Too many BPM initiatives fail. We’ve got to do better. In this article, I discuss an important area where considerable improvement can be realized. Process-based management is not achieved and sustained by having the right software and methods, indeed you can probably make it work well with the wrong software and methods. Done properly, process-based management is a systemic approach to the relentless pursuit of organizational performance improvement. It’s largely a mind game. Put simply, to ‘do process’, an organization, its people, and their teams need to ‘think process’. In a process-centric organization, all employees are conscious that their roles are to participate in executing a range of processes. They think beyond the activities described in their own job descriptions to see their roles in the bigger picture of creating, accumulating, and delivering value to customers and other stakeholders via cross-functional processes. Yes, that is a big change. The unrelenting emphasis is on conscious, cross-functional collaboration—and that is often challenging for individuals and functional units in an organization. Achievement of effective, sustained, process-based management is ninety per cent mindset and ten per cent toolset. Too often, the focus is on the ten per cent at the expense of the ninety per cent. Tools, including software, systems, methods, and techniques, are critically important—the full one hundred per cent is needed—but the tools are not the main game. Having the right tools is necessary but nowhere near sufficient for success. It might be argued that the mindset/toolset emphasis is 80/20, or perhaps even 70/30, rather than 90/10, but it’s certainly not the reverse of any of those. Tools and techniques alone won’t create a viral spread of the idea of process-based management. Hearts and minds are also needed. To have any value, process-based management must support achievement of organizational objectives.
Many organizations face the complex dilemma of dealing with major strategic and operational changes, often simultaneously. The complexity of the management challenge is increasing, often with alarming speed and consequences. This causes, not just a superabundance of operational problems, but strategic hazards that may test the viability of the organization. Key macro-challenges might include: radically increased customer expectations sector and business-model disruption reducing costs of market entry intensified competition radically and rapidly changing technology cost pressures mounting regulatory-compliance demands diminishing staff numbers increasing operational complexity fragile workforce enthusiasm These are mission-critical problems and there is a growing realization that something new is needed if they are to be solved. The organization chart shapes traditional management. Management effort consequently focuses on functional areas, i.e. ‘boxes on the chart’, and is easily fragmented. This form of ‘functional’ management has always been a key feature of management practice. Long before the invention of the theory of contemporary management in the first half of the twentieth century, organizations have structured themselves into units based on the type of work performed.
An organisation should be looking for ways to continually add value.At it's core Customer Experience Management understands what is of value for a customer, and how we create/deliver value, that will lead to actions that result in a good customer experience.
Since the first release of ARIS Connect, the concepts of publishing in ARIS have changed and lightweight workflows were introduced to provide basic support for the governance of process models. These new features have brought new and interesting experiences. However, feedback from ARIS customers with unique needs for rigorous process model governance indicated that more is needed than the lightweight workflows—like, for example, a workflow for publishing models in isolated repositories to ensure consistency for reporting and analysis. Although the gap left by the lightweight workflows can be filled by a fully-fledged ARIS Process Governance engine, budgets are often a barrier. On the other hand, manual administration (e.g. the handling of models across several repositories without the support of automation) requires a fair bit of maintenance.
Is process modelling difficult? It sounds quite straightforward: processes are to be modelled—arrows and boxes—this happens, and then that happens. Let’s just get on with it!