Advertisement

Diagnosing the Administration Systems as a Prerequisite for Enterprises Business Processes Reengineering

  • Oleg Kuzmin
  • Vadym Ovcharuk
  • Volodymyr ZhezhukhaEmail author
  • Dhruv Mehta
  • Jan Gregus
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1035)

Abstract

This paper proposes the method for diagnosing the administration systems as a prerequisite for an enterprise’s business processes reengineering. The method is based on identifying these systems’ capacity to facilitate the achievement of the established purposes of the company (“target-means” principle) in the context of transposed projections of the Balance Scorecard (internal processes within administration systems; personnel learning and growth in them; “customers” satisfaction with administration systems; financial aspects of these systems).

References

  1. 1.
    Agrawal, S.: Competency based balanced scorecard model: an integrative perspective. Indian J. Ind. Relat. 44(1), 24–34 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaplan, R., Norton, D.P.: The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kunz, G.: Zielvereinbarungen und Balanced Scorecard. Personal 51(10), 488–493 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shadbolt, N.M.: The balanced scorecard: a strategic management tool for ranchers. Rangelands 29(2), 4–9 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Humphreys, K., Shayne Gary, M., Trotman, K.T.: Dynamic decision making using the balanced scorecard framework. Account. Rev.: J. Am. Account. Assoc. 91(5), 1441–1465 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kryvinska, N.: Building consistent formal specification for the service enterprise agility foundation. J. Serv. Sci. Res. 4(2), 235–269 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaczor, S., Kryvinska, N.: It is all about services - fundamentals, drivers, and business models. J. Serv. Sci. Res. 5(2), 125–154 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kryvinska, N., Gregus, M.: SOA and Its Business Value in Requirements, Features, Practices and Methodologies. Comenius University in Bratislava (2014). (ISBN 9788022337649)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Molnár, E., Molnár, R., Kryvinska, N., Greguš, M.: Web Intelligence in practice. J. Serv. Sci. Res. 6(1), 149–172 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Auger, N., Roy, D.: The balanced scorecard: a tool for health policy decision-making. Can. J. Public Health/Revue Canadienne De Sante’e Publique 95(3), 233–234 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burney, L., Swanson, N.: The relationship between balanced scorecard characteristics and managers’ job satisfaction. J. Manag. Issues 22(2), 166–181 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bütikofer, P.: Balanced Scorecard als Instrument zur Steuerung eines IT-Unternehmens im Wandel – Ein Praxisbericht über die Einführung der Balanced Scorecard bei der Systor AG. Die Unternehmung 53(5), 321–332 (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gardiner, C.: Balanced scorecard ethics. Bus. Prof. Ethics J. 21(3/4), 129–150 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kurylova, A.: Postroyeniye sbalansirovannoy sistemy pokazateley kak effektivnogo sredstva finansovogo mekhanizma upravleniya na predpriyatiyakh avtomobil’noy promyshlennosti. Korporativnyye finansy 1, 55–67 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kolesnykova, T., Martyshova, Y.: Issledovaniye vozmozhnostey vnedreniya sistemy elektronnogo dokumentooborota v organizatsii. Uspekhi v khimii i khimicheskoy tekhnologii XII/10, 22–25 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dyer, J.: A clarification of “remarks on the analytic hierarchy process”. Manag. Sci. 36(3), 274–275 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holder, R.: Some comments on the analytic hierarchy process. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 41(11), 1073–1076 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Islam, R., Biswal, M., Alam, S.: Clusterization of alternatives in the analytic hierarchy process. Mil. Oper. Res. 3(1), 69–78 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gregus, M., Kryvinska, N.: Service Orientation of Enterprises - Aspects, Dimensions, Technologies. Comenius University in Bratislava (2015). (ISBN 9788022339780)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lv, M., Chen, K., Xue, L., Su, Y., Li, R.: Hierarchy analysis for flow units division of low-permeability reservoir: a case study in Xifeng oilfield, Ordos basin. Energy Explor. Exploit. 28(2), 71–86 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Korobov, V., Tutygin, A.: Preimushchestva i nedostatki metoda analiza iyerarkhiy. Izvestiya Rossiyskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. A.I. Gertsena 122, 108–115(2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saati, T: Prinyatiye resheniy. Radio i svyaz’, Moskva (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oleg Kuzmin
    • 1
  • Vadym Ovcharuk
    • 1
  • Volodymyr Zhezhukha
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dhruv Mehta
    • 2
  • Jan Gregus
    • 3
  1. 1.Lviv Polytechnic National UniversityLvivUkraine
  2. 2.Imperial College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Faculty of ManagementComenius University in BratislavaBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations