The Pitfalls of BPM initiatives

This article is published on the substack account of Whats Your Baseline?.

Coming from a finance background, a striking difference stands out to me between BPM initiatives and financial ones. Financial control is widely regarded as a basic necessity: non‑negotiable and self‑evident. BPM, on the other hand, is often perceived as a luxury that still needs to be justified and “sold” within the organization.

No executive would ever say, “We don’t have the resources to run a finance department, so let’s just skip it and see what happens.” Yet when it comes to BPM, this line of thinking is surprisingly common: no clear priority, no dedicated resources: let’s first try without.

And I do think they are right in more cases then we like to admit (huh? yes indeed).

Not because BPM lacks value, but because too many initiatives are fragile by design.

WHY, WHEN & HOW

Having set up BPM (related) initiatives myself, and having spoken with dozens of BPM professionals and organizations around the world, I have observed a number of recurring pitfalls that I would like to explore in this article.

At their core, these fragilities tend to fall into three main categories:

WHY — referring to (the absence of) a clear underlying objective of the initiative
WHEN — referring to the right (or bad) timing and organizational readiness
HOW — referring to supporting tools and models, as well as organizational capabilities and structure.

These three dimensions—WHY, WHEN, and HOW—form a practical lens to assess whether a BPM initiative has a realistic chance of success or is fragile by design.

Although I could elaborate on many more examples within each of these categories, I will limit myself to the most common and recurring ones discussed below.

WHY

Without a clear objective, a BPM initiative struggles to deliver clear and sustained value. When the “why” is unclear, the initiative risks becoming directionless, fragmented, and driven by tooling or methodology rather than business need.

The underlying objective of a BPM initiative can take different forms, and in practice is often a combination of several drivers. It may be compliance‑driven, focused on risk management, control, and regulatory requirements. It may aim to improve operational excellence, targeting efficiency, quality, cost reduction, or customer experience. In other cases, BPM serves as an enabler for broader organizational transitions such as a merger, carve‑out, system replacement, or large‑scale transformation.

Each of these drivers demands a different emphasis, scope, and pace. A compliance‑driven initiative typically prioritizes consistency, traceability, and documentation, while an operational excellence initiative focuses more on insight, improvement, and execution. Transition‑driven BPM initiatives often need to support speed, clarity, and alignment during periods of uncertainty.

Being explicit about the why helps set expectations, guides design choices, and determines what success looks like.

WHEN

Poor timing can severely undermine the value of a BPM initiative. Just as important as knowing when to start is knowing when not to.

First things first

If an organization is in crisis mode or dealing with too many transitions at once, the priority should be to stabilize the fundamentals. In such situations, there is simply no mental bandwidth or organizational capacity for additional initiatives. Launching a BPM initiative under these conditions—even with C‑level sponsorship—is likely to consume time, money, and effort without delivering meaningful value.

Instead, start at a higher level by focusing on strategy, structure, and people. Establish a clear strategy to align with, clarify structure and responsibilities, put critical roles in place, and address major issues.

Once these foundations are secured, the organization is in a far stronger position to introduce BPM. At that point, a BPM initiative can genuinely support the next transition rather than compete with it or work against it.

The dependency on Executive Buy-In

If you are fortunate enough to have C‑level sponsorship (otherwise, don’t start at all) I should still offer a warning. BPM initiatives are inherently fragile and highly dependent on that sponsorship, especially in their early stages, when their added value has yet to be proven.

When your sponsor leaves the building, that can very well be the end of the initiative—or at least the end of it in the form you originally envisioned. Executive stability is part of organizational readiness.

I once experienced multiple C‑level changes within just a few months. The narrative shifted rapidly from “We basically have to do it,” to “This is brilliant!—please enroll further,” and then abruptly to “How do we scale down and cancel the license?”

But once a BPM initiative has reached a more mature stage and demonstrated tangible business value, it becomes far less vulnerable to the departure of a single C‑level sponsor. At that point, the initiative stands on its own merits rather than on individual advocacy alone.

HOW

Even with a clear objective and the right timing, BPM initiatives can still fail when structure, governance, or foundational knowledge are insufficient.

Positioning and Role of the Centre of Excellence

There is no single “right way” to set up a Process Centre of Excellence (CoE). The appropriate model depends on organizational maturity and scale, but both overly centralized and overly hybrid setups can limit value if not carefully balanced.

Equally important is the CoE’s position in the organization. When BPM is embedded in IT, it often remains IT‑driven rather than enterprise‑wide. To drive business value, the CoE should ideally report to the CEO or COO, or in some cases the CFO, ensuring alignment with strategic objectives.

A common pitfall arises when BPM initiatives run alongside IT‑led technology programs. These programs often create CoE‑like teams, which can blur roles and ownership. In some cases, waiting until such programs are completed is the wiser choice.

In addition, the role of a Process CoE is not to fix isolated departmental issues! Its purpose is to safeguard coherence, remove systemic barriers, and enable cross‑functional improvement, without becoming bureaucratic or slowing the organization down.

“Ah, the CoE—that’s the team we work around instead of with to actually get things done.” Is something you don’t want to hear.

True story. Not mine. 😉

From Architecture‑First to End‑User‑First

Most BPM tooling and documentation initiatives are still driven by an architecture‑first mindset. While structure, repositories, and governance are important, solutions are too often designed from a conceptual perspective rather than the needs of end users.

Intuitive navigation, accurate (or even real-time) content, easy collaboration, and flexible views should be basic requirements. When these are lacking, BPM quickly acquires a bureaucratic image—regardless of its original intent. Although tools are improving, especially with the rise of process intelligence and process mining, usability remains a critical success factor.

Modeling Discipline and Capability

More detailed models do not automatically create more value. Over‑modeling increases maintenance effort and undermines trust in the repository. In practice, a small subset of detailed processes delivers most business value.

A high‑level value stream architecture should provide the overall structure, while detailed modeling is applied selectively and with discipline. This decision—where detail adds value and where it does not—is a core responsibility of the CoE.

Finally, to my surprise, many organizations lack basic BPM and enterprise‑architecture knowledge, even larger corporates. This creates dependency on external consultants and weakens long‑term sustainability. The solution is not deep expertise everywhere, but a solid internal baseline: shared standards, lightweight training, and an internal CoE acting as knowledge steward, supported (but not replaced) by external expertise.

LOOK BEFORE YOUR LEAP

In Dutch, there is a saying: “Bezint eer gij begint”—look before you leap. In the context of BPM, this means being explicit about why you are starting, honest about when the organization is ready, and disciplined in how you set it up. Ignoring any one of these dimensions increases fragility and erodes trust in BPM as a meaningful capability.