Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Engaging the Organization in Process Thinking - Anonymous


Published on

A director of global processes at a multi-national company has a vision of global process management that includes an enterprise process model, process owners, measures, and targets. But, reality at his company is quite different. The company doesn't have strong support at the top for process. They think process means restrictions and costs. How would you advise that he get stronger executive sponsorship?

Published in: Leadership & Management
  • Be the first to comment

Engaging the Organization in Process Thinking - Anonymous

  1. 1. ©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved. Webinar Roundtable Discussion July 30, 2014 Brad Power Mystery guest “J” ? Striving for Stronger Sponsorship: Engaging Leaders in Process Innovation
  2. 2. 1©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved. Today’s Subject “J” Experience • Mechanical Engineer at small R&D-oriented aerospace companies • General Manager at small manufacturing company, implemented ‘Business Excellence’ program = Process Approach based on performance measurement and continuous improvement • Now working for large multi-national as Director of Global Process Management Passion Making big companies act like small companies: working across organizational boundaries to remove fragmentation and connect the big picture to the details Challenge Why don’t they ‘get it’ ? ?
  3. 3. 2©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved. I Need Your Help with Two Simple Questions:  1) How do we get executive sponsorship for enterprise process approach? – Can we do enterprise-level process management without CEO-level leadership? – Do we need a leader who just ‘gets it’ ; or can I convince one by “selling up” the concept? – How do I ‘sell up’ – hard business case, or soft benefits? – How do I overcome the misperceptions?  2) Can that holistic enterprise process approach also serve the needs of ‘quality’ ? (ISO Certification + ) – Can ‘Global IT’ and ‘Global Quality’ really work together? – Can one combined process/quality system work, or is it better to keep them separate? – How do we avoid hanging ourselves in the ISO Audit?
  4. 4. 3©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved. Setting the Stage: Company Overview  ~ $30 billion revenue  150,000+ employees  Operations in 100+ countries  Each country has a Country President accountable for business performance in that country  Revenue roughly equal split between (1) Western Europe, (2) North America, (3) Asia Pacific, and (4) the rest of the world In other words: it is a big, diverse, fragmented company that spans the globe . . .
  5. 5. 4©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved. Setting the Stage: Brief History  Over 100 years of growth by acquisition + organic growth  Prior to ~2008, operated as completely separate companies  ‘One Company’ program in 2009-2011 – Goal: operate as ‘One’ to deliver multi-business solutions – reorganized around Country Presidents and Global Functions – MANY exceptions – complex multi-dimensional matrix organization  Enterprise Process Model created in ~2009 to support ‘One’ ‘semi functional’ architecture to be consistent with the re-org – Introduced global process owners – with near-zero budget  New company program for 2012-2014 structured in ‘initiatives’ – Process model and owners in the background, not emphasized – Initiatives are implemented and managed locally (fragmented) – Many initiatives not fully implemented or don’t ‘stick’  Global SAP implementation abandoned in ~ 2011 – growth and changes in the business – delays and complexities of many local ‘customization’ requirements
  6. 6. 5©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved. Status: Let’s Use the Hammer PEMM™! Enabler Generalized Status Design Purpose Context Documentation EPM is defined and available on Intranet . . . but largely unknown 14 Level 1 processes, plus “end-to-end flows”, structured around functional ownership Roughly half are designed to Level 3 including connections to other processes Many struggle to articulate the basic customer value or business purpose Performers Knowledge Skills Behavior Work is generally fragmented and “specialized” and moving in that direction Skills training is usually handled separately by functional area and/or locally Performers are aligned to their function first, “process” is an afterthought Owner Identity Activities Authority Ownership vs. EPM: 3/4 Named ; 1/2 Engaged ; 0 have adequate budget Empowerment of Process Owners is generally left to the Owners themselves Authority of owners not recognized in the business Some “networks of excellence” ; no top-level “Process Council” Infrastructure Info Systems HR Systems “Digitization” is top priority, mainly focused on customer interface IT systems generally dominate Process Owner’s time and attention HR Systems are fragmented – job descriptions localized, incentive programs misaligned Metrics Definition Uses We suffer from “KPI Overload” – no shortage of metrics! Most metrics are internally oriented, traditional cost and quality measures Performance measured locally, results are closely guarded secret, not shared globally ‘Process’ not viewed holistically like this model
  7. 7. 6©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved. Vision: All Results Come from Processes Corporate Strategy and Control (governing processes) Core Processes / Business Models / Value Chains Supporting or Enabling processes Core Process Business Model Value Stream Results for Customers = Customer Satisfaction Results for Shareholders = Stock Value Results for Employees = Employee Satisfaction Customer Needs Shareholder Needs Employee Needs Suppliers
  8. 8. 7©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved. Global / Local Design - Vision ● One and only one Enterprise Process for every output, in a consistent architecture ● High level global framework for consistency and common language ● Local operations must meet the higher level objectives and rules, but are free to add local specifics as needed Global: Process Sponsor, Owner, Driver, Team, Advocates, Steering Committee Level 1 – high level flow with major business outcomes, policies Level 2 – mid-level flow, interfaces, objectives, directives Level 3 – major activities, roles, tools, business rules, decisions, deliverables/outputs 1 2 4 5 Level 4 – tasks -- local business rules, tools, etc. Level 5 – steps – procedures / work instructions Local: Sponsor, Owner=Global Advocate, Champions, Teams, Actors 3
  9. 9. 8©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved. Enterprise Maturity Assessment Enabler Generalized Status Leadership Awareness Alignment Behavior Style Senior leadership wants operational performance AND agility ; sees ‘process’ as an enabler for efficiency but an obstacle to agility Leadership for process lies in middle management ranks Improvement efforts not expressed in ‘process’ terms Decision rights of Process Owners not formalized Culture Teamwork Customer Focus Responsibility Change Strong culture of teamwork . . . at the local level A lot of talk about ‘customers’ and some islands of strong results Employees accountable only for their little piece Incentive plans are based partly on enterprise results “If you don’t like today’s change, just wait until tomorrow . . . .” Expertise People Methodology Process design / improvement teams are fragmented, inconsistent There is a defined ‘Process of Process Management’ but it is not used Many similar but different methodologies for “process improvement” Improvement is “initiative based” not “process based” Governance Process Model Accountability Integration EPM is defined and available, communication and use is limited Process Owners not accountable for performance Process Program Office is very loose, informal network No formal ‘Process Council’
  10. 10. 9©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved. 1. How Do We Get Executive Sponsorship?  Can we do enterprise-level process management without CEO-level leadership?  Do we need a leader who just ‘gets it’ ; or can I convince one by ‘selling up’ the concept?  To ‘sell up’ – do you try to put hard numbers on it; or explain the soft concept of how the approach leads to results?  Is the process approach inherently incompatible with entrepreneurial, agile operations? How do we reconcile this?  We understand that we really need results; ‘process’ is just a way to get there. How do we make that connection?  Is there some new ‘magic word’ that will get away from the negative connotations of ‘process’ and resonate better with the business? For example, ‘capabilities’ ?
  11. 11. 10©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved. Current Situation with Respect to Quality Management System  Quality Management System (QMS) is separate from process management system – separate documentation, audit teams, repository, etc.  QMS and ISO Certifications are generally handled separately / locally . . . But we recognize the huge savings potential of one global system and certification  Global Quality team has some big concerns about using the process management system for ISO Certifications: – document control: some process documents not well controlled – implementation status: global processes are not fully implemented in all locations – too much information: process models provide more detail than needed for ISO requirements, providing enough rope to hang ourselves
  12. 12. 11©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved. ‘Process’ and ‘Quality’: Two Separate Views of the Same Thing Global Process System Global high-level EPM + local details Documented in global ‘Process Guide’ repository, based on process models Includes ‘optional’ information that is helpful but not always ‘mandatory’ Loosely controlled, “a rough draft is better than nothing” “Near-Term To-Be” global processes – not yet implemented in all locations Too much information to pass an audit? Global Quality System Global Quality Manual and Policies + local work instructions Documented in ‘global quality database’ based on policy / directives / procedures Limited to minimum requirements, to pass audit cleanly Very tightly controlled; “nothing is better than an unapproved draft” Strictly ‘As-Is’ documentation; future- state not yet implemented = a finding Not enough information to be useful for operations? Managed by ‘Global IT’ Managed by ‘Global Quality’ (reporting in to Global Supply Chain)
  13. 13. 12©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved. 2. Can Process and Quality Co-exist in One Holistic Approach?  Is it possible to have one system that addresses both ‘process’ and ‘quality’ needs? (specifically, ISO Certification), or is it better to keep them separate?  The general approach for ISO Certification is to document the minimum to meet the requirements; but ‘process’ needs more than that for effective operations. How do we reconcile this in one system?  Most quality systems focus on policy and directives, with minimal process models / flows. The process architecture depends on the concept of processes and sub-processes. How do we reconcile this in one system?  Have you seen it work in the real world?