TakingAIIM

ECM - We've Come So Far, But Some are Still Stuck at the Gate

Wow – it has been a while since my last blog post (at least on this blog). Being not just a consultant/analyst but practitioner of ECM and KM sure is a full time job. It leaves little time to pontificate on market conditions.

But a few weeks ago, something occurred in my personal life that thrust me into the world of ECM, and I was so surprised by what I witnessed, that I felt compelled to blog about it.

In this case, I was not a consultant or practitioner, but end-user of ECM, (or lack there of.) You see, I refinanced my home.  

As many of you know, over the  last 2 decades I have worked with scores of organizations, designing and implementing integrated ECM systems (search, content management, workflow, etc.)  to change the way business is done.  Yet, last week I felt like it was 1965.

As I said, I refinanced my home. The process started well enough. Applications were completed online. My credit score and initial approval were conducted online and completed in under 30 minutes. (I was a happy consumer, and proud ECMer. But, what came next was shocking.

Almost 2 months later the paper work was “ready”, and I do mean paper work.  The closing session was conducted face-to-face, facing well over 30 paper documents.  There were at least three instances that I recall  in which one document superceded or negated the need for the other. Signatures were required redundantly multiple times. (Clearly somer eenginnering could be used.)

But what was really surprising was the fact that I had to seek out a notary, in the middle of this process, limiting when and where this session could take place. My signature  had to be wet signature, in each instance, in the presence of a notary, who had to affirm I was who I said I was – not just once but on well over half of the documents. I could not help think about the strides that the US Government, for example, has made in using e-signatures and forms, and forms of e-security to migrate processes to streamlined online systems. (How many have filed your taxes online, for example?)

To take part in this closing process was just a bit surprising. To my  brethren in the ECM consulting world, just think about it. Apparently the world is still ripe with opportunity. It brings to mind an earlier post, I wrote nearly 3 years ago. In it I concluded "... despite its age, ECM is an issue that is still growing - perhaps an eternal issue. Old issues linger, while new issues arise.  The talents and competencies  required of an ECMer grow.  But one thing is for sure there is great job security for those that do it well."  When I wrote that, I am not sure I was aware of just how poignant that message was. It still rings true, loud and clear. (You may want to read the earlier post for some great statistics on paper consumption and electronic filing.)

Document-based Collaboration Evolves Into a Powerhouse

If ever a topic were complex, it is the evolution of document collaboration. The complexity emanates from the evolution of the document itself.  In fact, today,  when people talk of document management an initial grounding question should be “define document. " Content is perhaps a better word nowadays.   Isn’t a web page a document?  An email, tweet, instant message, digitzed video, image file,  mashup of several content sources ? Today when one speaks of a “document” the possibilities are limitless.

Now compound that with the fact that while the boundaries of the media that define our documents have expanded, so too have the abilities to collaborate around a document.  Document collaboration can occur in many different scenarios:  content-to-content, content-to-device/application, and content-to-community/people scenario.  All are possible, and each is experiencing significant evolution and opportunity.  Each of these is not mutually exclusive, adding to the complexity of document collaboration, as well as the potential capabilities. 

We are in an age where our content can be both the impetus and bedrock of heighthened collaboration and knowledge exchange.  How?  Read on.

[The image displayed here comes from an article by Xerox Corporation.]

Q&A: SharePoint Webinar and Whitepaper (Part 6)

This is it – the final post containing questions from the SharePoint webinar I presented on January 28, 2009.  Previous questions and answers can be found in Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.  As well, the recorded webinar, during which many questions were answered, can be downloaded.

The questions in this post are the most technical and product specific of all the questions asked during the webinar. I wish to state again, that my expertise and that of my company, Information Architected, is defining strategies, cost justifications and project plans for content, process, knowledge and innovation management. We focus on the intersection of ECM technologies and business management. Technology such as SharePoint are clearly within our sweet spot, and lately we have been involved with many strategies that involve SharePoint, but unlike consultants who specialize in integration services and solution deployment, Information Architected does not have intimate experience with the inner workings of SharePoint.  I state this because, as stated, this post focuses on many highly technical and product specific issues.  As a result, my answers are not as in-depth as those provided in earlier posts.

I have answered each question – but I am also asking questions in my answers.  In the spirit of collaboration, those of you that can shed further light on these answers please do so in the form of a comment.

OK – with that said, here goes, the final 8 questions:

Q: Several other products are beginning to roll out SharePoint "connectors". I'm particularly curious about workflow - what is the adoption and satisfaction for those complementary pieces? - Any information about using Nintex workflow with SharePoint? 

A: I am aware of one company that I have worked with (manufacturing vertical) that selected Nintex as their SharePoint-integrated workflow product.  In their case the integration went very well, and user satisfaction is high. 

Anyone else have experience with Nintex and Sharepoint willing to share your experience or opinion?  How about other workflow products? Which work well or poorly with SharePoint? (Solution providers feel free to chime in, I ask only that you identify yourself as such.)

Q: In the WCM / DAM space, how does SharePoint fare against other products like Interwoven, FatWire, SDL Tridion etc.?

A:  You may have noticed, Simon Cole of Autonomy commented on an earlier blog post on how the Autonomy product stacked up against SharePoint?  He focused on the records capability of Autonomy/Meridio. Any other solution providers want to weigh in on this?  Is the list of competition provided here (Interwoven, FatWire, SDL Tridion) all inclusive?  What other products belong on this list? How would you rank them?  Solution providers and users with experience comments all welcome, but please identify who you are.

Q: When migrating to SharePoint, What's the best way to deal with a large amount of legacy files stored on the FileServer? Can SharePoint be a replacement to File Servers?

A:  First, the easy question – yes SharePoint can, and very often is a replacement to file servers.  But what if you are migrating from a file server environment (or other approach to organizing online files), is there a best practice or toolset that simplifies the porting of the content into SharePoint?

I am aware of one company that needed to migrate gigabytes of content from Documentum to SharePoint.  In this case, they wrote a macro that exported the content and all associated metatags and security schemes (this was the tricky part) from Documentum, to a file share area, and then imported into SharePoint.  Other experiences or recommendations?

Q: We have a client that was sold SharePoint implementations - but don’t have the staff to operate it. There is a lot of discussion for our team to setup SharePoint Templates - What is the best course of action we would want to take before we even start to build templates?

A:  I believe that you are on the right track. I have witnessed many organizations, especially those with a lean development staff, leverage templates to expedite the creation of tailored SharePoint sites. (Application templates are “out-of-the-box” SharePoint scenarios tailored to specific business processes or settings. They provide a starting point for “developers” looking to build SharePoint-based solutions.) Templates are among some of the more popular features of SharePoint. In fact, the most common complaint I hear about them is that there are not enough commercially available from Microsoft or 3rd parties (business opportunity?)   On a non-technical note, start by determining which scenarios would be most leveraged within your organization. Do a needs assessment to determine the least common denominator of what is needed by those scenarios and then develop templates to fit those needs.

Are there technical best practices for template development? Anyone care to share their experiences and opinions?

Q: Have you seen any who have abandoned SharePoint that are adopting other collaborative tools, such as Unity Studio with which you can develop interlocking systems between different pieces?

A:  I have not yet had the chance to speak with anyone who has abandoned SharePoint. (You may recall that 2% of the companies I surveyed indicated that they had deployed SharePoint in a production mode and then abandoned it.) While the survey uncovered that the primary motivation behind abandonment was security concerns, it did not shed light on what was done as an alternative.

As for Unity Studio – no specific knowledge on my part. (The only reference I could find to it using Google was an in-house “collaborative software environment for industrial automation and all disciplines needed to design a process or a plant", developed by Schneider Electric.

Are there any Unity Studio users out there that care to comment?
How about others who have decided to use a competitive product? What are the valid alternatives to SharePoint in your opinion?

Q:  What do you recommend for SharePoint site collections in terms of flat and wide or a deep hierarchy design pros/con.

A:  This answer is obviously a matter of opinion, in this case mine - flat and wide, based on taxonomy and portal usability tenets I believe in.  But what do you say?

Q: Where do you see SharePoint consulting firms investing in their practice skill sets given the 'sophomore year' of SharePoint? 

A: Hmm – anyone out these that would like to weigh in on this?  As potential customers of such services, what talents and skills are most desirable in a SharePoint consultant/programmer?
Based on the survey, I would think that experience and methodology for integrating SharePoint with security and records control would be high on the list. 

Q: We're looking to implement SharePoint at our location (3500 users) to replace Lotus Notes. I would like more information on what system requirements and staff needs to implement and maintain the system.

A: OK all you users and system integrators out there what do you say?  What is the  “right” staffing mix for a SharePoint deployment of 3500 Notes users.  Anyone with specific experience migrating from Lotus Notes?  Have any of you lived through a Notes to SharePoint migration?  What were the lessons learned? What skills were most important?

And with that – THAT’S IT.  The outstanding questions from the SharePoint webinar have all been answered. Ongoing dialogue and answers to the questions I posed in this post are certainly welcome however.

Q&A: SharePoint Webinar and Whitepaper (Part 3)

This is the third post in which I answer questions that were posed, but not answered during the webinar on SharePoint.  (Part 1 and Part 2 also contain related questions and answers.) As always, but especially on this topic, given its relative immaturity, I encourage any of you that have similar or conflicting opinions, insights and experiences to comment.

You may still listen to the recorded webinar during which many other questions were answered and issues discussed.

So here goes -the next 10 questions and answers:

Q:  Are BLOBs full-text searchable?

A:  This question may have been asked generically, so let me start with a broad answer. In general, BLOBs or Binary Large Objects, can be full-text searched only with some search engines.  My understanding is that BLOBs can be made full-text searchable with the SharePoint full-text search tool, but that this requires customization.

Q:  How would you define "file sharing"? How is that the same or different from "file document storage"? Is one predominant application of SharePoint a file document storage system? (AND I am tacking on this separate question : How does SharePoint file sharing differ from a normal file system?)

A:  Although some may argue that there are technical differences between file sharing and file document storage (comments welcome), based on the tone of the question, I am inclined to answer: file sharing and file document storage are basically the same functionality. File sharing is typically used to denote common access (sharing) of files over a network, usually following a peer-to-peer model. (This is the big difference between file sharing and a simple file system – the ability to share files without replication.)  And, yes, based on the survey responses as well as my general, observations, the MOST predominate application of SharePoint is file sharing/ file document storage.

Q:  Where is the best place on the Internet to get governance information about SharePoint deployment?

A:  I do not know if it is ”the best” but the Microsoft SharePoint website has a sub-site focused on governance.  Additionally Microsoft employee Michael Gannotti covers this topic in a recent blog post.

Q:  Does the Oracle Integrated ECM product improve the records management functionality of SharePoint that was not positively viewed in the initial survey?

A: The Oracle ECM product, as is the case with many other ECM and RM products such as those from CA, Open Text, and IBM do provide records management functionality superior to that offered natively in SharePoint, and these product will integrate with SharePoint.

Q: How many of the surveyed organizations were using the RM portion of SharePoint?

A:  The majority of users, 64%, were not using the records management functionality within SharePoint at all. 5% of the surveyed organizations were using the records management capability within SharePoint exclusively as their enterprise records system. Another 6% were using it to a significant degree. The remaining 25% said they used it "somewhat."

Q:  Beyond employee facing portal, what's the next killer application for SharePoint?

A:  Based on the survey data, there is no other clear front-runner for a SharePoint killer application, beyond employee facing portals.  Although used in many applications, survey respondents predominately positioned SharePoint as a minor role within the business application.  Findings such as this one led to the observations that SharePoint is very much positioned as a component to an overall ECM strategy (assuming of course you have a strategy - and issue I will address more directly in the next post - I promise.)

Q:  Would you say that SharePoint is more for a medium to large environment rather than the small company?

A:  No, one of the strengths of SharePoint is the (initially anyway) low barrier to implementation.  While the collaboration and file sharing issues may scale very differently for a large company, many small companies can still benefit from such functionality.

Q:  [NOTE:  Several questions from multiple individuals have been grouped together here.]
Is Microsoft planning to fix security issues? Do you believe MOSS will bring any value to these findings with significant product improvements in the next 1-3 years or will it continue as is? We are in the process of migrating our SP 2003 sites to MOSS. I am finding the improvements in MOSS (over SP 2003) to be significant. Do you feel that Microsoft is attempting to fill some of the 'gaps' that were mentioned in the presentation?

A:  I am not privy to any Microsoft internal strategy for future releases of SharePoint.  But I am sure most who watch this space would agree that yes, Microsoft has definitely improved the efficiency and functionality of SharePoint over the last 2 years, and will continue to do so. SharePoint is a strategic and fundamental product for Microsoft and given the number of users already on board, it would be unlikely that Microsoft would abandon the product or put it in mothballs.  Note that the FAST search tool that was acquired my Microsoft approximately a year ago, was recently integrated the SharePoint product set into (though not embedded yet). There are also a host of partners that are adding functionality to SharePoint.

Q: To what extent is SharePoint being offered as an on-demand solution vs., installation on the user's servers?

A:  SharePoint is available as both licensed software and as an on demand or SaaS solution from both Microsoft and third parties. Among the organizations that took the survey, 30% were using SharePoint in a hosted solution capacity.

Q: Does SharePoint provide version control capability when documentation has been modified?

A:  Yes. Among survey respondents, 20% did not use the document management (which would include version control) functionality provided in SharePoint, and 49% used it somewhat.

Q: Exactly how would a BPEL process interact with the SharePoint repository - is it an API, a SharePoint web part, etc.?

A:  BPEL (Business Process Execution Language ) for Windows Workflow Foundation (WF) is an add-on for Windows Workflow Foundation in the .NET Framework 3.0. The download is aimed at software developers.  (Also see Paul Andrew's blog,  he is a Technical Product Manager on the Sharepoint team at Microsoft Corporation. )

OK - enough for now.  More to come - so stay tuned...

Research on Research - Top 10 ECM resources

It’s that time of year.  The new year has begun, a time to reflect on the past 12 months and develop those Top 10  lists for 2008. And so AIIM did earlier this week, with its Top 10 Most-read content items from the AIIM Website, published in its Infonomics online Magazine.

I am proud to report that among the Top 5, the work done by myself and Dan Keldsen placed 3 times, Numbers 1,  3 and  5 (Hmm how odd - pun intended).  OK - thanks for giving me that moment of blatant pride.

That said, there is more here to talk about than our success in creating valuable content. This ranking of the most popular content actually sheds light on the ECM market.   All things being equal – and for the most part they were (I'll explain that further in just a moment), the #1 download was the Market IQ report on Findability.  One of the findings in that report was a pent-up user demand for "findability" within the corporate Intranet, as good as that experienced on the commercial Internet.  This pent-up need is apparently a "most" compelling need, given the popularity of the download over all other AIIM content (not just Market IQs), and there was much to pick from in format and topic.

Speaking of other topics, #3 was the Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0.  What I find interesting here is the fact that this seemingly hot and edgy topic did not pull as great an interest level as the more basic "Findability".  Despite the market buzz surrounding Enterprise 2.0, it may still seem more of a future direction, or area of experimentation, versus a more compelling need to get search and navigation done right.  Indeed, as we pointed out in the Findability report, Findability is fundamental to all content, including Enterprise 2.0 content. If you do not get your information architecture right, and cannot provide intuitive and effective access paths to the content, the content is rendered virtually useless, Enterprise 2.0 or otherwise. 

Before I move onto #5, lets talk a bit about #2 - not something written by Dan and me.  The #2 most popular piece of content was the AIIM Buyers Guide. Hmmm - potential good news for the ECM software market. Although just a single data point, it is at least one indication that organizations are still looking into potential investments in ECM this year. Indeed, I have had a few colleagues share with me recently their intentions to make purchases in software that can demonstrate significant savings - i.e. by replacing aging ECM solutions/architectures and by short circuiting processes and thus maintaining productivity levels with less staff (including potential outsourcing models.)

OK - as my narcissistic friend in New Hampshire likes to say, "Back to me."  #5 was the Market IQ report on Business Process Management. Here is a technology that is as practical, if not more so than "findability", and in direct alignment with buying intentions AIIMed (I couldn't resist that pun) at short circuiting processes.  This is undoubtedly why it ranked in the top 5.  But you have to wonder, given its tactical nature and relevancy to current buying intentions, why did it not rank higher?  Perhaps here is a case in which not all things were not equal.  This Market IQ was not released until October, and thus  there has been far less time for "Googlers" to find it, perhaps.

Indeed, this may also account for why the Market IQ on On Ramps and Off Ramps did not make the top 10 list. It was not published until the end of the third week of December.

So as the Red Socks (used to) say – "Maybe next year."

By the way, all four reports are still available for free download, so if you have not yet, you may want to grab a copy.

BPM- Its Here and Its Real

We’ve blogged about it, we’ve had a webinar on it, and now it is finally available.  I am speaking about the AIIM Market IQ on BPM.  The report is available for download, and contains over 20 charts and 20 pages of commentary. 

Most major among these findings, in my opinion, is the fact that 52% of the organizations we surveyed achieved a positive ROI in three years or less.  Another 15% achieved ROI in five years of less. This is in stark contrast to AIIM Market Intelligence ROI findings concerning functionality like Content Security, Enterprise 2.0 and Findability. While such technologies have their upsides, they are often “soft” benefits, difficult to measure in hard dollars. In the case of BPM, the benefits can be far more tangible, and directly impact the heart of an organization – the process. A full 70% of those who reported executing an ROI, indicated direct cost savings as an achieved benefit.

Lastly, reader’s of past Market IQs will undoubtedly notice the difference in scale.  Based on some market feedback, we have decided to re-architect the IQs into smaller, easier to read reports. I hope these reports continue to provide value and insight.

Let me know what you think - please, comments are welcomed.

[As always, I would also like to thank IBM, Risetime and EMC, who partially underwrote the production of this report, making our ability to provide it to the market at no cost possible.]

Q&A: Market IQ on BPM

On September 26, 2008, Dan Keldsen and I hosted the webinar in which we reviewed the findings from our Market IQ report on BPM. (The report will be published in the first half of October, but you can reserve a copy now.)

In my last blog post, I reviewed and made available the slides we used in our presentation. As is customary, I will answer all of the questions posed that we did not have time to answer during the recorded webinar. (Please refer to the recorded webinar for the questions we did answer.)

Before I start, however, I would once again like to thank our underwriters:  EMC2,  IBM and Risetime. This is not an endorsement of their respective products.  It is simply a sincere  thank you as it is through the support of sponsors such as this that AIIM can provide its research at no cost to the general public.  From the scores of BPM technology providers in the market, there were the ones that were generous enough to step up and support our cause to educate the market. So again, Thank You.

Now to the questions:

Q:  Can you talk about software available to perform Process Analysis?

A:  Business Process Analysis (BPA) tools specifically address the ability to model and analyze a process, separate and distinct from automating the process. This is a best practice pre-cursor to process automation.  Ideally, these tools operate independent from process automation software, but provide an interface to such software, in order to eliminate the need of redefining the process to the automation tool. They range in functionality from simple drawing tools (e.g. Visio) to robust products that include features such as: automated process documentation; multiple GUIs to the model such as flow charts, UML diagrams and swim lanes; document management level control on the process models; process simulation and optimization testing;  support for BPMN (Business Process Modeling Notation); support for BPEL (Business Process Execution Language).  Providers of BPA functionality include (in no particular order) Oracle, IBM/FileNet, Savvion, EMC2, Ultimus, Mega, Metastorm, Casewise and Sybase.


Q:  Can you clarify where the self assessment tool is and what it provides?

A:  You can access the self assessment tool at: http://www.questionpro.com/akira/TakeSurvey?id=1035149
This tool, developed by AIIM Market Intelligence is a an easy to take, 14 question  survey that provides an immediate assessment of your organization’s readiness and achievements in BPM, and how they compare to that of hundreds of other organizations. 


Q:  What do you tell an organization that thinks they are a Level 5 BPM organization, when  they really are a Level 1 organization?

A:  I do not know if I would tell them anything, but I would ask them a few questions.  Initially I would ask them if they were familiar with the BPM Maturity Model.  Then I would ask them to point to evidence that supports their opinion.  If all else fails, I might provide them with case studies that illustrate a level 5 company, and ask them how they think they compare.  Then I might ask them what it is they are smoking  - JUST KIDDING.

Q:  What is the ideal starting point departmentally for Business Process Management.

A:  Well, as any consultant will tell you - "It depends." But seriously, it does.  OK, maybe there is a good starting point - business process analysis.  You should go through this exercise for each of the major (i.e. you need not do this for non-critical, straightforward, simple and working processes), processes in your organization.  This should provide you with an objective assessment or insight into the potential ROI associated with each process, as well as the level of re-engineering that will be required (including change management).  Weigh these observations along with any preferences the sponsor of teh initiative might have, and a best starting point should emerge.

With that I have answered all of the questions that were unanswered during the webinar. 

BPM & ECM - Don't Do One Without the Other

For many, the worlds of Business Process Management (BPM), and Enterprise Content Management (ECM) are separate and distinct disciplines.  While clearly focused on different entities, process and content respectively, the two are so intertwined in my mind, that it is negligent to discuss one without at least mentioning the other, and so I did during our webinar last Friday, in which Dan Keldsen and I introduced the findings from our recent research into BPM. (If you missed the webinar, it has been archived.)

Several hundred people, representing virtually every vertical industry were in attendance - testament to the universal applicability of BPM.  The slide presentation is posted here:

BPM Market IQ

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: workflow bpm)

The presentation can also be accessed at Slideshare.

Early in the presentation,I presented a simple diagram that illustrates the overlapping nature of ECM and BPM.  Sure, when the process is about the creation of content (e.g. SOP authoring, contract creation), most, if not all participants understand that both ECM and BPM are required, the former to manage the revisions of content, the latter to manage the authoring/approval/publishing process. But, ECM should play a role in virtually every process, as processes typically use and/or output content.  While a process owner may not feel the need to concern herself specifically with the content inputs and outputs of the process, to do so is reckless. For example, if a process provides access to images of invoices, and no quality control is exercised on the image quality, process participants may find themselves unable to proceed due to illegibility.  Fault may lie with those who manage the capture process, but the process (and process manager) will likely find themselves the focus of complaints  as well.  The BPM initiative fails despite the fact that the fault lies with the ECM system. 

As is the case with all of the webinars I conduct, I will be posting the questions asked that went unanswered, with answers.  I want to repeat one of the questions I did have time to answer, however, as I believe it illustrates another important intersection between BPM and ECM.   The question was "What role, if any do records managers have in BPM?"  Ah perfect - I am guessing this question was asked by a records manager who was indeed wondering if they can play a role.  My answer was - two potential roles.  First, records managers should be involved in the process definition phase.  If at any point of the process the content reaches the point in its life cycle that it becomes an official record, then the task of declaration can become automated under the BPM tool. Although perhaps outside the scope of the process itself, incorporating this functionality should be considered a best practice, providing integrity and  consistency to the records management sub-process, compliance and a potential increase in productivity. Second, for the process-centric organization, the process definitions themselves may be considered a business record, thus requiring the application of RIM.  This may especially e the case for organizations seeking ISO 9000 certification. 

Both of these uses of records management within a BPM or workflow implementation would likely be overlooked if ECM and RM specialists are not included in the process engineering and definition.

Stay tuned, as over the next week I will be posting the questions from the webinar that went unanswered, along with answers.  In the meantime, if you are interested in obtaining a copy of the Market IQ when it is published in early October, you can reserve a copy now.

BPM - Hey How You Doin?

OK - I have been blogging quite a bit about BPM lately.  Much is going on - the AIIM BPM Seminar, the upcoming BPM webinar, the upcoming Market IQ on BPM.  But there is more - and something that YOU may immediately find valuable. 

In our BPM market research efforts we uncovered that one of the biggest obstacles to initiating BPM in the organization is getting senior management to understand BPM. So, Dan Keldsen and I, in an effort to assist in this regard, have created a BPM self assessment tool.  The assessment is a much scaled-downed version of the Market IQ BPM survey, 14 questions to be exact.  But 14 questions that very much relate to organizational readiness and aptitude for BPM.  More importantly, this version provides an immediate "spotlight report", a series of 14 charts that benchmark your answers against those of the hundreds of other organizations that have already taken the survey. 

So find out "how you're doin" compared to other organizations, and maybe pick up a few key insights to help better position BPM within your organization.

You can access the tool at http://aiimroadshow.questionpro.com/

Forget Process Excellence ...

Most organizations are still struggling for process betterment.  Dan Keldsen and I are finalizing the analysis of our BPM survey data.  The report will be available in early October, but you can place an order now, and we will send it to you upon publication.  It promises to be a great read.  We are uncovering many eye-opening facts about the market.

Here's a glimpse:  Despite the fact that the ECM industry has been touting the benefits of  workflow and BPM for over 2 decades, the spread of process excellence from the manufacturing industry into the world of the knowledge workers has been a long, slow journey. When presented with a BPM maturity model:

Level 1: Initial
Enterprise lacks consistent practices and management is reactive. Little to no BPM strategy, process redesign is ad-hoc at best.

Level 2: Managed
Stabilization of local work through department-level expertise, control, and metrics. Processes are repeatable and documented.

Level 3: Standardized
Enterprise-wide process improvement competencies with product and service orientation. Best practices are standardized and documented.

Level 4: Predictable
The enterprise has established common, integrated assets and processes with measurement and predictability. Variations of process performance are minimal, and processes are stable.

Level 5: Optimizing
Process excellence and re-engineering is fully integrated into the organization. Emphasis is now on the continuous pro-active improvement of processes, narrowing the gaps between objectives and capabilities.

Nearly HALF of respondents placed their organization at Level 1 (Enterprise lacks consistent practices and management is reactive. Little to no BPM strategy, process redesign is ad-hoc at best) and only 3% placed their organization at Level 5 (Optimizing Process excellence and re-engineering is fully integrated into the organization. Emphasis is now on the continuous pro-active improvement of processes, narrowing the gaps between objectives and capabilities).

One reason for this or perhaps symptomatic to the condition is the fact that for many companies, despite lip service to process efficiency, no specific group is responsible for BPM initiatives, and the reporting structure of those that exist are spread amongst IT (primarily), and everyone from the Financial Department, to Operations, to nearly every conceivable department. There lacks a focus and thus true commitment to process improvement.

A host of benefits ranging from cost savings to increased customer responsiveness were identified by those that have embarked on BPM initiatives, and yet uptake is still slow.  The report goes on to identify the hurdles and surprises encountered in BPM initiatives.  More to come....

In the interim, if you are interested you can:

Order a copy of the report now.
Register for the 9/26 webinar when we overview the report findings
Attend the AIIM seminar on BPM, at which myself and/or my AIIM colleagues further discuss the report
Enroll in our BPM training course.

Stay tuned...