Capacity Management

In earlier versions of the Value Driver Model© we named this Business Sphere “IT Management”. However, when applying a strict business process approach it is clear that not only IT, but also other key company capacities should be studied and managed similarly.

Typically, capacities are configured and managed with a specific business context in mind. Just as typically, ownership of the capacity and the lead on configuration is allocated to a corresponding business unit manager and end-users. In the Value Driver Model© such understanding reflects the logic of the "Optimization" Value Driver Field.

This, however, is not sufficient to achieve maximum business benefit from introducing the capacity. A complementary cross-functional process perspective is required to ensure optimal business support. The Value Driver Field "Configuration" is the one to look towards.

The Value Driver Model© highlights the Value Driver Field “Configuration” as equally important to “optimization” if company capacities are to contribute maximum value. In fact, the logical linkage with “Business Process Management” should even make it clear that configuration of capacities must be based primarily on process views and with a company-wide understanding of value.

When analyzing the Value Driver Model© an "operational" triple-intersection between “Balancing”, “business Process Management” and “Optimization” also emerges, and shows how the relationship between business and IT can be balanced through BPM. If the logic of this operational triple-intersection is observed the very best of ground is created for developing project mandates and building business blueprints for projects. The result will be a better-balanced cross-functional basis for analysing risks and minimizing flawed deliverables from IT projects.

Many larger IT projects like ERP implementations, have ended up meeting expectations only partly. They were supposed to build a fully integrated wall-to-wall solution but eventually ended up supporting already established organizational structures. The primary reason for this is the traditional identification of solution owners within "Core Business". When doing so, focus remains on issues which the Value Driver Model© includes in the “Optimization” Value Driver Field. If such a business/IT view is not tested against "Business Process Management" and a supporting process architecture, the developed solutions are bound to be functionally siloed. However, the IT-developers are typically blamed for this. The lack of success, the logic says, is due to IT having a too narrow technical approach and not understanding the need of the business.

The way out of such a business-versus-IT stalemate is to move from functionality ownership within line of business to a wider process awareness handled from a wall-to-wall perspective by a strategic Business Process Owner. BPM is the line to take, just like shown by the Value Driver Model© logic. The Value Driver Field “Configuration” only emerges if the sphere “Business Process Management” is put into the picture and the business gets a structured method for describing and communicating its ideas for improved business processes.