The literature on business-analysis and design of business processes?

Something a La: "Building business models. Handbook of the strategist and innovator"

And who read it generally applicable, or in practice everything is different,

what you write in this kind of books?
October 3rd 19 at 02:29
5 answers
October 3rd 19 at 02:31
Recommended reading "Business Analysis Body of Knowledge". About the PMBOK, I think you all know well, BABOK from the same "series".
October 3rd 19 at 02:33
I read a number of books on the subject, but have not yet found any, which would be the real data.

have personal experience of building processes on the architecture of BPM. Expensive and time consuming method. The project, covering 3-4 business processes in the organization in the 500-1000 employees take on average 1.5-2 years.

Tried to build processes according to the principles of ACM (Adaptive Case management). Significantly easier and more efficient. For the project 1000 employees and covering about 20 processes took 1 year.

there is a good book "business process reengineering", but there is no specific methods. they generally could not find it.

there is a notation of the type BPMN, but they are good in the projects. when programmers have the task to deliver or to agree about something.

in life, nobody reads them and the employees they are not interesting and these diagrams be on the shelves to gather dust.

found 2 simple methods that really work and give the result in view of the fact that employees start to read these processes and act on them. tested on many projects:
1. to structure the processes according to the principle of VISI
2. to describe in any medium for structuring information. I like WP. Tested in practice. Works perfectly. People read the process — which is extremely rare in such projects. Description of one such experiment here
As soon as 2 of the method is simple, and the second I more or less acquainted, could You
to explain the principle of VISI in General terms — what is? =)

The first link passed, so there is by explanations Where it is used
immediately there is a transition to an exponential explanation — how
without clarification of General principles. - justine_Ro commented on October 3rd 19 at 02:36
Just where the explanation of the example done.

VISI — the list must be Mutually Exclusive and Mutually Exhaustive.

Give an example of your work, I have it give structure to this principle :)

The same principle is structured all that is possible. I'm so item references give structure. Allows in order to keep the database and to minimize duplicates. - Dallin.Renn commented on October 3rd 19 at 02:39
Can spherical online store in vacuum to consider. =)
An arbitrary number of employees with arbitrary relationships.
The output of the organization must be: high loyalty of the customers (often return),
the average check is higher than the average hospital, rapid detection of tradable goods and higher margin on them.
Normal example? - justine_Ro commented on October 3rd 19 at 02:42
Yes, let it be spherical shop. The business is )

The thinking is something like this:
1. take main product: customer Loyalty that ensures repeat purchases. Let it be root — p 0
2. what we need, what bedproduct to that will provide us this product? On the move: 1. sale, 2. purchases, 3. the warehouse, 4. marketing, 5. staff. If I something missed — so the list is not exhaustive jointly and that something you will add.
3. here we may have an idea of the type "it would be necessary to do a mailing about the new super products for those who signed up or for those who have already bought something". we call this product "Lists". it cannot be added to the list on the first level, because it logically relates to claim 4. Marketing. i.e. it is necessary to push in marketing as a sub-item. and to 4.1. Distribution. Possibly something else you want to put into marketing? Such surveys? OK let it be 4.2. Polls and etc

We get about this structure:

1. Sale
2. Purchase
3. Warehouse
4. Marketing
4.1. Mailing
4.2. Polls
5. Staff

We must try to make an effort, every paragraph break on podloucky, again observing the rule of VISI.
Take the sale. What they consist of? There are some bagproduct? Consultations on sales? The answers to the questions? Order fulfillment? Suppose there and these products are written as sub-items to 1. Received:

1. Sale
1.1. The order of the buyer
1.2. The answers to the questions
2. Purchase
3. Warehouse
4. Marketing
4.1. Mailing
4.2. Polls
5. Staff

We are reminded here that staff famously worked not interfere with the training? Where to put it? as p. 6 again, otherwise the list will not be mutually exclusive. Training relates to staff. We're training him. Does this clause need to be added to clause 5 and to clause 5.1. Training. And then there's the Search and selection of employees as well as Personnel changes (change in the position or dismissal).

1. Sale
1.1. The order of the buyer
1.2. The answers to the questions
2. Purchase
3. Warehouse
4. Marketing
4.1. Mailing
4.2. Polls
5. Staff
5.1. Training
5.2. Search and selection
5.3. Personnel changes

This is just the beginning. It is necessary to drill down the tree as deep as possible.

Once we have a tree, we will start to describe the processes. Not all processes should be described. Only those that hurt and cause itching in the organization.

For example if employees do not have a lot of problems with the training and described it is not necessary. Let the list will be to understand and all.

But let's say the buyer's Order or procurement Plan — itch and cause problems. Here they should be described and to train employees.

Then there often arises the need for knowledge bases, because there are procedures that are common to several processes, repeat a lot of them where bad. Because they bring in the shared storage the type of knowledge base and from the description of the process doing the link there.

All. In the end, you get a structured tree of processes (process model), which is easy to conduct training and that the employees can understand the procedure for best results.

Yes, but then you are waiting for another ambush. It is very easy to go too deep into the details and begin to Refine not the processes, procedures, functions, or stages. And don't even notice it.
How to distinguish process from non-process? The process has a start event (once a day, received such a call, it is the message, and so forth), and that is the end result (processed the order, closed the incident, cleaned the toilets). Between the event and the result is the stages: definition, formation, preparation, execution, closing. Can be more.

If you start writing process and understand that you can't allocate one of these stages, then we parameterizable. We must look for the error in VS or in rule "Event-Result".

If you are familiar with the concept of OOP, these things are very similar :) in OOP it is easy to make a mistake with the decomposition in the functional design, and this error is not immediately discovered. Same thing in regulation. Very easy to make mistakes with the process definition and start to describe it.

That is the principle VS the principle of "Event-Result", you will help reduce the risk of these errors.

If you do it right, employees will begin to read these descriptions of the processes themselves. Without tyranny and terror. If employees don't want to read the process — so somewhere a mistake. - Dallin.Renn commented on October 3rd 19 at 02:45
Can we say that we have also developed a Work Flow for the project is the process? - justine_Ro commented on October 3rd 19 at 02:48
not always.

even more so that correct and working workflow in real life at the crossroads of several processes, 3-5-7 processes.

when doing the WorkFlow for 1 process, it often looks like IBD and in reality this mechanism is detrimental to employees and degrades the performance is the process, what helps and improves. Exceptions have not yet met, though I admit that they can be. - Dallin.Renn commented on October 3rd 19 at 02:51
And that gives us then the description of the processes, if the rendering of all interrelated Work Flow's,
in the graph, and so will give us insight into problematic issues
and bottlenecks in your organization? - justine_Ro commented on October 3rd 19 at 02:54
If you do to give something, then nothing :)

I now BPMN WorkFlow and gives nothing from the point of view of management.

1. Bottlenecks I understand it is not based on the WorkFlow, but only by 2 criteria: in the course of communication with employees and the analysis of the KPI. Neither the first nor the second method does not replace WorkFlow. BPMN especially.
2. Considering clause 2 of the user here play a double role:
2.1. when employees read them, they have questions on these issues, you can understand the source of the problem. Instructions are described and crooked too hard or in the process formed a bottleneck, you want to learn and improve
2.2. instructions employees understand at what step what and where you need to enter in the system. This allows you to collect KPI. The second way of understanding bottlenecks.

That's about how I find bottlenecks to improve.

No WorkFlow or BPMN do not do it.

Have faith in the fact that BPMN and WorkFlow is supposedly a visual representation of processes, and it supposedly allows you some visuals to better understand the process and find the bottlenecks and to improve it. I hear that a lot are still students, but over 10 years it never met. There are those who does it and pretends to like something better. But when they try to ask about the results, saying that you did this project and claim that it took any decisions, implemented them and have improved something. Then ask the question "What?" and the answer is heresy bullshit about "well employees become more efficient", "well, transparency is increased" and so on in the same spirit. It's all nonsense. Process improvement can only be understood in the KPI: proportion of problems solved within the deadline increased from 80% to 95%, average rating of service quality increased from 3.5 to 4.5, and so on.
The trouble is that all these drawing boxes and arrows that affect these measurable indicators often does, but more often only worsen them.
Because those who have engaged in drawing, I'm afraid to measure the results of their work, because it's often negative. From here we get responses like "increased transparency". This is garbage, not the result. More precisely — it's IBD.

If you want real results, then the WorkFlow should be applied last, when you're 150% sure what you are doing and need this in very rare cases.
Trying to shove WorkFlow wherever it is inserted, leads to enormous costs and significant deterioration of business processes and the results of the "increased transparency". - Dallin.Renn commented on October 3rd 19 at 02:57
Yeah, I'm through the prism of his perception is, of course, consider.
WF ( let me abbr. =) ) in its pure form gives an idea about any changes in the condition of the organization.

And assessment of the current situation can be tracked certainly not by him.
On the contrary — it is possible, if all this wealth is sewn into some sort of working system (i.e. WF not only on paper but also in reality) actually used by people in every moment we can definitely say — "now a certain business process is in a certain area", and the analyst, with the identification of KPIs from all this, it is easy to arrange all kinds of samples from the database for the system in which these WF are implemented.
And for SIM I have little idea what this was these people You can tell
so You felt their approval nonsense.

MB they do not imagine, like me?

As for me — description of business processes and operational instructions, which then have a chance that nobody will read, much less attractive prospect than drawing WF and the forcing of employees to work strictly within the framework of this WF, then had the opportunity to analyze them based on what can give us Analytics database actions through the prism of the existing WF and the time spent by each employee, the implementation of each stage in the framework of this WF.

Where is the puncture in the reasoning? :) - justine_Ro commented on October 3rd 19 at 03:00
Where is the puncture in the reasoning? :)

No offense, but a puncture in the reasoning :)

Try to build a system to control any process full cycle from action enter data, to communication and output the collected data visualized in the KPI process, for which you will be able to monitor the situation and dynamics of development, improvement or deterioration.

You will find that 9 out of 10 cases it can be done without a WF. The attempt to use a WF will lead to a substantial complication of the system and in most cases, to project failure. For example data entry you can be and get, but the output KPI is already unlikely. And if you still manage about a couple of months of use, you will find that WF only worsens the situation and getting rid of the only KPI to improve.

WF needed, but very rarely, about 1 out of 10 cases. In my experience. This is where the complication is forced and without it Oh how difficult. But it's super duper rare projects.

You will be able to get rid of the error in the reasoning after I cease to talk and do a dozen other similar projects. - Dallin.Renn commented on October 3rd 19 at 03:03
"But it's super duper rare projects." — what, for example?
Thanks for the clarification. Everything is very detailed
happened. =)
In order for them to do
first you need to become a Manager..) - justine_Ro commented on October 3rd 19 at 03:06
To do them, to want them to do. Manager to become it is not necessary. His first projects I did when I was a programmer ) made mistakes, but with age and experience of the mistakes was to do less. And then as it became the leader. That's all )

The last example where we had to make a likeness of WF, is the optimization of the process of reception staff in major national companies with dozens of offices around the country.

The essence of the process that in its course is the hiving off of the operations related processes. This is exactly the situation where there is a junction 5-7 processes. Here WF is useful.

For example take employee. Starts the receive operation during which the need to properly execute employee and skoordinirovanno all services so that the employee quickly proceeded to their business without undue difficulty.
Automatically created sub-service marketing to business cards and badge.
Automatically took the notice to the safety service for review.
Automatically took claim to it to create accounts in the system, including email.mail.
Application for the grant of service SIM card.
Application in the corporate training center for inclusion in the next thread study group.
This is where the system took over the automation, like the auto-create email, send an SMS with access details to the cell phone of the employee.

Here WF was needed. We made it.

But all this is a set of processes, not one that was required to tie into a single scheme. - Dallin.Renn commented on October 3rd 19 at 03:09
October 3rd 19 at 02:35
deleted — missed
October 3rd 19 at 02:37
Uh, you seem to have described the construction of a system of balanced
indicators of Norton and Kaplan. Well, almost.
October 3rd 19 at 02:39

Information on the business analysis can be found on the website of the Business Analysis in Russia

Find more questions by tags Business informatics