Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Focusing on the Business Process, Not the Technology
When selecting and implementing new technology, many CIOs and IT professionals are challenged when the business process that the application is supposed to address plays second fiddle to focusing on a specific technology or product. With a new technology implementation, many key business sponsors (i.e., owners of the application or department leaders whose teams use the application) want to be involved in the selection process, weighing in on requirements, definition, functionality, “look and feel” and expected output. This is similar to building a new home: The new homebuilder wants to select the style of home, amenities, paint, etc. In both scenarios, the buyers are concerned with the output, which is very understandable, as they desire useable products.
Substance over Style
Unfortunately, when selecting new technology or initiating projects intended to automate existing business processes, these sponsors do not focus enough attention on the business process itself. When defining the business requirements, the business process should be clearly stated and drive the technology selection, not vice versa. It's often more flashy to be involved with the technology than the process, so the product sales people may gloss over the essential elements of a solid implementation in favor of highlighting product features.
Far too often the business process is treated like an afterthought of the project. For instance, if you are implementing an application to improve efficiencies or workflow, you must understand your business process to determine if the new application will meet your requirements or, perhaps, if you need to change your process to leverage the new application. Although the business process may be addressed within the business requirements, many times adequate due diligence is not performed because the benefit is not easily measurable. Just like the house building example, the future homeowners focus on the end product because it's the fun part of the experience. The homeowners typically do not want to focus in the nuts and bolts of the house (i.e., plumbing and cinder block) until, of course, the house starts to sink and leak. An application or technology by itself cannot usually fix or improve a business issue, no matter what the sales person tells you. Usually, this lesson is painfully learned toward the middle to end of the project.
Understand the Process
The business process is the function or functions that the technology or project is trying to automate or somehow improve, perhaps through workflow, integration, etc. For example, a business process could be contact management, knowledge management or human resource process. Thoroughly understanding the business process is essential to selecting and implementing a technology. Ideally, the selection team should fully understand how the process will be affected (hopefully improved) by implementing the new technology.
Why is this often overlooked? First, the business process may be labor-intensive, undocumented, or worse ' not correctly understood and inconsistent in its execution. This may also be the very reason that an organization is implementing the technology ' to improve or redesign the process. Maybe the technology can help, but the process needs to be understood and documented, and proposed improvements must be supported by the new technology.
Most importantly, management must support the new business process. Politics and processes can be closely tied. There is nothing worse than implementing a new technology or redesigned process only to be derailed by politics impeding it.
To understand and define a solid process, individuals familiar with the existing procedure, whether financial or operational, must be involved up front in designing new business processes. Seek out internal experts who understand the current process and can help identify what works, what does not work and ways to improve it. Occasionally, however, internal resources can act as barriers to change. Some processes are complex and require specialists with “under the hood” knowledge, and outside process experts or consultants can provide a fresh view. Business sponsors may not understand this type of deep business process knowledge; however, the knowledge is essential in making good decisions.
Conclusion
Defining the existing and new business process can be a difficult, yet rewarding challenge. This part of the project sometimes happens “behind the scenes” and therefore does not get the attention, press or praise that it deserves. However, if you fail to focus on your business process ' both in pre-selection and pre-implementation ' you will have significant problems, regardless of what the sales people tell you. Dedicate the right staff to commit to the new processes ' those willing to dig into the details of your current business processes and set operational goals to be achieved by the new process. Take special care in your requirements definition and pay the business process the attention it deserves. The new process will then drive your technology, not vice versa.
David E. Otte is the Chief Information Officer for Sidley Austin LLP, a global law firm with 17 offices and 1,700 lawyers.
When selecting and implementing new technology, many CIOs and IT professionals are challenged when the business process that the application is supposed to address plays second fiddle to focusing on a specific technology or product. With a new technology implementation, many key business sponsors (i.e., owners of the application or department leaders whose teams use the application) want to be involved in the selection process, weighing in on requirements, definition, functionality, “look and feel” and expected output. This is similar to building a new home: The new homebuilder wants to select the style of home, amenities, paint, etc. In both scenarios, the buyers are concerned with the output, which is very understandable, as they desire useable products.
Substance over Style
Unfortunately, when selecting new technology or initiating projects intended to automate existing business processes, these sponsors do not focus enough attention on the business process itself. When defining the business requirements, the business process should be clearly stated and drive the technology selection, not vice versa. It's often more flashy to be involved with the technology than the process, so the product sales people may gloss over the essential elements of a solid implementation in favor of highlighting product features.
Far too often the business process is treated like an afterthought of the project. For instance, if you are implementing an application to improve efficiencies or workflow, you must understand your business process to determine if the new application will meet your requirements or, perhaps, if you need to change your process to leverage the new application. Although the business process may be addressed within the business requirements, many times adequate due diligence is not performed because the benefit is not easily measurable. Just like the house building example, the future homeowners focus on the end product because it's the fun part of the experience. The homeowners typically do not want to focus in the nuts and bolts of the house (i.e., plumbing and cinder block) until, of course, the house starts to sink and leak. An application or technology by itself cannot usually fix or improve a business issue, no matter what the sales person tells you. Usually, this lesson is painfully learned toward the middle to end of the project.
Understand the Process
The business process is the function or functions that the technology or project is trying to automate or somehow improve, perhaps through workflow, integration, etc. For example, a business process could be contact management, knowledge management or human resource process. Thoroughly understanding the business process is essential to selecting and implementing a technology. Ideally, the selection team should fully understand how the process will be affected (hopefully improved) by implementing the new technology.
Why is this often overlooked? First, the business process may be labor-intensive, undocumented, or worse ' not correctly understood and inconsistent in its execution. This may also be the very reason that an organization is implementing the technology ' to improve or redesign the process. Maybe the technology can help, but the process needs to be understood and documented, and proposed improvements must be supported by the new technology.
Most importantly, management must support the new business process. Politics and processes can be closely tied. There is nothing worse than implementing a new technology or redesigned process only to be derailed by politics impeding it.
To understand and define a solid process, individuals familiar with the existing procedure, whether financial or operational, must be involved up front in designing new business processes. Seek out internal experts who understand the current process and can help identify what works, what does not work and ways to improve it. Occasionally, however, internal resources can act as barriers to change. Some processes are complex and require specialists with “under the hood” knowledge, and outside process experts or consultants can provide a fresh view. Business sponsors may not understand this type of deep business process knowledge; however, the knowledge is essential in making good decisions.
Conclusion
Defining the existing and new business process can be a difficult, yet rewarding challenge. This part of the project sometimes happens “behind the scenes” and therefore does not get the attention, press or praise that it deserves. However, if you fail to focus on your business process ' both in pre-selection and pre-implementation ' you will have significant problems, regardless of what the sales people tell you. Dedicate the right staff to commit to the new processes ' those willing to dig into the details of your current business processes and set operational goals to be achieved by the new process. Take special care in your requirements definition and pay the business process the attention it deserves. The new process will then drive your technology, not vice versa.
David E. Otte is the Chief Information Officer for
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.