There are some built-in challenges in administer approach. For example a person who is conecrn of the time away from the process to develop new skill it’s a legitimate concern, especially if the conscioun process are very tight and any slack in one has upstream and downstream ripple effects on other cases. The key is balance. Just as chief executive often constantly trying to balance present and future performoust their companies, a process organization has to develop and alignment to achieve the business strategy. There as measures and rewards change for the process perform measures for the process owners and resource manager change too, to stay aligned. Remember the process responsible for the design the resource manager and the formers that work for her are responsible for the station and every- one is responsible for the results trivial reward systems also need to be reevaluated the traditional Employee of the Month and similar awards. Perhaps you remember your school days. students were rewarded for perfect attendance. Believe not some companies have a similar program. What kind behavior does that drive? People stagger to work sick the fi when for their own sake and that of colleagues. Should be home in bad rather than infecting everyone Such incentive program should be completely and redesigned to drive the right behaviors and aligned what is trying to be accomplished through process. Management drives behavior counter to want. In a functional organization such motivational tools encourage and we know that there is no place for heroes new process environment. Heroes are merely the process isn’t working.
EVALUATE DEVELOP
New compensation schemes naturally lead to a different approach to performance evaluation. In a teal teamwork environment which is what process is an individual should be evaluated not just by the functional manager to whom she report but by her team member as well. They’re the ones who have deep and personal knowledge about her contribution to the team’s performance, and they can be both tougher and more detailed knowledge of the person’s situation. The process owners will also have input into evaluations, especially with regard to compliance with the process. Nevertheless functional manager still provide a great deal of inpt and will usually continue to administer the review.
Development plans also look different in a process-centric organization. Traditional organization have a strict hierarchy of rankings, reflected in the phrase “moving up the ladder” The aim in such an organization is to win promotion to next higher level, which brings with it move responsibility and more compensation. But in a process organization career goals aren’t so much directed “up the ladder” as they are at widening one’s scope of influence and taking on increasingly important roles in process work. Think about the airline pilot who starts a co-pilot and then moves into the pilot’s seat of a small plane, usually a nineteen-seater. Her career goal typically isn’t to become senior group vice president in charge of pilot. Rather, she hopes to move from the nineteen-seat plane flying short commuter hops to flying transcontinental and then transoceanic flights, each with increasing size, complexity, and responsibility. She flies because she wants to fiy and is good at it. She doesn’t need the personal management or financial management skills that come with being an administrator and trying to force her into a management track not suited to her experience or aptitude is a recipe of management. Apply that same thinking to a process-centric insurance pany and an entry-level adjustor starts by evaluating with small amounts of damage to low-cost. As the adjuster learns and his performance improver, he can because the process owner for adjudicating issues for luxury wich more significant damage responsibilities that have a effect on his company’s financial performer is having an import the company without being in the executive site that’s empowerment that process can provide.
SKILL KNOWLEDGE AND TRAINING
Process professionals need different skill and knowledge the average worker in a traditional functional organization skills are those things a worker can do They are not to hands-on skills, such as calibrating a machine. Rather can be defined more expansively to include decision problem solving, team dynamics communication process activities and self-management. Knowledge about the business company customers supplirers and what is pening in the industry.
You almost certainly have a training and clement usually in the form of a management development curriculum. A process curriculum is very similer to what you have but goes beyond to include an overview of the compenumies changes a focus on process an understanding of the word the customer and voice of the business how process work what it means to own a process as opposed to owning the resources the concept of redesign.
There programs are wonderful and tend to yield great results but they also require significant investment. Our rescatch indicates increas their training and education budgets 400 percent to more. That money in directed to various targets including where necessary new facilities amd equipment but mosuly for bringing in external trainers and reaching out to the entire poputationofthe organization racher then just a targeted few. The cost of derising a new process design and determining metrice is cheap by comparison but without the inverment in training people and providing the infrastructure for then to do their jobs the process simply won’t work.
We’ve all heard any maybe repeated-the old bromide “Our employees are our most valuable asset” The recession of 2008 proved that. Isn’t true, as several million “assets” were shown the door. But an inverment made. In developing employees who preform with a focus on results is how you true value to company.
TECHNOLOGY ENABLER OR DETERRENT?
Too often the technology side of infrasrueture in a process centric organization is misunderstood as the need to automate. Certainly there is terrific synergy between process and automation. But too many organization don’t get it right. You can have high – performance process without technology but combining technology with high – performance process can a game changer It’s crilical though that you get the order right. Technology follous process not the other way around. If these two steps are performet out of order or if the process step is over looked or by passed it leads to costly
Automating a bad process simply produces bad. This is the fault not of the IT organization but of the infrastructure support IT. In functional organization head of afunction contacs IT to build them a new system solve a problem within a given budget. This unposes a build on IT. Which winds up cresting is lands are frustrated because their internal customer press to get their own projecm dose quickly then rild at IT because “this isn’t what t wanted your late and you’re over budget”
There is a way to end this frustration focus on the process first then enhance it through technology high – tech distribution company we talked about this chapter wanted to reduce quote turnaround time forty – eight house or ten minutes. The benchmark profomance at the company’s competition was four houst budget allowed for some automation bus at first the tean wisely redesigned the process for a turnaround time thirty minutes without automation. Only then was automation brought to bear to carve out the additional twenty minutes of cycle time. IT must be tightly integrated with process to spport and turbocharge the design for the execution of activitcs with metrics that perfomers managers and process owner for diecision making. Too often there is an urge to according to the way the technology is designed, rather focusing on the design for achieving goals and the technology to spport. This in common when implementing and resource planning (ERP) system such as SAP or Oracle They are great systems that can take performance to the next kind
THE SHIFTING ROLE OF THE MANAGER
Think back to the example of the electric unility installation process described in the first part of this chapter. Imagine what it would be like if the caseworker was one of your direct reports. It would be difficult to keep close tabs on what the caseworker was doing each day because every day would be different often seeming complex ambiguous and even chaotic. In high – performance organization people are more autonous can make decisions and have a grwater degree of own ership. They don’t need a lot of close supervision especially not the lcind of micromanagement to which many traditional managers are wed. Instead they need their managers to assume new roles such as process owners and coacher. We covered the process owner role in reviewing the role of the coach also known as the resource manager.
In our electric utility example the caseworker position is a critical part of the process. People who fill critical roles are assets worthy of investment in trining education and development. That investment in turn reduces the need for handson management sine werkers are more autonomous and don’t need as much direction. This opens an pooprtiunity and more on new or different roles. Some of them go back to “real work” Too often traditional organization take fantastic engineers or sales tesa removing them form the they did will and enjoyed. We assume that because ther in one job they should be able to (or want or) lead a engineering or sales force. While this doesn’t make ters of out comes it is hoe internal system is a knowledge contribution and performance. Other options with in the company they eagerly opportunity. But in high – performance process organization with the right systems in place to enable results the different means of contribution there are new for recognition and reward beyond the tradit