Two Order-to-Cash Processes
A logistics group has merged two operating units. Unit A's order-to-cash process has 12 steps; Unit B's has 18. Each operations director insists their own process is 'the business architecture'. A four-year-old capability map lists 140 capabilities, but only 20% have named owners. The CIO wants a target business architecture in eight weeks so that an application selection can start. The executive team wants one harmonised process; operations resist because local customer contracts differ. No value-stream model exists.
1. What should the architect do first, and what should be deferred?
Read the worked answer
Start with the baseline, not the target process. Build a current-state business architecture for both units: refresh and assign ownership to the capability map, model the order-to-cash value streams, map organisation and roles, and record pain points. Use the eight weeks to produce an agreed capability heat map and target value streams with variation points, not a full 12- or 18-step process design. Detailed process design and application selection should wait until target capabilities and value streams are agreed; otherwise the application choice will hard-code one unit's local model. Capability ownership must be part of the work, because a map with only 20% ownership cannot govern change.
2. How should the architect resolve the 12-step versus 18-step conflict?
Read the worked answer
Do not choose Unit A's 12 steps or Unit B's 18 as 'the' process. Model both and classify each difference: value-adding variation required by customer contracts, regulatory or policy variation, or avoidable waste. Business scenarios and value-stream analysis show which steps serve which customer outcome. Define the target at value-stream and capability level, explicitly allowing controlled variation points where contracts differ. Then set process ownership and a change route for local variants. This gives the executive one harmonised model without pretending local contractual differences do not exist.