quality-aware business process management

Quality-aware Business Process Management

by

Mitra Heravizadeh, BInfoTech Hons.

Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of Science and Technology for fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

at Queensland University of Technology

November 2009

To memory of my father Mehdi Heravizadeh and my motherAshraf Mahdavi, who always believed in me

VII

Supervisory Panel

Principal Supervisor

Professor Michael Rosemann

Business Process Management Group

Information Systems Program

Faculty of Science and Technology

Queensland University of Technology

Associated Supervisor

Dr Wasana Bandara

Business Process Management Group

Information Systems Program

Faculty of Science and Technology

Queensland University of Technology

Associated Supervisor

Professor Jan Mendling

Institut fur Wirtschaftsinformatik

Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultat

Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin

IX

Acknowledgement

This work would have not been possible without the support of my loved

ones. I would like to thank my lovely daughter who has put up with me

for not being there all the time. Thank you Sanaz for your love, support

and understanding. Thank you for reminding me daily about what is truly

important in life.

My sincere thanks to my supervisory team; Professor Michael Rosemann,

Dr Wasana Bandara, and Professor Jan Mendling. Thank you Michael for

your confidence in me and accepting to be my principle supervisor late

through my Ph.D journey, and helping me to shape my earlier works into a

tangible outcome. Thank you Wasana for your unconditional support and

help with my thesis, thank you for patiently reviewing my work and guiding

me how to improve it, and for caring. Thank you Jan for your help in shap-

ing up my ideas and your continuous constructive feedback all along the way.

Special thanks to my previous supervisor Dr David Edmond without

whom I would not be writing these lines. Thank you David for being a

mentor, being a friend, and being there when I needed you, thank you for

your support during the hardest time of my life, thank you for pushing me

to keep going and fight it through.

Part of this research was conducted in the context of the REDCONE

project, an Australian Research Council SPIRT Grant entitled “Self de-

scribing transactions operating in a large, heterogeneous, distributed envi-

ronment”. This project was a collaboration between GBST Holdings Pty

Ltd, the Queensland University of Technology, and the University of New

South Wales. I am grateful for the support provided to me by the grant and

GBST.

A warm thank you to special friends and colleagues who have pro-

vided guidance and support; Guy Redding, Jamie Cornes, Justin O’Sullivan,

X

Rachael Moore, and Moe Thandar Wynn.

A very big thank you to my partner Steven. Thank you for your under-

standing of the importance of this personal journey to me. Thank you for

unconditional love and support, thank you for patiently proof reading my

work chapter by chapter and providing valuable feedback.

Last, but most importantly, I need to thank my dearest friend Dr Phillipa

Oaks who has been with me all the way. Thank you for pushing me to take

up this journey. Thank you for your tremendous support - emotionally &

intellectually. Thank you for your guidance and valuable feedback all along

the way, for sitting there patiently and listening to my crazy research ideas

for many hours. Thank you for helping me to stand up on my feet again

when life was tough. Thank you Phillipa for being Phillipa.

I would like also to thank the rest of my family, my loving brothers,

sister and nephew. I am grateful for all the encouragement, love, support

and motivation I have received over the years.

XI

Abstract

Business Process Management (BPM) has emerged as a popular manage-

ment approach in both Information Technology (IT) and management prac-

tice. While there has been much research on business process modelling and

the BPM life cycle, there has been little attention given to managing the

quality of a business process during its life cycle. This study addresses this

gap by providing a framework for organisations to manage the quality of

business processes during different phases of the BPM life cycle.

This study employs a multi-method research design which is based on the

design science approach and the action research methodology. During the

design science phase, the artifacts to model a quality-aware business process

were developed. These artifacts were then evaluated through three cycles of

action research which were conducted within three large Australian-based

organisations.

This study contributes to the body of BPM knowledge in a number of

ways. Firstly, it presents a quality-aware BPM life cycle that provides a

framework on how quality can be incorporated into a business process and

subsequently managed during the BPM life cycle. Secondly, it provides a

framework to capture and model quality requirements of a business process

as a set of measurable elements that can be incorporated into the business

process model. Finally, it proposes a novel root cause analysis technique for

determining the causes of quality issues within business processes.

Keywords: Business Process Management, BPM life cycle, quality, root

cause analysis

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP I hereby declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this thesis entitled “Quality-aware Business Process Management” is my own original work. The work contained in this thesis has not been previously been submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. Due acknowledgement to each significant contribution to, and quotation in this thesis from the work, or works of other people has been made through the proper use of citations and references.

Mitra Heravizadeh

November 2009.

Contents

1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Research Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.1.1 Goal and Objective of the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.1.2 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.2 The Research Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.3 Anticipated Research Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.4 Potential Limitations of the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.5 Chapter Summary and Thesis Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Part I Research Strategy

2 Research Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.1 Chapter Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.2 Business Process Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.2.1 Definition of Business Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.2.2 History of Business Process Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.2.3 Definition of Business Process Management . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.2.4 Summary of Business Process Management . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.3 Quality Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.3.1 Definition of Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.3.2 History of Quality Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.3.3 History of Quality Management in the Business

Process Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2.3.4 Summary of Quality Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2.4 A Quality Management Model for BPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2.5 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

XVI Contents

3 Research Approach and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3.2 Research Approach and Methodology Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3.3 Design Science Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.4 Action Research Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.5 Research Design - Multi-Method Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3.6 Relation to IS Research Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.7 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Part II Design Science Phase

4 The Design Science Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.2 Quality-aware BPM Life Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.3 Quality Definition Phase - QoBP Framework Part I . . . . . . . . 56

4.3.1 Quality Models in Related Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

4.3.1.1 Literature Review on Software Engineering . . . . 62

4.3.1.2 Literature Review on Services and Web-Services 64

4.3.1.3 Literature Review on Data & Information

Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4.3.1.4 Literature Review on Human Resource (HR) . . . 68

4.3.2 QoBP Framework - Quality Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

4.3.2.1 Function Quality Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4.3.2.2 Input and Output Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

4.3.2.3 Human Resource Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

4.3.2.4 Non-human Resource Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

4.3.3 Summary of QoBP Framework Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

4.4 Quality Definition Phase - QoBP Framework Part II . . . . . . . . 80

4.4.1 Goal-driven Measurement Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

4.4.1.1 Literature Review on Measurement Approaches 83

4.4.1.2 Summary of Goal-driven Measurement Approach 92

4.4.2 QoBP Framework - Softgoal Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

4.4.3 QoBP Framework - Softgoal Correlation Model . . . . . . . 95

4.4.4 QoBP Framework - Measurement Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

4.4.5 Quality-aware EPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

4.4.5.1 EPC Metamodel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Contents XVII

4.4.5.2 QoBP Framework - QoBP Metamodel . . . . . . . . . 103

4.4.6 QoBP Framework - QoBP Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

4.4.6.1 Analyse the Business Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

4.4.6.2 Create the Business Process Model . . . . . . . . . . . 108

4.4.6.3 Create a Quality Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

4.4.6.4 Create a Softgoal Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

4.4.6.5 Create a Correlation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

4.4.6.6 Create a Measurement Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

4.4.7 Summary of QoBP Framework Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

4.5 Quality Improvement - PRCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

4.5.1 A Background on Root Cause Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

4.5.2 Process Root Cause Analysis (PRCA) Technique . . . . . . 121

4.5.2.1 An Illustration of the PRCA Technique . . . . . . . 124

4.5.2.2 PRCA Technique - A Brief Reflection . . . . . . . . . 126

4.5.3 Summary of Quality Improvement - PRCA Section . . . . 127

4.6 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Part III Action Research Phase

5 Action Research Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

5.2 Selection of Organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

5.3 Action Research Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

5.3.1 Initial Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

5.3.2 Diagnosis Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

5.3.3 Action Planning Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

5.3.4 Action Taking Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

5.3.4.1 Action Taking Stage - Phase I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

5.3.4.2 Action Taking Stage - Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

5.3.5 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

5.3.6 Specifying Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

5.3.7 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

5.4 Action Research Cycle Report Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

5.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

XVIII Contents

6 First Action Research Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

6.2 Description of the Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

6.3 Justifications for the Choice of the Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

6.4 Action Research Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

6.4.1 Initial Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

6.4.2 Diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

6.4.3 Action Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

6.4.4 Action Taking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

6.4.4.1 Step 1 - Analyse the Business Process . . . . . . . . . 168

6.4.4.2 Step 2 - Create Business Process Model . . . . . . . 170

6.4.4.3 Step 3 - Create a Quality Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

6.4.4.4 Step 4 - Create Softgoal Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

6.4.4.5 Step 5 - Create Softgoal Correlations Model . . . . 189

6.4.4.6 Step 6 - Create Measurement Model . . . . . . . . . . 190

6.4.5 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191


6.4.7 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

6.5 A Reflection on Action Research Cycle and Re-design . . . . . . . 196

6.5.1 Establish Link Between Quality Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . 197

6.5.2 QoBP Automation Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

6.5.3 Reduce Data Collection for Large Business Processes . . 199

6.6 Summary of the First Action Research Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

7 Second Action Research Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201




7.4.1 Initial Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

7.4.2 Diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

7.4.3 Action Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

7.4.4 Action Taking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207




Contents XIX




7.4.5 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226


7.4.7 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

7.5 A Reflection on Action Research Cycle and Re-design . . . . . . . 230

7.5.1 Create a Generic Softgoal Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

7.5.2 QoBP Automation Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

7.6 Summary of the Second Action Research Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

8 Third Action Research Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233




8.4.1 Initial Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

8.4.2 Diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

8.4.3 Action Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

8.4.4 Action Taking - Phase I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238







8.4.5 Action Taking - Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

8.4.6 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260


8.4.8 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

8.5 Summary of the Third Action Research Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

8.6 Summary of the Action Research Phase (Part III) . . . . . . . . . . 266

9 Research Contributions, Limitations and Outlook . . . . . . . . 269

9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

9.2 Re-visiting Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270

XX Contents

9.3 Contributions and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

9.3.1 Implications for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

9.3.2 Implications for practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

9.4 Research Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

9.5 Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

9.6 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

Contents XXI

Appendices

Appendix A.1 Business Process Modelling Notations 290

Appendix A.2 Root Cause Analysis Techniques 299

Appendix B.1 Meeting Agenda Template 312

Appendix B.2 Meeting Notes Templates 313

Appendix B.3 Invitation Letter 315

Appendix B.4 Action Research Project Summary 316

Appendix B.5 Evaluation Questions 322

Appendix C.1 Organisation A - Functions Softgoal Model 325

Appendix C.2 Organisation A - Input & Output Softgoal Model 327

Appendix C.3 Organisation A H Resource Softgoal Model 342

Appendix C.4 Organisation A N H Resource Softgoal Model 344

Appendix C.5 Organisation A Softgoal Correlation Model 346

Appendix C.6 Organisation A Function Measurement Model 350

Appendix C.7 Organisation A Input & Output Measurement Model 357

Appendix C.8 Organisation A - H Resource Measurement Model 405

Appendix C.9 Organisation A N H Resource Measurement Model 410

Appendix C.10 QoBP Automation Tool 418

Appendix D.1 Organisation B Functions Softgoal Model 431

Appendix D.2 Organisation B Input & Output Softgoal Model 433

Appendix D.3 Organisation B H Resource Softgoal Model 439

Appendix D.4 Organisation B N H Resource Softgoal Model 441

Appendix D.5 Organisation B Softgoal Correlation Model 442

Appendix D.6 Organisation B Function Measurement Model 444

Appendix D.7 Organisation B Input & Output Measurement Model 448

Appendix D.8 Organisation B - H Resource Measurement Model 466

Appendix D.9 Organisation B N H Resource Measurement Model 471

Appendix E.1 Organisation C Functions Softgoal Model 474

Appendix E.2 Organisation C Input & Output Softgoal Model 475

Appendix E.3 Organisation C H Resource Softgoal Model 478

Appendix E.4 Organisation C N H Resource Softgoal Model 479

Appendix E.5 Organisation C Softgoal Correlation Model 480

XXII Contents

Appendix E.6 Organisation C Function Measurement Model 481

Appendix E.7 Organisation C Input & Output Measurement Model 483

Appendix E.8 Organisation C H Resource Measurement Model 491

Appendix E.9 Organisation C N H Resource Measurement Model 497

Appendix E.10 Organisation C 1st Incident Management Instance 500

Appendix E.11 Organisation C 2nd Incident Management Instance 503

List of Figures

1.1 BPM Quality Management Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2 Quality-aware Business Process Management Life Cycle . . . . . 6

1.3 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.4 Thesis Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.1 Summary of the Literature Review Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.2 Business Process Management Life Cycle [1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.3 BPM Quality Management Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.1 Information Systems Research Framework as defined by

Hevner et al. [2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.2 The Action Research Cycle [3] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.3 Research methodology of a design-based research study

using action research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.4 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.1 Research Questions & Proposed Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.2 Quality-aware Business Process Management Life Cycle . . . . . 53

4.3 Quality Definition Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.4 QoBP Framework - Quality Model - Quality Dimensions of

Business Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

4.5 Business Process Quality Dimensions - Literature Review

Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4.6 QOBP Quality Dimensions & Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

4.7 GQM in the QoBP Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

4.8 Horizontal Levels of Abstractions of a Business Process [4] . . 101

4.9 EPC Metamodel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

XXIV List of Figures

4.10 QoBP Metamodel as a UML class diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

4.11 Request for proposals process of the software house . . . . . . . . 109

4.12 An Example for Softgoal Correlations Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

4.13 Quality Improvement Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

4.14 QoBP Metamodel - PRCA as a UML class diagram . . . . . . . . 122

4.15 An Example for Softgoal Correlations Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

5.1 Action Research Engagement Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

5.2 Function Quality Dimension (captured as yes or no) . . . . . . . 140

5.3 Function Quality Dimension (by rows - quality characteristics)140

5.4 Function Quality Dimension (by columns - quality

characteristics) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

5.5 Input & Output Quality Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

5.6 Human Resource Quality Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

5.7 Non-Human Resource Quality Dimension (captured as yes

or no) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

5.8 Non-Human Resource Quality Dimension (by rows - quality

characteristics) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

5.9 Non-Human Resource Quality Dimension (by columns -

quality characteristics) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

5.10 Function Softgoals Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

5.11 Input & Output Softgoals Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

5.12 Human Resource Softgoals Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

5.13 Non-Human Resource Softgoals Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

5.14 Softgoals Correlation Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

5.15 Function Measurement Model Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

5.16 Input & Output Measurement Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

5.17 Human Resource Measurement Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

5.18 Non-Human Resource Measurement Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

5.19 Process Root Cause Analysis (PRCA) Template . . . . . . . . . . . 155

6.1 Plan for the Action Taking Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

6.2 Claim Intake Process EPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

6.3 Claim Intake Process - Function Quality Dimension

(captured as yes or no) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

6.4 Claim Intake Process - Functions Quality Rating . . . . . . . . . . . 176

List of Figures XXV

6.5 Claim Intake Process - Quality Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

6.6 Function Quality Dimension (by functions - columns) . . . . . . . 178

6.7 Claim Intake Process - Quality Rating by Functions . . . . . . . . 178


6.9 Claim Intake Process - Quality Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

6.10 Claim Intake Process - Input & Output Quality Dimension . . 181

6.11 Claim Intake Process - Human Resource Quality Dimension . 182

6.12 Claim Intake Process - Human Resource Quality Rating . . . . 184

6.13 Claim Intake Process - Quality Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

6.14 Claim Intake Process - Non Human Resource Quality

Dimension (captured as yes or no) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

6.15 Claim Intake Process - Non Human Resource Quality Rating 186


Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186


Dimension (by rows - quality characteristics) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

6.18 Claim Intake Process - Non Human Resource Quality Rating 187

6.19 Claim Intake Process - Non Human Quality Dimension (by

functions - columns) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

6.20 Claim Intake Process - Quality Rating by Non Human

Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

6.21 Function - Input & Output Quality Characteristics Matrix . . 197


7.2 Dynamic Development Process EPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

7.3 Dynamic Development Process - Function Quality

Dimension (captured as yes or no) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

7.4 Dynamic Development Process - Functions Quality Rating . . 215

7.5 Dynamic Development Process - Quality Characteristics . . . . 215


7.7 Claim Intake Process - Quality Rating by Functions . . . . . . . . 217


7.9 Dynamic Development Process - Quality Rating . . . . . . . . . . . 218

7.10 Dynamic Development Process - Input & Output Quality

Dimension (Before Validation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

XXVI List of Figures

7.11 Dynamic Development Process - Input & Output Quality

Dimension (After Validation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

7.12 Dynamic Development Process - Human Resource Quality

Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

7.13 Dynamic Development Process - Human Resource Quality

Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

7.14 Dynamic Development Process - Quality Characteristics . . . . 222

7.15 Dynamic Development Process - Non Human Resource

Quality Dimension (by rows - quality characteristics) . . . . . . . 223

7.16 Dynamic Development Process - Non Human Resource

Quality Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223


8.2 Incident Management Process EPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

8.3 Incident Management Process - Function Quality Dimension

(captured as yes or no) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

8.4 Incident Management Process - Functions Quality Rating . . . 246

8.5 Incident Management Process - Quality Characteristics . . . . . 247


8.7 Incident Management Process - Quality Rating by Functions 248


8.9 Incident Management Process - Quality Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

8.10 Incident Management Process - Input & Output Quality

Dimension (Before Validation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

8.11 Incident Management Process - Input & Output Quality

Dimension (After Validation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

8.12 Incident Management Process - Human Resource Quality

Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

8.13 Incident Management Process - Human Resource Quality

Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

8.14 Incident Management Process - Quality Characteristics . . . . . 253

8.15 Incident Management Process - Non Human Resource

Quality Dimension (by rows - quality characteristics) . . . . . . . 254

8.16 Incident Management Process - Non Human Resource

Quality Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

8.17 Softgoal Correlations - Incident Management Process . . . . . . . 258

List of Figures XXVII

8.18 Summary of the Action Research Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

9.1 Research Questions & Proposed Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

1

Motivation

The increasing demand to continue to improve, has led organisations to seek

a better understanding of their business processes. Process oriented manage-

ment has been adopted in many organisations to overcome this challenge.

This has led to many innovations in this area over the last few decades, the

latest being Business Process Management (BPM) [5].

Over the last few years, BPM has continuously been identified as a top

business priority for senior executives and building business process capa-

bilities will continue to be a major agenda item for senior executives in the

coming years [6, 7, 8]. The popularity and significance of BPM has led to

much research in the area contributing to successful BPM implementations

in some organisations.

Quality has been an important topic within the business process com-

munity. In this context, process quality refers to the ability of a process to

produce and deliver quality products [9]. The operational benefits of “qual-

ity” often translates into lower operating costs and improved customer sat-

isfaction [10, 11]. Contrary to “quality” being known as one of the essential

business process performance dimensions [12, 13, 14, 9, 15], there is no struc-

tured approach or framework to capture and represent the quality aspects

of a business process1. Frequently, the enactment of a business process is

functionally correct (all the events and functions are enacted in the order

they have been defined), but the outcome is nevertheless unacceptable be-

cause the outcome does not meet some quality criteria such as timeliness

and accuracy. The quality aspects of a business process are often difficult

1 Refer to Section 4.3 for further justifications.

2 1 Motivation

to capture and as a result they are either overlooked or deferred [16].

“Quality management” refers to all the activities that organisations use

to plan, control, coordinate and improve quality. To date, little research at-

tention has been directed at the integration of a quality management model

into BPM. Historically, quality has been addressed by most of the practices

in the area such as Six Sigma [17], Total Quality Management (TQM) [18],

Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) [19, 20, 14], and Business Process

Improvement (BPI) [21]. Over time, each of these practices have incorpo-

rated a quality framework. For example, Sinclair and Zairi [12, 13] have

introduced a quality model for TQM which is based on a series of case

studies [22, 23, 24]. While their proposed model was proven to be a contri-

bution to the area, it is very tightly coupled with the TQM framework and

cannot be integrated with other approaches such as BPR or BPI. Similar

efforts have been underway to incorporate a quality model into the BPR

and BPI life cycles which are also very specific to BPR and BPI. The BPM

community has been rather slow in exploring the integration of a quality

model into BPM. The primary goal of this research is to address this short-

coming. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic study that attempts

to provide a framework for such an integration and to empirically evaluate

the initiative.

1.1 Research Problem

This section describes the research problem this thesis is addressing. The

motivations of this study are discussed in Section 1.1.1, followed by the re-

search questions in Section 1.1.2.

1.1.1 Goal and Objective of the Research

The primary goal of this research is to provide a framework for organisa-

tions to manage the quality of business processes during different phases of

the BPM life cycle. Before discussing the objectives of this research, it is

necessary to briefly clarify the terms “BPM life cycle”, “quality” and “qual-

ity management” (a more detailed description on these terms is provided in

1.1 3

Chapter 2).

The BPM life cycle is important to this research since the quality frame-

work described in this thesis is envisioned to be a complement to BPM.

BPM is simply the process of managing the business processes in an organi-

sation. In BPM, management activities related to business processes can be

arranged in a cyclical structure which is referred to as the BPM life cycle.

To date, a number of BPM life cycles have been defined [15, 25, 26, 4, 1].

The BPM life cycle proposed in [1] will be used in this study, because (1)

it includes all the management activities required to successfully manage

the quality of a business process, and (2) it defines all the artifacts required

as input and output for the different phases. The BPM life cycle proposed

in [1] consists of six phases: analysis, design, implementation, enactment,

monitoring, and evaluation2.

The term “quality” has been given various definitions and interpreta-

tions by different fields and disciplines3. Throughout this thesis, the term

quality relates to the non-functional requirements of a business process such

as accuracy, conformance to specification, and reliability4. This definition

is influenced heavily by Juran’s definition of quality and the ISO standard

[27] definition of quality from the software engineering discipline.

“Quality management”, in general, refers to all the activities that or-

ganisations use to plan, control, coordinate and improve quality. To date, a

number of “quality management” models have been defined5. While there

are some differences between these models, there are many common fea-

tures. The quality management model proposed in this thesis is an exten-

sion of the quality trilogy proposed by Juran6 [28]. Juran’s quality trilogy is

a universal quality management model based on three key steps of quality

2 Refer to Section 2.2.3 for further details on each phase.3 Refer to Section 2.3.1 of chapter 4.4 for the definition of quality in different disciplines.4 The focus of this research is on the quality of a business process which is different with thequality of a business process model (see Section 2.3.1 for further details).

5 Refer to Section 2.3.2 for a brief history of quality management models.6 Joseph Juran is an internationally acclaimed quality expert, who is well known for his con-tribution to Japanese manufacturing practices (www.mftrou.com/joseph-juran.html). Referto Section 2.3.2 for a literature review of other quality management models and reasons foradopting Juran’s quality trilogy model.

4 1 Motivation

planning, quality control, and quality improvement. He describes each step

as a process that is carried out by a homogeneous sequence of activities.

Quality planning is a preparation process that takes place to meet quality

goals during production. Quality control is a process that takes place to en-

sure quality goals are met during operations (ensuring the operations are in

accordance with the quality plan). Quality improvement is the process that

takes place for the purpose of breaking through to unprecedented levels of

performance. Juran’s quality management model is adopted for this study,

because its quality management activities are arranged in a cyclical struc-

ture and its key phases can be extended to match the phases of the BPM

life cycle. Juran’s quality management model is extended in this thesis by

replacing the quality planning phase with two distinct phases: quality defi-

nition, and quality implementation. Figure 1.1 depicts the proposed quality

management model which consists of four key phases: quality definition,

quality implementation, quality control and quality improvement. This qual-

ity management model is the outcome of the investigation conducted during

the early stages of this study. A more detailed description of this quality

management model is provided in Section 2.3.4.

Quality Definition

Quality Control

Quality Improvement

Quality Implementation

Fig. 1.1. BPM Quality Management Model

The main objective of this research is to incorporate the quality manage-

ment model depicted in figure 1.1 into the BPM life cycle. This objective

1.1 5

is achieved by providing a framework that facilitates the integration of the

four key phases of the quality management model (quality definition, quality

implementation, quality control and quality improvement) into the business

process life cycle. This framework should facilitate:

• quality definition of a business process - producing a business process

that is quality-aware;

• implementation of a quality-aware business process;

• quality control of a business process; and,

• quality improvement of a business process.

1.1.2 Research Questions

In this study, the research questions are derived based on the approach

suggested in [29] and [30]. In this approach, the research questions are for-

mulated in a hierarchical approach which comprises four levels. Level 1, the

highest level in the hierarchy is referred to as the ‘managerial question’. The

managerial question is used to express the main research problem. Level 2

presents the main research questions that are derived from the managerial

question. Level 3 presents the investigation questions. The investigation

questions guide the details of the research effort [29]. The lowest level of the

hierarchy, level 4, presents the measurement questions. This section presents

the questions related to the tops 3 levels. The level 4 questions are presented

in Appendix B.5 (as part of the questionnaire provided to guide the evalu-

ation process - see Section 5.3.5).

The managerial question driving this study is:

How can organisations manage the quality of business processes during

the different phases of the BPM life cycle?

As defined before, in this research, quality relates to the non-functional

requirements of a business process. Accordingly, the managerial question is

6 1 Motivation

refined to the main research question that captures the general purpose of

this study. The main research question that needs to be addressed to pro-

vide a solution for the managerial question above is:

How can quality be incorporated into a business process and

managed during the BPM life cycle?

A comprehensive literature review (see Section 2) was conducted to es-

tablish the context for describing and elaborating the main research ques-

tion. This led to a proposal for a quality-aware BPM life cycle in which a

quality management model is incorporated into the BPM life cycle. Figure

1.2 presents the proposed quality-aware BPM life cycle in which the pro-

posed quality management model (see Section 1.1.1) is incorporated into

the BPM life cycle defined in [1]. The development of this model was a nec-

essary step to define the research questions and the scope of this study in a

structured approach. In the quality-aware BPM life cycle, the quality of a

business process is managed based on the four key phases:quality definition,

quality implementation, quality control and quality improvement7.

Analysis

Design

Implementation

Enactment

Monitoring

Evaluation

Business Process Requirements & Quality Requirements

Quality Aware Business Process Model

Implemented Quality Aware ProcessProcess & Quality Metrics

Measures for Improvements

Measurements

Process & Quality Metrics

Quality Improvement

Quality Definition


Quality Control

Fig. 1.2. Quality-aware Business Process Management Life Cycle

7 Refer to Section 4.2 for further details on these four phases.

1.2 The Research Strategy 7

The scope of this thesis is limited to the quality definition and quality

improvement phases of the quality-aware BPM life cycle. Quality definition

and quality improvement are the two key phases that influence the identifi-

cation and modelling of the quality aspects of a business process. Therefore,

the investigation questions pertaining to the main research question are fo-

cused on these two phases:

1. Quality definition phase:

a) What are the business process quality dimensions?

b) How can quality be incorporated into a business process model pro-

ducing a quality-aware business process?

2. Quality improvement phase:

a) What is a suitable technique for identifying the root causes of the

quality issues of a business process?

Figure 1.3 summarises the research questions.

1.2 The Research Strategy

This study employs a multi-method research design utilising the design sci-

ence approach and action research methodology. This utilisation was chosen

for this research with the aim of “delivering practical value to the subject

while at the same time contributing to theory” [31]. The solution concepts

that were developed using a design science paradigm were tested in real life

situations using the action research paradigm. A multi-method approach,

which is based on both the IS research framework [2] and the design-based

research approach by [32], is adopted for this research. A more detailed out-

line of the research strategy is presented in Chapter 3.

8 1 Motivation

How can a quality management framework be incorporated into the BPM life cycle?

Quality-Aware BPM Life CycleQuality Definition

Ξ What are the business process quality dimensions?

Ξ How can quality be incorporated into a business process model producing a quality-aware business process?

Part II Chapter 4

Part IIChapter 4

Quality Management Life CycleQuality Improvement

Ξ What is a suitable technique for identifying the root causes of the quality issues of a business process?

Quality-Aware BPM Life Cycle

Fig. 1.3. Research Questions

1.3 Anticipated Research Contributions

This is the first in-depth study that attempts to define and integrate a suit-

able quality management model into the Business Process Management life

cycle. The contributions of this study can be classified as both theoretical

and practical :

• Theoretical Contributions - the contributions derived from the study

that can be used by new researchers:

– The quality-aware BPM life cycle (see Section 4.2) that provides the

framework to manage the quality of a business process through its life

cycle.

– A validated quality model (see Section 4.3) for a business process that

describes the quality requirements of a business process in the form

of quality characteristics which are related to four dimensions of the

1.3 Anticipated Research Contributions 9

business process (function, input & output, human resource and non-

human resource).

– A validated framework (QoBP framework - see Sections 4.3 & 4.4)

that supports the creation of quality-aware business process models.

This framework provides a systematic and novel goal-driven approach

to incorporate the quality requirements of a business process into

a business process model during the quality definition phase of the

quality-aware BPM life cycle.

– A validated, novel root cause analysis approach (PRCA technique -

see Section 4.5) for business processes. This root cause analysis tech-

nique provides a systematic and consistent approach to identify the

root causes of a quality issue in an instance of a business process.

– An exemplar on how a multi-method research design utilising design

science approach and action research methodology can be conducted

in Information Systems research.

– An exemplar of how a staged approach to defining the research ques-

tions can be used to define and control the scope of research.

– An exemplar of how an action research protocol can be defined and

applied across the action research cycles to conduct rigorous action

research.

– An exemplar of how to evaluate research that is based on the design

science approach in relation to the Information Systems (IS) research

guidelines provided by [2].

• Practical Contributions - the contributions derived from the study

that can be directly adopted by organisations:

– A validated framework (see Chapter 4) that can be adopted by organ-

isations to manage quality of their business processes during different

10 1 Motivation

phases of the BPM life cycle. The adoption of this framework will help

organisations to:

· Identify the quality requirements with regards to all dimensions

of their business processes (such as functions, inputs & outputs,

human resources, and non-human resources).

· Embed their quality requirements into the business process models

- producing quality-aware business process models.

· Improve the quality of their business processes by identifying the

root causes of the quality issues in instances of those processes.

– A quality metamodel for business process modeling notations that

can be adopted by business process modeling vendors to extend their

modeling tools to support modeling of quality-aware business process

models (see Section 4.4.5.2).

1.4 Potential Limitations of the Research

The purpose of this section is to outline the potential limitations of this

study which include:

• Limitations in the literature review phase - The early literature review

was conducted to establish the context for describing and elaborating

the research problem leading to a proposal for a quality-aware BPM life

cycle8. Introduction of the quality-aware BPM life cycle generated sev-

eral research questions and addressing them all was beyond the scope of

this thesis. The scope of this research definition was made based on the

criticality of the research questions that needed to be addressed to solve

the original problem identified.

• Limitations in the design science phase - The limitation of the design

science phase of this study was the development of artifacts to address

8 Refer to Section 4.2 for further details on the quality-aware BPM life cycle.

1.5 Chapter Summary and Thesis Structure 11

the research questions without a proper evaluation prior to the action

research phase. The evaluation of these artifacts was intended to occur

during the action research phase of this study. The risks associated with

this limitation is a major re-work (re-design) of the developed artifacts

during the action research phase.

• Limitation in the action research phase - As the selection of host organ-

isations for the action research cycles was constrained by budgetary and

accessibility issues, all the organisations selected were Australian and

were located in Queensland.

An extensive effort is made during this research to mitigate the risks

associated with these limitations9.

1.5 Chapter Summary and Thesis Structure

In this chapter, the importance of incorporating a quality framework into

the Business Process Management life cycle was discussed. The research

problem was presented followed by the research strategy for this study and

anticipated contributions. The remainder of this thesis is structured into

three parts. An introduction is included at the beginning of each part to

provide the background to, and overview of the concepts discussed in that

part. Figure 1.4 depicts the overall thesis structure.

Part I:

Part I consists of two chapters. In Chapter 2, the relevant literature is

reviewed to establish the context of the research presented in this thesis.

Chapter 3 presents the epistemological and theoretical foundations of this

research, and the details of the multi-method design applied in this study.

Part II:

Part II of this thesis consists of one chapter (Chapter 4) which is dedicated

to the design phase of this study. Chapter 4 presents the artifacts developed

9 Refer to Section 9.4 for further details on these limitations.

12 1 Motivation

Chapter 1

Par

t I

Res

earc

h S

trat

egy

Par

t II

Des

ign

S

cien

ce

Ph

ase

Par

t III

Act

ion

Res

earc

h P

has

e

Chapter 4

Chapter 3

Chapter 2

Introduction

Research Background

Research Methodology

The Design Science Phase

Chapter Structure

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Action Research Protocol

Action Research Case One

Action Research Case Two

Action Research Case Three

Research Contributions & LimitationsChapter 9

Fig. 1.4. Thesis Structure

by this thesis to address the research questions outlined in Section 1.1.2.

Part III:

Part III is dedicated to the action research phase of this study and consists

of four chapters. The first chapter (Chapter 5) presents a protocol that is

designed by this study to evaluate the developed artifacts during the ac-

1.5 Chapter Summary and Thesis Structure 13

tion research cycles. The subsequent three chapters (Chapters 6, 7, and 8

present three action research cycles that are conducted as part of this study.

Chapter 9 provides a summary of the study, highlighting the key con-

tributions, and limitations, as well as some recommendations for future

research.

Part I

Research Strategy

2

Research Background

2.1 Chapter Introduction

Conducting a review of prior and relevant literature is an essential part of

any academic research [33], as it (1) creates a firm foundation for advancing

knowledge by uncovering areas where research is required, and (2) ensures

that this foundation is built on the existing body of knowledge leading to

consistency and avoidance of redundancy. A literature review is usually an

ongoing activity during the life of the research and this study is no exception.

The literature review presented in this chapter is dedicated to providing the

overall background for this research. Literature reviews are presented at the

beginning of the subsequent chapters throughout this thesis to provide more

specific information on each topic. Table 2.1 presents how the continuous

literature review took place within this study.

The literature review presented in this chapter serves three aims:

1. To establish the context of the research presented in this thesis. The

study presented in this thesis relates to research on managing quality of

business processes. Hence, two areas - BPM & quality - are introduced

in sections 2.2 and 2.3.

2. To provide a context for describing and elaborating the problem being

identified [34]. The purpose here was to reveal the problem, which is

“how can organisations manage the quality of the business processes

during different phases of the BPM life cycle?”. Accordingly, a history

of quality management in business process trends prior to BPM (such

18 2 C h ap ter R ev iew ed L iteratu re

A rea P u rp o se Chapter 3 Research M ethods To provide an o verview on research m ethods. Chapter 4 D esign Science Research M ethodology To provide an o verview on design science research m ethodolo gy. Chapter 4 Q ua lity To rev iew how qua lity is defined in re levant d iscip lines. Chapter 4 G oa l M odeling To provide an o verview of literature on go al m odeling techniques used in Requirem ent Engineering. Chapter 4 & A ppendix A Root Cause A nalysis To rev iew the literature on d ifferent root cause analysis techniques. Chapter 5 A ppendix A A ction Research M ethodology Business Pro cess M o deling N otations To provide an o verview on action research m ethodo logy. To rev iew business process m odeling notations capab ility in m odeling quality requirem ents.

Fig. 2.1. Summary of the Literature Review Areas

as BPI and BPR) is presented in Section 2.3.3. A historical presenta-

tion here serves two purposes: (1) it provides a historical account of the

development of quality frameworks in the area as a confirmation of the

importance of managing quality; and (2) it highlights the lack of a qual-

ity management model for BPM.

3. To develop a quality management model that is suitable for BPM by

examining existing quality management models [34]. Consequently, the

quality management models introduced and widely adopted by organisa-

tions over the last century are examined and presented in chronological

order in Section 2.3.2.

2.2 Business Process Management

The literature in the area of business processes and BPM will be exam-

ined in this section. This section first establishes a working definition of the

terms “business process” and “Business Process Management”. It contin-

2.2 Business Process Management 19

ues by looking into the historical origins and evolution of Business Process

Management.

2.2.1 Definition of Business Process

A large number of definitions exist for the term ‘business process’ across

the literature. Lindsay, Downs and Lunn [35] acknowledge the lack of a

commonly accepted definition. For example, the founders of BPR in the

1990s have different views on the definition of business process. Hammer

& Champy [14] define business process as “a collection of activities that

takes one or more kinds of input and creates an output that is of value

to the customer. A business process has a goal and is affected by events

occurring in the external world or in other processes”. The definition by

Davenport & Short [20] is slightly different as they see a business process

as “simply a structured set of activities designed to produce a specified out-

put for a particular customer or market”. These definitions vary as they

focus on different aspects of a business process. Hammer & Champy’s def-

inition has a strong focus on the inputs & outputs of a business process,

while Davenport’s definition has more emphasis on the association of the

outcome of a business process with a requester of a product. A variety of

other definitions can be found in the literature, however all of them cover

similar characteristics indicated in the above definitions. The definition by

[4] seems to be the most complete definition among them as it encapsulates

all the major elements of a business process: “A business process consists

of a set of activities that are performed in coordination in an organisational

and technical environment. These activities jointly realise a business goal.

Each business process is enacted by a single organisation, but it may inter-

act with business processes by other organisations.”

In the context of this research, a comprehensive definition of a busi-

ness process consists of all the elements described in the above definitions.

Accordingly, a business process is defined as a set of inter-related activities

that is intended to achieve a business goal by transforming inputs to outputs

that are valuable to a customer or another process; it can be executed by

human or non-human resources and has a clearly defined beginning and end.

20 2

2.2.2 History of Business Process Management

The purpose of this section is to briefly examine the major events, trends

and innovations that have led to the introduction of Business Process Man-

agement (BPM) since the early 1980s.

The introduction of the notion of the Value Chain [36] was a significant

advance in the area. The Value Chain was referred to as the collection of

activities required to transform the given raw materials into a final product.

The support processes such as maintenance and marketing were also part

of the Value Chain concept. At the same time Total Quality Management

(TQM1) and Activity-Based Costing were introduced (during the 1980s).

These three innovations are early examples of a process-focused approach

in management.

The introduction of Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) in the early

1990s by [19, 20, 14], using information technology as the enabler, was an-

other significant development in the area which initiated a major change

to organisations. These authors provided convincing evidence on how or-

ganisations can benefit from proceeding with large process re-engineering

projects, but like many initiatives, the business process re-engineering had

its own limitations. The lack of a coherent methodology for change was

one of its significant limitations [37]. At the same time the authors in [38]

proposed a methodology that provided specific guidelines for the successful

implementation of business process re-engineering projects. Unlike the pro-

posal by [19, 20, 14], their focus was not on IT.

In the late 1990s Business Process Improvement (BPI) was introduced as

a methodology to overcome the limitation of the BPR approach. Business

Process Improvement is simply the process by which incremental changes

are introduced in a process for the purpose of improvement. Harrington, Es-

seling and Nimwegen [21] define Business Process Improvement as a combi-

nation of four different approaches designed to improve efficiency, effective-

ness and adaptability of the business processes. The four BPI approaches

are Fast Analysis Solution Technique (FAST), process benchmarking, pro-

1 Refer to Section 2.3.2 for further details on TQM.


cess redesign and process re-engineering. In their view, organisations gain

performance improvements by analysing hundreds of activities and tasks

with the aim of optimising the total performance in a short period of time.

Shin and Jemella [39] have categorised process improvements into three

categories: quick hits, incremental improvement, and re-engineering. Quick

hits improvements are typically low risk and easily achievable efforts that

provide immediate payback opportunities. Incremental improvements, how-

ever deliver small degrees of change that introduce small but meaningful

business results. Re-engineering improvements, unlike quick hits and incre-

mental improvement, are forms of organisational change characterised by

dramatic process transformation.

The next initiative was Business Process Management (BPM) by [5]

which promised to be a new revolution in the area of process management

- the third wave of Business Process Management. In the authors opinion,

the first wave was the “methods and procedure analysis” proposed by Tay-

lor’s theory of management [40]. The second wave was the introduction of

BPR followed by the IT implementation of the systems such as Workflow

Management Systems (WMS) and Enterprise Resource Planning Systems

(ERP). The third wave being BPM - the “synthesis and extension of all

these technologies and techniques into a unified whole”. BPM is more than

just discrete improving or re-engineering of processes offered by the earlier

initiatives such as BPR and BPI. It is an integral part of management [41],

promoting an ongoing process improvement. BPM is a strategic business ap-

proach leading to process performances and external customer satisfaction

[42].

2.2.3 Definition of Business Process Management

A definition by Zairi [43] suggests that BPM is “the way in which key busi-

ness activities are managed and continuously improved to ensure consistent

ability to deliver high quality standards of products and services”. In other

words, BPM is simply the process of managing the business processes in an

organisation.

22 2

The management of activities related to business processes can be ar-

ranged in a cyclical structure which is referred to as the BPM life cycle2.

While a number of BPM life cycles have been defined [15, 25, 26, 4], the

BPM life cycle proposed in [1] will be used in this study because: (1) it

includes all the management activities required to successfully manage the

quality of a business process, and (2) it defines all the artifacts required as

input and output for the different phases.

The BPM life cycle proposed by Mendling [1] consists of six phases:

analysis, design, implementation, enactment, monitoring, and evaluation.

A graphical representation of the BPM life cycle by [1] is depicted in figure

2.2. The following paragraphs briefly introduce each phase.

Analysis

Design

Implementation

Enactment

Monitoring

Evaluation

Requirements

Process Model

Implemented ProcessesProcess Metrics


Measurements

Process Metrics

Fig. 2.2. Business Process Management Life Cycle [1]

Analysis - The life cycle begins with an analysis of the organisation

structure, process goals, and the process environment. Understanding the

organisation’s structure, strategy and goals is a vital step. When analysing

the process goals it is important to ensure that they are aligned with the or-

ganisation’s strategy and add value to it. In this phase, the requirements of

2 Refer to Section 1.1.1 for further details on the BPM life cycle.


a business process are elicited, taking account of the organisation’s strategy,

goals and structure. The output from this phase includes the requirements

description of the business process.

Design - In this phase the overall process structure is engineered based

on the requirements from the analysis phase. The design includes the iden-

tification of the activities of a process, specification of human resources

involved with activities and their role within the organisation, specification

of non-human resources (such as computer systems, printers, projectors etc)

required for activities, and specification of data & information associated

with the activities. The business process is modeled using a business process

modeling technique3. A business process model is an artefact consisting of

a set of activities and the flows between them. Business process models are

the main artifacts for implementing business processes.

Implementation - This phase involves the implementation of the pro-

cess model developed at the design phase. During the implementation phase,

the infrastructure for business process support is established. It involves ac-

tivities such as staff training, technical implementation and configuration of

supporting software (if there is a need), provision of new work place struc-

tures etc.

Enactment - The enactment of a process starts upon completion of the

process implementation. This phase covers the actual run time of the busi-

ness process. During this phase individual instances4 derived from the pro-

cess model are executed using the dedicated infrastructure. The information

produced from this phase is available for subsequent activities, monitoring

and evaluation.

Monitoring - Monitoring is an administrative phase which is bound

to each individual process instance. The main purpose of this activity is

3 Business process modeling notation is a graphical representation of a business process model[4], and a business process model is an abstract description of a business process, and repre-sents selected process elements [44]. Appendix A.1 presents several business process modelingnotations such as Petri nets, EPCs, YAWL, BPMN, and UML Activity Diagram.

4 A business process instance is an instantiated version of a business process model. For examplefor a “claim process”, the “claim process for Mr Brown” is an instance of the “claim process”.

24 2

to visualise the status of business process instances by providing necessary

information about the process instance. The information provided is impor-

tant, for example, in response to a customer request that inquires about the

status of his “insurance claim” process instance. In some cases, other valu-

able execution data such as process performance indicators are gathered.

The process performance indicators are usually identified during analysis &

design phase and are monitored and measured for each individual process

instance during this phase.

Evaluation - In this phase performance data collected during the mon-

itoring phase is evaluated against the original requirements. In some cases

the evaluation results lead to a set of new requirements for the next turn of

the business process management life cycle, or improvement to the planning

of the resource capacity.

In the context of this research, BPM is a set of management activities

aimed at designing, implementing, enacting, controlling, evaluating and im-

proving business processes according to the organisation’s objectives.

2.2.4 Summary of Business Process Management

In this section, a review of literature related to BPM was presented. Working

definitions were developed and examined. The focus of the literature review

was to establish the context of the research presented in this thesis by

informing the reader of the state of knowledge in this area at the time of

the writing of this thesis, and to justify the value of this thesis and its

contribution to knowledge.

2.3 Quality Management

The literature in the area of quality management will be examined in this

section. This examination takes place by first establishing a working defini-

tion of the term “quality” within the context of this study. Then, it continues

by looking into the historical evolution of quality management models in

general, and a history of quality management in business process trends

prior to BPM (such as BPI and BPR).

2.3 Quality Management 25

2.3.1 Definition of Quality

Throughout history, quality has been variously defined as “conformance to

requirements” [45], “best for the customer use and selling price” [46] and

“fitness for use” [28]. Juran has also referred to quality as “a distinguishing

feature of a grade or product (i.e., appearance, performance, length of life,

dependability, reliability, durability, maintainability, tastes, odor, etc.)” [47].

This definition is similar to what the software engineering discipline refers

to as non-functional characteristics of a software such as security, perfor-

mance, and reliability. In this respect, the ISO standard [27] defines quality

as “the totality of the characteristics of an entity that bear on its ability to

satisfy stated and implied needs”5. In business process modelling6, quality

is referred to a set of attributes that are related to a business process model

such as correctness, relevance, and clarity (see [48, 49, 50, 51]). These qual-

ity attributes are used to evaluate the quality of a business process model

not the business process itself which is the focus of this thesis.

In the context of this research, the term quality refers to distinguishing

features of a business process in the form of non-functional characteristics.

This definition is influenced heavily by Juran’s definition of quality [47] and

the ISO standard [27] definition of quality from the software engineering

discipline.

2.3.2 History of Quality Management

Quality has been a topic of research in many disciplines such as man-

ufacturing, software engineering, information management, and services

management. As a result, a variety of standards [52, 27, 53], frameworks

[54, 55, 56, 57] and quality management models [58, 59, 60, 28] have been

introduced to define, manage, assure, control and improve quality7.

The history of quality management in manufacturing dates back to the

1920’s, when Shewhart [58] introduced “Statistical Process Control” (SPC)

5 Refer to Sections 4.3 and 4.4.1.1 for further discussion on process quality vs product quality.6 The activity of creating a business process model which is the abstract description of abusiness process that represents selected process elements [4].

7 A quality model is “a strategy for commercial success that rests on the idea that businessessucceed to the degree that they satisfy their customers real requirements and continuouslyimprove in achieving this result.” (http://www.vitalentusa.com/learn/).

26 2

methods based on the continual monitoring of process variation and Control

Charts as a supporting tool. Shewhart’s quality management model consists

of three steps: (1) specifying what is needed; (2) producing products to sat-

isfy the specification; (3) and inspecting the products produced to see if

they satisfy the specification [61]. Ever since, SPC has been adopted by

other disciplines such as engineering, environmental science, and medicine

[62].

In 1930, Dodge and Romig introduced Acceptance Sampling Methods

Probabilistic (ASMP) which was another statistical quality control ap-

proach [59]. Their approach was based on predicting lot acceptability de-

rived from sampling results.

In 1950, Deming developed a statistical based approach to continuous

quality improvement which is referred to as “Deming’s PDCA Cycle” [60].

The cycle consists of a logical sequence of four repetitive steps for contin-

uous improvement: plan (plan ahead for a change, analyze and predict the

results), do (execute the plan in controlled circumstances), check (check the

result of the execution), and act (take action to improve the process).

Also in the 1950s, Juran [28] proposed a quality management model

known as the “quality trilogy” which was similar to Deming’s. Juran’s qual-

ity trilogy is based on three key steps of quality planning, quality controlling,

and quality improvement8. Juran’s philosophy was based on the fact that

the ability of an organisation to produce quality outcomes cannot happen

by accident; it must be planned for, and ongoing monitoring and control

need to take place. Firstly, to ensure the plan indeed occurs, and secondly,

to identify quality shortcomings during operations for further improvements.

Just-In-Time (JIT) is a Japanese management philosophy which has

been used in the manufacturing industry since the early 1970’s. It was first

developed within the Toyota manufacturing factory by Taiichi Ohno to meet

8 Quality planning is a preparation process that takes place to meet quality goals during pro-duction. Quality control is a process that takes place to ensure quality goals are met duringoperations (ensuring the operations are in accordance with the quality plan). Quality im-provement is the process that takes place for breaking through to unprecedented levels ofperformance.


consumer demands with minimum delays [63]. JIT follows a Lean manu-

facturing philosophy9 that provides capability for a manufacturing firm to

develop a strategy of continuous improvement in its competitive position

[64, 65]. JIT has its focus on process improvement by optimising value-

adding processes, and minimising or eliminating non-value-adding processes

that are wasteful [63, 66].

In 1980, Feigenbaum [46] introduced “Total Quality Control”. Feigen-

baum’s philosophy was based on two factors: (1) all functions in an organ-

isation need to be involved in the quality process, and (2) quality need to

be built into the product or service. He defines quality as “best for the

customer use and selling price”. His view on quality management is sum-

marized as “an effective system for integrating quality development, quality

maintenance and quality improvement efforts of the various groups within

an organisation, so as to enable production and service at the most econom-

ical levels that allow full customer satisfaction” [46].

Also in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, Total Quality Management (TQM)

started to be adopted by organisations. Joseph M. Juran10 and Philip B.

Crosby11 are known as the main contributors to this quality movement re-

ferred to as “Total Quality Management” (TQM) [67]. TQM provides a

framework for continuous improvement in an organisation [52]. Its primary

focus is on total satisfaction for both the internal and external customers.

It is about the prevention of defects and increasing the quality of design

[68]. The TQM philosophy is based on improving quality which leads to im-

proved productivity (decreased cost because of less rework, fewer mistakes,

fewer delays and better use of machines and materials). The word“Total”

means that everyone in the organization must be involved in the continuous

improvement effort, the word ”Quality” represents a concern for customer

satisfaction, and the word ”Management” refers to the people and processes

9 Lean is a manufacturing or management philosophy to reduce the lead time between a cus-tomer order and shipment of the ordered products or services through eliminations of allforms of waste [63].

10 Joseph Juran is an internationally acclaimed quality expert, who is well known on his contri-bution on Japanese manufacturing practices (www.mftrou.com/joseph-juran.html).

11 Philip B. Crosby was the founder and president of Philip Crosby Associations II -a quality consulting and training firm, known as ”Father of the Quality Revolution”(http://www.wppl.org/wphistory/PhilipCrosby/grant.htm).

28 2

needed to achieve the quality. TQM is defined in terms of five major compo-

nents: top management commitment, teams, culture, training, and process

efficiency [69]. “Top management commitment” refers to the ability and

vision of the leaders and management to control internal operations and

direct them toward accomplishment of quality goals and commitment to

continuous improvement. “Team” refers to the importance of teams and

group work on organizational performance in terms of increasing produc-

tivity, efficiency, and creativity. “Training and education” are crucial to

educate employees on the necessary elements of TQM. The TQM philoso-

phy requires permanent change in individual behaviors and attitudes that

contribute to the strengthening of an organisations culture. “Process effi-

ciency” promotes continuous improvement of all organisational operations.

The aim of enhancing “process efficiency” in an organisation is to identify

and correct the core problems that cause deficiencies.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s a number of other quality improvement ap-

proaches such as Kaizen, Six Sigma, and Lean Six Sigma (a summary of

each approach is described below) were introduced. These approaches are

very similar to JIT [63] in nature and share a common direction with em-

phasis on continuous improvement as a fundamental part of a quality model.

Kaizen is another Lean Japanese philosophy focusing on continuous im-

provement that involves everyone in an organisation. The word Kaizen

means “continuous improvement” [70]. Kaizen is a problem solving process

that supports process-oriented thinking [71, 72]. In Kaizen, improvements

are made by establishing standards. Quality control is achieved by following

these rules “(1) When an abnormality occurs, go to the gemba (where the

work is done) first (2) Check the gembutsu (!): machine, materials, rejects,

safety (3) Take temporary countermeasures immediately (4) Find the root

cause (5) Remove the root cause (6) Standardize, to prevent the trouble

from recurring” [70]. Kaizen represents the elements of continuous improve-

ment as a fundamental part of a quality model.

Six Sigma is a philosophy of conducting business with a focus on eliminat-

ing defects through reducing variations in company processes [73] - driving


towards achieving a process that does not produce more than 3.4 defects

per million opportunities. While it has been exploited as a quality improve-

ment framework by many top manufacturing organisations such as General

Electric (GE), Motorola, Honeywell, Bombardier, ABB, and Sony, it still

has limited use within service oriented companies [74]. In Six Sigma, de-

fects are avoided through the elimination of the causes of quality or process

related problems. It focuses on the number of opportunities within a process

that could result in defects rather than the quantity of the defects in a pro-

cess [75]. Six Sigma has been built based on previous quality management

models, such as Demings management philosophies and TQMs focus on the

customer [76]. Six Sigma is based on the DMAIC framework [77] which

consists of: (1) define - to define goals of improvement project and deliv-

erables for both internal and external customers (2) measure - to measure

the process to determine current performance (3) analyse - to anslyse and

determine the causes of the problem that needs improvement (4) improve -

to eliminate the defects and improve the process by eliminating defects (5)

control - to control future process performance. The primary objective of

the DMAIC process is “to recognize critical customer requirements, iden-

tify and validate the improvement opportunity, and upgrade the business

processes” [78].

Lean Six Sigma combines Lean management philosophy with Six Sigma

and shows how these two methodologies complement and reinforce each

other. Accordingly, Lean Six Sigma is “a methodology that maximizes share-

holder value by achieving the fastest rate of improvement in customer sat-

isfaction, cost, quality, process speed and invested capitals” [79].

A history of quality management in general was presented in this sub-

section. The next sub-section outlines a history of the quality management

in the business process area.

2.3.3 History of Quality Management in the Business Process

Area

Historically, within the business process community, quality has been ad-

dressed by the major practices such as Total Quality Management (TQM)

30 2

[18], Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) [19, 20, 14], and Business Pro-

cess Improvement (BPI) [21]12. Over time, each of these innovations have

incorporated some form of quality framework.

Sinclair and Zairi [12, 13] have introduced a total quality-based perfor-

mance measurement model13 for TQM which is based on a series of case

studies [22, 23, 24]. Their model integrates measurement within the over-

all management process, and consists of five levels: strategy development

& goal deployment, process management & measurement, performance ap-

praisal & management, break-point performance assessment, and reward &

recognition systems [24].

The Business Process Re-engineering initiative was proposed as a radi-

cal redesign of business processes to obtain dramatic improvements to cost,

time, quality and flexibility [19, 20, 14]. As a result, supporting methodolo-

gies for BPR, more or less, have incorporated support for managing quality.

The BPR view on using information technology as the enabler was another

significant development in the area which contributed to the IT governance

control frameworks such as COBIT14, which provides guidelines for the per-

formance of 34 identified IT processes within an organisation15.

Anupindi et al [9] refers to process quality as the ability of a process

to produce and deliver quality products. A distinction has also been made

between the internal and external quality of a business process [15]. An

emphasis on the controllable internal quality aspects of a business process

will ultimately determine the external quality perception of goods and ser-

vices created by the process [9]. This distinction is based on viewing the

quality of a business process from two points of view; resources working on

the process and clients who expect to receive goods and services created by

12 Refer to Section 2.2.2 for the history of the business process innovations.13 Total quality-based performance measurement has been defined as the measurement of non-

financial performance at different levels within the organization (levels such as individuals,teams, processes, departments and the organization as a whole), with an aim to the continuousimprovement of organisation performance [24].

14 COBIT is an IT governance framework that allows managers to bridge the gap between controlrequirements, technical issues and business risks. Visit this web site: http://www.isaca.org/,for further information on COBIT framework.

15 Refer to Figure 22 - page 25 in [80] for the complete list.

2.4 A Quality Management Model for BPM 31

the process. While both of these dimensions have been subject to dedicated

research, there is little general work on process quality, e.g. [81].

It has been acknowledged that quality management plays an important

role in the success of BPM. Zairi [43] has proposed a set of guidelines for

a successful BPM approach. In his view, business processes are critical ac-

tivities that deliver quality to the end customers. Accordingly, Zairi be-

lieves that management of processes should be conducted through perfor-

mance measurement in terms of quality. The outcome from the measurement

should be used to set targets for process improvement.

Contrary to the importance of quality management to BPM, there is

no structured framework to facilitate management of quality of business

processes during the different stages of the BPM life cycle.

2.3.4 Summary of Quality Management

In this section, a review of literature related to quality management was

presented. Working definitions were developed and examined. The focus of

the literature review was to (1) establish the context for describing and

elaborating the problem identified by reviewing the history of quality man-

agement in business process trends prior to BPM (such as BPI and BPR);

(2) to develop a quality management model that is suitable to be incorpo-

rated into the BPM life cycle [1] by examining existing quality management

models.

2.4 A Quality Management Model for BPM

Looking back at the history of quality management and quality models

introduced over the last few decades, it is clear that all these models share

a set of principles that, when applied, achieve quality goals. A summary of

these principles that have influenced the proposal of a quality management

model for BPM are listed below:

• Identifying quality requirements - Understanding the customer’s real re-

quirements and their quality needs is either directly or indirectly part

32 2

of most quality models presented above (Section 2.3.2). For example, in

Juran’s view [28], an important step of quality management is identifying

the quality needs of all the stakeholders involved in the process of pro-

ducing the product or service. Therefore, a quality management model

for BPM should support a stage in which the quality requirements for

business processes are identified.

• Planning for quality - This principle is an important part of the quality

management models introduced during early 1900’s, such as Statistical

Process Control (SPC) [58], Deming’s PDCA Cycle [60], and Juran’s

quality trilogy [28]. The most recent quality models such as Six Sigma

(DMAIC framework) [77] have more emphasis on quality improvement

and, as such, do not provide supporting frameworks for quality planning

and implementation. Therefore, a quality management model for BPM

should support a stage in which the implementation of identified quality

requirements are planned.

• Controlling quality - Quality can be controlled by both eliminating de-

fects and reducing the lead time between customer order and shipment

through elimination of all forms of waste. Acceptance Sampling Methods

Probabilistic [59] and Six Sigma are examples of quality models support-

ing quality control via defect elimination. Just-In-Time, Kaisen, Lean

Six Sigma are examples of quality models supporting quality control by

reducing the lead time between customer order and shipment of the or-

dered products or services. Therefore, a quality management model for

BPM should support a stage in which the quality of business processes

are controlled.

• Continuous improvement - Continuous improvement has been a principle

of most of the quality management models listed in the previous section,

specifically those introduced during and after 1950. Therefore, a quality

management model for BPM should support a stage in which the quality

of business processes are continuously monitored for improvement.

2.4 A Quality Management Model for BPM 33

Quality Definition

Quality Control

Quality Improvement


Fig. 2.3. BPM Quality Management Model

Based on the above principles, this thesis proposes a quality manage-

ment model for BPM that consists of four key phases of quality definition,

quality implementation, quality control and quality improvement16.

Figure 2.3 depicts the proposed quality management model. As shown in

Figure 2.3, these four key phases are arranged in a cyclical structure. This

quality management model is an extension of Juran’s quality management

model in which the quality planning phase is replaced with two distinct

phases: quality definition, and quality implementation. The following para-

graphs briefly introduce each phase.

Quality definition - The main purpose of the quality definition phase

is to identify the quality requirements of a business process.

Quality implementation - The main purpose of the quality imple-

mentation phase is to implement the identified quality requirements of a

business process model.

Quality control - The main purpose of the quality control phase is to

ensure that the quality requirements of the business process are met during

the enactment of the process.

16 Refer to Section 4.2 for further details on how this quality management model is integratedinto the BPM life cycle.

34 2

Quality improvement - The main purpose of the quality improvement

phase is to improve the quality of a business process. During this phase,

the quality of the enacted business process is evaluated against the original

quality requirements in order to identify the improvement opportunities.

2.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter presented a review of literature related to business processes

management and quality management. Working definitions were also devel-

oped. The focus of the literature review was firstly, to establish the context

of the research presented in this research; secondly, to provide a context for

describing and elaborating the problem being identified; and thirdly, to de-

velop a quality management model for BPM by examining existing quality

management models.

As discussed, none of the quality management frameworks reviewed and

presented in Section 2.3 supports all the four key principles that, when

applied, achieve quality goals. The quality management model proposed in

Section 2.4 consists of four key phases: quality definition, quality implemen-

tation, quality control and quality improvement.

3

Research Approach and Methodology

3.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research approach undertaken

in conducting this research study1. The value of combining research meth-

ods in Information Systems (IS) research has received significant acclaim

[83, 84]. Mingers [84] argues that “different research methods (especially

from different paradigms) focus on different aspects of reality and therefore

a richer understanding of a research topic will be gained by combining sev-

eral methods together in a single piece of research or research program”. A

multi-method research design utilising the design science approach and ac-

tion research methodology was chosen for this study with the aim to “deliver

practical value to the subject while at the same time contributing to theory”

[31]. Section 3.2 describes in detail the reasons for adopting a multi-method

research design for this study. A brief description on the design science ap-

proach is provided in Section 3.3. Action research methodology is described

in Section 3.4. The multi-method research design for this study is described

in detail in Section 3.5.

3.2 Research Approach and Methodology Selection

Most of the research in the Information Systems (IS) discipline2 are char-

acterised by two paradigms: design science and behaviourial science [2].

1 Research is an activity that contributes to understanding of a phenomenon which is a set ofbehaviours of an entity that is found interesting by the researcher [82].

2 IS research is the study of phenomenons related to Information Systems (IS). Organisationsimplement Information Systems to improve the effectiveness and efficiency throughout theirorganisations [2].

36 3

Design-science is a research paradigm that extends the boundaries of hu-

man and organisational capabilities by creating new and innovative artifacts

[2]. The behavioural science paradigm “seeks to develop and justify theories

(i.e., principles and laws) that explain or predict organizational and human

phenomena surrounding the analysis, design, implementation, management,

and use of information systems” [2]. According to March et al. [85], a be-

havioural science paradigm is selected as a research approach if the research

relates to the understanding of the nature of IS; alternatively, a design sci-

ence paradigm is selected as a research approach if the research relates to

the improvement of IS performance.

Once the research questions3 that drove this study were defined, it be-

came apparent that a design science paradigm is a suitable research ap-

proach for this study as addressing the research questions will be a contri-

bution to IS research by improving IS performance.

Design-science is a research paradigm that extends the boundaries of

human and organisational capabilities by creating new and innovative ar-

tifacts. Employing a design science approach on its own is not encouraged

in the IS discipline, as Hevner et al. [2] suggests “A justified theory that is

not useful for the environment contributes as little to the IS literature as

an artifact that solves a nonexistent problem”. For that reason, Hevner et

al. have proposed an IS research framework which is based on combining

behavioural science and design science paradigms. Figure 3.1 presents the IS

research framework proposed by [2]. In this framework, the environment de-

fines the problem space in IS research which includes people, organisations

and technology. The research problem perceived by the researcher (derived

from business needs) transpires from the environment. The business needs

are influenced by people and are assessed and evaluated within the context

of an organisation (organisational strategies, structure, culture, and existing

business processes). Accordingly these needs are shaped with relation to the

existing technology.

3 Refer to Section 1.1.2.

3.2 37

Fig. 3.1. Information Systems Research Framework as defined by Hevner et al. [2]

Having identified the business needs, IS research is conducted in two

complementary phases - design science (develop/build) and behaviourial

science (justify/evaluate). During the design science phase, the researcher

addresses the research through the building of artifacts designed to meet the

identified business needs. The applicability of the designed artifacts to the

business needs are then evaluated during the behaviorial science phase. The

knowledge base provides foundations (theories, frameworks, instruments,

constructs, models, methods, and instantiations) and methodologies (data

analysis techniques, formalisms, measures, and validation criteria) that have

resulted from prior research studies. Foundations are used during the design

phase, while methodologies are used for evaluation during the behaviorial

science phase. Based on this framework, the contributions of design science

and behaviourial science in IS research are assessed by (1) applying to the

business needs in an appropriate environment, and (2) the value added to

further research and practice as the result of adding to the contents of the

knowledge base [2].

38 3

The research design for this study is influenced by the IS framework pro-

posed by Hevner et al. as it is based on both behavioural science and design

science paradigms. The research design for this study utilises the design

science paradigm as a research approach to innovate new artifacts, and the

action research paradigm as a methodology to evaluate the applicability of

the designed artifacts to real world business needs. Action research is se-

lected as a methodology for the evaluation phase as it provides a potential

avenue to improve the practical relevance of information systems research

[86]. Combining a design-based research approach with an action research

methodology is a useful way to create business knowledge that is both rel-

evant (for both practice and theory) and rigorous [32].

3.3 Design Science Paradigm

The design science paradigm is a problem-solving paradigm [2] which aims

to provide answers to design problems [32]. The design science method-

ology, in general, consists of a process (set of activities) and a product

(artifact) [2, 87, 88]. It means the design process is a sequence of activities

that produces an innovative artifact. The design science methodology by

[88] identifies two design processes: build and evaluate; and four artifacts:

constructs (vocabulary and symbols), models (abstractions and representa-

tions), methods (algorithms and practices), and instantiations (implemented

and prototype systems). Constructs are the conceptual vocabulary in which

problems and solutions are defined. A model is a set of propositions that

presents the relationship between constructs. A method is a set of proce-

dures used to perform a task. Instantiations are operationalised constructs,

models, and methods - an instantiation is the realisation of the artifact in

an environment [88].

3.4 Action Research Paradigm

Action research is a research approach introduced by Kurt Lewin in 1946 to

address social system change through action by means of effecting change

3.4 39

and creating knowledge about the change [89]. Action research aims at pro-

viding solutions for current practical problems while expanding scientific

knowledge [86]; therefore, a balance between the goal of the researcher and

the participating sponsor must be maintained. It is a form of applied re-

search that adds value to the practice by solving a practical problem, while

at the same time contributes to a research community by developing the-

oretical knowledge [31, 90]. Action research is suited in social situations in

which the researcher must be engaged. Cole et al. [89] have defined a set of

conditions for an ideal action research social setting. These conditions in-

clude: (a) the researcher must be actively involved, with explicit benefit for

both researcher and organisation; (b)the knowledge obtained can be imme-

diately applied; and, (c) the research is a cyclical process that links theory to

practice. Action research provides an opportunity for the researcher to be-

come involved in practical problem solving through the close collaboration

with practitioners from participating orgainsations.

Diagnosis

Action Planning

Action TakingEvaluating

Specifying Learning

Fig. 3.2. The Action Research Cycle [3]

A number of action research methods have been developed [91], one of

the best known being Susman and Evered’s action research cycle [3] consist-

ing of five phases. Figure 3.2 depicts the action research cycle by Susman

and Evered [3]. The purpose of the first phase, diagnosis, is to identify and

40 3

define a problem. The second phase, action planning, involves defining ac-

tions that need to be taken to solve the problem. The third phase, action

taking, consists of executing the planned actions. The fourth phase, evalu-

ating, is aimed at studying the consequence of the action. The fifth phase,

specifying learning, completes the loop by identifying lessons learned.

This study adopts Susman and Everet’s action research approach as it fits

the purpose of evaluating solution concepts, specifically its cyclical aspect.

3.5 Research Design - Multi-Method Approach

The purpose of this section is to present how two research methods (design

science and action research) are combined and how the use of a multi-

method approach supports the identification and development of several

contributions within this thesis. The justification for using a multi-method

research design was presented in Section 3.2. The research design for this

study is influenced by two frameworks:

• The IS research framework by [2] - This framework is based on combin-

ing design science (develop / build) and behaviourial science (justify /

evaluate) paradigms (see Figure 3.1). The IS research framework by [2]

was described in Section 3.2.

• The design-based research framework by [32] - This framework con-

tributes to theory and practice via two distinctive but interconnected

streams: design science and action research. The design-based research

stream uses the reflective cycle4, and its objective is to develop knowledge

that contributes to theory by creating desired situations. The action re-

search stream is based on action research using the problem solving cycle,

and its objective is to contribute to the practical concerns in problematic

situations by solving particular problems.

Figure 3.3 depicts the multi-method approach adopted in this research

which is based on both the IS research framework [2] and the design-based

4 The aim of a reflective cycle is to reflect on the results of the action research stream, reviewingthe lessons learned and to identify the areas in which the solution can be improved possiblythrough the redesign.

3.5 Research Design - Multi-Method Approach 41

Case n

2. Agenda Setting

Action Taking

Design Science Methodology

Action Research Methodology

Research Problem

1. Theorising

Conceptual Framework

3. (Re) Designing

Solution Concept

9. Reflecting

Success & Improvements

10. Developing Knowledge

Design Knowledge

Case 2

Case 1

4. Diagnosing

Practice Problem

5. Action Panning

Specific Solution

6. Action Taking

Record of the evolving process

7. Evaluating

Consequences of actions

8. Specifying Learning

FindingsClient Agenda

Mat

ch ?

Fig. 3.3. Research methodology of a design-based research study using action research

research approach by [32]. As shown in Figure 3.3, this research is based on

two streams: design science and action research. The objective of the design

science stream is to design and build artifacts as solutions to the research

problem. The action research stream evaluates the artifacts in practice for

its distinct feature of “delivery of research findings that are immediately

applied to practice” [86]. The action research stream is based on the action

research proposed by Susman and Everet [3]. The steps in this multi-method

approach are described later in this section.

The high level research design used in this study is depicted in Fig-

ure 3.4. This diagram presents activities related to the different stages of

this research based on the multi-method methodology described above (see

Figure 3.3). Ten horizontal lanes present ten stages of the multi-method

research. The diagram is divided into two sections, all the activities (rep-

resented by rectangles) related to design science are presented on the left

hand side, while action research related activities are presented on the right

hand side of the diagram. The action research side of the diagram is divided

by dotted lines to represent the three action research cases: Organisation

A, Organisation B, and Organisation C.

42 3E

valu

atin

g

(AR

)

Eva

luat

ing

(A

R)

Dia

gn

osi

ng

(A

R)

Dia

gn

osi

ng

(A

R)

Act

ion

P

lan

nin

g (

AR

)

Act

ion

P

lan

nin

g (

AR

)A

ctio

n T

akin

g

(AR

)

Act

ion

Tak

ing

(A

R)

Sp

ecif

yin

g

Lea

rnin

g (

AR

)

Sp

ecif

yin

g

Lea

rnin

g (

AR

)A

gen

da

Set

tin

g (

DS

)

Ag

end

a S

etti

ng

(D

S)

(Re)

D

esig

nin

g

(DS

)

(Re)

D

esig

nin

g

(DS

)R

efle

ctin

gR

efle

ctin

gD

evel

op

ing

K

no

wle

dg

e

Dev

elo

pin

g

Kn

ow

led

ge

Th

eori

sin

g

(DS

)

Th

eori

sin

g

(DS

)

Literature ReviewDevelop Quality-Aware BPM Life

Cycle

Define Research Problem

Define Research Questions

Build Quality of Business Process (QoBP) framework

Develop Quality Management

Model for BPM

Build Business Process Root

Cause Analysis (PRCA) technique

Identify the problem



Define actions need to be taken



Execute the planned action


Evaluate the consequence of

Action


Action


Action

Identify lesson learned



Refine QoBP framework

Refine QoBP framework &

PRCA technique

Refine QoBP framework


Reflect on Organisation A lessons learned

Reflect on Organisation C lessons learned

Reflect on Organisation B lessons learned

Publish the solution

Organisation A Organisation COrganisation B

Design Science Action Research

Fig. 3.4. Research Design

Note: The first three stages listed below belong to the design science part

of this multi-method methodology (the top box in figure 3.3).

Stage One, Theorising - The first stage, is the inception phase of the

research when the theory of developing a conceptual framework about “qual-

ity management of business processes during their life cycle” is employed.

The main purpose of this phase is to review prior and relevant literature

in order to create a firm foundation for advancing knowledge by facilitating

theory development [33] - uncovering areas where research is required. Ac-

cordingly, this stage starts with the review of the relevant literature to 1)

3.5 Research Design - Multi-Method Approach 43

establish the context of the research presented in this thesis; 2) provide a

context for describing and elaborating the problem being identified; and 3)

develop a quality management model for business processes by examining

existing quality management models. Upon completion of the preliminary

literature review, a foundation for proposing a conceptual model for the

quality-aware BPM life cycle5 is employed. Chapter 2 presents a summary

of the reviewed literature and the proposed quality model for business pro-

cesses which is the outcome of this stage.

Stage Two, Agenda Setting - During this stage, the research ques-

tions that need to be addressed to provide a solution for the identified

research problem are articulated. Section 1.1.2 describes the research prob-

lem and research questions identified during this stage.

Stage Three, (Re) Designing - This is the stage in which the artifacts

are designed and developed to address the research questions identified in

the previous stage. Three main artifacts that are built during this stage

are the quality-aware BPM life cycle5, Quality of Business Process (QoBP)

framework 6, and Process Root Cause Analysis (PRCA) technique7.

Note: the next five stages listed below belong to the action research part of

this multi-method methodology which are based on the five stages of action

research methodology proposed by [3]. These stages are aimed at evaluating

the artifacts designed during the last stage in practice8. A more detailed

protocol for conducting action research as part of this study is presented

in Section5. As shown in figure 3.4, three cycles of action research will be

conducted within three organisations ( organisation A, organisation B, and

organisation C) in this research. Multiple action research cycles enables a

progressive refinement of the developed artifacts [32]. A detailed report on

each action research cycle will be presented in this thesis9.

5 Refer to Section 4.2 for further details on the Quality-aware BPM life cycle.6 Refer to Sections 4.3, and 4.4 for further details on the QoBP framework.7 Refer to Section 4.5 for further details on PRCA technique.8 Rigor and relevance of each action research case is discussed in the chapter related to eachcase.

9 Chapters 6, 7, and 8 present a detailed report on the action research cycles.

44 3

Stage Four, Diagnosing - During this stage, a practical problem that

is similar to the research problem is identified. Section 5.3.2 provides the

protocol for this stage of the action research cycle.

Stage Five, Action Planning - During this stage, the activities that

are performed during the course of the collaboration, to solve the identified

problem, are planned. Section 5.3.3 provides the protocol for this stage of

the action research cycle.

Stage Six, Action Taking - During this stage, the actions planned in

the previous step are performed. Section 5.3.4 provides the protocol for this

stage of the action research cycle.

Stage Seven, Evaluating - During this stage, the consequences of the

actions taken in the previous stage are evaluated. Section 5.3.5 provides the

protocol for this stage of the action research cycle.

Stage Eight, Specifying Learning - During this stage, the lessons

learned from the action research cycle are identified in order to determine

the areas in which the solution can possibly be improved through redesign.

Section 5.3.6 provides the protocol for this stage of the action research cycle.

Stage Nine, Reflecting - During this stage, the lessons learned from

each action research cycle are analysed and reflected. As shown in Figure 3.4,

the last six stages (from stage three to stage nine) are repeated three times

in an evolutionary manner with each action research case providing an op-

portunity to mature the conceptual framework for the purpose of attaining

theoretical saturation [92].

Stage Ten, Developing knowledge - Finally, during the last stage,

the solution is formalised in the form of this thesis to contribute to the

knowledge base.

The following section presents the relationship of this research to the

Information Systems (IS) research guidelines.

3.6 Relation to IS Research Guidelines 45

3.6 Relation to IS Research Guidelines

The purpose of this section is to describe how the contribution from this

thesis will be evaluated in relation to the Information Systems (IS) research

guidelines provided by [2]. Hevner et al. recommend seven guidelines for

effective information systems research, specifically those with the design

science focus. These guidelines are briefly outlined below.

Guideline 1: Design as an Artifact Information research should pro-

duce a viable artifact in the form of a construct, a model, a method, or an

instantiation.

Guideline 2: Problem Relevance The design-science research should

develop IS based solutions to important and relevant business problems.

Accordingly, the research must design effective artifacts (constructs, mod-

els, methods or instantiations) that address the relevant business problems.

Guideline 3: Design Evaluation The utility, quality, and efficiency

of a design artifact must be rigorously evaluated via effective evaluation

methods.

Guideline 4: Research Contributions The design-science research

must contribute to the knowledge base in the areas of the design artifact,

design foundations, and/or design methodologies.

Guideline 5: Research Rigor The construction and evaluation of the

design artifact must be based on the application of rigorous methods using

the knowledge base and its methodologies and foundations.

Guideline 6: Design as a Search Process Design is a search pro-

cess that discovers an effective solution to a problem [2]. The design science

research consists of several crucial components which are abstraction and

representation of appropriate means, ends, and laws. Means in this con-

text are the set of actions and resources available to build a solution, ends

represent goals and constraints, and laws are uncontrollable forces in the

environment. This implies that “the set of possible design solutions for any

46 3

problem is specified as all possible means that satisfy all end conditions

consistent with identified laws”.

Guideline 7: Communication of Research Design-science research

must be presented effectively both to the academic community (technology-

oriented audiences) and practitioners (management-oriented audiences).

The research should communicate the benefits offered by the artifacts, as

well as the cumulative knowledge base built as the result of the research.

The cumulative knowledge bases can then be further extended and evalu-

ated by other researchers and practitioners.

Section 9.3.1 provides a detailed discussion on how well this thesis meets

these guidelines that were outlined above.

3.7 Chapter Summary

This chapter provided a detailed discussion of the research approach and

methodology followed in this research. The multi-method methodology

adopted for this research, which is based on design research approach and

action research evaluation, was outlined in this chapter. This chapter also

outlined seven recommended IS research guidelines which will be used later

in this thesis to justify how well this research suffices international research

standards in the IS discipline.

Part II

Design Science Phase

4

The Design Science Phase

4.1 Introduction

This is the main chapter of Part 2 of this thesis which is dedicated to the

design science phase1. The main purpose of this chapter is to present the

artifacts being developed during the design phase of this research. As out-

lined in Section 1.1.2, the core research problem that generated this study

is: How can organisations manage the quality of the business processes dur-

ing different phases of the BPM life cycle?. Figure 4.1 presents an outline of

the artifacts presented in this chapter in relation to the research questions

being addressed.

Section 4.2 presents the first artifact - quality-aware business process

life cycle - which is developed to address the main research question: “How

can quality be incorporated into a business process and managed during the

BPM life cycle? ”. This section briefly revisits the justification for incorpo-

rating a quality management framework into the BPM life cycle, followed

by a detailed description of the proposed quality-aware business process life

cycle.

In the quality-aware BPM life cycle, the quality of a business process is

managed based on the four key phases of: quality definition, quality imple-

mentation, quality control, and quality improvement. The proposed quality-

aware BPM life cycle is the outcome of the investigation conducted during

the early stage of this study to define the research questions and the scope

of this study in a structured manner.

1 Refer to Section 3.5 for further details on this thesis research strategy.

50 4 The Design Science Phase

Research Question Proposed Artifact (s)

Section 4.2How can quality be incorporated into a business process and managed during the BPM life cycle?

Quality Aware BPM Life Cycle

Section 4.3 What are the business process quality dimensions? QoBP Framework - Quality Model

Section 4.4How can quality be incorporated into a business process model producing a quality-aware business process?

QoBP Framework - Softgoal Model QoBP Framework - Softgoal Correlation Model QoBP Framework - Measurement Model QoBP Framework - QoBP Metamodel QoBP Framework - QoBP Methodology

Section 4.5What is a suitable root cause analysis technique for identifying the root causes of the quality issues of a business process?

PRCA Technique

Fig. 4.1. Research Questions & Proposed Artifacts

The scope2 of this research is limited to providing supporting artifacts

for the first and last phases of the quality-aware BPM life cycle: quality

definition and quality improvement. The research questions derived in Sec-

tion 1.1.2 are related to the quality definition and the quality improvement

phases of the quality-aware BPM life cycle. Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 present

the artifacts developed to address the research questions defined in Sec-

tion 1.1.2.

Section 4.3 introduces the Quality of Business Process (QoBP)

framework in which the Quality Model proposed in Section 4.3 is utilised

to create a quality-aware business process model. The quality model is the

first artifact developed to support the quality definition phase. The main

purpose of the quality definition phase is to define and model the quality

requirements of a business process during the analysis and design phases of

the BPM life cycle. The quality model provides a structured approach to

capture and represent the quality requirements of a business process. The

quality model addresses the first research question related to the quality

2 Refer to Section 1.1.1.

4.2 Quality-aware BPM Life Cycle 51

definition phase: “what are the business process quality dimensions?”.

Section 4.4 presents the additional artifacts of the QoBP framework de-

veloped by this thesis to support the quality definition phase of the quality-

aware BPM life cycle. These artifacts are developed to address the second

research question related to the quality definition phase: “how can quality be

incorporated into a business process model producing a quality-aware busi-

ness process?”. This section presents how in the Quality of Business Process

(QoBP) framework, the quality model, proposed in Section 4.3, is utilised

to create a quality-aware business process model.

Section 4.5 presents the artifact that is developed to support the quality

improvement phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle. This artifact is

developed to address the fourth research question that is related to the

quality improvement phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle: “what is

a suitable technique for identifying the root causes of the quality issues of

a business process?”. This section introduces a novel root cause analysis

approach that is referred to as Process Root Cause Analysis (PRCA)

Technique.

4.2 Quality-aware BPM Life Cycle

This section presents the first artifact (Quality-aware BPM Life Cycle)

that is developed to address the main research question: “How can quality

be incorporated into a business process and managed during the BPM life

cycle?”. This section presents how a quality management model is inte-

grated into the BPM life cycle.

The justification for incorporating quality into BPM and business pro-

cesses was presented in Section 1 and 2.3.3. Section 1 discussed how quality

has been an important topic within the business process community as it has

been addressed by most of the practices in the area such as Six Sigma [17],

Total Quality Management (TQM) [18], Business Process Re-engineering

(BPR) [19, 20, 14], and Business Process Improvement (BPI) [21]3. Section

3 Refer to the sections 2.2.2, and 2.3.3 for the further details on the history of the businessprocess innovations.


2.3.3 outlined the guidelines for a successful BPM approach. It was also

discussed how the management of processes should be conducted through

performance measurement in terms of quality, and how the measurement

outcome should be used to set targets for process improvement. Improving

the quality of a process may jeopardise other process performance metrics

such as cost, time and flexibility. These four process performance indicators

(quality, cost, time and flexibility) are referred to as the devils quadrangle

[93]. It’s called devils quadrangle, because in general, improving upon one

dimension may have a weakening effect on another [93]. It is therefore es-

sential to be aware of the trades-offs that need to be made, as an exclusive

quality focus may compromise other performance indicators such as time,

cost and flexibility. The cost trade-offs and measures such as “return on

quality”, in general, have been the topics of interest during the past two

decades leading to the proposal of several trade-offs models [94, 95, 11].

The anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests that over time, improving

quality reduces the overall costs [96, 11].

Contrary to the importance of quality management to BPM, to our

knowledge there is no structured framework to facilitate management of

quality of business processes during the different stages of the BPM life

cycle. This chapter presents the quality-aware BPM life cycle in which our

proposed quality management model is incorporated into the BPM life cycle.

The proposed quality-aware BPM life cycle is the outcome of the investi-

gation conducted during early stages of this study to define the research

questions and the scope in a structured approach. As described in Section

1.1.1, the scope of this research is limited to provide supporting artifacts

for the first and last phases of the quality-aware BPM life cycle: quality

definition and quality improvement.

In the quality-aware BPM life cycle (Figure 4.2), the quality of a business

process is managed based on the four key phases of quality definition, quality

implementation, quality control, and quality improvement. Figure 4.2 shows

this is a cyclical life cycle where the quality improvement opportunities

identified during the quality improvement phase are fed to the quality defi-

nition phase, commencing a new cycle instance. Sections 4.3 to 4.5 present


Analysis

Design

Implementation

Enactment

Monitoring

Evaluation


Quality Aware Business Process Model



Measurements


Quality Improvement

Quality Definition


Quality Control

Fig. 4.2. Quality-aware Business Process Management Life Cycle

the artifacts developed to address these research questions.

The description of this model which is based on the quality manage-

ment phases (quality definition, quality implementation, quality control,

and quality improvement) are presented below.

Quality Definition

The purpose of the quality definition phase is to define the quality require-

ments of a business process, therefore, this phase is incorporated into the

analysis and design phases of the BPM life cycle (as shown in Figure 4.2).

The quality-aware BPM life cycle begins with the analysis phase which is

concerned with the analysis of the organisational structure, process goals,

the process environment, and process quality requirements. When analysing

the process goals, and the process quality requirements it is important to en-

sure that they are aligned with organisation’s strategy4. During this phase,

the functional and quality (non-functional) requirements5 of a business pro-

cess are elicited, taking account of the organisations’ strategy, goals and

4 Refer to Section 2.2.3 for further details on the analysis and design phases of the BPM lifecycle.

5 The functional requirements at this level contain a high level description of the activitiesof the process being analysed (e.g. “upon receive of the loan application, evaluate the ap-plication to determine either the loan can be approved or needs to be rejected”). Quality(non-functional) requirements include quality related details of the process being analysed(e.g. the loan approval should be performed within an acceptable response time).


structure. The output from this phase includes the functional and quality

(non-functional) requirements description of the business process. In the

design phase, the overall process structure is then engineered based on the

requirements from the analysis phase. The design includes the identifica-

tion of the activities of a process; specification of human resources involved

with the activities and their role within the organisation; specification of

non-human resources (such as computer systems, printers, projectors etc)

required; and specification of data & information associated with the activ-

ities. After identifying all the functional dimensions of the business process

(activities, human resources, non-human resources, and inputs & outputs),

quality aspects are identified for these functional dimensions. During this

phase the business process is modeled using a business process modeling

notation. The quality requirements related to all the dimensions of a busi-

ness process are incorporated into the business process model producing a

quality-aware business process model. Quality-aware business process

models are the main deliverable artefact of the design phase.


The purpose of the quality implementation phase is to implement a quality-

aware business process model. As shown in Figure 4.2, quality implementa-

tion is incorporated into the implementation phase of the BPM life cycle.

During this phase, the infrastructure to support the quality-aware business

process is designed and established. All the quality requirement identified

in the design phase are implemented during this phase.

Quality Control

The purpose of the quality control phase is to ensure that the quality re-

quirements of the business process are met during each enactment of the

process. Therefore quality control is incorporated into the BPM life cycle at

the time that a business process is enacted and monitored (see Figure 4.2).

During this phase individual instances are executed using the dedicated in-

frastructure. Monitoring is an administrative phase which is bound to each

individual process instance. The main purpose of this activity is to visualise

the status of business process instances by providing insight to the process

instance. The information related to the quality aspects of the process are


monitored and measured for each individual process instance during this

phase.

Quality Improvement

The purpose of the quality improvement phase is to improve the quality

of a business process. Therefore, the quality improvement is incorporated

into the evaluation phase of the BPM life cycle where quality of the enacted

business process is evaluated (as shown in Figure 4.2). The quality improve-

ment at this stage of the business process life cycle is concerned with the

root cause analysis (RCA) of the cases where quality requirements were not

met. These cases are referred to as quality issues. In this context root cause

analysis is used as a reactive approach to uncover the root causes of the

quality issues that have already occurred. Identification of the root causes

of the quality issues will be used to improve the subsequent enactments of

the business process6.

The scope of this thesis is limited to providing supporting artifacts (such

as frameworks, models, and methodology) for the quality definition and

quality improvement phases of the quality-aware BPM life cycle.

This section presented how the proposed quality management model (in-

troduced in Section 2.3.4) is incorporated into the BPM life cycle producing

a quality-aware BPM life cycle. The purpose of the quality-aware BPM life

cycle is to incorporate quality in terms of quality characteristics into a

business process model that can be implemented, enacted, and constantly

monitored and evaluated for further improvement.

The next section introduces the first artifact of the Quality of Busi-

ness Process (QoBP) framework developed to support the quality definition

phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle.

6 Refer to Section 4.5 for further information on Process Root Cause Analysis framework.


4.3 Quality Definition Phase - QoBP Framework Part

I

This section introduces the first artifact of the Quality of Business Pro-

cess (QoBP) framework. The first artifact, the quality model is devel-

oped to support the quality definition phase of the quality-aware BPM life

cycle (highlighted orange in Figure 4.3). As shown in Figure 4.3, in the

quality-aware BPM life cycle, the quality of a business process is managed

based on the four key phases of: quality definition, quality implementation,

quality control, and quality improvement. The main purpose of the quality

definition phase is to define and model the quality requirements of a busi-

ness process during the analysis and design phases of the BPM life cycle.

As described in Section 4.2, during the analysis phase the functional and

quality (non-functional) requirements of a business process are elicited, tak-

ing account of the organisation’s strategy, goals and structure. The output

from this phase includes the functional and quality (non-functional) require-

ments of the business process. During the design phase, the overall process

structure is engineered based on the requirements from the analysis phase

- incorporating the quality requirements into the business process model,

producing a quality-aware business process model. This Section presents

the first artifact developed by this thesis to support the quality definition

during the design phase. The quality model provides a structured approach

to capture and represent the quality requirements of a business process.

As stated in Section 2.3.1, in the context of this research, the term qual-

ity refers to the non-functional characteristics of a business process. As

discussed in Section 1, the enactment of a business process is functionally

correct (all the events and functions are enacted in the order they have been

defined), but the outcome is nevertheless unacceptable because the outcome

does not meet some quality criteria such as timeliness and accuracy. For ex-

ample, in a hypothetical mortgage scenario, while the loan approval process

for a customer is completed functionally correct, the outcome may not be

successful for the bank as the customer may decide to take the loan from an-

other bank as the process took longer than the originally promised time line.

4.3 Quality Definition Phase - QoBP Framework Part I 57

Analysis

Design

Implementation

Enactment

Monitoring

Evaluation


Quality Aware Process Model



Measurements


Quality Improvement

Quality Definition


Quality Control

Fig. 4.3. Quality Definition Phase

The quality characteristics of a business process are more difficult to

capture and as a result they are either overlooked or deferred [16]. It would

be beneficial to have a structured model to capture and represent quality

characteristics of a business process. Quality has been well defined in the

Software Engineering and Service Management areas in the form of quality

characteristics (see Sections 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.1.2) categorised into meaningful

groups. Several literatures have indirectly and directly identified the lack

of existing business process modelling methods for the elicitation and mod-

elling of non-functional requirements of a business process, but these works

have not been able to provide a structured model to capture and represent

the quality characteristics of a business process.

Heravizadeh et al. [97] proposed the concept of context-aware business

process in order to support knowledge-intensive processes. The authors

categorised contextual information into three groups: resource-oriented,

method-oriented, and environment-oriented. Resource-oriented contextual

information is concerned with whatever resource or resources are involved

in performing a given function (e.g. the experience level of a user). Method-

oriented contextual information is concerned with the way a function is

executed, and the time taken for that execution. Environment-oriented con-

textual information describes the conditions in which a process is enacted,


such as the location or locations at which the process was enacted, the date

or dates involved, and the time of the day. Rosemann et al. [98] have also

proposed the concept of context-aware process design in order to increase

the adaptability of process modeling. Such context-aware information, in-

directly, necessitates the non-functional requirements of a business process.

Pavlovski et al. [16] define non-functional characteristics of a business

process as operational behavior and the associated process constraints. Ac-

cordingly they propose operating conditions to denote a business process

constraints and control cases to define controlling criteria to minimise the

risk associated with an operational condition. While these artifacts (oper-

ating condition and control case) can capture operational constraints, no

empirical studies have yet been performed to provide evidence of the effi-

ciency of these artifacts). Operating condition and control case are not ca-

pable of capturing and representing other non-functional characteristics of a

business process (non-operational constraints). Aburub et al. [99] have also

proposed a business process improvement approach which is based on the

non-functional requirements of the business process. In their approach they

improve a business process by analysing the non-functional requirements

of a business process and altering the process to meet these requirements.

Their approach has not been empirically evaluated and no structured model

or framework is provided to capture and represent the quality characteris-

tics.

In this research, a quality model is proposed to address the shortcoming

of the earlier works by providing a well structured model to capture and

represent quality (non-functional) characteristics of a business process. It is

acknowledged that quality of a business process builds on the quality of its

functions. In essence there are two levels of granularity at which the quality

of functions can be analysed: for the function as a whole, or by looking

into the entities related to it. Accordingly, in this thesis, the proposed qual-

ity model models the quality of a business process (see Figure 4.4) based

on four distinct dimensions: quality of functions (Section 4.3.2.1), quality

of input and output objects (Section 4.3.2.2), quality of human resources

(Section 4.3.2.3), and quality of non-human resources (Section 4.3.2.4). The


quality model addresses the shortcoming of the earlier works by introducing

a model that defines the quality of a business process based on its four di-

mensions. This model also provides a set of quality characteristics for these

four dimensions derived from related domains. The quality model provides

a structured approach to capture and represent the quality characteristics

of a business process.

Inputs/Outputs Quality Dimension

Human Resource Quality Dimension

Non-Human Resource

Quality Dimension

Function Quality Dimension

Process Quality

Fig. 4.4. QoBP Framework - Quality Model - Quality Dimensions of Business Process

Four dimensions of the quality model are described in Section 4.3.2. The

business process quality dimensions proposed here are built based on the

quality models in areas that are relevant to these four dimensions. A com-

prehensive literature review was conducted to gain insight into the quality

models in the related areas. A summary of the literature review is presented

in the following section before introducing the quality model in detail in

Section 4.3.2.

4.3.1 Quality Models in Related Domains

This section presents a brief summary of the quality models in areas that

are relevant to the four dimensions of the quality model (functions, in-


puts/outputs, human resources, and non-human resources). The proposed

quality model presented in Section 4.3.2 is built based on the quality models

from software engineering 4.3.1.1, services & web-services 4.3.1.2, data &

information 4.3.1.3, and human resources 4.3.1.4 areas. Figure 4.5 depicts

a matrix that presents how the four business process quality dimensions are

influenced by these areas. Each row in this matrix presents a business pro-

cess quality dimension and each column presents a relevant area. The cells

of the matrix therefore represent a unique quality dimension/relevant area

relationship where a ‘X’ is present indicates the existence of a relationship.

Software Engineering Services & Web-Services Data & Information Human ResourcesFunction X XInput & Output XHuman Resource XNon-Human Resource X XQoBP Dimensions

Relevant Disciplines

Fig. 4.5. Business Process Quality Dimensions - Literature Review Matrix

The justification for the influence/relevancy for each area include:

• Software Engineering - The function and non-human resource dimen-

sions of the quality model were influenced by the quality models in the

Software Engineering area. This relevancy arises from:

– Function - The similarity between a software and a business process

has been discussed in detail in [100]. In summary, both software and

business process have logical structures with inputs and outputs in

the form of functions or activities, and both have interactions with

human resources.


– Non-human resource - Software is one of the common non-human re-

source element of a business process. In this case there is a direct

relevancy between quality models in Software Engineering area and

non-human resource quality dimension.

• Service & Web-Services - The function and non-human resource di-

mensions of the quality model were influenced by the quality models in

the services & web-services area. This relevancy arises from:

– Function - A synergy between a service and a function of a business

process has been acknowledged through the literature [101, 102, 103,

104].

– Non-human resource - Non-human resource elements of a business

process provide a service to the business process. For example, a tele-

phone set is a non-human resource required for the ‘receive complaints’

function of the ‘customer complains’ process within a call center. In

this case, the telephone set provides a communication service for the

‘receive complaints’ function of the ‘customer complains’ process.

• Data & Information - The input & output dimension of the quality

model was influenced by the quality models in the data & information

area. The inputs and outputs of a function within a business process cap-

ture the physical and informational objects that are used and produced

by that function; hence, a direct relevancy between the quality model in

the data & information area and the input & output quality dimension.

• Human Resources - The human resource dimension of the quality

model was influenced by the quality models in the human resource area.

The direct relevancy in this case is self-evident.

A summary of the literature review on the quality models/frameworks

in software engineering is presented in the following section.


4.3.1.1 Literature Review on Software Engineering

In this section, a summary of the quality models within Software Engineer-

ing that have influenced both function and non-human resource quality

dimensions of the quality model (see Figure 4.5) is presented.

Evaluation of software products in order to satisfy software quality re-

quirements is an important step in the software development life cycle.

Several standards [27, 105, 106, 107, 108] by the International Organisation

for Standardization (ISO)7 and the International Electrotechnical Commis-

sion (IEC)8 have been produced to provide a framework for evaluating the

quality of a software product. The software product quality model proposed

by ISO/IEC consists of two parts: (1) internal quality and external quality,

and (2) quality in use. Internal quality represents the totality of character-

istics of the software product from an internal view, and it is measured and

evaluated against the internal quality requirements. External quality repre-

sents the totality of characteristics of the software product from an external

view, and it is measured and evaluated against external requirements. Qual-

ity in use represents the users view of the quality of the software product

in a specific context of use, and it is measured and evaluated against users

requirements on use of software in a particular environment. A software

product quality can be evaluated by measuring internal quality, external

quality, and quality in use.

The first part of the ISO/IEC model consists of six characteristics

for internal and external quality, which are further subdivided into sub-

characteristics. The six internal and external characteristics are: function-

ality, reliability, usability, efficiency, maintainability, and portability. Func-

tionality refers to the capability of the software product to provide functions

which meet stated requirements and need. Reliability refers to the capability

of the software product to performs consistently under specified conditions.

The capability of the software product to be easily understood, and learned

is referred to as usability. Efficiency is the capability of the software product

7 ISO is the world’s largest developer and publisher of International Standards. Refer tohttp://www.iso.org/iso/about.htm for further details.

8 IEC is the world’s leading organization that prepares and publishes International Standardsfor all electrical, electronic and related technologies. Refer to http://www.iec.ch/ for furtherdetails.


to provide appropriate performance, under specific conditions. The capabil-

ity of the software product to be modified is referred to as maintainability.

Finally, portability defines the capability of the software product in trans-

ferring from one environment to another.

The second part of the ISO/IEC model consists of four quality in use

characteristics: effectiveness, productivity, safety, and satisfaction. Effective-

ness represents the capability of the software product in enabling users to

achieve specified goals with accuracy and completeness in a certain context

of use. The capability of the software product to enable users to be pro-

ductive is referred to as productivity. Safety represents the capability of the

software product to maintain acceptable levels of harm or risks to people

and environments in a specified context of use. Finally, satisfaction refers

to ability of the software product to satisfy users in a specified context of use.

Internal quality represents the totality of characteristics of the software

product from an internal view, and it is measured and evaluated by using

accepted set of metrics against the internal quality requirements. External

quality represents the totality of characteristics of the software product from

an external view, and it is measured and evaluated by using accepted set of

metrics against external requirements. Quality in use represents the users

view of the quality of the software product in a specific context of use. It

is measured and evaluated by using accepted set of metrics against users

requirements on the use of software in a particular environment. Software

product quality can be evaluated by measuring internal quality, external

quality, and quality in use.

As outlined in the previous section (see Figure 4.5), both function and

non-human resource quality dimensions of the quality model presented in

Sections 4.3.2.1 & 4.3.2.4 are built based on the ISO/ICE software quality

characteristics presented above.


in the services and web-services area is presented in the following section.


4.3.1.2 Literature Review on Services and Web-Services

This section presents a summary of the quality models within services and

web-services that have influenced both function and non-human resource

quality dimensions of the quality model (see Figure 4.5).

A service is considered as a set of software functionalities which facilitate

the implementation of some kinds of applications [101]. A service is viewed

as a simple or a complex task or activity, executed within an organisation on

behalf of a customer or organisation [102, 103, 104]. Services are also seen

as abstractions of business processes [108]. This abstraction being generally

performed for the purpose of service composition. Accordingly a literature

review of service quality in service & web-service management area was

conducted and is presented in this sub-section.

Quality of Service (QoS) is the quality delivered by a service, expressed

by non-functional characteristics with quantifiable parameters [109]. An en-

hanced QoS will bring competitive advantage for a service provider. The

competitive advantages of having a framework to define and evaluate qual-

ity of services has been discussed in several literature [108, 110]. As a result,

standard specifications [111, 109] have been produced to provide a frame-

work for defining and evaluating the quality of services.

The QoS framework by ISO/IEC [111] defines a number of quality char-

acteristics of particular importance and describes how QoS requirements can

be expressed and managed9. The ISO/IEC framework groups the quality

characteristics specific to the communication and processing services into

the following groups:

• Time-related characteristics such as time delay, and life time of data;

• Coherence characteristics such as temporal coherence;

• Capacity-related characteristics such as the amount of service that can

be provided at a specific time;

9 Refer to [111] for further details.


• Integrity-related characteristics such as the correctness of the service pro-

vided;

• Safety-related characteristics such as the level of safety provided by ser-

vice;

• Security-related characteristics such as protection against unauthorised

access; and

• Reliability-related characteristics such as the ability of the service to op-

erate under certain conditions.

The Object Management Group (OMG)10 has produced a specification

that defines a set of UML11 extensions to represent Quality of Service (QoS).

They have proposed a general QoS catalogue that includes a set of general

characteristics and categories that are not specific to any projects or do-

mains. This catalogue includes characteristics such as:

• Performance - The timeliness aspects of a service;

• Security - The access control and confidentially;

• Integrity - The ability to provide the service that is expected;

• Coherence - The concurrent and temporal consistency of data;

• Latency - The time interval between request and response to a service;

• Efficiency - The ability to provide results with the minimum resource

consumption;

• Demand - The portion of service that is required; and

10 The Object Management Group (OMG) is an international, open membership, not-for-profitcomputer industry consortium. Refer to http://www.omg.org/ for further details.

11 The Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a standard language for specifying, visualizing,constructing, and documenting the artifacts of software systems, as well as for business mod-eling and other non-software systems. Refer to http://www.uml.org/ for further details onUML.


• Reliability - The capability of a service to maintain a specified level of

performance.

With the proliferation of web-services as a business solution to enterprise

application integration, the quality of services offered by web services has

become crucial to both service providers and their clients. Quality of Service

(QoS) requirement for web-services proposed by the World Wide Consor-

tium (W3C) [?] has identified a set of quality characteristics for web-services

which are very similar to the quality catalogue proposed by OMG such as

security, availability, reliability.

A quality model for web-services composition has been proposed by [112]

which promotes a quality-driven approach to selection of the component ser-

vices during the execution of a composite service. The dimensions of this

quality model characterize the non-functional properties of web-services

such as: execution price, reputation, reliability, and availability. A simi-

lar but more recent work by [113] presents an extended web-service QoS

model based on a configurable fuzzy synthetic evaluation system. In their

framework, web-service QoS can be evaluated dynamically according to the

service context. Quality of Service Modeling Ontology (QoS-MO) [114] is

another example of of the quality specification for web-services. That spec-

ification presents how a QoS-MO specification can be used along the whole

life cycle of the web-service, from its design through to its utilization.

As outlined in Section 4.3.1 (see Figure 4.5), both function and non-

human resource quality dimensions of the quality model presented in Sec-

tions 4.3.2.1 & 4.3.2.4 are built based on the QoS framework for both service

and web-service management as presented above.


in the data & information management area is presented in the following

section.

4.3.1.3 Literature Review on Data & Information Management

This section presents a summary of quality models within data & informa-

tion management domain that have influenced input & output dimension


of the quality model.

Information & data quality has become a critical concern for organiza-

tions [56] and as a result it has been the topic of the Management Infor-

mation Systems (MIS) research for the last few decades [115, 116, 57, 117].

Two categories of data quality are identified in [57], namely data product

quality and data service quality. Data product quality includes the quality

aspects related to data itself while service quality includes aspects related

to the process of delivering information to consumers. This research is par-

ticularly interested in data product quality which focuses on the content of

data. Cykana et al [115] have proposed six data quality characteristics:

• Accuracy - Error free data;

• Completeness - Data values provided completely;

• Consistency - Data satisfies a set of constraints;

• Timeliness - Data is up to date;

• Uniqueness - Data without an equivalent; and

• Validity - Data is rigorous enough to be accepted.

Wang & Strong [117] have proposed a more extensive list of data quality

characteristics grouped into four categories: intrinsic, accessibility, contex-

tual and representational. Intrinsic data quality refers to the quality of data

in its own right and it includes characteristics such as accuracy and reputa-

tion. The quality of the data that is related to its ease of access is referred to

as accessibility. Contextual data quality is characterised by context such as

relevancy, and timeliness. Representational data quality refers to the format

and meaning of the data such as its concise representation.

As outlined in the Section 4.3.1 (see Figure 4.5), the input & output

quality dimension of the quality model presented in Section 4.3.2.2 is par-

ticulary built based on the quality characteristics identified by Wang &

Strong [117]. The list of quality characteristics provided by Wang & Strong


[117] has influenced the the input & output quality dimension because it is

the most comprehensive and intuitively correct list.


in the human resource (HR) area is presented in the following section.

4.3.1.4 Literature Review on Human Resource (HR)

This section presents a summary of quality models within human resource

(HR) that have influenced the human resource quality dimension of the

quality model.

Functions within a process may be performed by human resources (e.g.

employees), therefore they are important elements of a business process. It

has been acknowledged that quality of a business process is influenced by the

competency of the resources allocated to the process [118, 119, 120]. There

is a large amount of research on competency modelling [120, 118, 121, 122]

which is outside the scope of business process modelling. In the human re-

source management field, competency has been defined as the underling

characteristics of a person that can determine person’s performance in a

job or situation [121, 123]. A more concrete definition defines competency

based on three dimensions: resource, context and objective [124] which are

described below.

Harzallah et al [124] defines resource competency based on individuals

as:

• knowledge - It is something that individuals acquire and store intellec-

tually. Knowledge is usually gained through learning in a systematic ap-

proach such as the education system. It consists of theoretical knowledge

(for instance, knowing about Newton’s second law of gravity), knowledge

of existing things (for example, know how DNA replication works inside

a living cell), and procedural knowledge (knowledge exercised in the per-

formance of some task).

• Know-how - It is related to personal experience acquired by doing and

practicing. For example, to have experience in closing a sale in telemar-

4.3 69

keting. It is also referred to as skills or operational capabilities.

• Behaviours - These are individual characteristics that lead someone to

act in a specific way under ceratin circumstances. Behaviours often influ-

ence individual’s knowledge and experience when put in practice. They

include human attitudes, qualities and mannerism such as creativity,

self-confidence, and tenacity.

The second dimension of competency - context - is related to the en-

vironment that the competency is situated in. It represents the conditions

and constrains influencing an individual’s competency [124]. For example,

weather influences the competency of a football player during a game.

The third dimension of competency - objective - presents the mission or

goal the individual is trying to achieve.

As outlined in the Section 4.3.1 (see Figure 4.5), the human resource

quality dimension of the quality model presented in Section 4.3.2.2 is built

based on the competency model defined by [124, 120].

The above four sub-sections (Sections 4.3.1.1 to 4.3.1.4) presented the

quality models/frameworks in related areas have influenced the proposed

quality model in this study. The following section describes the quality model

that was briefly introduced at the beginning of Section 4.3.

4.3.2 QoBP Framework - Quality Model

In this section we present the quality model proposed by this thesis. The

quality model was briefly introduced at the beginning of Section 4.3. As

shown in figure 4.4, quality of a business process is based on four distinct

dimensions: quality of functions, quality of input and output objects, quality

of human resources, and quality of non-human resources. In this section each

dimension is described in terms of its quality characteristics. The function

quality dimension and its quality characteristics are described in the fol-

lowing section (Section 4.3.2.1). Section 4.3.2.2 presents the input&output

quality dimension, followed by Section 4.3.2.3 which presents the human re-


source quality dimension. Section 4.3.2.4 presents the non-human resource

quality dimension.

4.3.2.1 Function Quality Dimension

The purpose of this section is to present the quality characteristics for the

function quality dimension. A function is a basic building block in a business

process that corresponds to an activity (task, process step) which needs to

be executed [125]. As depicted in Figure 4.5, the function quality dimension

is built based on the quality models in software engineering (Section 4.3.1.1)

and services & web-services (Section 4.3.1.2) areas. The quality characteris-

tics for the function dimension are specifically built based on the ISO/ICE

software quality characteristics [27] and quality characteristics of the QoS

framework for both service [111, 109] and web-service [53] management. The

function quality characteristics of the quality model are presented below.

Suitability - Refers to the capability of the function to meet specified

objectives. For example, suitability for capture incident details function of

the insurance claim process means incident details are captured adequately

and completely.

Accuracy - Refers to the capability of the function to provide the right

or agreed results or effects with the needed degree of precision. For exam-

ple, accuracy for validate incident coverage function of the insurance claim

process means that validation needs to follow explicit rules to produce an

accurate result.

Security - Relates to the capability of the function to protect infor-

mation and data so that unauthorised resources cannot access them. For

example, security for capture policy details of the insurance claim process

means an authorised resource can only perform this task and an audit trail

of the resource for this function is required.

Reliability - The capability of the function to be in a state to perform

under stated conditions at a given point in time. For example, obtain policy

details and validate caller function of the insurance claim process must be

4.3 71

available all the time (24 hours a day, 7 days a week).

Robustness - The degree to which a function can operate correctly even

in the presence of invalid, incomplete or conflicting inputs. For example, as-

sess liability function of the insurance claim process is required to be robust

and reliable under any circumstances, to produce a correct outcome.

Understandability - The capability of the function to enable the re-

source to understand whether the function is suitable, and how it can be

used for particular functions and conditions of use. For example, a resource

who performs the validate policy function of the insurance claim is required

to have a very good understanding of how to perform this validation.

Learnability - The capability of the function to enable the resource to

learn it. For example, a resource should be able to learn easily how to per-

form action hire car and towing function of the insurance claim process.

Time efficiency - The capability of the function to provide appropriate

response and processing times under stated conditions. For example, cap-

ture incident details function of the insurance claim process is required to

be performed in a timely manner.

Resource utilisation - The capability of the function to use appropriate

amounts and types of resources under stated conditions. For example, ob-

tain policy details and validate caller function of the insurance claim process

should utilise the resources to maintain an appropriate level of efficiency.

Effectiveness - The capability of the function to enable resources to

achieve specified goals with accuracy and completeness in a specified con-

text. For example, the resource who is allocated to perform finalise claim

intake function of the insurance claim should finalise the claim completely

with minimum number of errors, in an adequate amount of time.

Productivity - The capability of the function to enable resources to

be effective in a specified context. For example, obtain policy details and


validate caller function of the insurance claim process should enable the

resource performing the function in an appropriate amount of time, using

the minimal resources required.

Safety - The capability of the function to achieve acceptable levels of

risk of harm to people, process, property or the environment.

Satisfaction - The capability of the function to satisfy users in a speci-

fied context. For example, obtain policy details and validate caller function

of the insurance claim process should be performed with the goal to satisfy

the caller.

Note that these characteristics can be relevant for a function, but not all

are applicable for every function. For example, safety is not necessarily an

applicable quality characteristic for validate policy function of the claim in-

surance process. Having this list of characteristics helps the analyst identify

quality aspects of particular functions of an individual process.

The Input & output quality dimension and its quality characteristics are

described in the following section.

4.3.2.2 Input and Output Quality

This section presents the quality characteristics for the input & output qual-

ity dimension. The input and output of functions within a business process

capture the physical and informational objects that are consumed and pro-

duced by it. Inputs and outputs quality contribute to overall process quality.

The characteristics presented below help to identify the quality aspects of

inputs and outputs.

As depicted in Figure 4.5, the input & output quality dimension is built

based on the quality models in the data & information area (Section 4.3.1.3).

The quality characteristics for the input & output dimension are specifically

built based on the data quality characteristics defined by [117] which build

on the overarching quality categories: intrinsic, contextual, representation,

and accessibility. Input & output quality characteristics of the quality model

4.3 73

are presented below.

Accuracy - Refers to whether the data accurately records the business

object or event it represents. For example, incident details captured during

the capture incident details function of the insurance claim process must

accurately represent the incident (details such as date of the incident, car

involved in the accident, and driver’s details).

Objectivity - Refers to whether the data is unbiased and factual. For

example, no judgement should be made on incident details while being cap-

tured during the capture incident details function of the insurance claim

process. Incident details should be unbiased and factual.

Believability - Refers to the extent to which data are accepted or re-

garded as true, real and credible. For example, the incident details required

for an insurance assessor to assess liability (assess liability function of the

insurance claim process) must be real and credible.

Reputation - Refers to the extent to which the data has a reputable

source. For example, customer information must be gathered from a rep-

utable source during the obtain policy details and validate caller function

of the insurance claim process.

Accessibility - Refers to the extent to which data is easily accessible

when needed. For example, assessment details must be easily accessible dur-

ing the finalise claim intake function of the insurance claim process.

Security - The extent to which data is protected against unauthorised

access. For example, other party details which is data required for add autho-

rised parties function of the insurance claim process needs to be protected

against unauthorised access.

Relevancy - Refers to the extent to which the data is relevant. For ex-

ample, customer vehicle details required for assess pathing function of the


insurance claim process must be relevant to the claim being assessed.

Value-added - The extent that data contributes to value creation. For

example, the incident details captured during the capture incident details

function of the insurance claim process should add value to the process.

Timeliness - The extent to which the data is sufficiently current. For

example, the coverage and policy extras required for validate incident cover-

age function of the insurance claim process must be up-to-date and current.

Completeness - The extent to which the data includes all necessary

values. For example, incident details required for assess liability function of

the insurance claim process should contain all the details required.

Amount of data - Relates to a sufficient data volume. For example,

incident details should capture all the necessary details about the accident

during the capture incident details function of the insurance claim process.

Understandability - The extent to which the data is comprehended.

For example, incident details should include all the necessary information

about the accident to ensure comprehensiveness of the details.

Concise representation - Relates to the extent to which the data is

compactly represented. For example, incident details presented to the claim

assessor should be presented compactly to increase the readability of the

data.

Consistent representation - Refers to the extent in which the data is

presented in the same format. For example, the coverage and policy extras

should be presented in the same format for all cases.

Note that these characteristics can be relevant for an input or output, but

not all are applicable for every input & output. Having this list of charac-

teristics helps the analyst identifying quality aspects of particular inputs or

4.3 75

outputs of functions of an individual process.

The human resource quality dimension and its quality characteristics are


4.3.2.3 Human Resource Quality

The purpose of this section is to present the quality characteristics for the

human resource quality dimension. Functions within a process may be ex-

ecuted by human resources (e.g. employees). It has been well recognised

that quality of a business process is influenced by the competency of the

resources allocated to the process [119, 120]. Still, most business process

modelling techniques lack the capability to capture the competency require-

ments needed to execute a function within a business process [120]. As de-

picted in Figure 4.5, the human resource quality dimension is built based on

the quality models in the human resource (Section 4.3.1.4) area. The quality

characteristics for the human resource dimension are specifically built based

on the work in [121, 123, 124, 120]. Human resource quality characteristics

of the quality model are presented below.

Domain knowledge - The knowledge on a specific domain that a hu-

man resource must have acquired for to be able to perform the function.

For example, a broad knowledge on claims process is required for the claim

processor in informing customer of next steps function.

Qualification - Qualification a human resource needs in order to per-

form the function. For example, a General Practitioner is required to have

medical qualifications to prescribe medicine to a patient.

Certification - Certification relates to a certificate that a human re-

source should have to perform the function. For example, a stock broker

requires to have a specific certification to be able to provide advisory com-

ments to his clients.

Experience - Experience that a human resource has acquired that is

relevant to the function. For example, data entry experience is necessary


for the claim processor who captures incident details in the insurance claim

process .

Time management - A behavior that a human resource need to demon-

strate to be able to perform the function. For example, time management

is a necessary skill for the claim processor who assesses the liability in the

insurance claim process.

Communication skill - A behavior that a human resource needs to

demonstrate to be able to perform the function. For example, the claim

processor who obtains policy details to and validates caller in the insurance

claim process must be able to elicit information from the claimant.

Non-human resource quality dimension and its quality characteristics are


4.3.2.4 Non-human Resource Quality

This section presents the quality characteristics for the non-human resource

quality dimension. Functions may be executed by non-human resources such

as machines, devices, or software programs. The way these non-human re-

sources operate influences the quality of functions and the business pro-

cess as a whole. As depicted in Figure 4.5, the non-human resource quality

dimension is built based on the quality models in the software engineer-

ing (Section 4.3.1.1) and services & web-services (Section 4.3.1.2) areas.

The quality characteristics for the function dimension are specifically built

based on the ISO/ICE software quality characteristics [27] and quality char-

acteristics of the QoS framework for both service [111, 109] and web-service

[53] management. Non-human resource quality characteristics of the quality

model are presented below.

Suitability - The capability of the resource to provide an appropriate

function for specified user objectives. For example, claims system is a re-

source for obtain policy details and validate caller function of the insurance

claim process. It should provide functionality to capture customer identifi-

4.3 77

cation and retrieve the policy and product details for that customer.

Accuracy - The capability of the resource to provide the right or agreed

results or effects with the needed degree of precision. For example, claims

system is a resource for obtain policy details and validate caller function of

the insurance claim process. It should retrieve the caller information accu-

rately.

Security - The capability of the resource to protect information and

data so that unauthorised resource cannot access to them. For example,

claims system is a resource for add authorised parties function of the insur-

ance claim process. It must record audit trail of the human-resource who

added authorised parties to a claim.

Reliability - The capability of the resource to be in a state to perform

under stated conditions at a given point in time. For example, claims sys-

tem is a resource for obtain policy details and validate caller function of the

insurance claim process. It should be available all the time (24 hours a day,

7 days a week).

Robustness - The degree to which a resource can function correctly

even in the presence of invalid, incomplete or conflicting inputs. For exam-

ple, claims system is a resource for obtain policy details and validate caller

function of the insurance claim process. It should be robust and reliable to

provide the caller validation functionality.

Time behaviour efficiency - The capability of the resource to provide

appropriate response and processing times and throughput rates when per-

forming its function, under stated conditions. For example, claims system

is a resource for obtain policy details and validate caller function of the in-

surance claim process. It should identify caller in a timely manner.

Resource utilisation - The capability of the resource to use appropri-

ate amounts and types of resources under stated conditions. For example,

claims system is a resource for finalise claim intake function of the insur-


ance claim process. It should perform this task with using the minimum

resources available.

Effectiveness - The capability of the resource to achieve specified goals

with accuracy and completeness in a specified context of use. For example,

claims system is a resource for the assess excess function of the insurance

claim process. It should provide appropriate functionality to assess the ex-

cess based on policy coverage, vehicle information, and incident details.

Safety - The capability of the resource to achieve acceptable levels of

risk of harm to people, process, property or the environment in a specified

context of use. For example, a radiologist is required to follow certain safety

rules while taking an X-Ray for a patient.

Satisfaction - The capability of the resource to satisfy resources in a

specified context of use. For example, claims system is a resource for the

capture incident details function of the insurance claim process. It should

create a satisfactory experience for the claim processor.

A summary of the contents of this section is presented in the following

section.

4.3.3 Summary of QoBP Framework Part I

This Section (Section 4.3.2) presented the quality model, and its four qual-

ity dimensions (function, input & output, human resource, and non-human

resource) in terms of quality characteristics. A justification for developing

such a model was presented at the beginning of the section, followed by a

comprehensive literature review of the relevant areas influencing the qual-

ity characteristics defined for the business process quality dimensions (see

Section 4.3.1). An overview of the four quality dimensions and their char-

acteristics presented in this section is provided in Figure 4.6. As discussed

in Section 4.3, the quality model provides a structured approach to capture

and represent the quality characteristics of a business process.

4.3 79 F u n ctio n In p u t /

O u tp u t N o n -h u m a n R e so u rce

H u m an R eso u rce Suitab ility O bjectivity Su itab ility D o m ain Know ledge A ccuracy A ccuracy A ccuracy Q ualification Security Secu rity Security C ertification Reliab ility B elievability Reliab ility Experience U nderstandability Reputation T im e Efficiency T im e M anagem ent Learnability A ccessib ility Resource - U tilisation C om m unication Skills T im e Efficien cy T im eliness Effectiveness Resource – U tilisation V alue-add ed Safety Effectiveness Relevancy U ser Satisfaction Productivity Com pleten ess Robustness Safety A m ount of D ata A vailab ility U ser Satisfaction Robustness

Fig. 4.6. QOBP Quality Dimensions & Characteristics

The quality characteristics defined for the four dimensions of a business

process were built based on the quality models in related areas, and their ap-

plicability and relevancy to the business process dimensions was thoroughly

examined using a working example which is the case of a software project

process (Request for Proposal - RFP) that is used by Software House (SH)

for responding to tenders [126]. The applicability and relevancy of the qual-

ity characteristics to the business process dimensions will be evaluated in

real world cases during the action research phase12.

Next section (Section 4.4) presents the additional artifacts of the QoBP

framework developed to support the quality definition phase of the quality-

aware BPM life cycle.

12 Refer to the first evaluation objective described in Section 5.3.5.


4.4 Quality Definition Phase - QoBP Framework Part

II

The purpose of this section is to present the additional artifacts of the

QoBP framework developed in this thesis to support the quality definition

phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle (highlighted orange in Figure 4.3).

The description of quality with respect to a business process and the

quality model were introduced in Section 4.3. In this model, the quality of

a business process is defined based on four dimensions: function, input &

output, human resource and non-human resource. The quality model further

defines each quality dimension in terms of its relevant quality characteris-

tics. As described in Section 4.1, in the QoBP framework the quality model

proposed in Section 4.3 is utilised to create a quality-aware business process

model.

The QoBP framework provides additional models that supplement the

quality model in order to define measurable attributes (referred to as quality

metrics) for the quality characteristics of the quality model.

The QoBP framework supports a goal-driven measurement approach

that is presented in Section 4.4.1. The justification for choosing a goal-

driven approach is also presented in Section 4.4.1. The adapted goal-driven

measurement approach, with respect to the QoBP framework, results in

three models which are presented in Sections 4.4.2, 4.4.3, and 4.4.4. Sec-

tion 4.4.2 presents the softgoal model that models the quality character-

istics of the quality model as a set of softgoals. Section 4.4.3 presents the

softgoal correlation model that models the relationships between these

softgoals. Section 4.4.4 presents themeasurement model which represents

how quality characteristics, described in the form of softgoals, are evaluated.

An extension to the EPC notation13 is proposed to embed these models

into a business process model (see Section 4.4.5.2). Section 4.4.6) introduces

a methodology for the quality definition phase which provides a step-by-step

13 Event-Driven Process Chain (EPC) is a business process modelling notation. Refer to Ap-pendix A.1 for further details on EPC.

4.4 81

procedure to create a quality-aware business process model.

The next section presents the goal-driven measurement approach adapted

by this research. This section is structured to provide answers to the ques-

tions: what will be measured; why does it need to be measured; and how

will it be measured.

4.4.1 Goal-driven Measurement Approach

This section presents the goal-driven measurement approach proposed by

this research to measure the quality characteristics of the quality model.

The approach has been developed based on a comprehensive literature re-

view in related areas and ir extends existing approaches and frameworks.

Before presenting a summary of the literature review (in Section 4.4.1.1),

an explanation is provided on: what needs to be measured, why it needs to

be measured and how it will be measured.

The main purpose of the quality framework introduced in this section

is to incorporate the quality requirements into a business process model in

the form of quality characteristics producing a quality-aware business pro-

cess model. These quality characteristics will required to be measured during

the quality control phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle (Figure 4.3).

The quality characteristics are evaluated for an enacted process to ensure

the desired level of quality is achieved for that process. This measurement

will also assist in predicting the quality issues in cases where the quality

requirements are not met and also in improving the quality by identify-

ing roadblocks. For example, a hypothetical mortgage company is keen to

increase the quality of the loan application process, specifically to reduce

the loan approval processing time of the loan approval function. Ongoing

measurement of the quality characteristic time efficiency during the pro-

cess enactment is necessary to monitor the achievement of the original goal

- “increase the time efficiency of the loan approval function”.

In general, there are four reasons to measure [127]; these four reasons

with respect to the business process quality measurement are as follows:


• To characterise - to gain understanding in order to establish baselines

for comparisons. For example, in order to compare the time efficiency of

different instances of a loan approval process.

• To evaluate - to assess achievement of quality goals. For example, to

evaluate if the loan approval has met its quality goals with respects to

the time efficiency.

• To predict - to determine quality issues. For example, in the loan ap-

proval scenario, to detect the possibility of quality issues if the loan

approval takes longer than 3 weeks (having a target threshold of 2 weeks

maximum).

• To improve - to identify roadblocks, root causes and improvement op-

portunities. For example, measuring the time efficiency of the loan ap-

proval process will assist in the identification of the root causes of quality

issues related to the timeliness and opportunities for improvement.

The four reasons listed above confirm that the measurement of the qual-

ity characteristics are necessary to support the full life cycle of a quality-

aware business process.

The measurement of a quality characteristic is a complicated task due to

the multi-facetted nature of quality characteristics[128]. Similar to quality

(non-functional) requirements in Requirement Engineering14 [128], the qual-

ity requirements of a business process in the form of quality characteristics

are often subjective, implicit, context-specific and imprecise. Subjectivity

results from the fact that different people can evaluate a quality character-

istic differently. For example, in a software company, the account manager

may have a different view of the completeness of the estimate function than

the software development manager, who may, in turn, have a different view

than the quality manager. A quality characteristic is implicit, meaning it is

implied rather than expressly stated. For example, an implicit quality char-

14 Requirements Engineering is the process of discovering the purpose a software system isintended for by identifying stakeholder, stakeholder’s needs, and documenting these in a formthat is amenable to analysis, communication, and subsequent implementation within SoftwareEngineering [129].

4.4 83

acteristic of the estimate function is accuracy. Context-specificity entails

that a quality characteristic may have a different meaning for each process

instance. For example, relevancy of the estimate function for a large soft-

ware quote (say over $1,000,000) may be different to a software quote of

lower value (say $10,000 - $50,000). A quality characteristic being imprecise

stems from the inability to define the characteristic exactly. For example, it

is difficult to define what understandability means to the estimate function

and how it can be measured. Therefore, to measure quality characteristics,

they are required to be further refined to a set of measurable attributes.

As mentioned briefly at the beginning of Section 4.4, the QoBP frame-

work provides additional models that supplement the quality model15 to

define a set of measurable attributes, referred to quality metrics, for the

quality characteristics. These quality metrics are essential for the measure-

ment of the quality characteristics. This section presents these additional

models of the QoBP framework which are based on a systematic goal-driven

approach to identify measurable quality metrics for the quality characteris-

tics of a business process. Before presenting these models a summary of the

literature review on the related areas is presented (in the next section) to

provide a background on why a goal-driven approach is selected.

4.4.1.1 Literature Review on Measurement Approaches

The purpose of this section is to provide a summary of the literature review

conducted to gain insight into measurement approaches in relevant areas of

study.

As stated in Section 2.3.1, in the context of this research, the term qual-

ity refers to the non-functional characteristics of a business process. This

definition is adopted from the Software Engineering discipline where non-

functional requirements are referred to as quality requirements. The ap-

proaches for non-functional requirements are classified into product-oriented

and process-oriented [130]. Product-oriented approaches evaluate the de-

gree of compliance with non-functional needs by measuring how software

15 Refer to Section 4.3 for further details on the quality model.


complies with non-functional requirements. Process-oriented approaches are

concerned with the software development process, by ensuring alternative

software designs are searched to sufficiently meet non-functional require-

ments. Accordingly, a comprehensive literature review has been conducted

to gain insight into how quality (non-functional) characteristics of a soft-

ware product are measured and evaluated.

ISO/IEC standards [27] define measurement as “the use of a metric to

assign a value (which may be a number or category) from a scale to an

attribute of an entity”. Software products are evaluated by measuring the

quality characteristics in the form of metrics [105, 106, 107, 131]. ISO/IEC

has recommended a set of metrics to measure software quality character-

istics. These metrics are not intended to be exhaustive and may not be

applicable to every evaluation case. For instance, the number of detected

failures is one of the metrics recommended for measuring the reliability of

software [107]. Each metric is evaluated using a standard measuring scale.

The measuring scale provides values and units for describing metrics [127].

ISO/IEC standards [105, 106, 107] recommend a measuring scale which is

mostly based on Stevens [132] scale types. The measuring scales recom-

mended by ISO/IEC [105, 106, 107] consist of:

• Nominal scale - This scale is used when a determination for equality

is required. The value of this scale is interpreted as a unique identifier.

Nominal scale presents a one-to-one mapping [105], for example, software

fault type is data.

• Ordinal scale - This scale represents the operation of rank ordering.

For example, the software failure by severity may be negligible, marginal,

critical, catastrophic.

• Ratio scale - This type represents ordered rating scales, where both

the difference between two measures and the proportion of two measures

have the same empirical meaning. Length is an example of ratio scale,

as 2 metres is twice as long as 1 metre.

4.4 85

• Interval scale - This scale presents an ordering scale where two mea-

sures are different in empirical meanings. A typical example of interval

scale is temperature in Fahrenheit.

As outlined above, the ISO/ISE’s measurement approach to evaluate

quality characteristics of a software product is based on using a pre-defined

set of metrics. Evaluations based on a set of pre-defined metrics while pro-

viding a generic evaluation framework, do not directly support an organi-

sation’s business goals and objectives for a specific software product [127].

Using a goal-driven approach in defining software measures that directly

support an organisation’s business goals and objectives has been proven to

be successful in assuring that the identified metrics are relevant and are

effectively utilised [127]. Therefore, a thorough literature review is specifi-

cally conducted in the goal-driven approaches (for both softgoals and hard

goals) in Requirements Engineering (RE) within the Software Engineer-

ing discipline. In the Software Engineering discipline, hard goals, usually

just referred as goals, are used to define the functional requirements16 of

the system, while softgoals are used to define non-functional17 (quality) re-

quirements. A softgoal is similar to a hard goal except that the criteria for

whether a softgoal is achieved are not often clear-cut and a priori [128]. In

this section, a summary of the measurement approaches in the Software En-

gineering discipline is presented in this order: several goal-driven approaches

used during different stages of Requirements Engineering such as i* model,

KAOS, GBRAM, Tropos, and Goal-Question-Metric (GQM), and softgoal

modelling. A summary of goal-driven approaches in the business process

modelling and their relevancy to this research is also presented in this sec-

tion.

Goal modelling has been used widely in Requirements Engineering (RE)

[133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138]. Goal modelling is used during the three stages

of RE: requirements elicitation, requirements specification and requirements

16 Functional requirements are used to represent services that the software is expected to deliver(e.g. “calculate end of year tax” is a functional requirement of an accounting system).

17 Non-functional requirements refer to quality requirements that the software needs to satisfywhile delivering the services (e.g. “calculate end of year tax accurately).


validation [139, 140, 141]18. The i* model, KAOS, GBRAM, Tropos and

Goal-Question-Metric (GQM) are examples of goal-oriented requirements

engineering and are briefly described below. The i* model and Tropos (which

is based on i* model) are goal oriented approaches that are used during

the requirement elicitation stage of Requirement Engineering. The KAOS

and GBRAM approaches are mainly used during the requirement specifica-

tion. The Goal-Question-Metric (GQM) approach is only used during the

requirement evaluation stage of Requirements Engineering. While a short

summary of these goal-oriented requirement engineering approaches is pre-

sented below, however GQM is the only relevant approach to this study as

it is dedicated to the requirement evaluation stage of Requirements Engi-

neering. This study is adopting a similar approach to evaluate the quality

requirements of a business process which are defined in the form of quality

characteristics19.

The i* model [142] is an agent-oriented approach to Requirements En-

gineering with a focus on the intentional characteristics of the agent. The

i* model provides a framework that supports a uniform approach in the

analysis of a system’s requirements - functional and non-functional [143]

during the requirement elicitation stage [144]. The fundamental concepts

of i* model are actors20, goals and actor dependencies. Goal modelling

in i* model is based on three reasoning techniques: means-end analysis21,

contribution analysis22, and AND/OR decomposition23. Tropos [143] is an

example of software development methodology based on i* model in which

18 During the requirements elicitation stage, goal modelling can be used to elicit the needs andconstraints on the system being developed. Specification of the requirements in the form of arequirements model is performed during the requirements specification stage. Finally, duringthe validation stage the requirements model is validated against the original stakeholderneeds.

19 Refer to Section 4.4.1.2 for further details on the goal-driven measurement approach adoptedby this research.

20 Actors are entities that have strategic goals and intentionality within the system or theorganisational setting [143]. Actors represent agents. The agents represent people, machinesor software within an organisation and they usually occupy positions, and as a result, theyplay the roles offered by these positions.

21 Means-end analysis is a reasoning technique based on identifying plans, resources and softgoalsthat provide a means for achieving a goal [138].

22 Contribution analysis is a reasoning technique that identifies goals that can contribute posi-tively or negatively in the fulfillment of the goal to be analysed [138].

23 AND/OR decomposition is a reasoning technique that combines AND and OR decompositionsof a high level goal into sub-goals [138].

4.4 87

goal modelling is used as a technique for requirements engineering.

KAOS (Knowledge Acquisition in autOmated Specification) [133] is an-

other goal-driven approach in Requirements Engineering which is mainly

used during the requirement specification stage [144]. This approach is based

on explicitly representing and modelling organisational goals. In KAOS,

goals are conceptually modeled in a hierarchy of parent goals and their re-

finements into sub-goals. Goals that are in higher levels of the hierarchy

represent the high-level goals (i.e. strategic concerns) of the organization.

These goals are then distilled down the hierarchy into sub-goals that have

more operational concerns.

GBRAM [145, 146] is another goal-oriented requirement engineering ap-

proach in which software problems are characterised, classified and analysed

as goals before being solved. This approach is also mainly used during the

the requirement specification stage [144].

The Goal-Question-Metric (GQM) approach by [147] is a well known

goal-oriented measurement method [148] which is mainly used during the

requirement evaluation stage [144]. Contrary to the ISO/IEC approach to

measurement, which is based on using a pre-defined set of metrics, the

GQM approach is based on eliciting high level user requirements as goals,

and questions as drivers for finding metrics. The application of GQM results

in a measurement model containing three levels: (1) a conceptual level, re-

ferred to as the definition of the goals, (2) an operational level, consisting of

a set of questions regarding the specific goals, and (3) a quantitative level,

identifying a set of metrics to be associated to each question. GQM is a

top-down approach that is known to produce effective metrics as they are

derived from goals that represent user requirements [149]. Park et al [127]

has proposed a goal-driven process based on GQM to define software mea-

sures that directly support an organisation’s business goals and objectives

[127]. They have extended the GQM approach by inserting an Indicator

step in the GQM paradigm, making it GQ(I)M. The Indicator is simply a

picture or display of one or more measurement results (for example, in the

form of a graph) that is designed to communicate or explain the significance


of those results to help answer the question.

Softgoal modelling is process of structuring and modelling softgoals for

representing and reasoning about non-functional (quality) requirements

such as security, performance, maintainability. Softgoal modelling is a com-

mon practice during the early stages of the requirements engineering process

[150, 151, 152, 128]. In non-functional requirements engineering, softgoals

describe quality requirements in abstract terms [128]. Goal-Centric Trace-

ability [150] is an example of a goal-driven approach for modelling non-

functional requirements. This approach utilises Softgoal Interdependency

Graphs (SIG) to model non-functional requirements. In SIG, softgoals are

decomposed into sub-softgoals describing desired qualities of the system.

There have also been substantial work on goal-oriented approaches to

business process modelling [153, 154, 155, 156]. In most of these approaches,

business process modelling is influenced by business goals and objectives

that are captured during the early stages of the modelling. The business

goals defined for a process are usually refined until they can be transformed

into the functions of the process [155]. The value-focused business process

modelling approach proposed by [156] is slightly different from other ap-

proaches [153, 154, 155], in which goals are presented in the form of objec-

tives and values. However, in these approaches, goals are viewed as external

concepts, not integrated with process models [157]. These approaches also do

not support quality (non-functional) goals of a business process. The goal-

oriented approaches to business process modelling by [158, 138, 157, 159]

are the most relevant to this study. These approaches are discussed below.

Kavakli et al. [158] address business process modelling using a goal-driven

approach which is part of a larger enterprise knowledge modelling frame-

work, known as the EKD approach. They argue that the ultimate purpose of

business process modelling is to improve an enterprise in order to deal with

change; therefore, change management is the process of identifying business

goals and relating business processes to these goals. In their approach, goals

related to a business process present a hierarchical structure in which indi-

vidual goals constitute refinements of higher-level goals. In this framework,

4.4 89

goals are viewed as external concepts that are not integrated with process

models. Their framework also does not provide the capability to evaluate

these goals during different phases of the business process life cycle, its use

is limited to the analysis phase of the BPM life cycle. The satisfaction of

the original business goals during the other five phases of the BPM life cycle

(design, implementation, enactment, monitoring and implementation) are

disregarded in this framework. The evaluation of the defined goals during

the enactment and monitoring phases of the BPM life cycle is important

because it provides the capability to measure the satisfaction of the original

business goals for an implemented change.

Goal modelling has also been used in Business Process Re-engineering,

where several process alternatives are generated using Process Re-engineering

i* Method (PRiM) [138]. The PRiM methodology is based on the i* model

[142] in which the rationale behind the business process design is modelled

by means of intentional concepts. The PRiM methodology is composed of

six phases: (1) analysis of the current process, (2) construction of the i*

model of the current process, (3) re-engineering the current process, (4)gen-

eration of alternatives, (5) evaluation of the alternatives, and (6) specifi-

cation of the new system. During the first phase , the current process is

analysed using human activity models (HAMs)24 and the information ob-

tained in these models is then summarised into Detailed Interaction Scripts

(DIS)25 which is practically the detailed description of HAMs. An i* model

of the current system is constructed during the second phase. The i* model

constructed at this stage consists of two models: Operational i* Model and

Intentional i* Model. Operational i* Models are composed of resources,

tasks and some goals. Intentional i* Models supplement Operational i*

Models by representing the intentionality behind the analysed process via

additional goals and softgoals. The current process is engineered during the

third phase. This re-engineering may involve improvement to some aspects

24 Human activity modelling represents the behaviour of human actors in the process and pro-duces two deliverables: Context Models and Human Activity Models [138]. Context Modelis an extended data flow diagram that provides extra notations for actors (resources) of aprocess. Each Context Model describes the system actors, their involvement in the currentprocess and data flows between them. Human Activity Models (HAM) in PRiM are struc-tured descriptions of the current behaviour of actors with respect to goals [138].

25 ADIS contains the activity preconditions, post-conditions, triggering events, and a descriptionof the actions and the resources involved in the activity [138].


of the current process, and introduction/change/deletion of goals and soft-

goals in i* models. During the fourth phase, i* models are used to generate

the process alternatives. PRiM generates the process alternatives by using

means-end reasoning26 and hierarchical decomposition of tasks into their

intentional elements. The new process alternatives are generated by the ad-

dition of new actors and the reallocation of responsibilities between them.

These process alternatives are then evaluated during the fifth phase and

one process is selected. During the last phase of PRiM, the new system

specification is defined27. PRiM provides a goal-driven approach for system

specifications which are based on business process re-engineering. In this

approach, the i* model is used to generate the process alternatives. It is

not clear though how the trade offs between functional and non-functional

goals are performed during this phase (phase four) as each represent dif-

ferent types of requirements for a process28. The notion of softgoals and

their roles in the generation of the process alternatives are loosely defined.

The goals modeled in the Intentional i* Model represents the intentions of

actors (resources) in a business process. It is not clear how goals related

to the other dimensions of a business process, such as data or non-human

resources, are analysed and modelled. This work is also limited to actor

modelling in which a business process is modelled based on the situated be-

haviour of actors in the process. Therefore, a gap exists for activity-oriented

(control flow) business process modelling approaches where a process is de-

scribed as a set of ordered activities (e.g. EPC29, and Petri nets 30).

Soffer and Wand [157, 159] have proposed a Generic Process Model

(GPM) that provides clear-cut criteria for evaluating process model validity

based on the integration of goals into process models. In this framework,

26 Means-end reasoning techniques in i* modelling was described earlier is this section.27 Grau et al. [138] argue that business process re-engineering provides an adequate framework

for information systems specification.28 Functional goals (also referred to as hard goals) represent functional requirements of a process

(e.g. “loan approval is performed”), while non-functional goals (also referred to as softgoals)represents the non-functional (quality) requirements that a process needs to satisfy whileenacted (e.g. “loan approval is performed in a timely manner”). Unlike non-functional goals,the achievement criteria for functional goals are sharply defined [160]. The evaluation criteriafor whether non-functional goals are achieved are not often clear-cut [128].

29 Event-Driven Process Chain (EPC) is a business process modelling notation. Refer to Ap-pendix A.1 for further details on EPC.

30 Petri nets is a business process modelling notation. Refer to Appendix A.1 for further detailson Petri nets.

4.4 91

validity is defined as the possibility of the process to achieve its goal. Goals

are formally defined as a set of stable states by a condition. Soffer and Wand

[157] relate the notion of a goal to a process by this definition: “a goal G will

be said to be a process goal if every execution of the process terminates in

G”. A process model is called a valid model with respect to a given goal in

this framework, if “there exists at least one successful process path”. Their

research appears to provide the closest alignment to our research by dis-

cussing how far control flow supports the achievement of goals of a process.

Accordingly, selecting a goal-oriented approach is a complement to the re-

search by Soffer and Wand [157, 159].

The advantages of using a goal-driven approach in business process mod-

elling, specifically during the analysis and design phases of the BPM life

cycle, has been well justified by earlier work in the area (see [155, 155, 158,

153, 154, 157, 159, 138]). As outlined above, in most of these approaches,

goals are viewed as external concepts that are not integrated with process

models, therefore goals will not contribute to the business process life cycle

after the design stage. These approaches also lack the capability to evaluate

the defined goals for a business process during the different phases of the

BPM life cycle which is a major gap in goal-oriented business process mod-

elling. The advantages of evaluating the defined goals for a business process

during the different phases of the BPM life cycle include:

• Evaluation during the implementation phase ensures the implementation

of the process is in accordance to the originally defined business goals.

• Evaluation during the enactment and monitoring phases provides the

capability to enforce the original business goals in a proactive way.

• Evaluation during the evaluation phase contributes to business process

improvement. This reactive evaluation assists with the identification of

past business process instances that have not achieved the original busi-

ness process goals. Further investigations of these cases can lead to im-

provement opportunities for future enactments of the business process.


It can be argued that this evaluation gap has a more significant effect on

the non-functional (quality) goals than functional goals. Because in most

of these approaches the functional goals of a business process are refined

into lower level functional goals that are directly mapped to the functions

(activities) of the process. While the achievements of the higher level goals

are ignored, the achievements of the lower level functional goals can be de-

termined by successful execution of functions (activities). This is not the

case for non-functional (quality) goals (hereafter referred to as softgoals).

Therefore the quality requirements of a business process, that are defined in

the form of non-functional goals during the analysis & design phases of the

BPM life cycle are, disregarded during the later phases of the BPM life cycle.

The goal-driven approach proposed by this research addresses the short-

comings of the earlier approaches in this area by: (1) specifying and mod-

elling the quality goals of business processes (for four dimensions: function,

input & output, human resource, and non-human resource) in a structured

and systematic approach; (2) and providing the capability to evaluate these

quality goals during different phases of the BPM life cycle.

Based on the above background, a goal driven measurement approach

is adapted by this research to assure a successful identification of qual-

ity metrics for a business process that are relevant and effectively utilised.

The following section provides a summary of the goal-driven measurement

approach proposed by this research which is based on several techniques

outlined above (such as GQM, and softgoal modelling in Requirements En-

gineering).

4.4.1.2 Summary of Goal-driven Measurement Approach

The purpose of this section was to present the goal-driven quality measure-

ment approach in the QoBP framework proposed by this thesis. Section

4.4.1 briefly outlined why it is essential to measure the quality characteris-

tics of a business process. It was discussed how quality metrics need to be

identified for the quality characteristics of a business process to enable the

measurement of the quality characteristics during the enactment, monitor-

ing and evaluation phases of the quality-aware BPM life cycle. The QoBP

4.4 93

framework utilises a goal-driven approach to ensure the measurement of

business process quality is performed according to the quality goals of the

business process. As discussed in Section 4.4.1.1, using a measurement goal-

driven approach that directly supports an organisation’s business goals and

objectives has been proven to be successful in assuring that the identified

metrics are relevant and are effectively utilised [127]. The work by Soffer

and Wand [157, 159] in evaluating process model validity based on the in-

tegration of goals into process models also enforces the applicability of a

goal-driven quality measurement for business processes.

The goal-driven measurement approach proposed for the QoBP frame-

work is based on several advanced requirements engineering techniques such

as softgoal modelling approaches in Requirements Engineering [150, 151,

152, 128], and Goal-Question-Metric (GQM) [147]. As described in Section

4.4.1.1, the GQM approach by [147] is a well known goal-driven measure-

ment method [148] which is used during the requirement evaluation of Re-

quirements Engineering. Softgoal modelling is adopted because it is more

appropriate for representing and reasoning about quality requirements [128]

and was introduced to cope with the abstract and informal nature of non-

functional requirements [130]. GQM is adopted because: (1) it is a goal-

driven approach that assures the measurement of the quality characteristics

of a business process are performed according to the quality goals of the

process; (2) it provides a structured approach in identifying measurement

attributes.

The adapted measurement approach, with respect to the QoBP frame-

work proposed in this study, results in three models: softgoal model, soft-

goal correlation model, and measurement model. These models are

described in the following sub-sections. Section 4.4.2 presents the softgoal

model which models the quality characteristics of quality model as a set of

softgoals. Section 4.4.3 presents the softgoal correlation model that models

the relationships between softgoals. Section 4.4.4 presents the measurement

model which represents how quality characteristics described in the form of

softgoals, are evaluated.


4.4.2 QoBP Framework - Softgoal Model

This section presents the softgoal model of the QoBP framework. A soft-

goal model for a business process contains all the softgoals identified for all

the quality characteristics (four dimensions) identified for a process. As de-

scribed in Section 4.4.1, quality characteristics are often not clear-cut; they

are often subjective, implicit, context-specific and imprecise31. Therefore,

to evaluate quality characteristics, they must be further refined into a set

of softgoals.

To specify softgoals, this research adopts an approach which is similar to

goal modelling in GQM approach [147]. In a softgoal model, each softgoal

is specified by four attributes:

• Purpose - Specifies the purpose of the goal [147]. The purpose usually

includes key words verbs such as increase, reduce, improve, and make

which describes the type of target condition desired [161], [146].

• Quality characteristic - Specifies the quality characteristic that a soft-

goal is defined for. It is similar to the “issue” in the GQM approach[147],

with the difference being that the quality characteristic is known when

a softgoal is being specified.

• Object - Specifies the target object of the softgoal [147]. In the context

of this research, the target object that a softgoal is specified for is one of

the four dimensions of the business process: a function, an input/output,

a human resource, or a non-human resource.

• Triggering condition - Specifies the context in which the softgoal is

important. This attribute is introduced by this research to describe the

triggering condition for a softgoal.

A softgoal is specified based on the above attributes using a pattern like :

31 Refer to Section 4.4.1 for further details on subjectivity, implicity, context- specificity, andimpreciseness of quality characteristics.

4.4 95

“To + purpose + the + quality characteristic + of the + object

+ [if + triggering condition”].

For example: “To increase the time efficiency of the loan ap-

proval function if loan value is less than $500,000.”. The argu-

ments inside [] are optional as not every softgoal may have a triggering

condition associated with it.

Softgoals specified using the above pattern are comprehensive and easy to

understand. The next section presents the softgoal correlation model which

models the dependencies between softgoals.

4.4.3 QoBP Framework - Softgoal Correlation Model

The purpose of this section is to present the softgoal correlation model of

the QoBP framework. The purpose of this model is to identify the corre-

lations between the softgoals modelled in a softgoal model of a business

process. This correlation presents the relationships between a softgoal and

other softgoals of a softgoal model.

The relationships between goals (both hard goals and softgoals) have

been modelled in Requirements Engineering for a variety of reasons. The

modelling approach also varies as each approach satisfies a set of specific

needs. For instance, Goal Centric Traceability is an approach in which non-

functional requirements and their interdependencies are modelled as soft-

goals in a Softgoal Interdependency Graph (SIG) [150]. The interdependen-

cies modelled in a SIG are used to manage the effect of functional changes

upon the non-functional requirements in order to maintain the quality of

software throughout its operational lifetime. In SIG, interdependencies be-

tween two softgoals S1 and S2 represents how S1 contributes to S2. This

contribution can be positive, negative or in some cases no effect at all. For

example, in a SIG that is modelled for an inventory system, the softgoal

“store data in non-compressed format” has a positive contribution to the

softgoal “process file fast” while having a negative contribution to the soft-

goal “have a manageable space” [150]. Goal correlation has also been used in

Requirements Engineering to explore alternatives and evaluate them with

respect to business objectives during requirements analysis [142, 162]. In


their work, goals are refined further to a set of sub-goals forming a goal hi-

erarchy. The correlations represents the influence between two goals which

is either positive or negative.

In this research softgoal correlations are used to conduct root cause anal-

ysis for quality issues of a business process. Section 4.5 describes in detail

how a softgoal that is not satisfied for an instance of a process may cause

a quality issue for that process. Section 4.5 also describes in detail how the

softgoal correlation model for a business process will be used to identify the

root causes of the quality issues during the quality improvement phase of

the quality-aware BPM life cycle32. This section describes how a softgoal

correlation model is created.

The softgoal correlations in the QoBP framework are modelled to present

the functions dependency based on the data flow and control flow. Therefore,

the correlations are positive in nature. A direct correlation is established by

the fact that softgoals for the output of functions match softgoals where

their outputs become inputs of downstream functions33. In principle, each

softgoal can be correlated to any other softgoal. Yet, there are some con-

straints. First, a softgoal g1 related to a function f1, i.e. g1 ∈ relevant(f1),

should only be correlated to another softgoal g2 of another function f2 if

there is a path f1 → f2 from f1 to f2. This condition builds on the basic

property of causality that a can only cause b if it proceeds b temporally34.

In the context of a process, this means that softgoals of a function f1 can

only have a positive impact on those softgoals that relate to a function f2

executed later. Second, the correlation relation between different softgoals

should be irreflexive35 and acyclic36. This guarantees that a softgoal does

not influence itself.

32 Quality-aware BPM life cycle was described in Section 4.2 of this chapter.33 Refer to Section 4.4.6.5 for an illustration on how a softgoal correlation model can be created.34 For example, process A consists of three functions f1, f2, and f3. Softgoals of the function f1

can have a positive impact on the softgoals of both f2 and f3 as these functions execute afterf1. Softgoals of the function f3 therefore can not have a positive impact on neither f1 nor f2.

35 A relation in a set is irreflexive provided that no element is related to itself [163].36 A relation is acyclic if there is no loop linking [164].

4.4 97

The next section presents the measurement model which supplements

the softgoal model presented in Section 4.4.2 to support the evaluation of a

business process quality.

4.4.4 QoBP Framework - Measurement Model

This section presents the measurement model of the QoBP framework. For a

business process, this model contains the measurable attributes (referred to

as quality metrics). These quality metrics are identified to evaluate the qual-

ity characteristics of the business process modelled in the form of softgoals.

As described in Section 4.4.1, the measurement of the quality characteris-

tics is necessary to support the full life cycle of a quality-aware business

process37. In the QoBP framework, the quality characteristics of a process

are further refined to a set of softgoals modelled in a softgoal model (Section

4.4.2).

In general, a softgoal is similar to a hard goal38 except that the eval-

uation criteria for whether a softgoal is achieved are not often clear-cut

[128]39. In comparison to (hard) goals, softgoals are often subjective and

context-sensitive [160]. Softgoals therefore involve subjectivity because of a

lack of objective achievement criteria, and the responsibility for evaluating

their achievement falls on stakeholders. Refer to an earlier example (loan

application process presented in Section 4.4.2), for the softgoal “to increase

the timeliness of the loan approval function” . It is responsibility of the

goal originator to determine what timeliness means to this function. The

constraints that define the timeliness of the loan approval function such as

duration of the loan approval need to be specified. After such attributes (e.g.

duration of the loan approval) are specified, the acceptable value (or range

value) that is in accordance to the corresponding measuring scale40 needs

to be defined for each attribute. For example, for the duration of the loan

37 Refer to Section 4.4.1 for furthers details on why the measurement of the quality character-istics is essential (four reasons were discussed).

38 The achievement criteria for a (hard) goal is sharply defined (e.g. buy a computer) [160].39 In Software Engineering discipline, hard goals (usually just referred as goals) are used to define

the functional requirements of the system, while softgoals are used to define non-functional(quality) requirements.

40 Similar to the standard measuring scale recommended by ISO/IEC [105, 106, 107] which are:nominal scale, ordinal scale, ratio scale, and interval scale. These scales are described in detailin Section 4.4.1.1.


approval attribute a range (ratio scale) can be used (e.g. duration of the loan

approval <2 days). Respectively, in the QoBP framework, the softgoals of a

business process are further refined to a set of measurable attributes referred

to as quality metrics. Quality metrics for softgoals of a business process and

their associated threshold values are modelled in a measurement model.

This research adopts an approach similar to the GQM [147] approach in

refining softgoals to a set of quality metrics. As described in Section 4.4.1.2,

GQM [147] provides a structured approach in identifying the quality met-

rics for a business process.

To define quality metrics, a softgoal is refined into a set of questions and

then each question is refined into a set of quality metrics. Basili et al [147]

recommend three groups of questions. Based on the structure of a softgoal

in the QoBP framework (purpose, quality characteristic, object, and trig-

gering condition), three groups of questions include41:

1. Questions regarding how to characterise the object (function, input/output,

resource, and human resource) with respect to the softgoals.

2. Questions regarding how to characterise the attributes of the object

(function, input/output, resource, and human resource) that are rele-

vant to the softgoal.

3. Questions regarding how to evaluate the characteristics of the object

(function, input/output, resource, and human resource) that are relevant

to the softgoal.

A set of appropriate quality metrics needs to be associated with each

question once all the questions for the softgoal are defined. The quality

metrics are derived through a question-answer mechanism, by asking what

quality metrics should be defined to answer those questions. Following on

with the running example (the loan application process), one question could

be: “how long does a loan approval take now?”. The loan approval duration

41 Section 4.4.6.6 illustrates these questions and their refined quality metrics through a workingexample.

4.4 99

Softgoal Model

Softgoal 1 Softgoal 2

Question

Quality Metric

QuestionQuestionQuestion

Quality Metric

Quality Metric

Quality Metric

Quality Metric

Quality Metric

Measurement Model

Fig. 4.7. GQM in the QoBP Framework

is an appropriate quality metric to provide an answer for this question. This

repetitive question-answer approach assists the stakeholder(s) to refine soft-

goals, that are often highly subjective, to a set of measurable quality metrics.

Once quality metrics are identified, an acceptable value (or range value) will

be defined for each metric. Figure 4.7 depicts how this adaptation of the

GQM approach links a softgoal model to a measurement model in the QoBP

framework.

These newly introduced quality related models (such as the quality

model, the softgoal model, the softgoal correlation model, and the mea-

surement model) are important building blocks of a quality-aware business

process model. The next section presents the QoBP metamodel which pro-

vides an extension to the EPC notation in order to embed these quality

related elements into a business process model.

4.4.5 Quality-aware EPC

The section presents the QoBP Metamodel. The QoBP metamodel pro-

vides an extension to the EPC notation to embed the quality related mod-

els. These models introduced as part of the QoBP framework, support the

quality definition phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle to produce a


quality aware business process model. None of the popular business process

modelling notation [165] provides support for embedding these quality re-

lated models. The traditional strategy for process design starts by reflecting

current practices in a so-called as-is process model. This is followed by the

design of an improved to-be process model [166]. These models can only

capture the procedural dimension of a process and provide limited insights

into related quality factors. Consequently, the gap between as-is and to-be

is poorly supported by popular process modelling notations such as EPC,

BPMN, and Petri nets (see Appendix A.1). These process models are un-

able to facilitate quality analysis in the established tradition of the quality

management community. In this section we propose an extension to the

EPC metamodel to fill this gap. Prior to presenting the QoBP metamodel,

a short description on different levels of abstraction in business process

modelling such as business process instance, business process model, and

business process metamodel is presented below to justify why the QoBP

metamodel plays an essential role in the QoBP framework.

A business process model is an abstract description of a business process

that represents selected process elements that are important to the purpose

of the model [44]. A business process model is simply an artefact consisting

of a set of activities and the flows between them. Business process mod-

els are the main artefact for implementing business processes [4]. Therefore

they play an important role in continuous process improvement, quality

management, knowledge management, and software implementation within

an organisation [167].

Business process modelling is simply the process of creating an abstrac-

tion of a business process called a business process model. In order to capture

the complexity in business process management, Weske [4] introduced a hor-

izontal abstraction that is concerned with the separation of modelling levels,

from instance level to model level and metamodel level. Figure 4.8 depicts

the different levels of abstractions and their relationships. The instance level

(M0: Instance) represents the concrete entities (executed activities, concrete

data values, resources and persons) that are involved in business processes.

A business process instance is an instantiated version of a business process

4.4 101

M2: Metamodel

M1: Model

M0: Instance

Notation

Instance-of

Instance-of

describes

describes

expresses

Fig. 4.8. Horizontal Levels of Abstractions of a Business Process [4]

model. The identified and classified set of similar entities at instance level

are presented at the model level (M1: Model). For example a business pro-

cess model represent a set of similar business process instances. The models

then are expressed in metamodels (M2: Metamodel) using notations asso-

ciated with the metamodels. The notation associated with a metamodel is

used to express the concepts of that particular metamodel. For example the

Event-Driven Process Chain (EPC) notation associates graphical symbols

(e.g. rectangle) with the metamodel elements (e.g. functions). The meta-

model’s definition in [4] is similar to the definition of the metamodel in

conceptual modelling which is “a metamodel is a model of a data model

such as an ER42 model” [169].

As the QoBP metamodel is an extension to the EPC metamodel, it is

beneficial to describe the EPC metamodel prior to describing the QoBP

metamodel. The EPC metamodel and its formal syntax are presented in

the following section.

42 ER model is a conceptual data model that views the real world as entities and relationships[168].


4.4.5.1 EPC Metamodel

The purpose of this section is to present the EPC metamodel and its for-

mal syntax. Figure 4.9 presents the EPC metamodel which is constructed

as an UML43 class diagram. The diagram presents the essential elements

of an EPC, i.e. control flow elements including functions, events, and con-

nectors which are linked by control flow arcs. Furthermore, each function

can be described regarding its input and output as well as its resource (hu-

man & non-human resource) requirements. Functions capture activities of

a process, while events describe pre-conditions and post-conditions of func-

tions (events trigger functions). Connectors are used to model the process

logic. There are three kinds of connector types including AND44, OR45, and

XOR46. Connectors have either multiple incoming and one outgoing arc

(join connectors) or one incoming and multiple outgoing arcs (split connec-

tors). Control flow arcs are used to link these elements.

A simplified formal syntax of EPC [170]47 which includes resources and

input/output objects is presented below (Definition 1). :

Definition 1 - EPC An EPC is a tuple (E, F, C, t, A, R, I, O, r), where:

• E is a finite set of events,

• F is a finite set of functions,

• C is a finite set of logical connectors,

• t : C → {∧,×,∨} is a function which maps each connector onto a con-

nector type,

• A ⊆ (E × F ) ∪ (F × E) ∪ (E × C) ∪ (F × C) ∪ (C × F ) ∪ (C × C) is a

set of arcs,

43 The Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a standard language for specifying, visualising,constructing, and documenting the artifacts of software systems, as well as for business mod-eling and other non-software systems. Please refer to http://www.uml.org/ for further detailson UML.

44 AND-split activates all subsequent branches in concurrency, while the AND-join waits for allincoming branches to complete, then it propagates control to the subsequent EPC element.

45 The OR-split triggers one, two or up to all of multiple branches based on conditions, whilethe OR-join synchronizes all active incoming branches.

46 The XOR-split represents a choice between one of several alternative branches, while theXOR-join merges alternative branches.

47 The formal syntax by [170] is based on original EPC formal syntax by [125].

4.4 103

Resource Input Output

Function

Event Connector

Control Flow ElementControl Flow Arch**

Non-Control Flow Element

1

1..*

**

Non-human Resource Human Resource

Fig. 4.9. EPC Metamodel

• R is a finite set of resources,

• I is a finite set of inputs,

• O is a finite set of outputs, and

• r : {R∪I∪O} → F} is a mapping that assigns roles, inputs, and outputs

to functions.

The next section presents the QoBP metamodel proposed by this thesis.

The QoBP metamodel is an extension to the EPCmetamodel which includes

the quality related elements (such as quality characteristics, softgoals and

quality metrics) introduced by the QoBP framework.

4.4.5.2 QoBP Framework - QoBP Metamodel

The QoBP metamodel (shown in Figure 4.10) is an extension to the EPC

metamodel which builds on control flow based business process modeling.

The upper part of Figure 4.10 captures the essential elements of an EPC (as

shown in Figure 4.9). This part of the metamodel is classical process mod-

eling and can easily be replaced by respective elements of other modeling

languages such as BPMN or high-level Petri nets. The QoBP metamodel in-

troduces additional concepts to capture those entities relevant to the quality


of a business process (in the lower part of Figure 4.10). The QoBP builds

on identifying softgoals for a function based on the quality characteristics

related to four quality dimensions of a business process (one softgoal per

quality characteristic). The relevance of a softgoal is bound to a triggering

condition that needs to be specified. The triggering condition determines

the context in which a softgoal is important. The achievement of a softgoal

is made measurable by relating it to a metric based on the goal-driven mea-

surement approach proposed in Section 4.4.1.2.


Function

Event Connector

Control Flow ElementControl Flow Arch* *


1

1..*

* *

Softgoal-TriggeringCondition

-has 0..1

0..*

0..1-correlates to 0..*

Metric-FailureCondition

1

-is measured by0..*

Non-Human Resource Human Resource

Quality Characteristic -represented and reasoned by

0..1 0..1

Fig. 4.10. QoBP Metamodel as a UML class diagram

4.4 105

The formal syntax of the QoBP metamodel is presented below:

Definition 2 A QoBP is a tuple (E, F, C, t, A, R, I, O, r, Q, G, S,M),

where:

• E is a finite set of events,

• F is a finite set of functions,

• C is a finite set of logical connectors,

• t : C → {∧,×,∨} is a function which maps each connector onto a con-

nector type,

• A ⊆ (E × F ) ∪ (F × E) ∪ (E × C) ∪ (F × C) ∪ (C × F ) ∪ (C × C) is a

set of arcs,

• R is a finite set of resources,

• I is a finite set of inputs,

• O is a finite set of outputs, and

• r : {R∪I∪O} → F} is a mapping that assigns roles, inputs, and outputs

to functions.

• Q is a finite set of quality characteristics,

– applicable: {F,R, I, O} 7→ {0, 1} is a mapping that indicates whether

a quality characteristic is applicable for the respective class of entities;

• G is a finite set of softgoals,

– relevant: {F ∪ R ∪ I ∪ O} × Q 7→ PG is a mapping that assigns a

function, role, input, or output to one a softgoals of G that relates to

a quality characteristic q ∈ Q,

– S ⊆ G×G defines the correlation relationship between a pair of soft-

goals such that (g1, g2) ∈ S means that g1 has an influence on g2,

· A softgoal g1 related to a function f1, i.e. g1 ∈ relevant(f1), should

only be correlated to another softgoal g2 of another function f2 if

there is a path f1 → f2 from f1 to f2. This condition builds on

the basic property of causality that a can only cause b if it proceeds

b temporally. In the context of a process this means that softgoals

of a function f1 can only have a positive impact on those softgoals

that relate to a function f2 executed later.


· The correlation relation between different softgoals should be ir-

reflexive and acyclic. This guarantees that a softgoal does not in-

fluence itself.

• M is a finite set of metrics.

– question: G 7→ PM is a mapping that assigns one or many metrics

to a softgoal;

The essential models of the QoBP framework were introduced in the ear-

lier sections of this chapter. This sub-section presented an extension to the

EPC metamodel (referred to as QoBP metamodel) that embeds all the nec-

essary elements of the QoBP models into the EPC metamodel. A business

process that is modelled based on the QoBP metamodel is a quality-aware


The next section (Section 4.4.6) completes the QoBP framework by pre-

senting the QoBP methodology which provides a step-by-step procedure

of how to create a quality-aware business process model during the quality

definition phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle. The QoBP methodol-

ogy is illustrated through a working example which is the case of a software

project process (Request for Proposal - RFP) that is used by Software House

(SH) for responding to tenders [126].

4.4.6 QoBP Framework - QoBP Methodology

The purpose of this section is to introduce the methodology provided by the

QoBP framework to create a quality-aware business process model during

the quality definition phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle (see Fig-

ure 4.3). This methodology provides the step-by-step procedure required to

create a quality-aware business process model that is based on the QoBP

metamodel introduced in the previous section (Section 4.4.5.2). This sec-

tion illustrates how to create all the quality related models of the QoBP

framework described earlier sections necessary to produce a quality-aware


It is always beneficial to illustrate a methodology through a working ex-

ample, so a case from the earlier works [97, 126] has been selected. This is

the case of a software project process referred to as Request for Proposal

4.4 107

(RFP) that is used by a Software House (SH) for responding to tenders.

The QoBP methodology proposed in this research includes six major

steps:

1. Analyse the business process

2. Create a business process model

3. Create a quality model

4. Create a softgoal model

5. Create a correlation model

6. Create a measurement model

Each of these steps is described in detail in the following sub-sections48.

Each step is also illustrated through an example which is based on the RFP

process of the Software House (SH).

4.4.6.1 Analyse the Business Process

The purpose of the first step is to analyse the business process. The organi-

sational structure, the business process goals, the business process environ-

ment, and the quality requirements of the business process will be analysed

during this step. Also, the functional and quality (non-functional) require-

ments of the process will be elicited, taking account of the organisation’s

strategy, goals and structure. The deliverable of this step will be a document

describing the functional and quality requirements of the business process

being analysed. Section 5.3.4.1.1 provides extra guidelines and templates

that are required to perform this step.

For example, the analysis of the RFP process revealed that the RFP pro-

cess is used by Software House (SH) for responding to tenders. The company

submitting the RFP is usually seeking the delivery of some software. The

process commences with the receipt, by a software house, of an RFP from

the client company. The RFP documents the high level requirements of

48 Section 5.3.4 which describe the protocol for conducting the action research as part of thisstudy to evaluate artifacts that are presented in this chapter provides extra guidelines, tem-plates and tools for performing each step.


the system and asks that software houses respond by providing a proposed

solution, an estimate of the time and cost to complete the work and an in-

dicative project plan. The analysis also revealed the quality requirements of

the RFP process. It is crucial for SH to create a high quality RFP response

for their VIP clients to increase the chance of being awarded the work (to

win the tender). The indicative project plan must be based on an accurate

effort and cost estimate. The RFP response should be precise and easy to

understand and should have all the requested information.

Having analysed the business process, the next step of the QoBP method-

ology is to create a business process model which is based on the functional

requirements defined during this step. The next section presents how to

create a business process model.

4.4.6.2 Create the Business Process Model

The purpose of this step is to model a business process using a business pro-

cess modelling notation. The quality framework proposed in this research

is not bound to any specific business process modelling methodology or no-

tation. Therefore, a business process, at this step can be modelled using

any methodology and notation. Dumas, van der Aalst and ter Hofstede [93]

describe several business process modelling methodologies using different

notations such as EPC, UML, and Petri nets in their book . Similar guide-

lines are also provided in [166, 4] that can be used as an alternative during

this step. The output from this step is a business process model that defines

business functions, their control-flow relationships, as well as resources, and

the inputs / the outputs that are assigned to each function. Section 5.3.4.1.2

provides extra guidelines that are required to perform this step.

Figure 4.11 presents an example outcome from this step which is the

RFP business process model modelled using the EPC49 modelling notation.

The RFP documents the high level requirements of the system to be devel-

oped and typically asks SH to respond by providing a proposed solution, an

estimate of the time and cost to complete the work and an indicative project

plan. After receiving the RFP, the marketing/sales department reviews the

49 Refer to Appendix A.1 for further details on EPC. For formal details of EPCs refer to [171].

4.4 109

RFP is Received

Conduct Preliminary

Review

Marketing/Sales Department

RFP

Review Requirement

RFP

Business Department

Formulate a Solution

Review the Solution

Estimate

Formulate RFP Reponse

Propose Indicative

Project Plan

Send RFP Response

Response is Sent

Development Department


Business Department


Project Management

Group

Marketing/Sales Department

RFP

Solution

Solution RFP

Solution RFP

Estimate

Solution RFP Estimate

Solution RFP Estimate

RFP Response

RFP Response Send RFP

Withdrawal Response

XOR

Project Plan

Project Plan

Withdrawal Response

RFP

XOR

Fig. 4.11. Request for proposals process of the software house


RFP to determine the parameters of the response (Conduct Preliminary

Review). This review provides first insight regarding the potential profit

from the project and the strategic interest of the client. Depending on this

information a decision is made (XOR-split): if the business is likely to be

unattractive, SH will Send RFP Withdrawal Response, otherwise further

steps to complete the RFP response are undertaken. This series of steps

starts with a review of the requirements by the business department who

forwards the RFP to the development department. The Development de-

partment formulates a technical solution based on the RFP. This solution is

reviewed before it is used as a base for estimation of cost and effort. These

estimates and the solution are then considered for proposing an indicative

project plan worked out by the project management team. In particular,

the project schedule, project cost and the project team is outlined. This

plan along with the estimation and the solution concept is input for the

business department to formulate the RFP response. The marketing/sales

department finally sends this RFP response to the potential client.

Having modelled the business process, the next step of the QoBP

methodology is to create a quality model for the business process model.

4.4.6.3 Create a Quality Model

The objectives of this step is to create a quality model for a business pro-

cess which is based on the quality requirements defined during the first step

(see Section 4.4.6.1). The quality model was described in Section 4.3. The

aim is to identify the potential quality characteristics for all four dimen-

sions (function, input & output, human resource and non-human resource)

of a business process. It is crucial to ensure the quality characteristics being

selected for the process are aligned with the quality requirements defined

during the first step.

The quality requirements defined for the process need to be mapped to

the process functions. This mapping associates each quality requirement to

one or more functions. This critical task heavily relies on the assessment

and the expertise of the domain experts.

4.4 111

To create a quality model for a process, the following steps are required

for each function of the process50:

1. Select the relevant quality characteristics identified for the function di-

mension (Section 4.3.2.1). For example, the main quality characteristic

for the function estimate is identified as accuracy.

2. Select the relevant quality characteristics identified for the input & out-

put dimension (Section 4.3.2.2). For example, the main quality char-

acteristic for the output project estimate from the function estimate is

identified as accuracy.

3. Select the relevant quality characteristics identified for the human re-

source dimension (Section 4.3.2.3). For example, the main quality char-

acteristic for the developer in charge of estimating is identified as expe-

rience.

4. Select the relevant quality characteristics identified for the non-human

resource dimension (Section 4.3.2.4). For example, the main quality char-

acteristic of the software tool that is used to calculate the project esti-

mate for the function estimate is identified as effectiveness.

The result of this step is a set of generic quality characteristics for all

four quality dimensions of a business process. Section 5.3.4.1.3 provides

extra guidelines, and templates that are required to perform this step. The

next section presents the next step of the QoBP methodology which is how

to create a softgoal model.

4.4.6.4 Create a Softgoal Model

The objective of this step is to create a softgoal model for the quality char-

acteristics modelled in the previous step. The softgoal model was described

in Section 4.4.2. During this step, each quality characteristic is refined to

50 The quality requirements associated with each function guides the selection of quality char-acteristics during these steps.


a meaningful softgoal. Each softgoal needs to be specified using the recom-

mended pattern (see Section 4.4.2) which contains all the attributes (pur-

pose, quality characteristic, object, and triggering condition) required to

represent a softgoal. Section 5.3.4.1.4 provides extra guidelines, and tem-

plates that can be used to perform this step.

For example, the softgoals for the quality characteristics identified for

the function estimate in the previous section are:

1. Function quality characteristic: accuracy

• Softgoal: To increase the accuracy of the function estimate if the value

is over $150,000

2. Output quality characteristic: accuracy

• Softgoal: To increase the accuracy of the output estimate if the esti-

mation time is greater than 6 months

3. Human resource quality characteristic: experience

• Softgoal: To increase the experience of the software engineer if the job

requires new technology

4. Non-human resource: effectiveness

• Softgoal: To increase the effectiveness of the estimation tool if the job

is rated as complex

The result of this step is a softgoal model for a business process. Next

section presents the next step of the QoBP methodology which is how to

create a softgoal correlation model.

4.4.6.5 Create a Correlation Model

The purpose of this step is to create a softgoal correlation model for the

softgoals specified in the softgoal model of a business process. As described

in Section 4.4.6.5, the correlation presents the relationships between one

softgoal and other softgoals of the softgoal model defined in the previous

step. A correlation is established by the fact that softgoals for the output of

4.4 113

functions match softgoals where their outputs become inputs of downstream

functions. The softgoal correlations are positive in nature. The softgoal cor-

relation model was described in Section 4.4.3. A softgoal correlation model

is created by performing the following steps:

1. Start with the last function in the business process.

2. For each of the data inputs for this function, identify the functions ear-

lier in the process where this data was output.

3. Create a correlation between the softgoals of the function and the soft-

goals of those earlier functions.

4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 for each of the previous functions in the process.

The result of this step is a softgoal correlation model for a business pro-

cess. Section 5.3.4.1.5 provides extra guidelines, and templates that may be

used to perform this step.

Figure 4.12 depicts the softgoal correlation model for three functions of

the RFP process: estimate, prepare indicative project plan, and formulate

RFP response. Two correlations are established by the fact that softgoals

for the output of functions match softgoals where their outputs become in-

puts of downstream functions. The first correlation is between softgoal 11

and softgoal 6. The second correlation is between softgoal 6 and softgoal 1.

Each correlation is represented as a wide arrow (the left side of Figure 4.12).

The dotted narrow arrows in the right side of Figure 4.12 represent the link

between inputs and outputs of these three functions that are the cause for

the correlations.

The following section presents the next step of the QoBP methodology

which is to create a measurement model.

4.4.6.6 Create a Measurement Model

The purpose of this step is to create a measurement model for the softgoals

specified in the softgoal model of a business process. The measurement


Softgoal 8: To increase the accuracy of the “PM Tool”

Softgoal 6: To increase the accuracy of function “propose indicative project

plan” Softgoal 9: To increase accuracy of the “Project Plan”

Non-human Resource: PM Tool

Output: Project Plan

Softgoal 10: To increase the experience of the “Project Managre”

Human Resource: Project Manager

Softgoal 14: To increase the accuracy of “MS Word”

Softgoal 11: To increase the accuracy of the “formulate RFP response”

Softgoal 15: To increase accuracy of “RFP Response”

Non-human Resource: MS Word

Function: Formulate RFP response

Output: RFP Response

Softgoal 16: To increase the experience of the “Project Manager”


Softgoal 3: To increase the accuracy of the “Estimation Tool”

Softgoal 1: To increase the accuracy of the function “Estimate”

Softgoal 4: To increase accuracy of Estimate

Non-human Resource: Estimation Tool

Function: Estimate

Output: Estimate

Softgoal 5: To increase the experience of the “Software Engineer”

Human Resource: Software Engineer

Softgoal 2: To increase the accuracy of the “RFP Business Requirement”

Input: RFP Business Requirements

Softgoal 7: To increase the accuracy of the “Estimate”

Input: Estimate

Softgoal 12: To increase the accuracy of the “Project Plan”

Input: Project Plan


Input: Estimate

Second correlations

First correlations

Function: Propose indicative project plan

Fig. 4.12. An Example for Softgoal Correlations Model

model was described in Section 4.4.4. This model contains the measurable

attributes (referred to as quality metrics) that are identified to evaluate the

quality characteristics of a business process that are modelled in the form

of softgoals.

As described in Section 4.4.4, this research adopts an approach similar

to the GQM [147] approach in refining softgoals to a set of quality metrics.

During this step, each softgoal is refined into a set of questions and then

each question is refined into a set of quality metrics. For example, questions

for the softgoal51 defined for a Software Engineer who is a human resource

for the function estimate could be: what is the current experience of the

51 To increase the experience of the software engineer if the job requires new technology.

4.4 115

human resource for the function estimate? and is the current experience

of the human resource for the function estimate satisfactory?. The quality

metrics are derived through a question-answer mechanism, by asking what

quality metrics should be defined to answer those questions. For example

a metric for the above questions is the software engineer experience. Once

quality metrics are identified, an acceptable value (or range value) that is

with accordance with the corresponding measuring scale will be defined for

each metric (as described in Section 4.4.4). For example, the acceptable

value range for the above example is: the software engineer experience > 2

years.

The result of this step is a measurement model for the business process.

Section 5.3.4.1.6 provides extra guidelines, and templates that are required

to perform this step.

4.4.7 Summary of QoBP Framework Part II

The main purpose of this section was to present the additional artifacts

of the QoBP framework that were developed by this thesis to support

the quality definition phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle. This sec-

tion presented how in the Quality of Business Process (QoBP) framework,

the quality model proposed in Section 4.3 is utilised to create a quality-

aware business process model. The goal-driven measurement approach in

the QoBP framework was presented in Section 4.4.1, as well as the justifi-

cation for choosing a goal-driven approach and a summary of the literature

review in the relevant areas. Three essential models of the QoBP frame-

work that support the goal-driven measurement approach adopted by this

research were presented in this order: Section 4.4.2 presented the softgoal

model that models the quality characteristics of the quality model as a set of

softgoals; Section 4.4.3 presented the softgoal correlation model that mod-

els the relationships between these softgoals; Section 4.4.4 introduced the

measurement model which presents how quality characteristics, that are de-

scribed in the form of softgoals are evaluated. The QoBP metamodel which

is an extension to the EPC notation to embed the QoBP framework models

into a business process model was presented in Section 4.4.5.2. The last

section (Section 4.4.6) was dedicated to introduce the QoBP methodology


which provides a step-by-step procedure to create a quality-aware business

process model.

The next section presents the artifact that is developed to support the

quality improvement phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle. The next

section introduces a novel root cause analysis approach that is referred to

as Process Root Cause Analysis (PRCA) technique.

4.5 Quality Improvement - PRCA 117

4.5 Quality Improvement - PRCA

The chapter presents the artifact developed by this thesis to support the

quality improvement phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle52 (high-

lighted orange in figure 4.13). The previous two sections presented the pro-

posed artifacts to support the quality definition phase of the quality-aware

BPM life cycle. As described in Section 1.1.2, the quality implementation

and quality control phases of the quality-aware BPM life cycle are out of

scope of this thesis. In this study, quality improvement at this stage of the

business process life cycle, is only concerned with the root cause analysis

(RCA) of the cases where quality requirements were not met (referred to as

quality issues in this research). This section introduces the Process Root

Cause Analysis (PRCA) technique to support the root cause analysis

of the quality issues, the cases where quality requirements were not met.

Analysis

Design

Implementation

Enactment

Monitoring

Evaluation


Quality Aware Process Model



Measurements


Quality Improvement

Quality Definition


Quality Control

Fig. 4.13. Quality Improvement Phase

Root cause analysis is a problem-solving technique in a variety of quality-

centered management approaches such as Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma, and

Total Quality Management53. For example, in Six Sigma, defects are avoided

through the elimination of the causes of quality or process related problems

52 Refer to Section 4.2 for further details on the Quality-aware BPM life cycle.53 Refer to Section 2.3.2.


[73].

During the quality improvement phase of the quality-aware BPM life cy-

cle, the quality of enacted business process instances are evaluated in order

to identify improvement opportunities within the process. The evaluation

on its own only assists with the identification of the cases where the quality

of the business process instances have not met the original quality require-

ments of the business process (referred to as quality issues). These quality

issues may lead to improvement opportunities if their root causes are iden-

tified. Large companies often document their business operations in several

thousand process models [172], and some industries are even obliged to do

so to comply with quality regulations. While these models could be a good

starting point for investigating and analysing causes of problems, it has been

observed that existing business process models provide little assistance for

such an exercise [173], because process modelling languages do not include

the relevant pieces of information nor methodological guidance provided for

gathering that information.

The QoBP framework proposed in the previous chapter addresses the

first issue by introducing quality-aware business process models that cap-

ture the relevant quality elements required for investigating and analysing

the root causes of quality issues. This chapter proposes the Process Root

Cause Analysis (PRCA) technique which provides a structured approach

and methodological guidance to conduct root cause analysis on business

processes.

In the context of this study, root cause analysis is used as a reactive

approach54 [174] to uncover the root causes of the quality issues that have

already occurred. By identifying the root causes of the quality issues in a

business process and rectifying these issues, then the quality of subsequent

enactments of the business process will be improved. Indeed, combining

business process models and root cause analysis has the potential of reveal-

ing problems in an organisation in a systematic way and relies less on the

54 A root cause analysis approach is proactive when it is used to prevent future issues fromoccurring [174].

4.5 Quality Improvement - PRCA 119

intuition of those involved in the analysis.

Section 4.5.1 presents a brief background on the root cause analysis tech-

niques and frameworks in other disciplines as well as a set of desirable

criteria for a root cause analysis technique. A more detailed description

of the root cause analysis techniques and frameworks in other disciplines

is provided in Appendix A.2. The Process Root Cause Analysis (PRCA)

technique is presented in Section 4.5.2. Section 4.5.2.1 provides a working

example for the PRCA technique. Section 4.5.2.2 presents a brief reflection

on the PRCA technique and how it adheres to the criteria listed in Section

4.5.1. Section 4.5.3 concludes this section by providing a short summary.

4.5.1 A Background on Root Cause Analysis

The purpose of this section is to provide a brief background on root cause

analysis in other disciplines. Root cause analysis is a problem-solving tech-

nique in a variety of quality-centered management approaches such as Six

Sigma, Lean Six Sigma, and Total Quality Management (TQM)55. The main

assumption is that an issue can only be solved by addressing the underlying

cause of the problem. Root cause analysis has been conducted in indus-

try using a variety of techniques [74]. The current practices mainly build

on brain-storming and semi-formal techniques [175]. Several approaches to

root cause analysis have been proposed in different industries, among others

so-called Ishikawa diagrams, or fishbone diagrams [176], Events and Causal

Factors Chart [177], Fault Tree Analysis [178] and others. After a thorough

review of the different root cause analysis techniques and frameworks used

in other disciplines56, it is apparent that most of these techniques lack a

systematic and structured approach that is suitable for root cause analysis

of quality issues of a business process instance.

This thesis proposes a root cause analysis technique that is suitable for

business processes. The root cause analysis technique proposed by this re-

search adheres to a set of criteria that are derived from both the weaknesses

and the strengths of the root cause analysis techniques in other disciplines.

55 Refer to Section 2.3.2 for further details on Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma and TQM.56 Refer to Appendix A.2 for an overview of the root cause analysis techniques and frameworks

in other disciplines.


All these criteria are derived by reviewing the root cause analysis tech-

niques in other disciplines, as well as their success stories and limitations.

The derived criteria include:

• Comprehensiveness : the framework should provide the investigator

the ability to identify the sequence of all events leading to a cause of

an issue. This criteria stems from the main requirement for a root cause

analysis technique which is to provide the ability to determine what hap-

pened and when that happened [177, 179].

• Context-awareness: the framework should provide investigators the

appropriate information (such as the context in which the issue has oc-

curred) that are required to conduct corrective actions. This criteria is

based on the need to be able to validate the conditions in which an issue

has occurred [179] and to distinguish between contextual, contributory

factors and the root causes of an incident [180].

• Systematic: the framework should provide a systematic methodology

that provides a consistent step-by-step approach to conduct the investi-

gation. This criteria ensures that one of the main characteristics of a root

cause analysis technique, which is to provide a structured [180] and con-

sistent [52] approach in investigating the root cause of an incident, is met.

• Easy to use : the framework should be easy to use. This criteria en-

sures that a root cause analysis technique is easy to use to conduct the

investigation, as the complexity of root cause analysis techniques is a

well known limiting factor for using the techniques [181].

The criteria listed above are used as a set of guidelines for the root cause

analysis technique, proposed by this thesis. This criteria will also be used

to evaluate the proposed root cause analysis technique during the action

research phase of this research57.

The next section presents the root cause analysis techniques proposed

by this thesis which is referred to as Process Root Cause Analysis (PRCA).

57 Refer to Section 5.3.5 for further information on how this criteria is used for evaluation.

4.5 121

4.5.2 Process Root Cause Analysis (PRCA) Technique

The main purpose of this section is to introduce the Process Root Cause

Analysis (PRCA) technique which is the artifact developed to support the

quality improvement phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle. As men-

tioned earlier in this section, the quality improvement at this stage of the

business process life cycle, is concerned with the root cause analysis (RCA)

of the quality issues (the cases where quality requirements were not met).

This section presents a novel technique for conducting root cause analysis

of quality issues in quality-aware business processes (the business processes

that are modelled using the QoBP framework proposed in the previous

sections). The QoBP framework described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 share the

analytical focus of root cause analysis (that has been criticised as being semi-

formal [175]) with the rigor of established concepts from requirements en-

gineering such as quality models, softgoal models, the goal-question-metric

approach, and softgoal correlations. PRCA provides a systematic step-by-

step procedure to analysts who aim to identify root causes of a quality issue.

The models58 that were introduced as part of the QoBP framework to

create a quality-aware business process model provide the necessary ele-

ments required to conduct root cause analysis. This section simply presents

a technique (referred to as PRCA) on how to use these elements to conduct

root cause analysis on quality issues. As mentioned at the beginning of this

chapter, a quality issue with respect to a business process is the case where

the defined quality requirements of the process are not met. Hence, there is

a relationship between a quality requirement and a quality issue. To make

this relationship more concrete, a reflection on how a quality requirement

is modelled in the QoBP framework is defined. As described in Section 4.4,

the quality requirements of a business process are modelled in the form of

quality characteristics for all four dimensions of the business process (func-

tion, input & output, human resource, and non-human resource). It was also

described (in Section 4.4.1) that the measurement of quality characteristics

is necessary to support the the full life cycle of a quality-aware business

process. In Section 4.4.2 it was discussed how quality characteristics need

58 The quality model (see Section 4.4), the softgoal model (see Section 4.4.2), the softgoalcorrelation model (see Section 4.4.3), and the measurement model (see Section 4.4.4).


to be further refined to a set of softgoals in order to be evaluated and rea-

soned about59. As softgoals may involve subjectivity because of a lack of

objective achievement criteria, they need to be further refined to a set of

quality metrics. For each quality metric an acceptable value (or value range)

is selected that is used during softgoal evaluation.

Based on the above background, a quality issue is triggered if a softgoal

is not achieved. Therefore a quality issue, raised during the execution of a

function of a business process (at the process instance level), is linked to a

softgoal in the softgoal model part of the QoBP metamodel.


Function

Event Connector

Control Flow ElementControl Flow Arch* *


1

1..*

* *

-TriggeringConditionSoftgoal

-represented and reasoned by

0..1 0..*

-has 0..1

0..*

0..1

-correlates to 0..*1

-is measured by0..*

Function Execution

Value

-raises1

0..*

-is caused1

0..*

Process Instance

Process Type

Non-Human Resource Human Resource

Quality CharacteristicQuality Issue

-FailureConditionQuality Metric

E.g. “loan approval” E.g. “loan approval for MS Heravizadeh”

E.g. “to increase the time efficiency of the

loan approval function”

E.g. “time efficiency requirement is not met”

E.g. “6 days ”

E.g. “duration of loan approval”

E.g. “loan value < $200,000”

E.g. “loan application process”

E.g. “loan application for values of $100,000 for MS Heravizadeh ”

Fig. 4.14. QoBP Metamodel - PRCA as a UML class diagram

Figure 4.14 illustrates how quality issues at a process instance level are

linked to the softgoals at the metamodel level. The diagram is divided into

two panels, the QoBP metamodel (from Figure 4.10) is presented in the

left panel, while elements related to the process instance are presented in

the right panel. As shown in the right panel of the Figure 4.14, quality

issues (“time efficiency requirement is not met”) relate to the execution

59 Quality characteristics are not often clear-cut; they are subjective, implicit, context-specificand imprecise. Therefore, to evaluate quality characteristics, they are required to be furtherrefined to a set of softgoals.

4.5 123

of a function in the process (Function Execution (“loan approval for MS

Heravizadeh”) and the way the function is conducted (described by values

(“6 days”) related to a metric (“duration of loan approval”). The verti-

cal line that connects a quality issue (“time efficiency requirement is not

met”) in the right panel of Figure 4.14 to a softgoal (E.g. “to increase time

efficiency of the loan approval function”) in the left panel presents the re-

lationship between a quality issue and a softgoal. This relationship implies

that a quality issue is raised for a function execution when a softgoal is

not satisfied. Softgoal satisfaction is determined by the value at the process

instance level (the right panel of Figure 4.14) for the metric that measures

the softgoal satisfaction. If the value of the quality metric in a particular

process instance meets the failure condition, this signals the occurrence of a

quality issue related to the execution of a singular function. The relevance

of a softgoal for a process instance is bound to a triggering condition (“loan

value of $200,000”) that is specified (e.g. time efficiency matters for loans

with values of less than $200,000). As shown in Figure 4.14, a quality issue

is raised at the process instance level, i.e. for a particular case like “loan

application for a value of $100,000 for Ms Heravizadeh”.

Having illustrated what a quality issue is with respect to a quality-aware

business process and how it is raised at a process instance level, the rest of

this section describes the PRCA technique. As mentioned at the beginning

of this section, the PRCA technique proposed by this research provides a

step-by-step procedure to identify the root causes of a quality issue for an

instance of a process. In order to trace a quality issue back to its root cause

for an instance of a business process, the correlations between softgoals that

are modelled in a softgoal correlation model for the process are used. The

PRCA technique that is proposed by this thesis to identify the root cause

of a quality issues for a business process instance consists of the following

steps:

1. In the softgoal correlation model, find the softgoal that is linked to the

quality issue ;

2. Trace the softgoal through the softgoal correlation model;


3. Evaluate the traced softgoal and record the results60;

4. Repeat Step 2 and 3 until no more softgoals are traced;

5. Review the results from the evaluation of the traced softgoals;

6. Identify the last softgoal being traced which is not satisfied, i.e. it meets

the failure condition for a metric;

7. Find the quality issue that is linked to the last softgoal that was identi-

fied in the previous step. This quality issue is the root quality issue;

8. Find the quality metrics which contributed to the failure of the root

quality issue. These quality metrics are the root causes of the investigated

quality issue.

The next sub-section illustrates the PRCA technique using as an example

the RFP case that was introduced in Section 4.4.6.

4.5.2.1 An Illustration of the PRCA Technique

The main purpose of this section is to illustrate the PRCA approach through

a working example. In the Request for Proposal (RFP) process , SH has re-

cently won a major project using the RFP process. After three months SH

management have realized that the deliverables of the project cannot be

completed at the estimated cost. As a result the project is likely to generate

a loss. In order to prevent such losses in the future, SH investigates the root

causes for the flawed calculation. The RFP model offers SH management

an initial overview of the process,but it does not directly reveal problems

with its execution. To trace back the root causes of the prospective project

loss, SH wants to utilize a systematic approach.

Having created all the relevant models of the QoBP framework for the

RFP process, the software house SH initiates a root cause analysis for the

RFP process instance which is related to the loss making project using

60 Softgoal satisfaction is determined by the value at the process instance level (the right panelof Figure 4.14) for the metric that measures the softgoal satisfaction.

4.5 125

Softgoal 8: To increase the accuracy of the “PM Tool”

Softgoal 6: To increase the accuracy of function “propose indicative project

plan” Softgoal 9: To increase accuracy of the “Project Plan”

Non-human Resource: PM Tool

Function: Propose indicative project plan

Output: Project Plan

Softgoal 10: To increase the experience of the “Project Managre”


Softgoal 14: To increase the accuracy of “MS Word”

Softgoal 11: To increase the accuracy of the “formulate RFP response”

Softgoal 15: To increase accuracy of “RFP Response”

Non-human Resource: MS Word

Function: Formulate RFP response

Output: RFP Response

Softgoal 16: To increase the experience of the “Project Manager”


Softgoal 3: To increase the accuracy of the “Estimation Tool”

Softgoal 1: To increase the accuracy of the function “Estimate”

Softgoal 4: To increase accuracy of Estimate

Non-human Resource: Estimation Tool

Function: Estimate

Output: Estimate

Softgoal 5: To increase the experience of the “Software Engineer”

Human Resource: Software Engineer

Softgoal 2: To increase the accuracy of the “RFP Business Requirement”

Input: RFP Business Requirements


Input: Estimate

Softgoal 12: To increase the accuracy of the “Project Plan”

Input: Project Plan


Input: Estimate

Second correlations

First correlations

Fig. 4.15. An Example for Softgoal Correlations Model

the PRCA technique. As the correlation model presented in Section 4.4.6.5

is used in this example, Figure 4.12 is repeated in this section (see Fig-

ure 4.15) for the ease of reference. Following the step-by-step procedure

outlined above, the softgoal that is linked to the quality issue is identified61

as softgoal 11 (“to increase the accuracy of the ‘formulate RFP response’

function”). Tracing softgoal 11 through the softgoal correlation model leads

to the correlated softgoal62 which is softgoal 6 (“to increase the accuracy

of the ’prepare project’ function”). Softgoal 6 is evaluated and the results

are recorded63. Softgoal 6 is then traced64 to softgoal 1 (“to increase ac-

61 Step 1 of the PRCA technique.62 Step 2 of the PRCA technique.63 Step 3 of the PRCA technique.64 Repeat of Step 2 of the PRCA technique.


curacy of the ’estimate’ function”). Softgoal 1 is evaluated and the results

are recorded65. After reviewing the results from the evaluation of the traced

softgoals66, it was discovered that softgoal 1 was the last softgoal that was

not satisfied67, and this leads to the root quality issue which is “the accuracy

of the ‘estimate’ function is not met”. Further investigation on the quality

metrics contributing to the quality issue68 reveales that the the software

engineer experience that is a defined quality metric to evaluate the human

resource softgoal (softgoal 3 ) did not meet the threshold value which is “>

2 years” leading to identification of the root cause of the original quality

issue. It was discovered that as the software engineer in charge of the esti-

mation was not experienced he failed to include a major cost component in

the final estimate. By utilising the PRCA technique, SH management was

able to determine the root cause of the problem which was related to an

inexperienced software engineer in charge of the estimation for that specific

RFP. To prevent the same problem from occurring (to improve the quality

of future enactments), SH management can either insure an experienced

software engineer is allocated to perform the estimation or ensure the es-

timate produced by an inexperienced resource is reviewed and validated

before being incorporated into the project plan.

Having illustrated the PRCA technique through an example, the next

section presents a brief reflection on this technique and how it adheres to

the criteria listed in Section 4.5.1.

4.5.2.2 PRCA Technique - A Brief Reflection

The example above illustrated how the PRCA technique can be used to iden-

tify the root cause of a problem in an instance of a business process. The

PRCA technique which is based on the QoBP framework models (specifi-

cally the softgoal correlation model and the measurement model) adheres to

the desirable criteria for a root cause analysis technique that were presented

in Section 4.5.1.

65 Repeat of Step 3 of the PRCA technique.66 Step 4 of the PRCA technique.67 Step 5 of the PRCA technique.68 Step 6 of the PRCA technique.

4.6 127

The PRCA technique is comprehensive as it provides the investigator

with the ability to identify the sequence of all events leading to a cause of

a quality issue in a business process through the softgoal correlation model

that is created for the business process. This technique is context-aware

which means it provides investigators the appropriate information required

to conduct corrective actions, such as the context in which the quality is-

sue has occurred. The context is provided via the quality metrics and their

associated values at process instance level. For example, the software engi-

neer experience and value of 1 for the specific instance of the RFP process

that was being investigated provided the context in which the quality issue

occurred. The PRCA technique is a systematic approach as it provides a

consistent step-by-step procedure to conduct the investigation. The PRCA

technique is easy to use. Once the QoBP framework models are created for a

business process, the root cause analysis can be conducted by just following

the steps listed above (in Section 4.5.2). As mentioned in Section 4.5.1, the

PRCA technique will be evaluated again against these criteria during the

action research phase of this research69.

4.5.3 Summary of Quality Improvement - PRCA Section

This section presented the PRCA technique which was developed to sup-

port the quality improvement phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle.

The PRCA technique provides a root cause analysis approach for business

processes. It provides a mechanism to improve the quality of business pro-

cesses by reactively analysing and addressing quality issues. The PRCA

technique is a systematic procedure that is comprehensive, context-aware

and easy to use.

4.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter presented Part 2 of this thesis which was dedicated to the

design science phase of this research. The purpose of this chapter was to

present the artifacts developed during the design phase of this research

which address the research questions that drove this study. These artifacts

69 As described in Section 3.2, the artifacts that were built during the design phase will beevaluated by conducting three cycles of action research. Chapters 6, 7, and 8 will presentthree cycles of the action research cycle conducted in this research.


were presented in four section (Sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5). Section 4.2

presented the quality-aware BPM life cycle developed by this research to

address the main research question: “How can quality be incorporated into

a business process and managed during the BPM life cycle?”. In the pro-

posed quality-aware BPM life cycle, the quality of a business process is

managed based on the four key phases of: quality definition, quality im-

plementation, quality control, and quality improvement. The introduction

of the quality-aware BPM life cycle led to further research questions that

formed the scope and structure of this study. For the purpose of this thesis

the scope was limited to the research questions related to the first and last

phases of the quality-aware BPM life cycle: quality definition and quality

improvement. Sections 4.3 and 4.4 were dedicated to the artifacts that were

developed to address the research questions related to the quality defini-

tion phase, while Section 4.5 presented the artifact that was developed to

address the research question related to the quality improvement phase of

quality-aware BPM life cycle. Section 9 presents in detail how the research

questions that drove this study were addressed by the artifacts proposed in

this chapter.

The artifacts presented in this chapter, developed during the design phase

of this study will be evaluated during the action research phase of this study.

The next four chapters (Part 3) will present the action research phase of

this study. The first chapter of Part 3 (Chapter 5) presents a protocol for

conducting the action research. Chapters 6, 7 and 8 present three action

research cycles conducted in three large Australian organisations to evaluate

the artifacts developed during the design science phase.

Part III

Action Research Phase

5

Action Research Protocol

5.1 Introduction

This opening chapter for Part 3 of this thesis is dedicated to the action

research phase. This chapter describes how the key principles of action re-

search, identified in Chapter 3, will be applied to the action research phase

of this research.

This chapter describes the protocol for conducting action research in this

study for the purpose of evaluating artifacts that were built during the de-

sign phase. These artifacts were presented in chapter 4.

The justification for using a multi-method methodology in this research

(based on design science and action research) was presented in Section 3.2.

As described in Section 3.5, the action research adapted for this research is

based on the five stages of the action research methodology proposed in [3]

which are diagnosis, action planning, action taking, evaluation, and speci-

fying learning.

The quality and rigor of action research relates to: (1) how data is gener-

ated, gathered, explored and evaluated; (2) how the principal researcher is

engaged in the different stages of the action research cycles; and (3) method-

ological data collection approaches such as templates and measurement tools

[182]. The protocol elements presented in this chapter ensure the rigor of

the action research being conducted in this study. Accordingly, this chapter

provides a guide for selecting an appropriate host organisation for the action

research (Section 5.2), plan of engagement (Section 5.3), guidelines for pro-

132 5

cedures related to organisation visits (Section 5.3), templates to use during

the various activities (Section 5.3), and the reporting format (Section 5.4).

These elements ensure the rigor of the action research conducted as part of

this study.

5.2 Selection of Organisations

Ideally, to gain maximum outcome from the action research phase, certain

criteria for the selection of an appropriate host organisation must be met.

The organisations will be selected based on these selection criteria:

• Criterion 1 - It is important for the organisation to have an apprecia-

tion for BPM and commitment to BPM principles and practices.

• Criterion 2 - It is important for the organisation to have an apprecia-

tion for research in the area and preferably a prior relationship with the

BPM research center within the Queensland University of Technology.

• Criterion 3 - It is important for the organisation to have an appreciation

for quality aware BPM and be keen to introduce the quality framework

proposed by this thesis to their BPM practice.

• Criterion 4 - It is preferred that the organisation is in a location that

is readily accessible to the researcher.

The following section presents the engagement plan and approach with

the host organisations during the action research cycles (Section 5.3).

5.3 Action Research Plan

As mentioned in a previous chapter (Section 3.2 of chapter 3), three action

research cycles will be conducted within three large organisations to evalu-

ate the artifacts developed during the design science phase (Chapter 4). The

5.3 Action Research Plan 133

artifacts being evaluated by action research are: the models1 of the QoBP

framework, the QoBP metamodel (see Section 4.4.5.2), the QoBP method-

ology (see Section 4.4.6)), and the PRCA technique (see Section 4.5.2).

This section presents the plan of engagement with the host organisations

for the Action Research part of this study. It is envisaged that informal

meetings and workshops will provide the majority of the interactions with

the host organisations. Communications are known to be important dimen-

sion of the workshops [183], therefore they need to be structured to ensure an

effective communication. The researcher should ensure that the communica-

tions during the workshops are structured based on three behaviours [184]:

knowledge acquisition, knowledge negotiation, and acceptance. Knowledge

acquisition refers to the part of communication that is focused on sharing

the knowledge between the participants during the workshops. Once the

topics of discussion are more explicit, they need to be negotiated as part of

an iterative process referred to as knowledge negotiation. Acceptance im-

plies integration of workshop participants viewpoints where all parties agree

on the outcome of the discussion.

For meetings and workshops, the agendas will be distributed in advance

to appropriate parties, and minutes from the meetings will be recorded us-

ing a standard template (as provided in Appendix B.1 and Appendix B.2).

Throughout the action research phase, the researcher will record notes and

reflections related to each case.

Figure 5.1 presents a summary of the proposed engagement plan during

the different stages of the action research. Activities with respect to each

stage of the action research plan are described in the following sub-sections.

5.3.1 Initial Engagement

After selecting the prospect organisations, a letter will be sent to each or-

ganisation inviting them to participate in the research2. The researcher then

1 The QoBP framework models are: the quality model (see Section 4.3), the softgoal model (see4.4.2), the softgoal correlation model (see 4.4.3), and the measurement model (see 4.4.4).

2 The invitation letter is exhibited in Appendix B.3.

134 5 Phase Sub-A ctivity Engagem ent Type D uration In itia l Engagem ent Initia l K ick off Inform al M eeting 2 hours A ction R esearch Cycle – D iagnosis Identify the problem Inform al M eeting 4 hours A ction R esearch Cycle – A ction P lanning D efine the Project Scope Inform al M eeting 1 hour P lan A ctivities Inform al M eeting 2 hours Schedule Inform al M eeting 1 hour A ction R esearch Cycle – A ction Taking P hase I A nalyse the P rocess W orkshop 4 hours C reate B usiness P rocess M odel W orkshop 16 hours C reate Q uality M odel W orkshop 16 hours C reate Softgoal M odel W orkshop 16 hours C reate C orrelations M odel N one 4 hours C reate M easurem ent M odel W orkshop 8 hours P repare Proje ct R eport N one 40 hours A ction R esearch Cycle – A ction Taking P hase II C onduct R oot C ause A nalysis W orkshop 8 hours A ction R esearch Cycle – Eva luating Eva luate Q oB P Fram ew ork W orkshop 16 hours P resent Eva luation R esults W orkshop 20 hours A ction R esearch Cycle – Specifying Learning Identify Enhancem ent O pportunities to Q oB P Fram ew ork W orkshop 8 hours P repare Report N one 40 hours C losure F ina l M eeting Inform al M eeting 4 hours Tota l H ours: 210 hours

Fig. 5.1. Action Research Engagement Plan

will organise a meeting with each organisation to discuss this collaborative

opportunity in detail. A summary of the research topic and the action re-

search approach will be distributed to the appropriate parties prior to the

first meeting3. During the initial meeting the action research process and

plan will be described by the researcher to the parties involved.

3 A copy of the summary is presented in Appendix B.4.


5.3.2 Diagnosis Stage

Diagnosis is the first stage of the action research cycle. The purpose of this

stage is to:

• Describe the purpose of the action research and its benefits to the or-

ganisation.

• Identify a business process within the organisation that can be improved

using the framework proposed by this research.

During this stage, the researcher will conduct informal meetings with

the key stakeholders within the host organisation. The meetings are envis-

aged to be up to 4 hours duration. During these meetings the researcher

will describe the purpose of the action research, and how the host organi-

sation will benefit from the introduction of the Quality of Business Process

(QoBP) framework to their BPM practice. An appropriate process that will

benefit from the QoBP framework is selected during these meetings.

5.3.3 Action Planning Stage

The purpose of this stage is to plan the activities that are performed during

the course of the collaboration to solve the identified problem. The activity

plan will be based on activities that are required to be performed in two

phases:

• Phase I - To create a quality-aware business process during the qual-

ity definition phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle. The activity

plan for this phase is based on the procedural steps proposed by the

QoBP methodology (presented in Section 4.4.6) which are: (1) analyse

the business process, (2) define a business process model, (3) create a

quality model, (4) create a softgoal model, (5) create a softgoal correla-

tion model, and (6) create a measurement model.

136 5

• Phase II - To conduct root cause analysis in order to improve the quality

of a business process during the quality improvement phase of the quality-

aware BPM life cycle. The activity plan for this phase is based on the

PRCA technique presented in Section 4.5.2.

During this stage, the researcher will conduct informal meetings with key

stakeholders within the host organisation. The meetings are envisaged to be

up to 4 hours duration. During these meetings, the researcher will plan the

above activities with the key stakeholders. An action research cycle may

only be planned for just one phase (i.e. phase one).

5.3.4 Action Taking Stage

The purpose of this stage is to perform the activities identified during the

action planning stage. The researcher will organise a series of workshops

with the key stakeholders in the organisation according to the action plan

produced during the action planning stage. The workshops, in general, have

two different focuses: (1) data collection; and (2) validation of the model

created after the data collection. The validation at this point is different to

the validation stage presented in Section 5.3.5. At this stage the aim is to

verify with key participants that the data captured and modelled are correct.

The action taking stage is based on the action plan created during the

action planning stage. The action taking stage is divided into two phases

which are presented in the following two sub-sections.

5.3.4.1 Action Taking Stage - Phase I

The purpose of this stage is to perform the activities identified for phase I

of the action taking stage. As described in Section 5.3.3, the action plan for

phase I is based on the procedural steps proposed by the QoBP methodology

presented in Section 4.4.6. This section complements the QoBP methodol-

ogy by providing some guidelines on how to perform each procedural step of

the QoBP methodology and what tools (e.g. templates) to use during each

step. These six steps are presented below.


5.3.4.1.1 Step 1 - Analyse the Business Process

The purpose of the first step is to analyse the organisational structure, the

process goals, the process environment, and the quality requirements of the

process being analysed.

During this stage, the researcher will organise a workshop inviting rele-

vant parties to analyse the business process. Conversational methods [185]

such as workshops are known to be effective for requirements analysis as

all the key stakeholders are in the room contributing to the analysis activ-

ity [186]. The researcher should follow the three communication behaviours

(knowledge acquisition, knowledge negotiation, and user acceptance) rec-

ommended by [184] to ensure the communications during the workshops

are structured and effective. The functional and quality (non-functional)

requirements of the process will be elicited during the workshop, taking

account of the organisation’s strategy, goals and structure. The deliverable

of this step will be a document describing the functional and quality (non-

functional) requirements, in plain English, of the business process being

analysed.

5.3.4.1.2 Step 2 - Create a Business Process Model

The purpose of this step is to model the selected process using a business

process modelling language.

During this stage, the researcher will organise a series of workshops invit-

ing relevant parties to model the business process based on the requirements

defined and documented during the previous step.

The business process modelling notation and methodology practiced by

the host organisation will be used during this modelling exercise. The de-

liverable of this step will simply be a business process model created using

a business process modelling notation such as EPC4. It is envisaged that up

to 4 workshops of 4 hours each is required to complete this step.

4 Refer to Appendix A.1 for further details on Event-Drive Process Chain (EPC).

138 5

5.3.4.1.3 Step 3 - Create a Quality Model

The purpose of this step is to define a quality model for the selected busi-

ness process and based on the quality requirements defined during the first

step (see Section 6.4.4.1).

The researcher will need to organise four workshops to capture the quality

characteristics for the four business process quality dimensions (functions,

inputs-outputs, human resources, and non-human resources). The outcome

of these workshops is a quality model consisting of the quality characteris-

tics for the four dimensions of the business process. The method to capture

quality characteristics for these dimensions is presented below.

3.1) Function quality dimension

A list of possible quality characteristics for the function quality dimen-

sion was presented in Section 4.3.2.1 of chapter 4.4. As mentioned in Sec-

tion 4.3.2.1, these quality characteristics can be relevant for a function,

but may not be all applicable for every function. For example, safety is

not necessarily an applicable quality characteristic for the process payment

function of the invoice payment process. The list of characteristics (from

Section 4.3.2.1) will help the key stakeholders identify quality characteris-

tics of the functions of an individual process. Accordingly, the aim of the

workshop at this stage is to assist the key stakeholders to select the applica-

ble quality characteristics for the functions of the selected business process.

It is crucial during this step to ensure the quality characteristics selected

for the process are aligned with the quality requirements defined during the

first step. Therefore, the first exercise is to map the high level quality re-

quirements defined during the step 1 to the process functions. This mapping

associates each defined quality requirement to one or more functions of the

selected process.

To make the QoBP framework more flexible and practical in the com-

mercial world where projects are constrained by budget and time, three ap-

proaches are provided for this stage. For the projects with no time and bud-

get constraints, the key stakeholders can select as many of the quality char-

acteristics of the function quality dimension (presented in Section 4.3.2.1) as


they wish. Alternatively, for the projects with time and budget constraints,

the key stakeholders have the option to limit the number of applicable qual-

ity characteristics for each function. The last approach provides a limit on

the maximum number of selections which can vary for each project (de-

pending on the project’s budget and time constraints). The two approaches

proposed for projects with time and budget constraints differ in that the

first one will enforce the key stakeholders to focus on each function and

select the top 3 characteristics5 for each function irrespective of the whole

process. The second approach enforces the key stakeholders to focus on the

whole process by selecting the top 3 relevant functions for each character-

istic.

To assist the workshop participants three function-quality matrix tem-

plates (Figures 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4) are provided to capture the quality char-

acteristics for the functions of the business process. These three function-

quality matrices provide a mechanism to highlight the relative importance

of the different quality characteristics for functions of the process. In each

of these matrices each row represents a function of the business process and

the columns represent the quality characteristics of the function dimension.

The cells of the matrix therefore represent a unique function/quality char-

acteristic combination and a value can be applied to score or rate the func-

tion/quality characteristic combination (depending on the rating method

used).

Figure 5.2 presents the template for the first rating method. The first

rating method uses a boolean value (Yes/No) to specify whether a quality

characteristic is important for a function. Once a value has been deter-

mined for each function/quality characteristic combination then a count of

the ’Yes’ values in each column and row is performed. The count for each

row provides a rating of the relative importance of quality to the various

functions within the process. The count for each column indicates the rela-

tive importance of the quality characteristics for the process. The function

total and the quality characteristic total provide a quick way to identify 1)

the functions that play an important role in the quality of the process, and

5 Any limit on the number of characteristics can be selected based on the project constraints.Three characteristics are selected here for illustration purposes.

140 5

Suitability Accuracy Security Reliability Understandability Learnability Time behaviou

r efficiency Resource utilisation Effectiveness Productivity Safety Satisfaction Robustness Total… 0Formulate a solution Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10Esitimate Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7… 0Formulate RFP response Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8… 0000000Total 2 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0 1 1

Function dimension quality characteristics

“Y“ indicates that accuracy is a desired quality characteristic for

the function “Estimate”

Total in each row provides the totals

number of characteristics for

each function.

The highest totals presents the quality

characteristics that are important for the process

Total in each column presents the relative importance of the quality

characteristics for the process

Function dimension quality

characteristics

Functions of

Request for Proposal

(RFP) process

“Formulate a solution” with the highest total plays an important role in the quality of the RFP process

Fig. 5.2. Function Quality Dimension (captured as yes or no)

2) the quality characteristics that are important for the process.

Suitability Accuracy Security Reliability Understandability Learnability Time behavio

ur efficiency Resource utilisation Effectiveness Productivity Safety Satisfaction Robustness…Formulate a solution 3 2 1Estimate 1 3 2…Formulate RFP response 3 2 1…

Total 7 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0

Functions of


(RFP) process


characteristics

“Suitability” with the highest total, is the most important quality

characteristic for the RFP process

Total in each column presents the relative importance of the quality characteristics for the process

Rating Process:For each function select the top 3 relevant quality characteristics

“3“ indicates that “accuracy” is the most important quality

characteristic for the function “Estimate”

“1“ indicates that “suitability” is the third most important quality characteristic for

the function “Estimate”

Fig. 5.3. Function Quality Dimension (by rows - quality characteristics)

Figure 5.3 presents the template for the second rating method. This rat-

ing method uses an approach where each function is evaluated to determine


the top 3 quality characteristics6 that are important to that function. These

are then ranked and a value of 3 is applied to the most important quality

characteristic, a value of 2 is applied for the second most important qual-

ity characteristic and a value of 1 is applied to the third most important

quality characteristic. After this process has been performed for each of

the functions the sum of the values for each of the quality characteristics

is totaled. This provides a rating of the relative importance of each of the

quality characteristics for the process.

Figure 5.4 presents a complementary template for the second rating

method. This rating method uses an approach whereby each quality char-

acteristic is evaluated to determine the top 3 functions that are important

to that quality characteristic. These are ranked and a value of 3 is applied

to the most important function, a value of 2 is applied for the second most

important function and a value of 1 is applied to the third most important

function. After this process has been performed for each of the quality char-

acteristics the sum of the values for each of the functions is totaled. This

provides a rating of the relative importance of quality to each functions of

the process.

3.2) Input &Output quality dimension

A list of possible quality characteristics for the input &output quality di-

mension was presented in Section 4.3.2.2. As mentioned in Section 4.3.2.2,

the quality characteristics can be relevant for an input or output of a func-

tion, but not all are applicable for every input and output of a function. For

example, timeliness is not necessarily an applicable quality characteristic for

the customer name input of the invoice payment process while it is some-

what important for the customer address input of the invoice payment. The

list of characteristics will help the key stakeholders rate the quality char-

acteristics of particular input and output data of an individual function of

a process. Accordingly, the aim of the workshop at this stage is to assist

the key stakeholders to rate the applicability of the quality characteristics

to inputs and outputs of the functions of the selected business process. To

6 This matrix is introduced to allow the business to choose the top 3 most important character-istics for a function. Depending on the time and resource constraints, the business stakeholderscan determine the number of characteristics to select for each function.

142 5

Suitability Accuracy Security Reliability Understandability Learnability Time behaviou

r efficiency Resource utilisation Effectiveness Productivity Safety Satisfaction Robustness Total… 1 3 3 7Formulat a solution 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 22Estimate 3 1 2 2 1 1 10… 3 1 2 2 8Formulate RFP Response 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 2 17… 1 2 2 1 1 1 8000000

Functions of


(RFP) process



each function.

“Formulate a solution” with the highest total plays an important role in the quality of the RFP process

“1“ indicates that “suitability”, “…” is the the

third most relevant function

“3“ indicates that for “suitability”, “formulate a solution” is the most

relevant function

Rating P

rocess:F

or each characteristic select the top 3 relevant function


characteristics

Fig. 5.4. Function Quality Dimension (by columns - quality characteristics)

rate the importance of each quality characteristic for an input or output of

a function a 5 level scale will be used, as a 3 level scale or boolean value (yes

& no) will not be granular enough. The scales in the 5 level scale include:

1. Not Important - this scale indicates that the quality characteristic is

not important. When it is given to a quality characteristic, it indicates

that a common failure is expected and it is acceptable. For example,

this rating can be given to the timeliness quality characteristic for the

customer name input of the process payment function of the invoice pay-

ment process.

2. Somewhat Important - this scale indicates that basic quality is re-

quired. This rating is given to a quality characteristics where regular

failure is expected and is acceptable. For example, this rating can be

given to the timeliness quality characteristic for the customer address

input of the process payment function of the invoice payment process.

3. Frequently Important - this scale indicates that this specific quality

characteristic for an input or output contributes to the quality of the

process as a whole. When this rating is given to a quality characteristic,

a certain level of exception handling will need to be built into the pro-

cess, with occasional failure expected (less than 10% failure is expected).


For example, this rating can be given to the accuracy quality character-

istic for the customer name output of the calculate payment function of

the invoice payment process.

4. Always Important - this scale indicates that this specific quality char-

acteristic for an input or output contributes to the quality of the process

as a whole. When this rating is given to a quality characteristic, a certain

level of exception handling will need to be built into the process, with

minimum failure expected (less than 1%). For example, this rating can

be given to the accuracy quality characteristic for the payment amount

output of the calculate payment function of the invoice payment process.

5. Critically Important - this scale indicates that this specific quality

characteristic for an input or output contributes to the quality of the

process as a whole. When this rating is given to a quality characteristic,

maximum level of exception handling will need to be built into the pro-

cess (0 failure is expected). This rating is given to a quality characteristic

where poor quality will cause process failure. For example, this rating can

be given to the accuracy quality characteristic for bank account details

input of the process payment function of the invoice payment process.

To assist workshop participants a matrix template (figure 5.5) is provided

to capture the quality characteristics for inputs & outputs of functions of the

business process. This template will provide a mechanism to highlight the

relative importance of the different quality characteristics for each input &

output of the process. In this matrix each row represents an input or output

of the business process and the columns represent the quality characteristics

of the input & output dimension. The cells of the matrix therefore represent

a unique input-output/quality characteristic combination and a value can

be applied to score or rate the input-output/quality characteristic. Each

quality characteristic will be given a rating between 1 to 5 with respect to

the input or output of the function being analysed.

3.3) Human Resources quality dimension

A list of possible quality characteristics for the human resource quality di-

144 5

Function Inputs Outputs Accuracy Objectivity Believability Reputation Accessibility Security Relevancy Value-added Timeliness Completeness Amount of data

… … …Formulate a solution RFP 1 3 3 3 1 1 4 2 2 5 5Formulate a solution Solution 2 4 4 4 1 1 5 5 4 5 5Estimate Solution 2 4 4 4 1 1 5 5 4 5 5Estimate Estimate 5 5 5 5 4 1 4 5 5 5 5… …Formulate RFP response Solution 2 4 4 4 1 1 5 5 4 5 5Formulate RFP response Estimate 5 5 5 5 4 1 4 5 5 5 5Formulate RFP response RFP Response 5 5 5 5 4 1 4 5 5 5 5… …

Input & Output dimension quality

characteristics

5 indicates that “accuracy” is critically important for

“RFP response”

4 indicates that “accessibility” is always important for “RFP

response”

1 indicates that “security” is not important for “RFP

response”

2 indicates that “timeliness” is

somewhat important for

“RFP”

3 indicates that “objectivity” is frequently

important for “RFP”

Functions of


(RFP) process

Fig. 5.5. Input & Output Quality Dimension

mension was presented in Section 4.3.2.3. As mentioned previously, these

quality characteristics can be relevant, but not all will be applicable for

every human resource. For example, qualification is not necessarily an ap-

plicable quality characteristic for a clerk responsible for process payment

function of the invoice payment process. The list of characteristics will help

the key stakeholders identify quality characteristics of human resources of

an individual process. Accordingly, the aim of the workshop at this stage is

to assist the key stakeholders to select the applicable quality characteristics

for human resources of the selected business process.

Figure 5.6 presents a matrix template which provides a tool for capturing

the quality characteristics for the human resources quality dimension. This

template will provide a mechanism to highlight the relative importance of

the different quality characteristics for human resources allocated to func-

tions of the process. In this matrix each row represents a function of the

business process and the columns represent the quality characteristics of

the human resource dimension. The cells of the matrix therefore represent

a unique human-resource/quality characteristic combination. This matrix

uses a boolean value (Yes/No) to specify whether a quality characteristic is

important for the human resource allocated to a function. Once a value has


Human resource dimension quality

characteristics



each human resource

Function Human Resource Domain Knowledge Qualification Certification Experience Time Managem

entCommunication Skill Leadership Total… … 0Formulate a solution Solution Architect Y Y Y Y Y 5Estimate Solution Architect Y Y Y Y Y 5… … 0Formulate RFP response Project Manager Y Y Y Y Y Y 600Total 3 2 1 3 3 3 1

“Project Manager” with the highest

total plays an important role in the quality of the

RFP process



Total in each column presents the relative importance of the quality characteristics for the process

Functions of


(RFP) process

“Y“ indicates that “domain knowledge” is a relevant quality

characteristic for the “project manage” formulating the RFP response

Fig. 5.6. Human Resource Quality Dimension

been determined for each human-resource/quality characteristic combina-

tion then a count of the ’Yes’ values in each column and row is performed.

The count for each row provides a rating of the relative importance of qual-

ity to the various functions within the process. The count for each column

indicates the relative importance of the human resource quality character-

istics for the process.

3.4) Non-Human Resources quality dimension

A list of possible quality characteristics for the non-human resource quality

dimension was presented in Section 4.3.2.4. As mentioned in Section 4.3.2.4,

these quality characteristics can be relevant for a resource, but not all are

applicable for every resource. For example, safety is not necessarily an ap-

plicable quality characteristic for the payment processing system used as a

resource for the process payment function of the invoice payment process.

This list of characteristics will help the key stakeholders identify quality

characteristics of particular non-human resources of an individual process.

Accordingly, the aim of the workshop at this stage is to assist the key

stakeholders to select the applicable quality characteristics for non-human

resources required for functions of the selected business process.

146 5

To make the QoBP framework more flexible and practical in the com-

mercial world where projects are constrained by budget and time, the ap-

proaches for the function dimension are also applicable to the non-human

resource dimension.

Three non-human-resource-quality matrix templates are provided to cap-

ture the quality characteristics for the non-human resources of the business

process. These three matrices will provide a mechanism to highlight the

relative importance of the different quality characteristics for non-human

resources of the process. In each of these matrices each row represents a

non-human resource for a function of the process and the columns repre-

sent the quality characteristics of the non-human resource dimension. The

cells of the matrix therefore represent a unique non-human resource/quality

characteristic combination and a value can be applied to score or rate the

function/quality characteristic combination.



each function.





Non-human resource dimension quality

characteristics

Functions of


(RFP) process

Function Non-Human Resource Suitability Accuracy Security Reliability Understandability Learnability Time behaviou

r efficiency Resource utilisation Effectiveness Productivity Safety Satisfaction Robustness Total

… 0Formulate a solution UML Tool Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10Estimate Estimation Tool Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11… 0Formulate RFP response Project Management Tool Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12… 0000000Total 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3“Y“ indicates that accuracy is a desired quality characteristic for

“Estimation Tool”

“Project Management Tool”

with the highest total plays an

important role in the quality of the

RFP process

Fig. 5.7. Non-Human Resource Quality Dimension (captured as yes or no)

Figure 5.7 presents the template for the first rating method. The first

rating method uses a boolean value (Yes/No) to specify whether a quality

characteristic is important for a non-human resource. Once a value has been

determined for each non-human resource/quality characteristic combination


then a count of the ’Yes’ values in each column and row is performed. The

count for each row provides a rating of the relative importance of quality

to the various non-human resources within the process. The count for each

column indicates the relative importance of the quality characteristics for

the process.

Functions of


(RFP) process


characteristics



Function Non-Human Resource Suitability Accuracy Security Reliability Understandability Learnability Time behaviou

r efficiency Resource utilisation Effectiveness Productivity Safety Satisfaction Robustness…Formulate a solution UML Tool 3 1 2Estimate Estimation Tool 1 3 2…Formulate RFP response Project Management Tool 3 2…

Total 7 3 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

“3“ indicates that “accuracy” is the most important quality

characteristic for the “Estimate Tool”

“1“ indicates that “suitability” is the third most important quality characteristic for the “Estimation

Tool”

Rating Process:For each resource select the top 3 relevant quality

characteristics

“Suitability” with the highest total, is the most important quality

characteristic for the RFP process

Fig. 5.8. Non-Human Resource Quality Dimension (by rows - quality characteristics)

Figure 5.8 presents the template for the second rating method. The sec-

ond rating method uses an approach whereby each non-human resource is

evaluated to determine the top 3 quality characteristics7 that are important

to that function. These are then ranked and a value of 3 is applied to the

most important quality characteristic, a value of 2 is applied for the second

most important quality characteristic and a value of 1 is applied to the third

most important quality characteristic. After this process has been performed

for each of the non-human resources within the process the sum of the values

for each of the quality characteristics is totaled. This provides a rating of

7 This matrix is introduced to allow the business to choose the top 3 most important character-istics for a non-human resource. Depending on the time and resource constraints, the businessstakeholders can determine the number of characteristics to select for each non-human re-source.

148 5

the relative importance of each of the quality characteristics for the process.

Functions of


(RFP) process



each resource.

“1“ indicates that for “suitability”, “Project

Management Tool” is the third most relevant resource

“3“ indicates that for “suitability”, “UML Tool” is the most relevant

resource


characteristics

Function Non-Human Resource Suitability Accuracy Security Reliability Understandability Learnability Time behaviour

efficiency Resource utilisation Effectiveness Productivity Safety Satisfaction Robustness Total

… 3 3Formulate a solution UML Tool 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 21Estimate Estimation Tool 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 21… 2 2Formulate RFP response Project Management Tool 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 24… 1 1

Ratin

g P

r oc ess :

Fo

r e ach ch

ara cte risti c s ele ct t he

t op

3 rel eva nt res o

urce

“Project Management Tool”

with the highest total plays an

important role in the quality of the

RFP process

Fig. 5.9. Non-Human Resource Quality Dimension (by columns - quality characteristics)

Figure 5.9 presents the template for the third rating method. The third

rating method uses an approach whereby each non-human resource charac-

teristic is evaluated to determine the top 3 non-human resources that are

important to that quality characteristic. These are then ranked and a value

of 3 is applied to the most important non-human resource, a value of 2 is

applied for the second most important non-human resource and a value of

1 is applied to the third most important non-human resource. After this

process has been performed for each of the quality characteristics the sum

of the values for each of the non-human resources is totaled. This provides

a rating of the relative importance of quality to each of the non-human re-

sources for the process.

5.3.4.1.4 Step 4 - Create a Softgoal Model

The objective of this step is to create a softgoal model for the quality char-

acteristics modelled in the quality model created in the previous step.


As described in Section 4.4.2, the quality characteristics in the QoBP

framework may be subjective, implicit, context-specific and imprecise8.

Therefore, to evaluate quality characteristics, they are need to be further

refined into a set of softgoals.

Accordingly, the researcher will organise a series of workshops to specify

softgoals for the quality characteristics identified during the previous step.

The researcher will use the softgoal specification recommended in Section

4.4.2. It is envisaged that 4 workshops of 4 hours each will be required to

complete this step.

Function Quality Characteristic Softgoal…Formulate a solution Suitability To increase the suitability of the ''formulate solution" Estimate Accuracy To increase the accuracy of "estimate"… … …Formulate RFP response Reliability To increase the reliability of "formulate RFP response"… … …

A function of the RFP process

The quality characteristic selected for “Formulate a

solution” function

The softgoal specified for the suitability

characteristic

Fig. 5.10. Function Softgoals Template

Four templates are provided to create the softgoal model for the selected

business process. Figure 5.10 presents the first template which will be used

to capture softgoals for quality characteristics identified for the functions of

the selected process. With each row in the table representing a softgoal for

a function quality characteristic of the selected business process.

Figure 5.11 presents the second template which will be used to capture

softgoals for quality characteristics identified for the inputs and outputs of

8 Refer to Section 4.4.1 for further details on subjectivity, implicity, context- specificity, andimpreciseness of quality characteristics.

150 5

Function Input/Output Quality Characteristic Softgoal… … …Formulate a solution RFP Relevancy To increase the relevancy of the "RFP"Formulate a solution Solution Completeness To increase the completeness of the "solution"Estimate Estimate Accuracy To increase the accuracy of "estimate"… … … …Formulate RFP response RFP Response Reputable To increase the reputability of the "RFP response"… … …


The quality characteristic selected for “RFP” input

The softgoal specified for the relevancy

characteristic

An input to the “formulate a solution”

function

Fig. 5.11. Input & Output Softgoals Template

the selected process. Each row in the table represents a softgoal for an input

or output quality characteristic of a function of the selected business process.

Function Human Resource Quality Characteristic Softgoal… … …Formulate a solution Software Engineer Qualification To enforce the qualification of the "Software Engineer"Estimate Software Engineer Qualification To enforce the qualification of the "Software Engineer"… … …Formulate RFP response Software Engineer Certification To enforce the certification of the "Software Engineer"… … …


The quality characteristic selected for the “Software

Engineer”

The softgoal specified for the qualification

characteristic

A human resource for the “formulate a

solution” function

Fig. 5.12. Human Resource Softgoals Template

Figure 5.12 presents the third template which will be used to capture

softgoals for quality characteristics identified for the human resources of the

selected process. Each row in the table represents a softgoal for a human

resource quality characteristic of a function of the selected business process.

Figure 5.13 presents the fourth template which will be used to capture

softgoals for quality characteristics identified for the non-human resources

of the selected process. Each row in the table represents a softgoal for a non-

human resource quality characteristic of a function of the selected business


Function Non-Human Resource Quality Characteristic Softgoal… … … …

Formulate a solution UML Tool Suitability To increase the suitability of the "UML Tool"Estimate Estimation Tool Accuracy To increase the suitability of the "Estimation Tool"… … … …Formulate RFP response Project Management Tool Reliability To improve the reliability of the "Project

Management Tool"… … … …


The quality characteristic selected for the “UML

Tool”

The softgoal specified for the suitability

characteristic

A non-human resource for the “formulate a solution” function

Fig. 5.13. Non-Human Resource Softgoals Template

process.

5.3.4.1.5 Step 5 - Create a Softgoal Correlation Model

The purpose of this step is to identify the correlations between the softgoals

identified during the last step9.

As described in the sections 4.4.3, the softgoal correlation model will be

used to conduct root cause analysis of quality issues in a business process.

The researcher will create the softgoal correlation model based on the algo-

rithm proposed in the Section 4.4.6.510.

Figure 5.14 presents the template that will be used by the researcher to

capture the softgoal correlation model. This template simply presents the

relationship between functions of a business process based on the softgoal

correlations. As shown in figure 5.14 the template lists the data inputs for

each function. For each of these data inputs a link is established to the

earlier functions that have output this data and the softgoals of this earlier

function are then mapped to the later function.

9 Refer to Section 4.4.6.5 for further details on how to create a softgoal correlation model.10 The researcher can perform this task without any contribution from the host organisation.

152 5

Function Input Linked Function Correlated SoftgoalFormulate RFP response Estimate Estimate To ensure the function produces accurate resultsFormulate RFP response Estimate Estimate To ensure the function is not susceptible to failure… … … …Estimate Solution Formulate a solution To ensure the formulated solution is adequate with respect to the specified objectives… … … ..

`Èstimate’’ function is linked to “formulate RFP response” via its output

“Estimate”

Softgoal identified for `Èstimate`` function

`Èstimate” is an input to the “formulate RFP response” function

Fig. 5.14. Softgoals Correlation Template

5.3.4.1.6 Step 6 - Create a Measurement Model

The purpose of this step is to create a model which contains metrics re-

quired to measure softgoal satisfaction.

This step is the last step of the goal-oriented approach to transform the

subjective quality characteristics into a set of measurable, objective quality

metrics. As described in Section 4.4.6.6, the Goal-Question-Metric (GQM)

approach by [147] is adapted to identify the quality metrics for softgoals

identified during the previous step. Accordingly, the researcher will organ-

ise a series of workshops to identify metrics using the Goal-Question-Metric

(GQM) approach11. It is envisaged that up to 4 workshops of 4 hours each

is required to complete this step.

Four templates are provided to create the measurement model for the

selected business process. Figure 5.16 presents the first template which is

used to capture quality metrics and their relevant threshold values for the

softgoals identified for the functions of the selected process. Each row in the

table presents a metric for a softgoal of a function of the selected business

process.

Figure 5.16 presents the second template which is used to capture quality

metrics and their relevant threshold values for the softgoals identified for the

inputs and outputs of the selected process. Each row in the table presents a

11 Refer to Section 4.4.6.6 for further details GQM approach adapted for this step.


Function Quality Characteristic Softgoal Metric Threshold Value… …Formulate a solution Suitability To increase the suitability of the ''formulate solution" SubjectiveEstimate Accuracy To increase the accuracy of "estimate" Subjective… … … …Formulate RFP response Reliability To increase the reliability of "formulate RFP response" Required Uptime 10 hours … … … …A function of the

RFP process

The quality characteristic selected for “Formulate RFP response” function

The metric for the specified softgoal

The softgoal specified for the reliability

characteristic

The threshold value for the

specified metric

Fig. 5.15. Function Measurement Model Template


The output from the “formulate RFP response”

function


The softgoal specified for the reputable

characteristic


specified metric

Function Input/Output Quality Characteristic Softgoal Metric Threshold Value… … … … … …Formulate a solution RFP Relevancy To increase the relevancy of the "RFP" Source of data Prospect ClientFormulate a solution Solution Completeness To increase the completeness of the "solution" Sections of Solution Document 100%Estimate Estimate Accuracy To increase the accuracy of "estimate" Estimation method Estimation Tool… … … … … …Formulate RFP response RFP Response Reputable To increase the reputability of the "RFP response" Source of data Project Management Tool… … … … … …

Fig. 5.16. Input & Output Measurement Template

softgoal for an input or output softgoal of a function of the selected business

process.

Function Human Resource Quality Characteristic Softgoal Metric Threshold Value… … … … … …Formulate a solution Solution Architect Qualification To ensure the resource has necessary qualification to perform the task Degree ITEstimate Solution Architect Qualification To ensure the resource is certified to perform the task Degree IT… … … … …Formulate RFP response Project Manager Certification To ensure the resource is certified to perform the task Certification PRINCE II… … … … … …A function of the

RFP process

The resource for the “formulate RFP response”

function


The softgoal specified for the certification

characteristic


specified metric

Fig. 5.17. Human Resource Measurement Template

Figure 5.17 presents the third template which is used to capture quality

metrics and their relevant threshold values for the softgoals identified for

154 5

the the human resources of the selected process. Each row in the table

presents a metric for a softgoal for a human resource quality characteristic

of a function of the selected business process.

Function Non-Human Resource Quality Characteristic Softgoal Metric Threshold Value… … … … … …Formulate a solution UML Tool Suitability To increase the suitability of the "UML Tool" Supported UML diagrams Use case, Sequence diagramEstimate Estimation Tool Accuracy To increase the suitability of the "Estimation Tool" Subjective… … … … … …Formulate RFP response Project Management Tool Reliability To improve the reliability of the "Project Management Tool" Required Uptime 10 hours… … … …A function of the

RFP process

The non-human resource for the “formulate RFP

response” function


The softgoal specified for the reliability

characteristic


specified metric

Fig. 5.18. Non-Human Resource Measurement Template

Figure 5.13 presents the fourth template which is used to capture quality

metrics and their relevant threshold values for the softgoals identified for

the the non-human resources of the selected process. Each row in the table

presents a metric for a softgoal for a non-human resource quality character-

istic of a function of the selected business process.

5.3.4.2 Action Taking Stage - Phase II

The purpose of this stage is to perform the activities identified for phase II

of the action taking stage.

As described in Section 5.3.3, the action plan for phase II is based on the

PRCA technique presented in Section 4.5.2. This section complements the

PRCA methodology by providing some guidelines on how to perform each

procedural step of the PRCA technique. The PRCA technique proposed by

this research provides a step-by-step procedure to identify the root causes of

a quality issue for an instance of a process. In order to trace a quality issue

back to its root causes for an instance of a business process, the correlations

between softgoals that are modelled in a softgoal correlation model for the

process12 are used.

12 Refer to Section 4.4.3 for further details on the softgoal correlation model.


Softgoal Metric Value SatisfiedTo improve the accuracy of the estimate etsimation duration 10 hours YesTo improve the experience of the Software Engineer software engineer eperience 1 year No… … … …

The softgoal being evaluated

The metric that is defined to measure softgoal satisfaction

The software engineer who was responsible for

estimation has only 1 year of estimation experience

This softgoal is not satisfied because the

threshold value for this metric was “>2 years”

Fig. 5.19. Process Root Cause Analysis (PRCA) Template

The researcher will organise a series of workshops to conduct root cause

analysis for the quality issue that is being investigated. A step-by-step pro-

cedures provided by the PRCA technique (presented in Section 4.5.2) will

be followed. The researcher will invite the appropriate participants for each

workshop based on the information/data that is required to be gathered.

Figure 5.19 presents a template that is provided to record the results of the

investigation as instructed in the third step of the PRCA technique13. Each

row in the template presents the value of a metric for a traced softgoal that

is being evaluated and the results of that evaluation; i.e. whether the metric

has met the defined threshold value to satisfy the softgoal. It is envisaged

that up to 4 workshops of 2 hours each is required to complete this step.

5.3.5 Evaluation

The purpose of this stage is to evaluate the consequences of the actions

taken in the previous stage.

As discussed in Section 3.6, the usability, usefulness, and scalability of

the artifacts designed during the design science phase of this study will

be evaluated by conducting action research14. To ensure the rigor of the

evaluation phase of this study15, a set of evaluation objectives are developed

and presented in this section. These objectives, with respect to the artifacts

developed during the design phase of this study, are:

13 The third step is to evaluate the traced softgoal and record the results (see Section 4.5.2).14 Refer to guideline 3 - design evaluation [2] described in Section 3.6.15 Refer to guideline 5 - research rigor [2] described in Section 3.6.

156 5

• Quality model:

– Evaluate the applicability of the quality characteristics defined for

four quality dimensions (function quality dimension, input & output

quality dimension, human resource quality dimension, and non-human

resource quality dimension). The quality model for a business process

which consists of the quality characteristics for the four quality dimen-

sions of the business process was presented in Section 4.3.2.1. Whilst

the quality characteristics defined for the four dimensions of a busi-

ness process were built based on the quality models in related areas16,

the applicability of the quality characteristics to the business process

dimensions needs to be evaluated during this stage. Accordingly, the

evaluation objective here is to confirm the relevance and appropriate-

ness of each quality characteristic with respect to its quality dimen-

sion. For example, evaluate if reputability is relevant or appropriate

for the the input & output quality dimension.

– Evaluate the usability and scalability of the QoBP methodology and

templates to identify and capture the quality characteristics for four

quality dimensions of the selected business process. This evaluation

objective ensures that the QoBP methodology (Section 4.4.6.3) and

the supporting templates (Section 5.3.4.1.3) scale well and are usable

for large business processes where a large number of functions, data

(inputs & outputs) and resources (human & non-human resources are

involved.

• Softgoal model:

– Evaluate the applicability of the softgoal model of the QoBP frame-

work. The objective of this evaluation is to ensure that the goal-

oriented approach adopted in this research is a relevant and appro-

priate approach in coping with the abstract and informal nature of

non-functional requirements in the form of quality characteristics.

16 Refer to Section 4.3.1 for further details on how the quality characteristics defined for eachquality dimension of the business process is built on the quality models in relevant areas.


– Evaluate the usability of the softgoal model of the QoBP framework

in refining abstract and informal quality characteristics. This evalu-

ation objective ensures that the quality characteristics of a business

process (the quality model of a business process) are represented and

reasoned about by softgoals defined in a softgoal model.

– Evaluate the practicality and scalability of the QoBP methodology

and the templates to identify and capture softgoals for the identified

quality characteristics for the selected business process. This evalua-

tion objective ensures the QoBP methodology (Section 4.4.6.4) and

the supporting templates (Section 5.3.4.1.4) scale well and are practi-

cal for large business processes where large number of functions, data

(inputs & outputs) and resources (human & non-human resources are

involved.

• Softgoal correlation model:

– Evaluate the practicality and scalability of the QoBP methodology

and the templates to capture the correlations between identified soft-

goals. This evaluation objective ensures that the QoBP methodology

(Section 4.4.6.5) and the supporting templates (Section 5.3.4.1.5) scale

well and are practical for a large business processes where large num-

ber of functions, data (inputs & outputs) and resources (human &

non-human resources) are involved.

• Measurement model:

– Evaluate the practicality and scalability of the QoBP methodology,

and the templates to identify and capture quality metrics for the

identified softgoals. This evaluation objective ensures that the QoBP

methodology (proposed in Section 4.4.6.6) and the supporting tem-

plates (Section 5.3.4.1.6) scale well and are practical for large business

processes where a large number of functions, data (inputs & outputs)

and resources (human & non-human resources) are involved.

158 5

• QoBP Metamodel:

– Evaluate the validity of the QoBP metamodel (Section 4.4.5.2) in

producing a quality-aware business process. As described in Sec-

tion 4.4.5.2, the QoBP metamodel is an extension to the EPC meta-

model that introduces additional concepts to capture those entities

relevant to the quality of a business process. This evaluation objec-

tive ensures that the QoBP metamodel captures the necessary entities

to produce a quality-aware business process.

• PRCA Technique:

– Evaluate the comprehensiveness of the PRCA approach by evaluating

whether the PRCA approach provides the investigators with the abil-

ity to identify the sequence of events leading to a cause of a quality

issue.

– Evaluate the context-awareness of the PRCA approach by evaluating

whether the PRCA approach provides the investigators with the con-

text required to conduct corrective actions.

– Evaluate whether the PRCA approach provides a systematic method-

ology that provides a step-by-step and consistent approach to conduct

an investigation.

– Evaluate whether the PRCA approach is easy to learn and is easy to

use.

The researcher will organise a series of workshops with key participants

to thoroughly evaluate the outcome of the action research based on the

above objectives. The researcher will use the questionnaire provided in Ap-

pendix B.5 to guide the evaluation process. This questionnaire is created

based on the above objectives. It is envisaged that up to 4 workshops of 4

hours each is required to complete this step.

5.4 Action Research Cycle Report Structure 159

5.3.6 Specifying Learning

The purpose of this step is to identify the lessons learned during the action

research cycle. The evaluation results produced during the last stage will as-

sist the discovery of the lessons learned. During this stage, the researcher will

organise a series of workshops with key stakeholders to reflect on the evalu-

ation results. The lessons learned and possible enhancements to the QoBP

framework and PRCA technique will be identified during these workshops.

The enhancement opportunities identified for artifacts being evaluated will

be used to enhance the relevant artifacts. It is envisaged that up to 2 work-

shops of 4 hours each is required to complete this step.

5.3.7 Closure

During this last stage of the action research, the researcher will organise an

informal meeting to express her appreciation to the key stakeholders con-

tributing to this collaborative project.

5.4 Action Research Cycle Report Structure

Each action research cycle will yield an individual report which is presented

in the next three chapters of this thesis. Each report contains:

• A short description about the host organisation

• The justification for choice of the organisation

• An outline of the action research cycle

• An outline of the reflection on the action research cycle and the subse-

quent re-design

• A summary of the action research cycle

160 5

Extra documentation, and notes from the meetings and workshops for

each case are presented in the relevant Appendix.

5.5 Summary

This chapter contributes to the quality and rigor of the action research be-

ing conducted as part of this study by providing a comprehensive action

research protocol. The criteria for selecting a host organisation for the ac-

tion research was presented in Section 5.2. The action research plan which

is based on the procedural steps of QoBP methodology proposed in Sec-

tion 4.4.6 was presented in Section 5.3. The guidelines for the procedures

related to organisation visits and templates to use during the various ac-

tivities were also presented in Section 5.3. The format for presenting the

outcome of each action research cycle was presented in Section 5.4.

The rest of this thesis presents three reports outlining the three action

research cycles conducted in Organisation A, Organisation B, and Organi-

sation C. Chapter 6 presents a report on the first cycle of the action research

that was conducted in Organisation A. The main purpose of the first cycle

was to evaluate the QoBP framework, in particular the quality dimensions

of a business process (quality of functions, quality of inputs&outputs, qual-

ity of human resources, and quality of non-human resources17) in a large

scale project. The lessons learned during this first cycle were used to refine

the framework at the end of the cycle. Chapter 7 presents a report on the

second cycle of the action research which took place in Organisation B with

the aim to evaluate the refined QoBP framework. The lessons learned dur-

ing this cycle again were used to improve the QoBP framework. Chapter 8

presents a report on the third cycle of the action research which took place

in Organisation C to evaluate the refined version of the QoBP framework,

as well the PRCA technique proposed in Section 4.5.2.

17 Refer to Section 4.3.2 for further details on the quality dimensions.

6

First Action Research Cycle

6.1 Introduction

This chapter is a report on the first action research cycle conducted in a

large Australian organisation in the financial sector - Organisation A. As

discussed in Chapter 3, the applicability, usability, usefulness, and scalabil-

ity of the artifacts designed during the design science phase of this study

will be evaluated by conducting action research. Combining a design-based

research approach with an action research methodology is a useful way to

create business knowledge that is both relevant (for both practice and the-

ory) and rigorous [32] (see Section 3.2). As outlined in Section 3.5, three ac-

tion research cycles have been conducted within three large organisations to

evaluate the artifacts that were developed during the design science phase

of this research (these artifacts were presented in Chapter 4). The arti-

facts that were evaluated in the first action research cycle are: the QoBP

framework (Sections 4.3, 4.4.5.2, and 4.4.5.2), the QoBP metamodel (Sec-

tion 4.4.5.2), and the QoBP methodology (Section 4.4.6). In particular, the

aim was to evaluate these artifacts in a reasonably large scale project with

a complex business process.

The action research conducted in Organisation A was based on the key

principles of action research as presented in Chapter 3, and the action re-

search protocol presented in the previous chapter (Chapter 5). The data

captured and the models built during this cycle are presented either in the

relevant sections of this chapter or Appendix C.

162 6

Section 6.2 presents a short description of Organisation A, followed by

Section 6.3 which describes the justification for choosing Organisation A

as the host for the first cycle of the action research. A summary of the

action research cycle stages in Organisation A is presented in Section 6.4.

A reflection on the lessons learned from the first action research cycle and

the enhancements made to the framework as a result were presented in

Section 6.5.

6.2 Description of the Organisation

Organisation A, a publicly listed company, is one of the Australia’s top

20 companies and a leader in banking, insurance, investment and superan-

nuation with a focus on retail customers and small to medium businesses.

Corporation A’s market capitalisation is more than $14 billion and is owned

by more than 300,000 shareholders. The current corporations assets are $98

billion and has more than 7 million customers.

The corporation provides a range of banking and insurance products di-

rectly to customers through an extensive branch and agency network, call

centre operations, on-line facilities, and through intermediaries and corpo-

rate partners. The corporation’s insurance division provides personal insur-

ance products such as home and contents and personal effects cover, motor

and boat, compulsory third party insurance, workers compensation and a

range of commercial insurance products suitable to the small to medium

business market. The corporation’s banking division consists of two sub-

divisions of retail and business banking. The corporation’s investment man-

agement division is responsible for the wholesale investment management

activities of the corporation. Organisation A has a well established Business

Process Management (BPM) division which is led by the Business Process

Manager who is expert in the area. A large number of business processes

(several thousands) have been modelled by this division.

The justification for choosing Organisation A as the host for the first

cycle of the action research is presented in the next section.

6.3 163

6.3 Justifications for the Choice of the Organisation

This section presents the justification for choosing Organisation A as the

host for the first cycle of the action research. As outlined in Section 5.2,

to gain maximum benefit from the action research phase, certain criteria

for the selection of an appropriate host organisation must be met. The

selection criteria that were provided in Section 5.2 were used to evaluate if

Organisation A is an appropriate organisation to host the first cycle of the

action research. After the initial contact with Organisation A and discussing

the purpose of the engagement, it was clear that Organisation A was an

appropriate candidate for hosting the first cycle of the action research. This

organisation was chosen to participate in the first cycle of the action research

for the following reasons:

• Criterion 1 - It was important for the organisation to have an apprecia-

tion for BPM and commitment to BPM principles and practices. Organ-

isation A is a large organisation, with a division dedicated to Business

Process Management. The BPM division within Organisation A has a

well established business process framework, supporting tools and stan-

dards. The BPM division within Organisation A is led by the Business

Process Manager who is extremely knowledgable in the area and he ac-

tively contributes to the BPM community of Australia. A variety of dif-

ferent business processes which could benefit from the QoBP framework

were available to choose from. It was important to be able to choose a

reasonably large business process for this cycle of the action research.

• Criterion 2 - It was important for the organisation to have an appre-

ciation for research in the area and preferably a prior relationship with

the BPM research center within Queensland University of Technology.

The Business Process Manager who leads the BPM division has been

involved with other collaborative works with the QUT BPM center and

is very well aware of the QUT BPM center research activities, rules and

regulations.

• Criterion 3 - It was important for the organisation to have an ap-

preciation for quality aware BPM and be keen to introduce the quality

164 6

framework proposed by this thesis to their BPM practice. The key stake-

holders were interested in the research. They acknowledged the limitation

of the BPM framework being practiced by the organisation in supporting

quality-aware business processes. Therefore, they were very keen to par-

ticipate in this action research and take part in exploring the proposed

QoBP framework and were familiar with collaborative projects of this

nature involving Queensland University of Technology.

• Criterion 4 - Organisation A was located in close proximity which made

accessibility to its resources and people easier to the researcher.

Next section presents a summary of the different stages of the action

research cycle in Organisation A.

6.4 Action Research Cycle

This section presents a detailed report on the action research cycle within

Organisation A. The action research cycle was conducted according to the

action research plan provided in Section 5.3 which consists of seven stages:

initial meeting, diagnosis, action planning, action taking, evaluating, speci-

fying learning, and closure. The action research conducted in Organisation

A was a formal collaborative project where the Business Process Manager

(the practice lead of the BPM division) was the key stakeholder and main

industry advisor.

The researcher closely followed the action research plan presented in

Section 5.3. An outline of the different stages of the action research cycle

in Organisation A is presented in the following sub-sections. Section 6.4.1

presents a summary of the initial meeting with the key stakeholders of Or-

ganisation A. An outline of the outcome of the diagnosis stage is presented

in Section 6.4.2. Section 6.4.3 presents a summary of the action planning

stage with the key stakeholders of Organisation A. A detailed outline of the

activities performed during the action taking stage is presented in Section

6.4.4. Section 6.4.5 presents the details on the evaluation stage of the ac-

6.4 165

tion research cycle as well as the outcome of this evaluation. An outline of

the lessons learned during this action research cycle is presented in Section

6.4.6. A briefing of the last stage of the cycle is presented in Section 6.4.7.

6.4.1 Initial Meeting

This section presents a short summary of the first stage of the cycle which is

the initial meeting with the key stakeholders in Organisation A. During this

stage, the researcher organised a meeting with the Business Process Man-

ager (the key stakeholder in Organisation A) to discuss this collaborative

opportunity in detail. A summary of the research topic and action research

approach was sent to the invitees prior to the meeting1. During the initial

meeting the researcher briefly described the QoBP framework proposed by

this thesis, the action research methodology in general, and the action re-

search protocol for this specific collaboration. By the end of the session, the

Business Process Manager was aware of the engagement plan during the cy-

cle and the commitment required through the whole life cycle of the project.

Next section presents a brief summary of the next stage of the action

research cycle - diagnosis.

6.4.2 Diagnosis

The purpose of this phase was to identify a business process that will ben-

efit from the QoBP framework. During this stage, as guided by the action

research protocol presented in Section 5.3.2, the researcher conducted two

informal meetings with the Business Process Manager. During these meet-

ings the researcher described the purpose of the diagnosis phase of the action

research cycle. In order to identify a candidate process, the researcher de-

scribed how the host organisation will benefit from introducing the QoBP

framework to their BPM practice.

The Business Process Manager proposed a project that was underway

and could be of benefit to this action research. The project was initiated as


166 6

part of the organisation’s engagement in a merger with an insurance com-

pany. Financial organisations are increasingly experiencing the need for im-

proving efficiency and quality of their processes to enhance customer experi-

ence. In this context, a major project was underway to identify improvement

opportunities for the motor vehicle insurance claim process, specifically in

conformance with the existing claim processes. The scope of this specific

project was limited to the first two phases of the BPM life cycle, analy-

sis and design2 for the claim intake process of the motor vehicle insurance

process. Accordingly, an in-depth understanding of the detailed process re-

quirements was needed during the analysis stage, followed by engineering

the overall process structure (identification and modelling of the functions,

inputs & outputs, human and non-human resources of the process) based

on the requirements from the analysis phase. The expected deliverable of

this project was a business process model for the claim intake process.

From the initial descriptions that were received3, this project was a suit-

able case for the first cycle of the action research. The complexity and size of

the process, in terms of functions, inputs-outputs, and resources, promised

a substantial amount of data collection. This was necessary for the proper

evaluation of the QoBP framework, specifically the quality dimensions of

the process and the practicality of the supporting methodology. The Busi-

ness Process Manager was also very keen to improve the quality of the claim

intake process. Incorporating the QoBP framework proposed by this study

to produce a quality-aware claim intake process model was very promising.

The following section presents the next stage of the action research cy-

cle which is concerned with the planning of activities required to create a

quality-aware claim intake process.

6.4.3 Action Planning

The purpose of this phase was to define the activities required to create

a quality-aware claim intake process using the QoBP framework. The re-

2 Refer to Section 2.2.3 for detailed description on analysis and design phases of the BPM lifecycle.

3 Refer to Section 6.4.4.1 for the claim intake process description.

6.4 167

searcher conducted an informal meeting with the Business Process Manager

to describe the QoBP methodology (Section 4.4.6) and the activity plan that

was based on the procedural steps of this methodology. Ph ase Sub-A ctivity Engagem ent Type D uration A ction Research Cycle – A ction Taking A nalyse the Process W orkshop 4 hou rs Create Business Process M odel W orkshop 16 ho urs Create Q uality M o del W orkshop 16 ho urs Create Softgoal M o del W orkshop 16 ho urs Create Correlatio ns M o del N one 4 hou rs Create M easurem ent M o del W orkshop 8 hou rs Prepare Pro ject Rep ort N one 40 ho urs

Fig. 6.1. Plan for the Action Taking Phase

Figure 6.1 presents an outline of the activity plan scheduled for the next

stage of the action research cycle - action taking. An outline of the next

stage of the action research cycle in Organisation A is presented below.

6.4.4 Action Taking

The purpose of this stage was to perform the activities identified during the

action planning stage. The researcher organised a series of workshops with

the key stakeholders according to the action plan. The researcher followed

168 6

the action research protocol, presented in the previous chapter, for each

workshop during this stage.

An outline of the activities performed during this stage is presented in

this section in the following order. Section 6.4.4.1 presents an outline of

the first step in which the requirements for the claim intake process were

analysed. Section 6.4.4.2 presents the claim intake business process model

created during the second step. The quality model created for the claim

intake process during the third step is presented in Section 6.4.4.3. Section

6.4.4.4 presents the softgoal model for the claim intake process which was

created during the fourth step. The correlation model for the claim intake

process created during the fifth step is presented in Section 6.4.4.5. Finally,

Section 6.4.4.6 presents the measurement model for the claim intake process

created in the last step of the action taking phase.

6.4.4.1 Step 1 - Analyse the Business Process

The purpose of the first step was to analyse the claim intake process goals,

the claim intake process environment, the organisation structure, and the

claim intake process quality requirements. For this step, the researcher or-

ganised a workshop with the Business Process Manager and claim intake

process Subject Matter Experts (the key stakeholders) following the proce-

dures and guidelines provided by the action research protocol presented in

Chapter 5.

During the workshop, the functional and quality (non-functional) re-

quirements of the claim intake process were elicited, taking account of the

organisation’s strategy, goals and structure. The researcher used the tech-

niques and guidelines described in Section 5.3.4.1.1 to elicit these require-

ments. The deliverable of this phase was the functional and quality (non-

functional) requirements description of the claim intake process. A brief

overview of this description is presented below, followed by a summary of

the quality requirements for the claim intake process.

6.4 169

6.4.4.1.1 Overview of the Claim Intake Process

The claim intake process is the process of lodging a car insurance claim by

a customer involved in a motor incident. A customer initiates the process

by calling the claim center and requesting to lodge a claim. It is crucial for

a customer to provide necessary information to be identified as the autho-

rised person to lodge the claim. A customer usually can be authenticated by

providing details such as name, address, date of birth and policy number.

After customer authentication, the customer is asked to provide details of

the incident and the loss she is lodging a claim for. At this stage, the claim

is lodged and further assessments are required to ensure the validity of the

claim. The incident needs to be validated against the customer motor vehi-

cle insurance policy to insure the incident event is covered under the policy.

The liability also needs to be assessed against the information provided.

After completion of the assessment, details of the third party and their in-

volvement are captured. The excess is then assessed based on the customer’s

policy. After assessing the excess, the assessment of the vehicle repair path

starts based on the gathered information such as whether the vehicle is

drivable, product information, towing arrangements etc. The next step in-

volves an assessment of additional benefits within the policy limit such as

hire car or emergency repairs. At this stage, information about the process,

based on the collected information, is communicated to the customer. The

claim intake process is finalised by determining the claim ownership and an

indication of how to proceed with the claim.

It was important for Organisation A to provide a seamless, end to end

claims experience with structured information collection and management.

The summary of the quality requirements elicited during this stage are as

follows:

• Consistency and acceptable response time to calls,

• Rapid identification of the policy,

• Accurate validation of the policy and customer details,

170 6

• Efficient and effective collection of information,

• Value the customer,

• Understanding the customer,

• Ease of understandability of the claim intake process to customer,

• High availability of the claim intake process for customer, and

• A reliable claim intake process;

Having gathered and documented the functional and quality require-

ments of the claim intake process, the next step was to start the design

phase and model the claim intake process based on the functional require-

ments defined above. This step is presented in the following section.

6.4.4.2 Step 2 - Create Business Process Model

The purpose of this step was to model the claim intake process using a busi-

ness process modelling language4. As described in Section 5.3.4.1.2, during

this step the researcher conducted three workshops with the Business Pro-

cess Manager and claim intake process Subject Matter Experts to model

the overall structure of the claim intake process based on the functional

requirements defined in the previous step. During the workshops, the re-

searcher followed the methodology and guidelines provided by the action

research protocol, presented in Section 5.3.4.1.2, to identify: (1) activities

of the claim intake process, (2) specification of human resources involved

with activities and their role within the organisation, (3) specification of

non-human resources (such as computer systems, printers, projectors etc)

required for the activities, and (4) the specification of data & information

associated with the activities. The deliverable of this step was an EPC

model for the claim intake process which is presented in figure 6.25. EPC

4 Refer to the QoBP methodology presented in Section 4.4.6 for further details on this step.5 The researcher was playing a more passive role during these workshops and her role wasjust to ensure that four dimensions of the claim intake process (functions, inputs & outputs,

6.4 171

was chosen because it was the preferred business process notation of the

participating organisation.

The claim intake process consists of 12 functions (see Figure 6.2). The

claim intake process starts with obtaining policy details including policy

number, validating the caller by retrieving policy details, and checking

whether she is authorised to lodge a claim (obtain policy details and val-

idate caller is authorised to lodge function). Once the caller is validated,

the policy needs to be checked to match the details of the vehicle involved

in the accident (validate policy function). After that, the incident and loss

details are captured (capture incident details). The next step is to validate

if the incident event is covered under the policy (validate incident coverage

function). The liability also needs to be assessed against the information

provided (assess liability function). Upon assessment of the liability, details

and involvement of the third party are captured (capture loss & TP details

function). Then excess is assessed (assess excess function). After assess-

ing the excess, the assessment of the vehicle repair path starts based on

gathered information such as whether the vehicle is drivable, product infor-

mation, towing arrangement etc (assess pathing function). The next step

involves an assessment of additional benefits within the policy limit such

as hire car or emergency repairs (action hire car and towing as appropri-

ate function). Next step is then to add appropriate authorised parties (add

authorised parties function). The information about the process, based on

the collected information, is then communicated to the customer (inform

customer of next steps function). The final step of the claim intake process

is to determine the claim ownership and an indication of how to proceed

with the claim (finalise claim intake function).

Having modelled the claim intake process, the next step was to define a

quality model for the process which is presented in the following section.

human resources and non-human resources) were modelled. The Business Process Managerwas more actively involved in the modelling exercise using their established framework (asmentioned in Section 4.4.6.2, the QoBP framework proposed in this research is not bound toany specific business process modelling methodology or notation).

172 6

New claim is logged

Obtain policy details and

validate customer

Customer validated

Validate policy

Policy validated

Validate incident

coverage Incident

coverage validated

Assess liability

Liability assessed

Capture TP details

TP details captured

Assess excess

Excess assessed

Assess pathingPathing

assessed

Add authorised parties (as

appropriate)Authorised

parties added

Inform customer of

next step

Customer is informed of next steps

V

Outbound contact required

Finalise claim intake

V

End callPotential recovery identified

Potential investigation

required

Claims Processor

Claims Processor

Claims Processor

Claims Processor

Claims Processor

Claims Processor

Claims Processor

Claims Processor

Claims Processor

Claims Processor

Customer Products

Policy Identification

Customer Identification


Coverage & Policy Extra

Vehicle Information

Incident Details


Capture incident detailsIncident

details captured

Incident Details

Claim Business

Rules

Incident Details

Claim Business

Rules

Vehicle Information

Third Part Property Details

Customer Personal Property Details

Driver Details

Vehicle Information


Incident Details

Claim Business

RulesVehicle

InformationIncident Details

Assessment Details

Claim Identification

Other Parties Details

Vehicle Information

Claim Service

Assessment Details

Incident Details

Third Party Details

Claim Service

Assessment Details

Claim Actions

Action hire car and towing (as appropriate)

Vehicle Information


Assessment Details

Hire car actioned

Claims Processor

Fig. 6.2. Claim Intake Process EPC

6.4 173

6.4.4.3 Step 3 - Create a Quality Model

The purpose of this step was to define a quality model for the claim in-

take process based on the quality requirements defined during the step 1.

During this step, the researcher conducted four workshops with the Busi-

ness Process Manager and the claim intake process Subject Matter Experts

(the key stakeholders) to capture the quality characteristics for the four

business process quality dimensions (functions, inputs-outputs, human re-

sources, and non-human resources). During the workshops, the researcher

followed the methodology and guidelines provided by the action research

protocol, presented in Section 5.3.4.1.3. The outcome of these workshops

was a quality model consisting of the quality characteristics for the four

dimensions of the claim intake process. The four quality dimensions of the

claim intake process are presented below.


The purpose the first workshop was to identify the quality characteristics of

the function dimension of the claim intake process. It was crucial to ensure

that the quality characteristics being selected were aligned with the quality

requirements defined during the first step (see Section 6.4.4.1). Therefore,

the first exercise was to map the high level quality requirements defined

during the first step to the functions of the claim intake process. As listed

below, this mapping did associate each defined quality requirement to one

or more functions of the claim intake process:

• Requirement 1 - Consistency and acceptable response time to calls

– Function - Obtain policy details and validate caller (authorised to

lodge)

• Requirement 2 - Rapid identification of the policy

– Function - Validate policy

• Requirement 3 - Accurate validation of the policy and customer details


• Requirement 4 - Efficient and effective collection of information

174 6


lodge)

– Function - Capture incident details

– Function - Capture loss & TP details

• Requirement 5 - Value the customer


lodge)

– Function - Inform customer of next steps

– Function - Finalise claim intake

• Requirement 6 - Understanding the customer


lodge)




• Requirement 7 - Ease of understandability of the claim intake process to

customer


lodge)




• Requirement 8 - High availability of the claim intake process for customer


lodge)



– Function - Validate incident coverage

– Function - Assess liability


– Function - Assess excess

6.4 175

– Function - Assess pathing

– Function - Action hire car and towing (as appropriate)

– Function - Add authorised parties (as appropriate)



• Requirement 9 - A reliable claim intake process


lodge)



– Function - Validate incident coverage

– Function - Assess liability


– Function - Assess excess

– Function - Assess pathing

– Function - Action hire car and towing (as appropriate)

– Function - Add authorised parties (as appropriate)



The next exercise was to capture and model the function quality dimen-

sion of the claim intake process. Three templates provided by the action

research protocol (Section 5.3.4.1.3) were used during this workshop to cap-

ture and model the function quality dimension of the claim intake process.

The first matrix, applying the boolean approach value (Yes/No), is pre-

sented in Figure 6.3. The workshop participants rated the function/quality

characteristic combination by determining whether the combination was

important or not (Yes or No). The quality requirements associated to the

functions (listed above) were used to drive the importance of the func-

tion/quality characteristic. This matrix enabled the calculation of both a

function total and a quality characteristic total (Yes count). This provides

a quick way to identify 1) the functions that play an important role in the

quality of the process, and 2) the quality characteristics that are important

176 6


ur efficiency Resource utilisation Effectiveness Productivity Safety Satisfaction Robustness Total

Obtain policy details and validate caller (authorised to lodge)Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10Validate policy Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11Capture incident details Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10Validate incident coverage Y Y Y Y Y 5Assess liability Y Y Y Y 4Capture loss & TP details Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8Assess excess Y Y Y Y 4Assess pathing Y Y Y Y 4Action hire car and towing (as appropriate) Y 1Add authorised parties (as appropriate) Y Y 2Inform customer of next steps Y Y Y Y Y 5Finalise claim intake Y Y Y Y Y 5Total 12 8 5 9 6 5 4 4 4 4 0 2 6Fig. 6.3. Claim Intake Process - Function Quality Dimension (captured as yes or no)

for the process.

024681012

Fig. 6.4. Claim Intake Process - Functions Quality Rating

In this instance, the functions: validate policy (11), Obtain policy details

and validate caller (10), and Capture incident details (10) scored the high-

6.4 177

est ratings therefore play a more significant role in the quality outcomes for

the claim intake process. This exercise also identified that the functions:

action hire car and towing (1) and add authorised parties (2) play a less

important role in the quality outcomes for the claim intake process. These

results are displayed graphically in Figure 6.4.

0246810

12

Fig. 6.5. Claim Intake Process - Quality Characteristics

The quality characteristics: suitability (12), reliability (9) and accuracy

(8) scored the highest ratings highlighting these characteristics as more im-

portant for this process. This exercise also identified that safety (0) and

satisfaction (2) are less important characteristics for this process. These re-

sults are displayed graphically in Figure 6.5.

The next matrix, in which participants determined the top 3 functions for

each quality characteristics, is presented in Figure 6.6. The quality require-

ments associated to the functions (listed at the beginning of this section)

were used to drive the top 3 functions for each quality characteristics. The

totals obtained for each function by this approach highlight that the func-

178 6



Obtain policy details and validate caller (authorised to lodge) 3 3 1 7Validate policy 2 2Capture incident details 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 21Validate incident coverage 1 1 1 3Assess liability 3 2 5Capture loss & TP details 2 3 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 3 22Assess excess 2 1 3Assess pathing 3 3Action hire car and towing (as appropriate) 0Add authorised parties (as appropriate) 0Inform customer of next steps 1 3 1 1 6Finalise claim intake 0Fig. 6.6. Function Quality Dimension (by functions - columns)

tions: capture loss & TP details (22) and capture incident details (21) are

the more important functions for obtaining quality outcomes. Also the func-

tions: action Car hire and towing (0), add authorised parties (0) and finalise

claim intake (0) play a less important role in the quality outcomes for the

claim intake process. These results are displayed graphically in Figure 6.7.

0510152025 Quality Rating by Function

Fig. 6.7. Claim Intake Process - Quality Rating by Functions

6.4 179

The next matrix, in which participants determined the top 3 quality

characteristics for each function, is presented in Figure 6.8. The quality re-

quirements associated to the functions (listed above) were used to drive the

top 3 quality characteristics for each function.

Suita

bility

Accu

racy

Secu

rity

Relia

bility

Unde

rstan

dabil

ity

Learn

abilit

y

Time b

ehav

iour e

fficie

ncy

Reso

urce

utilis

ation

Effec

tiven

ess

Prod

uctiv

ity

Safet

y

Satis

factio

n

Robu

stnes

s

Obtain policy details and validate caller (authorised to lodge) 2 1 3Validate policy 3 1 2Capture incident details 3 2 1Validate incident coverage 3 2 1Assess liability 3 2 1Capture loss & TP details 3 2 1Assess excess 3 2 1Assess pathing 3 2 1Action hire car and towing (as appropriate) 3 2 1Add authorised parties (as appropriate) 1 3 2Inform customer of next steps 2 1 3Finalise claim intake 2 1 3

Total 17 15 3 11 12 1 0 0 3 8 0 0 2


The totals obtained for each quality characteristic by this approach high-

light that the quality characteristics: suitability (17) and accuracy (15) are

the significant quality characteristics for the claim intake process. Also the

quality characteristics: time behaviour efficiency (0), resource utilisation (0),

safety (0) and satisfaction (0) play a less important role in the quality out-

comes for the claim intake process. These results are displayed graphically

in Figure 6.9.

The following sub-section presents the outcome of the second workshop

conducted to model the input & output quality dimension of the claim in-

take process.

Input & Output Quality Dimension

The purpose of the second workshop was to identify the quality charac-

180 6

024681012141618

Fig. 6.9. Claim Intake Process - Quality Rating

teristics of the input & output dimension of the claim intake process. The

template and rating approach provided by the action research protocol (Sec-

tion 5.3.4.1.3) was used during this workshop to capture and model the input

& output quality dimension of the claim intake process.

The outcome of the second workshop was an input & output-quality ma-

trix presented in Figure 6.10. Each row of this table represents an input or

output for a function of the claim intake process and the columns represent

the quality characteristics of the input & output dimension. Each quality

characteristic was given a rating (between 1 to 5)6 with respect to the input

or output of the function being analysed. By reviewing this matrix, it was

easy to identify the quality characteristics that are important for all inputs

and outputs of the claim intake process (the quality characteristics with a

rating of > 3). For instance, for the customer identification which is an input

to the obtain policy details and validate caller (the first row in Figure 6.10),

almost all the quality characteristics are important (the characteristics with

rating of 5) except security and value added that were rated 3.

6 Refer to Section 5.3.4.1.3 for further details on the rating method used during this step.

6.4 181

`

Function Inputs Outputs Accuracy Objectivity Believability Reputation Accessibility Security Relevancy Value-added Timeliness Completeness

Amount of data

Obtain policy details and validate caller (authorised to lodge) Customer Identfication 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 5Customer Products 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5Policy Identification 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 5Validate policy Policy Identification 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 5Coverage & policy extras 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 3 5 5 5Vehicle Information (Accessories, etc) 3 3 3 5 3 3 4 1 4 4 4Capture incident details Incident Details (Incident Date, Loss Type, Loss Scenario) 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4Validate incident coverage Coverage & policy extras 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 3 5 5 5Claim Business Rules (Incident Coverage, Liability, Excess & NCD Impact)

4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5Assess liability Incident Details (Incident Date, Loss Type, Loss Scenario) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4

Claim Business Rules (Incident Coverage, Liability, Excess & NCD Impact)5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5

Capture loss & TP details Vehicle Information (Accessories, etc) 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 1 4 4 4Driver Details 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 5Customer Vehicle Details / Damage 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 3 5 4 4Customer Personal Property 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 2 4 3 3Third Party Details 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 5 4 4Third Party Vehicle Details / Damage 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 4 3 3Third Party Property Details 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 4 3 3Other Party Details (witness, authorised parties, etc) 3 4 4 3 3 5 4 2 4 4 4Assess excess Coverage & policy extras 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 3 5 5 5Vehicle Information (Accessories, etc) 4 4 4 5 3 3 4 1 4 4 4Incident Details (Incident Date, Loss Type, Loss Scenario) 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4

Claim Business Rules (Incident Coverage, Liability, Excess & NCD Impact)5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5

Fig. 6.10. Claim Intake Process - Input & Output Quality Dimension

The following sub-section presents the outcome of the third workshop

conducted to model the human resource quality dimension of the claim in-

182 6

take process.

Human Resources Quality Dimension

The purpose of the third workshop was to identify the quality character-

istics of the human resource dimension of the claim intake process. The

template and rating approach provided by the action research protocol (Sec-

tion 5.3.4.1.3) were used during this workshop. During the workshop, the

key stakeholders were asked to select a boolean value (Yes/No) in each cell

of the matrix to specify whether a quality characteristic is important for

the human resource allocated to a function.

`

Doma

in Kn

owled

ge

Quali

ficati

on

Certi

ficati

on

Expe

rienc

e

Time M

anag

emen

t

Comm

unica

tion S

kill

Total

Obtain policy details and validate caller (authorised to lodge)

Y Y 2

Validate policy Y Y 2Capture incident details Y Y Y 3Validate incident coverage Y Y Y 3Assess liability Y Y Y 3Capture loss & TP details Y Y Y 3Assess excess Y Y Y 3Assess pathing Y Y 2Action hire car and towing (as appropriate) Y Y 2Add authorised parties (as appropriate) Y 1Inform customer of next steps Y Y 2Finalise claim intake 0

Total 10 0 0 5 0 11

Fig. 6.11. Claim Intake Process - Human Resource Quality Dimension

The outcome of the third workshop was the table presented in Figure

6.11. Each row of this table represents a function of the claim intake pro-

cess and the columns represent quality characteristics of human resource

6.4 183

dimension. Where a quality characteristic is relevant to the function then a

Y (for yes) is present in the appropriate cell. The totals in a row represent

the number of quality characteristics relevant to the function in that row.

For example, the total of 2 for the function validate policy indicates that

2 quality characteristics out of 6 are relevant and important to this function.

By viewing this table it was easy for the Business Process Manager to

identify the functions that play an important role in the quality of the

process. The column totals are indicators on the relevancy of each quality

characteristic in the whole process. For example, communications skill has

the highest total (11) which indicates that this quality characteristic is very

important for the process, as it is relevant to every single function of the

process. On the other hand, qualification, which has the lowest total (0),

indicates that it is not of significant importance to this process.

In this instance, the human resource responsible for the functions: cap-

ture incident details (3), validate incident coverage (3), access liability (3),

capture loss & TP details (3), and assess excess (3) scored the highest rat-

ings and therefore play a more significant role in the quality outcomes for

the claim intake process. This exercise also identified that the resources

responsible for the functions: finalise claim intake (0) and add authorised

parties (1) play a less important role in the quality outcomes for the claim

intake process. These results are displayed graphically in Figure 6.12.

The quality characteristics: communication skill (11), and domain knowl-

edge (10) scored the highest ratings highlighting these characteristics as

more important for this process. This exercise also identified that qualifi-

cation (0), certification (0), and time management (0) are less important

characteristics for this process. These results are displayed graphically in

Figure 6.13.

The following sub-section presents the outcome of the fourth workshop

conducted to model the non-human resource quality dimension of the claim

intake process.

184 6

0123

Fig. 6.12. Claim Intake Process - Human Resource Quality Rating

024681012

Fig. 6.13. Claim Intake Process - Quality Characteristics

Non-Human Resources Quality Dimension

The purpose of the fourth workshop was to identify the quality characteris-

tics of the non-human resource dimension of the claim intake process. Three

templates provided by the action research protocol (Section 5.3.4.1.3) were

used during this workshop to capture and model the non-human resource

quality dimension of the claim intake process.

The first matrix, applying the boolean approach, is presented in Fig-

ure 6.14. The key stakeholders rated the non-human resource/quality char-

6.4 185

acteristic combination by determining whether the combination was impor-

tant or not (Yes or No). This allowed both a non-human resource total and

a quality characteristic total to be calculated which provides a quick way

to identify 1) the non-human resources that play an important role in the

quality of the process, and 2) the quality characteristics that are important

for the process.

`

Function ResourceSu

itabil

ity

Accu

racy

Secu

rity

Relia

bility

Unde

rstan

dabil

ity

Learn

abilit

yTim

e beh

aviou

r eff

icien

cyRe

sourc

e utili

sation

Effec

tiven

ess

Produ

ctivit

y

Safet

y

Satis

factio

n

Robu

stnes

s

Total

Obtain policy details and validate caller (authorised to lodge)System A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10Validate policy System A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11Capture incident details System A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10Validate incident coverage System A Y Y Y Y Y 5Assess liability System A Y Y Y Y 4Capture loss & TP details System A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8Assess excess System A Y Y Y Y 4Assess pathing System A Y Y Y Y 4Action hire car and towing (as appropriate) System A Y 1Add authorised parties (as appropriate) System A Y Y 2Inform customer of next steps System A Y Y Y Y Y 5Finalise claim intake System A Y Y Y Y Y 5

Total 12 8 5 9 6 5 4 4 4 4 0 2 6

Fig. 6.14. Claim Intake Process - Non Human Resource Quality Dimension (captured as yesor no)

In this instance, the functions: validate policy (11), Obtain policy details

and validate caller (10), and Capture incident details (10) scored the highest

ratings for the non-human resources and therefore play a more significant

role in the quality outcomes for the claim intake process. This exercise also

identified that the functions: action hire car and towing (1) and add autho-

rised parties (2) play a less important role in the quality outcomes for the

claim intake process. These results are displayed graphically in Figure 6.15.

The quality characteristics: suitability (12), reliability (9) and accuracy

(8) scored the highest ratings therefore highlighting these characteristics as

more important for this process. This exercise also identified that safety

(0) and satisfaction (2) are less important characteristics for this process.

These results are displayed graphically in Figure 6.16.

The next matrix, in which participants determined the top 3 resources for

each quality characteristic, is presented in Figure 6.17. The totals obtained

for each function by this approach highlight that the functions: capture loss

186 6

024681012

Fig. 6.15. Claim Intake Process - Non Human Resource Quality Rating

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Fig. 6.16. Claim Intake Process - Non Human Resource Quality Characteristics

& TP details (22) and capture incident details (21) are the more important

functions for obtaining quality outcomes. Also the functions: action Car hire

and towing (0), add authorised parties (0) and finalise claim intake (0) play

a less important role in the quality outcomes for the claim intake process.

These results are displayed graphically in Figure 6.18.


characteristics for each resource, is presented in Figure 6.19.

6.4 187

`

Function Resource

Suita

bility

Accu

racy

Secu

rity

Relia

bility

Unde

rstan

dabil

ity

Learn

abilit

y

Time b

ehav

iour e

fficien

cy

Reso

urce u

tilisat

ion

Effec

tiven

ess

Produ

ctivit

y

Safet

y

Satis

factio

n

Robu

stnes

s

Obtain policy details and validate caller (authorised to lodge) System A 2 1 3Validate policy System A 3 1 2Capture incident details System A 3 2 1Validate incident coverage System A 3 2 1Assess liability System A 3 2 1Capture loss & TP details System A 3 2 1Assess excess System A 3 2 1Assess pathing System A 3 2 1Action hire car and towing (as appropriate) System A 3 2 1Add authorised parties (as appropriate) System A 1 3 2Inform customer of next steps System A 2 1 3Finalise claim intake System A 2 1 3

Total 17 15 3 11 12 1 0 0 3 8 0 0 2

Fig. 6.17. Claim Intake Process - Non Human Resource Quality Dimension (by rows - qualitycharacteristics)

024681012141618

Fig. 6.18. Claim Intake Process - Non Human Resource Quality Rating


light that the quality characteristics: suitability (17) and accuracy (15) are

the significant quality characteristics for the claim intake process. Also the

quality characteristics: time behaviour efficiency (0), resource utilisation (0),

safety (0) and satisfaction (0) play a less important role in the quality out-

comes for the claim intake process. These results are displayed graphically

in Figure 6.20.

188 6

`

Function Resource

Suita

bility

Accu

racy

Secu

rity

Relia

bility

Unde

rstan

dabil

ity

Learn

abilit

y

Time b

ehav

iour e

fficien

cy

Reso

urce u

tilisat

ion

Effec

tiven

ess

Produ

ctivit

y

Safet

y

Satis

factio

n

Robu

stnes

s

Total

Obtain policy details and validate caller (authorised to lodge) System A 3 3 1 7Validate policy System A 2 2Capture incident details System A 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 21Validate incident coverage System A 1 1 1 3Assess liability System A 3 2 5Capture loss & TP details System A 2 3 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 3 22Assess excess System A 2 1 3Assess pathing System A 3 3Action hire car and towing (as appropriate) System A 0Add authorised parties (as appropriate) System A 0Inform customer of next steps System A 1 3 1 1 6Finalise claim intake System A 0

Fig. 6.19. Claim Intake Process - Non Human Quality Dimension (by functions - columns)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Fig. 6.20. Claim Intake Process - Quality Rating by Non Human Resources

The next step after creating the quality model for the claim intake pro-

cess is to create a softgoal model, which is presented below.

6.4 189

6.4.4.4 Step 4 - Create Softgoal Model

The purpose of this step was to create a softgoal model for the claim intake

process7.

During this step, the researcher conducted four workshops with the key

stakeholders to capture softgoals for the quality characteristics identified for

the four dimensions (functions, inputs-outputs, human resources, and non-

human resources) of the claim intake process. During the workshops, the

researcher followed the methodology and guidelines provided by the action

research protocol presented in Chapter 5.3.4.1.4.

The outcome of the first workshop was a softgoal model for the function

quality dimension which is presented in Appendix C.1. The softgoal model

for the input & output quality dimension that was created during the second

workshop is presented in Appendix C.2. The softgoal model for the human

resource quality dimension that was created during the third workshop is

presented in Appendix C.3. Finally, the outcome of the fourth workshop

was a softgoal model for the non-human resource quality dimension which

is presented in Appendix C.4.

The following section outlines the next activity conducted during the

action taking stage of the of the action research cycle in Organisation A.

6.4.4.5 Step 5 - Create Softgoal Correlations Model

The purpose of this step was to create a correlation model for the claim

intake process8.

During this step, the researcher followed the methodology, guidelines

and algorithm provided by the action research protocol presented in Sec-

tion 5.3.4.1.5 to create correlations between the softgoals defined in the

previous step. The outcome of this step was a softgoal correlation model for

7 Refer to Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.6.4 for further details on the softgoal model.8 Refer to Sections 4.4.3 and 4.4.6.5 for further details on the softgoal correlation model.

190 6

the claim intake process which is presented in Appendix C.5.

The following section outlines the last activity conducted during the of

the action taking stage of the action research cycle in Organisation A.

6.4.4.6 Step 6 - Create Measurement Model

The purpose of this step was to create a measurement model for the claim

intake process9. The measurement model contains the measurable attributes

(referred to as quality metrics) that are identified to evaluate softgoals. As

described in Section 4.4.4, this research adopts an approach similar to the

GQM [147] approach in refining softgoals to a set of quality metrics. Each

softgoal is refined into a set of questions and then each question is refined

into a set of quality metrics.


stakeholders to create a measurement model which contains quality met-

rics required to measure softgoal satisfaction for the softgoal model created

for the claim intake process. The researcher followed the methodology and

guidelines provided by the action research protocol presented in Section

5.3.4.1.6.

The outcome of the first workshop was a measurement model for the

function quality dimension which is presented in Appendix C.6. The mea-

surement model for the input & output quality dimension that was created

during the second workshop is presented in Appendix C.7. The measurement

model for the human resource quality dimension that was created during

the third workshop is presented in Appendix C.8. Finally, the outcome of

the fourth workshop was a measurement model for the non-human resource

quality dimension which is presented in Appendix C.9.

The following section outlines the next step of the action research cycle

in which the outcome of the activities performed during the action taking

9 Refer to Sections 4.4.4, and 4.4.6.6 for further details on the measurement model.

6.4 191

stage was evaluated.

6.4.5 Evaluation

The main purpose of this stage was to evaluate the applicability, usability,

usefulness, and scalability of the QoBP framework used during the action

taking stage to create a quality-aware claim intake process. As outlined

at the beginning of this chapter, this action research cycle was conducted

according to the guidelines provided by the action research protocol that

was presented in Chapter 5. To ensure the rigor of the evaluation phase of

this study10, a set of evaluation objectives were developed and presented

in Section 5.3.5. The action research protocol also provided a questionnaire

that was created based on these evaluation objectives11.

During this step, the researcher conducted four workshops to evaluate

the outcome of the action research with the Business Process Manager and

the claim intake process Subject Matter Experts (the key stakeholders). The

main purpose of the evaluation stage of the action research cycle was ex-

plained to the key workshop participants at the beginning of the workshop

series. The questionnaire provided by the action research protocol was used

to guide the discussions during the workshops. The researcher followed the

three communication behaviours recommended by [184] to ensure that each

evaluation objective was communicated effectively.

The outcome of the evaluation workshops with respect to the evaluation

objectives include:

• Quality model:

– The applicability of the quality characteristics defined for the four

quality dimensions (function quality dimension, input & output qual-

ity dimension, human resource quality dimension, and non-human re-

source quality dimension) of the quality model was confirmed. The

10 Refer to guideline 5 - research rigor [2] described in Section 3.6.11 This questionnaire is provided in Appendix B.5.

192 6

objective here was to validate that the quality characteristics for four

dimensions are relevant and applicable to business processes. While

these quality characteristics12 were defined based on an extensive lit-

erature review in related areas13, it was crucial to evaluate their appli-

cability to a business process in a real world scenario. The relevancy

and the appropriateness of each quality characteristic with respect to

its quality dimension was reviewed during the evaluation workshops

and was acknowledged by the workshops participants. Comments from

workshop participants include: “...most of the quality characteristics

were relevant and appropriate to the claim intake process, except the

safety characteristic that was not applicable...having said that, this

characteristic might be relevant and applicable to the other processes

where safety could be of importance...”.

– The usability and scalability of the QoBP methodology and the sup-

porting templates (provided in Section 5.3.4.1.3) to identify and cap-

ture the quality characteristics for each quality dimension of the se-

lected business process was reviewed and evaluated. The usability and

scalability of the QoBP methodology and the supporting templates

was confirmed for all dimensions except for the input & output dimen-

sion. It was acknowledged that “...the rating of the quality character-

istics for a large number of inputs and outputs was tedious and time

consuming...”. It was discussed how the relationship between functions

and their inputs and outputs was useful for rating the importance of

the input and output characteristics for that function. For example

if accuracy was selected for a function as a desirable quality char-

acteristic, it was implied that intrinsic quality characteristics (such

as accuracy, objectivity, believability, and reputation) were important

for the inputs and outputs of that function. It was also discussed how

“...the methodology could be improved by using implied relationships

to derive the quality characteristics for inputs & outputs and even

non-human resources...”.

12 Refer to Section 4.3 for further details on four quality dimensions of a business process.13 Refer to Section 4.3.1 for a summary of this literature review.

6.4 193

• Softgoal model:

– The applicability of the softgoal model of the QoBP framework was

confirmed by the workshop participants. It was acknowledged that

the goal-oriented approach adopted in this research is a relevant and

appropriate approach in coping with the abstract and informal nature

of non-functional requirements in the form of quality characteristics.

Comments from the Business Process Manager confirming the appli-

cability of the softgoal model include: “...documenting the original

requirements in the form of quality characteristics and then into a set

of softgoals helped make the original quality requirements more for-

mal and concrete...this exercise helped us come up with metrics that

were aligned with our quality requirements...”.

– The practicality and scalability of the QoBP methodology and the

supporting templates (provided in Section 5.3.4.1.4) to identify and

capture softgoals for the identified quality characteristics of the claim

intake process was confirmed. This evaluation objective was met, as

the key stakeholders acknowledged that the QoBP methodology (pro-

posed in Section 4.4.6.4) and supporting templates (presented in Sec-

tion 5.3.4.1.4) scaled well and were practical for creating a softgoal

model for the claim intake process which is a reasonably large busi-

ness process. After reviewing the softgoal model of the claim intake

process, it was recommended to review the softgoal model for a few

more business processes to determine whether it is practical to create

a set of generic softgoals for all the quality characteristics that can be

used as starting point in future cases. Comments from the workshop

participants reflects this: “...the provided pattern to specify a softgoal

was certainly useful, as it was helpful in framing the softgoals in a

consistent way...it would be more practical if you could start with a

set of generic softgoals instead of defining them from scratch...”.



supporting templates (provided in Section 5.3.4.1.5) to capture the

194 6

correlations between identified softgoals was reviewed during the eval-

uation workshops. It was acknowledged that the scalability of the

QoBP methodology and the supporting templates could be an issue

for larger business processes. It was discussed that as the correlations

are modelled based on a specific algorithm, a tool could be developed

to automate the creation of the softgoal correlation model for a busi-

ness process. Comments from the Business Process Manager include:

“... automation of this step would be useful to help reduce the time

taken...”.



supporting templates14 to create a measurement model was confirmed.

It was also acknowledged that the goal-question-metric approach was

very effective in refining each softgoal to a set of quality metrics: “...the

goal-question-metric approach was useful as it provided a structured

way to identify metrics...after learning the approach, it was easy to

follow...”.

• QoBP Metamodel:

– Validity of the QoBP metamodel proposed in Section 4.4.5.2 in pro-

ducing a quality-aware business process was confirmed. This objective

was met, as it was acknowledged that the QoBP metamodel captures

the necessary entities to produce a quality-aware business process.

Comments from the Business Process Manager include: “...the map-

ping of quality characteristics to softgoals and metrics gave us a useful

way of linking our quality requirements to the process model...”.

During the last evaluation workshop it was also acknowledged by the

Business Process Manager that:

14 A set of templates were provided in Section 5.3.4.1.6 as part of the action research protocolto create a measurement model for a business process.

6.4 195

“...this exercise has made me think about our BPM practice and how our

focus has always been on the functional requirements...this exercise helped

us to become more aware of the quality requirements of the claim intake

process...the provided framework was very useful in identifying and model-

ing these requirements...”

“ ...I can foresee how the quality elements defined for the claim intake

process such as quality metrics for human resources can be used during

the process implementation...for example, the quality metrics identified for

the human resources can help in creating position profiles...these position

profiles can then be used to select appropriate staff who match the criteria

specified...”

“...I can see how these quality metrics, when implemented as part of the

process, can add context during the enactment...”

The following section outlines the next step of the first action research

cycle, in which the lessons learned from the action research cycle were iden-

tified.


The purpose of this step was to identify the lessons learned during the ac-

tion research cycle. The evaluation results produced during the last stage

strongly influenced the discovery of the lessons learned. During this stage,

the researcher organised a workshop with the key stakeholders to reflect on

the evaluation results described in the previous section. This workshop was

focused on discovering the lessons learned and eliciting the recommenda-

tions for possible enhancements to the QoBP framework. The outcome of

this workshop can be summarised as:

1. It became apparent that there is a relationship between quality of a

function, and the quality aspects of its related entities: inputs & out-

puts, human and non-human resources. It was acknowledged that this

relationship can be used to enhance the QoBP framework, specifically

196 6

the practicality and scalability of the QoBP methodology for larger busi-

ness processes.

2. Having established relationships between quality dimensions (item 1

above) it would be useful to develop a tool that automates some of

the more onerous steps of the QoBP methodology.

3. There are opportunities to improve the QoBP framework, specifically the

practicality and scalability of the QoBP methodology for larger business

processes. Strategies can be introduced to design the collection of in-

formation as efficiently as possible, such as a strategy to identify those

functions that have a high number of quality characteristics and then

develop input/output and resource quality models for these.

Next section presents a summary of the final stage of the action research

cycle with Organisation A - closure.

6.4.7 Closure

This section presents a summary of the last stage of the action research in

Organisation A. During this last stage of the action research, the researcher

organised an informal meeting to express her appreciation to the key stake-

holders contributing to this collaborative project.

6.5 A Reflection on Action Research Cycle and

Re-design

This section presents further reflection on the three enhancement opportuni-

ties identified during the specifying learning stage of the first action research

cycle (Section 6.4.6) and their realisations. The enhancements made to the

artifacts as a result are also presented in this section.

6.5 197

6.5.1 Establish Link Between Quality Dimensions

This section presents the first enhancement opportunity to the QoBP frame-

work. After completing the first cycle of the action research it became

apparent that there is a relationship between function and input/output

dimensions that can be used to enhance the practicality and scalability

of the QoBP methodology (Section 4.4.6). During the specifying learn-

ing workshop (reported in Section 6.4.6), the quality model created for

the claim intake process and notes taken during the relevant workshops

were reviewed by all the workshop participants to establish the relation-

ship between function, input/output and non-human resource dimensions.

Figure 6.21 presents the matrix created from the identified relationships.

This matrix presents the relationships between quality characteristics for

function and input/output dimensions. As it shown in Figure 6.21, each

row represents a function quality characteristic and the columns represent

the input & output quality characteristics. The cells of the matrix therefore

represent a unique function/input-output characteristic relationship where

a ‘Y’ is present indicates the existence of a relationship.

`

Accu

racy

Objec

tivity

Belie

vabil

ity

Repu

tatio

n

Acce

ssibil

ity

Secu

rity

Relev

ancy

Value

-adde

d

Timeli

ness

Comp

leten

ess

Amou

nt of

data

Unde

rstan

dabil

ity

Conc

ise Re

pres

enta

tion

Cons

isten

t Rep

resen

tatio

n

Suitability Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YAccuracy Y Y Y YSecurity Y YReliability Y Y Y Y YRobustness Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YUnderstandability Y Y Y YLearnability Y Y YTime behavior efficiency Y

Resource utilisation Y Y Y Y Y YEffectiveness Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YProductivity Y Y YSafety Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YSatisfaction Y Y Y

Input & Output Quality

Characteristics

Function Quality

Characteristics

“Y“ indicates that “accuracy” of input or output does influence the

“suitability” of a function

Fig. 6.21. Function - Input & Output Quality Characteristics Matrix

198 6

It was acknowledged that as non-human resource quality characteristics

are mostly a subset of function quality characteristics a one-to-one rela-

tionship can be established between function quality characteristics and

non-human resource quality characteristics. It means that if accuracy is se-

lected as an important characteristic for a function, it is also an important

quality characteristic for a non-human resource of that function.

The established relationship was used to enhance the QoBP methodology

presented in Section 4.4.6. As a result the third step of the methodology,

which was to create a quality model, was simplified to just two activities in-

stead of four activities. This enhancement was made to address the usability

and scalability limitation of the QoBP methodology to capture the quality

characteristics for the input & output and non-human resource dimensions

of the claim intake process.

The enhanced methodology no longer requires the time consuming task

of capturing the ratings for quality characteristics for the inputs & outputs

and non-human resources. Once the function quality characteristics are se-

lected for a business process, the above matrix (Figure 6.21) can be used

to determine the relevant input & output quality characteristics. The one-

to-one relationship between function quality characteristics and non-human

resource quality characteristics also can be used to determine the relevant

non-human-resource quality characteristics, once the function quality char-

acteristics are selected.

6.5.2 QoBP Automation Tool

This section presents the second enhancement to the QoBP framework

which was the development of the QoBP automation tool. The QoBP au-

tomation tool was developed to automate some of the more onerous steps

of the QoBP methodology. This tool is described in detail in Appendix C.10.

The QoBP methodology (presented in Section 4.4.6), and the action tak-

ing stage of the action research plan presented in Section 5.3.4 are enhanced

6.5 199

as the result of this tool.

Step three of the action taking stage of the action research plan (create

a quality model - Section 5.3.4.1.3) is enhanced as the result of the QoBP

automation tool. Two onerous activities of this step are automated by the

QoBP automation tool to enhance the usability and scalability of the QoBP

methodology.

Quality characteristics of both input/output and non-human resource

dimensions are selected automatically for a process, after the quality char-

acteristics of the function quality dimension are selected for that pro-

cess. These steps are automated based on the relationships defined in Sec-

tion 6.5.1.

6.5.3 Reduce Data Collection for Large Business Processes

This section presents the third enhancement to the QoBP framework. Af-

ter completing the first cycle of the action research it became apparent

that the QoBP framework will benefit from new strategies on efficient

data/information collection. During the specifying learning workshop (re-

ported in Section 6.4.6), the QoBP methodology and supporting templates

used during the action taking stages were reviewed by all the participants

to identify any bottlenecks, and to propose strategies for improvements.

Given, for instance, 13 function quality dimensions and 11 functions in the

claim intake process, there are 143 relationships to be validated.

The proposed strategy was to identify those functions that have a high

number of quality characteristics and develop input/output and resource

quality model for these. Accordingly, obtain policy details and validate cus-

tomer, validate policy and capture incident details were considered with to-

tals of 10, 11 and 12 out of 13. In this case only 52 relationships needed to be

validated which is a significant reduction from the original 143 relationships.

200 6

6.6 Summary of the First Action Research Cycle

This chapter described the first cycle of the action research conducted as

part of this study. During this cycle the validity and applicability of the

quality dimensions of the QoBP framework to a real-world business case

were evaluated. The practicality of the methodology to capture the qual-

ity characteristics for each dimension in a case with a large scale, was also

evaluated. The evaluation of the first action research cycle was presented in

Section 6.4.5. Section 6.4.6 outlined the learning from this cycle. A reflec-

tion on the lessons learned and the enhancements made to the framework

as a result were presented in Section 6.5. The enhancement made to the

QoBP framework include:

• Establishment of links between quality dimensions

• Proposal of a new data collection strategy for large business processes

by providing

• Development of an automation tool to derive the input/output and non-

human resource quality characteristics from the function quality charac-

teristics

These enhancements are evaluated in the two subsequent action research

cycles (Chapters 7 and 8). The objectives of the first action research cycle

were met by enhancing the QoBP framework from the findings described

above after the completion of the first action research cycle.

7

Second Action Research Cycle

7.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a report on the second action research cycle con-

ducted in a large Australian government organisation in the financial sector

- Organisation B. As discussed in Chapter 3, the applicability, usability,

usefulness, and scalability of the artifacts designed during the design sci-

ence phase of this study will be evaluated by conducting action research.

In particular, the aim of this action research cycle was to evaluate the en-

hancements made to the artifacts (the QoBP framework and the QoBP

methodology) based on the lessons learned from the first action research

cycle1.

The action research conducted in Organisation B was based on the key


search protocol presented in Chapter 5. The data captured and the models

built during this cycle are presented either in the relevant sections of this

chapter or Appendix D. Section 7.2 presents a short description of Organisa-

tion B, followed by Section 7.3 which describes the justification for choosing

Organisation B as the host for the second cycle of the action research. A

summary of the action research cycle stages in Organisation B is presented

in Section 7.4. A reflection on the lessons learned from the second action

research cycle and the enhancements made to the framework as a result

were presented in Section 7.5.

1 Refer to Section 6.4.6 for further details on these enhancements.

202 7


The corporation (Organisation B), is one of the leading Australian gov-

ernment owned institutional investment managers with over $100 billion in

funds under management. The corporation is predominantly Queensland

based with several offices across Australia and internationally. Organisation

B offers a wide range of solutions such as international properties, infras-

tructure, equities, and fixed interest investments.

The corporation has a division dedicated to BPM which is led by the

Strategy Manager. Although, the BPM initiative at Organisation B is in an

early stage, it has strong executive support and commitment from senior

management and staff. The BPM division is responsible for formulating a

BPM strategy, identifying business improvement opportunities, identifying

company-wide BPM adoption opportunities, and managing & delivery of

business process improvement projects.

The justification for choosing Organisation B as the host for the second



This section presents the justification for choosing Organisation B as the

host for the second cycle of the action research. As outlined in Section 5.2,



selection criteria that were provided in Section 5.2 were used to evaluate

if Organisation B is an appropriate organisation to host the second cycle

of the action research. After the initial contact with Organisation B and

discussing the purpose of the engagement, it was clear that Organisation

B was an appropriate candidate for hosting the second cycle of the action

research. This organisation was chosen to participate in the second cycle of

the action research for the following reasons:

• Criterion 1 - It was important for the organisation to have an apprecia-

tion for BPM and commitment to BPM principles and practices. Organ-

isation A is a large government organisation, with a division dedicated to

7.3 203

Business Process Management. The BPM division, contrary to being in

the early stages of establishment, has a well established business process

framework, supporting tools and standards. The BPM division within

Organisation B is led by the Strategy Manager who is knowledgable in

the area.

• Criterion 2 - It was important for the organisation to have an appreci-

ation for research in the area and preferably a prior relationship with the

BPM research center within Queensland University of Technology. The

Strategy Manager who leads the BPM division has been involved with

other collaborative works with the QUT BPM center and is well aware

of the QUT BPM center research activities, rules and regulations.



framework proposed by this thesis to their BPM practice. The key stake-

holders were interested in the research. They acknowledged the limitation

of the BPM framework being practiced by the organisation in support-

ing quality-aware business processes. Therefore, they were very keen to

participate in this action research and take part in exploring the pro-

posed QoBP framework and were familiar with collaborative projects of

this nature involving Queensland University of Technology. They had

just received an approval for a project that could benefit from the QoBP

framework. It was important to be able to choose a business process that

is suitable for this cycle of the action research.

• Criterion 4 - Organisation B was located in close proximity which made

accessibility to its resources and people easier to the researcher.


research cycle in Organisation B.

204 7



Organisation B. The action research cycle was conducted according to the

action research plan provided in Section 5.3 which consists of seven stages:

initial meeting, diagnosis, action planning, action taking, evaluating, speci-

fying learning, and closure. The action research conducted in Organisation

B was a formal collaborative project where the Strategy Manager (the prac-

tice lead of the BPM division in Organisation B) and one of the Business

Process Analysts of the BPM division were the key stakeholders. The Strat-

egy Manager was the main industry advisor for this collaborative project.

The researcher closely followed the action research plan presented in

Section 5.3. An outline of the different stages of the action research cycle

in Organisation B is presented in the following sub-sections. Section 7.4.1

presents a summary of the initial meeting with the key stakeholders of Or-

ganisation B. An outline of the outcome of the diagnosis stage is presented

in Section 7.4.2. Section 7.4.3 presents a summary of the action planning

stage with the key stakeholders of Organisation B. A detailed outline of the

activities performed during the action taking stage is presented in Section

7.4.4. Section 7.4.5 presents the details on the evaluation stage of the ac-

tion research cycle as well as the outcome of this evaluation. An outline of

the lessons learned during this action research cycle is presented in Section

7.4.6. A briefing of the last stage of the cycle is presented in Section 7.4.7.


This section presents a summary of the first stage of the cycle which is the

initial meeting with the key stakeholders in Organisation B. During this

stage, the researcher organised a meeting with the Strategy Manager (the

key stakeholder in Organisation B) to discuss this collaborative opportunity

in detail. A summary of the research topic and action research approach was

sent to the invitees prior to the meeting2. During the initial meeting the re-

searcher briefly described the QoBP framework proposed by this thesis, the


7.4 205

action research methodology in general, and the action research protocol for

this specific collaboration. By the end of the session, the Strategy Manager

was aware of the engagement plan during the cycle and the commitment

required through the whole life cycle of the project.



7.4.2 Diagnosis


efit from the QoBP framework. During this stage, as guided by the action


informal meetings with the Strategy Manager (the key stakeholder within

the host organisation). During these meetings the researcher described the

purpose of the diagnosis phase of the action research cycle. In order to iden-

tify a candidate process, the researcher described how the host organisation

will benefit from introducing the QoBP framework to their BPM practice.

The Strategy Manager proposed a process that was under review and

could be of benefit to this action research. The project was initiated as part

of a business process improvement initiative to improve the change manage-

ment process (referred to as dynamic development). Organisation B has an

Operations division that provides the organisation with the support of ma-

jor IT infrastructure and in-house applications development. The need for a

new application or enhancements to the existing applications, referred to as

requests for change (RFC), is usually recognised and formulated within the

business divisions across Organisation B. Lack of a proper process definition

for managing these requests for change had caused major dilemmas across

the business units. Inaccurate and inconsistent prioritisation of the RFCs

across the organisation was one of the main issues contributing to these

dilemmas. The aim of the recently initiated business process improvement

project was to be able to prioritise the requests for change across operations

based on their returned business value. A consistent scoring mechanism was

going to be introduced which was based on two values: risk & opportunity

206 7

assessment and estimated cost of the request for change being scored. The

scope of this specific project was limited to the first two phases of the BPM

life cycle, analysis and design3 for the dynamic development process. Ac-

cordingly, an in-depth understanding of the detailed process requirements

was needed during the analysis stage, followed by engineering the overall

process structure (identification and modelling of the functions, inputs &

outputs, human and non-human resources of the process) based on the re-

quirements from the analysis phase. The expected deliverable of this project

was a business process model for the dynamic development process.

From the initial descriptions that were received, this project was a suit-

able case for the second cycle of the action research. The complexity and

size of the process, in terms of functions, inputs-outputs, and resources,

was promising a substantial amount of data collection which was necessary

for the proper evaluation of the QoBP framework, specifically the quality

dimensions of the process and the practicality of the supporting methodol-

ogy. The nature of the process was different to the process from the first

cycle (the claim intake process) and was promising to provide a substan-

tially different set of data for the evaluation. The Strategy Manager of this

specific project was also very keen to improve the quality of the dynamic

development process.



quality-aware dynamic development process.



a quality-aware dynamic development process using the QoBP framework.

The researcher conducted an informal meeting with the Strategy Manager

and the Business Process Analysts to describe the QoBP methodology (pre-

sented in Section 4.4.6) and the activity plan that was based on the procedu-

ral steps of this methodology. Figure 7.1 presents an outline of the activity

3 Refer to Section 2.2.3 for detailed description on analysis and design phases of the BPM lifecycle.

7.4 207

plan scheduled for the next stage of the action research cycle - action taking. Ph ase Sub-A ctivity Engagem ent Type D uration A ction Research Cycle – A ction Taking A nalyse the Process W orkshop 4 hou rs Create Business Process M odel W orkshop 16 ho urs Create Q uality M o del W orkshop 16 ho urs Create Softgoal M o del W orkshop 16 ho urs Create Correlatio ns M o del N one 4 hou rs Create M easurem ent M o del W orkshop 8 hou rs Prepare Pro ject Rep ort N one 40 ho urs


An outline of the next stage of the action research cycle in Organisation

B is presented below.

7.4.4 Action Taking

The purpose of this stage was to perform the activities identified during

the action planning stage. The researcher organised a series of workshops

with the Strategy Manager and the Business Process Analysts according to

the action plan produced during the action planning stage (figure 6.1). The

researcher followed the action research protocol, presented in the previous

chapter (Chapter 5), for each workshop during this stage. The QoBP au-

tomation tool developed as a result of the first action research cycle was

208 7

used to automate some of the more onerous steps of the QoBP methodol-

ogy4.


this section in the following order. Section 7.4.4.1 presents an outline of the

first step in which the requirements for the dynamic development process

were analysed. Section 7.4.4.2 presents the dynamic development business

process model created during the second step. The quality model created

for the dynamic development process during the third step is presented in

Section 7.4.4.3. Section 7.4.4.4 presents the softgoal model for the dynamic

development process which was created during the fourth step. The corre-

lation model for the dynamic development process created during the fifth

step is presented in Section 7.4.4.5. Finally, Section 7.4.4.6 presents the

measurement model for the dynamic development process created in the

last step of the action taking phase.


The purpose of the first step was to analyse the dynamic development pro-

cess goals, the dynamic development process environment, the organisa-

tion structure, and the dynamic development process quality requirements.

For this step, the researcher organised a workshop with the Strategy Man-

ager and the Business Process Analysts and followed the procedures and

guidelines provided by the action research protocol presented in Chapter 5.

During the workshop, the functional and quality (non-functional) require-

ments of the dynamic development process were elicited, taking account of

the organisation’s strategy, goals and structure. The researcher used the

techniques and guidelines provided in Section 5.3.4.1.1 to elicit these re-

quirements. The deliverable of this phase was the functional and quality

(non-functional) requirements description of the dynamic development pro-

cess. A brief overview of this description is presented below, followed by a

summary of the quality requirements for the dynamic development process.

4 Refer to Section 6.5.2 for further details on this tool.

7.4 209

7.4.4.1.1 Overview of the Dynamic Development Process

In summary, the dynamic development process is the process of managing

a system change request from the time it has been requested to when it

is delivered. A request for change (referred to as RFC ) is usually initiated

from a business division within the organisation. An Operation Relation

Manager (ORM) receives the RFC and lodges the RFC into the ITSM sys-

tem. ITSM is a system that is used to maintain the requests for change. All

the requests for change must be prioritised across operations based on their

business value using a consistent scoring mechanism. The scoring mecha-

nism is based on two values: risk & opportunity assessment and estimated

cost of the request for change being scored. A Change Manager is responsi-

ble for providing a costing estimate for the newly created RFC which will be

reviewed and ranked by a review committee (SMILE Review Committee).

The SMILE Review Committee is responsible for communicating the list of

the requests for change (which is ordered based on their priority number)

to the relevant business parties. The RFC will eventually be developed by

IT Development Team based on its position in the ranking list. After be-

ing developed, the requested change will be tested and released. After the

change is released, a survey will be conducted to ensure the staff within the

business division who requested the change are satisfied with the delivered

change.

It was important for Organisation B to provide a change management

process that improves the existing services. The summary of the quality

requirements elicited during this stage are as follows:

• Timely and accurate adminstration of the newly received RFC,

• Understanding the needs of the business unit requesting the change,

• Accurate estimation of the costs associated with the new RFC,

• Accurate and consistent prioritisation of the RFC across operation, and

• Value the business unit requesting the change;

210 7


ments of the dynamic development process, the next step was to start the

design phase and model the dynamic development process using the business

process modelling notation used by Organisation B. This step is presented

in the following section.


The purpose of this step was to model the dynamic development process us-

ing a business process modelling language5. As described in Section 5.3.4.1.2,

the researcher conducted two workshops with the Strategy Manager and the

Business Process Analysts to model the overall structure of the dynamic de-

velopment process based on the functional requirements defined in the pre-

vious step. During the workshops, the researcher followed the methodology

and guidelines provided by the action research protocol (Section 5.3.4.1.2)

to identify: (1) activities of the dynamic development process, (2) specifica-

tion of human resources involved with activities and their role within the

organisation, (3) specification of non-human resources (such as computer

systems, printers, projectors etc) required for activities, and (4) the specifi-

cation of data & information associated with the activities. The deliverable

of this step was an EPC model for the dynamic development process which

is presented in Figure 7.26. EPC was chosen because it was the preferred

business process notation by the participating organisation.

In summary, the dynamic development process consists of 9 functions:

enter the request details into ITSM , calculate costs, review & rank the case

- SMILE Review Forum, enter SMILE ranking into ITSM, communicate to

Staff and clients, develop the change, conduct UAT, release, and conduct cus-

tomer satisfaction survey. The dynamic development process starts when an

Operation Relation Manager (ORM) receives a Request for change (RFC).

The RFC is entered into the ITSM system (a system that is used to main-

tain the RFC details - enter the request details into ITSM ). The Change

5 Refer to the QoBP methodology presented in Section 4.4.6 for further details on this step.6 The researcher was playing a more passive role during these workshops and her role was just toensure that four dimensions of the dynamic development process (functions, inputs & outputs,human resources and non-human resources) were modelled. The Business Process Managerwas more actively involved in the modelling exercise using their established framework (asmentioned in Section 4.4.6.2, the QoBP framework proposed in this research is not bound toany specific business process modelling methodology or notation).

7.4 211

Request is received

Enter request details into

ITSM

Request details entered

Review & rank the case -SMILE Review Forum

Case reviewed &

ranked

Enter SMILE ranking into

ITSM

SMILE ranking entered

Communicate to staff and clients

Conduct UAT

Calculate costs

Develop the change

Communicated to staff and

clients

Costs calculated

Conduct customer

satisfaction survey

Release

The change developed

UAT conducted

The change released

Survey conducted

Release Manager

Business Team

SMILE Review Committee

Change Manager

Operation Relationship

Manager


Manager

IT Team


Manager

Change Request

Risk & Opportunity Assessment

RFC v1

RFC v1

RFC v2Business

Value Score

RFC v2Business

Value Score

Priority List

Priority List

Priority List

RFC v2

Priority List

Change

Change

Signed off Change

Signed off Change

Signed off Change

Survey Results

Quesntionaire

Change Manager

Fig. 7.2. Dynamic Development Process EPC

212 7

Manager then calculates the costs for the new RFC (calculate costs). The

RFC and its estimated costs are reviewed and ranked by the SMILE review

committee (review & rank the case - SMILE Review Forum). The rank-

ing list is communicated to the relevant parties by the Operation Relation

Manager (communicate to Staff and clients). The change being requested

is then developed by the IT Development Team (develop the change). Upon

the completion of the development, UAT7 is conducted by the business di-

vision (users who requested the change) (conduct UAT ). Upon successful

UAT the change being developed is released to be used by the business di-

vision who requested the change (release). The last function of the process

is performed after the change is released to ensure the staff within the busi-

ness division who requested the change are satisfied with the change being

delivered (conduct customer satisfaction survey).

Having modelled the dynamic development process, the next step was to

define a quality model for the process which is presented in the following

section.


The purpose of this step was to create a quality model for the dynamic de-

velopment process8. During this step, the researcher conducted four work-

shops with the Strategy Manager and the Business Process Analysts to

capture the quality characteristics for the four business process quality di-

mensions (functions, inputs-outputs, human resources, and non-human re-

sources). During the workshops, the researcher followed the methodology

and guidelines provided by the action research protocol, presented in Sec-

tion 5.3.4.1.3, and used the QoBP automation tool to automate the creation

of the quality model for input & output and non-human resource dimen-

sions9. The outcome of these workshops was a quality model consisting of

the quality characteristics for the four dimensions of the dynamic devel-

opment process. The four quality dimensions of the dynamic development

7 User Acceptance Testing (UAT) is an important stage of a software development life cycle inwhich users who requested the change evaluate the system/functionality being developed toaccept the system/functionality.

8 Refer to the QoBP methodology presented in Section 4.4.6 for further details on this step.9 As described in Section 6.5.2, the QoBP automation tool was developed as a result of the firstaction research cycle to automate some of the more onerous steps of the QoBP methodology.

7.4 213

process are presented below.


The purpose the first workshop was to identify the quality characteristics

of the function dimension of the dynamic development process. It was cru-

cial to ensure that the quality characteristics selected were aligned with

the quality requirements defined during the first step (see Section 7.4.4.1).

Therefore, the first exercise was to map the high level quality requirements

defined during the first step to the functions of the dynamic development

process. As listed below, this mapping did associate each defined quality

requirement to one or more functions of the dynamic development process:

• Requirement 1 - Timely and accurate adminstration of the newly received

RFC

– Function - Enter the request details into ITSM

– Function - Calculate costs

– Function - Review & rank the case - SMILE Review Forum

– Function - Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM

– Function - Communicate to staff and clients

• Requirement 2 - Understanding the needs of the business unit requesting

the change



– Function - Develop the change

– Function - Conduct UA

• Requirement 3 - Accurate estimation of the costs associated with the

new RFC

– Function - Calculate costs

• Requirement 4 - Accurate and consistent prioritisation of the RFC across

operation


214 7

• Requirement 5 - Value the business unit requesting the change




sion of the dynamic development process. Three templates provided by the

action research protocol (Section 5.3.4.1.3) were used during this workshop

to capture and model the function quality dimension of the dynamic devel-

opment process.



Enter request details into ITSM Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9Calculate Costs Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8Review & rank the case - SMILE Review Forum Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11Enter SMILE ranking into ITMS Y Y Y Y Y 5Communicate to staff and clients Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9Develop the change Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y y 10Conduct UAT Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11Release Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10Conduct customer satisfaction survey Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8Total 6 9 3 9 8 7 8 6 9 4 0 7 5Fig. 7.3. Dynamic Development Process - Function Quality Dimension (captured as yes or no)

The first matrix, applying the boolean value, is presented in Figure 7.3.

The workshop participants rated the function/quality characteristic combi-

nation by determining whether the combination was important or not. This

enabled the calculation of both a function total and a quality characteristic

total (yes count) which provides a quick way to identify 1) the functions

that play an important role in the quality of the process, and 2) the quality

characteristics that are important for the process.

In this instance, the functions: review & rank the case - SMILE review

forum (11), conduct UAT (11), develop the change (10), and release (10)

scored the highest ratings therefore play a more significant role in the quality

outcomes for the incident management process. This exercise also identified

7.4 215

024681012

Fig. 7.4. Dynamic Development Process - Functions Quality Rating

that the functions enter SMILE ranking into ITSM (5) play a less important

role in the quality outcomes for the dynamic development process. These


0123456789

Fig. 7.5. Dynamic Development Process - Quality Characteristics

The quality characteristics: accuracy (9), reliability (9) and effectiveness

(9) scored the highest ratings therefore highlighting these characteristics as

more important for this process. This exercise also identified that safety (0)

216 7

and security (3) are less important characteristics for this process. These




Enter request details into ITSM 3 3 3 3 1 13Calculate Costs 2 2 2 2 2 1 11Review & rank the case - SMILE Review Forum 2 2 3 2 3 12Enter SMILE ranking into ITMS 0Communicate to staff and clients 1 1 1 3 6Develop the change 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 1 19Conduct UAT 2 1 2 5Release 1 1 2 4Conduct customer satisfaction survey 1 1 2Fig. 7.6. Function Quality Dimension (by functions - columns)


each quality characteristics, is presented in Figure 7.6. The totals obtained

for each function by this approach highlight that the functions: develop the

change (19), enter request details into ITSM (13), and review & rank the

case - SMILE review forum (12) are the more important functions for ob-

taining quality outcomes. The functions: Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM

(0), and conduct customer satisfaction survey (2) play a less important role

in the quality outcomes for the dynamic development process. These results

are displayed graphically in Figure 7.7.


characteristics for each function, is presented in Figure 7.8.


light that the quality characteristics: accuracy (13), satisfaction (11), and

effectiveness (10) are the significant quality characteristics for the dynamic

development process. Also the quality characteristics: security (0), learn-

ability (0), and safety (0) play a less important role in the quality outcomes

for the dynamic development process. These results are displayed graphi-

7.4 217

02468101214

Fig. 7.7. Claim Intake Process - Quality Rating by Functions


ur efficiency Resource utilisation Effectiveness Productivity Safety Satisfaction Robustness

Enter request details into ITSM 3 1 2Calculate Costs 3 1 2Review & rank the case - SMILE Review Forum 2 3 1Enter SMILE ranking into ITMS 3 2 1Communicate to staff and clients 1 2 3Develop the change 3 1 2Conduct UAT 3 1 2Release 1 2 3Conduct customer satisfaction survey 1 3 2Total 3 13 0 9 2 0 3 0 10 2 0 11 1


cally in Figure 7.9.


conducted to model the input & output quality dimension of the dynamic



The purpose of the second workshop was to create the quality characteris-

tics of the input & output dimension of the dynamic development process.

During the workshop, the researcher created a quality model for the input

218 7

02468101214

Fig. 7.9. Dynamic Development Process - Quality Rating

& output dimension of the dynamic development process using the QoBP

automation tool10 which is presented in Figure 7.10.

Each row of this table (Figure 7.10) represents an input or output for

a function of the dynamic development process and the columns represent

the quality characteristics of the input & output dimension. The cells of the

matrix therefore represent an input-output/quality characteristic relevancy

where a ‘Y’ is present indicates the existence of a relevancy. The automat-

ically generated input & output quality characteristics were reviewed by

the workshop participants and the non-relevant quality characteristics were

marked as ‘N’. The outcome of the second workshop was an input & output-

quality matrix presented in Figure 7.11.


conducted to model the human resource quality dimension of the dynamic



The purpose of the third workshop was to identify the quality characteris-

tics of the human resource dimension of the dynamic development process.

The template and rating approach provided by the action research proto-

10 Refer to Appendix C.11 for further details on how to use the tool to create the input & outputquality model.

7.4 219

Function Inputs Outputs

Accu

racy

Objec

tivity

Belie

vabil

ity

Repu

tation

Acce

ssibil

ity

Secu

rity

Relev

ancy

Value

-adde

d

Timeli

ness

Comp

leten

ess

Amou

nt of

data

Unde

rstan

bility

Conc

ise Re

pres

entat

ion

Cons

isten

t Rep

resen

tation

F1 - Enter request details into ITSM Change Request Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YRisk and Opportunity Assessment Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YRFC v1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YF2 - Calculate Costs RFC v1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YRFC v2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YBusiness Value Score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YF3 - Review and rank the case - SMILE review form RFC v2 Y Y Y Y YBusiness Value Score Y Y Y Y YPriority List Y Y Y Y YF4 - Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM Priority List Priority List Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YF5 - Communicate to staff and clients Priority List Y Y Y Y YF6 - Develop the change RFC v2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YChange Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YF7 - Conduct UAT Change Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YSigned off change Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YF8 – Release Signed off change Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YF9 - Conduct customer Questionnaire Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YSurvey Result Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Fig. 7.10. Dynamic Development Process - Input & Output Quality Dimension (Before Vali-dation)

col (Section 5.3.4.1.3) was used during this workshop to capture and model

the human resource quality dimension of the dynamic development process.

During the workshop, the participants were asked to select a boolean value

(Yes or No) in each cell of the matrix to specify whether a quality charac-

teristic is important for the human resource allocated to a function.

The outcome of the third workshop was the table presented in Fig-

ure 7.12. Each row of this table represents a function of the dynamic devel-

opment process and the columns represent quality characteristics of human

resource dimension. Where a quality characteristic is relevant to the func-

tion then a Y (for yes) is present in the appropriate cell. The totals in a

row represents the number of quality characteristics relevant to the function

220 7


Accu

racy

Objec

tivity

Belie

vabil

ity

Repu

tation

Acce

ssibil

ity

Secu

rity

Relev

ancy

Value

-adde

dTim

eline

ssCo

mplet

enes

sAm

ount

of da

ta

Unde

rstan

bility

Conc

ise Re

pres

entat

ion

Cons

isten

t Rep

resen

tation

F1 - Enter request details into ITSM Change Request Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y YRisk and Opportunity Assessment Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y YRFC v1 Y N N N Y N Y N Y YF2 - Calculate Costs RFC v1 Y N N N Y Y N NRFC v2 Y N N N Y Y N NBusiness Value Score Y Y Y Y Y Y N NF3 - Review and rank the case - SMILE review form RFC v2 Y Y Y Y YBusiness Value Score Y Y Y Y YPriority List Y Y Y Y YF4 - Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM Priority List Priority List Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YF5 - Communicate to staff and clients Priority List Y Y Y Y YF6 - Develop the change RFC v2 Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y YChange Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YF7 - Conduct UAT Change Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YSigned off change Y Y Y Y Y N N Y NF8 – Release Signed off change Y N N N Y N N N NF9 - Conduct customer Questionnaire N N N N N N N N NSurvey Result Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NFig. 7.11. Dynamic Development Process - Input & Output Quality Dimension (After Valida-tion)

in that row. For example, totals of 3 for the function calculate costs indi-

cates that 3 quality characteristics out of 6 are relevant and important to

this function. By viewing this table it was easy for the key stakeholders to

identify the functions where human resources play an important role in the

quality of the process. The column totals are indicators on the relevancy of

each quality characteristic in the whole process. For example, experience,

and time management have the highest totals (8) which indicates that these

quality characteristics are very important for the process. On contrary, cer-

tification and leadership which have the lowest total (0) indicates that they

are not of significant importance to this process.

In this instance, the resource responsible for the functions: develop the

change (5), and release (5) scored the highest ratings therefore play a more

significant role in the quality outcomes for the dynamic development pro-

cess. This exercise also identified that the resources responsible for the func-

7.4 221

Doma

in Kn

owled

ge

Quali

ficati

on

Certi

ficati

on

Expe

rienc

e

Time M

anag

emen

t

Comm

unica

tion S

kill

Lead

ership Total

Enter request details into ITSM Y Y 2Calculate Costs Y Y y 3Review & rank the case - SMILE Review Forum Y Y Y Y 4Enter SMILE ranking into ITMS Y 1Communicate to staff and clients Y Y Y 3Develop the change Y Y Y Y Y 5Conduct UAT Y Y Y Y 4Release Y Y Y Y Y 5Conduct customer satisfaction survey Y Y 2000Total 5 2 0 8 8 6 0

Fig. 7.12. Dynamic Development Process - Human Resource Quality Dimension

00.511.522.533.544.55

Fig. 7.13. Dynamic Development Process - Human Resource Quality Rating

tions enter SMILE ranking into ITSM (0) plays a less important role in the

quality outcomes for the dynamic development process. These results are

displayed graphically in Figure 7.13.

222 7

012345678

Fig. 7.14. Dynamic Development Process - Quality Characteristics

The quality characteristics: experience (8), and time management (8)

scored the highest ratings therefore highlighting these characteristics as

more important for this process. This exercise also identified that certi-

fication (0), and leadership (0) are less important characteristics for this

process. These results are displayed graphically in Figure 7.14.


conducted to model the non-human resource quality dimension of the dy-

namic development process.


The purpose of the fourth workshop was to identify the quality charac-

teristics of the non-human resource dimension of the dynamic development

process. During the workshop, the researcher created a quality model for the

non-human resource dimension of the dynamic development process using

the QoBP automation tool11 which was reviewed by the workshop partici-

pants.

The outcome of this workshop was an automatically generated non-

human resource quality model for the dynamic development process which


7.4 223

Suita

bility

Accu

racy

Secu

rity

Relia

bility

Unde

rstan

dabil

ity

Learn

abilit

y

Time b

ehav

iour e

fficien

cy

Reso

urce u

tilisat

ion

Effec

tiven

ess

Produ

ctivit

y

Safet

y

Satis

factio

n

Robu

stnes

s

Enter request details into ITSM ITSM System 3 1 2Calculate Costs ITSM System 3 1 2Review & rank the case - SMILE Review Forum ITSM System 2 3 1Enter SMILE ranking into ITMS ITSM System 3 2 1

Total 0 9 0 3 2 0 1 0 5 0 0 3 1

Fig. 7.15. Dynamic Development Process - Non Human Resource Quality Dimension (by rows- quality characteristics)

is presented in Figure 7.15.

0123456789

Fig. 7.16. Dynamic Development Process - Non Human Resource Quality Rating


lights that the quality characteristic accuracy (9) is the most significant

quality characteristics for the dynamic development process. Also the qual-

ity characteristics: security (0), learnability (0), resource utilisation (0) and

safety (0) play a less important role in the quality outcomes for the dynamic

development process. These results are displayed graphically in Figure 7.16.

224 7

The next step after creating the quality model for the dynamic develop-

ment process is to create a softgoal model which is presented below.


The purpose of this step was to create a softgoal model for the dynamic de-

velopment process12. During this step, the researcher conducted four work-

shops with the key stakeholders to capture softgoals for the quality charac-

teristics identified for the four dimensions (functions, inputs-outputs, human

resources, and non-human resources) of the dynamic development process.

During the workshops, the researcher followed the methodology and guide-

lines provided by the action research protocol presented in Chapter 5.3.4.1.4.


quality dimension which is presented in Appendix D.1. The softgoal model


workshop is presented in Appendix D.2. The softgoal model for the human


presented in Appendix D.3. Finally, the outcome of the fourth workshop


is presented in Appendix D.4.


action taking stage of the of the action research cycle in Organisation B.


The purpose of this step was to create a correlation model for the dynamic

development process13. During this step, the researcher followed the method-

ology, guidelines and algorithm provided by the action research protocol pre-

sented in Section 5.3.4.1.5 to create correlations between softgoals defined in

the previous step. The outcome of this step was a softgoal correlation model

12 Refer to Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.6.4 for further details on the softgoal model.13 Refer to Sections 4.4.3 and 4.4.6.5 for further details on the softgoal correlation model.

7.4 225

for the dynamic development process which is presented in Appendix D.5.

The following section outlines the last activity conducted during the of

the action taking stage of the action research cycle in Organisation B.


The purpose of this step was to create a measurement model for the dynamic

development process14. The measurement model contains the measurable

attributes (referred to quality metrics) that are identified to evaluate the

quality characteristics of the business process that are modelled in the form

of softgoals. As described in Section 4.4.4, this research adopts an approach

similar to the GQM [147] approach in refining softgoals to a set of quality

metrics. Each softgoal is refined into a set of questions and then each ques-

tion is refined into a set of quality metrics.

During this step, the researcher conducted four workshops with the Strat-

egy Manager and the Business Process Analysts to create a measurement

model which contains quality metrics required to measure softgoal satisfac-

tion for the softgoal model created for the dynamic development process.

During the workshops, the researcher followed the methodology and guide-

lines provided by the action research protocol presented in Chapter 5.3.4.1.6.


function quality dimension which is presented in Appendix D.6. The mea-


during the second workshop is presented in Appendix D.7. The measure-

ment model for the human resource quality dimension that was created

during the third workshop is presented in Appendix D.8. Finally, the out-

come of the fourth workshop was a measurement model for the non-human

resource quality dimension which is presented in Appendix D.9.

The following section outlines the next step of the action research cycle

in which the outcome of the activities performed during the action taking


226 7

stage was evaluated.

7.4.5 Evaluation

The main purpose of this stage was to evaluate the applicability, usability,

usefulness, and scalability of the QoBP framework used during the action

taking stage to create a quality-aware dynamic development process. As

outlined at the beginning of this chapter, this action research cycle was

conducted according to the guidelines provided by the action research pro-

tocol that was presented in Chapter 5. To ensure the rigor of the evaluation

phase of this study15, a set of evaluation objectives have been developed

and presented in Section 5.3.5. The action research protocol also provided

a questionnaire that was created based on these evaluation objectives16.

During this step, the researcher conducted two workshops to evaluate

the outcome of the action research with the the Strategy Manager and the

Business Process Analysts. The main purpose of the evaluation stage of the

action research cycle was explained to the key stakeholders at the begin-

ning of the workshop series. The questionnaire provided by the action re-

search protocol was used to guide the discussions during the workshops. The

researcher followed the three communication behaviours recommended by

[184] to ensure that each evaluation objective was communicated effectively.

The outcome of the evaluation workshop, with respect to the evaluation ob-

jectives, include:

• Quality model:

– Applicability of the quality characteristics defined for the four quality

dimensions (function quality dimension, input & output quality di-

mension, human resource quality dimension, and non-human resource

quality dimension) of the quality model was confirmed. The objectives

here was to validate that the quality characteristics for the four dimen-

sions are relevant and applicable to business processes. While these

15 Refer to guideline 5 - research rigor [2] described in Section 3.6 of chapter3.16 This questionnaire is provided in Appendix B.5.

7.4 227

quality characteristics17 were defined based on an extensive literature

review in related areas18, and their applicability was confirmed once

during the first action research cycle, it was crucial to evaluate their

applicability during the second action research cycle. The relevancy

and the appropriateness of each quality characteristic with respect to

its quality dimension was reviewed during the evaluation workshops

and was acknowledged by the workshops participants. Comments from

the workshop participants include: “ ... not all the provided quality

characteristics were relevant and appropriate for the dynamic develop-

ment process, but that does not mean that they would not be relevant

for other processes ... ”.

– Usability and scalability of the QoBP methodology, QoBP automation

tool19 and the supporting templates (provided in Section 5.3.4.1.3) to

identify and capture the quality characteristics for the four quality di-

mensions of the selected business process was confirmed. The usability

and scalability limitations of the QoBP methodology to capture the

quality characteristics for input & output dimension that was iden-

tified during the first cycle of the action research20, was rectified by

introducing the QoBP automation tool. Comments from the workshop

participants include: “...the templates were really good in helping us

to select the appropriate quality characteristics...it was very useful to

see different views, for example the functions that contribute the most

to the quality of the whole process or which quality characteristic is

the most relevant to the whole process...”.

• Softgoal model:

– Applicability of the softgoal model of the QoBP framework was con-

firmed by the workshop participants. It was acknowledged that the

17 Refer to Section 4.3 for further details on four quality dimensions of a business process.18 Refer to Section 4.3.1 for a summary of this literature review.19 The QoBP automation tool was developed after conducting the first action research cycle to

improve the scalability of the QoBP methodology by automating some of the more oneroussteps of the QoBP methodology. QoBP automation tool is described in details in AppendixC.11.

20 Refer to Section 6.4.5 for further details on the evaluation results of the first action researchresults.

228 7

goal-oriented approach adopted in this research is a relevant and ap-

propriate approach in coping with the abstract and informal nature


Comments from the workshop participants confirming the applica-

bility of the softgoal model include: “...the quality characteristics, on

their own, were difficult to apply...the softgoals made it easier to relate

them to the process...”.

– Practicality of the QoBP methodology and the supporting templates

(provided in Section 5.3.4.1.4) to identify and capture softgoals for the

identified quality characteristics for the dynamic development process

was confirmed. After reviewing the softgoal model of the dynamic de-

velopment process, it became apparent that because all the softgoals

are specified using the same pattern21, a set of generic softgoals can

be developed for all the quality characteristics that can be used as

starting point in future cases. Comments from the workshop partici-

pants reflects this: “...given that the softgoals follow a similar format,

we think that they could be pre-defined as this would save us consid-

erable effort...”.


– Practicality and scalability of the QoBP methodology and the sup-

porting templates (provided in Section 5.3.4.1.5) to capture the cor-

relations between identified softgoals was reviewed during the evalu-

ation workshops. It was acknowledged that “...the methodology and

the supporting template may not scale well for larger business pro-

cesses...”. It was discussed that as the correlations are modelled based

on a specific algorithm22, a tool could be developed to automate the

creation of the softgoal correlation model for a business process.



porting templates (provided in Section 5.3.4.1.6) to create a measure-

21 Refer to Section 4.4.2 for further details on the recommended pattern to specify softgoals.22 Refer to Section ?? for further details on how to create a softgoal correlation model.

7.4 229

ment model was confirmed. It was also acknowledged that the goal-

question-metric approach was very effective in refining each softgoal

to a set of quality metrics as it was providing a structured approach

that, while being efficient, was easy to follow. Comments from the

workshop participants include: “...the definition of metrics that could

be derived from the quality goals in an easy, systematic way was very

useful...”.

• QoBP Metamodel:





Comments from the workshop participants include: “...the model cap-

tured the necessary elements to define the quality aspects of the busi-

ness process...”.


Strategy Manager that:

“...having a way to embed the quality elements into our business process

model was beneficial...”.

“...this process has made me to become more aware of quality and the

role it can play in business process improvement exercises...”.

The following section outlines a summary of the next step of the first

action research cycle in which the lessons learned from the action research

cycle were identified.


The purpose of this step was to identify the lessons learned during the

second action research cycle. During this stage, the researcher organised

230 7

a workshop with the Strategy Manager and the Business Process Analysts

to reflect on the evaluation results described in the previous section. This

workshop was focused on discovering the lessons learned and eliciting the

recommendations for possible enhancements to the QoBP framework. The

outcome of the first workshop can be summarised as:

1. A generic softgoal model can be generated and be available as part of

the framework.

2. Develop a tool that automates the generation of a softgoal model and a

softgoal correlation model.


cycle with Organisation B - closure.

7.4.7 Closure

During this last stage of the action research, the researcher organised an

informal meeting to express her appreciation to the Strategy Manager and

the Business Process Analysts contributing to this collaborative project.

7.5 A Reflection on Action Research Cycle and

Re-design

This section presents further reflection on the two enhancement opportuni-

ties identified during the specifying learning stage of the second action re-

search cycle (Section 7.4.6) and their realisations. The enhancements made

to the artifacts as a result are also presented in this section.

7.5.1 Create a Generic Softgoal Model

This section presents an outline of the first enhancement to the QoBP frame-

work. After completing the second cycle of the action research in Organisa-

tion B it became apparent that a generic softgoal model can be created and

7.6 231

incorporated into the QoBP framework. The generic softgoal model can be

used as a starting point during the fourth step of the QoBP methodology

(create softgoal model - see Section 4.4.6.4). These generic softgoals can

then be refined to be more specific for a business process.

7.5.2 QoBP Automation Tool

This section presents a brief description on the enhancements to the QoBP

automation tool that was developed during the first action research cycle23.

The QoBP methodology (Section 4.4.6), and the action taking stage of the

action research plan presented in Section 5.3.4 are enhanced as the result

of these enhancements to the QoBP automation tool. The enhancements to

the action taking stage of the action research plan are as follows:

• Step 4 - Create a Softgoal Model (Section 5.3.4.1.4): the tool

creates a softgoal model automatically from the created quality model.

• Step 5 - Create a Correlation Model (Section 5.3.4.1.5): the tool

automatically creates a softgoal correlation model for a process based on

the created softgoal model for that process and the correlation algorithm

defined in Section 5.3.4.1.5.

7.6 Summary of the Second Action Research Cycle

The purpose of this chapter was to describe the second cycle of the action

research conducted as part of this study. During this cycle the validity and

applicability of the quality dimensions of the QoBP framework to a real-

world business case was evaluated. The enhancements made to the QoBP

framework and the QoBP methodology as a result of the first action re-

search cycle (Section 7.4.6) were also evaluated in his action research cycle.

The evaluation of the second action research cycle was presented in Sec-

tion 7.4.5. Section 7.4.6 outlined the learning from this cycle. A reflection

23 The QoBP automation tool is described in detail in Appendix C.10.

232 7

on the lessons learned and the enhancements made to the framework as a

result were presented in Section 7.5. The enhancement made to the QoBP

framework include:

• Creating of a generic softgoal model

• Enhancements to the QoBP automation tool to automate the creation

of both softgoal model and Softgoal correlation model

These enhancements are evaluated in the subsequent action research cy-

cles (Chapter 8). The objectives of the second action research cycle were

met by enhancing the QoBP framework from the findings described above

after the completion of the second action research cycle.

8

Third Action Research Cycle

8.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a report on the third action research cycle conducted

in a medium-sized Australian organisation in the financial sector - Organi-

sation C. The purpose of this third action research cycle was to evaluate: (1)

the enhancements made to the artifacts during the second action research

cycles, and (2) the PRCA technique proposed in Section 4.5 to support the

quality improvement phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle.

The action research conducted in Organisation C was based on the key


search protocol presented in Chapter 5. The data captured and the models

built during this cycle are presented either in the relevant sections of this

chapter or Appendix E. Section 8.2 presents a short description of Organisa-

tion C, followed by Section 8.3 which describes the justification for choosing

Organisation C as the host for the third cycle of the action research. A sum-

mary of the action research cycle stages in Organisation C is presented in

Section 8.4.


Organisation C is one of the largest Australian independent stockbroking

and financial planning firms with over 345,000 clients, 700 financial advisors

and 970 staff operating from 41 offices in all states of Australia. This cor-

poration provides its clients with a variety of products and services such as

stockbroking, financial planning, corporate finance, and portfolio manage-

234 8

ment. The head office of the corporation is located in Queensland and has

several centralised divisions such as Operations, Information Technology,

and Market Research.

The BPM initiative at Organisation C is in the early stages. Although

there is no centralised division dedicated to BPM, several major business

process improvement and business process re-engineering initiatives have

been taking place within two divisions of the organisation. The Project

Management team in Organisation C is usually responsible for the manage-

ment and delivery of the business process improvement initiatives/projects.

The justification for choosing Organisation C as the host for the second



This section presents the justification for choosing Organisation C as the

host for the third cycle of the action research. As outlined in Section 5.2,



selection criteria that were provided in Section 5.2 were used to evaluate

if Organisation C is an appropriate organisation to host the third cycle

of the action research. After the initial contact with Organisation C and

discussing the purpose of the engagement, it was clear that Organisation

C was an appropriate candidate for hosting the third cycle of the action

research. This organisation was chosen to participate in the third cycle of

the action research for the following reasons:


preciation for BPM and commitment to BPM principles and practices.

Organisation C is a large organisation with a management team that are

committed to establish BPM principles and practices.

• Criterion 2 - It was important for the organisation to have an appreci-

ation for research in the area and preferably a prior relationship with the

BPM research center within the Queensland University of Technology.

8.4 235

The researcher was an employee of Organisation C who was very well

aware of the QUT BPM center research activities, rules and regulations.



framework proposed by this thesis to their BPM practice. The researcher

was providing consultancy on a project which could benefit from the Pro-

cess Root Cause Analysis (PRCA) technique. It was important to choose

a business process with quality issues that could benefit from the root

cause analysis approach proposed by this thesis. The key stakeholders

for this specific project were interested in the research. They acknowl-

edged the limitations of an appropriate root cause analysis for business

processes. Therefore, they were very keen to participate in this action

research and take part in exploring the proposed PRCA technology.

• Criterion 4 - The researcher was an employee of Organisation C which

made accessibility to the organisation’s resources and people easier.


research cycle in Organisation C.



Organisation C. The action research cycle was conducted according to the

action research plan provided in Section 5.3. The action research conducted

in Organisation C was a formal collaborative project where the Project Man-

ager and a Help Desk Officer (one of the senior members of the IT Help

Desk in Organisation C) were the key stakeholders.

An outline of the different stages of the action research cycle in Organi-

sation C is presented in the following sub-sections. Section 8.4.1 presents a

summary of the initial meeting with the key stakeholders of Organisation

C. An outline of the outcome of the diagnosis stage is presented in Sec-

236 8

tion 8.4.2. Section 8.4.3 presents a summary of the action planning stage

with the key stakeholders of Organisation C. A detailed outline of the activ-

ities performed during the action taking stage is presented in Section 8.4.5.

Section 8.4.6 presents the details on the evaluation stage of the action re-

search cycle as well as the outcome of this evaluation. An outline of the

lessons learned during this action research cycle is presented in Section 8.4.7.

A briefing of the last stage of the cycle is presented in Section 8.4.8.


This section presents a short summary of the first stage of the cycle which

is the initial meeting with the Project Manager (the key stakeholder in Or-

ganisation C). During this stage, the researcher organised a meeting with

the Project Manager to discuss this collaborative opportunity in detail. A

summary of the research topic and action research approach was sent to

the invitees prior to the meeting1. During the initial meeting the researcher

briefly described the Process Root Cause Analysis (PRCA) technique, the

QoBP framework, the action research methodology in general, and the ac-

tion research protocol for this specific collaboration. By the end of the ses-

sion, the Project Manager was aware of the engagement plan during the cy-

cle and the commitment required through the whole life cycle of the project.



8.4.2 Diagnosis


efit from the PRCA technique. During this stage, as guided by the action


informal meetings with the Project Manager. During these meetings the re-

searcher described the purpose of the diagnosis phase of the action research

cycle. In order to identify a candidate process, the researcher described how

the host organisation will benefit from introducing the QoBP framework


8.4 237

and PRCA technique to their BPM practice.

A project was underway to improve the help desk service provided by

the IT division within Organisation C2. The project, referred to as inci-

dent management, was part of a programme of work initiated as a result

of a major re-structuring of the IT division. The identification of incidents

and the resolution and restoration of affected services were not occurring

as quickly or efficiently as possible. The purpose of this project was to im-

prove the incident management process in Organisation C. The researcher,

being a consultant in Organisation C, was involved in the early stages of

this project and was aware of the lack of an appropriate tool or technique

for conducting the root cause analysis of cases where the incidents occurred

and reported were not managed efficiently by the IT help desk team (poor

quality incident management cases). After explaining to the key stakehold-

ers of this initiative how the quality of the service provided by IT help

desk can be improved by introducing the quality-aware BPM life cycle to

the incident management process, they agreed to adopt the quality-aware

BPM life cycle for this specific process. The Project Manager who had been

involved in other business process improvement initiatives, was very well

aware of the lack of the BPM methodology practiced by Organisation C in

supporting quality aspects of business processes. Therefore, she was keen

to adopt the QoBP framework for the incident management process and

use the PRCA techniquep to identify the root causes of a recurring incident

management case which did not have the desired outcome. The statement

below reflects the concerns raised in an email by the head of the division

affected by this recurring issue:

“ ... this month there have been two occasions when X batches have not

run correctly and timely support was not available ... it is imperative that

the processing of this batch occurs prior to the ASX market opening ...”

As stated in the above statement, the incident resolution and restoration

for this recurring incident were not occurring as quickly and as effectively

as desired. This quality issue with the incident management process was a

2 The IT division provides the organisation with support of major IT infrastructure and Aus-tralia wide user network. IT support is maintained by a Help Desk located at Head Office.

238 8

suitable case to evaluate the PRCA technique in a real world scenario.



quality-aware incident management process.



a quality-aware incident management process using the QoBP framework

and conduct root cause analysis using the PRCA technique. The researcher

conducted an informal meeting with the Project Manager and Help Desk

Officer to describe the QoBP methodology (presented in Section 4.4.6), the

PRCA technique and the activity plan for both quality definition and qual-

ity improvement phases of the quality-aware BPM life cycle.

Figure 8.1 presents an outline of the activities scheduled for the next

stage of the action research cycle - action taking. As shown in Figure 8.1,

the action taking stage consists of two distinct phases: phase I and phase II.

Phase I was dedicated to the quality definition phase of the quality-aware

BPM life cycle in which the QoBP framework was used to create a quality-

aware incident management process. Phase II was planned for the quality

improvement phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle in which the PRCA

technique was used to identify the root cause of the quality issue identified

during the diagnosis phase. The following section presents the first phase of

the action taking stage.

8.4.4 Action Taking - Phase I

The purpose of this stage was to create a quality-aware incident manage-

ment process based on the QoBP methodology. The researcher organised a

series of workshops with the key stakeholders according to the action plan

produced during the action planning stage (Figure 6.1). The researcher

followed the action research protocol, presented in the previous chapter

(Chapter 5), for each workshop during this stage. The QoBP automation

tool developed as a result of the first action research cycle was also used to

8.4 239 Phase Sub-A ctivity Engagem ent Type D uration A ction Takin g Phase 1 A n alyse the Process W orksh op 4 ho urs Create Business Process M odel W orksh op 16 h ours Create Q uality M odel W orksh op 16 h ours Create Softgoal M odel W orksh op 16 h ours Create Correlatio ns M odel N one 4 ho urs Create M easurem ent M odel W orksh op 8 ho urs Prep are Pro ject Report N one 40 h ours A ction Takin g Phase 2 Co nduct PRCA W orksh op 8 ho urs


automate some of the more onerous steps of the QoBP methodology.


this section in the following order. Section 8.4.4.1 presents an outline of the

first step in which the requirements for the incident management process

were analysed. Section 8.4.4.2 presents the incident management business

process model created during the second step. The quality model created

for the incident management process during the third step is presented in

Section 8.4.4.3. Section 8.4.4.4 presents the softgoal model for the incident

management process which was created during the fourth step. The corre-

lation model for the incident management process created during the fifth

step is presented in Section 8.4.4.5. Finally, Section 8.4.4.6 presents the

240 8

measurement model for the incident management process created in the

last step of the action taking phase.


The purpose of the first step was to analyse the incident management pro-

cess goals, the incident management process environment, the organisation

structure, and the incident management process quality requirements. For

this step, the researcher organised a workshop with the Business Process

Manager and Help Desk Officer. During the workshop, the functional and

quality (non-functional) requirements of the incident management process

were elicited, taking account of the organisation’s strategy, goals and struc-

ture. The researcher used the technique and guidelines provided in Section

5.3.4.1.1 to elicit these requirements. The deliverable of this phase was the

functional and quality (non-functional) requirements description of the inci-

dent management process. A brief overview of this description is presented

below, followed by a summary of the quality requirements for the incident

management process.

8.4.4.1.1 Overview of the Incident Management Process

The incident management process is the process of restoring normal service

operation, in the event of an incident, as quickly as possible with minimum

disruption to the business. Around 95% of incidents are dealt with by the IT

help desk within Organisation C. The incident management process starts

when incidents are detected and logged as Fault Service Requests (FSR).

Incident management assures appropriate levels of resources can be allo-

cated to fixing the problem. The FSR is opened by a Help Desk Officer who

carries out an initial review of the contents. Based on their initial assess-

ment the Help Desk Officer confirms that the call is either a service request

or an error report i.e. Fault Service Request (FSR). If the call is a Request

for Change (RFC) then the incident process is no longer relevant and the

Help Desk Officer should follow the Change Management process. Next,

the Help Desk Officer assigns the FSR a priority (High, Medium or Low)

based on their initial assessment. Prioritisation is performed based on two

dimensions: urgency and impact. Urgency refers to when an incident needs

8.4 241

to be resolved. Impact reflects the likely effect the incident on the business

services. Other factors such as availability of resources are also taken into ac-

count. If the FSR is assigned a high priority then a decision should be made

as to whether the incident management process is appropriate. Based on

their initial assessment the Help Desk Officer assigns the FSR to a category.

The category items are structured around the hardware, software, voice and

the specific asset or system e.g., PC, phone, web site, application A, etc.

Categorisation is required in order to determine which records from the

Knowledge Base3 are presented for assistance and guidance and also whom

the incident should be assigned for resolution. Within each classification

item there will also be multiple sub-items that further assist in resolution

by identifying the nature of the call e.g. new user, faulty, and error. Based

on the prioritisation and classification the Help Desk Officer then assigns

the call either to themselves or another IT Team member, herein called the

assignee. The assignee is responsible for the investigation and diagnosis.

It was important for the key stakeholders in the IT division to provide

an efficient incident management experience for their clients. A summary

of the quality requirements elicited during this stage are as follows:

• A consistent and measurable approach applied to all incidents,

• Incidents are prioritised and categorised correctly,

• Limited IT resources being used more effectively,

• Knowledge of incidents and their fixes that occur through centralised

recording, and

• Timely resolution of incidents based on their assigned priority and clas-

sification;


ments of the incident management process, the next step was to start the

design phase and model the incident management process using the business

3 All the appropriate resolution paths are recorded in the Help Desk Knowledge Base.

242 8

process modelling notation used by Organisation C. This step is presented

in the following section.


The purpose of this step was to model the incident management process us-

ing a business process modelling language4. As described in Section 5.3.4.1.2,

the researcher conducted a series of workshops with the Project Manager

and Help Desk Officer to model the overall structure of the change man-

agement process based on the functional requirements defined in the pre-

vious step. During the workshops, the researcher followed the methodology

and guidelines provided by the action research protocol, presented in Sec-

tion 5.3.4.1.2, to identify: (1) activities of the incident management process,

(2) specification of human resources involved with activities and their role

within the organisation, (3) specification of non-human resources (such as

computer systems, printers, projectors etc) required for activities, and (4)

the specification of data & information associated with the activities. The

deliverable of this step was an EPC model for the incident management

process which is presented in figure 7.2 6.25. EPC was chosen because it

was the preferred business process notation by the participating organisa-

tion.

In summary, the incident management process consists of 4 functions:

classify FSR , prioritise FSR, categorise FSR, and assign FSR. The inci-

dent management process starts when a FSR is received. The FSR is then

evaluated to confirm that the request is a genuine fault request and not a

Request For Change (RFC) (classify FSR). The Help Desk Officer assigns

the FSR a priority (High, Medium or Low) based on their initial assessment

(prioritise FSR). The Help Desk Officer in charge assigns a category (hard-

ware, software, voice and the specific asset or system e.g., PC, phone, web

site, application A, etc) to the FSR (categorise FSR). He/she then assigns

the call either to themselves or another IT Team member (assign FSR).

4 Refer to the QoBP methodology presented in Section 4.4.6 for further details on this step.5 The researcher was playing an active role during these workshops and she was working as aconsultant for this project. She ensured that four dimensions of the incident management pro-cess (functions, inputs & outputs, human resources and non-human resources) were modelled.The Project Manager was also actively involved in the modelling exercise.

8.4 243

FSRis received

Classify FSR

FSR

Categorise FSR

FSR isverified

XORFSR is

re-classified

XORFSR is

escalated

FSR is prioritised

FSR is categorised

FSR

Prioritise FSR

FSR

FSR

FSR

FSR

Assign FSR

FSR

FSREmail

receipt

Help Desk Officer

Help Desk Officer

Help Desk Officer

Help Desk Officer

Change Mgmt

Process

Problem Mgmt

Process

Fig. 8.2. Incident Management Process EPC

244 8

Having modelled the incident management process, the next step was to

define a quality model for the process which is presented in the following

section.


The purpose of this step was to define a quality model for the incident

management process6. During this step, the researcher conducted four work-

shops with the key stakeholders to capture the quality characteristics for the

four business process quality dimensions (functions, inputs-outputs, human

resources, and non-human resources). During the workshops, the researcher


protocol, presented in Section 5.3.4.1.3, and used the the QoBP automation

tool to automate the creation of the quality models for input & output and

non-human resource dimensions7. The outcome of these workshops was a

quality model consisting of the quality characteristics for the four dimen-

sions of the incident management process. The four quality dimensions of

the incident management process are presented below.


The purpose of the first workshop was to identify the quality characteris-

tics of the function dimension of the incident management process. It was

crucial to ensure that the quality characteristics selected were aligned with

the quality requirements defined during the first step (see Section 8.4.4.1).

Therefore, the first exercise was to map the high level quality requirements

defined during the first step to the functions of the incident management

process. As listed below, this mapping did associate each defined quality

requirement to one or more functions of the incident management process:

• Requirement 1 - A consistent and measurable approach applied to all

incidents

– Function - Classify FSR

– Function - Prioritise FSR

– Function - Categorise FSR

6 Refer to the QoBP methodology presented in Section 4.4.6 for further details on this step.7 Section 6.5.2 discussed how the QoBP automation tool was developed as a result of the firstaction research cycle to automate some of the more onerous steps of the QoBP methodology.

8.4 245

– Function - Assign FSR

• Requirement 2 - Incidents are prioritised and categorised correctly



• Requirement 3 - Limited IT resources being used more effectively




• Requirement 4 - Knowledge of incidents and their fixes that occur

through centralised recording




• Requirement 5 - Timely resolution of incidents based on their assigned

priority and classification






sion of the incident management process. Three templates provided by the

action research protocol (Section 5.3.4.1.3) were used during this workshop

to capture and model the function quality dimension of the incident man-

agement process.

The first matrix, applying the boolean approach, is presented in Fig-

ure 8.3. Key stakeholders rated the function/quality characteristic combi-

nation by determining whether the combination was important or not (Yes

or No). This enabled the calculation of both a function total and a quality

characteristic total (Yes count) which provides a quick way to identify 1)

the functions that play an important role in the quality of the process, and

246 8

2) the quality characteristics that are important for the process.

Suita

bility

Accu

racy

Secu

rity

Relia

bility

Unde

rstan

dabil

ity

Learn

abilit

y

Time b

ehav

iour e

fficien

cy

Reso

urce u

tilisat

ion

Effec

tiven

ess

Produ

ctivit

y

Safet

y

Satis

factio

n

Robu

stnes

s

Total

Classify FSR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8Priotorise FSR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8Categorise FSR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8Assign FSR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9

Total 4 4 1 0 4 0 4 4 4 4 0 4 0

Fig. 8.3. Incident Management Process - Function Quality Dimension (captured as yes or no)

7.47.67.888.28.48.68.89Classify FSR Priotorise FSR Categorise FSR Assign FSR

Fig. 8.4. Incident Management Process - Functions Quality Rating

In this instance, the functions assign FSR (9) scored the highest rating

and therefore plays a more significant role in the quality outcomes for the

incident management process. This exercise also identified that the other

three functions classify FSR, prioritise FSR, and categorise FSR play a less

important role in the quality outcomes for the incident management pro-

8.4 247

cess. These results are displayed graphically in Figure 8.4.

00.511.522.533.54

Fig. 8.5. Incident Management Process - Quality Characteristics

Also, the quality characteristics: suitability (4), accuracy (4), understand-

ability (4), time behaviour efficiency (4), resource utilisation (4), effective-

ness (4), and productivity (4) scored the highest ratings therefore highlight-

ing these characteristics as more important for this process. This exercise

also identified that reliability (0), learnability (0), safety (0) and robustness

(0) are less important characteristics for this process. These results are dis-

played graphically in Figure 8.5.

Suita

bility

Accu

racy

Secu

rity

Relia

bility

Unde

rstan

dabil

ity

Learn

abilit

y

Time b

ehav

iour e

fficien

cy

Reso

urce u

tilisat

ion

Effec

tiven

ess

Produ

ctivit

y

Safet

y

Satis

factio

n

Robu

stnes

s

Total

Classify FSR 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 14Priotorise FSR 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 19Categorise FSR 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 16Assign FSR 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 23

Fig. 8.6. Function Quality Dimension (by functions - columns)

248 8


each quality characteristics, is presented in Figure 8.6. The totals obtained

for each function by this approach highlight that the functions: assign FSR

(23), prioritise FSR (19), and categorise FSR (16) are the more important

functions for obtaining quality outcomes. Also the functions classify FSR

(14) plays a less important role in the quality outcomes for the incident

management process. These results are displayed graphically in Figure 8.7.

0510152025

Classify FSR Priotorise FSR Categorise FSR Assign FSRFig. 8.7. Incident Management Process - Quality Rating by Functions


characteristics for each function, is presented in Figure 8.8.


light that the quality characteristics: suitability (6), accuracy (5), and ef-

fectiveness (6) are the significant quality characteristics for the incident

management process. Also the quality characteristics: security (0), learn-

ability (0), resource utilisation (0), productivity (0), safety (0), satisfaction

(0), and robustness (0) play a less important role in the quality outcomes for

the incident management process. These results are displayed graphically

in Figure 8.9.

8.4 249

Suita

bility

Accu

racy

Secu

rity

Relia

bility

Unde

rstan

dabil

ity

Learn

abilit

y

Time b

ehav

iour e

fficien

cy

Reso

urce u

tilisat

ion

Effec

tiven

ess

Produ

ctivit

y

Safet

y

Satis

factio

n

Robu

stnes

s

Classify FSR 2 3 1Priotorise FSR 2 1 3Categorise FSR 2 1 3Assign FSR 2 3 1

Total 6 5 0 3 0 0 4 0 6 0 0 0 0


0123456

Fig. 8.9. Incident Management Process - Quality Rating


conducted to model the input & output quality dimension of the incident

management process.


The purpose of the second workshop was to create the quality characteris-

tics of the input & output dimension of the incident management process.

During the workshop, the researcher created a quality model for the input

& output dimension of the incident management process using the QoBP

250 8

automation tool8 which is presented in Figure 7.10.

Function Inputs OutputsAc

curac

yOb

jectiv

ityBe

lieva

bility

Repu

tation

Acce

ssibil

itySe

curit

yRe

levan

cyVa

lue-ad

ded

Timeli

ness

Comp

leten

ess

Amou

nt of

data

Unde

rstan

bility

Conc

ise Re

prese

ntatio

nCo

nsist

ent R

epres

entat

ion

F1 - Classify FSR FSR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YFSR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

F2 - Prioritise FSR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YFSR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

F3 - Categorise FSR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YFSR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

F4 - Assign FSR FSR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YEmail Receipt Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Fig. 8.10. Incident Management Process - Input & Output Quality Dimension (Before Valida-tion)

Each row of this table (Figure 8.10) represents an input or output for

a function of the incident management process and the columns represent

the quality characteristics of the input & output dimension. The cells of the

matrix therefore represent an input-output/quality characteristic relevancy

where a ‘Y’ is present indicates the existence of a relevancy. The automati-

cally generated input & output quality characteristics were reviewed by the

key stakeholders and the non-relevant quality characteristics were marked

as ‘N’. The outcome of the second workshop was an input & output-quality

matrix presented in Figure 8.11.


conducted to model the human resource quality dimension of the incident

management process.


The purpose of the third workshop was to identify the quality characteris-

tics of the human resource dimension of the incident management process.

The template and rating approach provided by the action research proto-

col (Section 5.3.4.1.3) was used during this workshop to capture and model

the human resource quality dimension of the incident management process.


8.4 251


Accu

racy

Objec

tivity

Belie

vabil

ityRe

putat

ionAc

cessi

bility

Secu

rity

Relev

ancy

Value

-adde

dTim

eline

ssCo

mplet

enes

sAm

ount

of da

taUn

derst

anbil

ityCo

ncise

Repre

senta

tion

Cons

isten

t Rep

resen

tation

F1 - Classify FSR FSR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N NFSR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N

F2 - Prioritise FSR Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N NFSR Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N

F3 - Categorise FSR Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N NFSR Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N

F4 - Assign FSR FSR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N NEmail Receipt Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N

Fig. 8.11. Incident Management Process - Input & Output Quality Dimension (After Valida-tion)

During the workshop, the key stakeholders were asked to select a Boolean

value (Yes/No) in each cell of the matrix to specify whether a quality char-

acteristic is important for the human resource allocated to a function.

Domain Knowledge Qualification Certification Experience Time Manage

mentCommunication Skill Leadership TotalClassify FSR Y Y Y Y 4Priorities FSR Y Y Y 3Categorise FSR Y Y Y 3Assign FSR Y Y Y Y 4Total 4 0 0 4 4 2 0

Fig. 8.12. Incident Management Process - Human Resource Quality Dimension

The outcome of the third workshop was the table presented in Fig-

ure 8.12. Each row of this table represents a function of the incident man-

agement process and the columns represent quality characteristics of human

resource dimension. Where a quality characteristic is relevant to the func-

tion then a Y (for yes) is present in the appropriate cell. The totals in a

row represents the number of quality characteristics relevant to the func-

tion in that row. For example, totals of 3 for the function categorise FSR

indicates that 3 quality characteristics out of 7 are relevant and important

252 8

to this function. By viewing this table it was easy for the key stakeholders

to identify the resources that play an important role in the quality of the

process. The column totals are indicators on the relevancy of each quality

characteristic in the whole process. For example, domain knowledge, expe-

rience, and time management have the highest totals (4) which indicates

that these quality characteristics are very important for the process. On

contrary, qualification, certification and leadership which have the lowest

total (0) indicates that they are not of significant importance to this pro-

cess.

00.511.522.533.54Classify FSR Prioritise FSR Categorise FSR Assign FSR

Fig. 8.13. Incident Management Process - Human Resource Quality Rating

In this instance, the resource responsible for the functions: classify FSR

(4), and assign FSR (4) scored the highest ratings therefore play a more sig-

nificant role in the quality outcomes for the incident management process.

This exercise also identified that the resources responsible for the functions

categorise FSR (3), and prioritise FSR (3) play a less important role in the

quality outcomes for the incident management process. These results are

displayed graphically in Figure 8.13.

Also, the quality characteristics: domain knowledge (4), experience (4),

and time management (4) scored the highest ratings therefore highlight-

8.4 253

00.511.522.533.54

Fig. 8.14. Incident Management Process - Quality Characteristics

ing these characteristics as more important for this process. This exercise

also identified that certification (0), qualification (0), and leadership (0) are

less important characteristics for this process. These results are displayed

graphically in Figure 8.14.


conducted to model the non-human resource quality dimension of the inci-

dent management process.


The purpose the fourth workshop was to identify the quality characteristics

of the non-human resource dimension of the incident management process.

During the workshop, the researcher created a quality model for the non-

human resource dimension of the incident management process using the

QoBP automation tool which was reviewed by the key stakeholders.

The outcome of this workshop was an automatically generated non-

human resource quality model for the incident management process which

is presented in Figure 8.15.

254 8

Suita

bility

Accu

racy

Secu

rity

Relia

bility

Unde

rstan

dabil

ity

Learn

abilit

y

Time b

ehav

iour e

fficien

cy

Reso

urce u

tilisat

ion

Effec

tiven

ess

Produ

ctivit

y

Safet

y

Satis

factio

n

Robu

stnes

s

Classify FSR Helpdesk System 2 3 1Priorities FSR Helpdesk System 2 1 3Categorise FSR Helpdesk System 2 1 3Assign FSR Helpdesk System 2 3 1

Total 6 5 0 3 0 0 4 0 6 0 0 0 0

Fig. 8.15. Incident Management Process - Non Human Resource Quality Dimension (by rows- quality characteristics)

02468101214

Fig. 8.16. Incident Management Process - Non Human Resource Quality Rating


light that the quality characteristics suitability (6) and effectiveness (6) is

the significant quality characteristics for the incident management process.

Also the quality characteristics: security (0), understandability (0), learn-

ability (0), resource utilisation (0), productivity (0), satisfaction (0), robust-

ness (0), and safety (0) play a less important role in the quality outcomes

for the incident management process. These results are displayed graphi-

cally in Figure 8.16.

8.4 255

The next step after creating the quality model for the incident manage-

ment process is to create a softgoal model which is presented below.


The purpose of this step was to create a softgoal model for the incident

management process9. During this step, the researcher created a softgoal

model for the incident management process using the QoBP automation

tool. This model was reviewed and altered by the key stakeholders during

four workshops. The researcher followed the methodology and guidelines

provided by the action research protocol presented in Chapter 5.3.4.1.4.


quality dimension which is presented in Appendix E.1. The softgoal model


workshop is presented in Appendix E.2. The softgoal model for the human


presented in Appendix E.3. Finally, the outcome of the fourth workshop


is presented in Appendix E.4.


action taking stage of the of the action research cycle in Organisation C.


The purpose of this step was to create a correlation model for the incident

management process10. During this step, the researcher created a softgoal

correlation model for the incident management process using the QoBP au-

tomation tool. The outcome of this step was a softgoal correlation model

for the incident management process which is presented in Appendix E.5.

9 Refer to Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.6.4 for further details on the softgoal correlation model.10 Refer to Sections 4.4.3 and 4.4.6.5 for further details on the softgoal correlation model.

256 8

The following section outlines the last activity conducted during the ac-

tion taking stage of the action research cycle in Organisation C.


The purpose of this step was to create a measurement model for the incident

management process11. The measurement model contains the measurable

attributes (referred to as quality metrics) that are identified to evaluate the

quality characteristics of the business process that are modelled in the form

of softgoals. As described in Section 4.4.4, this research adopts an approach

similar to the GQM [147] approach in refining softgoals to a set of quality

metrics. Each softgoal is refined into a set of questions and then each ques-

tion is refined into a set of quality metrics.


stakeholders to create a measurement model which contains quality met-

rics required to measure softgoal satisfaction for the softgoal model created

for the incident management process. During the workshops, the researcher


protocol presented in Chapter 5.3.4.1.6.


function quality dimension which is presented in Appendix E.6. The mea-


during the second workshop is presented in Appendix E.7. The measurement

model for the human resource quality dimension that was created during

the third workshop is presented in Appendix E.8. Finally, the outcome of

the fourth workshop was a measurement model for the non-human resource

quality dimension which is presented in Appendix E.9.

The following section outlines the activities performed during the second

phase of the action taking stage.


8.4 257

8.4.5 Action Taking - Phase II

This section presents the activities performed during the second phase of

the action taking stage which was dedicated to the quality improvement

phase of the quality-aware BPM life cycle. As described in Section 8.4.3,

the aim of this phase was to use the PRCA technique to identify the root

cause of the recurring quality issue with the incident management process

(identified in Section 8.4.2).

In order to trace a quality issue back to its root cause for an instance of

a business process, the correlations between softgoals that are modelled in

a softgoal correlation model for the process12 are used. Figure 8.17 depicts

a graphical representation of the softgoal correlation model for the incident

management process that is exhibited in Appendix E.5. The PRCA tech-

nique consists of several steps that were described in Section 4.5.2.

The researcher organised four workshops to perform root cause anal-

ysis using the PRCA technique. During the first workshop the recurring

poor quality incident management case was reviewed with the relevant key

stakeholders in order to articulate the quality issue(s). As it was stated in

the email by the head of the division affected by this recurring issue, the

support for the recurring incident (problem with processing of the batch

files) was not addressed in a timely manner. The quality issue with these

two incident management instances was articulated as poor time efficiency.

The next three workshops were allocated to the investigation of these two

process instances. During these workshops, the researcher followed the step-

by-step procedure provided in Section 4.5.2 and the guidelines provided by

the action research protocol presented in Section 5.3.4.2.

First the softgoals associated with the quality issue13 was identified which

was Softgoal 60 (to improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Assign FSR

function). The softgoal correlation model created for the incident manage-

ment process (Figure 8.17) was used to trace softgoal 60 to its correlated

softgoals14. The traced softgoals were then evaluated using the measurement

12 The softgoal correlation model for the incident management was presented in Section 8.4.4.5.13 First step of the PRCA technique presented in Section 4.5.2.14 Second step of the PRCA technique presented in Section 4.5.2.

258 8

� Softgoal 14 - To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.� Softgoal 15 - To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.� Softgoal 16 - To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

� Softgoal 1: To increase the suitability of the function “Classify FSR” function.� Softgoal 2 - To improve the accuracy of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.� Softgoal 3 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Human Resource: Help Desk Officer

Function F1: Classify FSR

� Softgoal 4 - To improve the accuracy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.� Softgoal 5 - To improve the objectivity of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.� Softgoal 6 - To improve the believability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.� Softgoal 7 - To improve the reputation of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.� Softgoal 8- To improve the relevancy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.� Softgoal 9 - To increase the added value of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.� Softgoal 10 - To improve the timeliness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.� Softgoal 11 - To improve the completeness of the ‘‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.� Softgoal 12 -To improve the amount of data of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.� Softgoal 13 - To improve the understandability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Input/Output: FSR

� Softgoal 17 - To improve the suitability of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.� Softgoal 18 - To improve the accuracy of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.� Softgoal 19 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Non- Human Resource: Help Desk System

� Softgoal 33 - To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 34 - To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 35 - To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ functi on.

� Softgoal 20: To improve the suitability of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.�� Softgoal 21 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.�� Softgoal 22 - To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.


� Softgoal 23 - To improve the accuracy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 24 - To improve the objectivity of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 25 - To improve the believability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 26 - To improve the reputation of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 27- To improve the relevancy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 28 - To increase the added value of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 29 - To improve the timeliness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 30 - To improve the completeness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 31 -To improve the amount of data of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 32 - To improve the understandability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

Input/Output: FSR

� Softgoal 36 - To improve the suitability of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 37 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 38 - To improve the effectiveness of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.


Function F2: Prioritise FSR

� Softgoal 39: To improve the suitability of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 40 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 41 - To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Function F3: Categorise FSR

� Softgoal 58 -To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 59 - To improve the reliability of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 60 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Function F4: Assign FSR

� Softgoal 42 - To improve the accuracy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 43 - To improve the objectivity of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 44 - To improve the believability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 45 - To improve the reputation of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 46- To improve the relevancy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 47 - To increase the added value of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 48 - To improve the timeliness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 49 - To improve the completeness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 50 - To improve the amount of data of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 51 - To improve the understandability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Input/Output: FSR

� Softgoal 58 - To improve the accuracy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 59 - To improve the objectivity of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 60 - To improve the believability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 61 - To improve the reputation of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 62- To improve the relevancy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 63 - To increase the added value of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 64 - To improve the completeness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 65 - To improve the amount of data of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 66 - To improve the understandability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Input/Output: FSR

� Softgoal 67 - To improve the accuracy of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 68 - To improve the objectivity of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 69 - To improve the believability of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 70 - To improve the reputation of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 71- To improve the relevancy of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 72 - To increase the added value of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 73 - To improve the completeness of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 74 - To improve the amount of data of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 75 - To improve the understandability of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Output: Email Receipt

� Softgoal 52 - To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 53 - To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 54 - To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.


� Softgoal 76 - To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 77 - To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 78 - To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 79 - To improve the communication skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.


� Softgoal 55 - To improve the suitability of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 56 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.� Softgoal 57 - To improve the effectiveness of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.


� Softgoal 80 - To improve the accuracy of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 81 - To improve the reliability of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.� Softgoal 82 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.


First correlations

Second correlations

Third correlations

Fig. 8.17. Softgoal Correlations - Incident Management Process

model created for the incident management15 process and the evaluation

15 Section 8.4.4.6 presented the measurement model created for the incident management pro-cess.

8.4 259

results were recorded in the template provided by the action research pro-

tocol (see Section 5.3.4.2). The last two steps were repeated until no more

softgoals could be traced. Using the provided template, the evaluation re-

sults were grouped by functions that the traced softgoals belonged to. The

traced softgoals for four functions of the incident management process were

evaluated. Each softgoal was evaluated through the evaluation of the met-

rics defined for that softgoal in the measurement model. Each metric was

evaluated against the threshold value specified for that metric in the mea-

surement model. After all traced softgoals were evaluated, the root cause

of the quality issue was identified by investigating the last softgoal being

traced which was not satisfied.

The evaluation results for the two investigated instances are presented

in Appendix E.10, and Appendix E.11. The investigations of these two in-

stances revealed that these two incidents where handled by the same Help

Desk Officer who recently joined Organisation C (3 months ago). He had

about 3 years of experience as a Help Desk Officer in other organisations,

but his industry knowledge (Organisation C related knowledge) was lim-

ited. The root quality issue being identified during the root cause analysis

process was linked to softgoal 3 (to improve the time behaviour efficiency

of the Classify FSR function). This softgoal was not satisfied, because the

turnaround time to perform the classify FSR function exceeded its accept-

able threshold values of < 5 minutes. Further investigation of the softgoals

linked to the root quality issue revealed that the Help Desk Officer ’s lack of

knowledge on call type definitions affected his decision making ability, lead-

ing to failure of two other softgoals contributing to the root quality issue:

softgoal 14 (to improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer

performing the Classify function) and softgoal 15 (to increase the experience

of the Help Desk Officer performing the Classify FSR function). Softgoal 15

was not satisfied due to its quality metric (decision making duration) not

meeting the threshold value. It took more time than was acceptable for the

Help Desk Officer to make a decision on classifying the FSR because he only

had a basic knowledge of the call type definitions of Organisation C (the

acceptable threshold value for call type definition knowledge was interme-

diate). The evaluation results from two instances confirmed the same root

260 8

cause. Whilst a gradual improvement on time efficiency was shown from the

first case to the second case, the process was still not meeting its threshold

values for acceptable turnaround time.

The identified root causes were shared with the head of the IT Support

team and the head of the business division affected by the recurring quality

issue. The head of the IT Support team formulated a strategy based on the

provided data to prevent the reoccurrence of this quality issue. This strat-

egy involved the implementation of the quality-aware incident management

process created as part of this action research cycle. By implementing the

quality-aware incident management process, the quality of the future in-

stances could be controlled in a proactive way. For example, an incident

that requires urgent attention will be allocated to a Help Desk Officer who

meets all the threshold values for the quality metrics contributing to the

time efficiency quality characteristic.

The following section outlines a summary of the next step of the action

research cycle in which the outcome of the activities performed during the

action taking stage was evaluated.

8.4.6 Evaluation

The main purpose of this stage was to evaluate the usability, usefulness, and

scalability of the QoBP framework and the PRCA technique used during the

action taking stage of this cycle. To ensure the rigor of the evaluation phase

of this study16, a set of evaluation objectives were developed and presented

in Section 5.3.5. The action research protocol also provided a questionnaire

that was created based on these evaluation objectives17.

During this step, the researcher conducted a series of workshops to eval-

uate the outcome of the action research with the Project Manager. The

main purpose of the evaluation stage of the action research cycle was ex-

plained to the the Project Manager at the beginning of the workshop series.

16 Refer to guideline 5 - research rigor [2] described in Section 3.6.17 This questionnaire is provided in Appendix B.5.

8.4 261

The questionnaire provided by the action research protocol was used to

guide the discussions during the workshops. The researcher followed the

three communication behaviours recommended in [184] to ensure that each

evaluation objective was communicated effectively. The outcome of the eval-

uation workshop, with respect to the evaluation objectives, include:

• Quality model:

– Applicability of the quality characteristics defined for the four quality

dimensions (function quality dimension, input & output quality di-

mension, human resource quality dimension, and non-human resource

quality dimension) of the quality model was confirmed. The objectives

here was to validate that the quality characteristics for the four dimen-

sions are relevant and applicable to business processes. While these

quality characteristics were defined based on an extensive literature

review in related areas, and their applicability was confirmed twice

during the first and second action research cycles, it was important

to evaluate their applicability during the third action research cycle.

The relevancy and the appropriateness of each quality characteristic

with respect to its quality dimension was reviewed during the evalua-

tion workshops and was acknowledged by the workshops participants.

Comments from the workshop participants include: “...the provided

list of quality characteristics covered all our quality requirements...the

list also prompted us to think about quality aspects that we hadn’t

previously considered...”.

– Usability and scalability of the QoBP methodology, QoBP automa-

tion tool and the supporting templates to identify and capture the

quality characteristics for the four quality dimensions of the selected

business process was confirmed. The usability and scalability limita-

tions of the QoBP methodology to capture the quality characteristics

for the input & output dimension that was identified during the first

cycle of the action research18, was rectified by introducing the QoBP

18 Refer to Section 6.4.5 for further details on the evaluation results of the first action researchresults.

262 8

automation tool. Comments from the workshop participants include:

“...the three different spreadsheets helped us to view the quality as-

pects from different angles...the tool was helpful in producing a list as

the starting point...”.

• Softgoal model:

– Applicability of the softgoal model of the QoBP framework was con-

firmed by the workshop participants. It was acknowledged that the

goal-oriented approach adopted in this research is a relevant and ap-

propriate approach in coping with the abstract and informal nature


Comments from the workshop participants confirming the applicabil-

ity of the softgoal model include: “...the softgoals played an impor-

tant role in making the quality characteristics more meaningful...it

provided extra context for each quality characteristic...”.

– Practicality and scalability of the QoBP methodology, and the QoBP

automation tool to identify softgoals for the identified quality charac-

teristics for the incident management process was confirmed. Starting

with a generic softgoal model that was created automatically using the

QoBP automation tool and making any necessary alterations during

the workshops did certainly improve the scalability and practicality

of the QoBP framework. Comments from the workshop participants

include: “...it was good to start with an automatically created list of

softgoals, but the re-phrasing the softgoals can still be a lot of work...”.


– Practicality and scalability of the QoBP methodology and the QoBP

automation tool to model the correlations between identified soft-

goals was confirmed. The scalability issue that was identified during

the second action research cycle (see Section 7.4.5) was rectified by

introducing the QoBP automation tool. Comments from the work-

shop participants include: “...no effort was required from us which

8.4 263

was great...”.



porting templates to create a measurement model was confirmed. It

was also acknowledged that the goal-question-metric approach was

very effective in refining each softgoal to a set of quality metrics as

it was providing a structured approach that while being efficient, it

was easy to follow. Comments from the workshop participants include:

“...having a step-by-step approach to determine the metrics from soft-

goals was beneficial...the phrasing of the questions make it easier to

define the appropriate metrics...”.

• QoBP Metamodel:





Comments from the workshop participants include: “...the way the

model covered all the components of the business process gave us

comfort that all quality related items were captured and concisely ex-

pressed...”.

• PRCA Technique:

– Comprehensiveness of the PRCA technique was confirmed. The PRCA

technique provided the key stakeholders conducting the investigation

with the ability to identify the sequence of events leading to the root

causes of a recurring quality issue in the incident management pro-

cess. Using the PRCA technique enabled the investigators to trace

the recurring quality issue to its root issue and causes of the root is-

sue. Comments from the Help Desk Officer include: “...this technique

264 8

helped us isolate the underlying issue and trace it back to its causes...”.

– Context-awareness of the PRCA technique was confirmed. The PRCA

technique provided the key stakeholders conducting the investigation

the context required to conduct corrective action. Comments from the

Project Manager include: “...afer identifying the underlying issue (call

definition knowledge level type) we were able to determine the major

contributing factor to the problem...this helped us plan how to correct

the underlying cause...”.

– The PRCA technique provided a systematic methodology to conduct

the investigation. Comments from the workshop participants include:

“it provided a step-by-step procedure to detect the root causes of the

recurring issue...”.

– It was confirmed that the PRCA technique is easy to learn and is

easy to use. The only concern was the scalability of the approach for

larger processes. Comments from the workshop participants include:

“...while the technique was easy to learn and easy to use, this ap-

proach could possibly be improved by automating the process...”.


Project Manager that:

“...the improvement to the incident management process without con-

sidering the quality requirements was limited ...because our focus was only

on functional requirements not quality requirements...”

“...this exercise also changed our attitude towards defining process KPIs

(Key Performance Indicators) for board reports which have always been

around process cost and delivery time...the quality characteristics can help

us to report KPIs that are more quality focused...”

8.4 265

The following section outlines the next step of the first action research -

the identification of the lessons learned from the action research cycle.


The purpose of this step was to identify the lessons learned during the third

action research cycle. The evaluation results produced during the last stage

strongly influenced the discovery of the lessons learned and the possible

enhancements to the framework. During this stage, the researcher organised

a workshop with the Project Manager to reflect on the evaluation results

described in the previous section. The outcome of the first workshop can be

summarised as:

1. Development of a tool to automate the PRCA technique - The possi-

bility of the automation of the PRCA technique was discussed during

the workshop. The scalability of the PRCA technique could be an issue

for large business processes. The accuracy of the approach could also

be an issue where a large number of softgoals are required to be traced

and evaluated. It was discussed how the automation will improve the

scalability and the accuracy of the PRCA technique.

2. Effectiveness of the PRCA technique - The effectiveness of the PRCA

technique may be affected when there is a limit on the number of char-

acteristics that can be selected. As described in Section 5.3.4.1.3, a limit

on the number of function quality characteristics can be selected based

on the project’s constraints. The limit on the number of function qual-

ity characteristics for the incident management for example was three.

This limits the number of softgoals and quality metrics identified for the

process. Therefore the softgoal correlation model and the measurement

model created for the process are not as comprehensive as it should be.

To make the PRCA technique more effective for a business process, all

the relevant function quality characteristics are required to be selected

and modelled in the quality model of the process.


cycle with Organisation C - closure.

266 8

8.4.8 Closure

During this last stage of the action research, the researcher organised an

informal meeting to express her appreciation to the key stakeholders con-

tributing to this collaborative project.

8.5 Summary of the Third Action Research Cycle

The chapter described the third cycle of the action research conducted as

part of this study. During this cycle the enhancements made to the QoBP

framework and the QoBP methodology as a result of the first and second

action research cycles (see Sections 6.4.6, and 7.4.6) were evaluated for the

second time. The PRCA technique was also evaluated in this action re-

search cycle. The evaluation of this action research cycle was presented in

Section 8.4.6. Section 8.4.7 outlined the learning from this cycle , and the

enhancements made to the artifacts as a result. The objectives of the third

action research cycle was met.

8.6 Summary of the Action Research Phase (Part III)

This chapter concludes Part III of this thesis which was dedicated to action

research. Action research conducted in professional manner, in accordance

with the action research protocol provided in Chapter 5. The workshops

conducted during the action research cycles did not exactly follow the time-

line and number of sessions recommended in the action research due to key

participants’ commercial priorities. Action research cycles were conducted

in an evolutionary manner with each action research case providing an op-

portunity to mature the QoBP framework and its associated artifacts. The

QoBP automation tool developed after the first action research cycle is an

example of the evolutionary enhancements to the framework leading to fur-

ther contributions.

A summary of the three action research cycles is presented in Figure 8.18

which provides the list of the artifacts evaluated during each cycle, the

8.6 267

Artifact Evaluated

Recommended Enhancement

Enhancement ImplementedQuality Model Establish link between quality dimensions YesSoftgoal Model None NoneSoftgoal Correlation Model None NoneMeasurement Model None NoneQoBP Metamodel None NoneDevelop QoBP automation tool to enhance the usability and scalability of the QoBP methodology YesFormulate new strategies on efficient data/information collection YesQuality Model None NoneSoftgoal Model Create a generic softgoal model YesSoftgoal Correlation Model None NoneMeasurement Model None NoneQoBP Metamodel None NoneEnhance the QoBP methodology by automating the creation of a generic softgoal model YesEnhance the QoBP methodology by automating the creation of a softgoal correlation model YesEnhance the QoBP automation tool to create a generic softgoal model automatically YesEnhance the QoBP automation tool to create a softgoal correlation model automatically YesQuality Model Enhance the strategy by not limiting the number of selected quality characteristics YesSoftgoal Model None NoneSoftgoal Correlation Model None NoneMeasurement Model None NoneQoBP Metamodel None NoneQoBP Methodology None NoneQoBP Automation Tool Enhance the QoBP automation tool to conduct root cause analysis automatically NonePRCA Technique Enhance the scalability and accuracy of the PRCA technique by automating the root cause analysis None

Case Two

Case Three

QoBP Methodology

QoBP Methodology QoBP Automation Tool

Case One

Fig. 8.18. Summary of the Action Research Cycles

recommendations made during the specifying learning stage of each cycle

and the confirmation on whether the enhancement was implemented.

9

Research Contributions, Limitations and

Outlook

9.1 Introduction

The chapter concludes this thesis by providing an overview of this study,

a summary of the contributions, a brief look at the limitations and some

insights into future research opportunities.

The study was motivated by the lack of an appropriate framework for

organisations to manage the quality of business processes during different

phases of the BPM life cycle. It addressed four research questions which

are re-visited in the next section. The study employed a multi-method re-

search design based on the design science approach and the action research

methodology. During the design science phase, artifacts were developed to

address the research questions. These artifacts were then evaluated through

three cycles of action research which were conducted within three large

Australian-based organisations.

The major theoretical and practical contributions and implications of

this study are presented in Section 9.3. In summary, this thesis contributes

to the body of BPM knowledge by:

• Proposing a quality-aware BPM life cycle that provides a framework

for incorporating quality into a business process and subsequently man-

aging quality during the BPM life cycle.

• Providing a framework (QoBP framework) to capture and model qual-

ity requirements of a business process as a set of measurable elements

270 9

that can be incorporated into the business process model. The QoBP

framework includes the quality characteristics for four dimensions of a

business process. It also includes the softgoal model, the softgoal corre-

lation model, the measurement model, and the QoBP metamodel. The

QoBP framework also provides a well developed methodology with sup-

porting templates for ease of use.

• Providing an automation tool (QoBP automation tool) which proved

that the QoBP framework lends itself to an automated solution.

• Proposing a root cause analysis technique (PRCA technique) to de-

termine the root causes of quality issues within business processes.

As with any other research, this study has faced limitations presented by

the methods selected, the availability of participants, researcher bias and so

on. These limitations and the efforts made to minimise them are presented

in Section 9.4. This study has also provoked more questions than can be

addressed during the subsequent research activities. These future research

opportunities are presented in Section 9.5 which concludes this chapter.

9.2 Re-visiting Research Questions

The purpose of this section is to revisit the research questions and to briefly

discuss how these questions were addressed. The managerial question driv-

ing this study was: “How can organisations manage the quality of

business processes during the different phases of the BPM life

cycle?”. Figure 9.1 presents a summary of the research questions and the

artifacts developed to address theses questions. Further details on how these

questions were addressed is provided below.

How can quality be incorporated into a business process and man-

aged during the BPM life cycle?

A detailed literature review was conducted in the areas of BPM (Sec-

tion 2.2.3) and quality (Section 2.3.1) to develop a quality management

model for BPM. Section 2.3.4 presented the first finding of this effort, where

a quality management model, which is suitable to be incorporated into the

9.2 271

Research Question Proposed Artifact (s) Reference

How can quality be incorporated into a business process and managed during the BPM life cycle?

Quality Aware BPM Life Cycle Section 4.2

What are the business process quality dimensions? QoBP Framework - Quality Model Section 4.3

How can quality be incorporated into a business process model producing a quality-aware business process?

QoBP Framework - Softgoal Model QoBP Framework - Softgoal Correlation Model QoBP Framework - Measurement Model QoBP Framework - QoBP Metamodel QoBP Framework - QoBP Methodology QoBP Framework - QoBP Automation Tool

Section 4.4

What is a suitable root cause analysis technique for identifying the root causes of the quality issues of a business process?

PRCA Technique Section 4.5

Fig. 9.1. Research Questions & Proposed Artifacts

BPM life cycle, was proposed. The proposed quality management model

consists of four key phases of quality definition, quality implementation,

quality control and quality improvement. Section 4.2 addressed the main

research question by introducing the quality-aware BPM life cycle in which

our proposed quality management model is incorporated into the BPM life

cycle. In the quality-aware BPM life cycle, the quality of a business process

is managed based on the four key phases of quality definition, quality im-

plementation, quality control, and quality improvement.

This stage of the study has revealed several sub-questions to the main re-

search question outlined above which are related to the quality-aware BPM

life cycle. As described previously, the scope of this research was limited to

provide supporting artifacts for the first and last phases of the quality-aware

BPM life cycle: quality definition and quality improvement.

What are the business process quality dimensions?

The first sub-question is related to the quality definition phase. This was

addressed in Section 4.3 where the quality model was proposed. Four di-

mensions of the quality model, function, input & output, human resource,

272 9

and non-human resource quality dimensions, were described in detail in

Section 4.3.2. This section also introduced the Quality of Business Pro-

cess (QoBP) framework in which the quality model was utilised to create a

quality-aware business process model during the quality definition phase of

the quality-aware BPM life cycle.

The four dimensions of the quality model were evaluated during the ac-

tion research phase of this study which consisted of three action research

cycles. Comprehensive reports for these three cycles were presented in Chap-

ters 6, 7, and 8. The evaluation proved in all cycles that the quality char-

acteristics were relevant and the appropriate with respect to their quality

dimensions.

How can quality be incorporated into a business process model

producing a quality-aware business process?

The second research sub-question, related to the quality definition phase

of the quality-aware BPM life cycle. This question was addressed by the

Quality of Business Process (QoBP) framework proposed in Sections 4.3

and 4.4. Section 4.4 presented how in the QoBP framework, the quality

model proposed in Section 4.3 is utilised to create a quality-aware business

process model. The QoBP framework supports a goal-driven measurement

approach which is based on three models: softgoal model, softgoal correlation

model, and measurement model. The softgoal model represents the quality

characteristics of a quality model as a set of softgoals. The softgoal cor-

relation model represents the relationships between the specified softgoals.

The measurement model represents how quality characteristics that are de-

scribed in the form of softgoals are evaluated. To be able to embed these

models into a business process model, an extension to the EPC notation

was proposed in Section 4.4.5.2.

A supporting methodology was also provided as part of the QoBP frame-

work. This methodology provided a step-by-step procedure and templates

to create a quality-aware business process model. The QoBP framework

models and methodology were evaluated during the action research phase

of this study which consisted of the three action research cycles. Compre-

9.2 273

hensive reports for these three cycles were presented in Chapters 6, 7, and

8. In all cycles, the models of the QoBP framework proved to be applicable,

appropriate, and useful in creating a quality-aware business process model.

The evaluation in the first cycle confirmed that the creation of the quality

model was too time consuming. The QoBP automation tool was developed

to overcome this problem and enhance the QoBP methodology. The eval-

uation in the second cycle revealed that a generic softgoal model can be

provided as part of the QoBP framework. A generic softgoal model was

created to be used as a starting point. The creation of the generic softgoal

model led to further enhancements to the QoBP automation tool and the

QoBP methodology respectively. The QoBP automation tool was enhanced

to automate the generation of the softgoal and softgoal correlation models.

What is a suitable analysis technique for identifying the root

causes of the quality issues of a business process?

The third research sub-question related to the quality improvement phase

of the quality-aware BPM life cycle was. This question was addressed by the

PRCA technique proposed in Section 4.5. The PRCA technique is a novel

root cause analysis approach for business processes. The PRCA technique

utilises the softgoal correlation model to identify the root causes of a quality

issue in an instance of a business process.

The PRCA technique was evaluated during the third action research cy-

cle of the action research phase of this study. A comprehensive report for

the third action research cycle was presented in Chapter 8. The technique

was found to be systematic, comprehensive, context-aware, and easy to use.

For larger processes, part of the technique could be automated.

Thus, the study outcomes have addressed the managerial question “How

organisations can manage the quality of business processes during the dif-

ferent phases of the BPM life cycle?” by providing the QoBP framework

that provides the capability to manage the quality of the business process

during different phases of the BPM life cycle. The next section presents a

summary of the contributions and implications of this study.

274 9

9.3 Contributions and Implications

This section presents the contributions of this study. These contributions

can be grouped into two categories: theoretical and practical. The theoret-

ical contributions have implications for academic and research community,

while the practical contributions have implications for practice.

9.3.1 Implications for Research

The theoretical contributions of this study are presented below.

Contribution 1 - Quality-aware BPM Life Cycle

A quality management model that is suitable for a BPM life cycle was pro-

posed in Section 2.3.4. Section 4.2 of this thesis presented how this quality

management model can be incorporated into the BPM life cycle to produce a

quality-aware BPM life cycle. In the quality-aware BPM life cycle, the qual-

ity of a business process is managed based on the four key phases of quality

definition, quality implementation, quality control, and quality improvement.

Contribution 2 - Business Process Quality Dimension

Section 4.3.2 presented the proposed business process quality dimensions in

the form of a quality model. In a quality model, the quality of a business

process is based on four distinct dimensions: quality of functions, quality of

input and output objects, quality of human resources, and quality of non-

human resources. Each dimension is then described in terms of its qual-

ity characteristics. The quality characteristics for all these four dimensions

were presented in Section 4.3.2. The proposed quality model provides a well

structured model to capture and represent quality (non-functional) charac-

teristics of a business process. The quality model is an important artifact

of the QoBP framework proposed by this study.

Contribution 3 - Quality-aware Business Process Model

This study provided the QoBP framework to create a quality-aware busi-

ness process model. Sections 4.3 and 4.4 presented the essential models of

the QoBP framework, the quality model, the softgoal model, the softgoal

correlation model, and the measurement model. The QoBP metamodel (see

9.3 275

Section 4.4.5.2) and the QoBP methodology (see Section 4.4.6) were intro-

duced to enable the creation of a quality-aware business process model. The

QoBP framework provides a systematic and novel goal-driven approach to

incorporate the quality requirements of a business process into a business

process model, producing a quality-aware business process.

Contribution 4 - Process Root Cause Analysis (PRCA) Technique

Section 4.5 presented a novel root cause analysis approach (PRCA tech-

nique) for business processes. The PRCA technique provides a systematic

and consistent approach to identify the root causes of a quality issue in an

instance of a business process. It provides the investigator the ability to

identify the sequence of all events leading to the causes of a quality issue. It

also provides the investigator the appropriate information (such as the con-

text in which the issue has occurred) that is required to conduct corrective

actions.

Contribution 5 - Research Methodological Contribution

This study demonstrated how a staged approach in defining the research

questions can be used to define and control the scope of a research. The

main research question was defined during the early stages of this research.

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to establish the context

for describing and elaborating the problem being identified. The main re-

search question that was addressed by this early investigation led to a pro-

posal for a quality-aware BPM life cycle (see Section 4.2) in which a quality

management model was incorporated into a BPM life cycle. Introduction of

the quality-aware BPM life cycle generated several research questions which

were related to different phases of the quality-aware BPM life cycle. The

scope definition was made based on the criticality of the research questions

that needed to be addressed to solve the original problem identified.

This study utilised the design science approach and action research

methodology with the aim to “deliver practical value to the subject while

at the same time contributing to theory” [31]. This research closely followed

the IS research framework [2], which is based on combining design science

(develop / build) and behaviourial science (justify/evaluate) paradigms such

276 9

as action research (see Figure 3.1). This study demonstrated how these two

powerful paradigms can be utilised to create knowledge that is not only

relevant to both practice and theory but is also rigorous.

This study is also an exemplar of providing an action research protocol

to enforce the quality and rigor of the action research. The action research

protocol provided guidelines for selecting an appropriate host organisation,

plan of engagement, guidelines for procedures related to organisation visits,

templates to use during the various activities, and the reporting format.

Contribution 6 - Contribution to IS Research

This study meets the seven guidelines for effective information systems re-

search, recommended by Hevner et al. [2]. These seven guidelines were de-

scribed in detail in Section 3.5. The business need for this research stems

from the importance of quality management of business processes. The ar-

tifacts proposed and presented in this thesis contribute to quality man-

agement of business processes during the different stages of their life cy-

cle. These artifacts were developed based on prior research in the areas of

quality management models, software engineering, goal modelling, and root

cause analysis techniques. The usability, usefulness, and scalability of the

artifacts developed in this research were evaluated by conducting action re-

search. The cumulative knowledge base built as the result of this research

has been communicated by several conference & workshop articles that have

been published or are planned to be submitted for publication.

The conformance of this work to Information Systems research guidelines

confirms that this thesis adequately meets international research standards

in this discipline.

9.3.2 Implications for practice

The purpose of this section is to outline the implications of this study for

use in practice. The practical contributions of this study are presented be-

low.

9.4 277

Contribution 1 - Quality-aware Business Processes

The adoption of the QoBP framework will assist organisations to: (1) iden-

tify their quality requirements through a systematic approach; (2) embed

these quality requirements into their business processes in a format that

can be implemented, monitored during process enactment, and improved

during process improvement.

Contribution 2 - Process Root Cause Analysis

This study provides organisations with the capability to conduct root cause

analysis on business processes. The PRCA technique enables organisations

to improve the quality of their business processes by identifying the root

causes of quality issues in instances of those processes.

Contribution 3 - Business Process Modelling Tools

This study provided an extension to the EPC metamodel (the QoBP meta-

model) that can be adopted by vendors who provide business process mod-

elling tools. These vendors can extend their modelling tools based on the

QoBP metamodel to support modelling of the quality-aware business pro-

cesses.

This study provided an automation tool referred to as the QoBP au-

tomation tool (see Appendix Appendix C.13) which proved that the QoBP

framework lends itself to an automated solution. It is envisaged that the

vendors who provide business process modelling tools can benefit from im-

plementing the QoBP framework into their toolset.

Having outlined the contributions and implications of this study, the next

section presents the limitations during the different stages of this study.

9.4 Research Limitations

The purpose of this section is to outline the limitations identified during

the different stages of this study and how these limitations were addressed.

Limitations in the Literature Review Phase

A comprehensive literature review was conducted during the early stages

278 9

of this study to establish the context for describing and elaborating the

problem identified. The main research question that was addressed by this

early investigation led to a proposal for a quality-aware BPM life cycle (see

Section 4.2) which consists of four phases: quality definition, quality imple-

mentation, quality control, and quality improvement. Introduction of the

quality-aware BPM life cycle generated several research questions which

were related to the different phases of this life cycle. Addressing all these

research questions was beyond the scope of this research. Therefore, the

research questions related to the second and third phases (quality imple-

mentation and quality control) of the quality-aware BPM life cycle were

de-scoped. The scope definition was made based on the criticality of the re-

search questions that needed to be addressed to solve the original problem

identified.

Limitation in the Design Science Phase

A limitation arising during the design science phase of this study was the de-

velopment of the artifacts to address the research questions without a proper

evaluation prior to the action research phase. As described in Section 3.2,

this research employed a multi-method research methodology which was

based on a design science approach and action research methodology. The

evaluation of these artifacts in practice was intended to occur during the

action research phase of this study. The risk with this limitation was a ma-

jor re-work (re-design) of the developed artifacts during the action research

phase when the researcher could evaluate these artifacts in practice. The

researcher mitigated the risks associated with this limitation by evaluating

the artifacts during the design phase. This pilot case (RFP process of Soft-

ware House SH) was based on a real practice drawn from the researcher’s

business experience.

Limitation in the Action Research Phase

The selection of host organisations for the action research cycles was con-

strained by budgetary and accessibility issues. As a result, all the organ-

isations selected to host action research cycles were in the finance sector

and based in Queensland, Australia. Access to additional information and

Subject Matter Experts was limited in all three cycles, due to strict privacy

9.5 279

rules & regulations that finance organisations are obliged to adhere to.

The workshops conducted during the action research cycles did not ex-

actly follow the structure (i.e. duration and number of sessions) that was

designed in the action research protocol. The researcher was obliged to be

flexible to meet workshops participants commercial priorities.

The need and appropriateness for PRCA was clearly seen during the first

and second cycles of the action research. The evaluation of the PRCA tech-

nique was not intentionally planned to be included in the initial cycles of

the action research as it was essential to ensure the maturity of the QoBP

framework. Hence the PRCA technique was only evaluated during the third

cycle of the action research which was limiting the iterative enhancement

of the PRCA technique.

9.5 Future Research

This research has provoked some questions that can be resolved during sub-

sequent research activities. This section makes some recommendations for

future research which include, but are not limited to:

• Providing supporting frameworks and artifacts for the quality control

phases of the quality-ware BPM life cycle. After conducting the third

cycle and evaluating the PRCA technique it became apparent that the

PRCA technique can be performed as a proactive approach during the

quality control phases of the quality-ware BPM life cycle. Constant mon-

itoring of the quality metrics of an enacted process during the quality

control phases can be used to proactively identify quality issues as they

occur. Further investigation and validation of the PRCA technique in a

proactive mode will be beneficial and a complement to the quality-aware

business process life cycle.

• Exploring the automation of the PRCA technique and the validation of

the automation tool in practice. One of the concerns raised during the

280 9

evaluation stage of the third action research cycle was the scalability

and accuracy of the PRCA technique for larger business processes (see

Section 8.4.6). It could be an issue where a large number of softgoals are

required to be manually traced and evaluated. The recommendation was

to automate the PRCA technique by extending the QoBP automation

tool and evaluate the tool in practice to ensure its accuracy and scala-

bility.

• Investigating in more detail the human resource dimension of the quality

model. While the quality characteristics defined for the human resource

dimension proved to be comprehensive for all the action research cycles,

the list of characteristics could be enhanced by further investigation in

the human resource field.

• Exploring the extension of the non-human resource quality dimension

to include quality characteristics related to the environmental context

effecting the enactment of business processes. In this thesis, the qual-

ity characteristics defined for the non-human resource dimension were

limited to physical assets such as computer systems, printers, etc. Fur-

ther research to explore the inclusion of the environmental context in the

non-human resource dimension could enhance the QoBP framework.

9.6 Chapter Summary

In conclusion, this thesis addressed the main research problem (How can

organisations manage the quality of business processes during the different

phases of the BPM life cycle? ) by delivering validated artifacts. The vali-

dated artifacts such as QoBP framework, QoBP metamodel, QoBP method-

ology, PRCA technique, and the QoBP automation tool provide a unique

contribution to BPM that are both rigorously defined and documented to

be of practical use in the enterprise.

References

1. Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error

Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. Springer (2008)

2. Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research.

MIS Quarterly 28 (2004) 75105

3. Susman, G., Evered, R.: An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Infor-

mation Systems Journal 4 (1978) 582– 603

4. Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer

(2007)

5. Smith, H., Fingar, P.: Business process management: the third wave. Meghan-Kiffer Press,

Tampa, Florida (2003)

6. Group, G.: Delivering its contribution: The 2005 cio agenda. Technical Report EXP

Premier Report Nr. January2005, Gartner, Inc. Stamford, Connecticut (2005)

7. Group, G.: Growing it’s contribution: The 2006 cio agenda. Technical Report EXP Premier

Report Nr. January2006, Gartner, Inc. Stamford, Connecticut (2006)

8. Group, G.: Creating enterprise leverage: The 2007 cio agenda. Technical Report EXP

Premier Report Nr. January2007, Gartner, Inc. Stamford, Connecticut (2007)

9. Anupindi, R., Chopra, S., Deshmukh, S., Mieghem, J., Zemel, E.: Managing Business

Process Flows. Prentice Hall (1999)

10. Juran, J.M.: Managerial Breakthrough: the classic book on improving management per-

formance. MacGaw Hill (1995)

11. Li, G., Rajagopalan, S.: Process improvement, quality, and learning effects. MANAGE-

MENT SCIENCE 44 (1998) 1517–1532

12. Sinclair, D., Zairi, M.: Benchmarking best-practice performance measurement within com-

panies using total quality management. Benchmarking for Quality Management & Tech-

nology 2 (1995) 53–75

13. Sinclair, D., Zairi, M.: Performance measurement as an obstacle to tqm. The TQM

Magazine 7 (1995) 4245

14. Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolu-

tion. Nicholas Brealey Publ., London (1993)

15. Mendling, J., Muehlen, M., Price, A.: Standards for Workflow Definition and Execution.

In: Process Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software Through Process

Technology. Wiley Publishing (2005)

16. C. J. Pavlovski, J.Z.: Non-functional requirements in business process modeling. In: In

Proceedings of the Fifth on Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling (APCCM),

Wollongong, NSW, Australia. (2008)

282 References

17. B. Klefsjo, H. Wiklund, R.L.E.: Six sigma seen as a methodology for total quality man-

agement. Measuring Business Excellence 5 (2001) 31–35

18. Powell, T.C.: Total quality management as competitive advantage: A review and empirical

study. Strategic Management Journal 16 (1995) 15–37

19. Hammer, M.: Reengineering work: Don’t automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review

68 (1990) 104–113

20. Davenport, T., Short, J.: The new industrial engineering: Information technology and

business process redesign. Sloan Management Review 31 (1990) 11–27

21. Harrington, H.J., K. C. Esseling and, V.N.: Business Process Improvement Workbook:

Documentation, Analysis, Design, and Management of Business Process Improvement.

McGraw-Hill (1997)

22. Sinclair, D., Zairi, M.: Effective process management through performance measurement

part i applications of total qualitybased performance measurement. Business Process

Re-engineering & Management Journal, 1 (1995) 75–88


part ii benchmarking total qualitybased performance measurement for best practice. Busi-

ness Process Re-engineering & Management Journal 1 (1995) 1355–2503


part iii an integrated model of total quality-based performance measurement. Business

Process Re-engineering & Management Journal 1 (1995) 1355–2503

25. Aalst, W., Hee, K.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems. The MIT

Press (2002)

26. zur Muhlen, M.: Workflow-based Process Controlling. Foundation, Design and Application

of workflow-driven Process Information Systems. Logos Verlag, Berlin (2004)

27. 9126-1:2001, I.: Software engineering – product quality – part 1: Quality model (2001)

28. Juran, J.: The quality trilogy a universal approach to managing for quality. Quality

Progress 19 (1986) 19–24

29. Gable, G.G.: Consultant engagement success factors: A case study affecting client in-

volvement in, and satisfaction with, consultant engagement in computer system selection

projects, carried out for the small enterprise computerisation programme, in singapore.

University of Bradford (1991)

30. Emory, C.W.: Business research methods (3rd ed.). Homewood, Illinois: R.D. Irwin. (1985)

31. Galliers, R.: Choosing information systems research approaches. Information systems

research: issues, methods and practical guidelines (1992) 144–162

32. Andriessen, D.: Combining design-based research and action research to test management

solutions. In: Proceedings of the 7th World Congres Action Research, Groningen, The

Netherlands. (2006)

33. Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature

review. MIS Quarterly 26 (2002)

34. Baumeister, R.F., Leary, M.R.: Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of general

psychology 1 (1997) 311–320

35. Lindsay, A., Downs, D., Lunn, K.: Business processesattempts to find a definition. Infor-

mation and Software Technology 45 (2003) 1011–1089

36. Porter, M.E.: Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. Free

Press, New York (1985)

37. Harmon, P.: Business process change: a manager’s guide to improving, redesigning, and

automating processes. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam (2003)

References 283

38. Rummler, G.A., Brache, A.P.: Improving performance. Jossey Bass Wiley, San Francisco

(1990)

39. Shin, N., Jemella, D.F.: Business process reengineering and performance improvement the

case of chase manhattan bank. Business Process Management Journal 8 (2002) 351–363

40. Taylor, F.: The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper and Brothers, New York and

London (1911)

41. J. Jeston, J.N.: Business Process Management: Practical Guidelines to Successful Imple-

mentations. Second edition edn. Butterworth-Heinemann (2006)

42. Puah, P., Tang, N.: Business process management, a consolidation of bpr and tqm. In: In

Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and

Technology, Singapore. Volume 1. (2000) 110 –115

43. Zairi, M.: Business process management: a boundaryless approach to modern competitive-

ness. Business Process Management Journal 3 (1997) 64–80

44. Curtis, B., Kellner, M.I.: Process modeling. Communications of the ACM 35 (1992) 75–90

45. Crosby, P.B.: Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. McGraw-Hill (1979)

46. Feigenbaum, A.V.: Total Quality Control. McGraw-Hill Company (1986)

47. Juran, J.M., Seder, L.A., Gryna, F.M.J.: Quality control handbook. 2nd ed edn. McGraw-

Hill (1962)

48. Moody, D., Sindre, G., Brasethvik, T., Sølvberg, A.: Evaluating the quality of process

models: Empirical testing of a quality framework. In Spaccapietra, S., March, S.T., Kam-

bayashi, Y., eds.: Conceptual Modeling - ER 2002, 21st International Conference on Con-

ceptual Modeling, Tampere, Finland, October 7-11, 2002, Proceedings. Volume 2503 of

Lecture Notes in Computer Science., Springer (2002) 380–396

49. Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of business process modeling.

Business Process Management (200) 30–49

50. Recker, J.: A socio-pragmatic constructionist framework for understanding quality in pro-

cess modelling. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 14 (2007) 43–63

51. Vanderfeesten, I., Cardoso, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., van der Aalst, W.: Quality Metrics

for Business Process Models. In: 2007 BPM and Workflow Handbook. Workflow Manage-

ment Coalition (2007) 179–190

52. Samuel, K.M., Samuel, K.H.: Operations and Quality Management. Thomson Learning

EMEA (1999)

53. Group, W.W.: Qos for web services: Requirements and possible approaches (2003)

54. Naumann, F., Rolker, C. In: Assessment Methods for Information Quality Criteria, Cam-

bridge, MA, USA. (2000) 148–162

55. Liu, K., Zhou, S., Yang, H.: Quality metrics of object oriented design for software develop-

ment and re-development. In: Proceedings of the 1st Asian Pacific Conference on Quality

Software , Hong Kong, China. (2000) 127–135

56. Lee, Y., Strong, D., Kahn, B., Wang, R.: Aimq: A methodology for information quality

assessment. Information and Management 40 (2002) 133–146

57. Kahn, B., Strong, D., Wang, R.: Information quality benchmarks: Product and service

performance. Communications of the ACM 45 (2002) 184–192

58. Shewhart, W.A.: Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product. (1931)

59. Stephens, K.S.: The Handbook of Applied Acceptance Sampling: Plans, Principles, and

Procedures. American Society for Qualit (2001)

60. Deming, W.E.: Out of the crisis: For Industry, Government, Education. MIT Press (2000)

61. Shewhart, W.A., Deming, W.E.: Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control.

Courier Dover Publications (1986)

284 References

62. Stoumbos, Z.G., Jr., M.R.R., Ryan, T., Woodall, W.H.: The state of statistical process

control as we proceed into the 21st century. Journal of the American Statistical Association

95 (2000)

63. Cheng, T.C.E., Podolsky, S., Jarvis, P.: Just-in-time Manufacturing. Springer (1996)

64. LEE, S.M., EBRAHIMPOUR, M.: Just-in-time production system: Some requirements

for implementation. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 4

(1984) 3–15

65. Sakakibara, S., Flynn, B., Schroeder, R.G.: A framework and measurement instrument for

just-in-time manufacturing. Production and Operations Management 2 (1993) 177–94

66. Sriparavastu, L., Gupta, T.: An empirical study of just-in-time and total quality manage-

ment principles implementation in manufacturing firms in the usa. International Journal

of Operations & Production Management 17 (1997) 1215–1232

67. Petersen, P.B.: Total quality management and the deming approach to quality manage-

ment. Journal of Management History 5 (1999) 468 – 488

68. Lau, R., Anderson, C.: A three-dimensional perspective of total quality management.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 15 (1998) 85 – 98

69. Shenawy, E.E., Baker, T., Lemak, D.J.: A meta-analysis of the effect of tqm on competitive

advantage. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 24 (2007) 442 –

471

70. Wittenberg, G.: Kaizenthe many ways of getting better. Assembly Automation 14 (1994)

12 – 17

71. Imai, M.: A commonsense, low cost approach to management. McGraw Hill, New York,

USA (1997)

72. Berger, A.: Continuous improvement and kaizen: standardization and organizational de-

signs. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 8 (1997) 110–117

73. Snee, R.: Six sigma: the evolution of 100 years of business improvement methodology.

International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage 1 (2004) 4–20

74. Antony, J.: Six sigma for service processes. Business Process Management Journal 12

(2006) 234–248

75. Jiju, A., M Kumar, C.M.: Six sigma in small- and medium-sized uk manufacturing en-

terprises: Some empirical observations. International Journal of Quality & Reliability

Management 22 (2005) 860–874

76. Arnheiter, E.D., Maleyeff, J.: The integration of lean management and six sigma. The

TQM Magazine 17 (2005) 5 – 18

77. Adams, G.: Six Sigma Deployment. Praveen Gupta and Charles Wilson (2002)

78. E. Ike Ehie, S.C.: Integrating six sigma and theory of constraints for continuous improve-

ment: a case study. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 16 (2005) 542–553

79. George, M.L.: Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six Sigma Quality with Lean Speed. McGraw-

Hill Professional (2002)

80. IT Governance Institute (ITGI) www.itgi.org: COBIT 4.1 - Framework, Control Objec-

tives, Management Guidelines, Maturaity Models. (2007)

81. Grigori, D., Casati, F., Dayal, U., Shan, M.C.: Improving business process quality through

exception understanding, prediction, and prevention. In Apers, P., Atzeni, P., Ceri, S.,

Paraboschi, S., Ramamohanarao, K., Snodgrass, R., eds.: VLDB 2001, Proceedings of 27th

International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, September 11-14, 2001, Roma, Italy,

Morgan Kaufmann (2001) 159–168

82. Vaishnavi, K., K. Vaishnavi Vijay and, J.W.K.: Design Science Research Methods and

Patterns: Innovating Information and Communication Technology. CRC Press (2007)

References 285

83. Mingers, J.: Combining is research methods: towards a pluralist methodology. Information

Systems Research 12 (2001) 240259

84. Mingers, J.: The paucity of multi-method research: a review of the information systems

literature. Information Systems Journal 13 (2003) 233–249

85. March, S., Smith, G.: Design and natural science research on information technology.

Decision Support Systems 15 (1995) 251–266

86. Baskerville, R., Myers, M.D.: Special issue on action research in information systems:

Making is research relevant to practiceforeword. MIS Quarterly 28 (2004) 329–335

87. Walls, J., Widmeyer, G., Sawy, O.E.: Building an information system design theory for

vigilant eis. Information Systems Research 3 (1992) 36–59

88. March, S., Smith, G.: Design and natural science research on information technology.

Decision Support Systems 15 (1995) 251–266

89. Cole, R., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Sein, M.: Being proactive: where action research meets design

research. In: In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Conference on Information

Systems. (2005)

90. Chiasson, M., Germonprez, M., Mathiassen, L.: Pluralist action research: a review of the

information systems literature. Information Systems 13 (2008) 240259

91. Davison, R., Martinsons, M., Kock, N.: Principles of canonical action research. Information

Systems Journal 14 (2004) 65–86

92. Eisenhardt, K.: Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management

Review 14 (1989) 532–550

93. Scheer, A.W., Thomas, O., Adam, O.: Process Modeling Using Event-Driven Process

Chains. In: Process Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software Through

Process Technology. Wiley Publishing (2005) 119–146

94. Juran, J.M., Seder, L.A., Gryna, F.M.J.: Quality control handbook. 4th ed edn. McGraw-

Hill (1988)

95. Marcellus, R.L., Dada, M.: Interactive process quality improvement. Management Science

37 (1991) 1365–1376

96. Ittner, C.D.: Exploratory evidence on the behavior of quality costs. OPERATIONS RE-

SEARCH 44 (1996) 114–130

97. Heravizadeh, M., Edmond, D.: Making workflows context-aware: A way to support

knowledge-intensive tasks. In: In Proceedings of the Fifth on Asia-Pacific Conference

on Conceptual Modelling (APCCM), Wollongong, NSW, Australia. (2008) 79–88

98. Rosemann, M., Recker, J., Flender, C., Ansell, P.: Understanding context-awareness in

business process design. In: Proceedings 17th Australasian Conference on Information

Systems, Adelaide, Australia. (2006)

99. Aburub, F., Odeh, M., Beeson, I.: Modelling non-functional requirements of business

processes. Information and Software Technology 49 (2007) 1162–1171

100. Osterweil, L.: Software processes are software too. In: Proceedings of the 9th international

conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 87), Los Alamitos, CA, USA, IEEE Computer

Society Press (1987) 2–13

101. Bernstein, P.: Middleware: A model for distributed systems services. Communications of

the ACM 39 (1996) 8698

102. Casati, F., Jin, S.I.L.J., Shan, V.K.M.C.: Adaptive and dynamic service composition in

eflow. In: Proceedings of the Int. Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering

(CAiSE), , Stockholm, Sweden, Springer Verlag (200)

103. Jennings, N., Norman, T., Faratin, P., OBrien, P., B., Odgers: Autonomous agents for

business process management. Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence 14 (2000) 145189

286 References

104. Schuster, H., Georgakopoulos, D., Baker, A.C.D.: Modeling and composing service-based

and reference process-based multi-enterprise processes. In: Proc. of the Int. Conference on

Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE), Stockholm, Sweden, Springer Verlag

(2000)

105. 9126-2:2003, I.: Software engineering – product quality – part 2: External metrics (2003)

106. 9126-3:2003, I.T.: Software engineering – product quality – part 3: Internal metrics (2003)

107. 9126-4:2004, I.T.: Software engineering – product quality – part 4: Quality in use metrics

(2003)

108. Dumas, M., O’Sullivan, J., Heravizadeh, M., Edmond, D., t. Hofstede, A.: Towards a

semantic framework for service description. In: Proceedings of 9th IFIP 2.6 Working

Conference on Database Semantics (DS-9), Hong Kong, China. (2001)

109. bject Management Group: Uml profile for modeling qos and ft characteristics and mecha-

nisms specification v1.0 (2006)

110. O’Sullivan, J., Edmond, D., ter Hofstede, A.: What’s in a service? towards accurate de-

scription of non-functional service properties. Distributed and Parallel Databases 12 (2002)

117–133

111. 13236:1998, I.: Information technology – quality of service: Framework (1998)

112. Liangzhao, Z., Benatallah, B., Dumas, M., Kalagnanam, J., Sheng, Q.Z.: Quality-driven

web services composition. In: In Proceedings of 12th International Conference on the World

Wide Web (WWW), Budapest, Hungary. (2003) 411–421

113. Yu-jie, M., Jian, C., Shen-sheng, Z., Jian-hong, Z.: Interactive web service choice-making

based on extended qos model. In: In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on

Computer and Information Technology. (2005) 1130 – 1134

114. Tondello, G., Siqueira, F.: The qos-mo ontology for semantic qos modeling. In: In Pro-

ceedings of SAC 2008. (2008) 2336–2340

115. Cykana, P., Paul, A., Stern, M.: Dod guidelines on data quality management. In: In

Proceedings of the Conference on Information Quality, Cambridge, MA. (1996) 154171

116. Kovac, R., Lee, Y., Pipino, L.: Total data quality management: the case of iri. In: In

Proceedings of the Conference on Information Quality, Cambridge, MA. (1997) 6379

117. Wang, R., Strong, D.: Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers.

Management Information System 12 (1996) 533

118. McClelland, D.: Testing for competence rather than for intelligence. American Psychologist

28 (1973) 1–14

119. Neves, J., Caetano, A., Vasconcelos, A., Tribolet, J.: Integrating knowledge into business

processes. In: Proceedings of ICEIS 2001. (2001)

120. Caetano, A., Pombinho, J., Tribolet, J.: Representing organizational competencies. In:

SAC ’07: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on Applied computing, New York,

NY, USA, ACM (2007) 1257–1262

121. Spencer, L.M., Jr., Spencer, S.M.: Competence at Work: models for superior performance.

John Wiley and Sons, Inc., first ed. (1993)

122. Lang, A., Pigneur, Y.: igital trade of human competencies. In: Proceedings of HICSS 32,

IEEE. (1999)

123. Sandberg, J.: Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. The

Academy of Management Journal 43 (2000) 9–25

124. (Harzallah, M., Lecrere, M.)

125. van der Aalst, W.: Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Informa-

tion and Software Technology 41 (1999) 639650

References 287

126. Heravizadeh, M., Mendling, J., Rosemann, M.: Root cause analysis in business processes.

Technical report, Qut eprint, Queensland University of Technology (2008)

127. Park, R.E., Goethert, W.B., Florac, W.A.: Goal-driven software measurement a guide-

book. Handbook CMU/SEI-96-HB-002, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon

University, Hanscom, MA (1996)

128. Jureta, I.J., Faulkner, S., Schobbens, P.Y.: A more expressive softgoal conceptualization

for quality requirements analysis. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on

Conceptual Modeling, Tucson, Arizona. (2006) 281–295

129. Nuseibeh, B.A., Easterbrook, S.M.: Requirements engineering: A roadmap. In: proceedings

of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE’00. (2000)

130. Cysneiros, L., Yu, E.: Perspectives on Software Requirements. In: Non-Functional Re-

quirements Elicitation. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2004) 115–138

131. Abran, A., Al-Qutaish, A., Desharnais, J., Habra, N.: An information model for software

quality measurement with iso standards. In: Proceedings of the SWDC-REK International

Conference on Software Development, Rekjavick, Iceland. (2005)

132. Stevens, S.: On the theory of scale types and measurement. Science 103 (1946) 677–680

133. Dardenne, A., Lamsweerde, A.V., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. In:

Science of Computer Programming. (1993) 3–50

134. Chung, L., Nixon, B.A.: Dealing with non-functional requirements: Three experimental

studies of a process-oriented approach. In: International Conference on Software Engineer-

ing. (1995) 25–37

135. Anton, A.: Goal-based requirements analysis. In: In Proceedings of ICRE ’96, IEEE,

Colorado Springs, Colorado USA. (1996) 136–144

136. Castro, J., adn J. Mylopoulos, M.K.: Towards requirements-driven information systems

engineering: the tropos project. Info. Sys. 27 (2002) 365389

137. Kavakli, E., Loucopoulos, P.: Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies (Adv.

topics of Database Research). In: oal Driven Requirements Engineering: Analysis and

Critique of Current Methods. IDEA Group (2004) 102 – 124

138. Grau, G., Franch, X., Maiden, N.A.M.: Prim: An i*-based process reengineering method

for information systems specification. Information and Software Technology 50 (2008)

76–100

139. Loucopoulos, P., Karakostas, V.: System Requirements Engineering. McGraw Hill, London

(1995)

140. C, R.: Reasoning with goals to engineer requirements. In: Fifth International Conference

on Enterprise Information Systems, Angers, France. (2003) 11–19

141. Kavakli, E.: Goal oriented requirements engineering: A unifying framework. Requirements

Engineering Journal, Springer-Verlag London 6 (2002) 237–251

142. Yu, E., Bois, P.D., Dubois, E., Mylopoulos, J.: From organization models to system require-

ments – a “cooperating agents” approach. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference

on Cooperative Information Systems – CoopIS-95, Vienna (Austria. (1995) 194–204

143. Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: an agent-

oriented software development methodology. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-

Agent Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers 8 (2004) 203236

144. Kavakli, E., Loucopoulos, P.: Goal driven requirements engineering: Evaluation of cur-

rent methods. In: In Proceedings of the 8th CAiSE/IFIP8.1 International Workshop on

Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD ’03), Velden,

Austria. (2003)

288 References

145. Antn, A.I.: Goal-based requirements analysis. In: Second International Conference on

Requirements Engineering ( ICRE 96) , IEEE, Press (1996) 136–144

146. Anton, A., Potts, C.: The use of goals to surface requirements for evolving systems. In:

Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 98), Kyoto, Japan.

(1998) 157–166

147. Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: Goal question metric approach. Encyclopedia

of Software Engineering 1 (1994) 528–532

148. Solingen, R.V., Berghout, E.: Measurement in industrial software engineering: Industrial

experiences with and additions to the goal/question/metric method (gqm). In: Proceed-

ings of the Seventh International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS 2001), London,

England. (2001) 246–258

149. Berander, P., Jonsson, P.: A goal question metric based approach for efficient measurement

framework definition. In: International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering

(ISESE 2006), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (2006) 316–325

150. Cleland-Huangs, J., Settimi, R., BenKhadra, O., Berezhanskaya, E., Christina, S.: Goal-

centric traceability for managing non-functional requirements. In: Proceedings of the 27th

international conference on Software engineering, St. Louis, MO, USA. (2005) 362–371

151. Subramanian, N., Chung, L.: Metrics for software adaptability. Applied Technology Divi-

sion, Anritsu Company (1999)

152. Letier, E., van Lamsweerde, A.: Reasoning about partial goal satisfaction for requirements

and design engineering. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 29 (2004) 53–62

153. Rolland, C., Prakash, N., Benjamen, A.: A multi-model view of process modelling. Requir.

Eng. 4 (1999) 169–187

154. Kavakli, E., Loucopoulos, P.: Experiences with goal-oriented modelling of organisational

change. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics - Part C 36 (2006) 221–235

155. Kueng, P., Kawalek, P.: Goal-based business process models: creation and evaluation.

Business Process Management Journal 3 (1997) 17–38

156. Neiger, D., Churilov, L., Flitman, A.: Value-Focused Business Process Engineering : a

Systems Approach with Applications to Human Resource Management. Springer (2009)

157. Soffer, P., Wand, Y.: Goal-driven analysis of process model validity. In Persson, A.,

Stirna, J., eds.: Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 16th International Conference,

CAiSE 2004, Riga, Latvia, June 7-11, 2004, Proceedings. Volume 3084 of Lecture Notes in

Computer Science., Springer (2004) 521–535

158. Kavakli, V., Loucopoulos, P.: Goal-driven business process analysis - application in elec-

tricity deregulation. Information Systems 24 (1999) 187–207

159. Soffer, P., Wand, Y., Kaner, M.: Semantic analysis of flow patterns in business process

modeling. In Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M., eds.: Business Process Management,

5th International Conference, BPM 2007, Brisbane, Australia, September 24-28, 2007,

Proceedings. Volume 4714 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science., Springer (2007) 400–

407

160. Donzelli, P.: A goal-driven and agent-based requirements engineering framework. Require-

ments Engineering 9 (2004) 16–39

161. Lamsweerde, A.V.: Goal-oriented requirement engineering: a guided tour. In: Proceedings

of the RE’01 Int. Joint Conference on Requirement Engineering. (2001) 249–63

162. Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., Liao, S., Wang, H., Yu, E.: Exploring alternatives during

requirements analysis. IEEE Software 18 (2001) 92–96

163. Levy, A.: Basic Set Theory. Courier Dover Publications (2002)

References 289

164. Alcantud, J.: Weak utilities from acyclicity. Theory and Decision 47 (1999) 185–196

165. Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How do practitioners use

conceptual modeling in practice? Data & Knowledge Engineering 58 (2006) 358–380

166. Becker, J., Kugeler, M., Rosemann, M.: Process Management: A Guide for the Design of

Business Processes. Springer-Verlag (2003)

167. Rosemann, M.: Process Management. A Guide for the Design of Business Processes.

Springer-Verlag (2003)

168. Chen, P.P.S.: The entity-relationship model: Toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans-

actions on Database Systems 1 (1976) 9–36

169. Brodie, M., Mylopoulos, J., Schmidt, J.: On Conceptual Modelling: Perspectives from

Artificial Intelligence, Databases and Programming Languages. Springer Verlag (1984)

170. Rosa, M.L., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A., Mendling, J., Gottschalk, F.: Beyond control-

flow: Extending business process configuration to roles and objects. In: In Proceedings

of the 27th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 08), Barcelona, Spain.

Volume 5231., Springer-Verlag (2008) 199 – 215

171. Mendling, J., Aalst, W.: Formalization and Verification of EPCs with OR-Joins Based on

State and Context. In Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Sindre, G., eds.: Proceedings of the 19th

Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2007). Volume 4495 of

Lecture Notes in Computer Science., Trondheim, Norway, Springer-Verlag (2007) 439–453

172. Rosemann, M.: Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part a. Business Process Management

Journal 12 (2006) 249–254

173. Muehlen, M., Rosemann, M.: Integrating risks in business process models. In: Proceed-

ings of the 2005 Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2005), Sydney,

Australia (2005)

174. Wilson, P., Dell, L., Anderson, G.: Root Cause Analysis: A Tool for Total Quality Man-

agement. ASQ Quality Press (1993)

175. Andersen, B., Fagerhaug, T.: Root Cause Analysis: Simplified Tools and Techniques. ASQ

Quality Press (2006)

176. Ishikawa, K., et al.: What is Total Quality Control?: The Japanese Way. Prentice-Hall

Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1985)

177. WG, J.: Mort, safety assurances systems (1980)

178. Talty, J.T.: Industrial Hygiene / Industrial Hygiene Engineering - Recognition, Measure-

ment, Evaluation and Control. William Andrew Inc. (1988)

179. Benner, L.J.: Accident Investigations: Multilinear Events Sequencing Methods. Journal of

Safety Research 7 (1975) 67–73

180. Johnson, C.W.: Failure in Safety-Critical Systems: A Handbook of Accident and Incident

Reporting. University of Glasgow Press, Glasgow, Scotland (2003)

181. Murayama, Y., Yamazaki, M., Endo: A pilot study on marine incidents. The journal of

Japan institute of navigation (1998) 257–264

182. D. Coghlan, T.B.: Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization. SAGE (2006)

183. Hartwick, J., Barki, H.: Communication as a dimension of user participation. IEEE

transactions on professional communication 44 (2001) 21–36

184. Walz, D., Elam, J., Curtis, B.: Inside a software design team: knowledge acquisition,

sharing, and integration. Communications of ACM 36 (1993) 63–77

185. Byrd, T., Cossick, K., Zmud, R.: A synthesis of research on requirements analysis and

knowledge acquisition techniques. MIS Quarterly 16 (1992) 117–138

186. Hossenlopp, R.: Unearthing Business Requirements: Elicitation Tools and Techniques.

Management Concepts (2007)

Appendix A.1 - Literature Review on Business

Process Modelling Notations

The purpose of this appendix is to present several business process modellingnotations such as Petri nets, Coloured Petri nets, EPCs, and BPMN.

1 Petri nets

Petri nets originates from the early work by Carl Adam Petri [1]. It is awell known formal notation that can be used for the specification of businessprocesses. Petri nets have been used to model and analyse different processeswith applications ranging from protocols, hardware, and embedded systemsto flexible manufacturing systems, user interaction, and business processes[2]. A large body of analysis techniques exist to determine various propertiesof Petri nets and its subclasses [3, 4, 5]. Petri nets is a formal language whichmeans the semantics of the classical Petri net have been defined formally.

Place

Output / Input Arc

Transition

Token

place 1 place 2transition 1

input output

Figure 1: Petri nets segment

Petri nets has a graphical representation that is easy to learn. Petri nets

1

have been used to model dynamic systems with a static structure. Petri netsconsists of places, transitions, directed arcs connecting places and transitionsand tokens. A place is a passive component and represents the state or acondition. A transition typically represents an action, event, operation ortransformation and is led by an output arc and trailed by an input arc. Atoken is typically a physical or information object which is a marking thatdenote the current state (in figure 1 the a token is marked in place 1 ). Afiring of a transition removes a token from its input place and places a tokenin its output place. In graphical representations, places are represented bycircles (place 1 and place 2 in figure 1), transitions by rectangles (transition1 in figure 1), and arcs by directed arrows indicating the flow (input andoutput in figure 1). The direction of an arrow indicates whether a place is aninput place of a transition or an output place of a transition. Petri net is adirected bipartite graph, meaning that arcs never connect two places or twotransitions. A Petri net together with its marking called a system. A Petrinet usually represents a business process model, while its transitions repre-sent activity models. Therefore firing of token represents an activity instance.

The classical Petri net while allows for the modeling of states, events,conditions, synchronisation, parallelism, choice, and iteration [6], it has lim-itation to model time and the data.

2 Coloured Petri nets

Coloured Petri nets is a discrete-event modelling language which is a combi-nation of classical Petri nets and the functional programming language CPNML [7]. CPN have been used as a modelling language in different applicationdomains where concurrency and communications are key characteristics suchas business processes and workflows. Unlike classical Petri nets, CPN includea time concept that provides capability to capture the time taken to executeactivities in the system. Therefore CPN can be used for simulation-basedperformance analysis, investigating performance measures such as delays,throughput, and queue lengths in the system [8]. CPN models are formal,which means that the syntax and semantics of the CPN modelling languagehas formally defined. This means that CPN is a useful tool that can be usedto verify system properties [7].

2

Place

Output / Input Arc

Transition

Token

place 1 place 2transition 1

[d1, c1][d2, c2]

If d = 0

(d,c) (d,c)

Figure 2: Coloured Petri nets (CPN) segment

In contrast to classical Petri Nets, Coloured Petri nets (CPN) tokens andplaces are colored or typed [9]. The type of a place is shown below it (‘[d1,c1]’ in figure 2). A transition may have a guard which places conditions onthe tokens that can fire the transition. Guards are shown above the transition(‘if d = 0’ in figure 2). In CPN, the behaviour of transitions is determinedby the token in the input places, guards attached to transitions and arc ex-pressions (‘(d,c)’ in figures 2). The arc expressions describe how the stateof a CPN changes when the transitions occur. When a transaction fires, thearch expression determines the tokens with appropriate values to be put onthe output places of the transition.

The expressive power and data handling capability of the CPN, make ita suitable notation to represent business process models [10].

3 Event-driven Process Chains

The Event-driven Process Chain (EPC) is a business process modeling lan-guage for the representation of temporal and logical dependencies of activities

3

in a business process [11]. EPC is an outcome of a collaborative project be-tween SAP AG1 [11] and the Institute of Information Systems (IWi) of theUniversity of Saarland, Germany. The purpose of the project was to definea suitable business process modeling language to document the processes ofthe SAP R/3 enterprise resource planning system. EPC is also utilised inthe ARchitecture of Integrated Information Systems (ARIS) framework [12]as the central method for the conceptual integration of the functional, or-ganisational, data, and output perspective in information systems design.

Event 1

Function 1

XOR

Event 3Event 4

Figure 3: An EPC Segment

EPC is not a formal notation. The main building blocks of EPC areevents, functions, connectors and control flow archs, as shown in figure 3.Functions capture activities of a process, while events describe pre-conditionsand post-conditions of functions (events trigger functions). Connector are

4

used to model the process logic. There are three kinds of connector types in-cluding AND, OR, and XOR. Connectors have either multiple incoming andone outgoing arc (join connectors) or one incoming and multiple outgoing arcs(split connectors). Control flow arcs are used to link these elements. Seman-tically, the AND-split activates all subsequent branches in concurrency. TheXOR-split represents a choice between one of several alternative branches.The OR-split triggers one, two or up to all of multiple branches based onconditions. In both cases of the XOR and OR-split, the activation condi-tions are given in events subsequent to the connector. Accordingly, splitsfrom an event to multiple functions are forbidden with XOR and OR asthe activation conditions do not become clear in the model. The AND-joinwaits for all incoming branches to complete, then it propagates control tothe subsequent EPC element. The XOR-join merges alternative branches.The OR-join synchronizes all active incoming branches.

Certain rules must be followed at the design time to avoid or reduceundesirable behavior like deadlocks. The rules summarised by [13] include:

1. Functions, events, and connectors are three main building blocks of anEPC.

2. An event should be represented by a hexagon and n appropriate nameshould be selected for an event that reflects its characteristic.

3. A function should be represented by a rectangle and an appropriatename should be selected for a function that reflects the time-consumingperspective of the accomplished task.

4. A connector should be represented by a circle. Within the circle, thetype of connector is defined through the corresponding symbol. Theconnector can be split into an upper and lower part, reflecting differ-ences between incoming and outgoing connection rules.

5. An EPC should start and end with at least one event.

6. An EPC should contain at least one function.

7. An EPC is allowed to be composed of several EPCs.

8. Archs should always connect two elements corresponding to the se-quence of activation.

5

9. An event cannot be the predecessor or the successor of another event.

10. A function cannot be the predecessor or the successor of another func-tion.

11. Each event and each function have only one incoming and/or one out-going arch.Elem ent D escription N otation Function The basic bu ild ing b locks are functions. A function corresponds to an activity (ta sk, p ro cess step) w h ich needs to be executed . Events Even ts describe the situatio n before and/or after a fun ction is executed. Functio ns are linked by events. An event m ay corresp on d to the post-cond ition of one function and act as a p recondition of another functio n. Logical connectors Conn ectors can be used to co nn ect activities and events. Th is w ay the flo w of co ntro l is specified . There are three types of co nnecto rs: ∧ , XO R (exclu sive or) and ∨

X O R V

V D ata flow connector D ata flow connectors are tem po ral-logical relationsh ip betw een functio ns and events. In form ation/M aterial In form ation , m ateria l, or re so urce ob jects in the real w orld w hich can be inpu t d ata fo r a function , o r o utput data produces by a fun ction . O rgan isation un it Specifies the organ isation un it in w ith in the en terprise responsib le for the function . Person Person w ith in an organ isation un it responsib le for th e function . Com plex function Rep re sents that a function h as a sub-process. Figure 4: Building Blocks of EPC

The extended EPC (eEPC) introduced further elements such as processparticipants or data and information systems. Figure 4 shows all the buildingblocks of an eEPC.

6

4 Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN)

The first Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) specification releasein May 2004 by the Business Process Management Initiative (BPMI.org).BPMN provides a standardized, graphical language for the visualisation ofbusiness processes. A business process model produced using BPMN, so-called Business Process Diagram (BPD), consists of four basic categoriesof elements: flow objects, connecting objects, swimlanes, and artifacts [14].Figure 5 notation of the main BPMN syntax elements. Events, activities, andgateways are the three flow Objects which define the behavior of a BusinessProcess. The three connecting objects are sequence flow, message flow andassociation. Pools and lanes are two ways of grouping the primary modelingelements through “Swimlanes”. The three standard artifacts that are usedto provide additional information about the Process are data object, groupand annotation.

The main building blocks of BPMN are activities and actors carryingout those activities. The actors are represented by pools that can be furtherdivided into sub-actors by lanes. The sequence of activities inside a pool isrepresented by sequence flow. Interactions between pools is represented bymessages flows. Tokens are used to present the progress of the sequence flow.Conditions are used to indicate the decision points and either attached to theflow or different kind of gateways. Gateways allow splitting and joining ofprocesses. The gateways have three types: inclusive (OR), exclusive (XOR),complex or parallel (AND). In exclusive gateways, the sequence flow can takeonly one of the outgoing paths. In inclusive gateways, all of the combinationsof the independent paths can be taken. Parallel gateways define multiplepaths that are executed concurrently .

7

E lem ent D escription N otation Sequence F low A Sequence F low is u sed to sh ow the ord er th at activities w ill be perfo rm ed in a Process. M essage Flow A M essage Flow is u sed to show the flow of m essages b etw e en tw o partic ipants that are prepared to send an d receive them . Asso ciation An Association is used to asso ciate in fo rm ation w ith Flow O bje cts. Text and graph ical non -Flow O bjects can be associated w ith Flow O bjects. A n arrow head on th e Asso ciation ind icates a d irection o f flo w (e.g ., data), w hen appro pria te . Poo l A Poo l represents a Participan t in a Process a lso acts as a “sw im lane” and a graph ical conta in er for partition ing a set of activities from other Poo ls, usually in the context o f B2B situations. N

ame Lane A Lane is a sub-p artit ion w ith in a Poo l and w ill extend the entire length o f the Poo l, e ither vertica lly or horizonta lly . Lanes are used to organ ize and catego rize activities.

Nam

e

Nam

eN

am

e D ata O bject D ata O bjects are co n sidered Artifacts because they do not have an y d irect effect on the Sequence F low or M essage F low of the Pro cess, but they do provid e in form ation about w hat activities requ ire to be perform ed and/o r w h at they produce. Group A group ing o f activities that are w ith in the sam e category. Text Annotatio n Text Annotations are a m echan ism for a m o deler to provide add ition al in form ation for the reader o f a BPM N D iagram . D es c ript iv e tes t here Task A Task is an atom ic activ ity that is included w ith in a Process. Event An event is so m ething that “happens” du ring the course o f a business process. There are three types o f Events, based on w h en they affect th e flow : Start, In term ediate, and End . Gatew ay A Gatew ay is used to co ntro l the d ivergen ce and convergence o f m ultip le Sequence Flo w . Th us, it w ill determ ine branch ing, fork ing, m ergin g, and jo in ing o f paths.

Figure 5: BPD Element Set

8

Appendix A.2 - Literature Review on Root

Cause Analysis Techniques

The purpose of this appendix is to present an overview of the literaturereview conducted to gain knowledge on root cause analysis techniques andframeworks in other disciplines.

5 Events and Causal Factors Chart

The Events and Causal Factors Chart (ECFC) [15] is a root cause anal-ysis technique commonly used to investigate the root cause of an incidentby providing a graphical representation of the sequence of events leading toa failure. The purpose of this technique is to identify and document thesequence of events from the beginning to the end of an incident. This tech-nique does also provide the ability to identify the factors, conditions, failedbarriers, and energy flows contributing to an incident.

Event 1 Event 2 Event 3Primary Events

SequenceAccident

Secondary Events Sequence

Secondary Event 1

Secondary Event 2

Condition 2Condition 1

Figure 6: A sample Events and Causal Factors Chart

As it is shown in figure 6 in an ECFC, events are represented in rectanglesand conditions in ovals. Event are connected by solid arrows. Conditions areconnected to each others and to events by dashed arrows. In an ECFC theprimary sequence of the events are presented in a horizontal line in whichevents are connected by bold printed arrows. The secondary event sequence

9

is then presented at different levels above or below the primary sequence.The events in a sequence are arranged in chronological order.

ECFC technique is mostly used as a root cause analysis technique inthe incident analysis and occupational health and safety field. The primarypurpose of incident investigation is to determine what happened and why ithappened.

It has been proven that using a single RCA technique is not sufficient toachieve the root cause analysis in occupation health and safety [16], thereforea combination of techniques need to be used to determine what happenedand why it happened. One of the known limitations of the ECFC [17] is thelack of time scale associated with the chart which makes the investigationprocess difficult.

6 Multilinear Event Sequencing

Multilinear Event Sequencing (MES) [18] is a root cause analysis techniquescommonly used to investigate the root cause of an accident by providing agraphical representation of the actors, actions and events in an incident. AMES diagram represents an accident being investigated as a sequence of con-nected events.

As shown in figure 7 Events in a MES diagram events are representedin rectangular event blocks. Each event block containing the description ofthe action, the actor (the person or the object that performed the action)and the time of the event. Event blocks are connected via causations beingrepresented as arrows. MES diagrams have two axes, the horizontal axis thatrepresents time and the vertical axis that lists actors involved in the accident.Conditions are represented in ovals and are usually linked to event blocks viaarrows.

MES technique is mostly used as a root cause analysis technique in the

10

Action: Action 1

Actor: Actor A

Time: 9:15 AM

Actor A Accident

Condition 1

Actor B

Action: Action 3

Actor: Actor A

Time: 11:30 AM

Action: Action 2

Actor: Actor B

Time: 10:15 AM

time11:3010:159:15

Figure 7: A sample Multilinear Event Sequencing

accident analysis and occupational health and safety field. The primary pur-pose of incident investigation is to determine the sequence of events, actorscontributing to the events as well as the condition affecting the events. Theincident investigators using this technique usually start their investigationprocess by identifying the beginning and the end of an accident. Then theyconstruct the event blocks by identifying the actors associated to each event,action taken during the event and the time that the event has occurred. Thenext step is to then map the event block onto two axes, the horizontal axisthat represents time and the vertical vertical axis that lists actors involved inthe accident. Finally, they identify conditions that make the events to occur.

One of the limitations of the MES approach reported in the field is thecomplexity in developing and analysing the chart [19]. Another limitationargued by [18] is the difficulty of validating the conditions after the accidenthas occurred.

11

7 Sequentially Timed Events Plotting Proce-

dure

Sequentially Timed Events Plotting Procedure (STEP) [20] is another se-quencing root cause analysis technique used for incident investigation. TheSTEP technique is very similar to the MES (section 6) technique in the waythat it depicts each actors actions traced from the start of the incident to theend and events are represented based on the time-line they occurred. Theprocedure starts with populating the STEP cards which are the basis of keyevents of an incident. The event cards will then be used to model the eventblocks similar to the MES (section 6) technique. A typical STEP card storesinformation such as actor, action, the time of the event (beginning, end andduration), event location and description.

Start State End StateActor Events

Actor A

Actor B

Actor C

Actor D

Time

Figure 8: A sample Sequentially Timed Events Plotting Procedure

As shown in figure 8 unlike MES (section 6), being in flow chart format,STEP follows a tabular format. First column in the matrix represents thebeginning of the event while the last column represents the end of the acci-dent sequence. The actors are represented on the vertical axis. STEP doesnot show conditions in the tabular representation of event sequences.

One of the main problems with STEP, reported by [21], is the risks as-sociated to unconnected events after the causal analysis. The unconnected

12

events can cause unnecessary confusion to the investigation process.

8 Fault Tree Analysis

Fault Tree Analysis [22] is a deductive methodology that involves reasoningfrom the general to the specific. This techniques is used to determine thepotential causes of incidents. The potential causes are identified by breakingdown the top event (incident) which is the root of the fault tree to a seriesof contributory events. Figure 9 depicts a simple fault tree diagram. Eventscould be one of the three types: base, immediate or undeveloped. Basedevents are used to represent the underlying failures that lead to an accident.Logic gates (and & or) are used to represent the ways in which events arecombined.

One of the main criticism of the fault tree notation by [17], is its failure todistinguish between contextual and contributory factors and the root causesof an incident.

9 Barrier Analysis

Barrier Analysis [23] is a technique which is used for incident analysis. Itprovides a structured way to identify the events related to a failure. Threedifferent common barriers are people, process and technology. Barrier analy-sis is based on the fact that a failure occurs because barriers or controls wereunused or inadequate. Figure 10 shows the idea behind the Barrier Analysisthat barriers need to be put in between the source of the problem and targetto prevent an incident from occurring.

The Barrier Analysis is an informal and unstructured technique. Thebarriers are usually identified by an analyst through asking a set of ques-tions during the incident investigation. Barriers can usually fail for varietyof reasons such as being impossible to provide adequate barrier, or it may be

13

Top Event

And

Undeveloped Event

Immediate Event

Immediate Event

And

Or

Based Event

Undeveloped Event

Immediate Event

Or

Based Event

Based Event

Figure 9: A sample Fault Tree Analysis

14

Source of the problem Barriers Target

Figure 10: A sample Barrier Analysis

uneconomic to develop a barrier [17].

10 Change Analysis

Change Analysis is another technique used in root cause analysis of inci-dents. It provides a structured way to identify the differences between whatwas expected to occur and what actually did occur during the incident. TheChange Analysis process proposed by [24] starts with first examining the in-cident situation. The next step is to then consider comparable incident-freesituations and compare the two situations. All the differences between thetwo situations need to be documented for further analysis. The next stepinvolves the analysis of the differences and their effect on the incident andintegrating the differences into incident causal factors. The identified differ-ences provide the analyst the basis to assess the causes of the incident.

It has been argued that Change Analysis is just a complementary tech-nique to root cause analysis and has not been designed for this purpose [17].

15

11 Five Why’s

Five Why’s is an unstructured root cause analysis which is based on asking,five times, why a failure has occurred.

Five Why’s has been used as a root cause analysis techniques in earlydays of Total Quality Management (TQM) in manufacturing industries. To-tal Quality Management (TQM) provides a framework for continues improve-ment in an organisation [25]. TQM’s primary focus is on the total satisfactionof both the internal and external customers. TQM is about the prevention ofdefects and the increase in the quality of design [26]. The TQM philosophy isbased on improving quality which leads to improved productivity (decreasecost because of less rework, fewer mistake, fewer delays and better use ofmachines and materials).

12 Fish-Bone Diagram

Fish-bone diagram is a root cause analysis approach which was developed byProfessor Kaoru Ishikawa of Tokyo University in Japan. Fish-bone diagramhas also been referred to Cause & Effect or Ishikawa diagram across litera-ture. This approach is based on identifying the inputs or potential causes toa single output or effect. Figure 11 shows a sample of Fish-Bone diagram.

Fish-bone diagram has been widely used in manufacturing industry asan effective root cause analysis technique in quality management approachessuch as Total Quality Management (TQM) [25], Kaizen [27] and Six Sigma[28].

16

Problem

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

Category 4 Category 5 Category 6

Cause 1

Cause 2

Figure 11: A sample Fish-bone Diagram)

13 Physics (Engineering) of Failure based Method-

ology (PEFM)

Physics (Engineering) of Failure based Methodology (PEFM) is a methodol-ogy based on combining the principles of physics and engineering to developand implement products that are cost effective and reliable [29]. The PEFMmethodology provides a framework to assess the root cause and effect of thepossible defect detection and prevention options.

Physics of failure approaches have been used widely by the electronic re-liability community. These approaches typically involve the use of root causefailure mechanisms to develop models to improve time to market, lower de-velopment and build costs and higher reliability [29, 30]. The main focus ofphysics-of-failure approach is the identification of the root cause of a failureto enhance the reliability of electronic systems [31].

In summary, most of failure-based root cause analysis techniques are usedin a reactive mode, i.e. to discover the reason for problems that have alreadyoccurred.

17

References

[1] Petri, C.: Fundamentals of a Theory of Asynchronous Information Flow.In: 1962 IFIP Congress, Amsterdam, North-Holland (1962) 386–390

[2] van der Aalst, W.: A class of petri net for modeling and analyzingbusiness processes. Computing science reports, University of Technology,Eindhoven (1995)

[3] Murata, T.: Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. In: InProceedings of the IEEE. Volume 77. (1989) 541–580

[4] Peterson, J.: Petri net theory and the modeling of systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, USA (1981)

[5] Desel, J., Esparza, J.: Free choice petri nets. Cambridge Tracts inTheoretical Computer Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,United Kingdom 40 (1995)

[6] van der Aalst, W.: The application of petri nets to workflow manage-ment. The Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers 8 (1998) 21–66

[7] Jensen, K., Kristensen, L., Wells, L.: Coloured petri nets and cpntools for modelling and validation of concurrent systems. InternationalJournal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 9 (2007) 213–254

[8] Kristensen, L., Christensen, S., Jensen, K.: The practitioner’s guide tocoloured petri nets. International Journal on Software Tools for Tech-nology Transfer 2 (1998) 98–132

[9] Jensen, K.: A brief introduction to coloured petri nets. In: Proceedingof the TACAS’97 Workshop, Enschede, The Netherlands. Volume 1217of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. (1997) 203–208

[10] Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Ar-chitectures. Springer (2007)

[11] Keller, G., Nuttgens, M., Scheer, A.W.: Semantische Prozessmodel-lierung auf der Grundlage “Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK)”.Heft 89, Institut fur Wirtschaftsinformatik, Saarbrucken, Germany(1992)

[12] Scheer, A.W.: ARIS business process modelling. Springer Verlag (2000)

18

[13] Mendling, J., Muehlen, M., Price, A.: Standards for Workflow Definitionand Execution. In: Process Aware Information Systems: Bridging Peo-ple and Software Through Process Technology. Wiley Publishing (2005)

[14] OMG: Business Process Modeling Notation, V1.1. Object ManagementGroup, http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/08-01-17.pdf. (2008)

[15] WG, J.: Mort, safety assurances systems (1980)

[16] Livingston, A.D., Jackson, G., Priestley, K.: Root causes analysis: Lit-erature review. St Clements House (2001)

[17] Johnson, C.W.: Failure in Safety-Critical Systems: A Handbook ofAccident and Incident Reporting. University of Glasgow Press, Glasgow,Scotland (2003)

[18] Benner, L.J.: Accident Investigations: Multilinear Events SequencingMethods. Journal of Safety Research 7 (1975) 67–73

[19] Murayama, Y., Yamazaki, M., Endo: A pilot study on marine incidents.The journal of Japan institute of navigation (1998) 257–264

[20] Hendrick, K., Benner, L.J.: Investigating accidents with s-t-e-p (1987)

[21] Hendric, K., Benner, L.: Investigating Accidents with SequentiallyTimed and Events Plotting (STEP). Marcel Decker (1987)

[22] Talty, J.T.: Industrial Hygiene / Industrial Hygiene Engineering -Recognition, Measurement, Evaluation and Control. William AndrewInc. (1988)

[23] Paradies, M., Unger, L., Haas, P., Terranova, M.: Development of theNRCs Human Performance Investigation Process (HPIP). Summary,Division of Systems Research Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 1(1993) SI–92–101

[24] Kepner, C., Tregor, B.: The Rational Manager. 2nd Ed, PrincetonNJ,Kepner-Tregoe Inc. (1976)

[25] Samuel, K.M., Samuel, K.H.: Operations and Quality Management.Thomson Learning EMEA (1999)

[26] Lau, R., Anderson, C.: A three-dimensional perspective of total qualitymanagement. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Manage-ment 15 (1998) 85 – 98

19

[27] Wittenberg, G.: Kaizenthe many ways of getting better. AssemblyAutomation 14 (1994) 12 – 17

[28] Snee, R.: Six sigma: the evolution of 100 years of business improve-ment methodology. International Journal of Six Sigma and CompetitiveAdvantage 1 (2004) 4–20

[29] Cornford, S.L., Gibbel, M.: Methodology for physics and engineering ofreliable products. In: In proceedings of WESCON. (1996) 618 – 624

[30] Parry, J., Rantala, J., Lasance, C.: Enhanced electronic system reli-ability - challenges for temperature prediction. Packaging and Manu-facturing Technology, Part A: Packaging Technologies 25 (2002) 533 –538

[31] Upadhyayula, K., Dasgupta, A.: Physics-of-failure guidelines for ac-celerated qualification of electronic systems. Quality and ReliabilityEngineering International 14 (1999) 433 – 447

20

312

Appendix B

Action Research Templates

313

Appendix B.1 Meeting Agenda Template

Company A - Meeting Agenda Date:

Time:

Meeting Purpose:

Meeting Protocol:

Attendees:

Agenda: Agenda 1

Additional Information Special Notes:

314

Appendix B.2 Meeting Notes Template

Meeting Notes Date:

Time:

Attendees:

QUT

Mitra Heravizadeh

Company A

Agenda: 1. Agenda 1

315

Appendix B.3 Invitation Letter

Dear Sir/Madam,

We are writing to invite you part in our research project and to benefit from the insights you can gain through our collaboration. In this research project, we explore innovating ways of improving the quality of business process. The aim is to provide a quality framework that can be easily incorporated into the Business Process Management life cycle. While we have a mature conceptual methodology for this approach, we are now seeking empirical insights into such processes. We would appreciate a conversation which you to briefly introduce you to our methodology and then to jointly identify a process that would benefit from this approach.

Kind Regards,

Mitra Heravizadeh

316

Appendix B.4 Action Research Project Summary

Action Research Project Summary – Quality Aware BPM

Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of the Quality Aware BPM and the proposed action research project plan.

Introduction In this research project, we explore innovating ways of improving the quality of business process. The aim is to provide a quality framework that can be easily incorporated into the Business Process Management life cycle. While a mature conceptual methodology for this approach has been developed by this research project, empirical insights into such processes will ensure the validity of this framework for a real world problem.

Action research has been selected as the research methodology for this stage of research. Action research is a reflective process of progressive problem solving led by individuals working with others in teams as part of a practice to improve the way they address issues and solve problems. The action research adopted in this research is based on the action research methodology by Susman and Everet [1] which consists of five stages: diagnosis, action planning, action taking, evaluation, and specifying learning. The action research plan for this project which presented in the following section is based on these five stages.

Action Research Plan Action research plan for this collaborative project is presented in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 1, informal meetings and workshops will provide the majority of the interaction mechanism during the project. For meetings and workshops, the agendas will be distributed in advance to appropriate parties, and minutes from the meetings will be recorded using a standard template. Throughout the action research phase, the main researcher will record notes and reflections related to each case. Activities with respect to each stage of the action research plan (Figure 1) are described in detail below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_process�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_solving�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_practice�

317

Phase

Sub-Activity

Engagement Type

Duration

Initial Engagement Initial Kick off Informal Meeting 2 hours Action Research Cycle – Diagnosis

Identify the problem Informal Meeting 4 hours

Action Research Cycle – Action Planning

Define the Project Scope

Informal Meeting 1 hour

Plan Activities Informal Meeting 2 hours Schedule Informal Meeting 1 hour

Action Research Cycle – Action Taking Phase I

Analyse the Process Workshop 4 hours Create Business Process Model

Workshop 16 hours

Create Quality Model Workshop 16 hours Create Softgoal Model Workshop 16 hours Create Correlations Model

None 4 hours

Create Measurement Model

Workshop 8 hours

Prepare Project Report None 40 hours Action Research Cycle – Action Taking Phase II

Conduct Root Cause Analysis

Workshop 8 hours

Action Research Cycle – Evaluating

Evaluate QoBP Framework

Workshop 16 hours

Present Evaluation Results

Workshop 20 hours

Action Research Cycle – Specifying Learning

Identify Enhancement Opportunities to QoBP Framework

Workshop

8 hours

Prepare Report None 40 hours Closure Final Meeting

Informal Meeting 4 hours

Initial Engagement

During the initial meeting the action research process and plan will be described by the main researcher to the parties involved.

Diagnosis Stage

Diagnosis is the first stage of the action research cycle. The purpose of this stage is to:

• Describe the purpose of the action research and its benefits to the organisation.

318

• Identify a business process within the organisation that can be improved using the framework proposed by this research.

During this stage, the main researcher will conduct informal meetings with the key stakeholders which are envisaged to be up to 4 hours in duration. During these meetings the main researcher will describe the purpose of the action research, and how the host organisation will benefit by introducing the Quality of Business Process (QoBP) framework to their BPM practice. An appropriate process that will benefit from the QoBP framework will also be selected during these meetings.

Action Planning Stage

The main purpose of this stage is to plan the activities that are performed during the course of the collaboration to solve the identified problem. The activity plan will be based on the activities that are required to be performed for two phases:

• Phase I - To create a quality-aware business process. The activity plan for this phase is based on the procedural steps which are described in the following section.

• Phase II - To conduct root cause analysis in order to improve the quality of a business process during the. The activity plan for this phase is based on the Process Root Cause Analysis technique proposed by this research study.

During this stage, the main researcher will conduct informal meetings with key stakeholders which are envisaged to be up to 4 hours in duration. During these meetings, the main researcher will plan the above activities with the key stakeholders. An action research cycle may only be planned for just one phase (i.e. phase one).

Action Taking Stage

The purpose of this stage is to perform the activities identified during the action planning stage. Accordingly, the main researcher will be organising a series of workshops with the key stakeholders according to the action plan produced during the previous stage. These workshops, in general, have two different focuses: (1) data collection; and (2) validation of the model created after the data collection. The action taking stage is based on the action plan created during the action planning stage. The action taking stage is divided into two phases (based on two phases described in the previous section) which are:

o Action Taking Stage Phase I

1. Analyse the business process - T he purpose of the first step is to analyse the organisation structure, the process goals, the process environment, and the quality requirements of the process being analysed. During this stage, the main researcher will organise a workshop inviting relevant parties to analyse the business process. Accordingly, the functional and quality (non-functional) requirements of the process

- The purpose of this stage is to perform the activities identified for phase I of the action taking stage which are:

319

will be elicited during the workshop, , taking account of the organisation's strategy, goals and structure. The deliverable of this step will be a document describing the functional and quality (non-functional) requirements, in plain English, of the business process being analysed.

2. Define a business process model - The purpose of this step is to model the selected process using a business process modelling language. During this stage, the main researcher will organise a series of workshops inviting relevant parties to model the business process based on the requirements defined and documented during the previous step.

3. Create a quality model - The purpose of this step is to define a quality model for the selected business process. The main researcher will organise four workshops to capture the quality characteristics for the four business process quality dimensions (functions, inputs-outputs, human resources, and non-human resources). The outcome of these workshops is a quality model consisting of the quality characteristics for the four dimensions of the business process.

4. Create a softgoal model - The objective of this step is to create a softgoal model for the quality characteristics modelled in the quality model created in the previous step. Accordingly, the main researcher will organise a series of workshops to specify softgoals for the quality characteristics identified during the previous step.

5. Create a softgoal correlation model - The purpose of this step is to identify the correlations between the softgoals identified during the last step. The main researcher will create the softgoal correlation model based on the algorithm proposed by this research study. No contribution from the host organisation is required for this step.

6. Create a measurement model - The purpose of this step is to create a model which contains metrics required to measure softgoal satisfaction. This step is the last step of the process that transforms the subjective quality characteristics into a set of measurable objective quality metrics. Accordingly, the main researcher will organise a series of workshops to identify quality metrics.

o Action Taking Stage Phase II - The purpose of this stage is to perform the activities identified for phase II of the action taking stage. The PRCA technique proposed by this research provides a step-by-step procedure to identify the root causes of a quality issue for an instance of a process. In order to trace a quality issue back to its root cause for an instance of a business process, the correlations between softgoals that are modelled in a softgoal correlation model for the process are used. The main researcher will organise a series of workshops to conduct root cause analysis for the quality issue that is being investigated. The main researcher will invite the appropriate participants for each workshop based on the information/data that is required to be gathered. It is envisaged that up to 4 workshops of 2 hours each is required to complete this step. She will follow the step-by-step procedures provided by the PRCA technique which are:

320

1. In the softgoal correlation model, find the softgoal that is linked to the quality issue;

2. Trace the softgoal through the softgoal correlation model;

3. Evaluate the traced softgoal and record the results. Softgoal satisfaction is determined by the value at the process instance level for the metric that measures the softgoal satisfaction;

4. Repeat Step 2 and 3 until no more softgoal is traced;

5. Review the results from the evaluation of the traced softgoals;

6. Identify the last softgoal being traced which is not satisfied (meets the failure condition for a metric;

7. Find the quality issue that is linked to the last softgoal that was identified in the previous step. This quality issue is the root quality issue;

8. Find the quality metrics which contributed to the failure of the root quality issue. These quality metrics are the root causes of the investigated quality issue.

Evaluation

The main purpose of this stage is to evaluate the consequences of the actions taken in the previous stage. Accordingly, the main researcher will organise a series of workshops with key participants to thoroughly evaluate the outcome of the action research based on above objectives. The main researcher will use a questionnaire to guide the evaluation process. This questionnaire is created based on a set of evaluation objectives. The answer from each organisation's key participants will be recorded and be used as input for the next stage. It is envisaged that up to 4 workshops of 4 hours each is required to complete this step.

Specifying Learning

The purpose of this step is to identify the lessons learned during the action research cycle. The evaluation results produced during the last stage will influence the discovery of the lessons learned. During this stage, the main researcher will organise a series of workshops with key stakeholders to reflect on the evaluation results. The lessons learned and possible enhancements to the QoBP framework and PRCA approach will be identified during these workshops. The enhancement opportunities identified for artifacts being evaluated will be used to enhance the relevant artifacts. It is envisaged that up to 2 workshops of 4 hours each is required to complete this step.

Closure

321

During this last stage of the action research, the main researcher will organise an informal meeting to express her appreciation to the key stakeholders contributing to this collaborative project.

References [1] Susman, G., Evered, R.: An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Information Systems

Journal 4 (1978) 582--603

322

Appendix B.5 Evaluation Questions

Evaluation Questions:

1. Quality model:

a. Were function quality characteristics applicable to the function quality dimension?

b. Were input & output quality characteristics applicable to the input & out quality dimension?

c. Were human resource quality characteristics applicable to the human resource quality dimension?

d. Were non-human resource quality characteristics applicable to the non-human resource quality dimension?

e. Were the supporting methodology and templates to identify and capture quality characteristics for the function quality dimension usable and scalable?

f. Were the supporting methodology and templates to identify and capture quality characteristics for the input & output quality dimension usable and scalable?

g. Were the supporting methodology and templates to identify and capture quality characteristics for the function human resource dimension usable and scalable?

h. Were the supporting methodology and templates to identify and capture quality characteristics for the function non-human resource dimension usable and scalable?

2. Softgoal model:

a. Were the supporting methodology and templates to identify and capture softgoals for functions quality characteristics usable and scalable?

b. Were the supporting methodology and templates to identify and capture softgoals for inputs & outputs quality characteristics usable and scalable?

c. Were the supporting methodology and templates to identify and capture softgoals for human resource quality characteristics usable and scalable?

d. Were the supporting methodology and templates to identify and capture softgoals for non-human resource quality characteristics usable and scalable?

3. Correlation model:

a. Were the supporting methodology and templates to identify and capture correlations between softgoals usable and scalable?

323

4. Measurement model:

a. Were the supporting methodology and templates to identify and capture metrics for softgoals usable and scalable?

b. Is the goal-oriented approach used to identify metrics for softgoals a valid approach?

5. QoBP metamodel:

a. Did QoBP metamodel produce a quality-aware business process?

6. PRCA Approach:

a. Did the PRCA approach provide the investigators the ability to identify the sequence of events leading to a cause of an issue?

b. Did the PRCA approach provide the investigators the context required to conduct corrective actions?

c. Did the PRCA approach provide a systematic methodology to conduct the investigation?

d. Did the PRCA approach provide a consistent mechanism for investigators to detect the root cause of an issue?

e. Was the PRCA approach easy to learn and easy to use?

324

Appendix C

Action Research Organisation A

325

Appendix C.1 Functions Softgoal Model

Organisation A – Functions Softgoal Model

Functions Quality Characteristics Soft Goals

F1 - Obtain policy details and validate caller (authorised to lodge)

Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Productivity To increase the productivity of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

F2 - Validate Policy Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Productivity To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

F3 - Capture incident details

Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

Productivity To increase the productivity of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

F4 - Validate incident coverage

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Reliability To improve the reliability of ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

F5 - Assess liability Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Robustness To improve the robustness of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

F6 - Capture loss and TP details

Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Productivity To increase the productivity of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

F7 - Assess excess Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Robustness To improve the robustness of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

F8 - Assess pathing Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

326

Productivity To increase the productivity of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

F9 - Action hire car and towing (as appropriate)

Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Learnability To improve the learnability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

F10 - Add authorised parties (as appropriate)

Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.

Security To improve the security of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.

F11 - Inform customer of next steps

Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

F12 - Finalise claim intake Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

327

Appendix C.2 Input & Output Softgoal Model

Organisation A – Input & Output Softgoal Model

Function Input/Output Data

Quality Characteristics

Soft Goals



Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Customer Products

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’

328

function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.


Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

F2 - Validate Policy


Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

329

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Coverage and Policy Extras

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Vehicle Identification

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.


Incident Details Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Incident

330

Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.



Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Claim Business Rules

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

331

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Security To increase the secirity of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

F5 - Assess liability

Incident Details Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.


Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

332

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.



Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Driver Details Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Customer Vehicle Details - Damage

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

333

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Customer Personal Property

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Customer Personal Property’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Customer Personal Property’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Customer Personal Property’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Customer Personal Property’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Customer Personal Property’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Third Party Details Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Other Party Details

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

334

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

F7 - Assess excess Coverage and Policy Extras

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Vehicle Information

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Incident Details Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

335

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.


Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

F8 - Assess pathing

Incident Details Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.


Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’

336

function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Assessment Details

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.



Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Coverage and Policy

337

Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.


Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Claim Services Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Accessibility To improve the assessibility of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

338

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.


Other Party Details

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.

Security To improve the security of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.


Claim Services Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.


Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Assessment Details

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Accessibility To increase the accessibility of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

339

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

F12 - Finalise claim intake

Incident Details Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Third Party Details Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Security To improve the security of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Third Party Vehicle Details - Damage

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Third Party Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Third Party Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Third Party Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’

340

function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Third Party Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Claim Services Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Timeliness To increase the timeliness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Assessment Details

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Timeliness To increase the timeliness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Claim Action Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Claim Action’ data

341

of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Security To increase the security of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Timeliness To increase the timeliness of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

342

Appendix C.3 Human Resource Softgoal Model

Organisation A – Human Resource Softgoal Model

Functions Resource Quality Characteristics

Soft Goals


Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

F2 - Validate Policy Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Validate policy’ function.

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Validate policy’ function.


Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

Experience To increase the experience of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Capture incident details’ function.


Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Experience To increase the experience of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

F5 - Assess liability Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Experience To increase the experience of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Assess liability’ function.


Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Experience To increase the experience of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

F7 - Assess excess Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Experience To increase the experience of the Claims Processor

343

performing the ‘Assess excess’ function.

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Assess excess’ function.

F8 - Assess pathing Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Assess pathing’ function.


Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.


Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Inform Customer of next steps’ function.

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Inform Customer of next steps’ function.


N/A N/A N/A

344

Appendix C.4 Non-Human Resource Softgoal Model

Organisation A – Non-Human Resource Softgoal Model


Soft Goals


System A

Suitability To improve the suitability of System A performing the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

System A

Reliability To improve the reliability of System A performing the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

System A

Productivity To increase the productivity of System A performing the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

F2 - Validate Policy System A

Suitability To improve the suitability of System A performing the ‘Validate policy’ function.

System A Reliability To improve the reliability of System A performing the ‘Validate policy’ function.

System A Productivity To increase the productivity of System A performing the ‘Validate policy’ function.


System A Suitability To improve the suitability of System A performing the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

System A Understandability To improve the understandability of System A performing the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

System A Productivity To increase the productivity of System A performing the ‘Capture incident details’ function.


System A Accuracy To improve the accuracy of System A performing the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

System A Reliability To improve the reliability of System A performing the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

System A

Understandability To improve the understandability of System A performing the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

F5 - Assess liability System A Accuracy To improve the accuracy of System A performing the ‘Assess liability’ function.

System A Reliability To improve the reliability of System A performing the ‘Assess liability’ function.

System A Robustness To improve the robustness of System A performing the ‘Assess liability’ function.


System A

Suitability To improve the suitability of System A performing the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

System A

Understandability To improve the understandability of System A performing the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

System A Productivity To increase the productivity of System A performing the ‘Capture loss and TP details’

345

function.

F7 - Assess excess System A Accuracy To improve the accuracy of System A performing the ‘Assess excess’ function.

System A Reliability To improve the reliability of System A performing the ‘Assess excess’ function.

System A Robustness To improve the robustness of System A performing the ‘Assess excess’ function.

F8 - Assess pathing System A Accuracy To improve the accuracy of System A performing the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

System A Reliability To improve the reliability of System A performing the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

System A Productivity To increase the productivity of System A performing the ‘Assess pathing’ function.


System A Suitability To improve the suitability of System A performing the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

System A

Understandability To improve the understandability of System A performing the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

System A Learnability To improve the learnability of System A performing the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.


System A

Suitability To improve the suitability of System A performing the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.

System A Security To improve the security of System A performing the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.

System A

Understandability To improve the understandability of System A performing the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.


System A

Suitability To improve the suitability of System A performing the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

System A Accuracy To improve the accuracy of System A performing the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

System A

Understandability To improve the understandability of System A performing the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.


System A Accuracy To improve the accuracy of System A performing the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

System A Reliability To improve the reliability of System A performing the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

System A Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of System A performing the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

346

Appendix C.5 Softgoal Correlation Model

Organisation A – Softgoal Correlation Model

Functions Input Output Function

Correlated Soft Goal

F12 - Finalise claim intake Incident Details F3 To improve the suitability of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

To improve the reliability of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function. To increase the productivity of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

Third Party Details F3 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function. To improve the reliability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function. Third Party Vehicle Details -

Damage F3 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

To improve the reliability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function. Claim Services F3 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

To improve the reliability of the ‘Validate policy’ function. To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function. F9 To improve the suitability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function. To improve the understandability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

To improve the learnability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function. Assessment Details F3 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

To improve the reliability of the ‘Validate policy’ function. To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function. F9 To improve the suitability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function. To improve the understandability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

To improve the learnability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function. F8 To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

347

To improve the reliability of the ‘Assess pathing’ function. To increase the productivity of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

F11 - Inform customer of next steps Claim Services F9 To improve the suitability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function. To improve the understandability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

To improve the learnability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

Assessment Details F9 To improve the suitability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function. To improve the understandability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

To improve the learnability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function. F8 To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

To improve the reliability of the ‘Assess pathing’ function. To increase the productivity of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.


Coverage and Policy Extras F2 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

To improve the reliability of the ‘Validate policy’ function. To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function.


F2 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.


To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function. F8 - Assess pathing Incident Details F3 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

To improve the reliability of the ‘Validate policy’ function. To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function. Customer Vehicle Details -


To improve the reliability of the ‘Validate policy’ function. To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function. F7 - Assess excess Coverage and Policy Extras F2 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function. To improve the reliability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function. Vehicle Information F2 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.


348

To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function. Incident Details F2 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.


F3 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function. To improve the reliability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function. F6 - Capture loss and TP details Vehicle Identification F2 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.


Driver Details F2 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function. To improve the reliability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function. Customer Vehicle Details -



Customer Personal Property F2 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function. To improve the reliability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function. Third Party Details F2 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.


Other Party Details F2 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function. To improve the reliability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function. F5 - Assess liability Incident Details F3 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

To improve the reliability of the ‘Validate policy’ function. To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function. F4 - Validate incident coverage Coverage and Policy Extras F2 To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

349


F2 - Validate Policy Policy Identification F1 To improve the suitability of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function. To improve the reliability of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

To increase the productivity of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

350

Appendix C.6 Function Measurement Model

Organisation A – Function Measurement Model

Functions Quality Characteristics

Soft Goals Question Metric Threshold Value


Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

Are policy details obtained?

Yes

Is caller validated? Yes

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?

Percentage uptime (%) > 99.995%

Productivity To ensure the function is completed in an adequate time

What is the current productivity of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current productivity from the desired one?

Task Time < 2 minutes

F2 - Validate Policy Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Validate Policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

Is policy validated? Yes

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Validate policy’

What is the current reliability of the ‘Validate Policy’ function?


351

function. What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?

Productivity To increase the productivity of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current productivity of the ‘Validate Policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current productivity from the desired one?



Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

Were incident details captured?

Yes

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current understandability of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?

Is a ‘User Guide’ available?

Yes

Is ‘Help Documentation’ available?

Yes

Productivity To increase the productivity of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current productivity of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current productivity from the desired one?



Accuracy To improve the accuracy of ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?

Subjective evaluation n/a

Reliability To improve the reliability of ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


Understandability To improve the What is the current Is a ‘User Guide’ Yes

352

understandability of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

understandability of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?

available?


Yes

F5 - Assess liability Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?

Percentage uptime (%) > 99.995 %

Robustness To improve the robustness of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current robustness of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current robustness from the desired one?

Length of maximum tolerable outage (minutes)

< 10 minutes

Mean time between failures

> 20 days


Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

Were loss and TP details captured?

Yes

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current understandability of the ‘Capture loss and TP detail’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?


Yes

Is ‘Help Documentation’ Yes

353

available?

Productivity To increase the productivity of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current productivity of the ‘Capture loss and TP detail’ function? What is the deviation of the current productivity from the desired one?


F7 - Assess excess Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


Robustness To improve the robustness of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current robustness of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current robustness from the desired one?


< 10 minutes


> 20 days

F8 - Assess pathing Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


Productivity To increase the productivity of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current productivity of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation


354

of the current productivity from the desired one?


Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

Was hire car and towing actioned (if required)?

Yes

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current understandability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?


Yes


Yes

Learnability To improve the learnability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current learnability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current learnability from the desired one?

Help Frequency < 2 per week


Yes

Is ‘Help Documentation’ easily accessible?

Yes


Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

Were authorised parties added (if required)?

Yes

Security To improve the security of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Authenticated Access Yes

Authorised Access Yes

355

Audit Trail Yes

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.

What is the current understandability of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?


Yes


Yes


Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

Was the customer informed of the next steps?

Yes

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current understandability of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?


Yes


Yes


Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from


356

the desired one?

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current effectiveness of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current effectiveness from the desired one?


357

Appendix C.7 Input & Output Measurement Model

Organisation A – Input & Output Measurement Model






Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?

Subjective evaluation

n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of Data

=Policyholder

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of Data

=Policyholder

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of Data

=Policyholder

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Assists in establishing Identity

Yes

358

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Age of Data = Current

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

All fields present that confirm identification

Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?

Enough data exists to confirm identification

Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Customer Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Customer can provide data

Yes

Customer Products

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of data

= System A

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Customer Products’ data

What is the current believability of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’

Source of Data

= System A

359

of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of data

= System A

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Can determine if valid policy exists

Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Data is available to authorised users only

Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Data is current

Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

All fields present to determine if valid policy exists

Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?

Enough data exists to determine if valid policy exists

Yes

360

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Customer Products’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Location of Data

= System A


Accuracy To improve the accessibility of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of data

= System A

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of data

= System A

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of data

= System A

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Assists in determining appropriate policy

Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Policy

What is the current security of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy

User can access data

Yes

361

Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Age of Data < 1 month

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Location of Data

= System A



Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of Data

= System A

362

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of Data

= System A

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of Data

= System A

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Assists in determining appropriate policy

Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?


Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Policy

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Policy Identification’ data of the ‘Validate

Location of Data

= System A

363

Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?


Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of data

= System A

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of data

= System A

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of data

= System A

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?


n/a

Security To increase the security of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?


Yes

364

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Age of Data > 1 month

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

All fields present that confirm policy coverage

Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?

Enough data exists to confirm policy coverage

Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Location of Data

= System A


Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of data

=Policyholder

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Describes vehicle identity

Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Age of Data = current

365

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Validate policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes


Incident Details Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Caller witnessed incident?

Yes

Corroborating witnesses exist?

Yes

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?


Yes


Yes

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?


Yes

Corroborating Yes

366

witnesses exist?

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Motor vehicle incident related

Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?

Incident detail is descriptive

Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Is audited? Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Time since incident

< 1 month

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

All mandatory details exist

Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?

Enough data exists to define incident

Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Location of Data

= System A

367



Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of Data

= System A

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of Data

= System A

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of Data

= System A

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Location of Data

= System A

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

n/a n/a

Security To increase the security of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the

What is the current security of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function?


Yes

368

‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?



Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of data

Published policy

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of data

Published policy

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Claim

What is the current reputation of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the

Source of data

Published policy

369

Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Storage method

= electronic

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Related to appropriate policy

Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?

Business rules are descriptive

Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

User has access

Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

Rules describe all possible cases

Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?

Enough information exists to validate incident coverage

Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Claim

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the


370

Business Rules’ data of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?


Incident Details Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current objective of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current objective from the desired one?


Yes


Yes

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?


Yes


Yes

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?


Yes


Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Location of Data

= System A

371

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?


Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?


Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Is audited? Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Time since incident

< 1 month


Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Claim

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess

Source of data

Published policy

372

Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of data

Published policy

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of data

Published policy

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Storage method

= electronic

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?


Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?


Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

User has access

Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess

What is the current completeness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the


Yes

373

liability’ function. desired one?

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?




Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of data

= Policyholder

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Describes vehicle identity

Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Age of Data = current

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Vehicle Identification’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current


Yes

374

details’ function. amount of data from the desired one?

Driver Details Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Policy holder was driver?

Yes

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Describes driver

Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?


Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

All fields present that confirm driver

Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Driver Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Storage Method

=Electronic

375


Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of data

= approved vehicle inspector

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of data


Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of data


Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Damage described

Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Is audited Yes

376

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Time since incident

< 14 days

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

All fields present that describe vehicle damage

Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?

Enough data exists to describe vehicle damage

Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Storage Method

= electronic

Customer Personal Property

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Customer Personal Property’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Customer Personal Property’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Source of data

=Policyholder

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Customer Personal Property’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Customer Personal Property’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Data describes customer personal property

Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Customer

What is the current security of the ‘Customer Personal Property’ data of the

Is audited Yes

377

Personal Property’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Customer Personal Property’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Customer Personal Property’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Time since incident

< 14 days

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Customer Personal Property’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Customer Personal Property’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Storage Method

= electronic

Third Party Details

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Are details verified

Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?

Describes third party details

Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Is user authorised

Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Time since incident

< 14 days

Completeness To improve the completeness of the

What is the current completeness of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture

All fields present that

Yes

378

‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

describe third party

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?

Enough data exists to describe third party

Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Storage Method

=electronic

Other Party Details

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of data

=Policyholder


What is the current believability of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of data

=Policyholder

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?


Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Is user authorised

Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from

Time since incident

< 14 days

379

details’ function. the desired one?

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

All fields present that describe other party details

Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

F7 - Assess excess


Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of data

= System A

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of data

= System A

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of data

= System A

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Location of Data

= System A

380

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?


n/a

Security To increase the security of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?


Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?


Vehicle Information

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of Data

= System A

Believability To improve the believability of the

What is the current believability of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess

Source of Data

= System A

381

‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of Data

= System A

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Describes vehicle

Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

All fields present that describe vehicle

Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?

Enough data exists to describe vehicle

Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Vehicle Information’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Age of Data < 2 years

Incident Details Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired


Yes

382

function. one?


Yes

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?


Yes


Yes

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?


Yes


Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Location of Data

= System A

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?


Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?


Yes

383

Security To increase the security of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Is audited Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Time since incident

< 1 month


Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of data

Published policy

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of data

Published policy

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Claim

What is the current reputation of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess

Source of data

Published policy

384

Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Storage Method

= electronic

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?


Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?


Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

User has access

Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Claim Business Rules’ data of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired


385

function. one?

F8 - Assess pathing

Incident Details Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?


Yes


Yes

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?


Yes


Yes

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?


Yes


Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Location of Data

= System A

386

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?


Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?


Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Is audited? Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Time since incident

< 1 month


Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data

Source of data

= approved vehicle

387

‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

inspector

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of data


Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of data


Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Storage Method

= electronic

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Damage described

Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Is audited Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’

What is the current completeness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

388

function.

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Time since incident

< 14 days

Assessment Details

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Calculation Method

System generated

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Calculation Method

System generated

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Calculation Method

System generated

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Assessment Details’ data

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation

Location of Data

= System A

389

of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Assessment outcome is defined

Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?

Describes assessment outcome

Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

All fields present that describe assessment outcome

Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?

Enough data exists to describe assessment outcome

Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Age of Data < 14 days



Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of Data

= System A

390

towing’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of Data

= System A

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of Data

= System A

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?


n/a

Security To increase the security of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?


Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

391

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Coverage and Policy Extras’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes


Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of data


Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of data


Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of data


Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Damage described

Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car

What is the current security of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the

Is audited Yes

392

and towing’ function. current security from the desired one?

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Time since incident

< 14 days

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Customer Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Claim Services Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of Data

Manual Selection

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of Data

Manual Selection

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the

What is the current reputation of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the

Source of Data

Manual Selection

393

‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Claim service are defined

Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Storage method

Electronic

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?

Claim services are defined

Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?


Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

All fields present that describe claim services

Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?

Enough data exists to describe claim services

Yes


Other Party Details

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of data

=Policyholder

394

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?


Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Storage Method

=electronic

Security To improve the security of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Other Party Details’ data of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Is user authorised

Yes


Claim Services Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of Data

Manual Selection


What is the current believability of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of Data

Manual Selection

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of Data

Manual Selection

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Claim

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform


Yes

395

Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Accessibility To increase the accessibility of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Storage method

Electronic

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?


Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Assessment Details

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity

Calculation Method

System Generated

396

of next steps’ function. from the desired one?

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Calculation Method

System Generated

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Calculation Method

System Generated

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Assessment outcome is defined

Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Location of Data

= System A

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?


Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

397

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes


Incident Details Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?


Yes


Yes

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?


Yes


Yes

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?


Yes


Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Incident Details’ data of

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the

Location of Data

= System A

398

the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?


Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?


Yes

Security To improve the security of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Is audited? Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Incident Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Third Party Details

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of data

=Policyholder

399

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of data

=Policyholder

Security To improve the security of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Source of data

=Policyholder

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Storage Method

=electronic

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Are details confirmed

Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?

Describes third party details

Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

All fields present that describe third party

Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Third Party Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Third Party Vehicle Details -

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Third

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Third Party Vehicles Details - Damage’

Storage Method

= electronic

400

Damage Party Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Third Party Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Third Party Vehicles Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Damage described

Yes

Security To increase the security of the ‘Third Party Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current security of the ‘Third Party Vehicles Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Is audited Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Third Party Vehicle Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Third Party Vehicles Details - Damage’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Time since incident

< 14 days

Claim Services Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of Data

Manual Selection

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of Data

Manual Selection

401

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of Data

Manual Selection

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Storage method

Electronic

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?


Yes

Value-added To increase the value added of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current value added of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current value added from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To increase the timeliness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?


Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Claim Services’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

402

Assessment Details

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Calculation Method

System generated

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Calculation Method

System generated

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Calculation Method

System generated

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Location of Data

= System A

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Assessment is defined

Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To increase timeliness of the ‘Assessment Details’

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise


403

data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Assessment Details’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Claim Action Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Calculation Method

System Generated

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Calculation Method

System Generated

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Calculation Method

System Generated

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired

Storage Method

= electronic

404

function. one?

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Claim action is described

Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?

Claim action is described

Yes

Security To improve the security of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current security the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Is audited Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current timeliness the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Time since incident

< 14 days

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

All fields present that describe claim action

Yes

Amount of Data

To improve the amount of data of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Claim Action’ data of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?

Enough data exists to describe claim action

Yes

405

Appendix C.8 Human Resource Measurement Model

Organisation A Human Resource Measurement Model




Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current domain knowledge of the Claims Processor? What is the deviation of the current domain knowledge from the desired one?

Customer systems knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What are the communication skills of the Claims Processor? What is the deviation of the communication skills of the Claims Processor to the desired one?

Listening skills (poor, average, good)

>= average

F2 - Validate Policy Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Validate policy’ function.


Policy validation knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Validate policy’ function.



>= average


Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Capture incident details’

What is the current domain knowledge of the Claims Processor? What is the deviation of the current domain

Claims systems knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate,

>= intermediate

406

function. knowledge from the desired one?

expert)

Data capture methods knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Experience To increase the experience of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current experience of the Claims Processor? What is the deviation of the current experience of the Claims Processor to the desired one?

Data entry experience

> 2 years

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Capture incident details’ function.



>= average


Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.


PDS knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Experience To increase the experience of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.


Dealing with difficult people experience

> 2 years

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.


Empathy skills (poor, average, good)

= good

F5 - Assess liability Claims Domain To improve the domain What is the current domain PDS knowledge >= intermediate

407

Processor Knowledge knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Assess liability’ function.

knowledge of the Claims Processor? What is the deviation of the current domain knowledge from the desired one?

level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

Motor Vehicle road rules knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

> expert

Experience To increase the experience of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Assess liability’ function.



> 2 years

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Assess liability’ function.



= good


Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.


Claims systems knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Data capture methods knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Experience To increase the experience of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current experience of the Claims Processor? What is the deviation of the current experience of the Claims

Data entry experience

> 2 years

408

Processor to the desired one?

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.



>= average

F7 - Assess excess Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Assess excess’ function.


PDS knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Experience To increase the experience of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Assess excess’ function.



> 2 years

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Assess excess’ function.



= good

F8 - Assess pathing Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Assess pathing’ function.


Assess pathing business rules knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Assess pathing’ function.


Salesmanship skills (poor, average, good)

= good

F9 - Action hire car Claims Domain To improve the domain What is the current domain Hire car and >= intermediate

409

and towing (as appropriate)

Processor Knowledge knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

knowledge of the Claims Processor? What is the deviation of the current domain knowledge from the desired one?

towing business rules knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.


Ability to clearly articulate conditions of hire (poor, average, good)

= good


Claims Processor

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Inform Customer of next steps’ function.


Claims process knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Claims Processor performing the ‘Inform Customer of next steps’ function.


Ability to clearly articulate next steps (poor, average, good)

= good

Salesmanship skills (poor, average, good)

= good


N/A N/A N/A

410

Appendix C.9 Non-Human Resource Measurement Model

Organisation A – Non-Human Resource Measurement Model




System A Suitability To improve the suitability of System A performing the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

Are policy details obtained?

Yes

Is caller validated?

Yes

System A Reliability To improve the reliability of System A performing the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?

Percentage uptime (%)

> 99.995%

System A Productivity To increase the productivity of System A performing the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function.

What is the current productivity of the ‘Obtain policy details and validate caller’ function? What is the deviation of the current productivity from the desired one?



System A Suitability To improve the suitability of System A performing the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Validate Policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

Is policy validated?

Yes

System A Reliability To improve the reliability of System A performing the ‘Validate policy’

What is the current reliability of the ‘Validate Policy’ function? What is the deviation of the


> 99.995%

411

function. current reliability from the desired one?

System A Productivity To increase the productivity of System A performing the ‘Validate policy’ function.

What is the current productivity of the ‘Validate Policy’ function? What is the deviation of the current productivity from the desired one?



System A Suitability To improve the suitability of System A performing the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

Were incident details captured?

Yes

System A Understandability To improve the understandability of System A performing the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current understandability of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?


Yes


Yes

System A Productivity To increase the productivity of System A performing the ‘Capture incident details’ function.

What is the current productivity of the ‘Capture incident details’ function? What is the deviation of the current productivity from the desired one?



System A Accuracy To improve the accuracy of System A performing the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

System A Reliability To improve the reliability of System A performing the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


> 99.995%

System A Understandability To improve the What is the current Is a ‘User Guide’ Yes

412

understandability of System A performing the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function.

understandability of the ‘Validate incident coverage’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?

available?


Yes


System A Accuracy To improve the accuracy of System A performing the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

System A Reliability To improve the reliability of System A performing the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


> 99.995 %

System A Robustness To improve the robustness of System A performing the ‘Assess liability’ function.

What is the current robustness of the ‘Assess Liability’ function? What is the deviation of the current robustness from the desired one?


< 10 minutes


> 20 days


System A Suitability To improve the suitability of System A performing the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

Were loss and TP details captured?

Yes

System A Understandability To improve the understandability of System A performing the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current understandability of the ‘Capture loss and TP detail’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?


Yes

413


Yes

System A Productivity To increase the productivity of System A performing the ‘Capture loss and TP details’ function.

What is the current productivity of the ‘Capture loss and TP detail’ function? What is the deviation of the current productivity from the desired one?


F7 - Assess excess

System A Accuracy To improve the accuracy of System A performing the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

System A Reliability To improve the reliability of System A performing the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


> 99.995%

System A Robustness To improve the robustness of System A performing the ‘Assess excess’ function.

What is the current robustness of the ‘Assess excess’ function? What is the deviation of the current robustness from the desired one?


< 10 minutes


> 20 days

F8 - Assess pathing

System A Accuracy To improve the accuracy of System A performing the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

System A Reliability To improve the reliability of System A performing the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


> 99.995%

System A Productivity To increase the What is the current productivity Task Time < 2 minutes

414

productivity of System A performing the ‘Assess pathing’ function.

of the ‘Assess pathing’ function? What is the deviation of the current productivity from the desired one?


System A Suitability To improve the suitability of System A performing the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

Was hire car and towing actioned (if required)?

Yes

System A Understandability To improve the understandability of System A performing the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current understandability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?


Yes


Yes

System A Learnability To improve the learnability of System A performing the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function.

What is the current learnability of the ‘Action hire car and towing’ function? What is the deviation of the current learnability from the desired one?

Help Frequency < 2 per week


Yes

Is ‘Help Documentation’ easily accessible?

Yes


System A Suitability To improve the suitability of System A performing the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Add authorised parties’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

Were authorised parties added (if required)?

Yes

System A Security To improve the security of System A performing the

What is the current security of the ‘Add authorised parties’

Authenticated access

Yes

415

‘Add authorised parties’ function.

function? What is the deviation of the current security from the desired one?

Authorised access

Yes

Audit trail Yes

System A Understandability To improve the understandability of System A performing the ‘Add authorised parties’ function.



Yes


Yes


System A Suitability To improve the suitability of System A performing the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

Was the customer informed of the next steps?

Yes

System A Accuracy To improve the accuracy of System A performing the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

System A Understandability To improve the understandability of System A performing the ‘Inform customer of next steps’ function.



Yes


Yes


System A Accuracy To improve the accuracy of System A performing the ‘Finalise claim intake’

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of


n/a

416

function. the current accuracy from the desired one?

System A Reliability To improve the reliability of System A performing the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


> 99.995%

System A Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of System A performing the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function.

What is the current effectiveness of the ‘Finalise claim intake’ function? What is the deviation of the current effectiveness from the desired one?


n/a

417

QoBP Automation Tool

User Guide

418

Section 1: Using the QoBP Tool

Introduction The QoBP Automation Tool is designed to automate the generation of artefacts for the QoBP process. It is implemented in Microsoft Excel and uses XML files for data input. Tasks are automated using the VBA language.

Getting Started The first step in using the QoBP Automation Tool is to define the data. Data is categorised into two types: Foundation Data and Process Data. Foundation Data is the data that defines the QoBP framework and Process Data is data that defines a specific process. Data is defined in xml documents. See Section 2 for examples of the xml data.

Defining the foundation data The foundation data is the data that defines the QoBP quality framework. It includes the following:

Data XML File Name Description Functional Quality Characteristics

Qlist.xml Contains the functional quality characteristics of the QoBP model

Data Quality Characteristics DataQList.xml Contains the input and output data quality characteristics of the QoBP model

Non-human Quality Characteristics

NHQList.xml Contains the non-human quality characteristics of the QoBP model

Data Quality Characteristic Mapping

QualMap.xml Contains the mapping of functional quality characteristics to data input/output quality characteristics

Non-human Quality Characteristic Mapping

QualMapNH.xml Contains the mapping of functional quality characteristics to non-human quality characteristics.

Defining the process data

The process data is data that defines a specific process. It consists of 3 data types.

Data XML File Name Description Functions FuncList.xml Contains the functions of a specific process Input/Output data IOList.xml Contains the input and output data for each

function for a specific process Rating Procrate.xml Contains the top 3 quality characteristics for

each function for a specific process

419

Directory Structure

The QoBPTool can be located anywhere in the file system as long as the following sub directories exist in the same location.

Path Description \ Location of QoBPTool.xls \Input Contains 2 folder for the input data \Input\Foundation Contains the foundation xml input files (see above) \Input\Process Contains the process xml input files (see above) \Output Location of output xml files \Doco Contains documentation

Starting the tool

To start the QoBP Tool, open QoBPTool.xls in Microsoft Excel. Ensure that macros are enabled.

Navigating the tool

The QoBPTool spreadsheet consists of multiple worksheets. These can be selected by clicking on the tabs at the bottom of the screen. All the functions that are required to run the QoBP tool are available from the command worksheet.

420

The commands available from the Command Page are as follows:

Button Action Function Quality Char. Displays the function quality characteristics Data Quality Char. Displays the data quality characteristics Non-Human Quality Char. Displays the non-human quality characteristics Data Quality Mapping Displays the mappings between the function quality

characteristics and the data quality characteristics Non-Human Quality Mapping Displays the mappings between the function quality

characteristics and the non-human resource quality characteristics

Data Refresh Reloads the data from the xml files into the QoBP tool Process Ratings by Function Processes the ratings data for use by the artefact generation

functions Function Quality List Generates a list of the quality characteristics for all functions in

the process Function Softgoal Summary List Generates a list of the softgoals for each quality characteristic for

all functions in the process Data Input/Output Quality List Generates a list of quality characteristics for the data inputs and

outputs for each function based on the data quality mapping Data Input/Output Softgoal Summary List

Generates a list of the softgoals for each quality characteristic for the data inputs/outputs for all functions in the process

421

Softgoal Correlation Model Generate the Softgoal correlation model for the process Non-Human Resource Quality List

Generates a list of the quality characteristics for all non-human resources in the process based on the non-human resource mapping

Non-Human Resource Softgoal Summary List

Generates a list of the softgoals for each quality characteristic for the non-human resources for all functions in the process

QoBP Tool Process Flow

The basic steps required to run the tool are as follows:

1. Define the foundation data requirements and enter into the appropriate xml file as described in the table above and copy to the \Input\Foundation directory.

2. Define the process specific data requirements and enter into the appropriate xml file as described in the table above and copy to the \Input\Process directory.

3. Select the ‘Refresh Data’ button on the Command worksheet to update the data in the model. 4. Select the ‘Process Rating by Function’ button on the Command spreadsheet to update the

model with the appropriate functional quality characteristics. 5. Select the relevant button on the Command spreadsheet under the Function Artefacts, Data

Input/Output Artefacts or Non-Human Resource Artefacts Sections to produce the required artefact.

422

Section 2: Example XML Data

Process Specific Data

Function List – FuncList.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <FUNCLIST> <TITLE>Function Listing</TITLE> <PROCESS ProcID="P1"> <FUNCTION ID="F1"> <NAME>Classify FSR</NAME> </FUNCTION> <FUNCTION ID="F2"> <NAME>Prioritise FSR</NAME> </FUNCTION> <FUNCTION ID="F3"> <NAME>Categorise FSR</NAME> </FUNCTION> <FUNCTION ID="F4"> <NAME>Assign FSR</NAME> </FUNCTION> </PROCESS> </FUNCLIST> Input/Output List – IOList.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <IOList> <TITLE>Input/Outputs for Functions </TITLE> <FUNC ID="F1"> <DATAITEM Type="Input/Output"> <DATANAME>FSR</DATANAME> </DATAITEM> </FUNC> <FUNC ID="F2"> <DATAITEM Type="Input/Output"> <DATANAME>FSR</DATANAME> </DATAITEM> </FUNC> <FUNC ID="F3"> <DATAITEM Type="Input/Output"> <DATANAME>FSR</DATANAME> </DATAITEM> </FUNC> <FUNC ID="F4"> <DATAITEM Type="Input/Output"> <DATANAME>FSR</DATANAME> </DATAITEM> <DATAITEM Type="Output"> <DATANAME>Email Reciept</DATANAME>

423

</DATAITEM> </FUNC> </IOList> Ratings – ProcRate.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <PROCRATE> <TITLE>Process Ratings</TITLE> <PROCRATING ID="F1"> <FIRST>Q2</FIRST> <SECOND>Q1</SECOND> <THIRD>Q7</THIRD> </PROCRATING> <PROCRATING ID="F2"> <FIRST>Q9</FIRST> <SECOND>Q1</SECOND> <THIRD>Q7</THIRD> </PROCRATING> <PROCRATING ID="F3"> <FIRST>Q9</FIRST> <SECOND>Q1</SECOND> <THIRD>Q7</THIRD> </PROCRATING> <PROCRATING ID="F4"> <FIRST>Q4</FIRST> <SECOND>Q2</SECOND> <THIRD>Q7</THIRD> </PROCRATING> </PROCRATE> Foundation Data Functional Quality Characteristics – Qlist.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <QLIST> <TITLE>Quality Characteristics Listing</TITLE> <QGROUP QGROUPID="QG11"> <QCHAR ID="Q1"> <NAME>Suitability</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="Q2"> <NAME>Accuracy</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="Q3"> <NAME>Security</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="Q4"> <NAME>Reliability</NAME> </QCHAR>

424

<QCHAR ID="Q5"> <NAME>Understandability</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="Q6"> <NAME>Learnability</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="Q7"> <NAME>Time behaviour efficiency</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="Q8"> <NAME>Resource utilisation</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="Q9"> <NAME>Effectiveness</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="Q10"> <NAME>Productivity</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="Q11"> <NAME>Safety</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="Q12"> <NAME>Satisfaction</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="Q13"> <NAME>Robustness</NAME> </QCHAR> </QGROUP> </QLIST> Data Quality Characteristics – DataQList.xml ?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <QLIST> <TITLE>Data Quality Characteristics Listing</TITLE> <QGROUP QGROUPID="QD01"> <QCHAR ID="D1"> <NAME>Accuracy</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="D2"> <NAME>Objectivity</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="D3"> <NAME>Believability</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="D4"> <NAME>Reputation</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="D5"> <NAME>Accessibility</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="D6">

425

<NAME>Security</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="D7"> <NAME>Relevency</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="D8"> <NAME>Value-added</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="D9"> <NAME>Timeliness</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="D10"> <NAME>Completeness</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="D11"> <NAME>Amount of Data</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="D12"> <NAME>Understandability</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="D13"> <NAME>Concise Representation</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="D14"> <NAME>Consistent Representation</NAME> </QCHAR> </QGROUP> </QLIST> Non-human Quality Characteristics – NHQlist.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <QLIST> <TITLE>Non-Human Quality Characteristics Listing</TITLE> <QGROUP QGROUPID="QG11"> <QCHAR ID="N1"> <NAME>Suitability</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="N2"> <NAME>Accuracy</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="N3"> <NAME>Security</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="N4"> <NAME>Reliability</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="N5"> <NAME>Understandability</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="N6"> <NAME>Learnability</NAME>

426

</QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="N7"> <NAME>Time behaviour efficiency</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="N8"> <NAME>Resource utilisation</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="N9"> <NAME>Effectiveness</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="N10"> <NAME>Productivity</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="N11"> <NAME>Safety</NAME> </QCHAR> <QCHAR ID="N12"> <NAME>Satisfaction</NAME> </QCHAR> </QGROUP> </QLIST> Data Quality Characteristic Mapping – QualMap.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <QUALMAP> <TITLE>Quality Mapping</TITLE> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q1"> <MAP1>D1</MAP1> <MAP1>D2</MAP1> <MAP1>D3</MAP1> <MAP1>D4</MAP1> <MAP1>D7</MAP1> <MAP1>D8</MAP1> <MAP1>D9</MAP1> <MAP1>D10</MAP1> <MAP1>D11</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q2"> <MAP1>D1</MAP1> <MAP1>D2</MAP1> <MAP1>D3</MAP1> <MAP1>D4</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q3"> <MAP1>D5</MAP1> <MAP1>D6</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q4"> <MAP1>D5</MAP1> <MAP1>D7</MAP1> <MAP1>D8</MAP1>

427

<MAP1>D10</MAP1> <MAP1>D11</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q5"> <MAP1>D1</MAP1> <MAP1>D2</MAP1> <MAP1>D3</MAP1> <MAP1>D4</MAP1> <MAP1>D7</MAP1> <MAP1>D8</MAP1> <MAP1>D9</MAP1> <MAP1>D10</MAP1> <MAP1>D11</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q6"> <MAP1>D7</MAP1> <MAP1>D8</MAP1> <MAP1>D10</MAP1> <MAP1>D11</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q7"> <MAP1>D12</MAP1> <MAP1>D13</MAP1> <MAP1>D14</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q8"> <MAP1>D12</MAP1> <MAP1>D13</MAP1> <MAP1>D14</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q9"> <MAP1>D5</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q10"> <MAP1>D5</MAP1> <MAP1>D7</MAP1> <MAP1>D8</MAP1> <MAP1>D9</MAP1> <MAP1>D10</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q11"> <MAP1>D1</MAP1> <MAP1>D2</MAP1> <MAP1>D3</MAP1> <MAP1>D4</MAP1> <MAP1>D7</MAP1> <MAP1>D8</MAP1> <MAP1>D9</MAP1> <MAP1>D10</MAP1> <MAP1>D11</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q12"> <MAP1>D5</MAP1>

428

<MAP1>D8</MAP1> <MAP1>D11</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q13"> <MAP1>D1</MAP1> <MAP1>D2</MAP1> <MAP1>D3</MAP1> <MAP1>D4</MAP1> <MAP1>D7</MAP1> <MAP1>D8</MAP1> <MAP1>D9</MAP1> <MAP1>D10</MAP1> <MAP1>D11</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> </QUALMAP> Non-human Quality Characteristic Mapping – QualMapNH.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <QUALMAP> <TITLE>Quality Mapping</TITLE> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q1"> <MAP1>N1</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q2"> <MAP1>N2</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q3"> <MAP1>N3</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q4"> <MAP1>N4</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q5"> <MAP1>N5</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q6"> <MAP1>N6</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q7"> <MAP1>N7</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q8"> <MAP1>N8</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q9"> <MAP1>N9</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q10"> <MAP1>N10</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q11">

429

<MAP1>N11</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q12"> <MAP1>N12</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> <FUNCQUAL ID="Q13"> <MAP1>N13</MAP1> </FUNCQUAL> </QUALMAP>

430

Appendix D

Action Research Organisation B

431

Appendix D.1 Functions Softgoal Model

Organisation B – Functions Softgoal Model


F1 - Enter request details into ITSM

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

F2 - Calculate Costs Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

Time behaviour efficiency To increase the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

F3 - Review and rank the case - SMILE review form

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Satisfaction To increase the satisfaction of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

F4 - Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

F5 - Communicate to staff and clients

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

Satisfaction To increase the satisfaction of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

F6 - Develop the change Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Productivity To increase the productivity of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

F7 - Conduct UAT Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

F8 – Release Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Release’ function.

432

Time behaviour efficiency To increase the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Release’ function.

Satisfaction To increase the satisfaction of the ‘Release’ function.

F9 - Conduct customer satisfaction survey

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

Satisfaction To increase the satisfaction of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

433

Appendix D.2 Input & Output Softgoal Model

Organisation B – Input & Output Softgoal Model



Soft Goals


Change Request Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Risk and Opportunity Assessment

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Risk and

434

Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

RFC v1 Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘RFC v1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘RFC v1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘RFC v1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘RFC v1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘RFC v1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘RFC v1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

F2 - Calculate Costs RFC v1 Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘RFC v1’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘RFC v1’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘RFC v1’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

RFC v2 Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.



Business Value Score

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’

435

function.

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.


RFC v2 Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.


Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Priority List Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

436


Priority List Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.


Priority List Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

F6 - Develop the change

RFC v2 Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

437

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Change Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

F7 - Conduct UAT Change Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Signed off change Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Signed off change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Signed off change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Signed off change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Signed off change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

438

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Signed off change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Signed off change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

F8 - Release Signed off change Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Signed off change’ data of the ‘Release’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Signed off change’ data of the ‘Release’ function.


Survey Result Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

439

Appendix D.3 Human Resource Softgoal Model

Organisation B – Human Resource Softgoal Model


Soft Goals


Operations Relationship Manager (ORM)

Experience To improve the experience of the ORM performing the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Time Management Efficiency

To improve the time management efficiency of the ORM performing the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

F2 - Calculate Costs Change Manager

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Change Manager performing the ‘Calculate Costs’ function.

Experience To improve the experience of the Change Manager performing the ‘Calculate Costs’ function.


To improve the time management efficiency of the Change Manager performing the ‘Calculate Costs’ function.


SMILE review committee

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the SMILE review committee performing the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Experience To improve the experience of the SMILE review committee performing the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.


To improve the time management efficiency of the SMILE review committee performing the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the SMILE review committee performing the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.



Experience To improve the experience of the ORM performing the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.



Experience To improve the experience of the ORM performing the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.


To improve the time management efficiency of the ORM performing the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the ORM performing the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

440


IT Team Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the IT Team performing the ‘Develop the Change’ function.

Qualification To improve the qualification level of the IT Team performing the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Experience To improve the experience of the IT Team performing the ‘Develop the change’ function.


To improve the time management efficiency of the IT Team performing the ‘Develop the change’ function.

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the IT Team performing the ‘Develop the change’ function.

F7 - Conduct UAT Business Team

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Business Team performing the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Experience To improve the experience of the Business Team performing the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.


To improve the time management efficiency of the Business Team performing the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Business Team performing the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

F8 - Release Release Manager


To improve the time management efficiency of the Release Manager performing the ‘Release’ function.

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Release Manager performing the ‘Release’ function.

441

Appendix D.4 Non-Human Resource Softgoal Model

Organisation B – Non-Human Resource Softgoal Model

Functions System Quality Characteristics

Soft Goals


ITSM Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ITSM system performing the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ITSM system performing the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ITSM system performing the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

F2 - Calculate Costs ITSM Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ITSM system performing the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

Time behaviour efficiency

To increase the time behaviour efficiency of the ITSM system performing the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ITSM system performing the ‘Calculate costs’ function.


ITSM Reliability To improve the reliability of the ITSM system performing the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ITSM system performing the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

Satisfaction To increase the satisfaction of the ITSM system performing the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.


ITSM Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ITSM system performing the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ITSM system performing the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ITSM system performing the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

442

Appendix D.5 Softgoal Correlation Model

Organisation B – Softgoal Correlation Model



F8 - Release Signed off change F7 To improve the accuracy of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

To improve the reliability of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function. To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

F7 - Conduct UAT Change F6 To improve the suitability of the ‘Develop the change’ function. To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

To increase the productivity of the ‘Develop the change’ function. F6 - Develop the change

RFC v2 F2 To improve the accuracy of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

To increase the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Calculate costs’ function. To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.


Priority List F3 To improve the reliability of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function. To increase the satisfaction of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

F4 To improve the accuracy of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function. To improve the reliability of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function. F4 - Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM

Priority List F3 To improve the reliability of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function. To increase the satisfaction of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

443


RFC v2 F2 To improve the accuracy of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.


Business Value Score F2 To improve the accuracy of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

To increase the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Calculate costs’ function. F2 To improve the accuracy of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.


F2 - Calculate Costs RFC v1 F1 To improve the accuracy of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function. To improve the reliability of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

To improve the understandability of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

444

Appendix D.6 Function Measurement Model

Organisation B – Function Measurement Model




Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


> 99 %

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current understandability of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?


Yes


Yes

F2 - Calculate Costs

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Calculate Costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a


To increase the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

What is the current time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Calculate Costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current time behaviour efficiency from the desired one?

Turnaround Time < 2 days

Waiting Time < 1 day

445

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

What is the current effectiveness of the ‘Calculate Costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current effectiveness from the desired one?

Error Frequency < 4%


Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


> 99%

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current effectiveness of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current effectiveness from the desired one?


Satisfaction To increase the satisfaction of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current satisfaction of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current satisfaction from the desired one?

Satisfaction Scale (low, medium, high)

>= medium


Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


Yes

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


> 99%

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

What is the current effectiveness of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current effectiveness from the desired one?



Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the

Written communication sent

Yes

446

desired one?

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

What is the current effectiveness of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function? What is the deviation of the current effectiveness from the desired one?


Satisfaction To increase the satisfaction of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

What is the current satisfaction of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function? What is the deviation of the current satisfaction from the desired one?


>= medium


Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

Change was developed

Yes

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current effectiveness of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current effectiveness from the desired one?


Productivity To increase the productivity of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current productivity of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current productivity from the desired one?

Days per Function Point

< 4

F7 - Conduct UAT

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?

UAT performed Yes

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current effectiveness of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current effectiveness from the desired one?


F8 - Release Reliability To improve the reliability of the What is the current reliability of the Change Released Yes

447

‘Release’ function. ‘Release’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


To increase the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Release’ function.

What is the current time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Release’ function? What is the deviation of the current time behaviour efficiency from the desired one?

Turnaround Time < 1 week

Satisfaction To increase the satisfaction of the ‘Release’ function.

What is the current satisfaction of the ‘Release’ function? What is the deviation of the current satisfaction from the desired one?


>= medium


Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?

Survey conducted Yes

Satisfaction To increase the satisfaction of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

What is the current satisfaction of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function? What is the deviation of the current satisfaction from the desired one?


>= medium

448

Appendix D.7 Input & Output Measurement Model

Organisation B – Input & Output Measurement Model



Soft Goals Question accuracy Metric Threshold Value


Change Request

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?

Collection Method

Standard template

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Collection Method

Standard template

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of Data Key business stakeholder

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of Data Key business stakeholder

Collection Method

Standard template

449

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Is change related Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current value-added of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current value-added from the desired one?

Descriptive (Yes/No)

Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

Percentage of populated required fields

> 80%

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Change Request’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Age of Data < 2 months

Risk and Opportunity Assessment

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?

Calculation method

Standard method

450

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of Data Independent evaluation

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?


Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?


Calculation method

Standard method

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Defines risks and opportunities

Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current value-added of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current value-added from the desired one?


Yes

451

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


= 100%

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?

Enough data exists to describe risks and opportunities

Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Risk and Opportunity Assessment’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?


RFC v1 Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘RFC v1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘RFCv1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?

Source of Data Standard template

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘RFC v1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘RFCv1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Location of Data ITSM

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘RFC v1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘RFCv1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the

Describes required change

Yes

452

desired one?

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘RFC v1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current value-added of the ‘RFCv1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current value-added from the desired one?


Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘RFC v1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘RFCv1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


> 90%

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘RFC v1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘RFCv1’ data of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes



What is the current accuracy of the ‘RFCv1’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?

Source of Data ITSM


What is the current understandability of the ‘RFCv1’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?

Required change description is well described (Yes/No)

Yes


What is the current accessibility of the ‘RFCv1’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?


453


What is the current accuracy of the ‘RFCv2’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a


What is the current understandability of the ‘RFCv2’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?


Yes


What is the current accessibility of the ‘RFCv2’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?



Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?

Calculation method

Standard

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Calculation method

Standard

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Calculation method

Standard

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the

What is the current reputation of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function?

Calculation method

Standard

454

‘Calculate costs’ function. What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

What is the current understandability of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?


Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Calculate costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?


F3 - Review and rank the case - SMILE review forum

RFC v2 Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘RFCv2’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?


Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘RFCv2’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Is change related Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current value-added of the ‘RFCv2’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current value-added from the desired one?


Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘RFCv2’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the


> 90%

455

current completeness from the desired one?

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘RFCv2’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes


Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?


Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Business Score present

Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current value-added of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current value-added from the desired one?


Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Yes

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Business Value Score’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount


Yes

456

of data from the desired one?

Priority List Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?

Location of Data SMILE forum repository

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Rankings present Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current value-added of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current value-added from the desired one?

Rankings distributed

Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

All RFC’s ranked Yes

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?

Enough data exists to describe rankings

Yes


Priority List Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the


n/a

457

desired one?

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Collection Method

SMILE forum

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of Data SMILE minutes

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of Data SMILE minutes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?


Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?


Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’

What is the current value-added of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation


Yes

458

function. of the current value-added from the desired one?

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes


Priority List Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?


Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?


Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

What is the current value-added of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function? What is the deviation of the current value-added from the desired one?


Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function? What is the deviation of the current


459

completeness from the desired one?

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Priority List’ data of the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


Yes


RFC v2 Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘RFCv2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?

Source of data n/a

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘RFCv2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Describes required change

Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current value-added of the ‘RFCv2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current value-added from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘RFCv2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Age of Data < 2months

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘RFCv2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

Percentage of fields completed

> 90%

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘RFC v2’ data of

What is the current amount of data of the ‘RFCv2’ data of the

Enough data to describe

Yes

460

the ‘Develop the change’ function.

‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?

required change

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘RFC v2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘RFCv2’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?


Change Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of Data SME

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of Data SME

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of Data SME

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Scope matches RFC

Yes

Value-added To increase the value- What is the current value-added Descriptive Yes

461

added of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current value-added from the desired one?

(Yes/No)

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?


Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


< 90%

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?

Enough data to describe required change

Yes

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Develop the change’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?


F7 - Conduct UAT

Change Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of Data SME

462

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of Data SME

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of Data SME

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?


Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Scope matches RFC

Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current value-added of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current value-added from the desired one?


Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


> 90%

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current

Enough data to describe required change

Yes

463

amount of data from the desired one?

Signed off change

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Signed off change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Signed off Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Signed off change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Signed off Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Source of Data SME

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Signed off change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Signed off Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of Data SME

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Signed off change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘Signed off Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Source of Data SME

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Signed off change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Signed off Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?


Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Signed off change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Signed off Change’ data of the ‘Conduct UAT’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the

% of required signatures

100%

464

desired one?

F8 - Release Signed off change

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Signed off change’ data of the ‘Release’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Signed off Change’ data of the ‘Release’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?


Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Signed off change’ data of the ‘Release’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Signed off Change’ data of the ‘Release’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

% of required signatures

100%


Survey Result Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?

Participant End user

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Participant End User

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’

What is the current reputation of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function? What is the

Participant End User

465

function. deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

What is the current accessibility of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function? What is the deviation of the current accessibility from the desired one?


Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Related to change

Yes

Value-added To increase the value-added of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

What is the current value-added of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function? What is the deviation of the current value-added from the desired one?

Answers descriptive

Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Survey Result’ data of the ‘Conduct customer satisfaction survey’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?

% questions answered

> 90%

466

Appendix D.8 Human Resource Measurement Model





Experience To improve the experience of the ORM performing the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current experience of the ORM? What is the deviation of the current experience to the desired one?

Change Management experience

>= 3 years


To improve the time management of the ORM performing the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current time management efficiency of the ORM? What is the deviation of the current time management efficiency to the desired one?

Time to enter request

< 4 hours


Change Manager

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Change Manager performing the ‘Calculate Costs’ function.

What is the current domain knowledge of the Change Manager? What is the deviation of the current domain knowledge from the desired one?

Estimation techniques knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Experience To improve the experience of the Change Manager performing the ‘Calculate Costs’ function.

What is the current experience of the Change Manager? What is the deviation of the current experience to the desired one?


>= 5 years


To improve the time management of the Change Manager performing the ‘Calculate Costs’ function.

What is the current time management efficiency of the Change Manager? What is the deviation of the current time management efficiency to the desired one?

Time to calculate costs

> 3 days


SMILE review committee

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the SMILE review committee performing the ‘Review

What is the current domain knowledge of the SMILE review committee? What is the deviation of the current domain knowledge

Project pipeline knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate,

>= intermediate

467

and rank the case’ function.

from the desired one? expert)

Experience To improve the experience of the SMILE review committee performing the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current experience of the SMILE review committee? What is the deviation of the current experience to the desired one?


> 3 years (on average)


To improve the time management of the SMILE review committee performing the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current time management efficiency of the SMILE review committee? What is the deviation of the current time management efficiency to the desired one?

Review time < 7 days

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the SMILE review committee performing the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current communication skill of the SMILE review committee? What is the deviation of the current communication skill to the desired one?

Negotiation skill level (poor, average, good)

= good



Experience To improve the experience of the ORM performing the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.


ITSM system experience

> 2 years



Experience To improve the experience of the ORM performing the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.


Stakeholder management experience

> 3 years


To improve the time management efficiency of the ORM performing the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

What is the current time management efficiency of the ORM? What is the deviation of the current time management efficiency to the desired one?

Turnaround time

< 1 day

468

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the ORM performing the ‘Communicate to staff and clients’ function.

What is the current communication skill of the ORM? What is the deviation of the current communication skill to the desired one?

Written skills (grammar, spelling, technical etc.) (poor, average, good)

= good

Verbal skills (speaking clearly and effectively) (poor, average, good)

= good


IT Team Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the IT Team performing the ‘Develop the Change’ function.

What is the current domain knowledge of the IT Team? What is the deviation of the current domain knowledge from the desired one?

Software Development knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Qualification To improve the qualification level of the IT Team performing the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current qualification level of the IT Team? What is the deviation of the current qualification level from the desired one?

IT based qualification

>= degree

Experience To improve the experience of the IT Team performing the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current experience of the IT Team? What is the deviation of the current experience from the desired one?

Software development experience

> 4 years

Financial services experience

> 2 years


To improve the time management efficiency of the IT Team performing the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current time management efficiency of the IT Team? What is the deviation of the current time management efficiency from the desired one?

Days per function point developed

< 4 days

469

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the IT Team performing the ‘Develop the change’ function.

What is the current communication skill of the IT Team? What is the deviation of the current communication skill from the desired one?

Elicitation skills ( ability to elicit requirements) (poor, average, good)

= good

F7 - Conduct UAT

Business Team

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Business Team performing the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current domain knowledge of the Business Team? What is the deviation of the current domain knowledge from the desired one?

Financial services knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Experience To improve the experience of the Business Team performing the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current experience of the Business Team? What is the deviation of the current experience from the desired one?

Testing experience

> 2 years


To improve the time management efficiency of the Business Team performing the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current time management efficiency of the Business Team? What is the deviation of the current time management efficiency from the desired one?

Days per function point to test

< 2 days

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Business Team performing the ‘Conduct UAT’ function.

What is the current communication skill of the Business Team? What is the deviation of the current communication skill from the desired one?


= good

F8 - Release Release Manager


To improve the time management efficiency of the Release Manager performing the ‘Release’ function.

What is the current time management efficiency of the Release Manager? What is the deviation of the current time management efficiency from the desired one?

Release time < 4 days

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Release Manager performing the ‘Release’

What is the current communication skill of the Release Manager? What is the deviation of the current communication skill from the

Written skills (grammar, spelling, technical etc.)

>= average

470

function. desired one? (poor, average, good)

471

Appendix D.9 Non-Human Resource Measurement Model

Organisation B – Non-Human Resource Measurement Model




ITSM Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ITSM system performing the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ITSM system performing the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


> 99%

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ITSM system performing the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function.

What is the current understandability of the ‘Enter request details into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?


Yes


Yes


ITSM Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ITSM system performing the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Calculate Costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a


To increase the time behaviour efficiency of the ITSM system performing the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

What is the current time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Calculate Costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current time behaviour efficiency from the desired one?

Turnaround Time

< 2 days

472

Waiting Time < 1 day

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ITSM system performing the ‘Calculate costs’ function.

What is the current effectiveness of the ‘Calculate Costs’ function? What is the deviation of the current effectiveness from the desired one?

Error Frequency

< 4 days


ITSM Reliability To improve the reliability of the ITSM system performing the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


> 99%

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ITSM system performing the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current effectiveness of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current effectiveness from the desired one?

Error Frequency

< 4%

Satisfaction To increase the satisfaction of the ITSM system performing the ‘Review and rank the case’ function.

What is the current satisfaction of the ‘Review and rank the case’ function? What is the deviation of the current satisfaction from the desired one?


>= medium


ITSM Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ITSM system performing the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ITSM system performing the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


> 99%

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ITSM system performing the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function.

What is the current effectiveness of the ‘Enter SMILE ranking into ITSM’ function? What is the deviation of the current effectiveness from the desired one?

Error Frequency

< 1%

473

Appendix E

Action Research Organisation C

474

Appendix E.1 Functions Softgoal Model

Organisation C – Functions Softgoal Model


F1 - Classify FSR Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Time behaviour efficiency To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

F2 - Prioritise FSR Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

Time behaviour efficiency To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

F3 - Categorise FSR Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Time behaviour efficiency To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

F4 - Assign FSR Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Time behaviour efficiency To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

475

Appendix E.2 Input & Output Softgoal Model

Organisation C – Input & Output Softgoal Model

Function Input/Output Data Quality Characteristics Soft Goals

F1 - Classify FSR FSR Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Value-added To increase the added value of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

F2 - Prioritise FSR FSR Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

476

Value-added To increase the added value of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

F3 - Categorise FSR FSR Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Value-added To increase the added value of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

F4 - Assign FSR FSR Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’

477

function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Value-added To increase the added value of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Email Receipt Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Value-added To increase the added value of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

478

Appendix E.3 Human Resource Softgoal Model

Organisation C – Human Resource Softgoal Model


Soft Goals

F1 - Classify FSR Help Desk Officer

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Time Management

To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Experience To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

F2 - Prioritise FSR Help Desk Officer

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

Time Management

To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

Experience To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

F3 - Categorise FSR Help Desk Officer

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Experience To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Time Management

To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

F4 - Assign FSR Help Desk Officer

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Experience To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Time Management

To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

479

Appendix E.4 Non-Human Resource Softgoal Model

Organisation C – Non-Human Resource Softgoal Model


Soft Goals

F1 - Classify FSR Help Desk System

Suitability To improve the suitability of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.


To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

F2 - Prioritise FSR Help Desk System

Suitability To improve the suitability of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.


To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

F3 - Categorise FSR

Help Desk System

Suitability To improve the suitability of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.


To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

F4 - Assign FSR Help Desk System

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Reliability To improve the reliability of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.


To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

480

Appendix E.5 Softgoal Correlation Model

Organisation C – Softgoal Correlation Model



F4 - Assign FSR FSR F1 To improve the suitability of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

To improve the accuracy of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

F2 To improve the suitability of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

F3 To improve the suitability of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

F3 - Categorise FSR FSR F1 To improve the suitability of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.



F2 To improve the suitability of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.


To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

F2 - Prioritise FSR FSR F1 To improve the suitability of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.



481

Appendix E.6 Function Measurement Model

Organisation C – Function Measurement Model



F1 - Classify FSR

Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Classify FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

FSR is classified Yes

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Classify FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?




What is the current time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Classify FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current time behaviour efficiency from the desired one?

Turnaround Time < 5 minutes

Waiting Time < 5 minutes

F2 - Prioritise FSR

Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

FSR is prioritised Yes



What is the current time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current time behaviour efficiency from the desired one?

Turnaround Time < 5 minutes


482

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

What is the current effectiveness of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current effectiveness from the desired one?


F3 - Categorise FSR

Suitability To improve the suitability of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

FSR is categorised Yes


To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current time behaviour efficiency from the desired one?

Turnaround Time < 1 minute

Waiting Time < 1 minute

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current effectiveness of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current effectiveness from the desired one?


F4 - Assign FSR

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


Reliability To improve the reliability of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


> 99.998%


To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current time behaviour efficiency from the desired one?

Turnaround Time < 1 minute

483

Appendix E.7 Input & Output Measurement Model

Organisation C – Input & Output Measurement Model




F1 - Classify FSR FSR Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?

Collection Method (system, email, phone)

<> phone

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?


= system

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?

Source of Data (system, basic user, power user)

<> basic user

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?


<> basic user


= system

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Fault Related Yes

484

Value-added To increase the added value of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?

Age of Data < 2 hours

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


> 90%

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?

Percentage of populated fields

> 80%

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current understandability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Classify FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?

Fault description is well described (Yes/No)

Yes

F2 - Prioritise FSR

FSR Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


<> phone

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?


= system

485

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?


<> basic user

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?


<> basic user


= system

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Fault Related Yes

Value-added To increase the added value of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?


Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


> 90%

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘FSR’ data of the

What is the current amount of data of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function? What is the deviation


> 80%

486

‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

of the current amount of data from the desired one?

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

What is the current understandability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?


Yes

F3 - Categorise FSR

FSR Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


<> phone

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?


= system

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?


<> basic user

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?


<> basic user


= system

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Fault Related Yes

487

Value-added To increase the added value of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?


Yes

Timeliness To improve the timeliness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current timeliness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current timeliness from the desired one?


Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


> 90%

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


> 80%

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current understandability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?


Yes

F4 - Assign FSR FSR Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


<> phone

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?


= system

488

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?


<> basic user

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?


<> basic user


= system

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Fault Related Yes

Value-added To increase the added value of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?


Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


> 90%

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


> 80%

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘FSR’ data of the

What is the current understandability of the ‘FSR’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is

Fault description is well described

Yes

489

‘Assign FSR’ function. the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?

(Yes/No)

Email Receipt Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


<> phone

Objectivity To improve the objectivity of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current objectivity of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current objectivity from the desired one?


= system

Believability To improve the believability of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current believability of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current believability from the desired one?


<> basic user

Reputation To improve the reputation of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current reputation of the ‘‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current reputation from the desired one?


<> basic user


= system

Accessibility To improve the accessibility of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

N/A N/A

Relevancy To improve the relevancy of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current relevancy of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current relevancy from the desired one?

Fault Related Yes

490

Value-added To increase the added value of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current added value of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current added value from the desired one?


Yes

Completeness To improve the completeness of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current completeness of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current completeness from the desired one?


> 90%

Amount of Data To improve the amount of data of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current amount of data of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current amount of data from the desired one?


> 80%

Understandability To improve the understandability of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current understandability of the ‘Email Receipt’ data of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current understandability from the desired one?


Yes

491

Appendix E.8 Human Resource Measurement Model



F1 - Classify FSR Help Desk Officer

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer? What is the deviation of the current domain knowledge from the desired one?

Incident Management Process knowledge Level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Call Type Definition knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Time Management

To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current time management efficiency of the Help Desk Officer? What is the deviation of the current time management efficiency of the Help Desk Officer to the desired one?

Decision Making Duration

< 5 minutes

Experience To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current experience of the Help Desk Officer? What is the deviation of the current experience of the Help Desk Officer to the desired one?

Incident Management Experience

> 2 years

F2 - Prioritise FSR

Help Desk Officer

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

What is the current domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer? What is the deviation

Incident Management Process knowledge Level (none, basic,

>= intermediate

492

of the current experience of the Help Desk Officer to the desired one?

intermediate, expert)

Business impact knowledge Level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Business criticality knowledge Level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Supported products knowledge Level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Time Management

To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.


Decision making duration

< 5 minutes

Experience To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.


Incident management experience

> 2 years

Prioritisation experience

> 2 years

493

Stockbroking experience

> 1 year

F3 - Categorise FSR

Help Desk Officer

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer? What is the deviation of the current experience of the Help Desk Officer to the desired one?

Incident Management Process knowledge Level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

General IT (hardware & software) knowledge Level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Supported products knowledge Level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Time Management

To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.



< 1 minute

Experience To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current experience of the Help Desk Officer? What is the deviation of the current experience of the Help Desk Officer


> 2 years

494

to the desired one?

Categorisation experience

> 2 years

ORGANISATION C Categories experience

> 6 months

F4 - Assign FSR Help Desk Officer

Domain Knowledge

To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer? What is the deviation of the current experience of the Help Desk Officer to the desired one?

Incident management process knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

ORGANISATION C team structure knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

System owners knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Team responsibilities knowledge level (none, basic, intermediate, expert)

>= intermediate

Time Management

To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current time management efficiency of the Help Desk Officer? What is the deviation of the current time


< 1 minute

495

management efficiency of the Help Desk Officer to the desired one?

Experience To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.


Help Desk/Service Desk experience

> 2 years

Assigning calls experience

> 2 years

ORGANISATION C call assignment protocols experience

> 1 year

Communication Skill

To improve the communication skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What are the communication skills of the Help Desk Officer? What is the deviation of the communication skills of the Help Desk Officer to the desired one?


> average

Verbal skills (speaking clearly and effectively) (poor, average, good)

> average

Ability to articulate investigation to date. (poor, average, good)

> average

497

Appendix C.9 Non-Human Resource Measurement Model

Organisation C – Non-Human Resource Measurement Model



F1 - Classify FSR Help Desk System

Suitability To improve the suitability of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Classify FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

FSR is classified Yes

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Classify FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a


To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

What is the current time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Classify FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current time behaviour efficiency from the desired one?

Turnaround Time

< 5 minutes


F2 - Prioritise FSR

Help Desk System

Suitability To improve the suitability of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

FSR is prioritised

Yes


To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

What is the current time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current time behaviour efficiency from the desired one?

Turnaround Time

< 5 minutes


498

Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.

What is the current effectiveness of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current effectiveness from the desired one?


F3 - Categorise FSR

Help Desk System

Suitability To improve the suitability of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current suitability of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current suitability from the desired one?

FSR is categorised

Yes


To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current time behaviour efficiency from the desired one?

Turnaround Time

< 1 minute


Effectiveness To improve the effectiveness of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

What is the current effectiveness of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current effectiveness from the desired one?


F4 - Assign FSR Help Desk System

Accuracy To improve the accuracy of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current accuracy of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current accuracy from the desired one?


n/a

Reliability To improve the reliability of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current reliability of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current reliability from the desired one?


> 99.998%


To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

What is the current time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Assign FSR’ function? What is the deviation of the current time behaviour efficiency from

Turnaround Time

< 1 minute

499

the desired one?


500

Appendix E.10 Root Cause Analysis Results

Organisation C – First Incident Management Instance

Function F3 - Assign FSR of Incident Management Process

Softgoal Metric Value Satisfied Softgoal 60 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Turnaround Time > 10 minutes No

Softgoal 76 - To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Incident management process knowledge level

Intermediate Yes

Organisation C team structure knowledge level

Basic No

System owners knowledge level

Basic No

Team responsibilities knowledge level

Basic No

Softgoal 77 - To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Decision making duration > 10 minutes No

Softgoal 78 - To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.


3 year Yes

Assigning calls experience 3 year Yes Organisation C call assignment protocols experience

3 months No

Softgoal 79 - To improve the communication skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.


Good Yes

Verbal skills (speaking clearly and effectively)

Good Yes

Ability to articulate investigation to date

Good Yes

Softgoal 80 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.

Turnaround Time 1/2 minute Yes

501

Function F3 - Categorise FSR of Incident Management Process

Softgoal Metric Value Satisfied Softgoal 40 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Turnaround Time >10 minutes No

Softgoal 52 - To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.


Basic No

General IT (hardware & software) knowledge Level

Basic No

Supported products knowledge Level

Intermediate Yes

Softgoal 52 - To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.

Decision making duration >10 minutes No

Softgoal 53 - To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ ’ function.


3 year Yes

Categorisation experience 3 year Yes Organisation C Categories experience

3 months No

Softgoal 56 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ ’ function.


Function F3 - Prioritise FSR of Incident Management Process Softgoal Metric Value Satisfied Softgoal 21 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.


Softgoal 33 - To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.


Intermediate Yes

Business criticality knowledge Level

Basic No


Basic No

502

Softgoal 34 - To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.


Softgoal 35 - To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘PrioritiseFSR’ ’ function.


3 year Yes

Prioritisation experience 3 year Yes Stockbroking experience 3 months No

Softgoal 37 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ ’ function.


Function F3 - ClassifyFSR of Incident Management Process Softgoal Metric Value Satisfied Softgoal 3 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.


Softgoal 14 - To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Incident Management Process knowledge

Intermediate Yes

Call Type Definition knowledge level

Basic No

Softgoal 15 - To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Classify’ function.


Softgoal 16 - To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.


3 year Yes

Softgoal 19 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Classify FSR’ ’ function.


503

Appendix E.11 Root Cause Analysis Results

Organisation C – Second Incident Management Instance

Function F3 - Assign FSR of Incident Management Process

Softgoal Metric Value Satisfied Softgoal 60 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Assign FSR’ function.


Softgoal 76 - To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.


Intermediate Yes

Organisation C team structure knowledge level

Basic No

System owners knowledge level

Basic No

Team responsibilities knowledge level

Basic No

Softgoal 77 - To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.


Softgoal 78 - To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.


3 year Yes

Assigning calls experience 3 year Yes Organisation C call assignment protocols experience

3 months No

Softgoal 79 - To improve the communication skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.


Good Yes

Verbal skills (speaking clearly and effectively)

Good Yes

Ability to articulate investigation to date

Good Yes

Softgoal 80 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Assign FSR’ function.


Function F3 - Categorise FSR of Incident Management Process

Softgoal Metric Value Satisfied

504

Softgoal 40 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.


Softgoal 52 - To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.


Basic No

General IT (hardware & software) knowledge Level

Basic No


Intermediate Yes

Softgoal 52 - To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ function.


Softgoal 53 - To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ ’ function.


3 year Yes

Categorisation experience 3 year Yes Organisation C Categories experience

3 months No

Softgoal 56 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Categorise FSR’ ’ function.


Function F3 - Prioritise FSR of Incident Management Process Softgoal Metric Value Satisfied Softgoal 21 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.


Softgoal 33 - To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.


Intermediate Yes

Business criticality knowledge Level

Basic No


Basic No

Softgoal 34 - To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ function.


Softgoal 35 - To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘PrioritiseFSR’ ’ function.


3 year Yes

Prioritisation experience 3 year Yes Stockbroking experience 3 months No

505

Softgoal 37 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Prioritise FSR’ ’ function.


Function F3 - ClassifyFSR of Incident Management Process Softgoal Metric Value Satisfied Softgoal 3 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the ‘Classify FSR’ function.


Softgoal 14 - To improve the domain knowledge of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.

Incident Management Process knowledge

Intermediate Yes

Call Type Definition knowledge level

Basic No

Softgoal 15 - To improve the time management skill of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Classify’ function.


Softgoal 16 - To increase the experience of the Help Desk Officer performing the ‘Classify FSR’ function.


3 year Yes

Softgoal 19 - To improve the time behaviour efficiency of the Help Desk System performing the ‘Classify FSR’ ’ function.


quality-aware business process management

Documents