The Problem
For us, it was the single most terrible thing about our jobs. Why? Because it was the antithesis of a good process – completely manual, multiple different document types through multiple channels, each step duplicating data in some way or another. It arbitrarily changed often in response to the whims of the myriad managers involved, forcing us to restart changes already in process. All of these things led to endless frustration, because we had to have this process complete before we were allowed to do our jobs. And it could take months for a change to get through. And you had to answer the same questions over and over. And we had to follow this same process, even if the change was required by directive or regulation. Oh, there was a "fast track" option, but it wasn't much better.I know, I need some cheese to go with my whine. However, it came to the point where people were threatened with discipline - up to termination - for not following it properly. In every change management meeting I attended, I would be on record saying "we need to automate this process". I repeated this phrase at least once in every meeting until it became a joke. I actually tried to find a company that would make custom Chatty Cathy doll with a recording of me saying "Automate the process!" when you pulled the pull string. I couldn't ever find one that was customizable to that extent. By the time I left the company, that process had been in place for something like six years (and I fought the thing the whole way), and it was still completely manual - and completely frustrating.
I hear you asking "Why didn't you take the reins and automate it then, Mr. Big Shot Manager?”. Believe me, I tried. I had meetings with developers, established a recommended workflow automation product, and even commissioned a fully working demo. It was ready to go. But senior management cited "other priorities", and killed it before it could go live. It never saw the light of day.
What's my point? I learned several things through this experience:
- It's the process, not the people. If you have otherwise smart people getting confused by one or more of your processes, look at the process first, not the person. This is not exactly new - I've seen it many times in many different disciplines, as far back as the TQM movement in the '90s. Actually, the concept probably came about before that, but that's when I recall first coming across it. The key is that If you have to threaten people with discipline because they're not following your process, it's time to really examine the process. Of course, you'll get folks that ignore the process or can't learn it, but then you've got a different problem to solve.
- Efficiency. You should be measuring your process to see where the bottlenecks are. Of course, it's easier to measure if you're using a workflow tool, but you still have to make sure you're capturing accurate data. Also remember point 1 – if you’re seeing a bottleneck at a particular point in the process, find out if the process can be improved before yelling at the people associated with it.
- Communication is critical. And I do mean communication, not just shooting emails at each other. I hate meetings too, but sometimes that’s the best way to get it done. Gather all of the stakeholders in one room and ask the important questions. When possible, be sure to do things like send out an agenda ahead of time so that people aren’t blind-sided. Get to the point and make sure there’s no finger pointing – just find out what’s going on so it can be fixed.
- Make it mistake-proof. The process needs to make sense and be consistently repeatable. Of course, you need a method for deviating from the process if the situation warrants it – someone needs to have the authority to authorize such a deviation in a reasonable amount of time. There are few things more frustrating than something critical stuck in an arbitrary process. Make sure to carefully document these deviations – it may indicate that a change needs to be made to the process itself.
- Automate, automate, automate! Where possible (and it makes sense) remove manual actions. Don’t make someone start the process by sending a PDF by email then make them watch a folder for the approval to come in. For some organizations, emails work fine. Others use a system like SharePoint, or a separate tool altogether. Whatever it is, make sure it fits with the existing corporate culture to facilitate adoption.
- Continuous improvement. It’s important to periodically review the metrics associated with the process (you are collecting metrics, right?). Interview the participants to see if there’s a better way to do things. Write it all down, including the reasons you’re doing things. You want to understand these things so that you can challenge the “we’ve always done it this way” mentality. If your company has a Six Sigma program, it can help to enlist their expertise in formally mapping the process and identify ways to improve it.
A Real-life Example
My most recent example is a change control process that wasn't working as well as it could (not the one I referred to above). My customer had a software development project that was at risk, and my job was to identify why and provide recommendations to right the ship. I found that a major contributing factor was their change control process. See, the development team was using agile development methodologies, wherein they would publish a version of the product into production, and the end-users would submit requests to modify the application where it didn't meet their requirements. However, they had a consistent problem – the results of those requests would come out in the next release of the product, but not be exactly correct. Follow-on requests would be submitted to fix that functionality, causing the schedule to slip further and more budget-busting funds to be spent. What I noticed was that there wasn’t a loop in their change process to verify that the requirements had been correctly captured – the requirement would go from the requester to the business analyst to the developer and into the product.Following my suggestion, they implemented a loop in which their design documents were reviewed and approved by the requester before any code was written. The first one of these we reviewed revealed that the proposed solution had missed the mark due to differing interpretations of a single word in the request.