<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

Selecting a Process Measurement Framework

Process Measurement

While many agree on the importance of process measurement, few actually implement good, relevant metrics that allow them to analyse organisational performance and conduct business process improvement initiatives that target critical process issues and opportunities. Few organisations adopt an enterprise-wide measurement framework.

Frameworks such as APQC can also be used to compare the performance of an organisation to its competitors or other industries; but, all too often, organisations use the APQC classification framework as their process architecture.

Frameworks can provide information about the average performance of organisations in the same industry and other industries and, therefore, provide a benchmark—but it is debatable how valuable this is, because not all processes are identical.

End-to-end, cross-functional processes are rarely taken into consideration in these frameworks. If they are, the metrics designed around processes are very narrow—for example, process cycle time or process costs—and do not consider the end outcome of the process. Additionally, the challenge for organisations is to select the right measures.

Organisations do not need a hundred different measures—but they need the five measures that actually matter to them in their specific situations. Using a generic measure out of its framework also involves the risk that dependencies between measures are not identified.

For example, a sales person is measured for how many sales orders he can bring in during a given sales cycle (time period). If the quality measure is too lax, we will find waste through rework in the downstream processes, which cannot be completed without all the correct and required information that should have been captured by the upstream ‘capture sales order’ process. This is called a ‘perverse incentive’, as it incentivises the sales person to produce poor quality orders and in large volumes. It also poorly reflects on the downstream process, usually performed by another organisational unit.

If we agree that every organisation delivers value to their customers through their business processes, the performance of these business processes has to be measured to assess whether organisations have achieved their goals or not. Only process-centric measurement frameworks can gather data about cross-functional performance and value delivery to the organisation’s customers.

Thanks to Philipp Joebges for his contribution to this topic.

Download 'The Measurement Wasteland' Paper

 

Marco Fargnoli
Marco Fargnoli
CONSULTING PRINCIPAL / TEAM LEADER Marco’s 25 years’ experience in small to large business operations from the ‘shop floor’ as an Avionics Technician to the ‘Executive boardroom’ as the Global Business Process Manager for GE Aviation Systems has provided in depth business knowledge and an excellent practical foundation to his academic qualification, Master in Business Process Management. Marco is passionate about helping people in all areas of life and infects others with his enthusiasm.

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'.