Whilst working at my current company, I was given the responsibility of developing the To-Be Business Processes in a major Project. I had to think carefully about how I was going to approach this project because I wanted to take into account that I was entering it after a considerable amount of work had already been completed.

I wanted to try and introduce into the project a more modern approach to Business Process development. The As-Is processes had been developed in Visio but not in a conventional way, never the less, they were easy to read and detailed. The To-Be processes would be built to support a new software architecture centred on a new ERP system which utilised Workflow both to support procedures in application areas and external supporting activities. 

This was a great opportunity to introduce BPMN as the process mapping notation, as I foresaw that in the future additional services would need to be developed to support the selected ERP solution. Also the internal workflow in the selected application used a BPMN like notation. In looking for a Tool I came across Aris Express, which support BPMN diagrams but had an additional advantage as it included Process Landscaping, Organisation Charting, IT Infrastructure and produces RTF documentation. This was important as I intended to include in my design some of the tools we have previously discussed in the Blog.

I will now run through the approach I have taken to the project and hope it will help all who have taken the time to read my Blog.

The Approach

1.       Analyse the RFP and tender documents plus the response to the tender and structure the key information in a mind mapping tool. The one I use for this is Freemind it’s a really great open source mind mapping tool.

2.       Map the As-Is Organisation and the To-Be Organisations recommend changes along with any changes in responsibility. This exercise was carried out in Aris Express

3.       Map the Core Application software areas that the To-Be processes will be interacting with. The new software was very different from the old software in that the Master Data was build up in a particular sequence. Also Master Data had to be in place before the in-built workflow could be executed.

4.       Build the Entity Business Model, this provides an overview of the high level processes for a particular Industry and Company. It also documents the external influences on the Core Processes. I try to align this to the Value Chain.

5.       Next step was to build a Value Chain, this provides with the means of having a clear understanding of how value is created with an organisation. Also it provides a view of the end to end process which is often forgotten.

6.       Having completed the Value Chain the next step is to agree the Nomenclature which I usually base on AQPC- PCF (Process Classification Framework)

7.       Once the Framework is in place then I will investigate the quick win areas, and focus my attention in starting to build the processes. Obviously at this stage you need to review the As-Is processes and new application requirements.

8.       When building Processes with Tools that have no database I build a folder structure that represents the AQPC Nomenclature to store the processes and design documents. I also number each activity within a process; this is to manage changes that may occur through a BPI exercise.

9.       The next step in this case was to create a report that documents the process for signoff.  To create this document I combined the Aris RTF document with a template I created taking into account the Entity Business Model.

In Summary

The project is ongoing and will take some time yet before I get any feedback on the both the approach. There many hurdles still to overcome, but the project team I a working with have very receptive to the approach and results so far. There will be workshops with the various parts of the organisation to introduce the new approach to creating Business Processes. We have decided to focus primarily on one area of the organisation that has been identified as a quick win and will start piloting very soon. It is complex project and as such will be a good test of whether the approach I used in Asia can be accepted and adopted here in Europe. I will keep you posted as the project progresses and feed back to you the results as they come in.

It does seem unreasonable to go through all the effort of defining a strategy for the business and setting goals and objectives to achieve the strategy if its success cannot be measured. I have worked for many companies that set revenue and profit goals with no plan to achieve their targets. Also there is no realisation that success builds on success; by this I mean you should consider the success of the previous plan and define a way to build on that success with stretch, but achievable, growth and stability targets.

When I was working for Burroughs in the early 80’s, in Europe, we developed an Account Management training program for our Branch Managers.  It suddenly dawned on us it was easier and more cost effective to obtain new business from existing customers than to obtain new customers. To ensure this programme succeeded we developed workshops, for branch managers to help them facilitate sales team meetings, building and reviewing  account plans focused on identifying and closing business within the existing customer base. The process we went through was to capitalise on the investment in the account and marketing resources, identify realisable goals and define a roadmap to achieve the goals within an agreed timescale.  The graph of time over effort was used to highlight the impact of not setting objectives and activities to achieve Goals. It shows that if a goal is set without time bound objectives it is human nature to put things off until the last moment which often results in a huge last minute effort to achieve the goal and ultimately results in failure. This is also the same for objectives without time bound activities.  You might ask what has this to do with Business Process Management and Business Intelligence.  Well it highlights a few of points:

1.       There is more control over the outcomes of processes and strategic goals if we break them down into manageable tasks or activities.

2.       Human nature is to react to events based on a perception of urgency derived from the most visible outcomes. This can impact the overall outcome of a planned set of goals.

3.       A detailed history of the activities and objectives to achieve a goal can be stored for future analysis.

Also one of the more important lessons I learned in the early part of my career was that a lack of end-to-end process visibility could have serious implications on the performance of a business.  This lesson was learned from my involvement in the early MRP (Materials Requirement Planning) software market. Many mainframe and mini-computer software solutions were based on separate software packages developed to support a department’s business requirements i.e. financial software applications, production management, inventory management solutions, purchasing applications and sales management systems etc.  Communication between the departmental solutions was manual or batch and there was very little visibility across the organisation. One of the failings of the early Production and Inventory Control systems (MRP1) was the focus only on the material planning of the manufacturing or logistics facility with very little or no marketing or sales input. This lead to highly efficient production facilities converting raw material into finished products based on the material planners interpretation of demand. This caused a massive increase of expensive finished goods inventories with no customer orders. On the other hand there was no capacity taken into account with MRP I which meant there was often insufficient resources and capacity to meet the customer demand if the demand forecast was correct.

To remedy to this problem evolved when MRPII evolved taking into account the four key resources of a manufacturing organisation. MRPII integrated the software applications to manage these resources with resource planning and capacity management. The problem with MRPII is its very complex to implement and expensive to adapt to specific customer needs; also it is a transaction based system which has inadequate reporting for managing the business. Businesses are complex and management does not have time or the capacity to review detailed transaction reports as decisions are usually triggered by exceptions. These deficits lead to the creation of decision support systems and finally Business Intelligence. Also more sophisticated Corporate Planning; Customer and Supplier Relationship applications have evolved which are becoming integrated through web services and business process management solutions.

Sometimes it is difficult to determine the relevance of the information we collect through the many business activities along with the importance of that information to the organisation in achieving its business goals. That it is important to start by reviewing the Value Chain and the Key end-to-end processes decomposing them into operational processes and activities.

Adopting a standard Framework such as SCOR (Supply Chain Council Operations Reference) highlights the typical process decomposition. The SCOR model although focused on Supply Chain can be and is being adapted to other industries and is similar to the APQC Process Classification Framework(PCF) discussed in a previous Blog. SCOR has three defined process Levels with the 4^th level defining unique company practices to maintain a competitive advantage, which is out of scope in terms of the defined reference model. Within the SCOR framework process metrics and best practices are recommended along the ability to fine tune the process elements to a company’s specific needs.