Scenario 2:  Van marked “Police” races past me and runs a full red light while I stop.  This was a “work detail” van – roadside trash collection with prison labor. No burglary in progress.  No crime to prevent.  Just a red light to run.

For whom are rules, laws and processes created?

Are they only created for those of us who are ruled, governed, managed or directed?

Or, are they created for all of us?

Think of this the next time you in management create a rule, process, directive, mandate, etc.  Are you to be subjected to this same set of policies?  Are you part of the picture?  Or, are you just a glorious ruling body, passing down dictates that you don’t have to follow and won’t follow?

Never trust a disembodied ruler.  Never trust someone who pours medicine down your throat while they keep their own teeth clinched behind tight, pursed lips.

1. Do you do project-level investment analysis of any kind (payback period, ROI, IRR, etc)?
2. Do you calculate a predicted ROI or IRR for your BPM projects before they are started?
3. Is a formal, predicted ROI or IRR a requirement for approval/funding?
4. Do you measure post-implementation ROI or IRR?
5. As you calculate the present value of your net benefit stream for your investment measures, do you cap the number of future years you will project out?
6. How long (number of years) is the typical benefit stream that you feel comfortable calculating?
7. What discount-rate ranges (interest rates, cost of capital, etc) do you use for your NPV calculations?
8. What investment levels (e.g., IRR levels) do you consider borderline for project approval?
9. What investment levels make you dance with glee?

Well over a decade ago, we determined that workflow projects met or exceeded ROI expectations about 90% of the time.  A BPMS is not a workflow tool, and this is 2009 – a lot of the low-hanging fruit is gone.  Are you seeing the same level of investment performance?

Let me hear from you, and thanks!

The ladybugs were an experiment; they were a way to get rid of the insects that were devastating the local plants.  The thinking went like this, “Hey!  Let’s bring in something that will eat the things that are eating the plants!”  So, zillions of ladybugs later, we have created a ladybug paradise:  Lots to eat and lots of warm houses into which to crawl.  Everywhere I went, I just had to say “ladybugs” and – like a secret handshake – everyone knew what I was doing with my spare time.  The ladybug problem is well-known up here.  The vacuum cleaner guys love it.

Somehow, I believe this ladybug problem is not limited to the great outdoors. Think of the last time you created a process to fix something that was broken.  Are you thinking?  Did the process work as intended?  It did?  Great!   Oh, what’s that?  It didn’t?  Did the new process, designed as “the solution,” create problems all its own?  It did?  Hmmm…

Sometimes, we rush to solution and the solution is just as bad (or worse) than the original problem.  I have seen it too many times.  Certainly, this is not the norm, but every now and then a process solution will be a process nightmare.  Sometimes, “the cure is worse than the disease.”  For instance, your doctor could easily solve a high blood pressure problem by raking a scalpel across any of your major arteries, but that is hardly an optimal solution and he would never even consider it (unless acting in an Ed Wood movie).  No, what you want is a process solution that follows the same oath that your doctor follows:  “Do no harm.”  Your process interventions, just like medical interventions should “do no harm.”  One way to ensure that you do no harm is to pre-test and simulate the process.  Simulation lets you see all the bugs before you go live and hurt someone.  Sure, you won’t catch everything, but what you do catch can be fixed before you release your process into the wild.

As for me, I don’t want to see any more bugs… not for a very long time.  But, I don’t think I’ll get my wish.  I just hope my new vacuum holds up under the stress.

One thing that struck me was the IT department’s logo, if you will.  Here, the IT department is known as i.t. – little i, little t.

i.t.

Not IT…

Just i.t.

Little i.

Little t.

I had never seen this before.  This company pursues a different course of business and i.t. clearly sees itself as being a servant to the business.  I guess it even reflects in their name and the way they define themselves.

Little i, little t.

i.t. made a big impression on me.

Now think about your process environment.  How much thought do you give to the names you give to your processes?  Consider the difference between these two process names:

1. Employee asset assignment, standard-image configuration, and usage-policy-compliance assurance
2. Set up and deliver new laptop computer

The first example – Employee asset assignment, standard-image configuration, and usage-policy-compliance assurance – reeks of value-laden terms: “asset,” “standard,” “compliance,” “assurance.”  The tone of the process is forbidding.  The second example – Set up and deliver new laptop computer – sounds like something I might actually like.  Would you ever imagine that these are alternative names for the same process?  Unlikely.  But, they are, or could be if this were a real example that mirrors some of the nutty stuff I have seen before.

Maybe this is a nit, but your processes should be named with caution.  If you create a process for underwriting a loan and instead of calling it “underwriting,” you call it “regulatory-driven analysis of loan propensity to default post-funding,” you are probably making a grave mistake. Don’t scare your people off with overly-draconian process names.  Sure you should worry about the process outcome, but don’t put that in the name.  That would be like calling a school bus a “rolling yellow metal framework for legal transport of minors to resident educational facility.”  That just sounds like junk, and you shouldn’t buy it.

Food for thought?

Please limit to BPM-related stuff.

thanks!

As an exercise, write down the five processes that you hate the most.  Then annotate the top three reasons that you hate each process.  Here’s mine to kick it off:

PROCESS: Car Browsing/Buying Process

1. Why I hate it #1 – It feels like a game where I’m a pawn, the dealership has all the bishops, and I can’t remember how en passant works.
2. Why I hate it #2 – It feels unfair, even when I have Edmunds.com’s prices and negotiating points memorized.
3. Why I hate it #3 – It feels random, as if reality is somehow distorted by the excess presence of bad haircuts and drug store cologne.

Why go through this effort?  First, this list-making exercise is highly therapeutic – ask any licensed psychologist.  Second, it makes you assess your own process ethics.  For instance, if you see my list and say, “Hey!  Those are good process attributes for a seller-buyer relationship,” then you view processes as weapons, and you are obviously not “the buyer.” I view processes as social interactions. It’s nice to know where we each stand.  Third, a list like this will make you pay more attention to your own process design criteria.  If you don’t like it, then don’t do it to someone else. 

So, maybe I’ll buy a car in 2010 or so.  First, I have to let my skin heal.  Lye soap really burns.

Well, the old rules came back, didn’t they? 

Now, we hear the same message: “The old rules don’t apply.”  Stocks only go down, income only goes down, house prices only go down.  How long do beans and rice last in storage?  No one will buy, no banks will survive, nothing works.  The old rules don’t apply.  No one to lend, no one to borrow, no assets, no future.  We are on the cusp of a new economy – everything is new and different.  The old rules don’t apply.

Well, the old rules will come back, won’t they?

They will.  The rules never really went away. We just forgot them.  We just subdued them. We just didn’t grasp the bigger picture of economic cycles and waves and mistakes and remission and recovery and rebirth.

The underlying economic, social, cultural, political and ethical rules are a lot harder to change than we give them credit for.

The rules still apply.  Ride the current economic wave with dignity and with perspective.  The rules are still there, and they are still at work.  We are not the ones who will break the system.  We are not.

No concern for rules, regulations or compliance – The Stooges never let the law get in their way.  They never worried about legality, best practices, rules, regulations, compliance or anything that smacked of proper protocol.   Think of how much time that mentality would save on your process efforts.  No need to address someone else’s concerns or requirements.  Never mind that The Stooges were constantly being arrested or threatened with arrest.  Look at the time savings if you just shoot from the hip! “Nyuk!”

No concern for change management – The Stooges were masters at the quick change, but terrible at change management.  Their view of change was simple: “Put on a dress and sneak past the bad guys!” I bet they would bring that mentality to the BPM world.  Just change it.  Do it! Do it now!  Don’t worry about the impact, you knucklehead!  “Nyuk, Nyuk!”

No concern for quality – The Stooges never really cared about the final quality of their products or services.  They would pretend to be fine waiters, or service station attendants, or pest control experts, but they invariably failed.  They would serve old shoes to their diner patrons, blow up a car by pouring gas in the radiator, or tear all the plaster out of a house as they chased a single mouse.  They pretended to care, but really didn’t.  Anything to get the job done – that was the motto.  That was the heart of The Stooges’ comedy.  “Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk!”

The Bottom Line?  The Stooges would have been great as BPM experts in a comedy short, had the actors lived long enough.  There would be nothing funnier than seeing Moe smack Larry with a copy of Steven and Derek’s BPMN book.  And imagine Curly taking a crowbar to a business rule engine!  Priceless.  That’s fine comedy, regardless of your genetic structure.

But the real bottom line is this: “Are some of your process efforts reminiscent of the work of The Stooges?”  Have you overlooked rules, regulations and compliance? Have you skipped the change management details?  Are you serving up old shoes instead of process innovation?  Are you running a comedy show and calling it a Business Process Competency Center? 

If you look at your current process efforts and a little voice in your head goes, “Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk!”  you might want to rethink what you’ve done so far, before you get a poke in the eyes or a 2×4 across your backside.  Leave the classic Stooge’s comedy shorts to the DVD player.  This isn’t the 1930s and you’re nowhere near as skilled at comedy as the late team of Howard, Howard and Fine, rest their brilliant, silly souls.