Death of the BIA Part II (“The Software Strikes Back”)

A little while ago I published a brief article on a public portal setting out my view on ‘The Death of the BIA’. Let’s call it Part 1 – the original! Now this wasn’t that I saw that the process of measuring impact as part of the plan development and management work-flow disappearing, it was a simple reflection on the following.

The BIA as an instrument has arrived in its present form as a function of the technology, processes and practices of users to-date. With disconnected word and excel documents and the need to try and manage large amounts of data across expanding and diverse organisations, the end result was small chunks of process in corporate silos. Of course, one inevitable outcome of this is questionable data accuracy and the inability to extract meaningful data and reports.

So, we have arrived at something by default – no blame and no reason other than the natural evolutionary process of developing activities in organisations using available technology.

My article prompted a number of comments, some of them (I have to say) missing the fundamental point entirely and setting out that my words were purely sensationalism and not worth the screen space. OK, I can take criticism but only if there is evidence to support and a degree of thought engaged in the process, rather than knee-jerk reactions.

And the point is ……?

The reason that I originally published my view was that, amongst other things, we had developed functionality within ClearView which enables the BIA and Plan processes to be managed in one simple workflow rather than having items entitled BIA and Plan. Why so?

To end users, single workflow makes the whole process much easier. I am prompted to answer questions. I insert data and/or select from drop-downs. I complete pre-formatted (and in some cases partially completed) templates. I gain approval. I can then access the information in different formats/ways i.e. print formats for certain elements of data collected (core BIA and dependency elements etc) or accessibility (mobile view of actionable plan and communication elements etc).

Software enables data to be linked when drawing from golden source. We are all looking at the same view. If the golden source data is inaccurate, at least everyone has the same inaccurate view! Indeed, software can actively help to refine golden source data – example as follows. We extract people data from HR systems and find we have what appears to be the same user with records in different parts of the organisation. This produces a warning flag. The reason is that the employee has moved internally but the old HR record has not been cancelled, so their corporate identity has been duplicated. This is resolved at source and then the data import for this record is corrected.

Important note here: When discussing with some clients or prospects, the issue of extracting accurate golden source data is sometimes seen as a bridge too far, particularly in large, complex organisations. My response is simple here. Is it better to have 90% data accuracy or 0%? You need to start on the path and then refine the process. If you don’t take that first step, you will never reach your goal.

So, what’s happened?

As in every good sequel we need to have a continuing story and, here we are, some months on.

The reason that now is relevant is that we have found that pretty much every one of our new clients have taken to using the ‘single entity’ approach i.e. merging BIA and Plan in one ‘Plan development’ process and as one instrument for end users. Indeed, many of our existing clients are also migrating on to this.

Less confusion for end users. For most people in the business the term BIA is just one of many technical terms that ‘internal experts’ use and which, frankly, is forgettable. We need to have a plan which we can test to ensure that, if something happens, we can recover quickly and effectively. The fact that this plan development process consists of a number of individual activities is just due process. Frankly, if we can do this in one work-flow process, get it approved and then have access to information that is short, focused and actionable, then so much the better.

Now, given that the BC industry has historically, dare I say, been driven by professionals with long experience and ‘tradition’ at heart, I was a little surprised by the eagerness of the rate of take-up of our new single entity function. But, it makes sense, it helps users, it improves process and, from me, a well done to all BC practitioners out there that have taken this very practical and pragmatic leap

Want to know more or let me have your thoughts? Drop me a line and I’ll be very happy to discuss. Or post a comment on here and we can see what the consensus view is.