A Critical Evaluation and Framework of Business Process Improvement Methods

R.J.B. Vanwersch, K. Shahzad, I. Vanderfeesten, K. Vanhaecht, P. Grefen, L.M. Pintelon, J. Mendling, G.G. van Merode, H.A. Reijers

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

The redesign of business processes has a huge potential in terms of reducing costs and throughput times, as well as improving customer satisfaction. Despite rapid developments in the business process management discipline during the last decade, a comprehensive overview of the options to methodologically support a team to move from as-is process insights to to-be process alternatives is lacking. As such, no safeguard exists that a systematic exploration of the full range of redesign possibilities takes place by practitioners. Consequently, many attractive redesign possibilities remain unidentified and the improvement potential of redesign initiatives is not fulfilled. This systematic literature review establishes a comprehensive methodological framework, which serves as a catalog for process improvement use cases. The framework contains an overview of all the method options regarding the generation of process improvement ideas. This is established by identifying six key methodological decision areas, e.g. the human actors who can be invited to generate these ideas or the information that can be collected prior to this act. This framework enables practitioners to compose a well-considered method to generate process improvement ideas themselves. Based on a critical evaluation of the framework, the authors also offer recommendations that support academic researchers in grounding and improving methods for generating process improvement ideas. Next to the framework and its critical evaluation, this review investigates the research procedures of the studies that were used to create the framework. Related to this investigation, academic researchers can find additional guidance regarding procedures for building and evaluating new methods.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)43-53
JournalBusiness & Information Systems Engineering
Volume58
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2016

Fingerprint

Customer satisfaction
Electric grounding
Industry
Throughput
Costs

Cite this

Vanwersch, R. J. B., Shahzad, K., Vanderfeesten, I., Vanhaecht, K., Grefen, P., Pintelon, L. M., ... Reijers, H. A. (2016). A Critical Evaluation and Framework of Business Process Improvement Methods. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 58(1), 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0417-x
Vanwersch, R.J.B. ; Shahzad, K. ; Vanderfeesten, I. ; Vanhaecht, K. ; Grefen, P. ; Pintelon, L.M. ; Mendling, J. ; van Merode, G.G. ; Reijers, H.A. / A Critical Evaluation and Framework of Business Process Improvement Methods. In: Business & Information Systems Engineering. 2016 ; Vol. 58, No. 1. pp. 43-53.
@article{df5ed0ea2f4a4e82a7f8eb9013cd9119,
title = "A Critical Evaluation and Framework of Business Process Improvement Methods",
abstract = "The redesign of business processes has a huge potential in terms of reducing costs and throughput times, as well as improving customer satisfaction. Despite rapid developments in the business process management discipline during the last decade, a comprehensive overview of the options to methodologically support a team to move from as-is process insights to to-be process alternatives is lacking. As such, no safeguard exists that a systematic exploration of the full range of redesign possibilities takes place by practitioners. Consequently, many attractive redesign possibilities remain unidentified and the improvement potential of redesign initiatives is not fulfilled. This systematic literature review establishes a comprehensive methodological framework, which serves as a catalog for process improvement use cases. The framework contains an overview of all the method options regarding the generation of process improvement ideas. This is established by identifying six key methodological decision areas, e.g. the human actors who can be invited to generate these ideas or the information that can be collected prior to this act. This framework enables practitioners to compose a well-considered method to generate process improvement ideas themselves. Based on a critical evaluation of the framework, the authors also offer recommendations that support academic researchers in grounding and improving methods for generating process improvement ideas. Next to the framework and its critical evaluation, this review investigates the research procedures of the studies that were used to create the framework. Related to this investigation, academic researchers can find additional guidance regarding procedures for building and evaluating new methods.",
author = "R.J.B. Vanwersch and K. Shahzad and I. Vanderfeesten and K. Vanhaecht and P. Grefen and L.M. Pintelon and J. Mendling and {van Merode}, G.G. and H.A. Reijers",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s12599-015-0417-x",
language = "English",
volume = "58",
pages = "43--53",
journal = "Business & Information Systems Engineering",
issn = "2363-7005",
publisher = "Springer Gabler",
number = "1",

}

Vanwersch, RJB, Shahzad, K, Vanderfeesten, I, Vanhaecht, K, Grefen, P, Pintelon, LM, Mendling, J, van Merode, GG & Reijers, HA 2016, 'A Critical Evaluation and Framework of Business Process Improvement Methods' Business & Information Systems Engineering, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0417-x

A Critical Evaluation and Framework of Business Process Improvement Methods. / Vanwersch, R.J.B.; Shahzad, K.; Vanderfeesten, I.; Vanhaecht, K.; Grefen, P.; Pintelon, L.M.; Mendling, J.; van Merode, G.G.; Reijers, H.A.

In: Business & Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 58, No. 1, 01.02.2016, p. 43-53.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Critical Evaluation and Framework of Business Process Improvement Methods

AU - Vanwersch, R.J.B.

AU - Shahzad, K.

AU - Vanderfeesten, I.

AU - Vanhaecht, K.

AU - Grefen, P.

AU - Pintelon, L.M.

AU - Mendling, J.

AU - van Merode, G.G.

AU - Reijers, H.A.

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - The redesign of business processes has a huge potential in terms of reducing costs and throughput times, as well as improving customer satisfaction. Despite rapid developments in the business process management discipline during the last decade, a comprehensive overview of the options to methodologically support a team to move from as-is process insights to to-be process alternatives is lacking. As such, no safeguard exists that a systematic exploration of the full range of redesign possibilities takes place by practitioners. Consequently, many attractive redesign possibilities remain unidentified and the improvement potential of redesign initiatives is not fulfilled. This systematic literature review establishes a comprehensive methodological framework, which serves as a catalog for process improvement use cases. The framework contains an overview of all the method options regarding the generation of process improvement ideas. This is established by identifying six key methodological decision areas, e.g. the human actors who can be invited to generate these ideas or the information that can be collected prior to this act. This framework enables practitioners to compose a well-considered method to generate process improvement ideas themselves. Based on a critical evaluation of the framework, the authors also offer recommendations that support academic researchers in grounding and improving methods for generating process improvement ideas. Next to the framework and its critical evaluation, this review investigates the research procedures of the studies that were used to create the framework. Related to this investigation, academic researchers can find additional guidance regarding procedures for building and evaluating new methods.

AB - The redesign of business processes has a huge potential in terms of reducing costs and throughput times, as well as improving customer satisfaction. Despite rapid developments in the business process management discipline during the last decade, a comprehensive overview of the options to methodologically support a team to move from as-is process insights to to-be process alternatives is lacking. As such, no safeguard exists that a systematic exploration of the full range of redesign possibilities takes place by practitioners. Consequently, many attractive redesign possibilities remain unidentified and the improvement potential of redesign initiatives is not fulfilled. This systematic literature review establishes a comprehensive methodological framework, which serves as a catalog for process improvement use cases. The framework contains an overview of all the method options regarding the generation of process improvement ideas. This is established by identifying six key methodological decision areas, e.g. the human actors who can be invited to generate these ideas or the information that can be collected prior to this act. This framework enables practitioners to compose a well-considered method to generate process improvement ideas themselves. Based on a critical evaluation of the framework, the authors also offer recommendations that support academic researchers in grounding and improving methods for generating process improvement ideas. Next to the framework and its critical evaluation, this review investigates the research procedures of the studies that were used to create the framework. Related to this investigation, academic researchers can find additional guidance regarding procedures for building and evaluating new methods.

U2 - 10.1007/s12599-015-0417-x

DO - 10.1007/s12599-015-0417-x

M3 - Article

VL - 58

SP - 43

EP - 53

JO - Business & Information Systems Engineering

JF - Business & Information Systems Engineering

SN - 2363-7005

IS - 1

ER -

Vanwersch RJB, Shahzad K, Vanderfeesten I, Vanhaecht K, Grefen P, Pintelon LM et al. A Critical Evaluation and Framework of Business Process Improvement Methods. Business & Information Systems Engineering. 2016 Feb 1;58(1):43-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0417-x