<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=1907245749562386&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Event_bg

The Leonardo Blog

All Posts

Crossing the Chasm toward BPM Maturity

Drawing on the lifecycle chasm concept first made popular by Geoffrey Moore (1), Paul Harmon has spoken of a BPM maturity development chasm (2), as shown below. Surveys of BPM Maturity, including the biennial review by BPTrend(3) , show that most organizations that are undertaking some form of process improvement and management are between levels 2 and 3, with many never crossing the chasm to level 3. This is a serious problem because the significant, whole-of-organization benefits are realized at level 3 and above.

 15_BPMM_GAP-717551-edited.png

Fig 1:  The Harmon BPM Maturity Chasm

Most illustrations of the five-step maturity model imply a linear progression from level to level. This is misleading. The biggest step change is from level 2 to level 3. As Paul Harmon eloquently, if graphically, suggests, many don’t make it across the chasm and face a difficult, perhaps impossible, climb to recover.

“We might say that the level 2 team gets up a lot of momentum and then runs and jumps... but it’s in the nature of things that they can never jump completely across the gap, and they hit the wall and slide into the gap – and then crawl out again on the level 2 side. There needs to be a senior executive on the level 3 side of the gap to reach out and give them a hand and pull them up. (4)

At level 2, an organization has a growing acceptance of the importance of processes, some processes have been documented, and process improvement projects are becoming more common, but the process improvement scope is still quite limited and process work itself remains largely siloed. This level of BPM maturity is comparatively easy to achieve.

To achieve and sustain level 3 requires important differences. The key change is that an enterprise process architecture has been developed and is in common use to guide management decisions, and process improvement and management. Process performance begins to be monitored and any anomalies are detected and addressed resulting in proven beneficial business outcomes. Based on a thorough understanding of the process and its operational context, opportunities for small and large improvement can also be sought quite separate to solving performance problems. This makes the process view and resulting activities a strategic, as well as operational, imperative. At BPM maturity level 3, the organization is showing signs of a genuine process-aware culture.15_BPMM_Aspiration_Chasm.png

For most organizations there is a significant gap between their aspirations for higher levels of BPM maturity and the lived reality. This is not to say that crossing the chasm is too hard or too dangerous to be attempted. The lesson is that to be successful organizations need to understand what is involved and prepare properly for the crossing.

 

 

Crossing the Chasm – 2 Virtuous Circles

To their significant benefit, many organizations cross the chasm. In the latest published data from the BPTrends State of BPM Survey(5), about 38% of respondents are at levels 3-5 with approximately 60% of those at level 3. They make it to a point where process-based management is the instinctive approach and process thinking is embedded in the organization’s culture and practice. This is not to say that they have reached enlightened perfection, a process nirvana, but they have created, and increasingly entrenched, a systemic approach to continuous improvement and innovation in how they create, accumulate, and deliver value to their customers and other stakeholders.

How do they do that?

Two virtuous circles facilitate and deliver process-based management at high levels of BPM maturity. The general concepts have been derived by the author from projects across a range of industries and in several different countries. Implementation details vary, but the basic structures are present in successful process-based management environments.

The two virtuous circles are the PO Circle (Process Ownership) and the PI Circle (Process Improvement) as shown in Figure 8. Key activities in the PO Circle are Target-Assess- Respond. In the PI Circle the key elements are As Is-To Be-To Do.

The PO circle is continuously and deliberately testing the performance of all processes to see if their actual or emergent performance gaps or innovation opportunities require a response. Set a performance target for a process, measure what is really happening, and do something if the results are not what they should be. In a process-centric organization this is the core of the Process Owner’s role. This sequence of target-assess-respond ensures an unrelenting focus on the management of process, and therefore organizational, performance.

15-2VC.gifThe PI circle is the process improvement cycle where we identify the current state, define the future state, and then make the required changes. Where real or potential process performance requires intervention, it is the PI circle that delivers process change. The PO circle determines if process adjustment is required in response to a current or emergent performance anomaly, or a development opportunity, and the PI circle discovers, details and delivers the change.

Note that the conscious process management activity starts with the PO circle. The requirement is to be continuously aware of performance gaps or opportunities to challenge the status quo and making evidence-based decisions about which gaps need to be partially or completely closed, and in what order. Processes are selected for PI circle treatment because of the results of PO circle analysis. Pervasive process improvement should be a deliberate management act. Effective ongoing process improvement requires a constant search for processes that can be improved.

The real benefit of continuous improvement comes after the easy changes have been made and this demands, not just the PI circle to effect changes, but the PO circle to continue to uncover the opportunities.

With these two circles consistently working well in a controlled way across the process architecture, an organization is working at the higher levels of BPM maturity. Creating the circumstance were the two circles are ‘consistently working well’ is not a trivial exercise, but once achieved, there is a mental and physical fly-wheel effect that is continuously  optimizing process performance, i.e. continuously assessing and adjusting the organization’s delivery of value to customers and other stakeholders.

 New Call-to-action


 

1    Geoffrey A. Moore. Crossing the Chasm, HarperBusiness, 1991.
2    Paul Harmon. The State of Business Process Management, presentation at Building Business Capability Conference, Las Vegas, November 2013.
3   Harmon, Paul and Celia Wolf, 2014. The State of Business Process Management 2014. Accessed 23 August 2014. http://www.bptrends.com/bpt/wp-content/uploads/BPTrends-State-of-BPM-Survey-Report.pdf
4   Personal correspondence between Paul Harmon and the author, 26 August 2014.

5   ibid

 

.

Roger Tregear
Roger Tregear
Roger is a Consulting Director with Leonardo. He delivers consulting and education assignments around the world. This work has involved many industry sectors, diverse cultures, and organization types. Roger briefs executives, coach managers, and support project teams to develop process-based management. Several thousand people have attended Roger's training courses and seminars in many countries - and Roger frequently presents at international business conferences. Roger has been writing a column on BPTrends called Practical Process for over 10 years. This led to the 2013 book of the same name. In 2011, he co-authored Establishing the Office of Business Process Management. He contributed a chapter in The International Handbook on Business Process Management (2010, 2015). With Paul Harmon in 2016, Roger co-edited Questioning BPM?, a book discussing key BPM questions. Roger's own book, Reimagining Management, was published in 2016.

Related Posts

Buying-in to process-based management

One of the most difficult aspects of creating a climate of process-based management is achieving the required level of buy-in. It’s tempting to say “executive buy-in” but we need buy-in across the whole organization—having support only at the c-level is not enough to make sustained change. Getting the right people on board at the right time, and keeping them there, is often a serious challenge. Everyone is busy. Changing to a process-based management approach sounds more like a problem than a solution. In addition, we are often working in an environment where the organization is reasonably successful, so what problem are we trying to fix?

The Primacy of Process

As we start this new year I want to revisit the basic premise of my involvement in business process management and improvement — to explain it to you, to reassess it for myself, and to seek your feedback. My working life revolves around the certainty that organizations need to be fully committed to both continuous process management and continuous process improvement. Why is this so? In brief, it's the principle of the primacy of process. Let's unpack that and see if I can convince you of its pre-eminence — and, yes, I appreciate that, as this paper is originally published in the Business Rules Journal, that may not be easy! Do you want a simple, but effective, practical, but well-grounded, explanation of the role of business processes in management? After many years working on this question in organizations of many sizes and types, in different national and organizational cultures, I believe I can help you with a simple, effective, practical, and well-grounded meta-model of management.

Are We Too Good at Fixing Process Problems?

Arriving at your destination airport to discover that your checked-in bags are somewhere else is a sufficiently common occurrence to have travelers staring anxiously at the stationary carousel, then fixedly watching the point where bags are first seen, and then breathing a sigh of relief on seeing their bags finally appear. SITA reports1 that 4 billion passengers checked in 4.5 billion bags last year. While only about six bags per thousand passengers get lost, lost bags (more gently termed by the airline industry ‘mishandled baggage’) is a significant problem for airlines, airport owners and managers, and their customers. SITA further reports2 that in 2016 alone, baggage mishandling cost the industry US$2.1 billion, and in the period 2007-2016, the industry cost was a staggering US$27 Billion. The problem is easing3 with the use of new technology, but millions of pieces of luggage are still being ‘lost’ each year, costing the airlines significant amounts, and causing considerable aggravation for travelers.4