Process Leaders: is the solution?

Typically, when we implement a BPM capability, it will be supported by a Process Governance. I do think Process Governance is a key component to assure sustainability of the new capability, and the support for migrating to a process oriented organization.

As you can see in the following figure, we have to make clear the difference between the role of a Functional Leader and a Process Leader. It tends to be mixed but their objectives are different.

A Functional Leader role is devoted to the business outcomes. Depending on the function, the expected outcome may be sales volume, revenues, costs, profitability, employe retention, etc. The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of this role aim to these outcomes and typically, will be part of its bonus payment or variable part.

On the other hand, the Process Leader is devoted to the "how". It means, how the company can be more effective and efficient through implementing the best processes. In consequence, the KPIs for this role are oriented to: efficiency, time, cost, agility, etc. The Process Leaders are the responsible and custodian of the design, maintenance, improvement, harmonization and development of business process, and hence, of business capabilities.

The Functional Leadership or Process Leadership roles can be executed by the same person. However, his/her behaviour and orientation will be different based on the role he/she is playing at the moment. For example, a Manufacturing Director plays the Manufacturing Leader role as part of his job. If additionally, he is the Process Leader for "Planning to Deployment", he will have the responsibility of viewing the process end-to-end, implying that he will consider not only the Manufacturing part of the process, but also other players like Finance, Procurement, Human Resources, IT, etc. In the Process Leader role, he must have a vision of orchestration of all actors in the execution of this process.

The problem arises when this second role is not clear. There are four aspects to take in consideration when defining it:

- A clear criteria for defining a Process Leader. If criteria is not clear, the organization can think of a new way of distributing power, and can divert from the target that is to implement or improve a process.

 - The Process Leader itself. There are certain characteristics in this role that are needed. The PL must understand quite well the process, and the impacts of the definition over the performance of the process. If the expected leader has a vision too narrow and functional, it will not work. He or she must have characteristics like: knowledgeable about the operation of the process, good degree of influence over other areas, understand how to lead the team to an agreement, among others.

- The degree of power of the Process Leader.  You can go from a "Assessor type" Process Leader to a "Director type" Process Leader. The power continuum goes from "moral influence" over the team to a "business direction" degree, as an example. I will recommend a actionable degree of power, like "owner of the budget for process improvements".

- The definition of KPIs for the role, and the consequent rewards and compensation scheme tied to such KPIs and their targets. For example, as a Process Leader you may have as part of your objetive to "reduce the cost to serve in x % at the end of the year". With the same goal, all process participants shall share (in a different degree) the same KPI and targets. If not, the Process Leader will not achieve such targets.

These findings are based on my expertise, but feel free to share your opinions as part of the discussion.