Feeds:
Posts
Comments

In recent discussions the proposition was made that my disagreement with BPM came from discussing people management issues in process management. While I totally agree that as an executive my focus is people management I propose that there should not be a process management perspective that does not focus on people. To bring the benefits of process management closer to the people requires today technology — just as with the Social Mobile Cloud — and not methodology. I am not living in a technology dream world, because as an executive I also deal with other executives and high-level management of the largest corporations on a daily basis and I see and hear their management pains.

They all struggle with one thing only and that is getting their leadership to transcend to the lowest management levels. BPM methodology and business architects can never do that but rather are its killer. They freeze management initiative and drive. No one likes BPM and no amount of training and enforcement makes the business do better. It just makes some numbers look better in the short term. Not only I see the dramatic consequences of the politics and the red tape that kills any creativity and innovation. In most businesses it is the least imaginative and least innovative people who propose, demand and in the worst case enforce a BPM approach. Could anyone believe that Blockbuster or Kodak could have been or Blackberry and HP will be saved by bringing in business architects and BPM? That makes me laugh.

Saved by methodology or by the right people?

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer had no clue what people want from a Smartphone while Steve Jobs obviously did. Steve Ballmer believed their market analysis, while Steve Jobs said openly that market analysis and focus groups were the killer of creativity. And that applies to all levels of management and all kinds of work. People enjoying working with other people makes a business better. Closest contact with your staff and employees and a good connection with your customers and prospects makes a business better and helps to shape a better business strategy.

I have been told that my BPM criticism is invalid as I am not clear whether I mean methodology, technology, or the practice. Actually, I mean all three together but let me try to ensure that this smoke screen argument doesn’t apply. The need and resulting time and cost for all three as distinct requirements to make the whole approach even usable is a simple proof why BPM is a loosing proposition in the long term. A business thrives by achieving individual customer goals and not by executing rigid processes perfectly regardless of the outcome for the customer. BPM methdology and analysis is FAR, FAR AWAY from people who execute and even further away from the customer. A goal defined there is unbeknownst to the performer and most likely not what this customer currently really needs or wants.

BPM projects are justified by a further focus on using less workers and to replace the ones needed with less skilled ones. This will happen by default because skilled people have no interest to be used as ‘fools with tools.’ Therefore BPM has the unavoidable consequence of lowering the size but also the skill of the workforce in a business. Then you might have a poor process design and no one to see that it is actually so and no one to know how to make it better. The BPM bureaucracy — like all bureaucracies — isn’t close enough to see what goes wrong. They delve into BPM reports that only deal with deviations from the expected and not with customer satisfaction or effectiveness. The ideal process is blind to the unexpected …

There are no perfectly designed processes … Period!

Even worse, much of the logic —  regardless if flows or task conditions — needed for a process cannot be represented in Boolean logic at all. Human decisions are all emotional-experience-driven and not logical. Only reality-removed-intellectuals (imagine Sheldcon Cooper from Big-Bang-Theory) believe we can turn them into logic, but in fact and quite obviously they become inhumane by that very step. Yes, some boundary rules are unfortunately needed for compliance but also there you will find that only a human supervisor can verify that. Therefore there are only processes that have been decided to be sufficient regardless of being wrong or incomplete. For human interaction (aka purposeful collaboration or running a business) there is in fact no ‘fixed predefined realization of logic that provides the outcome if repeated in the same execution context.’ The context is nothing else than the goal to be achieved, meaning a customer outcome or a handover. BPM proponents blindly assume and then propose/claim that what can be done in the closed shop of a factory floor can be transplanted into the chaotic environment of human interaction. Yes, there are processes that need more or less experts, but there is no process that can be done without people who know what they are doing. It needs at least one process owner in the line of business who defines and works toward value goals!

A modern business is therefore one where all people are involved in producing value for the customer. As the target customer is an individual and only in a statistical illusion belongs to a certain demographic, quality is achieved by individual, non-automated service. That is the most effective and at the same time the most efficient. Centralized, fully automated service centers do not have a focus on the customer. They focus on reducing cost through standardization and automation. Rather than claiming that the service center frees up staff to focus on customers (which is hardly ever true) get rid of the internal-non-customer processes that you need the service center for. Spend the money saved to hire staff for actual customer service.

From the perspectives of customer experience, people management and workforce psychology the process environment must be so flexible and easy-to-use that people are willingly letting go of email and MS-Office. Why are these tools so much liked? Because they are independent of IT and ‘experts’ telling employees what to do. They are also the only means to complete the lacking processes. What ever you do in process management it will only succeed if you get business-user-driven adoption! Productivity and customer satisfaction is not about turning people into BPM-controlled robots, but people actually enjoying what they do. The more detail you force on them the more resentment you will get.

BPM architects can’t imagine that the people actually doing the job know what they are doing. But actually they don’t know the job required. I have not yet met an architect who knows how to run a business or how to manage people. And they shouldn’t bother. Architects — both Business and IT — just have to create an IT framework and environment that empowers the business and does not enforce process illusions. Architects can maybe design stuff, but the reality is that human interaction defies any architectural effort. One simply can’t design a process that involves individually acting agents, aka as humans. One can design a great product if it focuses on how people will use it. If all you focus on is making it cheap, your business will be the next Nokia and not the next Apple!

I am certain that a BPM center of excellence and its consequence of process-optimized service centers can be likened to a centrally controlled, pseudo-communist bureaucracy that will never improve the long-term prospects of any business in the reality of a dynamic, if not chaotic economy.

Welcome to the Real World – Outside the Matrix (ah, BPM)!

In the real world — meaning outside the BPM-illusion — there is only work to fulfill goals. There is no process or case and there is no distinction between them. The distinction is an artificial one created by a BPM perspective. That the other work can or ought to be managed through a more flexible case management environment only came up in recent years. I therefore propose that the BPM process control illusion ought to be thrown out because of its obvious drawbacks for a business, mostly in respect to people management. Processes are not a business asset. People are. The work these people do has to target goals and those deliver handovers and finally outcomes. BPM ought to simply define that and make it accessible in real-time, but instead needs a lot of bureaucracy by experts to achieve that. What I propose with ACM is too a form of BPM, but it departs from the the currently separated methodology, technology and practice because it consolidates them for business people.

ACM is different from BPM in that the performers always have freedom — unless it is explicitly reduced in some areas — to target a well-defined, visible goal. As they perform their work, their knowledge is captured within the case and can later be used to improve it. BPM is the opposite: workers are guided and controlled and in a few situations they can do a few ad-hoc things. In most situations however, the undefined detail is executed outside the BPM environment and lost. The whole point of ACM is to not even try to automate what can’t be automated but to provide the best possible support for the performer and create transparency and learning where non exists today.

Adaptive Case Management in my definition can perform everything current BPM TECHNOLOGY can, plus the indisputable need for business content. It provides a simple METHODOLOGY to define value streams as goal trees and guides otherwise undirected execution with constraints for compliance. All work can be described by business users and saved as more or less structured templates. In this manner it brings the power of a process management PRACTICE directly to the line-of-business. It provides top-down transparency for guidance and bottom-up transparency for execution without the limitations and drawbacks of the current state-of-the-art in BPM.

My previous blog post caused once again quite some stir with various BPM proponents who feel deeply insulted that I do not accept their expertize in optimizing businesses. I am simply not into superstition. I am ok with Astrology though.

But as it happens there is a lot less uproar than there used to be. One of the reasons is — as I predicted five years ago — that the BPM community has assimilated the ACM vocabulary and now claims that one can do Case Management (CM) — adaptive and mostly not — applications with their BPM suites. Even analysts run ACM studies based on that premise. A BPM suite can mimic case-like functionality by renaming some parts accordingly. While some work performed in a case can be sub-processes or ad-hoc tasks thats where the similarities end. For me an ACM environment has to support explicit goal-orientation and validation linked to embedded data and content. ACM embeds the ability to design flow-diagram processes too. Most of all, ACM is a solution that supports a modern business and people management paradigm and is not stuck in 1910 and Taylorism.

In difference, the focus of case management is to provide containers of information for particular coordination requirements. As work progresses certain information content is gathered and can be used to make decisions. But case management systems require substantial coding to provide guidance to the user. Some types of case work such as investigative cases do not have any pre-configurable progression but they still would have clearly defined goals.

I do not want to get into a technical hair-splitting of differences but stay at the larger issues of running a business. Adding case management to BPM does not improve what BPM does for a business as it continues to ignore essential people management aspects. It is not making the creation and innovation of work any easier. Businesses solely thrive on continuous innovation and not through performing old approaches faster and cheaper. Faster and cheaper means less people and less knowledge and thus a reduction of the ability to change work in accordance with changes in the market. Even while you exploit process knowledge you need to be able to explore the new. And that is not achieved by CM functionality that exists somewhere outside a currently rigid process.

Is continuous innovation through failure really necessary?

Rather than scientific studies on workplace psychology and expert papers I have used the example of the Apple Appstore social network in the past. It is a verifiable proof of the success-through-failure approach. It provides an ecosystem of autonomous innovators who thrive through the power of evolution. The best apps will succeed, while many won’t. Steve Jobs himself failed multiple times until he succeeded. But when Apple was run by bean counters it went from an innovator to the verge of bankruptcy within a few years.

Quite obviously, innovation is not just inventing new successful products, but much rather a focus on customer value. Innovation must happen continuously on all levels, in the small and in the large, while not all innovation efforts will succeed. Soichiro Honda said: “Success represents the ONE percent of your work that results from the 99 percent that is called failure.” Tom Watson Jr. put it differently: “If you want to succeed faster, double your failure rate.” As an executive and manager you have to allow and moreover promote the opportunity to fail, which is diametrically opposed to perfect business processes as demanded by BPM or SixSigma. James March linked already in 1991 company politics and decision theory to knowledge exploration and exploitation. You most certainly won’t get your BPM bureaucracy to change from the idea of ‘the one perfect process’ to supporting innovation through failure just because you added CM functionality to BPM. I say that your only chance is to get rid of the BPM-optimization mindset in your business.

Knowing what does not work is often more important than what works. Often the difference between success and failure is minute. But nobody likes to share his failures, right? ACM enables large organizations to fail and innovate faster by ensuring that gained knowledge becomes transparent and reusable without needing a bureaucracy. It can even happen anonymously. An employee producing a failure is possibly doing your business a larger service than the one who did it right.

How to deal with complexity and the speed of change?

BPM, Six Sigma or Lean will not support, promote or provide true knowledge-from-failure innovation. Perfect and cheap processes designed by an outside consultant are stale and dead. Standardized processes in code-freeze kill the germs of infectious innovation! Giving the process owner authority to pursue assigned goals any way he wants as long as he achieves outcomes, operational targets and handovers is Appstore-like social empowerment needed for success. Autonomy is further a key element in employee (and thus customer) satisfation. Allow for a variety of processes and tasks to fail or succeed until the best ones sustain. For effectiveness you need to allow processes to be improved by the people who perform them. That is additionally the most natural and efficient approach to optimization. Governance should at most define the high-level business entities and ontology to reduce ambiguity but not nail down low-level processes.

Outside manufacturing, we deal today with a business complexity and higher speed of change, which makes it near impossible to ensure a business delivers customer value through rigid work instructions. However, knowledge workers — or small teams with an embedded process owner — listen to customers, translate goals into needed activities, and then execute based on their intuition, skill and experience. In the larger focus of customer experience they improve outcomes without flow-diagrams, Boolean if/then/else logic or Big-Data statistical predictions.

Yes, many people in large organizations don’t care today about outcomes because they are jaded by bureaucracy. But that is not their fault and the worst reaction is to kill the business dynamics even further in a spiral to mediocrity or worse bankruptcy. The ability to ADAPT (change future process execution through learning by doing) is very different to Ad-Hoc or Dynamic processes. Therefore adding CM to a BPM platform is simply a smoke screen and a ruse.

ACM is about empowering people to deliver autonomously value to customers while making effectiveness and efficiency transparent to management.

Recently I had two very different experiences. One was a typical discussion with a process management expert on LinkedIN, who proclaimed like many before that because he has been successful in optimizing factory floors he can do the same cost-cutting automation for human interaction in the rest of a business. That unproven claim ignores everything that is scientifically accepted about workplace psychology, the dynamics of human interaction as well as the complexity of markets and its business entities.

He said: ‘Once you know what the right process is you can automate it and it does not matter if you use C++, Java or a flow diagram.’ As if it would be that simple to know the ‘right’ process considering the complexity of human interaction. He then pronounced that: ‘the worst thing that can happen when you use ACM is that two people would decide to create a similar ad-hoc process for the same thing.’ As if that would be the end of the world as we know it. This is what people do all day long without BPM and it makes the world turn! There is no benefit in enforcing the same dumb and inflexible process across the board for the sake of it but it actually costs a lot more to do so. As my whole blog covers extensively why I won’t repeat it here again.

What ACM enables a business to do is to capture these processes and either leave them as they are or empower performers to build libraries of reusable goal- oriented units of work that represent broadly the business knowledge. You can’t analyze that as much as that has been proposed. Both just using ACM for transparency or using it for building knowledge libraries have substantial benefits that are unachievable with BPM. But lets no longer bemoan the ignorance that is at the core of the BPM mindset.

Let me rather tell you about my other experience that justifies my proclamation of ignorance. I had the wonderful opportunity to watch a one year old play with two plastic cups in the bath tub. What has that to do with BPM you might ask but that is exactly my point: absolutely nothing. It is an observation about human nature that people who propose BPM are missing despite all the empty claims to the opposite.

The boy was sitting in the tub filled with just a little water. The water was running from the tap. He got hold of two plastic cups that were standing at the side. For the next half hour I was watching amazed all the things one could do with two cups, running water and a bathtub. I would not have thought of half of them. A child this age has no purpose or cares what is good, practical, necessary or useless. But after this short time he had tested all variations of filling, emptying, pouring, splashing, and more. It included pouring the water over his head and out of the tub. He did not get tired to try and try until he succeeded in what he could do. He also got cranky when things did not work as intended. Then he broke one of the cups but that did not stop him. He turned his attention to the faucet and discovered how to turn it off. He inspected the falling drops and tried to see inside where they were coming from. He managed to open the drain and watched that too with excitement.

I can only say that this was a humblng experience. Children are so adamant at learning and discovering. Their determination to get to the bottom of a problem and discover is immense. They come into this world with no preconceptions of good or bad, and right or wrong. The most terrible thing we can do is to tell them that there is only one right way. We truly know nothing and have no basis to be so incredibly righteous. Children learn that it is better to do nothing than to be wrong or make a mistake. But creativity and discovery thrive on failure.  See my post: The Value of Failure.

As I wrote in my 2003 novel ‘Deity': ‘If parents would truly know more than their children then humanity would get dumber with each generation.’ Let me translate that to business: If managers, executives or BPM experts think they know more than the people doing the job, they are ignorant and arrogant. They won’t do the business any good. I thus propose that orthodox, rigid BPM is a crutch for incompetent management. A manager should be a facilitator for his people and not an enforcer. Successful businesses give their employees room to learn and discover and they know that fun at work translates to happy customers. People follow true leaders and their visions willingly without a BPM straightjacket.

The opposite is unfortunately happening today with the cost-cutting, optimization and automation madness. It already starts at home and in education and is nothing else than killing the core of human creativity and ingenuity. I propose that ALL children start out like that little boy. They all possess the same drive for knowledge, the stamina and the same creativity. Clearly there are differences in character but I do propose that they are minimal and they are needed for productive diversity. The rest is opportunity and experience.

I have no other way than this post to pronounce my disgust for the ignorance that drives people to think of nothing else than to use BPM to produce fools with tools. It is inhumane and has nothing to do with improving how a business works. But unfortunately this mindset already starts in our schools and therefore BPM is even taught at university. If you have not yet seen Sir Ken Robinson’s 2006 TED talk on education you really ought to take the time. You will understand my point better and he is also very entertaining.

Albert Camus wrote in The Myth of Sisyphus:
‘This world in itself is not reasonable, that is all that can be said. But what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational and wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human heart. The absurd depends as much on man as on the world. For the moment it is all that links them together.’

PS: I apologize for the post being publicized before it was online.

ACM Workshop at EDOC 2014 Calls for Paradigm Shift in Company Management Towards Empowered Knowledge Workers

The Adaptive Case Management (ACM) Workshop at EDOC, which took place September 1, 2014, in Ulm, Germany, provided a platform for researchers and practitioners to discuss ACM and other non-workflow approaches to BPM. A list of top-class participants, an audience that was even larger then at last year’s ACM Workshop, and inspiring discussions showed the growing need for and acceptance of systems that support flexibility and guidance.

ACM across systems

In his keynote, Keith Swenson, one of the conference organizers, talked about ACM as the key to enable innovation in organizations and reviewed its evolution and relation to BPM and CM. What he sees as one of the major turning points is the way that ACM goes far beyond the IT core systems and enables emergent processes by bringing in experts and people with a specific knowledge, even from different organizations, just as the current situation demands for.

This means that bridges across systems, systems thinking, organizational mindsets, and terminology are going to become more important, where Keith Swenson claims that XBRL plays a vital role for a unified data exchange between different systems. Swenson has a future in mind of “personal assistants” who help knowledge workers from organizations to communicate and share available information. While he thinks that ontologies will be needed, he did not consider them to be part of the ACM configuration by business administrators or users.

Research sessions

In the research sessions, PhD students and their professors presented the current scientific ACM research topics with focus on ACM guidance for knowledge workers, a solid ACM definition and underlying theory, and on knowledge extraction from existing cases, as is for example the case with User-Trained Agent (UTA) developed by ISIS Papyrus.

Other interesting aspects are so-called “case health monitors”, which deliver indicators to case owners if something goes against goals, and algorithms which produce a clear quality measure from arbitrary event logs to whether they contain predictable processes. With an “event log trace diversity value” like this you could conclude whether process-mining is reasonable or whether an adaptive case management approach is appropriate.

Researching efforts also concentrate on collaboration templates used for creating instances of specific situations and on applying analytics to retrieve knowledge from archived instances for future use. Tagging of these instances is essential for reutilization, which is still weak because of a lack of appropriate analysis tools. Here the ISIS Papyrus UTA can also step up to play an important role.

Practical sessions show different aspects in ACM approaches

In the practical sessions, three leading companies in the field of business process management gave insight into their ACM approaches.

UTA for supporting knowledge workers

ISIS Papyrus proposes an approach that supports knowledge workers based on the knowledge previously applied by others in the form of a User-Trained Agent. The UTA learns from ad hoc actions taken by knowledge workers to suggest best next actions for the current situation.

The UTA was acknowledged as an important ACM component for enabling knowledge sharing and collaboration between teams. Business Ontologies would be developed to guarantee proper context definitions. The calculation of confidence ratings for Task proposals should include not only how often users decided for a certain proposal but also how much the Task contributed to a certain goal. Apart from objective quality information, also “subjective” information such as user ratings could be included.

Visualization of dependencies

IT University of Copenhagen together with Exformatics A/S presented a UI Web application that uses DCR Graph notation model (Dynamic Condition Response Graphs), a tool to visualize dependencies between Tasks and simulate what ad-hoc changes will cause to the live system before they are being deployed. The UI is using card-based items, which also includes an execution log showing the user all events that happened.

While flow chart based guidance is more intuitive than BPM style graphs, it is still quite complex for normal users and might be suited for application administrators.

Blackboard metaphor

Computas AS from Norway delivers preconfigured ACM solutions to the Norwegian public sector and use the blackboard metaphor to enrich collaborative ACM Systems.

Use Adaptive Case Management to empower your employees

The brainstorming session brought up the importance of communicating the value of innovation enabled by ACM systems, although another term would eventually be needed because “innovation” will not be well accepted by all managers.

What became obvious in the discussion is that the company management paradigms must change first: People should be encouraged to work self-responsibly towards goals without being controlled and micro-managed. When you stop looking only at cost efficiency and start focusing on customer satisfaction and effectiveness, ACM paves the way to empower your employees to achieve this goal.

This post was misplaced by WordPress from another blog:

You will find the original about on my Rallycross blog.

http://mjp-powertec.com

The simple and fast answer? NO!

Why not, you might ask? Because of what design really means. The late Steve Jobs said: ‚Design is not about the way it looks but about the way it works!‘ We intuitively know that this is the simple truth but we often do not know what will work for others. Hence we try to force them to do it our way and then tell them that this is what they want.

'Design is not how it looks but how it works.'

Steve Jobs – ‘Design is not how it looks but how it works.’

If we take ‚how it works’ as our credo then it might seem that analyzing, designing, implementing and monitoring customer related processes is the way to go. That is one of the grand fallacies of people who never go out and try to do these things themselves! While BPM has benefits for some simple processes, it turns sensible people into ‘fools with tools’. It all looks so simple in the ivory tower when you leave the human aspects out of it. And to prove that the processes work, measurement regimes are used to measure what is expected not what is real.

While there is nothing wrong with collecting data about aspects of a consumer interaction and satisfaction and using them to judge how things are going, much of the current approach in customer surveys leads to a ‘measure to manage’ fallacy. Decision making must not follow data but actual human needs.

Data is not the business and data is not the customer. Anytime you collect soft data, meaning data that are created through a statistical model and measurement assumption, you need to be aware that you are looking at a past that is distorted by data collection and correlation errors, a present that can’t be generalized across human individuals, and a future that is shaped by unpredictable human action in a complex adaptive environment and not by predictive analytics.

If you focus on numbers all you get is numbers!

Your measuring shapes your actions that become inhumane and disconnected from reality. Innovation is lost in a chase to meet set targets. The Gauss curve shapes your business activity in a drive to mediocrity. Doctors kill patients with drugs to meet the expected values in their ‘blood work’ or to reduce the size of tumors. The whole human and with it quality of life has become irrelevant.

Businesses have replaced the look into the customer’s eye and the questions ‘How are you?’ and ‘What can I do for you?’ with satisfaction surveys that are obviously done by third parties who could not care less. Unfortunately even medical doctors outsource diagnosis and patient interaction. How much time does a doctor actually spend time with the patient? Hardly any these days. They need to look at the patient and not just the charts. An illness is not cured by its diagnosis. Decision making about actions or treatments is not improved by data. It is improved by experience. Experience is a human condition and is not stored in a database. Knowledge is between two ears only.  (Peter Drucker)

Some call the present the ‚Age of the Consumer‘ because of their empowerment through social media and a more direct interaction with the vendor with less intermediaries. The crunch? Empowered consumers will shun your well-designed customer experience. They want to create their own and decide themselves how it works. Therefore the only way to meet the expectation of an empowered consumer is through empowered employees. Does this mean that you put your employees work on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube? Absolutely not. 

Empowerment for the employee means that they have to stand eye-to-eye with the customer. The person dealing with the customer either synchronously or asynchronously must be able to do the right thing and not be constrained by a predefined process that ignores the real context. What must de defined is well-set goals and outcomes for each context. ‚A person dealing with a customer‘ rings alarm bells in the heads of the bean counters, cost-cutters and process-optimizers. Clearly not only customers surveys are outsourced but also call centers. So the question is how technology can be used to make this employee-consumer interaction more efficient without outsourcing and automating it into a deadend. 

Around 20 years ago I said that CRM will never improve relationships and after all this time it is easy to see that I am right. Let me say it with Kurt Vonnegut who too wrote in 1999: 

‘You should know that when a husband and wife fight, it may seem to be about money or sex or power. But what they’re really yelling at each other about is loneliness.’

That can clearly be translated to a business to customer relationship. If a customer complains about your product it is really not about how good or bad the product is or works but purely about you taking him for a fool.

Kurt Vonnegut - 'Computers do not make you more intelligent than slot machines.'

Kurt Vonnegut – ‘Computers make you no more intelligent than slot machines do.’

Kurt Vonnegut also said at that time (1999): ‘ Only well-informed, warm-hearted people can teach others things they’ll always remember and love. Computers and TV don’t do that. A computer teaches a child what a computer can become. An educated human being teaches a child what a child can become.‘

Computers, software and CRM will not improve relationships. Reliance on CRM makes them worse. Am I just ranting or do I have at least something to prove my point? Unfortunatley there is no simple proof. Most political naive interventions are proven with the claim that things would be much worse otherwise. And so it happens with CRM. But let me ask you what will improve the relationship with your mother in law: a spreadsheet with all information about her, sending her a daily email about your relationship improvement activities, or simply inviting her to lunch and really listen?

As a matter of fact, CRM systems are not bothered with solutions for listening to customers. Multi-channel marketing and Big Data collection about them, these are the big tickets … but who wants to listen? When software is purely used to replace people and automate then things will go downhill.

The only thing that a software solution could do to improve relationships is to enhance, improve and support the way people communicate and collaborate. You might say that I am now contradicting myself and Vonnegut. Hey, what do you think a GSM telephone and network is? A lot of computers and software. What about Skype and Facebook! But yes, you are right that person-to-person in real-time is best. This is why Apple opened its grand stores – as shiny temples of customer focus – when everyone else thought that brick and mortar businesses were dead. Steve Jobs sent a clear message to his customers that they are important as people. Loose emotional contact with your customers and your business will go the way of Kodak, Blockbuster and Blackberry.

How we at Papyrus can help you to empower your employees to support emotional interaction with your customers is the subject of my keynote speech at the ISIS OpenHouse and Roadshow conferences. Look forward to see you there: http://www.isis-papyrus.com

ACM provides real-time transparency and empowerment!

ACM provides real-time transparency and empowerment!

Please join us in exploring the solutions that adaptive process and ACM/DCM can offer your business by taking advantage of these free resources and activities during April and May.

Free Wave Download – limited time offer:
I am pleased to offer you a free download of the full report, courtesy of ISIS Papyrus:
Download The Forrester Wave on Dynamic Case Management, Q1 2014

Free Webinar featuring Forrester Research – April 29th:
With Forrester VP & Principal Analyst Craig Le Clair -
Learn more about DCM – Dynamic Case Management – and how adaptive capabilities can help your business increase control of cost and goal management and offer end users the process flexibility they urgently need.
Request DCM Webinar details

ISIS Papyrus Open House Demos & Solutions – May:
See live demos and business solutions on Adaptive Process and Case Management at our Solution Centers in
Vienna/Austria (May 4-6) or Dallas/TX (May 18-20).
Review conference agenda topics and register online.

Please feel free to respond to me with any questions you may have.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,730 other followers

%d bloggers like this: