RUPERT: A Modelling Tool for Supporting Business Process Improvement Initiatives

  • Florian Johannsen
  • Hans-Georg Fill
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8463)


Business process improvement (BPI) will be a high priority topic for CEOs in the near future. Currently available BPI approaches, however, lack means for adequately codifying, documenting and processing knowledge created in a BPI project. Therefore we developed RUPERT (Regensburg University Process Excellence and Reengineering Toolkit), which is a tool for managing knowledge in a BPI project, covering all stages of the knowledge lifecycle. In this paper, we describe the design and implementation of RUPERT.


Process Knowledge Business Process Improvement Knowledge Management Tool Share Process Knowledge High Priority Topic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sharma, G., Baoku, L.: Customer satisfaction in Web 2.0 and information technology development. Information Technology & People 26, 347–367 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seethamraju, R., Marjanovic, O.: Role of process knowledge in business process improvement methodology: A case study. BPMJ 15, 920–936 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heckl, D., Moormann, J., Rosemann, M.: Uptake and success factors of Six Sigma in the financial services industry. Business Process Management Journal 16, 436–472 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davis, D.: 3rd Biennial PEX Network Report: State of the Industry - Trends and Success Factors in Business Process Excellence (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McDonald, M.P., Aron, D.: Reimagining IT: The 2011 CIO Agenda. Gartner (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siha, S.M., Saad, G.H.: Business process improvement: empirical assessment and extensions. Business Process Management Journal 14, 778–802 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zellner, G.: A Structured Evaluation of Business Process Improvement Approaches. Business Process Management Journal 17, 203–237 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Adesola, S., Baines, T.: Developing and evaluating a methodology for business process improvement. Business Process Management Journal 11, 37–46 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vaccaro, A., Parente, R., Veloso, F.M.: Knowledge management tools, inter-organizational relationships, innovation and firm performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77, 1076–1089 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xu, Y., Bernard, A., Perry, N., Lian, L.: Managing knowledge management tools: a systematic classification and comparison. Management and Service Science (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pande, P., Neuman, R., Cavanagh, R.: The Six Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola, and other top companies are honing their performance. McGraw-Hill, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anaby-Tavor, et al.: Insights into enterprise conceptual modeling. Data & Knowledge Engineering 69, 1302–1318 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fill, H.-G., Hickl, S., Karagiannis, D., Oberweis, A., Schoknecht, A.: A Formal Specification of the Horus Modeling Language Using FDMM. In: Proceedings Wirtschaftsinformatik, Paper 73, Leipzig (2013) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fill, H.-G., Redmond, T., Karagiannis, D.: FDMM: A Formalism for Describing ADOxx Meta Models and Models. In: Proceedings 14th ICEIS, pp. 133–144 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fill, H.-G., Karagiannis, D.: On the Conceptualisation of Modelling Methods Using the ADOxx Meta Modelling Platform. EMISA - An International Journal 8 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clark, T., Sammut, P., Willans, J.: Applied metamodelling (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 28, 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bevan, N.: Measuring usability as quality of use. Software Quality Journal 4 (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kirakowski, J., Corbett, M.: SUMI: The software usability measurement inventory. British Journal of Educational Technology 24, 210–212 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johannsen, F., Fill, H.-G.: Codification of knowledge in business process improvement projects. Paper Conditionally Accepted for ECIS 2014, Tel Aviv (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alavi, M., Leidner, D.E.: Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25, 107–136 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Johannsen
    • 1
  • Hans-Georg Fill
    • 2
  1. 1.Business EngineeringUniversity of RegensburgGermany
  2. 2.Research Group Knowledge EngineeringUniversity of ViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations