A case study about the improvement of business process models driven by indicators

Abstract

Organizations are increasingly concerned about business process model improvement in their efforts to guarantee improved operational efficiency. Quality assurance of business process models should be addressed in the most objective manner, e.g., through the application of measures, but the assessment of measurement results is not a straightforward task and it requires the identification of relevant indicators and threshold values, which are able to distinguish different levels of process model quality. Furthermore, indicators must support the improvements of the models by using suitable guidelines. In this paper, we present a case study to evaluate the BPMIMA framework for BP model improvement. This framework is composed of empirically validated measures related to quality characteristics of the models, a set of indicators with validated thresholds associated with modeling guidelines and a prototype supporting tool. The obtained data suggest that the redesign by applying guidelines driven by the indicator results was successful, as the understandability and modifiability of the models were improved. In addition, the changes in the models according to guidelines were perceived as acceptable by the practitioners who participated in the case study.

Appendix 1: Questionnaires of the case study

Questionnaire 1: Busines Process model “Incorporation of a new employee”

Let us imagine we want to analyze a BP model to understand and modify it. Indicate what proposed changes most affect the understandability and modifiability of the models. For example, if you think that the subprocess IT management, which is carried out by the immediate superior, has led the model to be more understandable/modifiable, choose this option.

• 1. Using subprocesses such as “IT management”${}^{1}$ which is composed of a group of related activities, instead of displaying all the activities${}^{2}$ ...makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these

    

• 2. Using an activity called “Manage revision in POH”${}^{1}$ which is composed of the activities “Effectuate revision in POH” and “Receive results of POH”${}^{2}$ ... makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these

    

• 3. Using decision nodes with the highest number of output possibilities, for example, the gateway “type of contract?” in the participant “correspondent direction” has 5 possibilities${}^{1}$ instead of 4${}^{2}$ (in the original model)... this makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these

    

• 4. Using “join” gateways accompanying “split” ones, for example, the join gateway which accompanied the split “type of contract?” in “new employee” participant... makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these

    

• 5. Using gateways which include two questions at the same $\hbox {time}^{1}$ (fusion of gateways). For example, the gateway “type of contract?”${}^{2}$ implies taking a decision between owner or summer substitution, etc... this makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these

    

• 6. Joining two activities${}^{1}$ in only one${}^{2}$ . That is the case of two activities called “Inform place of the work unit” and “Report standards and specific service agreement”, to make only one which is called “Inform of a) place of the work unit and b) standards and specific service agreement”... this makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these

    

• 7. Using as many events as necessary, although there are more than the number of participants... makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these

    

• 8. Eliminating participants of “IT team”, “pharmacy service” and “Service of prevention of occupational hazards”...makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these

    

Questionnaire 2: Business Process models of “First consultation appointment” and “Appointment for examination with tests”

Let us imagine we want to analyze a BP model to understand and modify it. Indicate what proposed changes most affect the understandability or modifiability of models. For example, if you think that eliminating the participants “SAU” and “OGLE” makes the model easier to understand and modify, choose this option.

• 1. Selecting the common part of subprocess “Appointment for examination with tests” and “First consultation appointment”, for example the activities “Go to SAU” or “Receive correspondent centre” in the participant “new employee” and moving them to the parent model “Appointments”, in order to indicate the particular activities of each subprocess in each subprocess ... makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these

    

• 2. Unifying the activity “Send document of first consultation” ${}^{1}$ in the subprocess “First consultation appointment” and the activity “Send referral note” ${}^{2}$in the subprocess “Appointment for examination with tests” in only one (in common for both) called “send referral note”, indicating it in the parent process “Appointments”... makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these

    

• 3. Unifying activities of “check patient address” in the participant “administrative assistant for appointments” in the subprocess “Appointment for examination with tests” and the activity “check administrative data” and “complete administrative data of patient” ${}^{1}$ in the process “First consultation appointment” as only one for both subprocesses, and moving it to the parent process “Appointments” ... makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these

    

• 4. Using basic activities such as “print appointment note” ${}^{1}$ in the subprocess “First consultation appointment” in the participant “administrative assistant for appointments” instead of not including them...makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these

    

• 5. Using repeated activities after the satisfaction of two different conditions ${}^{1}$ instead of indicating it only once ${}^{2}$, for example in the subprocess “First consultation appointment”... makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these

    

• 6. Merging questions from two gateways into only one. The Gateway “Influence zone” and “Reason to go to medical centre” in the participant “Administrative assistant for appointments” in both subprocesses into only one gateway which includes both questions... makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these

    

• 7. Eliminating the participants “SAU” and “OGLE” in both subprocesses...makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these

    

• 8. Using “join” gateways accompanying “Split” gateways, for example in “another date?” ${}^{1}$ in the subprocess “First consultation appointment...makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these

    

• 9. Using a start event in all the process and subprocesses in each participant ...makes the model

  • $\square$ Easier to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Less easy to understand or modify

  • $\square$ Neither of these