The Big Picture
My view. Yours may vary. Appropriately so perhaps.
Mine is based on leaders and their models, including the works of Brethower, Clark, Harless, Kaufman, Murray, Rummler, Svenson, the world of TQM including Ishikawa, Deming, Juran, Crosby and many, many others. Things I’ve been learning and applying since 1981 when I was at Motorola’s Training & Education Center, MTEC – the forerunner for Motorola University where Six Sigma was created, a derivative of Geary Rummler’s IP and the many tools and methods of TQM.
An Action Learning approach to Quality Improvement, including cycle time reduction, a focus of Rummler since the early 1980s, that was put to the test at MTEC/MU.
Stakeholders – Beyond But Including Customers
The Customer Is King — Not.
Not at all. They may lead the market or power the market, and constrain the market, but if their needs and wants conflict with higher-level Stakeholders, they don’t win.
So we respect their needs and wants and we plan and execute our business strategy and plans. Flexibly. Quickly.
As the situation demands.
As your own version of this kind of stakeholder hierarchy might guides most decision making within a targeted set of Process for a targeted set of Performers….
The graphic above reflects a “social responsibility” attitude and cultural aspiration or achievement of this entity.
Your situation may vary. Your picture might need to delete that Stakeholder for political purposes, even if untrue/unwise.
But the Government Stakeholder level cannot be ignored, unless you are intentionally a criminal enterprise. Otherwise that power to fine and jail, etc., etc., are enough to keep owners and others within the bounds of the law.
I think this is tricky. Too many mental models exist for how to “architect” a view of an Enterprise.
And I too have one. This is a graphic of the details for the one part of the first graphic in this Post that broke out a framework view of an Enterprise at any of its levels, such as Enterprise (Corporate), Divisions (if they exist), Business Units, Functions, Departments, Teams and Individuals and their interrelationships.
A Business Architecture, as my business partners and I called it in our 1994 book, The Quality Roadmap, has many types of processes. I like the Core, Leadership, and Support groupings, to give focus to the Core, the reason for being, and with respect for the need for the other sets of processes.
The Support stuff. And the Leadership stuff.
Not unimportant stuff. Not at all.
Here is my framework for thinking about a Process and Processes.
These are the variables of Processes, a Process, or the Steps and Tasks (or Tasks and Steps) of a Process.
Process Enabling Systems
Somewhere, somehow, these types of functions are being played out, and products and services are rendered to the various targeted Processes, as depicted by my next mental model.
These blue boxes on the right are the systems and processes that deliver inputs and other services to the targeted Processes.
Systems Within Systems Overlapping with Other Systems
These are just my mental starting points, and what I might first draw up in front of a client would be my first adaptation of each. They might never see the original starting models.
My goal is improved performance. Effectively.
And Efficiently… by a deliberate ReUse Strategy and set of Tactics – in reusing systems, and processes and many types of content across many functions and levels in a large enterprise.
Many types of performance enabling content, before, during and sometimes after the moment of need.
Many types of distribution channels and tools.
Many media and modes.
Means to an Ends
Those models are just means to the ends of a meaningful segmentation, given the desired outcome, and targeted impacts for key enterprise metrics.
It’s all about the ends, not the means.
# # #