Uncovering BPI

Michael Wood - July 7, 2003

The Business Process Improvement world is abundant with tools, techniques and methods these days. Yet little can be found on exactly how to do projects in a prescriptive manner. If variation is the bane of repeatable and successful business processes, then doesn't it stand to reason that the process of improving business processes should be equally free of such variations?

 

The reality of the situation is simple. Many talk about business process improvement (BPI) but few have achieved success over and over again. Most BPI methods and techniques grew out of the Total Quality Management School of thinking. This is evidenced by the tools and techniques these methodologies utilize. From Fish-bone diagrams to "shot-gun" brainstorming, they are void of predictable outcomes that can be measured and tested. In addition, many have their roots in organizational behavior and focus more on the "Touchy Feely" and "Political Correctness" aspects of change than on the fundamental need of the organization to adopt pragmatic and systematic methods for improving and sustaining itself.

 

In the mid to late 1970s, there were two major initiatives gaining popularity in corporate America. The first was fueled by Deming's success in Japan with TQM as applied to manufacturing and process controls. The second, structured system's design, was fueled by the increasing need to build information systems that were predictably correct, functional, manageable and complete.

 

Pioneers like Ken Orr, Ed Yourdon, Constantine and others (albeit focusing on systems) unknowingly had discovered tools and techniques that were applicable to a much larger landscape, the organization. They correctly understood that an organization could be viewed as a network of people sharing information through cross-functional processes to achieve predictable and desirable results (profits and growth). Their goal was to use this fundamental notion to design and build systems that would leverage the organization's ability to manage information more effectively and efficiency. What they missed was the opportunity and impact this knowledge had when applied to the organization as a whole in the guise of a Business Process Improvement Methodology.

 

During the early 1980s, having been a student of both TQM and Structured Methods, I realized that the two needed to be merged into a single organizational technique. I embarked on a quest to develop a seamless, prescriptive methodology that could be deployed from the boardroom to the computer room and everywhere in between.

 

The application design modeling techniques I had mastered from my structured methods experiences and the appreciation for organizational dynamics took me a long way. What was missing was a binding thread. For me that thread was provided by Peter Senge via his book The Fifth Discipline. The concepts (although not new) of stakeholder value and organizational alignment rang very true to me. It was then that it all came together.

 

Finally I had the link between organizational stakeholders, business strategies, measurable objectives, cross functional operations and leveraging information technologies.

 

What I learned was this:

 

• Business strategies and objectives only have context to how they deliver value to stakeholders.
• To be effective, these strategies and objectives must be stated in terms that measure the gap between the value delivered today and the value that needs to be delivered to sustain growth and profitability.
• To be deployable, strategies and objectives must be quantified in a way that is readily understandable by those performing the work that achieves them (operations).
• Operations must be viewed cross-functionally in terms of how information is shared and transformed by the actions that are taken in order to achieve desired outcomes.
• The workforce must be systematically and pragmatically engaged and facilitate the discovery of ways to improve the way work is thought about and conducted.
• Information technologies must be tailored to mirror the nature of the information and the form it takes as it passes through the organization.
• This information must be structured to mirror the business model of the organization in a way that is malleable and resilient.
• Processes must be then reengineered to achieve the strategies and objectives of the organization while providing the proper mechanisms to ensure that the data being shared is properly managed and maintained.

To achieve the above requires a systematic and aligned approach. It requires a set of tools and models that integrate together seamlessly so that they flow from strategy through operations to supporting information technologies. These tools must be prescriptive in nature so that no matter who is using them, the results are the same. Thus, variation of the process improvement process is virtually eliminated.

 

Basically, what is needed is an organizational system for creating that continuously improves the value delivered to stakeholders. This organizational system must have predictable outputs and outcomes if it is to be successful. It must foster creativity while maintaining a formal structure. Its modeling tools must be deployable at all levels and understandable by executives and the rank-and-file alike.

 

Finally, this organizational value-delivery improvement system must have a clear and measurable lifecycle that produces the building blocks needed to build the supporting information infrastructures necessary to leverage the organization's ability to grow and prosper.

 

When you are assessing your process improvement strategies, methods and tools consider applying the fundamentals presented in this article. Use this article as a framework for testing the methods being adopted. Identify the gaps inherent in the method and then consider whether it is better to augment the method or find one that is more integrated and comprehensive.

 

As always, your views and opinions are wanted and welcome. Create a discussion thread and be heard.

---

Comments (1)