Converting the Unconvertable

Given that process-based management is clearly A Good Thing, indeed a Very Good Thing, why doesn’t every manager, every decision maker, everyone everywhere immediately and enthusiastically sign up for a corporate life infused with the joys of process management and improvement?

Surely, it should be obvious that the cross-functional process view of organizational performance is the only sensible approach? And yet, surprisingly, there are a lot of people out there who don’t get it.

If you are still reading all the way to this third paragraph, you are likely on the verge of conversion if not already converted. What are we going to do about the seemingly unconvertable, way too many of whom are senior decision makers?

For we process practitioners, process-based management seems logical, sensible, effective, practical and … obvious. Why don’t others share that view?

Is it a matter of language, should we find a different word for process? Perhaps we just don’t explain the process-based management view well enough? Have we failed to define a business problem for which a process approach is the answer? Are we trying to encourage organizations to a level of performance that is too hard? Should we just automate everything and move on?

Does the Convert the unconvertable process exist? Yes, it does. And you are the Process Owner.

There are many things we can, and should, do to enable and sustain conversion. We might group them into four main themes:

1. Knowledge: a clear, consistent, and shared understanding about what we mean by process-based management.
2. Credibility: not just theory and nice diagrams, but practical plans that have a reasonable pathway to success.
3. Guardrails: protection against excess along with certainty that the investment in process-based management will be effectively controlled.
4. Delivery: demonstrable improvement in meaningful organizational performance flowing from a process-based management approach.

Let’s look at these ideas in more detail.

WWGLL

Before getting into our four themes, it’s useful to define the desired endpoint. What would good look like? What are we trying to achieve? Convert who to what?

I have written extensively about what effective process-based management looks like and its impact on organizational performance – indeed everything I have ever written or recorded is about that. All of that is freely available through my website. A short summary here to set the context for our conversion discussion.

Our process-based management target

In every organization, we produce value (goods, services, experiences) through collaboration across the organization. Cross-functional activity extends beyond the boundaries of our organizations since we are also customers. Recipients of our value may add value for delivery to their stakeholders. These are cross-functional business processes, and they are the only way products, services, or experiences are delivered (or received), i.e., the only way strategy is executed, in any organization.

Processes are how we get work done, how we execute strategy. Therefore, we must manage and improve those processes for optimum organizational performance.

“Manage” means discovering what they are, understanding how they work, knowing how they should perform and are performing, and making evidence-based decisions about problems that should be solved or avoided, and opportunities that should be realized.

“Improve” means then getting on and solving those problems and realizing those opportunities and being able to prove that the benefits were delivered (or not delivered).

A process-centric management philosophy acknowledges the reality that management and improvement of the important processes of organizational life is the primary mode of strategy execution, value delivery, and performance improvement. And these are the three reasons for the existence of every organization.

OK, I believe that, and maybe you do as well. How do we convince the rest of the world, especially those senior decision makers in daily work life.

Let’s discuss the four themes: knowledge, credibility, guardrails, delivery.

Knowledge

For some who miss the process message, it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what a process is and what it should do. “I don’t want to manage processes; I want to eliminate them!” I’ve heard variants of that statement from senior executives who saw processes as interference with efficient work rather than the only way work gets done. The idea of “process” has had way too much bad press and is often thought of synonymously as “poorly performing process creating long queues and extended delays”.

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet.

W. Shakespeare
Chief Bard
Artful Guild of Ordered Endeavours
Stratford-upon-Avon

A clear requirement, therefore, is to develop and maintain a comprehensive and coherent description of what is meant by process-based management, and why it is important, in the organization in question. There needs to be a shared understanding and language that enables a process-aware culture.

Words are important. The definitions and descriptions of process-based management need to be documented, clear, and importantly, they must resonate with the people in the organization. A significant problem in the process management space is the number of overlapping, or even conflicting, definitions. Confusion will never encourage conversion.

I am wary of the common suggestion that the ‘p word’ must be avoided. Just because we never say p-r-o-c-e-s-s out loud doesn’t mean we’ve solved the real problem – and, as I see it, the real problem is often the failure to create practical cross-functional management. If “process” has long been used and abused and now comes with many negative connotations, perhaps it should be avoided, but it doesn’t help if we just pick a new word and then subject it to the same use and abuse.

We do need to speak the language of the audience. That’s communications 101. At the Executive Committee it must be about risk, customer retention, strategic alignment, future proofing etc. In operational areas those messages won’t resonate, and the focus must be on the more pragmatic issues about how work gets done.

In summary:

• Create and maintain a comprehensive and coherent description of the target environment and why process management is important.
• Maintain a glossary of terms (if not a concept model).
• Refine and tailor the messages for the different audiences, keeping in mind that at some time they will likely all be in the same space hearing the same presentation.

Knowledge: a clear, consistent, and shared understanding about what we mean by process-based management.

Credibility

You’ve presented the case for process-based management. Your audience agrees that it’s a sensible approach. That raises new questions. It all works well in PowerPoint but how does it happen in real life? There must be a credible, practical plan to support the theory if sustained conversion is to be realized.

There are many ways in which you might develop such a plan. My general approach is outlined below, and there is plenty of detail in my other papers and videos.

1. Create/review the process architecture.
2. Select 3 processes from that architecture to be pilot processes for the demonstration of effective process-based management.
3. Document the process governance framework.
4. Appoint Process Owners to those processes.
5. Create Process KPIs and assign targets to those PKPIs.
6. Track PKPI performance, reviewing problems and opportunities.
7. Deliver organizational performance improvement.

Credibility: not just theory and nice diagrams, but practical plans that have a reasonable pathway to success.

Of course, a lot more detail is needed. A credible plan with appropriate safeguards is mandatory. The first level of agreement required is permission to run this controlled demonstration (see also Guardrails and Delivery below).

The first step in conversion is NOT to have decision makers irrevocably commit to the theory of process-based management. All that is needed is enough understanding of the general ideas, and confidence in the practical next steps, to be allowed to take those steps.

In summary:

• Be ready to answer the “What now?” questions that will flow immediately after the first signs of conversion.
• Have a plan ready. The question should be “Can we implement this plan?”, not “Can we make a plan?” Permission is not required to make the plan.

Guardrails

We must deal with the fear of it all going wrong, and specifically that it will escalate out of control with increasing demands for budget and resources, and increased intrusion into business as usual.

You want to change the way we manage the organization. That sounds dangerous.

You want everyone to play a role. That sounds like chaos.

You say you only need a small budget. Will you be asking for a big budget next year?

And you can’t guarantee the returns?

These are reasonable concerns, and they can be managed well.

Active process management could be rolled out one process at a time. We can be a little more adventurous than that, but I would not start with any more than, say, three processes.

An incremental rollout is the most effective guardrail and will ease the concerns of most executives, especially if coupled with a very controlled change project that allows for rollback for as long as is possible.

Be clear about resource limitations. Define what the central support team will do and not do, and how its activities will be mainly focused on building capability throughout the existing organization and not building a new empire for itself.

Describe a tight regime of governance, decision making, and reporting. The general proposition is to change the way the organization is managed, and it’s reasonable to want effective control over that.

In summary:

• Choose an incremental rollout approach through a tightly controlled program.
• Identify the main concerns of the key decision makers and address them – objections are valuable waypoints to success.
• Communicate actively with key stakeholders as the demonstration rollout progresses, with a particular emphasis on the benefits delivered.

Guardrails: protection against excess along with certainty that the investment in process-based management will be effectively controlled.

Delivery

Everybody accepts the controlled management of projects, accounting, HR, procurement etc. There are no arguments about whether an organization should adopt and mandate a particular project management approach. There is just one accounting framework and innovation is not encouraged. Why is there no need to make a case for these elements of management? One or more of the following reasons will likely apply:

1. They are a regulated and legal requirement.
2. Benefit delivery is obvious and proven.
3. Long ago the arguments were had and resolved.

These reasons do not (yet) generally apply to process management.

In prosecuting the case for process-based management we make a lot of promises. Everything is going to work better, faster, cheaper. All stakeholders, especially customers, will be happier. Staff will whistle on the way to work, not just on the way home. Life will be so much better, and we’ve got the presentation slides to prove it!

The most effective way to convert decision makers to process-based management is to deliver, deliver, deliver. It needs to be a solution, not a new problem.

All the work we do to document, analyze, improve, and manage business processes must result in proven, valued, business benefits (PVBB). If this is not the result, then by our own definitions, what we are doing is waste and should be eliminated. That would be more than a little embarrassing.

An important challenge question that should be addressed regularly is this: “What has been achieved through our business process work so far?” You might identify deliverables such as:

• documented the process architecture
• modeled lots of processes
• delivered process improvement projects
• trained many people.

That’s important and necessary work but can’t be our objective. Much better if we can identify outcomes such as these:

• customer satisfaction was 60%, now 90%
• Produce invoice process errors eliminated
• educed loan approval time from 3 weeks to 3 clicks
• 95% of 1st offers now accepted (was 65%)
• time to issue a permit reduced 50%.

If we can do that we’ve gone well beyond the tools and artifacts of analysis to deliver proven benefits that enhance organizational performance and are therefore valued by the organization.

PVBB defines not just target outcomes but the mindset and approach that will enable such outcomes.

Let’s unpack PVBB a little.

• Proven: Show me the data. Don’t ask for an act of faith. Show me undisputed proof of organizational performance improvement.
• Valued: Benefits must be valued by the business, not just process practitioners. If nobody outside the BPM team gets excited, then it’s not much of a benefit.
• Business: Process performance improvements must relate unambiguously to enhanced achievement of important strategic or operational objectives.
• Benefit: A process improvement must solve a current business problem, avoid an emerging problem, or fulfil a real opportunity.

Keep it real. Decision makers in our organizations are not sitting around waiting for the process folks to turn up with a new idea. They are dealing with the complicated, messy business of planning and management. They’ll be keen to hear about improvement ideas but will likely have little capacity for speculative experimentation.

Proven, valued, business benefits. For a process improvement to be real and worthwhile it must be a benefit to the business, it must be about the business, and be valued by the business, not through an act of faith but because of proven process performance data. The difference between an opinion and a fact is proof.

Delivery: demonstrable improvement in meaningful organizational performance flowing from a process-based management approach.

In summary:

• If we aren’t fixing a problem, we are causing one. Be useful.
• No organization has a business problem called “we don’t have enough process models”. Fix real problems. Seize real opportunities.
• Track process performance and prove that you’ve made a significant difference.

Convert the unconvertible

Are there people who cannot be converted? Certainly, some will be harder to convince than others. The only way to find out will be to try.

There can be many reasons for decision makers to hesitate, so we need a multifaceted approach, keeping in mind that we won’t get many opportunities to make the case.

The objective must be clear and shared. What do we want to do, and why? The messages must be consistent and coherent.

A practical initial rollout plan is required, and the permission sought is to execute that plan. There is nothing practical to be gained by only achieving in principle agreement with the theory.

Understand what are, or might be, the concerns of the key decision makers and build guardrails to give them confidence. The change to process-based management is a significant step. Expect some hesitation and provide compensating support.

Deliver, deliver, deliver. It’s very difficult to argue against the principles of process-based management, but you can ignore them. What cannot be dismissed so easily is the proven delivery of benefits to the business that are valued by the business.

Paul Hughes suggested this topic. If there an issue you’d like me to cover, let me know.