31295014212780 (1)bpr

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

1/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

2/337

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank all of my dissertation committee members. Dr. Surya B.

Yadav, Dr. Ralph R. Bravoco, Dr. Solomon Antony, and Dr. Mario G. Bemvides, for

their encouragement, suggestions and guidance. I especially express my sincere

appreciation to my advisor. Dr. Yadav, for his understanding and support.

I would also like to thank all the expert committee members, who have

participated in the validation process of the dissertation, for their time and patience.

Without their participation, the dissertation could not be completed.

I thank all of my family and friends for their encouragement and supports. Finally,

special thanks are due to Juri and Nyanya.

11

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

3/337

TABLE OF CONTEXTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT vii

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURES xi

CHAPTER

I. INTRODU CTION 1

Background 2

Problem Statement 5

Research Objectives and Issues 6

Deliverables of the Research 8

Importance of the Research 9

Stmc ture of the Dissertation 10

n . LITERATUR E REVIEW 11

Introduction 11

Concepts of Business Process Reengineering 11

Process View of Business 11

Characteristics of BPR 12

Methodologies for BPR 14

Modeling Methods Used in BPR 26

Flowcharts 27

Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs) 28

Integration Definhion Methodology 28

Role Activhy Diagramming 31

REA L Business Process Modeling (BPM) 32

CIMO SA Business Modeling 33

Obj ect-Oriented ( 0 0 ) Modeling 3 5

Entity-Relationship Models 38

Dynam ic Simulation Modeling 38

111

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

4/337

Workflow Design 39

Other Mod eling Techniques 40

Summary 40

III RESEARCH METHOD OLOGY 41

Introduction 41

Formulation of the Problem 42

Constmction of Knowledge-Level Theories or Principles 43

Con stmction of Symbol-Level Theories or Principles 43

Operationalization of Knowledge-Level Theories and

Formation of Behavioral-Oriented Hyp otheses 43

Identification and Constmction of Symbol-Level Design and

Formation of Symbol-Oriented Hyp otheses 44

Development of Prototype System 44

Validation of the Extended 0 0 Modeling Method 45

Testing the Modeling Method and Evaluating Test Resu lts 46

Refinement of the Problem, Theories, Principles and

Hypotheses 48

IV. DEVELOPMENT OF AN EXTENDED 0 0 MODELING

METHO D FOR BPR 49

Introduction 49

Behavior of the BPR Modeling Method 50

Knowledge-Lev el Concepts and Propositions 54

Knowledge Concepts 54

Knowledge-Level Proposhions 66

Conceptual Model for a BPR Modeling Method 66

Symbol-Level Concepts and Propositions 67

Symbol-Level Concepts 68

Symbol-Level Proposhions 95

A Sym bol-Level C onceptual Model for a BPR M odeling

Method 97

Summary 97

IV

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

5/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

6/337

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

A.

B

C

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

Validation of the Extended 0 0 Mo deling Method

Contributions of the Research

Limh ations of the R esearch

THE FIRST-ROUND DELPHI PACKET SENT TO THE

EXPERT COMMITTEE

THE FIRST-ROUND DELPHI RESULTS

THE SECOND-ROUND DELPHI LETTER AND

QUESTIONS SENT TO THE EXPERT COMM ITTEE

THE SECOND-ROUND DELPHI RESULTS

THE THIRD-ROUND DELPHI LETTER AND

QUESTIONS SENT TO THE EXPERT COMM ITTEE

THE THIRD-ROUND DELPHI RESULTS

THE LETTER SENT TO THE ORIGINAL

DEVELOPERS OF THE BENCHMARK M ETHODS

THE FINAL EVALUATION RESULTS

139

14

141

143

148

149

212

249

259

271

28

287

29

VI

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

7/337

ABSTRACT

Existing Business Process Reengineering (BPR) m ethodologies rely on modeling

approaches. Due to high risks involved in BPR, an organization needs a modeling

method that efficiently supports a BPR project. The dissertation has identified a problem

in BPR as the lack of

an

efficient modeling m ethod to support a BPR project under the

concept of business process change managem ent. The dissertation proposes a modeling

method that utilizes the object-oriented ( 0 0 ) concep ts to resolve this problem. A unified

research methodology has been used to develop the modeling method.

The dissertation first presents a conceptual model as a theoretical basis on w hich

the proposed modeling method has been developed. W hile developing the conceptual

model, the desired behavior of a BPR m odeling method has been determined. Then,

three types of knowledge required to produce the behavior have been specified. The first

type o f knowledge contains kinds of information about a business process that should be

captured in a model. The second type of knowledge specifies BPR project activities that

should be carried out during a BPR project. The last type of know ledge contains w hich

information about a business process is relevant to each BPR project activity.

The dissertation then presents an extended 0 0 modeling method that has been

developed based on the above conceptual model. The method consists of three main

parts:

(a) a modeling framework, (b) steps of the modeling method, and (c) information

collection tem plates and information presentation formats.

The proposed method has been compared whh three existing methods to evaluate

its com prehensiveness. Three expert committee members have evaluated the four

method s for the comparative analysis. The comparative analysis has showed that the

proposed method is more comprehensive than the three benchmark methods in four areas:

(a) abilhy to capture more information about a business process, (b) abilhy to support

more BPR activhies, (c) ability to support particular BPR activhies in more detail, and (d)

ability to provide m ore information about a business process for a specific analytical

action.

Vll

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

8/337

LIST OF TABLES

4.1.

BPR Activhies and Actions 58

5.1.

Relationsh ip among the Original Questions, Adapted Questions and

Columns in the Framew ork for the Enterprise Model Feature 101

5.2. Relationship among the Original Questions, Adapted Questions and

Colum ns in the Framewo rk for the Analysis and Visualization Featu res 103

6.1. Summ ary of Information Captured by Four M ethods 125

6.2. The Num ber of Kinds of Information Captured by Four Me thods 126

6.3.

The BPR Phases Supported by the Four Methods 127

6.4. The Numb er of Actions Specified by Each Method for BPR Phases 128

6.5 The Average Number of Information Items per Action Provided by Each

Method 132

A. 1. Inhial Evalua tion of Rum mler and Bra che ' s Method (Enterprise Mo del

Feature) 180

A.2. Initial Eva luation of Rum mler and Br ach e's Method (Analysis and

Visualization Features) 182

A.3.

Initial Evalua tion of Quid 's Method (Enterprise Model Feature) 187

A.4.

Initial Eva luation of Qu id's Method (Analysis and Visualization Featu res) 189

A.

5.

Initial Evalua tion of Jacobson et

al.'

s Method (Enterprise Model Feature) 194

A.6.

Initial Evalua tion of Jacobson et al.'s Method (Analysis and Visualization

Features) 196

A. 7. Initial Evalua tion of Proposed Method (Enterprise Model Feature ). 203

A. 8. Inhial Eva luation of Proposed Method (Analysis and Visualization

Features). 204

B.1. 1 StRound Responses for Rumm ler and Brache's Method (Enterprise

Mod el Feature) 213

B.2.

1 StRound Responses for Rummler and Brac he's M ethod (Analysis and

Visualization Features). 216

B.3. 1st Round Respo nses for Qu id's Method (Enterprise Model Feature) 221

B.4. 1 St Round Responses for Quid's Method (Analysis and Visualization

Features) 224

B. 5. 1 St

Round Responses for Jacobson et

al.'

s Method (Enterprise M odel

feature) 229

Vll l

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

9/337

B.6. 1 StRound Responses for Jacobson etal. 's Method (Analysis and


B.7. 1 StRound Respon ses for Proposed Method (Enterprise Model Featu re) 238

B.8. 1 stRound Responses for Proposed Method (Analysis and Visualization

Features) 241

C I .

2nd Round Questions for Rummler and Br ach e's Method (Enterprise

Mod el Feature) 252

C.2. 2nd Round Questions for Quid's Method (Enterprise Model Feature) 253

C.3.

2nd Round Questions for Qu id's Method (Analysis and Visualization

Features) 254

C.4. 2nd Round Questions for Jacobson etal.'s Method (Enterprise Mo del

Feature) 255

C.5.

2nd Round Questions for Jacobson et al.'s Method (Analysis and


C.6. 2nd Round Questions for Proposed Method (Enterprise Model Feature) 257

D.1. 2nd Round Responses of Rumm ler and Bra che's Method (Enterprise

Model Feature) 260

D.2.

2nd Round Responses of Qu id's Method (Enterprise Model Feature) 262

D.3. 2nd Round Responses of Qu id's Method (Analysis and Visualization

Features) 264

D.4 . 2nd Round Responses of Jacobson et

al.

's Method (Enterprise Model

Feature) 265

D.5.

2nd Round Responses of Jacobson etal.'s Method (Analysis and


D.6.

2nd Round Responses of Proposed Method (Enterprise Model Feature) 268

E. 1. 3rd Round Questions for Rumm ler and Brache 's Method (Enterprise

Mo del Feature) 274

E.2.

3rd Round Questions for Qu id's Method (Enterprise Model Fea ture) 275

E.3. 3rd Round Questions for Qu id's Method (Analysis and Visualization

Features) 276

E.4 . 3rd Round Questions for Jacobson et al.'s Method (Enterprise Model

Feature) 277

E.5.

3rd Round Questions for Jacobson et al.'s Method (Analysis and


E.6 . 3rd Round Questions for Proposed Method (Enterprise Model Fea ture) 279

IX

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

10/337

F.

1. 3rd Round Responses for Rumm ler and Bra che 's Method (Enterprise

Mo del Feature) 281

F.2.

3rd Round Responses for Qu id's Method (Enterprise Model Feature) 282

F.3.

3rd Round Respo nses for Qu id's Method (Analysis and Visualization

Features) 283

F.4.

3rd Round Respo nses for Jacobson et al.'s Method (Enterprise Model

Feature) 284

F.5. 3rd Round Responses for Jacobson et al.'s Me thod (Analysis and


F.6. 3rd Round Respo nses for Proposed Method (Enterprise Model Fea ture) 286

H.

1.

Final Evaluation of Rumm ler and Brac he's Method (Enterprise Mo del

Feature) 291

H.2. Final Evaluation of Rumm ler and Brac he's Method (Analysis and


H.3. Final Eva luation of Quid 's Method (Enterprise Model Feature) 298

H.4. Final Eva luation of Quid 's Method (Analysis and Visualization Features) 300

H.5.

Final Eva luation of Jacobson et al.'s Method (Enterprise Model Fea ture) 306

H.6.

Final Evalua tion of Jacobson et al.'s Method (Analysis and Visualization

Features) 308

H.7.

Final Eva luation of Proposed Method (Enterprise Model Feature) 315

H.8. Final Eva luation of Proposed Method (Analysis and Visualization

Features) 317

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

11/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

12/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

13/337

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Several m ethodologies for Business Process Reengineering (BPR) have been

propo sed by many researchers since a seminal article by Hammer (1990) w as published.

Many of them rely on m odeling approaches developed in the field of information systems

development to support BPR project activhies included in those methodo logies. In

addition, many software tools for BPR have also been developed based on such modehng

techniques. Although many companies use those methodologies, modeling approaches,

and software tools to pursue their BPR p rojects, the success rates of BPR projects are still

not high (Bashein, Markus & Railey, 1994; Klein, 1994).

BP R involves drastic changes in how to conduct a business process and thu s a high

risk. For this reason, an organization that attempts BPR seeks a systematic approach to

support BP R project activities. One way is to analyze the existing process, deriving a

redesigned process, and evaluating the impact of the change (Klein, 1994). To achieve

changes, m ost m ethodologies for BPR include the modeling phase as part of their

approaches. During the modeling phase, a variety of information about a business process

is gathe red and specified. Then, the information captured in the model(s) is used to carry

out subsequen t BPR project activhies. Therefore, h is critical to have a modeling method

that specifies an efficient way to gather information about a business process, develop a

model of the business process and analyze h. How ever, very littie research has been

conducted to identify what information should be gathered and how h should be presented

to BPR analysts. Also, very little research has been conducted to identify how to analyze

the information. This research proposes a BPR modeling method to help an organization

pursue a BPR project efficiently. The proposed BPR modeling method show s wha t kind

of information about a business process should be collected and presented, as well as how

to analyze it.

The first section of this chapter discusses the background of this research. The

problem statement of this research is presented in the second section. This is fohowed by

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

14/337

the d iscussion of research issues and objectives. Then, deliverables of this research a re

listed. The fifth section d iscusses the significance of this research. The final secfion of this

chapter describes the stmcture of this dissertation.

Background

Intensified global compethion in business has dramatically affected how American

com panies conduct their business. Historically, American companies have been successful

by dividing wo rk into small repeatable tasks. This division of wo rk has facilhated local

optimiza tion but frequently has led to poor overall performance in an organization. As

global compethion has intensified, several companies have recognized that this traditional

approach is no longer the way to achieve success. Rather, they have recognized that an

organization must be flexible, responsive, and customer-oriented. To achieve a flexible,

responsive, customer-oriented organization, many companies must attempt drastic

changes in their organizations. This attempt for drastic changes in a business process is

called B usiness Process Reengineering (BPR).

The term "Business Process Reengineering" is defined by several researchers.

Ham mer and Champy (1993) defined "Reengineering" as follows: "the fundamental

rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in

critical, contemporary measures of performance such as cost, quality, service, and speed"

(p.32).

In their book, the authors emphasized four key wo rds used in this definition. The

first key word is "fundamental." They suggested that reengineering first determines what

a company must do by asking fundamental questions about business mles and underlying

assum ptions. The second key word is "radical." They suggested disregarding all existing

stmctures and procedures and inventing complete new ways of accomphshing tasks. The

third key wo rd is "dram atic." According to Hammer and Champy, reengineering is not

about making marginal or incremental improvements. It is about achieving "quantum

leaps" in business performance. The last key word is "processes." They defined a

business process as: "a collection of activities that takes one or more kinds of input and

creates an output that is of value to the customer" (p.35).

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

15/337

They emphasized that a company needs to shift from tradhional thinking to

process-based thinking. The tradhional thinking is based on the concept o f "division of

labor" and tends to focus on the individual tasks thereby losing sight of the larger

objective. In short, they emphasized that reengineering is "starting ove r" and "beginning

again with a clean sheet of pap er." They also emphasized that BPR is different from

incremental business p rocess improvement.

While Hammer and Champy (1993) differentiated BPR from incremental business

process improvement, several researchers think of BPR in the context of a broader, more

comprehensive process management concept. Davenport (1993 a) used a continuum of

process change to handle both continuous improvement and radical BPR under one

concept. Davenport also suggested (1993b) that both approaches use the same unit of

analysis and require rigorous measurement of process performance such as cycle time,

defects, productivhy and cost although individual projects differ in the degree of

improvement sought and in the extent to which the existing process is examined and

improved. Moreover, he pointed out that a redesigned business process must be

maintained by con tinuous improvement to keep up with changing customer needs and the

competitive environment.

Kettinger and Grover (1995) described that "they have observed an evolution of

the reengineering concept over the past several years" (p. 11). They mentioned that the

radical tone of BPR has been decreased because the implementation of BPR frequently

requires an incremental approach. They also added that the reconcihation with more

incremental process change methods has resuhed in the evolution toward a broader, more

comprehensive process management concept. According to them, the purpose of both

BP R and incremental business process improvement is to transform a business process in

order to achieve strategic objectives. They concluded that theories describing, explaining,

and predicting the impact of

all

of the change approaches should be formalized under the

context of business process change management.

Under the concept of business process change management, models of

a

business

process may need to be developed for several purposes. For example, during a BP R

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

16/337

project, a model of

an

organization may be used to select a target process. Ano ther type

of model may be needed to document the functional requirements of a business process.

A model may be used to specify the sequential relationship am ong process steps. In

addition, models developed during a BPR project should be useful for h s subsequent

con tinuous improvem ent. M ore specifically, information captured in the models should be

maintained and presented in a useful format for future continuous improvement.

For a model to serve different purposes at different stages of business process

change managem ent, it must capture a variety of information about a business process.

(In this dissertation, capturing information represents collecting, storing and presenting

information.) Therefore, the specific modeling technique used is a vital issue in BP R

becau se it determines what aspect o f a process is represented in a resulting model. Curtis,

Kellner and Over (1992) identified four perspectives that people should use to describe a

process adequately. Although they identified these four perspectives for software process

modeling, Huckvale and Quid (1995) and Wang (1994) suggested that these four

perspectives can be used to model a business process for BPR. Those four pe rspectives

are functional, behav ioral, informational, and organizational. The functional perspective is

used to represent w hat p rocess elements are performed and flows of entities (inputs and

outputs) that are relevant to them. The behavioral perspective is used to represent w hen

process elements are performed and the sequential relationships among them. The

informational perspective is used to represent what enthies are produced and manipulated

by a process, as well as the relationship among them and the stmcture of each. The

organizational perspective is used to represent where and by whom process elements are

performed.

Currently, several modeling approaches must be used to capture all four aspects of

a business process and support a variety of BPR project activities, since the focuses of the

four primary modeling approaches available for BPR are different. The process-oriented

modeling approach focuses on capturing information about a process from the functional

perspective. The data-oriented modehng approach focuses on capturing information

about a process from the informational perspective. The dynamic modeling approach

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

17/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

18/337

information about a business process should be gathered and how h should be p resented

to BPR analysts so that they can carry out BPR project activhies efficiently.

Once w e have clear knowledge about what information about a business process is

necessary to support BPR project activities, a modeling technique that can capture all such

information m ust be selected. As discussed earlier, traditional modeling approaches may

not have sufficient capabilities to capture all the information. If none of them have enough

capabilities to capture all the information by themselves, several modeling techniques must

be used. When several models are used, the information independently captured in several

models must be integrated to produce relevant information for supporting a BPR activity.

This requires the integration of several modeling approaches into a BPR modeling method.

Although several software tools support several modeling approaches, they are not well

integrated to support BPR project activhies efficiently. In addhion, little research effort

has taken place in order to develop an integrated modehng m ethod for business process

change m anagement, that supports BPR activities througho ut a project, as well as

subsequent process improvement. It is necessary to develop a BPR m odeling method that

has sufficient capabilities to capture information about a business process for B PR.

Finally and most importantly, it is necessary to specify how information captured

and specified in a model should be used in order to carry out BPR project ac tivities. N o

research has proposed a modeling method that defines specific steps to support BPR

project activities such as deriving a model of a reengineered business process from a

model of the existing process. A redesigning process still rehes mostly on a BPR ana lyst's

experiences and intuitions.

Research Objectives and Issues

The objective of this research is to develop a new m odehng m ethod to support

BPR ac tivhies under the business process change management concept. This modeling

method uses the 0 0 concept to cap ture information about a business process sufficient to

support B PR activhies. The modeling method consists of several steps to model the

current business process, analyze the model, derive a model for a reengineered process.

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

19/337

and evaluate the impact of

reengineering.

Such a modeling method tailored for sup porting

BPR projects can help an organization carry out each BPR project activity efficiently and

effectively throughout a project.

To achieve this research objective, the following four research questions are

addressed:

1.

What kinds of information about a business process should be captured in a

model for BPR?

2.

W hat m echanisms should a modeling framework have in order to capture all the

information for BPR?

3.What kind of analyses should be done on information captured in the existing

model to derive a model ofa reengineered process?

4.What are the steps of

an

0 0 modeling method needed to model the current

business process, and to design and evaluate the reengineered business process?

As mentioned earlier, one of the major problems of research in BPR is that it is still

not clear what information about a business process should be captured, and how it should

be presen ted in a model. It is impossible to identify what mechanisms a modeling

framew ork should have w hhou t knowing what information is used to analyze an existing

process and redesign it.

The second issue in the research is the development of a modeling fram ewo rk that

has the mechanisms to capture information about a business process necessary to support

BP R project activhies. Traditional modeling approaches do not have sufficient capabilities

to store all the information about a business process necessary to carry out BPR project

activities. Therefore, the development ofamodeling framework with such capabilities

helps BPR analysts collect, specify, and analyze information about the existing and

redesigned business processes efficiently.

Third, after the information necessary to support BPR project activities is captured

in a model, systematic analyses should be conducted on the information to derive a

reengineered business process and evaluate the impact of the redesign. Although a BP R

analyst's experience and intuition play a critical role in redesigning a business process, the

7

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

20/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

21/337

5.

Validation of the proposed modeling method.

Importance of the Research

The research addresses the shortcomings of modeling approaches used in BPR

projects and to p rovide a modeling method that supports BPR activhies in a more efficient

manner. W ith the deliverables listed in the previous section, the research makes the

contribution to both academia and practhioners.

First, the research identifies information about a business process necessary to

carry out essential BPR activhies. This provides a theoretical basis for evaluating the

capabilhies of modeling approaches to BPR. In addhion, h helps practhioners to select a

more appropriate modeling approach for the activhies they need to complete.

Second, the modeling method developed in this research provides a set of

techniques for analyzing information captured in its model. The importance of modeling

an existing process tends to be emphasized less because it is time-consum ing. The lack of

systematic techniques to analyze a model of

an

existing process may have contributed to

this trend . The lack of analytical techniques resuhs in greater reliance on a BP R a nalyst's

experience and intuhion in reengineering. By developing a set of analytical techn iques, the

research provides a more systematic way to derive specifications ofareengineered process

from the model of the existing process. Consequently, it reduces rehance on a BPR

analyst's experience and intuition.

Third, the modeling framework developed in the research can be used as a

theoretical basis for designing a reposhory for a computer-aided tool for BPR. The

modeling framework has the capability to show how the information is related to each

other. Using the modeling framework, it is possible to produce several diagrams, each of

which focuses on different aspects of

a

business process.

Fourth, the specified modeling m ethod's steps in the research can be used as a

theoretical guideline to design comprehensive software too ls for BPR. Practh ioners can

also use h as a general guidehne for a BPR project. In short, a conceptual model of

a

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

22/337

BPR modeling method that includes the modeling framework and a step-by-step

procedure provides a theoretical basis to constmct an automated tool for BPR.

Stmcture of the Dissertation

The rest of the dissertation is organized as follows: Chapter II discuses mainly the

previous research concerning modeling methods for BPR. Chapter III addresses the

details of the research m ethodology used in the research. In Chapter IV, the development

of a BPR modehng method is presented. Chapter V discusses the vahdation procedure

used in this research. Chapter VI discusses the data analysis. Finally, Chapter VII

concludes this dissertation by presenting the deliverables, contributions and limitations of

the research.

10

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

23/337

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This research is concerned w ith the development of a BPR modeling method to

help organizations pu rsue BPR projects efficiently. The first section of this chapter

discusses the primary concepts that make up BPR. This review clarifies w hatBPRgoals

are and thus what should be done to pursue a BPR project successfully. The second

section discusses the existing methodologies for BPR . This review identifies whatBPR

project activities need the support of a BPR modeling method. This is important in order

to identify the desired functionality ofaBPR m odeling method. The third section

discusses the modeling methods used in those BPR m ethodologies. This review identifies

what capabilities those modeling methods have and what their shortcomings are. This is

important in identifying the desired capabilities of

a

BPR modeling m ethod.

Concepts of Business Process Reengineering

This section first discusses the process view of business as a fundamental idea of

BPR. Then , definhions of BPR are reviewed to identify the primary concep ts of BPR.

Process View of Business

The idea of BPR started whh looking at business from the process view. M ost

Am erican com panies organize their work as a sequence of simple, separate tasks. Then,

they use complex mechanisms and many managers to control those tasks (Hamm er, 1990;

Ham mer & Champy, 1993; Davenport, 1993

a).

This division and specialization of labor

have been helpful in reducing inefficiencies and taking advantage of econom ies of scale.

However, many organizations have recognized that this approach frequently resuhs in

local optimiza tion but poor overall performance. In order to improve overall

performance, organizations need to view their work in terms of

a

process and not

fiinctions or divisions (Hammer & Champy, 1993; Davenport, 1993a). Several

researchers defined a "proc ess" to facilitate the p rocess view.

11

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

24/337

Davenport and Short (1990) defined a business process as a "set of logically

related tasks performed to achieve a defined business outcom e" (p. 12). According to

them, processes have two important characteristics: (a) they have customers (ehher

intemal or external to the firm); and (b) they cross organizational boundaries. Later,

Dav enpo rt (1993 a) redefined a process as "simply a stmctured, measured set of activhies

designed to pro duce a specified output for a particular customer or market" (p. 5). He

also described a process as "a specific ordering of work activhies across time and place,

whh a beginning, an end, and clearly identified inputs and outputs: a stmcture for action"

(p .

5 ). He emphasized that process stmcture can be distinguished from an organization 's

hierarchical stmc ture. According to him, while an organization's hierarchical stm ctu re

shows a view of responsibilhies and reporting relationships, process stmcture is a dynamic

view of how the organization delivers value to the customers. He also identified the four

measurements ofaprocess to evaluate whether BPR has succeeded. Those four are: (a)

cost, (b) time, (c) outpu t quality, and (d) customer satisfaction. Hammer and Cham py

(1993) and Harrington (1991) have also developed similar definitions.

From these definitions, the present review identified those common characteristics

of a business process that are important for BPR. First, a process is composed of a set of

activities or tasks. Second, a set of those activities or tasks is stmc tured logically. The

stmcture is independent of the organizational stmcture. Third, a process may cross the

organization 's functional boundaries. Fourth, a process uses inputs (resources) to

produce specific outputs that are used for achieving the organization's predefined

objectives. The outputs should denote values to customers. Fifth, a process can be

measured using costs, time, output quality and customer satisfaction.

Characteristics of BPR

In the previous section, the characteristics ofabusiness process that are important

for BPR were discussed. This section discusses the primary concepts that make up B PR.

Many researchers have defined BPR. The present review clarifies those primary co ncepts

of BP R that should be considered while a BPR project is being pursued. The review

revealed that the definhion of BPR has evolved

12

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

25/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

26/337

circumstances. Thus, firms should have a portfolio of approaches to operational changes,

including reengineering, continuous improvement, incremental approaches, and

restmcturing techniques. Da venp ort's and S toddard's expectations were that

reengineering would be combined whh qualhy and other process-oriented improvement

approaches into an integrated process management approach.

Kettinger and Grover (1995) asserted that "the (r)evolution of BPR, the

requirement to sustain process change, the need to reconcile alternative process

improvement and innovation approaches, and the recognition of organizational constraints

to implementation have all served to b roaden the concept of business process ch ange ..."

(p.12).

Based on these broader concepts of BPR, Kettinger, Guha and Teng (1995)

defined "business process reengineering as an organizational initiative to accomphsh

strategy-driven (re)design of business processes to achieve competitive breakthroughs in

quality, responsiveness, cost,flexibility,and satisfaction. These initiatives may differ in

scope from process improvement to radical new process design" (p. 213). This research

uses this broade r definhion of BPR. Thus, the modeling method for BPR developed in

this research is not limhed to a radical, clean-slate approach. It is designed to support a

wide range of BPR approaches, including a less radical, relatively incremental approach.

By reviewing definhions ofaprocess and BPR, the primary concepts that make up

BPR are summarized as follows: (a) a strategy-driven, organization-wide change initiative;

(b) hs purpose of achieving organizational objectives; (c) a relatively clean slate approach

limhed by implementation constraints; (d) the search for radical change in process

performance from the custom ers' point of view; (e) involvement of changes in how work

is done, organizational stmcture, and human resource arrangements; (f) the use of

information technology as an enabler of the changes; and (g) the needs for maintenance

and continuous improvement of the redesigned process.

Methodologies for BPR

To pursue BPR successfially, an organization needs to complete several activhies

considering the important concepts of process view and BPR discussed above. In general,

14

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

27/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

28/337

specific tools available for conducting a BPR project. Hammer, with Stanton, later

asserted that analyzing the current process is a waste of time although understanding h is

necessary (Hammer & S tanton, 1995). According to them, understanding is achieving a

high-level, goal-oriented overview ofanexisting process that provides you whh enough

information to begin with a clean sheet of paper. On the other hand, they stated that

analysis involves the detailed documentation of every aspect of the process. However,

one major issue that must be clarified constitutes what is enough information. The

identification of "enough information" is one of the main goals proposed in the present

research.

Davenport and Short (1990) proposed the first step-by-step methodology. Those

steps are:

1. Develop the business vision and process objectives.

2.

Identify the process to be redesigned.

3 Understand and measure the existing process.

4. Identify IT levers.

5.

Design and build a prototype of the new process.

Davenport and Short suggested two major approaches to identify the processes for

innovation o r redesign. Those two approaches are the exhaustive approach and high-

impact approach . For the exhaustive approach, they suggested the use of the Data -

Activity Matrix of the Information Engineering (Martin, 1989). Using this matrix, a BP R

team identifies all processes whhin an organization and prioritizes them in the order of

urgency. In the high-impact approach , cmcial processes for success are sensed and

identified by senior management. In this methodology, Davenport and Short emphasized

two primary reasons for understanding and m easuring processes before redesigning them.

First, h is necessary to understand problems in order to remove them from a redesigned

process. Second, an accurate measurement is necessary to measure whether the ob jective

established in the first phase is achieved. Davenport and Short mentioned that

brainstorming is a usefial tool for the identification of IT levers. Brainstorming, process

mode ls and prototypes of IT applications are suggested to design and build a prototype.

Computer simulation is also suggested for testing and evaluating the new process.

16

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

29/337

Davenport (1993a) proposed another five-step methodology for business

improvement. Those five steps are:

1. Identify processes for innovation.

2. Identify change levers.

3. Develop process visions.

4. Understand existing processes.

5.

Design and prototyp e the new process.

He again mentioned that process selection is a critical prerequishe to p rocess change. A

firm needs to identify key business processes and to set their boundaries. Then, a B PR

team or analyst needs to consider strategic relevance, process health, process

quantification, and manageable project scope to select a process for innovation. The

development of process vision requires the assessment of current strategies, benchmarking

the process for targets, and obtaining customer perspectives. The process vision should

include quantified process objectives and process attributes such as technology used,

process operato rs, and outputs produced. The Critical Success Factors (CSFs) (Rockart,

1979), strategic-planning, and systems-planning are suggested as useful tools for process

visioning.

In this methodology, Davenport identified four reasons to document the existing

process before p roceeding with process innovation. Those four reasons are:

It facilhates comm unication among participants.

It is essential to migrate a new process and plan implementation.

It helps to ensure identified problems are not repeated in a new process.

It provides a measure of the value of the proposed innovation.

Dav enport also emphasized that documenting the existing process leads to process

improvement efforts naturally. He m entioned that many firms have incorporated process

improvement w ith breakthrough innovation. Brainstorming, process models, and

prototyping , as well as com puter simulation are suggested to design and build a pro totype .

He mentioned that there are no tools available that fiilly support this phase. Howev er, he

also mentioned that 0 0 modeling methods may be a better modeling approach than

Information Engineering.

17

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

30/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

31/337

comm onalties among actions provide the basis for achieving econom ies of

scale

when they

are implemented in one place in the contrived value chains. Their method em phasizes the

usefulness of the interrelationship matrix to establish the desired stmcture of a business

process.

Hahm and Lee (1994) proposed an iterative seven-step approach to BPR. Their

approach focuses on the development ofamaster plan for business process change t o

optimize the overall performance ofanorganization. Their approach show s how to

develop a BPR master plan by following the seven steps presented below.

1. Select the objectives of

an

organization.

2.

Specify the hierarchy of tasks.

3. Evaluate processes.

4.

Specify relationships among tasks.

5.

Analyze the impact of change in a process to the objective.

6. Develop a reengineering master plan.

7. Estimate resuhs.

In their method, after the objectives ofanorganization are identified from a global point of

view, an organization broken down into business tasks and their hierarchical relationships

are defined. Then , a set of tasks that constitute a business process is selected and the

sequential relationships among those tasks are specified. Each of these processes is

related to the objectives of the organization and its importance is evaluated. Diagram s are

used to show the relationship between a process and the objectives, as well as sequential

relationships of

tasks.

Analytic Hierarchy Process (Saaty & Keams, 1985) is suggested to

evaluate the importance of each process. In addhion, input-output relationships among

tasks are specified along the process using a diagram. Also, process performance

measurement variables are selected for each task. Then the hierarchy and sequence of the

tasks are analyzed in order to identify a task where the BPR master plan should start.

Stmctural self-interaction matrices, minimum edge adjacency matrices, reachability

matrices and digraphs for interpretive stmctural models (Harary, Norman, & Cartwright,

1965;Malone , 1975; Sage, 1977) are suggested to find the starting point ofamaster plan.

Then, a detailed action plan is established considering the sequence and importance of

19

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

32/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

33/337

In the sixth step, pilot processes are established to demonstrate and validate the

process changes before the full-scale implementation begins. In the seventh step,

participative m anagement and continuous improvement will be reinforced by embedding

teamwork behavior. Harrison and Pratt emphasized that this methodology does not have

an end point and the change process is ongoing. The process evaluation team periodically

monitors process performance, benchmarks emerging best practices and makes continuing

recom menda tions for process improvement. They did not mention any specific modeling

tools for their method.

Maull, Weaver, Childe, Smart and Bennett (1995) developed a five-stage

composhe methodology by investigating methodologies used in a wide range of

com panies. Their methodo logy consists of the following five stages:

1 Identify or create corporate , manufacturing and IT strategies.

2. Identify key process(es) and performance measures.

3. Analyze existing process(es).

4. Redesign and implement process(es).

5.

Monitor and continuously improve new process(es).

Although they developed this methodology as a step-by-step methodology, they asserted

that strict adherence to such a step-by-step approach is not appropriate. A user of this

methodology must make conscious choices about how the methodology should be

implemented for different types of business process change. An organization planning

radical design may skip the analysis of the existing processes while one planning more

incremental approach carries out extensive analysis of the existing processes.

Elzinga, Horak, Lee, and Bmner (1995) proposed a generic step-by-step method

for business process management. Their method encompasses from incremental

improvement method s to reengineering m ethods. They unified a variety of approaches

used by various com panies into a generic business process management method. They

claimed that all methods employed for business process management can be mapped into

their method. They also emphasized the iteration of steps, implying the life cycle of

business process change management. Their method consists of the six stages as shown in

Figure 2.1 .

21

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

34/337

Benchmarking

^

Preparation

^'

Process

Selection

4

1

1

1

V

Process

Description

1

1

1

>'

Process

Quantification

1

1

V

Process

Improvement

Selection

1

1

1

1

V

Implementation

Continuous Improvement Cycle

Figure2.1. A Methodology by Elzinga, Horak, Lee and Bmne r (1995).

In the preparation phase, the statement of vision, mission and goals is set. A

subdivision of the enterprise can also have its specific vision, mission and goals in concert

with those of the enterprise. The CSF approach is the main method used in this phase. In

the process selection phase, a specific process is selected from several processes for

analysis and improvement. CSFs, as well as benchmarking, are useful to prioritize

alternative processes. Goals, CSFs and processes are related in order to estimate the value

or importance ofaprocess to the enterprise. Analytical Hierarchy Process is suggested as

a useful tool for this analysis.

In the process description phase, a detailed description of a selected process is

developed. They suggested a precise documentation of what the process actually is and

what h is doing. Flow charts, cause-and-effect diagrams, and

I D E F Q

are recommended as

useful too ls for the documentation. At this point, an immediate improvem ent opportunity

may be identified. In the process quantification phase, a quantification of the process is

carried out to identify extraneous resources or possible targets for improvement.

Activhies are classified into value-adding and non-value-adding. Information about cost,

cycle-time, and resource requirem ents is also obtained. Cost-time profiles, pie charts,

histograms, Pa reto charts and activity-based costing are suggested as useful tools. A

com puter simulation of the process is also suggested.

22

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

35/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

36/337

ENVISION

INAUGURATE

DIAGNOSE

Feedbaclc'"

EVALUATE

(RE)CONSTRUCT

(RE)DESIGN

Figure 2 .2. A P rocess R eengineering Life Cycle by Kettinger, Guha and Teng (1995)

After clearly specifying corporate goals, objectives, and key performance

indicators, major corporate processes that support those business objectives and goals are

identified. Certain planning tools such as Information Systems Planning (Martin, 1989),

Business Systems Planning (IBM Corp, 1975), CSFs and Core Process Analysis (Kaplan

& M urdock , 199 1; Ostroff & Smith, 1992) may be used in the identification of business

processes. Then, a preliminary analysis is completed to assess the health of each business

process. A technique suggested to assist in this assessment is the CFS/Process matrix. In

the third step, IT enabling opportunhies are identified. The potential to use new IT should

be examined. The IT/CSF linkage matrix is a technique that facilhates this analysis (Teng,

Ke ttinger, & G uha, 1992). In the fourth step, a BPR project is selected based on the

importance ofabusiness process.

24

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

37/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

38/337

team-based stmc tures, reward stmctures and metrics. Job-design (Alic, 1990; and Smith

& C arayon-Sainfort, 1989) or socio-technical systems technique (Mohramm & Cummings,

1989;Pasm ore, 1988, Taylor & Fehen, 1993) and team-based management (Katezenback

& S mhh, 1993) can be used. To select an IT platform, the enterprise-wide information

systems archhecture should be specified. By developing a proto type, the entire process is

to be "rehearsed ." Role playing, paper process tests, and workflow designs are suggested

to identify further opportunities for refinements.

During the (re)constmcting phase, new information systems are developed and

deployed. In addhion, human resources are reorganized. The focus of this stage is a

smooth transhion . The information systems archhecture, as well as human resource

architecture, specified in the redesign phase is executed thoroughly.

While evaluating process performance, the performance of the (re)designed

process is measured. This evaluation stage also provides a fundamental link between the

more radical, one time focus of BPR and the continuous incremental improvements of

TQM (Kettinger & Lee, 1994). By using tradhional TQM techniques on the newly

defined process it is possible to anticipate that addhional substantial process improvement

will be m ade over time.

After reviewing the methodologies for BPR, h has been identified that a variety of

activities must be carried out by a BPR team or analyst. Some of those activhies are

carried out by developing and analyzing a model ofabusiness process. It has also been

verified that a variety of information about a business process must be captured using

various modeling methods. What is lacking at present is a comprehensive BPR modeling

method that can support BPR project activities by capturing a variety of information about

a business process. The review revealed that the development of a modeling method w hh

such capabilhies is critical in order to support BPR analysts to carry out a BPR project

efficiently.

Modeling Methods Used in BPR

BP R method ologies use a variety of process modeling methods to support

activities carried out at different stages ofaBPR project. As mentioned earlier, according

26

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

39/337

to Curtis et al. (1992), a good process model should capture information about a process

using four perspectives: functional, behavioral, organizational, and informational. In

addhion to these four perspectives, a review of BPR definition and m ethodologies

revealed that a process model should capture the strategic aspect of a business process.

Information about the strategic importance ofabusiness process and hs value to

customers are some of the examples that should be captured as a strategic aspect of a

business process. This section reviews modeling methods used by BPR methodologies

regarding their capabilhies to capture information about a business process and support

BPR project activities.

Flowcharts

Several BPR methodologies suggest flowcharts to analyze the existing process

(Elzinga et al., 1995; Kettinger et al., 1995; Maull et al., 1995). Flowcharts use three

constmcts: (a) a process activity, (b) decision making, and (c) the order of process

activities. Flowch arts use three types of stmctures to show relationships among process

activities. Those three are (a) sequence, (b) selection and (c) iteration. Flowcharts have

several shortcom ings as a BPR modeling method. In general, flowcharts have difficulty in

representing a complex stmcture ofaprocess because they are not suitable for showing a

hierarchical relationship among tasks. BPR requires a model ofacomplex, cross-

fiinctional business process. Thus, the capability of hierarchical decomposition is essential.

In addhion, inputs and outputs of activities are not specified in flowcharts. The lack of

ability to cap ture this information is critical because interrelationships between resou rces

and process activhies must be analyzed to streamline the process activhies. Third,

flowcharts do not specify where and by whom the processes are performed. Finally,

nehher process measurement variables nor strategic aspects ofaprocess are captured in

flowcharts.

The Process Map proposed by Rummler and Brache (1995) extended flowcharts

by adding organizational responsibility for process steps, performance constraints and

goals. The organizational aspect is represented by a horizontal axis. Flow charts are

mapped into this diagram. However, this method does not support the informational and

27

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

40/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

41/337

fiinction model that show s the hierarchical stm cture of a business process. IDEFi is an

information model, and IDE Fix is a semantic model, which has been extended from

IDEF i. IDEF2 and IDEF3 are dynamic models. IDEF5 is used to visualize an ontology.

IDEF4 is an 0 0 design model. IDEF4 is not intended to support the analysis phase.

Although Kettinger and Grover (1995) recommended IDEF4 to specify information

systems requirements, no other researchers suggest h to model a business process. This

review focuses on a modeling method to represent a business process, therefore, IDEF4 is

not discussed here.

An

I D E F Q

model consists of three components: diagrams, text and a glossary, all

cross-referenced to each other. The diagrams are the major com ponents of the model.

The diagram uses (a) function, (b) input, (c) outpu t, (d) control and (e) mechanism. The

diagram shows constrained functions and a hierarchical decomposhion of functions. The

function transform s inputs into outputs constrained by controls. A control constrains,

influences o r determines the function performed. A mechanism is a tool or resou rce that is

used to perform th e function. The viewpoint and purpose of a model are explicitly

specified at the top level I D E F Q also allows decomposhion of information (input, output,

contro l). Cross-referenced glossary and text are used to store additional information

associated whh functions, inputs, outputs, controls and mechanisms in a text format.

EDEFi and IDEFix capture the informational aspect ofabusiness process.

Because IDE Fix is an extension of IDEFi, only IDEFix is discussed here. The IDE Fix

model is a semantic model. IDEF ix uses four con stmcts. Entity classes represent a

collection of physical or conceptual objects that share common attributes. Messages

represent a transaction between tw o or more activhies. Attributes (key or nonkey)

represent characteristics ofanentity. Relationships represent the constraint on how tw o

or mo re enthies can be interrelated. IDEFix supports a generalization-specialization

relationship between a parent entity and one or more category entities. IDEFix provides a

basis for identifying what information is currently managed in the organization and what

the information lacks to support operations and decision making. It can also be used to

specify what information should be managed in a new process.

29

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

42/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

43/337

activhies. Using mechanisms, it captures some of the organizational aspect of a process.

A sequential relationship among activhies is captured in IDEF2 or IDEF3. The focus of

these m odels is to show "how " a process is performed. These two models can provide a

basis to conduct quan titative analysis such as discrete-event simulation. IDEFi and

EDEFix support the informational perspective. They provide a basis with which to identify

unnecessary information in the existing process and the information required in a new

process. IDEF5 is useful to find the varieties of produ ct's or service's components, as

well as varieties of

a

product or services. The IDEF5 elaboration language can specify

different processes required by those different components, products or services.

Therefore, this ontological knowledge about components, products or services is useful in

understanding the underlying constraints of the existing process and in generating a future

process (Mayer et al , 1995). Each of these models uses a unique perspective to

docum ent business processes and an organization. As a set of models, IDEF supports all

four perspectives specified by Curtis et el. (1992), although none of them by themselves

support all four perspectives. IDEF does not support the strategic perspective.

Role Activity Diagramming

Huckvale and Quid (1995) suggest Role Activity Diagrams (RADs) as a m odeling

method for BPR. RAD was proposed by Hoh, Ramsey, and Grims (1983) for modeling

coordination in the workplace. This method has been used as one of the benchmark

methods in the validation of this research. Chapter VI discusses this method in detail.

Huckvale and Quid (1995) claim that RADs can show:

1. How activh ies are divided among roles.

2. What the organization is trying to achieve whh the process.

3. W hat people do to achieve the goals.

4. Ho w people whhin groups interact collaboratively to get the job done.

5.

What constraints the organization pu ts on what people can do and how they

should operate.

In short, RAD strongly rep resents the behavioral and organizational p erspectives.

However, h supports the fiinctional perspective only partially. RAD does not support

31

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

44/337

hierarchical decom position. Rather, RAD explodes an activity or interaction into a new

RA D to handle the complexity. How ever, the roles and enthies referted to in the new

RA D are not formally connected to those in the higher-level RAD . The information

perspective is not supported. A state shows where the goal of a business process is

achieved. The goal is described as the final product of a business process. How ever,

RA D does not prov ide information for evaluating the importance of each activity in order

to pro duce this final product. Therefore, the strategic perspective is only partially

supported.

REAL Business Process Modeling (BPM)

The REAL BPM method uses the "events" perspective of business processes to

capture information about resources, events, agents, and locations, all of which

collectively describe the essential characteristics of business processes and events (Denna,

Cherrington, A ndros & Sawyer-Hollander, 1993; Denna, Perry & Jasperson, 1995). The

REAL BPM has been developed based upon the concepts of an event-driven database

stmcture proposed by McC arthy (1982). According to Denna et al. (1995), this modeling

method is useful for an organization to use in aligning its business processes, stmcture and

stewardships, strategy , measurements, and IT application architecture. Thus, it helps in

achieving reengineering. The REAL BPM focuses on answering the following five

questions about each business event (Denna et al, 1995):

1. W hat happens? "W hat" refers to which business events occur.

2.

W hen happens? "W hen" describes the order of the events such as starting time,

ending time, and duration.

3. W hat roles are played and who/what performs the roles? Roles can range from

internal responsibilities to external ones. Roles can be performed by individuals,

organizations, or programmable machines called agents.

4. W hat kinds of resources are involved and how much are they used? The type and

quantity of resources involved in each event.

5.

W here does the event occur? The location of the agents or resources involved

provides the location of the event.

32

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

45/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

46/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

47/337

A primary problem of CIMOSA as a BPR modeling method is that h does not

support the conceptual-level analysis of

an

enterprise. CIMO SA does not support a "tm e"

definition of requiremen ts about w hat activhies should be performed and what resources

should be used in business terms (Zwegers & Gransier, 1995). In CIMOSA , a scenario

must be developed to specify the desired definition of requirements in business terms.

CIM OS A does not specify how to develop multiple scenarios. How ever, once all detailed

design specifications of the enterprise model are documented, several manufacturing

scenarios can be simulated by changing part of the enterprise model. Throughout the

simulation, the optimized scenario can be identified. Therefore, this methodology is useful

as an evolutionary approach. In short, CIMOSA has trouble in supporting the conceptual-

level analysis ofanenterprise model to identify a new way of conducting a business

process before detailed design specifications are developed. Ano ther problem CIMOSA

has is that h uses different stmctures for Domain, DP, BP, and EA. Since an enterprise is

represented as a network of EAs at the lowest level, it limits the level of decomposition to

four levels.

Object-Oriented (00) Modeling

There are many 0 0 modeling methods for information systems development.

Most well-known methods are: Shlaer and Mellor (1988), Coad and Youdon (1991),

Booch (1994), Rumbaugh , Blaha and Premeriani (1989), Wirfs-Brock and Wilkerson

(1989), Martin and Odell (1992), and Jacobson (1993). These modeling methods use

different notations and support different concep ts. However, they share comm on

concep ts such as object class, encapsulation and inheritance. In this section, those

comm on concepts of 0 0 modehng are reviewed first, rather than reviewing each of weU-

know n methods. Then Jacobson et al.'s 0 0 modeling method (1995) is briefly reviewed

here but discussed in detail in Chapter VI, because h has been used as one of the

benchm ark methods in the validation of this research. Finally, W ang 's 0 0 modeling

method for BPR (1994) is reviewed in detail in this section.

0 0 modeling methods use object classes to represent real-worid objects. They use

references to renresent relationship between objects. The major concep ts of 0 0 modeling

35

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

48/337

metho ds include objects, object classes, encapsulation and inheritance. An object is a

stm ctur e that encapsulates attributes and methods that operate on the object. The

attributes' values express the state ofan object. The behavior of an object is expressed by

a set of methods. An object class is a logical grouping of objects that have common

attributes and methods. Encapsulation is the property that attributes and methods of an

object are hidden from the outside world and do not have to be known to access the

object's data values or invoke the object's m ethods. A method is activated by sending a

message from one object to another. Another unique feature is that 0 0 modeling

explicitly models class-subclass relationships, which show generalization and specialization

of real-world en thies. Generalization hierarchy is a hierarchical grouping of objects that

share common attributes and m ethods. Inheritance is the property in which each class

assumes the attributes and methods of hs ancestors when classes are arranged in hierarchy.

Properties that are unique to each subclass are defined in that subclass. In 0 0 modeling, a

new composite object can be defined from previously defined objects in nested or

hierarchical fashion. 0 0 modeling method also explicitly represen ts assembly stmc ture

(whole-to-part).

0 0 modeling approach captures the informational aspect explicitly. It also

captures what activhies are performed on the attributes ofanobject class as methods.

How ever, the 0 0 approach has several limhations as a BPR modeling method. First, the

0 0 approach does not support the definition of process steps as an aggregation of

activities or as top-dow n decomposition of the process (Fichman & Kemerer, 1992).

Second, 0 0 modeling does not support specifying an end-to-end processing sequence

(Fichman & Kem erer, 1992). To find a process sequence, method paths must be traced.

Third, the 0 0 approach does not support how to define inputs and outputs of a process

explichly. Fourth, the 0 0 approach does not have a mechanism to show who performs

each of the process steps. In sum, 0 0 modeling supports informational and functional

perspectives but lacks organizational perspective (Wang, 1994). Also, the timing

information in descriptions of event classes is not specified explichly (Wang, 1994).

Jacobson et al. (1995) proposed an 0 0 approach to BPR. Their method uses two

types of models: the use-case model and the object mo del The use-case model describes

36

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

49/337

how the external environment interacts with the business. The use-case model provides an

overall picture of what a business system performs. The object model is used to capture

details of

a

business system, such as how the business system is internally stmctured, how

activities are linked into a process, what outcomes are produced or what resources are

used in the business. An object can be an interface object, a control object or an entity

object. The interface and control objects typically represent people wh o belong to a

certain resource category. Using these two objects, this method can exphcitly capture

who performs the operations. Entity objects represent things handled in the business

system. A state transhion diagram is also used to show different states ofanobject.

Stimuli and cond itions that cause the transition are also specified in this diagram. In

addition, the interaction diagram is used to show how the various objects collaborate to

execu te a certain flow of events.

In sum, this 0 0 method supports the informational perspective using the attributes

ofanobject class. The organizational perspective is also supported by packaging a set of

tasks into an interaction object or a control object representing people who perform the

tasks.

The behavioral perspective is only partially supported by the narrative descriptions

of

a

use case. The interaction diagram shows the sequence of process steps. The

functional perspective is also supported by the use-case model, which shows a set of use

cases. The input-ou tput relationship among activities is not explicitly specified. In this

method , once a use-case model for a new process is developed, the object model for a

new process can be developed. How ever, the way to develop a use-case model for a new

proc ess is not specified in detail. Moreover, the strategic perspective is not supported by

this modeling method.

Wang (1994) proposed an 0 0 process modeling method, an extension of an 0 0

system analysis model for BPR. He expanded the traditional 0 0 modeling so that the

organizational and behavioral dimensions can be captured. His method uses four types of

object classes: output object classes, physiomorphic object classes (physically existing

enth ies such as a customer or machine), event object classes, and input object classes. His

diagram has fiinctional departmen ts on the vertical axis and time dimension on th e

horizontal axis. An 0 0 model is mapped into this diagram. An end-to-end processing

37

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

50/337

sequence is captured using event objects and the time dimension. How ever, the time

dimension may not be able to handle a complex situation. To capture the organizational

aspect of

a

business process, an object class is placed in a section of the department

dimension, whh each section representing a particular functional department. In this

modeling method , the strategic perspective is not supported. More importantly, W ang's

0 0 approach does not provide systematic ways of analyzing and redesigning the existing

proces s. A redesigning process still relies mostly on a BPR analyst's experience and

intuition.

Entity-Relationship Models

Entity-Relationship (E-R) models (Chen, 1976; Teorey, Yang, & Fry, 1986;

Storey , 1991) encapsulate informational aspects of objects. In E-R models, an entity is

used to represent an object and its relationship is used to represent an association between

objec ts. Superclass-subclass is capture by IS-A relationship. E-R model captures the

informational aspect ofabusiness process but not other aspects of a business process. E-R

model is primarily used to complement the insufficiency of functional modeling m ethod s to

specify the informational aspect of

a

business process.

Dynamic Simulation Modeling

Dynamic modeling whh simulation capability is suggested by several researchers

(Kettinger et a l , 1995; van Meel, Boys & Sol, 1995). Dynamic models are formal,

executable rep resentations of a business process. In dynamic models, a process is defined

as a series of inter-connected activhies. A process can be defined at any level of

aggregation. Dynamic models exphchly represent the sequences of activhies and the

behavior ofa business process over time. Discrete event simulation with animation

features is frequently used to evaluate the possible ahemate designs of abusiness process.

The simulation outcomes are compared in order to select the final solution.

In a dynamic model, the process steps that comprise a process are identified.

Inputs, o utpu ts, and o ther resources used to p roduce the outpu ts are also identified for

each activity as even ts. Then, the sequential relationship among even ts is defined. Also,

38

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

51/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

52/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

53/337

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH M ETHODOLOGY

Introduction

The objective of this research is to develop and test a BPR modeling method. This

modeling method provides a step-by-step approach to develop a model for an existing

proce ss. It also provides steps to analyze and redesign a business process. The m ethod

employs an 0 0 modeling framework. The modeling framework used in the method

possesses mechanisms to capture the information necessary to support BPR activities in an

effective and efficient m anner. Moreov er, the modeling method presents relevant

information in an appropriate format to support BPR activhies efficiently.

W e used the unified research m ethodology proposed by Baldwin and Y adav

(1995) to achieve our research objective. The primary reason for using this research

methodology was that h specifies detailed steps for developing a conceptual model that

provides a good basis to develop a system. In the research, we treated a modeling m ethod

as a system. By doing this, the required com ponents of a BPR modeling method and their

relationship were defined more clearly. The lack of good to ols to support BPR is a critical

issue (Davenport, 1993a). This means that a BPR m odeling method needs to be

implemented as a computerized tool in order to be useful for practitioners. Consequently,

it was important to provide a conceptual model of a BPR modeling method that is more

amenable to automation. Chapter IV elaborates the idea of treating a modeling method as

a system in detail.

The unified research methodology consists of the following nine steps:

Problem Identification Phase:

1. Form ulate the problem.

Theory Building Phase:

2. Constmct know ledge-level theories or principle that address the problem.

3. Constm ct symbol-level theories or principles.

Theory Testing Phase:

4. Operationalize knowledge-level theories and possibly form behavioral-oriented

hypotheses.

41

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

54/337

5.

Identify and constm ct symbol-level design and form symbol-oriented hypotheses.

6. Develop prototype systems based on the above designs.

7. Test the system.

8. Evalua te and validate the resuhs.

9. Refine the problem, principles, theories and hypo theses and repeat steps 1 to 8, if

necessary.

Although the unified research methodology w as developed for research in the field of

artificial intelligence, h was adapted to provide a systematic procedure for developing and

testing a theory in other fields (used in Kim, 1996; Marquis, 1997). The rest of this

chapter discusses how each of the nine steps was applied to the research.

Formulation of the Problem

The first step of the unified research methodology is the formulation of the

research problem . In this research, this has been done by identifying shortcomings in the

previous BPR research through historical analysis. The problem addressed by this

research is the lack of

a

modeling method that supports business process change in an

effective and efficient manner. More specifically, the existing modeling methods do not

have capabilities to document and present the information necessary to carry out key BPR

project activities throughout a BPR project. Moreover, the existing modeling methods do

not provide specific steps for a strategy-driven analysis and redesign of the existing

proce ss, which a re key issues in BPR.

Following the formulation of the main problems, the purpose of this research has

been defined as the development of

a

modeling m ethod that supports BPR projects, as

well as subsequent incremental process improvement, under the concept of business

process change management. Then, more specific research questions have been defined.

Those research questions address primarily the following issues:

W hat kinds of information about a business process exist and how those should be

captured and presented in a model.

Ho w the information should be analyzed in order to derive a new process

stmcture.

42

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

55/337

Con stmction of Know ledge-Level Theories or Principles

Know ledge-level theory describes how certain characteristics of knowledge

interact with characteristics of the environment to produce observed behaviors (Baldwin

& Yad av, 1995). For this research, the system behavior has been described in terms of the

capabilities of

a

BPR modeling method. Through these capabilhies, BPR analysts should

be able to pursue a BPR project m ore efficiently. Following the identification of the

desired behavior ofaBPR m odeling m ethod, a knowledge-level theory has been

developed . The knowledge-level theory in this research explains what information about a

business process is captured in a model and what kind of analyses is done to the

information. Since the research has treated a modeling method as a system, the

know ledge concep ts identified have been treated as componen ts of a system. The

interactions between those knowledge concepts produce the desired behavior of the

system and support BPR activities more efficiently.

Constmction of Symbol-Level Theories or Principles

Constmction ofasymbol-level theory or principle requires the derivation of the

internal archhecture that represents the knowledge level constm cts. In this research,

symbol-level theo ry has described what mechanisms a modeling framew ork uses to

cap ture all the information for BPR. It has also described what formats are used to coUect

and present the information. Moreover, h has described what steps in a modeling method

are used to redesign a business process.

This step concerned an archhectural design that best achieves the behavior ofa

BP R modeling method specified at the knowledge level. The architectural design included

diagramm ing notations and the stmcture of each constmct used in the diagram. The

detailed steps of how to use the modeling framework were another archhectural design.

Qperationahzation of Knowledge-Level Theories and

Formation of Behavioral-Oriented Hypo theses

In the unified research methodology, the purpose of this step is to transform

abstract constmcts of knowledge-level theories and principles into specific unhs that

comprise operationalized proposhions or behavior-oriented hypotheses in a certain

43

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

56/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

57/337

derived from knowledge-level and symbol-level proposhions. Then, an evaluation process

wa s designed. According to the plan, three experts evaluated the proposed method and

three benchmark m ethods. Then, those methods were compared to determine the

comprehensiveness of the proposed modeling method. The comprehensiveness was

measured in terms of the following hems: (a) ability to capture the information necessary

to support BP R activities, and (b) coverage of phases or activities throughout a BPR

project.

The four methods were initially evaluated by the primary researcher of this

research. T hen, three experts evaluated the evaluations. The Delphi method was used to

achieve consensus among the experts. After this expert evaluation was completed, the

evaluation was sent to the original method developer in order to receive the feedback.

The feedback from the original developer, if received, was planned to be evaluated by the

expe rts to determine the final evaluation of the modeling methods. How ever, the feedback

from the original developers could not be obtained.

Validation of the Extended 0 0 Modeling Method

The seventh and eighth steps concern the validation of the knowledge-level and

symbol-level theories and principles. In this research, the focus of validation was on the

ability of the extended 0 0 modeling method to cap ture information about a business

process and support BPR project activhies. The validation was enhanced through

comparisons with other modeling methods.

The validation procedure involved tw o phases: (a) modeling method validation and

(b) concep tual model validation. The validation process was accomplished by assuring

that each of the nine steps in the unified research methodology had been derived logically

and consistently from the previous step. Modeling method validation was concem ed with

whether the symbol-level theories and proposhions were consistently and properly

implemented in a modeling framework and the steps of the modeling method. The

validation ofamodeling framework and the steps of the modeling method through the

evaluation of the test results indirectly established the correctness of symbol-level

conc epts and principles. As shown in Figure 3.1 , modeling method validation wa s

45

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

58/337

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

59/337

In this research, as mentioned before, the validation effort focused on

demonstrating the comprehensiveness of the proposed modeling method to support a BPR

project. The validation concentrated especially on:

1. Ability to captu re the information necessary to support BPR activhies.

2.

Coverage of phases or activhies througho ut a BPR project.

To achieve the validation, four testable questions were derived. An evaluation

framework to measure the above tw o aspects was also established to minimize the

subjectivhy and biases in the evaluation. The framework had two p arts: (a) a framew ork

for evaluating the ability to capture the information necessary to support BPR activities,

and (b) a framework for evaluating the coverage of phases or activities throughout a BPR

project.

Each of three viable existing modeling methods for BPR and the proposed method

was evaluated using the framework. Three modeling methods were used as benchmark in

order to determine the comprehensiveness of the proposed method. Da ta about the

modeling methods was collected from the published materials of the benchmark methods

and the written docum ent of the proposed method. This reduced the bias in the evaluation

process becau se anyone could go back to the m aterials to investigate the accuracy of the

evaluation.

The primary researcher of this study evaluated each of the methods first. Three

experts evaluated the co rrectness and completeness of the evaluation. The Delphi method

was applied to achieve the more objective and unbiased evaluation. After the consensus

was made, the evaluation was forwarded to the original developers of the benchmark

methods to obtain feedback about the evaluation. The feedback, if obtained, would be

evaluated by the experts using the Delphi method; however, the feedback could not be

obtained. Then, the evaluation of the methods was finalized. Finally, the methods w ere

compared to determine the comprehensiveness of the proposed m ethod. If the propo sed

modeling method were not evaluated as a more comprehensive method than the

benchm ark me thods, the p roposhions at symbol-level would be considered as invalid.

Chapter V p resents the details of the validation procedure. Chapter VI presents the

resuhs of the evaluation and comparison.

47

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

60/337

Refinement of the Problem. Theories, Principles and Hypotheses

The validation process may reveal mistakes made during the course of action.

When this happens, h is necessary to refine the problem, theories, principles and

hypotheses by repeating step I through step 8. Any unexpected test results may also

initiate this loop. In this research, changes to the conceptual model and the future

validation of the changes were suggested as an area of future research.

48

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

61/337

CHAPTER IV

DEVELOPMENT OF AN EXTENDED 0 0 MODELING METHOD FOR BPR

Introduction

This chapter discusses the development ofanextended 0 0 modeling method for a

BPR . The method has been developed based on the previous wo rk done by Nak atani and

Yad av (19 96). As mentioned in Chapter III, this research has treated the m odeling

method as a system. According to the systems concept, a system has:

1. Bou ndaries: boundaries separate a system from its environment.

2.

Objectives: a system has objectives to achieve.

3. Fun ctions: a system carries out functions to achieve the objectives.

4. Com ponen ts: a system consists of components.

5.

Stm cture: components are arranged to perform functions.

The research has treated a BPR modeling method as a manual system. Therefore, the

users ofamodeling m ethod, BPR analysts, have been considered as an integral part of the

modehng m ethod. A BPR m odeling method has the primary objective of supporting BPR

activities throughout a BPR project. A BPR analyst carries out the functions of a BPR

mod ehng m ethod to achieve this objective. When these functions are carried o ut, a

modeling method shows hs behavior. The chapter discusses a conceptual model of a BP R

modeling method as a conceptual model of a system. A conceptual model of a BPR

modeling method has been developed by identifying:

Desired behavior,

Required components, and

Stmcture of components.

In this way, a conceptual model of a modeling method, w hich includes required

components and their stmcture, has been clearly defined.

First, the chapter describes the desired behavior ofaBPR modeling method

following the unified research methodology. The chapter examines hs desired behavior

under a BPR methodology because a BPR modeling method is an integral part of BPR

49

8/11/2019 31295014212780 (1)bpr

62/337

methodo logy. Therefore, the previous BPR methodology research has been synthesized

to identify what a BPR modeling method should do as hs desired behavior.

The chapter discusses components of a BPR modeling method as various forms of

kno wledge that

31295014212780 (1)bpr

Documents

Transcript of 31295014212780 (1)bpr