SAPERION Blog

Does the Workflow puts into a Straitjacket?

Critics of workflow systems often cite a lack of flexibility within implemented paths. These concerns do not refer to an administrator’s ability to quickly adapt. Instead, they refer to a user’s inability to make changes after adapting to the current situation. Such changes may include the hiring of additional people, for example. According to this argument, creative people are placed into straitjackets that prevent them from fully realizing their potential.

Max J. Pucher as one of the pioneers of the adaptive approach to supporting the user goes so far as to the recent BPM approach of round-trips with the process of collection, execution, analysis and subsequent optimization sees as a failure. He makes it fast to the fact that even after 20 years is not a valid long-term study, which reports the polyhydric the application of the BPM method, including use of technology. Where to notice here is that the definition of “the” BPM method is still not final, as I have posted earlier.

According to Mr. Pucher, there is no need to artificially construct a chain of events. It would be adequate to establish the information object and its related processing methods together with a few rules. According to this approach, when a person is asked to handle a particular situation, the system will analyze the history and suggest a way forward. If the user selects one of the methods, the chosen method will receive a higher priority at the expense of the alternatives. As a result, the system will adapt to the users’ behavior and implicitly find the preferred pathway through the organization.

When customers and vendors are integrated into this process, we can achieve a complex adaptive system. By providing direct evaluation and feedback on the organization’s services, customers can contribute to further optimization of the system. Incidentally, complex and adaptable systems are everywhere we look. Even the human body provides a good example. I find the definition provided by John H. Holland to be interesting:

“A complex adaptive system is a dynamic network of many agents (which may represent cells, species, individuals, firms, nations) acting in parallel, constantly acting and reacting to what the other agents are doing. The control of a complex adaptive system tends to be highly dispersed and decentralized. If there is to be any coherent behavior in the system, it has to arise from competition and cooperation among the agents themselves. The overall behavior of the system is the result of a huge number of decisions made every moment by many individual agents.”

For Max J. Pucher, the assumption of a generally willing, responsible person is important, an assumption to which I also subscribe. “Clear process structures are essential for process owners and their teams. According to appropriate research, employees can only be intrinsically motivated and not by bonus payments for reaching certain process benchmarks. Employees must be able to view themselves as valuable, self-determining participants within the process team.” In fact, critics will appear validated by evidence that restrictive systems demotivate users.

Customers of Amazon have long been able to view the adaptive behavior of a system. Every time a customer looks for a book and makes a purchase, the process is recorded. This information is then used to suggest books. Under “Recently viewed” I have the opportunity to quickly return to items that I viewed a short time ago.

Now I would like to briefly explore the question of whether SAPERION also acts like a straitjacket. Since the user interface can be customized (primarily by the administrator for the users), it is possible to prohibit a large number of things. But obviously our customers have a strong need for flexibility. Here is how that is accomplished:

Working with the case / record

Most SAPERION customers only use the document administration functions, i.e. filing with index values and retrieval with the same values or the full-text search feature. Simple workflows depend on status updates and users can search according to status. When needed, access rights can be set by the users themselves. In this way, new documents can be added to a record or the record can be revised.

Templates administration

It is often necessary to write to customers in particular situations. In the context of records, the suitable document can be retrieved from a collection of templates and modified with existing data like the recipient and company contact. When saving, the user can schedule a follow-up by entering a target date under the status “expect reply”

Structured Workflow

Some workflows always follow the same procedure, such as accounts payable, orders, business trips, or vacation requests. The chains of events associated with these workflows can be modeled graphically.

Degree of freedom: performer determines recipient

Here as well the level of freedom can be specified. We all know the function “Originator determines recipient”. The tasks are always the same. But it is up to the originator to determine who will receive the next task.

Degree of freedom: Delegation

In this situation, the user has the ability to delegate the task to someone else. This person can perform the task and pass it on to the next person or delegate it back once again.

Degree of freedom: Rec ords editing (workitem)

A number of additional levels of freedom can be included in the editing templates for a task. Depending on the status, a variety of functions can be retrieved by clicking on buttons. This includes, among other things, viewing of the entire record. From here, additional documents can be created and sent in an ad hoc manner using templates management.

Degree of freedom: Ad hoc workflow

The user can start another ad hoc workflow for a business case at any time. He or she compiles a circulation list with tasks for various people or organizational units. Once the ad hoc workflow has begun, the user can (adaptively?) intervene and, for example, give the current activity to someone else or himself, add steps, or delete existing steps. He can enable other users to expand the circulation list if there is a need for additional contributions from other people.

Overall, I believe that there are many opportunities to avoid the straitjacket and demotivating feelings. For the user who started a workflow, the ability to gather information at any time about what has already been completed and who is currently working on something is very valuable. This provides the transparency needed for compliance and other purposes.

Unlike Mr. Pucher, I believe that in many cases modeling the happy path will help users understand how procedures are completed. Of course, it would be desirable to include explanations for why activities are done in certain ways so these explanations can be referenced during completion of workflows. This may be simply notes stating that certain compliance-related regulations must be considered during decision making. If  it is possible to deviate from this happy path at any time during runtime with adaptive assistance from the system, all the better. And this is where I anticipate tangible improvements to workflow systems in the next few years.