The PSM process uncovers and analyzes existing processes and procedures within the client's environment that, unknown to the client, reflect either (a) workarounds or (b) existing undocumented requirements that are being met outside published work descriptions. PSM can result in increased productivity, reduced operating costs, and increased employee satisfaction.
PSM is Teleconvergence's benign approach to process improvement. It is at the very bottom of the business analysis hierarchy. It does not pretend to re-create the universe nor re-structure the planet, or even to finely floss an organization or a division thereof.
Instead, PSM is, quite frankly, a way to grab low-hanging fruit, to identify miscellaneous tasks that are ripe for technological change or unnecessary functions which can and should be deftly deleted from daily routines and quietly buried, unlamented. Most organizations realize that inefficiencies exist, but they are not willing to radically turn themselves inside out when they suspect that a little spring cleaning will accomplish most of what's needed without creating undue disruption.
Over time, we’ve come to realize that systems client management thought were operating poorly or were being stretched beyond capacity were in fact being underutilized.
They were also underperforming because system users were caught in a quagmire of cumulative workarounds that reflected neither their job descriptions nor the work they were supposed to be doing. Instead, daily work flow required continual and time-consuming sidesteps of catch 22s that had to be overcome to get any real work done at all
PSM uncovers and analyzes existing processes and procedures within the client's environment that, unknown to the client, reflect either (a) workarounds or (b) existing undocumented requirements that are being met outside published work descriptions.
Unless documented, detected and corrected, such activities will be nonproductively perpetuated in future systems, creating still additional tiers of workaround activity to enable the unrecognized work processes to continue. The PSM approach either eliminates this activity or uses technology to integrate and automate it. In either event, the cost reductions and productivity improvements are both predictable and documentable
While some of Teleconvergence's work is strategic, other aspects are simultaneously tactical and practical. PSM is bottom up, focusing on actual needs of individual business users in the context of a potential technological solution. It is natural for us to look for ways to apply technology to help such users achieve their objectives.
It is not as obvious that we also expend effort and time identifying and eliminating tasks and processes that are unnecessary in the first place. Since our intentions align employee objectives with those of the organization, we find very little resistance to exploring avenues of improvement that would simultaneously benefit both.
Business Analysis is part of our basic perspective and approach to project management and system evaluation. Systems don't just do things. They exist to perform processes that lead to the satisfaction of business objectives. We can't articulate your requirements until we understand your business needs, future plans, and operating priorities.
The Teleconvegence Process section explains this in detail, so our services in strategic operations, including PSM, shouldn't come as a surprise. Teleconvergence is admittedly a different kind of firm, and it is the Process that differentiates us.
Since Teleconvergence normally performs PSM along with our other functions, incremental cost is minimized, and we're under no obligation to keep digging and digging until something is discovered. There's far less functional disruption and staff resentment as a result, since if nothing procedurally redundant or superfluous turns up during our fact-finding and interviews, we quickly move on.
Moreover, management will be far more willing to take steps to correct deficiencies when newly-determined procedural efficiencies and insights can be implemented either in conjunction with a new system, or by modifying existing systems and procedures to eliminate unnecessary workarounds.
This is how Teleconvergence can identify unique client needs that, if satisfied, result in optimal system or software selection and how we determine the requirements for the platform upon which much of an organization's future productivity can be predicated.
In most cases, there is neither the corporate will nor a driving need for a major shakeup. PSR makes sense for most organizations because most organizations do not consider themselves either completely broken and in need of re-creation (Reengineering) or even in need of major restructuring (Business Process Review).
Moreover, since the last system change or upgrade resulted in the current layer of workarounds and inefficiencies, the new system will similarly have to be modified to remain consistent with the only way to "get anything done around here". This task is accomplished by employees consuming significant company time without management knowledge, inevitably accompanied by much grumbling also not overheard by management. Without a fresh look, the Law of Diminishing Returns will doubtless reapply, and the desire for a better system will again raise its head.
All of this, naturally, is independent of:
Equally important is that, after a while, the workarounds become indistinguishable (by the workers, at least) from official work procedures designed to get the work done, which leads to "We've always done it this way because that's the way it's supposed to be done," and besides, "it's the only way we know how to do it."
Compounding the issue is the fact that, in today's downsized, experienced-workers-go-first environment, the entire departmental collective history may not be that long. That means, in other words, that no one still working may actually understand what the tasks being performed were originally designed to accomplish.
Teleconvergence first discusses individual job descriptions and departmental/work unit functions with client management. We also try to learn the expectations at various management levels regarding the expected effects of an impending system change.
Then, however, rather than simply accepting management's statements about work parameters and process objectives, we attempt to identify and independently verify:
The next PSM phase is an appraisal of existing (meaning actual, not as formally described) work procedures, including how and by whom and in what order the work is being done.
Teleconvergence then provides management with statements of actual work requirements, documents actual work practices, and makes suggested changes to increase productivity and/or lower cost. We frequently include in our presentation our estimates of how much time is being spent, how much time could be saved, cost savings estimates based upon employees’ burdened hourly costs, etc. Some recommendations inevitably require system change, others may not.
Once management decides among behavioral and process alternatives, Teleconvergence can then evaluate system alternatives with the confidence that the entire effort will be, well, productive.
PSM helps identify who is doing necessary as opposed to unnecessary work, and which work processes can be eliminated and which can be combined. Additionally, PSM helps to identify and highlight the skillsets really needed to satisfy current and future work demands.
Needless to say, savings not only accrue from the reduction in procedural steps and work process time, but also from the potentially lower number of employees required to perform the same work in less time. Such productivity gains from procedural modification and employee cost reduction can far exceed savings derived from productivity resulting from system change alone. In cases where productivity can be increased to the point that fewer employees are required to do the work that is really necessary, the PSM process minimizes subjectivity in any subsequently undertaken staff reductions.
When employing any of these methodologies, layoffs are neither the objective nor the solution. It is not a simple matter of identifying who is doing the work vs. who is doing the workarounds. Parkinson's Law ensures that any time potentially saved by using workarounds has long since been filled with other activities. It is important to remember that each and every workaround was at one time absolutely required --at least once-- or else no one would have gone through the effort of creating it.
Since workaround tasks are incorporated into the overall work process, a person spending 100% of his or her day on workarounds cannot be fired and the tasks left undone without the entire work process collapsing of its own weight. Practitioners perform workarounds indistinguishably from any other tasks, except frequently, the workarounds are regarded as more prized functions because they are either seen as shortcuts or else are absolutely necessary to make everything else run on schedule.
What the presence of significant workarounds does indicate, though, is that at least some necessary work is not being done directly. This means that either (A) needed work is not being done or is being only partially done, or, (B) if all work is being done, then there are more people involved in the process than necessary if not for the presence of the need for workarounds.
Another way to look at it is that the real productivity improvements come not from retaining the workarounders (who are generally the most effective employees), but instead from reworking the processes to take advantage of technology and simultaneously eliminating the need for workarounds in the first place. This creates a requirement for even more efficient workers because the process itself will have become that much more effective.
Employees performing workarounds are characteristically quite flexible and capable of learning new tasks because over time they inevitably have to adapt the workarounds to new systems and procedures. Does that mean that such persons should be retained and others fired? Not necessarily. Only after the nature of the real work to be done is revealed once workaround layers have been shed can the skillsets necessary to do such work be determined.
Is it possible, then, to perform PSM (or other work process analysis) on a department or a function (such as order processing) and realize productivity improvements that eliminate the need for new systems? Yes, it's possible, but so is the counter scenario that the resulting increase in productivity will strain existing systems beyond capacity and thus necessitate system change anyway.
Fortunately, in such a situation, the organizations benefits doubly: first, because the initial phase brought increased productivity and reduced cost without the capital expense of a new system. Secondly, because the greater work output will demonstrate exactly where (and which) new system capabilities are required to sustain the higher levels of work output and productivity. Finally, with the slack removed from the system, it will become obvious where system robustness must be enhanced, where redundancy must be implemented, where excess capacity must be planned, where backup plans must be formulated and tested and initiated, etc.
Similarly, where the new workload requirements are beyond the capability of even the current workforce, the analysis can determine those traits and knowledge sets necessary for future productivity, help the organization recruit employees with newly validated academic or technical qualifications or work-related experience, and help the organization better recruit employees for advancement from within employee ranks based upon specific abilities rather than making do with traditional office skills or work experiences.
In fact, perhaps the definition of PSM should be changed from Procedural Strip Mining to Productivity Success Methodology…