Having worked a fair bit in the business process management world I have myself, and have certainly worked with others, who get a bit obsessed with process. Process is important, no doubt, in many organisations, but is it ubiquitously necessary?
Many operations just do what they with everyone doing it differently; this is particularly in where applying professional knowledge is key rather than following a step by step workflow. In step by step workflow process management stands out as being the "best practice " way and in particular in businesses whose strategy is differentiation by cost leadership.
Your average process person will say " every operation has a process" if that operation replies by saying "well it depends" the conversation usually continues to the point where the parties get fed up with each other and any improvement opportunity has gone out of the window as a consequence of the conversation.
Process centric thinking permeates modelling too, and certain vendors can't again get their heads around modelling using any other hub other than process as a modelling approach which is really frustrating to business architects who like flexibility in their choice of modelling approach.
Actually, what is equally important as process is outcomes and there are many compliance regimes that are now outcome based rather than process based, because the previous focus on process delivered good process, but poor outcomes.
What today is growing is the concept of case management which groups together a web of connected activities rather than a straight line process flow. case management reflects particularly well in an application of human skill deploying professional knowledge to a case or event.
Process has its place but the outcomes are what is really important and this is why some are arguing "business process management is dead" I think this is a bit extreme to be honest but I can see where it is coming from.
Friday, 10 July 2015
Wednesday, 10 June 2015
Strategy to Execution Business Architecture +
I have been leading business architecture courses now since 2008 and in the main this delivery has been around the development of target operating models. This has stemmed from a demand from senior business analysts to move into the business architecture space which is in essence internal business consulting.
However this year there seems to be a demand for learning about the end to end process of developing an strategy, creating the architecture and then deploying the transformation.
Strategy, Business Architecture and Project and Programme Management.
Historically the approach was to specialise and train in each of these three disciplines but the need is now to join them up in an end to end transformation process. I suppose this was symptomatic of why transformation was potentially so troubled because it was siloed. Some of the siloed thinking and methods deployed such as Prince 2 may have let us down here; best practice was more of "common" practice than "best".
With much more focus on benefits realisation, due to effectively overstated business cases, the setting of strategic objectives and providing traceability of those objectives through to delivery and beyond is in focus.
This presents a learning and development challenge as this end to end approach to transformation cuts across skill sets and departments however this is a challenge well worth taking up as the results are potentially seismic.
However this year there seems to be a demand for learning about the end to end process of developing an strategy, creating the architecture and then deploying the transformation.
Strategy, Business Architecture and Project and Programme Management.
Historically the approach was to specialise and train in each of these three disciplines but the need is now to join them up in an end to end transformation process. I suppose this was symptomatic of why transformation was potentially so troubled because it was siloed. Some of the siloed thinking and methods deployed such as Prince 2 may have let us down here; best practice was more of "common" practice than "best".
With much more focus on benefits realisation, due to effectively overstated business cases, the setting of strategic objectives and providing traceability of those objectives through to delivery and beyond is in focus.
This presents a learning and development challenge as this end to end approach to transformation cuts across skill sets and departments however this is a challenge well worth taking up as the results are potentially seismic.
Wednesday, 6 May 2015
Organisational Charts Problematic?
In some companies, ask a manager what their department does and instead of a capability model or a process model out pops the org. chart out on to to the desk. It represents to them a statement of their power and influence and the political pecking order.
The organisational chart is what a lot of people think organisational design is about. It is thought by some to be a key artifact in enterprise and business architecture. I think it has its place but probably as the last thing you do prior to implementation of transformation; certainly not the first.
Why do I feel so strongly about organisational charts?
Many organisational designs seem illogical until you realise they represented the growth in a personalities power and the "land grab" in the past as they climbed up the corporate ladder.
Leave a "TO BE" organisational chart as late as possible in my view, as it constrains thinking.
The organisational chart is what a lot of people think organisational design is about. It is thought by some to be a key artifact in enterprise and business architecture. I think it has its place but probably as the last thing you do prior to implementation of transformation; certainly not the first.
Why do I feel so strongly about organisational charts?
- They often perpetuates the "AS IS" by not disconnecting today and today's politics by inhibiting the lifting of thinking up into conceptual models.
- Thinking devoid of current players and organisational structures helps to identify root definitions, prior to evaluating the needs of tomorrow and then designing the new physical model with its new organisation fit for new strategies/ goals supporting by the redefined capabilities and business services to satisfy the new customer experience.
- If you focus on the org chart in designing the future accountability and control will be divided out based on current personalities and their influence, not on what should logically be wrapped in a functional container.
Many organisational designs seem illogical until you realise they represented the growth in a personalities power and the "land grab" in the past as they climbed up the corporate ladder.
Leave a "TO BE" organisational chart as late as possible in my view, as it constrains thinking.
Wednesday, 15 April 2015
Autocratic Leaders and the effect on culture innovation and growth.
From pricing of offers to clients, to the cost of coffee cups, to paper clips: "I can't say yes to that I need to ask the MD." - when this is said on nearly every issue then an organisation has a potential problem.
When that controlling behaviour is at the centre of the company than what does it mean.
Kurt Lewin describes autocratic leadership style as one of the three types of leaders he uses the word authoritarian as opposed to autocratic but the meaning is the same. It means that decision making is centralised and control is the "name of the game".
On a positive note you definitely have control - there is no doubt about it with accountability remaining centralised and clear. In times of financial hardship, where watching the pennies and keeping the big picture in one head is required then it might be justifiable.
In an organisation that cries out for innovation, agileness and empowerment then an autocratic style becomes a disaster. The culture of non delegation, the fear of making decisions without the say so of the leader suppresses "get up and go", saps the environment of energy and disengages staff. With higher paid knowledge workers the higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs get erased by the leaders behaviour and the employee gets "hacked off" fast and leaves.
In an organisation that is based on a cost leadership strategy it may well have its place, but in a model that thrives or needs to thrive, on invention and differentiates through doing things differently then life is going to be tough. In fact there is a high chance of terminal failure.
One of the key problem with this issue is that often autocratic leaders grow within businesses that were once small and have grown up and out from the one man bad SME world. Often the leader that was needed at set up isn't the leader when things get a bit bigger, more complex and the skills required are at a different level. Of course large businesses have autocratic leaders too but you do see this so much in family or small businesses that have outgrown their origins,
In a history book "The Rules of the Game" by Andrew Gordon he describes the flamboyant independent leaders of the 1805 British Navy where ships captains had to innovate and think on their feet because communication between vessels and command was impossible. He contrasts this to the 1916 British Navy at Jutland when central autocratic control had in his view emasculated the innovated and independence of junior leaders resulting in a battle of indeterminate results and attrition, where even today, scholars debate who won. I like this different way of looking at leadership and often we can learn much from different areas of study. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Rules-Game-Jutland-British/dp/0719561310
The message from this post is that leadership types or styles need to be appropriate to the business you are in and the *generic strategy you choose.
* Generic Strategy "Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance." Michael Porter in 1985
When that controlling behaviour is at the centre of the company than what does it mean.
Kurt Lewin describes autocratic leadership style as one of the three types of leaders he uses the word authoritarian as opposed to autocratic but the meaning is the same. It means that decision making is centralised and control is the "name of the game".
On a positive note you definitely have control - there is no doubt about it with accountability remaining centralised and clear. In times of financial hardship, where watching the pennies and keeping the big picture in one head is required then it might be justifiable.
In an organisation that cries out for innovation, agileness and empowerment then an autocratic style becomes a disaster. The culture of non delegation, the fear of making decisions without the say so of the leader suppresses "get up and go", saps the environment of energy and disengages staff. With higher paid knowledge workers the higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs get erased by the leaders behaviour and the employee gets "hacked off" fast and leaves.
In an organisation that is based on a cost leadership strategy it may well have its place, but in a model that thrives or needs to thrive, on invention and differentiates through doing things differently then life is going to be tough. In fact there is a high chance of terminal failure.
One of the key problem with this issue is that often autocratic leaders grow within businesses that were once small and have grown up and out from the one man bad SME world. Often the leader that was needed at set up isn't the leader when things get a bit bigger, more complex and the skills required are at a different level. Of course large businesses have autocratic leaders too but you do see this so much in family or small businesses that have outgrown their origins,
In a history book "The Rules of the Game" by Andrew Gordon he describes the flamboyant independent leaders of the 1805 British Navy where ships captains had to innovate and think on their feet because communication between vessels and command was impossible. He contrasts this to the 1916 British Navy at Jutland when central autocratic control had in his view emasculated the innovated and independence of junior leaders resulting in a battle of indeterminate results and attrition, where even today, scholars debate who won. I like this different way of looking at leadership and often we can learn much from different areas of study. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Rules-Game-Jutland-British/dp/0719561310
The message from this post is that leadership types or styles need to be appropriate to the business you are in and the *generic strategy you choose.
* Generic Strategy "Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance." Michael Porter in 1985
Tuesday, 7 April 2015
More on who is the customer in the business model and how confusion can lead to big problems.
I became re-acquainted with the "who is our customer dilemma" in two instances in recent times.
Firstly in a government institution who provide a facility to members of the public, but the facility was a requirement based on legislation not on consumer need. Secondly in a financial services company selling its products through intermediary parties.
The stakeholder tension and confusion in both organisations creates complexity in applying normal models and tools. The proposition dilemmas of either, a proposition to an end user but where revenue is generated by a different stakeholder who perceives value differently as in the case of the government example, or where a complex and cultural commitment to selling a proposition to a third party introducer like an IFA both make using tools like the business model canvas much harder.
Of course the important problem is not tool or technique related but the confusion and communication issues that arise as a consequence within the organisation itself. In the case of financial services potential regulatory conflict. What is good for the IFA may not of course be good for the consumer and this tension between stakeholder conflicts is a difficult thing to manage.
I spent a lot of my early career in asset finance where we sold finance through the manufacturers of equipment - vendor finance. The perennial problem was that the dealers wanted: low rates, everyone accepted for credit and for the finance company to fall on the side of the seller in disputes. In the industry, over a period of time, this inevitably resulted in "tears"; with finance companies lending incorrectly, some going to the wall on occasions, and incidents of mis-selling by finance companies, manufactures and their dealer networks. This was all created by a poor understanding of who is the customer? the dealer, manufacturer or the the borrower (lessee). The business model was not clear and not communicated correctly into daily operations; the culture and messaging was poor with staff behaviours affected as a consequence.
How can business architecture help this?
We need to use views that clearly explain the roles of stakeholder and define the propositions that are aimed at particular customers or stakeholder groups with clear linkage that shows how intermediary partners fit into the flow of value. We need to show who creates the value and how the value is enabled though partner engagement and partner management. These double facing approaches can be applied through popular techniques with a bit of thought and adaption, so don't just dismiss an approach because it seems to only to fit a B2C simple business model. Create clear business models to communicate to all staff what your business is about and how the relationships fit together to make your business what it is.
If you want to hear more and learn how to do this properly through our learning offerings contact us via mail@deversolutions.co.uk
Firstly in a government institution who provide a facility to members of the public, but the facility was a requirement based on legislation not on consumer need. Secondly in a financial services company selling its products through intermediary parties.
The stakeholder tension and confusion in both organisations creates complexity in applying normal models and tools. The proposition dilemmas of either, a proposition to an end user but where revenue is generated by a different stakeholder who perceives value differently as in the case of the government example, or where a complex and cultural commitment to selling a proposition to a third party introducer like an IFA both make using tools like the business model canvas much harder.
Of course the important problem is not tool or technique related but the confusion and communication issues that arise as a consequence within the organisation itself. In the case of financial services potential regulatory conflict. What is good for the IFA may not of course be good for the consumer and this tension between stakeholder conflicts is a difficult thing to manage.
I spent a lot of my early career in asset finance where we sold finance through the manufacturers of equipment - vendor finance. The perennial problem was that the dealers wanted: low rates, everyone accepted for credit and for the finance company to fall on the side of the seller in disputes. In the industry, over a period of time, this inevitably resulted in "tears"; with finance companies lending incorrectly, some going to the wall on occasions, and incidents of mis-selling by finance companies, manufactures and their dealer networks. This was all created by a poor understanding of who is the customer? the dealer, manufacturer or the the borrower (lessee). The business model was not clear and not communicated correctly into daily operations; the culture and messaging was poor with staff behaviours affected as a consequence.
How can business architecture help this?
We need to use views that clearly explain the roles of stakeholder and define the propositions that are aimed at particular customers or stakeholder groups with clear linkage that shows how intermediary partners fit into the flow of value. We need to show who creates the value and how the value is enabled though partner engagement and partner management. These double facing approaches can be applied through popular techniques with a bit of thought and adaption, so don't just dismiss an approach because it seems to only to fit a B2C simple business model. Create clear business models to communicate to all staff what your business is about and how the relationships fit together to make your business what it is.
If you want to hear more and learn how to do this properly through our learning offerings contact us via mail@deversolutions.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)