Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Weyland, M. Engiles (2003)
Towards simulation-based business process managementProceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference, 2003., 1
Elvira Aguilar, F. Ruiz, Félix García, M. Piattini (2006)
Applying Software Metrics to evaluate Business Process ModelsCLEI Electron. J., 9
V. Vitolins (2004)
Business Process MeasuresArXiv, cs.CE/0406042
A. Charnes, W. Cooper, E. Rhodes (1978)
Measuring the efficiency of decision making unitsEuropean Journal of Operational Research, 2
R. Kaplan, D. Norton (2015)
The balanced scorecard--measures that drive performance.Harvard business review, 70 1
(1999)
Completion time and critical path analysis for the optimisation of business process models
V. Vitolins
Business process measures computer science and information technologies
H. Franken, H. Jonkers, M. Weger (1997)
STRUCTURAL AND QUANTITATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON BUSINESS PROCESS MODELLING AND ANALYSIS
M. Escobar, J. Aguarón, J. Moreno‐Jiménez (2004)
A note on AHP group consistency for the row geometric mean priorization procedureEur. J. Oper. Res., 153
Elvira Rolón, F. Ruiz, Félix García, M. Velthuis (2006)
Applying Software Process Metrics in Business Process Models., 3
C. McGregor (2003)
Balanced scorecard driven business process definition using XML36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the
M. Sharma, R. Bhagwat (2007)
An integrated BSC‐AHP approach for supply chain management evaluationMeasuring Business Excellence, 11
M. Kwan, P. Balasubramanian (1997)
Dynamic workflow management: a framework for modeling workflowsProceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 4
R. Choenni, R. Bakker, W. Baets (2003)
On the Evaluation of Workflow Systems in Business ProcessesElectronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 6
(1997)
Functionality and Limitation of Current Workflow Systems
N. Melão, M. Pidd (2000)
A conceptual framework for understanding business processes and business process modellingInformation Systems Journal, 10
T. Saaty (1986)
Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy processManagement Science, 32
B. List, Karl Machaczek (2004)
Towards a Corporate Performance Measurement System
H. Weigand, A. Moor (2003)
Workflow analysis with communication normsData Knowl. Eng., 47
V. Tummala, H. Ling (1998)
A Note on the Computation of the Mean Random Consistency Index of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (Ahp)Theory and Decision, 44
C. Morgan (2004)
Structure, speed and salience: performance measurement in the supply chainBus. Process. Manag. J., 10
F. Frei, P. Harker (1999)
Measuring aggregate process performance using AHPEur. J. Oper. Res., 116
T.L. Saaty
The Analytic Hierarchy Process
D. Flarey (1994)
Reengineering the Corporation
Birgit Korherr, B. List (2007)
Extending the EPC with performance measures
Purpose – Research in the evaluation of business processes (BPs) seems to have missed those of BP modeling techniques. Past studies on evaluations have focused in most cases on a single objective or goal of a BP using quantitative performance measures or qualitative surveys. In this paper, an approach that combines all relevant single purpose measures (relevant to the goals of the BP) into one overall measure is proposed. The overall measure will reflect all stakeholders' perspective and preference ratings on the attributes/criterion of the BP in question. The conceptual model is supported by the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology. Design/methodology/approach – A discussion of factors that might be the root cause of difficulties in defining an appropriate evaluation is given along with a review of major measures used. The synthetic combination of single purpose measures basically follows the AHP, with major stake‐holders represented in defining the relative priority/ranking matrix between criteria of the BP goal. Findings – The AHP could produce a set of more logical weights for the multiple criteria that are usually associated with a BP goal. These weights are then applied to each single purpose measure in order to come up with the final process score. This process score should represent a fairer rating viewed collectively by all concerned parties of the company. The procedure is practical and easy to apply. Research limitations/implications – The paper has not been implemented in real world applications; therefore a future work direction is to conduct an actual application and evaluate the feedback from actual implementations. Practical implications – The procedure utilizes different key criteria measures and stakeholders' preferences to come up with a composite measure. Final measurement outcome obtained in this manner is expected to be more acceptable to all stakeholders. Originality/value – The paper proposes a new approach to creating a measure of BP based on all relevant single measures derived from the BP goal. The score from the new process measure has a more balanced meaning and therefore may be more valuable than by just relying on a single criterion measure.
Business Process Management Journal – Emerald Publishing
Published: Nov 6, 2009
Keywords: Business process re‐engineering; Measurement; Modelling
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.