Learning to Run E-Book

David Broadbent

• Herausgeber: Grosvenor House Publishing
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 256

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012

Beschreibung

David Broadbent presented a number of theories round a case study at the OMG 'BPM Think Tank' in November 2008 in Putten, Netherlands. The main points were that lots of organisations suffer from some or all of the following: • No Cross-functional communication or co-operation. • No understanding of the end-to-end process • No ownership of the end-to-end process • Blame culture • Silo mentality • Resistance to change • Lack of process capability maturity to actually implement change A number of those present suggested that David put his theories on culture being seen as an afterthought into a book.

Leseprobe

To my wife Sally, and my children

Sarah, Matthew, Kirstie and

Rebecca for their unfaltering love

and support, without which this

book would never have been finished.

Table of Contents

1 Foreword

2 Acknowledgements

3 Glossary

4Introduction

4.1 Introducing ‘Cultural Change’ by David Broadbent

5Changing a Business

5.1 Why do businesses change?

5.2 Why do businesses change badly?

6Business Process Capability Maturity Model

6.1 Initial

6.2 Limited

6.3 Managed

6.4 Defined

6.5 Optimised

6.6 Exercise 1 – Business Process Capability Maturity Model

7An Approach to Change

7.1 A Structured Approach

7.2 Preparation

7.2.1 Getting Started

7.2.2 The Vision

7.2.3 Gain Buy-in

7.2.4 Scope

7.2.5 Resources

7.3 Analysis

7.3.1 Setting the level playing field

7.3.2 Change Champions

7.3.3 Unknown unknowns

7.3.4 What to Analyse?

7.4 Solution Creation

7.4.1 Stage 1 Solution Creation

7.4.2 Change Products

7.4.3 Requirements

7.4.4 Stage 2 Solution Creation

7.4.5 Stage 3 – Business Impact Assessments

7.4.6 Stage 4 – Communications Plan

7.5 Strategic Solutions Implementation

7.5.1 Managing Strategic implementations (Complex Change Products)

7.5.2 Testing solutions prior to implementation

7.5.3 Operational Proving

7.5.4 Post Go-Live

7.6 Tactical Business Improvement

7.6.1 Implement Tactical Change

7.6.2 Introduction of the Eight Stage Tactical Business Improvement Process

7.7 Continual Improvement

8Critical Business Processes

8.1 Critical Business Processes

8.2 Retail Critical Business Process

8.2.1 Demand Forecast

8.2.2 Range Plan

8.2.3 Buying

8.2.4 Shipping

8.2.5 Storage

8.2.6 Sell

8.2.7 Finance

8.2.8 Review

9Process Standards

9.1 Process Levels

9.1.1 Level One – Business Lifecycle/High Level Process

9.1.2 Level Two – Operational Departmental Processes

9.1.3 Level Three – Role Processes

9.1.4 Level Four – Functional Dynamics

9.2 Enterprise Architecture

9.3 Mapping Standards

9.3.1 Business Process Modelling Notation (BPMN)

9.4 Timeline Analysis

9.5 Other Capture methods

10Part Two Introduction

11 The Journey

11.1 Background

11.2 Resistance to change

11.3 Setting the scene

11.4 Preparation

11.5 Analysis

11.6 Create Solution

11.7 Implement Solution

11.8 Exercise 2 – Change Conflicts

11.9 Outcomes

11.10 Conclusion

12 Exercises

12.1 Exercise 1

12.2 Exercise 2

13 Appendices

13.1 Appendix 1 – Business Process Components

1.3 Appendix 3 – Timeline Analysis Spreadsheet.

1.2 Appendix 2 – Testing

Images and Tables of Figures

Figure 1 – Gartner ‘meeting the challenge 2009’ and CIO Agenda 2011 report

Figure 2 – Business Process Capability Maturity Model [BPCMM]

Figure 3 – Muthu, Whitman and Cheraghi – ‘Consolidated Methodology’

Figure 4 – Agent Relationship Morphism Analysis [ARMA]

Figure 5 – Samakira Change Lifecycle Model

Figure 6 – Business Impact Assessment Cube

Figure 7 – Enterprise Architecture Model

Figure 8 – Simple Process Map

Figure 9 – Process Map with attachments

Figure 10 – Critical Business Process – the Retail Lifecycle

Figure 11 – Process Mapping Drill-Down Problem

Figure 12 – New Starter Process

Figure 13 – Level 1 Hierarchy/Lifecycle Process Map (Sec8.2

Figure 14 – Level 2 – Departmental Process

Figure 15 – Sequential and Cumulative timings

Figure 16 – Level 3 – Role Process

Figure 17 – Error Message

Figure 18 – Enterprise Architecture Model

Figure 19 – Export of the Business Process Model

Figure 20 – BPMN Swimlanes

Figure 21 – BPMN – Events

Figure 22 – Events in lanes

Figure 23 – BPMN Activities

Figure 24 – BPMN Gateways

Figure 25 – Types of objects that can hold data

Figure 26 – Timeline Analysis

Figure 27 – Cost of Non-conformance Spreadsheet

Figure 28 – Resistance to Change

Figure 29 – Throughput Analysis

Figure 30 – Salerno & Brock – Change Cycle

Figure 31 – Business Operations Model

Figure 2 – Business Process Capability Maturity Model

Figure 32 – New Starter Exercise

Figure 33 – BPMN – New Starter Process

Appendix 1 – Business Process Components

1Foreword

David Broadbent presented a case study at the European conference for Business Process Management ‘The BPM Think Tank’, hosted by the Object Management Group in November 2008 in Putten, The Netherlands.

After the presentation a number of those present suggested that David put his theories into a book. These theories explain how ‘Culture’ is often seen as an afterthought or the ‘forgotten variable’ in change programmes, and how organisations often get too ambitious to begin with and don’t fully appreciate the level of maturity of their organisation to carry out change.

The impact of culture is huge and change programmes will not have the same success without changes to culture. Just introducing a new piece of software and expecting the organisation to miraculously change ‘by itself’ is seriously flawed

Lots of organisations suffer from some or all of the following issues:

• No cross-functional communication or co-operation

• No understanding of the end-to-end process

• No ownership of the end-to-end process by senior management

• No understanding of the business process capability maturity model, or where they are on that model

• Blame culture

• Silo mentality

• Resistance to change

This book split into two halves:

Part one will take a reader who is attempting business process re-engineering for the first time through the history, mechanics and standards used to map and analyse processes. It takes the reader through the Samakira capability maturity model for business process re-engineering and has exercises to establish where your organisation currently sits on that learning curve. Lastly, it introduces the reader to the Samakira Change Cycle, which is a simple approach to complex change programmes.

Part two is a narrative based on the presentation David delivered initially at the OMG (Object Management Group) ‘BPM Think Tank Conference’ in Putten in the Netherlands in 2008, then expanded on these theories at the OMG international twentieth anniversary conference in San Antonio, Texas in September 2009. This takes the reader through not only the stages of process change, but the typical cultural issues listed above and how they were overcome. So if you have a grounding in business process change, part two might be of more significance than part one, but there may well be some pieces of use as reminders.

In a nutshell, the recipe for tackling business process change is to take a dollop of determination, a main order of intelligence, a side order of common sense and a sprinkling of humour. If you do this, many things are possible.

2Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Miss Kirstie Broadbent for assisting and creating images for this book. Also I would like to thank Mr. Benjamin Buchanan for creating the cover image.

Additionally, for this book I have referred to pieces of information from many great writers and thinkers who have studied ‘Change’. I would like to thank the following for their permission to reproduce copyright material:

Gartner – The ‘Meeting the challenge: the 2009 CIO agenda’ paper, published January 2009 and the latest CIO Agenda survey published January 21st 2011

Professor Michael Hammer and Dr John Champy – 1993 Re-Engineering the Corporation.

2008 Logica and the Economist Intelligence Unit report on business process re-engineering, Professor W.H. Keesomlaan of Logica Management Consulting, entitled ‘Securing the value of business process change’.

‘Business Process Re-Engineering a Consolidated Methodology’ published in 1999 by Subramanian Muthu, Larry Whitman and S. Hossein Cheraghi of the Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering – Wichita State University – Wichita United States of America.

Object Management Group (OMG) – Business Process Modelling Notation (BPMN) – www.omg.org

Bruce W. Tuckman – Groups Development – Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing.

Donald H Rumsfeld – USA Secretary for Defence – ‘Unknown unknowns’ Feb 12, 2002, Department of Defence news briefing.

Albert Einstein – ‘Level of thinking’ quote.

Charles Darwin – ‘Survival’ quote.

BPMN – Modelling and Reference Guide – Stephen A White PhD & Derek Miers.

Anne Salerno & Lillie Brock – The interchange cycle. Reprinted with permission of the publisher from The Change Handbook copyright© by Salerno and Brock, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. San Fancisco, CA

Suzanne Robertson – Extracts from ‘An early start to testing: How to test requirements’.

The Definitive Book of Body Language – Allan & Barbara Pease.

Every reasonable effort has been made to contact all the copyright holders, but if there are any errors or omissions, Grosvenor House Publishing will be pleased to insert the appropriate acknowledgement in any subsequent printing of this publication.

3Glossary

The following table is a glossary of terms used in this book.

Term

Definition

Application

Software used to run the processes

BA

Business Analyst

BPCMM

Business Process Capability Maturity Model

BPEL

Business Process Executable Language

BPM

Business Process Management

BPMN

Business Process Modelling Notation

BPR

Business Process Re-Engineering

CMDB

Configuration Management Database

CMS

Configuration Management System

Data

Data architecture describes the data structures used by a business and/or its applications

DRIP

Data Rich Information Poor

ERP

Enterprise Resource Planning

ITIL

Information Technology Infrastructure Library

LAN

Local Area Network

OMG

Object Management Group

PAT

Portable Application Testing

PCA10

Percentage of Calls Answered in 10 seconds

PID

Project Initiation Document

PRINCE

Projects in a controlled environments

Process drawing

A process drawing is the capturing of an ordered sequence of business activities and supporting information that describe how a business pursues its objectives

RACI

Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed – role descriptions

SME

Subject Matter Experts

System

Hardware – Laptops, Desktops, Servers, Networks, Printers

UAT

User Acceptance Testing

WAN

Wide Area Network

WfMC

Workflow Management Coalition

4Introduction

4.1 Introducing ‘Cultural Change’ by David Broadbent

Change has always been a requirement in business, but it seems to be a necessity for all organisations at the moment. The worst economic performance of companies across many sectors has many analysts describing the global economy on the verge of somewhere between ‘Recession’ and ‘Depression’ depending on the business sector.

Organisations used to consider that ‘Organisational Change’ was something that they may have wanted to do. Now organisations have to change. They have had to reduce their costs, which sometimes means that they have to reduce the number of staff they have, yet within this environment they still have to deliver the services that they are contracted to deliver to their customers. So when people leave, they are not being replaced. This puts additional work and stress on those that are left. The need for efficiencies becomes paramount. Unemployment rises, so those that have jobs want to keep them, and fear of losing your job adds yet more stress to the workplace. So a stressed workforce, having to do more work with less people, is not a good recipe for a productive organisation.

In the public sector the global recession has left many countries with deficits running into the hundreds of millions. This state of affairs will result in hundreds of thousands of public sector roles being either cut completely or the number of people doing the role will need to be reduced. This has already began to happen in the United Kingdom with redundancies in the armed forces and for the first time redundancies in Police forces.

I write this not as some form of scaremongering, but to help set the scene, because at the heart of every organisation is its people. When organisations go through ‘change’ many factors are taken into consideration, but more often than not, its people are not, or not sufficiently.

This book will look at not only the mechanics of change but also the impacts on the culture of an organisation as it goes through change. These observations are based on the various organisations that I have worked with, worked in and studied over 30 years in a variety of business sectors both public and private, and the last 14 years in the field of business process re-engineering and change management.

I will use a number of analogies to explain my theories, as this has been the most successful vehicle to explain some of the potentially complex issues in a Business Process Management Masterclass I created and run for clients.

People often fear change because of fear of the unknown, and lots of organisations are poor at communicating to their people when they are changing, what these changes will include and how it will affect them. Additionally people do not view potential changes from a corporate perspective. When the rumour mill starts churning out news that things are about to change, the first thought that will pop into a person’s head is, ‘how will this affect Me? My career, my lifestyle, my life?’ And until these fears are allayed, there is the perfect environment for resistance to change to begin. Even before people know what the changes are, they are resistant to them.

In this book we will look at the following areas:

▪ Why businesses change. And why they sometimes change badly.

▪ The impacts of change on an organisation’s culture.

▪ A capability maturity model for business process re-engineering.

▪ The phases of successful change.

▪ Common types of ‘Resistance to change’ and how to deal with it.

It will look at the above aspects primarily from a practical and cultural perspective.

On occasions I will refer to a Business Process Management Masterclass that I created to assist clients who were usually at the beginning of the journey in organisational change. It is a one or two day workshop that takes the attendees through how to map processes, some of the methodologies used in change management and some of the cultural issues that may face. At the time of writing over 850 people from both public and private sector companies have attended these classes and they have been a great source of information about how change has been implemented in their organisations.

At the heart of successful change is ‘Common Sense’. Sometimes seen as an oxymoron due to its apparent lack of commonality, however, it is my view that a flexible common sense approach yields more results than rigid methodologies. Most of the widely used methodologies come from specific business sectors, mainly manufacturing, and are very efficient at delivering beneficial results in those sectors, but I don’t believe there is a ‘One Size Fits All’ in terms of process management.

I believe this is the case because very few organisations are the result of a single vision of a single person carried out across an organisation from end to end. Most organisations are the result of countless decisions made by countless managers over a number of years across many departments, hopefully all for what seemed to be good business reasons at the time, but collectively don’t add together because they were usually made in isolation or within the scope of only focusing on a single area of an organisation and not an end-to-end process.

The proof of this is that many times I have asked groups of senior managers, ‘If I gave you a blank piece of paper and asked you to design this organisation how it should really look, would it look like it is today?’ The majority of answers are a resounding ‘No’.

Yet when I ask senior management, ‘What metric are you trying to improve with your change programme?’ many find this very difficult to articulate. Is it any wonder their staff find it difficult to understand why the changes are taking place? Is it any wonder that it is often difficult to quantify whether the exercise was value for money if you can’t define the metric you’re trying to improve and what improvement would be considered a success?

From a cultural perspective, Business Process Management is probably best described as ‘state of mind’. Successful continuous improvement of what an organisation does comes from an attitude that doesn’t see business process re-engineering as a ‘one-off’ exercise or project. Instead it should be a view that everyone within an organisation is always looking at what they do with the thought of ‘how can we do this better’ lurking at the back of their minds, and having an approach to introduce change smoothly so that the organisation is always dynamic in nature and doesn’t remain static.

Part One Introduction

This book has been split into two parts. Part one will cover the history and mechanics of business process management. It will cover the needs for a standard approach and what standards should be employed. It will look at terminology and aspects of some methodologies commonly used today. It will take the reader through a business process capability maturity model that will show them where they are on the learning curve of being able to implement changes to their processes, and it will take the reader through a standard approach that will cover the major stages of the introduction and maintenance of a change programme.

Part two will demonstrate these theories being put into practice and the cultural obstacles that will have to be overcome.

5Changing a Business

5.1 Why do businesses change?

So what is change? The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb of change as:

Change

•verb 1 make or become different. 2 exchange for another. 3 move from one to (another). 4 (change over) move from one system or situation to another. 5 exchange (a sum of money) for the same sum in a different currency or denomination.

The first definition is the one we will look at in detail as that encapsulates business process re-engineering. To make or become different means that something has changed.

During the course of this book there are a number of definitions I’ll give for the purposes of explanation of my theories. These are my definitions and may not necessarily be agreed with by some others, however it will put the versions of change I talk about in this book into a form of context that should be easily understood.

Definition 1 – Organisational Change (New Change) V Organisational Improvement (Ongoing Change)

Organisations change continually and one can make the assumption that if a change does not improve the organisation, why do it in the first place? But there is more than one type of ‘change’ and often the way these two different types of changes are tackled are also different. There is the ‘New Change’ which can be described as the introduction of something that never existed before within an organisation and therefore new processes have to be designed. These might need underpinning by new applications, new systems, additional or different data, new roles may need to be created and so on. This change can be seen as a ‘one-off’ to create something from essentially nothing.

Once something has been created it can always be improved and this is the second form of change. ‘Improvement’ or ‘Ongoing Change’ starts from the basis that processes and the things that underpin them already exist. There may be many reasons for wanting to improve a process and drivers for this type of change will be looked at in detail later. However this definition serves to highlight one of the problems in delivering any form of transformation within an organisation and that is around how it is communicated to those it will affect.

To ensure staff buy into change of either type, a great deal of communication needs to take place before, during and after the changes are implemented. The more that staff are communicated with, the less assumptions will be made. This will be discussed in detail later.

I draw your attention to this definition because the majority of this book is focused on the ‘ongoing change’ and is described just as ‘change’ rather than ‘Organisational improvement’. That’s not to say that the principles, tools and techniques discussed could not be used in either situation, because they can. However, I will state that in the world of ‘continual improvement’ change never ends and one of the problems with communicating the principle of continual improvement is that change programmes should not be seen as ‘one-offs’.

Therefore, the exception to this rule would be where an organisation is introducing a ‘New Process’ which means the organisation has to change, but once this project is completed and the processes go live, they become existing processes and then all the principles of ‘continual improvement’ will apply.

Definition 2 – Business Process Re-Engineering V Business Process Management

As far back as the 1970s organisations such as Baan were investing in the creation of what was called Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP). Over the following 30 years organisations have realised that at the core of what an organisation ‘does’ is not necessarily its hardware or software, but its processes. This gave birth to Business Process Re-Engineering in the 1990s and early 2000s. But now organisations are beginning to realise that whereas the initial view was that these exercises were seen as ‘one-off projects’, business processes need to be continually monitored and updated to keep pace with the market in which the organisation operates. Consequently the term Business Process Management (BPM) will be used in this book, as you will see it is not a one-off exercise but a change in operational culture to enable ‘Continual Improvement’ of an organisation.

Therefore this will be referred to as happening within a ‘Change Programme’ rather than a project. This is because a project has a start, middle and end, but this should not end so the distinction needs to be made.

Gartner’s ‘Meeting the challenge 2009 CIO Agenda’ report, published in January 2009, interviewed 1,526 CIOs who represent more than $138 billion in corporate and public sector IT spending. According to Gartner, two fundamental questions faced executives in 2009:

• In an uncertain economy, where should the enterprise focus its attention and resources?

• Beyond cost cutting, what are the enterprise goals in a volatile market?

See table below.

Each CIO was asked to list their top five priorities with regard to ‘Business expectations for IT focus on improving current operations and performance’.

As you see from the table below, ‘Improving business processes’ had been top of the pile for the previous four years.

Figure 1- Gartner ‘meeting the challenge 2009’ and CIO Agenda 2011 report

Not surprisingly the focus has moved to fiscal areas of the business. In these difficult financial times increasing growth must be a priority, as is attracting and retaining customers. But these and numbers three and four are only achievable with process.

An organisation needs to review its operational processes in the same way it views its applications and systems in terms of whether they are ‘fit for purpose’ and where they fit into the strategies of an organisation.

This continual improvement is driven from a number of sources. The acronym PESTLE covers many of the drivers for change:

▪ P – Political

▪ E – Economic

▪ S – Social

▪ T – Technological

▪ L – Legal

▪ E – Environmental

Some people within some public sector organisations believe that they are immune to change and evidence may show that change in the public sector can happen a lot slower than in the private sector. But they are not immune and, in the same way that private sector organisations go through ‘take-overs’ or ‘mergers’, departments in the public sector are also merged. Different political parties will come into power and want to make changes.

In times such as those we face in the early years of the second decade of the 21st century, changes for ‘Economic’ reasons may well be the largest driver for change. With billions wiped off the value of companies across the globe, household names like Lehman Brothers bank in the US and Woolworths in the UK were among organisations that had survived previous economic downturns and even wars, but went out of business. The foundations of capitalism have been shaken almost to the point of collapse.

In times of a global ‘downturn’ or even a ‘recession’ changes made for ‘Political’ reasons will have a profound effect on both public and private sector organisations. At the start of 2009 Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, made a number of unprecedented changes both within government and in tandem with the Bank of England. Bank base rates have not been as low since records began and the government now holds a major stake in a number of high street banks.

The Euro zone and world markets are in the grip of uncertainty as they wait to see which countries will default on their Euro-zone payments. One thing is beyond doubt; government owned organisations will have to adopt private sector levels of operational efficiencies. People who traditionally saw their jobs as ‘safe’ will no longer have that luxury. At recent party conferences all parties talked of tightening belts and cuts.

Advances in technology have often been at the forefront of change as applications providers and system providers continually try and increase their market share by making their products do ‘more’, and do it ‘faster’. IBM, Oracle and Fujitsu, to name but three, are investing large sums of money in the research and development of getting seamlessly from process maps drawn in BPMN (Business Process Modelling Notation) to BPEL (Business Process Executable Language) and back, and across multiple platforms without losing attachments and other business rules within the process maps. And although there are a number of issues that need to be overcome, I forecast the creation of an industry standard to enable this to happen will be within reach within the next three to five years.

Social and environmental drivers might not get the same level of focus as some of the others, but will still have an impact in the coming years.

5.2 Why do businesses change badly?

The Panic Environment

The main reason organisations do ‘change’ badly is that it is done in a totally reactive manner. This is linked to the various drivers described above but the outcome is that change is delivered in what I describe as the ‘Panic Environment’. Change that is carried out in an environment of panic is rarely going to be well planned or well implemented.

In a 2008 report published by Prof W.H. Keesomlaan of Logica Management Consulting and the Economist Intelligence Unit, entitled ‘Securing the value of business process change’, Logica surveyed 380 Western European CEOs about change projects, the problems encountered and the reasons that business process re-engineering projects are either late, over budget, fail totally, or do not deliver what was initially expected of them. The two chief reasons were: a) senior management buy-in all the way through the programme to stop day-to-day activity overtaking the programme, and b) getting staff out of their day-to-day jobs to actually work on the change programme.

It is my view that when organisations are in the ‘Panic Environment’, staff are often expected to introduce changes on top of doing their day jobs. This is always a recipe for disaster. Change projects, like all other projects, need to have dedicated staff and people cannot be in two places at once. The most common result of asking people to do two jobs at once is that they do neither well as they are under so much pressure to deliver, they work too many hours and inevitably the quality of what they produce suffers.

Another element of the ‘Panic Environment’ is the need to see instant results. This often presents itself by insufficient planning taking place. Many studies have found that one of the common reasons projects fail to deliver to time and budget is because all the factors that ultimately needed to be taken into consideration were not done so at the project’s inception. Insufficient planning leads to an insufficient scope being defined and therefore the scope gets changed as the project progresses. ‘Scope creep’ is allowed to happen. ‘Scope creep’ happens when an assumption is made in the minds of either those putting the project together, or those signing off the funds to enable the project to happen. This can include the lack of a definition of terms.

Language is often used in different ways and if terms are not defined, assumptions will be made. For example, a common misconception is the term ‘System’. To an IT person a ‘system’ is a piece of hardware, a PC, a laptop, a server, a printer, part of the network and so on. To a non-IT person a ‘system’ is often misconstrued as what appears on their PC. What appears on a PC are applications. On many occasions management will say, ‘We’re getting a new system that will do…’ and they go on to describe what their new application will do.

To an IT person an ‘application’ is the software that runs on the systems and the two are completely different. Therefore it is vital that in the scope section of a change project initiation document is a definition of what is ‘out of scope’ in as much detail as what is ‘in scope’. This will be looked at in more detail later.

No end-to-end owners

Another major impact of the Panic Environment is that all parts of the organisation are told to ‘become more efficient’ without a concerted cross-functional consensus of what should be tackled and how. This either leads to a silo mentality, or increases it if it already existed in the first place. The biggest problem with each area of an organisation introducing changes simultaneously without any co-ordination between them, is that one area may make changes that seem to make good business sense to that area of the organisation, but consequently adversely affect another part of the organisation to the extent that it directly affects delivery. The ultimate outcome is that the total organisation becomes less efficient, which is exactly the opposite of what was trying to be achieved.

Very few organisations appoint ‘owners’ of cross-functional critical business processes. These are processes that run across multiple departments and are fundamental to an organisation being able to operate. It seems odd that something this business critical is not given the same level of focus as organisational hierarchy. More often than not the root of the problem lies in managers only being willing to have the responsibility and accountability for things within their direct control, and cross-functional end-to-end processes will never fall into this category.

For example, all of us started the job we are doing today on our first day. To be productive on our first day, we would require the following:

• A desk

• A telephone

• A PC or laptop

• All the relevant applications I require loaded on the PC or laptop

• We would have been added to the Active Directory of the organisation, so we can use all corporate applications

• We would have appointments already in our diaries

All this adds up to you being ‘productive’ from day one. When I run a business process management Masterclass, I ask attendees how many of them had all of the above on their first day. Usually I get less than ten percent raising their hands.

When an organisation moves into the ‘panic environment’, the negative factors that affect an organisation’s culture increase. These factors include things like: blame culture, lack of cross-functional communications, political in-fighting and so on. These will be looked at in greater detail later.

There are many methodologies for the implementation of change projects that, although efficient, can too often be seen as too bureaucratic and/or time-consuming.