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

The 7 Deadly Sins of BPM Governance

Roger Tregear Roger Tregear on August 24, 2015


Implementing and sustaining BPM governance is difficult, albeit worthwhile. It will be impossible unless you actively work to avoid these seven conditions that inevitably lead to failure.

  1. Uncertainty. Ambiguity about the difference between process and functional management can only result in confusion about the purpose of BPM governance. It is matrix management, so clarity about purpose, authority, and loyalties is vital.
  1. Mired in the Minutiae. Process Owners who get caught up in the details of process analysis, measurement, and management lose sight of their leadership and alliance goals.
  1. Centre of Governance. Having a Process Office or BPM Center of Excellence is NOT the same as effective BPM governance
  1. Exaggeration. Running projects for one-off improvements in individual processes is not the same as Business Process Management. If you aren’t doing BPM, you don’t need Process Owners
  1. Setting Up To Fail. Appointing Process Owners from levels too low in the functional hierarchy creates an environment where they can only fail.
  1. DIY. Process Owners need organizational support not only in terms of budget and resources, but, also, and most importantly, they need knowledge about BPM and data about the performance of their process. DIY will not work.
  1. Fading out. If you really want to waste a lot of time and money, allow your organization to get excited about BPM governance for a while and then let support for Process Owners fade out.

Steer clear of these seven scenarios while following these 10 steps to Achieving effective process governance,  and you will on your way to better BPM governance and thus effective process-based management.

New Call-to-action