Embrace business process modeling!

All higher education establishments, from small colleges to large campus institutions, are involved in some complex processes to deliver effective teaching and learning. It is usually plain to see that there is room for improvement for the methods used. The issue now becomes, how do they tackle the problems and what do they tackle first? The implementation of new systems then becomes imperative since it’s usually a drive for considering how to carry out the business process.

Business process modeling is the graphical representation of a company, in this case, higher education institutions, as a means to identify potential improvements. They can achieve this through different graphics methods such as data flow diagrams or the use of flowcharts among other types. 25% of organizations worldwide are conducting training in business management systems, so quite a number of institutions are getting onboard.

When a business standardizes one of its processes, it is justified, financed and sustained within the boundaries of a business process management project charter. Therefore, a project charter defines the issue to be resolved, the scope and the goals of the undertaking and the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved. It is a contract between the management and the team that will implement the change.

In light of the above, this article will highlight how to write a business process management project charter.

To start with, there is no single way to write a project charter. The length and format are purely in the prerogative of the writer. However, if you want it to be read, write a brief one. The ideal project charter should be 2 pages maximum; if you really have to exceed this, then 5 page is your final limit.

I worked with an Agile Coach who used to be a development manager and was famous for telling people he could expect a 5-10% attrition of his employees when Agile was getting introduced. It begs the question of why in the world an organization would be willing to undergo such a disruptive change in how they work, knowing that such a large portion of their current staff will consider leaving because of it? For many organizations, the answer became self-apparent. They have recognized the need to be faster, more adaptive in their market. They became self-aware in knowing that, without such a change, they would quickly become an afterthought. So, the need for change is apparent but how does an organization deal with the inherent personnel issues that could come with adopting an Agile culture? By not taking this part of the change into serious consideration, you could be inadvertently undermining your entire transition into an Agile organization!

When analyzing a function for improvement, it is common practice to document the existing operations into what is widely known as a current state. This current state operational view serves as a baseline for improvements. It identifies the inputs, work steps, and outputs (and often a lot more). It serves to ground the team and provide a starting point for designing a future state. In contrast, future states are the destination. They are the sum total of the improvements to the current state to get to a new more effective and efficient operational state. Generally current state and future state views are documented as process maps or flows. Both the current state and the future state are powerful steps for improvement teams to understand where they are today and where they are going in the future.

Let me start with a definition of agile as it applies to operating models or processes: “being able to turn on a dime for a dime” and “being able to change faster and more cheaply than your competitors”.   These phrases are taken from, who was part of the team who coined the term agile as being relevant to the lean and six sigma community.  In this community, agile is associated with short-period (often six-week), test-and-learn projects, at the end of which priorities and direction can be reset based on what has been learned.  It is also associated with “minimum viable product”: the way of testing a new idea.