Few executives question the idea that by redesigning business processes--work that runs from end to end across an enterprise--they can achieve extraordinary improvements in cost, quality, speed, profitability, and other key areas. Yet in spite of their intentions and investments, many executives flounder, unsure about what exactly needs to be changed, by how much, and when. As a result, many organizations make little progress--if any at all--in their attempts to transform business processes. Michael Hammer has spent the past five years working with a group of leading companies to develop the Process and Enterprise Maturity Model (PEMM), a new framework that helps executives comprehend, formulate, and assess process-based transformation efforts. He has identified two distinct groups of characteristics that are needed for business processes to perform exceptionally well over a long period of time. Process enablers, which affect individual processes, determine how well a process is able to function. They are mutually interdependent--if any are missing, the others will be ineffective. However, enablers are not enough to develop high-performance processes; they only provide the potential to deliver high performance. A company must also possess or establish organizational capabilities that allow the business to offer a supportive environment. Together, the enablers and the capabilities provide an effective way for companies to plan and evaluate process-based transformations. PEMM is different from other frameworks, such as Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), because it applies to all industries and all processes. The author describes how several companies--including Michelin, CSAA, Tetra Pak, Shell, Clorox, and Schneider National--have successfully used PEMM in various ways and at different stages to evaluate the progress of their process-based transformation efforts.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. In recent years, companies have developed much more sophisticated strategic measurement systems, based on such tools as the balanced scorecard, key performance indicators, computerized dashboards, and the like. Nonetheless, there seems to be a widespread consensus that they measure too much, too little, or the wrong things, and that in any event, they don't use their metrics effectively. Why? On the basis of discussions with hundreds of managers, noted management thinker, author, and professor Michael Hammer (Hammer and Co.) concludes that the operational metrics that companies commonly use make little or no sense. In the core article of this special report, "The 7 Deadly Sins of Performance Measurement and How to Avoid Them," Hammer identifies seven common mistakes--the deadly sins--that seriously impede the relevance and usefulness of operating measures. He also offers managers some means for redemption. In addition, four prominent managers--Carole J. Haney (Boeing Co.), Anders Wester (Tetra Pak Group), Rick Ciccone (Procter & Gamble Co.), and Paul Gaffney (Desktone Inc.)--comment on Hammer's thesis through the prism of their own experience in the field and offer insights from their own philosophy of performance measurement.

Breakthrough innovations--not just steady improvements--in operations can destroy competitors and shake up entire industries. Just look at Dell, Toyota, and Wal-Mart. But fewer than 10% of large companies have made serious attempts to achieve operational innovation. Why? One reason, contends the author, is that business culture undervalues operations--they're not as sexy as deals or acquisitions. In addition, many executives who rose through the ranks of finance or sales aren't familiar with operations--and they aren't interested in learning more. Finally, because no one holds the title vice-president of operational innovation, it doesn't have a natural home in the organization, so it's easily overlooked. Fortunately, all of these barriers can be overcome. This article offers practical advice on how to develop operational innovations, such as looking for role models outside your industry to emulate and identifying--and then defying--constraining assumptions about how work should be done. The author also discusses the best way to implement operational innovations. For instance, because they are disruptive by nature, projects should be concentrated in those activities with the greatest impact on enterprise strategic goals. Operational innovation may feel unglamorous or unfamiliar to many executives, but it is the only lasting basis for superior performance.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. The quality initiative Six Sigma is sweeping the United States. Is it good for whatever ails your company? Consultant Michael Hammer thinks not. He warns that in their quest for operations performance improvement, many business leaders fail to distinguish its strengths from its weaknesses. Hammer presents a strategic, holistic approach--business process management--in which Six Sigma is only one of many useful initiatives. If a business process, such as billing customers, is fundamentally defective, why use Six Sigma to improve the performance of it? Companies that Hammer calls process enterprises (Caterpillar, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Progressive Casualty Insurance, Bombardier, and IBM) have found more success redesigning whole processes. Certainly, Six Sigma's ability to unearth root causes of problems is outstanding for narrow cost-saving improvements. But it deploys statistical analytic tools to uncover flaws in the execution of an existing process without asking whether the process itself is flawed. Six Sigma assumes that the existing design is fundamentally sound--a dangerous assumption. For peak performance, companies should position Six Sigma in the context of process management and assign process owners. Process owners ensure that all performance initiatives (Six Sigma, enterprise resource planning, balanced scorecard, customer relationship management and so on) are integrated to support strategic goals. Fitting Six Sigma into the process-management framework allows organizations to enjoy Six Sigma's benefits while keeping it away from areas where it doesn't belong. Process enterprises already are reaping cost savings, accelerated new-product introduction, improvements in customer satisfaction, and increases in profitability.

Most companies do a great job promoting efficiency within their own walls, streamlining internal processes wherever possible. But they have less success coordinating cross-company business interactions. When data pass between companies, inconsistencies, errors, and misunderstandings routinely arise, leading to wasted work--for instance, the same sales, order entry, and customer data may be entered repeatedly into different systems. Typically, scores of employees at each company manage these cumbersome interactions. The costs of such inefficiencies are very real and very large. In this article, Michael Hammer outlines the activities and goals used in streamlining cross-company processes. He breaks down the approach into four stages: scoping--identifying the business process for redesign and selecting a partner; organizing--establishing a joint committee to oversee the redesign and convening a design team to implement it; redesigning--taking apart and reassembling the process, with performance goals in mind; and implementing--rolling out the new process and communicating it across the collaborating companies. The author describes how several companies have streamlined their supply-chain and product development processes. Plastics compounder Geon integrated its forecasting and fulfillment processes with those of its main supplier after watching inventories, working capital, and shipping times creep up. General Mills coordinated the delivery of its yogurt with Land O'Lakes; butter and yogurt travel cost effectively in the same trucks to the same stores. Hammer says this new kind of collaboration promises to change the traditional vocabulary of corporate relationships. What if you and I sell different products to the same customer? We're not competitors, but what are we? In the past, we didn't care. Now, we should, the author says.

Many companies have succeeded in reengineering their core processes, combining related activities from different departments and cutting out ones that don't add value. Few, though, have aligned their organizations with their processes. The result is a form of cognitive dissonance as the new, integrated processes pull people in one direction and the old, fragmented management structures pull them in another. That's not the way it has to be. In recent years, forward-thinking companies like IBM, Texas Instruments, and Duke Power have begun to make the leap from process redesign to process management. They've appointed some of their best managers to be process owners, giving them real authority over work and budgets. They've shifted the focus of their measurement and compensation systems from unit goals to process goals. They've changed the way they assign and train employees, emphasizing whole processes rather than narrow tasks. They've thought carefully about the strategic trade-offs between adopting uniform processes and allowing different units to do things their own way. And they've made subtle but fundamental cultural changes, stressing teamwork and customers over turf and hierarchy. These companies are emerging from all those changes as true process enterprises--businesses whose management structures are in harmony, rather than at war, with their core processes. And their organizations are becoming much more flexible, adaptive, and responsive as a result.

Companies rarely achieve radical performance improvements when they invest in information technology. Most companies use computers to speed up, not break away from, business processes and rules that are decades, if not centuries, out of date. But the power of computers can be released by "reengineering" work: abandoning old ways of working and creating entirely new ones.

A major obstacle to the implementation of information technology is the lack of understanding between company technical experts and senior managers. One way to blend both perspectives is to establish a task force that solicits input from management and creates a set of principles to guide subsequent investments in IT. By drawing on 10 to 15 statements that reflect management's basic beliefs about how the company should use IT, the task force translates the language of corporate strategy into computerese. These statements, or principles, can help speed up the decision-making process and ensure that every IT investment helps the company achieve its strategic goals.