We also wish to gauge the client's expectations. Finally we wish to implement a strategy
designed to meet those expectations as best we can. To ensure we meet those expectations we need
to be able to prove it in some way.
It’s here where the “As-is” analysis starts to become
important to the overall success of our project. At the same time, it is here that we can
start to get into a little trouble.
Depending on the point of view of the Project Manager or the Client,
they can often see the “As-is” analysis as just overhead; that this step in the
overall project success is superfluous and therefore not required.
The problem
Depending on whom you ask, you'll get some very different
opinions on what is important to the success of a Business Process project. Each project has its challenges with: budgets
that match my weekly coffee expenses; to timelines that made you realise how
precious a minute can be. In these types
of project challenges we're always looking for ways to deliver quicker. The faster we can work towards the end goal
the closer we'll be to the budget or timeline.
The “As-is” process is oft times raised as an overhead. The argument against completing an “As-is”
analysis goes something along the lines of:
- We're here to improve the process, not deliver the existing process;
- The documentation produced in the “As-is” doesn’t serve any purpose and no-one will end up reading it;
- Why spend all this time worrying about how they currently do things when we can just dive in to how they should do things? or
- That it simply inhibits the creative process.
If you have ever faced this situation or would struggle to
justify the “As-is” process being included in the project delivery, hopefully
we’ll be able to address some of these key concerns and ensure that we all can
understand why “As-is” analysis is important to the success of the project.
Consequences of avoiding the “As-is”
What are some of the consequences of skipping this step in the delivery?
Diving straight into creating the “perfect world” scenario has its short-term rewards. The project has saved time in the delivery cycle. That's got to be worth something.
However, old habits die hard. Not mine, but the people within the business. When we introduce a new process without fully understanding the old process, we lose some of the justifications to why the old process existed. Whilst not all reasons for existing processes are well thought out, they do give us an insight as to the behaviour of the people and systems involved.
When confronted with a scenario that the new process perhaps doesn’t cater for, or handle well, the people involved will need to resort to their own devices. They'll look to how they used to handle this scenario previously and fall back on old habits to get things done. All of a sudden our shiny new process has a flaw. Trust in the new process gets a little shaky. The adoption of the new process soon becomes an issue.
As a consultant, I get sent to analyse processes in many different industries, from finance to mining, from local council to federal government. Getting to know the terminology within each industry and their thought process is important. Getting to know the constraints and boundaries of what each industry can and cannot do is also an important part of the "As-is" process. It helps me get to know them.
Moreover, it helps me understand why the process exists the way it does. If there is a clear reason for why a step in the process exists then I can make an informed decision of the validity of that step and whether this needs to be addressed in the new process. If no one knows why a process or a step in the process exists, then we need to tread lightly. We need to investigate this step further to make sure we are not missing something important.
Diving straight into creating the “perfect world” scenario has its short-term rewards. The project has saved time in the delivery cycle. That's got to be worth something.
However, old habits die hard. Not mine, but the people within the business. When we introduce a new process without fully understanding the old process, we lose some of the justifications to why the old process existed. Whilst not all reasons for existing processes are well thought out, they do give us an insight as to the behaviour of the people and systems involved.
When confronted with a scenario that the new process perhaps doesn’t cater for, or handle well, the people involved will need to resort to their own devices. They'll look to how they used to handle this scenario previously and fall back on old habits to get things done. All of a sudden our shiny new process has a flaw. Trust in the new process gets a little shaky. The adoption of the new process soon becomes an issue.
As a consultant, I get sent to analyse processes in many different industries, from finance to mining, from local council to federal government. Getting to know the terminology within each industry and their thought process is important. Getting to know the constraints and boundaries of what each industry can and cannot do is also an important part of the "As-is" process. It helps me get to know them.
Moreover, it helps me understand why the process exists the way it does. If there is a clear reason for why a step in the process exists then I can make an informed decision of the validity of that step and whether this needs to be addressed in the new process. If no one knows why a process or a step in the process exists, then we need to tread lightly. We need to investigate this step further to make sure we are not missing something important.
Measuring success
If I have a car, and I came to you, the master mechanic and
said, I want you to improve my car. I
want it to use less petrol per 100km.
Would you just start by giving me a magazine and circle all
the top ten cars for fuel efficiency and get me to buy a new one.
Or would you start by asking what type of car I had? Why I chose that car? How old that car is? How fast I drive that car? How far I drive it? Is it an automatic or manual? How often I accelerate? If it's a manual, how many rpm do I let it
get to before I change gears?
If we go the path of the magazine, and reengineer the
process, we might not discover that they just bought a brand new car last
month. That the car they bought might
already be the most petrol efficient car on the market. So our great idea is now to sell the month
old car at a loss and buy the same car again… but maybe with a different
colour.
The improvement they required might be a habitual one. They may just need to slow down, or
accelerate less, or use petrol with higher octane.
All that may need changing is the driver’s bad habits. It could be that in the end, that is all the
process may need. It might be that the
process is sound but that the people within the process need to be (re-)trained
to ensure more efficiency in the way they work.
We won't know until we see what the "As-is" process
is first. We can measure how much petrol
is used per 100km. We can then come up
with a process improvement or change that proves that we are beating that
number. We now have set the
expectation. Our job now is to meet that
expectation.
Get to know the beast
Before working out a plan for a "To-be" process, I
need to know the "As-is". Not
because I like living in the past. Not
because I want to use this as the basis for my "To-be". Not because someone said I have to, and
therefore I should.
What I want to get out of the "As-is" process are
the following:
- Where are the current bottlenecks?
- What are the current process dependencies - which processes are dependent on it; and which processes does it depend on?
- Who are my direct actors - people that directly affect this process; and who are my indirect actors - people that don't directly affect this process but have some stake or interest in it;
- Depending on what I've been asked to improve or automate, what are the metrics I can get from this process; how much money is spent on one process, and at each step; how long does the process take overall, and at each step; how many resources are involved in one process, and at each step;
- Which systems are involved with this process - are there any legacy systems; are there any external entities or people outside the organisation, such as other government agencies or something as simple as PayPal;
- And how do people within this process like to work. What are their personal habits? How comfortable are they within the process and how receptive are they to changes.
- Some legal change that got forced into an already flawed process;
- Changing of personnel or management; or
- System dependencies that enforced process change.
Understanding how the process got flawed is an important
step in understanding the business and the people within the business. Once I know this information, I can start
making informed decisions on what the “To-be” process will look like.
Producing useful documentation
Part of the reason for the “As-is” step being seen as
overhead is in the type of outputs that are created as a result, and how long
it takes to produce those outputs.
How much time should this part of the analysis take to
collect and document? And what type of
documents should be produced.
For me, analysis should take up to 15% of the overall
project time. So if you have 30 days to
deliver, you should probably stop reading this blog and start working on your
As-is process analysis. If you have 12
months, then a month and a half should be reasonable (doesn't have to be spent
in one go mind you!).
What type of documents should be delivered is an interesting
question.
Most people end up producing some type of Flow Chart with swim
lanes in a Visio diagram, along with an accompanying document describing the
diagram.
I like to go the extra mile, even if it takes a little
longer to travel. What I like to do is
to Storyboard the process. This usually
includes the metrics that define it, as well as the people and systems that
interact with it. I also like to
highlight areas where we can see obvious improvements and areas that we can't
touch due to some dependency. This fits
nicely into a PowerPoint deck – and you can add more descriptions within the
notes. Hey, if you have a workflow tool
that you can mock something up with, that’d be great too.
This gives a more visually engaging description of the
process that anyone can follow and understand.
As an aside, on a number of occasions this type of
documentation has led to useful feedback as to why certain steps within the
process exist, which weren’t captured in the initial analysis. Sometimes this
leads to nothing much, but every now and then it can be quite useful.
Target audiences for this type of analysis can be quite
varied. For me, this leads to a variety
of documents as part of my deliverables:
- Functional documents – describing the systems involved, dependencies of the process and actors involved.
- Flow charts for the internal team - to help with the project plan and tasks;
- PowerPoint Story boards for the stakeholders within the process - to visually describe how they work in the hope it inspires further dialogue down the line on things I may have missed or misunderstood.
It’s in the Story Board that I wish to get the most out
of. It is here where the true value of
the analysis can be seen. The idea of
trying to engage the people involved in the process to introduce any findings
that I may have overlooked. If I’ve done
a good enough job with this document, I can feel comfortable that I know all I
need to know heading into my “To-be” design.
Making a change
If we skip the "As-is" analysis, we make it all
the more difficult to create a Change Management strategy. If we don't know what we are taking away from
the people involved in the process, it makes it more difficult to highlight how
we are making the process better/cheaper/faster.
We can't tell the people involved how this will impact them
directly and indirectly. Depending on
the size of the process and the people involved, this can be quite a critical
step in the adoption of the process.
Whilst it's simple enough to say: we're implementing this, so they must
use it. It is not always the case.
If we implement it, and enough people resist it, then
chances are it will be abandoned. People
will either go back to the way it was, or find a way to work-around this shiny
new system to suit their needs better and then we’re back where we started.
The project may initially be seen as a success, and us, as
consultants, may walk away smiling, but if our ultimate goal was to ensure
client satisfaction, and hopefully repeat work, we need to make sure that the
process we’ve implemented sticks. That
it has a certain longevity within the organisation. A strong Change Management plan can help with
this. And a strong Change Management
plan comes from understanding what has changed and to whom. And this requires an “As-is” analysis.
Dramatic conclusion
By the end of the project, if you've successfully completed an As-is analysis you should be able to:
When we start a project, we start by asking the Stakeholders, what do you want to get out of this project?
- Compare your measurements between the old process (As-is) and current process (To-be);
- Bringing the people involved in the process on-board as you move from current to new;
- Get to know the industry, the business and the people within the business;
- Make a plan to transition people from the old process (As-is) to the new process (To-be).
When we start a project, we start by asking the Stakeholders, what do you want to get out of this project?
At the end of the project, we want to show the Stakeholders
that we listened to what they wanted, and we delivered it. This is what you had. This is what you've got. We can show the reasons why the new
process is an improvement on the old. We can show them how the people on the ground will adopt and use the new process. They're happy, we're happy and hopefully we’ll be back to help them
adapt to the ever-changing environment in the future.