Uniting the religions of process improvement

The following was first published on Harvard Business Review:

When they set out to turn around processes that have become woefully inefficient or ineffective, most companies choose one of four process improvement “religions”: Lean, Six Sigma, Business Reengineering or Business Process Management (BPM). After hearing about its success at another organization, many companies choose just one. For example, several companies embarked on Six Sigma programs after their CEO heard about GE’s success with the approach, and many other companies have adopted Lean because of Toyota’s success. It’s like adopting a diet or exercise program that a friend has used and lost 50 pounds.

But some companies realize they need to go beyond making episodic improvements. They try to institutionalize process improvement — that is, put in place the right mechanisms in their management systems so that their business processes don’t become grossly unproductive in the future. That is, they try to build continuous improvement into their DNA. It’s like the difference between going on crash diets every two years and fundamentally changing one’s eating and exercise habits.

But moving from episodic process improvements to having the wherewithal to improve processes continually is a tall order because of five key challenges I highlighted in a previous post: competing demands for attention, competing mindsets and behaviors, strategic irrelevance, traditional management processes, and the pain of disruption. If an organization tries to institutionalize process improvement based on the tenets of just one process religion, it will run into trouble because no single religion has all the approaches for sustaining organizational attention to improvement. Lean has the most complete set of approaches for continuous improvement among the four religions. But a company that embeds Lean thinking into its DNA may occasionally need the hard financial results that Six Sigma can produce. In addition, Lean converts have a predisposition against adopting large, centralized IT solutions, which may cause them to ignore useful approaches from the BPM religion.

The result: Organizations need to consider every possible approach, not just those offered by one religion. To stay with the diet and exercise analogy, being aware of multiple diet programs will help you pull out common themes and arrive at a tailored program that works best for you.

Consider this example. Many companies adopted Six Sigma in the late 1990s. They trained experts in improvement projects (“Black Belts“) who then drove initiatives that achieved large financial results. In some of these companies, senior managers were dubious about the claims. They suspected there was some backsliding or double counting because the results were almost too good to be true. Many of those organizations then embraced Lean for different set of tools for improvement projects, tools that helped them connect project results to key strategic measures. They also stressed organizational learning (meaning, capturing the methods of Lean so that other parts of the organizations could adopt them). Adding another religion helped these companies embed continuous improvement into their DNA.

If organizations want to keep their processes up to date continually, they need to be able to use many approaches to embedding improvement in their management systems. Let’s review the distinguishing features of what each religion has to say about sustaining improvement.

1. Six Sigma zealots say “Belts,” lots of training, and performance measures are what matter.Motorola pioneered the Six Sigma statistical tools, but it was GE that built the training programs and the hierarchy of accreditations or “Belts” (Green, Black, Master Black) with which it is so strongly associated. People who have earned these belts drive projects with clear financial targets set at the top organization, with progress monitored by the CFO. Six Sigma zealots argue that if you train enough people, you get a cultural transformation. You instill process improvement into the corporate DNA.

2. Business Reengineering’s high priest said core process owners, process maturity, and performance measures are what count.

Reengineering focuses on radical changes in core, end-to-end processes. In addition to laying out an approach for making one-time improvements, Reengineering’s high priest (the late Michael Hammer) had advice for organizations wanting to sustain improvement. He implored their leaders to create and track end-to-end process performance and establish an organization — including process owners and councils — to support the processes. He also advised them to continually assess their processes against a model of process maturity — PEMM for short — which he unveiled in an HBR article.

3. Lean “senseis” (teachers) say strategy deployment, executives as coaches, and front-line problem-solving sustain improvement.

Followers of Lean, which is based on the Toyota manufacturing approach that made it the leader in automobile quality (the Toyota Production System), believe top executives need to break down strategic objectives into implications for process improvements to get everyone moving in the same direction. For example, to improve customer satisfaction, an insurance company decided to focus on reducing the number of service requests over 30 days old from 40% to below 5%, which translated into activities in 30 departments. All organizational levels must identify and solve problems, but senior managers must tell front-line workers why efficiency is critical at all times, and then help them remove waste and improve service to customers.

4. BPM missionaries say processes and process knowledge embedded in software, an enterprise architecture, and a central process management organization sustain improvement.

Most missionaries of the BPM religion come from a heritage in information technology. They believe companies can sustain process improvements if their people use a company-wide software system (such as an ERP application), which has standard processes embedded in the software. They also advise companies to use business process management software to map and document process flows and how work should be executed and to monitor performance. They also believe in building a BPM “Book of Knowledge” (a codification of process improvement “best practices”) and a BPM “Center of Excellence” (a central organization where process experts reside and develop guidelines and procedures for documenting and analyzing business processes).

A few companies that lead in sustained process improvement have drawn from the best of each religion to embed continuous improvement in their organization.

Shell Oil’s downstream (refining and retail) businesses have rolled out a global implementation of enterprise software SAP with standard global processes (as the missionaries of BPM would preach). The company has trained its people to be Shell Sigma Belts (following the precepts of Six Sigma), and appointed process owners and established an elaborate process governance structure (as Hammer would have recommended). What’s more, the company helped develop Hammer’s PEMM concept and is now training Lean managers.

Chemical company Air Products has adopted nearly every approach for sustaining improvement from all four religions. Sloan Valve appointed core process owners several years ago following the Reengineering playbook. The manufacturer has since introduced quality techniques (“kaizen” events), as well as Lean strategy deployment methods and tools.

There is no reason that organizations wishing to sustain process improvement should not draw on all these ideas, becoming “Unitarian Universalists” and bringing together the best of each religion.

Request: What approaches have you seen companies adopt that have kept their attention on process improvement? Have any of these companies combined the approaches of different process religions?

Advertisements

Categories: Continuous Improvement, Disciplines, Process Management

Author:Brad Power

Brad is a consultant and researcher in process innovation. His current research is on sustaining attention to process management. He is currently conducting research with the Lean Enterprise Institute.

Subscribe to the blog

Subscribe and receive an email when new articles are published

7 Comments on “Uniting the religions of process improvement”

  1. April 25, 2012 at 11:37 pm #

    Brad, well said. Great minds think alike: http://unapage.com/continuous-improvement-by-any-name/ 🙂

  2. Max
    April 26, 2012 at 12:53 am #

    My thought is the description for the #4 BPM missionaries is unfound and not based on fact. Most BPM practitioners do not disagree on Lean and Six Sigma and commonly use them as part of the tools. Also the emphasis is not on IT application but not to ignore supporting technology. And there is no such thing as book of knowledge but body of knowledge where the concept is borrowed from other practices such as project management’s PMBOK. Even so not all BPM practitioners agree having a single source of body of knowledge because of the fact that it crosses multiple disciplines. On top of that there is also the dimension on performance measurement such as applying Balanced Scorecard. In short, BPM is an attempt to unify the diverse aspects of process improvement and management, including technology.

  3. Ron Webb
    April 26, 2012 at 6:55 am #

    Brad,

    Great topic and very timely. We were having a session with a group of knowledge management professionals within the manufacturing industry where many of these tools are heavily used, and this topic came up during our discussion.

    They were talking about how to function well in an environment where multiple methodologies exist and are used. These weren’t zealots by any means, they were knowledge management pros(and they’d argue KM is a process improvement tool, too).

    They voiced a real trend toward the focus on improvement vs any specific tool. Their leaders cared more that the business was focusing to improve. If there was a tool endorsed by the organisation, they fully supported its use, but the leaders wanted to know, discuss, and challenge the businesses improvement efforts. That was the real value of improvement.

    Granted, that scenario is ripe for waste a misaligned focus, but they felt they’d rather deal with those trade offs instead of requiring a methodology or tool. It hit me how this mirrors the IT debate of a single system vs a best-of-breed system.

    They spoke of programs like BEEP (benchmark every process). This is a program to give basic guidelines on benchmarking, then expect everyone to examine their processes, compare externally, and act accordingly. This was tied to the business planning process to drive the discussion.

    So, this group didn’t feel the tool mattered as much as the focus and activity.

  4. April 26, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

    As a software guy, I’ll tell you that not using a tool only gets you so far…at some point, attempts to ‘Lean’ an organization become very manual (very ironic, no?). The important thing is to get started, to engage execs and front-line workers, but to also consider the automation technology (communication, governance, intelligence) that makes it far easier to manage org change.

  5. April 28, 2012 at 2:59 am #

    In an insurance company, there is only so much improvement one can achieve before we need BPM type software to both better track work in the system and automate work where possible. This does not mean that BPM is all about software but is rather a holistic process approach that is supported by software tools. Lean and Six Sigma fits nicely into the “methods” enabler of BPM but there are many other enablers such as the right strategy, culture, people, skills, and technology. In our insurance company, we are now doing a lot of work with Customer Experience Management (CEM) and how we integrate this into our process improvement approach. Most process improvement methodologies agree that processes should be improved to meet the needs of the customer. The problem is that they tend to only focus on the customers quantitative process requirements such as lead time, defect rates, etc. CEM helps us understand the customer’s emotional process needs and then improve our processes to ensure that these are being met as well. In our Operational Excellence program, we first teach our managers the CEM tools and techniques (Customer Journey Mapping, Moment Mapping) before we introduce them to any Lean or Six Sigma tools or techniques. This is done deliberately to ensure that the customer stays top of mind during any further process improvements.

  6. May 17, 2012 at 8:24 am #

    Crazy thought but all methodologies have their limitations and different orgs need different aspect at different times. Why not pick and choose like a buffett. It is not only more thought stimulating but involves more people to really innovate as opposed to being sheeps led by the methodology

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Avoid the improvement hype cycle | BPM For Real - May 15, 2012

    […] for a particular process improvement method takes on a religious tone (as I described in a previous post). Thus, today we have a number of process “religions”: Statistical Process Control was […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: