iDatix Workshop: PEX Week Part 2
description
Transcript of iDatix Workshop: PEX Week Part 2
Session 2 of 3
Common Process Design PitfallsIdentifying and avoiding common errors found in process improvement design implementations
Session 2 – Design Pitfall Objectives
Understand the fundamental aspects required for proper future state design
Gain basic familiarity with workflow automation software capabilities
Identify four common process design pitfalls that can hinder efficiency in workflow design
Hands On Activity● Process Review● Scenario analysis● Process Improvement/Refinement● Demonstration
Explore potential resolutions to common design pitfalls
Fundamentals of Future State Design
Thorough analysis underpins effective future state design
Effective design also relies on understanding:● Vision of how the implemented
solution will solve the business problem
● In depth knowledge of the range of capabilities that the software platform provides
● Understanding how common missteps affect design
Workflow Automation
Software that integrates the following into a streamlined interface● People● Information (Data & Documents)● Business processes
Fundamental principle● Bringing critical information● To the people that need it ● At the point in time that it’s relevant to
accomplish the task
Some Example Capabilities● User tasks
Workflow Automation
Workflow Automation
Software that integrates the following into a streamlined interface● People● Information (Data & Documents)● Business processes
Fundamental principles● Bringing critical information● To the people that need it ● At the point in time that it’s relevant to accomplish
the task
Some Example Capabilities● User tasks● Wait and Validation tasks● Conditional Routing logic● Automated Data Exchanges and Web Services
Integrations● Notifications
Design Pitfall 1: Over Engineering
Designing for every exception leads to over complication
Will be constantly chasing each ‘new’ exception
Introduces the possibility for inflexibility when new exceptions arise
Impact: ● Increases risk of scope creep ● blown timelines and budgets
Design Pitfall 2: Creating Non-Actionable or Vague Queues
Presenting a queue of work where some tasks cannot yet be processed● Requires constant manual sorting to find
work that is able to be completed
Using vague, role-based names for tasks provide little insight● Verb or action based naming provides hints
to the worker
Impact● Works against principles of workflow
automation● Hurts user adoption ● Ambiguous naming pollutes metrics data
Design Pitfall 3: Under Validation
Assuming that our workforce will always act how we have designed the process● Not accounting for Human Error
Creating dependencies without error handling adds risk
Impact ● Adds overhead for managers to
research and address situations● Issues can “snowball” when automatic
tasks depend on data that hasn’t been validated
● Erodes faith in the system
Design Pitfall 4: Replicating Paper Processes into Software
The “this is the way we’ve done it, so we will continue to do it” mindset● Current state should define the business
requirements – but NOT constrain the future implementation
Not leveraging advantages of software, such as automatic routing, data exchange or parallel processing
Impact● Limits potential for efficiency gains
Current State
Software
Future State
Documentation IconsUser task – This icon represents a step in the process where a user has work to accomplish and is presented with information and actions. Example: Enter Voucher in AP System
Conditional Split task – This icon represents a task that is able to make routing decisions. Example: Invoice > $500
Wait task – This icon represents a task that will hold work until a document or data is present. Example: Wait for Invoice
Start task – This icon represents the start of a workflow process.
Finish task – This icon represents the completion of a workflow process.
Data Exchange – This task represents an exchange of data from the process workflow to or from another database (external or internal). Example: Synchronize Invoice Number
Hands On Activity
Work with the person(s) next to you.
Handout of business process will contain areas that are identified with design pitfalls.
Separate sheet will provide scenarios with backstory from the process users.
Determine what the pitfall is and ways to improve the process.
This hands on activity will last 30 minutes.
Implemented Process Overview
Deny Northern Brew
Purchase Req(Recipe)
Status = New
Resu
bmitt
ed
OK to brew
Missing Signature
PO Created
Reci
pe D
enie
d
Tim
e O
utReceived Received
Tim
e O
ut
Manager Approval
Proc
ess
Vouc
her
Entered
Ship
men
t Re
ceiv
ed
Missing Info
Brewmaster Review
Recipe Submitted
Review Requisition
Wait For Packing Slip
Missing Shipment
Wait For Invoice
Missing Invoice
Wai
t For
In
voic
e
Review Invoice
AP Manager Approval
Brewmaster Approval
Brewmaster Approval
Process Voucher Paid
Appr
oved
Appr
oved
Contact American Yeast
Contact Brew Direct
Contact Northern Brew
Contact Hopology
Close Invoice
Appr
oved
Do Not Pay
Send Documentation To Vendor
Wait For Additional Shipment
Contacted
Contacted
Contacted
Contacted
Deny American
Yeast
Den
y Am
eric
an
Yeas
t
Deny Brew Direct
Den
y Br
ew D
irect
Deny Northern BrewDeny Hopology
Den
y H
opol
ogy
Close Invoice
Do
Not
Pay
Do you still get missing documents?
What do you do with the missing shipments?
Still receiving the wrong invoices for approval?
I heard vendors are complaining about not getting paid!
How is the vendor denial process segment working?
Hands On Activity
Work with the person(s) next to you.
Handout of business process will contain areas that are identified with design pitfalls.
Separate sheet will provide scenarios with backstory from the process users.
Determine what the pitfall is and ways to improve the process.
This hands on activity will last 30 minutes.
Design Pitfall Review
The hands on activity is over
Review each identified section of the process●What was the issue with each section?●What pitfalls did you identify?
Pitfall resolution●How did you correct each identified pitfall?
Example A
Scenario● Brewmaster receives recipes that are missing the
ingredient list● Constantly has to send the requisitions back to
brewer to obtain ingredient list● Would be nice if the system could check for the
ingredient list before sending it to my queue
Purchase Req(Recipe)
Status = New
Recipe Submitted OK to brew
Missing Signature
Review Requisition
Resu
bmitt
ed
Reci
pe D
enie
d
Missing Info
Brewmaster Review
Resu
bmitt
ed
Reci
pe D
enie
d
Missing Info
Brewmaster Review
Wait For Ingredient List & Recipe
Tim
e O
ut
Overview
Pitfalls Identified● Which pitfalls did you identify?● Under validation ● Creation of work pools that are not actionable
Pitfall Resolution● How did you correct the identified pitfalls?● By using a document wait task we can check for all of
the documents or data that is needed at the review step
● If any of the documents or data is missing we can then return the requisition back to the brewer to resolve
Example B
Scenario● The wait period for shipments expires and the
order is sent to receiving to look for the shipment
● Receiving determines that the shipment still has not been received and the vendor should be contacted
● Would be nice if there was a way to send these orders to the AP Clerk to contact the vendor
Overview
Pitfalls Identified● Which pitfalls did you identify?● Creation of work pools that are not actionable
Pitfall Resolution● How did you correct the identified pitfalls?● Creating a user task for the AP Clerk to contact
the vendor allows receiving to remove these orders from their queue
● Limits foot traffic
Tim
e O
ut
Wai
t For
Sh
ipm
ent
Cancel
Ship
men
t Re
ceiv
ed
Contact Vendor For Shipment
Cancel Order
Contact Vendor
Missing Shipment
Wait For Packing Slip
Tim
e O
ut
Ship
men
t Re
ceiv
ed
Overview
Example C
Scenario● Brewmaster and AP Manager receive invoices that they
do not need to approve● AP Clerk is choosing wrong person for approval and not
adhering to the company policies● Would be nice if the system could check the amount
and then route the invoice accordingly
Pitfalls Identified● Which pitfalls did you identify?● Under validation ● Replication of the paper process
Pitfalls Corrected● How did you correct the identified pitfalls?● By using a routing task the process can automatically
verify what the amount is and determine who the invoice should be sent to
● This allows the AP Clerk to simply review the invoice and then let the system route it based on pre-defined rules
Review Invoice
Brewmaster Approval
Manager Approval
ReviewedAmount Routing
>$500<=$5,000
>$5,000
Brewmaster Approval
AP Manager Approval
Overview
Example D
Scenario● Invoices get routed to the wrong contact vendor task● Every time we buy from a new vendor we have to
add a task to the workflow which is adding administrative overhead
● Would be nice if there was a more general contact vendor task and the AP Clerk could make the determination on who to contact
Pitfalls Corrected● How did you correct these pitfalls?● By condensing the individual contact vendor
tasks into a single task we empower the knowledge worker
● Adds flexibility to the workflow
Deny Northern Brew
Contact American Yeast
Contact Brew Direct
Contact Northern Brew
Contact Hopology
Deny American
Yeast
Den
y Am
eric
an
Yeas
t
Deny Brew Direct
Den
y Br
ew D
irect
Deny Northern BrewDeny Hopology
Den
y H
opol
ogy
Brewmaster Approval
AP Manager Approval
Contact Vendor For Denial
Denied
Denied
Pitfalls Identified● Which pitfalls did you identify?● Focusing design to handle all exceptions● Replication of the paper process
Overview
Example E
Scenario● Vendors call and complain that they did not
receive payment● Without validation the AP Clerk is able to process
the work item without entering the voucher● Would be nice if there was a way for the
workflow to verify if the voucher was entered into the AP system
Pitfalls Corrected● How did you correct these pitfalls?● By adding a data sync and an exception task we
are able to instantly validate that the task was actually performed
Process Voucher Paid
Entered
Verify Voucher
Missing Voucher
Corr
ecte
d
Faile
d
Success
Pitfalls Identified● Which pitfalls did you identify?● Under validation● Replication of a paper process
DemonstrationImplementing a Pitfall Corrective Action Within the Existing Process
Up Next: Session 3
Continuous Improvement