Unit 10 Assignment Rubric Unit 10 Assignment:
BPM and Global Competitiveness For this Assignment, respond using the critical elements
below: Critical Elements:
? Write your original response in Standard English, paying special attention to grammar, style,
and mechanics.
? Respond to the questions in a thorough manner, providing specific examples of both the
expected benefits and the risks/issues.
? Ensure that your viewpoint and purpose are clearly stated.
? Demonstrate logical and appropriate transitions from one idea to another.
? Your paper should be highly organized, logical, and focused.
In this Assignment, you will analyze Case 1 from the chapter and respond to questions related to
the role of BPM in global competitiveness.
Case 1: GACC Case 1 describes a global automotive component company. There were issues
that limited the company’s ability to be more competitive in the global marketplace, and they
were able to address these through a BPM project.
1. What were the issues they were trying to improve? What were the expected benefits from
BPM to help them become more competitive globally?
2. What were some of the risks that could result in the failure of this project?
3. Which of the phases you have learned do you think would be most critical in ensuring success
in this project? Why? Describe some of the steps in the phase you selected and explain how those
steps would mitigate the potential risks for failure.
Below is Case Study #1 That is used to answer the above Questions 1-3
A robust program of BPM combined with a global ERP implementation can be a powerful
coalition. However, finding the right balance between an enduring focus on the improvement
and management of an organization’s value creating business processes and implementing the
ERP system on time and on budget can be challenging as this case study illustrates.
Background: A global automotive components company (GACC), serving both original
equipment manufacturers (OEM) and retail customers for aftermarket products, recognized the
need to replace outdated legacy systems with a global single instance of an integrated Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) system. At the outset, the plan appeared to be sound. The organization
made a commitment to use a process-centric approach and implement a process enabling IT
system to drive its business process management efforts. There appeared to be a clear recognition
of the complexity involved.
The current business operating model was characterized by:
• Different business process operating models
• Multiple major system backbones with separate code bases
• Significant internal and external interfaces
• Fragmented processes
• Limited visibility
• Suboptimal performance.
The overarching objective was to implement a world-class enterprise system and business
processes that would transform GACC’s ability to grow global market share, ensure quality and
cost leadership. GACC had developed a successful program of continuous improvement (CI),
focusing on projects of small scope, largely at the plant level, within the operations group.
Approach :
The ERP program was launched with significant fanfare. An all-day meeting was held with the
top three levels of management. The CEO and several senior vice presidents presented their
views as to why this transformational effort was essential to GACC’s future. The overall program
was planned on a three-year timeframe, structured in phases, with a roll-out by geographic
region, and details were outlined and reviewed. In order to assure the tight integration between
the new IT systems and a process focus, the former VP of the BPM Center of Excellence for US
Operations was named to a new global staff position as the global VP of BPM. He was tasked to
focus on the integration of process management principles and process-enabling IT systems and
to emphasize:
• Process governance and process ownership
• Process metrics
• Process models.
The focus on governance, metrics and process models was planned to occur concurrently with
the implementation of the ERP system roll-out to deeply embed a process orientation into the
organization. There was a clear intent to move towards process management. The VP BPM
defined BPM as “the ongoing management and optimization of GACC’s end-to-end business
processes.” He had a plan to build a small team of BPM experts, comprised of staff positions
aligned with the ERP scope and focused on the end-to-end processes such as order to cash
(OTC), procure to pay (PTP) and record to report (RTR). Both global and regional process
owners were to be appointed, again aligned with the ERP roll-out, for the key processes such as
OTC, PTP and RTR. The importance of alignment with the group responsible for continuous
improvement was recognized, as was the need to develop process models and metrics. While the
plan was sound on the surface, significant challenges occurred in execution. Challenges The
principal challenges were organizational and cultural. The VP BPM reported to the global VP
Operations, and the VP IT who was accountable for the ERP implementation reported directly to
the CEO at GACC. While the CEO was a vocal advocate of BPM, the VP IT had the advantage
in terms of visibility and clout at the senior leadership team (SLT) level. GACC’s culture was
dominated by a traditional focus on producing high quality products at the lowest possible cost.
Regional VPs had significant clout, as did the Operations group. While lip service was paid to
the importance of managing the firm’s end-to-end processes, when push came to shove, regional
and profit and loss (P&L) issues took priority. The risk areas shown in Table 28.1 were
recognized by both the VP IT and VP BPM. The impact of these challenges and risk areas
became clear as the program rolled out.
The first six months The VP BPM had a clear idea of what he wanted to accomplish and took
two concurrent actions to launch the program. He tasked human resources with recruiting a small
group of business process specialists to support key areas such as OTC, PTP and RTR and he
engaged a small consulting company (SCC) to develop a roadmap for BPM at GACC and
provide leadership education on BPM to GACC’s senior leadership team. The SCC outlined the
key elements of a roadmap to take GACC from managing individual processes to organizationwide process management. However, the VP BPM challenged some of the key concepts. For
example he believed that many of the foundational elements such as creating an advocacy group,
focusing on the right processes and establishing the right governance structure were already in
place.
Executive risks and project risks
Executive risk Key executives must support the overall program
Resource risk Proper definition of resources needed for optimum performance
Project risk Project must be properly planned, scope managed and decisions made
Functional risk User requirements must remain closely aligned with project goals BPM
overestimated the extent to which these foundational elements were in place.
Nevertheless, the SCC was directed to focus more on developing swim lane version maps of
selected key processes such as OTC, PTP and RTR and deliver the planned educational session
on BPM to the SLT. The SCC recognized that the existing process maps were linear and had a
significant IT bias and so they proceeded to develop swim lane version maps of selected key
processes such as OTC, PTP and RTR. These swim lane maps showed the key activities, the
departments involved, key performance measures and high level issues in each core process,
thereby enabling the organization to ask and answer questions such as:
• What immediate opportunities might exist to capture “quick wins”?
• What performance measures will the ERP system provide and what metrics may need to be
captured via other means?
• Which key activities require cross-departmental collaboration?
Concurrently with the development of these process maps in swim lane format, the SCC
conducted interviews with members of the SLT to assist in preparing the educational sessions on
BPM at the enterprise level. The key messages delivered in the hour and a half session to three
groups of executives stressed that GACC needs to emphasize:
• The development and use of simple, visually compelling models for key processes such as
OTC, PTP and RTR. SLT members need to become comfortable with using these models to shift
management mindset and link major performance issues to the need for cross-departmental
collaboration.
• The monitoring of critical to customer metrics in terms of quality and time and make these part
of the SLT scorecard
. • Aligning the BPM program with strategy.
• The increasing use of process-based governance for key decisions.
• The alignment of recognition and reward systems to visibly distinguish the people and teams
who succeed in improving process performance
These sessions were generally well received by the members of the SLT and the VP BPM was
trained on delivering additional sessions to the management teams in the GACC regions.
However, the global VP Operations was conspicuous by his absence and other cracks in the
overall BPM program were beginning to appear. The recruitment of process specialists to support
key areas such as OTC, PTP and RTR was well behind schedule, with only one of four positions
filled in six months. Also, there were early signs of delays and budget overruns for the ERP
system implementation, and changes to RICEFs (Reports, Interfaces, Conversions,
Enhancements and Forms) began to take out the many meaningful customer- facing metrics.
SCC submitted its final report to the VP BPM and recommended that he:
• Develop the messaging and communication needed to differentiate BPM from the ERP rollout.
• Champion the continued development and use of end-to-end swim lane process view.
• Provide near-term measurable value, 30–35 percent of BPM’s efforts should focus on end-toend process improvement.
• Place a greater emphasis on collaborating with the continuous improvement group.
• Continue to work with process owners to define the critical three or four metrics for each endto-end process
The VP BPM thanked SCC for their work, but it was clear that he was more concerned with
taking immediate action on delays and budget concerns than the longer term, high level
recommendations.
One year into the program:
The ERP roll-out was by now known to be six months behind schedule and more than 30
percent over budget. While the recruitment of process specialists to support key areas such as
OTC, PTP and RTR had been completed and the communication plan to differentiate BPM from
the ERP system had been delivered, the overall BPM program was struggling. Process owners
were in place, but in name only, and these executives continued to focus predominantly on their
functional responsibilities. The anticipated collaboration between the BPM group and the CI
group had not taken place as the CI group took pride in its success on projects of small scope,
within functional boundaries, and its track record in producing measurable results and it was
reluctant to address projects of much larger scope with the attendant challenges that crossdepartmental issues held. Also, there were political issues that could not easily be overcome as
the CI group did not report to the VP BPM and instead reported to the VP Operations in each
region. The program to develop the use of critical to customer metrics in terms of quality and
time and make these part of the SLT scorecard stalled and it was not even possible to get
agreement on a common definition of what “perfect order delivery” meant, with some regions
defining this as “on-time and complete,” while others defined it simply as “on-time” (e.g., when
promised)
What could have been and might have been simply wasn’t happening—or at least, not quickly
enough. BPM risked getting lost in the ERP lead transformational effort.
Author’s comments Success with BPM at the enterprise level relies on a clear and compelling
case for change, cross-departmental collaboration, attention to pacing, and an enduring focus on
value creation. The VP BPM in this case seriously underestimated the impact of GACC’s
traditional culture and his reporting line was such that he did not have the needed clout to drive
change. Further, he made a number of classical errors in the three key areas of getting ready,
taking action and sustaining gains as outlined in Table 28.2. GACC never truly understood that
BPM is a management discipline focused on using process-based thinking to improve and
manage its end-to-end business processes, and the BPM program was lost in the ERP led
transformational effort.
Key pitfalls :
Getting ready Fragile case for change.
Failure to capture the heads and hearts of people who do the work.
Failing to align BPM with strategy.
Placing methods or tools before results.
Too much fervor and zeal around the method or “system” (e.g., ERP).
Taking action Pacing is too slow.
Bogged down in measurement, modeling and/or analysis.
HR involvement is late or inconsistent, and the recommended training is low on the HR project
priority list.
Sustaining gains
The new, recommended performance measures are not incorporated into the senior leadership
team’s scorecard.
The recommended alignment of recognition and rewards is delayed or ignored.
Insufficient effort invested in establishing the infrastructure and governance for continuous
improvement
