Business Process Management versus Business Analysis?

<p><span style=”color: #505050; font-size: 11px; line-height: 19px;”>“<a title=”Business Process Management (BPM) is a proven approach to improve your organization” href=”http://www.bizzdesign.com/consultancy/business-process-management/”><strong>Business Process Management</strong></a></span><strong style=”color: #505050; font-size: 11px; line-height: 19px;”> </strong><span style=”color: #505050; font-size: 11px; line-height: 19px;”>is old school; Business Analysis is the new hype”. Huh…? With all terms and hypes it is easy to get confused. If you ask five different persons to clear things up, you will probably get five different explanations. It is all about definitions. In this blog I will distinguish Business Analysis from Business Process Management. Feel free to comment on this blog!   </span></p><h2>What does Wikipedia say about Business Analysis en Business Process Management?</h2><p><em>“<a title=”Business analysis is a research discipline of identifying business needs and determining solutions to business problems.” href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_analysis”><strong>Business Analysis</strong></a> is the discipline of identifying business needs and determining solutions to business problems. Solutions often include a systems development component, but may also consist of process improvement, organizational change or strategic planning and policy development.” </em></p><p><em>“<a title=”Business process management (BPM) has been referred to as a &quot;holistic management&quot; approach[1] to aligning an organization’s business processes with the wants and needs of clients.” href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_management”><strong>Business Process Management</strong></a> is a holistic management approach focused on aligning all aspects of an organization with the wants and needs of clients. It promotes business effectiveness and efficiency while striving for innovation, flexibility, and integration with technology. Business process management attempts to improve processes continuously.”</em></p><h2>Both Business Analysis and Business Process Management are aimed at optimizing performances</h2><p>If we look at the definitions, we see that both Business Analysis and Business Process Management are aimed at optimizing performances. Where Business Analysis has a (usual) strong IT focus, Business Process Management has a broader scope. Business Process Management focuses on end-to-end process performance. There is nothing ‘old school’ about end-to-end process performance. Organizations face challenges in both improving processes and optimizing the IT support. Business Process Management and Business Analysis should strengthen instead of replace each other.</p><p> </p><div class=”captionImage left” style=”width: 600px;”><div class=”captionImage left” style=”width: 300px;”><img class=”left” src=”http://www.bizzdesign.com/assets/Uploads/Pictures_articles/_resampled/resizedimage300300-procesbloem.jpg” alt=”Business Process management Proces Flower” title=”Business Process Management (BPM) is all about optimally designing, implementing, and executing business processes on any level in the organization.” width=”300″ height=”300″/><p class=”caption”>Business Proces Management design and implementation</p></div><p>But why is it that Business Analysis is sometimes pressing Business Process Management to the background? In my opinion it is all about legacy. Business Process Management, as a practice, is a little ‘older’ than Business Analysis. With its ‘age’ there might be more success stories, but also the Business Process Management fiasco’s are plenty. In the past we have seen many instrumental Business Process Management implementations: Business Process Management Suites were bought as solutions to problems, often leading to disappointing results. We now know that only describing our processes does not automatically improve process performances. Business Process Management should be, as the Wikipedia definition explains, about real continuous process improvement. Business Analysis is not yet infected by the failures of Business Process Management. This is why many people share the opinion that Business Analysis is more business oriented, whereas Business Process Management is more execution focused… It is tempting to use the term of Business Analysis instead of Business Process Management, while trying to do the same thing: improving process performance.</p></div><h2>Business Process Management changed its name in Business Analysis</h2><p>If I look at Business Analysis presentations, tools and approaches, I fortunately have a strong ‘déjà vu’ feeling. Many Business Process Management instruments are presented as Business Analysis instruments. So Business Process Management is not gone, but only changed its name. Business Process Management is a very powerful means, aimed at end-to-end process performance and customer quality. These are essential topics for every organization; they should all be involved with Business Process Management. But if they like to call it differently, like Business Analysis, this is OK with me. At BiZZdesign we stick to<strong> <a title=”Business Process Management (BPM) is a very fruitful way to improve your organization, ” href=”http://www.bizzdesign.com/consultancy/business-process-management/bpm-consultancy/”>Business Process Management</a> </strong>as the main practice, from where the Business Analysis services are delivered.</p><p>Good luck with Business Process Management and Business Analysis in your organization!</p>

Categories Uncategorized

Drawing a Line in the Sand

I rarely have trouble sleeping, but when I do it’s over topics like; which is more important, the bow or the arrow? A crayon or a coloring book? A recipe or a stove? Both! Neither! Aaggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Each of the above is important, and w…

Webcast: Enterprise Architect Soft Skills Series

Sharon Evans shared a new webcast series called, "Enterprise Architecture soft skills". I thought I would share with all of you as it looks like it could be a good resource for EA’s looking to strengthen their soft skills. Below…

Categories Uncategorized

drEAmtime – PACE SCAN

I continue to explore the red line laid out by the great post from Ivo Velitchkov. So far I have created following posts:drEAmtime – Communication drEAmtime – Bridging the Silo drEAmtime – Capability Cemetery drEAmtime – EPIC SCANd…

drEAmtime – PACE SCAN

I continue to explore the red line laid out by the great post from Ivo Velitchkov. So far I have created following posts:drEAmtime – Communication drEAmtime – Bridging the Silo drEAmtime – Capability Cemetery drEAmtime – EPIC SCANd…

“New Now” Planning

In my last post I suggested that the planning of large transformation projects needs to focus more on the first step than on the end goal, because that first step, once taken, will be the “new now” – the reality with which the organization will have to work. I promised to try to explain how this might work in practice, so it here goes… Continue reading

#InfoArch – Post 1. Information Architecture – Our definition

Introduction Within all major industries — including automotive, banking, healthcare, energy, telecommunications, insurance, and government— organizations from around the world are beginning to understand the importance and tremendous value associated with ensuring the accuracy, consistency, and timeliness of their own information. To this end, companies are gaining a better appreciation for Enterprise Information Management and […]

Create your own QR code

http://createqrcode.appspot.com/

My LinkedIn Profile:

 
iPhone App:
https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/qr-reader-for-iphone/id368494609?mt=8
 

Permalink

| Leave a comment  »

Categories Uncategorized

drEAmtime – WISE SCAN

Time for post number 6 in exploring the great post from Ivo Velitchkov step-by-step. Here is what I have created so far:

  1. drEAmtime – Communication
  2. drEAmtime – Bridging the Silo
  3. drEAmtime – Capability Cemetery 
  4. drEAmtime – EPIC SCAN
  5. drEAmtime – Archetypes 

To quote Ivo:

Some attempts to achieve IT rationalisation fail spectacularly. I’m not going to list out the reasons for that. But it is may be sad that such failures discredit EA as a management discipline as whole. But sometimes Enterprise Architect are really able to find ways to discover what’s not needed and how to remove it, or what is underutilised and how to achieve better ROI for it. After all  most of them are smart people using good tools. And indeed they shoot inefficiencies and get all the glory and the money to shoot more. But as they rarely get to the cause of the inefficiencies or are in the position to influence the bigger system that produces these inefficiencies, the overall result is an oscillation or even increase in overall IT spending. The increase is because the success of the EA justifies bigger EA budget which is almost without exception a part of the IT budget.

Here Ivo points at one of the most common pitfalls of Enterprise Architecture applied: fighting symptoms instead of the root cause. This has several reasons. First of all external Enterprise Architects coming with a consulting company might not have the needed inside or full pain awareness to truly fight the root cause (some might even look for future business, and a permanent broken information flow is a permanent revenue stream). Internal Enterprise Architects might have a huge reputation problem which quite often is based on Ivos observation. So as mentioned in the other posts a clear focus on fixing the information flow is a good start to shoot at the root cause and get it eliminated or at least plant some seeds to eliminate the root cause later.

But this is clearly not enough. So with respect to fixing the content I apply the WISE SCAN approach, which looks into the future (GLUE Destination):

  • Worth – The future capability must be worthwhile to trigger a transformation. (Ivo:  But sometimes Enterprise Architect are really able to find ways to discover what’s not needed and how to remove it, or what is underutilised and how to achieve better ROI for it.)
  • Informed – The future capability must contain all the relevant information as much as needed containing the necessary facts. (Ivo: After all  most of them are smart people using good tools.)
  • Simple – The  future capability must be the most simple solution which fits the purpose. (Here Ivo seems to have lost trust and is pointing to Perverse Complexity: “Some attempts to achieve IT rationalisation fail spectacularly.”)
  • Environment – The future capability must be embedded in the greater context. (Here Ivo also seems to have lost trust: “But as they rarely get to the cause of the inefficiencies or are in the position to influence the bigger system that produces these inefficiencies, the overall result is an oscillation or even increase in overall IT spending.”)

I share the observation with Ivo that in many cases so called Enterprise Architects do indeed promote decisions which are not following the WISE approach but are focusing to much on some aspects and therefore add to the EPIC complexity. After all the core reason  why emergent complexity exists.

The next post will most likely be about the PACE SCAN. Feedback as always more than welcome to help me improve (or get another red line through my own thoughts. Only some posts to go till Ivos input has done its job for me).

drEAmtime – WISE SCAN

Time for post number 6 in exploring the great post from Ivo Velitchkov step-by-step. Here is what I have created so far:

  1. drEAmtime – Communication
  2. drEAmtime – Bridging the Silo
  3. drEAmtime – Capability Cemetery 
  4. drEAmtime – EPIC SCAN
  5. drEAmtime – Archetypes 

To quote Ivo:

Some attempts to achieve IT rationalisation fail spectacularly. I’m not going to list out the reasons for that. But it is may be sad that such failures discredit EA as a management discipline as whole. But sometimes Enterprise Architect are really able to find ways to discover what’s not needed and how to remove it, or what is underutilised and how to achieve better ROI for it. After all  most of them are smart people using good tools. And indeed they shoot inefficiencies and get all the glory and the money to shoot more. But as they rarely get to the cause of the inefficiencies or are in the position to influence the bigger system that produces these inefficiencies, the overall result is an oscillation or even increase in overall IT spending. The increase is because the success of the EA justifies bigger EA budget which is almost without exception a part of the IT budget.

Here Ivo points at one of the most common pitfalls of Enterprise Architecture applied: fighting symptoms instead of the root cause. This has several reasons. First of all external Enterprise Architects coming with a consulting company might not have the needed inside or full pain awareness to truly fight the root cause (some might even look for future business, and a permanent broken information flow is a permanent revenue stream). Internal Enterprise Architects might have a huge reputation problem which quite often is based on Ivos observation. So as mentioned in the other posts a clear focus on fixing the information flow is a good start to shoot at the root cause and get it eliminated or at least plant some seeds to eliminate the root cause later.

But this is clearly not enough. So with respect to fixing the content I apply the WISE SCAN approach, which looks into the future (GLUE Destination):

  • Worth – The future capability must be worthwhile to trigger a transformation. (Ivo:  But sometimes Enterprise Architect are really able to find ways to discover what’s not needed and how to remove it, or what is underutilised and how to achieve better ROI for it.)
  • Informed – The future capability must contain all the relevant information as much as needed containing the necessary facts. (Ivo: After all  most of them are smart people using good tools.)
  • Simple – The  future capability must be the most simple solution which fits the purpose. (Here Ivo seems to have lost trust and is pointing to Perverse Complexity: “Some attempts to achieve IT rationalisation fail spectacularly.”)
  • Environment – The future capability must be embedded in the greater context. (Here Ivo also seems to have lost trust: “But as they rarely get to the cause of the inefficiencies or are in the position to influence the bigger system that produces these inefficiencies, the overall result is an oscillation or even increase in overall IT spending.”)

I share the observation with Ivo that in many cases so called Enterprise Architects do indeed promote decisions which are not following the WISE approach but are focusing to much on some aspects and therefore add to the EPIC complexity. After all the core reason  why emergent complexity exists.

The next post will most likely be about the PACE SCAN. Feedback as always more than welcome to help me improve (or get another red line through my own thoughts. Only some posts to go till Ivos input has done its job for me).