Old posts from bpm.com — CMW Lab Blog https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/bpm-com/ Plan. Manage. Collaborate. Fri, 27 Dec 2024 13:24:43 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.1 BPM and the Evolution of Remote Work: Tools and Strategies for 2025 https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/bpm-and-the-evolution-of-remote-work-tools-and-strategies-for-2025/ https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/bpm-and-the-evolution-of-remote-work-tools-and-strategies-for-2025/#respond Fri, 27 Dec 2024 13:24:18 +0000 https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/?p=7046 As business landscape transforms and with the integration of Business Process Management (BPM) and working remotely changing the scenario. Companies are starting to reconsider not only how they function but how they innovate and interact as well. The synergy between BPM and remote work is proving vital for organisations aiming to remain agile, efficient, and […]

The post BPM and the Evolution of Remote Work: Tools and Strategies for 2025 appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>
As business landscape transforms and with the integration of Business Process Management (BPM) and working remotely changing the scenario. Companies are starting to reconsider not only how they function but how they innovate and interact as well. The synergy between BPM and remote work is proving vital for organisations aiming to remain agile, efficient, and competitive.



CMW Platform banner

This article explores the trends, tools, and strategies shaping the future of work in 2025, and how CMWLab’s new BPM platform helps businesses to operate in the remote mode.

Remote Work in 2025

Working remotely has shifted from being a choice to being a norm. With 22.8% percent of employees in the US being part of a remote workforce that’s more than 35 million people. To make the most of the distributed teams, businesses are restructuring their operations. The hybrid work model is now the gold standard as it has allowed the collaboration of work that is done in the office and that which is done away from the office.

On a broader sense, this change is not just a shift in resolving logistical issues but a change in the engagement in the workplace. When looking at the current state of the organizations, flexibility has become an essential element while still maintaining a level of operating discipline and this is where BPM solutions come in handy.

Why Remote Work Matters in Business Outcomes

Working from home is driving tangible results. Companies have reported a 21% rise in profitability thanks to increased flexibility, reduced overheads, and improved employee engagement. However, challenges remain. There is a marked increase in worker engagement, yet strategies and systems must be developed to ensure the productivity of workers who are completely remote.

This is where BPM tools step in, helping streamline workflows, keep teams aligned, and ultimately connect the various remote teams while enhancing the expected results.

BPM and the Evolution of Remote Work

Modern BPM Tools for Remote Work

To meet the demands of remote teams, BPM tools have advanced significantly. Platforms like CMWLab’s BPM suite are addressing the complexities of remote work and are certainly speaking the language of the remote workforce.

Key Features of Remote-Optimised BPM Tools

  • Low-Code Platforms

Empower teams to develop and adjust workflows without needing extensive coding skills.

  • Seamless Integration

Connect various business tools into a cohesive system to enhance team efficiency.

  • Collaboration Enhancements

Real-time editing, in-platform comments, and notifications keep everyone in sync.

  • Mobile Accessibility

Manage workflows on the go, with interfaces designed for mobile use.

  • Robust Security

Protect sensitive business information through encrypted data, role-based access controls, and thorough audit trails.

Why CMWLab Stands Out

CMWLab paving the way in the BPM revolution. Its platform is crafted to give businesses a strong foundation for managing remote operational structures, simplifying even the most complex processes.

Here’s how CMWLab’s platform supports remote teams:

  1. Process Standardisation

Achieve consistency across workflows, ensuring every team member is on the same page regardless of location.

  1. Telework Risk Assessments

Identify potential pain points in remote setups and implement solutions to maintain a smooth operation.

  1. Data Security

Safeguard business-critical information and ensure compliance with robust security measures.

  1. Collaboration Tools

Facilitate seamless communication and coordination to keep projects on track.

  1. Integration Capabilities

Allow remote teams to connect their favourite tools into a unified workflow, streamlining processes from end to end.

Proven BPM Strategies for Remote Environments

Organisations thriving in remote setups share common BPM strategies. Here are practical methods to consider for your own business:

  • Clear Communication

Utilise dependable tools like those available within CMWLab’s suite to maintain open and efficient communication streams.

  • Goal-Driven Operations

Set clear performance metrics and expectations for alignment across all team members.

  • Sustained Company Culture

Build a remote-friendly culture that nurtures trust, accountability, and inclusion.

  • Work-Life Balance

Introduce flexible policies so teams can enjoy autonomy without compromising productivity.

  • Employee Well-Being

Encourage mental health initiatives and professional development programs for remote workers.

  • Continuous Improvement

Regularly review feedback, optimise strategies, and adapt to evolving requirements.

Overcoming Challenges in BPM for Remote Work

Remote working has its perks but these come with a cost, technology gaps, accountability, and micromanagement while addressing communication is over the simpler more pressing barriers businesses stand face to face with.

The solution is enabling these threats to directly and single handedly be the means for success. By streamlining processes to prioritise clarity, employing scalable technology, and leveraging BPM solutions like CMWLab, organisations can stay ahead of the curve and unlock greater productivity.

What’s Next for BPM and Remote Work?

The future promises exciting innovations for BPM and remote work, and CMWLab is perfectly positioned to help businesses lead the change. Here’s what to expect beyond 2025:

  • AI-Driven BPM

Expect even smarter insights and automated functions to optimise workflows further.

  • Remote-First Hiring Across Borders

Unlock global talent pools to champion workforce diversity and innovation.

  • Stronger Employee-Centric Design

Work environments shaped by tools that prioritise flexibility and employee well-being.

  • Sustainability Strategies

Incorporate environmentally conscious workflows and technologies into your processes.

Thriving with CMWLab

BPM and remote work represent the future of business operations. Leveraging reliable BPM platforms, such as those offered by CMWLab, allows companies to remain competitive, adaptive, and efficient.

CMWLab simplifies business complexities, giving organisations the tools they need to seamlessly handle operations, promote collaboration, and stay secure—all while enabling teams to work from anywhere.

Start your transformation today with CMWLab—your partner in crafting a resilient, future-ready workforce. Get Started Now.

The post BPM and the Evolution of Remote Work: Tools and Strategies for 2025 appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>
https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/bpm-and-the-evolution-of-remote-work-tools-and-strategies-for-2025/feed/ 0
Leveraging BPM for Enhanced Cybersecurity Measures in 2025 https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/leveraging-bpm-for-enhanced-cybersecurity-measures-in-2025/ https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/leveraging-bpm-for-enhanced-cybersecurity-measures-in-2025/#respond Fri, 27 Dec 2024 13:13:08 +0000 https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/?p=7039 The World has rapidly advanced in BPM practices, and integrating them with cybersecurity is rapidly becoming a requirement for organizations as they look to secure their digital assets while also automating operations. And as we move well into 2025, this pairing will not only improve the efficiency in the area of detection & response but […]

The post Leveraging BPM for Enhanced Cybersecurity Measures in 2025 appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>
The World has rapidly advanced in BPM practices, and integrating them with cybersecurity is rapidly becoming a requirement for organizations as they look to secure their digital assets while also automating operations. And as we move well into 2025, this pairing will not only improve the efficiency in the area of detection & response but will also enhance the security systems of the organizations as a whole.



CMW Platform banner

This guide explores why this synergy matters, the trends shaping it, and actionable steps to implement BPM-enhanced cybersecurity in your business. We’ll also focus on how cutting-edge tools like CMWLab's platform can help organizations stay one step ahead of cyber threats.

The Current State of BPM and Cybersecurity in 2025

Recent data highlights the growing importance of integrating BPM with cybersecurity:

  • 75% of BPM platforms now leverage AI technologies like machine learning to optimize decision-making and responsiveness (Source).
  • The Global BPM market is expected to reach 60.5 billion USD by 2031 which would be nearly five times the number for the year 2022 (Source).
  • Alarmingly, 88% of cyber breaches happen due to human error thus the increased need of automation and standardization to secure organizations.
  • On the workforce front, 4.7 million professionals worldwide are working today to advance the field of cybersecurity.

These numbers reflect a thriving yet challenging landscape, where automation and innovation are vital to navigating complexities.

CMWLab's Platform: Your Partner in BPM-Enhanced Cybersecurity

CMWLab stands out with its robust BPM platform designed to enhance cybersecurity seamlessly. Here’s how it supports forward-thinking organizations:

1. Strengthened API Security

CMWLab offers secured APIs to ensure data integrity. This means integrations remain airtight, keeping sensitive information safe while enabling smooth cross-platform communication.

2. Advanced Threat Detection

The enterprise extends a never sleeping set of eyes over its assets through the use of AI installed software which focuses on discovering problems and resolving them before they become an issue. The software further has built in analytics which helps in overall development for the company.

3. Unified Security Management

CMWLab provides a comprehensive dashboard that unifies visibility and control, helping organizations manage vulnerabilities and maintain compliance effortlessly.

4. Continuous Optimization

This platform supports big organisations in enhancing their security by using models such as Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2).

5. Real-Time Process Monitoring

Stay agile with tools that allow you to track and optimize your processes in real-time, providing valuable insights to enhance both productivity and security.

By adopting CMWLab’s solutions, businesses can effectively turn their BPM into a proactive defense mechanism against cyber threats.

Best Practices to Leverage BPM for Cybersecurity

To maximize the advantages of BPM in securing your operations, follow these actionable strategies:

1. Assess and Protect Your Data Assets

  • Identify and categorize sensitive data.
  • Use encryption and role-based access controls to limit exposure.
  • Regularly back up data to safeguard against ransomware attacks.

2. Secure Endpoints and Applications

  • Deploy advanced endpoint protection software to tackle malware and zero-day attacks.
  • Conduct regular vulnerability assessments and patch updates.

3. Align BPM Processes With Compliance

  • Map BPM workflows to regulations like GDPR or PCI DSS.
  • Maintain detailed records for audits to demonstrate compliance.

4. Standardize and Document Processes

Well-documented, standardized workflows reduce operational inconsistencies and create a trackable audit trail for future reference.

5. Monitor and Optimize Continuously

  • Use real-time analytics to spot inefficiencies and potential threats.
  • Use insights to recalibrate both BPM workflows and security protocols.

6. Train Employees to Spot Risks

  • Regularly update staff on cybersecurity best practices and emerging threats.
  • Conduct simulations to prepare them for potential incidents.

7. Have an Incident Response Plan

Speed up recovery by having a predefined playbook for handling breaches effectively—think containment, investigation, and mitigation.

By adopting these best practices, businesses can reinforce their defenses while ensuring their operational processes run smoothly.

Leveraging BPM for Enhanced Cybersecurity Measures in 2024

Why Integrating BPM and Cybersecurity Matters

Organizations that merge BPM and cybersecurity enjoy several key benefits:

  • Faster Threat Response

Structured workflows streamline how incidents are detected, analyzed, and resolved, reducing downtime.

  • Improved Compliance and Risk Reduction

BPM systems align processes with regulatory demands, minimizing fines and exposure to legal risks.

  • Cost and Resource Efficiency

Process automation saves time and lowers operational costs, allowing teams to focus on what matters most.

  • Better Information Security

BPM enhances visibility over data flows, making it easier to prioritize vulnerabilities and secure sensitive information with role-based access controls.

Together, BPM and cybersecurity create a formidable pairing that enables businesses to stay competitive in an increasingly digital world.

Real-World Success Stories

Organizations worldwide are already reaping the rewards of BPM-enhanced cybersecurity:

  • Generali Slovenia streamlined underwriting and claims processes. Employees became 20% more productive while maintaining full compliance with insurance policies.
  • Central Bank fortified monetary stability by digitizing oversight activities for financial institutions, automating over 35 critical workflows.
  • Healthcare Provider secured financial operations by automating refund approvals and bank reconciliations, reducing errors and tightening controls.

These examples highlight just a fraction of what’s possible with the right strategies and technology.

Final Thoughts

BPM and cybersecurity aren’t just complementary—they’re essential to navigating the increasing complexities of 2025 and beyond. Platforms like CMWLab are leading the way, offering flexible, innovative solutions to help businesses protect what matters most.

It’s time to rethink how your organization approaches operational security. Start transforming the way you protect your assets today—because your business deserves nothing less.

The post Leveraging BPM for Enhanced Cybersecurity Measures in 2025 appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>
https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/leveraging-bpm-for-enhanced-cybersecurity-measures-in-2025/feed/ 0
The Future of BPM with AI and Machine Learning https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/the-future-of-bpm-with-ai-and-machine-learning/ https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/the-future-of-bpm-with-ai-and-machine-learning/#respond Fri, 27 Dec 2024 12:33:24 +0000 https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/?p=7030 The incorporation of AI and ML into business process management (BPM) is changing the character of business in a completely different manner. Businesses are able to improve productivity and efficiency, as well as make better planning and operational decisions. This guide states the scope of where AI currently is in BPM, characteristics of leading platforms […]

The post The Future of BPM with AI and Machine Learning appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>
The incorporation of AI and ML into business process management (BPM) is changing the character of business in a completely different manner. Businesses are able to improve productivity and efficiency, as well as make better planning and operational decisions. This guide states the scope of where AI currently is in BPM, characteristics of leading platforms like CMWLab, and trends that will characterize the future of business operations.



CMW Platform banner

Why AI and ML in BPM Are a Game-Changer

Today, AI and ML are not just tools—they are strategic enablers. From automating repetitive tasks to enhancing complex decision-making, they empower businesses to work smarter, not harder. These are statistics worth mentioning:

  • The global AI and ML market in business reached a valuation of $120.9 billion in 2022 and is projected to grow by $190.5 billion by 2032, with a projected CAGR of 32% (source).
  • Organizations implementing AI-driven BPM have reduced errors and labor-intensive workloads, achieving significant cost savings and efficiencies (source).

What Sets CMWLab’s Platform Apart?

For businesses ready to elevate their BPM strategy, CMWLab’s platform offers a comprehensive suite of advanced tools:

1. Intelligent BPM Suite (iBPMS)

CMWLab’s iBPMS all the elements of AI and robotic process automation including RPA, enabling deeper process analysis and smarter automation. This suite enhances decision-making, optimizes workflows, and predicts scores with precision.

2. Process Optimization

AI-powered features allow for a 98% improvement in process accuracy while retaining the ability to make the decisions 93% faster than traditional methods. Key tools are geared to pattern recognition, bottleneck reduction, and better resource distribution.

3. Predictive Analytics

Make use of past information to address problems and enhance cost estimates as well as make timely business decisions.

4. Natural Language Processing (NLP)

NLP capabilities streamline document classification, automate responses to customer inquiries with over 50 international languages to generate reports.

5. Low-Code Design

Providing the means for low-code, CMWLab addresses non-technical users enabling them to easily model, apply and manage processes with teams without deep technical expertise.

The Future of BPM with AI and Machine Learning

Key Trends Shaping the Future of BPM

The future of BPM will be defined by several cruitical trends:

1. Hyperautomation

Hyperautomation combines RPA, AI, and ML for end-to-end automation, delivering seamless workflows and enhanced efficiency.

2. Enhanced Predictive Insight

Predictive and prescriptive analytics allow businesses to monitor the market and understand possible threats and opportunities early thereby improving cost control and resource distribution.

3. Real-Time Monitoring

Insights generated by AI support effective real-time monitoring that allows businesses to rectify malfunctions quickly and move ahead of competition.

4. Emerging Technology Integration

Expect deeper integration between BPM platforms and technologies like blockchain, IoT, and cloud solutions, fostering growth and security.

5. Prioritizing User Experience

Virtual Assistant AI Applications, including Chatbots and Contextual Suggestions, will further personalize customers and interactions raising retention and satisfaction rates.

Overcoming Challenges in AI Adoption

Adopting AI has immense potential, but businesses may encounter roadblocks such as data quality issues, skill gaps, and integration with legacy systems. Here’s how to address these challenges:

  • Quality Data Management: Use centralized data lakes to ensure high-quality, accessible data.
  • Upskilling and Training: Invest in workforce training to bridge AI-related skill gaps.
  • Ethical AI Frameworks: Develop transparent policies to minimize biases and maintain user trust.

Why Invest in AI-Driven BPM Now?

Organizations that act now to integrate AI and ML into their BPM tools will gain lasting advantages. Leveraging platforms like CMWLab not only simplifies complex workflows but aligns operational performance with future demands for agility and innovation.

With every automated task, simplified decision, and enhanced insight, AI and ML are proving that they are not just reshaping—but revolutionizing—business process management.

The post The Future of BPM with AI and Machine Learning appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>
https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/the-future-of-bpm-with-ai-and-machine-learning/feed/ 0
End-to-End: the Industrial Equipment Case https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/end-to-end-the-industrial-equipment-case/ https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/end-to-end-the-industrial-equipment-case/#respond Tue, 14 Mar 2023 12:52:55 +0000 https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/?p=6605 The difference may seem subtle but in practice the time interval from successful acceptance testing to production work of the equipment may vary considerably. Why is that so? Because for a customer it’s a one-time (or rare) project so it’s hard to anticipate all possible issues. For the supplier, on the contrary, it’s a regular […]

The post End-to-End: the Industrial Equipment Case appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>


And this is the moment of truth: in the true customer-oriented world may means must!

Following the principle “what’s good for our customers is good for us”, the company revised the process so that it is now considered complete when the equipment produces goods, not when it just passed the testing. The duration of the process from start to this moment is used to measure overall process performance.

This principle should be followed with caution however. We must strive to deliver value to customers indeed but we should ask ourselves – are they willing to pay for it? And we shouldn’t forget about costs either. Achieving maximum customer’ satisfaction may lead to increased costs, unsatisfied investors, smaller budgets for new products and development etc.

Yet in this particular case it’s probably about supporting customer with advice and recommendations based on the company’s experience: good value for a small cost.

What can be learned from this case: “as you name your process and define its boundary our customer will be satisfied”.

Getting back to end-to-end processes, at Comindware we believe that an end-to-end is a process from the very beginning to the very end named as “… to …” for example “lead to cash”, “idea to product”, etc.

Sounds provoking? Please feel free to comment below, your opinion counts for us.

The post End-to-End: the Industrial Equipment Case appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>
https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/end-to-end-the-industrial-equipment-case/feed/ 0
BPM Maturity Model: Go Deep vs. Go Wide Strategy https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/bpm-maturity-model-go-deep-vs-go-wide-strategy/ https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/bpm-maturity-model-go-deep-vs-go-wide-strategy/#respond Tue, 14 Mar 2023 12:51:36 +0000 https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/?p=6602 Virtually every company becomes caught by the business process idea, sooner or later. The BPM promises – sales up! costs down! unprecedented agility! – make people eager to implement the “BPM thing” as soon as possible, if not yesterday The process maturity model is probably the most underappreciated concept of the Business Process Management discipline. […]

The post BPM Maturity Model: Go Deep vs. Go Wide Strategy appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>


The process maturity model is probably the most underappreciated concept of the Business Process Management discipline.

Virtually every company becomes caught by the business process idea, sooner or later. The BPM promises – sales up! costs down! unprecedented agility! – make people eager to implement the “BPM thing” as soon as possible, if not yesterday.

But here is the trap: people tend to view BPM as an ocean of opportunities where almost any course may be charted. While in reality it’s rather a railroad line named “BPM maturity scale”. Knowing the map of this line is absolutely critical because the process maturity is a part of company’s culture so it can’t be picked up arbitrary or changed easily – only step by step. One should honestly evaluate at what station the organization currently stays and then buy a ticket to the next one. Taking what seems to be a short way may derail the company’s BPM train.

The maturity model comes in many flavors: Gartner has one, Forrester has another, Carnegie-Mellon SEI has CMMI. The BPM Common Body of Knowledge by ABPMP refers all these plus Michael Hammer’s PEMM plus introduces its own model. While being in consensus on what the topmost level is, different models propose slightly different paths to the “process nirvana”.

Let’s have a closer look. The table below aligns the models by the top level – “Optimized” or “Proactively Managed”:
SEI CMMI Gartner Forrester ABPMP
0: Acknowledge Operational Inefficiencies 0: Non-Existent
1: Initial 1: Process-Aware 1: Ad Hoc 0: Ad-Hoc
2: Managed 2: Intra-Process Automation and Control (Coordinated Processes) 2: Repeatable 1: Defined
3: Defined 3: Inter-Process Automation and Control (Cross-Boundary Process Management) 3: Defined 2: Controlled
4: Quantitatively Managed 4: Enterprise Valuation Control (Goal-Driven Processes) 4: Measured 3: Architected
5: Optimizing 5: Agile Business Structure (Optimized Processes) 5: Optimized 4: Proactively Managed
Table 1. Well-known process maturity models

Organizations moving along the maturity scale shall overcome two barriers:

1) “Go wide” – increasing the scope of process work: from selected priority processes to the system of processes constituting the enterprise.

2) “Go deep” – increasing the degree of control: from basic process documenting to structured definition to full management of the business process lifecycle with strong emphasis.

These two challenges are essentially independent hence it would make more sense to present the maturity model as a two-dimensional matrix rather than a linear scale:

Process maturity matrix Table 2. Process maturity matrix

The only way from the Initial/Ad-hoc level (1) is to Repeatable/Defined (2). The next move is less obvious an organization can increase the degree of control (“go deep” – 3A) or broaden the scope of BPM efforts (“go wide” – 3B) or try to combine both. Either way, the final destination (4) is the same so the question is only about what should come first.

Now let’s get back to the maturity models presented in Table 1: which path do they suggest?
  1. In SEI CMMI “Quantitatively Managed” immediately precede the final “Optimizing” level. It means that this model prescribes broaden the scope first then increase the degree of control.
  2. Gartner’s model makes the emphasis on “Automation and Control” at early level 2, before widening the scope to the system of process.
  3. Forrester puts “Measured” immediately before “Optimized” – approach similar to CMMI (these two models are in fact pretty close).
  4. ABPMP puts “Controlled” before “Architected”
Summarizing it up, Forrester and SEI CMMI propose “Go Wide” first strategy while Gartner and ABPMP recommend to “Go Deep” first.

Having the votes split 50 by 50, a BPM practitioner have to make a decision on his own. The first purpose of this article was to attract attention to the gateway in BPM maturity model – whatever path one would chose, it’s much better to make it with eyes open.

As for my personal recommendation, I tried both paths and this experience made me a strong believer of “Go Deep” strategy. The reason is simple – “Go Wide” strategy systematically fails because:
  1. People just don’t understand what the business process is until they’ve got experience in managing it all over PDCA cycle – and speedy enough! Without the deep understanding of these fundamental things the process map a company may develop as part of “go wide” effort probably would be flawed; the chances are big that it’d be yet another catalog of business functions rather than a true business process architecture based on an enterprise value chain.
  2. A business process well-defined yet not put into the environment granting tight control over execution, automatic monitoring and agility is too expensive in terms of management. A qualified manager will have to spend a big part of his working time to assure that process participants act in accordance with the process definition and workplace instructions and to gather process metrics semi-manually. It’s a pure mechanical job that should be trusted to a software robot (yes, I’m promoting BPMS here). An attempt to widen the BPM initiative without such tools would exhausts the management resources pretty fast.
  3. A process defined yet left unmanaged due to lack of management resources becomes just a wishful dream that have little connection to how the work is really done in the organization. The more processes we defined and left them unmanaged – the deeper we are “paralyzed by analysis”: processes changes faster than we are able to analyze these changes, leaving alone to manage these changes proactively.
Most BPM practitioners’ recommendation is the same: focus on selected process first. Structure and prioritize the process infinity, define few most valuable processes and then proceed to gain full control over them without delay. Then plan carefully the next campaign – widen the process front by cloning the process team and make the company a true process organization. This is essentially “Go Deep” strategy.

The post BPM Maturity Model: Go Deep vs. Go Wide Strategy appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>
https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/bpm-maturity-model-go-deep-vs-go-wide-strategy/feed/ 0
End-to-End: the Energy Case https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/end-to-end-the-energy-case/ https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/end-to-end-the-energy-case/#respond Tue, 14 Mar 2023 12:47:21 +0000 https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/?p=6597 Here is what the company CEO has told: “It also happens that when the ordered pipes are finally delivered, they are partially used for emergency need, e.g. to fix a breakage happened elsewhere. As a result, the original customer won’t get the ordered goods. It won’t be a problem because often there is enough time […]

The post End-to-End: the Energy Case appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>

“It also happens that when the ordered pipes are finally delivered, they are partially used for emergency need, e.g. to fix a breakage happened elsewhere. As a result, the original customer won’t get the ordered goods. It won’t be a problem because often there is enough time to re-order but the point is that no one knows that the order will not be delivered.”

Interestingly, this was only revealed at the discussion with the company CEO. And it’s a lesson for business analysts, by the way: never limit your communication with a single representative of the customer, the so-called Subject Matter Expert. This approach generally doesn’t work well. Do your best to communicate with executives (in brief at least) to get their feeling of the business problem. It’s also very important to talk with those who really do the job. Typically the role of a subject matter expert is played by a middle manager and too often he/she tries to prevent communication between the analysts and others: “you don’t need them, I’ll tell you everything.” Don’t let it happen – nobody knows everything in any non-trivial business process; don’t forget that the analysis is your responsibility, not the expert’s.

Now what does this “little peculiarity” mean? The process scope wasn’t defined right from the very beginning!

The customer was talking about the process named “purchase order approval.” Therefore it starts with the needs list from a site and ends with the set of purchase requests approved to start a tender by each.

But is this enough? Obviously not.A purchase request may be perfectly filled and approved yet the site won’t get the ordered pipes because they were used elsewhere. So if we are targeting the business problem – that is, meeting the sites’ needs in the materials, equipment and services – then we can’t help extending the process scope by including the control of ordered goods delivery.

The incoming goods should be associated with a specific original site’s needs list. They were summed up during the approval, now the reverse operations should be performed: incoming total volumes should be split by the initial needs. This way we’ll be able e.g. to re-order the pipes if some of them were taken away.

Old saying “As you call a ship so it will float” is right for the case: if we called the process “purchase order approval” then the approved order would be the process result, period.

So we’ve found that “purchase order approval” isn’t the end-to-end process. So what should be the process scope and process name, then? What should be the process’ “ends”?

Let’s think together. Please leave your suggestions below. (To be continued in a week.)

The post End-to-End: the Energy Case appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>
https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/end-to-end-the-energy-case/feed/ 0
Round Trip Revisited https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/round-trip-revisited/ https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/round-trip-revisited/#respond Tue, 14 Mar 2023 12:45:37 +0000 https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/?p=6592 Many business process management initiatives over the world suffer from the same pitfall. Most projects are successful in identifying and solving a particular business problem by redesigning and/or constantly improving the corresponding business process. The ROI figures are impressive and BPM gains the trust from executives. Yet attempts to leverage on the initial success to […]

The post Round Trip Revisited appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>
Many business process management initiatives over the world suffer from the same pitfall. Most projects are successful in identifying and solving a particular business problem by redesigning and/or constantly improving the corresponding business process. The ROI figures are impressive and BPM gains the trust from executives. Yet attempts to leverage on the initial success to apply BPM enterprise-wide are often far less successful.

In terms of BPM maturity, we may say that these organizations fail to reach higher levels. According to CMMI, enterprise-wide processes management is the Level 3 capability:

Capability maturity levels according to CMMI Fig.1. Capability maturity levels according to CMMI

Other sources may define levels differently but the core idea is the same: at certain level organizations must progress from managing isolated processes to defining the whole enterprise as a system of business processes. BPM Common Body of Knowledge (BPM CBOK) by ABPMP for example names the Level 3 “Architected”:

Process maturity curve according to BPM CBOK Fig.2. Process maturity curve according to BPM CBOK

“The State of Business Process Management 2014” report (Paul Harmon and Celia Wolf, BPTrends) indicates that the process maturity does not increase but actually goes down during the last years. The table below shows that percentage of the organizations that practice process management activities “Occasionally” grows up at the expense of those who do it “Most Times” and “Always”.

Frequency of specific organizational activities that suggest organizational maturity Fig.3. Frequency of specific organizational activities that suggest organizational maturity

The authors conclude that “the response pattern in 2013 is more like the pattern we observed in 2009 than the one we saw in 2011”.

There is hardly one single explanation of the slow progress in BPM adoption; we’ll discuss just one aspect – technology. Does the current BPM technology fully answers the needs of organizations willing to go from managing business processes one by one to managing a system of processes constituting enterprise operations? The answer will be “not exactly” but before saying that let’s get back and see how the current progress in managing business processes has been reached.

Bridging Modeling/Execution Gap

The progress in business process management reached so far owes to BPM Suites at large extent. The previous generation of BPM tools was mostly process modelers and as for the process execution, it was ERP and/or standalone workflow engines.

It worked fine for reengineering type of projects: organizations modelled their process say in ARIS EPC, then semi-automatically translated the process model e.g. into SAP program code and here it is: the core company’s processes are implemented in robust execution environment.

But rather sooner than later every organization following this route hits the so-called “round-trip problem”. The essence of the problem is that it’s terribly hard to keep in sync two models – the analyst’s view of the business process depicted in a process notation and developer’s view implemented in the program code. When both representations evolve over time there is no good way to merge changes made by the analyst with changes introduced to the program code.

At the end of the day the program code becomes prevailing and business analysts get out of the game because process diagrams become irrelevant. Only IT department really knows how the process works so in fact it’s programmers who manage the business process! Sounds absurd yet it’s a reality of many organizations. Today’s mainstream BPM Suites leverage the power of BPMN to overcome this issue. BPMN was designed simple enough to be intuitive for business people and at the same time precise enough to be unambiguous for developers. This doesn’t come automatically of course – good “Method and Style” should be at place (this is the name of the famous Bruce Silver’s book on BPMN) but many organizations have shown that it’s doable.

There is no round-trip problem in such environment because BPMN is the code! Hence no gap, business analysts and business people behind them are in the game and everybody is happy.

Bridging Architecture/Execution Gap

So far so good – we are perfectly equipped to deal with any single business process.

But how do we manage processes enterprise-wide? Unfortunately most current BPM Suites offer no more than a list or hierarchy of processes. What’s even worse, BPMN – a de-facto standard notation used in leading BPM Suites – can’t model anything above a single process level. (There is message-based communication in BPMN but from business perspective it’s no more than modeling process internals.)

On the other hand, there are very versatile Enterprise Architecture tools. They support various artifacts, multiple notations, collaborative work within a single repository. But they are separated from execution environment.

Once again, we have two sources of truth – it was EPC vs. program code in the example above, now it’s architecture diagrams vs. BPMN diagrams. Even if it’s possible to export a process definition from EA to import it into BPMS, this produces the same round-trip problem, now on the architecture level. (Thanks to Keith Swenson who perfectly explained the difference between model transforming and model preserving strategies. BPMN-based BPMS follow the latter while EA/BPMS gap is the example of former.)

This is not a theory, speculation or guessing about customer’s need. My personal five years’ experience of teaching BPMN shows that almost every organization that wants to get most from BPMN and BPMS comes to the same question: how can we model process hierarchy above a single process’ level? Unfortunately the honest answer is: you can’t. Not within current mainstream BPM Suites.

What You Architect Is What You Run

We at Comindware attack this problem by implementing what we call “Executable Architecture”. It combines modeling process internals in BPMN with modeling high-level capabilities in the notation similar to Value Chain diagrams. Each capability may be mapped to a process, adaptive case or project – the product supports all forms of collaborative work, not just BPMN processes.

Process analysts and process designers work within a framework set up by the enterprise architect. There is no gap between them: e.g. when business requests certain activity to be implemented in the execution environment it first should be checked against the current architecture and a new capability should be introduced if it was missing.

Process performers are affected by the decision made at the architecture level, too: what user may or may not do depends on how capabilities and resources on the architecture diagram were mapped to processes and data records at the execution level.

The link is not that tight indeed: it’s possible to utilize only architecture and modeling without execution, or modeling and execution without defining architecture. Yet the company that are targeting themselves to the high levels of process maturity should appreciate the ability to manage process hierarchy from the top-level enterprise value chain down to individual tasks within a single tool.

We will show the Executable Architecture in action at the bpmNEXT’2015 conference; our demo is scheduled at the morning March 31. Please join us at the conference or visit the bpmNEXT.com later to watch the recorded video.

The post Round Trip Revisited appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>
https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/round-trip-revisited/feed/ 0
Managing Projects, Processes and Cases https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/managing-projects-processes-and-cases/ https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/managing-projects-processes-and-cases/#respond Tue, 14 Mar 2023 12:38:36 +0000 https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/?p=6582 In reality, however, most organizations have to deal with processes, projects and cases which are somewhere between the two. Therefore they need a balanced, unbiased view of projects, processes and cases that in essence are just different kinds of collaborative work. Projects, projects and cases have more in common than it may seem at the […]

The post Managing Projects, Processes and Cases appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>


Yet it’s hard to be an expert in different knowledge areas. One can learn the theory but it takes years to become an experienced practitioner. That’s why it’s relatively easy for an organization to find a project or process experts but there is risk that they will overestimate the importance of one approach at the expense of the other.

As for the business people, they often confuse these approaches. It’s not unusual for a conversation to start from projects and suddenly switch to processes and vice versa.

To make things more complicated, project-oriented people talk a lot about processes – e.g. the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) is more about processes governing projects planning, execution and control than about projects themselves. Yet the way PMBOK defines a process differs considerably from process definition given in the Business Process Management Body of Knowledge (BPM CBOK).

At the end of the day, projects, processes and cases are just different methods to solve the issues that every mid to large organization faces – the “silo mindset” and the gap between the business units’ targets and the goals of the organization. The root problem of these issues is the division of labor.

Business needs to resolve these issues by whatever means. It may be project management or process management but there is also adaptive/dynamic case management, document-oriented workflow, issue tracking… Easy to get confused, right?

This article aims at the following:
  1. To help choosing the best approach (or combination of approaches) to collaborative work depending on organization profile.
  2. To provide a basic understanding of available software tools supporting these approaches.
  3. To analyze the differences and similarities between these approaches and define the vision of the integrated software product implementing them all.
The first two discussions are not new but hopefully will be useful for practitioners. The third part is based on the researches currently performed at Comindware and therefore may be considered as a request to comments.
  1. The Forms of Collaborative Work
We will not consider the work performed by an individual – only the teamwork – and will not consider the essence of the work, only the coordination aspects of the teamwork.

Definitions:
  • Project is a sequence of activities following a defined plan and aimed at delivering unique result, product or service. Example: road construction.
Note: “defined” here and below means “defined before the beginning of work”. By contrast, “some” means “defined in the course of work”.
  • Process is a defined and repeating sequence of activities started by a defined event and producing a defined result, product, or service. Example: processing of customer order.
Note: terms “process” and “business process”, “activity” and “work” are used as synonymous here.
  • Case is some sequence of activities aimed at defined goal. Examples: patient’s treatment at the hospital, legal case.
  • Docflow (document-oriented workflow) is a defined sequence of activities related to a particular document. Examples: contract approval, incoming mail processing.
  • Issue is a defined event that needs to be addressed by some sequence of activities aimed at defined result. Example: help desk ticket.
  1. Classifying Attributes of Collaborative Work
The boundaries between the different forms of collaborative work are often blurred. For example, the new product development may be considered as a project, process, case or even docflow depending on the industry, type of product and organization culture.

Nevertheless, they may be differentiated by the following aspects:
  1. Repeatable. Is it possible to typify the sequence of activities, i.e. to give multiple instances a common name? The answer is positive for processes, cases and docflows. Projects and issues are not repeatable, speaking generally. (Although repeating projects and issues may occur, indeed.)
  2. Predictable. Is it possible to define a sequence of activities in advance or is it determined “on the go”? Cases, docflows and issues are not predictable, speaking generally. A case is “rolled out” – next activities are resulted from activities already performed. A document in a typical docflow system may be reassigned at any step. In contrast, a process is fully predictable: although there may be gateways, all options and conditions are known in advance. A project is predictable, too – the project plan comprises a complete list of tasks. There is some degree of unpredictability because the project plan may be amended as the project progresses, yet it’s common to consider projects as predictable.
  3. Structured. Is it possible to describe the work input and output by structured data? Processes and cases deal with structured data: numbers, amounts, dates, references, etc. Projects, documents, issues deal with unstructured information: text descriptions, attached spreadsheets and other content.
Let us summarize the above:
Table 1. Attributes of collaborative work
  Repeatable Predictable Structured
Process
Project
Case
Document
Issue
The table above shows that processes and issues are two poles: repeatable, predictable and structured processes and unique, unpredictable and unstructured issues. Other forms are somewhere in between.

  1. Framing Collaborative Work
At first glance, it may seem that the check marks in Table 1 are placed randomly. To make a system of it, we’ll use the classifying attributes as dimensional axis. Let’s start with “repeated” and “structured”:

Framing Collaborative Work

The Fig.1 shows the correlation of structured and repeatable work. When dealing with a recurring, typified work (even unpredictable, as cases), it may be expected that the work is performed on the same type of business objects. Therefore the information can be presented as structured data rather than documents.

It’s worth to note here that while processes and cases are able to work with structured data, they can also process unstructured content.

Working with structured data has clear advantages –
  • Verification. While any information can be entered into a text document, an input to a screen field bound to a database table column can be thoroughly checked and verified. E.g. the phone number entered matches the telephone number mask, the date for the returning flight is later than the date of the originating flight etc.
  • Ability to integrate with enterprise systems. E.g. if the expense report is submitted as a text file, then its processing will be manual and error-prone. The same report implemented by a business process management software will be well-structured and passing the report to accounting system would be a matter of copying from one database to another.
Document-oriented workflows in Fig. 1 look like an exception: repeatable and yet unstructured. The docflow approach is often criticized for doing not more than simply replacing carbon-based documents by electronic ones. More value could be produced if structure was applied to the information. Not surprisingly, the complexity of integration with enterprise systems is a well-known weakness of docflow systems.

With regards to projects and issues, when dealing with truly unique work, the information will be unstructured. This is inevitable and hence justified. But if we treat not-unique, recurring work as project or issue instead of case or process then the benefits of processing structured data are lost.

Now let’s look at repeatable/predictable axis:

repeatable predictable

All cells are filled, only documents and cases overlap. In fact, case management and docflow software are close relatives; with the advent of ACM some ECM vendors re-labelled their offerings as ACM.

It may be expected that in the future ACM software will fully replace docflow because it’s able to process both unstructured content and structured data. On the other side, today docflow software is generally more mature. (It should be emphasized that author’s criticism is aimed solely at the document-oriented workflow as a way to organize collaboration and doesn’t span to the content storage and delivery provided by Enterprise Content Management systems.)

Fig. 3 depicts the full matrix with illogical combination “repeatable+unstructured” (Documents) excluded:

Managing Projects, Processes and Cases
  1. Pure Forms and Mixed Work
In reality purely project or process work are rare, more common is a mix of work. Projects, processes, cases 1) execute (“call”) each other and 2) transform to each other over time. Some examples:
  • The IT help desk operations are often treated as a process work: first and second lines of support are introduced, SLA and escalations established etc. Yet it’s only about control; as for the physical work that should be done to resolve the issue, it can be virtually anything and therefore should be presented as a case. Here a process executes are case.
  • Classical project management follows similar pattern: project initiation, project closure, project rescheduling may be presented as well-defined process that execute or communicate with the project.
  • A patient in the hospital emergency room is an opposite example. It’s hardly possible to present the medical treatment as a process because there are too many hardly predictable variants. Hence the top level is a case. But on the lower levels there are treatments and tests that very well can be defined as processes. Here we see a case executing a series of processes.
  • An organization may treat a collaborative work which is essentially a process (highly predictable and repeatable) as a project or case work because modeling a process requires skills, efforts and time. For example, a pharmaceutical company treated the new drug development as a project for years and then, when the “recipe” of this work became clear, they implemented it as process.
Unfortunately most existing tools support just one form of collaborative work and therefore do not support interoperability and transformation. This makes a room for the new generation of integrating tools that support all kinds of collaborative work and any combinations. We will present the vision of such tool in the final part.

The post Managing Projects, Processes and Cases appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>
https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/managing-projects-processes-and-cases/feed/ 0
How the Division of Labor Lowers Productivity https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/how-the-division-of-labor-lowers-productivity/ https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/how-the-division-of-labor-lowers-productivity/#respond Tue, 14 Mar 2023 12:28:59 +0000 https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/?p=6580 It happens all the time: as soon as we find a solution for a problem, the solution becomes a problem itself. The division of labor is not an exception: it increases the productivity indeed, but it also decreases in other cases. The separation of labor is a clear benefit at first sight: doing something right […]

The post How the Division of Labor Lowers Productivity appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>


The separation of labor is a clear benefit at first sight: doing something right implies training, expertise and specialization. So one goes to a College or University and becomes a professional in economics, agriculture, mechanical engineering etc.

Then he or she graduates, finds a job and becomes “installed” to some company and department. And what’s interesting about people is we tend to identify ourselves with a small group at first – in our case it’s department vs. company. We accept the interests of our near colleagues and our department much closer than interests of the company as a whole, letting alone customer’s interests. We are all great professionals for sure, we are able to demonstrate great productivity in our area but it turns out that department’s productivity doesn’t automatically guarantee the end-to-end productivity of the company. Besides, the distance between “we are able” and “we do” may be significant.

It wasn’t that crucial at the early days of Adam Smith and later at Frederick Taylor’s because it was mostly about the division of industry workers’ labor. As long as each worker performs a single operation and the sequence of operations is predetermined, coordinating them is an easy job. Just measure the time spent for each operation and calculate the conveyor speed and headcount for the given productivity. This is how the scientific process management was born.

Problems arise when we turn away from Adam Smith’s sewing needles and the legendary Ford’s T Model (which could be “painted any color as long as it is black”) to something more complicated and diverse. The greater the range of finished goods and parts, the greater the range of manufacturing operations – the more complicated is job coordination. To cope with this problem western businesses rely on computers and develop MRP, MRP-II, ERP, APS algorithms, while the Japanese invent “Just in Time” and “Kanban” (a kind of “analogue computer”). One way or another (or rather combining both) the problem can be solved.

It becomes worse when we switch from the shop floor and manufacturing processes to the office and business processes. Factors that add complexity are: multitasking, creativity and cross-functionality.

Multitasking means that we switch between tasks many times during the day or even within an hour. Conveyer workers complain about the dullness of their job, yet the office work is another extreme: the more skilled and responsible is an employee the more processes he/she would be involve into.

There are two possible ways for an employee to react. First, he or she can minimize the amount of switches between tasks. E.g. Finance processes payment orders after 4PM because processing them as soon as they arrive would mean a “productivity decrease”. This is a classic example of so-called “sub optimization”: the performance of Finance clerk would increase while the company’s efficiency from a customer’s perspective will decrease.

The second option is a tricky one: do not let anyone figure out how productive you really are. In many cases, it doesn’t make sense for an employee to do the best: the more you do – the more load you get from the boss. As for the boss, he/she is probably a seasoned professional very  able to evaluate subordinate’s true performance. But is it in his/her best interest to get the most from the staff? In so many cases it’s a better strategy for a line manager to ask for extra workforce arguing that the men are overloaded. After all let’s not forget that the more the headcount, the more power and weight within the organization the manager has. Therefore, pressing subordinates would mean not only spending emotions  and efforts, but also a chance to lose the career race to other managers.

Now let’s talk about creativity. It’s relatively easy to measure performance of a manufacturing worker doing routine job and to set up performance targets accordingly. But how would you measure e.g. a software developer’s performance? The number of lines of code is a  very bad metric indeed, but there is hardly anything better.  In fact, this is the case with all knowledge workers: there is no reliable way to measure the result.

Over one hundred years ago, a French professor Maximilien Ringelmann discovered the effect later called by his name. He performed a set of experiments in which men were pulling a rope alone or in a team. Professor has found out that performance in a team decreases: whereas a single man can pull say 100 kg, a team of two pulls 80 kg each and a team of eight – only a pitiful 50 kg. If a man is certain that no one can determine that he isn’t doing his best, then he saves his efforts, consciously or not.

The famous Parkinson’s Law says about the same: “work extends so as to fill the time available for its completion”.

Dan Ariely explored the problem with a series of experiments at MIT. Being a behavioral economist, he demonstrated that the vast majority of people are unable to resist cheating if they are sure that they will not be caught or when their cheating would cause harm or damage only in the distant future.

The rope pullers example shows how even a homogeneous team may become inefficient. Now what should we expect when a coordination of several departments’ efforts is necessary? The problems above would seem nothing compared to cross-functional coordination.

Every time an organization faces a problem that can only be addressed by joint efforts of several departments, the purely hierarchical organization is in deep trouble. A classic example is “design to order” business: the company obtains Request to Proposal; doing it right requires committed participation of a) sales manager, who communicates with the client, b) an engineer, who designs the product requested, c) Purchasing department which knows from where to buy the parts needed, d) Manufacturing who schedules the production, e) Accounting who calculates costs. A purely hierarchical organization has no chances to do the job in time and with acceptable quality. Because why should Manufacturing obey Sales? Each team has its own chief, budget, performance measures… What did you say – customers? Nobody cares.

And this isn’t the most complicated case yet. At least the sequence of activities is the same from one customer’s request to another. It becomes worse when the sequence is unpredictable: geological research at the construction site, law firm actions in court, patient at the hospital emergency room etc.

Getting back to the topic, please note that all these issues result from the separation of labor: a medieval guild master never hit anything like this.

What we see on the positive side is: humanity could raise a nominal productivity manifold thanks to the division of labor. Yet it also brings fuzzy performance measurements, blurred responsibility and poor coordination that decrease overall performance. The larger the organization, the larger are these negative side effects. The effect is non-linear, so both absolute and relative losses increase. There is a certain scale limit where benefits of the separation of labor are negated by increasing losses so the net productivity doesn’t grow anymore and starts to decrease.

How can this limit be estimated? Let’s define the metric first. Keeping in mind that manufacturing process is easier to manage because there is no multitasking, performance measures are clear and it’s a single department, it looks reasonable to use the “white collar” employee headcount as the measure of the organization scale.

This limit depends on a multitude of subjective factors like CEO personality, corporate culture, company age etc. so there is no a single number. Supposedly, the line after crossing which a company should look for the ways to compensate growing negative effects is somewhere between 20 to 100 “white collar” employees with a mean of around 50.

What are the known means – how the negative effects of pure functional management can be handled – will be discussed in the following parts. We won’t throw away the division of labor indeed – we should find the way to compensate the negative effects, yet keep the advantages.

The post How the Division of Labor Lowers Productivity appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>
https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/how-the-division-of-labor-lowers-productivity/feed/ 0
Functional and Process Management: Tools Support https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/functional-and-process-management-tools-support/ https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/functional-and-process-management-tools-support/#respond Tue, 14 Mar 2023 12:27:33 +0000 https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/?p=6577 Let’s start with the functional management. First, there are standalone applications – accounting, warehouse, product lifecycle management (PLM), advanced planning & scheduling (APS), etc. targeted to specific departments. Historically, these applications have appeared first as the earliest form of management was functional management. Most organizations have a set of such applications. The IT management dislikes […]

The post Functional and Process Management: Tools Support appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>


Most organizations have a set of such applications. The IT management dislikes this “Applications Zoo”, but we must understand that it is not a disease but rather a symptom! The fragmentation of application is just a consequence of business units’ fragmentation, which is caused by the functional-hierarchical management model.

If employees and managers of different departments cannot align their efforts effectively for the benefit of the entire company and its customers, then it is clear that they will vote for the applications serving the needs of a single department. The application integration issues are also predictable because they reflect the cross-departmental integration issues.

The CIO’s are trying to deal with this issue, but it is a fight with symptoms rather than root causes. If feudal relations are prevalent in the company, the departmental managers will find a way to get the budget for local “optimization” of activities, and spend it on automation.

Alternative to standalone applications are the integrated or enterprise systems, first and foremost – ERP systems.

Historically, ERP systems have emerged as the evolution of resources and capacity planning applications (MRP – MRP II), when financial resources (i.e. accounting) and human resources were added to material resources. The big idea was to plan all resources of the enterprise, and that was encoded in the acronym ERP – Enterprise Resource Planning.

The ERP concept and software emerged in the early 90s. After a while, the concept gradually expanded to include customer relations (CRM), supply chain management (SCM), maintenance and repairs, etc.

In terms of technology, the progress of integrated applications was greatly facilitated by the emergence of commercial relational DBMS. The integration of corporate applications is primarily the integration of databases. Simply put a single database: single reference entities, no gap between material and financial transactions, etc. This was a huge step forward compared to the isolated applications, when each has “a truth of its own”, and data stored in different applications does match one another.

Yet common data is necessary but insufficient for effective cross-functional collaboration: what is crucial is end-to-end workflow. Such an attempt was made within ERP systems: according to the best practices, ERP implementation should include business processes analysis and optimization.

Unfortunately, at that time (early-mid 90’s) the understanding of how to manage end-to-end business processes was far behind the one of today. This was the era of reengineering – the period of “technocratic idealism”:
  1. Analyze current processes (“as-is”)
  2. Design the optimal business process (“to-be”)
  3. Develop a transition plan
  4. Implement new processes
  5. PROFIT!!!
Most ERP implementations follow this approach.

It took about 10 years, with many companies paying a high price to find out that this approach… let’s put it this way: is far from being perfect. A deep contradiction was found: ERP vendors considered the implementation as a one-time automation project while business processes are subject to frequent changes by nature.

This volatility is caused by many factors: changes in regulations, global and national business environment; ever-growing customers’ expectations; competitors challenge us with new technologies and practices etc. The companies have to respond to all this and many of them come to the conclusion that since the processes will inevitably change, strategically, it makes more sense to initiate changes in business processes to achieve a competitive advantage rather than to respond to challenges and be forced to change.

The ability to change business processes fast is a certain type of corporate culture, it requires mature process capabilities, and it supposes adequate tools support. Many companies have found that their ERP system is more a liability than an asset when it comes to the process management.

The vendors of current ERP systems followed the paradigm of reengineering that did not suppose that business processes and supporting applications will change frequently. Of course, all ERP systems are very flexible, but this is a flexibility of a concrete: when it is liquid, it can be cast into anything, but when it dries, only a hammer can help…

This became evident in the early 2000s, and as a response to this challenge BPM – Business Process Management emerged. This concept now has various interpretations, but we at Comindware follow the one laid out in the classic Smith and Fingar’s ”Business Process Management: The Third Wave”. This book positioned BPM as a holistic approach to the management of business processes in a closed loop modeling-execution-analysis and described a new class of software: BPMS. (Smith and Fingar treated BPMS acronym as “Business Process Management System”, since then it has evolved to “Business Process Management Suite”).

Any BPMS (be it SAP, Oracle or Comindware) allows you to define the processes, then add a data model, user and system interfaces, business rules, and load it all in a so-called ”Process engine” to obtain an executable system, which will assign tasks to performers (employees a.k.a. business users), call legacy applications, execute business rules, respond to events etc.

The value of BPMS is its compliance to the modern concept of business process management: they support a cycle of process design – execution – analysis, followed by a next cycle of re-design, execution, etc.

BPMS systems also comply with the principles of agile development: short iterations, reliance on live user experience, dynamic wish list of enhancements (backlog). To enable this BPMS has a strong emphasis on prototyping and graphic modeling of practically everything: processes, data, user interfaces, business rules, etc.

Thus, BPMS-based BPM provides perfect alignment of technologies, methodologies and implementation principles.

The following table compares ERP and BPM as management support tools:
  ERP BPM
Methodology Reengineering: as-is/to-be, transition plan from current to optimal process Continuous improvement: processes change quickly in response to changing business needs
Technology DBMS: data modeling, storage, retrieval, common database, user interfaces, queries and reports BPMS: business process modeling, process engine, user interfaces, performance analysis and process execution monitoring
Implementation Waterfall or Big Bang: one time project Agile: program – a series of projects of different sizes, implementing radical transformations as well as evolutionary process improvements
Now, what prevents ERP vendors from implementing the latest achievements of business process management in their products?

Nothing, in theory. In fact, they do: modern ERP systems contain process modeling and process engines. Yet little effort has been made by ERP vendors to promote these ideas to customers. In fact, adding features to the software is lesser part of the job. Much of the problem lies in the minds of customers, developers and consultants. If you have been implementing a particular technology, methodology and an approach to project execution (see above) for two decades, it will not be easy to say “we are going to change the rules of the game!” Do you think your clients or your partners will be happy? After all, the current approach is replicated in millions of documents, in thousands of presentations, hundreds of training courses, project charter templates, etc. Why not leave it all as is as long as the sales aren’t falling?

Anyway, the fact is that advances in business process management technology did not lead to a transition of ERP-systems to a new, process-based, architecture, but rather to the development of new class of software – BPMS. From an architectural point of view, BPMS differs radically from ERP and other enterprise applications because it is not an application for the end user but a platform – the environment that makes it possible to define business processes and turn them into executable applications. From this perspective, BPMS is similar to DBMS, which is also a versatile tool for creating applications for any business area.

BPMS does not aim at replacing the ERP or any other enterprise application. The combination of both is optimal: ERP is responsible for functional management support, while BPMS supports process management. In the previous article, we noted that process management complements functional management by compensating its drawbacks. The same can be seen at the software level: BPMS is not a substitute, but rather a natural add-on to ERP and other applications.

This separation – ERP supporting functions, BPMS supporting end-to-end, cross-functional business processes – is beneficial for both sides.

The practice of ERP implementation projects show that they are predictable and not overly expensive as soon as dealing with business functions. However, the higher-level business processes are implemented, the greater the scope and coverage of the project (i.e., the more functional areas are involved), the more challenging the project. The volatility of business processes doesn’t match to the waterfall implementation methodology. It’s practically impossible to automate a business process as a one-time project: the process and therefore the software requirements change faster than consultants and programmers are able to implement them at a reasonable cost.

Installation, system configuration, initial data load are relatively easy and predictable part of ERP implementation projects. It becomes much worse when end-to-end processes are in scope. If this is the case then the implementation team should care about communication and collaboration across business unit boundaries, alignment of workflow within business units to the ultimate process goals and overall business strategy. This area is mined with conflicting interests and politics. At the end of the day, it’s not about replacing separate applications with the integrated suite – it’s about reshaping the organization culture and changing its values.

It can’t be done in a “command and conquer” style. On the other hand, it cannot last for too long either, because ERP implementation project has a schedule and deadline. The pace of business functions vs. business process automation differ too much to combine these activities in a single project and use a single tool for both tasks. The best way is to eliminate end-to-end business processes support from ERP and focus on business functions support. This is clear and predictable job and it must be done anyway as functional management is the foundation.

On the other hand, BPMS is ideal for the implementation of process management, but it’s too costly to implement standard business functions. As mentioned above, BPMS is not an “off-the-shelf” software, it implies custom design and development which a priory is more expensive. In the case of core business processes there is no real alternative because they are always company specific; in the case of the business functions standardization and ERP-based automation are justified from methodological, technical and economical standpoints.

The post Functional and Process Management: Tools Support appeared first on CMW Lab Blog.

]]>
https://www.cmwlab.com/blog/functional-and-process-management-tools-support/feed/ 0