Process Management and Process-Oriented Improvement Programs
Discussion Questions and Exercises
1 What are some of the main advantages and challenges of adopting a process-oriented view of the organization? How are these related to the traditional functional structure?
2 What are the purposes of and challenges with each of the six main principles or activities that define successful process management? Does it make sense to group the activities into the three phases of initialization, definition, and control? Why or why not?
3 How is the Six Sigma improvement methodology related to the basic principles of process management and the three phases of initialization, definition, and control?
4 Explain the CPS model and the "chain of customers" concept. How does this help facilitate an effective process orientation?
5 Considering the document distribution example in Section 2.1.4,
- What would you say are the main problems with the management of this process?
- Do you agree with Joe's approach for arriving at a better managed process?
- Is there anything you would do differently?
- Do you see any potential for radical redesign of the entire process? What do you suggest?
6 What is the technical definition of Six Sigma quality, and how is this definition related to the measure of 3.4 DPMO?
7 How would you define or describe a Six Sigma initiative to a friend who has never heard about this before? What is new with Six Sigma compared to other quality-management programs?
8 What are the components of the Six Sigma framework? Are there any similarities with issues emphasized in reengineering and general process management? What is the importance of each individual component for the overall approach? What are the implications if a certain element is not in place?
9 Do the Six Sigma cost and revenue rationale and the combined effect of the effi-ciency and effectiveness loops make sense? How would you interpret this in a situ-ation where Six Sigma is applied at a hospital or an educational institution like a university?
10 What is the standard approach in Six Sigma for reducing variability? How does it relate to improvements in cycle time and yield?
11 What are the traditional roles in a Six Sigma improvement project and how are they related to the training scheme? Does this approach make sense to you? Can you see any potential drawbacks, for example, in light of the theories for evolutionary and revolutionary change?
12 At the core of Six Sigma programs lies the improvement methodology DMAIC. Discuss how each of its five steps relates to the other components of the Six Sigma framework.
13 What are some of the reasons often mentioned for the success of Six Sigma? What are the rationales? Do you think they make sense?
14 What are some of the often-cited reasons for reengineering failures? Can you see any connections to the Six Sigma framework or the general principles for process management?
15 How would you position Six Sigma in relation to reengineering and TQM?
16 What is the meaning of the process paradox? How can it be avoided?
17 What are some of the criteria often used to determine when a process should be rede¬signed? What forces drive the need for process redesign?
18 Discuss the principles commonly used in reengineering for deciding which processes to redesign? How do these criteria relate to those used in Six Sigma for prioritizing among improvement projects?
19 Discuss the similarities and differences among the reengineering frameworks sug-gested by Roberts, Lowenthal, and Cross et al., described in Section 2.3.5. Also, what connections can be seen with the Six Sigma framework?
20 Explain how TQM and business process redesign can support one another in the context of the methodology outlined in Figure 2.15.
21 How can the general revolutionary change model help explain the many reengineer¬ing failures? What is the pragmatic strategy many companies tend to use in order to lower the risk of failure and the cost of change but still leverage the potential of busi¬ness process design? What are its main advantages and disadvantages? What is the prerequisite for this strategy to be a viable option?
22 PCs and the Productivity Paradox*-despite the riotous instability of stock prices lately, some prognosticators are advising us not to worry. Sure, the stock market has experienced unprecedented growth without significant downslide for 7 straight years. And sure the market has always been cyclical in the past. But we're in the midst of a revolution, say the pundits, an information revolution. Spurred by personal computers and the Internet, the economy has morphed in a fundamental way. Information technology has ushered in a paradigm-smashing leap in productivity that might have made recession passe.
Not so fast, say those who've studied these issues. It's not even clear that personal computers have affected productivity appreciably, let alone leading to the kind of improvements that would allow us to sail off with our mutual fund investments into a tranquil prosperity. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show that despite the personal computer "revolution" and the billions invested in technology, productivity gains measured in output per hour have remained at a feeble annual rate of 1% for the past 30 years, which pales in comparison to the brawny productivity growth of 3% annu¬ally experienced during the 1950s and 1960s.
Common sense indicates that personal computers should increase productivity. They let individuals plan and budget far more effectively than a calculator or a table. They make it possible to keep track of people and things far more easily than a roster or a list. They help people communicate far more efficiently than a typewriter or a tele¬phone. They can tap far more research sources than the largest collection of periodicals or books. Even though some studies have shown that PCs have had a positive impact on productivity, and even though some experts contend that such intangibles as convenience and service don't show up in the statistics, the fact remains that the productivity figures haven't budged. This anomaly has been called the "productivity paradox," and if you look at your own habits and those of people around you, you'll see some of the reasons:
- Those memos with their fancy fonts and elaborate formatting take longer to create than the simple typewritten memos of the past.
- likewise with those presentations adorned with graphics, sound effects, and animation.
- E-mail makes it easy to stay in the loop, but wading through scores of nonessen¬tial messages each day is definitely a time sink.
- The web can be an invaluable informational resource, but the temptation is great to jump from one site to another, each in turn less relevant to your work needs, not to mention using the web to shop, check out sports scores, and engage in chitchat.
- Then there is the equipment maintenance. Whereas in the past only specialists got silicon under their fingernails, today everybody has to deal with software bugs, hardware conflicts, and system crashes. And when the machine is not coop¬erating, it lures you to tinker endlessly in pursuit of PC perfection.
- A few years ago, a survey by SBT Accounting Systems of San Rafael, California, showed that the typical computer user in a business setting wastes 5.1 h each week on PCs.
- Another study by Forrester Research of Cambridge, Massachusetts, showed that
20% of employees' time spent on the Internet at work doesn't involve their jobs.
This is not to say that you should trade your Pentium III machine for a typewriter or prevent workers from having access to the Internet. It's not the technology that's the villain. It's how we use it. Because the machines are so dumb-all they really do is add and subtract zeros and ones-we have to be smart in managing them.
a. What policies can a company establish to remedy some of the causes for the productivity paradox?
b. Should the productivity paradox be a factor when considering the application of information technology to business process design?
Textbook - BUSINESS PROCESS MODELING, SIMULATION AND DESIGN - SECOND EDITION by Manuel Laguna and Johan Marklund