Organizational change in any form, evokes much the same feeling you have when you are on a diving board looking down at the cold water below. Although you know it will all be fine in under 20 seconds after you’ve left the board, for the 20 seconds before that actually happens though, you display emotions that seem to suggest you are about to confront a most dreadful event.

The thing is, that hesitation, that sense of apprehension, is not really about diving nor about swimming. It is about those few moments when it can get incredibly jarring as your body splashes through that cold water. It shakes you up for a few moments.

Much the same way, I like to think employees really do not have a fundamental disagreement to the reasons why they need that ‘change’ that is being introduced – that new software, those process changes, those revised roles and responsibilities, those new user interfaces. It may not be any of those at all.

It may really be that ‘jarring’ effect of stepping out of one comfort zone into a new zone that they need to warm up to all over again.

With BPM, the extent of change is significant – it is not just about change in the proverbial ‘run-time’. There are change implications to the very approach right from conceptualization of the solution, stakeholder participation, design, through to roll out. And no, it doesn’t end there either!

So there definitely is some level of inertia to most every organizational change and more so for BPM related change. I had made a post on this sometime back where I had noted

change issues threaten BPM success much more than you ever cared to admit. If you really want to tackle every force adversely affecting your BPM success, you need to stand up and look at that BPM Inertia in the eye.

And the big challenge really is what you do after you are done looking at it in the eye.

Chris Taylor posted few days ago a very good piece titled “Selling BPM – Three things that make the difference”.  This post in fact achieved the feat of breaking my silence here, which is incredible considering the widening gaps between my posts.

The third among Chris’ ‘list of ‘things’,  was “Getting colleagues to come along”. This struck a chord with me.

Chris goes on to say about “Getting colleagues to come along”,

Your management has accepted your analysis and signed off on your business idea…but your idea is only meaningful when everyone comes along. They will follow your lead when they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Sure, management can require people to behave a certain way, but that only gets you so far. ThyssenKrupp was able to get everyone onboard by  by training small groups at a time and showing them a relevant, role-based view of the world. Finance was trained on what they care about and machine operators on machine operation.

There will always be resistance to factor in. Christian describes the ThyssenKrupp Stainless method of overcoming it by saying, “We didn’t tackle the people who were most resistant, but instead focused on those who seemed open. We built a critical mass gradually.”  In the end, no person likes to be an island.

Chris’ most important point is buried in the first paragraph and could almost go unnoticed – “They will follow your lead when they realize that it is in their interest to do so”

This, I believe is really the crux. This is the real incentive and all the arsenal you need to sell the idea of ‘coming along’. I said before, and it is worth saying again,

One key pivot that I am increasingly beginning to believe Change Management success hinges on is when everyone involved is aware and truly believes that  the ‘change’ can improve their daily work life, and can indeed help them work smarter, easier and better.

What are your thoughts? Are there other equally, if not more crucial aspects you can think of?

©2012 Bouncing Thoughts. All Rights Reserved.

Here is a video that leaves very little to be said about a rather painful aspect of the vendor-customer relationship.

Thanks to Faun for sharing this.

©2012 Bouncing Thoughts. All Rights Reserved.

During a long weekend last year, a group of friends and I headed to a small  sea-side town around 100 miles from Bombay. Enroute, we stopped at a small hotel for refreshments – a franchisee of a reasonably well known restaurant chain in India. However considering it was along a highway, although a busy one, we weren’t sure of the quality of their service or their menu items.

Such a situation calls for a safe bet on steamed ‘Idlis’, a very popular South Indian dish. Simple, clean, no toxic masala, demands minimal cooking skill, etc. [TIP: If you ever travel to India and want to play safe, Idlis are the way to go]

As we waited for the Idlis to show up, I noticed something that lit up my eyes – a black board scribbled with numbers in an adjoining room (not meant for customers). I discovered that the board apparently served as the performance dashboard for managers at the hotel.

I took a closer look (and also managed to click this picture) and noticed target vs. actuals, YTD and MTD numbers. Suddenly the nondescript hotel piqued my interest. It did seem like some professional thought was being applied in managing the setup. At least I certainly couldn’t have imagined the small hotel would approach its performance with such number focus.

What puzzled me really though was how they could use that information on the board to influence any revenue when in fact, they had very little control over it.

Consider this: On any given day, their revenue is directly influenced by the volume of traffic on the highway outside and by the number of people feeling hungry as they cross that section of the highway. As you will agree, they had no control over either.

The only influence they could have is in making sure their hotel was visible on the highway from at least a mile or two away (a strategically placed billboard, perhaps) giving enough time for travellers to note, relate to the brand and (perhaps discuss with fellow travellers to take a consensus) slow down, park and walk in.

But once the billboard goes up, how much influence do they really have on what happens next – other than by praying?

‘None’. Zero. There is absolutely nothing they can do to make more customers walk in. (see image on left)

In the final analysis, the black board was saying something that summed up the performance of the hotel – a snapshot the franchiser would be interested in, but for the franchisee, it does not provide any insight on what was being done right (or wrong) that could suggest focused action to improve business further.

Obviously, the real control they have is only in what they can do once a customer does walk in. If their service and menu items are able to delight the customer, they could create loyalists who would stop every time they pass by.

And so, if ‘customer delight on service and quality’ were made to be the defined objective, then the measures tracked today need to be revised – or at least, seen in context of some additional measures that can influence business more directly. You might measure things like average bill amount for the day, number of repeat customers, etc. You might want to find a mechanism to track if first time customers (those that answered the prayer) will come back again, ratio of repeat to new customers and so on.

Those are the kind of metrics that will eventually help the hotel drive more revenue.

In a sense, I think firms of all sizes, in almost every industry, are grappling with a similar challenge – that of not tracking the real measures of business and operational performance. That of chasing the wrong measures. And then, having to depend more on prayer than other things.

BPM has opened up a whole new approach and opportunity to measuring performance and I see more and more organizations looking for those as stated benefits to leverage. Yet, it seems to me that many organizations are falling short of identifying relevant measures that can actually serve as a means to take corrective action and push a dipping graph back up.

One of the main reasons for this comes from viewing process performance as an independent subset of overall corporate performance. But in truth, that is seldom the case. Every process contributes to either the topline growth or bottom-line  impact and has to therefore be given that due regard when you define metrics or measures of its performance. With BPM, it is important to align process performance measures to overall corporate performance measures.

But in the end, though,  Corporate Performance Management is not just about bridging the gap between Strategy and Result, but is also about getting Strategy and Result spelt out right to start with.

Have a great weekend!

©2012 Bouncing Thoughts. All Rights Reserved.

Call it culture, resistance to change, fear, politics or just old fashioned pig-headedness, but BPM initiatives are seldom without change issues and internal friction of some kind. And as we see BPM adoption increasing, there is increasing proof of the existence of such a thing called BPM Inertia. And it compromises the degree of BPM success.

It seems to me that almost any firm running a BPM initiative acknowledges the need for change management at the beginning, but not all of them actually take the effort to address it directly and methodically as the initiative rolls forward.

Here is a truth pill you must take: change issues threaten BPM success much more than you ever cared to admit. If you really want to tackle every force adversely affecting your BPM success, you need to stand up and look at that BPM Inertia in the eye.

Vendors and System Integrators will offload slide after slide of wisdom, frameworks and methodologies as you prepare your approach to tackle the change demon. All good and necessary, but IMHO, don’t get swayed –  it’s all only like a recipe. You still need to figure out how much salt & spice works best for your family; what shade of rare, medium or well-done the meat should be, by considering each unique preference of those about to gather at the table.

The avatar that change issues might take is different in each organization. It could be a manifestation of one or more factors – those that may not be directly related to BPM or even Biz/IT. Not all of those will be evil, negative or wilful. They could simply stem from a lack of appreciation, or awareness of the nature of change or its benefits.

So an important ingredient that goes into the creation of a Change Management program is deep insight into organization culture, people, and a sense of understanding of cause and effect – all coming from a great position of strength – that of firsthand experience. From being part of it.

Acquired from being one of ‘them’.

Your vendor may have great experience and track-record of successes in running a change management program, but let someone from within, that knows the pulse of your organization be an influential, driving member of that program.  At the same time exploit the fresh, detached perspective that your vendor/SI brings in.

One key pivot that I am increasingly beginning to believe Change Management success hinges on is when everyone involved is aware and truly believes that  the ‘change’ can improve their daily work life, and can indeed help them work smarter, easier and better.

In the end though, IMHO, the crucial ingredient to leading a successful change management program is to address the cause, not the symptom.

©2012 Bouncing Thoughts. All Rights Reserved.

So, that BPM product demo excited you? The vendor demonstration of agile features may well have made your mouth water. You now think your investment in BPM licenses will make your firm agile.

Well, sorry to be the one to break it to you, but it may not. Maybe you should think again.

 

..............................It's Not The Ball!

Sure, BPM can give the power of agility to organizations. But let’s face it, it’s really not BPM that’s going to get you there.

No. It is not BPM.

It is the people you are going to entrust that BPM investment with.

So, who are those people, you ask?

Well it wont be your systems integrator. Although the team from your SI is crucial.

It wont be your external consultants either. Although picking the right consultants is critical and they certainly can bring much value in your effort to make BPM applications agile.

The real key to agility will need to come from your people. Your culture.

Here is how I look at it. Technology may contribute to an agile organization, but mostly the root of agility lies in the collective consciousness of an organization.

It is in the mindset, an organizational attitude, if you will.

And so, implementing BPM by itself does not automatically make a firm agile. It calls for concerted effort in allowing technology to become an extension of that mindset. That is why the choice of tool is important and that is why during process design it is crucial to involve the right people.

I liked the way Max Pucher puts it

“Agility is not an intrinsic property of software or methodology and cannot be supplied through these. Only agile-thinking management and employees will make a business more agile.” Max J. Pucher 2007 (Why SOA does not deliver. Article in Output Magazine) [via eBizQ]

Your thoughts? Bounce them!

©2012 Bouncing Thoughts. All Rights Reserved.

To me, if there is only one striking difference between a BPM solution and a conventionally developed application, then it is the opportunity to unlock hidden potential for improvements.

Many organizations at the crossroads of a decision do overlook this aspect and decide against BPM. I have come across a few in the past. Reasons, however, maybe attributed to high license costs or other such considerations. Of course, while this may well be true, the question I often ask myself is if they did see and consider the full potential of benefits from a BPM solution before deciding against it.

And if indeed they did, why did they still decide not to invest in BPM? Did they calculate ROI? If so, how did they calculate it? What were their considerations? Why would they rather invest in either building the application grounds-up or, in a packaged application when in all likelihood neither can provide several of the additional benefits possible from a BPM solution?

For sure, there must be ample wisdom supporting their decisions. Apparently their final authorities did agree it was a good decision before they signed on the dotted line.

So, why would they let Good come in the way of Better?

Today we have survey findings from organizations that have decided in favor of BPM – many analyst firms have done some research in that area. But I am not sure if anyone has researched organizations that have decided against investing in BPM. Their reasons could be very interesting in many levels.

Did they make the right decision? Or have they only held-off jumping into the BPM wagon for the moment? Have they considered a logic that others have not? Do they think they are too small for BPM? Or is it more of a contextual thing – of BPM just not fitting into their particular context?

What is your take? What has been your experience in this aspect?

From my experience with organizations that have decided against BPM I could hazard one generalization – you tell me if I am way off mark here – that organizations where IT has a strong influence in the decision making may look less favorably at BPM.

I also think it has less to do with IT participation itself or with their influence (negative or not) in the decision but more to do with the lack of intense business participation, active involvement and drive.

What do you think? What could be other reasons?

©2012 Bouncing Thoughts. All Rights Reserved.