A director of global processes at a multi-national company has a vision of global process management that includes an enterprise process model, process owners, measures, and targets. But, reality at his company is quite different. The company doesn't have strong support at the top for process. They think process means restrictions and costs. How would you advise that he get stronger executive sponsorship?

1. ©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved.
Webinar Roundtable
Discussion
July 30, 2014
Brad Power Mystery guest “J”
?
Striving for Stronger Sponsorship:
Engaging Leaders in Process Innovation

2. 1©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved.
Today’s Subject
“J”
Experience • Mechanical Engineer at small R&D-oriented
aerospace companies
• General Manager at small manufacturing
company, implemented ‘Business Excellence’
program = Process Approach based on
performance measurement and continuous
improvement
• Now working for large multi-national as
Director of Global Process Management
Passion Making big companies act like small
companies: working across organizational
boundaries to remove fragmentation and
connect the big picture to the details
Challenge Why don’t they ‘get it’ ?
?

3. 2©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved.
I Need Your Help with Two Simple
Questions:
 1) How do we get executive sponsorship for enterprise process
approach?
– Can we do enterprise-level process management without CEO-level
leadership?
– Do we need a leader who just ‘gets it’ ; or can I convince one by “selling up”
the concept?
– How do I ‘sell up’ – hard business case, or soft benefits?
– How do I overcome the misperceptions?
 2) Can that holistic enterprise process approach also serve the needs of
‘quality’ ? (ISO Certification + )
– Can ‘Global IT’ and ‘Global Quality’ really work together?
– Can one combined process/quality system work, or is it better to keep them
separate?
– How do we avoid hanging ourselves in the ISO Audit?

4. 3©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved.
Setting the Stage: Company Overview
 ~ $30 billion revenue
 150,000+ employees
 Operations in 100+ countries
 Each country has a Country President accountable
for business performance in that country
 Revenue roughly equal split between
(1) Western Europe, (2) North America,
(3) Asia Pacific, and (4) the rest of the world
In other words: it is a big, diverse, fragmented
company that spans the globe . . .

5. 4©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved.
Setting the Stage: Brief History
 Over 100 years of growth by acquisition + organic growth
 Prior to ~2008, operated as completely separate companies
 ‘One Company’ program in 2009-2011
– Goal: operate as ‘One’ to deliver multi-business solutions
– reorganized around Country Presidents and Global Functions
– MANY exceptions – complex multi-dimensional matrix organization
 Enterprise Process Model created in ~2009 to support ‘One’ ‘semi functional’
architecture to be consistent with the re-org
– Introduced global process owners – with near-zero budget
 New company program for 2012-2014 structured in ‘initiatives’
– Process model and owners in the background, not emphasized
– Initiatives are implemented and managed locally (fragmented)
– Many initiatives not fully implemented or don’t ‘stick’
 Global SAP implementation abandoned in ~ 2011
– growth and changes in the business
– delays and complexities of many local ‘customization’ requirements

6. 5©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved.
Status: Let’s Use the Hammer PEMM™!
Enabler Generalized Status
Design
Purpose
Context
Documentation
EPM is defined and available on Intranet . . . but largely unknown
14 Level 1 processes, plus “end-to-end flows”, structured around functional ownership
Roughly half are designed to Level 3 including connections to other processes
Many struggle to articulate the basic customer value or business purpose
Performers
Knowledge
Skills
Behavior
Work is generally fragmented and “specialized” and moving in that direction
Skills training is usually handled separately by functional area and/or locally
Performers are aligned to their function first, “process” is an afterthought
Owner
Identity
Activities
Authority
Ownership vs. EPM: 3/4 Named ; 1/2 Engaged ; 0 have adequate budget
Empowerment of Process Owners is generally left to the Owners themselves
Authority of owners not recognized in the business
Some “networks of excellence” ; no top-level “Process Council”
Infrastructure
Info Systems
HR Systems
“Digitization” is top priority, mainly focused on customer interface
IT systems generally dominate Process Owner’s time and attention
HR Systems are fragmented – job descriptions localized, incentive programs misaligned
Metrics
Definition
Uses
We suffer from “KPI Overload” – no shortage of metrics!
Most metrics are internally oriented, traditional cost and quality measures
Performance measured locally, results are closely guarded secret, not shared globally
‘Process’ not viewed holistically like this model

7. 6©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved.
Vision: All Results Come from Processes
Corporate Strategy and Control (governing processes)
Core Processes / Business Models / Value Chains
Supporting or Enabling processes
Core Process
Business Model
Value Stream
Results for
Customers =
Customer
Satisfaction
Results for
Shareholders
= Stock Value
Results for
Employees =
Employee
Satisfaction
Customer
Needs
Shareholder
Needs
Employee
Needs
Suppliers

8. 7©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved.
Global / Local Design - Vision
● One and only one Enterprise Process for every output, in a consistent architecture
● High level global framework for consistency and common language
● Local operations must meet the higher level objectives and rules, but are free to add
local specifics as needed
Global: Process Sponsor,
Owner, Driver, Team,
Advocates, Steering
Committee
Level 1 – high level flow with major
business outcomes, policies
Level 2 – mid-level flow, interfaces,
objectives, directives
Level 3 – major activities, roles,
tools, business rules, decisions,
deliverables/outputs
1
2
4
5
Level 4 – tasks -- local
business rules, tools, etc.
Level 5 – steps – procedures /
work instructions
Local: Sponsor,
Owner=Global
Advocate,
Champions,
Teams, Actors
3

9. 8©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved.
Enterprise Maturity Assessment
Enabler Generalized Status
Leadership
Awareness
Alignment
Behavior
Style
Senior leadership wants operational performance AND agility ; sees ‘process’ as an
enabler for efficiency but an obstacle to agility
Leadership for process lies in middle management ranks
Improvement efforts not expressed in ‘process’ terms
Decision rights of Process Owners not formalized
Culture
Teamwork
Customer Focus
Responsibility
Change
Strong culture of teamwork . . . at the local level
A lot of talk about ‘customers’ and some islands of strong results
Employees accountable only for their little piece
Incentive plans are based partly on enterprise results
“If you don’t like today’s change, just wait until tomorrow . . . .”
Expertise
People
Methodology
Process design / improvement teams are fragmented, inconsistent
There is a defined ‘Process of Process Management’ but it is not used
Many similar but different methodologies for “process improvement”
Improvement is “initiative based” not “process based”
Governance
Process Model
Accountability
Integration
EPM is defined and available, communication and use is limited
Process Owners not accountable for performance
Process Program Office is very loose, informal network
No formal ‘Process Council’

10. 9©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved.
1. How Do We Get Executive Sponsorship?
 Can we do enterprise-level process management without CEO-level
leadership?
 Do we need a leader who just ‘gets it’ ; or can I convince one by
‘selling up’ the concept?
 To ‘sell up’ – do you try to put hard numbers on it; or explain the soft
concept of how the approach leads to results?
 Is the process approach inherently incompatible with
entrepreneurial, agile operations? How do we reconcile this?
 We understand that we really need results; ‘process’ is just a way to
get there. How do we make that connection?
 Is there some new ‘magic word’ that will get away from the negative
connotations of ‘process’ and resonate better with the business? For
example, ‘capabilities’ ?

11. 10©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved.
Current Situation with Respect to Quality
Management System
 Quality Management System (QMS) is separate from process
management system
– separate documentation, audit teams, repository, etc.
 QMS and ISO Certifications are generally handled separately / locally . .
. But we recognize the huge savings potential of one global system and
certification
 Global Quality team has some big concerns about using the process
management system for ISO Certifications:
– document control: some process documents not well controlled
– implementation status: global processes are not fully implemented in
all locations
– too much information: process models provide more detail than
needed for ISO requirements, providing enough rope to hang
ourselves

12. 11©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved.
‘Process’ and ‘Quality’: Two Separate Views of the Same Thing
Global Process System
Global high-level EPM + local details
Documented in global ‘Process Guide’
repository, based on process models
Includes ‘optional’ information that is
helpful but not always ‘mandatory’
Loosely controlled, “a rough draft is
better than nothing”
“Near-Term To-Be” global processes –
not yet implemented in all locations
Too much information to pass an audit?
Global Quality System
Global Quality Manual and Policies +
local work instructions
Documented in ‘global quality database’
based on policy / directives / procedures
Limited to minimum requirements, to
pass audit cleanly
Very tightly controlled; “nothing is better
than an unapproved draft”
Strictly ‘As-Is’ documentation; future-
state not yet implemented = a finding
Not enough information to be useful for
operations?
Managed by ‘Global IT’ Managed by ‘Global Quality’ (reporting
in to Global Supply Chain)

13. 12©2014 FCB Partners. All rights reserved.
2. Can Process and Quality Co-exist in
One Holistic Approach?
 Is it possible to have one system that addresses both ‘process’
and ‘quality’ needs? (specifically, ISO Certification), or is it
better to keep them separate?
 The general approach for ISO Certification is to document the
minimum to meet the requirements; but ‘process’ needs
more than that for effective operations. How do we reconcile
this in one system?
 Most quality systems focus on policy and directives, with
minimal process models / flows. The process architecture
depends on the concept of processes and sub-processes. How
do we reconcile this in one system?
 Have you seen it work in the real world?