE MEASURES
Select the ‘vital few’ measures from the ‘important many’. Remove redundant, unnecessary, and irrelevant measures, leaving a few clear and concise measures.

STEP 8 ASSESS ALIGNMENT
This simple but important step ensures that the selected process measures in sub-processes are not misaligned to higher level processes causing sub-optimization.

PHASE 4: VALIDATE

Continuing to refine the candidate measures, reality checks are applied to test for cost-effective data gathering, pragmatic focus, and redundancy in the measures.

STEP 9 STOP THE LEAKS
There are often parts of a process that are more prone to problems than others, e.g. customer touch points and time critical activities. Measures can be assigned to prevent such process performance ‘leaks’.

STEP 10 DOCUMENT MEASUREMENT METHODS
The measurement method, or the way performance data is collected and collated, has to be credible, cost-effective, and reliable. It is too easy to design measures for which practical collection is not possible.

STEP 11 MISTAKE PROOF
If a process is ‘mistake proof’ there is no need to measure its performance. While such perfection is not a real expectation, steps can be taken to restrict failure points, thus reducing the measurement load.

PHASE 5: DOCUMENT

The last important step in this final phase is to clearly document both the agreed measures and the justification for their selection as the key process measures.

STEP 12 RECORD MEASURE
All of the data created in the previous steps need to be collected, collated, and recorded and made available for all stakeholders and for future analysis and management.

Process Architecture

Roger Tregear

Enabler 1: Process Architecture

reimagining_management_process_architecture_cover
Source. Published under Creative Commons license.

The 7Enablers of BPM describe how process-based management reimagines the theory and practice of management. The first of these enablers, process architecture, is discussed in this paper.

A process architecture is a hierarchical model of the business processes of an organization. It provides a powerful visualization and management tool. Organizations are traditionally managed via the template laid out by the organization chart. Yet not one of the entities shown on any organization chart can, by itself, deliver value to an external customer. The reality is that we create, accumulate, and deliver value through collaboration across the organization chart. We manage resources vertically using the organization chart. We create and deliver value horizontally across the organization, and the key management artifact should be the process architecture. New and important insights are provided into the development and use of a process architecture. Drawing on both theoretical concepts and practical case studies, the paper illustrates an innovative, comprehensive, and effective approach to organization performance management.

A process architecture is a hierarchical model of the processes of an organization. Usually created, initially at least, to include the two or three highest levels, the process architecture provides a powerful visualization and management tool. The process architecture includes not just the hierarchical description of process activities, but also the related resources, documentation, performance measures, measurement methods, and governance arrangements.

This paper describes the purpose, creation, maintenance, and use of a process architecture in reimagining the management of contemporary organizations.

What you can expect to get from the paper

This paper will provide new insights into the development and use of a business process architecture and how this forms the key artifact in the process-centric view of management. The paper draws on both theoretical concepts and practical case studies to illustrate an innovative, comprehensive, and effective approach to organization performance management. Having considered the contents of this paper, the reader will be able to:

  • understand the purpose and use of a process architecture
  • see the relationship between strategy and business processes
  • confirm how business processes operationalize the strategy
  • create practical documentation for all to use in operating the value pathways
  • prepare for the challenges of creating a process architecture
  • improve the management of organizational performance
  • focus on what really matters—the creation, accumulation, and delivery of value (products and services) to customers and other stakeholders.

What is a process architecture?

There are many architectures, and many definitions of many architectures, so it is as well to firstly define what is meant by process architecture in this paper.

A process architecture is a hierarchical model of the business processes of an organization. Usually created, initially at least, to include the two or three highest levels, the process architecture provides a powerful visualization and management tool. The terms ‘process architecture’, ‘business process architecture’ and ‘enterprise process architecture’ are used synonymously. A process architecture includes not just the hierarchical description of process activities, but also the related resources, documentation, performance measures, measurement methods, and governance arrangements. The simple, but indicative, process architecture shown in Figure 3 is an abridged version of an architecture developed for an IT service vendor.

processarchitectureexample

There are also many ways of drawing a process architecture.

Figure 3 shows shared management and support processes at the top and bottom respectively, and core processes in the middle. Core processes are those that have a direct connection with the customer; at the highest level they are the value chains that represent the delivery of the organization’s strategic value proposition. Management processes are those generally concerned with higher level management decision making and planning. Support processes enable the organization. It should be noted that the term “core process” does not imply a comment on importance—the core processes cannot be executed without the management and support processes. Any process in the architecture that does not contribute to the achievement of corporate objectives should be deleted.

In the current context, a process architecture is not what might in other places be called a “business architecture” or “enterprise architecture” where process is often considered a secondary element. The specific meaning here is the documentation of the highest levels of business processes in an organization, i.e. the pathways through which value is exchanged with customers and other stakeholders. The relationships to business architecture and enterprise architecture are discussed later (Other architectures, page 21).

A well-formed process architecture is a powerful management and decision making tool and can be used to:

  • visualize the organization’s set of business processes
  • understand how the organization’s strategic intent is executed
  • communicate business process information
  • concentrate organizational focus on value delivery
  • understand the business process interdependencies
  • prioritize process analysis and improvement activity
  • coordinate process improvement project portfolio management
  • provide a repository of business process information.

A process architecture is the primary artifact of process management and improvement. An organization without a process architecture cannot have a coherent view of process management. If there is no documented and agreed understanding of the relationships and interdependencies between key business processes, then there can be no certainty of doing effective process improvement. Cross-functional business processes are the only way any organization can deliver value (products or services) to customers, and other stakeholders outside the organization. This gives the process architecture primacy since it discovers, defines, and documents the value pathways. More than just a picture or a model, the process architecture is a daily aid to strategic and operational management in an organization focused on continuous improvement and delivery of service excellence.

Some examples of process architecture

A process architecture is a simple, but not simplistic, view of how the organization creates, accumulates, and delivers value. It is a practical and pragmatic management tool. Two case studies are used below to illustrate the design and use of process architectures.

Figure 4 shows the top two levels of business process for a university. Many readers will have suggestions about how it could have been done differently, but this design was thought to be a very good reflection of the university operation by some 100 university staff who participated in a series of development workshops.

bpmuniversity

Figure 5 shows another example, this time for a teaching hospital.

bpmhospital

Both of these examples of the highest levels of a process architecture hierarchy represent everything that the organizations do. The university creates graduates, conducts research and contributes to society. The hospital cares for patients, develops healthcare professionals, carries out research, and reaches out to improve community health. In both cases there are many other management and supporting processes that make those core activities possible.

A process architecture is a hierarchy of business processes. The examples above show just two levels for the university and one for the hospital. When first developed, two or three levels of the architecture is usually sufficient. Over time, many more levels are defined and detailed as required to address specific organizational performance issues. Every process can be decomposed into sub-processes, so there is no theoretical depth limit. However, in practice, it is necessary to go only as deep as is needed to address a particular issue. It makes no sense to say “we will identify all of our processes”—there needs to be a good strategic or operational reason to make such an investment.

Using a process architecture

A well-formed process architecture is a powerful management and decision making tool that can be used in many ways, some of which are outlined below.

Focus on value

Visualize the organization’s processes. If processes are to be managed and improved they must be defined, collected, and collated – that’s a process architecture.

Concentrate organizational focus on value delivery. Developing and maintaining a process architecture constantly focuses an organization on value delivery via business processes.

Expose ‘value pathways’. Value is created, accumulated, and delivered across the organization chart. A process view means this critical aspect is proactively managed.

Gain agreement about process deliverables. To agree a process architecture it is necessary to get agreement about the processes, what value they should deliver, and to whom.

Enhance communication

Provoke powerful conversations. Asking “who are our customers and what value do they get from us?” causes powerful and valuable conversations.

Engage all stakeholders (internal and external). To develop a process architecture, a list of stakeholders and an assessment of the value delivered to them are prerequisites.

Provide repository of process information. A process architecture model provides a single place where all process information can be stored or linked; a portal to the process view.

Facilitate process performance management

Communicate process performance information. To focus everyone on value delivery, process performance needs to be defined, measured, reported, and discussed.

Define interfaces to external parties. Processes traverse organization boundaries to interact with external processes. Such interfaces can be defined in a process architecture.

Understand process interdependencies. No process exists in isolation; change one process and others will also change. A process architecture uncovers these interdependencies.

Prioritize process analysis and improvement activity. Every organization has many processes. Where is the best return-on-effort in analysis and improvement?

Coordinate process project portfolio management. The output of one process is an input to another. Uncoordinated change might just create a new problem or move the old one.

Developing and maintaining a process architecture is not about abstraction (or abstract art!), it is about providing practical, proven, and effective support for the achievement of organizational performance goals through evidence-based, coordinated improvement in the ecosystem of business processes.

Strategy execution – the process pathway

Cross-functional business processes are the only way any organization can deliver value outside of the organization. It follows, therefore, that an organization also executes its strategic intent via its processes; its value proposition is delivered to customers via its business processes. This important point supports the ‘primacy of process’ and demands close attention to effective and sustained process management and improvement.

For many organizations, and their teams and people, there is a significant disconnect between strategy and process, between the mission-vision-values statements, or their equivalents, and the business process pathways that operationalize the strategy. Strategy development is inherently a top-down activity. Business process management and improvement is often conducted in a bottom-up or middle-out fashion. With the strategic view ‘coming down’ and the process view ‘going up’ there is a real chance that both fade to gray before they meet. In the resulting ‘gray zone’ the strategy loses its clarity and purpose and process activity fails to coalesce into holistic management practice. Too many organizations end up with two seemingly unrelated conceptual views of the enterprise: the strategy, perhaps with strategy themes and a strategy map, and the process view shaped as value chains, process hierarchies and detailed models.

A coherent view of the inter-relationships between strategy and process makes it more likely that the strategy will be executed and the processes will be effectively managed. This requires, not just a good strategy, but also a well-developed process architecture.

Developing Strategy

The complexity of developing statements of strategic intent (mission, vision, values etc.) should not be downplayed. Where there is disagreement amongst the stakeholders the exercise is even more difficult. Resolving the fundamental questions about ‘why are we here’ is always challenging and time consuming, and ultimately, enlightening.

Whatever detailed approach is used, developing strategy can be seen as essentially about answering three, quite complex, questions:

  1. Who are we?
  2. Who are our customers and other stakeholders?
  3. What we do for each other?

Who are we? What do we want to achieve? What do we have to offer? What are our strengths and weaknesses? How are we different to others?

Who are our customers and other stakeholders? Who will want our offerings? Why us? What is our target market? Apart from customers, who else must be satisfied?

What do we do for each other? What is our value proposition? What will customers and other stakeholders be prepared to exchange for that value?

The strategy development exercise results in artifacts such a strategy map and strategy themes or their equivalents, along with strategic objectives.

THE WHYTE & BRITE LAUNDRY
Whyte & Brite has operated successfully for six years and now employs 73 staff. They first started with just the two of them working out of Mike Whyte’s garage. Now they have a large purpose-built site with an investment of nearly a million dollars in plant and equipment and two types of customers: commercial and personal.
Personal customers are individuals who bring clothes to Whyte & Brite for cleaning and, where required, ironing. They also return to collect their clothes. Mike and his partner, Barbara Brite, know that the key to the personal customer business is friendly, personal service.
Commercial customers, e.g. hotels, have large amounts of regular washing. Whyte & Brite tender for this work and contracts detail charges and service levels requiring on-time delivery of high quality service. There is little personal contact and performance is measured on contractual terms.
Mike and Barbara have also been considering a new service where they purchase the sheets, towels and other items and effectively lease them to the commercial customers.

Whyte & Brite has completed a strategy development project. Mission and vision statements are available, along with strategic objectives and a strategy. This gives a coherent view of who they are, who their customers are, why they choose them, and what they offer each other.

There are four strategy themes that define the strategic intent:
• customer care excellence
• service innovation
• environmental excellence
• organizational capital development excellence.

Figure 6 illustrates the strategy themes in a BPTrends Associates organization diagram3 (derived from the Rummler and Brache Relationship Map4), which can be used in many ways and becomes a diagrammatic repository for strategy and process information. In this diagram, the largest colored box is the Whyte & Brite organization and everything outside the box is the external environment in which it operates.

whytebriteorgdiagram
Figure 6: Whyte & Brite Laundry Organization Diagram

whytebriteprocessarchitectureManaging processes

The Whyte & Brite process architecture is as shown in Figure 7. In this diagram two particular support processes are highlighted because of their direct relevance to the strategy themes.
The multi-layer process architecture shows all of the processes by which Whyte & Brite delivers value to all of its customers and other stakeholders. It was developed in a series of workshops based on the value propositions defined in the strategy. The process architecture is the way in which Whyte & Brite operationalizes its strategic intent.

Strategy + process

Figure 8 closes the loop and shows how the key processes from the process architecture operationalize the strategy. The link between high level processes (and their many sub-processes) and the key elements of the organization’s strategic intent facilitates a clear view of how the strategy is executed. Particular initiatives related to the strategy can now be seen as changes to the related processes. Measurement and management of process performance tracks the execution of the strategy.

strategythemes
Figure 8: Strategy themes + processes

The Whyte & Brite Laundry case is a simple one; real life is more complicated. However, the essential connection between strategy and process is clear and provides a compelling reason for an organization to develop, document, and maintain its process architecture.

Other architectures

There are many “architecture” types often used in the planning and management. As well as business architectures and enterprise architectures, there are architectures that address IT, information, capabilities, services, systems, rules, applications, organizations, and people. While there are some quasi standards, there is no definitive, accepted standard. The common, and often overlapping, definitions of business or enterprise architecture do include a business process component, but not as the central element.

processcentricThis paper does not seek to either explain or reconcile the many views of business/enterprise architecture (Further information can be found using search terms such as BIZBOK, FEAF, Zachman, and TOGAF), but it does have a particular architectural stance. The concept that underpins this paper, indeed this series of papers, is the ‘primacy of process’. This says that because an organization can only deliver value to customers and other stakeholders via its processes, and therefore it also executes its strategy via those processes, the processes need to be the focal point of any architecture. Figure 9 shows a generic view of a process-centric enterprise architecture. All of the commonly used architectural perspectives are still valid, but the process context is fundamental. Emphasizing the process-centric nature of the framework, each perspective has a direct relationship to the process context. This also emphasizes that the relationship of each perspective to all other perspectives is defined by the architecture of business processes. In order to understand, measure, and improve an organization, this picture stresses that one must first understand how value is created and delivered to the customer in relation to the complementary perspectives.

While other architectural constructs are useful and often vital, particularly to guide information systems, the tendency to define ‘every’ object and show the relationships to ‘every other’ object via abstract diagrams, may be of limited benefit to managers.

Accepting the ‘primacy of process’ principle and starting with the process architecture as described in this paper, allows an organization to focus on the purpose and performance of the value pathways. Other architectural elements can be added when they are be shown to add value, when they are an aid to management and not a further complication.

Creating a process architecture

Creating a process architecture is not a trivial exercise, and since it will always be subject to change and the exploration of greater detail, it is a never-ending job. Nevertheless, a useful, working process architecture can be developed reasonably quickly and the immediate value of doing so can be remarkable.

Quite apart from creating a solid basis for effective, ongoing process management, discovery of the process architecture focuses the organization wonderfully on really understanding how it executes its strategic intent.

It is not the intention here to describe in detail how a process architecture is developed. In any case, the development detail is likely to vary significantly between different organizations. However, an overview of the generic approach will be helpful in better understanding the nature, purpose and use of such artifacts.

Broadly, there are six steps in the discovery and documentation of a process architecture:

  1. Identify the organization in focus
  2. Understand the organization’s strategic intent
  3. Discover the customer value proposition(s)
  4. Name the value chain(s)
  5. Decompose the value chain(s) to level 1 processes
  6. Decompose the level 1 processes to level 2 processes

Confirming the boundaries of the organization in question is a necessary first step. Is it a whole organization or part of a group? Are there geographic or other boundaries? Confirmation and review of the vision and mission, or other strategy descriptors, is a necessary precursor to understanding the customer value proposition(s). What value is intended to be delivered to which customers? Who else needs to be satisfied? Based on the value propositions, what are the highest level processes that operationalize the strategy? Naming processes at any level using the verb-noun format, e.g. Produce graduate or Create & apply knowledge, is recommended. From the top of the architecture, processes can be decomposed to as many lower levels as are required—a total of two levels is the recommended minimum for initial architecture design.

Having documented a process architecture, the obvious next question is how should the performance of the processes be measured and managed. They are topics for other papers in this series, but suffice to say here that the process architecture does need to be maintained, and that this needs to be done in a controlled and coordinated way. This is at the heart of process-based management.

Owning the architecture

A process architecture has little purpose unless it is actively used in organization management. Process architectures are created to identify the otherwise undocumented and only randomly managed pathways by which value is created, accumulated, and delivered. If the architecture is not in common use then it is just artwork, and probably bad artwork at that! Process architectures must be owned by the organization, by its people, and by their teams.

To maximize the chances of the process architecture being owned by ‘the business’, the process architecture:

a) must be credible and allow people to see where they make their personal contribution,
b) must be current so it does not come to be seen as an unreliable description of the organization
c) must be communicated so everyone has access to it and plenty of opportunity to challenge and learn its contents, and
d) must be used, and seen to be used, so it is not perceived as some sort of once-a-year poster.

For the many positive effects of having a process architecture to be realized, stakeholders must understand it and believe in it. A process architecture must become a useful management tool, and this requires a sustained effort of communication and explanation.

The architecture and related documentation must be made available in whatever formats will work best for each stakeholder group. Plenty of opportunities must be provided for people to discuss, challenge, and come to understand the architecture and its role in management.

It must also be shown to be at the heart of management decision making via consistent performance reporting against the architecture and demonstrations of its use in enabling process improvement.

Creating a process architecture, and its related artifacts and diagrams, is not just about making ‘posters’, it is about reimagining the organization. For that to happen, with the process architecture as the centerpiece, requires a deliberate and sustained plan to achieve high levels of ownership of the architecture throughout the organization.

The power of process architecture

The case for developing, maintaining, and using a process architecture, can be summarized as providing the organization with the opportunity to:

  • define with precision how it creates, accumulates, and delivers value (products and services) to its customers and other stakeholders
  • understand how it actually executes its strategic intent
  • document the customer experience as a recipient of value delivery via the defined processes
  • show all staff, and suppliers and partners, how they contribute to the creation, accumulation, and delivery of customer value
  • concentrate everyone on the key task of efficiently and effectively delivering value to customers and other stakeholders
  • understand the business process interdependencies and optimize performance
  • measure and manage those elements of performance that really matter, i.e. efficient and effective value delivery
  • make informed decisions about where and when to invest in process improvement
  • coordinate process improvement activity to optimize performance outcomes.

Having a well-developed and maintained process architecture enables an organization to make an important breakthrough in performance management. Cross-functional business processes are the only way any organization can create, accumulate, and deliver value to customers and other external stakeholders. Therefore, strategic intent is also executed via business processes. In conjunction with the rest of the 7Enablers, a process architecture forces the organization to focus on its value delivery purpose, pathways, and performance. A process architecture is a vital strategic and operational management tool. Organizations seeking to do effective process-based management must have a process architecture; without such an architecture there can be no certainty of aggregated process improvement.

The Ideas in Practice

There are many things that might be done in response to the issues discussed in this paper. Below are some practical steps to get started on the creation, verification, maintenance, and active use of a process architecture. Combining these steps with others from the complete 7Enablers set will initiate effective and sustained process-based management. In addressing the 7Enablers, the first step must be to discover, document, and agree the process architecture as this provides a framework for further activity in the measurement, governance, change, mindset, capability, and support enablers.

Clarify strategy
Clarify the organization strategy making sure there is a shared understanding

What is the strategic intent of the organization in focus? Is there a shared understanding of the vision, mission, and values or other strategy artifacts? If not, facilitate the discussions required to gain such agreement. Identify the strategy themes and capture them in an organization diagram.

Confirm value propositions
Define the value (products/services) promised by the organization

Drawing on the strategy statements, define the customers and the organization’s value proposition(s) for them. Are there additional stakeholders who have needs that the organization must satisfy? What does the organization promise to deliver, and what does it expect in return?

Create the architecture
Document the architecture showing the process pathway from strategy to operations

Define the highest level processes to reflect the value propositions, ensuring the core process descriptions cover all of the strategic aspirations. Add the shared management and support processes. Decompose those processes down another level or two. Confirm that the process architecture properly reflects the strategy.

Hang it on the wall
Don’t hide it, let everyone see and comment on the draft process architecture

Socialize the draft process architecture on internal websites or notice boards. ‘Hang it on the wall’ and see what people say. A process architecture cannot be successfully created by just a few people closed away in a meeting room. It will be a community resource and needs to be developed and owned by the community. Getting widespread buy-in is vital.

Define the terms
Create and maintain a glossary of terms and insist on accurate, consistent usage

Everyone needs to talk the same language, to use the same vocabulary, so it is important to define all of the terms that will arise in conversations about the process architecture, both in terms of architecture jargon and the internal terms of the organization. This will greatly reduce the risk of time-consuming and distracting confusion.

Confirm and continue
Modify the architecture reflecting comments as appropriate and engage the other enablers

The process architecture is never complete and will always be changing. Finalize and publish the current working version and mechanisms for controlled change. Continue the discussion about process-based management. Move on to apply the remaining enablers, especially measurement, governance, and change.

 

Disrupting Process Management: The 7Enablers of BPM

Roger Tregear blog post
Source: Disrupting Process Management: The 7Enablers of BPM

It’s Time

For most organizations, the time has passed when improving performance can be achieved by ‘simply’ reducing budgets and assuming those affected will adjust to the change. After years of budget cuts and efficiency dividends, the easy changes are done, contingency resources are extinct, and further change is deep, structural, and difficult. The need to ‘do more with less’ seems both inevitable and impossible.

Neither can any organization focus only on the ‘negatives’. They also need to think more broadly in analyzing business processes so as to discover innovations to be embraced as well as problems to be solved. Organizations must be good at identifying weaknesses and circumstances that threaten process performance, but that is not enough. They also need to look for characteristics that make a process strong, and for opportunities to do something new. In this disruptive world where the unthinkable and unexpected quickly become unexceptional, there is an urgent need to discover disruptive ‘solutions looking for a problem’ as well as identifying the more traditional ‘problems looking for a solution’.

The Big Picture

It is no longer enough, if it ever was, to focus on immediate process performance issues (cost, time, defects, etc.) and ignore opportunities for improvement. Henry Ford reduced the time it took to build a Model T chassis from 12½ to 1½ hours. That was a prodigious feat, an innovation whose impact is still felt today, but would have been pointless if no one wanted to buy a car. In 1976, with a 90% share of the US market, Eastman Kodak was ubiquitous; by the late 1990s it was struggling, and by 2012 it was in bankruptcy protection. Despite having invented the first digital camera in 1975, Kodak was too slow to react to a serious decline in photographic film sales. At its peak, Kodak also had a great story to tell about increasing operational cost-efficiency and process improvement. In reality, though, it became efficient at producing a product few wanted, and good at delivering services few needed. The current market capitalization of Kodak is approximately US$800 million; the equivalent figure for GoPro is US$6.5 billion[1].

In times where established business models are overwhelmed by digital substitutes, every organization must expect to have its own ‘Kodak moment’.

Process-based management

By definition, business processes are the only way any organization can deliver value to customers and other stakeholders. By themselves, the separate functional areas of an organization cannot deliver value to external parties.

Processes__Functional_organisations
Figure 1: Process & functional organizations

As illustrated in Figure 1 we traditionally manage organizations via the template laid out by the organization chart. Yet not one of the entities shown on any organization chart can, by itself, deliver value to an external customer. The reality is that we create, accumulate, and deliver value by collaborating across that chart. Value is accumulated, not up and down the functional organization as represented in the chart, but across the organization as the various parts collaborate to create, accumulate and deliver value in the form of a desired product or service.

We manage resources vertically using the organization chart. We create and deliver value horizontally across the organization, and the key management artifact should be the business process architecture.

It follows that an organization also executes its strategic intent via its business processes.

The power of process-based management is in understanding what work is required and how it gets done, and based on that understanding, eliminating impediments, streamlining activities, removing waste, and capitalizing on opportunities for innovation.

The focus is on how the process, including all of the people and resources involved, delivers value to customers and other stakeholders. This cross-functional focus is missing in many organizations, where it is replaced with an internal management emphasis guided by the organization chart.

In this context, where cross-functional processes are key to the delivery of value to customers and other stakeholders (including the organization itself), the improvement and management of processes,through both problem resolution and idea harvesting, is critical to the optimization of performance.

Process-based management, more commonly known as BPM (business process management), refocuses management efforts and thinking on how value is delivered to customers and other stakeholders. The focus is on what value should be delivered and to whom, how that work gets done, what impedes it being done in the most efficient and effective way, and how that might be changed in small or radical ways. It is about identifying the value pathways and finding both idea-driven and performance-driven ways to improve their effectiveness.

BPM is not about technology , it is not an IT solution or a project, but a pragmatic management approach. BPM is a management philosophy.

In these times, when most organizations are under considerable pressure to simultaneously reduce costs, enhance products and services, deal with new competitors, and be more attentive to customers, process-based management offers a practical and pragmatic solution.

Enabling BPM

Discovering, documenting, improving, and actively managing cross-functional business processes will expose significant opportunities for getting more work done with the same, different, or perhaps even fewer, resources.

There are seven elements, the 7Enablers of BPM, that come together to create and sustain process-based management:7Enablers

  1. Discovery, understanding, and documentation of the organization’s processes and related resources in a hierarchical model—process architecture
  2. Defining process performance measures and measurement methods, collecting and reporting process performance data—process measurement
  3. Reimagining, and responding to, process performance anomalies, innovation opportunities, and general process hygiene—process governance
  4. Continuously finding ways to close process performance gaps by eliminating problems and capitalizing on opportunities—process change
  5. Creating an environment where the organization, its people, and their teams are always conscious of the processes in which they participate—process mindset
  6. Developing the tools and skills required throughout the organization to identify, analyze, improve, and manage business processes—process capability
  7. Providing the support required throughout the organization to develop, sustain and realize the benefits of process-based management—process support

The first three enablers—architecture, measurement, governance—are tangible artifacts, whereas the final three—mindset, capabilities, support—are more abstract (but no less important). Change is in the middle and is the central objective of process management.

To thrive, perhaps even to survive, in times when ‘doing more with less’ seems both inevitable and impossible, executives need to step back from day-to-day functional issues and reimagine their organizations as value creation and delivery flows. Process-based management delivers a practical, proven approach and the 7Enablers of BPM represents a breakthrough in management practice.

These enablers are shown in the first image above. A Mobius strip format is used to highlight the interdependencies between the elements. The enablers are interconnected—change one and one or two others are likely changed, change several and they will all be changed. The 7Enablers represent the key levers of process-based management.

The core artifact is the process architecture since documenting the key processes is the necessary first step. Once documented, processes can be measured and once measures are available, governancearrangements to define who should respond to performance reports and change opportunities are required. These first three enablers (architecture, measurement, governance) are the ‘physical infrastructure’ on which the rest is built. Continuous process change is the cornerstone of process-based management. Without process improvement, both small changes and large innovations, what is the purpose of process analysis and management? For process management and improvement to become ubiquitous, it must be embedded in the organization culture and mindset. Having a central specialistsupport group to do all process work, does not scale and will soon impose a bizarre restriction on process management and improvement work. Therefore, it is necessary to build the capability for identifying, analyzing, improving, and managing business processes throughout the organization.

The 7Enablers is a collective of mutually supportive prerequisites for successful and sustained process-based management.

7Enablers of BPM

7Enablers Deep Dives: Process Architecture and Process Measurement.

There are seven elements, the 7Enablers of BPM, that come together to create and sustain process-based management:7Enablers

  1. Discovery, understanding, and documentation of the organization’s processes and related resources in a hierarchical model—process architecture
  2. Defining process performance measures and measurement methods, collecting and reporting process performance data—process measurement
  3. Reimagining, and responding to, process performance anomalies, innovation opportunities, and general process hygiene—process governance
  4. Continuously finding ways to close process performance gaps by eliminating problems and capitalizing on opportunities—process change
  5. Creating an environment where the organization, its people, and their teams are always conscious of the processes in which they participate—process mindset
  6. Developing the tools and skills required throughout the organization to identify, analyze, improve, and manage business processes—process capability
  7. Providing the support required throughout the organization to develop, sustain and realize the benefits of process-based management—process support

The first three enablers—architecture, measurement, governance—are tangible, whereas the final three—mindset, capabilities, support—are more abstract (but no less important). Change is in the middle and is the central objective of process management.

To thrive, perhaps even to survive, in times when ‘doing more with less’ seems both inevitable and impossible, executives need to step back from day-to-day functional issues and reimagine their organizations as value creation and delivery flows. Process-based management delivers a practical, proven approach and the 7Enablers of BPM represents a breakthrough in management practice.

These enablers are shown in the image above. A Mobius strip format is used to highlight the interdependencies between the elements. The enablers are interconnected—change one and one or two others are likely changed, change several and they will all be changed. The 7Enablers represent the key levers of process-based management.

The core enabler is the process architecture since documenting the key processes is the necessary first step. Once documented, processes can be measured and once measures are available, governance arrangements to define who should respond to performance reports and change opportunities are required. These first three enablers (architecture, measurement, governance) are the ‘physical infrastructure’ on which the rest is built. Continuous process change is the cornerstone of process-based management. Without process improvement, both small changes and large innovations, what is the purpose of process analysis and management? For process management and improvement to become ubiquitous, it must be embedded in the organization culture and mindset. Having a central specialistsupport group to do all process work, does not scale and will soon impose a bizarre restriction on process management and improvement work. Therefore, it is necessary to build the capability for identifying, analyzing, improving, and managing business processes throughout the organization.

The 7Enablers is a collective of mutually supportive prerequisites for successful and sustained process-based management.

Read more in Roger Tregear’s blog post introducing 7Enablers

Each of the 7 enablers will be described in further details. So far, two of the enablers have been described:

 

Reimagining Management

23 August 2016

Roger Tregear’s 1-day seminar in Farum

The only way any organisation is able to create, accumulate, and deliver value to its customers is via collaboration across the organisation. There is no other way. Can any box on your organisation chart, by itself, deliver value outside your organisation? No, it can’t. This is the meaningful message of process-based management.

Roger Tregear
Leonardo Consulting


7Enablers

Toolkit for transformation

This seminar delivers a practical and pragmatic metamodel for business transformation. The 7Enablers is a systematic approach to the process of management. It reasserts the primacy of value creation, accumulation, and delivery. Organisations must take a step back and reimagine their operations as value creation and delivery flows. 7Enablers represents a breakthrough in process-based management theory and its practical implementation and operation.

Why should I attend?

Management Breakthrough Content
Learn about the 7Enablers approach to management excellence and how it can make a significant difference in your organization.

Make Process-Based Management Real
Understand how to realise the benefits of process-based management using pragmatic and proven approaches.

Focus On Value Creation, Accumulation, & Delivery
Learn how to create a management approach that persistently focuses the organisation, its people, and their teams on the delivery of value to customers and other stakeholders. 

Efficiency & Effectiveness Delivered
Learn why the inevitable directive to ‘do more with less’ is not an impossible demand for an organisation doing effective process-based management.

World Class Education Outcomes
Your trainer, Roger Tregear, brings international thought leadership combined with the practical insights to allow you to make process-based management work in your organisation.

Local Network Connections
This seminar connects you with other analysts and managers with an interest in developing better process management practices using contemporary, proven approaches.

Who should attend?

The seminar is for anyone involved in the management and improvement of organisational performance or the analysis and design of business systems, especially those who have an interest in process-based management. Executives, managers, business analysts, process practitioners, supply chain managers, and anyone involved in the management and improvement of organisational performance, will gain valuable and practical insights from this seminar.

What will I learn in the seminar?

In a day packed with pragmatic wisdom and practical case study examples, you will learn:

  • How organisational strategy is executed via business processes
  • Why only cross-functional processes can deliver value (products & services) to customers
  • Why process-based management allows managers to focus on the things that really matter
  • How the process view provides an effective framework for business requirements analysis
  • How to build awareness of performance and quality in every person across the organisation
  • How the 7Enablers defines, measures, improves, and maintains organisation performance
  • Why continuous improvement needs both performance-driven and idea-driven pathways
  • How the Virtuous Circles sustain effective process-based management

The 7Enablers is a systemic framework for sustained transformative management, replacing ‘random acts of management’ with commitment to deliberate operational excellence.The 7Enablers is a systemic framework for sustained transformative management, replacing ‘random acts of management’ with commitment to deliberate operational excellence.

When and where?

23 August 2016 at QualiWare HQ at Ryttermarken 15 in Farum.

Participation

The course fee is 5000 DKK plus VAT (if applicable). The fee includes seminar participation, breakfast and lunch, course material, and an optional follow-up visit by a QualiWare BPM expert.

Register here.

Roger Tregear is a Consulting Director with Leonardo Consulting. He delivers BPM education and consulting assignments worldwide. Based in Canberra (Australia), Roger spends his working life talking, consulting, thinking and writing about the analysis, improvement, innovation and management of business processes.