BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING

Posted on June 1, 2014 by Garth Holloway

I have addressed many of the principles around business process reengineering (BPR) in the previous articles. What will make this article different is that it will describe how to prepare for, and run, a BPR workshop and program of improvement. It will repeat a few of the points covered in previous articles, as the concepts are inherently intertwined.

To run a successful BPR project requires context. The easiest way to build context is to establish a table that disaggregates the business from the macro to the micro. Industry language describes this as going from level 1 to level 4. Level 4 is the generic term for the detailed process map, but in practice the disaggregation may drill down to level 5, 6, or 7.

There is no right or wrong, but it is worth considering that if you need to drill down to levels 6 or 7, then you may be narrowing the definition of process too much. This will make it very difficult to keep the process in context.

The disaggregation is represented as follows:

To operationalise this picture prepare a table with the following or similar headers.

The description fields are important as they force the author to think critically about the separation between the processes they are intending to map. It may not be possible to complete all the fields in the first instance. It is recommended that you do not start mapping processes until the data for that process is agreed. Ideally the table will be included in the statement of work.

For the process mapping workshop, you will need a decent size white board, a data projector, and a laptop. The workshop participants should be staff who are very familiar with the process. This may mean that you need more than one “subject matter expert” in the room to adequately cover all aspects of the process.

The following guidelines will add rigour to your process mapping.

1. Model the process using roles not positions.

2. Only one role can be responsible for an activity. Another role can contribute to the activity, but they are not responsible.

3. The input from all trigger processes should be sufficiently consistent with the unit of measure being used in the process. A trigger process is a process that precedes the process you are working on. The output from that process is the input to the next process.

At the very least, the following data should be collected in the workshop, or as a result of the workshop:

• Unit of measure—what is “processed.” It provides a means for calculating the annual volume.

• Annual volume—can be broken down to weekly or monthly.

• Process owner.

• Process deliverables/product.

• Distribution list for reports.

• Trigger processes.

• Hand-off processes.

• Roles.

• Indicative role costs.

• Process activities.

• Process sequence.

• Decision points.

• Percentage splits on each decision.

• Work time for each process activity.

• Cycle time for the process.

• Technology used for each activity. Extended data requirements can include:

• Information gathered at each step.

• Status changes in the item being processed.

• Descriptions of each activity. This may include work instructions.

It is important to establish early on whether you want to draw or model the process. It is almost impossible to adequately collect and evaluate the level of information described above if you do not use process-modelling software. If you use software that only captures the process as a flow sequence, such as Ms Visio, and different software applications such as Ms Word and Excel to capture the additional detail, then you are drawing. In this case you will not be able to complete the analysis described below.

Modelling software allows you to capture the details of the process in the third dimension. That is, you can capture all supporting information in the application at the time of mapping the process. The concept is: write once, use many. There are a range of applications on the market that support this type of process modelling.

To start the workshop, ask the participants to confirm the data collected in the process definition worksheet. Then ask one of the participants to talk you through the process. It is best to have a high-level schema of the process in your head before you start.

Using standard interview techniques, capture the flow sequence on screen in front of everyone. Pay special attention to the words the participants use. Take time to explore inconsistencies or the subtle differences between branches in the flow.

Once you have documented the process, go back through it and capture the required details for each activity. The most important data are the work time for each step, the percentage splits for each decision, and the role costs. With these three data points you can complete the primary process analysis. An additional data point to collect for each activity is the underlying technology and whether it is manual, batch manual or integrated processing.

Please note the following techniques are only possible if you are using modelling software.

For the first round of analysis, use the traditional R.A.C.I. (RACI) (Responsible, Accountable, Contributor, Informed) table.

• The process owner is Accountable.

• The roles are Responsible.

• The distribution list for reports and process outputs helps define who are the Informed stakeholders.

• You may or may not have a Contributor.

The following is an example of a RACI table.

The RACI table allows you to confirm you have gathered all the required information and applied it in the correct manner.

The next level of analysis is to confirm how the process fits into the wider business. That is, do the trigger and hand-off processes make sense? In the graphic below the downward arrows represent trigger processes and the upward arrows are hand-offs. Obviously a hand-off process is also a trigger for the next process. In this way process 1 is the trigger process for process 2 and process 2 is the trigger process for process 3 etc. Each process is measured with KPIs and the relationship between them is measured by SLAs.

The third level of due diligence is to understand the process data itself. This is done through understanding the sequencing paths within the process.

Consider the following process:

It is an amalgamation of four paths or processing sequences. The paths are shown as follows:

Path 1

Path 2

Path 3

Path 4

This analysis will produce two key tables:

1. The cost to serve.

2. Full-time equivalents (FTE).

The cost to serve table is shown and provides the weighted average cost for one iteration of the process. This number can be multiplied by the annual volume to get the annual cost.

Column 1 references each way the process can be transacted. In this example there are four paths.

Column 2 is a result of the percentages applied to each decision in the process. (These are not shown in the diagram.)

Column 3 is the activity-based cost of the sum of the activities within each path. The figure is based on the costs associated with each role multiplied by the time associated with each process step in the path.

Column 4 is the product of columns 2 and 3 and represents the cost to serve of one iteration of the process.

The second table is a staffing analysis. It is a similar analysis as is the cost to serve, but is completed on staffing needs-based FTE requirements. The following is an example. It shows FTEs by path and total FTEs for the process for one iteration.

The analysis is completed by applying the annual volume to the FTE table. In this case, the annualised staff requirement becomes 1.8 FTEs.

Due diligence is to ask: “Does the annualised FTE number make sense? Can the annual volume be completed with 1.8 FTEs?” If you add a productivity factor of 10% or 20% the FTE figure rises to 2 (rounded). If the answer is yes, then you know you have captured the process correctly. If not, then the process data needs to be revisited. The answer does not need to be precise; rather a “substantially correct” answer is accurate enough for decision-making.

Once the individual processes are agreed, they can be aggregated to provide a holistic view. It is the same table as shown in previous blogs.

With this table, process improvement can be prioritised. Assuming the intent is to reduce costs, you read the right-hand column. It shows the relative contribution of the individual process costs to the sum of costs for all processes. It can be seen that the “purchasing” and “new user setup” are the two processes that contribute most to total costs.

To reduce the costs associated with a business process refer to the cost to serve table.

Path 1 is the most cost-effective processing sequence. The best outcome is to reengineer the process to maximise the volume flowing through this path. This will deliver a savings of $49 per process iteration. If the process is transacted 10000 times a year, then this is a savings of $490,000. If you cannot improve the process to get 100% through path 1, then the next best option is to maximise volume through path 1 and use path 2 for the overflow.

Moving 100% of the volume to path 1 can be achieved through controlling the decision.

Typically this can be achieved through a change to the:

1. Staff profile through skills improvement or behavioural change.

2. Processing sequence through policy or procedural changes.

3. Underlying technology through workflows and configuring the existing system.

A change in skills will require further analysis to be able to answer the questions illustrated below.

The approach is to complete this analysis for each step in the process and then aggregate them into a consolidated table. This table can be cross-referenced to the RACI table to check for completeness. Once this data is collected, it can be cross-referenced to the skill profile of the staff working in the process and improvement strategies developed.

Option 3 is the best option as the application of technology or a workflow removes the option for the process performer to make a decision in the process. This concept is explored further in the chapter on Judgement Support and Decision-Making.

Recognising that this type of process change is frequently quite substantial in its nature, it is better to complete the analysis for all processes as shown in the following table and then develop a business improvement program to meet the change requirements of all processes at once.

Before implementation commences it is important that the business case for change is validated. The above table identifies the entire program of required improvements and these improvements are then used to recalculate all tables described throughout this chapter. The expected benefits are then compared to the existing process metrics.

In this example, a total benefit of more than one million has been identified with an associated saving of 21 FTEs. The nature of these 21 FTEs can be identified through a comparison of the staff profile tables.

I close with the following comments. Business process reengineering is reasonably straightforward to do at the “surface” level, and somewhat more difficult to do at the detailed level. A schematic of a process is just that—a schematic. It is a representation of the routines staff follow on a daily basis and to reengineer the process requires a change in these routines. To gain the trust of the affected staff requires a rigorous analysis of the processes combined with a focused program of change management. It is equally important to remember that processes do not exist in isolation and to change a process without understanding how the process interfaces with the rest of the business is likely to reduce the overall benefits received.

STAKEHOLDER MOTIVATION

Posted on May 25, 2014 by Garth Holloway

I am frequently asked to write on the mechanics of change management, a level of detail I have tried hard to avoid until now. The reason is simple—change management is complex, it is difficult, and it should not be reduced to a series of “cookie cutter” activities. I will never understand why large business improvement programs frequently refuse to pay a decent wage for the change manager’s role. On less than successful programs, it is common to hear statements to the effect of “the change management work stream failed” or “we would have delivered a better program if we had started the change piece earlier” or other words similar in nature. These statements assume that the business improvement program had any change management at all. Frequently, this is not the case.

No doubt, each unsuccessful program would have involved the completion of a stakeholder analysis, the delivery of training, and the publishing of communications. But I doubt all of this was delivered in a cohesive, integrated broadside to the organisation. I use the word “broadside” deliberately. Treating them as activities is why business improvement programs fail to deliver the required changes in organisational behaviour. Activities tend to get completed sequentially and then signed off as complete when delivered. In this case, the business improvement program has at best, a change coordinator. “We have done the stakeholder analysis.”—tick.

When it comes to change, the most fundamental question to ask is: so what? What has been learnt from a change activity? What is the business going to do with the information?

Note that the question does not ask what the program team is going to do with the information. That is of lesser importance than what the business is going to do with it. This distinction is vital, as the program team cannot change the business. Only the business (line management) can change the business. The program team will do all the heavy lifting required to meet the agreed deliverables. It just won’t change the business. If the business does not want to change, then the program office, despite its best efforts, will deliver a sub-optimal result and the senior management team will once again wonder what went wrong. By the time they realise that they had abdicated their responsibility for achieving a successful outcome, it will be too late to make corrections without the need to invest significantly more money into the program than what was budgeted for. Effective stakeholder management substantially reduces this risk.

Effective stakeholder management starts with the program sponsor. The sponsor is accountable for achieving the business benefits and this, by necessity, must include accountability for the change management work stream. Consider: if the business was serious about improvement, then it would hardly make sense to make a support function (change manager) accountable for achieving the structural and cultural change necessary to deliver the desired business benefits. The change manager’s role then becomes one of a subject matter expert designated to guide the sponsor through the difficulties associated with change. This would not exempt the change manager from their responsibility to prepare traditional deliverables such as impact studies, training packs, communications, etc.

A primary variable in any change program is people’s behavior, as individuals and as groups, and the key objective of the change program is to establish predictability of behavior. Predictability cuts both ways. The change program must provide predictability to those staff impacted by the change so they know what to expect, and equally the change manager, working through the sponsor, must provide management with predictability of how those staff will respond to the change and what is required from them as a senior leadership group. When people know what to expect, then they will be more accepting of the change when it happens, even if the change has a negative impact on them.

In practice, predictability and stakeholder management are synonymous terms and this means stakeholder management moves from being a discrete task in a change management plan to being the backbone of all the change management activities. To further illustrate this point, consider the following typical change management plan.

Change plan

To actively manage stakeholders requires agreement on who the stakeholders are. A stakeholder impact analysis workshop will help to identify the extended set of stakeholders. Stakeholders can be individuals or groups. For example, the CFO is part of the executive team, a key stakeholder group, and yet the CFO is important enough for the role to be identified as its own stakeholder group. In this way the CFO is referenced twice in the stakeholder management plan.

The impact analysis is a determination of how widely the “ripples” of the business improvement program will be felt. Ripples are typically operational, financial, or reputational. I define these terms in the broadest possible way.

The above methodology table indicates that the impact analysis is completed prior to the stakeholder management workshop. In practice, the two activities are iterative aseach informs the other.

Once the stakeholder groups are identified, then the next step is to determine the best means to engage with each group, to bring them into the change program and cause them to actively participate. Basic psychology says that this is best achieved by engaging them on topics that interest them, in a manner that interests them. To this end a simple 2×2 matrix that cross references Power (the capability to influence the direction or outcome of the program) to Interest (the desire to influence the direction or outcome of the program) is a frequently used methodology.

Power interest matrix

This type of analysis is only valuable if the terms Power and Interest are understood.

In her article posted on the American Express OPEN forum, (https://www.americanexpress.com/us/small-business/openforum/s/?query=Nicole%20Lipkin%20)

psychologist Nicole Lipkin discusses seven types of power, namely:

Legitimate Power is where a person in a higher position has control over people in a lower position in an organisation.

“If you have this power, it’s essential that you understand that this power was given to you (and can be taken away), so don’t abuse it,” Lipkin says. ”If Diane rises to the position of CEO and her employees believe she deserves this position, they will respond favourably when she exercises her legitimate power. On the other hand, if Diane rises to the position of CEO, but people don’t believe that she deserves this power, it will be a bad move for the company as a whole.”

Coercive Power is where a person leads by threats and force. It is unlikely to win respect and loyalty from employees for long.

“There is not a time of day when you should use it,” Lipkin tells us. “Ultimately, you can’t build credibility with coercive influence—you can think of it like bullying in the workplace.”

Expert Power is the result of the perception that one possesses superior skills or knowledge.

“If Diane holds an MBA and a PhD in statistical analysis, her colleagues and reports are more inclined to accede to her expertise,” Lipkin says.

In order to keep their status and influence, however, experts need to continue learning and improving.

Informational Power is where a person possesses needed or wanted information. This is a short-term power that doesn’t necessarily influence or build credibility.

For example, a program manager may have all the information for a specific program, and that will give her “informational power.” But it’s hard for a person to keep this power for long, and eventually this information will be released. This should not be a long-term strategy.

Reward Power is where a person motivates others by offering raises, promotions, and awards.

“When you start talking financial livelihood, power takes on a whole new meaning,” Lipkin says. For example, “both Diane and Bob hold a certain amount of reward power if they administer performance reviews that determine raises and bonuses for their people.”

Connection Power is where a person attains influence by gaining favour or simply acquaintance with a powerful person. This power is all about networking.

“If I have a connection with someone that you want to get to, that’s going to give me power. That’s politics in a way,” Lipkin says. “People employing this power build important coalitions with others … Diane’s natural ability to forge such connections with individuals and assemble them into coalitions gives her strong connection power.”

Referent Power is the ability to convey a sense of personal acceptance or approval. It is held by people with charisma, integrity, and other positive qualities. It is the most valuable type of power.

The most frequently used definition of power is legitimate power and using this definition alone is short-sighted. Staff who have relatively low legitimate power can have very high power when it comes to influencing the success of the program. This is especially true for subject matter experts who have expert power.

Once you consider all seven types of power, then it is likely that the set of identified stakeholder groups will be refined and expanded.

Equally, Interest can have multiple variables. I recommend using the sameas those used to determine the “ripples”in the impact analysis, namely:

Operational Interest is a primary focus on structure, strategy, environment, and implementation; a desire to improve the operational effectiveness and efficiency of the business.

Financial Interest is a primary focus on the ROI and the impact on the balance sheet.

Reputational Interest isa primary focus on the company’s reputation in the market or the individual stakeholder’s own brand value.

Typically, all three variables will apply to each stakeholder group, but each group will have a leaning to one or another of them. For example, a middle manager will have a high interest in the operational benefits of the program and a lower interest in the financial aspects. They get their salary no matter what, so financially the program may not change their situation much, but operationally, the program could materially impact their work environment.

Then there is a forth variable to interest—self-interest.

Self-Interest is a primary focus on oneself. The WIIFM question or “what’s in it for me?” How will the program impact an individual’s personal circumstances?

This analysis gets interesting when it is used to evaluate how the nature of a stakeholder group’s interest will change depending on the health of the program.

To fully consider the relationship between the power and interest variables, it makes more sense to use a table rather than a simple 2×2 grid.

Slide-21-A

In this example, “Executive Management” has legitimate power with a primary interest in the financial results of the program. They are focused on ensuring the program is on budget and is delivering the promised ROI. They will also want to be sure that the change program is enhancing or has a neutral impact on the reputation of the company. As they are senior managers, they are less interested in the day-to-day operations and should be least worried about their “Self-Interest.”Obviously, depending on the specific circumstances of any given change program, the priority between the four interest types will change.

The above prioritisation should remain true while the business improvement program is going well. It will change if the health of the program declines and starts to have an adverse impact on business operations. When this happens, executive management will want to ensure that the business can still run and consequently, they will become less worried about delivering the program on budget. Their primary interest will switch from “Financial” to “Operational” and they will start to release additional funds. “Financial Interest” is reprioritised to second place and “Reputation” moves to third.

If the program health declines further, they may switch their primary interest to “Reputation” and start to take action to ensure reputational damage is minimised and operations are stabilised. “Financial Interest” moves to third priority.

In these examples, I have left “Self-Interest” at priority four, assuming that the executives are all professionals. It is realistic, however, to believe that individual executives will start to reprioritise self-interest higher up the scale depending on their exposure to the consequences of a failed program.

By comparison, the stakeholder group “Subject Matter Expert” is characterised by technically competent staff who are experts in their field. This group will typically have a high “Operational Interest” in the program, especially if it relies on their expertise and enhances their reputation (“Reputational Interest”). They will also want the business reputation to grow as it helps their CV. These staff may never rise to the senior levels of management and are less interested in “Financials.” Stereotypically, as long as the company keeps funding their budget they are happy. With a healthy program, their “Self-Interest” is the lowest priority.

If the program health declines, then their Self-Interest will very quickly get reprioritised to the top of the list, as a subject matter expert typically does not want to be associated with a failed program, particularly in their area of speciality.

As the program health changes, so should the mode of the interaction the program has with each stakeholder group.

The 2×2 matrix can now be used as a guide to determine the best means of interacting with a specific stakeholder group with the caveat that Power is changed to Power type and Interest is changed to Interest type and the message is tailored to suit.

The quadrant into which a stakeholder falls, dictates the suite of preferred interaction styles that could be used to engage with that stakeholder. Interaction types include:

One-to-one interactions
One-to-few
One-to-many
Email
Town-hall meetings
Theatre
Website updates
Intranet forums (chat rooms)
Awareness education
Workshops
Delegations of authority*
Technical training
Posters, brochures, and other marketing collateral.

* Delegations of authority refers to the degree to which a position or role can make a decision that will bind the company. Pushing delegation levels lower into the company should result in higher levels of involvement in the program as the applicable manager responds to the fact that they can make a meaningful and sustainable difference to the change program.

It should be noted that all types of interaction are relevant. What changes is the importance and reliance that should be placed on a specific type as a means to effectively engage a specific stakeholder group, with a realisation that the most effective mode will change with the health of the program.

Subject matter experts will probably respond to detailed website updates and awareness education sessions far better than to face-to-face meetings. Executives, on the other hand, will most likely respond better to succinct emails and face-to-face briefings. Tied to this, is the content of the interaction. As a stakeholder’s interest changes with the health of the program, so should the content covered in each interaction.

The matrix now looks as follows:

Power interest matrix with comm type

I close with a reinforcement of the principle that only the business can change itself and that the change manager must ensure that their activities do not absolve the sponsor and other key stakeholders from their accountability to make the program successful.

SURVEYS AND DIAGNOSTICS

Posted on May 11, 2014 by Garth Holloway

There is a significant body of management science behind the formation, delivery, management, and interpretation of surveys, sufficient to fill a series of books in its own right. The intent of this article is only to provide the layperson with some guidelines for preparing and administering a survey, suitable for use within a company or the customer base.

There are three truths that underpin any change initiative. The first two are:

1. If you can tell me how you are measured, I will show you how you behave. The principle is that measurement (including the absence of measurement) drives behaviour. So only measure criteria you can change. If you can’t change it, don’t measure it.

2. People only change when their discomfort is high, caused by “pain” or unrealised “pleasure.” These two points are on opposite ends of the spectrum. If people are experiencing any point in between, then they are unlikely to change. Choose questions that will measure where the respondents are on the spectrum.

A survey is a quick and easy means to measure the survey populations position relative to both points with the second point being easier to measure than the first. The most important feature of a survey is that it is only a snapshot of people’s perceptions at a specific point in time. This brings me to the third truth:

3. General statements do not define the specific and the specific does not define general statements.

A survey provides a snapshot in time on general statements only. For example, a survey on customer satisfaction may indicate that customers are highly satisfied with the service they have received. This does not mean that every single customer is happy and it would not be difficult to find a single customer who was unhappy. All you can conclude from the survey is that generally customers are happy. Equally, just because you found one customer that was unhappy, that does not invalidate the survey.

The biggest mistake in surveys is measuring what you cannot change. This issue typically manifests itself through broad questions. The less specific the question, the more it is open to interpretation by the respondent. Consider the question: “Are you happy? Answer yes or no.” This may seem like a specific question due to the binary nature of the answer, but it is actually a very general question. What is “happy?” How do I know when I am happy, or do I measure my happiness the same way as the next person?

Assume a 60/40 split in responses, yes to no. At best, given the inherent vagueness in the concept of happiness, the most reliable insight that can be inferred from the study, is that, at the time of answering the question, 60% of the respondents were not unhappy. It does not predict if the same people will be happy one minute or one hour later. If your objective was to make everyone happy, then this survey offers no insight into what is making people happy or unhappy. It provides no clue as to what needs to change. In summary, this style of question is a waste of time.

A better approach is break the concept you wish to measure into its component parts, ensuring that no matter what the answer, you will be able to introduce a change that will improve the result. Assume you wish to survey management’s perception of the quality of information they receive. The first hurdle is to define the concept of “quality.” As per the happiness example, it would be futile to ask management if they considered the information they received to be of poor or good quality, as you would not know what to change if the answer was that the quality of the information was poor.

To resolve this issue, I define quality information to be information that is complete, accurate, and timely. In other words, I get all the information I want, when I want it and without errors.

Using this definition the first question could be: “Do you consider the information you receive to be complete?” It is substantially easier to resolve issues around incomplete information than it is to fix issues of poor quality. A further refinement of the question can be to ask “How often are you required to request additional information for use in the decision-making process?” as it may not be possible to be confident that everyone defines “complete” the same way.

The survey is further improved by moving away from using binary answers (yes/no) to using a scale. A scale allows the respondent to be more specific in their answers. The Likert scale is my preference. The primary characteristic of a Likert scale is that it considers all responses to be equal. To set it up, the survey author should write down the question and then, at a minimum, define each side of the scale. Ideally each response point in the scale will also be labelled.

A Likert scale should comprise at least five choices. The ideal number is eight as it allows the respondent to show a higher sensitivity in how they respond to each question. I prefer using an even number of choices as it forces a decision from the respondent. Using an odd number provides a natural midpoint that can become the easy choice for respondents not wishing to commit themselves. There is no midpoint with an even number of choices.

The question on completeness now looks like this:

How often are you required to request additional information for use in the decision-making process?

Constantly Seldom

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

The results are presented by totalling the number of times each point is selected, as each point on the scale is equally valid.

I also recommend asking the question twice. The first question is to evaluate the current position and the second is to determine the ideal or desired position.

The results graph could look as follows:

The current position is in front and the ideal position at the back.

From the graph it can be seen that of the 160 respondents (managers within the business), 40 rated the current completeness of information as 2, 20 rated it with a 3, 0 rated it with a 4, 30 rated it with a 5 and 20 rated it at each of 6, 7 and 8.

The important point is that there is no trend line. It is only a series of discrete scores.

From the graph it can be extrapolated that the vast majority of managers consider the information they receive to be incomplete. This is an easily accepted result. What is unexpected is that approximately 60% of managers have an ideal score of 4, 5 and 6. That is, over half of the survey population do not consider it important to have complete information to do their jobs. (Not all managers responded to the question for the ideal position).

These results can be further enhanced with follow-up interviews to better understand them.

And further insight can be gained through cross-referencing their responses to the demographic information about the respondents such as seniority, gender, location, function etc.

Once you have established the gap between the current and the ideal position, the question of how to close it arises. My experience is that the gaps are closed through a combination of changes to policy, behaviour, process, and technology. The following table illustrates how this can be worked through:

On the left are the criteria measured by the survey. On the right are the four change drivers of behaviour, policy, process, and technology. The numbers represent which of the four drivers need to be addressed to close the gap and are in decreasing order of priority. (1 is highest priority and 4 lowest.)

It can be seen that substantial improvements across all measures can be made by changing or introducing policy supplemented by changes to behaviour and process. Frequently companies jump straight to changes to technology. In this case, changes to technology will help, but they are not the place to start.

A survey can act as a catalyst for change and can provide a baseline prior to making changes. But it is important to keep in mind that it is only a snapshot in time and it only provides answers to the specific questions that you ask.

DRAW THE PICTURE

Posted on March 15, 2014 by Garth Holloway

Two of the biggest difficulties in the work environment are a) being able to quickly understand and contextualise difficult concepts and then b) being able to convey these complex concepts to colleagues or managers. These skills are almost mandatory for uninterrupted career advancement.

There have been many studies on the way people assimilate knowledge and no one shoe fits all. Depending on who you are you will prefer written text, audio, or graphics. My view is that if you can’t draw it, you don’t fully understand it. A graphic forces you to summarise your thinking, to organize it tightly into a visual object. Both written and spoken words allow you to describe the same concept from a few different angles and to really elaborate on the idea. A picture is static. Everything you want to say has to be summarised in the graphic and you are limited by the size of the page.

To get a picture right means that you really have to understand the concept you are drawing and the interrelationships within it.

There is no right or wrong way to draw a picture. You can use blocks and lines, symbols or a mind map. Once you get the picture right, you will be able to talk to it for an extended period of time.

Sometime back I was wrestling with how strategy was related to a business. I drew the following picture.

I look at the picture today and while I still agree with it, there are parts of it I would change. But at the time I drew it, that was how I understood the world. It summarised a few hundred pages of text. Once I had the picture clear in my head I was confident that I could take any question on the topic and be able to answer it in detail and in the context of how it worked with the rest of the business.

There is no formal methodology for drawing a picture and you need to be patient with yourself. It may take a few days to get the picture to a point where you are comfortable with it.

The underlying assumption of this approach is that any message you receive, be it a written text, a verbal instruction or lecture, or even a visual event will only contain a half dozen important points. It is these points that you must include in your picture. The trick is identifying the points in the first place. My recommendation is: don’t try too hard. Use an A4 size piece of paper and draw your understanding of what you have just read or heard or seen. Make the picture rich in detail. The more detail, the better. Once you believe you have all the concepts on the page and you have related them to each other, take a new A4 and fold it in half. Now draw the same picture in half the space. It will force you to summarise your first picture. If you can, repeat the exercise with a one-quarter size piece of paper.

Then reverse the process. When you can draw the summarised picture from memory, then draw the next level of expanded picture and when you have that right, draw the very detailed picture again. When you can do that, then you will find you really have internalised the concepts and you will be able to talk about them fluently. Then, depending on who your audience is, you can produce the appropriately summarised picture on the white board without notes and speak to it with confidence.

The following is another example of a picture I have used for years to describe the business architecture.

This picture conveys a significant amount of detail without being overly busy. It describes the elements of the business architecture and the context in which they exist. I now know this picture so well I can speak to it for over an hour if needed. I have also prepared pictures for each of the nine points (shown as blocks). This allows me to drill down into additional detail if necessary.

I have mentored a number of entrepreneurs who have come to me with an idea and the passion to start a business. They will all have prepared detailed business plans, but when asked to describe their idea they invariably battle. My recommendation is always: write up a brochure of one page only with a picture. The potential client must be able to look at the picture and understand your business. The text is supporting detail only. When you can do that, you understand what you are selling.

It is said, a picture speaks a thousand words. This is true and when you have your picture, you will have a thousand words at your fingertips.

JUDGEMENT SUPPORT AND DECISION-MAKING

Posted on March 9, 2014 by Garth Holloway

To make a decision you need information and you can only make a decision about the present or the future. Making a decision about how to handle a past event is still a decision about the future.

Information has six attributes. It must be relevant, accurate, timely, supported, accessible, and complete.

Different personality types will make a decision based on different percentages of information. A good decision-maker will make a decision when the time is right, even if they have incomplete information, as long as the information they do have is relevant, accurate, and accessible. These types of people are rare. More frequently, organisations get bogged down as the business waits for decisions to be made and the decision-makers request an ever-increasing amount of information.

Getting the decision right is important because bad decision-making is the most expensive activity in a business. Not making a decision is equally expensive.

The question therefore becomes: “How do you accelerate decision-making whilst devolving it to the lower levels of management yet still maintaining the quality of the decisions made?” One way to do this is to provide the manager with pre-vetted decisions. This way they only need to use their judgement about which decision best fits a specific set of circumstances. This could substantially reduce expenses in a business, but for most businesses this is wishful thinking.

The concept of judgement support was first introduced to me by Russell Swanborough. He explained that decision support is the process of providing information to assist in decision-making. Judgement support is the process of providing a selection of suitable decisions for a manager to choose from in order to find the best one for the specific business circumstances.

Industries that get judgement support right are those that use statistics as a core competency, for example, insurance companies. If you call up an insurance company and ask for cover they will vet your profile against the “bell curve” and offer you cover accordingly. They take almost zero interest in you as an individual and the call centre operator cannot make a decision on your personal circumstances. All they can do is guide you through the screening process and then offer you predefined choices of cover. They can use their judgement as to which cover is best for you.

To implement judgement support into the lower levels of the business requires the business to know what decisions are being made in the first place.

There are two types of decisions that get made in a business where judgement support can be applied. The first is before a process starts and the second is at each decision point within the process.

Consider the following process.

The process has three decisions in it. Each decision creates a different path and each path has a different cost to serve. Consider the following table.

Following path 1 is the most cost-effective processing sequence. It also carries the highest volume.

Path 1 is shown.

Every time the sales clerk transacts the process they are faced with the same decision. Depending on the decision they make, the cost of the process either remains at $100 or increases to $200 or $300 or, worse, the process is not completed at all.

A bad decision is therefore an expensive decision. To mitigate bad decisions the sale clerk could be given a set of parameters to which they would have to adhere. They can make any decision they like as long as it is within these parameters. The assumption is that the suite of decisions that make up the parameters is known and accepted and would always ensure path 1 is followed, irrespective of the particular decision made.

If they wished to move the sale down path 2, then they would require approval, or they may have to ensure the sales process meets a more rigorous set of sales parameters.

The idea is to recognise that the decision is a key point in the process in that it directly impacts gross margin. Making the wrong decision could result in the sale losing money.

The other point in the process where judgement support can be applied is at the start. Before the process is triggered, the supervisor can use their judgement to commence work or not. If the process cannot be completed on path 1, then it may be preferable not to start work at all. The supervisor should be provided with clear criteria about when to commence work and when to pause the process. They then use their judgement to evaluate if the incoming work meets either criterion. What they can’t do is to decide that they will commence work anyway, knowing that it cannot complete for whatever reason.

Technology can also be used to implement judgement support. Solution sets such as Business Process Management can be configured to ensure the process follows the “bouncing ball.” This means that the process worker has to deal with the screens in the order that they are presented. Any decision they will need to make should have already been configured into the process and it is predetermined when those decisions will present themselves. Only at these times can the process worker use their own judgement as to the best way to proceed.

Garth Holloway

New Words for Old Ideas

Tag Archives: risk management

BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING

STAKEHOLDER MOTIVATION

SURVEYS AND DIAGNOSTICS

DRAW THE PICTURE

JUDGEMENT SUPPORT AND DECISION-MAKING

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: