Which of the following is not classified as a generic activity undertaken by a process manager

3.4 Runtime support system

The runtime support system (RTSS) of the code generator has to simultaneously support the different implementation strategies (see figure 3). It is implemented by three operating system threads the process_manager, the time_management, and the interface_from_environment which are located in one single operating system process.

The thread process_manager is responsible for the generation of new process instances, for the communication with the environment and among the process instances, and for the execution of the process instances. The communication among the process instances is implemented by a buffered handing over of pointers to the corresponding signals. The pointers are buffered in a global list named procedure call list (PCL). It has the following structure:

identity of the receiving process instance

identity of the sending process instance

identity of the signal

pointer to the data of the signal

pointer to the next entry

The length of the procedure call list is determined by the sum of the length of all input queues defined in iSDL (see below). The procedure call list can be either used for communication between protocol instances implemented in different process models, i.e. between server-based and activity thread-based instances, or for communication between process instances implemented in the same model. The main difference in the runtime support of both implementation strategies consists in the execution procedure. Server model-based instances are executed periodically even when no input signals exist or when they are addressed as the receiving instance in the head of the procedure call list. Activity thread model-based instances are directly executed when a procedure is called or when they are the receiving instance addressed in the head of the procedure call list.

The later planned inclusion of the ILP technique does not require an additional runtime support, because the ELP approach only concerns the implementation of data manipulation operations. ELP loops can be used inside server-based and activity thread-based process instances.

The thread interface_from_environment handles incoming signals. It first determines the receiving process instance using a routing table that is generated at compile time and updated during runtime. Then it creates the corresponding entry in the procedure call list and copies the signal and its data into the address space of the runtime support system.

The thread time_management manages the timer list. It generates a new entry when a timer is set. The time_management periodically checks all entries of the timer list for expired timers using the system call get_time. For each expired timer, an entry in the procedure call list is created.

Evaluating the Performance of the Process Manager

We discussed the evaluation of process manager performance briefly in Chapter 6. At this point suffice it to say that a process manager ought to be held responsible for achieving the following: (1) the output specified directly or indirectly with a real customer or with a downstream “customer” process; and (2) process improvements that over time render the process more efficient and effective. The first ought to be expected and mandatory. The second should be negotiated between the process manager and his or her boss. In addition, as we have already suggested, the same manager may report to a functional or unit manager and may be responsible for implementing functional goals and policies and for achieving agreed-upon measures required by the functional manager.

Figure 11.10 suggests some of the functional and process measures that might be used to evaluate the performance of a manager who is operating as both a functional and a process manager.

Step C7: Implement information risk treatment plans

Bill Mighty, as the TIRM process manager, is responsible for monitoring the progress of the implementation of the four information risk treatments (tracked in Figure 10.51 using the status symbols). For each information risk treatment, a kickoff meeting takes place that includes all parties involved during the implementation. Every milestone shown in Figure 10.51 is reviewed by the TIRM managing committee, which reports the current progress, quarterly, to the TIRM steering council. After one year, first problems arise, as the migration of data to the new mobile GIS turns out to be more difficult than expected. An external IT consultancy is hired to help with the migration. This increased the costs of the information risk treatment by $225,000. The data migration can be completed with a one-month delay. The TIRM managing committee, to support the implementation, initiates active change management activities alongside the implementation of the information risk treatments. Luckily for LightBulbEnergy Inc., some two years later, all information risk treatments have been completed according to plan.

External and internal analysis

Analysis of the external environment is a major task that needs to be undertaken regularly in a disciplined and ordered manner. The ‘big picture’ information gathered through such a process helps provide sufficient information to supply a context or parameters within which the more detailed information gained through internal analysis can be applied. External factors range across a wide spectrum of issues, including the social perceptions of libraries and their role; advances in technology; the changing nature of information products; client expectations; the explosion of information access provided by the internet; and the role of publicly funded institutions in an increasingly ‘small’ government world. Internal factors include budgets; collections; staff expertise; facilities; and relations within the broader organisational structure. Essentially these and related factors can be consolidated into a number of major categories that managers need to address in planning for the longer term future of their organisations. These comprise performance measurement; costs and budgetary issues; changing nature of collections and their delivery – from traditional to digital; convergence between libraries, archives, records management and some areas of information technology (IT) – and competition; user needs and expectations, and those of non-users; marketing and image; structures and flexibility; and staffing.

It is useful to use some form of scanning tool on a regular basis. One well-known example is a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) to evaluate both the external and internal environments in order to build a clearer picture of the world in which the organisation operates. Strengths and weaknesses refers to the internal environment, the library itself, and things over which it has some control, such as the shape of the collection or the level of staff expertise, while opportunities and threats exist in the external world, outside the control of the library, and have to be either avoided or exploited in some way.

A number of studies have shown that organisations that invest significant effort in some form of environmental scanning do benefit through improved planning and decision making (Choo 2001, p.8). Choo also reported that one of the major benefits derived through the scanning process was the way in which it required staff to participate in face-to-face discussions on planning issues (2001, p.8). Enabling staff involvement in the long-term planning process has been proven to offer considerable benefits to the organisation as a whole. Cole (2005, p.600) notes how properly functioning teams provide a range of input to the decision-making process that enhances the outcomes (more brains produces better outcomes). While some decisions are best handled by management alone, few if any of the longer term strategic directions can be set in place without considerable consultation with staff and stakeholders external to the organisation. This requires substantially more time to be devoted to the decision-making process, but the trade-off should be staff who understand and are committed to the direction taken and stakeholders who feel they have at the very least had their concerns addressed and been kept informed. This process builds trust and greater understanding and is worth the additional effort required.

As part of the information-gathering and disseminating process, managers need to adopt a number of approaches that include at least some of the following techniques:

Talking to colleagues and reviewing the professional literature in order to see what others are reporting or doing.

Looking more broadly at the environment within which the library functions: for a university library, for instance, it is the higher education sector generally; for a public library it is the local council district it serves.

Undertaking surveys and questionnaires of users and, ideally, non-users.

Brainstorming with all staff.

Conducting focus groups with targeted sets of clients or open forums to encourage more wide-ranging input.

Collating relevant statistical data.

Traditionally, longer term planning has relied on historical data gathered with the understanding that the future can be predicted, based upon past results. This provides one platform upon which to build an understanding of how well the organisation is travelling but it is also important that any environmental scanning process goes more widely than a simple reliance on statistics and trend data.

The work involved is significant, but the results should play a major role in directing the future activities of the organisation. A recent ‘big picture’ scan was undertaken by OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) (2003), aimed at identifying the significant issues and trends affecting the world’s largest library consortium. Another, highly detailed, report of a London public library system, including a SWOT analysis and in-depth examination of the costs involved in providing various services, illustrates the level of attention that is now being placed on the role and position of library systems in the twenty-first century in an effort to ensure their relevance and cost effectiveness (Lewisham Library and Information Service, 2005).

TIRM process manager

Whereas the TIRM process sponsor makes resources available, the TIRM process manager manages these resources to ensure the effective implementation of the TIRM process. This individual should be familiar with all concepts of TIRM and also have experience in information governance and management, and should ideally have worked in the business side of the organization. He or she should be familiar with and knowledgeable about all key business divisions in the organization. He or she is responsible for ensuring that TIRM policies are implemented and sustained, and therefore heads up the TIRM managing committee and leads the team of TIRM process facilitators to achieve this. Moreover, the TIRM process manager communicates with business process and IT system and database representatives to coordinate their efforts. The TIRM process manager has to report to the TIRM steering council.

Process Managers

Since we are primarily concerned with process management we will consider the role of a process manager in a little more detail. Figure 6.5 provides a very general overview of the role of a process manager. (Note that in Figure 6.4 we picture the process manager in a box outside the sales process. Earlier, in Figure 6.2 we pictured the process manager insider the process being managed. There is no correct way to do this and we do it differently, depending on what we are trying to emphasize.) This model could easily be generalized to serve as a high-level description of the job of any operational manager. This model could describe the job of the sales supervisor in Figure 5.4, for example. We’ll talk about it, however, to provide a description of the various managerial activities as they relate to a core process. The key point to consider is that an organization is made up of processes, and for each process there must be someone who is responsible for the day-to-day functioning of that process. At lower levels within an organization the individual who is responsible might very well be a functional manager who is also wearing a process manager’s hat. At higher levels in the organization, wearing two hats is harder because value chains and even large processes like new product development and supply chain often cut across functional boundaries.

Ignoring organizational issues for a moment, let’s just consider what sort of work any process manager needs to accomplish. The process manager is responsible for what happens as the process is executed. He or she is also responsible for working with suppliers, customers, and support processes to ensure that the process he or she manages has the resources and support it needs to produce the product or service the process’s customer wants. When one approaches process management in this way, it is often unclear whether one is talking about a role, a process, or an individual. When you undertake specific process redesign projects you will often find yourself analyzing whether or not a specific process manager is performing in a reasonable manner. Things the specific individual does or doesn’t do may result in process inefficiencies. When you focus on organization charts and managerial responsibilities you are usually focused on the role and seek to define who a specific manager would report to, without concerning yourself with the specific individual who might perform the role. Finally, when you focus on the competencies that a process manager should have to function effectively you are focusing on the managerial processes that successful individuals need to master if they are to perform the role effectively.

In Figure 6.6 we have expanded the process management box from Figure 6.5 and inserted some typical managerial processes. Different managerial theorists would divide or clump the activities that we have placed in the four managerial processes in different ways. Our particular approach is simply one alternative. We divide the process management process into four generic subprocesses: one that plans, schedules, and budgets the work of the process; one that organizes the workflow of the process, arranges for needed resources, and defines jobs and success criteria; one that communicates with employees and others about the process; and one that monitors the work and takes action to ensure that the work meets established quality criteria. We have added a few arrows to suggest some of the main relations between the four management processes just described and the elements of the process that is being managed.

Most process managers are assigned to manage an existing process that is already organized and functioning. Thus their assignment does not require them to organize the process from scratch, but if they are wise they will immediately check the process to ensure that it is well organized and functioning smoothly. Similarly, if they inherit the process they will probably also inherit the quality and output measures established by their predecessor. If the new manager is smart he or she will reexamine all the assumptions to ensure that the process is in fact well organized, functioning smoothly, and generating the expected outcomes. If there is room for improvement the new manager should make a plan to improve the process. Once satisfied with the process the manager has some managerial activities that need to be performed on a day-to-day basis and others that need to be performed on a weekly, monthly, or quarterly basis. And then, of course, there are all the specific tasks that occur when one has to deal with the problems involved in hiring a new employee, firing an incompetent employee, and so forth.

Without going into details here, each process manager sometimes functions as if he or she were a process analyst, considering redesigning the process. All of the tools described in this book can be useful to a business manager when he or she is functioning in this role. In essence, the manager must understand the process and know how to make changes that will make the process more efficient and effective.

We’ll consider the specific activities involved in process management in a later chapter when we consider how one approaches the analysis of process problems. At the enterprise level we will be more concerned with how companies establish process managers, how process managers relate to unit or functional managers, and how processes and process managers are evaluated.

Process managers, especially at the enterprise level, have a responsibility to see that all the processes in the organization work together to ensure that the value chain functions as efficiently as possible. While a functional manager would prefer to have all the processes within his or her department operate as efficiently as possible a process-focused manager is more concerned that all the processes in the value chain work well together and would in some cases allow the processes within one functional area to function in a suboptimal way to ensure that the value chain functions more efficiently. Thus, for example, there is a tradeoff between an efficient inventory system and a store that has in stock anything the customer might request. To keep inventory costs down the inventory manager wants to minimize inventory. If that’s done then it follows that customers will occasionally be disappointed when they ask for specific items and learn that they are not in stock. There is no technical way to resolve this conflict. It comes down to the strategy the company is pursuing. If the company is going to be the low-cost seller they have to keep their inventory costs down. If, on the other hand, the company wants to position itself as the place to come when you want it now they will have to charge a premium price and accept higher inventory costs. The process manager needs to understand the strategy the company is pursuing and then control the processes in the value chain to ensure the desired result. In most cases this will involve suboptimizing some departmental processes to make others perform as desired. This sets up a natural conflict between functional and process managers and can create problems when one manager tries to perform both roles.

If we had to choose the one thing that distinguishes a process manager from a functional manager it would be the process manager’s concern for the way his or her process fits with other processes and contributes to the overall efficiency of the value chain. This is especially marked by the process manager’s concern with the inputs to his or her process and with ensuring that the outputs of his or her process are what the downstream or “customer” process needs.

Stateless Servers

When transactions are used, servers usually are split into two types: application processes and resource managers (see Figure 7.5). An application process receives a client request, starts a transaction, performs application logic, and sends messages to transactional resource managers. It does not directly access transactional resources, such as a database. Resource managers handle the state being shared by transactions—databases, recoverable queues, and so on.

A resource manager behaves just like a transactional server described in the previous section, Transaction-Based Server Recovery. That is, it executes all calls within a transaction. And its recovery procedure returns its state to one that includes the effects of all committed transactions and no others.

An application process can use a simpler recovery procedure than resource managers, because it is stateless. That is, it doesn’t have any state that might be needed after recovery. It receives a request to run a transaction (from its client), starts a transaction, executes operations that manipulate local memory or call a database system or another application process, commits the transaction, and sends a reply back to the client. At this point, it has no state worth remembering. It simply processes the next request that it receives as if it had been initialized from scratch.

A stateless server doesn’t have to do very much to recover from a failure. It just reinitializes its state and starts running transactions again, completely oblivious to whatever it was doing before the failure. Since it maintains all its state in transactional resource managers, it is really up to the resource managers to reconstitute their states after a failure. The resource managers recover to a state that includes all the committed transactions and none of the aborted ones, up to the time of the failure. Now the application process can start processing requests again.

The application processes controlled by transactional middleware usually are designed to be stateless servers so they do not need any recovery code. The only ambiguity is about the state of the last request that a client issued to the application process before the failure (e.g., that a front-end program issued to a request controller). That is, the client is not stateless, since it needs to know the state of that last request. This is where queued request processing comes in—to figure out the state of that last request and thereby determine whether it has to be rerun. For the application process that was actually executing the request, there’s no ambiguity at all. It restarts in a clean state, as if it were initialized for the first time.

Enterprise Resource Planning and Business Process Management Suite

Without knowing it Company X is preparing to move to BPMS. They now have enterprise-level process managers and teams and they are now struggling with how to keep their simplified ERP structure, while simultaneously allowing different divisions to tailor their processes to better integrate with the overall goals of their specific value chains. A salesperson from one of the BPMS vendors explains to Company X that BPMS can provide the best of both worlds. The company can use a BPMS product to separate dependencies between ERP modules and to provide tailoring within the BPMS package, without having to tailor the ERP modules. At that point they will have a single installation of an ERP application and the ability to tailor specific processes.

Figure 16.13 illustrates where Company X may end up a few years after it has installed a BPMS package to manage its sales process. In this case the standard process has been defined in a BPMS product. Rather than tailoring ERP modules all the tailoring that needs to be done is done within the BPMS tool. We’ve represented these as activity boxes 1 and 2 in Figure 16.13. (Put more technically, one creates business rules within the BPMS environment that analyze and prepare data to be submitted to the ERP modules. As an added benefit, the ERP modules can be managed by the BPMS tool rather than compiled together. Thus, now the BPMS product manages ERP and allows the user to make changes rather easily, Company X can avoid the problems companies with large compiled sets of ERP modules now struggle with.) Company X may very well find that they can use the BPMS system to tailor their basic sales processes to support multiple value chains, while simultaneously maintaining a single installation of an ERP application.

In a completely rational world we might advise Company X to skip the phase they are in and move to a BPMS effort. In reality, however, BPMS is still a new technology and Company X’s people are a bit too conservative to jump on a new technology. They are, however, very much aware of how much the multiple versions of ERP modules are costing them, and they are motivated to try and eliminate that problem. And they have figured out that they will need to control processes at the enterprise level to bring about a single installation of ERP. Thus Company X has moved into enterprise process work in a very serious way and is in essence preparing itself for more process work in the future.

We have been impressed with what we’ve seen. Many business process management (BPM) gurus in the 1990s urged companies to focus on enterprise process work and to assign enterprise-level process managers. In reality, most companies focused on specific process redesign efforts. Today, a surprising number of large companies have definitely moved beyond one-off process redesign efforts and are focused on process management and corporate-wide process standardization. It’s a major step forward and will undoubtedly lead to even more interesting things in the future.

The scenario we have just suggested illustrates the problem that ERP vendors face. One of the most popular uses of BPMS software to date is to create process management systems that can manage ERP applications. By keeping ERP applications generic and doing any special tailoring in the BPMS application the company reduces its costs and increases its control and its ability to change rapidly. The company also gains the ability to mix applications from different ERP vendors, since the BPMS product can potentially manage whatever database the company wants to use and keep it independent of any particular ERP module.

This movement constitutes a clear threat to the dominance of the leading ERP vendors, and if it proceeds will significantly reduce the importance of ERP software at leading companies. ERP vendors have responded by seeking to generate their own BPMS solutions and offering them as alternatives to other BPMS products. Thus SAP is developing NetWeaver, Oracle is working on its own Business Process Management Suite, and Microsoft is developing its BizTalk server. Broadly speaking, each of these products is primarily an application integration tool. ERP vendors will have trouble matching what BPMS vendors can do because they are trying to support their existing installed base while simultaneously innovating, and that’s hard for any software vendor. While the leading BPMS vendors support business processes with lots of employee activities, ERP vendors have traditionally focused on automated processes and will have to come up to speed with expanded workflow capabilities to match the capabilities of the best BPMS vendors. Similarly, ERP vendors have traditionally designed their products for IT developers, as the ARIS diagram we showed earlier suggests. ERP vendors will also have to rethink their entire positioning if they hope to create products with interfaces that are friendly enough to allow managers to modify processes.

From all we’ve said you might conclude that we don’t think most ERP vendors will be able to transition and generate the kind of highly flexible BPMS applications that companies will be demanding in the next decade. In fact, we think it will be hard and we don’t expect the small ERP vendors to manage it. The large ERP vendors—SAP, Oracle, and Microsoft—have enough resources and technical sophistication that they ought to be able to do it. Indeed, they are already making a major effort, and we expect them to intensify their efforts in the years ahead. Thus, although it is easy to think of ERP and BPMS as separate technologies, in fact they will merge in the years ahead. BPMS vendors will add application-specific knowledge to their products and ERP vendors will add BPMS engines to their suites. We expect some interesting mergers as ERP and BPMS vendors struggle to figure out how to create the best applications for their customers.