Where do I start?

This is often asked by people wanting to know what to do when they realize they need to be more efficient. The answer can be daunting, and to some degree, I think there are many stake-holders involved that would like to keep it that way.

Scott Cleveland, in a recent blog entry, made the observation that BPM is much more than technology. BPM is meaningless without management discipline, he asserts.

I have to agree.

But the question remains - where do I start? I have several areas that make good starting points depending on your own circumstances. I hope these are helpful.

1. Document your processes - this does not have to be some strange exercise that is complex and takes forever. Start by simply writing down the processes you observe each and every day.

2. Determine which processes really matter - it is hard to figure out where to start if you don't even know what the options are. Once you have a list of processes, prioritize them. Which are more important, or critical. The results may surprise you!

3. Determine where improvements can be made, or automation used - not everything can be solved with software. Organizations are made up of people, and simple changes can have tremendous impact. Where can improvements make a real difference? Where can we automate to reduce repetitive tasks?

4. Share ownership - is can be amazing what happens when the head honcho takes responsibility for improving processes, then empowers process owners to make those improvements. Give them adequate tools, then trust them to do the right thing.

5. Be creative in understanding how technology can help you - you need to move beyond spreadsheets and word processing to some serious automation. Look for something process owners can, and will , use.

Changing Process Optimization for the Better

At Ingenuus, we are committed to the manufacturing market, and the unique needs that manufacturing companies have when it comes to technology. Our product is very popular among those managing the processes related to products and product changes. But we have discovered over the course of time that many companies simply do not have their processes documented, so purchasing a product like ours seems to be too big of a step.

We also realized that the issue was not the technology - our technology is superb - but rather, how to best use it. Sometimes you are just too close to the answer to see it. Looking hard at our target market we found quality initiatives everywhere. Everything from Malcom Baldridge to Lean to Six Sigma to TQM. For simplicity I will simply call it Lean Six Sigma with my apologies to all those who may not like that label. We found one thing in common - all these initiatives were basically manual.

It became painfully clear that there were really two kinds of processes that needed to be addressed, and we were spending all our time and energy on only one.

Basically there are processes that document and manage other processes. We call these Type 1 processes for lack of a better term. These are your basic quality processes. They are generally not automated because of the traditional aversion to automation for most quality initiatives. They are used to document, evaluate and optimize other processes. They are usually called "projects" (especially in the Six Sigma world) and are how companies implement continuous improvement.

Then there are all the other processes, the ones we use everyday. We call these Type 2 processes. In general it is these processes that Ingenuus and all the other BPM vendors have been trying to show you how we can automate them.

Although the ROI is excellent, and the argument sound, there has not been a rush to automate Type 2 processes. I have a theory why.

Let's say your manufacturing company is looking to be more efficient. Upper management has asked IT and managers to look for software or programs to drive efficiency and improve innovation. You look around and find this amazing BPM product that does everything you ever dreamed of. You love the demo, and present it to your team. The team also things it is great so you prepare a presentation for upper management to get funding. You select a process to start with, you do the ROI, you prepare your justification. On the day you present the VP of quality says, "Well, we can do a Six Sigma/Lean/TQM evaluation of that process and optimize it without any technology. We do it all the time." The President nods, and just like that your project is dead in the water.

Of course, what the Quality VP said is partially true. But as a user you also know that only about 10% of the processes in your company are documented. Therefore, any changes to a process cannot be completely evaluated for impact. And everyone knows that once a process is changed, all the other processes that were not changed place pressure on the optimized process to return to its previous state. This is a well known paradigm in process re-engineering. But because everyone is convinced that this is under control and automation is not needed, it is business as usual.

Aberdeen did a recent study that showed best-in-class companies out performing others because they were careful to automate to increase visibility, not simply reduce errors. It appears that increased visibility makes a company more responsive and able to avoid costly problems and mistakes, or more quickly address them before they become too costly.

So, we developed a process optimization framework to help companies begin the process of documenting their processes. We call it, the Process Optimization Pyramid (TM). It is bascially a few Type 1 processes you can use to automate the documentation, evaluation, optimization, and eventual automation of other processes.

Now, the above scenario changes. You prepare your presentation and when you present, you demonstrate the automation of your companies favorite methodology for documenting and evaluating processes. You assure the stunned VP of Quality that now his Black, Green, and White belts can be more efficient and the company can more adequately evaluate processes for optimization. More importantly, because most if not all of the processes can be documented, inter-relationships that could not easily be seen before during evaluation can now be quickly and easily seen and explored.

For the first time you will be able to quickly establish a corporate Lean Six Sigma portal where all your process optimization activities can be orchestrated and reported on.

Yeah, I kinda like that. I would love to hear what you have to say.

Recently an article crossed my desk which was an exit interview, if you will, of former Gartner BPM analyst Jim Sinur. He left Gartner to join a BPM vendor.

The BPM market is definitely growing, and seems to be accellerating. Today there are some 180 BPM vendors, 40 rule vendors and another 40 modeling vendors. With so many players in the market, how does the average person choose? Will the tried and true method of choosing the big, stable vendor be the best route, or should consumers take other things into consideration?
His comments on what the real differences are between the vendors products was informative enough for me to repeat here.

First, he was clear that no vendor that they know of has yet to develop the Business Process Management Suite as defined by Gartner. He states that the giants in the market like IBM, Oracle and Microsoft are at least 18 months behind the leaders. He also stated that the majority of vendors would not be able to deliver on the Gartner vision of BPM for 2 or 3 years. You wouldn't guess this was true reading the websites of most of the BPM vendors.

For Jim Sinur, continual optimization is the bleeding edge of BPM. He cites the following as the major issues holding vendors back from developing a true BPM Suite:

BPM requires an architectural approach that says there are common metadata assets that have to be treated as equals. These include rules, flows, services, events and data. They must be treated as equals, but for most BPM vendors, this is not the case. Each one focuses on their strength to the detriment of the other assets.

Remember the old addage, "If the only tool in your tool box is a hammer, everything is a nail"? Well, the same is true for vendors entering the BPM space. Just look at the core competency of the company and you will find their bias. For some, it is services. All you need is a bit of BPM software and a crew of coders and Viola! For others, it is content-data. Still others see business rules as the major component of BPM. Business Intelligence vendors have views of data, but don't treat events with respect or recognize the need for rules.

He sums it all up by saying that the player that balances those things together, in one environment is the one that will do the best.

I agree. Of course, it won't be just one vendor that gets it right. But it will be a minority. I believe that Ingenuus is already in that minority. It's just that very few people know that yet.

Interest in process automation, and the benefits it provides, is on the rise. I have been hearing from so many business people that for the first time, business process management seems to be hot.

Frankly, I am glad to be here. And you should be too.

Early in my career I worked on several projects that were basically process re-engineering projects under the guise of quality initiatives. In fact, I think it is safe to say that process improvement has hidden behind Quality for several decades. It has also hidden in other initiatives and product promises. Finally, it seems to be coming into it's own.

It's about time.

Software has been shoved down corporate America's throat with the promise that it will do us good. Like castor oil or grape flavored medicine, we grin and take it believing what we are told. In our hearts I think that we believed that something was wrong, but we couldn't put our finger on it. So, we would go through a multi-year or multi-month installation project, while continuing to do our business process tasks like we always had. For most of us, our companies kept running. For a few, things ground to a halt, and the software needed to be revised.

Leaving a bad taste in our mouth, we grew leery of software vendor promises and kept our processes to ourselves. In the wake of global competition, and the drive for efficiency, we are discovering that keeping our process cards close to the chest, and paper based, is hurting the bottom line. Slowly we are trusting in software again.

BPM software vendors still have far to go. But unlike the boom years of PDM and PLM, there is a real buzz around automating business processes and the benefits that can be realized from doing so. Thankfully, the benefits are not limited to a particular group like engineering or manufacturing. Automating business processes touches virtually everyone in the company.

For the most part, companies are still keeping their prize processes close to the chest. But little by little, they are venturing out and finding that the water is just fine.

Actually, this is good news for all of us.

Business Model Of The Future

I have watched with interest the changing business model for software sales. The hosted model, know to many as ASP or On-Demand, was thought to be the end of software sales as we knew it. It wasn't. It created new ways to get hooked or to try out software, but the really good stuff, the software features you really want, still cost lots of money and are mostly hosted by the buyer.

Next came software by subscription. I always thought this might take off, and it has. Especially for established software vendors. It removes the iffy maintenance agreement and makes the software "critical". Since you don't actually own it, you have to pay the annual fee to keep the system up and running. The rebellion that led companies to reject high maintenance fees and crappy software support has won only a partial victory. Seeking to cast off the shackels of the software vendors and high annual maintenance fees, companies have won the right to not pay for software they don't use. But unlike in the days when you purchased the software and you had a perpetual license to use it, under the subscription model, if you don't pay, the software stops working. Free from maintenance only to be hooked by subscription. What does the future hold?

Let me go out on a limb by saying that I think that personal software will go the way of subscription, but business software will come back to a solid purchase model. Why? It all boils down to a solid return on investment. I believe that software companies will evolve, and that BPM will become a sort of operating system for businesses to build their business processes on. Business processes will become applications. Once that happens, companies will develop their own applications that are really business processes using one piece of software, not modules or loosely integrated applications. Paying maintenance and support will be simplified because it will be based on the number of users and processes, not modules. ROI can be easily calculated because process metrics will be automatically collected.

Business processes will be like lego blocks, able to be assembled into any configuration to create custom business processes and projects. The processes of the future will be more "organic", not like the services envisioned today, but discrete process objects that can be linked and unlinked into infinite combinations.

We are driving toward this vision of the future.

2007, The Year Of Efficiency

I am totally amazed by the number of people talking about improving efficiency in 2007. It is as if someone has launched a campaign and everyone is on the bandwagon. It is a good thing I think.

Companies for so long have been told that if they buy a certain software, or adopt a certain program, the will become efficient. I think the honeymoon is over. Companies have realized that it is people, not software, that needs to become more efficient. Software and programs are only tools. There has to be a commitment and a recognition of steps that improve efficiency. It is really more a journey than a goal.

We are working with new customers that have made a commitment to be more efficient in how they operate. It is making them look at processes and procedures, methods and culture to find how to do things better. Faster used to be a goal, but faster sometimes means lower quality. Get the product out the door, we will fix any problems later! Consumers are no longer willing to put up with that. Consumers expect that companies can deliver products and services with more features faster than before, with higher quality. That expectation has been driven by the ad campaigns of companies trying to sell software and services. The consumer sees and add that says companies running so-and-so's software is faster, better, etc. they will assume that products developed by that company are also better.

This is where efficency comes into play. Companies must not simply be faster and cheaper, but also better. By managing more aspects of the business, companies can do just that. Our customers have found surprising benefits to using our software. Originally purchased to get a single process and related documents under control, as they worked with the process management component, they discovered a powerful tool for process improvement that could take them far beyond creating and approving documents. They could manage tasks as part of a process, and then see what was (or wasn't) happening, and how long it took to happen (or not happen). This visibility changes everything.

The old addage, "You don't know what you don't know." applies here. If you could never see the HOW behind a process, then you would never know what to do to improve it. It would simply be an exercise done in simulation by a process "expert". But if you could see the tasks in a process, and know how long it was taking to complete the tasks, and also have the information to tell you about problems that impacted completion of thoses tasks, then you could effectively correct those problems and become more efficient. Visibility changes everything.

Can you "see" your processes well enough to make meaningful changes that improve efficiency? If not, maybe its time you could.

"Ever been misled by big ERP vendors?"

This was the bold text in a recent ad on a technology newsletter I subscribe. After all these years, why is there still so much angst over ERP? And if users are so fed up with ERP, why are companies still buying ERP solutions?

Well, the answer is as complex as an ERP project. Part of the answer lies in the size of ERP implementation. Another part lies in the politics surrounding big software purchases. And another part is simply process related.

It is no surprise to anyone who has done an ERP implementation when I say ERP solutions are big. And they try to do everything, literally. So, when confronted with a problem they have never seen before, the answer is, "Sure, we can do that." I have seen ERP module charts that list 100 or more modules. It is mind boggling that one software can do so much. Of course, all of these "modules" are not discrete sections of one huge piece of code. They are separate technologies that were either developed by the ERP vendor, or were part of a merger or an acquisition. For many, getting the modules provided by a single ERP vendor to work together is harder (and more expensive) than integrating software from several different vendors. The pro of course is that since the software comes from the same vendor it will be given cohesive support, with the idea that overall support costs will be lower. And, the software comes from a vendor you can trust (I guess I say that with tongue in cheek based on the headline for this post).

Politics are another major factor in an ERP purchase. The dollar amount is so high that it is a C Level executive decision. Typically the President or high ranking VP makes the decision. They see the charts with 100+ modules and are convinced that the software can do anything. Further impressed by the wining and dining by the vendor, and promises of improved productivity and huge dollar savings, executives often believe that ERP is the only software they will ever need. Many times, the implementation team finds that although the dream of the buying executive is possible, it is not within budget and there is not enough time to get it done. The pro is that there is executive buy-in.

Finally, ERP software is just not designed with process in mind. It is solution specific, and therefore deals with the process inherent to the solution. But what if the desired solution is a cross functional process? That is much harder to achieve. But the C Level executive tends to think in terms of business processes when they evaluate the software. That is how they see their business - as cross functional processes. The result is a huge disconnect that is not easily bridged. The pro is that ERP vendors are working with SOA to make process more compatible with their application modules.

I understand the benefits that ERP can bring to an organization. That is why we integrate with ERP software. But I also know that ERP application modules will someday be replaced by easy to build process based "applications" that more closely mimic the way people do business, rather than simply being an impressive dashboard of solution specific funtions. People don't care how many features there are if the can't get their work done.

Software should help people, not get in the way.

With blogging becoming such an innovative way to communicate, it only seemed appropriate for Ingenuus to enter the fray. For me personally, it is a great exercise in discussing topics I find relevant.

For those who know me, I am always ready to offer my views on process automation specifically and technology in general. I rarely agree with the pundits and analysts, preferring a more "pure" analytical approach to looking at what we know and extrapolating that into the future.

In the realm of process automation, there is much hype and little substance. But the promise of process automation is real. It is just harder to realize than many vendors make it sound. That is why we are here. We want to make it easier. Not easy. I doubt that it will ever be easy. Process automation means change of some sort, and change is never easy. But I personally believe that it can, and should, be made easier.

For instance, I read a recent article where the author was worried that the rigid contraints of process automation would dampen corporate creativity and flexibility. Funny that this comment can even be made since almost 90% of all corporate processes are not even written down and are still basically paper based. What company, or group of companies, were polled to reach such a conclusion?

Although it is true that many so called automated processes are rigid and difficult to change once implemented, it is not the goal of the current business process management (BPM) vendors to be so rigid. All of them desire and work toward making processes automation flexible and responsive to business needs. It might be true that some products are more flexible than others, but it would not be accurate to paint a picture that insinuates automated processes are "rigid".

In fact, the opposite might actually be true. By automating a process, a company is forced to understand the process, document it, and then map it. This exercise alone would be of great value. Placing the process into software that makes it "live" and collecting metrics, etc. as the process executes over and over provides valuable information that cannot be collected in any other way. Using this information from the actual process, companies can make improvements. As long as the software supports after-implementation changes, you are way ahead.

But because most processes are not even documented, companies are left in the dark. They truly "don't know what they don't know". No amount of simulation, or planning, or process re-engineering, or anything else can take the place of simply automating a process and then collecting actual usage data. If you don't know what the heck you are doing, then how can you improve on it by being creative and flexible?

Duh.