Enterprise Process Team: Helping you work smarter, not harder

Their job is to make your job easier.

UIT’s Enterprise Process Team is called on when a client faces new regulations, or senses problems or friction in getting their work done. The result is a collaborative journey that’s part interview, consultation, process modeling, conflict management and team-building.

“The end goal is almost always to help people figure out how to work together better,” said Director Paula Millington, Ph.D. “The first step is usually a step back to get a big picture, holistic view of the process from end-to-end. Before identifying areas for improvement, the team must first identify the process ‘as is’ – as it operates today and how it aligns with strategic goals.”

In 2011, Millington and her team of process engineers and consultants – Chris Pfeiffer, Jim Urry and Ryan Hines – began to make sustainable changes by fixing broken processes surrounding software implementation on campus. By 2013, the team was taking a more a holistic approach – focusing on the experience of the people performing the work, not merely technology.

“A lot of our process engagements get proposed because of an upcoming technology change or implementation, but sometimes the real problem isn’t IT,” Hines said. “Our job is to come in and help our clients uncover the real problems.”

To that effect, in 2015, the work shifted to a “team sport” concept involving cross-functional working groups.

“Some of the people involved in the process have never met face-to-face,” Pfeiffer said. “There’s a tremendous value in everyone listening to each other. Once we have that shared understanding, we can go about figuring out how to make improvements.”

The team is careful to avoid presenting themselves as experts in areas they’re trying to improve. Process work, Millington said, works because it gets clients to take a step back and brainstorm solutions, without assigning blame for problems that are uncovered.

“We are not coming in as efficiency experts with our clipboards to expose weaknesses in processes,” she said. “Rather, we are orchestrating an experience for them to understand their process, the actors and technology involved, and then be able to generate ideas that will work in their environment, their personalities, and can be adopted over time.”

The team crafts work sessions that help clients identify triggers for the process, major sub-processes and specific results – an exercise that requires lots of sticky notes. Once the client’s team has a handle on the big picture, the focus shifts to workflow: Each individual’s role at every step in the process - who does what over time. A well-documented workflow allows the client to examine every activity and handoff in the process.

“Once we lay it out, someone might ask, ‘Why do we we do it this way?’” Urry said. “A large part of what we do is try to simplify, because complexity hides a lot.”

Somewhere between the “as is” and ”dream state” (perfect world scenario), is the actionable process. The working group recommends quantifiable improvements and, based on use cases, refines the list of must-haves. Finally, they develop a visual depiction of the “to be” process.

Certainly, if steps in the workflow can be enabled with technology, the Process team will work with service units to develop requirements for IT solutions. In addition to looking at technology to improve the process, the team looks at motivation and measurement; human resources (organizational structure, roles, skills needed); physical facilities; and policies and rules that influence the process.

Changes in a working environment are common triggers for calling in the Process team, like changing expectations, emergent or disruptive technology, regulations, and going in a new strategic direction.

“Clients realize that certain processes just need attention; they are broken or painful or maybe non-existent as a new service comes online to students or faculty,” Millington said.

Millington and her team have helped about a dozen clients improve processes. In many cases, clients want simply to identify who’s involved in their process, and break down silos across division lines. In other cases, clients are looking for measurable savings in time or effort. 

For example, the team conducted a process review for Purchasing, a division of Financial and Business Services, which processes over 7,000 purchase orders annually. Their work uncovered the following improvements:

Process: Place and fulfill an order > $5,000

• Process work uncovered a 66 percent savings in the effort to place and fulfill an order.
• Order placement to fulfillment went from 267 to 90 minutes.
• The manual, paper-based process was reduced from 114 to 22 steps.

Process: Place an order, fulfill an order and issue payment < $5,000

• Process work uncovered a 47 percent savings in the effort to place and fulfill an order.
• Order placement to fulfillment went from 122 to 65 minutes. 
• The process was reduced from 122 to 24 steps.

“I’m so pleased with the work our team has been able to accomplish in the last year or so,” Millington said. “We have a way of working that takes the fear out of looking at processes.”

If you think your group might benefit from a process evaluation, email Millington or call her at 801-581-3032. 

 

Node 4 Search