Improving Business Processes: Does Anybody have an Idea?

  • Rob J. B. Vanwersch
  • Irene Vanderfeesten
  • Eric Rietzschel
  • Hajo A. Reijers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9253)

Abstract

As part of process redesign initiatives, substantial time is spent on the systematic description and analysis of the as-is process. By contrast, to-be scenarios are often generated in a less rigorous way. Only one or a few workshops are organized for this purpose, which rely on the use of techniques that are susceptible to bias and incompleteness, e.g. brainstorming. In this paper, we evaluate a new technique for generating process improvement ideas: the RePro (Rethinking of Processes) technique. Its backbone is formed by process improvement principles that guide practitioners in a systematic and comprehensive exploration of the solution space. An experiment was conducted to compare the performance of the RePro technique with traditional brainstorming. Results confirm the potential for using a more advanced technique during process redesign workshops, but also show that the way such a technique is used strongly affects its performance.

Keywords

Process redesign Process innovation Improvement principles Controlled experiment RePro 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Business Process Management: a comprehensive survey. ISRN Software Engineering 2013, 1–37 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Netjes, M., Mans, R.S., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M., Vanwersch, R.J.B.: BPR Best Practices for the Healthcare Domain. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 605–616. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Netjes, M., Vanderfeesten, I.T., Reijers, H.A.: “Intelligent” Tools for Workflow Process Redesign: A Research Agenda. In: Bussler, C.J., Haller, A. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3812, pp. 444–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Limam Mansar, S., Reijers, H.A., Ounnar, F.: Development of a decision-making strategy to improve the efficiency of BPR. Expert. Syst. Appl. 36, 3248–3262 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Griesberger, P., Leist, S., Zellner, G.: Analysis of techniques for business process improvement. In: 19th European Conference on Information Systems, paper 20. Association for Information Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chai, K.-H., Zhang, J., Tan, K.-C.: A TRIZ-based method for new service design. J. Serv. Res. 8, 48–66 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vanwersch, R.J.B., Pufahl, L., Vanderfeesten, I., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: How suitable is the RePro technique for rethinking care processes? Beta working paper no. 468, Eindhoven (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reijers, H.A., Limam Mansar, S.: Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics. Omega 33, 283–306 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28, 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van de Ven, A.H., Delbecq, A.L.: The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group decision making processes. Acad. Manage. J. 17, 605–621 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patrício, L., Fisk, R.P., Cunha, J.F.E., Constantine, L.: Multilevel service design: from customer value constellation to service experience blueprinting. J. Serv. Res. 14, 180–200 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parnes, S.J., Meadow, A.: Effects of ‘‘brainstorming’’ instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects. J. Educ. Psychol. 50, 171–176 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diehl, M., Stroebe, W.: Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53, 497–509 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stroebe, W., Nijstad, B.A., Rietzschel, E.F.: Beyond productivity loss in brainstorming groups: the evolution of a question. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43, 157–203 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gettys, C.F., Pliske, R.M., Manning, C., Casey, J.T.: An evaluation of human act generation performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 39, 23–31 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Connolly, T., Wynne, B.E.: Process structuring in electronic brainstorming. Information Systems Research 7, 268–277 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coskun, H., Paul, P.B., Brown, V., Sherwood, J.J.: Cognitive stimulation and problem presentation in idea-generating groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 4, 307–329 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rietzschel, E.F., Nijstad, B.A., Stroebe, W.: Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: the effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and originality of generated ideas. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43, 933–946 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nijstad, B.A., Stroebe, W., Lodewijkx, H.F.M.: Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: exposure effects in an idea generation task. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38, 535–544 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith, S.M., Ward, T.B., Schumacher, J.S.: Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation task. Mem. Cognit. 6, 837–845 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Daly, S.R., Christian, J.L., Yilmaz, S., Seifert, C.M., Gonzalez, R.: Assessing design heuristics for idea generation in an introductory engineering course. International Journal of Engineering Education 28, 463–473 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Osborn, A.F.: Applied imagination. Charles Scribner’s Sons, Oxford (1953)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shahzad, K., Giannoulis, C.: Towards a Goal-Driven Approach for Business Process Improvement Using Process-Oriented Data Warehouse. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2011. LNBIP, vol. 87, pp. 111–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yilmaz, S., Christian, J.L., Daly, S.R., Seifert, C.M., Gonzalez, R.: Idea generation in collaborative settings. In: Kovacevic, A. et al. (eds.) E&PDE 2011. Creativity in Design Education, pp. 115–120 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kolb, J., Zimoch, M., Weber, B., Reichert, M.: How social distance of process designers affects the process of process modeling: insights from a controlled experiment. In: 29th Annual Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1364–1370. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weber, B., Zeitelhofer, S., Pinggera, J., Torres, V., Reichert, M.: How Advanced Change Patterns Impact the Process of Process Modeling. In: Bider, I., Gaaloul, K., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, H.A., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPMDS 2014 and EMMSAD 2014. LNBIP, vol. 175, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vanwersch, R.J.B., Shahzad, K., Vanhaecht, K., Grefen, P., Pintelon, L., Mendling, J., Van Merode, G.G., Reijers, H.A.: Methodological support for business process redesign in health care: a literature review protocol. International Journal of Care Pathways 15, 119–126 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vanwersch, R.J.B., Shahzad, K., Vanderfeesten, I., Vanhaecht, K., Grefen, P., Pintelon, L., Mendling, J., Van Merode, G.G., Reijers, H.A.: Methodological support for business process redesign in healthcare: a systematic literature review. Beta working paper no. 437, Eindhoven (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moody, D.L.: The method evaluation model: a theoretical model for validating information systems design methods. In: 11th European Conference on Information Systems, paper 79. Association for Information Systems (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roenker, D.L., Thompson, C.P., Brown, S.C.: Comparison of measures for the estimation of clustering in free recall. Psychol. Bull. 76, 45–48 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Williams, B.A., Mandrekar, J.N., Mandrekar, S.J., Cha, S.S., Furth, A.F.: Finding optimal cutpoints for continuous covariates with binary and time-to-event outcomes. Technical report series no. 79, Health Sciences Research Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rietzschel, E., Slijkhuis, J.M., Van Yperen, M.W.: Task structure, need for structure, and creativity. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 44, 386–399 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Neuberg, S.L., Newsom, J.T.: Personal Need for Structure: Individual differences in the desire for simpler structure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65, 113–131 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Anderson, C.A., Bushman, B.J.: External validity of ``trivial” experiments: The case of laboratory aggression. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1, 19–41 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Anderson, C.A., Lindsay, J.J., Bushman, B.J.: Research in the psychological laboratory: Truth of triviality? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 8, 3–9 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Malone, T.W., Crowston, K., Lee, J., Pentland, B., Dellarocas, C., Wyner, G., Quimby, J., Osborn, C.S., Bernstein, A., Herman, G., Klein, M., O’Donnell, E.: Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes. Management Science 45, 425–443 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Klein, M., Petti, C.: A handbook-based methodology for redesigning business processes. Knowledge and Process Management 13, 108–119 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Margherita, A., Klein, M., Elia, G.: Metrics-based process redesign with the MIT process handbook. Knowledge and Process Management 14, 46–57 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nissen, M.E.: An intelligent tool for process redesign: manufacturing supply-chain applications. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 12, 321–339 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rob J. B. Vanwersch
    • 1
  • Irene Vanderfeesten
    • 1
  • Eric Rietzschel
    • 2
  • Hajo A. Reijers
    • 3
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.VU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations