|
Improve or Reengineer Your Process?
by Darrel A. Raynor, PMP, CCP
(C) Copyright 2000 Data Analysis & Results, Inc.
"PM Advisor" purpose: to help Project, Program, and other
managers. Readers please submit your questions and responses to this
column via Email to DARaynor@DataAnalysis.com.
If you would like to receive this column and more monthly via my
confidential Project Management Email list, point your web browser to:
(don't use 'www.') DA_R.Inc.ProjectList.ListBot.com
Question
"How do we know when to improve a process or reengineer it?
This is a frequent question, usually about a specific process,
especially from project and team leaders on their way to project
management roles. As people start to view project processes as a
critical success factor for projects, they naturally want to improve
their processes to better fit their custom projects.
Project management encompasses process management for not only the
main work of the project, but for the project processes. If project
management does NOT include process management in your organization,
perhaps it should
Discussion
When starting new projects for my clients and also when called in to
fix projects, examining project processes is at the top of my
list. Many times quite a lot of the discord within a project team and
between a team and management or other organizations can be traced to
project process inadequacies.
Here are factors to mull over when deciding how to handle a process
change: the size of the change, the number of and specific people
involved, your organization culture, single or multiple organization
involvement, complexity of the current process, if technology can be
applied, the impact of the results you seek, if the process will affect
multiple projects, and whether or not you will have management backing
for your project.
Lets take a quick look at three different tactics to consider when
one of your processes needs updating: Tweaking, or normal continuous
improvement changes; Redesign, for those processes needing significant
changes; and Reengineering, when you are in trouble or need a big hit
productivity improvement.
Tweaking
If most of the factors above are low, then gently improving your
process is the way to go. Without a lot to gain, there are other areas
where your efforts will be better spent. Minor, controlled changes can
be planned and adapted to optimize or to address small process problems.
An example would be switching your change control meeting day from
Thursday to Wednesday to make a weekly document update schedule for your
public internet pages. This type of change generally requires input and
action from those whose work is affected by the change. Management may
want to be informed, however will not be concerned. Tweaking of this
nature can be successful without using many change agent tactics. Tweak
at your whim!
Redesign
If many of the factors above show above the minimum, and the change
required is not too complex nor does it involve many organizations,
redesign may be your best option. Significant problems or bottlenecks in
several areas can also lead to process redesign. An example would be to
reform your change control team around the Marketing and Customer
Support functions rather than software maintenance.
Perhaps prior, your change control function was driven by production
MIS or in-house users. Now management needs different responses as the
product may be farther along the product life cycle or for other
reasons. Redesign may point you to delete or add a step or two in the
process and tweak many of your steps. Redesign normally keeps many of
the same process steps, and in this case perhaps changing only the
priority setting functions and the major players. Your effort expended
during redesign working the people side of the change equation will not
be wasted. Redesign anytime you see gross inefficiency, when technology
in common use in your organization can be leveraged, or when business
goals or climate change.
Reengineer
Market changes or at least one significant factor that is clearly in
need can be enough to trigger a process reengineering effort. More
normally, higher rankings in multiple factors may lead you to attempt to
reengineer one of your project (or feeding!) processes. Make sure up
front that you are not changing for change sake, and that you will have
enough allies and management support to finish what you start.
Reengineering is definitely riskier, defining risk here as the chance to
gain higher rewards or to lose your investment, in this case your clout,
time, and effort. Sometimes the downside to a failed reengineering
effort is that NO changes will then be addressed for a long period of
time.
Reengineering a process requires a thorough as-is process
review, setting your goals, and a complete recharting of all the tasks
and responsibilities that are now deemed worth doing. Today, technology
almost always plays a critical role in our capabilities. Many techniques
we now use, or at least are familiar with, may not have been available
when your process was first laid out, or even as it evolved.
Questioning each step of your process, really getting down to whether
or not each step adds value to the overall process, is a painstaking
process in itself. Ask yourself when deciding to reengineer, whether
your team has the knowledge, the time, and the patience to walk through
all the steps one by one, probably with multiple groups multiple times.
While your group may have something to gain, another group may end up
feeling like they lost, whether it be people or control. Remember, just
because you have an AH HA moment and realize where great savings can be
had, your associates may well take some hard convincing, over a period
of time. Reengineer (at your peril
) when you see huge gains from
cutting or crafting many steps, when your change may make the difference
between success and failure, or when adopting a new technology will
allow you to leapfrog your current, out of date, processes.
Follow-Up
Multi-Tasking
Time to Negotiate Task Switching Time?
Here is a quote from one of the project oriented
discussion groups I follow: "Multi-tasking, road-runner, or focused
effort thinking: Most of our folks have been interrupt driven since they
started working in the corporate environment. If a "fire"
erupts somewhere, go put it out then start looking for the next fire in
addition to doing the project work that you've been assigned. In the
Critical Chain (CC) Theory of Constraints approach, we want people to
focus on one and only one task and not a multi-task. When people are
able to "single-task", their effenciency and productivity on
that project goes way up and CC works miracles. When people multi-task,
CC suffers tremendously." Jack C. Randazzo, RTR Project Management,
Lucent Technologies Inc., jrandazzo@lucent.com
-------------------
Darrel A. Raynor is a Project Manager and Project Turn-around
Consultant. He consults, speaks, delivers training, and writes on
software application development project management and other use of
technology in business. He is a Project Management Professional (PMP), a
Certified Computer Professional (CCP), with an MBA. Darrel's passion is
building and leading software application development project teams,
specializing in project planning, requirements, and project execution.
Mr. Raynor's core beliefs include full disclosure, adherence to
professional society codes of ethics, open communication and teaching.
Mentoring project leads and managers is Mr. Raynor's delightful
specialty. He founded Data Analysis & Results, Inc. in 1985. Contact
him at 972-935-9525, www.DataAnalysis.com,
or DARaynor@DataAnalysis.com.
Trade names, Trade, and Service marks are the property of their
respective owners. |