Turning SharePoint from good to GREAT

Speaking to clients and prospective clients, I frequently and not unsurprisingly, come across Microsoft SharePoint.  There appears to be an awareness amongst users, that despite its obvious and significant capabilities and strengths, SharePoint is trying [and some would say failing] to be all things to all people.

With $1.3bn in sales, 100 million (yes 100,000,000) or more seats 'sold' over the last few years SharePoint is Microsoft’s faster growing server product. There is simply no getting away from the fact that SharePoint has a powerful place in the business software landscape. This status is clearly built upon SharePoint’s well documented strengths in the areas of Collaboration and Content Management, some would argue that despite this, it has critical limitations.

I came across the following comments in a publication ‘SharePoint as a Strategic Weapon’ from BPM Focus 2009: “…it is entirely possible to leverage the best parts of SharePoint – it’s Content Management and User Interface/Collaboration features – and still benefit from the best in class BPM capabilities.” The document goes on to say, “SharePoint provides strong capabilities to support the Portal and Collaboration as well as Content Management requirements, but it runs out of steam in the wider Business Process domain.”...and Forrester in a paper entitled ‘SharePoint and BPM - Finding the sweet spot’ observed that, “Out of the box, SharePoint processes are simple, so you can’t create seamless business process without a lot of custom coding.”

Taking this point further Pieter van Schalkwyk the CEO of our author partner - eXomin - has published a white paper on turning SharePoint from Good to Great. This focuses on my previous point that SharePoint attempts to be all things to all people and in doing so fails to be great at anything.

In reality we are seeing Microsoft mature its marketing message - can you spot the difference?



In 2007 this message included terms such as "Streamline Processes" and "Business Intelligence". Coming up to date, more generic terms appear in Microsoft’s 2010 ‘pitch’, which include "Composites" and "Insights". Reading between the lines this suggests to me an acknowledgement that all-things-to-all people is not a viable path to success. Indeed I would suggest that it highlights a realisation on Microsoft’s part that SharePoint forms only part and not the entire solution, for delivering better outcomes to end users.

In the area of Streamline Processes [e.g. Composites] specifically, this allows for and supports the existence of specialist ‘fit-for-purpose’ tools to address composite areas across the business, whilst standing firmly on the foundations that SharePoint brings in the server layer.

So how do we turn it from good to great? I would suggest by bringing worthwhile and tangible benefits to the key stakeholders; more control for the IT department, better and more visible process outcomes for the business and less confusion/more clarity for end users. Can I suggest you get a copy of the whitepaper "eXomin turns SharePoint from Good to GREAT"   here and make up your own mind?

Professional Advantage - XMPro

BPM and Case Management

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

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

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?

Process Improvement versus Process Automation. What should come first?

Following my most recent post, I have received a number of questions which involve a confusion over the difference between BPM and Workflow. I would like to cover that in a subsequent post but embedded in the feedback, is also the question: What should come first - Process Improvement versus Process Automation?
Coincidentially this mirrors a discussion that is currently ongoing within one of the BPM groups on LinkedIn.
Here is my view of the answer to this question.
I would strongly suggest and recommend that Improvement should always come before Automation. Some manual processes may well only require manual improvements without the need for automation. Additionally depending upon the nature, scope and scale of the process in question, the business case for automation may not stack up as Cost may well be > the Value to be derived from the automation.
Improving a manual process may well be the best option - Business Process Management [and Improvement] does not always mean automation, workflow etc.
May I acknowledge Rachael Ovett [BPM Consultant] for this Bill Gates quote on automation, but I think it sums it up well:
"automation does not fix the errors, it just makes them happen quicker".
I accept that process improvement may be bourne out of automation but common sense must lead one to the conclusion that fixing the errors first, must be the priority!

Business Process Management...How do I get Started?

I recently presented a series of Business Process Management seminars and in addition on a daily basis, I speak to numerous individuals in organisations in different sectors, and one question I keep being asked is... How do I get started?
I have heard this question answered in a number of different ways...
...start modelling your processes.
...build some workflow automation from within one of your current applications.
...set-up an internal project to build the workflows yourself.
...buy a Business Process Management Solution [BPMS].
Now whilst I must admit to having a vested interest in the BPMS option, I do not believe any of the above answers are correct or indeed whether they would best serve the needs of the organisation.
Before an organisation can even consider the possible alternatives for using BPM to drive process improvement, I believe the first questions have to be:

1. What business process do we actually have in operation in the organisation?
2. How are we going to measure [key performance indicators] if these processes actually meet our needs and support our business strategy?
3. Which of these measures is the most important to us?
4. How do each of these processes measure up against our key performance indicators?

Given we can rank our processes by answering the above questions; I suggest we would then need to ask...

- How complex is each process?
- How much certainty or uncertainty is there around each process i.e. how well do we really understand the process?
By simply running through this analysis, I believe an organisation can arrive at a summary of which processes require immediate attention and which can indeed be deferred. Also this analysis will highlight which of the business processes can be addressed at a cost commensurate with the value to be derived.
I use the word simply a little too flippantly here, and for that I apologise. Some organisations have the experience and resources to run such an analysis project internally. But for many that is simply not the case.
I have a number of colleagues that spend their entire working life reviewing, assessing, re-designing and deploying business processes for clients. Based upon this extensive ‘mine of experience’ my colleagues in Professional Services have developed a Process Priority Analyser...
...now why are you surprised they defined a process for this?
They are after all specialists in process management!
Please feel free go to http://www.profad.co.uk/process_analyser.htm to download a 'lite' version of this analysis tool.
Whether you contact me to discuss the merits or otherwise of the Process Priority Analyser [E: jon.ryder@profad.co.uk] or whether you choose to carry out the analysis yourself, please bear in mind that asking the right questions is key to finding good answers and making good decisions in any field, but particularly at the start of a BPM journey.

The Benefits of BPM?

In my last BLOG post I expressed my view that BPM allows organisations to ensure that the right person does the right task, at the right point in time, with the right information.

But that leaves the question, as raised by one of my associates... what are the benefits to be derived from BPM?

Before I dive into the detail, please note that I am looking to set out the benefits [as I see them] of applying a Business Process Management approach, without considering for now, the chosen enabler e.g. a software application etc.

I believe it is fair to say that every organisation is unique and the ability of each organisation/project, to deliver the promised BPM benefits is reliant on a number of factors, which I plan to consider in a subsequent post.

Having reviewed a number of documents, publications etc. here is list of some of the stated benefits of adopting BPM:

· Increased value and profitability of operations,
· Get the most out of existing system platforms and databases
· Measurement of operational performance against best practice
· Reduced process or transaction cycle-times
· Improved business continuity
· Reduced resource deployment and re-deployment costs
· Increased process accuracy, zero defects and zero-latency
· Freeing up management time
· Increased control over outsourced processes
· Reduced training and development costs
· Improve the customer experience
· Reduce process related costs
· Mitigate commercial/operational risk
· Ensure control, consistency and transparency
· Deliver a better experience for users: consistent and easy to use
· Deliver better outcomes for business as process owners can actively measure and improve process outcomes.

Whilst I recognise these are all genuine benefits, I feel that the case for BPM can be distilled down to three fundamentals:

· Improved Efficiency
· Improved Effectiveness
· Enhanced Agility

Considering each of these benefits in turn...

EfficiencyPractically most organisations first witness efficiency benefits when deploying BPM. By definition most processes can, and will, contain significant waste. This is because of manual activities and effort, an over reliance on undocumented (and often verbal) hand-offs between individuals, departments and teams. Business processes that have not been scrutinised utilising BPM principles generally suffer from an inability to monitor, track and report on overall progress. Even the most basic first phase of a BPM project eliminates these issues and the benefit can be typically measured in full-time equivalent time saved.

How could these benefits be seen by the business? Here are some generic examples:
· Reduce the manual analysis and routing of purchase invoice exceptions.
· Eliminate manual data entry in to multiple systems when adding a new employee.
· Reduce process cycle time in processing transactions

EffectivenessWhilst crudely put, efficiency is about doing things faster, and/or avoiding wasted energy or effort. Improved effectiveness in contrast is about producing a better result, or outcome, and often organisations generate some of the largest gains from improved effectiveness.

Experience suggests that these benefits are derived from employees being better equipped to handle exceptions, i.e. the ‘rainy day scenarios’ and make better decisions at crucial points in the process.

In addition the increased level of control and consistency provides an added benefit; improved compliance and regulation of people, processes and systems.

How could these benefits be seen by the business? Here are some generic examples:
· Handle exceptions better and more rapidly
· Improve customer satisfaction by providing employees with the ability to be proactive rather than reactive
· Make better decisions


AgilitySomeone famously said [I forget who] “...that the only constant in life is change!” and experience suggests that the ability to observe the change, and adapt to the change quickly, is essential.

Change can be internal or external: new opportunities may arise, new competitors may threaten your market position, new partners or customers may look to you to trade in a different way, government legislation may alter the legal landscape in which the business operates, and general economic and trading conditions can [and often do] change constantly.

I would suggest that BPM delivers a solid platform from which an organisation can rapidly, and cost effectively, adapt by changing processes faster, and in a more controlled fashion than any other option.

One word of caution here, it can often be very difficult to calculate hard returns from enhanced agility, although most organisations do [or rather should], recognise that the ability to quickly adapt processes is a critical to their success.

How could these benefits be seen by the business? Here are some generic examples;
· Ability to change preferred suppliers, ‘on the fly’, based upon the best bid provided.
· Ability to re-route approval process for potential new client, based upon ‘new’ information, discovered during the process.