In the world of continuous improvement, sometimes the problem is not an inefficient process but rather a lack of the process.
How to approach such a case? What are the key components needed to design and implement effective and sustainable business processes?
Let me point to five of them that, from my experience, are the most important.
Purpose
As with all initiatives and actions, we should first ask ourselves: Why? Why are we working on this? What is the intended purpose and expected outcome of this future process?
My recommendation is to define both very carefully. Focusing more on the direct, first-level purpose of the process and less on the next-level business benefits. Point very tangible and observable outcomes and not a broad and vague wish list.
Example
Business case: The effectiveness of improvement projects within the organization is reduced due to a lack of engagement and support from project requestors (also known as champions or sponsors). We would like to implement a process of assessing sponsors’ support by project leaders.
Potential purpose of the new process: To increase engagement and supportiveness of the project sponsors.
Potential outcome: Sponsors of all projects within the organization receive formal, written feedback from project teams and leaders, and this feedback is included in sponsors’ yearly performance discussions with their managers
Please note that the outcome in the example above is just one of the potential outcomes that may be defined for such a case.
I can also envision a “lighter” approach (e.g., staying on the level of delivering feedback to sponsors, not mentioning yearly performance reviews) as well as a more comprehensive one (e.g., aiming to achieve specific engagement scores or metrics, not just “discussions” as stated above).
It all depends on the actual business needs and, to some extent, reflects the scope of the new process as well. Is it just about collecting and delivering feedback? Or also ensuring that this feedback will be reviewed? Just reviewed or seriously taken into account to trigger improvements?
Whatever is needed – let’s be crystal clear here!
Design
This is the most obvious part of designing new processes. A variety of tools and concepts are practiced here, ranging from simple RACI matrix to different types of process maps and flowcharts and up to formal BPMN techniques.
I am not planning to go into details about those tools and techniques, but let me share instead a critical aspect to consider in all of them: the level of detail.
We can design any given process using any given tool by defining and describing every single activity and step to be taken within the new process. Specifying exactly how to do the task, which tools to use, and when, listing all potential results and all paths behind them. Such an approach will ensure high consistency in the output of the process, making it easier to learn (or automate) and monitor after deployment.
On the other hand, we can define only the key process steps that are crucial for the purpose and outcome of the new process, describe them at a high level, and leave the details for the people acting within the process (or deploying it to different teams and sub-teams). This will ensure the flexibility of the process, allowing it to operate in conditions that may not be predicted by “designers” and, at the same time, increase the chance of acceptance of the new process.
Which version is better? It depends! Depends on the nature of the process, on the maturity level of the personnel, on the diversity of cultures practicing the process, on the “predictability” of the environment around the process, and many more.
Example process of assessing sponsors’ support by project leaders
We can define the questions to be asked, set the IT platform to collect answers, specify the times when they need to be provided, etc.
Or we can define just the questions and leave the remaining details to be determined by the local team implementing this process in different parts of the organization (ensuring that the overall purpose and outcome of the process will be met)
Whatever level of detail you choose – it matters and has an impact on the success of the process!
Buy-In
Even a perfectly designed process with a carefully selected level of detail will not deliver the expected outcome if it is not actually executed. If the people who are supposed to act according to the new process refuse to do so (more or less openly).
Acceptance of the new process by all future process actors and stakeholders should be considered as equally important as the actual process design. There is a whole discipline offering proven concepts, tools, and working models to support the process of accepting the new way of working: Change Management.
Unfortunately, it is practiced more often in large, substantial, and organization-wide changes. In more minor cases, it is usually considered as “not needed” and replaced by a “top-down approach.” This means, in practice, presenting a newly designed process to decision-makers and – once approved – pushing it down to the actual process actors in the form of procedures, instructions, and KPIs to follow. Sometimes also “supported” by escalation paths, individual goal settings, and disciplinary actions for those not following the new process…
It may indeed work to some extent in some situations. But a “bottom-up” approach would be much more effective. It is about designing the process in such a way that the new way of working will not be perceived by people as a burden, loss, or new duty to fulfill for abstract reasons. Instead, let’s try to integrate new tasks smoothly into the current way of working, finding a way to disturb it minimally. Let’s build interconnections with other, already established processes, where one process can trigger and support another. Let’s connect new tasks with people’s personal goals and preferences, identifying and highlighting benefits they may gain from the new process.
Example process of assessing sponsors’ support by project leaders
Let’s point out the long-term benefit for project leaders of having more supportive project sponsors in future projects.
Let’s ensure they are comfortable providing feedback, for example, by ensuring anonymity if needed.
Let’s make the feedback process as easy as possible, embedded, for example, into the Project Management software or database currently in use by Project Leaders.
Whatever approach you choose (including any blend of them) – let’s consider it carefully and deliver it effectively to ensure that your new process is actually practiced by all who need to do it.
Support
Initial acceptance of the new process may fade away if people will find it difficult. Either at the start of the implementation phase, when some details would not be clearly communicated – or after some time, when those details will be forgotten and hard to find.
Let’s avoid it by providing extensive support for the process in many ways and forms:
- Training sessions to help people learn new ways of working
- Flow diagrams to visualize the new process as a whole and relate all actions to the overall outcome
- Instructions, procedures, and manuals as reference for all required details
- Quick “cheat sheets” and Frequently Asked Questions to help grasp essentials of the process
- And many more…
What is essential is to ensure that all of those items are prepared and delivered with a supportive mindset. To support people working in the new process, not to satisfy any internal or external documentation policies and regulations.
Let’s make them user-friendly, easy to find, using plain language without acronyms or jargon, and – very important – keep them up to date.
This is also the time to look back – if a massive amount of explanations are needed to operate the new process, maybe the design is weak, counterintuitive, and cumbersome.
Example process of assessing sponsors’ support by project leaders
When feedback from surveys is presented to the specific Project Sponsor, a relevant document is also linked, explaining how to interpret the survey results, which skills may need improvement depending on the results, and what materials can be used to address these needs.
Whatever would be your support materials and methods for the new process – make sure to consult them with the actual process users. Are they helpful to them? Easy to find and follow? What is still missing?
Being part of the team designing a new process, it is very easy to fall into the trap of assuming that everyone has as deep knowledge about process details as you do – and that no additional materials are needed.
Reinforcement
It is time for the last element of my personal five pillars of effective new process introduction – ensuring that all previous elements remain, are continuously considered essential for the organization, and hopefully, ultimately become its DNA.
This task is usually in the hands of the organization’s management team and typically is handled in one of three main ways.
- Rather enforcement than reinforcement: pushing down the new process as orders or procedures to follow, with relevant KPIs to monitor and add to the individual performance goals (as mentioned also above in the BUY-IN section).
- Actual reinforcement: elevating and praising (even verbally) good practices related to the new process, making them part of wider recognition programs, discussing them as factors in personal development plans, etc.
- Culture building (I think we can also say: “peer reinforcement”): ensuring that the new process is well-embedded into the company culture (the existing one or the one to be adjusted to encompass the new process). This means that people (both leaders and individual contributors) truly agree and believe in the purpose of the new process; they intrinsically would like to follow it and see this as the natural, obvious thing to do. Spontaneously correcting each other in case of mistakes or oversights.
The list above appears to be sorted from least to most preferable, but that is not the case in practice. Indeed, we would all like to rely on the company culture, with all leaders behaving as role models of it – but in reality, it is hard to achieve and sustain. Additionally, it is impossible to have a company-wide culture encompassing all details of every potential process within the organization…
Some enforcement, especially at the start, may be needed.
It is crucial, however, not to stop there and consider a variety of methods that would remind the organization about the importance of the new process. Leaders asking for key elements in their daily meetings, showcasing them in their own practice, putting priorities to work of making support materials up to date, etc.
Whatever works best in your organization and for your new process.
Summary
I firmly believe that considering those five pillars in any new business process introduction will make it more efficient, effective, and sustainable.
What would you add to the list?
Process Excellence Coaching & Consulting 
Leave a comment