It’s been a while (too long) since I last posted. It has been a very busy time over the past few months – I’m not sure if this is because of or despite the current economic climate, however our technology just appears to be more relevant all of the time.

Irrespective of the actual technologies in use out there - there are many techniques and approaches in use across the public and private sectors. Whilst there is a lot of debate around which ones are best, I see many of them as related and actually supporting each other to deliver successful outcomes.

1. Systems Thinking (rather than Lean which is more manufacturing oriented)
   I particularly like the concepts around “Value Demand” and “Failure Demand” from Systems Thinking. Whilst some of the debates allied to this approach can be somewhat “confrontational” – there is undoubtedly a lot of benefit in the approach and very many supporters out there.To put it simply, Value Demand happens when a customer, client or citizen asks an organization for something that is beneficial to them. Failure Demand happens when there is failure to deliver the requested service, and this creates a service demand to deal with that request. Thus whilst “service desks” provide what they believe to be a beneficial service – they often exist to deal with the consequences of failure demand. This is the type of interaction which is measured through the infamous NI14 indicator.

   In the “Systems Thinking” view of the world, the best way to visualize what your complaints department or support service desk should be, is more akin to the video advertisement showing the Carlsberg “Complaints Department”.

   This technique also encourages a whole-system view of the world, appreciating that things are linked – and that we should fix the whole rather than fixing isolated pockets of operation – i.e. problems, not symptoms. In many respects this is linked to the infamous BPR (Business Process Re-engineering by Hammer and Champy), which unfortunately became associated with many of the major organizational changes linked to downsizing.

   Fundamentally Value Demand vs Failure Demand is based on simple concepts, which can be applied by anyone in any organization. If you spend more of your time dealing with failure demand than value demand – you’ve got a problem!

2. Business Process Modeling
   As described – this is now a well established technique. If you don’t think that business processes are important in your world, then think “service modeling”. Services are what organizations deliver, and consist of one or more business processes which represent the cross-cutting actions that your organization takes to accomplish the desired outcome. For many years we have talked about the “supply chain” – this is nothing more than the collection of business processes spanning organizations to deliver what a customer requests.In addition to simple process flows – swimlane diagrams can be used to represent different views of the process – e.g. by participant, by timeline, by cost – so that the process can be analyzed according to the relevant criteria. These help to visualize the issues at hand, crystallizing the problem and hopefully leading towards a solution. Thus modeling the “to be” process allows the organization to understand the impact of the change before it actually takes place.
3. Rough Cut ABC
   In many respects this is a variant of aspects of Systems Thinking, and utilizes Business Process Modeling techniques. In this approach activities within a process are broken into Value Adding(VA), Non-Value Adding (NVA) and Sustaining Non Value Adding (SNVA).Clearly the objective is to eliminate waste or NVA tasks (as in Lean), as they incur cost – and add no value. When analyzing processes and classifying activities within them – perhaps you should consider whether an entire process is adding value or not. Analyzing processes is critical to this technique, and leads to insight as to the detail of the process, however it is important to ensure that you retain perspective on the overall purpose of the process.

   Another challenge in this area going from “as is” towards “to be”- is that you may also need a vision of where you are trying to get to – this is the transformational element of the technique. All too often if this step-change is not sought, organizations just end up with something that is a bit better than what went before.

4. Hot-housing
   This brings together a number of the techniques referred to above, however definitely leverages them in a VERY compelling manner. There are some similarities to the Kaizen Blitz Event – but there are some particular aspects of hot-housing which make it quite different and quite compelling!The hot-house event adds one ingredient in particular which really moves things up a gear – competition! Competition is one of the most important factors to drive us as individuals and organizations towards success.

   Another aspect of hot-housing is immediacy – both in terms of the presence and availability of key stakeholders, but also in terms of the time-line over which it takes place. Timing is ALL important – neither too short nor too long.

   How many projects get kicked off that probably ought not see the light of day? Unless there is a viable and tangible benefit to be had which can be realized then there is no point in progressing further.

   Finally – if you read many National Audit Office reports in relation to project failure – an oft-quoted critical factor is lack of clear senior management leadership and buy-in. This is one of the intrinsic features of Hot-housing – you can’t start a hot-house without it!

5. Agile
   Finally – all of what has gone before are just pre-ambles to delivery. Unless you can actually deliver on your vision, then you have incurred cost for no discernible value.Many projects begin by promising “jam tomorrow”. Costs are incurred now, but benefits will be realized later – (hopefully). Tracking progress is difficult because nothing has been realized as yet, except cost.

   Unfortunately we live in the real world – things change – methodologies which work on a “freeze-frame” view of the wider world, particularly one which is convulsed in economic change at present – presents very different challenges than were envisaged at the outset.

   Methodologies which can cope with change, and can deal with re-prioritization and discovering what works for all concerned, definitely respond better to reality.

   Constantly witnessing the evolution of project delivery, and obtaining value at the required stages – ensures that organizations stay the course on projects. Beginning a project with a defined duration and drop-points sets realistic expectations which are achieved in a relevant time-scale. Prioritization of business benefit versus cost is a more realistic way to run projects compared to an unending project. Equally agile delivery avoids the often encountered scope-creep whereby there is another “opportunity” identified, which requires another feature to be delivered, which adds more cost – and inevitably delays the project further.

   Agile is not a revolution, it is just a realization that simple techniques can be routinely applied to achieve successful projects on an ongoing basis.

6. Conclusion
   There are a wide range of techniques out there today, many of which are supportive of one another. A number of these are now well established, however emerging techniques are very worth while evaluating and using.The concepts and techniques behind Systems Thinking are simple and effective. Hot-housing is an effective way to solve business problems and initiate justifiable projects. Agile is a proven way to run and manage projects with effective controls, delivering in a time-scale that is pertinent to the organization. I commend them all to you.

With the introduction of the new National Indicators, including National Indicator 14 – “reducing avoidable contact”, I thought it appropriate to pick up on this topic once more, both in terms of collation of metrics and in relation to tackling this problem holistically.

Initially local authorities will be looking to bench-mark where they are at on this front, primarily using CRM platforms or alternatively using sampling techniques. Whilst this is the start point for many organisations – this assumes that all contacts will initially go through CRM-enabled access points.

(more…)

Obviously everyone is aware that the Olympics have been going on, if not, you must be disconnected from just about every form of human communications available today. Whilst all this was going on in China, thousands of miles away on the other side of the planet, I could still get live feeds via the web of the events, and could watch events on demand via digital TV (thanks BBC – great service!)

(more…)

What is meant by the term ‘Case Management’? It seems to mean different things to different people, so I thought I’d try to clarify the term based on my own experience working on public sector projects. I think perhaps the best way to define it is by example – by showing the type of problems that it can solve, writes Paul O’Neill.

(more…)

Having attended several Public Sector events lately I noticed a number of recurring themes – improving the level of service provided, ‘joining-up’ these services more effectively and, in the UK, meeting the Efficiency Agenda by reducing costs.

Several keynote presenters spoke about the steps required to achieve these goals and one element that was continually highlighted was the need for government departments to both streamline and improve their processes.

(more…)

View this video if you are in the Local Government. It’s a good example of how to use BPM software to improve your delivery of services to citizens.