Critical Success Factors for the Transition to a Chief Process Officer Function

In one of my earlier series of blogs, I have talked about the future of IT and indicated that we are getting to a point where the CIO function would either diminish to a provider of utility-like IT services or would assume broader responsibilities including shared services of both IT and non-IT nature, business process optimization and data/information management. Some authors have referred to the broader responsibilities as the arena of the Chief Process (and Innovation) Officer. In this edition, I will look at the key success factors in the journey from Chief Information Officer to Chief Process Officer.

Let's first talk titles. Unlike the well-established and recognized title of CIO, the CPO title is new and infrequently used. There are a few (dated) articles in which reference is made to the Chief Process Officer. Particularly, an interview with Michael Hammer (author of "Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution (Harper Collins, 1993)" published on CIO Insight (http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Expert-Voices/CIO-as-Chief-Process-Officer-Not-Strategic-Leader) is quite insightful. 

The CPO title itself only covers a part of the accountability, but the process element of the title is critical in positioning the function as a business function. In enterprise architecture terms, it adds process design and optimization to the IT infrastructure (network, servers, user devices, etc.), application, IT security, integration and data stack. Joining the accountability for process optimization, information management (through the use of applications) and data structure (master data) will enable the CPO to add business value by ensuring that these elements are aligned and operate in harmony. This will reduce waste and rework, increase the speed of operation and implementation of new operations through process standardization. Today, in many organizations the disconnect between process and IT leads to failed IT projects and business optimization projects resulting in low credibility for either function.

So, when an organization makes the bold decision to establish a CPO function, what are the key success factors? I have found the following:

1. CPO needs to be founded on a strong enterprise architecture including data architecture, process architecture, application architecture and IT infrastructure. Without this foundation in place, building the house will be impossible.
2. Obtain buy-in across the business with strong support from the Board. Without this, the journey will be long and painful. The buy-in needs to be obtained prior and during the implementation of the function.
3. Ensure that the transformation is not only in name and that the process and information management elements work closely together. Make sure that the CPO function is not just a renamed IT organization with a few process optimization staff added in.
4. Don't loose the CIO. The management of IT remains critical both to provide end-users with services and to establish and manage the required application and IT infrastructure. The IT organization can either be stand alone or included in the CPO domain. 
5. Bring the best staff from the organization and industry to the CPO function. In particular, staff with a strong business background and in-depth understanding of the company's business activities.
6. There should be a business case and/or agreed performance objectives for the CPO function with an agreed end game. The latter is very much about a vision of how the business will operate in the future (which processes and IT platform) with lead performance indicators for key processes. Implementing a CPO function may require rethinking of the management approach.

The CPO function is quite new and arguably at the start of its development. I would be very interested in receiving feedback and other thought-provoking input on this topic.

Frits de Vroet