The Process Quality Blog Rotating Header Image

My takeaways from bbccon11: Be smart

Conference over, jetlag fading, time to reflect on my takeaways from the Building Business Capabilities conference 2011.

My keywords are: Common sense, business value, processes and business rules, stakeholder participation, architecture and structure, skill development, process testing, capabilities.

Common sense
Technology plus the ever increasing number of available methodologies could be regarded as a complete or at least sufficient toolset to deal with any number of process issues companies are facing. In fact the opposite is true: Too many toys to play with distract from what should be done and only lead to confusion. Several speakers pointed out this danger and stressed the importance of applying common sense and a ‘back to the roots’ approach. The role of business analysts and process experts should not predominantly lie in developing new methods but in solving business problems and making use of opportunities.

Business value
Really the key issue of the conference and at least during the keynote sessions the most often used phrase was ‘business value’. Does what you do and how you do it create business value? How do you demonstrate added value before you implement your solutions? Many comments by business analysts indicated that this is an area they are most uncomfortable with and pointed out that their inability to reach stakeholders and management is partly due to not knowing how to communicate the business value of their proposals, i.e. making the leap from process design to a business proposition that captures the imagination of decision makers.

Processes and business rules
This is still one of the great challenges in that both fields have progressed over the last few years albeit mostly independent of each other. But when the application of rules invokes processes and processes contain rules, independence and isolation is not the order of the day. Business analysts need to get a better understanding of business rules and rules experts need to come out of hiding. If you want processes to work and deliver you need both in combination.

Stakeholder participation
This is a subject I’m currently writing a longer piece on, so I’ll keep it short here. Business analysis, process analysis and process design all need to serve a purpose or else they are reduced to meaningless fooling around with tools. The only way to provide meaning is by getting results taken up by the business and for that stakeholder involvement is critical. I witnessed a couple of discussions along the lines of ‘we need to get management to read and understand our process models’. Wrong! You as designers or analysis need to tell the business value story and ensure that the main points are covered by your design and solution. Embed them in context, provide meaning. You may well have the best intentions for your business at heart but if you’re unable to show how stakeholders and decisions makers will directly profit from your suggestions the business as a whole will never get to see what you dreamt up.

Architecture and structure
The sessions at the business architecture summit provide some good examples of how the business can benefit from structure but they also showed some of the practical difficulties: When setting out, do you create an empty structure and try to fill it later with process, data, service and information content? Or do you base your architecture on existing processes (data,….) and build it up from there? Does architecture provide a framework for a running business or should it work primarily as a guideline for projects? There are no right or wrong answers to these questions but you do need to make sure that you have a consistent approach.

Skill development
One of my pet subjects and bbccon11 has done nothing to tell me that we are anywhere close to the skill levels demanded by the issues we’re dealing with. True, proficiency in handling and using tools is at a higher level than 10 years ago and tools and methodologies have a much broader user and fan base nowadays. But being able to drive a car when you have no sense of direction is not the smart solution. Process and business awareness should be foremost on everyones mind. Train people in process thinking and not just in how use the latest user interface. Reduce the time needed to discover current processes by making people process- instead of system- aware.

Process testing
OK, so I’m biased as this was the topic of my presentation. Doesn’t make it less important though. If your processes contain errors that will prohibit implementation, IT will need to design workarounds which in turn will increase project costs which in turn will not put a smile on stakeholders faces. The same goes for processes which may work but don’t deliver. And even if they do, if stakeholders and other interested parties had a different understanding of the problem and solution at the outset, you will not have provided them with what they expected. Process quality has as much to do with delivering capabilities as with delivering to expectations. Validation may therefore be key to your success. Likewise process dynamics. At a rough guess, every second presentation mentioned ‘global markets’, ‘changing conditions’ and ‘agile ability’. Designing a business solution without validating it against a real-life dynamic environment (simulation and stress test) means that your design brings with it the risk of limited usability. Test and check before you implement was the message I tried to get across. Of course, that’s why we set up the Process TestLab in the first place.

Capabilities
This is what the conference was all about. What capabilities do companies need? (Luckily, I didn’t get to hear any general meaningless answers but often very individual, company-specific input). How do process capabilities feed into business capabilities? (Depends on what the business capabilities are and there’s that tiny problem of translating business strategy into process strategy). What skills and employee capabilities are needed? (see above).

Summary
A lot of the issues I’ve mentioned here do not require a general state of the art solution. There already are many (too many?) tools and methodologies available. The secret lies in being smart: Smart in deciding what you need and how to create a solution using what’s already available. Smart integration. Smart processes that people want to use. Smart solutions that can be managed. We already have most of what we need but it takes brains to figure out the smart combination for smart businesses.

Did you like this? Share it:

Leave a Reply

Quick reminder to all bbccon11 attendees, business analysts and bpm experts

Remember all those tweets about the global process quality survey I sent out during the conference? They seem to have hit a note with european and canadian attendees but the number of US responses is rising slower than the rest.

Get involved, let us know what your current situation and perspective on process quality is and take the survey: http://bit.ly/s3LaYO

Respondents will receive a free summary of results and can benchmark their answers against overall results.

Survey is conducted as a joint research project between the University of Applied Sciences Koblenz and the taraneon Process TestLab

Did you like this? Share it:

One Comment

  1. Brian D. Martin says:

    Hi Thomas,

    I took the survey. Part of the problem is you have a lot of Six Sigma advocates, but with no simulation experience. Many make recommendations and walk away. They don’t work with the business to simulate processes by role playing or by using computer modeling. That’s my take on why the US has been a little slow.

Leave a Reply

BBC Conference 2011 Day 3: Networking and helping attendees avoid Roger

Can’t report too much from the third day as this was networking day. From Monday onwards there were so many people I needed to sit down with, I decided to do most of the meetings on one day. So today was a global discussion journey from South Africa to Norway to Canada to India to England to Ukraine.

Other than that, I still found time to listen to Kathleen Barret ‘On the future of business analytics’. Just one quick observation as I’ll be doing a separate piece on this later. There seems to be a fundamental difference in the role of business analysts between the US and Europe. What IIBA does with regards to qualification of business analysts but also role ‘marketing’ is not something I’ve encountered before on this level. Cultural? Maybe. On the other hand there seems to be a broader gap between what BAs could do and the willingness and capabilities of senior management to actually let them do their stuff than there is in Europe.

Oh yes … I also did the first formal presentation of the Process TestLab in the US. I was fortunate enough that Roger Burlton had the slot following me where he wanted to tell ‘Horror stories from business processes’. Being customer- or in this case attendee-focused I changed my presentation in a way that would help attendees avoid appearing on Rogers list next year. Accordingly I also changed the title of my presentation to ‘The Process TestLab: How to avoid being mentioned by Roger’. This may have caused some initial confusion for attendees but at least this way the Process TestLab has already provided some valuable help Smiley

I’ll point you to Column2 as Sandy has done an excellent write-up of the presentation itself on her blog and just mention that next week I’ll be posting about a couple of the slides and topics I had to skip over due to time pressures.

BBCCon11 in short: Great event, good speakers, good opportunity to swap and share experiences … glad I attended. And who knows, maybe I’ll even make it down to the beach next year.

Did you like this? Share it:

2 Comments

  1. Brian D. Martin says:

    Hi Thomas,

    I am one of your biggest fans, because I love simulation, and I love the idea of role playing processes before we give them to IT. I live in the Hartford, Conn. (yea, the area hit by the storm), so if you are going to Boston or NYC, drop me a line.

    Now, can you expand on the role of BA in Europe and USA. I am a Business process architect, only because we use Pega BPM and I am on the business side. The problem internally in most companies is that the IT BA in the US writes up software requirements for IT and often blows off customer needs such as usability and flexibility. They can also be tone deaf on analytics which is needed to find root causes of problems. My back ground is in engineering, love analytics, love simulation, but still trying to influence the business to come back to owning the processes and testing them. A big barrier is companies push to offshore not only business processes but also the BPM delivery which gets clouded by mis communication, oversight on basic prioritization, SLA and quality. …different note…Don’t stop what you are doing. Most BPMs maybe except for Saviion don’t have good simulation tools. …Most companies are just now beginning to put process management in place in service industries…Have a safe trip. By the way, I am in London from 11/19 – 11/20, then Paris from 11/21 – 11/22, then back to London. Will you be in London or Paris at all?

  2. Thomas J. Olbrich says:

    Brian,
    thanks for the comment. I’ll answer in more detail via personal mail but here’s my general perception of things:
    BA’s for all their methodologies and tools always have difficulty in convincing others i.e. non-tool and non-methodology experts that something ‘drawn’ in a tool will actually work the same way in real life. I’d even go so far as to say that most BA’s aren’t even that certain of success themselves. As I mentioned in the intro to my presentation, even the most seasoned BPM experts almost always experience a feeling of relief when they’ve successfully guided a process from the design stage to operations – it’s by no means an everyday occurance.
    The particular problem for BAs is that they are caught between a rock and a hard place:
    a) they have to convince management and stakeholders that their design would benefit the business (whilst secretly hoping that it can actually be implemented),
    b) they have to deal with an often enough insufficient input from the business itself – and btw undefined process and business strategy
    c) they have to get IT to understand content, context and objectives.

    This is really where the Process TestLab kicks in:
    - Using our live validation, BA’s can experience their own design before handover to IT,
    - They can involve the businss people to sign off on the design
    - They demonstrate to management how the design translate into a live setting
    And the same goes for IT:
    - IT can use live validation to ’sell’ the IT vision of processes to the business people BEFORE implementation.

    That will get you an allround buy-in from all involved parties – or at least make process deficiencies visible to everyone.

    The simulation then takes you to the next level as it will not only tell you that the process works at all and how it works, it will also tell you how it will behave under real-life conditions.
    Btw: We don’t do model-based simulation such as you find in BPM suites. We actually run/execute the process and simulate the behaviour of employees and systems. That way the results don’t reflect the (simulation) model but the executable process.

    Hope that helps for starters. More via mail
    Thomas

Leave a Reply