Just finished recording a webinar with APQC’s John Tesmer on the acceleration that companies achieve through the use of process frameworks. The full webinar will be available in early September 2011 on the Process Excellence Network, and you can sign up through this link: Process Excellence Network webinar “Getting Started with BPM Using Process Frameworks”
The wheel - don’t reinvent it
To understand how frameworks accelerate business process management, we need to look at how and why frameworks came into being. They arose from many different groups needing to solve the same problems and a desire not to reinvent the wheel. A combination of industry working groups, governments, consulting firms, and associations produced industry-focused frameworks like eTom (telecom model), function-focused frameworks like ITIL (for IT capabilities) and broad-based frameworks like APQC’s PCF. Frankly, when you reinvent the wheel, you waste time and you also risk not doing it as well as someone with more experience, inspiration, or funding.
Mission expansion
While many of these models were designed for internal use, the need to use process frameworks for other purposes such as shared services, offshoring and outsourced manufacturing has become the new norm. As an example, the more companies move away from owning the manufacturing of their products (think: Apple, Cisco, Intel, etc.), the greater the need to define the supply chain in terms that make sense to everyone involved rises exponentially.
I predict that having an agreed-upon way to organize, communicate and execute process will also find its way into how organizations implement social technology without creating information overload.
Tunnels not towers
My favorite quote from the head of the Business Process Center of Excellence at UPS, Dawson Wood, “it is hard to find tunnels when you’re busy building towers. One of the fastest ways to accelerate tunnel building is to adopt frameworks that allow the end-to-end realities of the value chain to become visible and actionable.
Learn more
If you want to know more than what can be gleaned from a short blog, a great homework exercise would be to download and look through the case studies available in the APQC Frameworks Study: Using Process Frameworks and Reference Models to Get Real Work Done. Pay particular attention to the ThyssenKrupp case study. Detail around what TKS accomplished can also be found in the August 2011 BP Trends Case Study found here. The TKS story is one of the best examples of a BPM-led integrated management platform available, and I strongly encourage you to read through what they’ve accomplished.
Upcoming conferences
There are two great conferences coming up that will provide excellent opportunities to share ideas with your peers and to bolster your network. John and I will also be presenting together at each! The first is Inspiring Performance 2011 on September 27-28 in London, and the second is the APQC Process Conference November 9-11 in Houston, TX. See the invitations below:
However you decide to learn more, know that there are many people and organizations struggling to solve the same problem. Frameworks were developed for this very reason and continue to evolve through people just like you.
There is something really comforting about frameworks. The way the brain works is to store information in compartments with nothing more than correlated references. The more and frequesnt the correlations, the better the recall.
Another perspective on frameworks as it relates to organizational structure and growth is outlined in a fascinating book called “The Starfish and the Spider”. Check it out, I think you would really like it!
http://www.starfishandspider.com/
Thanks, Tamarah, I’ll check it out
Thanks for your enthusiastic contribution to BPM Chris,
regarding frameworks, I am still struggling with the utility of some of these process frameworks. Particularly, the APQC Process Classification Framework.
As a consultant, modeller and enthusiastic would-be ontologist I have trouble matching the elements in the framework with my perception of a process. Several of my clients have tried to adopt the PCF as a replacement for their end-to-end processes. I don’t think that’s how it’s intended to be used but with framework level names like Process and Activity in the PCF it’s hard to argue my case.
The problems I have begin with many of the elements, even down to Activity level, not having clear goals or outcomes. The classic trigger-work-result stream isn’t obvious so any sense of sequence or even meaningful KPIs is hard to come by. The strategic “processes” might be clouding things, with many analysts still believing that every process can be represented as a flow chart.
I also have trouble with the leveling. Some Activities seem to be almost trivial transactions while others seem to represent something you could set up an organisational unit to do on an ongoing basis. Or, they might even represent a state of mind while working on another process!
The last difficulty is the lack of descriptions. The implication is that we should know what each activity, process, etc. represents without the benefit of explanation and definitions of terms. Even something as apparently simple as the term, Customer, is obscured by different perceptions and definitions within a single organisation. I see that some of the Processes are getting descriptions and KPIs but I’m not convinced of their usefulness given that there isn’t a real outcome specified for any of the processes so it’s hard to understand how the KPIs contribute to a good quality result when the result itself isn’t stated.
If you have any examples of how the PCF, or some adaptation of it, is mapped or relates to a process architecture (i.e. arrangements of end to end processes with triggers, process steps, and results articulated for the organisation or its customers) I would be enormously grateful to see them. My past clients have assumed that the PCF Processes are the same as the organisation’s processes and the Activities are activities, tasks or perhaps even sub-processes. The more I study these frameworks, the less I feel I understand how to use them and the value they bring.
Any guidance will be warmly welcomed. I don’t want my preconceptions or judgement to get in my way.
Kind Regards
Andrew.
There are several interesting blogs out on the topic of how to use the PCF as an all-inclusive, mutually-exclusive tool for scoping business process. Check out http://businessprocessjournal.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/whats-your-process-intelligence-level/
Your comments are excellent and your questions are shared by many. I’m off to Nepal for the next three weeks, but I’ll pick this up when I get back. If you don’t hear from me, please reach out to me at [email protected].