BPM.com
  1. Peter Schooff
  2. Sherlock Holmes
  3. BPM Discussions
  4. Tuesday, 14 August 2018
  5.  Subscribe via email
Very simply, do you think a company's digital transformation should be lead by the IT department?
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Sure, once . . .

1. the business needs have been defined,
2. users have signed off on the workflow and signed off on the look-and-feel
3. ROI submissions have been approved.
References
  1. http://kwkeirstead.wordpress.com
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 1
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Very simply, do you think that IT department should be responsible for business results?
I'm sure that if you ask IT department if they want to assume this responsibility they would answer that not.
So, the IT department should be a strategic partner of the business, share with them what are the technological potentialities, so that the business responsibles can decide what should be implemented in digital transformation.
Other important factor is that digital transformation is much more then just digitize the current situation, but rather an excellent opportunity to rethink and reorganize the business looking for implementation of new business opportunities, otherwise doesn't make any sense digitize just for digitize.
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 2
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Digital Transformation should be:
- driven by business
- governed by IT
- sustained by IT vendor
- enjoyed by customers
CEO, Co-founder, Profluo
Comment
  1. Andrew Paier
  2. 4 months ago
  3. #5618
TBH, from many of the IT organizations I've worked with, even allowing the "governed by IT" makes me quite nervous.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 3
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Of course IT needs to provide the infrastructure with security but when it comes to the business requirements for software with ideas driven by BPM discipline and directly supported by no/ low code Digital Business Platform Software this "should" be lead by business. However takes a brave business person to instruct this is now their business and this aggravated by lack of deep research by industry analysts who are too close to IT?
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 4
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
What if you made this question more abstract? "If a large business is undergoing Digital Transformation, should any one department in the business be the lead for the transformation?" I'd answer "no". True digital transformation is about removing or minimizing the silos in your enterprise. Ideally not making it so that "all the parts work together" but rather so that we aren't discussing various "parts" of the company just "the company" and "our business".

Thinking about Silos like "IT" is anathema to true digital transformation. Yes there is certainly a large technology component to any digital transformation, but thinking about it in terms of one group being "business" and another being "technology" is not going to solve your internal digital operations problems. All the challenges you are facing in becoming more digital are business problems. Some can be solved with technology, but you need everyone thinking about the full business problem, not just their part.

A long winded way of saying "No, IT should not lead." To digitally transform your internal operations (not just your website) you need a holistic view pulling all parts of the company and sharing in success.
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 5
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Design of organizations are changing and this question from my perspective assumes the old days of Business & IT silos. Though many organizations still have those silos, more and more momentum is shifting the organizational design to agile- combined teams making impact vs highly structured hierarchy following orders- for not just technology projects but running the business. Technology and technologists have moved into business units and those organizations are leading the way where combined teams are driving outcomes. Where are data scientists living ? where is the leverage of technology thought leadership living? To force an answer of the main question, business is leading and should lead. I wonder if the label "IT" will exist down the road and the IT we know today splits today's capabilities between business and infrastructure. Business consuming everything except COEs for developing cutting edge experiments and running technology infrastructure which is a very important pillar of any business.
Comment
  1. Tim Manning
  2. 4 months ago
  3. #5621
Yes, IT departments need to look after 'run', but IT developers need to be part of the business, within multi-discipline teams. All business change (if you must "Transformation") should be led by the business and delivered by the business.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 6
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I think that DT shouldn't be "driven" by a single side.

It is the right moment to rethink and reorganize into more product- and customer-centric ways that allow the business and IT to be strategic partners trying to create business value and innovation. The entire business ecosystem needs to be able to work faster (and smarter) not just the Business or IT.

If IT works faster than the LOBs can groom backlogs and define business requirements they end up pursuing things that are not bringing business value or not what the end users need/want. Speed without direction.

If the Business works faster than IT then you end up with massive app backlogs, change requests that are deprioritized, and an inability to focus on innovation (because they are too busy just keeping the lights on.) Direction without speed.

For DT to really work you need both speed and direction, which means both the Business and IT need to be onboard and driving the digital transformation efforts.
References
  1. https://www.outsystems.com/it-innovation/
Comment
  1. David Chassels
  2. 4 months ago
  3. #5620
Digitisation is the long over due shift to direct support for users which must be driven by business and now no code DBP delivers puts business as driver not IT? Indeed IT's responsibilities for infrastructure likely to be outsourced to "cloud" and looking after legacy mess....?
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 7
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Any Digital Transformation must be led by explicit and commonly-agreed logic (see ref [1] for an example of such a logic). Some activities will be assigned to IT.

Thanks,
AS
References
  1. http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.com/2018/07/better-architecting-with-value-viewpoint.html
Comment
  1. David Chassels
  2. 4 months ago
  3. #5619
Agree "some activities will be assigned to IT" driven by business....!
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 8
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Should IT lead digital transformation: Never
Should IT be actively involved in digital transformation: absolutely

For digital transformation (and this applies to BPM as well) it is a matter of mindset first and toolset later. Once a company figured out what digital transformation actually means, it can formulate a strategy for it, determine the gap between the desired to-be situation and the current as-is and set up a road map to get from A to B.

In this roadmap a number of technical activities certainly need to be executed under the supervisory of IT. I believe they also provide valuable input for the strategy and roadmap, but the lead should always come from the "business", as they should be better informed on the needs of the customers of the company (and that is the ultimate goal for which any organization should become involved with digital transformation, or any other kind of program).
BPM is all about mindset first and toolset later....much later
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 9
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Digital Transformation starts in the organization's head. Digital Transformation should start there.
IT people and assets are the muscles to move the organization during the long transformation journey.

(Full post around this idea in Reference [1])
References
  1. https://www.flokzu.com/blog/big-enterprises/digital-transformation-bpm-helps/
CEO at Flokzu Cloud BPM Suite
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 10
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
If transformation is only digital (replacing non digital things by digital things), it might be, with the result you get the same things but now digital.

So it's about transformation. To new markets, to new products, to new channels, to new forms of collaboration, to better processes. And that doesn't sound like IT driven to me.

In short; don't mix up means and goals.
Sharing my adventures in Process World via Procesje.nl
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 11
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
The technical innovation and transformation process, that in some very rare case may be viable, can indeed be lead by IT, as long as this doesn't signify that the rest of the necessary project team members will be amiss or unable to weight in during the different project phases. This is especially true during design (to-be) time and positively correlates with increasing "transformation factors" - in other words, the greater the impact ex-post, the more important is the participation of all directly and indirectly involved areas of the company (and final customers).
In theory, enhanced and increasingly intuitive technologies should free up the required bandwidth for IT to delve deeper into the business, analytics, architectural and project management sides of such an undertaking. That, in part, should also be a driver for a paradigm shift of how IT operates nowadays, steering away from mostly programming driven activities towards a more business oriented role of brokerage between the different departments, providers and customers.
NSI Soluciones - ABPMP PTY
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 12
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
All of this has to start with a proper architecture prepared in response to the business needs of the corporation.

Since few knowledge workers work on only one Case at a time, a run-time platform drawing/allocating resources out of a common pool of resources becomes highly desirable.

No point taking on strategic initiatives when you don't have or cannot demonstrate that you have the resources to carry out such initiatives.

However, we are not likely to soon get to one platform, though, so the real-life situation over the next few years is going to be multiple systems/apps, each with their own resource pools, processing queues.

Interoperability becomes all important so that ACM/BPMs do not end up as islands.

Any additions/clarifications needed to my latest list of must-haves for Case Management?

"Must-Have Features in a Run-Time Case Management Platform"
https://wp.me/pzzpB-Sv

Official interfaces only (normal users, casual users, import/export engine)
Case Hx (longitudinal view)
Case Hx (workflow view)
Case Goals/Objectives
FOMM for assessing progress toward Case Goals/Objectives
Post-relational dbms
Menu of Services (for selecting "best practices" protocols)
User Workspace (InTray, capable of hosting "best practices" protocol template instances)
Background orchestration from BPM process template instances
RALB or 3-Tier Scheduling (system, users, supervisors)
Skip/Jump at Process Steps
Insert an ad hoc intervention at a Case
Break Glass (for emergency takeover of an in-progress intervention)
Re-assign/take back a process step that is not being worked on
Advanced Security [who can do what, when]
References
  1. http://www.kwkeirstead.wordpress.com
Comment
Looking at the list, it's easy to understand how organizations get fails with BPM.

If I remove any one of the 15 must-haves, other than Break Glass which is unique to healthcare, I end up with a serious inability to manage Cases.
  1. David Chassels
  2. 4 months ago
  3. #5624
Karl interesting articulation of how you see the must haves. As I have articulated in the forum here are what I see as 16 must haves to deliver at enterprise level which of course includes case management. This is what a sound Digital Business Platform needs to support in business language! And yes delivers on your operational must haves.

1. Process engine - to ensure all works to plan.
2. Rules engine - reflecting real world of work and compliance.
3. Calculation engine - automating system work.
4. State engine - Real time feed back from any point.
5. Workflow - everything connected in right order.
6. Audit trail, events, escalations - = control with empowerment.
7. Rapid prototyping - user involvement in build no need for a final spec
8. Time recording - supports activity based costing.
9. Real time reporting - becomes predictive.
10. Build mash ups - one screen multiple data sources.
11. Linked intelligent Ajax grids - enter data only once.
12. Roles and performers - people and machines recognised.
13. Management hierarchy - see who does what and when to reallocate work
14. MDM Orchestrating legacy with business processes as required - recognition of valuable legacy data and functional systems
15. Call Web Services - wrapped up in a process.
16. User interface dynamically created linking people, roles, task type and data via forms for specific instances.- supports adaptive capability

  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 13
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Geoffrey "Crossing The Chasm" Moore's recent The Four Zones book (full chapter available on LinkedIn) is an excellent review of this question. Mr. Moore builds a matrix on sustaining versus disruptive innovation AND on mission versus enablement. And the resulting four quadrants can be neatly analyzed, for example according to executive time horizons.

Using this perspective. one can see how a fruitful relationship between IT and business leadership can be supported.

Let's look at this from the perspective of building bridges. A new bridge across a river is likely to transform life in a city. So let's ask the question: Who should lead a bridge-building transformation in a city?

1. MUST HAVE ENGINEERING LEADERSHIP -- If engineering ( "IT" ) is not sufficiently involved, the bridge will fall down.

2. MUST HAVE DIALOGUE -- If engineering and municipal leadership and community are not in dialogue, then an optimal and even creative bridge solution will not be found. Engineers will have insights concerning new bridge building technologies -- and also local physical constraints -- and how to cost-effectively work within those options. And the host community can best articulate the developing needs of the community.

3. MUST HAVE COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP -- If only engineering is involved, then the bridge will not fall down, but the city system of which it is a part will likely not enjoy full benefits of the investment. The bridge may even result in destructive ecosystem effects.
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 14
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Digital transformation is often seen and promoted recently as a primary factor of success for a company. IT is a resource delivering implementation of the challenge for digitization. This might create a false impression about IT as a primary driver of business.

Despite its growing power, IT is and will always be just a technology. As a technology, IT has its own logic of functioning and evolution. Even despite functionality and design of IT are largely shaped by demands of business, still principles and internal alignment of IT remain in a primary technical scope.

If left alone or followed as a beacon, IT will drive a company from its true business goals into a virtual world of elusive digital harmony. This danger is getting more and more real in the course of rapidly increasing role of digital governance and real time reporting. As a result, management tends to see the whole business through an IT prism creating a potential for a noxious aberration.

Deviation of a company from an artificial digital focus is an essential factor of self-healing evolution towards true business goals. The gap between business and IT is an objective and important safety distance, which protects business from dissolving in a digital ocean.
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 15
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Great points, Boris

Agree, IT is just a technology in the overall success of corporations. Essential, yes, but primary factor of success, no.

Consider RBV (Resource Based View) - this is a good method of choice for charting the course of a corporation toward achieving improved competitive advantage yet nowhere in the description of the method are there references to Digital.

RBV clearly can benefit from mind map environments (in our consulting we reject all of the single root wheel/spoke "solutions" for the simple logical reason that circles only have 360 degrees and that the more nodes in your mind map the more real estate you need to on your sheet/canvas). The users of such systems have to navigate great distances as they add more and more nodes.

Multi-root hierarchy approaches to mind mapping, in my view, lessen the complexity of "first the problem, then the solution".

RVB as a strategic method is pretty straightforward - the central message is you cannot easily manage what you cannot see and the challenge given a way to "view" your resources is to make best use of these.

Where corporations need Digital transformation is on the operational side where, it seems, the objectives are to achieve efficiency and effectiveness if we can wade through the bafflegab that many vendors of "solutions" seem to rely on.

Here, ACM with background BPM seems to work well, providing the ACM environment is able to draw upon a sufficiently complete common resource pool.

i.e. We can do workflow management in ACM at individual Cases, but to achieve workload management an ACM environment needs to accommodate what I call RALB (resource allocation, leveling and balancing) which involves users, machines and supervisors making tasking decisions across multiple Cases.

My model for closing the gap between strategy and operations (operations and strategy) goes like this . . .

Strategy ->
Initiatives
-> <-ROI <- ->
Operations:
Workload - Case Management across multiple Cases at User Intrays [RALB]) ->
Workflow – Case Management at Individual Cases 1) goals/objectives, 2) FOMM to assess progress toward meeting Case goals/objectives, 3) user ad hoc interventions + machine interventions + orchestration from BPM template instances.
References
  1. http://kwkeirstead.wordpress.com
Comment
@Karl Walter, very curious and authentic approach with RBV and RALB. Looks as a ready recipe for many companies.
@Boris, Very pleased to find that some of the participants at this forum read my rants,

Not curious to me . . . ..

Edith Penrose invented RBV in 1959 and RALB comes from CPM/PERT (1957/1958). Proof positive that methods can take decades to deploy / achieve liftoff.

CEIR had a software suite in the mid 1960's called RAMPS (Resource Allocation and Multi-Project Scheduling) that allowed planning/scheduling/control of time, cost and performance across multiple once-through projects.

I did the systems work on a very large CPM software suite project for Bechtel Corp in SF/CA. It was the first CPM system to map ES-EF-LS-LF (early start, early finish, late start) to "planned start/finish and actual & expected start/finish" (4 dates, but totally different practical use). Everyone from top management to field construction workers on the $1 billion hydro power project we piloted this software on had no problems relating to the time projections. I spent 6 years on this project.

I see very little difference between CPM and BPM.

My advice is " . . . don't go to the office/customer site without both of these".
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 16
  • Page :
  • 1


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