Delivering stakeholder centric services: from strategy to execution
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Delivering stakeholder centric services: from strategy to execution






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Delivering stakeholder centric services: from strategy to execution Delivering stakeholder centric services: from strategy to execution Document Transcript

    • mwdadvisorsDelivering stakeholder-centricservices: from strategy toexecutionNeil Ward-DuttonFebruary 2011In today‟s world, stakeholders‟ expectations of openness, responsiveness and personalisation are farmore informed and more stringent than they were even just a few years ago. At the same timegovernments‟ interest in public-private sector collaborations has become more pronounced, and sothe networks of players required to work together in order to deliver services are more complex. Tocap it all, business and technology are also becoming ever more tightly intertwined.To be efficient and effective in this environment – to meet stakeholders‟ expectations while at thesame time working with the constraints of tough financial environments – public agencies have tofocus on how they can deliver services from a stakeholder-centric point of view (in some territoriesthis is known as „citizen-centric‟ service delivery). Agencies have to use this perspective to drive theend-to-end integration of operations and the sharing of underpinning capabilities across teams,departments, and sometimes agencies.This report lays out the challenges that arise during a transformation to stakeholder-centric orcitizen-centric service delivery, and highlights the crucial roles that key business and IT capabilities willplay for any public sector organisation navigating those challenges.MWD Advisors is a specialist IT advisory firm which focuses exclusively on issues concerning IT-business alignment. We use our significant industry experience, acknowledged expertise, and aflexible approach to advise businesses on IT architecture, integration, management, organisation© MWD Advisors 2011 This paper has been sponsored by IBM
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 2SummaryInitial moves to deliver ‘e- As agencies began to embark on the first „e-Government‟government’ have had mixed initiatives in the early 2000s, it soon became apparent thatsuccess, and citizens have not although taking existing service offerings and creating webbenefited overall front-ends for those services might in some cases lower delivery costs, the transparency of the web meant that it also had the unfortunate side-effect of shining a very strong torchlight onto the ways in which services were just not „joined up‟.A move to stakeholder-centric The simple transformations that took place in early e-service delivery represents a new government implementations were driven by individualphase of e-government which is teams, departments and agencies with the very best oftruly transformational, and as a intentions. The poor outcomes that frequently resulted wereresult it requires deep a consequence of entirely natural, but “inside-out” thinking.commitment The delivery of true stakeholder-centric services (in some territories, these are known as citizen-centric services) can only come about with a high degree of co-ordination between agencies to ensure that relevant information is shared in an effective and timely manner. This level of entanglement between shared capabilities and front-line service delivery is a significant step beyond the kinds of back- office service (such as HR) sharing that we see across many government agencies. What‟s happening here is a second, deeper wave of e- government transformation – service transformation – which shifts the focus beyond cost avoidance “at the edge” of government, to fundamental cost restructuring “at the core” of government by changing the mechanics of how capabilities are developed and delivered as front-line services.Some key capabilities are required In making the shift to stakeholder-centric service delivery,to support stakeholder-centric four challenges – legacy systems, existing incentives andservice transformation: Business targets, lack of governance over investment in new systemsProcess Management (BPM), and processes, and lack of clarity in responsibility for ultimatesupported by business analytics; delivery of change – can only be overcome with the smart,and Enterprise Architecture and connected development and application of two key IT andBusiness Planning. All need to be business capabilities. The first is the ability to analyse theopen and collaborative performance of work that currently gets done in the delivery of services to stakeholders; and then analyse how this work should best be executed and managed. This capability is often referred to as Business Process Management (BPM), and relies on effective use of business analytics. The second is the ability to build a „big picture‟ view of how a stakeholder-centric service delivery strategy needs to be supported by particular business and technology capabilities, how key business processes align with those capabilities, and how IT should be marshalled to support the capabilities in different ways. This capability is often referred to Enterprise Architecture (EA) and Business Planning. It will also help you set and enforce policies that drive IT project investment to meet the needs of your transformation strategy.© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 3The changing environment for public sectoragenciesIn today‟s world, stakeholders‟ expectations of openness, responsiveness and personalisation are farmore informed and more stringent than they were even just a few years ago. At the same timegovernments‟ interest in public-private sector collaborations has become more pronounced, and sothe networks of players required to work together in order to deliver services are more complex. Tocap it all, business and technology are also becoming ever more tightly intertwined.To be efficient and effective in this environment – to meet stakeholders‟ expectations while at thesame time working with the constraints of tough financial environments – public agencies have tofocus on how they can deliver services from a stakeholder-centric (sometimes called „citizen-centric‟)point of view, and use this perspective to drive the end-to-end integration of operations and thesharing of underpinning capabilities across teams, departments, and sometimes agencies. We seerecognition of this time and again in studies of IT trends and investment plans which consistently placethe transition to stakeholder-centric services, enabled by business process transformation andperformance management specifically, as one of the highest priorities of senior public sectorexecutives in technical and non-technical roles alike.What‟s really going on – what is it that‟s driving the pressures that we see affecting business and ITleaders across organisations of all shapes and sizes and differing geographies? There are three large-scale socio-economic forces in play: Globalisation. Increasingly global customer bases, partner networks, supplier networks, and competition, are forcing companies to become leaner and more flexible, focus on what makes them different, and find new ways to deliver sustainable competitive advantage. Public sector organisations feel the benefits of globalisation through increased outsourcing options. The drive for transparency. Regulation is sometimes forced on private sector organisations by governments, but increasingly industry bodies and individual organisations are voluntarily moving to provide more information about their processes, the resources they use and the ways in which they interact with their ecosystems and environments. Public sector organisations feel the pressure of transparency as stakeholders are starting to demand more openness regarding governance, the mechanics of democracy, service performance indicators, and so on; and as regulations (such as those imposed by freedom-of-information legislation) make themselves felt. Increasingly smart, connected populations. The rapidly evolving and maturing Worldwide Web is just one outcome of the explosion in always-on, global mass communication connections. Individuals and organisations are increasingly looking to the online world for solutions to problems and opportunities before looking to the offline world. In this environment resources can feasibly be located anywhere: it is possible to consider that “the world is flat” (as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman says). Public sector organisations are increasingly finding that „digital natives‟ have demanding expectations regarding the availability of services, as well as the ability of service providers to personalise service delivery.© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 4Service-orienting the public sector agencyReacting to a changing environmentManagement teams and consultants to government agencies and other public sector organisationshave been pursuing ways of reacting to this changing operating environment for many years – themain change under consideration being the rise of the Internet. In particular, initially at least, the focushas been on looking for ways to lower costs by delivering services to stakeholders over the web. Anumber of studies have shown that if a transaction can be carried out via a website rather than face-to-face with a customer services representative, the cost can be just 2% of the face-to-face cost(telephone-based transactions are estimated to cost 50% of face-to-face transactions). Clearly thisrepresents a compelling opportunity to investigate.However as agencies began to embark on „e-Government‟ initiatives in the early 2000s, it soonbecame apparent that although taking existing service offerings and creating web front-ends for thoseservices might in some cases lower delivery costs, the transparency of the web meant that it also hadthe unfortunate side-effect of shining a very strong torchlight onto the ways in which services andinformation were just not „joined up‟. When service interactions with stakeholders are enabled byphone and mail, the complete structure of an overall service portfolio is obscured from thestakeholder; it‟s either hidden behind the knowledge of stakeholder-facing customer service personnelor it‟s hidden completely – with knowledge of available services being passed around communities byword-of-mouth. When the same services are made transparently available via the Web, the issues arethere for all to see. This disconnect is often all the more obvious where existing face-to-face andphone-based alternatives remain.The deeper opportunity and challenge facing public agencies following initial forays into the use of theweb – using the transparency of the web as a catalyst for transforming public sector servicesfundamentally – has been part of government agendas for some years now. One example of a catalystfor change was the UK‟s Varney Report1; and in the US, of course, the E-Government Act of 20022drove a mandate for the creation of offices and programmes to drive stakeholder-centric servicedelivery within and across federal, state and local agencies.Across all these mandates for transformation, there is one common high-level element of changediscussed: the shaping of service definition and delivery so that it is truly stakeholder-centric – weexplore this idea below. Additionally, there are two important implications for stakeholder-centricservice delivery, which we also explore below: firstly, the integration of front-line service deliverycapabilities so they can be shared across agencies and departments; and secondly, increasedcollaboration between public agencies and departments and external organisations.The move to stakeholder-centric services and outside-inthinkingThe simple “web transformations” that took place in early e-goverment implementations were drivenby individual teams, departments and agencies with the very best of intentions. However the outcomeof a lot of this early work wasn‟t just the duplication of services to stakeholders, which could beconfusing for them; it was also the duplication of requests for information from stakeholders – whichtypically leads not only to confusion but frustration. This outcome was a consequence of entirelynatural, but “inside-out” thinking: each agency and department, acting on its own initiative, consideredits own needs and capabilities as the foundation scope when analysing how it could present itsservices and capabilities to the outside world.1 Service Transformation: A Better Service for Citizens and Businesses, a Better Deal for Taxpayers – VarneyReport to UK Government, 20072© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 5The move to re-imagine service delivery, taking the stakeholder‟s perspective and needs as thestarting point for service analysis and design, is the converse of the approach that‟s so often beentaken in the past. Increasingly this approach is referred to as the design and delivery of “stakeholder-centric services”. Its importance is not tied 100% to the drive to deepen e-government commitments;making services stakeholder-centric is a way of optimising cost and effort, regardless of the servicedelivery channels used.Co-ordinated service delivery in support of life eventsThe most commonly-explored aspect of stakeholder-centric service design efforts is perhaps thedefinition of groups of services that need to be delivered in a highly co-ordinated way to support “lifeevents” shared by all citizens (such as birth, death) or most citizens (marriage, relocation). These lifeevents may lead to requirements for multiple services from government agencies, particularly if thecitizens in question are in receipt of benefit of some kind (unemployment, disability), which may inmany cases need to be delivered by separate agencies or departments. Figure 1 calls out a couple ofexamples.Figure 1: Example life events and their associated services and service owners Example life event Service Department Relocation Local taxes Tax registration Change of address Electoral administration Benefits Benefits (housing, registration child, etc) School enrolment Education Death Notice Tax Notice Benefits (incapacity, housing, etc) Notice Electoral administrationAn approach to service delivery which is co-ordinated around the needs of stakeholders quickly highlights howdeep integration between agencies – some central, some local – becomes paramount.Beyond co-ordinated delivery: service personalisation and improvementOther important tenets of stakeholder-centric service design include: Service personalisation – presenting services to stakeholders in ways and through channels that match their communication, accessibility and cultural preferences and needs. Open service improvement – displaying feedback from stakeholders openly, and aggregating feedback information to improve services; then openly communicating with stakeholders about changes and improvements made.© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 6Deeper use of shared services as a natural consequenceStakeholder-centric service delivery sounds like a very attractive proposition, but as we‟ve alreadyseen yesterday‟s “inside-out” thinking – with each agency and department pursuing its own agendabased purely on its own scope of operation – will not get us to a stakeholder-centric future. Thedelivery of true stakeholder-centric services can only come about with, at the very least, a highdegree of co-ordination between agencies to ensure that relevant information – relating tostakeholders‟ identities, addresses, entitlements and so on – is shared in an effective and timelymanner.However where activities and capabilities need to be tightly co-ordinated across agencies anddepartments, there are likely to be opportunities to go further than co-ordination – why not examinethese scenarios as opportunities to integrate and consolidate capabilities, creating “shared services”units that can deliver one set of capabilities to multiple internal customers?Of course, examples of the shift to back-office shared services delivery abound. However, mostexamples so far are focused on sharing of finance, human resources and Information andCommunications Technology (ICT) infrastructure services – generic business support functions, inother words. What we‟re talking about here is different: it‟s about the sharing of information andapplication services that are core to how front-line services are delivered to stakeholders. This levelof intimacy and entanglement between shared capability and front-line service delivery is a significantstep beyond the kinds of back-office service sharing that we see across many governments, wherethose services that are shared can be easily considered logically separate, at least, from front-lineservice delivery. In the UK at the time of writing, open debate about a proposed “G-Cloud3”infrastructure and a parallel “app store”, providing shared access to common IT capabilities, is placingthis topic under active consideration – but there is a long way to go.What‟s happening here is a second, deeper wave of e-government transformation – moving from costavoidance “at the edge” of government by changing the basic mechanics of stakeholder interactions,to fundamental cost restructuring “at the core” of government by changing the much deepermechanics of how capabilities are developed and delivered as front-line services.Figure 2: A second wave of deeper e-goverment transformation Service Service presentation presentation Front-line Front-line service service delivery delivery Corporate Corporate services services First-generation e-government Second-generation e-government transformation: focus on transformation: focus on front-line service presentation, corporate service delivery sharing, external service sharing collaborationA second wave of e-government transformation is now needed, to shift beyond transformation at the edge andshared services in the back office (i.e. corporate functions) towards transformation / sharing in the front office.3© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 7Another outcome: readiness for external collaborationThere‟s one other important implication of a shift to stakeholder-centric service-orientation of apublic agency, and that‟s a need to embrace closer and more timely, interactive collaboration withexternal organisations, be they from the private sector or the third (voluntary/charity) sector.Requirements that spring from service personalisation commitments as outlined above mean that it‟sincreasingly likely, particularly in countries where cross-sector partnerships and outsourcingarrangements are aggressively pursued, that agencies and departments will have to be able tocollaborate with third parties in order to deliver services effectively.Public sector agencies and departments have to find secure and structured, yet also flexible andtimely, ways to share information and collaborate on service case work and processes acrossorganisational boundaries.Outside-in service design should drive vertical organisations tomanage horizontal operation end-to-endSo what does all this – stakeholder-centric service delivery, creation of front-office shared services,external collaboration with third parties – mean in practical terms? What do public agencies anddepartments have to do in order to move from the current state to a future state where these goalsare attained?There are many changes to be made of course, but at the highest level the key characterisation of thetransformation that must take place is that it involves the creation of a set of practices and policies toensure that work is “joined up” horizontally across the organisation – so that end-to-end work isoptimised from the perspective of the stakeholder and the service that is delivered to them, ratherthan being optimised from a functional, team or department perspective.This shift isn‟t about replacing functional (vertical) organisation with horizontal organisation that‟s100% focused on service-driven, end-to-end process. Rather, it‟s about overlaying a structure thataims to drive end-to-end thinking on the existing functional organisation, and putting capabilities inplace to enable the two structures to work together in harmony.Of course, such a fundamental change in the way an agency is directed and managed can‟t simply be acase of designing the change, and then assuming the organisation will make the necessary adjustments.The difficulty of transitioning to a „horizontal‟ process-oriented management model is well-documented. At this point, however, agencies can no longer avoid the decision. This is atransformation that has to be made.© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 8Taking transformation from strategy toexecution: why is the path so complicated?It‟s not only public-sector organisations which are embarking on this kind of transformation; as weoutlined in the introduction to this paper, organisations across public and private sectors arewrestling with the forces of globalisation, the pressure of transparency and the opportunitiesassociated with smart, connected individuals and markets. Large private sector organisations have fora few years now been heavily engaged in business transformations that seek to refocus customerservices efforts as well as consolidating capabilities and services at their core – and using thisconsolidation to power more business process consistency and effectiveness, and improve customerservice as a result.No organisation – whether public or private sector – ever finds this kind of transformation easy; itinvolves big changes to systems, information and processes, and has big impacts on people. At themoment, of course, there is a very significantly complicating factor – and that‟s the fact that shrinkinggovernment budgets mean that prioritising transformation efforts can become complicated. Beyondthis, though, there are typically four reasons that organisations struggle to take transformationalprogrammes and strategies defined at executive level, and make them operational: Legacy systems. Existing incentives and targets. Lack of governance over investment in new systems, processes. Lack of clarity in responsibility for ultimate delivery of change.We explain each of these in a little more detail below.Legacy systems: the weight of historyThe most obvious impediment to transforming a public agency to enable stakeholder-centric servicesand all the things that go along with it is the inertia created by legacy systems and ways of working. Ofcourse there‟s the „drag‟ created by long-lived systems that are difficult to change to fit newrequirements – either because the technology isn‟t adaptable enough, or because the skills no longerexist in the organisation. However, simply „ripping and replacing‟ such systems is likely to beimpractical – you have to find ways to extend and improve them without incurring major costs orrisks.But there‟s also a challenge that comes from the dependencies that can exist between operationalsystems; particularly where those dependencies reflect a functional, inside-out approach. As IT hasbecome more a “part of the furniture” within organisations, and as IT systems have becomeincreasingly interconnected and interdependent, making a change to one system can have unintendedconsequences for other systems which depend on it in some way. For many organisations the linksbetween older systems can be as poorly documented as the systems themselves; this is a particularrisk in some parts of the public sector, which has a higher level of reliance on legacy systems thanmany industries in the private sector.Existing incentives: pulling the wrong wayIndividual departments in organisations are specialised things. They‟ve got that way because in manycases, specialisation is vital to success. Business teams have specialised skills in finance, purchasing ormarketing for example, whereas technology teams have specialised skills in systems administration orsoftware development. But when specialised teams become firm organisational units, they alsobecome budget holders with their own specialised incentives and targets. Managers become focusedon driving for optimum performance in their own area, often to the exclusion of larger concerns. Asmanagement guru Peter Drucker famously said: what gets measured gets managed.© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 9Of course this isn‟t a problem in itself, but if your organisation is trying to transform itself to considerend-to-end, horizontal efficiency and effectiveness, individual focuses on area-specific performancesmay actually work against the transformation.Lack of governance over investment in new systems, processesThe problem with a laser focus on operational performance within departments is that one person‟s„laser focus‟ is another person‟s „tunnel vision‟. Left to their own devices individual departments withinagencies are likely to carry on using their own budgets to achieve their own „local‟ goals rather thanconsidering any bigger-picture implications of a large-scale transformation.A stakeholder-centric services transformation and the associated moves towards shared front-officeservices and open collaboration require a number of systems and process investments, most of whichare going to need contributions – in terms of money and resources – from multiple teams anddepartments. Quite apart from helping to resource collaborative endeavours across an agency, there‟salso the issue that a stakeholder-centric services transformation will probably also need to spawn anumber of local projects with departmental scope which will need to be prioritised appropriately.Without a governance framework in place that‟s designed to help realise the goals of such ahorizontally-focused transformation that cuts across departmental boundaries, together with seniorexecutive sponsorship of that framework, organisations find it very difficult to sustain any kind oftransformation momentum.In the public sector, the creation of a robust governance framework is particularly important becausethe level for ongoing change in requirements (particularly, but not exclusively, concerned withimplementing changing legislation) can be so great. Without governance frameworks that can imposecertain approaches on the procurement and implementation of systems, opportunities for sustainable,flexible solutions are often missed.Confusion over responsibility for ultimate delivery of changePublic sector agencies are typically highly dependent on external resources for development anddelivery of IT systems. Outsourcing activities are notoriously complicated to manage even when thoseservices being outsourced are focused on ongoing operations (such as IT administration, customerservices, payroll, and so on) but in the context of outsourced supply of services to assist withtransformations, the complications are compounded.For example: although an external provider may be able to develop and deploy new IT systems orchanges to existing systems to meet a set of predefined requirements, it‟s very unlikely they‟ll alsohave responsibility for making sure that people in your organisation have the skills and inclination towork within the changed environment in the right way. Change management associated with ITinvestment is something the customer has to be very focused on. Cases abound where public agencieshave employed contractors to implement new systems as foundations for business processimprovements, but where responsibility for managing the organisational change around thoseimprovements has not been clearly assigned or communicated. These situations always end badly.© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 10Making the shift: key capabilities you must pulltogetherIn making the transformation to stakeholder-centric service delivery, the four challenges highlightedabove – legacy systems, existing incentives and targets, lack of governance over investment in newsystems and processes, and lack of clarity in responsibility for ultimate delivery of change – can onlybe overcome with the smart, connected development and application of some key IT and businesscapabilities. They are: Business process management (BPM), supported by business analytics. These capabilities will help you analyse the work that currently gets done in the delivery of services to stakeholders; and then analyse opportunities for improvement – drawing out how this work should best be executed and managed as part of end-to-end processes. A pair of BPM and business analytics capabilities will help you plan calculated improvements – to eliminate risk and cost, speed service delivery and improve stakeholder satisfaction with personalised services. They‟ll also help you prioritise changes in a world where overall resources are increasingly constrained – helping you understand where the greatest opportunities for improvement, at the lowest cost, are located. Agile, actionable enterprise architecture (EA) and business planning. This capability will help you build a „big picture‟ view of how a stakeholder-centric service delivery strategy needs to be supported by particular business and technology capabilities, how key business processes align with those capabilities, and how IT should be marshalled to support the capabilities in different ways, within the current operating and financial constraints that exist. This capability will also help you take the „big picture‟ created by EA work and make it real, by setting and enforcing policies that drive IT project investment to meet the needs of your transformation strategy – and helping you clarify responsibilities for managing the delivery and acceptance of transformation projects.These capabilities are intertwined and interdependent so it‟s a little difficult to discuss them in anyparticular order, but below we dig into each of them in turn.A common theme: building bridges across the IT-businessdivideIt‟s perhaps too easy to place the blame for today‟s challenges in translating strategy into execution atthe door of business executives – and sympathising exclusively with the poor, put-upon IT teamswhich have to cope with increasingly unreasonable demands from business departments.But this isn‟t the case. The truth is that both business and IT departments have historically beencomplicit in creating the headaches that many organisations are saddled with today. Much of the time,strategic IT investment mistakes turn out to be masked by what seem at the time to be tacticalsuccesses. And these mistakes are made not as the result of real negligence, but as the result of ITand business people failing to work together to drive consensus that consideration of a bigger pictureis necessary.As the IT industry has matured over time, and as IT practice has matured within organisations, we‟veseen attitudes and approaches change – slowly. At first, IT organisations were managing ITinvestments for their own sake. There was little in the way of a real relationship between thoseresponsible for managing IT investments, and those making the investments (and receiving thebenefits). Then, eventually, IT organisations began working to manage IT investments for business. Therelationship between investment makers and investment managers was one of customer-supplier.Truth be told, most organisations are still in this mode of working. But this will not do. Now, thebaseline that we all have to aspire to is managing IT investments within business.© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 11Business Process Management (BPM) and business analyticsAn effective Business Process Management (BPM) capability will deliver you the analysis and designunderpinning for your transformation to stakeholder-centric service delivery; it should also help setthe strategic context and mandate for you to re-factor front-office services and drive towardsintegration and sharing of capabilities to drive down costs and maximise citizen satisfaction. BPM,combined with business analytics tools, can also create an IT-based platform for automating and thenmonitoring and optimising the integrated business processes that will power your stakeholder-centricservices.By itself, a BPM initiative supported by business analytics will not deliver you the transformation youneed; but it forms the design core around which Enterprise Architecture, Portfolio Management andstakeholder engagement need to fit.BPM: improving the process of process improvementThe practice of business process improvement has been part of the business and IT managementlandscape in one form or another since the Industrial Revolution; and BPM specifically as an approachto process improvement has been with us for over a decade. Against this backdrop, it‟s sensible toask how BPM specifically differs from earlier process improvement methods and tools.One answer is to say that a key differentiator is BPM‟s central focus on enabling continuous changeand improvement. Another and more enlightening answer, though, is that BPM is fundamentally about“improving the process of process improvement”. For a BPM initiative to really deliver value, ithas to pull together a number of process improvement capabilities and skills thatprobably already exist in your organisation in new, more effective ways.BPM is about more than agile, iterative system developmentTo really deliver value, BPM requires you to develop and marshal a group of practitioners frommultiple IT and business disciplines, and give them access to some specialised tools and practices.Because BPM initiatives often involve the development and delivery of specialised „processapplications‟ that coordinate and track work across teams, departments and existing applications andsystems, it can be tempting to think of BPM as simply a flavour of software development orapplication integration that encourages agile, iterative delivery of application capabilities; however thisis not the case. There are two main reasons.The first reason is that in order to improve the process of process improvement, effective BPMpractice embraces the whole lifecycle of process management: from initial discovery and analysis ofbusiness process improvement opportunities, leveraging business analytics insights, through detailedprocess design, development of process applications, deployment of those applications, processmonitoring, and optimisation. BPM works at a higher level than simple application development, andlinks intimately into issues of business change management. Management of performance andoptimisation – not of a process application, but of the business process that the application helps toimprove – are absolutely central to the practice of BPM, and this has not traditionally been a concernfor those focused on business software development.The second reason is that looking specifically at the software that‟s developed and deployed as part ofBPM projects, it‟s actually quite different from „traditional‟ application software. Today‟s processapplications aren‟t like the workflow applications of old which were monolithic, hard-codedinterpretations of strict rules; instead, they provide collections of software tools to help processpractitioners (customer service personnel, HR personnel, benefits case workers, service deliverymanagers, and so on) with assistance and guidance to complete case and process work. Theseapplications can be highly flexible and dynamic, and in many implementations their structure andbehaviour can be extensively reconfigured by business analysts or process administrators.© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 12Driving efficiency, supporting service promises and personalisationMuch of the available BPM research literature – driven perhaps by the high visibility of the processimprovement approaches of Six Sigma4 and Lean5 – focuses primarily on process efficiency and qualityas being the sources of BPM‟s value. However there‟s more to BPM‟s value than that.Of course, effective application of BPM, supported by effective business analytics, does driveoperational efficiency and quality – and thus enables public sector organisations to pull people andsystems together across traditional boundaries to efficiently and effectively deliver services tostakeholders. By providing tools and techniques to help organisations discover current processes,measure their performance, analyse opportunities for improvement, prioritise opportunities bearingin mind cost and resource constraints, and then standardise or even automate processes, BPMinitiatives can reduce waste and improve work efficiency – either increasing the amount of work thata team can do, or enabling the same amount of work to be done with a smaller team.BPM can also help public agencies take a step further, though, and enable organisations to make clearservice commitments to stakeholders; and also deliver services with unprecedented levels ofpersonalisation – „taking the service to the stakeholder‟.By integrating disparate business systems, improving the way that teams work, reducing latency, andmaking it easier to change the way that processes are carried out, BPM initiatives provide greatfoundations for agencies looking to improve the speed with which services are created and deployed.By introducing performance measurement frameworks, BPM initiatives can also create supportingenvironments for organisations wanting to drive satisfaction and transparency by offering services thathave guaranteed quality levels – for example, offering (in the case of a hypothetical benefits office) aguarantee that all enquiries will receive an initial response within one day.A BPM technology platform will also capture the identity of every stakeholder interacting with aservice and make that an integral part of the context of a business process instance or case. Throughthis feature, agencies receive the ability to mix-and-match stakeholder service interactions acrosschannels (web, call centre, physical branch offices), case work teams, team locations and workershifts. This means that individual stakeholders can make much more flexible choices about when,where and how they interact with public agencies; they experience true customer service.Critical success factorsMany organisations pursue business process improvement exercises with the tools and approachesthat they‟ve used for years: indeed our own research shows that the majority of organisations are stillin this mode of working. In a recent major market survey carried out by MWD Advisors, for example,the vast majority of respondents (over 90%) cited tools like Microsoft PowerPoint and Visio as theirprimary process modelling tools; and cite „traditional‟ approaches to application development anddelivery as being the principal ways that process improvements are implemented. There‟s no doubtthat you can still get process improvements using these tools and approaches: but you won‟t get thefull value that BPM can offer.Technology alone won‟t deliver you an effective BPM implementation. However there are things thatthe right technology can do which will make delivering business value from your BPM work mucheasier: A collaborative discovery and design space. A shared, easy-to-access and easy-to-use graphical environment that BPM stakeholders of all skill levels can use to explore process problems and opportunities, and link them to the organisation‟s strategic context is a valuable tool for boosting stakeholder engagement and helping to ensure and maintain buy-in. The best tools place graphical models at the heart of specification work, and as well as providing requirements documentation, these models also form the foundation for the logic within the running system that‟s eventually created to manage work.4© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 13 Role-based, flexible interfaces for participants, administrators and stakeholders. Once models are taken through design and development and translated into a running software system, the runtime environment should be flexible enough to deliver any mixture of work management, administration, monitoring and configuration features to any stakeholder – within a role-based framework. Flexibility in delivering “content” and functionality to particular people and groups is vital, because every organisation has unique requirements. Rapid transferability of models through the process lifecycle. It‟s not enough to have design tools that allow process analysts to map out business processes in detail if creating a running process then requires multiple further complicated steps. It‟s also crucial to be able to take those same design models and use them as the context for operational monitoring tools: only by showing operational health and performance in the context of business-meaningful processes is it possible to deliver metrics that can quickly deliver feedback and enable further improvement. Well-bounded integration and other technical activities. BPM tools can be great at translating graphical process models into running process logic, but „finished process applications‟ need more than just process logic – and it‟s unreasonable to expect that any tool will enable complete software applications to be delivered without someone having to do some technical work. BPM technology offerings should help you draw clear boundaries around technical work (such as integrating processes with back-end resources and systems) – clearly separating configuration work that can be done by non-technical people (possibly business stakeholders, in the case of business rules and policies) from work that has to be done by technical specialists. BPM technology that can work seamlessly with integration platforms like Enterprise Service Buses (ESBs) have a great advantage here. A foundation for governance and change management. Many BPM tools can enable customers to build new process applications quickly; but in order to support the value proposition of BPM over the long term, tools that can manage development assets centrally, with easy-to-use change management facilities that help co-ordinate the work of teams and highlight dependencies between components are essential.Agile, actionable Enterprise Architecture and BusinessPlanningAn effective Enterprise Architecture (EA) and Business Planning capability is a way to bring IT andbusiness strategy together, and will help you build a „big picture‟ view of how stakeholder-centricservice delivery needs to be supported by particular business and technology capabilities, how keybusiness processes align with those capabilities, and how IT should be marshalled to support thecapabilities in different ways. Crucially, an EA and Business Planning capability should provideimportant context for the core „engine‟ of your transformation – your BPM initiative – by linking yourBPM work to both business and IT strategy.These linkages provided by EA and Business Planning are vital because without them, BPM initiativesthat start off with clear objectives and strong executive support can quickly lose momentum. Businessand IT strategies change, and the role of EA and Business Planning in the transformation tostakeholder-centric service delivery is to make sure that those changes don‟t make transformationprojects that are in-flight irrelevant. It‟s important, though, that the EA and Business Planning practiceyou create and leverage has the right kinds of priorities.A brief overview of Enterprise ArchitectureEnterprise Architecture (EA) is a business-IT capability that large organisations have used for decadesto bridge their business and IT strategies, and many large public- and private-sector organisations havean EA programme in place, staffed by dedicated roles and personnel. Despite that, there‟s stillconsiderable industry debate about the EA term and what it refers to, its scope, its value and the bestapproach to take.© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 14The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) makes one of the clearest attempts at a definition of EA tobe found in the public sector: “Enterprise architecture is a comprehensive framework used to manage andalign an organizations Information Technology (IT) assets, people, operations, and projects with its operationalcharacteristics. In other words, the enterprise architecture defines how information and technology will supportthe business operations and provide benefit for the business. It illustrates the organization’s core mission, eachcomponent critical to performing that mission, and how each of these components is interrelated.”Most practitioners today agree that EA isn‟t purely an architecture activity focused on the planning ofIT systems, but an activity that seeks to map and connect models of business activities and capabilitieswith definitions of essential enterprise information and IT systems and capabilities. Generally speaking,today‟s EA frameworks (specifications for carrying out modelling work and for classifying and relatingmodels) have also coalesced around four different types or levels of modelling: business architecture,information architecture, application architecture and technology architecture. Although differentorganisations use different frameworks, and a sizeable portion use some kind of „home-baked‟framework; however in the public sector we see more and more firm guidance on the use ofparticular frameworks (the use of the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, FEAF 6, is a goodexample).There is one major area of practical uncertainty that‟s separate from a choice of framework, though,and simply put it boils down to a short question: with EA, what‟s more important – the deliverableartefacts (the models) or the process by which you arrive at those deliverables? This is where the ideaof „Agile EA‟ comes in.The value of an agile approachAt the dawn of EA as a recognised discipline, the vast majority of research and practical activity in thearea was focused on the act of documentation – the creation of static and stand-alone models thatdescribed „as-is‟ states of collections of IT systems, and perhaps models that described „to-be‟ statesbased on EA practitioners‟ understanding of transformation programmes. This kind of activityrepresents a sizeable portion of the EA work still that‟s done in the public sector today.This is perhaps not entirely surprising, given that EA as a discipline originally grew from large-scalesoftware engineering methodologies that were popular in the 1970s and 1980s – when business andtechnology change happened at a pace that was glacial compared to that of today. In the last few yearsit‟s become clear that the pace of business and IT change means that a documentation-focused EAeffort – where what‟s measured and appreciated is the completeness of the models as descriptions ofenterprise IT estates – is unlikely to add very much value at all. The danger of EA irrelevance iscompounded by the fact that when EA teams focus exclusively on the quality and completeness ofdocumentation, they can end up working in insular teams, isolated from other groups.An agile approach to EA turns this documentation-focused approach on its head, and sees the processof discovering and analysing an organisation‟s structure, strategy, dynamics, priorities and capabilities –when it‟s done through discussion with internal and external stakeholders, rather than in isolation –as more important than the completeness of the ultimate record of that understanding. In agileapproaches to EA it‟s conversations with stakeholders that are the focus; Agile EA is first andforemost a process of learning from and influencing stakeholders to make better decisions about theirplanned investments and projects. It‟s particularly critical in the public sector because of the widevariety and diversity of stakeholders that exist.Of course models and presentations of those models are a key tool in having those all-importantconversations with stakeholders (every conversation needs a common language, after all), and themodels help provide that important context for BPM and other transformation work; but the modelsare a means to an end rather than the end itself.6© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 15The integration of Portfolio Management with EA practiceOne of the primary ways that EA work needs to have an impact, as mentioned above, is in highlightinghow “strategy needs to be supported by particular business and technology capabilities ... and how IT shouldbe marshalled to support the capabilities in different ways”. It‟s all very well to highlight these things, buthow can you take action based on high-level guidance? The answer is to extend EA practice withaspects of portfolio management, and use the result to guide individual project and operationsinvestments.Portfolio management is an approach to investment management that‟s very well established ingeneral business circles; but its application to IT investment is still comparatively new – particularly inthe public sector.In general, portfolio management practice seeks to analyse a set of investments and optimise them (bybuying, selling) according to stated goals. In the context of IT projects and services, goals are typicallystated in terms of costs, business value, and risk; optimisations are expressed in terms of accelerating,refocusing, decelerating, or killing projects. Portfolio management is absolutely crucial here becausethe resources available to any organisation are finite (and of course, becoming more constrained);portfolio management practice helps senior IT decision-makers understand how they can balance andprioritise business demand to achieve the „best outcome‟.In the context of a transformation to stakeholder-centric service delivery the combination of EA withportfolio management practice – to create EA practice which is able to inform and drive businessplanning as well as tune the details of IT investments – is crucial. Without links to the processes andorganisational bodies that are tasked with green-lighting projects and maintaining project oversight,EA may be agile; but it will not be truly actionable.Critical success factorsThere are five factors to consider if you want to build an EA and Business Planning practice that isagile and actionable, and that will help you create and maintain links between your BPM work andbusiness and IT strategy efforts: Make EA a formal practice. It‟s not good enough to have EA as part of your organisation‟s agenda that you „get around to when you have time‟; you need to have a formal EA practice in place with established roles and a named leader. It‟s not essential that all or indeed any members of your EA practice are working on EA full-time; but EA work needs to be a formalised part of their responsibilities. What‟s more, you can‟t outsource EA work: in fact, when you outsource a significant proportion of your IT delivery work, having an EA capability becomes even more important because it helps maintain the business context for that IT outsourcing work and keep outsourcing providers‟ services aligned with your organisation‟s overall needs. Use EA to reinforce the value of BPM to business and IT stakeholders. Don‟t set up EA practice so that it can exist as an isolated, inward-facing activity: specify its mission in the context of linking your transformation projects to business and IT strategies – and providing the context for your core BPM initiative. Measure the performance of your EA practice by asking its customers. You have to track progress of your EA initiative so you can assess its value and appraise and reward those people working on EA – but be sure to use externally-facing measures to track progress. Centre your measurement of the value of EA practice not on documentation created, but on the opinions of project teams and stakeholders with which the EA team has worked. Do they feel that the EA team has understood their perspectives, and that it has in turn influenced them to consider the big-picture implications of certain project approaches and technology choices?© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 16 Put governance in place to encourage action from findings. If you‟re going to make an investment in EA and Business Planning practice then it makes sense to put a structure in place to ensure that the output of the EA and Business Planning capability will actually be used in practice. This might not require a significant capital or personnel investment; it‟s more a matter of ensuring that the effort is visible and has support from senior executives involved in your transformation programme, and then that there‟s a forum where the outputs of EA and Business Planning work are used to inform programme investment controls. In practice this might be simply a matter of ensuring that your EA capability has a „seat‟ on your Programme or Project Review Board. Enable EA practice with smart tools. Last but not least, in order to practice EA in a way that fosters shared vision amongst stakeholders and ensures that your process transformation work remains clearly grounded to your business and IT strategies, it‟s really important to select the right tools for the job. There are many EA tools available, and most of them provide rich modelling capabilities and sophisticated repositories to allow you to link and visualise architecture models across different views and perspectives. What‟s important above this, though, is the ability for EA tools to enable your EA practice to open up, and become directly actionable. Specifically, look for tools that can provide links into your portfolio management work (see below), as well as exchange process models with tools you use for business process analysis and management (see above). Look for lightweight publishing and collaboration capabilities that make it easy for EA specialists to share models and analyses with non-specialists, and explain the implications of them. And look for tools that don‟t just enable EA practitioners to create static models, but models that have real-world attributes associated with them that can be aggregated and analysed using business analytics tools – enabling, for example, financial analyses of the impact of a proposed project to consolidate a set of systems.© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 17Case study: City of Corpus Christi, TexasOver the past few years, the City of Corpus Christi has used IBM‟s Maximo technology as part of afoundation for transforming asset and service management processes across a number of itsoperations, particularly those associated with water and wastewater provision, utility provision andpublic works.Prior to 2000, the City‟s work orders were all manually processed and there was no IT system totrack work progress, service levels or costs. Then, however, a structural shakeup placed the threat ofpotential water utility privatisation at the door of the City‟s administration. To prepare itself to beable to counter this threat, the City embarked on a programme of work to modernise its utility assetand work management processes. Over the next three years the City rolled out updated systemsacross its water treatment and wastewater plants, and updated the management of other crucialutility services in 2004. Once the internal management practices were systematised, the City ofCorpus Christi then set about creating a unified „One Call‟ access point for citizens that would allowit to respond quickly and effectively to any service request. The resulting system assists with thecreation and distribution of work orders to the relevant field staff in response to citizen alerts andrequests, and also tracks the progress of work.For the first two years of the implementation, the City outsourced the development and operation ofthe system – only bringing it in-house once the implementation settled down and internal staff weresufficiently familiar with the system‟s workings. Crucial to the success of the programme was thecreation of project champions in each department; these champions helped to drive up-frontworkshops with the departments to help refine system, process and business informationrequirements and gain a degree of up-front buy-in from users. Now, the City‟s administrators cantrack work performance against pre-defined SLAs – and this performance information helps to set thecontext for ongoing improvements. To date, the City has focused most of its efforts on measuringand managing responsiveness; now it‟s starting to spend more effort on providing more detailed costanalyses.When asked to share insights that would be useful to other organisations undergoing similartransformations, Steve Klepper, administrative superintendent for the City, highlighted two key items:Firstly, you must realise that technology can only ever be a tool; you mustn‟t view it as an end in itself.A corollary of this observation is that it doesn‟t make sense to expect your IT department to beresponsible for the success of an initiative like this – it‟s the business‟ responsibility to ensureacceptance and embrace of a new system or process.Secondly, convincing people to embrace a new system or process can take concerted effort over along period. Within the City of Corpus Christi, although the City leaders understood the rationale forchange, senior staff were less convinced – and this became more obvious once the initial threat ofprivatization receded. Working to ensure that staff avoid falling back into old, comfortable (butinefficient) ways has been something that‟s required continuous attention.© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 18Case study: Municipal Information SystemsAssociation, Ontario, CanadaOntario‟s Municipal Information Systems Association (MISA) is part of a national Canadian not-for-profit association which brings together regional associations of municipal government representativesand others engaged in, or interested in, the development and operation of municipal informationsystems. MISA has been incorporated in Ontario since the 1970s. MISA runs industry conferences andnegotiates preferential supplier discounts on behalf of its members, as well as facilitating more specificknowledge sharing.In the 1990s, MISA members started a collaborative programme of work to develop best practices ininformation and business modelling for municipal government agencies, specifically relating toimproving public asset and infrastructure management. After some years of work, the outcome of thiseffort evolved into the Municipal Reference Model (MRM) – a comprehensive and sophisticatedcatalogue of around 150 services commonly provided by municipalities that models mandates,programs, outcomes, outputs and their inter-relationships from the perspective of citizens, whichhelps municipalities more clearly understand the value that their own services provide.In the past few years, following its extension to both the provincial and federal levels in Canada, thiswork has been given a further boost because of increased pressure on government budgets. Now,budget pressures are leading agencies to have to think about tradeoffs between services andassociated service levels. Understanding how services contribute to government mandates andoutcomes for citizens makes it much easier to make informed decisions about investment priorities –or at least to ask informed questions about costs and benefits from the citizen‟s perspective. As aresult, many municipalities are now using the MRM as a foundation model for more rigorous serviceplanning and service-based budgeting; as well as continuing to use MRM to help provide investmentcontext for ongoing development and management of IT applications.With the increased development and use of the MRM by MISA members, so the need for moresophisticated tool support for MRM use has grown. As well as using MRM as a reference for theirown internal use, municipalities have become very interested in benchmarking their own services andcapabilities against those of other municipalities – from both cost and performance/resultsperspectives. MISA members are now piloting the use of IBM Rational‟s System Architect, combinedwith Lotus Quickr, as a platform for sharing models, metrics, contextual reports, best practices andbackground documents, as well as carrying out and sharing benchmarking analyses. MRM‟s servicecatalogue provides a common reference model for all this work. Now the ability to share strategicand financial insights, based on a common business reference model and benchmarking database,provides a foundation for advanced planning and evidence-based budgeting options that municipalitiescan readily take advantage of.When asked to share insights that would be useful to other organisations undergoing similartransformations, Roy Wiseman, CIO for the Region of Peel in Ontario and a champion of MRM formany years, highlighted two key items:Firstly, be prepared for a long haul. Developing comprehensive business architecture models that aregoing to be shared and used by groups of independent authorities can take a lot of effort over aconsiderable timescale. You have to be prepared to „plant the seed‟ of the idea, and take time todevelop good levels of awareness within all stakeholder groups.Secondly, getting the right people to commit to such a project – and stay committed – means youhave to develop a compelling answer to the question “what‟s in it for me?” When initiatives like thisstart they‟re carried by enthusiastic individuals for whom the benefits are self-evident; but for them tobuild over the long term and become embedded into an organisation, you need to hone your pitch sothat it‟s attractive to new audiences.© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 19Case study: New York City Health and HumanServicesThe Health and Human Services (HHS) Domain of New York City is a group of 8 governmentagencies that work together to improve agency co-ordination, maximise service levels and minimisecosts. When Michael Bloomberg first took office as New York City mayor in 2002, reducing serviceand organisational overlaps in the HHS area was one of his key priorities. Although many of the HHSagencies were serving the same clients, agency reorganisations over time had compoundedfragmentation of service delivery, and duplication of effort and information. At the start of his secondterm in 2005, Bloomberg appointed a Deputy Mayor, Linda Gibbs, who developed a strategic plan forthe HHS domain and created a programme of change initiatives called the HHS-Connect programme.The programme has three related missions: first, to improve clients‟ interactions with HHS agenciesthrough a client-centric approach; second, to improve workers‟ experiences in dealing with clients, byincreasing access to data across agencies; and third, to improve agencies‟ effectiveness and efficiency.The first part of the programme – the creation of a citizen-facing portal called ACCESS NYC – gotunderway in 2006, and is still ongoing. ACCESS NYC brings together client eligibility screening for awide variety of benefits and services across multiple agencies, and enrolment for select services, inone place. The second part of the programme – the creation of the Worker Connect portal – wasbuilt around the creation of a „common client index‟ (CCI) using Master Data Management (MDM)and Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) technology. The result is a system that provides one shared sourceof client data that all relevant agencies can access according to law and regulation. Going forward, theHHS-Connect programme is now exploring how it can deliver additional value to HHS agencies. Oneparticular priority is in the area of case management: as individual agencies start to end-of-life theirexisting legacy case management systems, the HHS-Connect programme is looking to offer agenciesassistance with deploying a standard platform. The programme is also exploring the idea ofstandardised financial processing and claims payment processing platforms.The City knew that solid evidence would be vital to justify the effort of the initiative, and to assess thevalidity of the chosen priorities. It carried out an internal market research project, which clearlyshowed that data sharing was a crucial issue for workers „on the ground‟ in individual HHS agencies.The next challenge was to convince individual agencies that security risks associated with sharing datacould be managed effectively. To this end, the programme dedicated a specific team of people toworking one-to-one with key representatives of the agencies, as well as legal experts, to agree andimplement policies and technology frameworks to ensure that the agencies‟ concerns were adequatelymet while at the same time working within the constraints of regulations such as HIPAA.The HHS-Connect programme has established an Enterprise Architecture and Governance capabilityto help it build and maintain „big picture‟ context for operational decision-making. However, thiscapability is very lightweight: it‟s not about creating models for the sake of modelling. Instead, theprogramme team has created an Executive Steering Committee, chaired by Deputy Mayor Gibbs andother City of New York executives, to shape demand from individual agencies. It‟s paired this with aSolution Architecture Review Board, which works with the various agencies‟ systems integrationpartners to ensure that all parties involved in creating new technology capabilities for agencies have aconsistent view of key requirements and preferred architecture and technology approaches.When asked to share insights that would be useful to other organisations undergoing similartransformations, representatives of HHS-Connect highlighted three items. Firstly, make sure that youhave a strong risk management methodology. You must identify and document risks and identifyremediation plans, assign risks to people so they‟re accountable for their own risks, and track risks.Risk management has to be proactive, and has to be something everyone takes responsibility for.Secondly, make sure that you have carried out a proper business justification and that as yourprogramme unfolds you‟re measuring the benefits that you identified in that business justification.Thirdly, make sure that you have a strong and engaged senior Executive Steering Committee that hasoverall responsibility for the success of the programme, and work hard to make sure they stayengaged. Without this level of sponsorship, it proves difficult to show success over the long term.© MWD Advisors 2011
    • Delivering stakeholder-centric services: from strategy to execution 20IBM Capabilities for all stages of your transformationGovernment Industry FrameworkIBM Industry Frameworks combine the power of award-winning IBM software with industry specificassets and best practices specifically configured to meet our clients’ unique challenges and needs. TheIBM Government Industry Framework is a strategic software platform for implementing smartergovernment solutions focused on improving citizen services, increasing transparency, enhancing civiliansafety and security, and helping achieve a green and sustainable environment.The framework approach offers solution implementations the opportunity to accelerate time-to-valueand payback while lowering a projects cost and risk. This is because the implementations leveragetested architectures and patterns, software components are reused across projects, and industryspecific software extensions and accelerators in the framework can be leveraged.Business Planning and AlignmentIBM offers a comprehensive portfolio of business planning and analysis solutions designed to enablebetter enterprise planning and ensure execution against specific business requirements. IBM solutionshelp organizations make faster, better-informed strategic and tactical decisions, prioritize IT investmentsto support business goals, improve risk management of organizational transformation, and turn strategyinto execution with measurable results.Our planning solutions are founded on actionable enterprise architecture management to connectbusiness and technology capabilities through cohesive and dynamic blueprints and Portfoliomanagement capabilities help you collaboratively define software and product investment roadmaps toenhance business objectives and processes while measure and manage the financial and strategic risks.Business Process ManagementA dynamic business network requires business process management (BPM) with process modelling andmonitoring, service-oriented architecture (SOA) and dynamic application infrastructure. IBM’s BPMpowered by SMART SOA™ includes all three and also these extended value capabilities for intelligenceand agility: complex events processing; analytics; collaboration; and rules, content/document and Webservices registry/repository management. IBM’s “foundational offerings” include IBM WebSphere®Dynamic Process Edition for large scale, high-integrity dynamic process integration and automationacross the enterprise; IBM WebSphere Lombardi Edition for rapid process implementation with projectteam collaboration; and IBM FileNet® Business Process Manager for content management, workflowand collaboration.Business AnalyticsWhether town council or national agency, government organizations all face similar challenges. Guidedby their mission, they need to optimize services and programs for citizens while demonstrating goodgovernance. And they need to do this within budget in a climate of shrinking resources.Thousands of public sector organizations worldwide rely on IBM Business Analytics software andservices to deliver smarter government. Business intelligence software lets you consolidate, track,analyze and report on all relevant data. Financial performance and strategy management softwareprovides planning, budgeting and consolidation for linking strategy to dynamic plans and targets.Advanced analytics software gives you the insight you need to predict trends and respond at the pointof impact. And analytic applications give you a quick start with a particular issue or domain.Integrated Service ManagementIntegrated Service Management enables service innovation by providing Visibility Control Automationacross business infrastructure and the end-to-end service chain. Only Integrated Service Managementprovides the software, systems, best practices and expertise needed to manage infrastructure, peopleand processes—across the entire service chain—in the data center, across design and delivery, andtailored for specific industry requirements. With Integrated Service Management you gain the VisibilityControl Automation needed to deliver quality services, manage risk and compliance, and acceleratebusiness growth.© MWD Advisors 2011 RAL14032-USEN-00