This article covers an issue within Business Process Management (BPM) redesign which is often not fully discussed. Frequently, development groups are eager to get the team fully engaged as quickly as possible. Looking at “as is” situations (examining, modeling) may receive slight attention as being “bygones” – “Let’s start with a clean slate.”  The issue is deciding how quickly to begin computerized development after a project or analysis has been scheduled. 

There are different aspects of business growth and development.  One faction may wish to apply technology to change its business as quickly as possible, while another may prefer to proceed cautiously and methodically, moving only after research and through using a well-tested methodology. Which is correct? The classic answer is “It depends.”

Except for natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, or hurricanes, all risks are man-made.  This article is a synthesis of three past Harvard Business Review articles.  The bibliography is at the end of the piece.  Project Managers (PMs) usually have very little control of the risk circumstances in which they are placed. Taken together, viewing risk from the combined perspectives of the authors cited should help PMs assess risk in their own environments. Summarizing the titles as follows: “Right Risks,”  “Is it Real?” and “Hidden Traps” will help us consider the contribution of each, and then meld them into the PM’s decision process.

The Right Risks

If you don’t get off to the right start with a BPM Project, there are all kinds of consequences such as:

• Needing to change process owners mid stream
• Wasting time focusing on the wrong goals
• Not involving the right resources
• Missing critical information and making poor decisions
• “Buying” the technology solution

Do you notice any built-in contradiction in the title of this article? A naïve approach to Continuous Improvement (CI) would be to attempt to benchmark Toyota, and just do what they do. That would be OK if: 1) You make automobiles, and 2) You have fifty years of Toyota management experience. Without those advantages, you would do best to consider a modified strategy.

It’s not easy to change, and usually not fruitful to change precipitously.  An anecdote from an unnamed country, several wars ago, decided to mechanize the cavalry. An inspector, reviewing the prototype of the new battalion, marveled in the shiny new personnel carriers and tanks.  However, he then noticed two soldiers standing off to the side, apparently doing nothing.  When he inquired, he was told: “They are there to hold the horses.”

Not quite!  I can’t tell you how many companies I have worked with who announced we have modeled all the current state process or say we want to begin by modeling all their As Is processes.  And they ask, can you help us with that?  There is nothing wrong with modeling processes, but it takes a long time and it doesn’t produce improvements.  Modeling processes is just one of the first steps.  I suggest modeling the processes you want to improve and do them in groups of three or one by one. Then analyze each and improve them to see business results.

So if you’ve only done the process diagramming, what do you need to do next? Look at the roadmap below showing the phases of a BPM/ process improvement project.

This article highlights the importance that system integration capabilities should play when selecting a BPMS. Integration is often the largest challenges in transforming business processes and can often present one of the most difficult barriers to delivering rapid success.

Few business processes live out their life within a single system. Consider the example of winning a new customer, on-boarding them, delivering a service and gaining payment. It is not uncommon to find the following systems involved in supporting these processes: