Walking a process through it’s life cycle

1. Problem Management Yields Service Improvement
Malcolm Gunn
Service Availability Management Consultant
Barclays Bank Plc
TEL +44(0)7966224346
E-Mail:malcolm.gunn@barclays.com
Processes are dangerous when we start seeing implementation as the end rather than the starting point. Using
problem management, this paper follows the evolution of a process from first steps to mature growing entity. It
looks at why processes must be continually improved, the danger of believing that the processes will always
deliver, and that it is people and processes together that truly deliver world class results The paper finishes with
a look at how to measure the processes remembering that:-
• Every process has a measure
• Every measure has a target
• Every target drives behaviours
• Behaviours can hide the true picture”
Introduction have done enough. Other organisations focus on
what the processes are delivering, and if they are
Processes are the pride and joy of many doing what they were put in place to deliver, the
organisations, as everyone believes their processes organisations leave them alone.
to be the best. ITIL (ITIL is intended to assist
organisations to develop a framework for IT Service If things don’t evolve, nothing will ever change;
Management. It does this by providing a consistent everything will stay as it always has been, or even
and comprehensive documented set of best practices worse, start to decline and drift towards extinction.
for IT Service Management.) based processes are Change and growth ensure that things continue to
used across many countries. But often we all take on move forward to adapt and improve. If the aircraft
these processes without understanding some of the industry hadn’t looked forward to review and improve
dangers, and if we don’t understand the inherent aircraft, we’d still have the basic design used by the
dangers, we won’t be able to fully leverage the best Wright brothers; we’d never have launched into space
performance from our processes. or landed on the moon.
These dangers come not just from the processes By continually reviewing what we do, by always
themselves but also from the people using them. The asking how we can do things better, by setting new
way the processes are accepted and implemented and challenging goals, we continue to grow and push
can have a significant impact on the overall culture the barriers. If we didn’t do this we’d still be living in
within an organisation: In the worst case scenario, caves because no one would have asked “can we do
they can stifle development and start to reduce something better”.
growth and creativity.
Problem Management as an Example
Done well, process implementation and the processes
themselves will start to add drive and energy into an So, using problem management as an example, we
organization, encouraging it to continually review what will be able to see a process change, grow, and
it does and how it does it, to deliver improved adapt.
performance and growth.
Imagine an organisation about to embark on the ITIL
Process Evolution journey by putting problem management in place. As
we do, let’s start with the ITIL definitions from the
In order to be effective, processes need to evolve and OGS Service Handbook. 1
adapt, and many organisations had already realised
this before ITIL version 3 came out and caught up Problem Definition
with best practice. However, there are still A cause of one or more incidents, the cause is not
organisations that do not evolve their processes, or usually known at the time a Problem record is
they stop after the first step in the belief that they created, and the problem management process is

2. responsible for further investigation. • The cost benefits in the business model
Problem Processes Definition • The amount of IT support required
The process responsible for managing the lifecycle of • The number of critical functions supported by
all problems, the primary objectives of problem the Information Technology (IT) group
management are to prevent Incidents from happening • How the organisation currently manages its IT
and to minimize the impact of incidents that cannot be
prevented. In practice, single person roles aren’t supportable
without cover from another area, but multi-process
Process Overview areas are certainly a possible cost effective solution
and can give significant advantages, one of which is
It’s clear that from these definitions there is scope for explored later in the paper looking at incident and
a wide interpretation when it comes to the problem management.
implementation of a problem process.
If the organisation has completed its feasibility study
There is no one-size-fits-all and we must remember and decides to embark on the ITIL process journey,
that processes don’t often take well to being lifted and we can now follow the problem process from its initial
dropped. They normally require some customization launch, watch it evolve into its current format, and
to fit neatly into the new organisation. In many ways look at its potential future evolutionary path.
that’s why ITIL is a set of guidelines rather than a set
of instructions to be followed to the letter. We’ll do this by looking at a fictional organisation, and
its struggles and success setting up and running its
This paper looks at the evolution of a process, and problem process. During the journey, we will see the
watches as the problem process goes through a impact that people can have on the processes and
series of growth stages. As it changes, we will look at the impact that processes have on the people using
why the decision was made to make the changes and them.
move on from what was originally designed
It is here that we can see that organisations need to
As an organisation takes on the concept of ITIL and ensure they not only have the right processes, but
ITIL processes or any processes, there are two things that they have the right people working with the
they should consider: processes, if they want to deliver world class results.
• The first is a feasibility study, to understand The Problem with Problem Management
what they have, what they need, and the
returns they can expect from the Just before we start to look at the process evolution,
implementation of the processes and the tool we’ll look at one of the significant problems with the
sets. problem management process. That is getting the
practical split between incident management and
It’s easy at this stage to take on a large overhead of problem management correct.
complex tools and processes, just because that’s
what you’ve seen in other organisations. That’s why At which point does ownership change from the
the feasibility study is so important: to ensure that if incident management team to the problem
the processes are implemented, they are designed to management team? Each option has its dangers and
meet the specific organisation’s requirements and are plus points, and there are two principle options that an
cost justifiable. organisation can consider:
In essence, does the organisation need a bespoke 1. User impact mitigated (work around in place). In
tool set, or is the organisation small enough to start this scenario, service has been restored to the users;
with emails and an EXCEL spreadsheet, or an in- they can now complete the tasks they need to
house web based solution? complete to do their Job.
2. Service fully restored to the position it was before
• The second is the resourcing levels the the incident occurred. In this scenario, the
organisation needs. Does it need separate infrastructure and application are put back into the
departments and owners for each process? setup they were before the incident, so all servers are
Or can some processes be run by individuals, back on line and any configuration changes are
and can the process owners be responsible returned to their original state.
for multiple processes?
Option 2, restoring service and infrastructure to the
This decision will be based on a number of factors past fully functioning set up, provides the best
including: solution. If we don’t use this second option, service
• The size of the organisation recovery can move into problem management, where

3. it loses its time-driven focus and moves to a quality- want a series of repeat failures, so you observe,
driven focus. This subtle but significant move, from identify the root cause, learn, and fix.
time-driven to quality-driven processes, can lead to
dangerous exposure to repeated, and potentially To do that we must have a mind set that accepts that
catastrophic, failures. there will be times when the process does fail. If we
believe the process to be faultless, and that it’s the
Picture the case of hardware failure; moving to the people who let us down, we will have missed the point
backup server mitigates user impact. If we now move and will be driving headlong towards a brick wall. If
to problem management, the recovery of the primary we accept that the processes may fail, we could
server moves from the time-focused drivers of spend time considering how they may fail and put
incident management to the quality-driven focus of proactive countermeasures in place; not easy, but it is
the problem process, which looks at what caused the a step along the continual process improvement path
failure. and an action that can help speed up the evolutionary
process.
This means we can easily lose sight of the non-
functioning primary server, and we have now If we start by accepting the fact that, no matter how
introduced a singe point of failure which can hard you try someone is always capable of messing it
potentially go undetected until the backup server has up, we can start to live with that knowledge and to
an issue, and then ………? use it to our advantage.
It is often these hand off points in the processes that So now let’s start looking at the problem management
become the weakest link. It can be that the process and its evolution in an organisation.
processes themselves are robust, but the links
between them are weak or poorly defined. Step 1 Problem Management - an Initial Approach
Poor links lead to variation in process because the As the organisation starts its journey, it is aware of
handoff is unclear, different areas can react in the basic link between incident management and
different ways, and in the worst case scenario, issues problem management. As such,it makes sure it
can become lost – they end up with no area or person builds a strong process that ensures that, as an
responsible for addressing them. incident closes, a root cause problem record is
opened. Then, to make sure it captures as many
In process building, the implementation and review of useful improvement actions as possible, particularly
these gaps or hand off points needs to be reviewed for its high severity incidents (those that have the
as carefully, if not more carefully, than the individual biggest impact), it makes sure that records are also
processes are. Often it’s at these handover points raised to cover further actions required by the support
that ownership and drive become lost, and we end up teams.
with repeat failures and escalating failure routes
where the second and third failures are progressively With these basics in place, they are confident that
worse than the original. they will capture all the required actions following an
incident and be able to drive forward actions to stop
It’s Never Going to be Perfect repeat incidents and to improve service availability.
As the process goes live, users start opening problem
As we design our processes, we could do worse than records for all sorts of reasons: service
to remember this quote from the author Douglas enhancements, nice to have add-ons, every time they
Adams: think of something that may be useful they raise a
problem record.
“A common mistake that people make when trying to
design something completely fool proof is to This first version was really little more than a set of
underestimate the Ingenuity of complete fools.” rules and regulations policed by the problem
management team. It did nothing more than ensure
Douglas Adams 2 problem records were opened. During the
implementation, the more records there were, the
Before we look at process evolution, we need to happier the team was. In fact, during the awareness
remember that, no matter how hard we try, what we sessions, one of the key figures quoted was always
put in place isn’t going to work the same forever, and an ever-increasing number of open problem records.
at some point somehow someone is going to break it. At one point in time the team had in the region of
The trick is to learn from each time the process 6,000+ open problem records. This was one of its
breaks down, and to develop the process and amend proudest achievements, and the number of problem
and change it to stop the same error occurring again. records they managed was their pride and joy.
It’s the same as running an IT System. You don’t The measures the organisation designed to oversee

4. the process were focused on process adherence, and fix them before they surfaced. It was this thought
ensuring records were opened and updated in line process that led to the next step on the journey.
with agreed timescales. Policing these measures was
the primary role of the team. The Key Tipping Point on the Process Path
The organisation was now at the key point on the
Was this an interesting team to work on? Not really. process evolutionary journey. They had reviewed and
There was little ownership and not really any sense of amended the processes once and that was the start.
achievement or responsibility. You may have worked If they could force themselves to change again, they
in areas such as this? were likely to go past the tipping point and be ready to
enter a state of continual service improvement.
Step 2 the Process Starts to Evolve
If the second step can be taken, the whole thought
After a period of time the team did start to realise that process will start to change. Processes will start to
all might not be well with the process, and that be seen as tools that need to be used and adapted to
perhaps there was more they could do. They had meet changing requirements, rather than a set of
more records than they could effectively manage. rules to be obeyed without question.
This is the first, and possibly the hardest, obstacle to If this really embeds itself in the organisation, it will
overcome in the process evolutionary journey: the help improve the whole of the organisation. And it will
realization that what they thought was working help to build an atmosphere of healthy challenge that
effectively might not be as good as they thought. It is will drive the organisation’s performance in all areas.
the first tipping point on the process evolutionary
journey. Step 3
Having realised that changes were needed, the team So at this point the problem team in the organisation
had a slight vision that perhaps some form of priority had a choice to make, having made a reputation for
and drive was needed in order to deliver results for delivering results in a reactive mode. The
the organisation as a whole. As part of the change, organisation’s two previous steps had built a swamp
they realised that some form of business-impact- full of unknown dangers, the “gators” hiding beneath
based prioritization might help. So they split the the surface.
records into two areas: business as usual records
(low severity problem records) and a high severity Now fighting the “gators” as they surface is always
area. fun. Everyone likes to play the hero and pull off the
last minute victory - the overtime kick to win the
Whilst they were now able to identify some key game. But now the team had a chance to be real
business-focused records, this often happened heroes: driving forward critical problem records, in line
reactively when multiple repeat high severity incidents with business requirements.
occurred or the business areas complained. Although
the process had moved forward, it was still building a So they had a choice as they reviewed the process:
swamp full of hidden unknown dangers lurking just They could continue to do what they were doing. and
below the surface (the alligators). they would often be seen as stars in the organisation
On the plus side, as time went by the team began to Or
develop a reputation for delivering fixes when the
pressure was on. As these hidden dangers suddenly They could do the right thing, which was to drain the
surfaced, they delivered the fix. But the measures swamp, stop the massive flow of problem records
remained volume-driven, and they still had little coming in, and then move the “gators” to a nice safe
ownership of problem fixes unless specifically home where they could be cared for and managed
requested to drive a problem to conclusion. The team simply and easily.
remained essentially an inwardly–focused, reactive
area, policing the process. But at least now they had Fortunately for the organisation, the team decided to
taken that first frightening step towards change; it was make the right choice and start draining the swamp.
only a small step. But the momentum, if it could be How was this going to be done? Well. there were a
maintained, would only grow. number of steps they needed to take.
By this point, the organisation started to realise that Firstly, they set up a filter, to slow down the flow of
problem management was about more than numbers. records into the swamp. To do this, a validation
They stared to think about business impact, and process was added, so any problem record raised
started to think of ways to find these hidden dangers was reviewed before it entered the process. This

5. review ensured each record was assessed by the were then taken to the technical teams, who reviewed
team, who asked some basic questions to establish if and assessed when they expected to be able to
it really was a root cause problem investigation, or deliver the fixes. Once these dates were agreed, the
one of the many non-problem records that were being technical areas were then measured against these
raised. Non-problem records were rejected. This part dates, so the more dates they met the better their
of the process also checked that the problem record figures.
had a clear problem statement and a business impact
assessment. The final improvement they delivered was to build in a
With the flow of records into the swamp under control, valuation phase to the process. As fixes were
the second step was to turn their attention to draining identified, the cost of the fix was reviewed against the
the swamp. This required some careful risk cost of the incident, and a business case made. This
assessment itself, to achieve this; the team ensured that the limited resources were focused on
implemented some very aggressive closure methods. fixing not only the records with the most impact, but
Closing every severity 4 record (See glossary for those that offered a cost justifiable fix. Problem
severity descriptions) that had been open for more management isn’t about fixing everything; there is no
than 3 months, and had not been progressed was point spending $10, 000 to fix a problem that causes
done first. The same action was taken for severity 3 $100.00 in damage when it occurs only once a year.
records that had been open for 4 months and not
progressed. With these process improvements came some client-
focused measures, primarily the measure to ensure
This was a risk, but was taken after careful fixes were delivered within the agreed timescales.
consideration. The thought was that, if there was a
further incident, a new record would be raised and it The Next Evolutionary Steps
would be opened in a new stronger process where its
true impact could be assessed. So the process has now grown and evolved three
times, has the end of the evolutionary process been
With the swamp now draining, the team could start to reached? The answer is no, there are still many
identify the high severity problem records (the steps that the organisation could take as the
“gators”), find them a safe home, start to review the requirements of the business and the technical areas
true business impact, and look at fixing the problems change.
that were causing the business the most damage.
Having come this far, it is likely that the journey will
Whilst the process had grown, the measures still never end. Now that the continual process
remained focused on process adherence and improvement mind set is in place, they will continue to
ensuring records were updated. A new measure was look at how things could be done better.
included, in an attempt to target problem closure by
reducing the volume of problem records open. But, In the best organisations this mind set will now have
as we will see later, these kinds of targets can be started building a culture that will help drive
dangerous. improvements across all areas of the organisation,
not just the processes. So what might the next step
Step 4 of problem management look like in the organisation?
So now the idea of continually reviewing and Step 5 Where Might this go Next?
improving the process had become embedded. And
so, after the step 3 process had been running for 4 Well, a drive to deliver faster and cheaper will be
months, the team had already identified areas where something they want to consider.
they could add more value. So step 4 was
developed. One way could be to blur the lines between the
incident management team and the problem
Step 4 really moved the process onto a higher level. management team. For high severity incidents, a
The areas they identified for improving ensured that single person would own and manage the issue from
the process became business–focused, and built incident detection, through user impact mitigation,
business confidence in the team’s ability to deliver. service recovery and on to root cause investigation
and fix. This isn’t ITIL based, but it is an option
The team identified that, whilst they had completed having end-to-end ownership.
some business-focus improvements in terms of
priority, they had no definitive dates that the technical With this potential set up, continuous ownership and
areas would actually implement the fixes. responsibility will help to drive records through the
So the first improvement was to ensure that once the system to effective closure. And with a single owner,
business had prioritized the records, these records there are no gaps for records to fall through and turn

6. up as repeat incidents taking everyone by surprise. want them to do, but they are no longer meeting the
They can then have some end-to-end fix targets in real requirements of the organisation as a whole. We
place with clear accountability. may still be meeting all our original measures, and we
may be happy that we are doing all we can to help the
Why Go Through Each Step? organization, when in reality the whole picture has
changed and we’ve been left behind.
The question, after walking through this process
evolution, might be “why can’t we implement step 4 or It’s this kind of static process-focused approach that
5 now, and then we’ll have the best there is”? This has historically been one of the reasons why IT has
would be a mistake, as it ignores the very first point ended up with such a poor reputation with business
which is: Do a feasibility study. areas. The business says things aren’t working, and
the IT areas refer to their processes and measures
Every organisation will need to assess its own needs. and say, “Look here’s the measure we agreed on. It’s
Version 4 or 5 may be over engineered for some within the agreed guidelines, so the fault must be
organisations. outside of our control.”
It would also be wrong to say any of the initial steps in In many cases, whilst we run the existing processes,
this particular evolutionary process were wrong. Each even the requirements for the IT areas may have
step was right for its time and the organisation’s changed. But for some reason we still try and use the
needs. In many ways the organisation needed to go existing processes, because they’re known and
through each of these steps, as each step embeds comfortable like a pair of old sneakers or those old
the processes further. jeans – comfortable, but no longer in fashion.
So we have been through pain of the initial The Process Isn’t Working - Why We Don’t
implementation and the upgraded versions of the Change
process. Let’s now look at why we need to remain on
top of our processes. The drivers stopping us changing processes when we
think they are working are the same that stop us
The Process is Working, Why Change It? changing, when it’s clear that the processes are
failing.
Organisations will have to overcome some very basic
objections as they evolve their processes. We find it hard to believe that something that has
served us so well may now be failing. We look
Some people and some organisations are just around to find other reasons why the process may not
resistant to change: “do what you always do and you’ll be working, and in IT that means we often blame the
get what you’ve also got.” And many people would business areas or the third party suppliers, but we
say what we always got was good enough. “These rarely look towards ourselves as being the root cause.
processes have always served us well in the past and
they will continue to do so in the future.” The Process Is Working - Why We Must Change It
Why can’t we sit back and enjoy what we've done? So let’s be honest. Once you’ve started out down this
We’ve been through the pain of implementation. It’s route of continuous service improvement, you’re
only fair we take some time to enjoy the benefits of all never going to be able to stop. You need to keep
that hard work. reviewing and growing, to make sure the processes
continue to deliver the result the organisation
Well we can’t sit back and relax, because that’s when requires.
we start to think the processes can do it all for us and
that we’ve succeeded. Just because the processes We need to build a culture that continually asks,
are delivering what they always have, and are “Could we do this better”?
delivering what we expect of them to, are they really
delivering what we need them to do? This isn’t change for change’s sake; just because it’s
In many industries, the requirements of the business old doesn’t mean it doesn't work, or that it’s not the
areas change on a regular basis to meet the particular best there is. This is change because change is
market demands of the industry. As such, the needed.
requirements they have for the technology are likely
to change as well. Why change? Why not?
If we don’t keep up with the changes in business Continual service improvement ensures people don’t
requirements, we can easily end up with a set of become complacent, and start to think they know
processes that are working well and doing what we things so well they’ll cut corners, or they start to follow

7. the process without thinking about the why. processes that you’re telling them about. With no
In the worst cases, teams start to short cut the interest, they have no buy-in to the process. How and
process because they forget what really needs to be why is anyone going to bother following a process
done; new people entering the team get a cut down they don’t see as delivering anything of value for
version of the process. If we don’t change and adapt, them?
the whole organisation stagnates. It starts to slow
down and soon, without noticing, the overall It’s much better to build users’ understanding and
performance will slowly start to drop. acceptance, not only saying how to follow the new
process but the benefits to the organisation and,
The needs of the IT community change. The much more importantly, the benefits to them and their
platforms we use may change and require job. As we start to work globally, this user buy-in
amendments to the processes. As already becomes even more important, not only because the
mentioned, the business needs will change and the physical distance can be great but it also is important
processes must ensure we can change quickly to to understand and take into account cultural
meet these changes. differences.
We shouldn't be scared of change, change is required If we go through this type of ownership-focused
if organisations are going to survive and grow. process implementation, it will take longer, be harder
Organisations and people need to change and to be to put together, and cost more initially. But users will
challenged. It’s in our nature to drive forward, to look feel they own the process, and with ownership comes
at what might be. responsibility and a desire to make the process work.
In the best organisations the users will help reshape
If the internal combustion engine had stop developing the process themselves for the benefit of the
as the first engine rolled off the production line, we organisation.
wouldn’t have the same mobility we have today.
Imagine if computing design hadn’t moved on from Once the processes are in place, we still need to
the first designs. We’d still be using valve technology. have the right people in the organisation using the
processes. As we shall see, there are two main types
If we are going to ensure our organisations perform to of people in the organisation.
their optimum, we shouldn’t be asking, “Is it working?”
We should be asking, “How can we do this better?” Two Types of Process People
Process Implementation “Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of
people without the wit and wisdom to do their job
So if the organisation understands that it needs to properly.”
continually improve its process, how does it ensure
that these processes remain functioning effectively? David Brent,”The Office” (amongst others)3
Process implementation is full of dangers and You will find you have two types of person in your
assumptions, not unlike the problem swamp we talked organisation:
about earlier, the worst of which is the assumption • Those who are owned by the process
that if I tell you how to operate a process you will • Those who own the process.
understand it, embrace it, and do it.
Once the processes have been implemented, the
When processes fail to deliver what they are biggest danger is that the processes start to own the
expected to, we blame the people when really it’s people, and they are used as an excuse for poor
often down to the implementation. It’s very easy to delivery.
become a process bully here, and just say “do it
because I say so”, and because it’s going to make Those Who are Owned by the Process
things work more effectively. This approach, let’s be
honest, is often used because it’s quick, easy, can be There is a danger that the processes themselves
put in place with minimal training, and we can quickly actually stifle the performance of the organisation.
tick the boxes on the deployment plan. But this In theory, a process should deliver results. But it’s
approach means that the actual users have very little often only when the processes are put under pressure
understanding of the benefits. that their true effectiveness shows, and that depends
on the people using them. If things go wrong, and
We‘ve told them the how but not the why and the people blame the process, you’re in trouble because
what it does for them. Without being able to see the you’ve failed and yet no one takes accountability or
benefits to them, as well as the organisation, they ownership. They blame the process and hide.
have no reason to have any interest in the new

8. Processes are not barricades to hide behind. They introduce them with such enthusiasm because we
are instruments that we work with to deliver a don’t treat the processes with the same care and
solution, and they really show their worth when they thought that we do with our infrastructure and
are flexible and the people using them are able to applications. We know these embedded dangers
amend them as they. better as process measures, and they can be very
If the processes have started to own the people, corrosive to an organisation.
when things go wrong your people start to retreat,
blame the process, and become defensive. Often
they will follow a process that doesn’t deliver an
effective result time and time again because that’s Let’s look at how this happens:
what they’ve been told to do.
Every process needs a measure,
When this starts to happen, if it’s not spotted early, it
can start to have a corrosive effect on the But
organisation as a whole because soon people will
become blind to what’s going on and continue to Every measure has a target,
follow weak and inefficient processes and will never
stop and wonder if there may be a better way. But
Those Who Own the Process Every target drives behaviors,
Surgeons during an operation have processes, but But
they don’t stop and say they can’t do anything if they
come across something different. They adapt their Behaviors can hide the truth.
procedures to deliver the best outcome for the
patient. How do we ensure we see the real impact of our
processes, and that the measures and the people
So it should be with all our processes. Do we stop don’t get in the way?
because we come across a problem, or do we work
round the problem and amend the process? It’s clear We need to make sure that our measures start by
that the best people work around and amend. In being focused on the goals of the organisation as a
many cases, it’s something that people do without whole, looking at the critical success factors first.
thinking and the key is to make them aware of that Once the success factors are identified, we can start
and ensure they document any improvements they to look at how we can measure these, and how we
make, so these changes can be tested and will know when we’ve been successful.
introduced across the organisation if they prove
effective. This use of user workarounds to review the When we look at setting targets, we need to think how
process helps build that process ownership we talked they may be compromised. Targets may look at
about before, as each user builds their stake in the specific values, such as reducing the volume of
process. incident records handled, or reducing the number of
open problem records. These may look great at first
When people own the process, they will actively look glance. But these types of measures can often be
for ways to improve how they work. In the most open achieved without actually having any impact on the
and encouraging of companies this will help build a performance of the organisation as a whole. Also,
culture of drive and growth, as people start to take on measures focusing solely on process adherence,
responsibility for their actions. such as updating records within agreed deadlines,
can also hide the true progress of the record.
The growth of this culture will initially be slow, but the
first indications are when, instead of blaming the Simple numeric measures are easy to manipulate.
process, the individuals accept that something has For example, reducing volumes can be achieved very
failed and look at how they can stop it failing again. quickly; but without some quality control measures,
The next logical step that they will then make is to the achievement can bring little or nothing to the
“Think that looks like it’s going to fail; how can I stop it organisation.
failing in the first place”?
The Danger Embedded In Process Process adherence is no real measure of actual
Implementation delivery. In fact, it is easy to update a record; but
In the rush to implement new processes, again it’s the quality of the update that matters. Is the
organisations let loose hidden dangers; in the IT update actually moving the record closer to delivering
community we might say the hidden viruses that its fix, or is the update just to say that the record has
processes bring with them are Trojan horses. We been updated?

9. live you can be ready to fix and move on, without
Whenever we set targets, we must consider how causing any impact.
these targets could be manipulated. If you can walk
through the potential areas that will be manipulated, One of the key points is to treat your processes just
you can then proactively amend the measure to stop like any other IT tool. If the process fails, make sure
this. Or if you can’t stop the manipulation, remove you’re aware and start to review and amend the
the measure and think again. process. In the same way that we don’t want to have
repeated capacity or application failures, we don’t
want to have repeating process failures.
The best measures have a very specific point, and
need to focus on the end delivery. So agreeing on fix Each time we review our processes, we need to bring
dates is a clear measurable deliverable that is very our skills and processes into play. In fact, in many
hard to manipulate, as if the fix isn’t delivered by the ways we can use the basic premises to review the
due date, it will be clear. process, looking at what’s working and what’s not
(incident management), identifying why the processes
Simple numeric measures can be used, but they will aren’t working (problem management), and
need some secondary measures behind them developing and implementing solutions to ensure the
focusing on quality control. Perhaps an agreement to process starts working effectively again (change
drive down the number of records that get reopened management).
at review is an example. If you are using numeric
based measures, it’s also best practice to continually Each time we review the processes, our response will
review and change the measures to stop people be different. Sometimes the review will involve minor
becoming complacent and developing work arounds or no change at all. At other times, it may be a
to meet the targets without delivering results. complete process redesign. We just need to make
sure that we do what’s right at the right time for the
Regular reviews and changes can help bring focus to organisation as a whole.
specific areas of the process. If used for short time
lines, they can be used to drive process In Summary
improvements as part of the evolutionary process.
• Don’t hide behind the process
From that quick walk through, we can see how easy it • If it doesn’t work, change the processes
can be to introduce measures that can hide the true • Continue to grow and evolve
impact of the processes. Processes are important, • Make continual process improvement the norm
but equally important and often ignored is ensuring • Remember the hidden dangers (behaviours)
the quality of the measures that sit behind the
• Remain focused on the business drivers
processes.
• Ownership, Ownership its the key to success
Conclusion • Treat your processes as a valuable asset.
Every time you develop or review a process, walk Bibliography
through the process. Think of the possible issues that
may be encountered, or result from the new process. OGS Service Handbook
Develop the counter measures, so if you see them Version 2, 2007

10. 1 OGC Service Delivery Handbook
2 Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy
3 The office Television show BBC TV