Do Global Process Owners drive transparency and efficiency? Yes, they do. Despite this concept being broadly accepted, why do so many GPOs still apparently fail to deliver?
Looking at the recent SSON (End-to-End Process Integration and Optimization: the [Critical] Role of the Global Process Owner | SSON Analytics (sson-analytics.com)) survey results, three findings jump out:
■ 60% of respondents are at best mildly satisfied with GPOs’ contributions to cost/efficiency ■ 59% of respondents are at best mildly satisfied with GPOs’ contributions to agility/organizational flexibility
■ only 37% of respondents are satisfied with GPOs’ contributions to customers.
Something seems fundamentally wrong. Let’s start with customer experience. PwC’s definition of customer experience, which resonates well with me, is: “Experience is everything. Get it right. Good customer experience leaves people feeling heard and appreciated. It minimizes friction, maximizes efficiency, and maintains a human element.” Source: Customer experience is everything: PwC
If the GPO concept fails to deliver in those most important of areas – the reason for GBS/SSO existence – shouldn’t we be getting rid of it and replacing it with something new?
Now let’s turn to agility. Many, including myself, believe that agility and relevance to be the new definition of value-add. Our C-suite expect solutions to be delivered faster than ever before, and they expect it to be relevant. Time is gold. Hencey, why would we keep GPOs on well-paid (180k$+) salaries if they are proving too slow to keep up with the expected pace?
Finally, let’s consider cost. It always was about cost, it still is about cost, and it will be about cost … That is why, it’s shocking to see that 60% of respondents are not impressed with GPO’s impact on cost reduction. In fact, it sounds like a killer for the GPO concept.
I am a big fan of Simon Sinek. His messages are simple but powerful. Let’s use one of his concepts in a slightly customized way. I am talking about his Why, How, What model.
Having considered the ‘what’ of GPO impact, let’s take a step back and consider ‘why’ we are seeing such unimpressive results (especially, considering we know GPOs do ‘work’).
To answer this question, let’s reflect on the key success factors for the GPO model as I think here is where the root of the problem lies. This is where we can explain perceived ‘failures’ in the GPO game.
GPO success factors:
■ The GPO has a mandate and C-suite sponsorship to own the process, including process changes & investment decisions.
■ The GPO owns the budget and is accountable for positive ROI-based solutions, so their decisions are very timely.
■ The GPO is a highly qualified leader (true process Guru); has great Project Management skills; stakeholder management is their greatest asset; and they are excellent at Change Management.
■ The GPO is accountable for quantified outcomes – they operate based on ROI logic.
■ The GPO has adequate seniority – Director level seems to be the lowest reasonable level. ■ The GPO owns the process end-toend (from a customer viewpoint) and is in a position to have relevant impact.
■ The GPO has enough bandwidth to drive a Business Excellence/ Transformation agenda – at bare minimum, the role should be ½ FTE.
■ The GPO is enabled by a High-Quality Analytics & Reporting team.
Now you need to honestly reflect on how many of the above criteria you ticked off. To get the best out of the GPO concept, you should have ticked off all points … this is your ‘how’. If you had to jump over even just one, you can forget about 90%+ results and accept just average.
Summarizing, the GPO is a successful concept to drive the best out of your organization. But it is dependent on many factors. If you really want to drive performance, you’ll need to set up an ambitious GPO 2.0 Road Map to get those factors right.
Comentarios