Café Innovation Blog

[Cross-posted from SAP Community Network: Puneet Suppal’s SAP Network Blog ]

The downturn in the economy has put many an organization in a holding pattern mode with respect to kicking off new projects. There is a wait-and-watch attitude that is taking hold. In this forum we have exhorted companies to not let the environment overshadow their strategic intent, but there will always be those who are more risk-averse than others. For these organizations, now is the time to take a harder look at their processes as a precursor to the IT projects that they will embark on when they begin to feel a little more confident. These organizations should view this as a period of preparation – even if it is one forced upon them by circumstances. For example, if you are an organization that is impressed with what you can do with SAP Business Suite 7, but would prefer to wait a few months, then now is the time to get your house in order with respect to process renewal and refinement. I know of a few who are already down that path. They have taken a position around the BPX role and have empowered these professionals to start focusing on the challenges from a holistic process view. What some of these folks might find really helpful is a discussion I happened to chance upon in the March 2009 issue of the Harvard Business Review (http://www.hbr.org/).

In the article, “When Should a Process Be Art, Not Science?“ Joseph M. Hall and M. Eric Johnson (Harvard Business Review, March 2009) present an argument that we may have gone overboard with process standardization. They state that many processes are more art than science and imposing rigid rules on them crushes innovation, and adversely impacts performance. Their arguments need to be lauded because once we start to look past our obsession with process standardization we will be able to recapture the American innovative spirit! The three key points made by them are: (i) Identify the processes that should and shouldn’t be art, (ii) Develop an infrastructure to support processes that are art, and (iii) periodically reevaluate the division between art and science. It is encouraging that now academic attention is being brought to bear on this topic!

The third point above is important because any new dynamic, such as change in competition, disruptive technology, market conditions, or a new generation of consumers/users, could disrupt status quo and redefine what should be art and what should be science. The authors acknowledge this but what needs further discussion is how quickly can an organization effect the change – art to science or vice-versa – and, do this without any significant loss of momentum?

It is not enough to be able to re-classify processes (art to science or vice-versa), just as it is not enough to merely develop an infrastructure that supports processes categorized as art. What is needed is an infrastructure that is flexible enough to quickly make the change and support the functioning of the new arrangement because a process could go from art to science or vice-versa very quickly. What is needed is an infrastructure that encompasses the necessary technology capabilities and the people aspects that will make it easier to reevaluate, reclassify, and work the new arrangement. With respect to the people aspects, a culture of process primacy needs to be in place.

We know that a lot of emphasis is given to establishing standard processes, and sometimes to new processes – but mostly during a major initiative or systems implementation. What is woefully lacking in many instances is the drive to sustain the focus on processes and to look at them end-to-end past the completion of that special corporate initiative or that major systems implementation. What is often lacking is a “business process perspective” which has been described in previous posts right here and in the community book, Process First. If the organization’s culture supports the view that process excellence is a key organizational objective, and there are individuals dedicated to working with business processes without being held hostage to technological or political limitations, then the infrastructure to support the entire range of processes – those that are science and those that are art – will be indeed effective in providing speedy relief.

This is the work that needs to happen while we wait to start big new projects.

– Puneet Suppal [Enterprise SOA Solutions & Innovation – Capgemini]

[Cross-posted from SAP Community Network: Puneet Suppal’s SAP Network Blog ]

Let us consider a hypothetical situation….

Jill Lee is seated across from her manager, Burt Litman. She has just finished explaining that as a security expert and one charged with compliance enforcement she finds the changing environment very challenging. The fact that many in the organization are punching out of the firewall to external web sources of data, and that many are spending a lot of time collaborating with peers across and beyond the organization using Facebook has left her wondering if there is any such thing as standard process in the organization. She feels that the company’s data, and implicitly its future, is being compromised with these actions – actions that she is having a hard time trying to fit in her model of acceptable process execution behavior. She is worried that the auditors are going to have a whole bunch of things to complain about. She has an idea of what should happen next but wants to first hear from her manager.

This conversation is making Burt very uncomfortable. He is not sure how to respond to her concerns. He has been a diligent and hardworking employee who has always followed the rules and has earned kudos for holding down costs while maintaining good performance levels on his team. He has seen the messages from higher up that speak of how the future is all about adopting more interactive ways of executing processes. He has heard the pitch about collaborative business models, and he has agreed with others that a more end-to-end business process view should be adopted all around. However, he is not sure what to do about it. He wonders how best to push forth on the high level direction he has received but is at a loss about how to accomplish it without sacrificing the demands of security, risk management, and of ensuring compliance.

Does this sound familiar?

In this forum we have focused on the aspects of innovation and what that means from a business process perspective. We have also touched on the topic of governance. Within this last topic is included the topic of security and compliance. Today, this assumes greater importance because with SAP Business Suite 7 we have an enhanced ability to flexibly model new processes. As we do this we break old paradigms about how certain transactions should be conducted. Should the notions about security and compliance be tied to old-fashioned ideas of what is acceptable and what is not? While there will always be some absolute “don’ts” there is ample room for the practice of security and compliance to grow and figure out new controls to match new processes. Perhaps there is a need to remodel the notion of what constitutes acceptable execution of business processes such that as processes are flexibly changed they do not constantly run into a “no compliance” zone. How can this be made easy or possible for organizations? Let us see what Jill might be thinking….

Jill was trying to piece together the rather confusing explanation she had just heard from Burt, and then decided to go boldly where she had not gone before…. She ventured to suggest something that had been percolating in her mind for some time. She proceeded to remind Burt about a presentation they had both attended. It had been given by one Shiva Vijayraj, a passionate yet reasonable evangelist for business process innovation. He had spoken about the concept of the “business process perspective” and how an organization could evolve into a Business Process Enterprise and what that meant for the future of how business processes could be flexibly improved thus continuously providing new competitive strength. She then explained to Burt that for her to do her job well and stay in tune with what was changing around them, she needed to get closer to the business process action and structure a framework that would allow for her and her team-members to weigh in with security and compliance input whenever a changed/improved process ran into an existing requirement for compliance. What this meant, she explained, was that what is acceptable today may have to be revisited tomorrow, as long as the overall objectives of compliance and security were not compromised.

“How do you propose starting down this path?” asked Burt. “I will become as much of a business process expert as anyone else so that as a process expert I see the value in an improved process before I question its acceptability from a compliance standpoint.” This was all too revolutionary for Burt, but in some strange way he could see her point. It was late and he had to get home to catch the game he had been waiting for all season. “Let us continue this discussion tomorrow,” he said and reached for the his laptop’s power cord.

Jill and Burt can wait until tomorrow; let us start this discussion today! Let us keep it going for it is important to have compliance needs working together with, and not against, those engaged in process innovation.

P.S. Please note that Jill Lee, Burt Litman, and Shiva Vijayraj are fictional characters. Any resemblance they may bear to any person living or dead is purely accidental and certainly not intentional. If you do happen to personally identify with any of these characters then please congratulate yourself for you are in a position to influence your organization’s success!

– Puneet Suppal [Enterprise SOA Solutions & Innovation – Capgemini]