BPM.com
  1. Peter Schooff
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. Tuesday, December 20 2016, 09:50 AM
  4.  Subscribe via email
One more question looking at the year ahead: What do you think should be the number one priority a company has for their processes in 2017?
Craig Willis Accepted Answer
Are our processes helping us deliver our strategy.
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 1
John Morris Accepted Answer
It's a long term goal, but 2017 is a great place to start.

Open up the black box of any core processes. If what's inside is not explicitly managed as a process, start your journey to process responsibility.

Your goal is to own your work as much as your outcomes. Anything else is magical thinking.
Comment
Re: ". . . . .own your work as much as your outcomes" - good !

The only problem here is few organizations "own" their outcomes, accordingly, a parallel initiative seems to be needed

a) evolve ways and means of setting strategic goals/objectives/outcomes,
b) inventory your processes etc.

I don't think many corporations know what their core processes are
  1. karl walter keirstead
  2. 2 months ago
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 2
Emiel Kelly Accepted Answer
Execute them (assuming they are useful processes that solve someone's problem. But I hope they got that figured out in 2016 and decades before)
Sharing my adventures in Process World via Procesje.nl
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 4
Inventory all processes (anything that involves doing the right things, the right way, using the right resources) - decide which ones need to be in-line to improve operational efficiency and effectiveness.
Comment
I meant the customer of the customer
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 2 months ago
They don't - it's a question we ask them.

In our Infrastructure Protection initiatives, we ask the customer to first inventory their assets, then inventory their processes for protecting those assets, then prioritize processes that need to go in-line.

The most useful processes are those that prevent problems as opposed to solving problems.
  1. karl walter keirstead
  2. 2 months ago
"Did you inventory all your processes?" Never heard a customer asking that ;-)
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 2 months ago
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 5
Carefully check that the company thoroughly follows all the laws of BPM [ref1], especially the 19th one.

Thanks,
AS
References
  1. http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.ch/2015/07/laws-of-bpm-business-process-management.html
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 6
Patrick Lujan Accepted Answer
Blog Writer
An oldie, but a goodie - simplification. Forget about the bells, whistles, baubles and sparkly things media, vendors and consultants hype. Do that later when you're more mature, better able. Right here, right now, on the ground, try to just make life simpler for the people in the trenches. Ask them and they will tell you.
Comment
RE "crawl, then walk, then run." Hmm It seems that business priorities are not mentioned.
  1. Dr Alexander Samarin
  2. 2 months ago
@Emiel, "no."
@Samarin, "crawl, then walk, then run."
@John, because we're asking the workers, not their management. The latter know bupkus about good management.
  1. Patrick Lujan
  2. 2 months ago
Deceptively simple but powerful advice, for sure. But how is this distinguishable from just good management?
  1. John Morris
  2. 2 months ago
Are you in favor to remove complex work or simple work or both?
  1. Dr Alexander Samarin
  2. 2 months ago
But won't automating the hell out of the trencher's work with all the hypie things make their life much simpler? Being at home, getting a basic income, enjoying the kids and the occasional beer.
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 2 months ago
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 7
E Scott Menter Accepted Answer
Blog Writer
Remember your users. They may be customers, staff, supply chain partners—each comes to the game with their own context, expectations, and habits. Give them the experience they want, because acceptance drives adoption, and adoption drives success.
http://www.bplogix.com/images/icon-x-medium.png Scott
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 8
Bogdan Nafornita Accepted Answer
A combination of what Patrick and Scott have said: go back to basics, start small and operationalize deeply via your most important adopters - enterprise users.

Fail to consider the social aspects of your change project and you can go home.
Managing Founder, profluo.com
Comment
MBO still works and when you host those objectives in a "connect-the-dots environment" where top management can ask questions and get answers, you can walk back upstream and do

'asset inventory - > SWOT -> competition -> technology/maturity -> innovation -> candidate initiatives -> prioritization of initiatives -> resource bookings -> objectives -> KPIs

Operations then responds with

ROIs -> allocation of resource bookings -> Cases -> ACM/BPM etc -> Case Objectives -> KPIs

We can see that the buck stops at KPIs.

If top management simply defines KPIs and then looks at them once a month

a) without challenging any of the operational data ,
b) without calling operations onto the carpet when Case objectives are not being met and
c) never challenges the KPIs themselves.

strategy and operations end up in separate worlds whereas , maybe, because strategic objectives have changed, some Cases need change/cancellation as they no longer are supportive of strategic objectives, some of the KPIs themselves may no longer be relevant.,

... things just go on and on.

  1. karl walter keirstead
  2. 2 months ago
Good question Walter, referring to Dr. Samarin's proposition. A "system of objectives" sounds like Peter Drucker's "management by objectives" or MBO. And MBO has been criticized for being "outside-in", i.e. not opening up the "black box of work", to take responsibility for what's inside.
  1. John Morris
  2. 2 months ago
Do corporations really want "an enterprise as a system of processes" or would it be better to strive for "an enterprise as a system of objectives"?
  1. karl walter keirstead
  2. 2 months ago
Your BPM basics are in a good match for the pattern "Eclipse" (see it http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.ch/2013/06/enterprise-patterns-eclipse.html ). One prerequisite (it must be stated explicitly) for those BPM basics to be successful - a lot of guiding materials must be provided to guarantee that all those bottom-up initiatives perfectly fit together to build an enterprise as a system of processes.
  1. Dr Alexander Samarin
  2. 2 months ago
Originally I thought that Messrs @Bogdan, @Scott and @Patrick's focus on the end-user was "a little generic". But that wasn't giving enough credit. The end-user or primary human BPM process actor is where tacit knowledge meets formal enterprise IT system. The mashup of tacit and system is where maximum work value can be generated.
OK, so we are all in violently in agreement (maybe) -- does it help to express "care for your end-users" in fancy systems terms, such as "a mashup of tacit knowledge and systems"?
Certainly not at the client site!
But in terms of thinking about the possibilities of BPM -- yes.
Because BPM is about rationality and going beyond accepted culture. Acknowledging the importance of the end-user is a start, but unless enterprise engages with the question formally, and as a concern of governance itself, I don't think much will change. The organization that can take caring for the edge actor beyond rhetoric will outperform.
  1. John Morris
  2. 2 months ago
BPM basics: start with a small sub-process, digitize it, test it thoroughly, put it into production and watch as ideas bubble as to how to extend that neat little nugget of "something that really works".
  1. Bogdan Nafornita
  2. 2 months ago
Sounds like not BPM-specific but rather generic. Maybe we do not have agreed BPM "basics" yet?
  1. Dr Alexander Samarin
  2. 2 months ago
RE "processes are a means, objectives are ends so processes are subservient to objectives " - yes and no (as usual). Processes (if done correctly) may demonstrate that proposed objectives are not implementable. There is no subordination - just recursion.
  1. Dr Alexander Samarin
  2. 2 months ago
MBO goes back to 1954 and even Peter Drucker could not anticipate the environment we work in today.

I suppose I like some aspects of Resource Based View

http://wp.me/pzzpB-Ms

even though it does not seem that folks do much (or anything) with it.

The core concept is you have resources, you want to put them to good use, doing so increases your competitive advantage but not necessarily faster that the competition is increasing theirs.

In my model above, processes are a means, objectives are ends so processes are subservient to objectives (i.e. you don't run any of them unless the contribute either directly or indirectly to strategic objectives)
  1. karl walter keirstead
  2. 2 months ago
Done correctly, a "system-of-processes" covers more (than system-of-objectives") elements from your chains thus provides an objective and on-demain management tool.
  1. Dr Alexander Samarin
  2. 2 months ago
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 9
David Chassels Accepted Answer
Agree back to basics but also understand just how processes can be "digitised" in a way that truly supports people and good decision making....do some research....
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 10
  • Page :
  • 1


There are no replies made for this post yet.
However, you are not allowed to reply to this post.