There are some processes that we must follow legally and they are forced into an organisation through the compliance route. How often, though, does this implementation of process, in the name of compliance, cause resentment because the process has not been properly thought through? For example, I have been reviewing the "Know Your Customer (KYC)", "Anti Money Laundering (AML) and EU's "Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID)" regulations. I have noticed that most financial institutions state that their processes are compliant with these regulations. However, their processes appear to be mostly paper based, highly manual and require large multi-page paper forms to be completed. Add to this extraordinary level of bureaucracy the overhead of trawling back through the forms every time a sanctions list update is received to ensure existing clients haven't suddenly become "undesirable" and you can see why it is now so difficult to do business with a financial institution anywhere in the developed world.
The implementation of business process is often perceived as a negative because it is seen as a control mechanism that does nothing but add overhead. However, implementing the right process can create a quicker, more streamlined and compliant business. Using the right tools can provide the additional benefit of visibility in to the status of all in-flight processes thus building a platform for continuous improvement.
Communicating the benefits of the new process can lead to a better tolerance for process efficiencies. However, if the process is not well designed, is onerous or adds a burden of bureaucracy then it won't matter how much benefit the organisation gains from the process, it will not be fully adopted by its users.
In my experience, involving the business in an operational walk-thru so that they understand the shortcomings of the "as-is" process and own the "to-be" process will lead to better process design and hence a stronger uptake by the process users.
There has been much talk over the years about the ability of the various business process management (BPM) offerings to create an orchestration layer that provides the communications layer necessary to bring order and controlled flexibility to horizontal processes.
I think that most proponents of BPM would agree that it is clear that you cannot succeed in BPM without communication. BPM can be thought of as a reaction to the changing communication patterns of modern businesses because problems with processes often reflect more horizontal than vertical integration issues. This change is a result of new ways that businesses and the people inside those businesses communicate with one another to increase agility and lower costs.
Are we starting to reach the time where horizontal collaboration tools like BPM are mashed-up with vertical specific, "run-the-company" processes to create flexible application frameworks that allow companies the capability to embrace all major forms of IT-enabled collaboration, with enterprise security policies and business processes, without major disruption to how the Business gets on with the job?
For example (and I apologise for the shameless self promotion) my company, Axispoint, is currently working on a project to provide a GRC solution for a client. The solution will be a mash-up of the various risk engine and sanctions list provider services, etc. and will be built on a BPM framework to provide control and visibility into the in-flight processes. I haven't found others that are using mash-ups and BPM technology in quite the same way. I would be interested to hear from anyone that is working on these solutions.
Posted by: peter in Peter Borner, change, bpm on
Sep 22, 2008
How often do you see projects that fail to get deployed or where the implementation costs are greater than the value the solution provides?
It is perennial concern, one that most large IT departments seem unable to resolve. I have, in my career, produced endless business cases, cost justifications and ROI projections. I have championed project management methodologies and striven to place emphasis on the value of the initiatives in comparison to the project costs but in my experience there is a high chance of failure to deliver real value from IT led projects.
I am happy, to report, however, that times have changed!
Since joining Axispoint some two years ago, we have built up a global Business Process Management practice. We focus on opportunity cost and have developed a highly iterative methodology that is designed to start to deliver an ROI within 90 days.
Opportunity cost is a big issue for most companies as the amount of IT projects is always greater than the resources available to deliver them. So when projects are ill-conceived, you end up wasting time, effort and budget; valuable resources that could have been used to deliver a more useful project.
Successful projects create a mutual dependency between IT and the Business, requiring an unprecedented amount of team work and process definition. Too often, I see the business stakeholders in a project delegate the modelling process to IT - this is a disastrous move and one that will suffocate downstream innovation.
You hear a lot of people banging on about bridging the gap between IT and the Business but it is clear that using a cost based model simply drives a wedge between the two and makes business alignment more difficult. The goals should be:
- To get buy-in by getting the Business involved and helping them understanding the overall cost and effort much more regularly.
- Ensure your Subject Matter Experts define and map the business processes
- Initially focus on one process, iterate and deliver early. You should aim to get your first process into production within 90 days.
