Hi Andrea,

Yes, we’re using the APQC framework.
APQC follows the same structure (Process Group, Process Titel, Activity, Tasks) and starts with verbs! So handy. And since we can use the swim-lanes in Promapp to determine who is executing the activity, we don’t have to make changes when certain functions are completed by a different department than suggested by the APQC.
APQC does not identify Triggers and Outputs, but instead the first and last activity of each process often translate to trigger and output.

Cheers, Bobi

Hello,

I’ve used this framework a few times, where I am currently, I think it would be challenging for general people to navigate due to complex division/business unit structure.

However, I can see how if the business process maturity is raised, then we can implement APQC.  I did put in two of the sections and found most business users struggling with it.

Hope that helps.

Wayne

Thanks Bobi - do you find yourselves using Process Variations a lot to capture processes that are required for a different audience under the same APQC area? 

Thanks Wayne - we are keen to the use the framework but are concerned around the ease of business use. 

We are using it to implement BPM and Nintex at a very low maturity Org and APQC has been a huge help in keeping things organized and also in helping us identify core processes in each business unit.

It seems to be a good guide to get started, but as others have shared it is hard for end users to correlate the groups to their own departments and business units. We are in the process of rebranding the names of the categories and some of the high level processes so they are relevant to our users. 

It has definitely been a struggle to say the least but I know that without the APQC framework we wouldn’t have made as much progress as quickly as we have. 

APQC, Baldridge Excellence Framework, ProSci/ADKAR are guiding us in this new venture :)