<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

8 Benefits For Your Business When BPM is Managed Right

2019 Blog Images (2)

For nearly two decades I have worked with many organizations in different countries, cultures, and corporate structures to understand and advance the theory and practice of process-based management.


There is a common problem, a change of mindset and practice that many organizations fail to make. Process improvement alone is not enough. Successful process-based management also requires … management.
My goal is always to better understand, and help others understand, how all organizations execute their strategies through cross-functional business processes and, that in traditional management modes, those processes are not actively managed. We get work done in collaboration across the organization, and yet we mainly manage up and down.

More and more people are understanding what this means and, importantly, want to do something about it — they get it. I am encouraged by the increasing number of conversations I have on these topics with senior people in a variety of organizations around the world:

  • A regulation authority in the Middle East — they get it.
  • A specialty manufacturer in Europe — they get it.
  • A fresh food distributor in Asia Pacific — they get it.
  • A social services agency in the Arab States — they get it.
  • An infrastructure management group in India — they get it.
  • A government agency in southern Africa — they get it.
  • A national promotion agency in the Arab States — they get it.

They get that in actively managing cross-functional processes, as well as functional organizational units, management becomes less complex and more effective, organizations have more resilience and become more agile, and people are more motivated and engaged as they better understand the role they play in realizing the vision. They get that while process improvement is vital, indeed it's the end game, to make it efficient and effective requires process management.


It's not magic, it's not easy, but neither does it need to be so difficult, costly, or time consuming that it ends up in the too-hard basket. In designing a process-based management approach we need to avoid some common fatal flaws, flaws that are often deliberate design features hiding in plain sight.


The M stands for Management


The M in BPM is for management. That sounds obvious, hardly worth saying, but if you look at many, perhaps most, 'BPM' initiatives they have more to do with ad hoc process improvement, often via some form of technology implementation. Process performance improvement is the end game, and without that we are wasting time. However, to optimize the impact of process improvement we must be choosing the correct processes to improve and then actively manage to maintain the new level of performance.

Organizations need both continuous process management and continuous process improvement. Which processes should be analyzed and improved? Why now? In which order should processes be tackled? What will be the impacts of any change? Should we address processes based on the volume or source of complaints, or is there a better evidence-based approach? Where is the best return on process?


Process-based Management


I have described my view of process-based management in many places, including here, here, and here, so I won't repeat the details. Suffice to say here that the critical elements are that organizations must discover and document their processes, understand how they should perform, know how they are performing, decide what performance gaps are worth closing, and take steps to make the required closures. And repeat, forever. They must do this in the context that most traditional management effort is directed up and down the organization chart rather than across it where value is created, accumulated, and delivered.


Return on Process


There is no immediate, hard, measurable ROI for setting up process-based management. This is foundational work and to argue otherwise will result in loss of credibility. Establishing process-based management takes some time and resources (but less than many think) and creates an active process management environment, a system, that will deliver significant and measurable benefits later. These benefits come from:

  1. More active management of the high-impact, cross-functional processes (processes that may not be getting much management now).
  2. Detecting problems before they occur by analyzing and responding to process performance trend data.
  3. Identifying opportunities for common processes that can lead to shared service delivery mechanisms.
  4. Improved ability to measure organizational performance in meaningful ways, leading to enhanced management control.
  5. Making evidence-based decisions about which processes should be improved first, resulting in better prioritization decisions.
  6. Better understanding and continual assessment of the risk of process failure, and an enhanced ability to implement countermeasures.
  7. Greater organizational agility derived from a deep knowledge of how work gets done and how strategy is executed.
  8. Supercharged organizational culture where everyone is aware of how they contribute to the cross-functional processes that deliver customer value.


Many benefits flow from enhanced process management, and the main benefit is much better process improvement.

 

New Call-to-action

Roger Tregear
Roger Tregear
Roger is a Consulting Associate 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

The Process Life — What's It All About?

What's it all about? If you google "what's it all about" you get 4.5 billion results. Seems that we are keen to answer that question. Of course, it would be much more useful if there were just one answer. I have a similar experience when I ask people what they understand by "business process management" and related phrases. [2.5 billion, in case you were wondering.] It would be of significant benefit if there were just one answer here also. Good news! There is just one answer. The bad news is we all agree with that but have a different version. The great news is that we can solve this problem — if you all repent and agree with me!

Why BPM Maturity is an Untapped Organisational Superpower

  Processes deliver Every organization makes promises to customers and other stakeholders. Such promises are its reason for existence and are shaped as value propositions in the organizational strategy. Traditional management follows the organization chart with most management activity directed up and down that chart. But how do we get work done? How do we deliver on those promises? We work in collaboration across the organization, not up and down. Is there any box on that chart that can, by itself, deliver products or services externally? No there is not, that’s not the way it works. Processes deliver on our promises.

How To Replace Random Acts of Management With a Metamodel of Improvement

The simple existence of a problem is not enough reason to invest in fixing it, perhaps not now, perhaps not ever. Organizations need a systemic approach to define what good looks like, assess current performance, and make evidence-based decisions about which performance gaps to close. The Tregear Circles replace random acts of management with a metamodel for continuous process improvement. I have recently encountered several examples of the idea that higher process performance target scores are obviously better than lower ones, just because they are … well … higher; that setting a target of, say, 95% is, without doubt, better than a target of 88%, and in striving for improvement we should go 'as high as possible'.