Answering common objections to process management
Even in 2023, many large and successful organizations have not invested time or resources into developing a process management program for their business. They have no formal way of knowing how they do what they do. No standard system for managing those key processes, ensuring they remain relevant and high-performing. No established method of evaluating and improving their processes.
Certainly, for some of these organizations, the lack of a process management program is unintentional. They are unaware that such a practice exists but would be more than willing to pursue it under the appropriate circumstances.
Other organizations have intentionally neglected the discipline of process management – they have been presented with the concept and, for various reasons, have rejected it. This is the organization I would like to speak to with this post.
Below I will survey five objections organizations commonly have towards the discipline of process management and attempt to provide some common sense retorts.
Objection 1 – “That’s not a priority for us.”
How this objection normally goes:
What someone really means when they say this is that process management seems like a nice-to-have, not a must have. And, consequently, it’s not a priority. Perhaps they’ll consider it at some point down the road, but they just can’t afford to invest time and money into something that will only bring marginal benefits to their business.
This objection, like others on this list, stems from a misunderstanding of what process management actually is. If people think of process management as nothing more than process mapping “just because”, or simply the digitization of existing process manuals or paper procedure documents, then sure, it’s always going to be a nice-to-have.
After all, they’re doing ok without it, right? So why get serious about understanding how you deliver value, documenting those standards in a clear and accessible format, sharing those work resources with the people who need it most, and then working to improve them over time to the benefit of various stakeholders…?...
Hold on just a second – that sounds like more than merely process mapping for the sake of process mapping… Exactly! Which leads us directly to how we overcome this objection.
How to overcome this objection:
Overcoming this objection starts with clearly articulating what process management actually is. In a sentence; process management is the practice of improving company performance through managing and optimizing business processes. I have written about this before – here, for example.
Once you have dismantled the process management straw man that the objector set up, you can then dive deeper into some of the points above based on the needs of the organization. Maybe that means showing how processes are the means by which value is created for the customer. Or how clear and accessible processes will help employees be more successful. Or how process improvements are more easily found and executed with documented standards in place. Identify a handful of real business problems that would be greatly relieved by clear, accurate, and accessible process standards.
Regardless, overcoming this objection starts by clearly articulating what process management is and what it is not.
Objection 2 – “We already do that.”
How this objection goes:
“We already do that.” is generally code for – “We have some procedure documents stored on a network drive somewhere...” For many people in leadership, having documented procedures in any form is a win – especially if they are “digitized” and stored on a network drive or company intranet. I mean, what more can you ask for, right?
Even though you know there is a huge gap between digitized procedures and a process management program that adds real value to the organization, the leaders in your business may not know that. To them, the two things may be one in the same. Overcoming this objection will hinge on you highlighting the gap that exists between those two states.
How to overcome this objection:
Show how the current state of random digitized procedures on a network drive is vastly different from the desired future state – an organized framework of key business processes made accessible to the workforce in a central location.
The current state is unorganized and not easily navigated. The future state is organized and simple to use and understand.
The current state is unmanaged and outdated. The future state is nurtured and reliable.
The current state is inadequate for process improvement. The future state is an accurate blueprint that can be systematically improved.
And the list goes on – the key to overcoming this objection is clear communication of the current and future state. Just as a black cloth serves to highlight the brilliant characteristics of a quality diamond – so the current state of random and outdated procedures will highlight the value to be had by implementing true process management.
Objection 3 – “We’re just interested in automation.”
How this objection goes:
We live in a world where nearly anything we desire is literally at our fingertips. The unfathomable speed at which technology has changed our world can hardly be overstated. This has created expectations that are not always realistic.
These unrealistic expectations exist in board rooms, cubicle farms, and shop floors all across the world. So, naturally, when we propose that our processes should be improved, the knee-jerk response is; “I agree – let’s automate it!”
The thought of first taking the time to clearly understand the current state of said processes and identify gaps in performance before automating seems like a form of cruel and unusual punishment – a throwback to the stone age. I mean, can’t we just automate everything now and get it all over with? Why waste time with process management when we can just “automate it.”
But what, exactly, is “it”? What are we automating?
How to overcome this objection:
Automation is a process optimization tactic and logically follows initial process documentation and management. Flipping the order – or ignoring process documentation entirely – will lead to frustration. This message must be clearly articulated to show the need for process management before process automation.
After all, it only makes sense to start an automation project knowing the true flow of a process: What inputs are needed? What roles are involved? Where do the hand-offs occur? What systems are used? What instructions are followed? How does the process perform against key performance metrics? What outputs are produced? What exceptions and variations exist?
These are the types of clarifying questions a functioning process management system can answer. Without having the answers to these questions, automation projects will struggle to even make headway, or worse, will be completed and implemented creating more inefficiencies for the business.
Objection 4 – “Yeah, that seems important, but we don’t have a center of excellence here.”
How this objection goes:
This objection is typically put forward by someone who intuitively understands that the discipline of process management would be a value add to the business. They don’t need much convincing that it is a worthwhile endeavor. However, they don’t know where to start. They don’t know who is going to lead the effort. Perhaps they even think that a new function or department within the organization will have to be created to support such an initiative.
Although the creation of a process center of excellence or dedicated “process management” roles within the business can be helpful – it need not be a requirement.
How to overcome this objection:
There are only three requirements, from a human resource standpoint, for beginning the work of documenting, managing, and optimizing business processes. You need process owners who have 1) the requisite process know-how, 2) the willingness to share their knowledge, and 3) the capacity to document and manage their assigned process.
Many organizations find these people within the regular workforce of the business. In fact, that is preferable. Those process doers are the true subject matter experts in the organization. No ivory tower “process manager” will ever understand the nuances of their work like they do – I mean, they live and breath it every day.
Equipping these workers with some basic enablement and a user-friendly process tool can lead to amazing results – no center of excellence required. Yes, having a process champion to oversee the larger process management effort is helpful, but that does not require the creation of a new department or function within the organization.
Objection 5 – “Our work is too unique to try and standardize.”
How this objection goes:
For many workers and leaders – and I must admit, I’ve been there myself – any talk of process documentation or standardization feels like an attack on their personal liberty and can elicit immediate pushback:
“My work is so unique! You just don’t understand. It can’t possibly be captured in a process.”
Or my personal favorite – “We don’t want our employees to lose their ‘entrepreneurial spirit’ by giving them processes to follow!”
Additionally, talk of process management can cause other people to fear for their jobs – “If I share my process with you, then you don’t need me anymore.”
All of these are important concerns and should be addressed.
How to overcome this objection:
When speaking with leaders who are downplaying the importance of process management as described above, you can often turn the conversation around by asking a series of questions:
Are you ok if employees in your organization complete their work in radically different ways, as long as they get to the same end? What if that means Employee A takes twice as long, creates twice as many defects, and exposes the company to twice as much risk as Employee B?
Suddenly, guarding the “entrepreneurial spirit” of employees becomes less important when leaders see how a lack of standards can lead to undesired work outputs.
Moreover, standard processes are key to directing employee creativity in a helpful direction. They can put their experience and brainpower to work by improving the current safest, easiest, and most waste-free way of doing work. This truth also helps alleviate fears others may have of process management suddenly making them disposable – some of their energy can now be freed up and put towards process improvement instead of process execution alone.
Conclusion
It is rare that answering only one of these objections will yield a coalition of leaders and influencers who are totally bought in on process management as a discipline. Often, one objection leads to another. But my hope is that this post has given you some talking points for navigating those conversations.
While answering objections, it is always a good idea to keep in view the question: “What’s in it for me?” – from the unique perspective of the objector you are speaking to. At the end of the day, understanding the pain points and needs of your audience is essential.
Finally, remember that most objections circle back to a misunderstanding of what process management actually is: the practice of improving company performance through managing and optimizing business processes. Clearly defining your terms and goals will go a long way in creating needed advocates for a successful process management implementation.
