<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

Value Delivery is a Two-Way-Street

Value Delivery Exchane.pngReaders in parts of the world where Christmas is celebrated (or is that selleberated!) well understand the rituals of giving and receiving. Santa Clause is checking inventory, supply chain managers are frantic, the transport pool is making final adjustments, and the naughty/nice lists are being debated and finalized. In other parts of the world, readers have their own celebration and remembrance festivals through the year. The giving and receiving of gifts, goodwill and grace are important parts of our lives.

This has me thinking, inevitably, about processes. Yes, I know – sad, but true!

It is common to say that business processes are the conduits through which every organization delivers value to its customers and other stakeholders. Therefore, business processes need to be thoughtfully managed and continuously improved to maintain an unimpeded flow of value. Many readers will agree that this is the essential premise of Business Process Management, the touchstone on which all other related process-centric management, governance, measurement and technology initiatives rely.

However, this is not complete. This view of a one-way flow of value is a distortion of what actually happens. It is not enough to deliver value, we must always exchange value. Of course, every organization exists to deliver some form of value proposition to customers and other stakeholders and we see these documented in Mission, Vision or other statements of strategic intent. Business processes are the pathways through which we execute that intent. But it’s not a one-way street. Organizations, at least the successful ones, deliver value and they must also be receiving value in return. Organizations are not infinite value generators, content to stream out value endlessly and for no purpose. There must be a return path.

Without adequate return, the operation cannot be sustained.

I have spoken previously of 'Balanced Process Management'. In that article I made the point that:

Satisfying, indeed delighting, external customers is vital but it’s not the complete picture. We must look at the whole process. It is a great idea to start at the external customer end of a value chain, but it would be dumb to stop there.

For a commercial organization, the exchange is easier to define. In the private sector, the most obvious exchange is that goods and services go to the customer and money comes in return. Value, as perceived by the customer, might go beyond the actual product or service. There may be some prestige, personal satisfaction, aspirational or lifestyle element to the value proposition. In the other direction, a high performance exchange will return more than just the payment. We want the customer to be a fan, to be so pleased with the exchange they tell their world about it. If there are any problems, we would also like to get that feedback so we can ensure it doesn’t happen again. In many circumstances we would also hope to have repeat business from the customer based on earlier experiences. So goods and services, aspirational and lifestyle fulfillment are delivered to the customer and we want payment, references, feedback and repeat business from the customer. Two-way streets must be managed in both directions.

The exchange is sometimes a little less obvious and direct in the public sector, but it still happens. Government Process Management (GPM) has important differences to Business Process management (BPM). An “operational” government agency, such as one that regulates the use of cars on our roads, provides a range of services: safety, security, vehicle identification, and contribution to road maintenance funding, for example. In the other direction, car owners provide money and information. In some areas of government, the key output is policy and the process value exchange involves more abstract issues related to the “public good”. In the Not For Profit sector there are similar elements for some processes.

Whatever the organization, whatever the process, it is important to have a balanced view about the two-way flow of value. It’s not just about the Customer Value Proposition; we should also define the Process Value Proposition. For each process we are analyzing, we need to define the value that should be received by the process. What do we need from our customers and other stakeholders, how much, how often? Who are the best performing customers? Not every organization has a choice about its customers; only some have the ability to “sack” a customer. In every case though, we should have a clear understanding about which customer/stakeholder groups need the most management and attention. These are issues about which we should have clear and measurable objectives.

What do you know about your customers’ processes? Some outputs of their processes will be coming to you as inputs? The companion to the process Receive Order is Place Order. Perhaps we too often focus on the first and forget the second.

The familiar adage says it is better to give, than to receive. For our processes, we should be saying it is best to give and receive. It’s the Santa clause.

DOWNLOAD PROCESS ARCHITECTURE PAPER

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

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'.