This month Alan Ramias and Cherie Wilkins have invited Chris Ramias, a colleague at Performance Design Labs to describe a technique he calls “visual analysis.” This technique goes beyond simply identifying the problem in a process to actually determining its root cause. Chris identifies a list of issues you may encounter when reviewing a process model and provides visual diagrams to analyze each one.
Home » Articles
Articles Category RSS Feed
Alan Ramias and Cherie Wilkins have been using the role-responsibility matrix (RRM) for decades in their work as consultants for Performance Design Labs. Over the years, they’ve developed a number of refinements to the standard tool and its use, which they describe and illustrate in their Column. They have included a simple chart for analysis and design work which they have found makes improvement work more thorough and effective.
In their position as consultants to organizations seeking assistance in undertaking process improvement projects, alan ramias and Cherie Wilkins developed the 3 Dimensional Enterprise Model to help them position work system processes in the context of the larger enterprise. They had observed that managers often focus most of their attention on the resource and infrastructure dimension, which is more tangible, visible, and quantifiable and their model explained the need for a balance between the two dimensions. More recently they discovered that some clients are applying their model to explain the importance of analysis and design as a means to addressing performance issues. Read more about this simple but powerful tool.
Drawing on their extensive experience as consultants at the Performance Design Lab, Alan Ramias and Cherie Wilkins describe the many difficulties their clients have encountered when attempting to use reference models. They identify five “traps” they have repeatedly observed and illustrate them with actual examples from their work within organizations. Not wishing to completely discourage you, the authors also offer three sound principles to consider when using reference models and end their discussion with an example of a company where reference models were effectively used as a result of applying these principles.
In the first three Columns of their series on the Process Centered Organization, Alan ramias and Cherie Wilkins presented examples that started in the “core of the business” and that were initiated and driven by line of business executives. In this, the final Column of the series, they discuss an example of a PCO journey driven by IT. As in the three previous Columns, they evaluate the pros and cons of the IT driven approach and conclude the Column by ranking the four journeys in terms of their potential for success.
In their May Column Alan Ramias and Cherie Wilkins discussed process-centered organizations (PCO) that take a slow, gradual approach. In this Column they focus on organizations that become process-centered because they are in deep trouble. They explore the critical elements that need to be in place in order for a stricken organization to move ahead to recovery, describing two different organizations that took a process centered approach in response to an initial crisis.
In their February Column, Alan Ramias and Cherie Wilkins defined a process-centered organization (PCO) and gave an example of a company that became process-centered in a relatively short period of time. In this Column they reflect on the more frequently experienced approach—the long road. Read about the obstacles that one company encountered, their successes, and lessons learned.
In the first of a four-part series on the (PCO) Process-Centered Organization, Alan Ramias and Cherie Wilkins define the characteristics they believe must be in place for an organization to be “process-centered.” These characteristics are derived from their experiences working with organizations to help them develop and improve their BPM programs. Acknowledging that some readers may wonder if any organization has ever reached their ideal PCO, the authors describe an actual case in which a wealth management bank successfully achieves that ideal.
In their May 2010 Column on process performance measurement, Alan Ramias and Cherie Wilkins provided some principles to avoid complications in creating effective process performance measurement systems. In their September Column they provided a tool for identifying appropriate process metrics linked to both customer and business requirements. In this, the third and final Column in their series, the authors address the issue of who is responsible for process performance. These three Columns provide an invaluable reference for all who are engaged in this important work.
In their May Column, Alan Ramias and Cherie Wilkins began a series on process metrics. They cite some of the recurring problems and pitfalls they have encountered in working with clients, including: creating metrics that were unlinked to management of the business; creating disorganized piles of metrics instead of a logical set; measuring too much, too little, or the wrong things. In this Column, they address remedies for some of the most significant problems. They describe the guidelines they follow in creating process metrics and apply those guidelines using a tool for identifying the right process metrics.