Often I am asked, “What is the difference between BPM and the popular quality method known as ISO?” My experiences both in Operations Management and in Business Process Management have provided some major contrasts in the two approaches.
ISO tends to concentrate on documentation as the primary evidence of process maturity. There are risks involved in this approach, as an organization could easily “fool” the ISO criteria by concentrating on physical, static evidence (the documentation) rather than dynamic evidence, such as metrics history. In addition, there are often less tangible aspects such as company values, common practices, and other cultural elements – all of which are very fluid – that cannot be effectively represented in static documentation. By contrast, BPM effectively accounts for the more dynamic elements in an organization by its very nature of focusing on active flow versus static documents.
ISO also leans toward driving a comprehensive effort to document processes in an attempt to be systemic. While documenting processes is admirable, it is not in and of itself useful. Establishing the correct metrics, role relationships and behavior for the core processes in a business is a far better way to derive process maturity. This more holistic approach is afforded by BPM.
ISO has key benefits and is most essential when you need it to qualify as a supplier for one or more of your customers. The concepts and frameworks are clearly aligned with any other Quality Management System (QMS). However, despite the fact that ISO has been trying to become more comprehensive in its approach, the execution of its concepts by practitioners still leans quite heavily toward documentation and not enough on effective metrics systems or roles definition.
Many companies consider certifications such as ISO as a chance to differentiate their “brand.” However, unless their existing client base notices a very real difference in their products or services, the certification will not lead to any new sales and, in fact, could lead to customer cynicism and defection. This is especially true if their company were to trumpet the certification, but key customers knew better and recognized that the “emperor has no clothes.”
Most BPM philosophies are based on the concept, originally developed by Rummler and Brache, of the “adaptive system.” At some level, detailed documentation is in direct opposition to this idea. This same opposition is often noted when an organization attempts to minimize variation to a degree of “six sigma” (if taken to the extreme). The logic is simple: when significant time is invested in honing procedures and establishing precise process control, any effort to change the process – in response to changing requirements – usually becomes a barrier to making the change at all. Thus, organizations may be focused only on Kaizen-like improvements within a narrow scope versus constantly monitoring the big picture of their company and its environment.
It is important to note that documentation is NOT how most people learn process. People learn process through training, the structure of tools and templates linked to process, and most importantly, watching the others actively managing processes. I find that organizations expect excessively much out of process documentation and “proceduralization” of improvement efforts and process design. If an organization is not careful, the structure to support an ISO-style QMS could consume more resource (and create more resentment) than it delivers in terms of control or improvement to performance. Control without performance improvement is of limited utility.
Far more beneficial is the adoption of core Business Process Management principles, which include metrics, training and “expert” process users that can model the desired workflow/behaviors and deliver the business results everyone desires.
The only time I would advise a process immature company to pursue ISO certification is if they had a substantial new client base that required such certification. Even in this case, the company should understand that it would be much better to take a more holistic approach to performance improvement planning and process definition before they embarked on a full-scale documentation program. These documentation efforts are very costly and time-consuming, and they can sometimes be disruptive to the organization. The ISO framework does not really inform people how to get there.
BPM approaches are not complete in this regard either. However, they are much more comprehensive. A select few even strike the appropriate balance between detailed process documentation and a systemic view of the organization and its business processes.
If you decide in your organization to pursue ISO (or any other QMS program) certification, then I have this advice to offer: do not consume your resources, which could be used to improve process, to document it instead. Learn from the lessons of others and ensure you do not “lose sight of the forest for the trees.” Maintain your focus on the fluid system of which your company is comprised and remember that systems, like living organisms, exist in a constant state of change. One way to best do this is to concentrate, above all else, on performance metrics.
