page 1 page 2 page 3 page 4 page 5 page 6 page 7 page 8 page 9 page 10 page 11 page 12 page 13 page 14 page 15 page 16 page 17 page 18 page 19 page 20 page 21 page 22 page 23 page 24 page 25 page 26 page 27 page 28 page 29 page 30 page 31 page 32 page 33 page 34 page 35 page 36 page 37 page 38 page 39 page 40 page 41 page 42 page 43 page 44 page 45 page 46 page 47 page 48 page 49 page 50 page 51 page 52 page 53 page 54 page 55 page 56 page 57 page 58 page 59 page 60 page 61 page 62 page 63 page 64 page 65 page 66 page 67 page 68 page 69 page 70 page 71 page 72 page 73 page 74 page 75 page 76 page 77 page 78 page 79 page 80 page 81 page 82 page 83 page 84 page 85 page 86 page 87 page 88 page 89 page 90 page 91 page 92 page 93 page 94 page 95 page 96 page 97 page 98 page 99 page 100 page 101 page 102 page 103 page 104 page 105 page 106 page 107 page 108 page 109 page 110 page 111 page 112 page 113 page 114 page 115 page 116 page 117 page 118 page 119 page 120 page 121 page 122 page 123 page 124 page 125 page 126 page 127 page 128 page 129 page 130 page 131 page 132 page 133 page 134 page 135 page 136 page 137 page 138 page 139 page 140 page 141 page 142 page 143 page 144 page 145 page 146 page 147 page 148 page 149 page 150 page 151 page 152 page 153 page 154 page 155 page 156 page 157 page 158 page 159 page 160 page 161 page 162 page 163 page 164 page 165 page 166 page 167 page 168 page 169 page 170 page 171 page 172 page 173 page 174 page 175 page 176 page 177 page 178 page 179 page 180 page 181 page 182 page 183 page 184 page 185 page 186 page 187 page 188 page 189 page 190 page 191 page 192 page 193 page 194 page 195 page 196 page 197 page 198 page 199 page 200 page 201 page 202 page 203 page 204 page 205 page 206 page 207 page 208 page 209 page 210 page 211 page 212 page 213 page 214 page 215 page 216 page 217 page 218 page 219 page 220 page 221 page 222 page 223 page 224 page 225 page 226
|
The second article in a new series describes the new business process transformation framework as it applies to a real business process requirement By Rick C. Burris and Robert E. Howard, Oliver Wight Principals, with contribution from Tom Mercer, value chain group model architect Using the dictionary 8 www. bus- ex. com JANUARY 10 I n the first article of this three- part series, we discussed the long list of enterprise resource planning ( ERP) system implementation failures and introduced a new technology framework for accomplishing business process transformation in those implementations. We introduced an efficient and effective, holistic process design approach. This approach ensures balance is maintained throughout the design process among the key drivers of business transformation success: people, process, and tools. Studies on the subject of ERP failures have clearly identified that the primary cause of failure is the difficulty companies, and their people, have in properly and quickly articulating the process design needed for success. They fail because the companies and their people lack the skills, knowledge, and tools required to successfully incorporate best practices, the business needs, and system capabilities into a transformational framework. This article will further describe the new business process transformation framework as it applies to a real business process requirement. We will present a value chain scenario developed in ValueScape ( an enabling modeling tool) from an extensible resource model ( XRM) dictionary that contains integrated best practice process flows, enabling definitions, policies, procedures, and practices with complementary metrics and functional role definitions. The business issue A global company has determined that its master scheduling process has continually failed to produce the anticipated results. It is a cumbersome, costly, and ineffective key process that impacts directly the company's operational performance and business success. It has been a number of years since the initial ERP installation, which included master scheduling functionality. The ERP functionality was selected and configured using the typical " user- defined requirements," which were largely reflective of what was then current practice. That initial design proved to be flawed and, over time, was no longer capable of scheduling according to the business requirements and needs. As a result, the master supply planner has developed many off- line ( outside ERP) spreadsheets and other non-integrated, work- around practices in order to produce a master supply plan and related schedules. Schedule attainment results remain low when measured against actual production. After repeated efforts to " simply use the software as designed," it has become clear that to produce different results, the company needs to take a different approach. This approach includes taking a hard look at how the scheduling process needs to operate to ensure product availability and how the ERP system must be configured to support the needed process attributes. A key value in utilizing pre- populated process designs in XRM dictionaries is that companies do not have to literally start with a blank sheet of paper when developing the process designs. They can start with the process framework that represents best practices and then ask, " what will we need to change to adapt this process design to our business and planning needs?" The approach of starting with a business process framework enables the process design to be completed in less time. Instead of the company's planners focusing on the administrative tasks involved in documenting the process design on a blank sheet of paper, they can focus on the critical thinking needed to ensure that the process design reflects what is needed to be successful. This critical thinking includes comparing current company practices to the best practice models and challenging the need for deviation. This approach produces a truly transformational design for the company as measured by its goals for process performance. The process of transformational design In developing the process designs, the company tasks internal teams to produce final process designs. In this case, the company has decided to re- engineer the master supply planning process using business process transformation framework ( BPTF) methodology. The company has arranged for outside expert help to guide their use of the BPTF methodology to develop the business process design. This methodology includes conducting redesign workshops, using a modeling tool called ValueScape. ValueScape consists of a pre- defined extensible resource model ( XRM) which contains industry best practices for integrated planning and control. These best practices are based on Oliver Wight's extensive experience over 40 years in developing process designs and on the best practice standards contained in the Oliver Wight Class A Checklist for Business Excellence, Sixth Edition. The process designs include integrated workflows, roles, responsibilities, and performance measurements in what is called an XRM model dictionary. The information in the dictionary is drawn upon as a baseline for the new design and applied to the specific nuances and needs for this company. Figure 1- Example of the extensible reference model ( XRM) dictionary JANUARY 10 www. bus- ex. com 9 Strategic management: The business process transformation framework |