In my analysis of the operations and processes of various organizations, I regularly find mention of "Operational Excellence" (hereafter called OpEx, apologies to accountants everywhere). If you don't have a PowerPoint slide somewhere expressing your dedication to OpEx, your management must not be on top of things, right? But what does this really mean? Just as in defining BPM, OpEx means different things to different people.
Let's look at the use of OpEx by drawing a comparison to the history of the business process reengineering (BPR) movement. BPR started a movement by stressing the simplification and redesign of business processes (and even business models, in some ways) before encasing them in IT systems. I will always remember the workshop put on by Michael Hammer at my employer in 1992!
As the BPR movement spread through Corporate America, it had some success, but as people got loose with term, its reputation and understanding was confused and sullied by its use for reorganizations, outsourcing, downsizing, and other initiatives that often had nothing to do with process change.
Now on to OpEx. OpEx came about as a construct to package themes of continuous improvement, quality, efficiency, and organizational alignment to deliver measurable customer value. (It is widespread in some industries, but not in others. For a good reference, see the Shingo Prize model: http://www.shingoprize.org/htm/about-us/model-guidelines.) This of course fits right in with BPM concepts and practices.
So you would think an organization that has goals, programs, and communication related to OpEx would be primed and ready for process-based thinking, maybe even already aligned for action. Unfortunately, the same thing that happened with BPR is happening with OpEx. For example, I have seen it used as the label for a brute force cost-cutting program. Even with holistic and process-based intentions, organizations apply this label to programs that don't look anything at all like a continuous improvement environment. Sometimes initiatives stall or get redirected into a totally different approach, but often the terms and labels aren't changed.
Part of the problem is the tendency to jump on the buzzword bandwagon. As companies look to improve results, they use a customer or marketplace buzz phrase for top-line revenue improvement, and need a different buzz phrase for driving cost improvement. Another cause is the desire of managers to add some "punch" and/or gravitas to their operations, without actually changing the way anything is managed.
Can we do more to maintain clarity and precision of concepts, keeping OpEx from becoming a platitude or just a theme, without substance? Perhaps OpEx so broad a concept that dilution is unavoidable. Will we be having this same conversation in the future about BPM? Some would say we are already there. We need to truly adopt and implement, not grab for themes and labels and then ignore the substance. Otherwise it's harmful to all of us working in these disciplines and diminishes their value.
Leave a comment