This is in continuation of Part 1 of the post on Dr. Michael Hammer’s framework on process audits. One of the criticisms of BPR used to be that it is static in nature and in the absence of a commonly defined framework , periodic improvements were in general tough to measure and measures of performance defined as part of a BPR initiative would me more of an aggregate measure and may fail to track the specifics contributing to the MOP’s and that’s where I think the best usage of the new framework could be useful. Dr. Hammer shows how to measure using the framework with color coding mechanisms as well. He defines the The Process and Enterprise Maturity Model as encompassing 5P's &4R's:
There are five process enablers…
Design: The comprehensiveness of the specification of how the process is to be executed.
Performers: The people who execute the process, particularly in terms of their skills and knowledge.
Owner: A senior executive who has responsibility for the process and its results.
Infrastructure: Information and management systems that support the process.
Metrics: The measures the company uses to track the process’s performance.
…and four enterprise capabilities.
Leadership: Senior executives who support the creation of processes.
Culture: The values of customer focus, teamwork, personal accountability, and a willingness to change.
Expertise: Skills in, and methodology for, process redesign.
Governance: Mechanisms for managing complex projects and change initiatives.
Companies can use their evaluations of the enablers and capabilities, in tandem, to plan and assess the progress of process-based transformations. The process maturity framework and the enterprise maturity framework have been conceptualized quite rigorously.
Dr. Hammer believes that form influences function—that is, process design determines performance and holds the view that , redesigning processes is often the only way to improve their performance dramatically. Doing so eliminates many of the nonvalue-adding activities that are the source of costs, errors, and delays and helps companies come up with process innovations. The framework warrants closer study, coming from the original proponent of re-engineering, as contrary to widespread assumptions, designing new business processes involves more than rearranging work flows—who does what tasks, in what locations, and in what sequence. The revamped business process needs employees to focus on a broad, common outcome; if the organization measures performance as it has always done, it will reward people for focusing on narrow, functional goals. The road to process management need not be unmappable anymore.
Labels: Business Process Re-Enginnering, Dr.Michael Hammer