Restrictions in Process Design: A Case Study on Workflows in Healthcare

  • Jörg Becker
  • Christian Janiesch
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4928)


Automating existing processes is as paving cow path compared to major business process reengineering. However, this rather radical approach is not suitable for all business fields. It requires the freedom to modify organizational structures and free core business processes from non-value adding activities. In sectors like healthcare, there are a variety of legal restrictions and treatment guidelines practitioners have to comply with. Hence, freedom to reorganize the organization and to omit non-value adding activities is heavily compromised. In this paper we present findings from a case study that exemplify restrictions in process reorganization and suggest utilizing more moderate approaches to process management.


Process design design restrictions process management workflow management healthcare infection control 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Becker, J., Kugeler, M., Rosemann, M. (eds.): Process Management: A Guide for the Design of Business Processes, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (to appear, 2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker, J., zur Mühlen, M.: Towards a Classification Framework for Application Granularity in Workflow Management Systems. In: Jarke, M., Oberweis, A. (eds.) CAiSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1626, pp. 411–416. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borst, F., et al.: Happy Birthday DIOGENE: A Hospital Information System Born 20 Years Ago. International Journal of Medical Informatics 54, 157–167 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burke, J.P.: Infection Control: A Problem for Patient Safety. New England Journal of Medicine 348, 651–656 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, Data Summary from January 1992 through June 2004, Issued October 2004. American Journal of Infection Control 32, 470-485 (2004) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dewire, D.T.: Application Service Providers. Information Systems Management 17, 14–19 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    DiMasi, J.A., Hansen, R.W., Grabowski, H.G.: The Price of Innovation: New Estimates of Drug Development Costs. Journal of Health Economics 22, 151–185 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, 1st edn. HarperBusiness, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harmon, P.: Business Process Change: A Manager’s Guide to Improving, Redesigning, and Automating Processes. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Institute of Medicine: Crossing the quality chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kohn, L.T., Corrigan, J.M., Donaldson, M.S. (eds.): To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. National Academy Press, Washington, DC (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lenz, R., Reichert, M.: IT Support for Healthcare Processes. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 354–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Magruder, C., Burke, M., Hann, N.E., Ludovic, J.A.: Using Information Technology to Improve the Public Health System. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 11, 123–130 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Object Management Group: Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Specification 1.0 (2006), Available:
  15. 15.
    Panzarasa, S., Stefanelli, M.: Workflow Management Systems for Guideline Implementation. Neurological Sciences 27, 245–249 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Porter, M.E.: Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. The Free Press, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pryor, T.A., Hripcsak, G.: The Arden Syntax for Medical Logic Modules. International Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 10, 215–224 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Siemens AG: Soarian® (2007), Available:
  19. 19.
    Tao, L.: Shifting Paradigms with the Application Service Provider Model. IEEE Computer 34, 32–39 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    The Joint Commission: 2007 National Patient Safety Goals (2007), Available:
  21. 21.
    The Medical Letter Inc.: Choice of Antibacterial Drugs. Treatment Guidelines from The Medical Letter 2, 13-26 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    The Medical Letter Inc.: Treatment of Clostridium Difficile-Associated Disease (CDAD). The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics 48, 89-90 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    TIBCO Software GmbH: TIBCO® Staffware Process Suite (2005), Available:
  24. 24.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Public Health Service Act. (1944), Available:
  25. 25.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M.: Business Process Management: A Survey. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weber, S.G., et al.: Legislative Mandates for Use of Active Surveillance Cultures to Screen for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus and Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci: Position Statement From the Joint SHEA and APIC Task Force. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 28, 249–260 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Workflow Managment Coalition: Terminology & Glossary 3.0 (1999), Available:
  28. 28.
    zur Mühlen, M.: Workflow-based Process Controlling: Foundation, Design and Application of Workflow-driven Process Information Systems. Dissertation. Logos, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Becker
    • 1
  • Christian Janiesch
    • 1
  1. 1.European Research Center for Information SystemsMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations