4.3 Article

Combining modelling and simulation approaches How to measure performance of business processes

Journal

BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT JOURNAL
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages 56-74

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/BPMJ-02-2015-0021

Keywords

Performance; BPMN; Healthcare; Business process modelling; Business process simulation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide a method for analysing and improving the operational performance of business processes (BPs). Design/methodology/approach - The method employs two standards, Business Process Modelling Notation (BPMN 2.0) and Business Processes Simulation (BPSim 1.0), to measure key performance indicators (KPIs) of BPs and test for potential improvements. The BP is first modelled in BPMN 2.0. Operational performance can then be measured using BPSim 1.0. The process simulation also enables execution of reliable what-if analysis, allowing improvements of the actual processes under study. To confirm the validity of the method the authors provide an application to the healthcare domain, in which the authors conduct several simulation experiments. The case study examines a standardised patient arrival and treatment process in an orthopaedic-emergency room of a public hospital. Findings - The method permits detection of process criticalities, as well as identifying the best corrective actions by means of the what-if analysis. The paper discusses both management and research implications of the method. Originality/value - The study responds to current calls for holistic and sustainable approaches to business process management (BPM). It provides step-by-step process modelling and simulation that serve as a virtual laboratory to test potential improvements and verify their impact on operational performance, without the risk of error that would be involved in ex-novo simulation programming.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available