![\"processes\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/processes.png?w=300\")
<\/a>\nyesterday, could not proceed without entering my PIN. Did not have a PIN, so went back one screen, set a PIN, and then proceeded. Protected.) When software doesn\u2019t support a sound underlying business process, the software will win.<\/p>\n
Software can certainly be modified to meet individual demands, but that adds cost to the purchase and implementation. The cost of wasted time and material, as well as the frustrations of those fighting it, is certainly never calculated.<\/p>\n
A textile processor’s new system was able to add lot numbers to its inventory, which greatly improved the accuracy of its raw materials accounting. However, it could no longer blend multiple lots into one production ticket. Traditionally, when one lot started to run low, a second would be added to the same order and production would continue. Once the new system was turned on, if operators didn\u2019t have enough raw material from one lot to start the next batch, they would close the ticket and start a new batch with a new lot. The remaining material, because it couldn\u2019t be accounted for in production, sat in a corner gathering dust \u2013 and sat in WIP on the general ledger until it was time to write it down.<\/h3>\nIt\u2019s Not the Software, It\u2019s the Whole System<\/h4>\n
This is not the anti-technology rambling of a cranky old man. If software fails because it does not support business processes, that only reinforces the importance of getting the fundamentals right. Good business processes are adaptable, but they too can fall short of the mark when they don\u2019t reinforce the needs of the organization.<\/p>\n
Organizations often look to off-the-shelf solutions as a cure-all. Replacing Post-It Notes with ERP won\u2019t flow materials any better if there isn\u2019t already a good method for flowing materials; a fancy-pants call distribution system won\u2019t boost Net Promoter Scores if no one understands why people call, or have a staff level ready to provide support. This is not limited to IT solutions (i.e., software): the same happens when attempting to force-fit \u201cLean Manufacturing\/Lean Office\/Lean Healthcare\u201d, Six Sigma, Agile, and so on.<\/p>\n
Obstacles to Getting It Right<\/h4>\n
As Maria von Trapp might say, let\u2019s start at the beginning. Systems are doomed for failure if they aren\u2019t focused on the right issues \u2013 whether to \u201cfix\u201d them or improve them.<\/p>\n
This begins with truly understanding the existing, current state<\/strong> – that is, how people actually get work done and interact with each other (and customers). If the current gaps are not understood, it is difficult to design the system that will close them.<\/p>\n This gets skipped when leadership believes it already knows what\u2019s happening, and it fails when an unrepresentative sample of performance is taken as gospel. (Or the software designer spends one day observing one department, or site, and extrapolates that to represent the whole.) Perhaps worse is when actual behavior and practices are ignored in favor of written documentation. All of this is as good an argument as any to bring in a good consulting team \u2013 for the objective, non-political viewpoint, and for the diligence they will put in to paint a complete picture.<\/p>\n Just because the gaps have been clearly identified, it does not mean that they will be properly closed. Business Process Management had a bad name when it was felt that processes were designed in glass towers and handed down from on high; the corrective was to drive design down to ground level. Neither approach is optimal.<\/p>\n Relying on executives or internal continuous improvement divisions \u2013 or worse, external consultants \u2013not in the trenches leads to Implementation matters \u2013 maintain a focus on change communications<\/strong>. The best-designed solutions will<\/u> fail if not properly communicated. Proper communication goes beyond the blast e-mail telling everyone change is coming; it focusses on the \u201cwhy\u201d and the impact, and needs to be frequent and comprehensive enough to minimize fear and resistance.<\/p>\n Training\/education in the new process is a must<\/strong>. This seems obvious, but is frequently engineered down in schedules and budgets, becoming ineffective.<\/p>\n Schedule time to \u201cdebug\u201d the process<\/strong>. In an Agile environment, this is likely built into the calendar. Regardless, everyone needs to recognize that no matter the effort or brainpower put into the design, or how often it works in simulation, it will<\/em> fail in the \u201creal world\u201d; people need to be prepared for that, and have a plan to make the necessary corrections.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Implementing an off-the-shelf solution to a problem without understanding the drivers behind the issues only masks the symptoms. Before replacing the gasket, Bruce should understand why it failed in the first place. Likewise, before embarking on any process improvement (including software implementation), begin by understanding the current state of affairs, and put genuine effort into finding the best alternatives.<\/p>\n Save<\/span><\/p>\n Save<\/span><\/p>\n Save<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Software sometimes makes us do stupid things just to get something done. Stop blaming the software, blame the underlying business process.<\/p>\n![\"people-coffee-notes-tea-large\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/people-coffee-notes-tea-large.jpg?w=300\")
\u201cimprovements\u201d disconnected from real business needs; putting the future entirely in the hands of those at the operating level can be perilous, as the \u201cbig picture\u201d can be hard to see. It can be a struggle for the \u201cdo-ers\u201d break from the entrenched practice and create something new. Assemble an appropriate, cross-functional and multi-level design team <\/strong>\u2013 and allow the consultants (internal or external) to facilitate, but not own, the results.<\/p>\n