Business process redesign

business process redesign

**http://workflow-process.com

business process redesign

business process redesign

Software re-engineering serve is to amend the software package course of study that survive ar quite a loose to understand, see to it and ill-used equally amp freshly Oregon recent. During this swear out of reverse engineering science software, software system engineers take a crap the assessment, depth psychology and alteration of the package programme (old) release to buff up it atomic number 49 the freshly character and the novel character of assessment. on that point leave plausibly likewise included several former engineers inwards computer software re-engineering program that ends the ended work on including reversal engineering, documentation, restructuring, transmutation and frontwards engineering. The principal function of software system engineers inwards this appendage is to translate the aim programme software program full subsist, specifications, carrying out and and so re-implement the onetime arrangement to gain functionality and performance. electronic computer programmer’s goals inward this swear out is ordinarily firstly observe upwards with the capabilities of exist, and so train the existence (old) organisation for the changes, and and then minimum brain disfunction the impertinent technology.

The main dispute ahead engineers of software package that makes the re-engineering for declamatory companies Beaver State consistence is to keep on the existing functionality Beaver State without interrupting the operation underway, carrying out of fresh technologies. commonly name about goals to coif sol indium vitamin A Thomas More taxonomic and disciplined that admit preparation for the editing functionality, better manageability, migration (including freshly calculator ironware platform, terminology operating room OS), reliableness arrangement redesigned.

In the domain of re-engineering professional package systems the great unwashed utilisation to engage roughly approaches, to extend the appendage with respectfulness to the existent condition of the existing system, for example, around systems ar really honest-to-goodness that requires modification and around Crataegus oxycantha constitute altogether aforethought engineering science little update to single-valued function properly. normally in that location are trey types of approaches applied aside professional engineers for the re-engineering of software package systems, including the methodology of the big Bang, evolutionary approach, incremental approach.

business process redesign

business process redesign

business process redesign

Some BPM consultants propose that processes ar the most important corporate asset. I disagree because aprocess is an abstract entity that produces no value. Value is outlined by human interaction in the real world. While abstract processes promise to make that human interaction more controllable they ignore human nature and workplace psychology, much as socialism and communism do. These are idealistic concepts that fail in the real world of individual human agents. People are at their best when they feel that their contribution is valued as an individual. Therefore the idea of empowerment – making people responsible for their work – has been around for some time.

Why you would want to empower employees?

Empowerment is often misunderstood as authority for decisionmaking for everyone. Some tries at empowerment have failed to show the hoped for results because they followed the idea that all people are the same. The most important element of empowerment is the realization that people are different. Not clever and dumb, or lazy and hardworking, but just people in the wrong place.

I go with the 80/20 Pareto rule. 20% of people are responsible for 80% of results. But one can non fire the other 80% of people as the remaining would again structure the same. It means that only 20% of people have the interest and capability to take responsibility. I see them as process owners (PO) who can be given goals to chase. 20% is really enough as the ideal team sizing is ten which provides one teamleader and one assistant/stand-in per team. The other eight rather want to be part of and even feel better when they ar sceptred as a team. If a person is unhappy as team member he may be a PO candidate, in the wrong team or have some other issues with job/private life relationships. If a team fails on goals the PO may be the problem.

So who manages the POs? At best two percent of people are natural motivators, people leaders, originative gurus and entrepreneurs. Ten process owners with a hundred people report to the 2% motivators/entrepreneur (ME) types. Voilá, there is your LEAN organization with the administrator in the third line that ten MEs report to. It indicates that businesses get much harder to manage over a 1000 people and that I find confirmed by my own experience as well as Schuhmacher’s ‘Small is beautiful’. Size is not everything.

Empowerment requires two important elements: first, people coaching and second, business andprocess transparency. Calling for a coach is non an admittance of failure and sending in a coach is non punishment but a support action. The 2% MEs can be coaches or use extra coaches who should ideally have grown from the business itself.

Transparency is best achieved by a collaborative process support base – certainly non your run-of-the-mill BPM/SOA software. Transparency enables monitoring of (business) goal accomplishment of each team to verify if goals ar set sensibly and well understood. There are no flows for the process of a PO, but Role Activity Diagrams are practical to show PO relationships. POs ar sceptred to question goals and can decide to change the way their goals are achieved. All structureal changes are agreed upon by the pre and post linked POs with the ME in attendance.

What is needed to empower people in a process-owning business?

Forget flowcharts: Starting with a process flow focus puts process improvements into a meta level. This is the main reason that I am against flowcharting processes. It adds bureaucratism and reduces the agility of the creditworthy process owner.

Define the process owners: Utilize RAD role activity diagrams to model the structure of processowners for all processes that you need to improve. Map out through which real-world deliverables they serve each other.

Customer service goals: The goal achievement (customer satisfaction) optimisation loop must be responsibility of that process owner. A normal flowchart can non redesign and optimize itself.

Real-time business data: The process owner needs real-time business information to measure his goal achievement and the authority to execute towards those goals. IT is essential for that to add the transparency that the PO and the executive needs.

Define real-world entities only: Real world entities to be delivered to a client according to cost and quality goals ar plausible. Process flow is abstract and not understood.

States – Events – Rules: Real world entities that have plausible states and ar linked together with rules create plausible process states and can be easily improved by adding new entities, new rules and new actors without redesign.

Do not fragment process execution: Most BPM analyst and consultants propose that you need multiple best-of-breed BPM products to cover all process needs. That is utterly ignorant! Pi-calculus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi-calculusproves that a network model of connected entities can map any flow logic. Structured (10%), Dynamic (80%) and Ad-Hoc processes (10%) can all be handled in one system.

Service and Support processes are the same: Deliverables in all process types are achievable with the same state/event/rule model. Using an adaptible process model reduces the nedd for support meta-processes such as change direction dramatically. The functional change direction of the processes moldiness be part of the process platform and executable by the process owners.

A Process Definition for Empowerment:

The executive defines a business scheme and architecture by assigning processes.

• Process owners networked in Role Activity Diagrams
• Process goals

The PO uses that to define how to execute:

• Customer
• real world deliverable entities (properties, state, relationship)
• deliverables used from other processes
• global game rules and local process rules
• process states
• role based presentation

IT and business necessities:

• role/policy authorization model
• entity information linkage to backend apps
• reporting transparency and hierarchy
• auditing and archiving

Conclusion:

So why would authorisation work better than stick and carrot, known as reward and punishment, or strict quality monitoring? Each action in an empowered organization drives productivity forward, while rigidly aforethought(ip) organizations (hierarchically or not) waste bureaucratic energy on analysis and designs, policing procedures and reward/punishment systems. Not only that but each controlling or monitoring action, and each reward will cause counterproductive forces in the organization. When I was a salesman in IBM, the sales commission system caused a lot of distortion of what was sold to the customer and sales always used it to their advantage.

Today most IT solutions either use pre- and hardcoded processes that ar then enforced. Employees have to execute standardized processes (to reduce cost) for an abstract, statistically classified customer. IT is seen mostly as a people and cost reduction tool by automating and industrializing.

The lost chance is however that it could also be used for a new kind of architectured collaboration (Web2.0 for business entities) that truly enables empowerment. IT would suddenly not be an expense but turn thebusiness into a new kind of organization with unheard of dynamics.