The best description of “executive level buy-in” that I know of is only 7 letters long:

F-U-N-D-I-N-G

Maybe that doesn’t help you as much as you had hoped, so I’ll provide some additional color around this one.  Funding is the absolute bottom-line when we talk about executive buy-in to a BPM initiative.  But funding has to reflect the iterative approach, which means that the project isn’t over when the process is deployed.  The project is really just getting started.

Funding has to map back to the methodology required to do the project right.  It has to reflect all three phases of a proper BPM methodology.  We’ve discussed this methodology on Process People before, and if you haven’t seen some of those posts, I recommend that you read one first!

In reality, executive buy-in also means you have to have an executive who’s willing to get up on a podium and endorse the process improvement program organization-wide.  It means that the executive has to be willing to commit funding in every manner necessary - money, people, time and so on.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ross Mayfield noted today that one of the biggest challenges with collaboration among distributed teams is actually agreeing on who is actually part of the team. Larry Irons quotes research from Distributed Work to that effect:

Of the twenty-four teams surveyed, not a single team was in complete agreement on its boundary: who was and who was not a member of the team. In fact, the average level of agreement within the sample was only 75 percent, such that any given team member was likely to disagree with the rest of his or her team on one-quarter of potential team members. 

We see this all the time in real world BPM projects. Agreeing on what the process is is often the easy part. Identifying the who is can seem nearly impossible, especially if a single team is attempting to define a process that is executed in many different locales all over the world.

A distributed, collaborative environment such as Lombardi Blueprint is key to solving this challenge. Having a structured repository to identify and maintain the players and relationships involved in a business process promotes visibility and knowledge sharing among those involved. Discovering the who in a process becomes far easier when all those that are involved can both document their own role and see how where they fit inside the grand scheme of things regardless of what office or time zone they happen to be working in at the particular moment.

Ed.: This is the first in a series of Q+A sessions focusing specifically on playback session best practices, with our in-house expert, Kris Komassa.

People like to talk a lot about collaboration between business and IT, but it seems like a playback session, as a collaborative, iterative process baked into the development environment, is where the wheel finally hits the road.

When you start any engagement, any project work, the existing tendency is for business and IT to split off fairly early, but I try to keep them in lock step as much as possible, which is important in order to be successful ultimately.

That first playback session is the first formalized opportunity to get everyone back in the same room and on the same page. We try to immediately do a level-set, making sure that everyone has the right expectations coming in, and a clear understanding what is going to be covered. We ensure that there is an agenda of what is going to be accomplished, both from a business and an IT perspective, and that both sides also know their roles and the various responsibilities for the playback.

Then once the playback starts, I’m really big on having an ongoing ad dynamic back-and-forth between business and IT, and typically at first it is driven by IT because they’ve been more hands-on to date in the first parts of the project. There are also instances, though, where the business side is driving because you’re doing more process flow at the first part of the first playback, which is important to note.

Read the rest of this entry »