The first question back from most will be: “How do you define BPM?” True to my proclivity for defining terms including “BPM” by their real world use, rather than aspirational musings by thought leaders, I define BPM as:“The totality of formal, structured business process design/management methods developed for use by trained process professionals.”

If that’s how we define “BPM,” does O-I process fit under this umbrella? No, it does not. While O-I process approaches including Visual Workflow, the CEMM Method and Human Process fit the first part of the description, when we get to “developed for use by trained process professionals,” that’s inaccurate. None of the primary O-I approaches requires employee training except for initiative facilitators/leaders―and some of these folks find Visual Workflow, for example, so intuitive they can pick it up on the fly.

Outside-In practitioners don’t need belts to hold up their process pants.

Not needing heavy training in process techniques, process-speak, process-symbology and the like makes O-I process very accessible to a broad spectrum of employees, which is critical to O-I’s success. O-I process focuses on work directly or indirectly affecting the customer experience―which is another way of saying front/back office and service work, much of it performed by knowledge workers. Knowledge workers don’t “just do what they’re told.” Nor do they have the time and inclination to go off and attend process classes. Process approaches for the O/S (office/service) either heavily involve knowledge workers without prior process training or they don’t work. That’s why LSS, Six Sigma and Lean, when applied in the O/S, suffer from a much higher relapse rate than diet programs.

So no, Outside-In process stands apart from BPM, IMHO. It’s “process to the people,” instead of process for professionals.

Other opinions?

 I’ll be uncharacteristically direct expressing my opinion.

Here’s an example of why you can’t. A new financial services client had invested lots of effort improving process one function at a time. But the whole place was running out of sync with high defect quotients they wanted us to fix…one function at a time. So we had to explain to them “one function at a time” was actually causing the problems. Here’s the gist of what we said.

O/S flows are highly interdependent. Change one and you readily create unintended consequences affecting downstream flows – plus often you can’t change what needs changing without going upstream. Manufacturing process does experience some of the same issues, but nowhere nearly as many as in the O/S.

They got that part, so we went to work. However, despite our pleadings to not “fix” anything until we’d redesigned the entire flow structure, after every meeting they insisted on going out and “taking care of” issues we’d just unearthed in cross-functional team meetings. When we’d finished and prepared our comprehensive recommendation, complete with comprehensive change management approach, the devil in me made me ask our sponsor, “How many of those ‘quick fixes’ you folks made right after meetings stuck?” She admitted, “Less than half.”

Tons of wasted time and effort, not to mention pointless burning of “change capital,” resulting from their irrepressible impatience.

Do you agree?

We (HYM) commonly characterize O/S (office & service) work as O-I’s natural domain and production as more apropos for inside-out approaches, especially Lean, which is our preference. Since most work directly affecting customers happens in the O/S, this creates for a nice, clean, understandable distinction. But every once in a while, complexity does help – as is the case with accurately describing the O-I/production process dividing line.

Case in point. A very high volume reconditioner of capital goods interviewed us for a process engagement intended to increase throughput (we formally kick off next week). The company’s customers had voted with their wallets that they wanted to sacrifice pristine quality for a lower finished price point, which made throughput and efficiency the primary goals. Sounds like a job for Lean (or LSS) rather than O-I, no?

No. During an initial day observing we quickly discovered the major impediments to reducing cycle time. Communication breakdowns and slowdowns only addressable through systems architecture changes plus an infusion of new, communication-based process automation technologye. Yes, we’re to recommend plant layout changes and work force disposition and training, but this client’s primary issues aren’t origi9nating on the shop floor.

From our perspective, neither Lean nor LSS redesign communication process well, especially at the level of specifying systems architecture and application layer changes. In contrast, the full O-I regimen - which aligns strategy to customers; process to strategy; and then technology to process – gets deep into enabling technologies. So we made what I believe is fair representation saying that O-I was a better fit than Lean or LSS, crossing over the basic O-I/production process dividing line. The client agreed with our thinking.

I know our saying that Visual Workflow, the O-I approach we use, will outperform Lean and Lean Six Sigma in this setting will rile up some traditional process types, who’ve at least had safe competitive refuge from O-I Process on the production side. But I’d venture a prediction that we’ll soon see more encroachment by O-I on what’s been accepted as traditional process space as O-I continues to grow in share of overall process redesign work.

Companies are accustomed and even comfortable keeping internal process opaque to customers―and often to co-workers as well. “Lack of cost-effective technology” has served as a convenient excuse for shutting out customers and blocking communication across silo boundaries – although we know “technology” is just an excuse.

All that’s about to change. A new technology named CBPA (communication-based process automation) is about to tear away the fig-leaf excuses. CBPA will track typically opaque internal processes including: mortgage and loan processing; insurance claim processing; technology support beyond one-call resolution; special orders; back orders; custom fabrication; incident research; and a host of other high-frequency events – each of which generates high volumes of expensive-to-handle customer calls and e-mail, not to mention endless internal e-mail and even face-to-face conversations.

Because it’s all IP-based and outside corporate firewalls, companies will now be able to let customers access CBPA for self-service – and let internal folks track progress across silo walls as well. Gazillions of dollars could be saved, IF individual companies are ready to “bare their process.”

Several industries have already developed vertical fixes resembling CBPA. You no longer have to call Fed-X or UPS to track a package, just hit the web. Likewise for medical test results. But business-at-large continues to spend gazillions of dollars on people and communication infrastructure to handle customers’ “Where is it?” questions and similar internal queries.

Because it’s IP-based, companies will now be able to let customers access work-in-process data themselves – and let internal folks track progress across silo walls as well. Gazillions of dollars could be saved, IF individual companies are ready to “bare their process.”

I’m excited about this because it’s classic Outside-In. Think of a solution to customers aren’t yet asking for; create customer delight; and grab a lead on competitors. But I’ll admit, it’s also Outside-In because implementing this solution will require organizational redesign, staff redeployment and shedding the traditional “protect ourselves from customers” perspective. Well-led, forward-thinking companies can effect these changes. But many others can’t and will suffer customer consequences as a result.

To be fully transparent myself, I got so excited by CBPA’s potential that I’ve partnered with the software developer’s largest partner to launch a process/technology partnership we’re calling “Enterprise Collaboration.” And I’m presenting a free Avtex-sponsored webinar on March 23^rd from 10:00 to 11:00 Central Time (that’s GMT minus 6 hours). You can register @ http://tinyurl.com/yfunttu.

Among the primary benefits of implementing CRM, SCM, Field Service and other back and front office automation applications has long been raising the level of internal collaboration–and more recently enabling collaboration with customers and suppliers. But we’ve had significant difficulty moving past impediments such as: overstuffed e-mail channels; unmonitored voice mail; inability to share multiple-party communication in a consolidated, multi-channel log; multiple step tasks disappearing from visibility into “black holes” until complete; unmonitored tasks not completed or taking far too long; etc.

Thankfully, relief is on the way. Interactive Intelligence Inc. (i3) will soon launch a new software application dedicated to supporting external and internal collaboration. Once companies redesign process to leverage the new capabilities and then implement the properly configured software, they can:

-Intelligently reroute customer calls to the best qualified people available if the primary recipient is not.

-“Hot transfer” triage calls to qualified and available staff.

-Provide an integrated communication log across all media to call/message recipients.

-Track both internal and external, multi-step processes to keep them moving–and escalate processes that get off track.

-Provide real time visibility into multi-step tasks (such as repair tickets).

-Track presence (whether someone’s at their desk and their status).

-Queue tasks and automatically route work assignments to available staff.

-Monitor, measure and report on communication and tasks.

Taking advantage of these new capabilities will give some companies difficult to overcome competitive advantages. And adopting them will provide all companies deploying correctly (first process, then technology) opportunities for major streamlining. This is powerful stuff–potentially. But how it’s handled in the marketplace will determine whether what we’re calling “Enterprise Collaboration” will realize its potential. I still remember an excellent desktop operating system called “C/PM” losing out to a much inferior system–DOS.

I confess–over many years designing office/service (O/S) process, I’ve never once introduced a client to free-standing BPM technology. Too expensive, especially for SMEs, but often in large company settings as well. Too hard to implement, complicated by increased IT outsourcing. But most of all, in O/S settings BPM technology is largely redundant and often irrelevant. Everything BPM systems do that’s appropriate for the O/S space, we provide using alternative methods–especially process management facilities embedded in more and more application software.

For example, SAP’s application layer workflow engine obviates using “bolt-on” BPM systems. And when ERP systems don’t offer BPM functionality, for O/S purposes we typically look to very extensible and configurable CRM systems for process management and measurement. That works especially well because HYM designs O/S process from the customer in, so we’re already enabling customer-company interactions with CRM software. And in the back office, supply chain management systems including SCOR, which is based on “outside-in” process principles, provides more granular process management support than generic BPM technology.

And speaking of granularity, a new wave of “communication-based process” applications embedded in telephony systems will soon appear, offering very granular management of unified communication across the enterprise. Still less need for freestanding BPM in the O/S space.

Because office/service environments are so highly collaborative and interconnected, the exact opposite of manufacturing, content management tools including SharePoint (used by Microsoft as part of XRM) pitch in and carry part of the load. Project-heavy companies are adopting workflow managing project management applications, which again drill down much deeper than free-standing BPM systems. often much more robust than PM capabilities in freestanding BPM systems.
Add it all up and we have “bolt-on” BPM technology that most SME’s can’t cost-justify; that’s not specific enough to support much of O/S process; and that replicates application-level functionality already at work in many O/S settings. And ERP-based applications increasing have the manufacturing space covered.

Not exactly a rosy picture, when vendors are still stumbling over themselves to introduce new, “bolt-on” BPM systems.