1 1

Effective process management

Process centric management with the BPM-Model

Synopsis Authors: Jos Tolsma & Dirk de Wit

2 2

This is a synopsis of the book: Effectief procesmanagement: Procesgericht sturen met het BPM-Model

by Jos Tolsma and Dirk de Wit

(ISBN 90 5972 071 7)

© 2008. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in an automa-

ted data file or made public in any form or manner whatsoever, whether electronic, mechanical,

photocopied, recorded or in any other way, without the prior written permission of the copyright

owner.

3 3

Effective process management

Process centric management with the BPM-Model

SYNOPSIS

Jos Tolsma

Dirk de Wit

4 4

When is my organization effective in applying process management?

Business Process Management (BPM)1 is managing a company on the basis of process orienta-

tion.2 BPM is still surrounded by a large number of questions. What exactly does the introduction

of a process centric organization entail? What is needed to allow the execution and the adminis-

tration of processes to run well? When is my organization effective in the application of process

management? Client orientation, cost reduction, process integration, application integration and

shared service centres are subjects which can frequently be found on the management agenda

and which force attention to be paid to processes. Process centric management and process cen-

tric organization are thus central themes.

Many organizations stumble in their attempts to work with process orientation. If an organiza-

tion devotes insufficient consideration to its basic situation, its objectives and the way in which

it wishes to interpret its supplementary preconditions, BPM is doomed to fail. The BPM-Model

was developed to give organizations a grip on working with process orientation. The BPM-Model

offers a framework in which an organization can determine whether, within its objectives, it has

met the right preconditions within the context of process management.

In this synopsis, the climate for process centric organizing will first be sketched, then the

emphasis will shift to the characteristics of process centric organizing and the desirability of

distinguishing management levels in this regard. The BPM-Model will be explained on the basis

of these management levels and setting up a process centric organization will be elaborated. The

synopsis concludes with indications as to how the introduction of a process centric organization

can be handled and how the pitfalls which are recognized in practice can be avoided.

1 Attention to process centric organization3

International competition and rapid technological change require organizations to perform with

increasing efficiency. The management constantly has to learn to cope with organizational com-

plexity and improve the response times of its organization.

1 Process management (= Business Process Management – BPM) is the ability to manage,

influence and control processes, as well as having complete control over them and making

them predictable. Process management includes continual improvement of the processes and

ensuring that the setting up of processes and their execution meets the set requirements, in

respect of which optimum use is made of the available resources (employees, resources and

applications).

2 A process is an ordering of activities with an explicit beginning and end, focused on the con-

scious realization of a product or service for an (internal) client.

3 Process centric organizing is setting up the activities to be carried out in a way which will

achieve the desired results and the establishment of responsibilities and powers such that the

direction of the execution will occur via processes. The operational management of the staff

occurs through the manager who has been made responsible for the execution of the process

(the process manager).

5 5

In addition to time-to-market, service grade, cost reduction, risk management and entering into

alliances are important parameters for performance improvement. To achieve performance

improvement and to avoid organizational rigidity, the management must devote attention to the

setting up of its processes. The developments surrounding service provision via the Internet have

made it clear that service provision quality is dependent on the way in which the organization has

set up its processes.

Leading management concepts such as Business Process Redesign (BPR), Total Quality Manage-

ment (TQM), Six Sigma and Supply Chain Management are based to a degree on process centric

thinking and organizing: they take the business process as the common denominator. Quality

thinking has strengthened the process orientation. The emphasis on the ongoing improvement

of existing processes is a characteristic of BPM. Here it distinguishes itself from BPR, which

takes as its starting point radical changes on the basis of IT, often top-down driven and with little

attention paid to the existing situation. With BPM it is often the existing processes and a good

grasp of, and insight into, the current situation which form the launching pad for improvement.

Where the accent in the 1990s lay on process innovation, now the emphasis is more on process

improvement.

In major organizations various departments are involved in realizing products and services. As

long as products can be produced from stock, or if the client has the patience when ordering

a customized product, a functional means of directing an organization would appear to be ap-

propriate. However, stocks are costly and clients have become impatient, requiring new forms of

organizational set-up and the application of principles such as Just In Time (JIT). Management by

means of a division into functions and departments is no longer sufficient to meet the require-

ments of the modern client, to stay ahead of the competition, or to be resistant to the many risks

which organizations run. Directing the processes (the core, supporting and management proces-

ses) is necessary to manage duration, quality, costs and risks sufficiently.

Within a rising number of organizations this insight has led to greater attention being paid to

processes and process management. The process management department is set up or further

extended and aids are acquired for process design and process analysis. The most important ob-

jective here is to provide an insight into the processes which can be distinguished within the orga-

nization, and to make the relevant risks explicit. But does an insight into the processes resolve the

problem? Is the organization sufficiently supported with this to achieve its objectives? Or, in order

to serve clients better and to increase performance, must the organization’s governance be further

angled away from a functional and towards a process centric set-up? What is the most desirable

set-up, and how can this situation best be achieved? Which preconditions within the context of

process management must be met to achieve the organizational goals optimally? These questions

can be answered with the assistance of the BPM-Model.

2 Management in the process centric organization

Process centric organizing poses a number of challenges to management. Where does the deline-

ation lie between business and/or work processes?

6 6

How can we achieve process centric management?4 Who is responsible for the execution of pro-

cesses? Who is responsible for setting up processes and who determines the requirements these

must meet? What form does IT support take?

Process centric organizing assumes that the client is leading. The organization sets up its activi-

ties in such a way that the provision of (end) results to clients takes precedence. This has as a con-

sequence that the organization is not regarded as a collection of departments with virtual walls,

but as a collection of activities which must be carried out in a certain logical order to achieve the

desired end result. In a process centric organization, management no longer occurs primarily via

the “vertical” hierarchical line, but also via the horizontal (process) line. This necessitates a clear

division of tasks and roles at the management level.

In a process centric organization important responsibility lies with the process owner. The pro-

cess owner establishes the requirements which the process must meet, completes the framework

and the preconditions within which the process must be carried out and ensures that the perfor-

mances related to execution are regularly evaluated. With standard processes which are executed

at various places within the organization (geographical, market), this responsibility can extend to

the setting up. The process manager is responsible for the operational execution of the process.

The process manager is primarily responsible for execution of the processes in such a way that

the norms set by the process owner are met. Should processes have been delineated independent-

ly of the organization (work processes), then the process manager is often the line manager. Such

an amalgamation of responsibilities is more the rule than the exception.

A large number of organizations are in a transitional situation (see Figure 1). Processes are

recognized, but management often occurs per unit or department. This means for example that,

in the event of a cost reduction, departments receive new budgets without any optimization of the

process as whole being taken into consideration.

Management levels

Process centric organizing is not only a question of “engineering” the workflow, but also requires

an adaptation of the way in which the organization is directed and structured. This goes hand in

hand with changes in the way of working, and the behaviour of employees and managers.

Process

Process

Process

Unit Unit Unit

Figure 1 Process centric within functional boundaries

4 Process centric management is setting up, planning, managing, reporting and improving

the execution of the processes which are distinguished within the organization to achieve the

organization’s objectives.

7 7

Process centric organizing and managing requires an insight into the working of organizations.

Many publications about process management or BPM still pay only limited attention to the

question of which preconditions must be met to manage the process (managing, controlling and

administering). The crux of process centric organizations lies in the management of processes

at the level which is appropriate to the company’s objectives and ambitions. Four management

levels can be distinguished in this regard.

- The tasks level: The operations to be carried out are assigned to the relevant employees on the

basis of job descriptions. Tasks are made up of operations.

- The work processes level: Under the responsibility of one operational manager (often the depart-

mental manager), multiple tasks often have to be carried out to achieve the result the client

wants. A work process encompasses these tasks.

- The business processes level: With regard to management at the work processes level, one can

refer to sub-optimization. The higher level of process management covers managing in order

to achieve cohesion between work processes – the business process – which together ensure

the realization of the end product.

- The value chain level: The interest of the organization is central in the previous three levels, and

optimization occurs in the execution of each level’s own objectives. For organizations which

are part of a collaboration or which are strongly dependent on dominant clients, optimization

can even be applied at the chain level. From this position the organization’s own interests are

subordinated to the communal interest of the collaborative parties. Management is focused on

the integral chain.

Value chain

Business process

Working process

Task

Operation

Figure 2 Different management levels

The ultimate manner of process centric management within one’s own organization lies at the

operational processes level. By regarding the process integrally, it is possible to optimize the set-

ting up of the process at the organizational level and responsibility for the operational execution

lies with one manager. It is, however, open to question whether the operational processes level is

the most desirable one. The “span of control” of the process-responsible manager can become too

large in major, complex processes with too many people involved. The set-up of the organization

can be too cumbersome and inflexible. The advantages of working with specialized business units

can be negated. An organization must thus determine the most desirable operational level on the

basis of its company objectives.

8 8

3 The BPM-Model

The BPM-Model offers a reference framework to determine the preconditions which the organiza-

tion already meets and which preconditions must in addition be met to support the company objec-

tives optimally. Preconditions must demonstrate a mutual cohesion and must be linked to a specific

level of direction. Thus the BPM-Model is also based on four distinct levels of management.

- Level 1: Managing tasks

- Level 2: Managing work processes; group tasks following each other

- Level 3: Managing cohesion between work processes

- Level 4: Managing value chain, which transcends the boundaries of multiple organizations

3b

Supply process

2 3a 4

Task Work process Business process Value chain

3c

Customer process

Figure 3 Overview of the different management levels

Level 1: Managing tasks

The organization can be typified as functionally organized and is directed primarily through an-

nual plans, budgets and the number of FTEs. Responsibilities and powers are explicitly described.

The objective which goes with this level can be summarized as “wanting to manage the execution

of all functions and tasks within the organization.” The organization wants to meet the require-

ments of the supervisors and to limit the risks. Valid preconditions are that the tasks, responsi-

bilities and powers have been worked out in job descriptions, Administrative Organization (AO)

descriptions and procedures to which the relevant functionaries must adhere. Working instruc-

tions must also be drawn up for the staff describing the way in which the relevant tasks must be

carried out.

Level 2: Managing work processes

The organization can be typified at level 2 as a functional organization. But an awareness grows

within the organization that managing processes makes the desired results of the department

more predictable and achievable. Various departments undertake initiatives for the (re)design of

processes and acquire their own aids to do this. The objective which goes with this level can be

described as “wanting to manage the departmental processes.” The operational managers want

to achieve the results for their department not only through managing in terms of functions, but

specifically through managing the execution of the specific processes focused on achieving the

departmental results.

9 9

This switching from functions to processes is often prompted by the introduction of, for example,

a quality system, a pros and cons system, or having to satisfy requirements of accountability.

Preconditions for making the departmental processes manageable are the determining and

describing of the processes. The results must be determined per process (performance indica-

tors), along with who is responsible for the operational execution. It is important for the staff to

appreciate that the tasks they carry out make a contribution to the process result. To determine

improvements in the execution, regular evaluations and audits must be carried out. These eva-

luations can lead to the redesign of the processes and a reorganization of the department. When

the advantages of the process centric management of the department appear on a broader scale,

a need also arises to manage the cohesion between the processes which together produce the end

products.

Level 3: Managing cohesion between work processes

At this level the organization can be characterized as a process centric organization. Managing

processes is dominant in relation to functional management. The transition from level 2 to level 3

can be typified as a tilting of the organization’s direction. The general objective belonging to level

3 can be described as “wanting to improve the business processes” (improving the effectiveness,

or efficiency, or increasing the client bond). Depending on the strategic choices of the organiza-

tion and the type of business process, the emphasis here can lie with the cohesion between the

internal business processes (3a), the link with the processes of the suppliers (3b), or the processes

of the client or customer (3c). Given the characteristics and preconditions linked to the areas of

attention, these are elaborated below per orientation.

3a. Managing cohesion between internal work processes

The organization at level 3a can be typified as an organization with a strong cohesion between the

internal work processes. This cohesion can exist both between the primary processes mutually,

and between the supporting processes. In managing the cohesion between internal work proces-

ses, the “increasing the effectiveness and efficiency at the level of business processes” objective

becomes achievable. Objectives such as the implementation of process redesign, the introduction

of shared services centres (SSCs) or WFM and ERP systems, complying with the requirements of

ISO or SOX, the outsourcing of tasks or the one-counter-concept are supported at this manage-

ment level.

One process owner (responsible for setting up the process) is appointed per business process.

The process managers (operationally responsible for the relevant process) manage the staff in-

volved operationally and, possibly, hierarchically. Preconditions are that indicators are established

per process performance derived from the company objectives, that risk analyses are carried out

at the business process level, that risk measures are taken and that regular process audits and

performance analyses are carried out. The processes are designed on the basis of an organization-

wide process architecture in which the cohesion between the separate work processes as well as

the guidelines and standards which must be adopted by all process designers is described. These

organization-wide standards must replace the local standards and process tools which were imple-

mented in the previous phase by various departments within the organization.

10 10

3b. Managing cohesion with supplier processes

This type of organization is extremely dependent on suppliers and the performance which is de-

livered by these suppliers. The same characteristics can be applied as used in level 3a. The orien-

tation on the supplier processes has as its intention “to improve the effectiveness of the contribu-

tion of the suppliers.” Introduction of JIT principles, being able to monitor supplier processes or

introducing authentic source files or basic registrations are all supported by this level.

For the processes where suppliers play an important role, the same preconditions must be met as

with level 3a: unequivocal process owner and process manager, performance indicators, risk ana-

lyses with risk measures and a clear description of the service levels for both parties, established

by contract. During implementation, considerable attention must be paid to building up mutual

trust and to the exchange of all relevant knowledge and information. Any possible resistance

must be reported rapidly and adequately countered.

3c. Managing the cohesion with client processes

For this organization type the link with the client processes is vitally important for achieving the

desired results. The objective which goes with this level is to link the internal processes with the

client process in such a way that one could refer to “increasing the added value for the client.” An

example of added value in this case is that the client gains the ability from within his own process

to exercise more influence on the process of his supplier (for example: cohesion of electronic

payment traffic from the bank and the client’s administration). The client can also be offered the

possibility of following the progress of the process at the supplier.

In broad terms, the preconditions are in agreement with the preconditions described for level 3a

in terms of the core processes for which the link with the client processes is achieved. The design

criteria for the core processes must devote sufficient attention to the delineation with the client

processes and the objectives which must be achieved in terms of the linkage points.

Level 4: Managing the value chain

Chain parties are characterized as equal parties in a collaborative framework in which one of the

parties exercises management over the collaboration. At issue here are organizations which must

function as a value chain partner because of their social function, but also organizations which,

given the specific competences they possess, have made a strategic choice for this model in order

to jointly stay ahead of the competition.

In this situation, the organization is not the end supplier for the client but one of the parties

which produces the end result in collaboration with the other value chain parties. The objective of

managing the integral chain is “the improvement of the value chain performances across all the

involved parties.”

In order to function well as a value chain party all the conditions of levels 3a, 3b and 3c must be

met. A value chain manager must also be appointed who ensures the correct delineation between

the parties and the various contributions the participating parties make. Use of standard commu-

nication protocols, databases and information systems are also important conditions for success,

just as with level 3b (chain notification, authentic source files).

11 11

Management roles

Operational

Hierarchical

Functional

Functional

Process Centric

Process Centric

Process Centric

Functional

Matrix

Matrix

Process Centric

4 Setting up the process centric organization

The process centric management of an organization implies that functional management makes

way for process centric management. In a functional organization the operational management is

linked to the hierarchical leadership of functional departments. In a process centric organization

the operational management, rather than being per function or competence, is largely organi-

zed per process. Process centric organizations allow various organizational forms. The different

structure come about through the manner in which the process management roles and the line

management roles are interpreted and the degree to which mutual processes or partial processes

are accommodated as “communal services” in specialized, internal or external units.

Management roles

At the operational level the following management roles can be distinguished:

- The hierarchical manager; the personnel manager, is responsible for making available and

appointing staff.

- The functional manager; the sectional boss, responsible for the subject-related skills and

competencies of the staff.

- The operational manager; the foreman, is responsible for carrying out the work (the process)

in such a way that the results (of the process) comply with the requirements which were stipu-

lated by the client (the process owner).

Alternative organizational structures arise through the combination of two or three of these roles.

The following role combinations occur in practice:

1. The three roles are accommodated with various organizational functions. The process mana-

ger is operationally responsible, but bears no hierarchical or functional responsibility for the

process performers. These responsibilities lie with one or two other managers (variant A and

B respectively).

2. The process manager is both operationally and hierarchically responsible. The hierarchical

responsibility here covers all process performers or only the process performers who have

been assigned to the process for a longer period (the permanent process performers). The

other responsibilities are accommodated as described in point 1 (variant C).

3. The process manager is both operationally and hierarchically functionally responsible for the

permanent process performers (variant D).

The combinations above are reproduced in Table 1.

Governance Structure

Line manager

Process manager Line m anager

Line manager= processmanager Functional

manager

Line ma nager=processm anager

Table 1 Combinations of management roles to functions

12 12

Organizations at management levels 1 and 2 generally operate variant D. The line manager is

integrally responsible here for the operational execution of the assigned functional duties and

work processes. The work processes at management level 2 exhibit a limited delineation, which

fits within a functionally set-up organization. Setting up on the basis of business processes and

cohesion between work processes within the business processes is only applicable at manage-

ment level 3. At management level 3 the organization can also be set up on the basis of variant D.

Here, the delineation from the line units is in accordance with the delineation of the processes to

be distinguished. Variant C is the most prevalent organization form in a process-focused organi-

zation at management level 3.

For many organizations, the same competences must be applied in the same way in various

processes. To achieve this these competences in variants A and D must be steered towards being

functional across the processes, and must be equipped with a standard working method and gui-

delines. The A or B variants often form transitional types in an organizational structure appropri-

ate to management levels 1 and 2 towards variant C at management level 3. The transition from a

functionally organized set-up (on the basis of for example variant D) to a process centric form (on

the basis of for example variants A, B or C) means that the current influence (power positions) of

managers is altered.

The changes involve both the management roles (in changes of variant), and the area of attention

for which the manager is responsible (in the transition from functional delineation to a process

centric delineation: from a functional area to a process). This is always coupled with resistance.

Given that the migration process must occur in a manageable way (sales must always continue as

undisturbed as possible), the top management must devote considerable attention to communica-

tions and resolving resistance. The process manager always reports to the process owner. This can

be the hierarchical line boss of the process manager, though this is not necessary.

Example of Management Level 3

In this example of an organization operating at level 3, it is assumed that the organization

makes use of shared service centres (SSCs) for specific operations. In Figure 4 (on the

following page) the process manager is only operationally responsible (variant A or B).

The organization has various units (BUs) comprising various departments with specific

competences. These departments make people and resources available to the process

managers. The SSCs carry out services under orders from the process owners/process

managers, producing products, for which results obligations can be agreed (for example

by means of a Service Level Agreement). The process managers report to the process

owner of the business process to which the relevant work process belongs. A hierarchical

relationship can exist between the process owners and process managers. A line manager

can fulfil either the role of process owner or process manager, but in practice wearing

these two hats often results in a lack of clarity and problems.

Figure 5 BPM business processes

13 13

Board

Staff

Process owner

Staff

BU 1 BU 2 SSC

Staff

Dep. 1

Comp.

1

Dep. 2

Comp.

2

Dep. A

Comp.

a

Dep. B

Comp.

b

SLA

Process manager

resources services

Figure 4 Variant A at level 3

5 Becoming a process centric organization How can you achieve the desired level of process management and, perhaps more importantly,

how can you maintain that level? To answer this question a “practice what you preach” approach

has been chosen: setting up and managing a process centric organization, just as with all other

activities, can be approached with process orientation. To achieve and manage BPM preconditi-

ons, processes can be distinguished and worked out. Setting up a process centric organization is

a management process having (just as with all core processes) a process owner and one or more

process managers. The process owner of these business processes is the manager of the organiza-

tion or the part of the organization within which process management is set up.

The setting-up process to achieve management levels 3 or higher will also not succeed without a

responsible manager at the highest management level of the organization or part of the organi-

zation. Process management can be regarded as an infrastructural provision: it is preconditional,

supportive, aimed at being able to run a company efficiently and at growing flexibly with the

organization’s ambitions, and is not more heavily equipped than is necessary for the achievement

of these goals. Activities within the context of setting up BPM must constantly be regarded and

assessed in terms of the added value which they have for achieving the company objectives.

The following BPM business processes are distinguished:

1. Developing the BPM policy.

2. Setting up BPM.

3. Managing the process centric organization.

Develop a BMP policy

Set Up BPM

Manage BMP organisation

Figure 5 BPM business processes

14 14

Developing the BPM policy

The BPM policy indicates which BPM level is desirable to achieve optimum realization of the

company objectives; it also provides insight into the cohesion with other aspects such as IT and

shows the way in which BPM must be set up. Developing policy is an iterative process, in which

three work processes can be distinguished (see Figure 6):

1. Determine To Be situation

2. Establishing As Is situation

3. Formulate BMP policy

Figure 6 Work processes for the development of the BPM policy

No preference has been expressed for the order in which the As Is and To Be situations are

worked out. Should the Soll situation be an actualization of the running policy plan, obviously

the current situation first needs to be established. Another possibility is a parallel elaboration of

the current and desired situations. If a new policy must be developed, more creative solutions can

be found when the Soll situation is first elaborated. Too much detailed knowledge of the existing

situation often forms a handicap for “breaking away” from the current set-up.

Setting up BPM

This business process concerns achieving the desired situation, or achieving the necessary

preconditions for a particular level of process management: the BPM set-up process. This process

assumes a planned, organization-wide or at least business-unit-wide setting up of BPM (ma-

nagement level 3). The approach is comparable to setting up major projects or programmes. A

programme is a good organizational form of the development and implementation process which

is marked out for achieving management level 3 (and/or higher). At this level, achieving the

preconditions requires the contributions of all organizational units. Figure 7 shows the working

processes of the setting up process per component to be achieved in the BPM policy.

1. Work out As is

3. Work out transition 4. Drawing up Plan 5. Realize To Be

2. Work out To Be

Change process 6. Implementation 7. Evaluation

Figure 7 Work processes for setting up BPM

To achieve the BPM policy, these work processes are carried out several times, separately or per

cluster of the preconditions to be achieved. It must be determined in advance (by the responsible

manager) which component of the BPM policy must be achieved. These components often have

relevance to the BPM preconditions which are necessary to bring about the company objectives.

15 15

Managing BPM

A well set-up management of BPM must ensure the continuing improvement and adjustment of

the processes within the organization. The objective is to ensure that the improvement propo-

sals are assessed from the organization and that, where desired, they are carried out. In this way

the reality (the execution) and the formally established situation (the descriptions) remain in

agreement. The management process makes up an extension of the setting up process. Managing

involves both infrastructural (such as process architecture and modelling conventions) and pro-

cess-specific (such as process descriptions and working instructions) objects. The management

processes also have a process owner and a process manager, a client and a result to be delivered.

Management must achieve the following results through setting up various work processes (see

Figure 8) for all objects to be managed:

(Re)design processes

Support User

Formulate

Improvements

Administer processes

Employee

Perform audits

Analyse performance

Execute changes

Administer versions

Execute processes

Figure 8 Work processes for setting up the management

1. Insight into the operational situation (through audits and performance analyses).

2. Existing objects which meet the set requirements.

3. Improvement proposals (based on notification from users, audits and performance analyses).

4. Answers to questions from users of the objects (executive, process manager and process

owner).

6 Pitfalls in practice

Introducing a process-centric organization entails a comprehensive change process which gene-

rally necessitates gradual implementation, linked to the achievement of established objectives.

In this connection, only the preconditions involving process management which will make a

contribution to it are addressed. Just achieving the preconditions is insufficient, and the pitfalls

are legion.

• Delegating roles is still not a guarantee for the completion of the roles

Various organizations have assigned BPM-related roles such as process owners, process mana-

gers and process administrators and have involved them within the organization. In practice it

appears difficult to give actual substance to roles such as process owner and process manager and

to let them work.

16 16

The role of process owner is often allocated to the manager who has the most interest in the

business process functioning well. This manager, however, has no authority to direct process

managers within this business process for whom he or she is not hierarchically responsible. The

assignment of roles only becomes effective from the time the top management accords them

actual priority and when the management information is set up primarily for the processes.

• Resistance from the hierarchy against the replacement of functional management by process centric

management

Resistance among the (senior) management to the discontinuation of silos makes process centric

management with responsible process owners and process managers a difficult process. The pro-

cess owner and the process manager must have sufficient responsibility and authority to be able

to correct line managers. Their voice carries more weight than that of the functional managers. In

order to reduce tensions in a transitional phase it can make sense to appoint the functionally res-

ponsible manager as process manager for a number of work processes. Essential with the hybrid

models is a redistribution of management responsibilities and collaboration between functional

managers and process owners/process managers.

• Making documents available is still no guarantee they will be used

Many process modelling tools offer the possibility of exporting process descriptions and diagrams

to the intranet. But as happened earlier with manuals such as Administrative Organization,

making them available is only a precondition and by no means a guarantee that they will be used.

Usage only occurs when employees have an interest in it. Interest occurs when they bear joint

responsibility for the sound management and administration of the process. This means that

employees must themselves be sufficiently involved in drawing up the process descriptions and

that the system of compensation and benefits must include a good execution of the processes.

• A selected method is used for all processes

There is an expression which notes that when a hammer is your only tool, every problem appears

to be a nail. Despite an abundance of manuals there is no universal method for process improve-

ment. Setting up a process centric organization requires a good transposition of the methodology

into one’s own situation and a well-considered choice of specific aids applicable to this situation.

17 17

In conclusion

Setting up a process centric organization entails more than describing processes and making

these descriptions available to those involved. Setting up the organization, its management and

an appropriate philosophy are equally important aspects. It is little wonder that many BPM books

address the changing of an organization and its employees simultaneously. But once a certain

level of process direction has been reached, what is then needed is to maintain this level and to

improve it. To prevent the organization from regressing to its former situation and to ensure that

the objectives continue to be achieved, administration must receive the top management’s priority

and attention. This administration is unjustifiably undervalued in many organizations. Setting up

the administration professionally and devoting permanent attention to improvement can prevent

major new change processes.

Although an engineering perspective in which an organization is viewed as repairable and con-

trollable seems to ground BPM, achieving a process centric organization requires a development

perspective. Given that the tasks, responsibilities and powers at the various levels are constantly

being distributed, there must be room for management and employees to make a “BPM philoso-

phy” their own. Many companies have found that time and good sponsorship from the top of the

organization are important factors here. The BPR period was characterized by disjunction: there

was far too great a difference in management level between the objective and the initial situation.

Bridging this gap was too great for most organizations and led to many disappointments. Many

initiatives accommodated under the BPM banner fail if the organization has insufficient insight

into its initial situation, its goals and the way in which it wants to interpret the supplementary

preconditions.

The BPM-Model offers a stepping stone with which organizations can determine whether their

ambitions are in line with their initial situation. The degree of process-orientation and the degree

with which the organization wants to manage processes depends on the organization’s level of

ambition. Should your organization have the characteristics of level 1 task orientation and should

you have ambitions which reach considerably further, then you are facing a hefty change process.

The yield from managing processes (achieving performance) will become more visible as an

organization reaches level 3. Knowing where the organization stands, what objectives are being

sought and what supplementary preconditions must thus be met is crucial for the successful

achievement of these goals. The capacity, preparedness and/or need for organizations to achieve

modifications determines the speed with which an organization is genuinely going to organize

itself on the basis of process management and is going to manage its processes.

MLC

Storkstraat 17 A

3833 LB Leusden

T +31355486565

W www.m-lc.nl

E info@m-lc.nl