Chapter 1.5: The Process Cookbook Model

A cookbook contains many recipes for preparing many types of cuisine.  Each recipe is a procedure for completing the preparation of a single dish.  A recipe in a cookbook describes the ingredients to be consumed, the flow of their preparation, instructions for each step, and a picture or description of the value to be created.

The cookbook applies to information processes as well.  A process cookbook provides the detailed procedural instructions to complete a flow of activities of a single process.  A procedure in a process cookbook also defines the resources to be consumed, the flow of activities, instructions for their execution, and a picture or description of the value to be created.

Some chefs prefer not to use a cookbook.  This can be a good thing.  Just as a music jamming session can be a good alternative to playing sheet music.  An organization is left to decide which processes that creativity should be encouraged and where additional process structure is appropriate.

However, the process cookbook model breaks down when it comes to the preparation of a meal with several dishes.  Each recipe in a cookbook makes the assumption that the chef has nothing else to do other than prepare that one recipe.  If something needs to simmer for exactly 5 minutes, the recipe assumes that the chef will be available to end that activity at exactly the right time.

Nothing in a cookbook guides a chef on how to prepare several dishes at the same time.  As shown in Figure 1.8, a cookbook does not a meal make.  Why?  Because a cookbook cannot predict which recipes the chef wants for tonight’s meal.  The specific instructions covering the prioritization and scheduling of each recipe’s activities would change based on which other recipes are selected.  Therefore each recipe has no choice but to assume it has the chef’s full attention, and if that is not the case, leave it up to the chef to figure out how to successfully complete the entire meal.

Figure 1.8:  A cookbook does not a meal make

A cookbook helps to train on a standard approach to fix one recipe.  It does nothing to help optimize the flow of activities necessary to prepare a multi-course meal.

This burden is complex enough when there is just one chef cooking a multi-dish meal.  Imagine of a gourmet restaurant staffed by 10 chefs.  Each chef could be assigned to prepare a portion of one dish, with multiple dishes required to create a seven course meal. 

At any point in time, the chefs could be preparing one of the seven courses for each of the 40 patrons in the restaurant; each at a different course in their meal.  All of this with patrons coming and going throughout the night - and of course none of them wants their food late or ill-prepared. 

If you were one of the chefs in this restaurant, how could you decide, at any moment, what was the next most important thing to do?  Where is the cookbook that covers the gourmet restaurant scenario?

This burden is complex enough when there is just one chef cooking a single meal.  Imagine of a gourmet restaurant staffed by 10 chefs.  Each chef is assigned to help prepare a portion of one dish for single 7 course meal.  At any one time the chefs could be preparing one of the dishes for any of the 40 patrons in the restaurant.  The patrons could have chosen their seven courses from 50 different recipes; with each patron at a different course in their meal; and none wanting their food late or ill-prepared. 

If you were one of the chefs in this restaurant, how would you decide, at any moment, what was the next most important thing to do?  Is it possible to develop a cookbook that covers the scenario of the gourmet restaurant?

Cookbooks do provide value.  Having a cookbook for standard recipes helps to remove variation from how different chefs prepare a recipe.  It makes it easier to train new chefs.  It can even help to document where artistic variation is allowed and where a recipe should be followed every time.

However a cookbook is not enough to define all of the processes needed by a gourmet restaurant.  No matter the excellence of each individual recipe, without coordinating the preparation of multiple recipes by multiple chefs for multiple patrons, the restaurant could still fail to deliver the desired value to its customers. 

What is required is a system-wide view for managing: 

·         Process Execution – How the consumed resources and created value of each activity is tuned to maximize overall value created based on the current mix of in-work and planned activities 

·         Process Flow – How the scheduling and prioritization of in-work and planned activities are tuned to maximize overall value created based on the available resources

Each entry in a process cookbook describes the flow and execution of activities of a single process.  There are processes that benefit from this level of documentation.   What a process cookbook is unable to do is optimize the activities of multiple processes so that when executed together they maximize the value created from available resources. 

Chapter 1.4: The Cost/Benefit of Process

If the purpose of process is to create customer value then each activity of a process should contribute some portion of that value.  The differences between the value created by an activity and the resources consumed to produce that value define the incremental value delivered by the activity.  The cost of an activity is determined from the cost of the resources allocated to that activity to create a single unit of value.  The total value created and the total cost of a process is determined by adding the value and cost of each of the activities that are part of the process flow.

Figure 1.6 list four activities of a manufacturing process to create a finished part.  Activity #1 consumes the resources of a stock piece of metal and a cutting machine to produce a piece of metal cut to the specification for the part.  Each downstream activity in the process flow that occurs after activity #1 adds incremental value to the value created by the upstream activities. 

Figure 1.6: The Cost/Benefit of a Finished Part

The activities of a process each add an incremental value to the finished product or service at an incremental cost.  Totaling each establishes the cost/benefit of the process.

The incremental value of each manufacturing activity is determined by comparing the consumed resources with the created value for that activity.  Activity #2 consumes the part shape produced by Activity #1 and creates a part shape with a hole.  The incremental value produced by Activity #2 is the difference between what is consumed and created; In this case the hole.  Therefore the incremental value created by Activity #2 is the hole in the part.

The cost to produce the incremental value is the cost to execute that manufacturing activity for one unit of value.  In activity #2, the cost to create the hole in one part shape is $2.  The cost is established by allocating the fixed and variable costs of the materials, labor, facilities, etc., used to create the hole in one part shape.

The total value produced by a process and the total cost of producing that value can be determined by adding the value and cost of each of its separate activities.  In Figure 1.6 the process produced a finished part at a total cost of $9.  With this knowledge, it can be determined if the benefit of producing a finished part is worth its cost.  And where opportunities may exist to either to increase the value of the part or reduce the resource cost of the process.

The approach used to evaluate the cost/benefit of a manufacturing process also applies to an information process.  Although it is easier to see the incremental value produced by a manufacturing activity than an information activity, the principle is the same.  The incremental value and its associated cost can be determined for each activity of a process.

Figure 1.7 lists four activities for preparing a customer order for production.  The paper order is first prepped by adding internal part codes to the customer’s order information.  Next the order is entered into the system.  A quality check is then made to validate that the order was entered correctly.  in the final activity of this process, the order is released to production.

Figure 1.7:  The Cost/Benefit of a Production Order

Each activity of an information process can be analyzed for its incremental value and cost.  What could you do with that information?

The incremental value of each information activity is determined by comparing the consumed resources with the create value of that activity.  Activity #2 consumes both the customer supplied information as well as the part codes copied on the order in Activity #1.  Activity #2 creates electronic data from the data stored on the paper order.  The incremental value created by Activity #2 is an electronic version of the order captured in the system.

The cost to produce the incremental value is the cost to execute that activity for one unit of value.  In activity #2, the cost to data enter one order is $4.  Note that the cost of activity #3 to validate the correct data entry of the order is $6.  This example is based on a case study of a midsized manufacturing company.  The cost of checking data entry quality was greater than the original data entry.  This discovery led to the company to modify the validation activity to increase its cost/benefit.

Chapter 1.3: The Purpose of Process

The purpose of process is to create customer value.  That is a processes reason for existence.  While this may seem obvious when placed in print, in practice it can be less apparent.  Process can become both the end and the means.  When the sole measure of processes performance becomes “did we control execution of the process?”, then controlling the process becomes primary objective - not its creation of value.

Imagine a symphony orchestra; fifty extremely talented musicians led by an accomplished conductor.  In addition to these artistic people, there is sheet music to establish the procedure, and instruments as the tools.  There is a process in place to create beautiful music for the audience.

Remove the conductor and the sheet music and the result is a cacophony of sound that is out of control and of no value to anyone.  Symphony musicians have the skills to execute their individual activities; but are unable to apply those skills without sufficient control structures to guide them.  It is relatively easy to determine what skills are necessary to perform an activity.  It is more difficult to determine the appropriate level of control in order to deliver the desired value.  In the case of a symphony, the complexity of the music and the difficulty in its creation requires highly structured control.

Figure 1.5:  Do we really need process?

The purpose of process is to create value.  The question is not if process is requires, but what level of control is needed to govern the process’ value creating activities.

Allowing music to form spontaneously is known as jamming.  Jamming is a process.  IT has people (musicians), tools (instruments), and procedures (undocumented).  The musicians and the instruments involved in a jamming process may be the same musicians and instruments that are also involved in a symphony process.  Just as in the music world, there are situations in some organizations where a jamming process is to most appropriate and others where a symphony process is more suitable; it depends on the type of value to be created by the process.

If the answer is an innovative solution to a problem, then jamming may be appropriate. But if the answer is a carefully designed and constructed solution then the mix of people, procedures, and tools may be more structured to create the appropriate value.

A jamming jazz quartet does not require, nor is it even beneficial, to have the same level of control needed by a symphony of 50 musicians.  The purpose of process is not to control but to create customer value.  In practice only the minimum level of control should be applied for what is necessary to govern the process.  Enforcing more process control than is needed is a waste of resources and may reduce the ingenuity and innovation of the value created by the process.

Chapter 1.2: Process Defined

Before we can talk much more about process, it is necessary to establish a common definition of what the word process means.  Here Process is a flow of activities that when executed consume resources for the purpose of creating value.  The activities of a process may be executed by people or by tools based on defined procedures.  It is common to refer to people, process, tools as if they were all three legs of the same stool.  Figure 1.3 shows process as the stool and people, procedures, and tools as the legs.

Figure 1.3:  The three resources controlled by process

That many consider process and procedures to be the same belies the conviction that process equates to bureaucracy.  Process is actions not words.

Procedures specify how the people and/or tools are to execute the activities of a process.  Procedures may be documented or undocumented.  An undocumented procedure may only exist in the mind of an employee, but it is just as real as a documented procedure.

That the word process often equated with the word procedure is a symptom of why so many people equate process with bureaucracy.  An organization cannot exist without process.  Any process can be bureaucratic; or it can be efficient and effective.  That choice is left up to the process owner.  There is nothing that inherent about process that stops it from being at one or the other.

Figure 1.4 is a graphical representation of a process with two activities.  In the first activity a person receives a phone call from a customer requesting a service and enters the information obtained during the call into a form on a laptop computer.  When the form is complete a server emails the information contained on the form. 

Figure 1.4:  Process Defined

Process is a flow of activities that when executed consume resources for the purpose of creating value.  Process flow defines priority and schedule; process execution defines work.

In activity #2 a person receives the emailed form from activity #1 and enters their decision into a form on a laptop computer. When the form is complete a server stores an electronic copy and prints a paper contract documenting the decision.

This simple process in Figure 1.4 depicts the flow and execution of process activities as they consume resources and create value. There are two components of every process: process flow and process execution. Process flow defines both the order the activities are executed and the transfer of resources to and from each of the activities. Process flow includes the scheduling of activities and the prioritization of available resources to execute those activities. 

 In Figure 1.4, the value created by activity #1 is an email about the customer request. Activity #2 follows activity #1 in the process flow and consumes that email in addition to other resources to create its value. This process represents a serial flow with activity #1 followed by activity #2.

Process execution defines the work of a process.  Process execution sets how resources are consumed and value created by each activity.  In Figure 1.4 people’s time and the use of the phone and laptop are all consumed by activity #1.  An electronic file and a paper document are the value created as a result of executing activity #2.

An activity that consumes resources but creates nothing is a black hole.  An activity where the created value is identical to the resources consumed is a ghost.  Any process activity must consume resources and create value to justify its existence.

Chapter 1.1: Process is Out of Control

The last time information processes were under control was when paper was still king.  Paper was the primary means to store and distribute information.  Before computers took over, keeping track of information was easy.  It was always located on a piece of paper.  Find that piece of paper and you found the information you were looking for.

The cost to duplicate paper was high enough that copies were rarely made; so most processes were serial.  Since paper could only be in one place at a time, it was processed one step at a time.  Every step was on the critical path, nothing could be done in parallel. 

If you did not have the piece of paper with the information you needed then you could not do your job.  It was expensive to search for information.  If the paper you needed was in central filing, then it as long as it was filed correctly, you could easily find it.  But if the piece of paper you needed was on someone else’s desk, such as the one depicted in Figure 1.1, it could be almost impossible to find.

Figure 1.1: What was it you wanted?

Although difficult to manage, paper provided a constraint on processes that made them easier to control.  Removing paper removed the constraint and broke that control.

Paper was a constraint that had to be dealt with when creating processes.  In general people had to wait for paper to come to them.  Processes had to be designed to deliver the right piece of paper at the right time to the right person or there was nothing for that person to do.  The potential impact of losing a piece of paper was so high that processes were tightly scripted to execute the same way every time. 

Paper not only acted as the physical container of information, it also acted as the token to perform work.  The arrival of a piece of paper on your desk indicated there was something new to do.  At the same time, the arrival of that piece of paper made it clear who had responsibility for that work.  It was you.  For every piece of paper, the person who had it, also had the responsibility for taking care of the next activity represented by that paper.

The constraint caused by paper created a level of process control.  It was possible to see and manage information processes by watching the flow of paper.  Because paper was expensive to move, the travel distance from one desk to the next was kept short and obvious.  The amount of paper on a person’s desk was a clear and visible method for determining how much work they had to do.  Management had real-time indicators of where the bottlenecks were and their options for reducing them.

The office was a paper factory.  It had clear production lines based on the principles of mass production.  The work was followed a controlled serial flow.  Specialized roles performed their task and then passed paper on to the next role.  Process variation was kept to a minimum to avoid losing a piece of paper and the information contained on it. Real-time metrics were available by counting the paper as it flowed through the process.

Then computers came on the scene.  In addition to their computing capabilities they offered an alternative to the paper storage of information.  Slowly, at a pace that no one could notice, information that was captured on paper was now being stored on computers.  Bit-by-bit computer storage systems took over the role of storing the world’s information.

A study appearing Feb. 10, 2011 in Science Express found that beginning in 1986 the share of paper-based storage mediums began decreasing, from 33% that year, to .007% in 2007[i].   At the same time the amount of information being captured is increasing.  An IDC study estimates that in 2011 the amount of information created and replicated will surpass 1.8 zettabytes (1.8 trillion gigabytes) – growing by a factor of 9 in just five years[ii].

This is not an indication that paper is going away.  It’s not.  Global production in the pulp, paper, and publishing sector is expected to increase by 77% from 1995 to 2020[iii].  But computers have overtaking the use of paper as the primary information storage medium.

The transition from information being stored on paper to computers has fundamentally changed information processes.  Information is now:

1.       Invisible – It’s no longer possible to see the process flow.  It’s hard to tell where the information came from and where it’s going next.  It’s difficult to see how much is left to do and where the bottlenecks are.

2.       Easy to access – Whereas a piece of paper could be difficult to track down, computers make it easier to search for information, if you know where and how to search. 

3.       Available - When information was on paper, the person owning the paper owned the information.  Organizational empires were built based on who owned the information.  Now information is more readily available to those with the appropriate access rights.

4.       Everywhere – The distribution cost for information is much lower than paper.  Copies are “free.”  As a result information flows as freely as water.  But it’s difficult to follow everywhere it goes and why.  And it is also difficult to determine which copy is the accurate copy.

5.       Morphing – Paper was a single consistent storage medium.  Now information comes in many flavors including unstructured data, structured data, email, instant messaging, voice, and video.

6.       Exploding – Because the cost to capture and store information keeps dropping, so much more of it is stored.  So even though it is easier to access, the sheer amount of information available makes it difficult to find the right information at the right time.

7.       Harder to control – With so much invisible information at our finger tips it is much more difficult for anyone to see exactly what they need. 

In a relatively short period of time, the reduction of paper as a distribution and storage medium helped to increase productivity and reduce costs.  However, with the paper constraint removed processes have become unleashed. 

What is the difference between the desks depicted in Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2?  The desk in Figure 1.2 certainly looks less cluttered, and the worker less harried.  But is it just the tip of an iceberg?  Has the mess of paper in Figure 1.1 just been converted into a mess of data files on a computer?  Does the worker in Figure 1.2 appear more relaxed because he can’t see all of the work that is waiting for him?

Figure 1.2: Is everything under control here?

Not only did removing paper break process control.  At the same time it also made process invisible.  What is left is the perception of control when little actually exists.

Computers have changed the world; but processes have not kept up.   It’s time to update our approach to information processes in order to tame the rivers of invisible information that have literally sprung up overnight.

---

[i]   Martin Hilbert and Priscilla Lopez, The World's Technology Capacity to Store, Communicate and Compute Information, Science Express (2011)

[ii]  John Gantz and David Reinsel, Extracting Value from Chaos, IDC (2011)

[iii] Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, OECD Environmental Outlook (2001)

Introduction I.1: The Manufacturing Edge

Manufacturing processes consume raw materials to produce a product.  In many cases you can see this transformation as it occurs.   The value of a manufacturing process is obvious.  There are university degrees in manufacturing engineering and industrial engineering.  Process design is not left to chance, but is performed through continuous improvement programs by individuals who have made it their career.

Business processes consume resources to produce a product or service.  There the similarities change.  The value of a business process is not always obvious.  There are no university degrees in business process engineering or the equivalent.  Process is typically created by the individuals responsible for executing the process.  There are very few who have made process design their career.

The impact of this laissez-faire attitude towards non-manufacturing processes is predictable.  The inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of business processes are the stuff of cartoons.  Yet the status quo continues.

There is much to be gleaned from manufacturers when it comes to process.  Global competition requires manufacturers to constantly innovate and improve their processes.   With the competitive challenges facing all organizations, the lessons manufacturers have learned are too important to ignore.

GLEAN: Table of Contents

Introduction

Manufacturers can see their process.  That gives them an edge.  Heavy Lean was invented by Toyota to increase the performance of heavy manufacturing processes.  Glean applies the principles but not the practices of Heavy Lean to information-centric processes.

Chapter 1.             Rediscovering the Value of Process
The elimination of paper has made process invisible. What is out-of-sight is out-of-mind. It is time for the purpose of process to be revisited. Process is a competitive weapon when its value to both the organization and its customers is maximized.

Chapter 2.             The Three Pillars of Process Measurement

You can’t manage what you can’t see; nor can you manage what you can’t measure.  The three pillars of throughput, service time, and work-in-process provide leading indicators for steering a process to reach its maximum performance.

Chapter 3.             Customer Value

Customers are willing to accept unlimited value from their providers.  But without a true understanding of who is the customer, what they value, and a culture of creating more customer value every day, most organizations just focus on solving problems.

Chapter 4.             Where’s the Waste?

Dilbert cartoons have made light of the waste in organizations for over 20 years.  Unfortunately, the cartoons of 20 years ago are still funny.  Shame on us.  It’s time to just go out and Fix-a-Dilbert-a-Day.

Chapter 5.             The Four Dimensions of Flow

Processes flow.  That flow varies according to the mix of work and available resources.  Splitting a process flow into each of its four dimensions allows an observer to clearly see how each contributes to its overall efficiency and effectiveness.

Chapter 6.             Information Driven Processes

Information is the fuel of the office.  Yet it is rare to find anyone who says they receive the right information at the right time in the right format.  Glean delivers the right information so process activities have the fuel to drive greater value at less cost.

Chapter 7.             Process Execution

The center of attention of process execution is work.  The Glean approach is not to search for work problems and then solutions.  Glean gleans the maximum value from work by engaging employees to search for ways to create more and more value.

Chapter 8.             Process Flow

The center of attention of process flow is work-in-process (WIP).  Specifically on the WIP that is waiting for process execution.  Glean reduces service time and increases throughput and quality through an unrelenting focus on WIP management.

Chapter 9.         Glean Culture of Success

On average only 41% of all projects are considered successful.  It’s time for a different approach.  Glean establishes a culture of success that addresses the complexity of information processes and fosters value driven change.

Chapter 10.         Glean Continuous Improvement

Glean continuous improvement is both: 1) a method to implement Glean improvement initiatives; and 2) a case study of how Glean principles can be used to glean the maximum value from the project management process.