Are you already using process management professionally in your company or would you like to do so in the future? It is very likely that at one point or another you will find that the practical execution often deviates from the defined process, or that you find it difficult to describe a process precisely. Then it is time to think about paying a little less attention to the individual activities in the process and focus on results.
Focus on quality assurance
For many companies, DIN-EN-ISO9001:2015 is considered one of the most important quality standards in companies. In this, a process is understood as “a set of interrelated or interacting activities that transforms inputs into outputs.” In addition, the process-oriented approach requires a “description of the sequence and interactions of the processes” and a determination of the “required inputs and expected results.”
In practice, it has proven useful to represent processes graphically. The two most common standardized representation methods for business processes are
- the (extended) event-driven process chain, EPK or eEPK for short
- the Business Process Modeling and Notation (BPMN)
In addition to the two standardized forms, I also see in some companies their own notations that are based on these standards and partly deviate from the standard. I will discuss the exact differences and individual advantages and disadvantages in another article.
All forms have in common the fact that they represent a sequence of individual activities or work steps which, starting from an input (object, information, etc.), generate an output. Here, the individual work steps are the elements that usually receive the most attention. To further increase reproducibility and transparency and to avoid errors, experience shows that standardization increases over time. Users are supported in their work by additional templates. As the organization continues to grow, more rules and descriptions will be added.
Advantages and disadvantages of standardization
This standardization leads to defined rules, processes and guidelines. The goal here is to promote consistency, efficiency and quality. Best practices should be documented and applied on as broad a basis as possible. This allows to introduce repeatable processes, minimize risks and increase efficiency. Thus, standardization is first and foremost an effective instrument for being able to operate successfully on the market.
However, this gain in efficiency can only be realized to a certain extent. Excessive regulation leads to a lack of flexibility in the face of change and can inhibit innovation. At a certain point, your customers’ satisfaction can also be negatively affected if your rules and policies lead to longer processing times and decreasing flexibility. Likewise, too much standardization can have a negative impact on your employees’ motivation as soon as self-determination is restricted and monotonous or ineffective activities become prevalent. The result is a further decline in efficiency.
In the context of organizational development, it is therefore an important concern to achieve an appropriate degree of standardization on the one hand and flexibility and adaptability on the other.
Relationship between degree of control and efficiency
An underlying theory for this is provided by Erich Gutenberg’s substitution principle of organization. Gutenberg describes in this principle that “As the variability of operations increases, general rules give way to case-by-case rules.” This means that efficiency can be increased for recurring activities if they are formalized. In the case of highly variable activities and processes – for example, when there are many exceptions and special cases – formalization leads to a decrease in efficiency.
In his model, Gutenberg recommends replacing general, formal regulations with case-by-case regulations until an optimum is reached.
Graphical representation of the substitution principle
So don’t be misled when describing your processes. If you focus too much on defining individual activities for all possible scenarios, then not only your presentation will become confusing. There is also a risk that you will leave the balance described above and enter the realm of over-organization. So in this case, it would make sense to focus more on case-by-case arrangements. This means that decisions are not fixed in advance in the process, but are defined for an individual case and are only valid for this case.
Reduce formalization and maintain quality
If you feel that your business process is too over-organized, take a step back. Ask yourself if formalization really adds value to you. If necessary, reduce the degree of formal regulation and accept a certain degree of vagueness. So don’t specify in detail what exactly needs to be done, when, and in what form. In doing so, you must ensure that this does not lead to a loss of quality or inefficiency due to under-organization. Methodologies or frameworks are a good solution.
Methodology describes a collection of rules, procedures and tools and describes their systematic application. In contrast to a process, methodologies and frameworks do not focus on activities, but on individual phases. These have an ideal typical sequence, but can also be run through several times. So when you move from a process to a framework, you are less prescriptive about which steps to work through and in what order. They increase the flying height and only provide the acting persons with important rules, scope of action and suitable techniques (tools), which then have to be applied depending on the case.
So, these variants are the preferred choice for business operations that have uniqueness or high variance – for example, project management.
The distinction between frameworks and methodology is somewhat academic in my view. In theory, frameworks are even more abstract and are even less defined. Thus, frameworks allow the application of different methods and tools. For the time being, this is less important for practical applications. The task is to find the right level of regulation and structure for your business. If you have reached this optimum, then it usually does not matter whether you have established a methodology or a framework with it.
Observation and adaptation are decisive for the balance
Unfortunately, there is no rule of thumb to determine if you are currently over- or under-organized with your processes, methodologies, instructions, and frameworks. This means you have to pick out processes where you expect potential for improvement. Always be aware of the goal (output) you are pursuing with the process and reduce or increase the level of formalization. Use a measurable variable to observe whether your actions are having an impact. Useful metrics are, for example, productivity (output/input, e.g. completed operations per working hour), cycle time or the number of unplanned queries during the process.
Also keep in mind that the level of formalization appropriate for you may change over time. Startups that launch with a small team will be able to get by without a large set of rules in the beginning. Then, as the company grows, the need for standardization increases. Scenarios in which overformalization often prevails at the beginning are integrations after company acquisitions and spin-offs, e.g. from intrapreneur programs. Particularly if the business area is highly diversified, it should be examined very carefully whether the processes (especially risk management, reporting, etc.) of the “larger” company are appropriate for the new, usually much smaller member of the corporate group. From my experience, the path from over-organization to optimum often involves greater challenges.
Image source:
Renee Jansoa / stock.adobe.com
Own illustration
