The tough, tough loss by the Celtics last night against a tough, tough defense of the Lakers had two sure results – (1) my start to writing today’s article would be very late (2) Pat Riley, the former NBA coach and trademark owner of the term/slogan “Three-peat” will make millions of dollars in licensing fees next year when the Lakers pursue their 3rd consecutive championship. I was never a big fan of ‘Riles’ but his business sense proves out that there can be real value in words, an idea I really like. I hope you find real value in the words on CPO Rising.
Speaking of Three-p…s (no trademark infringement here!), I hit my own trifecta next week when I return to Milan for the third consecutive year to keynote the Economist’s CPO Forum, an event that has advanced by leaps and bounds since its premiere in ‘08. I hope Eyjafjallajökull stays quiet this time (here’s what happened last time I was in Italy).
Today’s article continues Wednesday’s discussion of one universal procurement challenge which proposed that
When you talk to procurement organizations large and small about the primary challenges that impede that group’s ability to “take it to the next level,” certain common themes rise quickly to the surface. We’ll talk about a few over the next couple of articles and the strategies that leading CPOs employ to overcome them. Here we start with one that remains near the top of the list in good times and in bad: the misalignment of systems and processes.
I believe this problem has impeded the adoption of supply management solutions by enterprises and I know this problem has impeded the overall adoption of supply management solutions by users within the enterprise. One process design approach that creates this challenge is when project or process teams dream big and aim to play big with dynamic, robust but overly-complex designs; designs that look good on paper but when viewed through the looking glass out in the field are well-beyond even the best intentions of the practitioners, the doers.
The second approach (and, there are more than two) to process design that is designed to fail is the approach that lacks any contemplation of change management support and new process training. In this instance, the final process that is mapped in the solution may be modest and seem reasonable on paper to the design team (and third-party observers). But, it is my experience that moving legacy, off-line processes into an online application is viewed by many, if not most, practitioners as a huge and disruptive change. And, it is the underestimation of the amount of change management that will be needed that ultimately defeats many process automation initiatives.
Ironically, the final process may not differ by significant degree from the defined process – you know, the one found in the process manual that was presented to each employee on Day 1. You know, the process that was never really discussed and never really followed. Where is that manual now? Try the bottom of one of your lower desk drawers, under those expense reports and the benefits policy docs from the last three years…. Even if the process has been discussed and followed, in this scenario, problems can still arise because most practitioners, intentionally or not, put their own unique signature on the work that they do and the processes that they follow. In an environment where a process-focus does not trump all (and that is most environments), there tends to be huge variance in the degree that the standard, legacy processes are followed. Not by design and there’s usually an absence of malice – it is just difficult to track and understand the offline process that someone is following because there is no visibility (This is one reason why you wanted to automate in the first place). But this means that the final, automated process is generally viewed as “new” because in reality, it is new to the practitioner.
A few ideas in how to avoid the misalignment of systems and processes – (1) Get the process right before thinking about the technology by laying significant groundwork, involving the doers in the design and vetting the design in the field (2) Never lose sight of the process objective (what you are trying to achieve by doing the activity in the first place) and take a “results first” focus on process design (3) Understand that the success of the initiative is probably more tied to success in change management than in getting the design ‘right.’
Finally, I think it is very important to really do your best to take a hatchet to the process as often as you can throughout the Design stage. Whenever there is a pause in a design session or the design process, take a step back and swing that hatchet. Cut some steps, review, repeat. Then do it again and again and again. You probably won’t go too far. And if you realize that you did cut too close to the bone, you are better off adding steps back after the fact, than pushing an unwieldy process on the unsuspecting masses.
I had great lunch this week with “friend of the site” and procurement leader, Roy Anderson, and although we didn’t touch upon processes and systems this time, I am reminded of other conversations where he has shared his very straightforward take on process design – Simplify, Eliminate, and Automate. Simplify the process, eliminate the valueless (i.e. eliminate the process that doesn’t make sense at all) and automate the mundane. Sage advice from a true leader.
Let me ask, how have you avoided the misalignment of your systems and processes?
