BPM and EQ
creating a new role for “organizational actors” to assist with process improvement projects:Theo Priestley warns against
Secondly, as highlighted above, we do not need to invent a new role or label to fulfil this kind of role-play, or indeed formalise it in any way. We were loosely composed of analysts, heads of depts, customer service reps; people who understood the process at all levels and we all understood what the purpose and goal of what we were doing. This should not be the responsibility of one particular person or a set of people but just another piece of the continuous improvement mindset which exists already.What Theo is arguing is that to do process improvement and BPM correctly, we have to involve the business (and IT) in the effort. Rather than further specializing roles, most organizations would likely benefit from the cross-pollination and change in the routine. I’ve always suspected that BPM projects depend more on EQ than IQ: selecting the right people for the project is more of a judgment call, and the people who will be most effective are those with a high EQ. Businesses will be better off investing in the people already in the organization by giving them broadening experiences and responsibilities, that they’ll take with them back to their day job. At the very least they’ll have a new appreciation for a broader swath of the business.