Consultancy
Van Brandjes Blussen Naar Procesregie De Evolutie Van De Moderne Ict Manager 2A horizontal or process-oriented organisation delivers better results in many areas. It leads to higher quality, faster throughput times, less waste and more satisfied customers. In many cases, achieving this requires a reconsideration of an organisation’s structure and culture in order to bring all these elements together into a coherent whole. The BPM Maturity Model enables organisations to determine their level of organisational development and identify opportunities for improvement.
Many organisations have been working for some time on professionalising their process management. They launch programmes such as Lean, Six Sigma, self-managing teams, Service Excellence, continuous improvement initiatives, organisational transformation, ISO 9001 and customer-centric approaches. All worthwhile initiatives aimed at making work processes more efficient and improving quality. Yet organisations often fail to fully realise the benefits, and results fall short of expectations. Looking back, one often sees waves of management trends, stronger and weaker initiatives, implemented as standalone projects. It can feel like a poorly executed renovation: everything has been addressed, but the desired end result has not been achieved. Project outcomes lack embedding in organisational structure and culture, and organisations struggle to realise their mission and vision. As a result, the promise of process management is only partially fulfilled.
What is needed is a focus on coherence and reinforcing interactions. Organisations must take a step back, adopt a helicopter view, and recognise and create connections, elevating process management to a tactical level of design. There must also be an understanding that organisation-wide transformation needs to be approached in an integrated way and embedded in both structure and culture.
In this article, we present an integrated framework for organisational development that goes beyond operational process analysis. We advocate a tactical redesign of organisations, viewed through the lens of both structure and culture, taking everything into account and elevating it coherently to a higher level. With this intention, the BPM Maturity Model has been developed, based on the concept of horizontal organising. It is designed for organisations that want to change and embed process-oriented working deeply into their structure and culture, and that aim to realise an integrated and coherent organisational development programme. The model also offers an assessment function: where does my organisation stand, how can I interpret the tactical level, and is my operational management developing in a coherent way? In addition, the BPM Maturity Model provides guidance for targeted interventions.
The promise of process management
What is the origin of the desire to adopt process-oriented working? Which problems does it address? Work processes are patterns of activities that need to be carried out to deliver products and services. Organisations that pay little or no attention to these patterns typically experience long lead times, high costs due to rework and waste, effectively having to finance a ‘hidden factory’, and inconsistent quality. They also find it difficult to be accountable externally. Altogether, these are serious threats to continuity. Not engaging in process management is rarely a conscious decision; it tends to happen because processes have simply evolved over time.
Gaining control of processes, in other words managing them, means identifying these patterns, analysing them, improving them, steering and controlling them, and continuously innovating and renewing them. This leads to increased productivity, higher quality, and greater satisfaction among both customers and employees. At the same time, costs decrease and lead times become shorter.
What is horizontal organising?
Gaining real control over processes goes several levels deeper than simply organising a number of process redesign projects or training employees as Lean Belts. It requires the organisation’s structure and culture to be fully aligned with and supportive of process management. This need for a fundamental shift arises because it does not sit comfortably with classical management principles such as Taylorism or functional specialisation. Many organisations are still structured by breaking work down into the smallest possible units, based on functions or areas of expertise, grouped into departments that are managed through a tightly controlled hierarchy. Dominant control mechanisms such as job evaluation, reward and recognition systems, and planning and control are built around this structure. The corresponding culture typically reflects a natural separation between thinking and doing, and a top-down orientation.
In such organisations, improvement is largely driven by the analytical capability and positional authority of managers. This culture also shapes leadership and influences employee behaviour, both in relation to each other and towards customers. Organisations structured in this way can be referred to, for convenience, as ‘vertical organisations’.
Gaining control of processes is not simply a matter of dismantling the hierarchy or abandoning functional specialisation. It requires a careful reassessment of structural and cultural elements, so that organisational performance is balanced from all relevant perspectives. This process of analysis and organisational development is what we refer to as horizontal organising.
Learning to see from both sides of the brain
The essence of process-oriented working is a focus on value streams. It is important to view these value streams from different perspectives. These can be divided into two distinct types: static elements (structure and systems) and dynamic elements (social, human-centred aspects). This distinction matters because the traditional approach to process management mainly focuses on the structural side, such as process design and value stream analysis. The interaction between collaborating functional specialists, in terms of dynamics and team maturity, is usually given less attention. Yet breakthroughs in process performance often depend on these very elements.
The static perspective helps to understand value streams as systems of interacting activities, connected through inputs and outputs. In other words, as technical systems that can be explained through disciplines such as cybernetics and logistics. The other perspective sees the value stream as a dynamic interplay of human interaction, more aligned with social sciences. Topics such as team development, self-management and social networks play a key role here.
The value of looking at these different perspectives can be compared to the functioning of the two halves of the brain. We distinguish between the rational and the emotional brain, often represented as blue and red. They may appear similar, but they differ in nature. The two halves are interconnected. They can function independently, but they often work together. Ideally, they form an integrated whole and remain in balance, with a comparable level of development and complementary functioning.
This metaphor helps to approach value stream challenges in two different ways. Each offers its own possibilities. What matters is that you practise both approaches, continually assess which is most suitable for a particular issue, and learn to switch between them so that you can benefit from both.
Designing, managing, thinking and collaborating
The areas of focus or development within organisations can be categorised, resulting in four management domains. From the blue perspective, these are designing and managing organisations; from the red perspective, they are collaborating and thinking within organisations. Each of the four management domains includes four success factors, leading to a total of sixteen development areas (see Table 2). Together, these form the key points of leverage and provide practical guidance for organisational analysis and development.
| Table 1. Four management domains | ||
| Perspective | Management domain | Topics |
| Blue | Designing | Value stream design, alignment, integration |
| Managing | Organisational structure, governance, planning and control | |
| Red | Collaboration | Collaboration, team maturity, social networks |
| Thinking | Mental models, behavioural beliefs, cultural behaviours | |
| Table 2. 16 development areas | ||
| Designing | Process agility | The performance level of work processes expressed in first-time-right, sigma levels, and waste |
| Process architecture | The design level of work processes, reflected in a coherent business architecture | |
| Process availability | The availability of information needed for work, such as procedures and instructions | |
| Process infrastructure | The level of integration of business elements and disciplines in value stream designs | |
| Managing | Team maturity | The level of social integration of functional groups in value streams from a team perspective |
| Challenge | The strength of cross-functional focus on improving value creation | |
| Error approach | The extent to which errors are allowed as sources for improvement | |
| Alignment | The strength of shared understanding and clarity in value stream execution | |
| Collaboration | Organisational structure | The extent to which the organizational structure facilitates value streams |
| Improvement process | The effectiveness of problem-solving structures | |
| Preformance awareness | The visibility of value stream performance | |
| Self-organising capability | The level of self-organization in multidisciplinary value stream teams | |
| Thinking | Responsible behaviour | The proactivity of employees in improving value streams |
| Interest focus | The ability to balance functional interests and value stream interests | |
| Leadership focus | The development level of improvement capability on the work floor | |
| Talent utilisation | The synergy between employee talent and value stream needs | |
What is BPM maturity?
Organisational maturity means that the degree of horizontalisation, in other words the extent to which value streams are the dominant organising principle in both structure and culture, has reached a certain stage or level. Viewed through the lens of the 16 development areas, each area can have a different degree of utilisation. This is what we refer to as the maturity level.
To illustrate: a pupil in Year 1 has a different level of numeracy than a pupil in Year 4. Both are working on maths, but each at a different level and from a different starting point. This stage can be seen as a standalone point of comparison between levels, such as comparing a Year 1 pupil with a Year 2 pupil, but also in terms of balanced development within a level, for example whether a pupil’s language and numeracy skills are at a comparable level.
To properly understand where your organisation stands, you need to be able to recognise these maturity levels. They can be regarded as tactical levels and can be identified and described separately for each development area. The value of these classifications lies in enabling organisations to assess their maturity and then ask whether that level is appropriate for the challenges they face.
A development area may be either overdeveloped or underdeveloped. Overdevelopment may indicate unnecessary value creation and therefore a risk of wasted investment, or underutilisation. Underdevelopment may point to a critical path issue, where that particular aspect becomes the bottleneck preventing the rest from progressing.
Four maturity levels
The combination of tactical levels indicates an organisation’s overall maturity. We distinguish four levels.
Level 1: the vertical organisation
The vertical organisation is based on functional specialisation and has a clear top-down hierarchy. Value streams hardly play any role as organising principles and are not explicitly identified. Performance is mainly measured in financial terms and output volumes. Cost control focuses primarily on personnel costs, asset costs and investment planning. Levels of quality and lead times are difficult to measure objectively and are not externally verifiable. Problems on the shop floor are primarily dealt with by managers. The ‘hidden factory’ is truly hidden, meaning waste and rework are not visible. Questions about compliance are difficult to answer. Chain-wide projects, application replacement initiatives and sector-wide development programmes are also challenging. Such organisations often operate in monopoly-like situations due to a unique mandate, market or technology. They generally have significant potential for improvement in reducing lead times, lowering costs and improving quality.
Level 2: the emerging process organisation
This type of organisation is in the process of identifying and analysing its value streams. The triggers for this can vary, such as seeking external certification, implementing standards, launching cost-reduction programmes using Lean, or adopting modern management concepts such as Six Sigma, Operational Excellence or self-managing teams. These initiatives are typically driven by a group of specialists, often within a staff department or project organisation. The organisation invests in new knowledge such as Black Belt training, Scrum or Agile methods. Various projects and experiments are underway, but they are often one-off initiatives, lack coherence and frequently overlap. As a result, the same processes may be redesigned multiple times by different initiatives, such as a Lean programme, a quality team and a Service Excellence project. The underlying goal, such as improving quality, is only partially addressed. The ‘hidden factory’ becomes more visible, but remains substantial.
Level 3: integrated process management
At this stage, value streams are increasingly connected across structures, systems, knowledge, culture and leadership. Coherence emerges between value stream design, performance measurement, self-managing teams, organisational structures and a growing sense of synergy. The organisational focus is shifting towards the customer journey and continuous improvement from multiple perspectives. However, the system is not yet fully optimised, and each improvement still leads to new insights. There remains considerable potential to reduce waste and enhance customer value. The challenge lies in further fine-tuning, alignment, embedding and realising the full benefits.
Level 4: the horizontal organisation
Horizontal organisations have found the optimal balance between structure and culture, and between specialisation and process orientation. Their value streams are best in class in terms of first-time-right performance, efficiency and lead time. Customer value is continuously monitored, and operational teams have systems and structures in place for ongoing improvement. The organisation delivers excellent operations and service. Leaders support the value stream, coach teams and create the right conditions. Everything is interconnected and works together in a harmonious and reinforcing way. There is a strong sense of flow, control, clarity and stability.
What can my organisation gain from a BPM Maturity scan?
The value of reflecting on maturity is that organisational development becomes properly balanced. By distinguishing four levels, an organisation can recognise and interpret its current stage of development, and assess whether this aligns with the challenges it faces. Where there are gaps between the current and desired level, appropriate organisational development programmes can be defined, typically spanning multiple years.
Thinking in terms of balanced development within a given level provides a critical path analysis. Which element of the organisation is the weakest link? Which other elements are prevented from flourishing as a result? Where are structural interventions required, and where is cultural change needed? This creates clear opportunities for prioritisation within organisational development programmes. It may also mean that the allocation of resources needs to be adjusted in order to unlock the organisation’s full potential.
