Business Process Management Journal
A st ruct ured evaluat ion of business process improvement approaches Gregor Zellner
Article information:
To cite this document:Gregor Zellner, (2011),"A structured evaluation of business process improvement approaches", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 2 pp. 203 - 237
Permanent link t o t his document :
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637151111122329
Downloaded on: 19 March 2017, At : 20: 23 (PT)
Ref erences: t his document cont ains ref erences t o 139 ot her document s. To copy t his document : permissions@emeraldinsight . com
The f ullt ext of t his document has been downloaded 7154 t imes since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2008),"Business process improvement: empirical assessment and extensions", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 Iss 6 pp. 778-802 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637150810915973
(1998),"Business process management: a review and evaluation", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 4 Iss 3 pp. 214-225 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637159810224322
Access t o t his document was grant ed t hrough an Emerald subscript ion provided by emerald-srm: 602779 [ ]
For Authors
If you would like t o writ e f or t his, or any ot her Emerald publicat ion, t hen please use our Emerald f or Aut hors service inf ormat ion about how t o choose which publicat ion t o writ e f or and submission guidelines are available f or all. Please visit www. emeraldinsight . com/ aut hors f or more inf ormat ion.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and pract ice t o t he benef it of societ y. The company manages a port f olio of more t han 290 j ournals and over 2, 350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an ext ensive range of online product s and addit ional cust omer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Relat ed cont ent and download inf ormat ion correct at t ime of download.
A structured evaluation
of business process
improvement approaches
Gregor Zellner
Department of Management Information Systems,
University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
Abstract
Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to provide a structured overview of so-called business process improvement (BPI) approaches and their contribution to the actual act of improving. Even though a lot is said about BPI, there is still a lack of supporting the act of improving the process. Most approaches concentrate on what needs to be done before and after the improvement act, but the act of improving itself still seems to be a black box.
Design/methodology/approach– This paper is mainly based on a review of literature that deals with the term “Business Process Improvement”. The analysis of the literature is supported by qualitative content analysis. The structure of the evaluation follows the mandatory elements of a method (MEM).
Findings– A lot of literature and consulting approaches deal with the restructuring and improvement of business processes. The author finds that even so-called BPI approaches do not describe the act of improvement itself. And if they do, they lack a methodological structure that can be reused.
Research limitations/implications– To constrain the complexity of this research at this first stage of investigation only the search criterion “business process improvement” was used in the database search (EBSCO and Emerald).
Originality/value– The paper is valuable for academics and practitioners because the impact of BPI on organizational performance is high. Its originality is in the structured evaluation of so-called BPI approaches according to the MEM, which so far no one has investigated.
KeywordsProcess improvement, Process management Paper typeLiterature review
1. Introduction
1.1 The background
Business process improvement[1] (BPI) is an ongoing issue for companies nowadays. Companies use BPI to keep pace with the changing business environment which means adapting their business processes to persistent technological, organizational, political and other changes (Davenport and Perez-Guardado, 1999; Coskunet al., 2008). So, it is not surprising that improving business processes was “number one priority” among the top ten business priorities in 2009 in a Gartner survey covering more than 1,526 CIOs (Auringer, 2009). And as the demand for improving business processes increased after the business process reengineering (BPR) wave in the early 1990s (Hammer, 1990; Hammer and Champy, 1993; Davenport, 1993), methodologies, techniques, and tools were developed for conducting BPR projects (see Shin and Jemella (2002) according to Kettingeret al.(1997)). Thus, it is not amazing that BPI issues “[...] are within the most important and common titles in both literature and applications” (Coskunet al., 2008)
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm
Evaluation of
BPI approaches
203
Business Process Management Journal Vol. 17 No. 2, 2011 pp. 203-237
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited 1463-7154 DOI 10.1108/14637151111122329
and that process improvement becomes an everyday task and a part of processes’ lifecycle (Doomun and Jungum, 2008).
1.2 The problem
But even though “[...] there have been many attempts to establish a business process redesign framework, there is little work on the actual optimization of business processes with given objectives” (Vergidiset al., 2006). In literature, it is widely agreed, that the most value-adding phase in a business process management (BPM) project namely the act of improving lacks guidelines and is only poorly supported (Vergidiset al., 2006; Forster, 2006; Garnter Inc., 2005; Reijers and Mansar, 2005; Sharp and McDermott, 2001; Valiris and Glykas, 1999; Gerrits, 1994). Owing to that fact BPI seems to be rather art than science (Davenport, 2005; Hall and Johnson, 2009). Sharp and McDermott (2001) compare the mysterious step from the as-is to the to-be with the famous And Then, A Miracle Occurs procedure. Comparing the act of improving with a black box seems to be adequate here. The problem is that so far no one has investigated how the improvement procedure can be supported or executed methodologically to reduce uncertainty on the way from the as-is to the to-be.
1.3 The proposed solution
To avoid to get lost in the “improvement black box” it would be useful to have directions and rules that support the act of process improvement. A method can be a meaningful solution to provide this demanded support, because it is a goal-oriented systematic approach, which helps to resolve theoretical and practical tasks (Braunet al., 2005). A long-term solution for solving the above stated problem would be to create a method that supports the act of improvement. It is one step before this research takes place: giving an overview of existing approaches and their contribution or lacks to guide the act of improvement. Hence, the aim of the paper is to evaluate selected process improvement approaches in a structured overview in order to identify their potential to methodically support the act of improving business processes. Therefore, a literature review is performed. The degree of methodically support will be measured against the mandatory elements of a method (MEM) (Section 2.2). The importance of these elements for the support of the improvement act is described in Section 2.3.
The main research question therefore is:
RQ1.In what extend do existing approaches support the act of improving in a structured way like a method does?
To answer thisRQ1the remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a basis for the conceptual part of this research and deals with the MEM and explains why they can help structuring the improvement act. Section 3 is dedicated to related work that concentrates on structured comparisons of BPI approaches. In Section 4, the research design is presented and the data collection and evaluation for this research is described. The Appendix gives a detailed overview of the selection process for the approaches that are evaluated according to the MEM in Section 5. In Section 6, a summary is given and a conclusion is drawn.
The contribution of this paper to current BPI lies in the following aspects:
. giving a structured overview of selected approaches that deal with improving
processes;
BPMJ
17,2
204
. verifying the so-called “lack of methodical support” for the act of improving
processes which many authors talk about (Section 1); and
. identifying starting points for developing existing improvement approaches or
creating a best of breed methodology.
2. Conceptual basis
2.1 Business process improvement
BPI is an approach to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of business processes that provide output to internal and external customers (Harrington, 1991). Since BPR became a part of the mainstream of business improvement (Baines, 1996), many different terms in literature were related to the improvement of business processes (Zairi and Sinclair, 1995). Examples are: “business process improvement (BPI)” (Harrington, 1991), “business process redesign” (Davenport and Short, 1990; Carr, 1993), “business (process) re-engineering (BPR)” (Hammer, 1990), “core process redesign” (Kaplan and Murdock, 1991; Heygate, 1993; Hagel III, 1993), “business restructuring” (Tanswell, 1993; Talwar, 1993), “continuous improvement process” (Imai, 1986; Juran, 1991; Juran and Gryna, 1993; Deming, 1986, 2000) and “Six Sigma” as a methodology (Pandeet al., 2000; Breyfogle, 2003; Harry and Schroeder, 2006). Depending on the degree of improvement (radical or incremental) the two areas BPR and BPI can be distinguished, whereas re-engineering (BPR) is synonymous to radical improvement (Hammer, 1990; Hammer and Champy, 1993) and process improvement (BPI) to incremental improvement (Harrington, 1991; Coskunet al., 2008). Both areas can be seen as a subset of redesign (Valiris and Glykas, 1999).
Shin and Jemella (2002) add another degree of improvement called “quick hits”, which focuses on the immediate payback through process improvement within a few months, whereas BPR and BPI focus on the long run. And even, if the philosophy and procedure of the above-mentioned approaches are different they all have one goal: the redesign (radical or incremental), respectively, improvement of business processes.
In the context of this paper, the distinction between re-engineering as a synonym to radical improvement and process improvement as a synonym to incremental improvement is not the focus of the analysis. The focus is on how redesign approaches and especially so-called BPI approaches methodically support the act of improvement. How do they guide the user to improve a business process from the as-is to the to-be?
2.2 Mandatory elements of a method
As mentioned above, a method is goal oriented and provides a systematic approach. That means that a method specifies how to achieve defined goals (e.g. with the help of rules) and offers a systematic structure which enables the creation of work steps (e.g. activities) to achieve these goals (Braunet al., 2005).
A fundamental contribution to define the term “method” is provided by method engineering. This discipline is about the design, construction, and adaption of methods, techniques and tools for developing information systems (Brinkkemper, 1996; Tolvanen, 1996). In this field of method engineering a method is considered to be:
[...] an approach to perform a systems development project, based on a specific way of
thinking, consisting of directions and rules, structured in a systematic way in development activities with corresponding development products (Brinkkemper, 1996).
Evaluation of
BPI approaches
205
A technique is a procedure, that performs a development activity and possibly uses a prescribed notation (Brinkkemper, 1996). For that reason a technique is an essential part of the method, which specifies the accomplishment of development activities. Techniques can be supported by tools, which are the means for creating the results (Baumo¨l, 2005). Since directions and rules as well as structured developing activities are useful for the act of improving business processes too, a method seems to be a valuable support.
A method embodies a set of concepts that determine what is perceived (“technique”), a set of linguistic conventions and rules which govern how the perception is presented and communicated (“information model” or meta model) and a set of procedural guidelines (“activities”) which state in what order and how representations are derived (“procedure model”) (Smolander et al., 1991; Brinkkemper, 2000; Tolvanen, 1996). To specify a method, it additionally needs a description of participating “roles” and the specification of resulting documents (“results”). Roles and procedure model are related to each other. If there is no procedure model provided by a method, the definition of roles for the development process would not make any sense. To summarize, a method consists of the following five mandatory elements (Altet al., 2001; Baumo¨l, 2005; Braunet al., 2005; Winter and Schelp, 2006; Leist and Zellner, 2006):
(1) Procedure model: order of activities to be fulfilled when employing the method. (2) Technique: way of generating results; supports an activity.
(3) Results: an artifact (e.g. a document, etc.) created by an activity. (4) Role: the one who carries out the activity and is responsible for it.
(5) Information model: consists of the above-described elements and their relationships. Information models are also used to represent the results.
In order to provide a systematic approach for improving business processes, a specification to every mentioned element should be demanded.
2.3 How the MEM can support the act of process improvement
A systematic approach like a method should embody all MEM at the best. But, how can each of these elements be helpful to support the act of improving a business process? As mentioned above, the act of improving business processes often is unstructured. Therefore, guidelines and rules or in other words an exactly defined “procedure model” consisting of clearly defined steps (“activities”) can reduce the uncertainty of this act. Because knowing what to do step by step in an improvement project helps not to ignore important aspects by mistake. The “activities” help those who are involved in a BPI project to understand which tasks have to be performed and in which order. The activities create or use “results” that are needed to go on with the next step within the improvement procedure. Knowing, what results need to be used or produced, instructions for their creation are helpful during the execution of an activity. These instructions are called “techniques” in case of a method. During the act of improving, it is not only of importance to be aware, what has to be done in which order, but also who is responsible for a certain activity. To know this a “role” model helps to identify the process owner and guarantees a smooth course of the improvement act. As the act of improving is a continuous task it should be assured that the results of the activities are reproducible for any following improvement project. Therefore, it would be helpful to have a “blueprint” of the results, which describes its parts and their relationships. The “information model”
BPMJ
17,2
206
(or often called “meta model”) is a helpful means to support this need. Finally, the presence of all elements can be very supportive for the act of BPI. Unfortunately, there still is a lack of methodologies in the field of process improvement. According to Pakdilet al.(2009), a search in Science Direct academic electronic database for process improvement-related studies between 1998 and 2006 provided 123 results, and none of them proposed a methodology.
3. Related work
As the aim of the paper is to give a structured overview (according to the MEM) of so-called BPI approaches to analyze their methodological support for the act of improvement, related work that deals with structured overviews of improvement approaches needs to be provided. Therefore, the requirements for this related work section are that research is presented that gives a structured overview of methods, techniques or procedures for improving business processes with focus on the act of improving. So, literature that deals with a study, survey, review, overview or classification of improvement approaches is presented in Table I (extended by approaches that are not described in detail in this section). As the focus is not on radical or incremental change, but on the act of improvement itself, redesign approaches (BPR and BPI) are examined in this related work section. Later on (Sections 4 and 5) the focus of the work will only be on so-called BPI approaches as a subset of redesign approaches.
In the following, related work is presented that gives a structured overview of methods, techniques or procedures to redesign business processes to highlight the lack of current research.
Kettingeret al.(1997) provide a comprehensive survey of methodologies, techniques and tools for so-called “business process change”. The authors derive a six-stage BPR project framework consisting of the stages “envision”, “initiate”, “diagnose”, “redesign”, “reconstruct” and “evaluate”. These stages are used to give a structured overview of 25 BPR methodologies, 72 BPR techniques and 102 BPR tools. But the focus of their research is on the overview of methodologies, techniques and tools according to their six-stage framework and not on the act of improving (“redesign”-stage) itself. Within their “redesign”-stage the authors describe which techniques can be used to redesign a process (e.g. brainstorming and creativity techniques), but no further details concerning the act of improving are provided.
In a critical review of existing BPR methodologies, Valiris and Glykas (1999) present their own BPR methodology called agent relationship morphism analysis, which is a combination of different categories of BPR methodologies: IS-, accounting- and organization-theory-based methodologies. These categories represent the criteria for their overview of existing work in the area of BPR. As the authors present methodologies that they consider as “GLOBAL”, the focus is on redesigning the organization as a whole with all of its different aspects but not on BPI especially.
Hagemeyeret al.(2006) propose a classification scheme for problem-solving quality tools and techniques (e.g. cause and effect, design of experiments, control plan). It consists of ten criteria: the phases of the Six Sigma cycle (define, measure, analyze, improve and control (DMAIC)), type of tool, skill of user, what is needed to for tool use, quality tools needed prior to using this tool, what the tool works with, tool function, tool classification, physical outcome and what the tool does with the information. This classification scheme represents a structured methodology for the selection of quality
Evaluation of
BPI approaches
207
Approach Author(s) Title Context
Structured
overview Structuring Criteria
Focus on act of improving Business process redesign
Reijers and Mansar (2005) and Mansar and Reijers, 2007)
“Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics” and “Best practices in business process redesign: use and impact”
Best practice in business process redesign
Yes Components of business process redesign framework (e.g. customers, business process operation, organization, information, etc.)
No
Quality tools
Hagemeyeret al.
(2006)
“Classification and application of problem solving quality tools: a manufacturing case study”
Problem-solving quality tools and techniques
Yes Ten selection criteria (e.g. phases of Six Sigma cycle, type of tool, skill of user, etc.)
No
BPI Siha and Saad (2008) “Business process improvement: empirical assessment and extensions”
Current process improvement approaches
Yes Four categories: Six Sigma, benchmarking, BPR, process mapping
No
BPR Kettingeret al.(1997) “Business process change: a study of methodologies, techniques, and tools”
BPR methodologies, techniques and tools
Yes Six-stage BPR project framework (stages: “envision”, “initiate”, “diagnose”, “redesign”, “reconstruct” and “evaluate”)
No
BPR Valiris and Glykas (1999)
“Critical review of existing BPR methodologies”
“Global” BPR methodologies
Yes IS-, accounting- and organization-theory-based methodologies
No
BPR Vakola and Rezgui (2000)
“Critique of existing business process re-engineering
methodologies: the development and implementation of a new
methodology”
Critical overview of existing BPR methodologies and models
Partly Stages of the methodologies No
BPR Al-Mashari and Zairi (2000)
“Revisiting BPR: a holistic review of practice and development”
Holistic review of literature related to BPR
Partly Stages of the methodologies No
BPR Zairi and Sinclair (1995)
“Business process re-engineering and process management – a survey of current practice and future trends in integrated management”
Survey of current practice and future trends in BPR
No None No
BPR Al-Mashariet al.
(2001)
“Business process reengineering: a survey of international experience”
Survey of international experience on implementation of BPR
No None No
Table I. Related work
BPMJ
17,2
208
tools and should help the user find the right tool or technique in a certain situation. A total of 20 selected quality tools were described according to these ten criteria. Hagemeyeret al.
(2006) present a structured overview of quality tools and techniques but do not focus on the improvement phase or the act of improving a business process.
Knowing that the literature presented in this section is just an excerpt that deals with business process redesign approaches, only a few articles provide a structured overview of methods or techniques, and to the best of our knowledge there are no approaches that give a structured overview of how to support the improvement act in a holistic way like a method including its mandatory elements does. Another result is that none of the structuring criteria in Table I describes the approaches according to the MEM, so none of them analyzes the methodological character of an approach. And as Berenteet al.(2009) mention, most of the literature on BPI focuses on the role of information and information systems.
The aim of this paper is therefore to provide a first structured overview of so-called BPI literature (as a subset of business process redesign) and evaluate the findings according to the MEM. The comparison should help to understand how comprehensive the act of improving business processes is supported by now and to identify the lacks that should be erased by further research.
4. Research design
To answer theRQ1, the research methodology “review” according to Cooper and Hedges (1994) is used. A literature review is an information analysis that summarizes the substance of literature and draws conclusions from it (ERIC, 1982). It uses reports of primary (or original) scholarship (e.g. empirical, theoretical, critical, analytical or methodological) and seeks to describe, summarize, evaluate, clarify or integrate the content of these reports (Cooper, 1988). According to Cooper and Hedges (1994), a literature review consists of five stages:
(1) Problem formulation. TheRQ1, the review is used for answering is presented at this stage (Section 1 of this paper).
(2) Data collection. At this stage, literature is gathered that corresponds to the problem theRQ1examines (Section 4.1).
(3) Data evaluation. The identified literature has to be proven as relevant for answering theRQ1(Section 4.2). In this stage, the literature has to be checked individually.
(4) Analysis and interpretation. During this stage, the results of stage three (data evaluation) need to be proven according to the problem formulation of stage one (problem formulation). The evaluation (Section 5) in this case is based on the MEM (Section 2).
(5) Public presentation. The results of the review must be presented to the public. This is done in this research.
The phases “Data Evaluation” and “Analysis and Interpretation” are supported by “qualitative content analysis” according to Mayring (2000). This analysis method provides a structured procedure to summarize the text information according to the goals of the investigation. It is a research method that delivers repeatable and valid conclusions from the data (in this case literature) according to a certain context
Evaluation of
BPI approaches
209
(here:RQ1) (Krippendorff, 2004). The aim of “qualitative content analysis” is to reduce the information material to be able to focus on the important parts that are necessary for conducting the research. Mayring (2000) offers two procedures to reduce the information material: “deductive category application” and “inductive category application”. Deductive category application means, that the categories used for abstracting and reducing the text information are known before the investigation or are developed during the investigation in case of inductive category application. In both cases, the text information is scanned line by line to find those sections or phrases, which fit in a certain category. This paper follows the deductive category application, because the categories represented by the MEM are known before the analysis.
4.1 Data collection
To be independent from certain journals, the data for the literature research were gathered from the EBSCO-host database (here: “Business Source Premier”) and Emerald. These data bases were selected due to their being widely known and their providing access to many electronic sources.
Being aware that a complete overview of methods and approaches that deal with the improvement of business processes would be an overconfident project, the focus of this work is on research that deals with “business process improvement” as a subset of business process redesign. This limitation was necessary because in literature many different terms are related to process improvement (Zairi and Sinclair, 1995 and Section 2.1). For example, there were 371 results for “BPR” in EBSCO and 441 in Emerald and even 1,050 results for “process improvement” in EBSCO and 237 in Emerald[2]. Table II shows the search parameters used for this research. As mentioned, the search words were limited to “business process improvement” and the search mode was “phrase”. That was necessary because just looking up any of the search words does not lead to reasonable results, as the term “business” for example exists in a lot of literature. An EBSCO search for this case generated 1,383,437 results. Searching for the term “business process improvement” (as a phrase) in title or abstract or keywords was meant to be sufficient, because if the term “business process improvement” would not appear in title, abstract or keywords it can be assumed, that even if mentioned in the text, the focus of the paper would not be on “business process improvement” predominantly. Searching for the abbreviation “BPI” was misleading, because in some literature this abbreviation meant something different, like for example “Banco BPI (Banco Portugueˆs de Investimento)” or “Building Performance Institute (BPI)”. Another limitation was to constrain the search for academic journals and articles only. That limitation is reasonable,
Database Search word(s) Search mode Searching in Limitation Results
Date of search
Emerald EBSCO
“Business process improvement”
Phrase Boolean/ phrase
Title OR abstract OR keywords
Journals Academic journal, article
S
Duplicates Number of articles
35 57
92 10 82
March 27, 2010
Table II. Data collection
BPMJ
17,2
210
because journals are (normally) peer reviewed, which ensures the highest quality (e.g. all Emerald research journals are peer-reviewed). The search in Emerald led to 35 and in EBSCO to 57 results, where ten results were double. At the end 82 articles had to be checked. Table II gives an overview of the data collection for this research.
As mentioned, to constrain the complexity of this research at this first stage of investigation only the search criterion “business process improvement” was used in the database search. Other search criteria were not investigated by now. This is led to further research.
4.2 Data evaluation
Step three within the five-stage methodology review is the data evaluation. The identified literature has to be proven as relevant for answering theRQ1(Section 1). Relevant in this case was literature that dealt with kind of a structured way of improving business process, as for example procedures, guidelines, techniques or methods for improving business processes. To select the relevant articles, two raters (observers) read the abstract with respect to details about the act of improving business processes. If it was not really obvious from the abstract, the paper was read completely to make a sound decision about the selection. The use of multiple raters was necessary because in content analysis, people (observers) are employed to systematically interpret the units of analysis (e.g. text), but “when relying on human observers, researchers must worry about the quality of the data – specifically, their reliability” (Hayes and Krippendorff, 2007). To accomplish reliability the observers need to agree on the data they generate (Hayes and Krippendorff, 2007). In the presented research this was done by two researchers. In this way inter-rater agreement can be achieved, where the ratings of one observer are interchangeable with the ratings of another (Brutuset al., 1998).
Articles which, nonetheless, did not contain any explicit statement on how to improve business processes (in the eyes of both observers), were not selected for the evaluation. Eventually, 14 out of the 82 contributions were identified for further evaluation amongst the MEM (Table III). The selection process and the results are presented in Table A1 in the Appendix.
5. Analysis and interpretation of the structured evaluation of selected BPI approaches
Step four within the research methodology review is the analysis and interpretation of the data evaluated in Section 4.2. Those articles that dealt with approaches to support or describe the act of improving business processes (see the Appendix) were analyzed with the help of “qualitative content analysis” according to the MEM. MEM as a mode of analysis helps to identify quickly if an approach is methodological supported or not. The more MEM can be aligned, the better the methodological procedure is supported to improve business processes. Hence, the MEM is criteria for measuring the quality of the selected approaches concerning their ability to completely support the act of improvement. To do so it is not sufficient to have a procedure (or guidelines) consisting of “activities”, it is also important to have an explicit “role” allocation and a detailed knowledge about how to perform the activities to gain process improvement, which can be supported by “techniques”. A clear definition of the “results” (as input and output of the activities) is another helpful mean to ease the act of improving business processes.
Evaluation of
BPI approaches
211
Mandatory elements of a method
Author(s) Approach Activities Techniques Role Results
Information model
Harrington (1991) and Harrington (1995a) BPI † ( ( W W Pandeet al.(2000), Breyfogle (2003) and
Harry and Schroeder (2006)
Six Sigma † † ( ( W
Dalmariset al.(2007) Framework for the improvement of knowledge-intensive business processes
† W W W W
Rohleder and Silver (1997) A tutorial on BPI ( † W W W
Coskunet al.(2008) WABPI methodology W W W W W
Lee and Chuah (2001) A SUPER methodology for BPI † † ( W W McAdam (1996) An integrated business improvement
methodology
† † ( W W
Siha and Saad (2008) SAM framework for BPI W ( W W W
Khanet al.(2007) BPI framework W W ( W W
Adesola and Baines (2005) MIPI methodology † † W W W Povey (1998) Best practice BPI methodology † † ( W W
Varghese (2004) Strategy for launching meaningful BPI † † W W W
Seethamraju and Marjanovic (2009) Process knowledge in business process
improvement methodology † W W W W McAdam and McIntyre (1997) BPI methodology with focus on learning
organization concepts
W W W W W
Paper (1998) Holistic framework for BPI adopted at Caterpillar Inc.
† ( ( W W
Bisson and Folk (2000) Case study for BPI † W W W W Notes:†, fully accomplished or mentioned;(, partly accomplished or implicitly mentioned;W, not accomplished or not mentioned
Table
III.
Structured
evaluation
of
process
improvement
approaches
212
17,2
BPMJ
The existence of an “information model” gives a good overview of how the relations between and within the results are.
5.1 Analysis of the selected approches
In the following for each of the 14 selected approaches, the evaluation is described in detail regarding the MEM. Each approach was read by two researchers and the evaluation regarding the MEM was done with the help of a gradual scale (see notes to Table III). Additionally to these 14 approaches, Harrington’s (1991)Business Process Improvement – The Breakthrough Strategy for Total Quality, Productivity and Competivenessas a standard in this field and the Six Sigma method (Pandeet al., 2000) as a popular and widespread process improvement approach were analyzed. Table III gives an overview of the results of the analysis.
The basic work of BPI was published by Harrington (1991). Harrington (1991) introduces a five-phase procedure for BPI and describes the act of improving in phase III “streamlining” of his approach (Harrington, 1991). “Streamlining” consists of 12 cornerstone tools that should be performed to improve a process and create positive change in effectiveness, efficiency and adaptability. Harrington suggests to apply these tools (e.g. “bureaucracy elimination”, “duplication elimination”, “simplification”, etc.) in a certain order which conforms in comparison to the MEM with the “procedure model”. The tools are equal to “activities”. For some activities kind of “techniques” like “asking key questions” (this could be, e.g. the Five WHYs technique) during the activity “bureaucracy elimination” can be identified, but not for all 12 activities. According to Harrington (1991), the aim of this activity is to evaluate and minimize all delays, documentation, reviews and approvals. The desired “results” could be a document like a list of delays, but no further details concerning the results are given for any activity or technique. Also no “information models” are suggested to assure reproducible results. Harrington (1991) gives no detailed description about “roles” that are responsible for certain activities, but allocates all activities within the act of improving to a so-called process improvement team (PIT).
Six Sigma (Pande et al., 2000; Breyfogle, 2003; Harry and Schroeder, 2006) as a statistically oriented method of process improvement consists of five phases, which are known as the DMAIC cycle. The improve-phase deals explicitly with the act of improving. During this phase “activities” (such as elaboration of possible solutions, evaluation and selection of solutions, development of measures for implementing the solutions, starting pilot programs ( Johnet al., 2008)) help to conduct the desired outcome (generate and select improvement solutions and estimate the potential benefits) of this phase. To support the generation of the output within the improve-phase, the Six Sigma methodology suggests a bulk of “techniques” (e.g. creativity techniques (brainstorming, affinity diagram, etc.), 5S, poka yoke, theory of constraints, etc.). The “results” produced during an activity are seldom explained explicitly, especially when the results are not of conceptual nature (e.g. 5S, poka yoke). In the center of interest is the application of techniques. “Information models” for the results are not suggested. An overall “role” model (so-called “belt system”) defines the roles to be taken during a Six Sigma improvement project. An explicit role model for the improvement-phase is not proposed. Dalmaris et al. (2007) present a framework for the improvement of knowledge-intensive business processes (knowledge-intensive business processes improvement). The framework focuses on the application of knowledge management
Evaluation of
BPI approaches
213
to support the improvement of business processes. Therefore, the “knowledge-intensive business process improvement methodology” is introduced, which is designed to provide guidance through the act of improving. Compared to the MEM some similarities can be found. The guidance is assured by a “procedure model” consisting of the three “activities” “process audit” (collection of data), “process analysis” (evaluation of potential improvement areas) and “solution design” (creation of a new process instance). Even though the activities of this procedure model are described in detail, neither “techniques” that could support the activities nor “roles” that should execute the activities are mentioned. The authors also do not mention which input (needed “results”) is needed to perform an activity and what output (produced “results”) is created in each step of the procedure model. An equivalent to the “information model” cannot be found. Rohleder and Silver (1997) describe process improvement framework that consists of 13 steps. Step 12 “Process innovation” deals with deriving innovation and reengineering the process to create the “ideal” process (Rohleder and Silver, 1997). Even though a procedure model for the whole framework is presented, there is no procedure model for the improvement act (step 12). The authors describe what should be done in this step, but do not explicitly name “activities”. The activities can only be derived implicitly (e.g. change the order of activities, model off-line, etc.). Nevertheless, the authors present “techniques” (e.g. brainstorming, creativity techniques, simulation, what-if-analysis, etc.) that help to support the act of improving. “Results, roles” and “information models” are not described or mentioned.
The weak points analysis for business process and improvement (WABPI) methodology presented by Coskun et al. (2008) consists of four phases (start-up, self-analysis, making changes and feed back) that consist of different steps. The step “improving weak points” within the phase “making changes” deals with the act of BPI. But this step is not further detailed by “activities”. The authors write about the importance of the right selection of “techniques” to be used in a process improvement methodology (Coskunet al., 2008), but do not present any techniques in their research. Also no “roles”, “results” and “information model” are mentioned, neither explicitly nor implicitly.
Lee and Chuah (2001) demonstrate a SUPER methodology for BPI that incorporates the characteristics of three BPI approaches (continuous process improvement (CPI), BPR and business process benchmarking (BPB)). The SUPER methodology consists of five phases whereas phase four “execute the process improvement” deals with the actual improvement actions. In this phase, there are four “activities” arranged in a certain order (procedure model). To support the activities, “techniques” (e.g. cause and effect diagram, CPI) are suggested. To assist better communication during the improvement act, the authors demand well defined “roles” of the PIT members, but do not give further details about the roles. No “results” and “information model” are presented.
McAdam (1996) presents an integrated four-phase business improvement methodology. Phase three “Improve the process” concentrates on the act of improving and consists of six “activities”. He also suggests various “techniques” to support this phase (e.g. opportunity grid, road maps, affinity diagrams), but does not allocate them to activities. “Roles” and responsibilities for performing the activities are not defined, but mentioned to be an important task. “Results” and their “information models” are not described, even not implicitly.
In their research about BPI, Siha and Saad (2008) propose the specify, analyze and monitor (SAM) framework that consists of three main phases: SAM. Each of the phases
BPMJ
17,2
214
is detailed in certain steps. The last step of the “specify”-phase implicitly cares about the act of improving and is called “define feasible BPI alternatives”. No further details about “activities” that should be performed to support this step are given. As well as no “results” or “information models” are mentioned. Kind of “techniques” can be implicitly identified: Within the three stages questions (“how”, “what” and “Right 3Rs” (readiness, response, resilience)) should be asked to achieve the aim of the stage. “Roles” are not mentioned as well.
Khanet al.(2007) introduce the development of a BPI framework and performance assessment methodology (PAM) tool. The BPI framework consists of six stages. Stage three focuses on the defining and planning the BPI. But this stage does not provide further information on how to achieve improvement and what “activities” should be performed. “Techniques”, “results” or an “information model” are also not mentioned. But it is mentioned that in phase the selection of an improvement leader or champion is important, what implicitly can be partly seen as an advice for the allocation of “roles”. In their research, Adesola and Baines (2005) describe a generic and practical methodology termed model-based and integrated process improvement (MIPI) to support the implementation of BPI. The methodology is based on a seven-step procedural approach that guides the actions of a process design team. Step four in this procedure is devoted to redesign the process. Therefore, “activities” are explicitly stated (e.g. benchmark the process, model and validate new to-be process model, identify IT requirements, etc.) and also “techniques” to support these activities (e.g. benchmarking, creative silence workshop, brainstorming). There is no description of “results”, “roles” or an “information model”.
Povey (1998) examines the effectiveness of various BPI and benchmarking methodologies described in the literature and develops a new “best of breed” BPI methodology. This methodology uses 14 steps (so-called “what needs to be done”). Step six concentrates on the development of the “to-be” model of the improved process and gives advice for the redesign and improvement “activities” (e.g. consider new technologies to simplify the process design, learn from approaches other organizations use, identify root causes for problems). To support these activities, kind of “techniques” can be identified (e.g. root cause analysis, benchmarking). Within this step a description of how this step has to be performed and who should perform it is given, so that partly “roles” can be identified (e.g. an IT expert should be a full time member of the team). There is no description of “results” or an “information model” neither explicitly nor implicitly. Varghese (2004) proposes a strategy for launching meaningful BPI. This strategy comprises four phases, where phase four is about “manage and improve process”. To improve the business process, a process improvement reference guide is introduced that provides a simple road map (“activities”) to systematically advance the capability of a process. This roadmap is supported by different “techniques” (e.g. statistical process control, activity based cost analysis) that are not explained in more detail. The “results” of these techniques are not described just as well as some kind of “information models”. The approach postulates that the improvements need to be institutionalized and suggests a clear system of accountabilities which is not further detailed. “Roles” for improving a business process are not defined in this approach.
The work of Seethamraju and Marjanovic (2009) describes a BPI methodology different from the “traditional” improvement approaches. The emphasis is not on mapping an as-is model and design a new to-be process, the focus is on the process
Evaluation of
BPI approaches
215
of knowledge co-creation in the development of a “to-be” model in a consensus process. Within this methodology different phases (“activities”) to perform the improvement are suggested (e.g. analysis, design new version of the key decision tasks, implementation), but no “techniques” that would support the different phases. The methodology does not describe the “results” of each phase and also no “information model”. A “role” model is also missing. The only distinction is between BPM team members and employee (workshop participant), but there is no allocation of roles to the different phases of the approach. Even if this work describes the differences between this new methodology and the traditional approaches, it does not focus on the act of improvement, its procedure or techniques that support the act.
McAdam and McIntyre (1997) describe in their paper how an existing BPI methodology (Ulster Business School approach) was improved through the incorporation of organizational learning principles. The “new” methodology focuses in its fourth of overall five phases on improving the process. But this phase is not further drilled down in specific “activities” which would guide the improvement procedure. Also, no “techniques”, “results”, “roles” or “information model” are suggested or can be identified implicitly.
Paper (1998) presents a framework for BPI adopted by Caterpillar MEC (Mossville engine center) that consists of five phases (process selection, process mapping, process improvement, process verification and process implementation). The process improvement phase contains three major “activities” (so-called methods within this approach) of improvement (simplification, correction, and reengineering). It is not unusual that all three activities for improving the process are used. At Caterpillar the improvement usually starts with the simplification of the process. Also “techniques” for the improvement phase are suggested as for example brainstorming or process decomposition. But these few techniques were not explicitly assigned to activities. The framework contains a description of “roles” (e.g. management review team, project review team, macro- and micro-process team) involved in the improvement act, but not an allocation to the activities. So techniques and roles can only be seen as partly accomplished. “Results” and an “information model” are not discussed.
The work of Bisson and Folk (2000) presents a case study on how to do a BPI using the case of a phone company. They describe 15 steps to redesign a process. Steps seven till 11 (build the “is” map (seven), identify disconnects (eight), decide whether to patch or redesign the process (nine), define “should” attributes (ten) and build “should” map (11)) can be implicitly identified as “activities” that describe how to perform the act of improvement. No support of the activities through “techniques” for deriving the “should” from the “is” are suggested. Also no “results”, “roles” or “information models” can be found.
5.2 Interpretation of the results
The structured evaluation of BPI approaches shows, that none of the above listed approaches delivers a complete method according to the MEM, which means that none of the BPI methodologies adequately support the practitioner through all stages in the BPI activity (Adesola and Baines, 2005).
Having in mind that none of the approaches was developed according to the MEM, it might be obvious that they will have shortcomings concerning these aspects, but these shortcomings leave room for further improvement of these approaches. One result of the analysis is for example, that none of the approaches include an information model.
BPMJ
17,2
216
This means that the reproduction of generated results cannot be guaranteed and is difficult to accomplish for the BPI practitioner. Information models can serve as blueprints here and give some advice of how the results of the performed activities during the improvement act should be constructed. Information models would also allow and ease the comparison of the results because of their common used meta model for example for the modeling technique (or language) the result is created with.
None of the approaches suggest results for every activity of the improvement phase. Only Six Sigma gives some sort of implicit explanation of some results, when the techniques are explained in detail. But as it is important to know why an activity has to be performed during the improvement procedure it is even more important to know which useful result(s) must be derived to proceed with the act of improvement and produce input for the following steps. A definition of the most important results would be helpful in this situation. The problem within the context of improvement regarding the results might be that often creativity techniques are the only way to find improvement possibilities, which is a rather unstructured way that does not allow predefined results. Another result of the analysis is that none of the approaches present roles for executing the activities. Some of them at least mention that roles have to be recognized during the act of improving, but do not explain how. To be able to perform the act of improvement adequately, it is necessary to know who is in charge for what activity. Hence, a role model is an indispensible mean to support this need. It is obvious that this role model cannot be very detailed due to the fact, that it must be adapted by different organizations then, but some kind of a reference role model for BPI could be helpful.
The plurality of the approaches describes a procedure or more detailed activities and even techniques that support the activities, but some do not. For example, both so-called “BPI frameworks” from Siha and Saad (2008) and Khanet al.(2007) do not explain, which specific activities have to be performed to improve a business process. Only generic phases, stages or steps are introduced in this case. It is led to the user to decide what to do. This is not what the idea of a structured approach for improving business reflects. According to the MEM, even a widespread method like Six Sigma has shortcomings. But these shortcomings can be the source for a further development of the approaches and should be a trigger for further research.
6. Summary and conclusion
6.1 Summary
The paper aims to contribute to both theory and practice while identifying the lack of structured support for the important part of BPM, namely “the act of improving”. A structured evaluation of BPI approaches according to the MEM depicted the shortcomings that researcher and practitioners have to deal with. The main outcome of this research is to show the lacks and to provide indication for further improvement needs and possibilities. As one result, none of the evaluated approaches meets all the MEM. Being consistent to the introduction: our research shows, that even there is a lot of literature concerning the topic of BPI, it mainly happens in a black box. This especially applies for the missing results (except Six Sigma), role models and information models. TheRQ1derived at beginning of this work asked to what extend existing approaches do support the act of improving in a structured way like a method does. The answer to this question is: none of the evaluated approaches does. This is not an unexpected result, because so far no one has investigated existing BPI approaches according to the MEM,
Evaluation of
BPI approaches
217
so no relations to previous research can be made. Therefore, this research provides a new aspect in the area of BPI and identifies the shortcomings of existing approaches. It also verified the lack of methodical support that many authors stated.
6.2 Implications for further research
But which implications can be made from the results of the structured literature review? As none of the evaluated approaches corresponds to all MEM, a research agenda for further improving BPI approaches should contain:
. A more detailed analysis of activities that need to be performed to obtain
improvement. This causes a detailed definition and derivation of criteria of the term “improvement” which in none of the approaches was specified. Only if criteria for an improvement are specified activities to meet these criteria (and therewith to attain improvement) can be derived.
. An overview of important results and their relations to each other (predecessor,
successor) just as input-output relations could be another starting point for deriving activities in BPI. Here, information models can be a helpful mean to realize this overview.
. To support the activities, an overview of existing techniques that support the act
of improving would be helpful to choose the adequate technique for a certain step in the procedure.
. As a long-term goal, the creation of a new method for the act of improvement
consisting of the best of breed could be derived from the approaches analyzed in this work.
6.3 Limitations
This research also has some limitations that need to be mentioned. These limitations are mainly related to the broadness of the topic under investigation. The presented research focuses on selected literature that deals with “business process improvement“ only (Section 4). No other key words were used in this investigation. Also, the search was limited to two databases (EBSCO and Emerald) and limited to academic papers only.
The evaluation according to “content analysis” gives room for subjective interpretation of the approaches. To solve this problem, two researchers examined the literature for the analysis. But the more observes used in the analysis, the more neutral and generally accepted results can be derived.
6.4 Conclusion
This research could be of importance for the interested reader because it provides a new aspect of looking at existing (so – called) BPI approaches. Normally, literature in this area deals with the whole procedure of improving business processes and therefore often presents generic phases, stages or steps. This research is different in two ways: First, the focus is only on the improvement act itself (it is not of interest how the process that should be improved is selected or afterwards implemented) and second there is no other research in this field ever done a structured evaluation of existing BPI approaches according the MEM. The value added of this evaluation is on the one hand the disclosure of lacks of the existing approaches and on the other hand the evidence for further improvements of the approaches.
BPMJ
17,2
218
This research does not solve the problem that the act of improving a process lacks guidelines and is only poorly supported – as stated in the introduction – but it is a first step to do so, because the results of this research can be used as a trigger for further improving existing BPI approaches.
Notes
1. See Section 2.1 for the different terms of “business process improvement”.
2. All searches followed this structure: search fields “title OR abstract OR keywords”, academic journal, search mode “phrase”. Search performed on March 27, 2010.
References
Adesola, S. and Baines, T. (2005), “Developing and evaluating a methodology for business process improvement”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 37-46. Agarwal, R. and Bajaj, N. (2008), “Managing outsourcing process: applying Six Sigma”,Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 829-37.
Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (2000), “Revisiting BPR: a holistic review of practice and development”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 10-42.
Al-Mashari, M., Irani, Z. and Zairi, M. (2001), “Business process reengineering: a survey of international experience”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 437-55. Alt, R., Reichmayr, C., Puschmann, T., Leser, F. and Oesterle, H. (2001), “An engineering approach to develop business networks”, in Schmid, B., Stanoevska-Slabeva, K. and Tschammer, V. (Eds),Towards the E-society: E-commerce, E-business, and E-government, Kluwer, Norwell, MA.
Amini, M., Otondo, R.F., Janz, B.D. and Pitts, M.G. (2007), “Simulation modeling and analysis: a collateral application and exposition of RFID technology”, Production & Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 586-98.
Anonymous (1993), “FINSEC newsletter”,Management Services, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 26-6. Anonymous (2000a), “Business improvement group conference”,Management Services, Vol. 44
No. 9, pp. 6-7.
Anonymous (2000b), “Marketplace”,IIE Solutions, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 53-4.
Anonymous (2002), “SUPER improvements in business performance”,Strategic Direction, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 16-18.
Anonymous (2005), “Software showcase & directory”,Quality Progress, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 80-4. Anonymous (2007), “Ariba, Inc.”,Contract Management, Vol. 47, pp. 62-2.
Anonymous (2008), “Ariba, Inc.”,Contract Management, pp. 62-2.
Anonymous (2009), “QP CALENDAR”,Quality Progress, Vol. 42 No. 8, p. 68.
Antony, J., Foutris, F., Banuelas, R. and Thomas, A. (2004), “Using SIX SIGMA”,Manufacturing Engineer, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 10-12.
Archer, R. and Bowker, P. (1995), “BPR consulting: an evaluation of the methods employed”,
Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 28-46. Auringer, A. (2009),Meeting the Challenge: The 2009 Higher Education CIO Agenda, Gartner,
Stamford, CT.
Baines, A. (1996), “Re-engineering revisited”,Work Study, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 21-3.
Evaluation of
BPI approaches
219
Bargerstock, A.S. (2000), “The HRM effectiveness audit: a tool for managing accountability in HRM”,Public Personnel Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 517-26.
Baumo¨l, U. (2005), “Strategic agility through situational method construction”, in Reichwald, R. and Huff, A.S. (Eds),European Academy of Management(EURAM)Annual Conference, Munich.
Bendell, T. (2005), “Structuring business process improvement methodologies”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 16 Nos 8/9, pp. 969-78.
Bendell, T. (2006), “A review and comparison of Six Sigma and the Lean organizations”,The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 255-62.
Berente, N., Vandenbosch, B. and Aubert, B. (2009), “Information flows and business process integration”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 119-41.
Bhatt, G.D. (2000), “An empirical examination of the effects of information systems integration on business process improvement”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 11, pp. 1331-59.
Bhatt, G.D. (2001), “Business process improvement through electronic data interchange (EDI) systems: an empirical study”,Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 60-73.
Bhatt, G.D. and Stump, R.L. (2001), “An empirically derived model of the role of IS networks in business process improvement initiatives”,Omega, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 29-48.
Bhatt, G.D. and Troutt, M.D. (2005), “Examining the relationship between business process improvement initiatives, information systems integration and customer focus: an empirical study”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 532-58. Bisson, B. and Folk, V. (2000), “Case study: how to do a business process improvement”,Journal
for Quality & Participation, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 58-63.
Boyd, F. (2005), “Whatever happened to...?”,Management Services, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 36-7.
Braun, C., Wortmann, F., Hafner, M. and Winter, R. (2005), “Method construction – a core approach to organizational engineering”, in Liebrock, L.M. (Ed.),Proceedings of the 2005
ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC ’05, Santa Fe, NM, ACM, New York, NY,
pp. 1295-9.
Breyfogle, F. (2003), Implementing Six Sigma. Smarter Solutions Using Statistical Methods, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Brinkkemper, S. (1996), “Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools”, Journal of Information and Software Technology, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 275-80.
Brinkkemper, S. (2000), “Method engineering with web-enabled methods”, in Brinkkemper, S., Lindencrona, E. and Solvberg, A. (Eds),Information Systems Engineering: State of the Art and Research Themes, Springer, London, pp. 123-33.
Brutus, S., Fleenor, J.W. and London, M. (1998), “Does 360-degree feedback work in different industries? A between-industry comparison of the reliability and validity of multi-source performance ratings”,Journal of Management Development, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 177-90. Campbell-Allen, N., Houston, D. and Mann, R. (2008), “Best practices in New Zealand
organizations for rewarding and recognizing employee innovations and achievements”,
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 19 Nos 1/2, pp. 125-39.
Capuano, N., Gaeta, M., Ritrovato, P. and Salerno, S. (2008), “How to integrate technology-enhanced learning with business process management”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 56-71.
BPMJ
17,2
220
Carr, D.K. (1993), “Managing for effective business process redesign”, Journal of Cost Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 16-21.
Chatha, K.A., Ajaefobi, J.O. and Weston, R.H. (2007), “Enriched multi-process modelling in support of the life cycle engineering of business processes”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 103-41.
Comm, C.L. and Mathaisel, D.F.X. (2005), “An exploratory study of best lean sustainability practices in higher education”,Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 227-40. Cooper, C.M. (1988), “Organizing knowledge syntheses: a taxonomy of literature reviews”,
Knowledge in Society, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 104-26.
Cooper, C.M. and Hedges, L.V. (1994), “Research synthesis as a scientific enterprise”, in Cooper, C.M. and Hedges, L.V. (Eds),The Handbook of Research Synthesis, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY, pp. 3-14.
Coskun, S., Basligil, H. and Baracli, H. (2008), “A weakness determination and analysis model for business process improvement”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 243-61.
Dalmaris, P., Tsui, E., Hall, B. and Smith, B. (2007), “A framework for the improvement of knowledge-intensive business processes”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 279-305.
Daly, S. (2002), “A century of innovation and creativity”, Manager: British Journal of Administrative Management, Vol. 33, pp. 30-1.
Damij, N. (2007), “Business process modelling using diagrammatic and tabular techniques”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 70-90.
Damij, N., Damij, T., Grad, J. and Jelenc, F. (2008), “A methodology for business process improvement and IS development”,Information & Software Technology, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 1127-41.
Davenport, T.H. (1993), Process Innovation – Reengineering Work through Information Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Davenport, T.H. (2005),Thinking for a Living: How to Get Better Performances and Results from Knowledge Workers, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Davenport, T.H. and Perez-Guardado, M.A. (1999), “Process ecology: a new metaphor for reengineering-oriented change”,Business Process Engineering: Advancing the State of the Art, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, pp. 25-44.
Davenport, T.H. and Short, J.E. (1990), “The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign”,Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 11-27. Davison, R. and Martinsons, M.G. (2002), “Empowerment or enslavement? A case of
process-based organisational change in Hong Kong”,Information Technology & People, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 42-59.
Dean, D.L., Lee, J.D., Orwig, R.E. and Vogel, D.R. (1994), “Technological support for group process modeling”,Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 43-63. Deming, W.E. (1986),Out of the Crisis, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Deming, W.E. (2000),The New Economics: for Industry, Government, Education, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Doomun, R. and Jungum, N.V. (2008), “Business process modelling, simulation and reengineering: call centers”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 838-48.
Durst, S.M. and Binder, M. (2006), “Improving efficiency through internal benchmarking”,
International Journal of Business Performance Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 290-306.
Evaluation of
BPI approaches
221
ERIC (1982),Educational Resources Information Center(ERIC)Porcessing Manual(Section 5: Cataloging), ERIC, Washington, DC.
Evans, G.N., Towill, D.R. and Naim, M.M. (1995), “Business process re-engineering the supply chain”,Production Planning & Control, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 227-37.
Forster, F. (2006), “The idea behind business process improvement: toward a business process improvement pattern framework”,BPTrends, April, pp. 1-13.
Garnter Inc. (2005), “Delivering IT’s contribution: the 2005 CIO agenda”,Gartner EXP Premier Reports, Gartner, Stamford, CT.
Gerrits, H. (1994), “Business modeling based on logistics to support business process re-engineering”, in Glasson, B.C., Hawryszkiewycz, I., Underwood, A. and Weber, R. (Eds),
Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 Open Conference on Business Process Re-engineering: Information Systems Opportunities and Challenges, Elsevier, Gold Cost, pp. 279-88. Geyer, E.M. (2002), “IT-enabled organizational change: a framework for management”,Journal of
Library Administration, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 67-81.
Gilberto, P.A. (1993), “The road to business process improvement – can you get there from here?”,Production & Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 80-6.
Gilberto, P.A. (1995), “The road to business process improvement – can you get there from here?”,Hospital Material Management Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 12-20.
Goulden, C. and Pass, J. (1993), “Quality conversion for council”,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 25-8.
Hagel, J. III (1993), “Keeping CPR on track”,The McKinsey Quaterly, No. 1, pp. 59-72.
Hagemeyer, C., Gershenson, J.K. and Johnson, D.M. (2006), “Classification and application of problem solving quality tools: a manufacturing case study”,The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 455-83.
Hall, J. (2006), “Making business processes LEAN”,Management Services, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 17-20. Hall, J.M. and Johnson, M.E. (2009), “When should a process be art, not science?”,Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 58-65.
Hallstrom, I. (2001), “Quality improvement in the care of patients with hip fracture”,International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 29-34.
Hammer, M. (1990), “Reengineering work: don’t automate-obliterate”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 104-11.
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993),Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Harrington, H.J. (1991),Business Process Improvement – The Breakthrough Strategy for Total Quality, Productivity and Competiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Harrington, H.J. (1995a), “Continuous versus breakthrough improvement: finding the right answer”,Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 31-49. Harrington, H.J. (1995b), “Continuous versus breakthrough improvement: finding the right
answer”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 31-49.
Harry, M. and Schroeder, R. (2006), Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy Revolutionizing the World’s Top Corporations, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Hayes, A.F. and Krippendorff, K. (2007), “Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data”,Communication Methods and Measures, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 77-89. Heygate, R. (1993), “Immoderate redesign”,The McKinsey Quaterly, No. 4, pp. 73-87.
Imai, M. (1986),IKaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
BPMJ
17,2
222
Jeston, J. (2008), “High performance management”,Industrial Engineer: IE, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 33-7. John, A., Meran, R., Roenpage, O. and Staudter, C. (2008),Six SigmaþLean Toolset – Executing
Improvement Projects Successfully, Springer, Berlin.
Juan, Y.-C. and Ou-Yang, C. (2004), “Systematic approach for the gap analysis of business processes”,International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 1325-64. Juran, J.M. (1991), “Strategies for world class quality”,Quality Progress, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 81-5. Juran, J.M. and Gryna, F.M. (1993),The Quality Planning & Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Kaplan, R.B. and Murdock, L. (1991), “Core process redesign”,The McKinsey Quaterly, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 27-43.
Karvonen, S. (1998), “Computer supported changes in project management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 163-71.
Kettinger, W.J., Teng, J.T.C. and Guha, S. (1997), “Business process change: a study of methodologies, techniques, and tools”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 55-80.
Khan, Z., Bali, R.K. and Wickramasinghe, N. (2007), “Developing a BPI framework and PAM for SMEs”,Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 345-60.
Kock, N. (2004), “The three threats of action research: a discussion of methodological antidotes in the context of an information systems study”,Decision Support Systems, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 265-86.
Kock, N. and Davison, R. (2003), “Can lean media support knowledge sharing? Investigating a hidden advantage of process improvement”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 151-63.
Kock, N.F. and McQueen, R.J. (1995), “Integrating groupware technology into a business process improvement framework”,Information Technology & People, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 19-34. Kock, N.F., McQueen, R.J. and Corner, J.L. (1997), “The nature of data, information and
knowledge exchanges in business processes: implications for process improvement and organizational learning”,The Learning Organization, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 70-80.
Krippendorff, K. (2004),Content Analysis – An Introduction to Its Methodology, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kumar, M., Antony, J., Singh, R.K., Tiwari, M.K. and Perry, D. (2006), “Implementing the Lean Sigma framework in an Indian SME: a case study”,Production Planning & Control, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 407-23.
Kumar, U.D., Saranga, H., Ramirez-Marquez, J.E. and Nowicki, D. (2007), “Six Sigma project selection using data envelopment analysis”,The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 419-41. Law, C.C.H. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2007a), “ERP systems adoption: an exploratory study of the organizational factors and impacts of ERP success”,Information & Management, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 418-32.
Law, C.C.H. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2007b), “An investigation of the relationships between organizational factors, business process improvement, and ERP success”,Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 387-406.
Law, C.C.H. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2007c), “IT infrastructure capabilities and business process improvements: association with IT governance characteristics”,Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 25-47.
Lee, K.T. and Chuah, K.B. (2001), “A SUPER methodology for business process improvement – an industrial case study in Hong Kong/China”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management
