Interesting quotes from a very interesting blog post by Andrew Smith:
"In the past I have banged on about Case Management not being BPM, and have had a good moan about those vendors and consultants that push case management as if it was / is. However, in my vision of the future, I believe business should see BPM and Case Management as the same thing"
"Ok, here we go…Forgot vendors, forget lengthy definitions by technical or marketing people trying to sell you something. [thanks Andrew!] Case Management and BPM are the same thing. BPM is, Business Process Management. It’s all about managing business processes in a structured, more controlled fashion. So what is case management? Well it’s all about managing business processes in a structured fashion…So you see, they are the same thing, its just our “practices” and software interpretations that make them very very different."
I suggest you read the full blog post: Convergence-of-bpm-and-case-management: Andrew Smith
Thursday 16 December 2010
Tuesday 14 December 2010
BPM: The Big Bad Wolf
I am an avid follower of the thoughts and blog posts of Mr Adam Deane.
Can I suggest you read his most recent post BPM: The Big Bad Wolf which is simply excellent!!
BPM: The Big Bad Wolf
Can I suggest you read his most recent post BPM: The Big Bad Wolf which is simply excellent!!
BPM: The Big Bad Wolf
Tuesday 7 December 2010
Three BPM 'Solution' Options
Assuming that one has been convinced on the case for analysing and improving business processes and that the processes that will deliver the greatest nett value [benefit > cost] from intervention, have been identified; what are the alternative approaches that can be adopted?
In short, I believe there are three realistic options:
EXTEND: Build an ‘Extension’ to Existing ApplicationOften organisations will evaluate the option of extending an existing that application to help them drive improvement in key process areas. There are number of problems with this approach.
The cost of purchasing the requisite modules and development tools required to extend a current application may be prohibitive, add to this the potential need for specialist and hence expensive consulting skills, may make the cost/benefit equation significantly unbalanced.
Additionally once an organisation extends the existing solution, future upgrades to the ‘base’ solution become more complex, time consuming, costly and fraught with additional risk.
Many application providers have and continue to add process elements to their applications but these remain relatively immature. I would strongly suggest that these ‘add-on’ solutions do not display the level of maturity and hence inherent capability, as those found within the specialist BPM solution.
One could argue that attempting to build process improvements from a single existing application is a fundamentally flawed objective. By definition, these applications are designed and written to operate in a ‘silo’, e.g. finance, human resources etc. It is hard to argue the merits of attempting to develop systems in a process centric manner, when the foundations for the building are rooted in a limited application silo?
I have spoken to a number of organisations over recent months that have invested in deploying finance system workflows, using their existing Finance/ERP solution. The project has produced efficiency and effectiveness benefits for the finance team – good result!
However they have been unable to use the same ‘solution’ to build a process, linking amongst other things HR with Payroll. As a result they are therefore forced in to building these new business processes using yet another tool set/application. Taking this to its logical conclusion, the organisation will be forced into linking these different and often proprietary application centric ‘BPM solutions’, and will be faced with the issue of long-term support of this disparate structure!
SELF BUILD: Build a whole new StructureIt is not uncommon for companies with the necessary skills and experience to evaluate the option of building from scratch, utilising traditional application development tools and methodologies.
Without the structure and process tools inherent in BPM solutions, I would suggest the risk exists that the development project would be poorly or insufficiently scoped, and include unattainable requirements. Why would a BPM project be any different than any other in-house development project?
Again, along with all other in-house development project the ‘build from scratch’ approach carries risks which include, go-live date slippage, cost over-runs, lack of solution reliability and the headache of maintaining long-term support for the solution.
PURPOSE BUILT: Acquiring a New Purpose Built Structure
According to research [Forrester] the industry average for installing new applications is in excess of 12 months, with over 1 in 3 projects being delivered late. Compared to data for BPM installations, many BPM deployments would have witnessed two or three iterations in the same time frame, each of which would deliver measurable business value.
Common to many if not all new application projects is the fact that users are resistant to change and specifically to having to learn and use an entirely new application. This inertia is compounded if the capabilities of the new solution do not match the users’ needs.
In contrast, the leading BPM solutions can bring process into the environments that users are familiar with today – Internet Browser, MS Outlook, MS SharePoint etc. This virtually eliminates training and the adoption hurdles inherent in most new solution projects. Due to the flexibility of the leading BPM solutions, project teams are able to also focus on and deliver the specific capabilities required by all participants in the process flow.
Traditionally business applications are not designed to accommodate frequent change and/or expanding scope, as they are focused on delivering standardised activities and processes. In fact, customising a standard application often introduces additional problems and costs! Again, due to the flexibility inherent in the leading BPM solutions, organisations can ensure that their business processes remain agile and able to deal with the only true constant in life; change!
...but then again I would say that wouldn’t I?
In short, I believe there are three realistic options:
EXTEND: Build an ‘Extension’ to Existing ApplicationOften organisations will evaluate the option of extending an existing that application to help them drive improvement in key process areas. There are number of problems with this approach.
The cost of purchasing the requisite modules and development tools required to extend a current application may be prohibitive, add to this the potential need for specialist and hence expensive consulting skills, may make the cost/benefit equation significantly unbalanced.
Additionally once an organisation extends the existing solution, future upgrades to the ‘base’ solution become more complex, time consuming, costly and fraught with additional risk.
Many application providers have and continue to add process elements to their applications but these remain relatively immature. I would strongly suggest that these ‘add-on’ solutions do not display the level of maturity and hence inherent capability, as those found within the specialist BPM solution.
One could argue that attempting to build process improvements from a single existing application is a fundamentally flawed objective. By definition, these applications are designed and written to operate in a ‘silo’, e.g. finance, human resources etc. It is hard to argue the merits of attempting to develop systems in a process centric manner, when the foundations for the building are rooted in a limited application silo?
I have spoken to a number of organisations over recent months that have invested in deploying finance system workflows, using their existing Finance/ERP solution. The project has produced efficiency and effectiveness benefits for the finance team – good result!
However they have been unable to use the same ‘solution’ to build a process, linking amongst other things HR with Payroll. As a result they are therefore forced in to building these new business processes using yet another tool set/application. Taking this to its logical conclusion, the organisation will be forced into linking these different and often proprietary application centric ‘BPM solutions’, and will be faced with the issue of long-term support of this disparate structure!
SELF BUILD: Build a whole new StructureIt is not uncommon for companies with the necessary skills and experience to evaluate the option of building from scratch, utilising traditional application development tools and methodologies.
Without the structure and process tools inherent in BPM solutions, I would suggest the risk exists that the development project would be poorly or insufficiently scoped, and include unattainable requirements. Why would a BPM project be any different than any other in-house development project?
Again, along with all other in-house development project the ‘build from scratch’ approach carries risks which include, go-live date slippage, cost over-runs, lack of solution reliability and the headache of maintaining long-term support for the solution.
PURPOSE BUILT: Acquiring a New Purpose Built Structure
According to research [Forrester] the industry average for installing new applications is in excess of 12 months, with over 1 in 3 projects being delivered late. Compared to data for BPM installations, many BPM deployments would have witnessed two or three iterations in the same time frame, each of which would deliver measurable business value.
Common to many if not all new application projects is the fact that users are resistant to change and specifically to having to learn and use an entirely new application. This inertia is compounded if the capabilities of the new solution do not match the users’ needs.
In contrast, the leading BPM solutions can bring process into the environments that users are familiar with today – Internet Browser, MS Outlook, MS SharePoint etc. This virtually eliminates training and the adoption hurdles inherent in most new solution projects. Due to the flexibility of the leading BPM solutions, project teams are able to also focus on and deliver the specific capabilities required by all participants in the process flow.
Traditionally business applications are not designed to accommodate frequent change and/or expanding scope, as they are focused on delivering standardised activities and processes. In fact, customising a standard application often introduces additional problems and costs! Again, due to the flexibility inherent in the leading BPM solutions, organisations can ensure that their business processes remain agile and able to deal with the only true constant in life; change!
...but then again I would say that wouldn’t I?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)