BPM has under delivered as it's rooted in Taylorism – *there is one true way to do the work* – but today we need to support multiple ways.

2011/04/16 7:35 pm via EchofonReplyRetweetFavorite

@pevansgreenwood

Peter EG

Recently I’ve been thinking about the shift we’re seeing in the business environment. The world seems pretty unstable at the moment. Most business folk assume that this is simply a transition between two stable states, similar to what we’ve seen in the past. This time, however, business seems to be unable to settle into a new groove. The idea behind the book is that the instability we’re seeing is now the normal state of play

Since Frederick Taylor’s time we’ve considered business – our businesses – vast machines to be improved. Define the perfect set of tasks and then fit the men to the task. Taylor timed workers, measuring their efforts to determine the optimal (in his opinion) amount of work he could expect from a worker in a single day. The idea is that by driving our workers to follow optimal business processes we can ensure that we minimise costs while improving quality. LEAN and Six Sigma are the most visible of Taylor’s grandchildren, representing generations of effort to incrementally chip away at the inefficiencies and problems we kept finding in our organisations.

This is the same mentality – incremental and internally focused, intent on optimising each and every task in our organisations – that we’ve used to apply technology to business. Departmental applications were first deployed to automate small repudiative tasks, such as tracking stock levels or calculating payrolls. Then we looked at the interactions between these tasks, giving birth to enterprise software in the process. Business Process Management (BPM) is the pinnacle of our efforts, pulling in everything from our customers through to suppliers to create the optimal straight through processes for our organisation to rely on.

Some vendors have taken this approach to its logical extreme, imagining (and trying to get us to buy) a single technology platform which will allow us to programme our entire business: business operating platforms[1]. They’re aligning elements in the BPM technology stack with the major components found in most computers under the (mistaken) assumption that this will enable them to create a platform for the entire business. Business as programmable machine writ large.

The problem, as I’ve pointed out before[2], is that:

Programming is the automation of the known. Business processes, however, are the management and anticipation of the unknown.

Business is not a computer, with memory, CPUs and disks, and the hope of creating an Excel with which we can play what if with the entire business is simply tilting at windmills.

The focus of business is, and always has been, problems and the people who solve them. Technology is simply a tool we’ve used to amplify these people, starting with the invention of writing through to modern SaaS applications and BPM suites. While technology has had a previously unimaginable impact on business, it can’t (yet) replace the people who solve the problems which create all the value. People collaborate, negotiate, and smash together ideas to find new solutions to old problems. Computers simply replicate what they are told to do.

We’ve reached Taylorism’s use-by date. Define the perfect task and fit the man to the task no longer works. The pace of business has accelerated to the point that the environment we operate in has become perpetually unstable, and this is pushing us to become externally focused, rather than internally focused. We’re stopped worrying about collecting resources to focus on our reactions to problems and opportunities as they present themselves. Computing (calculating payrolls, invoices, or gunnary tables) is less important as it can be obtained on demand, and we’re more concerned with the connections between ourselves and our clients, partners, suppliers and even our competitors. And we’re shifted our focus from collecting ever more data as it becomes increasingly important to ask the questions which enable us to make the right decisions and drive our business forward.

Success today in today’s unstable environment means matching the tactic – process – to the goal we’re trying to achieve and our current environment, with different tactics being using in different circumstances. Rather than support one true way, we need to support multiple ways.

There has been some half steps in the right direction, with the emergence of Adaptive Case Management (ACM)[3] being the most obvious one. A typical case study for ACM might be something like resolving SWIFT payment exceptions. When the ACM process is triggered a knowledge worker creates a case and starts building a context by pulling data in and triggering small workflows or business processes to seek out data and resolve problems. At some stage the context will be complete, the exception resolved, and the final action is triggered. Contrast this with the standard BPM case study, which is typically a compliance story. (It’s no surprise that regulations such as SOX drove a lot of business processes work.) BPM is a task dependency tool, making it very good at specifying the steps in the required process, but unable to cope with exceptions.

So what do we replace the Talyorism’s catch cry with? The following seems to suit, rooted as it is in the challenge of winning in a rapidly changing environment.

Identify the goal and then assemble the perfect team to achieve the goal.

Note: This was also posted on noprocess.org.

References

1. Ismael Ghalimi (2009), Introducing the Business Operating Platform, IT|Redux↑
2. Business is not a programming challenge @ PEG↑
3. Keith D. Swenson (2010), Mastering the Unpredictable, Meghan-Kiffer Press.↑

As always, thoughts and/or comments are greatly appreciated.

• Does location really matter? [strategy+business]
  For innovation-based companies, being located in an industry cluster has long been thought to enhance long-term financial prospects. This research suggests otherwise.
• I know I’m doing this wrong [You're the boss @ The New York Times]
  If you want solutions to problems, you’d better ask for them — hoping that innovation will happen without help and guidance is a foolish fantasy.
• SeaMicro drops an atom bomb on the server industry [Venture Beat]
  … while many pundits thought that there was not innovation to be had from the hardware industry.
• Show stopper: how plastic popped the cork monopoly [The Wall Street Journal]
  The story of how plastic corks, and ultimately screw tops, replaced the humble cork as our stopper of choice.

As always, thoughts and/or comments are greatly appreciated.

• The Evolution of Technology [strategy+business]
  An interview with economist W. Brian Arthur, who’s recent book The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves (Free Press, 2009) argues that the value of innovation depends on harnessing the natural progression of shared knowledge.
• Wal-Mart: An example of the next generation of CRM [CRM Outsiders]
  Wal-Mart in the U.K. will allow customers to determine what products they carry in the store via email with digital images and product details sent straight from the manufacturer, in an example of how the merging of e-commerce and brick and mortar locations is breaking down the barriers between the consumer and the manufacturer.
• Government 2.0 case studies from Australia [Centre for Future Civic Media]
  Government seems to be leading the charge in using Web 2.0 tools and techniques to transform the way it operates, and MIT has collected some interesting case studies from Australia.
• How A Spare Computer Became Twitpic, A $1.5+ Million A Year Twitter Success Story – with Noah Everett [Mixergy]
  The cost of innovation has crashed, and a new breed of entrepreneur is using these low costs to create a new generation of solutions in white spaces were not previously accessible.

As always, thoughts and/or comments are greatly appreciated.

• Crowd-wisdom fails business [ComMetrics]
  Crowdsourcing assumes that customers know best what they want and need. Hence, more heads are better than one. However, crowdsourcing may fail in a few important situations that concern social media.
• Navigating the new normal [McKinsey Quarterly]
  A conversation with four chief strategy officers on setting strategy in the wake of the downturn.
• Entrepreneurs: Stop Innovating, Start Minnovating [Harvard Business]
  If we want more entrepreneurs, stop worrying about jumpstarting innovation. Focus on “minnovation.”
• Integrated Innovation at Pitney Bowes [strategy+business]
  In tough times, this venerable mail and documents company boosted not only its R&D spending but the creativity of its approach.

As always, thoughts and/or comments are greatly appreciated.

• Patent Volume Isn’t the Best Innovation Gauge [BusinessWeek: Innovate]
  Patent volume isn’t necessarily a valid proxy for innovation. A study by the Patent Board, an intellectual-property consultancy, shows there are other—and better—ways to quantify innovation. Ranked by sheer volume, Honda Motor is No. 1, with 54. That’s almost twice second-place Panasonic, which has 28. Ranked by other metrics, though, Honda isn’t a leader.
• The Downside of Seeking Common Ground [strategy+business]
  People’s tendency to find common ground in conversation by focusing on what’s familiar can stifle the most innovative thinkers.
• Is America Losing Its Mojo? [Newsweek]
  Innovation is as American as baseball and apple pie. But some traditions can’t be trademarked.
• Innovation relies on synthesis [Innovate on Purpose]
  We often talk about the importance of combining disparate skills or capabilities when innovating, or holding two diametrically opposing ideas and finding the happy medium. What should be obvious is that one of the most important skills from an innovation perspective is the act and insight of synthesis.

As always, thoughts and/or comments are greatly appreciated.

• Open innovation made by Lego [hypios]
  At ten years old, LEGO Mindstorms is one of the oldest and most successful Open Innovation programs ever launched by a corporation.
• InnoCentive: A market for ideas [Economist.com]
  A pioneering “innovation marketplace” is making steady progress.
• Obama, Clinton and CEOs on innovation [BusinessWeek: Innovate]
  World leaders gather at the Fifth Annual Clinton Global Initiative Annual to try and find new solutions to old problems.
• Profits down, spending steady: the global innovation 1000 [strategy+business]
  The annual study of the world’s biggest corporate R&D spenders finds that most companies have stuck with their innovation programs despite the recession — and many are boosting spending to compete more effectively in the upturn.

As always, thoughts and/or comments are greatly appreciated.

This issue:

• Building an innovation nation [McKinsey]
  What does it take for a city, region or country to build a track record of innovation?
• Beyond borders: the global innovation 1000 [strategy+business]
  strategy+business’ annual survey of the R&D spending.
• Michelin reinvents the wheel [The Energy Roadmap]
  Michelin realizes the long held idea of replacing the drive train completely.
• More power from bumps in the road [MIT News]
  MIT students develop energy-harvesting shock absorbers.

As always, thoughts and/or comments are greatly appreciated.

This issue:

• Engineers rule [Forbes]
  At American auto companies, finance guys and marketers rise to the top. Not at Honda.
• China’s long road to innovation [strategy+business]
  Beijing is mandating an increase in home-grown R&D, but Chinese companies face long odds in meeting international standards of innovation.
• Cisco CEO John Chambers on speeding up innovation [BusinessWeek]
  In Chambers’ view, business is on the verge—not in the midst—of a dramatic transformation, a huge leap forward in productivity built on collaboration made possible by Web 2.0-style tools similar to YouTube, FaceBook, and Wikipedia but adapted to the corporate environment. “Our children, with their social network[ing], have presented us with the future of productivity,” he emphatically told the crowd of about 4,500 executives.
• The kids are alright [Economist]
  Worries about the damage the internet may be doing to young people has produced a mountain of books—a suitably old technology in which to express concerns about the new. Robert Bly claims that, thanks to the internet, the “neo-cortex is finally eating itself”. Today’s youth may be web-savvy, but they also stand accused of being unread, bad at communicating, socially inept, shameless, dishonest, work-shy, narcissistic and
  indifferent to the needs of others.

As always, thoughts and/or comments are greatly appreciated.

This issue:

• P&G’s innovation culture [strategy+business]
  How P&G built a world-class organic growth engine by investing in people.
• In the face of change, the competent are helpless. [FastCompany.com]
  Competence is not the same thing as imagination. If you want create something disrupive and innovative, you might need to look beyond the specialists on a field.
• What is the role of teacher in the age of Google? [BusinessWeek]
  Chris Lehmann (founding principal of the Science Leadership Academy) provides his view of education in a post-Google world, with 15 slides in 5 minutes.
• Add-Art [Add-Art]
  Replacing online advertising with art.