{"id":24138,"date":"2015-04-02T09:04:00","date_gmt":"2015-04-02T09:04:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kepner-tregoe.com\/process-excellence-success-is-in-the-details\/"},"modified":"2025-07-10T14:38:29","modified_gmt":"2025-07-10T14:38:29","slug":"process-excellence-success-is-in-the-details","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kepner-tregoe.com\/zh-hans\/blogs\/process-excellence-success-is-in-the-details\/","title":{"rendered":"Process Excellence: Success is in the details"},"content":{"rendered":"

In my last blog<\/a> I discussed the role of metrics and how to complement lagging with leading indicators and quantitative with qualitative measures. I also established that at the functional\/departmental level the most important metrics are process metrics. Processes are about \u2018how work gets done\u2019 and how service gets delivered to customers.<\/p>\n

The truth is that many organizations still appear to be struggling when it comes to business process thinking, despite widely accepted process standards like ITIL\u00ae\u2026<\/p>\n

Finding the right level of detail seems to be one of the common struggles. We often find one of two situations in process definition: lack of detail or way too much detail.<\/p>\n

In the first scenario, service processes are defined, but at a level that\u2019s too high and too generic to provide any real guidance for the person performing the task. I have seen this many times in Incident and Problem Management processes where the flow goes something like this:<\/p>\n

Log the issue > Determine severity > Route the problem to the right resource > Conduct analysis > Provide solution > Close case<\/p>\n

These steps are of course describing the essential process, but are so obvious for anyone who is working in this function that they don\u2019t add any value. Questions that remain, for example, are:<\/p>\n