A Glass Half-Empty?
Just 15% of Companies that Implemented a BPM System are Realizing End-User Productivity Gains of More than 50%” (or should I say, 15% full or 85% empty? ) Its a good read of an article, but let me write the headline differently using the same statistics: “15% of Companies implementing a BPM System realize end-user productivity gains of more than 50%” That sounds, actually, pretty good. Presumably some larger percentage of these companies implementing BPM Systems achieve some smaller end-user productivity gains. It also seems that these statistics are being reported in a vacuum. Are end-user productivity gains the *only* goal of such implementations? What about better customer service? Lower defect rates? Higher throughput without a loss of quality? Faster turnaround time? etc. Reading into the (slightly) more detailed stats at the bottom of the article, only 1.4% of BPM Projects had negative end-user productivity impact, and 46% fell into the “don’t know” category. That’s the real problem: too many of the companies implementing BPM Systems really had no effective way to measure worker productivity *prior* to implementing BPM. So often the better apples-to-apples comparisons are other statistics that are affected by end-user productivity but are secondary indicators:A wonderful example of looking at the same glass and seeing it as half-empty rather than half-full, here’s the headline from an article I just read: “
- Throughput of your process (# of instances of the process in a given timeframe)
- Average and Median completion time of a process instance
- Number of defects (customer complaints, inaccurate orders, etc) per million (for example)
- Customer Service scores