A key challenge to connecting content is determining exactly what is useful and what is not.
The truth is this – the vast majority of information produced by the enterprise has little residual value to the enterprise.
The highest value content, or intellectual assets, are those that format, drive, guide or inspire the majority of information produced by employees. This "core asset set" may evolve and change over time, but it still sets the standards that define business value. The core set is the foundation for most content that is produced. Due to the critical nature of this set, and because it's generally small (relative to all content produced) the best way to manage these assets is manually as it must be continually refined and validated. However, once an inventory is complete, updating and evolving consumes little resources as it becomes self perpetuating if managed in the right kind of system.
The fresher the asset, the greater the value
New content produced from the core set is at its zenith in value the moment it is completed. Bottom line: the best work is always the most recent. As newer and newer content is produced, the value of the predecessor continually diminishes until it is reduced to archival status.
The real challenge at this stage is the location of the content, as the fresher it is, the closer it resides to the authoring mechanism. Thus, the very best content often lives in the least accessible places, the desktops and laptops of the creators. Making the freshest content widely and painlessly accessible is the real challenge, for both the system and the culture.
Archived content provides infrequent value
This is where search engines and content/KM management systems can be useful (though questionable in proportion to their cost), by automatically indexing and cataloging information stored throughout the infrastructure. Sure you'll have to sift through a lot of junk, but eventually you will find what you think you need. Odds are, however, if you didn't find it in the first two tiers, it's probably not all that valuable anyway – certainly not in proportion to the cost of the time wasted finding it.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Business process defined
Since business process is one of the areas covered in this blog, I felt it would be useful to provide a clear definition, since it is thrown about so much by people who frankly, don't really understand it.
A business process is simply a collection of like minded activities or tasks that generally occur in a sequence, or flow. A process breaks down, or decomposes, into increasing precise subtypes of activities, called sub-activities. And a business process has a scope and a point of view.
Processes have two kinds of relationships:
Activities in a process sequence can have relationships between other activities — for example, the result, or output, of one activity could initiate another. This is also known as a dependency.
Activities also have constantly changing relationships to resources, such as content, rules and regulations, people and tools. As a process decomposes to greater detail, activity resources refine as well, becoming more and more precise.
About process scope and point of view:
A process scoped at the enterprise level might be called "Grow Business," and would include three levels or stages; at the highest level, it is strategic, which in turn defines the operational level, which then defines the tactical level. A process scoped at the operational level could be "Support Customer." And a process scoped at the tactical level could be "Answer Phone."
Point of view refers to the process perspective, as the CEO could have a different view of the same process than the manager or line worker.
So what's a "business process model?"
A business process model captures, or documents, the flows, decomposition and relationships between activities and resources of a process as defined by scope and point of view. And they ain't pretty.
A business process is simply a collection of like minded activities or tasks that generally occur in a sequence, or flow. A process breaks down, or decomposes, into increasing precise subtypes of activities, called sub-activities. And a business process has a scope and a point of view.
Processes have two kinds of relationships:
Activities in a process sequence can have relationships between other activities — for example, the result, or output, of one activity could initiate another. This is also known as a dependency.
Activities also have constantly changing relationships to resources, such as content, rules and regulations, people and tools. As a process decomposes to greater detail, activity resources refine as well, becoming more and more precise.
About process scope and point of view:
A process scoped at the enterprise level might be called "Grow Business," and would include three levels or stages; at the highest level, it is strategic, which in turn defines the operational level, which then defines the tactical level. A process scoped at the operational level could be "Support Customer." And a process scoped at the tactical level could be "Answer Phone."
Point of view refers to the process perspective, as the CEO could have a different view of the same process than the manager or line worker.
So what's a "business process model?"
A business process model captures, or documents, the flows, decomposition and relationships between activities and resources of a process as defined by scope and point of view. And they ain't pretty.
Friday, October 9, 2009
A passion for process
Business process is something I have been fascinated with for some time now. And, while it may not be obvious at first glance, my current venture, Emantix, is simply the latest evolution of my fascination with and thinking on business process. After all, business processes are really nothing more than words organized in a such a way as to achieve consensus between two people or more as to what it is they do. Nothing more than words. Nouns, verbs, adjectives, pronouns, interrogatives, prepositions, interjections... antonyms, synonyms, hyponyms, troponyms, hypernyms, meronyms... make a sentence with me.
But I digress.
In the last company I started, Contextware, I reinvented the mechanisms, the tools, of business process, as well as the output, or interface. But I did not go far enough. Truly reinventing process requires much more than mere functionality, buttons to push, true reinvention demands a greater and more comprehensive understanding of information and the rules of language itself, as that is where business process knowledge lives and breathes, and hides.
And the biggest challenge of all is whatever form the answer takes, if it isn't easy as hell to do, people won't do it, use it or buy it. So while my postings on this blog may cover many things, I apologize for how often I keep coming back to the fundamental business benefits of — and imperative for — reinventing business process.
But I digress.
In the last company I started, Contextware, I reinvented the mechanisms, the tools, of business process, as well as the output, or interface. But I did not go far enough. Truly reinventing process requires much more than mere functionality, buttons to push, true reinvention demands a greater and more comprehensive understanding of information and the rules of language itself, as that is where business process knowledge lives and breathes, and hides.
And the biggest challenge of all is whatever form the answer takes, if it isn't easy as hell to do, people won't do it, use it or buy it. So while my postings on this blog may cover many things, I apologize for how often I keep coming back to the fundamental business benefits of — and imperative for — reinventing business process.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
How to start "managing knowledge"
When I attended a conference on knowledge management a while back, I was struck by the number of people trying to figure out how to best get started with KM in their organization. The real question was, are they still trying to figure it out after several decades, or was it a whole new generation who have been tasked with KM projects but not constrained by the intellectual baggage of past techniques – a generation far more willing to embrace technology than shun it?
It appeared to be the latter (at least I have convinced myself that is the case). So here's my best advice for them, along with a do-it-yourself "KM starter kit." But first, the advice: stop worrying about tacit knowledge. Pursuing tacit knowledge delivers few nuggets of usefulness amid mountains of useless information, and wastes much time and effort to do so. And, while things like questionnaires and communities of practice are “low cost” technologically, they most certainly have a financial impact on productivity (and consulting budgets).
So what is tangible and “knowable” in the enterprise? Drum roll please...that's right, business process.
While an organization is made up of people, it is the processes, the tasks, where people interact, hand-off and collaborate that define organizational purpose and value. People can be replaced, the processes cannot (unless the business model changes, of course).
With that in mind, here's how to build your KM starter kit:
All these things together will give you a powerful road map for managing knowledge in a useful and meaningful way.
Now get going!
It appeared to be the latter (at least I have convinced myself that is the case). So here's my best advice for them, along with a do-it-yourself "KM starter kit." But first, the advice: stop worrying about tacit knowledge. Pursuing tacit knowledge delivers few nuggets of usefulness amid mountains of useless information, and wastes much time and effort to do so. And, while things like questionnaires and communities of practice are “low cost” technologically, they most certainly have a financial impact on productivity (and consulting budgets).
So what is tangible and “knowable” in the enterprise? Drum roll please...that's right, business process.
While an organization is made up of people, it is the processes, the tasks, where people interact, hand-off and collaborate that define organizational purpose and value. People can be replaced, the processes cannot (unless the business model changes, of course).
With that in mind, here's how to build your KM starter kit:
- Make a list of all the processes you can think of (feel free to ask others, consult process models, etc.). Then next to each one, prioritize it in a way meaningful to you by assigning a naming or numbering sequence (“high value, medium value, low value,” or “1,2,3”).
- Next, make a list of all or some of your employees. Again, prioritize in a way that is meaningful, whether by retirement date, average employee tenure, RIF candidate, etc.
- Connect the dots. Cross reference processes with employees, then use highest priority of both people and processes to determine where to start – which processes to document first, which employees to interview.
All these things together will give you a powerful road map for managing knowledge in a useful and meaningful way.
Now get going!
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Process power to the people!
There are two kinds of business processes in the enterprise – consistently executable processes (deviation will not be tolerated!) and ad hoc processes, which guide, advise and recommend. The first are ideal for automation as they are tangible in their output, the second, not so much. The first have an entire class of tools and software to support them (BPM in its many forms), the second, very few. Ironically, this seems backward, as only 10-20% of the enterprise is automatable, while the majority consists of ad hoc, or “knowledge” processes.
Why aren't traditional process tools used for ad hoc processes? Process thinking is hard, it is not natural nor intuitive as it is a man-made thing created to describe man-made things (people brought together to produce goods and services for less than the market will bear) – thus the tools developed are hard to learn, hard to use and hard to understand by humans (but relatively easy to use as business rules for software code, thus the connection to automation).
For the benefits of business process to be realized throughout the enterprise, the tools to capture and communicate process must be easily utilized by anyone, anywhere, anytime with little or no training.
Is it possible for process tools to be created to do this? Sure it is, but it is hard. It takes time, experimentation and investment. And process tool vendors don't even consider it a requirement to do so as they have used the same metaphors for decades and assume rigorous training is a given, not an option.
While the Web freed the interface, web-based tools are only as good as the effort put into the design. And, while process tool vendors are bringing browser-based process tools to market, they have only done so now that the technology has made it easy for them to reproduce the same interfaces they have always used.
Of course, since these vendors now have browser-based tools, they seem to think this makes them inherently more useful and that they can now support and enable ad hoc processes.
But they simply don't get it.
While the Web provides a powerful means of distribution, it is not the medium that matters most – it is usability and usefulness. Only then will the power of business process truly be brought to all people.
Why aren't traditional process tools used for ad hoc processes? Process thinking is hard, it is not natural nor intuitive as it is a man-made thing created to describe man-made things (people brought together to produce goods and services for less than the market will bear) – thus the tools developed are hard to learn, hard to use and hard to understand by humans (but relatively easy to use as business rules for software code, thus the connection to automation).
For the benefits of business process to be realized throughout the enterprise, the tools to capture and communicate process must be easily utilized by anyone, anywhere, anytime with little or no training.
Is it possible for process tools to be created to do this? Sure it is, but it is hard. It takes time, experimentation and investment. And process tool vendors don't even consider it a requirement to do so as they have used the same metaphors for decades and assume rigorous training is a given, not an option.
While the Web freed the interface, web-based tools are only as good as the effort put into the design. And, while process tool vendors are bringing browser-based process tools to market, they have only done so now that the technology has made it easy for them to reproduce the same interfaces they have always used.
Of course, since these vendors now have browser-based tools, they seem to think this makes them inherently more useful and that they can now support and enable ad hoc processes.
But they simply don't get it.
While the Web provides a powerful means of distribution, it is not the medium that matters most – it is usability and usefulness. Only then will the power of business process truly be brought to all people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)