Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Meta Modeling for Business Process Improvement

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Business & Information Systems Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conducting business process improvement (BPI) initiatives is a topic of high priority for today’s companies. However, performing BPI projects has become challenging. This is due to rapidly changing customer requirements and an increase of inter-organizational business processes, which need to be considered from an end-to-end perspective. In addition, traditional BPI approaches are more and more perceived as overly complex and too resource-consuming in practice. Against this background, the paper proposes a BPI roadmap, which is an approach for systematically performing BPI projects and serves practitioners’ needs for manageable BPI methods. Based on this BPI roadmap, a domain-specific conceptual modeling method (DSMM) has been developed. The DSMM supports the efficient documentation and communication of the results that emerge during the application of the roadmap. Thus, conceptual modeling acts as a means for purposefully codifying the outcomes of a BPI project. Furthermore, a corresponding software prototype has been implemented using a meta modeling platform to assess the technical feasibility of the approach. Finally, the usability of the prototype has been empirically evaluated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Details on each BPI technique can be found in Hagemeyer et al. (2006); Griesberger et al. (2011); Meran et al. (2013); George et al. (2005); Pande et al. (2000), or Kettinger et al. (1997) for instance.

  2. https://www.r-project.org/; accessed 22 July 2016.

  3. Formalism for Describing ADOxx Meta Models and Models.

  4. http://www.ucc.ie/hfrg/questionnaires/sumi/index.html; Accessed 22 July 2016.

  5. According to the HFRG, a minimum number of 10–12 participants is required to arrive at a valid analysis.

  6. http://sumi.ucc.ie/en/; Accessed 22 July 2016.

References

  • Adesola S, Baines T (2005) Developing and evaluating a methodology for business process improvement. Bus Process Manag J 11(1):37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anaby-Tavor A, Amid D, Fisher A, Bercovici A, Ossher H, Callery M, Desmond M, Krasikov S, Simmonds I (2010) Insights into enterprise conceptual modeling. Data Knowl Eng 69(12):1302–1318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen B (1999) Business process improvement toolbox. ASQ Qual Press, Milwaukee

    Google Scholar 

  • Angele J, Fensel D, Landes D, Studer R (1998) Developing knowledge-based systems with MIKE. Autom Softw Eng 5(4):389–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arh T, Blažič BJ (2008) A case study of usability testing – the SUMI evaluation approach of the EducaNext portal. WSEAS Trans Inf Sci Appl 5(2):175–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Balestracci D (2009) Why did total quality management fail? Quality Digest. https://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/twitter-ed/why-did-total-quality-management-fail.html#. Accessed 17 May 2017

  • Bamford D, Greatbanks R (2005) The use of quality management tools and techniques: a study of application in everyday situations. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 22(4):376–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker J, Kahn D (2012) Der Prozess im Fokus. In: Becker J, Kugeler M, Rosemann M (eds) Prozessmanagement - Ein Leitfaden zur prozessorientierten Organisationsgestaltung, 7th edn. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergener P, Delfmann P, Weiss B, Winkelmann A (2015) Detecting potential weaknesses in business processes: an exploration of semantic pattern matching in process models. Bus Process Manag J 21(1):25–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevan N (1995) Measuring usability as quality of use. Softw Qual J 4(2):115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bork D, Fill H-G (2014) Formal aspects of enterprise modeling methods: a comparison framework. In: Proceedings of 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Waikoloa, Hawaii, pp 3400–3409

  • Breyfogle FW (2010) Process improvement projects shortcomings and resolution. Int J Lean Six Sigma 1(2):92–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruhn M (2013) Operative Gestaltung des Qualitätsmanagements für Dienstleistungen. In: Bruhn M (ed) Qualitätsmanagement für Dienstleistungen, 9th edn. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 251–354

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bunney HS, Dale BG (1997) The implementation of quality management tools and techniques: a study. TQM Mag 9(3):183–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavallin H, Martin WM, Heylighen A (2007) How relative absolute can be: SUMI and the impact of the nature of the task in measuring perceived software usability. AI Soc 22(2):227–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarty A, Tan KC (2007) The current state of six sigma application in services. Manag Service Qual 17(2):194–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravorty SS (2010) Where process-improvement projects go wrong. Wall Street J. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703298004574457471313938130. Accessed 17 May 2017

  • Clark T, Sammut P, Willans J (2008) Applied metamodelling: a foundation for language driven development. http://shura.shu.ac.uk/11884/. Accessed 29 Apr 2017

  • Coskun S, Basligil H, Baracli H (2008) A weakness determination and analysis model for business process improvement. Bus Process Manag J 14(2):243–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale BG, McQuater R (1998) Managing business improvement & quality: implementing key tools and techniques. Blackwell Business, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalkir K (2005) Knowledge management in theory and practice. McGill University, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies I, Green P, Rosemann M, Indulska M, Gallo S (2006) How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data Knowl Eng 58(3):358–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis D (2013) 3rd biennial PEX network report: state of the industry – trends and success factors in business process excellence. http://www.processexcellencenetwork.com/business-transformation/white-papers/special-report-trends-and-success-factors-in-busin

  • de Mast J (2004) A methodological comparison of three strategies for quality improvement. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 21(2):198–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdani Y, Hunger A, Werner S, Mertens S (2004) Ternary grid as a potentially new technique for knowledge elicitation/acquisition. In: Proceedings of 2nd International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Systems, 2004. IEEE, pp 312–315

  • Favre LM (2010) Formalization of MOF-based metamodels. In: Favre LM (ed) Model driven architecture for reverse engineering technologies. Information Resources Management Association. pp 49–79

  • Feller J, Parhankangas A, Smeds R, Jaatinen M (2013) How companies learn to collaborate: emergence of improved inter-organizational processes in R&D alliances. Organ Stud 34(3):313–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fill H-G (2012) SeMFIS: A tool for managing semantic conceptual models. In: Workshop on graphical modeling language development, Lyngby, Denmark

  • Fill H-G (2016) SeMFIS: a flexible engineering platform for semantic annotations of conceptual models. Accepted for Semantic Web – Interoperability, Usability, Applicability. doi:10.3233/SW-160235

  • Fill H-G, Johannsen F (2016) A knowledge perspective on big data by joining enterprise modeling and data analyses. In: Proceedings of 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Kauai, Hawaii, pp 405–4061

  • Fill H-G, Karagiannis D (2013) On the conceptualisation of modelling methods using the ADOxx meta modelling platform. Enterp Model Inf Syst Archit 8(1):4–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fill H-G, Redmond T, Karagiannis D (2012) FDMM: a formalism for describing ADOxx meta models and models. In: Maciaszek, L., Cuzzocrea, A., Cordeiro, J. (eds) Proceedings of ICEIS 2012 – 14th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, SciTePress, Vol.3, pp.133–144

  • Fill H-G, Redmond T, Karagiannis D (2013) Formalizing meta models with FDMM: the ADOxx case. In: Cordeiro J, Maciaszek L, Filipe J (eds) Enterprise information systems LNBIP, vol 141. Springer, Berlin, pp 429–451

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fjeld M, Fredriksson J, Ejdestig M, Duca F, Bötschi K, Voegtli B, Juchli P (2007) Tangible user interface for chemistry education: comparative evaluation and re-design. In: Proceedings SIGCHI Conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 805–808

  • Forster F (2006) The idea behind business process improvement: toward a business process improvement pattern framework. BPTrends 2006:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank U (2010) Outline of a method for designing domain-specific modelling languages. ICB-Research Report, No. 42

  • Frank U (2011a) Some guidelines for the conception of domain-specific modelling languages. In: Nuettgens M, Thomas O, Weber B (eds) Proceedings of the EMISA, Vol. 2011. GI, pp 93–106

  • Frank U (2011b) The MEMO meta modelling language (MML) and language architecture. ICB-Research Report, No, p 43

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank U, Heise D, Kattenstroth H, Schauer H (2008) Designing and utilising business indicator systems within enterprise models-outline of a method. Proc MobIS 2008:89–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser MD, Kumar K, Vaishnavi VK (1994) Strategies for incorporating formal specifications in software development. Commun ACM 37(10):74–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George ML, Rowlands D, Price M, Maxey J (2005) Lean six sigma pocket toolbox. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gijo EV, Rao TS (2005) Six sigma implementation – hurdles and more hurdles. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 16(6):721–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray J, Tolvanen J-P, Kelly S, Gokhale A, Neema S, Sprinkle J (2007) Domain-specific modeling. Handb Dyn Syst Model 7:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg P (2010) The impact of CRM 2.0 on customer insight. J Bus Indust Market 25(6):410–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor S, Hevner AR (2013) Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q 37(2):337–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Griesberger P, Leist S, Zellner G (2011) Analysis of techniques for business process improvement. In: Proceedings 19th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2011), Helsinki

  • Gutzwiller TA (1994) Das CC RIM-Referenzmodell für den Entwurf von betrieblichen, transaktionsorientierten Informationssystemen. Physica, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hagemeyer C, Gershenson JK, Johnson DM (2006) Classification and application of problem solving quality tools: a manufacturing case study. TQM Mag 18(5):455–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall M (2006) Knowledge management and the limits of knowledge codification. J Knowl Manag 10(3):117–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanif M, Khan YS, Zaheer A (2014) Impact of organizational resistance to change on BPR implementation: a case of State Bank of Pakistan. Eur J Bus Manag 6(4):186–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Harel D, Rumpe B (2000) Modeling languages: syntax, semantics and all that stuff, Part I: the basic stuff. Technical Report MCS00-16

  • Harel D, Rumpe B (2004) Meaningful modeling: what's the semantics of "semantics"? IEEE Computer 37(10):64–72

  • Harmon P (2016) The state of business process management – 2016. a BPTrends report. http://www.bptrends.com/bpt/wp-content/uploads/2015-BPT-Survey-Report.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2017

  • Harrington HJ (1991) Business process improvement - the breakthrough strategy for total quality, productivity and competitiveness. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington HJ, Lomax KC (2000) Performance improvement methods: fighting the war on waste. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckl D, Moormann J, Rosemann M (2010) Uptake and success factors of Six Sigma in the financial services industry. Bus Process Manag J 16(3):436–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Höfferer P (2007) Achieving business process model interoperability using metamodels and ontologies. In: Österle H, Schelp J, Winter R (eds) 15th European Conference on Information Systems, St. Gallen, pp 1620–1631

  • Höhenberger S, Delfmann P (2015) Supporting business process improvement through business process weakness pattern collections. In: Proceedings 12th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Osnabrück

  • Ishikawa K (1980) Guide to quality control. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Johannsen F (2011) State of the art concerning the integration of methods and techniques in quality management – literature review and an agenda for research. In: Proceedings of 19th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Helsinki

  • Johannsen F, Fill H-G (2014a) Codification of knowledge in business process improvement projects. In: Proceeding of 22nd European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv

  • Johannsen F, Fill H-G (2014b) RUPERT: a modelling tool for supporting business process improvement initiatives. In: Tremblay MC, Van der Meer D, Rothenberger M, Gupta A, Yoon V (eds) 9th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST), Miami, Springer, pp 418–422

  • Johannsen F, Fill H-G (2015) Supporting knowledge elicitation and analysis for business process improvement through a modeling tool. In: Proceedings 12th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Osnabrück

  • Johannsen F, Fill H-G (2016) Supporting business process improvement through a modeling tool. In: Karagiannis D, Mayr CH, Mylopoulos J (eds) Domain-specific conceptual modeling. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 217–237

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johannsen F, Leist S, Zellner G (2015) Implementing Six Sigma for improving business processes at an automotive bank. In: Vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management 1, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 361–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Jouault F, Bézivin J (2006) KM3: a DSL for metamodel specification. In: Proceedings International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems. Springer, pp 171–185

  • Kaplan AM, Haenlein M (2010) Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Bus Horizons 53(1):59–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karagiannis D, Kühn H (2002) Metamodelling platforms. In: Bauknecht K, Min Tjoa A, Quirchmayr G (eds) Proceedings 3rd International Conference EC-Web 2002 - Dexa 2002, Aix-en-Provence, pp 182–195

  • Karagiannis D, Grossmann W, Höfferer P (2008) Open model initiative: a FEASIBILITY study. University of Vienna, Department of Knowledge Engineering, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettinger WJ, Teng JTC, Guha S (1997) Business process change: a study of methodologies, techniques, and tools. MIS Q 21(1):55–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirakowski J, Corbett M (1993) SUMI: the software usability measurement inventory. Br J Educ Technol 24(3):210–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klefsjö B, Bergquist B, Garvare R (2008) Quality management and business excellence, customers and stakeholders: do we agree on what we are talking about, and does it matter? TQM J 20(2):120–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koubarakis M, Plexousakis D (1999) Business process modelling and design – a formal model and methodology. BT Technol J 17(4):23–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kühne T (2006) Matters of (meta-) modeling. J Softw Syst Model 5(4):369–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang M, Wehner B, Falk T, Griesberger P, Leist S (2015) Evaluating business process improvement patterns by simulation. In: Proceedings 23rd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2015), Münster

  • Le Dinh T, Rickenberg TA, Fill HG, Breitner MH (2014) Towards a knowledge-based framework for enterprise content management. In: Proceedings 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS)

  • Ledeczi A, Maroti M, Bakay A, Karsai G, Garrett J, Thomason C, Nordstrom G, Sprinkle J, Volgyesi P (2001) The generic modeling environment. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Signal Processing, Budapest, Hungary

  • Lee KT, Chuah KB (2001) A SUPER methodology for business process improvement. Int J Oper Prod Manag 21(5/6):687–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leist S, Lichtenegger W (2010) Integration von automatisch generierten und manuell konstruierten Prozessmodellen als Grundlage für den Aufbau einer Prozessarchitektur. In: Proceedings Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik, Göttingen

  • Lewis BR (2007) Managing service quality. In: Dale BG, van der Wiele T, van Iwaarden J (eds) Managing quality. Blackwell, Malden, pp 234–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenegger W (2012) Methoden zur teilautomatischen Konstruktion von Ist-Prozessmodellen mittels Process Mining sowie zur Integration manuell konstruierter und automatisch generierter Ist-Prozessmodelle. Logos, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton P (2010) Engineering and Truth. In: The Royal Academy of Engineering: Philosophy of engineering - Volume 1 of the proceedings of a series of seminars held at The Royal Academy of Engineering, pp 7–13

  • Lovelock C, Wirtz J (2011) Services marketing - people, technology, strategy, 7th edn. Pearson, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • Low WZ, van den Broucke SKLM, Wynn MT, ter Hofstede AHM, De Weerdt J, van der Aalst WMP (2015) Revising history for cost-informed process improvement. Comput 1–27

  • Lymperopoulos C, Chaniotakis IE, Soureli M (2013) The role of price satisfaction in managing customer relationships: the case of financial services. Market Intell Plan 31(3):216–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson K, Kroslid D, Bergman B (2004) Six Sigma umsetzen, 2nd edn. Hanser, München

  • Mansor Z, Kasirun ZM, Yahya S, Arshad NH (2012) The evaluation of WebCost using Software Usability Measurement Inventory (SUMI). Int J Digit Inf Wireless Commun (IJDIWC) 2(2):197–201

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam R, Antony J, Kumar M, Hazlett SA (2014) Absorbing new knowledge in small and medium-sized enterprises: a multiple case analysis of Six Sigma. Int Small Bus J 32(1):81–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAfee A, Brynjolfsson E (2012) Big data: the management revolution. Harv Bus Rev 90(10):60–66

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald MP, Aron D (2011) Executive summary: reimagining IT: the 2011 CIO agenda. Gartner Research

  • McNeill K (2008) Metamodeling with EMF: Generating concrete, reusable Java snippets. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-eclipse-emfmetamodel/index.html?S_TACT=105AGX44&S_CMP=EDU. Accessed 26 Jan 2016

  • McQuater RE, Scurr CH, Dale BG, Hillmann PG (1995) Using quality tools and techniques successfully. TQM Mag 7(6):37–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellat-Parast M (2013) Supply chain quality management: an inter-organizational learning perspective. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 30(5):511–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meran R, John A, Roenpage O, Staudter C (2013) Six Sigma + Lean toolset. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mukerjee K (2013) Customer-oriented organizations: a framework for innovation. J Bus Strateg 34(3):49–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mylopoulos J (1992) Conceptual modeling and Telos. In: Loucopoulos P, Zicari R (eds) Conceptual modelling, databases and CASE: an integrated view of information systems development. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 49–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Object Management Group OMG (2015): OMG Unified Modeling Language TM (OMG UML) – version 2.5. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5. Accessed 25 May 2016

  • Okes D (2002) Organize your quality tool belt. Qual Progress (July 2002), pp.82–86

  • Pande P, Neumann R, Cavanagh R (2000) The Six Sigma way - how GE, Motorola and other top companies are honing their performance. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson A (2013) Profitable customer management: reducing costs by influencing customer behaviour. Europ J Market 47(5/6):857–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poernomo I (2006) The meta-object facility typed. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Applied computing. ACM, pp 1845–1849

  • Povey B (1998) The development of a best practice business process improvement methodology. Benchmarking 5(1):27–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Psomas EL, Fotopoulos CV, Kafetzopoulos DP (2011) Core process management practices, quality tools and quality improvement in ISO 9001 certified manufacturing companies. Bus Process Manag J 17(3):437–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafferty AE, Jimmieson NL, Armenakis AA (2013) Change readiness. A Multilevel Review. J Manag 39(1):110–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigby D, Bilodeau B (2015) Management tools & trends 2015. Bain & Company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Samson D, Challis D (2002) Patterns of business excellence. Meas Bus Excell 6(2):15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar B, Moon I (2014) Improved quality, setup cost reduction, and variable backorder costs in an imperfect production process. Int J Prod Econ 155(2014):204–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauro J, Lewis JR (2012) Quantifying the user experience: practical statistics for user research. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheer A-W, Schneider K (2006) ARIS - architecture of integrated information systems. In: Bernus P, Mertins K, Schmidt G (eds) International handbooks on information systems - Part three. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 605–623

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönthaler F, Vossen G, Oberweis A, Karle T (2012) The Horus method. Business processes for business communities. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 61–136

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Seethamraju R, Marjanovic O (2009) Role of process knowledge in business process improvement methodology: a case study. Bus Process Manag J 15(6):920–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamma H, Hassan S (2013) Customer-driven benchmarking: a strategic approach toward a sustainable marketing performance. Benchmarking 20(3):377–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siau K, Rossi M (2011) Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods – a review and comparative analysis. Inf Syst J 21(3):249–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snee R, Hoerl R (2003) Leading Six Sigma. Prentice Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenberg C, vom Brocke J (2012) Evaluations in the science of the artificial – reconsidering the build-evaluate pattern in design science research. In: Peffers K, Rothenberger M, Kuechler B (eds) Design science research in information systems,Advances in theory and practice. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 381–397

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Strahringer S (1996) Metamodellierung als Instrument des Methodenvergleichs. Shaker, Aachen

    Google Scholar 

  • Strecker S, Heise D, Frank U (2011) RiskM: a multi-perspective modeling method for IT risk assessment. Inf Syst Front 13(4):595–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Studer R, Benjamins VR, Fensel D (1998) Knowledge engineering: principles and methods. Data Knowl Eng 25(1):161–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telang PR, Singh MP (2012) Specifying and verifying cross-organizational business models: an agent-oriented approach. IEEE Trans Services Comput 5(3):305–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thalheim B (2010) Towards a theory of conceptual modelling. J Univers Comput Sci 16(20):3102–3137

    Google Scholar 

  • Thia C, Chai KH, Bauly J, Xin Y (2005) An exploratory study of the use of quality tools and techniques in product development. TQM Mag 17(5):406–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todnem By R (2005) Organisational change management: a critical review. J Change Manag 5(4):369–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolvanen J-P, Kelly S (2009) MetaEdit+: defining and using integrated domain-specific modeling languages. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN conference companion on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications. ACM, pp 819–820

  • Turber S, vom Brocke J, Gassmann O, Fleisch E (2014) Designing business models in the era of internet of things. In: Proceedings 9th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology. Springer, pp 17–31

  • Turkyilmaz A, Oztekin A, Zaim S, Demirel OF (2013) Universal structure modeling approach to customer satisfaction index. Indust Manag Data Syst 113(7):932–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Aalst W, Adriansyah A, de Medeiros AKA, Arcieri F, Baier T, Blickle T, Bose JC, van den Brand P, Brandtjen R, Buijs J (2012) Process mining manifesto. Proceedings of the business process management workshops, lecture notes in business information processing, vol 99. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 169–194

    Google Scholar 

  • van Veenendaal E (1998) Questionnaire based usability testing. In: Proceedings European Software Quality Week Conference, Brussels

  • vom Brocke J, Schmiedel T, Recker J, Trkman P, Mertens W, Viaene S (2014) Ten principles of good business process management. Bus Process Manag J 20(4):530–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wand Y, Weber R (2002) Research commentary: information systems and conceptual modeling – a research agenda. Inf Syst Research 13(4):363–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber RH, Weber R (2010) Internet of things. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2012) Experimentation in software engineering. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Womack JP, Jones DT (1996) Lean thinking. Simon & Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Womack J, Jones D, Roos D (2007) The machine that changed the world, 2nd edn. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu Y, Bernard A, Perry N, Lian L (2011) Managing knowledge management tools: a systematic classification and comparison. In: IEEE Proceedings International Conference on Management and Service Science

  • Nayatani Y (1986) Seven management tools for QC. Rep Stat Appl Res JUSE 33(2):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellner G (2011) A structured evaluation of business process improvement approaches. Bus Process Manag J 17(2):203–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zu X (2009) Infrastructure and core quality management practices: how do they affect quality? Int J Qual Reliab Manag 26(2):129–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management Information Systems, University of Regensburg, Universitätsstraße 31, 93053, Regensburg, Germany

    Florian Johannsen

  2. Information Systems – System Development and Database Application Group, University of Bamberg, An der Weberei 5, 96047, Bamberg, Germany

    Hans-Georg Fill

Authors
  1. Florian Johannsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hans-Georg Fill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Johannsen.

Additional information

Accepted after one revision by Prof. Dr. Bichler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johannsen, F., Fill, HG. Meta Modeling for Business Process Improvement. Bus Inf Syst Eng 59, 251–275 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0477-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0477-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation