---
title: Six Enablers Framework (Sharp / Burlton)
type: concept
tags: [bpm, diagnostic, assessment, process-redesign]
sources: ["[[sources/2014-sharp-whats-wrong-with-this-process]]"]
created: 2026-04-16
updated: 2026-04-16
---

# Six Enablers Framework

Diagnostic framework for assessing **what makes a business process perform well or poorly**. Developed independently by [[entities/alec-sharp|Alec Sharp]] and Roger Burlton in the mid-1990s; Sharp's version is the one used in [[sources/2014-sharp-whats-wrong-with-this-process]] and the *Workflow Modeling* textbook (Artech House 2008).

## The six enablers

An **enabler** is a factor that can be adjusted — positively or negatively — to impact process performance. Most real as-is processes were not *engineered*; the enablers "just happened, evolved, or mutated over time" (Sharp 2014).

| Enabler | Sub-elements |
|---|---|
| **Business Process Design (Workflow)** | Roles · steps & decisions · flow-sequence and handoffs |
| **Information Systems** | Applications · data · information · integration · devices and platforms |
| **Motivation & Measurement** | Assessment and incentives · implicit and explicit · process KPIs vs function KPIs |
| **Human Resources & Organization** | Skills · matching roles to activities · recruitment, selection, placement · organisation design |
| **Policies & Rules** | Constraints · business rules the process enforces · external & internal |
| **Facilities (or other, e.g. funding)** | Workplace layout · equipment · fixtures and furnishings |

Sharp labels **Business Process Design** and **Information Systems** as "the usual suspects" — they get most analysis attention but are rarely the whole story. The remaining three (Motivation & Measurement, HR & Organization, Policies & Rules) are usually the actual explanation for why a process under-performs.

## Use in diagnostic interviews

After an as-is process map (swimlane) is produced, guide stakeholders through the map **one enabler at a time** with diagnostic questions:

- **Workflow**: Is each step adding value, placed at the right point, sequential or parallel as appropriate?
- **Information Systems**: Are the process, steps, and actors supported by the right technology?
- **Motivation & Measurement**: How is performance measured, and is that appropriate?
- **Human Resources & Organization**: Are roles appropriately defined, staffed with the right skills, deployed effectively?
- **Policies & Rules**: What policies and rules constrain or are enforced by the process?
- **Facilities**: Are layout, furnishings, and equipment optimal or impeding?

Sharp's observation: a blanket "what do you think of this process?" elicits uncritical thinking; focusing on **one enabler at a time** elicits entirely different conclusions. Worked example (Sharp 2014 Nov): a 19-actor sequential approval process "must be fine, it's worked for 30 years" → enabler-by-enabler exam reveals dysfunction in every dimension.

## Typical as-is issues by enabler (Sharp Fig. 3)

| Enabler | Common as-is issues |
|---|---|
| Workflow | Too many actors; non-value-added steps; duplicate steps; delays and bottlenecks; excessively sequential |
| Information Systems | Unavailable information; data re-keying; missing functionality; awkward interfaces; lack of workflow support |
| Motivation & Measurement | Inappropriate performer or process measures; internal rather than customer focus; measures of tasks vs outcomes |
| HR & Organization | Mismatches between task value and performer; inappropriate recruiting and placement; too little empowerment |
| Policies & Rules | Out-of-date policies or numerical limits; excessive review or approval steps; restrictive labor contracts; conflicting policies |
| Facilities | Mismatch of work needs and facility; no support for teamwork; layout that impedes flow |

## Relation to other frameworks
- **Process enablers vs context factors**: Sharp's enablers are *levers you can adjust*; [[frameworks/bpm-context-framework|vom Brocke's context factors]] are *conditions you cannot change easily*. Complementary.
- **Hammer & Champy's "Case for Action"**: Sharp's initial assessment adapts H&C's 5-point case for action (business context, business problem, marketplace demands, diagnostics, cost of inaction) into three stakeholder-anchored questions.
- **Burlton's hexagon**: equivalent structure, developed concurrently; Burlton labels differ slightly but the concept is the same.

## Related
- [[sources/2014-sharp-whats-wrong-with-this-process]] — primary source for this framing.
- [[sources/2014-sharp-using-scope-models]] — uses the six enablers as one of three assessment approaches.
- [[syntheses/interview-structuring-for-process-models]] — Sharp's enabler-lens questions are a complement to Dumas's exception-taxonomy rainy-day questions.
- [[syntheses/qualitative-discovery-method-selection-matrix]]