Chapter 1
Why We Think Process Is Important

Why is process such a critical element to the success of an organization or business? This isn’t a new question, so a bit of history is in order.

1.1 A Short History Of Process Improvement

Process improvement has a long history in manufacturing. Operations research, efficiency studies, and similar activities have all tried to “get the fat” out of industrial processes for more than a century. It was only in the 1980s, however, that process was specifically applied to thought labor as opposed to mechanical or physical labor. Software development was a primary target. As more and more products and systems depended on computers to fulfill their requirements, and as software development organizations had greater and greater cost and schedule overruns, something had to be done to get these software folks on track. In this instance, the process-related activities were not so much about increasing efficiency as about incorporating discipline into routine activities—that is, making sure everything that was supposed to be done was done, and that there was sufficient repeatability in the tasks to make future work predictable. This process repeatability and predictability came to be called capability maturity. Process became the means to structure the work of developing software—a highly cerebral task likened to writing books or music and often referred to as being more art than science. And if there was one thing businesses (and governments) couldn’t deal with, it was the vagaries and whims of artists. So software process improvement was born, and the Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW-CMM) was developed. After a rough start, but with some help from government acquisition organizations, software process improvement was poked, prodded, tried, evaluated, and—lo and behold—declared good. By the mid-1990s, somewhat unpredictably, the SW-CMM’s five-level worldview became the dominant gestalt in software engineering process improvement—particularly in U.S. defense-related work.

At this point, however, as in nearly all cases of successful approaches, folks began to think that the elegant ideas represented in the SW-CMM could be applied to their particular problem: “Hey, if process could bring predictability to this most ephemeral activity, it could surely be applied to all sorts of thought-related tasks. Let’s build a CMM for [fill in the blank]!”^† The result of this technology transition was an explosion of models—some good, some bad—that purported to help guide process improvement in any number of areas. To counter this unruly multiplication of models, the U.S. Defense Department enlisted the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, the developer of the SW-CMM, to lead a group of engineers and develop a new model that incorporated systems, software, and product engineering into a common and extensible framework. And so was born CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration), a second generation of CMMs that officially extended process improvement beyond the software development domain.

^† We have been known to refer to these as YAMMs (Yet Another Maturity Model). If you studied computer science in the ‘70s, you’ll appreciate the allusion. If you didn’t, don’t worry—you’re probably just as well off not knowing.…

There are other process improvement approaches in addition to CMM-based initiatives. Total Quality Management, Lean Aerospace Initiative, Six Sigma, and Business Process Reengineering are all essentially process-based approaches. The number of methods begs the question “Why should businesses be interested in process?”

Figure 1-1: A holistic view of the role of process

1.2 The Role Of Processes In Business

It’s clear that good processes are not the only thing you need to succeed, but many people, including us, assert that they are a necessary element for that success. Figure 1-1 illustrates our view of the role of process engineering within an organization.^†

^† Garcia, Suzanne. “Standardization as an Adoption Enabler for Project Management Practice.” In IEEE Software, vol. 22, no. 5 (Sept./Oct. 2005), pp. 22–29.

The triangle in Figure 1-1 characterizes the primary components of business performance. The three points of the triangle are all in flux and must be synchronized if your organization is to operate successfully:

•   People bring changing skills and motivations to the work.

•   Technology (tools and techniques that make work more efficient and effective) evolves constantly.

•   The Environment within which the business operates changes as markets, competition, and products adjust to economic influences and the general zeitgeist.

How do you go about balancing these three elements? More important, how do you mitigate problems in one or more of them? That’s where process engineering comes in. Well-thought-out and appropriate processes can create synergy among these elements and help push the organization forward.

They can also compensate when one or more of them is out of synch with the others. Here are a couple of examples:

•   An aerospace corporation has very sophisticated technology in its cost-estimation system. Unfortunately, the skilled people required to take advantage of its sophistication are not available due to retirement, attrition, or assignment elsewhere caused by the business environment. Having inexperienced people run the system can waste a lot of money and effort, as well as produce questionable results. If processes for using the capability are developed that are geared toward the available skill level, some of the benefit of the technology can be realized.

•   A commercial software integrator finds its environment in chaos because several of its major customers have changed their information technology infrastructures. At the same time, other customers are increasing their demands for more functionality from their existing technology. The need to shift people around increases, as the demands change between maintaining legacy systems and configuring new software and hardware. Issues can arise around competency with both new technology and old tools, and around team performance. Appropriate processes that are technology neutral can cushion the impact, particularly if they are common across all customers. As team members migrate on short notice and teams are formed and dissolved, common processes speed team startup and new-member assimilation by answering basic questions about what tasks are required and how the team should execute them.

Effective processes can also provide buffers between difficult elements in the normal business environment and the people and technologies of the organization. For example, in a business environment with very complex contracting requirements, well-defined processes can guide employees who rarely use those contracting procedures.

Note that in the above discussion, we have emphasized “appropriate, well-thought-out” processes. Failing to meet those two criteria often gets organizations in trouble, and that trouble relates to the triangle as well. Processes need to be appropriate for the environment, people, and technologies being used. They should be created carefully with the participation of process performers so as to share ownership and take advantage of any synergies that may exist.

Meeting these criteria makes establishing one process for all occasions unlikely. Although some level of standardization is helpful, the key is discovering what set of standard processes will accommodate the range of environments you encounter. We know of very few organizations that deal with a single environment in terms of how their processes are performed.

So good, flexible, well-engineered processes compensate and integrate the varying influences of people, technology, and environment on the conduct of business in a rapidly changing world. Good practices may not guarantee success, but bad processes can easily result in poor performance and failure.