Business Scenarios

Situation

A new business function has been identified that needs to be defined and set up.

Our Service

We can help mobilise the new business function so that it operates effectively. Priority is generally given to Processes and Tools, the "backbone" of the function, before the other capability areas; though, of course, they are all inter-dependent to varying degrees.

Situation

An existing business function may be operating as required, but may not be operating as efficiently and transparently as it could. In many cases, the processes and toolsets used may already be reasonably well defined and in place, though they are often not integrated. This means that there are often many manual imports/exports between the individual tools.

It is also often the metrics, communications and harvesting/continuous improvement that provide the best opportunities here. These have often been deprioritised because of the effort required to implement them in their non-integrated processes and toolsets.

Depending on the scale of granularity, this scenario is equivalent to Scenario #3 below.

Our Service

We can improve the efficiency of the whole business function. We would typically concentrate on the processes and toolset as these provide the backbone for the function (with other capability areas often easily being implemented as quick-win by-products once completed). This would involve a combination of (but in descending preferential order):

• Integrating the existing tools - Typically using databases and/or custom automated tools and/or packaged software extensions to "glue" these tools together
• Integrating the existing processes - Typically these are just tweaks of the existing processes so that they are individually less insular and are considerate to/proactive with neighbouring processes.
• Upgrading the existing tools - Generally for packaged software whose upgrades provide more functionality & extensions.
• Replacing the existing tools - Typically only used as a last resort as it has a larger impact (cost, timescale, training) but the returns can be impressive.
• Replacing the existing processes - Again, typically a last resort, but often advantageous if there has been a protracted amount of process creep over long periods, especially if this was to satisfy deprecated toolsets.

For the other capability areas:

• Metrics - Typically the business-wide metrics (the main metrics to measure the health of the whole organisation) are already defined and just need to be implemented (and communicated back). Business-function metrics are function-internal, natural measures to measure the health (and raison d'être) of itself. With an integrated toolset throughout the business function, these should all be able to be easily measured end-to-end.
• Communications - Typically this can be achieved by exposing the underlying data in the toolset, either in raw format and/or in summarised formats (on dashboards). Either way, with an integrated toolset, this is relatively simple to achieve. The channel format is often either publish/subscribe (for other business functions to consume at will) or push/pull (for other business functions to consume as soon as it's ready/whenever they are ready to receive it).
• Harvest/Continuous Improvement - Typically an extension of metrics and communications whereby they "close the loop" to refine the assumptions and business factors at the start of the business function.

Click to enlarge

Situation

This is a typical scenario for team functions (although it can also be applied all the way up to multiple enterprise-scale functions for an enterprise undergoing a large change programme). So, depending on the scale of granularity, this scenario is equivalent to Scenario #2 above.

Although the parent business function is performing, an analysis of its constituent sub-functions and processes reveals:

• Management is overwhelmed - They have made themselves the central, critical-path for the function. It often results in them spending most of their time "doing" (paper- and data-shuffling between their sub-functions) rather than "managing" (directing, facilitating, improving, growing). Not only that but they haven't had the time (nor will they) to sit back and self-evaluate, actually automate it all and have an effective toolset. This function could be close to catastrophic failure.
• Information reporting is too manual and excessive (portrayed by the larger sub-function size) - Presentation of the processed results to downstream functions (or even customers) is essential for overall smooth operation. Although this sub-function has got this largely automated internally, they still require too much manual fiddling to create the information feeds in the various different formats required. The result is that downstream functions find errors and inconsistencies in the information and its format, requiring them to either suffer a delay to re-request the data or set up their own data-cleansing sub-function at their own expense.
• Other sub-functions may be underwhelmed - Management has been so overwhelmed that they haven't ensured that there is sufficient work for those they manage. This often leads to boredom, a decline in morale and the introduction of careless mistakes, making the situation (especially for management in this case) much worse.
• Information gathering is too manual and excessive (portrayed by the larger sub-function size) - Every business function requires information of the right kind, in the right quantities and at the right time to be able to perform its function. If this function isn't integrated with its upstream business functions from which it receives its information, then significant time is often wasted obtaining it (frequently at the last minute to the chagrin of those upstream functions).

Our Service

We can improve the efficiency of the parent business function by realigning its sub-functions. This would typically involve concentrating on (in this order):

• Redefining high level processes - The high-level workflow between the sub-functions and external functions.
• Redefining/revising low level processes - Typically these are fundamentally sound but need stream-lining, tweaking and automating.
• The activities as defined in Scenario #2 above.

Click to enlarge

Situation

This is a typical scenario for multiple team situations, i.e. equivalent to Scenario #3 above but on a larger scale. To make it easier to visualise, we have used IT Programme Delivery as an example subject (the parent business function). It has multiple sub-functions (e.g. Design, Build, Test). Test, in this instance, is shown at an odd angle because they often struggle for multiple reasons (timeline squeeze, delays elsewhere, inferior design/build). They may all appear to be individually working effectively on the surface, but are predominantly lacking in integration between them. This often results in:

• Sub-function teams working on out-of-date information - Resulting in wasted effort, re-work and a protracted delivery timeline, or, worse, the delivery of a product that is not fit for purpose. A common symptom of this is "fire-fighting": everyone spending every day resolving their own and dealing with others' issues ("fires") rather than having the time to improve the whole situation from the ground up.
• Regular disputes and "blame culture" between the sub-functions - With the parent function's management (Programme Office in this instance) having to act as an arbitration service.
• Unclear or inconsistent status -  On which the parent function's management can base its decisions and actions, especially if standards haven't been defined (or adhered to).
• Unclear or inconsistent communications - Caused by the above but especially damaging to stakeholders outside the parent function.

Our Service

We can improve the efficiency of the parent business function by concentrating on the integration between its sub-functions by creating a core backbone throughout all the capability areas (as depicted by the green stripe through the core of each), around which the sub-functions can be uplifted later (as in Scenario #3). This would typically involve (in this order):

• Evaluating the high level processes & metrics - The high-level workflow, interfaces and metrics between the sub-functions and external functions. This would also involve an iterative interview/review process with sub-functions individually to determine "wish lists" of where/how they would like the other sub-functions to improve.
• Drafting new high level processes & metrics - Concentrating again on the interfaces between the sub-functions and external functions, leaving much of the intra-sub-function processes status quo, the only exceptions including refining the critical path and ensuring that metrics can be collated automatically.
• Integrating the toolsets & metrics and standardising the communications - This will minimise the need for information transformation (e.g. database to Word doc to database) and improve the information transparency to and response-time for all, especially the management function. The toolset again provides the backbone around which the business function hangs.
• Enabling the management function - While the above beds in (and in parallel), time & resources should have been freed up to enable their processes, controls etc to be refined and automated, with an on-going activity of continuous improvement.
• The activities as defined in Scenario #3 above for each of the individual sub-function teams.

 

Click to enlarge

Situation

This is a typical scenario for large enterprises that already employ ERP systems (e.g. SAP), i.e. equivalent to Scenario #4 above but, again, on a much larger scale. A good implementation of the ERP system should already have reached the objectives of the above scenario, at least in terms of a common toolset for the basic backbone of the enterprise, metrics and consistent communication capability. However it is sometimes apparent that:

• Not all business functions are integrated - Although a common tool is used for all (or many) business functions, their processes or metrics aren't integrated and/or there are still some peripheral processes that are not integrated.
• Not all business functions are as aligned as they could be with each other - There can be the tendency for business functions to drift away from the business strategy (as shown in the diagram by the business functions not being completely aligned).
• Full ERP value is not being realised - With the cost and effort expended for the ERP system, it is a shame if it is not being utilised as much as it could. E.g. rather than just the core business (thin backbone - typically finance), couldn't it be re-evaluated to include more of the business (thicker backbone)?

Our Service

This will include advice on and implementation of a combination of the following:

• BPA (Business Process Analysis) - see example Gartner Magic Quadrant.
• BPM (Business Process Modelling) tools - see example Gartner Magic Quadrant.
• BPEL (Business Process Execution Language)
• BPMN (Business Process Modelling Notation)