1. Why We Had to Write This Book
Fosdick's thesis
just when process orientation has become mainstream thinking for business
people and systems people alike, it seems that the flow of processoriented
literature has pretty well stopped. So here we are, thousands of us, up
to our necks in process improvement and information systems projects,
finding that there is a real shortage of practical, how-to information.
The irony of this situation was described in Howard Fosdick's terrific
1992 article, "The Sociology of Technology Adaptation."[ 1 ]
Our book isn't a book about technology, but there is a connection-the
article dealt with the adoption of new technologies, and this book deals
with the adoption of new methods and approaches for solving business problems.
The article begins with the observation that when any significant new
technology appears on the scene, it receives widespread publicity in the
information technology (IT) arena. This attention could be displayed graphically
(see Figure 1.1) in a publicity vector measured by such attributes as:
the number of articles on the technology in the trade press, the frequency
of conferences on the topic, how many industry analysts discuss the technology,
to what degree vendor sales pieces and ads employ the technology's terminology,
and similar measurements. This curve initially rises steeply, but the
high degree of publicity received by the technology is completely disproportionate
to the usability of the technology and the number of people and organizations
doing anything more than just talking about it. However, if the new technology
takes hold and becomes widely used, as depicted by the rising usability
curve, itseems to fall off the collective radar screen of the various
publicity machines, and the publicity vector moves back towards zero.
This happens, of course, because it's no longer a hot, new topic. Bluntly
put, once the technology is widely installed, it is evidently time to
focus on the next big thing-the consultants and IT advisory services have
made their money, and the vendors have a revenue stream in place. The
consequence is that just at the point when the most people need practical
information on the technology, the attention paid to it in publications
becomes negligible. We always, it seems, are provided with a glut of material
on the next big thing, and not enough on how to make the last big thing
actually work. Or, as Fosdick put it, "Ironically, once the technologies
achieve full maturity, supporting hundreds or even thousands of shops
on a daily basis, they receive much less attention in the media and other
publicity forums."
Process reengineering: the rise...
Fosdick made his case using examples such as relational databases and
expert systems, but the relevant example in our case is, of course, the
emergence of business processes and business process reengineering (BPR)
as important topics. The first references to cross-functional business
processes appeared in the mid-1980s, and by the early 1990s, BPR was without
question the next big thing. It was attracting the attention of executives,
managers, consultants, pundits, academics, IS professionals, and, of course,
writers of books and articles from both business and IS orientations.
These first publications covered the problems encountered by functionally
oriented organizations, the justification for becoming process-oriented,
a few soon-to-be-familiar examples, some introductory process concepts
and terminology, and if we were lucky, some actual how-to advice.
Some of this how-to-do-it material was really just an attempt-sometimes
sincere, sometimes a bit cynical-to capitalize on BPR by recasting older
methods such as business systems planning or information engineering with
a process-oriented spin. This was a familiar pattern, and as usual, the
results were not terribly useful. The other how-to material really tried
to describe the new BPx' approach, but in the end provided little more
than a high-level or broad-brush outline. The focus was on what had to
be done, but the method was unproven and there was precious little guidance
on how to actually do it. Practitioners the world over read about identifying
the core business processes, mapping the as-is process, or creatively
rethinking the process, but when they tried to put this guidance into
practice, all manner of issues and problems arose.
However, those early works did serve a purpose. In fact, they were invaluable.
They paved the way for widespread adoption by promoting process orientation
with a key audience of early adopters-executives and other decision makers-and
making it familiar and acceptable to the rest of us. Besides, how much
practical advice could we realistically expect? At that point, there simply
wasn't a large enough base of experience to draw on, and without those
books and articles to promote the concepts, there might never have been.
...And fall and rise
By the mid- to late 1990s, the term "reengineering" had fallen
out of favor (for reasons we'll review in the next chapter), and what
had been a deluge of BPR articles and books was now all but dried up.
At the time of this writing, it has become a mere trickle, but e-commerce
and e-business articles are in full flood. One could reasonably suppose
that no one cares about business processes anymore, and the whole process
phenomenon was a flash in the pan. In fact, the opposite is true-everyone
cares about business processes. Enterprises of all sizes and types-commercial,
government, and not-for-profit-are making major investments of time and
resources in the redesign of their core processes and in the implementation
of information systems to support them. More and more often, the order
is reversed-an enterprise acquires a major new information system or enterprise
application, and then redesigns its processes to take the best advantage
of it.
Either way, the same conclusions follow:
- For both businesspersons and technologists, process orientation has
become mainstream thinking.
- Whether you're business-oriented or systems-oriented (note: we hate
to even separate them, because the best IS organizations are business-oriented),
BPx and information systems are inseparable; it has been years since
we saw a process redesign project which didn't involve major information
systems effort, or conversely, since we witnessed the implementation
of a significant information system that didn't also involve redesigned
processes.
Finally, the stakes are higher than ever, for at least two reasons. First,
in some industries, effective and flexible core processes have shifted
from being a competitive differentiator to being the price of admission-they're
a mandatory requirement just to stay in business. Second, with the rise
of e-commerce, the complexity and visibility of processes are rising because
they now do not just span functional boundaries within an enterprise,
but cross the boundaries between enterprises. For instance, in the area
of supply chain management, it's not unusual to see a business process
with activities performed by the customer, the supplier, and the supplier's
supplier. We note with some glee the number of organizations that are
belatedly realizing that having a well-designed and implemented business
process is essential for success in the e-commerce arena...
|
