Methodological support for business process redesign inhealthcare : a systematic literature reviewCitation for published version (APA):Vanwersch, R. J. B., Shahzad, K., Vanderfeesten, I. T. P., Vanhaecht, K., Grefen, P. W. P. J., Pintelon, L. M., ...Reijers, H. A. (2013). Methodological support for business process redesign in healthcare : a systematicliterature review. (BETA publicatie : working papers; Vol. 437). Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.

Document status and date:Published: 01/01/2013

Document Version:Publisher’s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers)

Please check the document version of this publication:

• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can beimportant differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. Peopleinterested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit theDOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and pagenumbers.Link to publication

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.

If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, pleasefollow below link for the End User Agreement:www.tue.nl/taverne

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at:openaccess@tue.nlproviding details and we will investigate your claim.

Download date: 10. Jun. 2020

Methodological support for business process redesign in healthcare: a systematic literature review

Rob J.B. Vanwersch, Khurram Shahzad, Irene Vanderfeesten, Kris Vanhaecht,

Paul Grefen, Liliane Pintelon, Jan Mendling, Geofridus G. van Merode, Hajo Reijers

Beta Working Paper series 437

BETA publicatie WP 437 (working paper)

ISBN ISSN NUR

982

Eindhoven November 2013

1

Methodological support for business process redesign in healthcare: a systematic literature review

Rob J.B. Vanwerscha, Khurram Shahzadb, Irene Vanderfeestena, Kris Vanhaechtc, Paul Grefena, Liliane

Pintelond, Jan Mendlinge, Geofridus G. van Merodef, Hajo A. Reijersg

aSchool of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

bCollege of Information Technology, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan cSchool of Public Health, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

dCentre for Industrial Management / Traffic & Infrastructure, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium eInstitute for Information Business, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria fFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

gDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands ABSTRACT Background: The redesign of business processes in healthcare has received considerable interest from researchers and healthcare professionals. Various labels have been used to refer to the activity of rethinking the operations involved in providing care to patients, such as Business Process Redesign, Clinical Pathways, Lean and Quality Improvement. Due to the fragmented nature of the field, robust methodological support for redesigning business processes is lacking. This systematic literature review aims at establishing a rigorous and comprehensive methodological framework that assists in composing a method for generating process improvement ideas for the healthcare domain. In addition, this review offers recommendations for developing further methodological support. Research methodology: Structured electronic searches in Medline, ABI/Inform and INSPEC (Jan 1990 - July 2011) were complemented with systematic snowballing and an advisory committee consultation to identify a comprehensive census of literature. To select studies, two reviewers independently performed a relevance and quality screening procedure using detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, two reviewers used a data extraction form to extract and code relevant data fragments in these studies. Results: Based on 61 studies that passed the screening procedure, a robust methodological framework is presented that contains an overview of 60 method options for six key choices to be made with regard to a business process redesign method: aim (8), actors (11), input (18), output (8), technique (10) and tool (5). In addition, six related recommendations are proposed. Conclusion: The developed methodological framework has the potential to advance methods for the generation of process improvement ideas in healthcare. The related recommendations offer traceable and concrete advice for this direction. Keywords: Health Services Research, Delivery of Health Care, Business Process Redesign, Business Process Reengineering, Business Process Improvement, Workflow Engineering, Lean, Six Sigma, Total Quality Management, Service Engineering, Pathways.

2

INTRODUCTION Due to the fact that many healthcare organizations are facing pressure to cure more people with fewer resources while satisfying strict quality and safety regulations, the redesign of business processes in healthcare has received considerable interest from researchers and healthcare professionals.1-9 In healthcare, business processes consist of steps, from intake until aftercare, that are performed for a patient care request. Typically, these steps include consultations, diagnostic tests and treatments, as well as supporting steps, such as making an appointment for surgery. Redesigning such an end-to-end process is challenging and requires comprehensive methodological support.5,10 Unfortunately, many studies have concluded that this kind of support is still not available for the act of generating process improvement ideas, i.e. how to get from current process insights (as-is) to concrete improvement ideas (to-be).10-14 Due to the lack of comprehensive methodological support for this act, practitioners must rely substantially on their own experience and intuition to generate process improvement ideas.11,15 As a consequence, redesign sessions are at risk to lead to biased choices and neglecting interesting process alternatives.11,15 Existing research efforts that aim at providing methodological support for generating process improvement ideas have two limitations that inhibit them in providing comprehensive support. Firstly, these efforts typically do not cover all important methodological decision areas.10 Often, they only investigate a few methodological decision areas, such as the software packages supporting the generation of process improvement ideas, and they neglect other but related methodological decisions areas, such as the different process stakeholders that have to participate in redesign sessions.16-18 Secondly, we observe that existing research efforts are fragmented and performed in at least three different research domains, i.e. the information systems, management sciences and health sciences domain. Screening classification systems of electronic search databases within each of these domains reveals that numerous management philosophies and related labels share an interest in the redesign of business processes. Within the information systems domain, labels such as “Business Process Reengineering”, “Business Process Improvement” and “Workflow Engineering” are used. Within the management sciences domain, “Lean”, “Six Sigma”, “Total Quality Management” and “Service Engineering” are well-known labels, while terms such as “Clinical Pathways” and “Care Pathways” have received considerable interest within the health sciences domain. Due to the lack of methodological coverage by individual research efforts and the fragmented nature of the field, a systematic literature review is called for in this cross-domain area to establish comprehensive methodological support for generating process improvement ideas in healthcare. In this study, a detailed literature review protocol is used to develop a comprehensive methodological framework for generating process improvement ideas in healthcare. This framework represents the existing body of knowledge in the information systems, management sciences and health sciences domain, and contains an overview of method options for six key methodological decision areas: aim, actors, input, output, technique and tool.10,19-24 In addition, several characteristics of selected studies are investigated to formulate recommendations for developing further methodological support. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This systematic review consists of two parts that each applies a similar but separate search and screening procedure: (1) The first part targets studies that either developed a business process redesign method (method

development studies) or reviewed multiple business process redesign methods (method review

3

studies). (2) The second part targets studies that investigated critical success factors of business process

redesign initiatives in the healthcare domain (success factor studies). In the remainder of this methodology section, our general search, screening, extraction and coding procedures are discussed and the search and selection procedure fragments that were customized for a part are explicitly indicated. An extended discussion of all procedures is available in Appendix A Details research methodology. Search and selection For each part, we started with an electronic database search to enable a comprehensive search.25-28 The electronic databases INSPEC, ABI/Inform and Medline were selected to provide coverage of the information systems, management sciences and health sciences domain. Synonyms, acronyms and abbreviations related to the terms “process”, “redesign”, “method” and “factor” were systematically investigated and led to one extensive Boolean search expression for each part (see Appendix A). This Boolean expression was complemented with database-specific headings. Besides querying electronic databases, two relevant sources outside the scope of these search engines, i.e. the EPOC Cochrane database and the International Journal of Care Pathways, were manually scanned. To identify high quality studies efficiently, we decided to target only peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers.28,29 In addition, only articles in English, containing an abstract and published since 1990, were considered. After this primary search, two reviewers independently executed a two-stage relevance screening, and a quality screening to select relevant and high quality studies for each part.30,31 The two-stage relevance screening included a title and abstract screening as well as a full copy screening. The quality screening was based on the full copies that passed the two-stage relevance screening. All relevance and quality screening activities were based on detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria that were customized for the two parts (see Appendix A). Regarding each screening activity, inter-rater-agreement was assessed by means of the Kappa statistic,25 and any disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consensus. After the primary search and screening procedure, two additional search strategies were used for each part.25,26 Firstly, a secondary search was conducted to identify additional studies by means of backward and forward tracing of references. Secondly, we contacted an advisory committee consisting of six senior researchers together covering the information systems, management sciences and health sciences domain. These members were invited to assess the completeness of the primary and secondary search, and recommend additional literature to further ascertain that important studies did not remain unidentified. For both strategies, which also targeted technical reports and book chapters, the full copies of the papers were screened similar to the full copy screening procedures of the primary search. Data extraction and coding All identified and selected studies entered the data extraction and coding phase, which was identical for both parts. A detailed data extraction form (see Appendix A) was used to extract data fragments from these studies.25-27,29-31 Based on Method Engineering research20-22 and related research in the field of business process redesign,10,19,23,24 we decided to extract data with regard to six key methodological decision areas. These areas, i.e. method elements, with respect to the act of generating process improvement ideas, are: (1) the aim that explains the objective;

4

(2) the human actors that are invited to participate; (3) the input that specifies the information that is collected prior to this act; (4) the output that describes the artifacts that are the result of this act; (5) the technique that prescribes how to generate process improvement ideas; (6) the tool that is defined as a software package that is able to support techniques. Additionally, we extracted data regarding two study characteristics to gain insights into the context of method development. These two context elements are: (1) the label used by the authors to refer to the redesign of business processes; (2) the study design summarizing the research method types used. In line with the grounded theory approach as recommended by Wolfswinkel et al,32 all data fragments were extracted and coded in an iterative fashion by making use of a structured procedure. The first author of this paper extracted data from all studies and assigned an initial code to each data fragment, using terms taken directly from the articles when available. Similar to Walia and Carver,33 the second author of this paper independently extracted and coded data for a 10% random sample of the studies. Subsequently, data extraction and coding discrepancies were discussed in detail by both reviewers and resolved by consensus. In line with recommendations from Brereton et al,30 an extractor-checker construction was used to extract and code data from the remaining studies efficiently. After this data extraction and initial coding step, the relationships between the initial codings were analyzed in more detail by both reviewers. This axial coding step32 resulted in updated concepts and categories. Microsoft Excel and the annotation tool Qiqqa were used to facilitate these iterative data extraction and coding activities. RESULTS Search and selection results The search and selection results of both literature review parts are graphically summarized in Figure 1. Regarding the first part, the primary search retrieved 3791 matching articles. Of these, 32 passed the removal of duplicates, two-stage relevance screening (e.g. focus on actual idea generation phase) and quality screening (e.g. developed method is not solely based on expert opinion). Based on these 32 articles, we identified 21 additional studies by means of backward and forward tracing of references. 18 out of 21 studies passed the accompanying assessment. Subsequently, the advisory committee suggested 8 additional articles. Of these, 1 study passed the related evaluation. A further examination of the 51 (32 + 18 + 1) reports revealed that 2 articles could be excluded because these reports were predecessors of other articles and did not contain any new information. Besides, 1 article was an appendix that we decided to merge with the main publication that was also selected for inclusion. Hence, the first part contains 48 unique studies.10-12,14-18,23,24,34-71 Regarding the second part, 2055 matching articles were obtained by means of the primary search. Here, 9 articles passed the removal of duplicates, two-stage relevance screening and quality screening. By means of backward and forward tracing of references, 7 additional studies were identified. Of these, 2 passed the related assessment. In addition, 2 out of 8 studies suggested by the advisory committee passed our screening. In summary, the second part contains 13 (9 + 2 + 2) unique studies.7,72-83

5

Figure 1. Flowchart search and selection results.

6

In total, 61 unique studies entered the data extraction and coding phase. For all relevance and quality screening activities, inter-rater-agreement, as determined by Kappa statistics, varies between substantial (min Kappa = 0.63) and perfect agreement (max Kappa = 1.00). An extended discussion of our search and screening results is available in Appendix B Search and selection results. Data extraction and coding results: context elements An analysis of the sources of the 61 selected articles reveals that our set consists of 42 journal papers (69%), 17 conference papers (28%), 1 technical report (1.5%) and 1 book chapter (1.5%). As shown in Table 1, 15 different labels are used by the authors of these studies to refer to the redesign of business processes. Business Process Reengineering (30%), Business Process Redesign (21%), Business Process Improvement (8%) and New Service Development (5%) are the most popular labels assigned. Label No. of studies part 1 No. of studies part 2 No. of studies part 1+2 Business Process Reengineering 10 8 18 Business Process Redesign 13 0 13 Business Process Improvement 5 0 5 New Service Development 3 0 3 Business Process Change 1 1 2 Service Engineering 2 0 2 Clinical pathways 0 2 2 Business Re-engineering 1 0 1 Process Life Cycle Engineering 1 0 1 Workflow Reengineering 1 0 1 Lean Six Sigma 1 0 1 Service Design 1 0 1 Service Innovation 1 0 1 Total Quality Management 0 1 1 Care pathways 0 1 1 No label 8 0 8 Total 48 13 61 Table 1. Study labels. Table 2 summarizes the analysis of the study designs of the included studies. Our set of studies contains three types of studies as explained in the methodology section: 45 method development studies, 3 method review studies and 13 success factor studies. With regard to method development studies, design science researchers distinguish a build and evaluation phase.84,85 Regarding the build phase of method development studies, a further examination of the study designs reveals that these studies rarely use research method types other than literature reviews to support the construction of new business process redesign methods. After finalizing the build phase, case studies (51%) and illustrations (22%) are frequently used by these studies during the evaluation phase. Interestingly, none of the literature reviews and only a minority of the case studies (48%) of the method development studies include a discussion of their data collection and analysis strategy. Among method review and success factor studies, literature reviews (94%) and field surveys (38%) dominate. Again, only a minority of the literature reviews of these study types (40%) includes an explanation of their data collection and analysis strategy.

7

Research method type No. of studies* No. of studies explaining DCAS**

Part 1 Method development studies (N=45) Literature review (build) 45 0 Field study (build) 1 0 Case study (evaluation) 23 11 Formal analysis (evaluation) 1 - Illustration (evaluation) 10 - Method review studies (N=3) Literature review 3 3 Field study 1 1 Lab study 1 1 Part 2 Success factor studies (N=13) Literature review 12 3 Case study 4 4 Field survey 6 6 Field study 1 1 Table 2. Study designs. *Each study may involve multiple research method types; **DCAS = Data collection and analysis strategy. Regarding the context elements, a detailed overview of all codings per study is available in Appendix C Context element codings per study. Data extraction and coding results: method elements As discussed in the methodology section, we decided to extract and code data fragments regarding six methodological decision areas, i.e. six method elements. As shown in Table 3, the input element is most frequently addressed by our set of 61 studies (93%). The decision areas aim (79%), output (74%), technique (71%), actors (64%) and tool (51%) follow suit: they are still discussed by a majority of the reports. Method element No. of studies part 1 No. of studies part 2 No. of studies part 1+2 Input 45 12 57 Aim 36 12 48 Output 43 2 45 Technique 42 1 43 Actors 26 13 39 Tool 29 2 31 Table 3. Method elements.

For each methodological decision area, the extraction and coding procedure resulted in an overview of method options. As discussed in the methodology section, method option names were based on our initial codings that were taken directly from the articles whenever possible. If several initial codings had an identical meaning, these codings were merged. For example, the external quality option includes among others the following initial codings: patient satisfaction, patient perceptions of quality and patient complaints. Furthermore, we classified the method options into (sub-)categories by looking at the underlying concepts of the method options during the axial coding step. For example, the inputs textual process description, process model and simulation model share the concept of “specifying an AS-IS process”. Hence, we assigned all these method options to the category “AS-IS process specification”. The complete methodological framework, which includes definitions of all method options and related (sub-)categories, is available in Appendix D Details methodological framework. An overview of all coded method options per study is available in Appendix E Method element codings per study. Figure 2 provides a graphical, high-level summary of the methodological framework. In the next subsections, we briefly discuss our main results.

8

Figure 2. Graphical summary methodological framework. Aim The aim element outlines the objective of the act of generating process improvement ideas. An overview of potential objectives assists practitioners in selecting an aim that is aligned with the vision and strategy of the involved organizations. Two aim elements can be distinguished: Performance dimensions, which delineate the kind of performance measures that need improvement,

such as cost, time and external quality. Degree of improvement, which addresses whether incremental or radical improvements are needed. Actors The selection of human actors that have to participate in redesign sessions is another important methodological decision area. An overview of actors supports practitioners in composing a redesign team that is able to generate a variety of effective redesign ideas and enables a smooth course of implementation. We identified two groups of actors: Daily involved actors, who are involved in either executing tasks within the process under study, i.e.

so-called process actors, or managing the process, i.e. management. Advising actors, who do not have any responsibility for the process under study, but are able to

contribute to the development of process alternatives due to their expertise or experience. Examples of advising actors are external consultants and patients.

9

Input Prior to generating improvement ideas, it is important to collect useful information regarding the process under study. An overall picture of input options prevents one to neglect interesting information that enables the creation of effective redesign scenarios. Our analysis reveals that five input categories can be distinguished: Redesign requirements, which delineate the redesign objectives that need to be achieved in terms of

process output goals or stakeholder / customer needs. Redesign limitations, which outline the factors that restrict the solution space, i.e. constraints, or

influence it, i.e. risks. As-is process specification, which provides a description of the current process, such as a process

model or simulation model. Process weaknesses, which identify redesign priorities, such as process output measures and

problem investigations. Redesign catalysts, which provide inspiration for the creation of effective process alternatives, such

as benchmark process insights and technology developments. Output The output element describes the artifacts that are the result of redesign sessions. An overview of possible outputs assists practitioners in selecting an effective way of communicating the results of redesign workshops. We identified two output categories: To-be specifications, which provide descriptions of process improvement ideas. To-be service

concepts, to-be process models and to-be exception-handlers are examples of options that explain the to-be process at different levels of abstraction.

To-be assessments, which include preliminary evaluations of process alternatives, such as impact analysis and force-field-analysis.

Technique A technique prescribes how to generate process improvement ideas. An overview of techniques helps practitioners in choosing a well-considered way of generating these ideas. Three technique categories can be distinguished: Unstructured techniques, which are creativity techniques that do not contain a detailed procedure that

specifies how to get from current process insights (as-is) to concrete improvement ideas (to-be), and do not provide guidance regarding the kind of process alternatives that need to be considered. Brainstorming and out-of-the-box thinking are examples of these techniques.

Semi-structured techniques, which offer a work procedure that specifies how to get from current process insights (as-is) to concrete improvement ideas (to-be), but lack any guidance regarding the kind of process alternatives that need to be considered. Examples of these techniques are the nominal group and multi-level design technique.

Structured techniques, which offer a work procedure that specifies how to get from current process insights (as-is) to concrete improvement ideas (to-be), and include guidance regarding the kind of process alternatives that need to be considered. Rule-based and repository-based techniques are instances of these techniques.

10

Tool A tool is defined as a software package that is able to support techniques. An overview of these can support practitioners in choosing tools that are able to increase the efficiency and effectivity of the generation of process improvement ideas. Six tool functionalities were identified: Communication functionality, which enables large groups to communicate face-to-face or distributed

in a computer-mediated electronic environment. Typically, this environment allows for parallel and anonymous input.34,40,62

Voting functionality, which allows participants to rate different process alternatives.39,55 Modeling functionality, which supports practitioners in creating graphical representations of process

alternatives.34,58,69 Simulation functionality, which allows dynamic modeling of business processes and supports

practitioners in validating and evaluating process alternatives.23,60 Repository functionality, which provides support for the storage and retrieval of descriptions of

process alternatives and related discussions.14,34,55 DISCUSSION Discussion of context elements The analysis of context elements leads to four observations. Firstly, we observe that our set of studies use a wide variety of labels to refer to the redesign of business processes. This observation does not only reinforce the need for a systematic review that carefully selects its search terms, but more generally implies that practitioners focused on one or a limited number of management philosophies are at risk to overlook valuable literature. For example, the literature reviews of Zellner10 and Mazzocato et al,4 which limit their attention to “Business Process Improvement” and “Lean” related terms respectively, do not cover any of the structured process redesign techniques. In particular, rule-based, case-based and repository-based techniques are not identified by these studies. Therefore, practitioners who want to gain insights into the state-of-the-art of methodological support for generating process improvement ideas in healthcare are recommended to explore a broad spectrum of labels. Secondly, the analysis of labels reveals that labels that have gained widespread interest in practice and science, i.e. Clinical / Care pathways, Lean and Continuous Improvement,6,8 are not often used in our set of studies. Knowing that our list of search terms includes these three labels, this finding suggests that advocates of these management philosophies have devoted limited attention to developing methodological support for the act of generating process improvement ideas. Hence, we especially expect these advocates to gain additional insights regarding this act when broadening their field of interest to related research inspired by different management philosophies. Thirdly, the analysis of study designs reveals that method development studies do not make use of a wide variety of research method types. With respect to the build phase of method development, researchers typically limit their attention to literature reviews, whereas other research method types are worthwhile to consider, such as field studies that elicit the specific requirements that the new method needs to fulfill. Also, with regard to the evaluation phase, other research method types may be alternatives of interest. Many method development studies either do not include an evaluation mechanism or merely provide an illustration of how the method can be applied. Only a small majority of studies includes a case study that investigates the application of the method in practice. These case studies evaluate a method without comparing its performance with an already existing method. Lab or field

11

experiments offer opportunities to compare the performance of different method options, such as different techniques, in a controlled environment,84,86 and are worth further examination. In summary, researchers are invited to consider different but complementary research method types to enable a step forward in facilitating evidence-based choices between different method options. Fourth and finally, we observe that method development studies in particular lack information regarding data collection and analysis strategies. With regard to these studies, it is reasonable to expect information to be present regarding evaluation metrics and subject groups involved in evaluating business process redesign methods.84,85,87 Remarkably, only a minority of method development studies includes this kind of information. Therefore, we recommend researchers to improve the explanation of data collection and analysis strategies in order to facilitate learning from method building and evaluation procedures. This improved explanation will also make method limitations more transparent and, consequently, will enable further method development that is geared towards these limitations. Discussion of method elements An examination of the methodological framework leads to two observations. Firstly, this investigation reveals that many methodological choices can and must be made regarding the act of generating process improvement ideas in healthcare. As a consequence, we expect that the explicit examination of this comprehensive framework can support practitioners in making well-considered methodological choices with regard to business process redesign projects in healthcare. Hence, we invite them to use the methodological framework in their projects and evaluate the value as well as shortcomings of its explicit usage. Secondly, an in-depth examination of the options of the methodological decision areas reveals that researchers discuss and investigate similar or related method options without fully exploring synergy possibilities. An appealing example can be observed with regard to rule-based techniques. Rule-based techniques make use of generic process redesign rules that have accumulated in literature or practice in order to develop process alternatives.11,24,60 When studying these rules, information systems researchers typically limit their attention to the “BPR best practices” literature, whereas researchers in the management sciences domain focus on the literature with regard to “TRIZ principles”. More generally, we would like to encourage other researchers to explore synergy possibilities between existing research efforts with respect to similar or related method options. Limitations Our search was limited to scientific reports and many of these reports focus on developing methods based on scientific literature, rather than on studying large scale healthcare applications of methods in practice. Hence, a further examination of methods used in business process redesign projects in practice is desirable to enrich our findings. Moreover, we do not claim that the methodological framework is complete. However, we contend that our literature review procedures comply with state-of-the-art review guidelines and ascertain that our results are representative of the existing body of knowledge in relevant scientific domains. CONCLUSION This systematic literature review assists practitioners in composing a method for the generation of process improvement ideas in healthcare by presenting a methodological framework. This framework

12

contains an overview of method options for six key choices to be made with regard to such a method. In addition, this review provides recommendations for improving the development process of new business process redesign methods. We contend that, by employing a systematic review methodology, a) a comprehensive methodological framework is developed that represents the existing body of knowledge in the information systems, management sciences and health sciences domain, and b) traceable and concrete recommendations are formulated that assist in developing further methodological support for generating process improvement ideas in healthcare. Future research should investigate business process redesign methods in practice in order to enrich the methodological framework with insights from the healthcare domain. REFERENCES * = Studies part 1 ** = Studies part 2 1. De Allegri M, Schwarzbach M, Loerbroks A, et al. Which factors are important for the successful

development and implementation of clinical pathways? A qualitative study. BMJ Qual Saf 2011;20:203–8.

2. Locock L. Healthcare redesign: meaning, origins and application. Qual Saf Health Care

2003;12:53–7. 3. Glasgow JM, Davies ML, Kaboli PJ. Findings from a national improvement collaborative: are

improvements sustained? BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21:663–9. 4. Mazzocato P, Savage C, Brommels M, et al. Lean thinking in healthcare: a realist review of the

literature. Qual Saf Health Care 2010;19:376–82. 5. O’Connor P. Quality improvement collaboratives in the age of health informatics—new wine in new

wineskins. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21:891–3. 6. Van Lent WAM, Sanders EM, Van Harten WH. Exploring improvements in patient logistics in Dutch

hospitals with a survey. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:232–40. 7. Vanhaecht K, Bollmann M, Bower K, et al. Prevalence and use of clinical pathways in 23 countries -

an international survey by the European Pathway Association. International Journal of Care Pathways 2006;10:28–34. **

8. Yasin MM, Zimmerer LW, Miller P, et al. An empirical investigation of the effectiveness of

contemporary managerial philosophies in a hospital operational setting. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2002;15:268–76.

9. Young TP, McClean SI. A critical look at Lean Thinking in healthcare. Qual Saf Health Care

2008;17:382–6. 10. Zellner G. A structured evaluation of business process improvement approaches. Business Process

Management Journal 2011;17:203–37. *

13

11. Chai KH, Zhang J, Tan KC. A TRIZ-based method for new service design. Journal of Service Research 2005;8:48–66. *

12. Griesberger P, Leist S, Zellner G. Analysis of techniques for business process improvement. In:

ECIS 2011: Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems; 2011 Jun 10; Helsinki, Finland. *

13. Netjes M, Mans RS, Reijers HA, et al. BPR best practices for the healthcare domain. In: Rinderle-

Ma S, et al, eds. Business Process Management Workshops, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. BPM 2009: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Business Process Management; 2009 Sep 7; Ulm, Germany. Berlin: Springer 2010:605-16.

14. Valiris G, Glykas M. Critical review of existing BPR methodologies: the need for a holistic approach.

Business Process Management Journal 1999;5:65–86. * 15. Limam Mansar S, Reijers HA, Ounnar F. Development of a decision-making strategy to improve the

efficiency of BPR. Expert Systems with Applications 2009;36:3248–62. * 16. Kim KH, Kim YG. Process reverse engineering for BPR: a form-based approach. Information &

Management 1998;33:187–200. * 17. Lee J, Pentland BT. Grammatical approach to organizational design. Cambridge (MA): MIT Sloan

School of Management; 2000. MIT Center for Coordination Science Technical Report No. 215. * 18. Lee J, Wyner GM, Pentland BT. Process grammar as a tool for business process design. MIS

Quarterly 2008;32:757–78. * 19. Alt R, Reichmayr C, Puschmann T, et al. An engineering approach to develop business networks.

In: Schmid B, Stanoevska-Slabeva K, Tschammer V, eds. Towards the E-Society: E-commerce, E-business, and E-government. I3E ’01: Proceedings of the 1st IFIP Conference on Towards The E-Society: E-Commerce, E-Business, E-Government; 2001 Oct 3-5; Zürich, Switzerland. Deventer: Kluwer 2001:209-28.

20. Brinkkemper S. Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and

tools. Information and Software Technology 1996;38:275–80. 21. Cossentino M, Gaglio S, Henderson-Sellers B, et al. A metamodelling-based approach for method

fragment comparison. In: EMMSAD’06: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design; 2006 Jun 5-9; Luxembourg-Kirchberg, Luxembourg.

22. Henderson-Sellers B, Ralyté J. Situational method engineering: state-of-the-art review. Journal of

Universal Computer Science 2010;16:424–78. 23. Kettinger WJ, Teng JTC, Guha S. Business process change: a study of methodologies, techniques,

and tools. MIS Quarterly 1997;21:55–80. * 24. Reijers HA, Limam Mansar S. Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and

qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics. Omega 2005;33:283–306. *

14

25. Fink A. Conducting research literature reviews: from the internet to paper (3rd ed). London, UK:

Sage Publications; 2010. 26. Okoli C, Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems

research. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems 2010;10:1–49. 27. Randolph JJ. A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research &

Evaluation 2009;14:1–13. 28. Rowley J, Slack F. Conducting a literature review. Management Research News 2004;27:31–9. 29. Webster J, Watson RT. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS

Quarterly 2002;26:13–23. 30. Brereton P, Kitchenham BA, Budgen D, et al. Lessons from applying the systematic literature

review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software 2007;80:571–83.

31. Kitchenham B. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Joint technical report. Department of

Computer Science, Keele University (TR/SE-0401) and National ICT Australia Ltd. (0400011T.1); 2004 Jul.

32. Wolfswinkel JF, Furtmueller E, Wilderom CPM. Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously

reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems 2013;22:45–55. 33. Walia GS, Carver JC. A systematic literature review to identify and classify software requirement

errors. Information and Software Technology 2009;51:1087–109. 34. Albano F, Pino JA, Borges MRS. Participatory business process reengineering design: generating

solutions. In: SCCC 2001: IEEE Proceedings of the 21th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society; 2001 Nov 7-9; Punta Arenas, Chile. 13-22. *

35. Bernstein A, Klein M, Malone TW. The process recombinator: a tool for generating new business

process ideas. In: De P, DeGross JI, eds. ICIS’99: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Information Systems; 1999 Dec 12-15; Charlotte (NC), USA. Atlanta (GA): Association for Information Systems 1999:178-92. *

36. Bitner MJ, Ostrom AL, Morgan FN. Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation.

Calif Manage Rev 2008;50:66–94. * 37. Bitzer LTSM, Kamel MN. Workflow reengineering: a methodology for business process

reengineering using workflow management technology. In: HICSS’97: IEEE Proceedings of the 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 1997 Jan 7-10; Wailea, Hawaii. 415-26. *

38. Borges MRS, Pino JA. PAWS: towards a participatory approach to business process reengineering.

In: IEEE Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Groupware; 1999 Sep 22-24; Cancún, Mexico. 262-8. *

15

39. Corbitt G, Wright L. Enhancing business process redesign: using tools to condense the process. In: HICSS’97: IEEE Proceedings of the 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 1997 Jan 7-10; Wailea, Hawaii. 440-6. *

40. Corbitt GF, Christopolus M, Wright L. New approaches to business process redesign: a case study

of collaborative group technology and service mapping. Group Decision and Negotiation 2000;9:97–107. *

41. Dennis AR, Daniels Jr RM, Hayes G, et al. Methodology-driven use of automated support in

business process re-engineering. Journal of Management Information Systems 1994;10:117–38. * 42. Glykas M, Valiris G. ARMA: a multi-disciplinary approach to BPR. Knowledge and Process

Management 1999;6:213–26. * 43. Hanafizadeh P, Moosakhani M, Bakhshi J. Selecting the best strategic practices for business

process redesign. Business Process Management Journal 2009;15:609–27. * 44. Hoogeweegen MR. Visualized guidelines for IT-enabled process change. Information Resources

Management Journal 2000;13:5–15. * 45. Hsiao SL, Yang HL. A Service Experience Engineering (SEE) method for developing new services.

International Journal of Management 2010;27:437–47. * 46. Jansen-Vullers MH, Reijers HA. Business process redesign in healthcare: towards a structured

approach. INFOR 2005;43:321–39. * 47. Jarzabek S, Ling TW. Model-based support for business re-engineering. Information and Software

Technology 1996;38:355–74. * 48. Klein M, Dellarocas C. Designing robust business processes. In: Malone TW, Crowston K, Herman

GA, eds. Organizing business knowledge: The MIT process handbook. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press 2003:423-39. *

49. Klein M, Petti C. A handbook-based methodology for redesigning business processes. Knowledge

and Process Management 2006;13:108-19. * 50. Limam Mansar S, Marir F, Reijers HA. Case-based reasoning as a technique for knowledge

management in business process redesign. Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management 2003;1:113–24. *

51. Lin CS, Su CT. An innovative way to create new services: applying the TRIZ methodology. Journal

of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers 2007;24:142–52. * 52. Malone TW, Crowston K, Lee J, et al. Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of

organizational processes. In: IEEE Proceedings of 2nd Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises; 1993 Apr 20-22; Morgantown (WV), USA. 72-82. *

53. Malone TW, Crowston K, Lee J, et al. Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of

organizational processes. Management Science 1999;45:425–43. *

16

54. Margherita A, Klein M, Elia G. Metrics-based process redesign with the MIT process handbook.

Knowledge and Process Management 2007;14:46–57. * 55. Mouro EZ, Borges MRS, Garcez CR. A groupware tool to support participatory business process

reengineering. In: IEEE Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Groupware; 1999 Sep 22-24; Cancún, Mexico. 314-21. *

56. Netjes M, Limam Mansar S, Reijers HA, Van der Aalst WMP. Performing business process

redesign with best practices: an evolutionary approach. In: Filipe J, Cordeiro J, Cardoso J, editors. Enterprise Information Systems, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. ICEIS 2007: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems; 2007 Jun 12-16; Funchal, Madeira; Berlin: Springer 2009:199-211. *

57. Netjes M, Reijers HA, Van der Aalst WMP. On the formal generation of process redesigns. In:

Ardagna D, et al, eds. Business Process Management Workshops, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. BPM 2008: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Business Process Management; 2008 Sep 1-4; Milan, Italy. Berlin: Springer 2009:224-35. *

58. Netjes M, Reijers HA, Van der Aalst WMP. The PrICE tool kit: tool support for process

improvement. In: La Rosa M, eds. BPM 2010 demonstration track: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Business Process Management; 2010 Sep 14-16; Hoboken (NY), USA. 58-63. *

59. Netjes M, Vanderfeesten I, Reijers HA. Intelligent tools for workflow process redesign: a research

agenda. In: Bussler C, Haller A, eds. Business Process Management Workshops, Lecture Notes in Computers Science. BPM 2005: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Business Process Management; 2005 Sep 5; Nancy, France. Berlin: Springer 2006:444-53. *

60. Nissen ME. An intelligent tool for process redesign: manufacturing supply-chain applications.

International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 2000;12:321–39. * 61. Patrício L, Fisk RP, E Cunha JF, et al. Multilevel service design: from customer value constellation

to service experience blueprinting. Journal of Service Research 2011;14:180–200. * 62. Piirainen K, Elfvengren K, Korpela J, et al. Improving the effectiveness of business process

development through collaboration engineering: a method for process elicitation. In: HICSS’09: IEEE Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 2009 Jan 5-8; Big Island, Hawaii. 1-10. *

63. Rohleder TR, Silver EA. A tutorial on business process improvement. Journal of Operations

Management 1997;15:139–54. * 64. Scacchi W, Mi P. Process life cycle engineering: A knowledge-based approach and environment.

Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management 1997;6:83–107. * 65. Shahzad K, Giannoulis C. Towards a goal-driven approach for business process improvement

using process-oriented data warehouse. In: Abramowicz W, eds. Business Information Systems, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. BIS 2011: Proceedings of the 14th International

17

Conference on Business Information Systems; 2011 Jun 15-17; Poznán, Poland. Berlin: Springer 2011:111-22. *

66. Shahzad K, Zdravkovic J. A decision-based approach to business process improvement. In: IEEE

Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Systems Man and Cybernetics; 2010 Oct 10-13; Istanbul, Turkey. 810-18. *

67. Simboli A, Raggi A, Petti L, et al. Service/Product Engineering as a potential approach to value

enhancement in supply chains. Progress in Industrial Ecology - An International Journal 2008;5:325–48. *

68. Su CT, Lin CS, Chiang TL. Systematic improvement in service quality through TRIZ methodology:

an exploratory study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 2008;19:223–43. * 69. Thong JYL, Yap CS, Seah KL. A consolidated methodology for business process reengineering.

International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology 2003;17:1–15. * 70. Tsai WH, Yang CC, Kuo HC. Development of a hybrid model to improve the efficiency of business

process reengineering. In: IEEM 2009: IEEE Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management; 2009 Dec 8-11; Hong Kong, China. 739-43. *

71. Wang FK, Chen KS. Applying Lean Six Sigma and TRIZ methodology in banking services. Total

Quality Management & Business Excellence 2010;21:301–15. * 72. Ahadi HR. An examination of the role of organizational enablers in business process reengineering

and the impact of information technology. Information Resources Management Journal 2004;17:1–19. **

73. Paper D, Chang RD. The state of business process reengineering: a search for success factors.

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 2005;16:121–33. ** 74. Dennis AR, Carte TA, Kelly GG. Breaking the rules: success and failure in groupware-supported

business process reengineering. Decision Support Systems 2003;36:31–47. ** 75. Do Carmo Caccia-Bava M, Guimaraes VCK, Guimaraes T. Empirically testing determinants of

hospital BPR success. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2005;18:552–63. ** 76. Grover V, Jeong SR, Kettinger WJ, et al. The implementation of business process reengineering.

Journal of Management Information Systems 1995;12:109–44. ** 77. Guha S, Grover V, Kettinger WJ, et al. Business process change and organizational performance:

exploring an antecedent model. Journal of Management Information Systems 1997;14:119–54. ** 78. Guimaraes T. Empirically testing the antecedents of BPR success. International Journal of

Production Economics 1997;50:199–210. ** 79. Hengst M, De Vreede GJ. Collaborative business engineering: a decade of lessons from the field.

Journal of Management Information Systems 2004;20:85–113. **

18

80. O’Neill P, Sohal AS. Business process reengineering: application and success - an Australian study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 1998;18:832–64. **

81. Shi J, Su Q, Zhao Z. Critical factors for the effectiveness of clinical pathway in improving care

outcomes. In: IEEE Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management; 2008 Jun 30-Jul 2; Melbourne, Australia. 1-6. **

82. Talib F, Rahman Z. Critical success factors of TQM in service organizations: a proposed model.

Services Marketing Quarterly 2010;31:363–80. ** 83. Vanhaecht K, Panella M, Van Zelm R, et al. Is there a future for pathways? Five pieces of the

puzzle. International Journal of Care Pathways 2009;13:82–6. ** 84. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, et al. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly

2004;28:75–105. 85. March ST, Smith GF. Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision

Support Systems 1995;15:251–66. 86. Zelkowitz MV, Wallace DR. Experimental models for validating technology. IEEE Computer

1998;31:23–31. 87. Davidoff F, Batalden P, Stevens D, et al. Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health

care: evolution of the SQUIRE project. Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17(Suppl I):i3–i9.

19

Appendix A: Details research methodology

1. Introduction This appendix presents the final protocol that supported the execution of this literature review. In this protocol, we discuss the different literature review stages as outlined by Kitchenham1: purpose, organization, searching for literature, relevance screening, quality screening, data extraction and coding, and data synthesis and reporting. In the second section, we discuss the purpose of this literature review, which includes the research objectives and related scoping decisions. Subsequently, the project organization of this literature review is briefly described in section three. The fourth section describes the search strategy that was used to identify a relatively complete census of relevant literature. The so-called ‘relevance and quality screening’ are outlined in section five and six. In section seven, we discuss our data extraction and coding strategy. Finally, we explain our data synthesis and reporting strategy in section eight.

2. Purpose In this section, the research objectives and scoping decisions of this literature review are explained.

2.1 Research objectives This systematic literature review aims at supporting practitioners in composing a method for the generation of process improvement ideas in healthcare. A methodological framework is presented that contains a comprehensive overview of method options for six key choices to be made with regard to such a method. In addition, this review offers recommendations for developing further methodological support.

2.2 Research scope In order to achieve the research objective, this systematic review consists of two parts that each applies a similar but separate search and screening procedure. The first part targets studies that either developed a business process redesign method (method development studies) or reviewed multiple business process redesign methods (method review studies). The second part targets studies that investigated success factors of business process redesign initiatives in the healthcare domain (success factor studies). The scope of each part is outlined below. Scope part 1 With regard to method development and method review studies, four decisions were made concerning the research scope: • It is limited to methods that aim at redesigning an interdepartmental or inter-organizational order-

fulfillment process; • It is limited to holistic methods; • It is limited to methods that support practitioners in generating process improvement ideas;

20

• It is not limited to methods that are customized for the healthcare domain. Also, application domain-independent methods that may need further customization are within the scope of this literature review.

The details of the four decisions that were made regarding the scope of the first part are discussed below. Methods that aim at redesigning an interdepartmental or inter-organizational order-fulfillment process The scope is limited to methods that aim at redesigning interdepartmental or inter-organizational order-fulfillment processes. In the healthcare domain, these processes consist of the steps, from intake until aftercare, that are performed for a patient care request. These steps include consultations, diagnostic tests and treatments, as well as supporting steps, such as making an appointment for surgery and analyzing a medical record. It is widely acknowledged that due to the existence of dependencies between sub-processes from different departments, business process redesign initiatives need an interdepartmental or even a cross-organizational focus to achieve significant process performance gains.2 Hence, we focus on methods that aim at redesigning such a comprehensive order-fulfillment process. Holistic methods The scope is restricted to holistic (multidimensional) methods. In contrast to one-dimensional methods, multidimensional methods do not have a single pre-defined solution concept in mind, but aim at changing multiple elements of a process simultaneously and take into account the effects on different process performance dimensions. It is assumed that, due to these characteristics, holistic methods have the most potential to achieve significant improvements in practice. Reijers and Mansar3 have presented a Business Process Redesign (BPR) framework to describe the elements that can be candidates for redesign. These are: customers, products, business process (with an operation and behavioural view), organization (with a structure and population view), information, technology and the external environment. Besides changing multiple elements of the process simultaneously, holistic methods also take into account their effects on multiple process performance dimensions. According to Jansen-Vullers, Kleingeld and Netjes,4 cost, time, flexibility, internal and external quality dimensions can be distinguished. In this literature review, a method is called a holistic method if it aims at changing at least three process elements and takes into account the effects of redesigns on at least two process performance dimensions. Methods that support practitioners in generating process improvement ideas A business process redesign initiative broadly covers four phases: 1) framing the process of interest, 2) understanding the current AS-IS process, 3) designing the new TO-BE process, and 4) implementing the new process.5 The scope is restricted to methods that aim at supporting practitioners in generating process improvement ideas. These methods belong to the third phase of a business process redesign initiative. However, this literature review specifically takes the outputs into consideration that are gained from the framing and understanding of the process in the first two phases since they are clearly relevant as input for the third phase. This literature review neither ignores the outputs of the third phase that are needed as input for the fourth phase. Nevertheless, a detailed analysis of methods that are used in the first, second and fourth phase of a business process redesign initiative is outside the scope of this literature review.

21

Application domain-independent methods Although our ultimate aim is to support healthcare practitioners, we do not limit our attention to the healthcare domain in this literature review. Expecting a scarcity of methods that are customized for the healthcare domain, application domain-independent methods that may need further customization are also within the scope of this literature review. Scope part 2 With regard to success factor studies, five decisions were made concerning the research scope: • It is limited to success factors of initiatives that aim at redesigning an interdepartmental or inter-

organizational order-fulfillment process; • It is limited to success factors of initiatives that aim at holistic business process improvement; • It is limited to success factors of initiatives that aim at generating process improvement ideas; • It is limited to success factors that are actionable; • It is not limited to success factors that are specific for the healthcare domain. Also, application

domain-independent success factors of business process redesign initiatives are investigated. The first three decisions have been explained in the preceding subsection. In the remainder of this subsection, the last two decisions are explained. Actionable success factors The term action-ability refers to the degree to which the success factor allows a concrete action to be taken or concrete decision to be made.6 In this literature review, it refers to the degree to which the success factor allows a concrete methodological choice to be made. In feedback theory, three information levels are distinguished: the meta-task level, the task level and the task learning level.7 At the meta-task level, the highest level, information is not considered to be actionable. For example, the success factor “ensure top management support” does not allow a concrete action to be taken. The next level, i.e. the task level, is related to actual task performance and is actionable. For instance, “Clearly articulate the purpose of the project and its strategic contribution” is an actionable statement at the task level. The task learning level, the lowest level, focuses on the details of task execution and is also actionable. For example, “Give a 5-sheet PowerPoint presentation at 8:00 AM to discuss the purpose of the project and its strategic contribution” is a statement at the task learning level. Although this statement is actionable, our focus is on identifying success factors at the task level. Application domain-independent success factors Expecting that the healthcare domain can benefit from generic process change management insights, we do not limit our attention to success factors that are healthcare specific. In addition, application domain-independent success factors of business process redesign initiatives are considered. However, studies that focus on success factors of initiatives in a specific domain other than the healthcare domain are outside the scope of this study.

22

3. Organization For this literature review, a project organization was established. The project organization consisted of a project coordinator, a review team and an advisory committee. The project coordinator was responsible for the coordination of all activities concerning this literature review. Together with another project member, the project coordinator formed the review team. This team was responsible for developing the review protocol, searching and selecting the studies to be included in this literature review, extracting and coding data, and synthesizing and reporting the outcomes of this literature review. During the synthesizing and reporting stage, an additional researcher was added to the review team. The advisory committee was responsible for reviewing the protocol, the list of studies selected for data extraction and the draft research paper. This committee consisted of scientific experts in the field of business process redesign. Because research in this field is conducted by scientists that work in different research domains, two experts for each of the most relevant domains were invited to participate in the advisory committee. More specifically, the six members of the advisory committee covered the domains of information systems, management sciences and health sciences.

4. Searching for literature The aim of the search stage is to identify studies in such a way that a relatively complete census of relevant literature is accumulated.8 As recommended by many studies,1,9-12 multiple search strategies were used in order to establish that important studies did not remain unidentified. We started with an electronic database search in order to enable a comprehensive search.9,11-13 Subsequently, a secondary search was conducted to identify additional studies by means of backward and forward tracing of references. To further establish that important studies did not remain unidentified, the members of the advisory committee were contacted to assess the completeness of the search at the end of this secondary search. Below, the primary search, secondary search and advisory committee consultation are explained and their corresponding practical concerns are discussed.

4.1 Primary search The primary search is an electronic database search that is aimed at identifying an initial set of studies. Selection of electronic databases As proposed by a number of studies,10,14 multiple electronic databases were used to cover the different research domains that are active in the field of business process redesign. More specifically, the electronic databases INSPEC, ABI/Inform and Medline were selected to provide coverage of the information systems, management sciences and health sciences domain respectively. In addition, the EPOC Cochrane database and the International Journal of Care Pathways were scanned manually. These sources are outside the scope of the selected search engines but are considered to be highly relevant. Selection of data sources In line with the recommendations of Rowley and Slack,13 and Webster and Watson,8 the primary search was targeted at peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers in order to identify high quality studies efficiently. The primary search was further constrained by limiting our attention to studies that

23

contain an abstract and were published in English in or after the year 1990. The year 1990 is generally considered to be the year of the start of the process wave with publications of Hammer’s15 and Davenport

and Short’s16 work.17,18 Search terms electronic databases As recommended by Fink9 and Grimshaw et al,19 a broad search using free text and database specific headings was used to identify an initial set of studies in an effective way. Although all three selected electronic databases have a detailed thesaurus, we concluded that for business process redesign initiatives electronic databases are poorly indexed. On the one hand, many different headings can and, in fact, are used to code business process redesign initiatives. On the other hand, many heterogeneous studies are labelled to the same heading. Our stated findings are in line with Grimshaw et al.19 Hence, it was decided to complement high-level headings with a free text search in the title of the study to identify studies in an effective way. The free text search term was based on the research objective and derived from the thesaurus terms of all three electronic databases. More details about the construction of the free text search term are described below. With regard to the first part, the elements “method”, “redesign” and “process” were selected for further investigation. The elements “factor”, “redesign” and “process” were selected for further investigation with regard to the second part. A structured scan of the thesaurus trees of all electronic databases was performed to discover related thesaurus terms for all these elements. After obtaining these terms, cross checks were performed between the different electronic databases*. In this way, possible undiscovered thesaurus terms during the initial scan were localized and identified. After obtaining the thesaurus terms, additional synonyms, antonyms and abbreviations were identified by means of a general thesaurus, acronym library and trial searches. Finally, advanced search options like Boolean operators and truncation symbols were used to construct the free text search term. We created the following Boolean expression with respect to the first part: (([process] AND [redesign]) OR [process redesign]) AND [method] Regarding the second part, the following Boolean expression was created: (([process] AND [redesign]) OR [process redesign]) AND [factor] *For each thesaurus term identified within one of the electronic databases, we checked whether this term was also identified within the other electronic databases or not. If it was not identified by a certain database, the term was entered in the thesaurus of the electronic database. In case the term was found in the thesaurus of that database, additional terms were identified by scanning relevant broader, narrower and related terms in the thesaurus of that database. In this way, possible undiscovered trees / terms during the initial scan were localised by the cross check procedure.

24

Each part in the above Boolean expression surrounded by the ([ ]) symbol is itself a Boolean expression consisting of synonyms, acronyms and abbreviations. For each part, the complete Boolean expression is shown in Table A.1. Part Complete Boolean expression

Process

business model: OR (care ADJ3 continuit:) OR (care ADJ3 continuum:) OR case management OR chain: OR delivery system: OR network: OR operation: OR order fulfil: OR order processing OR organi#ational model: OR pathway: OR patientf low: OR patient flow OR process OR processes OR product: line: OR service: OR workflow: OR work f low:

Redesign chang: OR CI OR CQI OR CQM OR design: OR develop: OR engineer: OR improv: OR innovat: OR invent OR inventi: OR optim: OR Quality Management OR redesign: OR reengineer: OR re-engineer: OR reform: OR reorgani: OR restructur: OR streamlin: OR total quality OR TQM

Process redesign BPR OR (clinical ADJ2 path:) OR (critical ADJ2 path:) OR disease management OR integrated delivery OR (integrated ADJ2 path:) OR kaizen OR lean OR (patient ADJ2 centered ADJ2 care) OR (patient ADJ2 focused ADJ2 care) OR six sigma

Method approach: OR blueprint: OR guide: OR guidebook: OR handbook: OR instruction: OR manual: OR method: OR procedure: OR protocol: OR road map: OR technique: OR tool:

Factor antecedent OR barrier: OR cause: OR challenge: OR determinant: OR enabler: OR factor: OR guideline: OR hurdle: OR issue: OR lesson: OR obstacle: OR recommendation: OR requirement: OR risk: OR rule:

Table A.1. Overview Boolean expressions. The Boolean expressions in this table are used in the INSPEC and Medline database. In the ABI/Inform database slightly different truncation symbols are used. As explained earlier, the free text search in the title of the studies was complemented with the use of database specific headings. Specifically, we complemented the free text search with the use of high-level subject headings and classification codes in INSPEC and Mesh headings and sub-headings in Medline. Headings were not used in ABI/Inform due to the absence of a clear hierarchical tree structure of headings. Regarding the other electronic databases, the selection of headings was on the safe side of inclusiveness. The detailed search filters of the three electronic databases, including the selected headings, are shown in Attachment 1.

4.2 Secondary search After identification of an initial set of potentially relevant studies by means of performing the primary search, the relevance and quality of each identified study was screened. The relevance and quality screening procedures are discussed in detail in section five and six. After these screening procedures, a secondary search was performed based on the articles that passed the relevance and quality screen. More specifically, the backward and forward tracing techniques were used to identify additional relevant studies (for forward tracing of references, Google scholar was used). The full copies of the identified papers by means of this secondary search were screened similar to the full copy screening procedures as discussed in section five and six. As recommended by Webster and Watson,8 the secondary search stopped when new relevant concepts were no longer discovered. Data sources The secondary search was targeted at peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, technical reports and book chapters. Analogously to the primary search, this search was further constrained by limiting our attention to studies that were published in English.

25

4.3 Advisory committee consultation After the execution of the secondary search, the members of the advisory committee were contacted to assess the completeness of the search and recommend additional literature. The full copies of the identified papers by means of this consultation were screened similar to the full copy screening procedures as discussed in section five and six.

4.4 Practical concerns In order to manage the large number of references, a bibliographic package was used. The generated unfiltered search results were saved and retained for further analysis.

5. Relevance screening During the relevance screening stage, the studies that are considered relevant and the ones that are considered irrelevant were determined. As suggested by a number of studies,9,11,12,20 inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined and a screening procedure was developed to select studies in an unbiased way. In the remainder of this section, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, screening procedure and corresponding practical concerns are discussed.

5.1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria As recommended by Kitchenham,1 the formulation of the inclusion and exclusion criteria was inspired by the research objectives and related scoping decisions. Regarding the first part, the inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in Table A.2. All criteria were formulated as questions where the answers to these questions determine whether the study was included or not. A study only passed the relevance screen if all criteria in Table A.2 were fulfilled. More precisely, for each study, all the questions corresponding to the inclusion criteria had to be answered with either “Yes” or “?” and all the questions corresponding to the exclusion criteria had to be answered with “No” or “?”. With regard to method review studies, at least one of the reviewed methods should pass the criteria a-d in order to be included. Inclusion (I) and exclusion (E) criteria 1. Does the study aim at developing a business process redesign method or reviewing multiple business process redesign

methods? (I) a. Does the method aim at redesigning inter-departmental or inter-organizational order-fulfillment processes? (I) b. Is the method a holistic method? (I)

i. Does the method aim at changing at least three different process elements? (I) ii. Does the method take into account the effects of redesigns on at least two different process performance

dimensions? (I) c. Does the method support practitioners in generating process improvement ideas? (I)

i. Does the method only aim at framing the process of interest? (E) ii. Does the method only aim at modelling or analyzing the AS-IS situation? (E) iii. Does the method only aim at evaluating different process alternatives? (E) iv. Does the method only aim at implementing a new process improvement idea? (E)

d. Is the method customized for another domain than the healthcare domain? (E)

Table A.2. Overview relevance criteria related to the first part.

26

The inclusion and exclusion criteria related to second part are shown in Table A.3. A study only passed the relevance screen if all criteria in Table A.3 were fulfilled. Inclusion (I) and exclusion (E) criteria

1. Does the study aim at identifying success factors of business process redesign initiatives? (I)

a. Does the study focus on initiatives that aim at redesigning inter-departmental or inter-organizational order-fulfillment processes? (I)

b. Does the study focus on initiatives that aim at holistic business process improvement? (I) i. Do the initiatives aim at changing at least three different process elements? (I) ii. Do the initiatives take into account the effects of redesigns on at least two different process performance

dimensions? (I) c. Does the study focus on initiatives that aim at supporting practitioners in generating process improvement ideas?

(I) i. Do the initiatives only aim at framing the process of interest? (E) ii. Do the initiatives only aim at modelling or analyzing the AS-IS situation? (E) iii. Do the initiatives only aim at evaluating different process alternatives? (E) iv. Do the initiatives only aim at implementing a new process improvement idea? (E)

d. Are the success factors actionable and formulated at the task level? (I) e. Does the study aim at identifying success factors that are specific for another domain than the healthcare domain?

(E)

Table A.3. Overview relevance criteria related to the second part.

5.2 Screening procedure As proposed by a number of studies,1,14 a two-stage screening procedure was used to select relevant studies efficiently: • The title and abstract of studies identified by the primary search were screened by a single reviewer

and irrelevant studies were excluded from further examination. This screen was on the safe side of inclusiveness and based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria as discussed earlier. For each study, the criteria were judged from top to bottom. If one of the relevance screen criteria was not met, no further analysis of other criteria was performed. A subset of titles and abstracts was screened by a second reviewer in order to test inter-rater-agreement. Analogously to Mistiaen, Francke and Poot,21 inter-rater-agreement was assessed on a 10% random sample of studies. Fink9 has recommended the use of the Kappa statistic to evaluate inter-rater-agreement. If the Kappa statistic was lower than the generally accepted threshold, i.e. 0.6, then the complete set of studies was reviewed by two reviewers. Any inclusion / exclusion disagreements between the reviewers were resolved by consensus.

• Full copies were obtained for all studies that passed the title and abstract screen. All full copies were independently reviewed against the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two reviewers. For each study, the criteria were judged from top to bottom. If one of the relevance screen criteria was not met, no further analysis of other criteria was performed. Inter-rater-agreement was again evaluated by means of the Kappa statistic and any disagreements between the reviewers were resolved by means of consensus approach.

Before the start of the screening procedure, all criteria and screening activities were piloted, and discussed and documented in detail by the members of the review team. During the execution of the relevance screening procedure, screening issues and improvement possibilities were discussed in review meetings without referring to individual studies.

27

5.3 Practical concerns A spreadsheet was used to document all inclusion and exclusion decisions in detail. All search results that had been stored in the bibliographic package were exported to this spreadsheet. A flowchart was created to summarize the relevance screening results.

6. Quality screening After screening for relevant studies, it is necessary to assess the quality of primary studies.1,9-11,19 Similar to the previous stage, inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined and screening procedures were developed for an unbiased selection of studies. The final inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined after the relevance screen. In the remainder of this section, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, screening procedure and corresponding practical concerns are discussed.

6.1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined on the safe side of inclusiveness, because further validation of the methodological framework will take place by means of a cross-case survey and a field study among consultancy firms. Analogously to the relevance screen, all criteria in Table A.4 or Table A.5 had to be fulfilled to pass the quality screen. The inclusion and exclusion criteria related to the first part are shown in Table A.4. Inclusion (I) and exclusion (E) criteria 1. Is a clear statement of the research objective and scope available? (I) 2. Is the activity of generating process improvement ideas explained? (I) 3. Does a literature review or field study form the basis for the development / review of the business process redesign

method(s)? (I)

Table A.4. Overview quality criteria related to the first part.

With regard to the second part, the inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in Table A.5. Inclusion (I) and exclusion (E) criteria

1. Is a clear statement of the research objective and scope available? (I) 2. Is a clear description of the research methodology available? (I) 3. Are clear descriptions of success factors available? (I) Table A.5. Overview quality criteria related to the second part.

6.2 Screening procedure The quality screening was independently executed by two reviewers for all studies that had passed the relevance screen. Full copies of these studies were reviewed based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the quality screen. For each study, the criteria were judged from top to bottom. If one of the quality screen criteria was not met, no further analysis of other criteria was performed. In line with the relevance screen, inter-rater-agreement was assessed by means of the Kappa statistic and any disagreements between the two reviewers were resolved by consensus.

28

Similar to the relevance screen, all criteria and screening activities were piloted, and discussed and documented in detail by the members of the review team, before the execution of the screen. During the execution of the quality screening procedure, review meetings were again scheduled to discuss screening issues and improvement possibilities without referring to individual studies.

6.3 Practical concerns The spreadsheet that had been used to document the results of the relevance screen was also used to document all inclusion and exclusion decisions of the quality screen. A flowchart was again created to summarize the quality screening results.

7. Data extraction and coding After identification of the studies that had to be included in the literature review, useful data from each included study was extracted and coded. For an unbiased data extraction and coding, a number of studies1,11,12,14 recommend the development of a data extraction form, and an accompanying data extraction and coding procedure. In the remainder of this section, the data extraction form, the data extraction and coding procedure, and corresponding practical concerns are discussed.

7.1 Data extraction form As proposed by Okoli and Schabram,11 the detailed data extraction form was developed after the quality screening procedure had been applied in order to make use of the insights gained during the preceding stages. We decided to extract two types of data elements from the studies. Firstly, we extracted data from the studies with regard to several methodological decision areas, i.e. method elements, in order to build the methodological framework. Secondly, several study characteristics, i.e. context elements, were extracted in order to gain insights into the context of method development and offer recommendations with regard to the development of further methodological support. Method elements Several researchers in the field of Method Engineering, i.e. the engineering discipline to design, construct and adapt methods, techniques and tools for systems development, have developed meta-modeling techniques for representing methods.22,23 A comparison of these meta-models24 reveals that there are four main method elements. These method elements are: Activity (what is to be done?), Guidance (how to do it?), Actor (who does it? and who is responsible for it?) and Artifact (what is the result? and what is input for it?). These method elements resemble the elements that were used to represent methods by researchers in the context of business process (re)design projects25,26: Procedure model (what has to be done in which order?), Technique (how to do it?), Role (who does it?), Results document (what is the result?) and Meta-model / information model (consist of the above-described elements and their relationships). As a method can be seen as a special type of process, the method elements presented above are also closely related to the elements of the Business Process Redesign Framework proposed by Reijers and Mansar.3 Based on an analysis of this framework, we have concluded that a “tool (with what to do it?)”

29

element is still missing in current method meta-models. In line with Kettinger, Teng and Guha,27 a technique defines how a standard activity is executed and a tool is a computer software package that is able to support one or more techniques. Additionally, we extended the set of elements by adding an “aim (why to do it?)” element, in order to gain, among others, insights into the process performance dimensions that the method aims to change. Because we limited ourselves to a single activity in this literature review, i.e. generating process improvement ideas, an extraction of the procedure model / activity became superfluous. As a result, the meta-model on which our data extraction form was based, contained the following method elements: • Aim (why to do it?) • Actors (who do it? and who are responsible for it?) • Input (what is input for it?) • Output (what is the result?) • Technique (how to do it?) • Tool (with what to do it?) Context elements Besides method elements, we decided to extract several characteristics of the studies in order to gain insights into the context of method development. Similar to Walia and Carver,28 who developed a taxonomy/framework for software requirements errors in a highly structured way, we decided to extract the following context elements from all studies: Identifier, Title, Authors, Publication year, Source, Type of source, Type of study, Label research area, Definition research area, Covered industries, Study objective, Study design, Data collection techniques, Data analysis techniques, Main findings and Main limitations. Complete data extraction form The complete data extraction form including definitions is shown in Table A.6. In the third and fourth column, the “tag names” and “open and axial coding” attributes are introduced that were used during data coding. The detailed data extraction and coding procedure and these attributes are explained in the next subsections.

7.2 Data extraction and coding procedure In line with the grounded theory approach as recommended by Wolfswinkel et al,29 all data fragments were extracted and coded in an iterative fashion by making use of a structured procedure. The first author of this paper extracted data from all studies and a tag name was assigned to each extracted data fragment (e.g. “Method.Actor”). For the data elements that were selected for the open and axial coding step, a more detailed code was also assigned to each extracted data fragment, using terms taken directly from the articles when available (e.g. “Actor.External consultant”). The second author of this paper independently extracted and coded data for a 10% random sample of studies. Subsequently, data extraction and coding discrepancies were discussed in detail by both reviewers and resolved by consensus. In line with recommendations from Brereton et al,14 an extractor-checker construction was used to extract and code data from the remaining studies efficiently. The consensus approach was again used to resolve data extraction and coding discrepancies. During the execution of the data extraction and coding procedure, review meetings were scheduled to discuss data extraction and coding issues and improvement possibilities.

30

After this data extraction and initial coding step, the data elements that were assigned a more detailed code were analyzed in more detail by both reviewers. More specifically, as recommended by Wolfswinkel et al,29 an axial coding step was executed by both reviewers that resulted in updated concepts and categories. Method element Data extraction element Definition Tag name Open and axial coding 1. Aim The objective of the method

activity Method.Aim Yes

2. Actors The role who executes the method activity

Method.Actors Yes

3. Input The information that is collected prior to the method activity

Method.Input Yes

4. Output The artifacts that are the results of the method activity

Method.Output Yes

5. Technique Prescription of how to execute the method activity

Method.Technique Yes

6. Tool A software package that is able to support techniques

Method.Tool Yes

Context element Data extraction element Definition Tag name Open and axial coding 1. Identifier Unique identifier of the study - No 2. Title Title of the study - No 3. Authors Authors of the study - No 4. Publication year Publication year of the study - No 5. Source Source name of the study - No 6. Type of source Type of source (Journal paper

/ Conference paper / Book chapter / Technical report) of the study

- No

7. Type of study Type of study (Method development study / Method review study / Success factor study)

- No

8. Label research area The business process redesign related label that is used in the study (e.g. clinical pathways, lean, six sigma)

- No

9. Definition research area The definition of the research area

Study.Definition No

10. Covered industries The industries that are covered by the study (e.g. healthcare, hospitality, manufacturing)

Study.Industries No

11. Study objective The general objective of the study

Study.Objective No

12. Study design The study design that is used within the study (e.g. literature review, lab experiment, field study)

Study.Design Yes

13. Data collection techniques

The way data is collected by the study (e.g. interviews, questionnaires, observations, document analysis)

Study.Collection Yes

14. Data analysis techniques The way data is analyzed by the study (e.g. structured equation modeling)

Study.Analysis Yes

15. Main findings The main findings of the study Study.Findings No 16. Main limitations The main limitations of the

study Study.Limitations No

Table A.6. Data extraction form.

31

7.3 Practical concerns The PDF management and annotation tool Qiqqa was used to extract data from the studies and to assign codings. The context elements 1-8 were semi-automatically entered for each study in the standard or user defined fields in Qiqqa. For each study, all fragments within the PDF file that were related to one of the other data elements were annotated and tagged with the tag names as outlined in Table A.6 (e.g. “Method.Actor”, “Study.Definition”). For the data elements that were selected for the open and axial coding step, each fragment was additionally coded with a more detailed description. These codings were accompanied by the element name (e.g. “Actor.External consultant”; “Input.Clinical guideline”) in order to facilitate the creation of relevant annotation reports in Qiqqa. For the axial coding step, all Qiqqa codings were exported to a spreadsheet. After the axial coding step, codings were updated and Qiqqa annotations were re-coded. Finally, all Qiqqa codings were exported to a spreadsheet for further statistical analysis.

8. Data synthesis and reporting In the data synthesis and reporting stage, the extracted and coded data were summarised and compared critically. For that, a qualitative synthesis procedure was used that aimed at: • Putting the knowledge from the review into conceptual framework that offers a new perspective on

the topic;20 • Including a critical evaluation of how well the literature presents the issue: strengths, key contributions

as well as deficiencies, omissions, inaccuracies are identified.20 As recommended by Randolph,12 and Webster and Watson,8 the experts in the advisory committee contributed to the critical evaluation and reviewed the draft research paper. Note: The initial version of this protocol has been published as a paper in the International Journal of Care Pathways (IJCP).30

9. References 1. Kitchenham B. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Joint technical report. Department of Computer Science, Keele University (TR/SE-0401) and National ICT Australia Ltd. (0400011T.1); 2004 Jul. 2. Vos L, Van Oostenbrugge RJ, Limburg M, et al. How to implement process-oriented care: a case study on the implementation of process-oriented in-hospital stroke care. Accreditation and Quality Assurance 2009;14:5–13. 3. Reijers HA, Limam Mansar S. Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics. Omega 2005;33:283–306. 4. Jansen-Vullers MH, Kleingeld PAM, Netjes M. Quantifying the performance of workflows.

Information Systems Management 2008;25:332–43.

32

5. Netjes M. Process improvement: The creation and evaluation of process alternatives. Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology 2010. 6. Grunert KG, Ellegaard C. The concept of key success factors: theory and method. Aarhus: Aarhus University; 1992 Oct. MAPP working paper No. 4. Project No. 15. 7. DeNisi AS, Kluger AN. Feedback effectiveness: can 360-degree appraisals be improved?

Academy of Management Executive 2000;14:129–39. 8. Webster J, Watson RT. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly 2002;26:13–23. 9. Fink A. Conducting research literature reviews: from the internet to paper (3rd ed). London, UK: Sage Publications 2010. 10. Levy Y, Ellis TJ. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of

information systems research. Informing Science Journal 2006;9:181–212. 11. Okoli C, Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems 2010;10:1–49. 12. Randolph JJ. A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 2009;14:1–13. 13. Rowley J, Slack F. Conducting a literature review. Management Research News 2004;27:31–9. 14. Brereton P, Kitchenham BA, Budgen D, et al. Lessons from applying the systematic literature

review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software 2007;80:571–83.

15. Hammer M. Reengineering work: don’t automate, obliterate. Harv Bus Rev 1990;68:104–12. 16. Davenport ТН, Short JE. The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign. Sloan Manage Rev 1990;31:11–27. 17. Adesola S, Baines T. Developing and evaluating a methodology for business process

improvement. Business Process Management Journal 2005;11:37–46. 18. Grover V, Malhotra MK. Business process reengineering: a tutorial on the concept, evolution, method, technology and application. Journal of Operations Management 1997;15:193–213. 19. Grimshaw J, McAuley LM, Bero LA, et al. Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies and programmes. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:298–303. 20. Torraco RJ. Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review 2005;4:356–67.

33

21. Mistiaen P, Francke AL, Poot E. Interventions aimed at reducing problems in adult patients discharged from hospital to home: a systematic meta-review. BMC Health Serv Res 2007;7:47–65.

22. Brinkkemper S. Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology 1996;38:275–80. 23. Henderson-Sellers B, Ralyté J. Situational method engineering: state-of-the-art review. Journal of Universal Computer Science 2010;16:424–78. 24. Cossentino M, Gaglio S, Henderson-Sellers B, et al. A metamodelling-based approach for method fragment comparison. In: EMMSAD’06: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design; 2006 Jun 5-9; Luxembourg- Kirchberg, Luxembourg. 25. Alt R, Reichmayr C, Puschmann T, et al. An engineering approach to develop business networks. In: Schmid B, Stanoevska-Slabeva K, Tschammer V, eds. Towards the E-Society: E- commerce, E-business, and E-government. I3E ’01: Proceedings of the 1st IFIP Conference on Towards The E-Society: E-Commerce, E-Business, E-Government; 2001 Oct 3-5; Zürich, Switzerland. Deventer: Kluwer 2001:209-28. 26. Zellner G. A structured evaluation of business process improvement approaches. Business Process Management Journal 2011;17:203–37. 27. Kettinger WJ, Teng JTC, Guha S. Business process change: a study of methodologies,

techniques, and tools. MIS Quarterly 1997;21:55–80. 28. Walia GS, Carver JC. A systematic literature review to identify and classify software requirement errors. Information and Software Technology 2009;51:1087–109. 29. Wolfswinkel JF, Furtmueller E, Wilderom CPM. Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems 2013;22:45–55. 30. Vanwersch RJB, Shahzad K, Vanhaecht K, et al. Methodological support for business process redesign in health care: a literature review protocol. International Journal of Care Pathways 2011;15:119–26.

34

Attachment 1 Date electronic searches: 27/07/2011; date advisory committee consultation: 27/03/2012. ABI/Inform: Filter settings advanced search: • Database: ABI/INFORM GLOBAL • Data range: after this data: 01/01/1990 • Limit results to: Scholarly journal, including peer-reviewed • Exclude: Book reviews; Dissertations; Newspapers INSPEC: Filter settings multi-field search: • English language • Abstract • Publication year: 1990 - Current • Publication types: Conference paper; Conference Proceedings; Journal paper • Subject headings:

• Systems analysis (not exploded) o Systems re-engineering

• Business process re-engineering • Customer services • Management of change • Organizational aspects (not exploded) • Production management (not exploded)

o Process planning o Logistics

• Quality management (not exploded) o Total quality management o Continuous improvement o Six sigma (quality) o Innovation management

• Supply chain management (not exploded) • Administrative data processing • Operations research (not exploded) • Order processing • Management science (not exploded) • Health care • Patient care • Systems engineering • Production engineering • Industrial engineering • Value engineering • Process design • Optimal systems

35

• Constraint theory • Constraint handling • Lean production • Benchmark testing

• Classification codes: • Systems theory applications in economics and business • Systems theory applications in industry • Business and administration (not exploded)

o Office automation o Public administration o Medical administration o Manufacturing and industrial administration o Administration of other service industries

• Business and professional IT applications • Health care applications of IT • Industrial and manufacturing applications of IT • General topics in manufacturing and production engineering (not exploded):

o Management and business o Organizational aspects o Management issues o Information technology applications (not exploded)

Industrial applications of IT Business applications of IT

• Production management • Research and development • Design • Manufacturing systems • System theory applications

Medline: Filter settings multi-field search: • English language • Abstract • Publication year: 1990 - Current • Mesh headings:

• Information sciences / Information science / Systems analysis • Health care / Health care facilities, manpower and services / Capacity building • Health care / Health care facilities, manpower and services / Health facilities • Health care / Health care facilities, manpower and services / Health services • Health care / Health care economics and organizations / Health planning • Health care / Health service administration / Organization and administration • Health care / Health service administration / Patient care management • Health care / Health service administration / Quality of care • Health care / Health care quality, access and evaluation / Delivery of health care • Health care / Health care quality, access and evaluation / Health services research • Health care / Health care quality, access and evaluation / Health care quality assurance

36

• Health care / Health care quality, access and evaluation / Quality of health care • Sub-headings

• ec (economics); • og (organization & administration); • st (standards); • sd (supply and distribution); • ut (utilization)

37

Appendix B: Search and selection results

1 . Introduction This appendix presents the search and selection results of this literature review. The first part targets studies that either developed a business process redesign method (method development studies) or reviewed multiple business process redesign methods (method review studies). The second part targets studies that investigated success factors of business process redesign initiatives in the healthcare domain (success factor studies). For each part, we applied a similar but separate search and screening procedure. In the next section, we present the search and selection results for both parts.

2 . Results search and screening activities In this section, multiple flowcharts are presented that show the results of our searching and screening activities. The numbers in the first row of these figures represent the number of search hits (per electronic database). The numbers in the other rows represent the number of studies that passed the different screening activities. Next to the label of each relevance and quality screening activity, the observed agreement (O) and Kappa statistic (K) are presented. The observed agreement is the percentage of papers for which the same inclusion / exclusion decision is made by the two reviewers. The Kappa statistic is a commonly used statistic for measuring agreement between two reviewers. This statistic is defined as the agreement beyond chance divided by the amount of agreement possible beyond chance.1 According to Fink,1 the following qualitative terms need to be attached to the Kappa statistic in the context of a literature review: 0.0-0.2 = slight, 0.2-0.4 = fair, 0.4-0.6 = moderate, 0.6-0.8 = substantial and 0.8-1.0 = almost perfect. Fink1 suggests aiming for Kappa statistics of 0.6 and higher. As shown in all figures below, we fulfill this requirement. In the remainder of this section, we start with discussing the results of the primary search. Subsequently, we discuss the results that were obtained by means of backward and forward tracing of references, i.e. the results of the secondary search. Finally, the results that were obtained by consulting the advisory committee members are explained. Primary search The primary search of each part contained an electronic database search. More specifically, the databases INSPEC, ABI/Inform and Medline were selected to provide coverage of the information systems, management sciences and health sciences domain respectively. In addition, the primary search of each part contained a manual scan of two relevant sources outside the scope of these search engines, i.e. the EPOC Cochrane database and the International Journal of Care Pathways. After this primary search, we used a two-stage relevance screening and a quality screening procedure to select relevant and high quality studies for each part. Regarding the first part, the results of the primary search and related screening activities are shown in Figure B.1. With respect to the second part, these results are shown in Figure B.2.

38

Figure B.1. Primary search results part 1.We were not able to obtain 7 full copies of studies that passed the “Relevance Screen Title & Abstract”, although we tried to obtain them at seven European universities (Eindhoven, Maastricht, Delft, Rotterdam, Leuven, Berlin and Stockholm) and tried to contact the authors of these articles directly.

The results in Figure B.1 show that the electronic database search retrieved 3791 matching articles with regard to the first part. 32 articles out of 3791 passed all screening activities. Inter-rater-agreement, as determined by the Kappa statistic, was substantial (0.63 - 0.79) for all screening activities.

ABI/Inform

1672

Removal of Duplicates

INSPEC

1518

Medline

469

EPOC Cochrane

60

IJCP

72

TOTAL3791

TOTAL3494

Relevance Screen Title & Abstract

TOTAL163

Relevance ScreenFull copies

TOTAL79

Quality ScreenFull copies

TOTAL32

O = 98.8%; K = 0.79

O = 82.6%; K = 0.65

O = 82.3%; K = 0.63

39

Figure B.2. Primary search results part 2. We were not able to obtain 3 full copies of studies that passed the “Relevance Screen Title & Abstract”, although we tried to obtain them at all universities mentioned earlier and tried to contact the authors of these articles directly. Figure B.2 shows that the electronic database search retrieved 2055 matching articles regarding the second part. 9 out of 2055 articles passed all screening activities. Inter-rater-agreement, as determined by the Kappa statistic, varied from substantial (0.63 and 0.72) till almost perfect (0.86) agreement for all screening activities. Secondary search After the execution of the primary search and related screening activities, a secondary search and related screening activities were performed for each part. The secondary search and screening procedure took the final set of selected studies of the primary phase as a basis. By making use of backward and forward tracing (BFT) of references additional relevant, high quality studies were identified. For the forward tracing of references, Google Scholar was used. After the identification of additional articles, the full copies were obtained and reviewed. This full copy screening was similar to the full copy screening of the primary

ABI/Inform

855

Removal of Duplicates

INSPEC

729

Medline

339

EPOC Cochrane

60

IJCP

72

TOTAL2055

TOTAL1906

Relevance Screen Title & Abstract

TOTAL65

Relevance ScreenFull Copies

TOTAL15

Quality ScreenFull Copies

TOTAL9

O = 98.4%; K = 0.86

O = 87.1%; K = 0.65

O = 86.7%; K = 0.72

40

search. From the second round onwards, the final set of selected studies during the previous round was used as a basis for the backward and forward tracing activities. Tracing activities were stopped when no new concepts were discovered. For the first part, three rounds of backward and forward tracing were performed. The third round did not reveal any new concepts. The results of the first and second round are shown in Figure B.3 and Figure B.4 respectively. For the second part, backward and forward tracing stopped after two rounds. The results of the first round are shown in Figure B.5.

Figure B.3. Secondary search results part 1 round 1.

Figure B.4. Secondary results part 1 round 2. With regard to the first part, the results in Figure B.3 and B.4 show that 21 studies (17 + 4) were identified by means of backward and forward tracing of references. 18 out of 21 studies (14 + 4) survived the related screening activities and were selected for further examination. Inter-rater-agreement, as determined by the Kappa statistic, varied from substantial (0.63 and 0.77) till perfect (N/A) agreement for all screening activities.

BFT117

Relevance ScreenFull Copies

TOTAL15

Quality ScreenFull Copies

TOTAL14

O = 94.1%; K = 0.77

O = 93.3%; K = 0.63

BFT24

Relevance ScreenFull Copies

TOTAL4

Quality ScreenFull Copies

TOTAL4

O = 100.0%; K= N/A

O = 100.0%; K= N/A

41

Figure B.5. Secondary search results part 2 round 1.

With respect to the second part, Figure B.5 shows that 7 studies were identified by means of backward and forward tracing of references. 2 out of 7 studies survived the related screening activities and were selected for further examination. Inter-rater-agreement, as determined by the Kappa statistic, varied from substantial (0.70) till perfect (1.00) agreement for all screening activities. Advisory committee consultation To further establish that important studies did not remain unidentified, the members of the advisory committee were invited to assess the completeness of the primary and secondary search, and recommend additional literature. For each part, all articles that were obtained from the advisory committee members were screened similar to the full copy screening procedure described earlier. In Figure B.6, the results of this activity are shown with regard to the first part. Regarding the second part, these results are shown in Figure B.7.

Figure B.6. Advisory committee consult results part 1.

BFT7

Relevance ScreenFull Copies

TOTAL3

Quality ScreenFull Copies

TOTAL2

O = 85.7%; K = 0.70

O = 100.0%; K = 1.00

AC8

Relevance ScreenFull Copies

TOTAL1

Quality ScreenFull Copies

TOTAL1

O = 100.0%; K= 1.00

O = 100.0%; K= N/A

42

Figure B.6 shows that 8 studies were suggested by our advisory committee. 1 out of 8 studies survived the related screening activities and was selected for further examination regarding the first part. Inter-rater-agreement, as determined by the Kappa statistic, was perfect (1.00 and N/A) for all screening activities.

Figure B.7. Advisory committee consult results part 2. With respect to the second part, Figure B.7 shows that 2 additional articles were selected for further examination due to consulting the advisory committee. Similar to the first part, inter-rater-agreement, as determined by the Kappa statistic, was perfect (1.00 and N/A) for all screening activities. In total, 51 studies were selected for further examination with regard to the first part (primary search: 32; secondary search: 18; advisory committee consult: 1). With respect to the second part, 13 studies were selected for further examination (primary search: 9; secondary search: 2; advisory committee consult: 2). A further examination of all 64 studies (first part: 51; second part: 13) revealed that 2 articles of the first part could be excluded because these reports were predecessors of other articles and did not contain any new information. Besides, 1 report of the first part was an appendix that we decided to merge with the main publication that was also part of our set of included studies. Hence, our final set contained 61 unique studies.

3. References 1. Fink A. Conducting research literature reviews: from the internet to paper (3rd ed). London, UK: Sage Publications 2010.

AC8

Relevance ScreenFull Copies

TOTAL2

Quality ScreenFull Copies

TOTAL2

O = 100.0%; K= 1.00

O = 100.0%; K= N/A

43

Appendix C: Context element codings per study

P ID Title Journal Authors Year Study.Source Study.Type Study.Label

1 642 Business process redesign in healthcare: towards a structured approach

INFOR MH Jansen-Vullers; HA Reijers

2005 Journal paper Method development study Business Process Redesign

1 664 A TRIZ-based method for new service design

Journal of Service Research

K-H Chai; J Zhang; K-C Tan

2005 Journal paper Method development study New Service Development

1 865 A consolidated methodology for business process reengineering

International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology

JYL Thong; C-S Yap; KL Seah

2003 Journal paper Method development study Business Process Reengineering

1 1073 Visualized guidelines for IT-enabled process change

Information Resources Management Journal

MR Hoogeweegen 2000 Journal paper Method development study Business Process Change

1 1076 An intelligent tool for process redesign: manufacturing supply-chain applications

International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems

ME Nissen 2000 Journal paper Method development study No label

1 1111 New approaches to business process redesign: a case study of collaborative group technology and service mapping

Group Decision and Negotiation

GF Corbitt; M Christopolus; L Wright

2000 Journal paper Method development study Business Process Redesign

1 1331 Business process change: a study of methodologies, techniques, and tools

MIS Quarterly WJ Kettinger; JTC Teng; S Guha

1997 Journal paper Method review study Business Process Reengineering

1 1464 Methodology-driven use of automated support in business process re-engineering

Journal of Management Information Systems

AR Dennis; RM Daniels Jr; G Hayes et al

1994 Journal paper Method development study Business Process Reengineering

1 1616 Applying Lean Six Sigma and TRIZ methodology in banking services

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

F-K Wang; K-S Chen

2010 Journal paper Method development study Lean Six Sigma

1 1768 ARMA: a multi-disciplinary approach to BPR

Knowledge and Process Management

M Glykas; G Valiris 1999 Journal paper Method development study Business Process Redesign

44

1 1771 Critical review of existing BPR methodologies: the need for a holistic approach

Business Process Management Journal

G Valiris; M Glykas 1999 Journal paper Method development study Business Process Redesign

1 1774 Process reverse engineering for BPR: a form-based approach

Information & Management

K-H Kim; Y-G Kim 1998 Journal paper Method development study Business Process Redesign

1 1819 Metrics-based process redesign with the MIT process handbook

Knowledge and Process Management

A Margherita; M Klein; G Elia

2007 Journal paper Method development study Business Process Reengineering

1 1973 A structured evaluation of business process improvement approaches

Business Process Management Journal

G Zellner 2011 Journal paper Method review study Business Process Improvement

1 1989 A Service Experience Engineering (SEE) method for developing new services

International Journal of Management

S-L Hsiao; H-L Yang 2010 Journal paper Method development study Service Engineering

1 2085 A handbook-based methodology for redesigning business processes

Knowledge and Process Management

M Klein; C Petti 2006 Journal paper Method development study Business Process Reengineering

1 2089 Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation

California Management Review

MJ Bitner; AL Ostrom; FN Morgan

2008 Journal paper Method development study Service Innovation

1 2149 Multilevel service design: From customer value constellation to service experience blueprinting

Journal of Service Research

L Patrício; RP Fisk; JF e Cunha et al

2011 Journal paper Method development study Service Design

1 2225 Systematic improvement in service quality through TRIZ methodology: an exploratory study

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

C-T Su; C-S Lin; T-L Chiang

2008 Journal paper Method development study New Service Development

1 2428 PAWS: towards a participatory approach to business process reengineering

International Workshop on Groupware

MRS Borges; JA Pino

1999 Conference paper

Method development study Business Process Reengineering

1 2530 An innovative way to create new services: applying the TRIZ methodology

Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers

C-S Lin; C-T Su 2007 Journal paper Method development study New Service Development

1 2560 Enhancing business process redesign: using tools to condense the process

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

G Corbitt; L Wright 1997 Conference paper

Method development study Business Process Redesign

45

1 3136 Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes

Management Science

TW Malone; K Crowston; J Lee et al

1999 Journal paper Method development study No label

1 3137 Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes

Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises

TW Malone; K Crowston; J Lee et al

1993 Conference paper

Method development study No label

1 3200 A groupware tool to support participatory business process reengineering

International Workshop on Groupware

EZ Mouro; MRS Borges; CR Garcez

1999 Conference paper

Method development study Business Process Reengineering

1 3227 Intelligent tools for workflow process redesign: a research agenda

International Conference on Business Process Management

M Netjes; I Vanderfeesten; HA Reijers

2006 Conference paper

Method development study Business Process Redesign

1 3298 Improving the effectiveness of business process development through collaboration engineering: a method for process elicitation

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

K Piirainen; K Elfvengren; J Korpela et al

2009 Conference paper

Method development study Business Process Reengineering

1 3408 Process life cycle engineering: a knowledge-based approach and environment

International Journal of Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management

W Scacchi; P Mi 1997 Journal paper Method development study Process Life Cycle Engineering

1 3440 A decision-based approach to business process improvement

International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics

K Shahzad; J Zdravkovic

2010 Conference paper

Method development study Business Process Improvement

1 3447 Workflow reengineering: a methodology for business process reengineering using workflow management technology

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

LTSM Bitzer; MN Kamel

1997 Conference paper

Method development study Workflow Reengineering

1 3469 Service/product engineering as a potential approach to value enhancement in supply chains

Progress in Industrial Ecology - An International Journal

A Simboli; A Raggi; L Petti et al.

2008 Journal paper Method development study Service Engineering

46

1 BFT01 Participatory business process reengineering design: generating solutions

International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society

F Albano; JA Pino; MRS Borges

2001 Conference paper

Method development study Business Process Reengineering

1 BFT02 The process recombinator: a tool for generating new business process ideas

International Conference on Information Systems

A Bernstein; M Klein; TW Malone

1999 Conference paper

Method development study No label

1 BFT03 Analysis of techniques for business process improvement

European Conference on Information Systems

P Griesberger; S Leist; G Zellner

2011 Conference paper

Method review study Business Process Improvement

1 BFT04 Selecting the best strategic practices for business process redesign

Business Process Management Journal

P Hanafizadeh; M Moosakhani; J Bakhshi

2009 Journal paper Method development study Business Process Redesign

1 BFT06 Grammatical approach to organizational design

MIT Center for Coordination Science Technical Report

J Lee; BT Pentland 2000 Technical report

Method development study No label

1 BFT07 Case-based reasoning as a technique for knowledge management in business process redesign

Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management

S Limam Mansar; F Marir; HA Reijers

2003 Journal paper Method development study Business Process Redesign

1 BFT08 Development of a decision-making strategy to improve the efficiency of BPR

Expert Systems with Applications

S Limam Mansar; H A Reijers; F Ounnar

2009 Journal paper Method development study Business Process Redesign

1 BFT09 On the formal generation of process redesigns

International Conference on Business Process Management

M Netjes; HA Reijers; WMP van der Aalst

2009 Conference paper

Method development study Business Process Redesign

1 BFT10 Performing business process redesign with best practices: an evolutionary approach

International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

M Netjes; S Limam Mansar; HA Reijers et al

2009 Conference paper

Method development study Business Process Redesign

1 BFT11 Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics

Omega HA Reijers; S Limam Mansar

2005 Journal paper Method development study Business Process Redesign

47

1 BFT12 A tutorial on business process improvement

Journal of Operations Management

TR Rohleder; EA Silver

1997 Journal paper Method development study Business Process Improvement

1 BFT13 Towards a goal-driven approach for business process improvement using process-oriented data warehouse

International Conference on Business Information Systems

K Shahzad; C Giannoulis

2011 Conference paper

Method development study Business Process Improvement

1 BFT18 Designing robust business processes

Organizing business knowledge: The MIT process handbook

M Klein; C Dellarocas

2003 Book chapter Method development study No label

1 BFT19 Process grammar as a tool for business process design

MIS Quarterly J Lee; GM Wyner; BT Pentland

2008 Journal paper Method development study No label

1 BFT20 The PrICE Tool Kit: tool support for process improvement

International Conference on Business Process Management

M Netjes; HA Reijers; WMP van der Aalst

2010 Conference paper

Method development study No label

1 BFT21 Development of a hybrid model to improve the efficiency of business process reengineering

International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management

W-H Tsai; C-C Yang; H-C Kuo

2009 Conference paper

Method development study Business Process Reengineering

1 AC4 Model-based support for business re-engineering

Information and Software Technology

S Jarzabek; TW Ling 1996 Journal paper Method development study Business Re-engineering

2 176 Empirically testing determinants of hospital BPR success

International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance

M Do Carmo Caccia-Bava; VCK Guimaraes; T Guimaraes

2005 Journal paper Success factor study Business Process Reengineering

2 627 An examination of the role of organizational enablers in business process reengineering and the impact of information technology

Information Resources Management Journal

HR Ahadi 2004 Journal paper Success factor study Business Process Reengineering

2 834 Business process change and organizational performance: exploring an antecedent model

Journal of Management Information Systems

S Guha; V Grover; WJ Kettinger et al

1997 Journal paper Success factor study Business Process Change

2 836 Empirically testing the antecedents of BPR success

International Journal of Production Economics

T Guimaraes 1997 Journal paper Success factor study Business Process Reengineering

48

2 870 Critical factors for the effectiveness of clinical pathway in improving care outcomes

International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management

J Shi; Q Su; Z Zhao 2008 Conference paper

Success factor study Clinical pathways

2 1286 Critical success factors of TQM in service organizations: a proposed model

Services Marketing Quarterly

F Talib; Z Rahman 2010 Journal paper Success factor study Total Quality Management

2 1661 The state of business process reengineering: a search for success factors

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

D Paper; R-D Chang 2005 Journal paper Success factor study Business Process Reengineering

2 1672 Breaking the rules: success and failure in groupware-supported business process reengineering

Decision Support Systems

AR Dennis; TA Carte; GG Kelly

2003 Journal paper Success factor study Business Process Reengineering

2 2059 Is there a future for pathways? Five pieces of the puzzle

International Journal of Care Pathways

K Vanhaecht; M Panella; R van Zelm et al

2009 Journal paper Success factor study Care pathways

2 BFT3 Collaborative business engineering: a decade of lessons from the field

Journal of Management Information Systems

M Hengst; GJ de Vreede

2004 Journal paper Success factor study Business Process Reengineering

2 BFT7 Prevalence and use of clinical pathways in 23 countries - an international survey by the European Pathway Association

International Journal of Care Pathways

K Vanhaecht; M Bollmann; K Bower et al

2006 Journal paper Success factor study Clinical pathways

2 AC2 The implementation of business process reengineering

Journal of Management Information Systems

V Grover; SR Jeong; WJ Kettinger et al

1995 Journal paper Success factor study Business Process Reengineering

2 AC7 Business process reengineering: application and success - an Australian study

International Journal of Operations & Production Management

P O'Neill; AS Sohal 1998 Journal paper Success factor study Business Process Reengineering

Table C.1. Context element codings per study (Study.Source, Study.Type, Study.Label). P = Part.

49

P ID Title Journal Authors Year Study.Design Study.Collection Study.Analysis

1 642 Business process redesign in healthcare: towards a structured approach

INFOR MH Jansen-Vullers; HA Reijers

2005 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

Simulation (case study) Descriptive analysis (case study)

1 664 A TRIZ-based method for new service design

Journal of Service Research

K-H Chai; J Zhang; K-C Tan

2005 Literature review (build) Case study (2) (evaluation)

- -

1 865 A consolidated methodology for business process reengineering

International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology

JYL Thong; C-S Yap; KL Seah

2003 Literature review (build) - -

1 1073 Visualized guidelines for IT-enabled process change

Information Resources Management Journal

MR Hoogeweegen 2000 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

- -

1 1076 An intelligent tool for process redesign: manufacturing supply-chain applications

International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems

ME Nissen 2000 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

Simulation (case study) Descriptive analysis (case study)

1 1111 New approaches to business process redesign: a case study of collaborative group technology and service mapping

Group Decision and Negotiation

GF Corbitt; M Christopolus; L Wright

2000 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

Interviews (case study) Observations (case study) Questionnaires (case study) Time measurements (case study)

Descriptive analysis (case study)

1 1331 Business process change: a study of methodologies, techniques, and tools

MIS Quarterly WJ Kettinger; JTC Teng; S Guha

1997 Literature review Field study Lab study

Literature review approach (literature review) Document and software analysis (field study) Interviews (field study) Semi-structured (telephone) interviews (field study)

Structured analysis approach (no specific name) Q-sort (lab study)

1 1464 Methodology-driven use of automated support in business process re-engineering

Journal of Management Information Systems

AR Dennis; RM Daniels Jr; G Hayes et al

1994 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

Documentation analysis (case study) Interviews (case study) Observations (case study) Questionnaires (case study)

Descriptive analysis (case study)

1 1616 Applying Lean Six Sigma and TRIZ methodology in banking services

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

F-K Wang; K-S Chen

2010 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

Time measurements (case study)

Descriptive analysis (case study)

1 1768 ARMA: a multi-disciplinary approach to BPR

Knowledge and Process Management

M Glykas; G Valiris 1999 Literature review (build) - -

50

1 1771 Critical review of existing BPR methodologies: the need for a holistic approach

Business Process Management Journal

G Valiris; M Glykas 1999 Literature review (build) - -

1 1774 Process reverse engineering for BPR: a form-based approach

Information & Management

K-H Kim; Y-G Kim 1998 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

- -

1 1819 Metrics-based process redesign with the MIT process handbook

Knowledge and Process Management

A Margherita; M Klein; G Elia

2007 Literature review (build) Illustration (evaluation)

- -

1 1973 A structured evaluation of business process improvement approaches

Business Process Management Journal

G Zellner 2011 Literature review Literature review approach Qualitative content analysis

1 1989 A Service Experience Engineering (SEE) method for developing new services

International Journal of Management

S-L Hsiao; H-L Yang 2010 Literature review (build) Field study (build)

- -

1 2085 A handbook-based methodology for redesigning business processes

Knowledge and Process Management

M Klein; C Petti 2006 Literature review (build) Illustration (evaluation)

- -

1 2089 Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation

California Management Review

MJ Bitner; AL Ostrom; FN Morgan

2008 Literature review (build) Case study (5) (evaluation)

- -

1 2149 Multilevel service design: From customer value constellation to service experience blueprinting

Journal of Service Research

L Patrício; RP Fisk; JF e Cunha et al

2011 Literature review (build) Case study (2) (evaluation)

- -

1 2225 Systematic improvement in service quality through TRIZ methodology: an exploratory study

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

C-T Su; C-S Lin; T-L Chiang

2008 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

Questionnaires (case study)

Descriptive analysis (case study)

1 2428 PAWS: towards a participatory approach to business process reengineering

International Workshop on Groupware

MRS Borges; JA Pino

1999 Literature review (build) - -

1 2530 An innovative way to create new services: applying the TRIZ methodology

Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers

C-S Lin; C-T Su 2007 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

Questionnaires (case study)

Descriptive analysis (case study)

1 2560 Enhancing business process redesign: using tools to condense the process

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

G Corbitt; L Wright 1997 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

Questionnaires (case study) Time measurements (case study)

Descriptive analysis (case study)

51

1 3136 Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes

Management Science

TW Malone; K Crowston; J Lee et al

1999 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

- -

1 3137 Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes

Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises

TW Malone; K Crowston; J Lee et al

1993 Literature review (build) Illustration (evaluation)

- -

1 3200 A groupware tool to support participatory business process reengineering

International Workshop on Groupware

EZ Mouro; MRS Borges; CR Garcez

1999 Literature review (build) - -

1 3227 Intelligent tools for workflow process redesign: a research agenda

International Conference on Business Process Management

M Netjes; I Vanderfeesten; HA Reijers

2006 Literature review (build) Illustration (evaluation)

- -

1 3298 Improving the effectiveness of business process development through collaboration engineering: a method for process elicitation

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

K Piirainen; K Elfvengren; J Korpela et al

2009 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

Interviews (case study) Observations (case study) Questionnaires (case study)

Descriptive analysis (case study)

1 3408 Process life cycle engineering: a knowledge-based approach and environment

International Journal of Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management

W Scacchi; P Mi 1997 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

- -

1 3440 A decision-based approach to business process improvement

International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics

K Shahzad; J Zdravkovic

2010 Literature review (build) Illustration (evaluation)

- -

1 3447 Workflow reengineering: a methodology for business process reengineering using workflow management technology

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

LTSM Bitzer; MN Kamel

1997 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

- -

1 3469 Service/product engineering as a potential approach to value enhancement in supply chains

Progress in Industrial Ecology - An International Journal

A Simboli; A Raggi; L Petti et al.

2008 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

- -

52

1 BFT01 Participatory business process reengineering design: generating solutions

International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society

F Albano; JA Pino; MRS Borges

2001 Literature review (build) - -

1 BFT02 The process recombinator: a tool for generating new business process ideas

International Conference on Information Systems

A Bernstein; M Klein; TW Malone

1999 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

- -

1 BFT03 Analysis of techniques for business process improvement

European Conference on Information Systems

P Griesberger; S Leist; G Zellner

2011 Literature review Literature review approach Structured analysis approach (no specific name)

1 BFT04 Selecting the best strategic practices for business process redesign

Business Process Management Journal

P Hanafizadeh; M Moosakhani; J Bakhshi

2009 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

- -

1 BFT06 Grammatical approach to organizational design

MIT Center for Coordination Science Technical Report

J Lee; BT Pentland 2000 Literature review (build) Illustration (evaluation)

- -

1 BFT07 Case-based reasoning as a technique for knowledge management in business process redesign

Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management

S Limam Mansar; F Marir; HA Reijers

2003 Literature review (build) - -

1 BFT08 Development of a decision-making strategy to improve the efficiency of BPR

Expert Systems with Applications

S Limam Mansar; H A Reijers; F Ounnar

2009 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

- Descriptive analysis (case study)

1 BFT09 On the formal generation of process redesigns

International Conference on Business Process Management

M Netjes; HA Reijers; WMP van der Aalst

2009 Literature review (build) Formal analysis (evaluation)

- Formal analysis

1 BFT10 Performing business process redesign with best practices: an evolutionary approach

International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

M Netjes; S Limam Mansar; HA Reijers et al

2009 Literature review (build) Illustration (evaluation)

- -

1 BFT11 Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics

Omega HA Reijers; S Limam Mansar

2005 Literature review (build) - Structured analysis approach (no specific name)

53

1 BFT12 A tutorial on business process improvement

Journal of Operations Management

TR Rohleder; EA Silver

1997 Literature review (build) - -

1 BFT13 Towards a goal-driven approach for business process improvement using process-oriented data warehouse

International Conference on Business Information Systems

K Shahzad; C Giannoulis

2011 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

Questionnaires (case study)

Descriptive analysis (case study)

1 BFT18 Designing robust business processes

Organizing business knowledge: The MIT process handbook

M Klein; C Dellarocas

2003 Literature review (build) Illustration (evaluation)

- -

1 BFT19 Process grammar as a tool for business process design

MIS Quarterly J Lee; GM Wyner; BT Pentland

2008 Literature review (build) Illustration (evaluation)

- -

1 BFT20 The PrICE Tool Kit: tool support for process improvement

International Conference on Business Process Management

M Netjes; HA Reijers; WMP van der Aalst

2010 Literature review (build) Illustration (evaluation)

- -

1 BFT21 Development of a hybrid model to improve the efficiency of business process reengineering

International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management

W-H Tsai; C-C Yang; H-C Kuo

2009 Literature review (build) Case study (evaluation)

- -

1 AC4 Model-based support for business re-engineering

Information and Software Technology

S Jarzabek; TW Ling 1996 Literature review (build) - -

2 176 Empirically testing determinants of hospital BPR success

International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance

M Do Carmo Caccia-Bava; VCK Guimaraes; T Guimaraes

2005 Literature review Field survey

Questionnaires (field survey)

Descriptive analysis (field survey) Factor analysis (field survey) Stepwise multivariate regression analysis (field survey)

2 627 An examination of the role of organizational enablers in business process reengineering and the impact of information technology

Information Resources Management Journal

HR Ahadi 2004 Literature review Field survey

Questionnaires (field survey)

Descriptive analysis (field survey) ANOVA (field survey)

2 834 Business process change and organizational performance: exploring an antecedent model

Journal of Management Information Systems

S Guha; V Grover; WJ Kettinger et al

1997 Literature review Case study (3)

Document analysis (case study) Questionnaires (case study) (Telephone) interviews (case study)

Explanation building and pattern matching (case study)

54

2 836 Empirically testing the antecedents of BPR success

International Journal of Production Economics

T Guimaraes 1997 Literature review Field survey

Questionnaires (field survey)

Descriptive analysis (field survey)

2 870 Critical factors for the effectiveness of clinical pathway in improving care outcomes

International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management

J Shi; Q Su; Z Zhao 2008 Literature review Literature review approach

2 1286 Critical success factors of TQM in service organizations: a proposed model

Services Marketing Quarterly

F Talib; Z Rahman 2010 Literature review Literature review approach

2 1661 The state of business process reengineering: a search for success factors

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

D Paper; R-D Chang 2005 Literature review Case study

- Structured analysis approach (no specific name) (case study)

2 1672 Breaking the rules: success and failure in groupware-supported business process reengineering

Decision Support Systems

AR Dennis; TA Carte; GG Kelly

2003 Literature review Case study (4)

Interviews (case study) Observations (case study)

-

2 2059 Is there a future for pathways? Five pieces of the puzzle

International Journal of Care Pathways

K Vanhaecht; M Panella; R van Zelm et al

2009 Literature review - -

2 BFT3 Collaborative business engineering: a decade of lessons from the field

Journal of Management Information Systems

M Hengst; GJ de Vreede

2004 Literature review Case study (9)

Interviews (case study) Observations (case study) Questionnaires (case study) Session data (case study)

Structured analysis approach (no specific name) (case study)

2 BFT7 Prevalence and use of clinical pathways in 23 countries - an international survey by the European Pathway Association

International Journal of Care Pathways

K Vanhaecht; M Bollmann; K Bower et al

2006 Field survey Questionnaires (field survey)

Descriptive analysis (field survey)

2 AC2 The implementation of business process reengineering

Journal of Management Information Systems

V Grover; SR Jeong; WJ Kettinger et al

1995 Literature review Field study Field survey

Interviews (field study) Literature review approach (literature review) Questionnaires (field survey)

Q-sort procedure (field study) Descriptive analysis (field survey) Principal component analysis (field survey)

2 AC7 Business process reengineering: application and success - an Australian study

International Journal of Operations & Production Management

P O'Neill; AS Sohal 1998 Literature review Field survey

Questionnaires (field survey)

Descriptive analysis (field survey)

Table C.2. Context element codings per study (Study.Design, Study.Collection, Study.Analysis). P = Part.

55

Appendix D: Details methodological framework

1. Introduction In this appendix, the developed methodological framework is presented in detail. The developed methodological framework contains an overview of 60 method options for six key choices to be made with regard to a method for generating process improvement ideas: aim (8), actors (11), input (18), output (8), technique (10) and tool (5). In section two, we present all method options and related (sub-)categories that were identified during the open and axial coding step. In section three, definitions are given for all method options.

2. Methodological framework In Table D.1-3, the complete methodological framework is presented.

56

Decision area

Category Sub-category Method option No. of studies part 1

No. of studies part 2

No. of studies part 1 + 2

Aim Performance dimensions Revenue 6 7 13 Cost 31 12 43 Time 26 11 37 Quality Quality (unspecified) 17 4 21 External quality 22 11 33 Internal quality 4 7 11 Flexibility 13 1 14 Degree of improvement Radical improvement 6 3 9 Incremental improvement 6 3 9 Actors Daily involved Process actor 23 10 33 Management 15 7 22 Advising Supporting staff BPR specialist 4 1 5 Finance specialist 1 1 2 HR specialist 0 1 1 IS specialist 5 5 10 Marketing specialist 1 1 2 Customer / patient 4 7 11 Supplier 1 5 6 External consultant 14 7 21 Peer 0 1 1 Table D.1. Methodological framework (Aim, Actors).

57

Decision area

Category Sub-category Method option No. of studies part 1

No. of studies part 2

No. of studies part 1 + 2

Input Redesign requirements Process output goals 27 5 32 Stakeholder / customer needs 11 5 16 Redesign limitations Constraints 2 0 2 Risks 2 0 2 AS-IS process specification Textual process description 8 0 8 Process model 28 6 34 Simulation model 3 1 4 Process weaknesses Process output measures 14 2 16 Process measures 6 0 6 Different opinions regarding AS-IS

process specification 1 0 1

Problem investigation 20 6 26 Culture scan 1 0 1 Redesign catalysts Medical guidelines / key

interventions 0 2 2

Previous solutions 3 0 3 Benchmark process insights 3 2 5 Benchmark process models 1 0 1 Technology developments 4 2 6 Industry value net 1 0 1 Output TO-BE specifications TO-BE service concepts 3 0 3 TO-BE process specification Summary redesign proposals 19 0 19 Textual process descriptions 8 0 8 Process models 26 1 27 Simulation models 11 1 12 TO-BE exception handlers 3 0 3 TO-BE assessments Impact analyses 17 0 17 Force-field-analyses 3 0 3 Table D.2. Methodological framework (Input, Output).

58

Decision area

Category Sub-category Method option No. of studies part 1

No. of studies part 2

No. of studies part 1 + 2

Technique Unstructured Brainstorming 15 1 16 Out-of-the-box thinking 5 1 6 Visioning 4 1 5 Unspecified 16 0 16 Semi-structured Delphi 1 0 1 Nominal group 10 0 10 Multi-level design 3 0 3 Grammar-based 4 0 4 Structured Rule-based 23 1 24 Case-based 5 0 5 Repository-based 9 0 9 Tool Communication 9 2 11 Voting 6 1 7 Modeling 13 2 15 Simulation 8 1 9 Repository 19 2 21 Specific 4 0 4 Table D.3. Methodological framework (Technique, Tool).

59

3. Definitions method options All method option definitions with regard to the methodological decision areas aim, actors, input, output, technique and tool are shown in Table D.4-9. Method option Definition Performance dimensions (delineating the kind of performance measures that need improvement) Revenue The income that is received from the sales of goods or services that are created by the

process. Cost The value of money that has been used to produce goods or services that are created by the

process. Time A measure of durations of events or intervals between them. External quality The quality of products or services as perceived by customers. Internal quality The quality of work as perceived by process actors. Flexibility The ability of the process to react to changes.1 Degree of improvement (addressing the kind of improvement that is needed) Radical improvement The aim is to achieve dramatic improvement gains by often challenging the organizational

framework and applying new technology.2 Incremental improvement The aim is to make some small changes to an existing process by typically eliminating non-

value added activities.2 Table D.4. Aim related definitions. Method option Definition Daily involved (involved in either executing tasks within the process under study or managing the process) Process actor Actor that is involved in executing tasks within the process. Management Actor that is involved in managing the process. Advising (not being responsible for the process under study, but able to contribute to the development of process alternatives due to expertise or experience) BPR specialist Supporting staff specialist that has specific expertise in redesigning business processes. Finance specialist Supporting staff specialist that is knowledgeable about financial issues. HR specialist Supporting staff specialist that is knowledgeable about human resource management. IS specialist Supporting staff specialist that has specific expertise in designing information systems. Marketing specialist Supporting staff specialist that has specific expertise in communicating the value of a product

or service to customers. Customer / patient Recipient of the products or services that are provided by the process. Supplier Actor that supplies goods or services that are used by the process. External consultant Actor that is employed externally (not a member of the firms where the process actors are

employed) and provides professional advice on a temporary basis. Peer Actor that is employed internally or externally and is actively involved in a non-competing

similar process. Table D.5. Actors related definitions.

60

Method option Definition Redesign requirements (delineating the redesign objectives that need to be achieved) Process output goals Desired end results of the redesign project in terms of process performance dimensions, e.g.

the average access time of coronary artery bypass patients needs to be reduced with 60%. Stakeholder / customer needs Requirements that need to be fulfilled by the process according to customers or other process

stakeholders. Redesign limitations (outlining the factors that restrict the solution space) Constraints Restrictions that delineate the kind of process alternatives that are not going to be

considered. Risks Factors that challenge the redesign of the process and might restrict the kind of process

alternatives that are going to be considered.3 AS-IS process specification (providing a description of the current process) Textual process description Textual description of the AS-IS process. Process model Model that provides a graphical representation of the AS-IS process.4 Simulation model Model that allows for the dynamic modelling of the AS-IS process.4 Process weaknesses (identifying redesign priorities) Process output measures Measures that are related to the process performance dimensions. Process measures Measures that provide a global view on the characteristics of the process, such as the degree

of automation or parallelism.5 Different opinions regarding AS-IS process specification

Points of disagreement about how the AS-IS process works. Typically, these points of disagreement become apparent during process mapping activities.6

Problem investigation Investigation which offers information regarding problems as perceived by the different process stakeholders.

Culture scan Assessment of the shared values and beliefs of process stakeholders.4 Redesign catalysts (providing inspiration for the creation of effective process alternatives) Medical guidelines / key interventions

Documents with the aim of guiding decisions and criteria regarding diagnosis, management and treatment in specific areas of healthcare. Typically, they are based on an examination of current evidence in the paradigm of evidence-based management.7

Previous solutions Solutions that have been suggested for problems that are related to the problems associated with the process under study.8-10

Benchmark process insights Insights gained from comparing one’s process with a similar process.11,12 Benchmark process models Process models of a similar process.6 Technology developments Insights gained from technology observing research.13 Industry value net Overview of suitable partners with which the process under study could be integrated.13 Table D.6. Input related definitions. Method option Definition TO-BE specifications (providing descriptions of process improvement ideas) TO-BE service concepts Concepts that provide a description of the benefits that the process is expected to offer to the

customers and determine the value proposition in the broader context of the value network within which it is embedded. As such, TO-BE service concepts are able to guide the design of TO-BE process specifications.14

Summary redesign proposals Summary that provides a brief description of redesign proposals, i.e. changes with regard to the AS-IS process that are worth further investigation.

Textual process descriptions Textual descriptions of TO-BE processes. Process models Models that provide graphical representation s of TO-BE processes.4 Simulation models Models that allow for the dynamic modelling of TO-BE processes and support practitioners in

validating and evaluating process alternatives.4 TO-BE exception handlers Handlers that describe ways to anticipate, avoid, detect and resolve process exceptions.15 TO-BE assessments (including preliminary evaluations of process alternatives) Impact analyses Analyses that provide insights into the potential performance improvement impact and

feasibility of process alternatives.16 Force-field-analyses Analyses that provide insights into the forces that either drive or restrain the implementation

of process alternatives.4,17,18 Table D.7. Output related definitions.

61

Method option Definition Unstructured (not containing a detailed procedure that specifies how to get from current process insights (as-is) to concrete improvement ideas (to-be), and not providing guidance regarding the kind of process alternatives that need to be considered) Brainstorming Creativity technique that provides room for spontaneous generation of ideas by redesign

participants, where creative thinking is stimulated through a process of adding on the other’s concepts.4,19

Out-of-the-box thinking Creativity technique that stimulates redesign participants to stretch redesign goals and reconsider assumptions underlying current process execution.4,19

Visioning Creativity technique that encourages redesign participants to develop images of possible future processes by identifying and progressively breaking sacred cow assumptions or unsubstantiated constraints.4,19

Semi-structured (offering a work procedure that specifies how to get from current process insights (as-is) to concrete improvement ideas (to-be), but lacking any guidance regarding the kind of process alternatives that need to be considered) Delphi Technique that distributes a sequence of anonymous questionnaires to redesign participants

to successively refine their opinions and finally reach consensus.4 Nominal group Technique that offers a procedure for reaching group consensus through anonymous idea

generation by individual redesign participants, followed by discussion and voting.4 Multi-level design Technique that starts with designing the to-be situation at a relatively high level of abstraction,

i.e. the to-be service concept. After completion, two lower levels of abstraction, which together specify the to-be process, are successively considered.14

Grammar-based Technique that captures the grammar underlying a business process and makes use of lexicon and rewrite rules to systematically explore process alternatives.20,21

Structured (offering a work procedure that specifies how to get from current process insights (as-is) to concrete improvement ideas (to-be), and including guidance regarding the kind of process alternatives that need to be considered) Rule-based Technique that makes use of generic process redesign rules that have accumulated in

literature or practice to develop process alternatives.8,22,23 The premise of these techniques is that specific process problems can be translated to generic process problems, for which generic process redesign rules can offer generic process solutions.9,16,22 An example of a generic process redesign rule is the parallelism rule, which states that redesign participants should consider executing tasks in parallel instead of executing them sequentially.23 As a final step, the generic process solutions have to be translated to specific process solutions.9,16,22

Case-based Technique that enables an efficient identification of earlier business process redesign projects. These projects offer guidance regarding the process alternatives that have to be considered.24 These techniques make use of libraries of well-document previous business process redesign projects.3,22,24

Repository-based Technique that makes use of the notions of process specializations, coordination mechanisms and process exception handlers to systematically generate process alternatives on the basis of an identified list of core activities of the process under study and a repository.25-28 The repository that is used as a basis includes and organizes numerous specifications of existing processes.25-28

Table D.8. Technique related definitions. Method option Definition Communication Functionality that enables large groups to communicate face-to-face or distributed in a

computer-mediated electronic environment. Typically, this environment allows for parallel and anonymous input.18,29,30

Voting Functionality that allows participants to rate different process alternatives.17,31 Modeling Functionality that supports practitioners in creating graphical representations of process

alternatives.29,32,33 Simulation Functionality that allows dynamic modelling of business processes and supports practitioners

in validating and evaluating process alternatives.4,22 Repository Functionality that provides support for the storage and retrieval of descriptions of process

alternatives and related discussions.29,31,34 Specific Functionality that provides support for a specific technique and does not provide general-

purpose functionality. Table D.9. Tool related definitions.

62

4. References 1. Jansen-Vullers MH, Kleingeld PAM, Netjes M. Quantifying the performance of workflows. Information Systems Management 2008;25:332–43. 2. Glykas M, Valiris G. ARMA: a multi-disciplinary approach to BPR. Knowledge and Process Management 1999;6:213–26. 3. Limam Mansar S, Reijers HA, Ounnar F. Development of a decision-making strategy to improve the efficiency of BPR. Expert Systems with Applications 2009;36:3248–62. 4. Kettinger WJ, Teng JTC, Guha S. Business process change: a study of methodologies, techniques, and tools. MIS Quarterly 1997;21:55–80. 5. Netjes M, Limam Mansar S, Reijers HA, et al. Performing business process redesign with best practices: an evolutionary approach. In: Filipe J, Cordeiro J, Cardoso J, editors. Enterprise Information Systems, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. ICEIS 2007: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems; 2007 Jun 12-16; Funchal, Madeira; Berlin: Springer 2009:199-211. 6. Bitner MJ, Ostrom AL, Morgan FN. Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation. Calif Manage Rev 2008;50:66–94. 7. Vanhaecht K, Panella M, Van Zelm R, et al. Is there a future for pathways? Five pieces of the puzzle. International Journal of Care Pathways 2009;13:82–6. 8. Chai KH, Zhang J, Tan KC. A TRIZ-based method for new service design. Journal of Service Research 2005;8:48–66. 9. Lin CS, Su CT. An innovative way to create new services: applying the TRIZ methodology. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers 2007;24:142–52. 10. Su CT, Lin CS, Chiang TL. Systematic improvement in service quality through TRIZ

methodology: an exploratory study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 2008;19:223–43.

11. Rohleder TR, Silver EA. A tutorial on business process improvement. Journal of Operations Management 1997;15:139–54. 12. Talib F, Rahman Z. Critical success factors of TQM in service organizations: a proposed model. Services Marketing Quarterly 2010;31:363–80. 13. Hsiao SL, Yang HL. A Service Experience Engineering (SEE) method for developing new services. International Journal of Management 2010;27:437–47. 14. Patrício L, Fisk RP, E Cunha JF, et al. Multilevel service design: from customer value constellation to service experience blueprinting. Journal of Service Research 2011;14:180– 200. 15. Klein M, Dellarocas C. Designing robust business processes. In: Malone TW, Crowston K, Herman GA, eds. Organizing business knowledge:The MIT process handbook. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press 2003:423-39.

63

16. Jansen-Vullers MH, Reijers HA. Business process redesign in healthcare: towards a structured approach. INFOR 2005;43:321–39. 17. Corbitt G, Wright L. Enhancing business process redesign: using tools to condense the process. In: HICSS’97: IEEE Proceedings of the 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 1997 Jan 7-10; Wailea, Hawaii. 440-6. 18. Corbitt GF, Christopolus M, Wright L. New approaches to business process redesign: a case study of collaborative group technology and service mapping. Group Decision and Negotiation 2000;9:97–107. 19. Dennis AR, Carte TA, Kelly GG. Breaking the rules: success and failure in groupware- supported business process reengineering. Decision Support Systems 2003;36:31–47. 20. Lee J, Pentland BT. Grammatical approach to organizational design. Cambridge (MA): MIT Sloan School of Management; 2000. MIT Center for Coordination Science Technical Report No. 215. 21. Lee J, Wyner GM, Pentland BT. Process grammar as a tool for business process design. MIS Quarterly 2008;32:757–78. 22. Nissen ME. An intelligent tool for process redesign: manufacturing supply-chain applications. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 2000;12:321–39. 23. Reijers HA, Limam Mansar S. Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics. Omega 2005;33:283–306. 24. Limam Mansar S, Marir F, Reijers HA. Case-based reasoning as a technique for knowledge management in business process redesign. Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management 2003;1:113–24. 25. Bernstein A, Klein M, Malone TW. The process recombinator: a tool for generating new business process ideas. In: De P, DeGross JI, eds. ICIS’99: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Information Systems; 1999 Dec 12-15; Charlotte (NC), USA. Atlanta (GA): Association for Information Systems 1999:178-92. 26. Klein M, Petti C. A handbook-based methodology for redesigning business processes. Knowledge and Process Management 2006;13:108-19; 27. Malone TW, Crowston K, Lee J, et al. Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes. Management Science 1999;45:425–43. 28. Margherita A, Klein M, Elia G. Metrics-based process redesign with the MIT process handbook. Knowledge and Process Management 2007;14:46–57. 29. Albano F, Pino JA, Borges MRS. Participatory business process reengineering design: generating solutions. In: SCCC 2001: IEEE Proceedings of the 21th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society; 2001 Nov 7-9; Punta Arenas, Chile. 13-22. 30. Piirainen K, Elfvengren K, Korpela J, et al. Improving the effectiveness of business process development through collaboration engineering: a method for process elicitation. In:

64

HICSS’09: IEEE Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 2009 Jan 5-8; Big Island, Hawaii. 1-10. 31. Mouro EZ, Borges MRS, Garcez CR. A groupware tool to support participatory business process reengineering. In: IEEE Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Groupware; 1999 Sep 22-24; Cancún, Mexico. 314-21. 32. Netjes M, Reijers HA, Van der Aalst WMP. The PrICE tool kit: tool support for process improvement. In: La Rosa M, eds. BPM 2010 demonstration track: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Business Process Management; 2010 Sep 14-16; Hoboken (NY), USA. 58-63. 33. Thong JYL, Yap CS, Seah KL. A consolidated methodology for business process reengineering. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology 2003;17:1–15. 34. Valiris G, Glykas M. Critical review of existing BPR methodologies: the need for a holistic approach. Business Process Management Journal 1999;5:65–86.

65

Appendix E: Method element codings per study

P ID Title Source name Authors Year Method.Aim (developed method)

Method.Aim (reviewed method)

Method.Actors (developed method)

Method.Actors (reviewed method)

1 642 Business process redesign in healthcare: towards a structured approach

INFOR MH Jansen-Vullers; HA Reijers

2005 Cost Time Quality External quality Flexibility

Process actor Management IS specialist External consultant

Process actor Management External consultant

1 664 A TRIZ-based method for new service design

Journal of Service Research

K-H Chai; J Zhang; K-C Tan

2005

1 865 A consolidated methodology for business process reengineering

International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology

JYL Thong; C-S Yap; KL Seah

2003 Cost Time Quality External quality

Process actor IS specialist External consultant

1 1073 Visualized guidelines for IT-enabled process change

Information Resources Management Journal

MR Hoogeweegen 2000 Cost Time External quality Flexibility

Radical improvement Incremental improvement

1 1076 An intelligent tool for process redesign: manufacturing supply-chain applications

International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems

ME Nissen 2000 Cost Time

Process actor Management

External consultant

1 1111 New approaches to business process redesign: a case study of collaborative group technology and service mapping

Group Decision and Negotiation

GF Corbitt; M Christopolus; L Wright

2000 Revenue Cost Quality

Process actor

1 1331 Business process change: a study of methodologies, techniques, and tools

MIS Quarterly WJ Kettinger; JTC Teng; S Guha

1997 Cost Quality External quality Radical improvement Incremental improvement

Process actor Management IS specialist

66

1 1464 Methodology-driven use of automated support in business process re-engineering

Journal of Management Information Systems

AR Dennis; RM Daniels Jr; G Hayes et al

1994 Cost Time Quality External quality Radical improvement Incremental improvement

Process actor Management Customer Supplier External consultant

1 1616 Applying Lean Six Sigma and TRIZ methodology in banking services

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

F-K Wang; K-S Chen

2010 Cost Time Quality External quality

1 1768 ARMA: a multi-disciplinary approach to BPR

Knowledge and Process Management

M Glykas; G Valiris 1999 Radical improvement Incremental improvement

Process actor

1 1771 Critical review of existing BPR methodologies: the need for a holistic approach

Business Process Management Journal

G Valiris; M Glykas 1999 Radical improvement Incremental improvement

Cost Time External quality

Process actor Management

1 1774 Process reverse engineering for BPR: a form-based approach

Information & Management

K-H Kim; Y-G Kim 1998 Time External quality

1 1819 Metrics-based process redesign with the MIT process handbook

Knowledge and Process Management

A Margherita; M Klein; G Elia

2007 Cost Time External quality Internal quality Flexibility

1 1973 A structured evaluation of business process improvement approaches

Business Process Management Journal

G Zellner 2011

1 1989 A Service Experience Engineering (SEE) method for developing new services

International Journal of Management

S-L Hsiao; H-L Yang

2010 Revenue Cost External quality

1 2085 A handbook-based methodology for redesigning business processes

Knowledge and Process Management

M Klein; C Petti 2006 Process actor BPR specialist

1 2089 Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation

California Management Review

MJ Bitner; AL Ostrom; FN Morgan

2008 External quality Process actor Management BPR specialist Customer

67

1 2149 Multilevel service design: From customer value constellation to service experience blueprinting

Journal of Service Research

L Patrício; RP Fisk; JF e Cunha et al

2011 Process actor Management IS specialist Marketing specialist

1 2225 Systematic improvement in service quality through TRIZ methodology: an exploratory study

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

C-T Su; C-S Lin; T-L Chiang

2008 External quality

1 2428 PAWS: towards a participatory approach to business process reengineering

International Workshop on Groupware

MRS Borges; JA Pino

1999 Process actor Management External consultant

1 2530 An innovative way to create new services: applying the TRIZ methodology

Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers

C-S Lin; C-T Su 2007 Cost Time

Management

1 2560 Enhancing business process redesign: using tools to condense the process

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

G Corbitt; L Wright 1997 External quality Process actor

1 3136 Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes

Management Science

TW Malone; K Crowston; J Lee et al

1999 Cost Time Internal quality

1 3137 Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes

Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises

TW Malone; K Crowston; J Lee et al

1993 Cost Time External quality

Process actor Management BPR specialist External consultant

1 3200 A groupware tool to support participatory business process reengineering

International Workshop on Groupware

EZ Mouro; MRS Borges; CR Garcez

1999 Cost Quality

Process actor Management External consultant

1 3227 Intelligent tools for workflow process redesign: a research agenda

International Conference on Business Process Management

M Netjes; I Vanderfeesten; HA Reijers

2006 Cost Time Quality Flexibility

Process actor Management External consultant

68

1 3298 Improving the effectiveness of business process development through collaboration engineering: a method for process elicitation

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

K Piirainen; K Elfvengren; J Korpela et al

2009 Revenue Cost External quality

Process actor

1 3408 Process life cycle engineering: a knowledge-based approach and environment

International Journal of Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management

W Scacchi; P Mi 1997

1 3440 A decision-based approach to business process improvement

International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics

K Shahzad; J Zdravkovic

2010 Cost Time Quality Flexibility

1 3447 Workflow reengineering: a methodology for business process reengineering using workflow management technology

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

LTSM Bitzer; MN Kamel

1997 Revenue Cost Time External quality Internal quality Flexibility

Process actor Finance specialist IS specialist Customer External consultant

1 3469 Service/product engineering as a potential approach to value enhancement in supply chains

Progress in Industrial Ecology - An International Journal

A Simboli; A Raggi; L Petti et al.

2008 Cost External quality

1 BFT01 Participatory business process reengineering design: generating solutions

International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society

F Albano; JA Pino; MRS Borges

2001 Process actor Management External consultant

1 BFT02 The process recombinator: a tool for generating new business process ideas

International Conference on Information Systems

A Bernstein; M Klein; TW Malone

1999

1 BFT03 Analysis of techniques for business process improvement

European Conference on Information Systems

P Griesberger; S Leist; G Zellner

2011 Cost Time External quality Internal quality Flexibility

69

1 BFT04 Selecting the best strategic practices for business process redesign

Business Process Management Journal

P Hanafizadeh; M Moosakhani; J Bakhshi

2009 Cost Time Quality Flexibility

1 BFT06 Grammatical approach to organizational design

MIT Center for Coordination Science Technical Report

J Lee; BT Pentland 2000

1 BFT07 Case-based reasoning as a technique for knowledge management in business process redesign

Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management

S Limam Mansar; F Marir; HA Reijers

2003 Cost Time Quality Flexibility

Management External consultant

1 BFT08 Development of a decision-making strategy to improve the efficiency of BPR

Expert Systems with Applications

S Limam Mansar; H A Reijers; F Ounnar

2009 Revenue Cost Time Quality External quality

External consultant

1 BFT09 On the formal generation of process redesigns

International Conference on Business Process Management

M Netjes; HA Reijers; WMP van der Aalst

2009 Cost Time Quality

1 BFT10 Performing business process redesign with best practices: an evolutionary approach

International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

M Netjes; S Limam Mansar; HA Reijers et al

2009 Cost Time Quality

1 BFT11 Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics

Omega HA Reijers; S Limam Mansar

2005 Cost Time Quality Flexibility

1 BFT12 A tutorial on business process improvement

Journal of Operations Management

TR Rohleder; EA Silver

1997 Cost Time External quality Flexibility Radical improvement Incremental improvement

Process actor Customer External consultant

70

1 BFT13 Towards a goal-driven approach for business process improvement using process-oriented data warehouse

International Conference on Business Information Systems

K Shahzad; C Giannoulis

2011 Cost Time Quality Flexibility

1 BFT18 Designing robust business processes

Organizing business knowledge: The MIT process handbook

M Klein; C Dellarocas

2003

1 BFT19 Process grammar as a tool for business process design

MIS Quarterly J Lee; GM Wyner; BT Pentland

2008

1 BFT20 The PrICE Tool Kit: tool support for process improvement

International Conference on Business Process Management

M Netjes; HA Reijers; WMP van der Aalst

2010 Process actor External consultant

1 BFT21 Development of a hybrid model to improve the efficiency of business process reengineering

International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management

W-H Tsai; C-C Yang; H-C Kuo

2009 Revenue Cost Time Quality External quality

Process actor Management

1 AC4 Model-based support for business re-engineering

Information and Software Technology

S Jarzabek; TW Ling

1996 Cost Time External quality Flexibility

Process actor BPR specialist

2 176 Empirically testing determinants of hospital BPR success

International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance

M Do Carmo Caccia-Bava; VCK Guimaraes; T Guimaraes

2005 Revenue Cost Time External quality Internal quality

Process actor

2 627 An examination of the role of organizational enablers in business process reengineering and the impact of information technology

Information Resources Management Journal

HR Ahadi 2004 Revenue Cost Time External quality Internal quality

Process actor Management HR specialist IS specialist Customer External consultant

71

2 834 Business process change and organizational performance: exploring an antecedent model

Journal of Management Information Systems

S Guha; V Grover; WJ Kettinger et al

1997 Revenue Cost Time External quality Internal quality Flexibility Radical improvement Incremental improvement

Process actor Management External consultant

2 836 Empirically testing the antecedents of BPR success

International Journal of Production Economics

T Guimaraes 1997 Revenue Cost Time External quality Internal quality

External consultant

2 870 Critical factors for the effectiveness of clinical pathway in improving care outcomes

International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management

J Shi; Q Su; Z Zhao 2008 Cost Time External quality

Process actor

2 1286 Critical success factors of TQM in service organizations: a proposed model

Services Marketing Quarterly

F Talib; Z Rahman 2010 Revenue Cost Time Quality External quality

Process actor Supplier

2 1661 The state of business process reengineering: a search for success factors

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

D Paper; R-D Chang

2005 Process actor

2 1672 Breaking the rules: success and failure in groupware-supported business process reengineering

Decision Support Systems

AR Dennis; TA Carte; GG Kelly

2003 Cost Time Quality External quality Radical improvement Incremental improvement

Process actor Management Finance specialist IS specialist Marketing specialist Customer Supplier External consultant Peer

2 2059 Is there a future for pathways? Five pieces of the puzzle

International Journal of Care Pathways

K Vanhaecht; M Panella; R van Zelm et al

2009 Cost Quality Internal quality

Process actor Management Patient

72

2 BFT3 Collaborative business engineering: a decade of lessons from the field

Journal of Management Information Systems

M Hengst; GJ de Vreede

2004 Cost Time External quality Internal quality Radical improvement Incremental improvement

Management IS specialist Customer Supplier External consultant

2 BFT7 Prevalence and use of clinical pathways in 23 countries - an international survey by the European Pathway Association

International Journal of Care Pathways

K Vanhaecht; M Bollmann; K Bower et al

2006 Cost Time External quality Internal quality

Process actor Management Patient Supplier

2 AC2 The implementation of business process reengineering

Journal of Management Information Systems

V Grover; SR Jeong; WJ Kettinger et al

1995 Revenue Cost Time External quality

IS specialist Customer External consultant

2 AC7 Business process reengineering: application and success - an Australian study

International Journal of Operations & Production Management

P O'Neill; AS Sohal 1998 Revenue Cost Time Quality External quality

Process actor Management BPR specialist IS specialist Customer Supplier External consultant

Table E.1. Method element codings per study (Method.Aim, Method.Actors). P = Part.

73

P ID Title Source name Authors Year Method.Input (developed method)

Method.Input (reviewed method)

Method.Output (developed method)

Method.Output (reviewed method)

1 642 Business process redesign in healthcare: towards a structured approach

INFOR MH Jansen-Vullers; HA Reijers

2005 Process output goals Risks Process model Simulation model

Process model Summary redesign proposals Process models Simulation models Impact analyses

1 664 A TRIZ-based method for new service design

Journal of Service Research

K-H Chai; J Zhang; K-C Tan

2005 Process output goals Customer needs Constraints Problem investigation Previous solutions

Summary redesign proposals

1 865 A consolidated methodology for business process reengineering

International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology

JYL Thong; C-S Yap; KL Seah

2003 Process output goals Customer needs Process model Process output measures Problem investigation Technology developments

Summary redesign proposals Process models Simulation models Impact analyses

1 1073 Visualized guidelines for IT-enabled process change

Information Resources Management Journal

MR Hoogeweegen 2000 Process model Process output goals

Process models

1 1076 An intelligent tool for process redesign: manufacturing supply-chain applications

International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems

ME Nissen 2000 Process model Process measures

Summary redesign proposals Simulation models Impact analyses

1 1111 New approaches to business process redesign: a case study of collaborative group technology and service mapping

Group Decision and Negotiation

GF Corbitt; M Christopolus; L Wright

2000 Customer needs Process model Problem investigation

Summary redesign proposals Textual process descriptions Process models Force-field-analyses

1 1331 Business process change: a study of methodologies, techniques, and tools

MIS Quarterly WJ Kettinger; JTC Teng; S Guha

1997 Process output goals Customer needs Process model Process output measures Problem investigation Culture scan Technology developments

Process models Simulation models Force-field-analyses

74

1 1464 Methodology-driven use of automated support in business process re-engineering

Journal of Management Information Systems

AR Dennis; RM Daniels Jr; G Hayes et al

1994 Process output goals Constraints Process model Problem investigation

Summary redesign proposals

1 1616 Applying Lean Six Sigma and TRIZ methodology in banking services

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

F-K Wang; K-S Chen

2010 Process output goals Process model Process output measures Problem investigation

Process models

1 1768 ARMA: a multi-disciplinary approach to BPR

Knowledge and Process Management

M Glykas; G Valiris 1999 Process output goals Process model Process output measures

Summary redesign proposals Process models

1 1771 Critical review of existing BPR methodologies: the need for a holistic approach

Business Process Management Journal

G Valiris; M Glykas 1999 Process output goals Process model Process output measures

Process output goals Process model Process output measures

Summary redesign proposals Process models

1 1774 Process reverse engineering for BPR: a form-based approach

Information & Management

K-H Kim; Y-G Kim 1998 Process model Process output measures Process measures

Process model Process models

1 1819 Metrics-based process redesign with the MIT process handbook

Knowledge and Process Management

A Margherita; M Klein; G Elia

2007 Textual process description

Process output goals Process output measures Problem investigation

Textual process descriptions TO-BE exception handlers Impact analyses

1 1973 A structured evaluation of business process improvement approaches

Business Process Management Journal

G Zellner 2011

1 1989 A Service Experience Engineering (SEE) method for developing new services

International Journal of Management

S-L Hsiao; H-L Yang

2010 Customer needs Technology developments Industry value net

TO-BE service concepts Process models

1 2085 A handbook-based methodology for redesigning business processes

Knowledge and Process Management

M Klein; C Petti 2006 Textual process description

Textual process descriptions TO-BE exception handlers

1 2089 Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation

California Management Review

MJ Bitner; AL Ostrom; FN Morgan

2008 Process model Different opinions with regard to AS-IS process specification Benchmark process models

Summary redesign proposals Process models

75

1 2149 Multilevel service design: From customer value constellation to service experience blueprinting

Journal of Service Research

L Patrício; RP Fisk; JF e Cunha et al

2011 Customer needs Process model Problem investigation

TO-BE service concepts Process models

1 2225 Systematic improvement in service quality through TRIZ methodology: an exploratory study

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

C-T Su; C-S Lin; T-L Chiang

2008 Process output goals Customer needs Problem investigation Previous solutions

Summary redesign proposals Impact analyses

1 2428 PAWS: towards a participatory approach to business process reengineering

International Workshop on Groupware

MRS Borges; JA Pino

1999 Process output goals Process model Problem investigation

Summary redesign proposals Process models Simulation models Impact analyses

1 2530 An innovative way to create new services: applying the TRIZ methodology

Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers

C-S Lin; C-T Su 2007 Process output goals Customer needs Problem investigation Previous solutions

Summary redesign proposals Impact analyses

1 2560 Enhancing business process redesign: using tools to condense the process

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

G Corbitt; L Wright 1997 Customer needs Process model Problem investigation

Summary redesign proposals Process models Force-field-analyses

1 3136 Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes

Management Science

TW Malone; K Crowston; J Lee et al

1999 Textual process descriptions

1 3137 Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes

Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises

TW Malone; K Crowston; J Lee et al

1993 Process output goals Textual process description

Textual process descriptions

1 3200 A groupware tool to support participatory business process reengineering

International Workshop on Groupware

EZ Mouro; MRS Borges; CR Garcez

1999 Process output goals Process model Problem investigation

Summary redesign proposals Process models Impact analyses

1 3227 Intelligent tools for workflow process redesign: a research agenda

International Conference on Business Process Management

M Netjes; I Vanderfeesten; HA Reijers

2006 Process output goals Process model

Process models

76

1 3298 Improving the effectiveness of business process development through collaboration engineering: a method for process elicitation

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

K Piirainen; K Elfvengren; J Korpela et al

2009 Process output goals Process model Problem investigation

Summary redesign proposals

1 3408 Process life cycle engineering: a knowledge-based approach and environment

International Journal of Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management

W Scacchi; P Mi 1997 Process model Simulation model Process output measures Process measures Problem investigation

Process models Simulation models

1 3440 A decision-based approach to business process improvement

International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics

K Shahzad; J Zdravkovic

2010 Process output goals Process output measures

Summary redesign proposals Impact analyses

1 3447 Workflow reengineering: a methodology for business process reengineering using workflow management technology

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

LTSM Bitzer; MN Kamel

1997 Process output goals Customer needs Process model Process output measures Benchmark process insights Technology developments

Process models Simulation models Impact analyses

1 3469 Service/product engineering as a potential approach to value enhancement in supply chains

Progress in Industrial Ecology - An International Journal

A Simboli; A Raggi; L Petti et al.

2008 Customer / stakeholder needs Process output measures

TO-BE service concepts Process models

1 BFT01 Participatory business process reengineering design: generating solutions

International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society

F Albano; JA Pino; MRS Borges

2001 Process output goals Process model Problem investigation

Summary redesign proposals Process models Simulation models Impact analyses

1 BFT02 The process recombinator: a tool for generating new business process ideas

International Conference on Information Systems

A Bernstein; M Klein; TW Malone

1999 Textual process description

Textual process descriptions Impact analyses

1 BFT03 Analysis of techniques for business process improvement

European Conference on Information Systems

P Griesberger; S Leist; G Zellner

2011

77

1 BFT04 Selecting the best strategic practices for business process redesign

Business Process Management Journal

P Hanafizadeh; M Moosakhani; J Bakhshi

2009 Process output goals Process model Problem investigation

Process models

1 BFT06 Grammatical approach to organizational design

MIT Center for Coordination Science Technical Report

J Lee; BT Pentland 2000 Textual process description

Benchmark process insights

Textual process descriptions

1 BFT07 Case-based reasoning as a technique for knowledge management in business process redesign

Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management

S Limam Mansar; F Marir; HA Reijers

2003 Process output goals Textual process description Problem investigation

Summary redesign proposals

1 BFT08 Development of a decision-making strategy to improve the efficiency of BPR

Expert Systems with Applications

S Limam Mansar; H A Reijers; F Ounnar

2009 Process output goals Risks

1 BFT09 On the formal generation of process redesigns

International Conference on Business Process Management

M Netjes; HA Reijers; WMP van der Aalst

2009 Process model Process measures

Process models Impact analyses

1 BFT10 Performing business process redesign with best practices: an evolutionary approach

International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

M Netjes; S Limam Mansar; HA Reijers et al

2009 Process model Process measures

Process models Simulation models Impact analyses

1 BFT11 Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics

Omega HA Reijers; S Limam Mansar

2005 Process model

1 BFT12 A tutorial on business process improvement

Journal of Operations Management

TR Rohleder; EA Silver

1997 Process output goals Process model Process output measures Problem investigation Benchmark process insights

Process models Simulation models Impact analyses

1 BFT13 Towards a goal-driven approach for business process improvement using process-oriented data warehouse

International Conference on Business Information Systems

K Shahzad; C Giannoulis

2011 Process output goals Process output measures

Summary redesign proposals Impact analyses

78

1 BFT18 Designing robust business processes

Organizing business knowledge: The MIT process handbook

M Klein; C Dellarocas

2003 Textual process description

TO-BE exception handlers

1 BFT19 Process grammar as a tool for business process design

MIS Quarterly J Lee; GM Wyner; BT Pentland

2008 Textual process description

Textual process descriptions

1 BFT20 The PrICE Tool Kit: tool support for process improvement

International Conference on Business Process Management

M Netjes; HA Reijers; WMP van der Aalst

2010 Process model Process measures

Process models Simulation models Impact analyses

1 BFT21 Development of a hybrid model to improve the efficiency of business process reengineering

International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management

W-H Tsai; C-C Yang; H-C Kuo

2009 Process output goals

1 AC4 Model-based support for business re-engineering

Information and Software Technology

S Jarzabek; TW Ling

1996 Process output goals Process model Process output measures Problem investigation

Process model Simulation model Process output measures Problem investigation

Process models

2 176 Empirically testing determinants of hospital BPR success

International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance

M Do Carmo Caccia-Bava; VCK Guimaraes; T Guimaraes

2005 Problem investigation

2 627 An examination of the role of organizational enablers in business process reengineering and the impact of information technology

Information Resources Management Journal

HR Ahadi 2004 Process output goals Customer needs

2 834 Business process change and organizational performance: exploring an antecedent model

Journal of Management Information Systems

S Guha; V Grover; WJ Kettinger et al

1997 Process output goals Process model Process output measures Problem investigation Technology developments

79

2 836 Empirically testing the antecedents of BPR success

International Journal of Production Economics

T Guimaraes 1997 Process output goals Process model Problem investigation

2 870 Critical factors for the effectiveness of clinical pathway in improving care outcomes

International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management

J Shi; Q Su; Z Zhao 2008

2 1286 Critical success factors of TQM in service organizations: a proposed model

Services Marketing Quarterly

F Talib; Z Rahman 2010 Customer needs Process output measures Benchmark process insights

2 1661 The state of business process reengineering: a search for success factors

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

D Paper; R-D Chang

2005 Process model

2 1672 Breaking the rules: success and failure in groupware-supported business process reengineering

Decision Support Systems

AR Dennis; TA Carte; GG Kelly

2003 Process model Problem investigation Benchmark process insights

Process models

2 2059 Is there a future for pathways? Five pieces of the puzzle

International Journal of Care Pathways

K Vanhaecht; M Panella; R van Zelm et al

2009 Customer needs Medical guidelines / key interventions

2 BFT3 Collaborative business engineering: a decade of lessons from the field

Journal of Management Information Systems

M Hengst; GJ de Vreede

2004 Process model Simulation model Problem investigation

Simulation models

2 BFT7 Prevalence and use of clinical pathways in 23 countries - an international survey by the European Pathway Association

International Journal of Care Pathways

K Vanhaecht; M Bollmann; K Bower et al

2006 Customer needs Medical guidelines

2 AC2 The implementation of business process reengineering

Journal of Management Information Systems

V Grover; SR Jeong; WJ Kettinger et al

1995 Process output goals Customer needs Problem investigation Technology developments

80

2 AC7 Business process reengineering: application and success - an Australian study

International Journal of Operations & Production Management

P O'Neill; AS Sohal 1998 Process output goals Process model

Table E.2. Method element codings per study (Method.Input, Method.Output). P = Part.

81

P ID Title Source name Authors Year Method.Technique (developed method)

Method.Technique (reviewed method)

Method.Tool (developed method)

Method.Tool (reviewed method)

1 642 Business process redesign in healthcare: towards a structured approach

INFOR MH Jansen-Vullers; HA Reijers

2005 Rule-based Unstructured (unspecified)

Modeling Simulation Specific

1 664 A TRIZ-based method for new service design

Journal of Service Research

K-H Chai; J Zhang; K-C Tan

2005 Rule-based Unstructured (unspecified) Brainstorming

1 865 A consolidated methodology for business process reengineering

International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology

JYL Thong; C-S Yap; KL Seah

2003 Brainstorming Out-of-the-Box thinking Visioning

Modeling Simulation

1 1073 Visualized guidelines for IT-enabled process change

Information Resources Management Journal

MR Hoogeweegen 2000 Rule-based Unstructured (unspecified) Brainstorming

1 1076 An intelligent tool for process redesign: manufacturing supply-chain applications

International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems

ME Nissen 2000 Rule-based Case-based Simulation Specific

1 1111 New approaches to business process redesign: a case study of collaborative group technology and service mapping

Group Decision and Negotiation

GF Corbitt; M Christopolus; L Wright

2000 Nominal group Communication Voting Modeling Repository

1 1331 Business process change: a study of methodologies, techniques, and tools

MIS Quarterly WJ Kettinger; JTC Teng; S Guha

1997 Brainstorming Out-of-the-Box thinking Visioning Delphi Nominal group

Communication Voting Modeling Simulation

1 1464 Methodology-driven use of automated support in business process re-engineering

Journal of Management Information Systems

AR Dennis; RM Daniels Jr; G Hayes et al

1994 Nominal group Communication Repository

1 1616 Applying Lean Six Sigma and TRIZ methodology in banking services

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

F-K Wang; K-S Chen

2010 Rule-based Brainstorming

1 1768 ARMA: a multi-disciplinary approach to BPR

Knowledge and Process Management

M Glykas; G Valiris 1999

82

1 1771 Critical review of existing BPR methodologies: the need for a holistic approach

Business Process Management Journal

G Valiris; M Glykas 1999 Repository

1 1774 Process reverse engineering for BPR: a form-based approach

Information & Management

K-H Kim; Y-G Kim 1998 Rule-based Specific

1 1819 Metrics-based process redesign with the MIT process handbook

Knowledge and Process Management

A Margherita; M Klein; G Elia

2007 Repository-based Repository

1 1973 A structured evaluation of business process improvement approaches

Business Process Management Journal

G Zellner 2011 Unstructured (unspecified) Brainstorming

1 1989 A Service Experience Engineering (SEE) method for developing new services

International Journal of Management

S-L Hsiao; H-L Yang

2010 Multi-level design

1 2085 A handbook-based methodology for redesigning business processes

Knowledge and Process Management

M Klein; C Petti 2006 Repository-based Brainstorming Out-of-the-Box thinking Visioning Nominal group

Repository

1 2089 Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation

California Management Review

MJ Bitner; AL Ostrom; FN Morgan

2008 Brainstorming

1 2149 Multilevel service design: From customer value constellation to service experience blueprinting

Journal of Service Research

L Patrício; RP Fisk; JF e Cunha et al

2011 Multi-level design

1 2225 Systematic improvement in service quality through TRIZ methodology: an exploratory study

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

C-T Su; C-S Lin; T-L Chiang

2008 Rule-based Unstructured (unspecified) Brainstorming Out-of-the-Box thinking

1 2428 PAWS: towards a participatory approach to business process reengineering

International Workshop on Groupware

MRS Borges; JA Pino

1999 Nominal group Communication Modeling Repository

1 2530 An innovative way to create new services: applying the TRIZ methodology

Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers

C-S Lin; C-T Su 2007 Rule-based Unstructured (unspecified) Brainstorming Out-of-the-Box thinking

83

1 2560 Enhancing business process redesign: using tools to condense the process

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

G Corbitt; L Wright 1997 Nominal group Communication Voting Repository

1 3136 Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes

Management Science

TW Malone; K Crowston; J Lee et al

1999 Repository-based Case-based Repository

1 3137 Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes

Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises

TW Malone; K Crowston; J Lee et al

1993 Repository-based Repository

1 3200 A groupware tool to support participatory business process reengineering

International Workshop on Groupware

EZ Mouro; MRS Borges; CR Garcez

1999 Nominal group Communication Voting Modeling Repository

1 3227 Intelligent tools for workflow process redesign: a research agenda

International Conference on Business Process Management

M Netjes; I Vanderfeesten; HA Reijers

2006 Rule-based Unstructured (unspecified) Grammar-based Case-based Repository-based

1 3298 Improving the effectiveness of business process development through collaboration engineering: a method for process elicitation

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

K Piirainen; K Elfvengren; J Korpela et al

2009 Nominal group Communication Voting Repository

1 3408 Process life cycle engineering: a knowledge-based approach and environment

International Journal of Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management

W Scacchi; P Mi 1997 Rule-based Unstructured (unspecified)

Simulation

1 3440 A decision-based approach to business process improvement

International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics

K Shahzad; J Zdravkovic

2010 Rule-based

84

1 3447 Workflow reengineering: a methodology for business process reengineering using workflow management technology

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

LTSM Bitzer; MN Kamel

1997 Rule-based Modeling Simulation

1 3469 Service/product engineering as a potential approach to value enhancement in supply chains

Progress in Industrial Ecology - An International Journal

A Simboli; A Raggi; L Petti et al.

2008 Multi-level design Modeling Repository

1 BFT01 Participatory business process reengineering design: generating solutions

International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society

F Albano; JA Pino; MRS Borges

2001 Nominal group Communication Voting Modeling Simulation Repository

1 BFT02 The process recombinator: a tool for generating new business process ideas

International Conference on Information Systems

A Bernstein; M Klein; TW Malone

1999 Repository-based Unstructured (unspecified) Brainstorming

Repository

1 BFT03 Analysis of techniques for business process improvement

European Conference on Information Systems

P Griesberger; S Leist; G Zellner

2011 Unstructured (unspecified) Brainstorming

1 BFT04 Selecting the best strategic practices for business process redesign

Business Process Management Journal

P Hanafizadeh; M Moosakhani; J Bakhshi

2009 Rule-based

1 BFT06 Grammatical approach to organizational design

MIT Center for Coordination Science Technical Report

J Lee; BT Pentland 2000 Grammar-based Brainstorming Visioning Nominal group Rule-based

1 BFT07 Case-based reasoning as a technique for knowledge management in business process redesign

Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management

S Limam Mansar; F Marir; HA Reijers

2003 Case-based Rule-based Repository

1 BFT08 Development of a decision-making strategy to improve the efficiency of BPR

Expert Systems with Applications

S Limam Mansar; H A Reijers; F Ounnar

2009 Rule-based Unstructured (unspecified) Brainstorming Grammar-based Case-based Repository-based

Specific

85

1 BFT09 On the formal generation of process redesigns

International Conference on Business Process Management

M Netjes; HA Reijers; WMP van der Aalst

2009 Rule-based Modeling

1 BFT10 Performing business process redesign with best practices: an evolutionary approach

International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

M Netjes; S Limam Mansar; HA Reijers et al

2009 Rule-based Modeling

1 BFT11 Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics

Omega HA Reijers; S Limam Mansar

2005 Rule-based Unstructured (unspecified)

1 BFT12 A tutorial on business process improvement

Journal of Operations Management

TR Rohleder; EA Silver

1997 Unstructured (unspecified) Brainstorming

1 BFT13 Towards a goal-driven approach for business process improvement using process-oriented data warehouse

International Conference on Business Information Systems

K Shahzad; C Giannoulis

2011 Rule-based

1 BFT18 Designing robust business processes

Organizing business knowledge: The MIT process handbook

M Klein; C Dellarocas

2003 Repository-based Unstructured (unspecified)

Repository

1 BFT19 Process grammar as a tool for business process design

MIS Quarterly J Lee; GM Wyner; BT Pentland

2008 Grammar-based Unstructured (unspecified) Rule-based Repository-based

Repository

1 BFT20 The PrICE Tool Kit: tool support for process improvement

International Conference on Business Process Management

M Netjes; HA Reijers; WMP van der Aalst

2010 Rule-based Unstructured (unspecified)

Modeling Simulation Repository

1 BFT21 Development of a hybrid model to improve the efficiency of business process reengineering

International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management

W-H Tsai; C-C Yang; H-C Kuo

2009 Rule-based

1 AC4 Model-based support for business re-engineering

Information and Software Technology

S Jarzabek; TW Ling

1996 Communication Repository

Modeling

86

2 176 Empirically testing determinants of hospital BPR success

International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance

M Do Carmo Caccia-Bava; VCK Guimaraes; T Guimaraes

2005

2 627 An examination of the role of organizational enablers in business process reengineering and the impact of information technology

Information Resources Management Journal

HR Ahadi 2004

2 834 Business process change and organizational performance: exploring an antecedent model

Journal of Management Information Systems

S Guha; V Grover; WJ Kettinger et al

1997

2 836 Empirically testing the antecedents of BPR success

International Journal of Production Economics

T Guimaraes 1997

2 870 Critical factors for the effectiveness of clinical pathway in improving care outcomes

International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management

J Shi; Q Su; Z Zhao 2008

2 1286 Critical success factors of TQM in service organizations: a proposed model

Services Marketing Quarterly

F Talib; Z Rahman 2010

2 1661 The state of business process reengineering: a search for success factors

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

D Paper; R-D Chang

2005

2 1672 Breaking the rules: success and failure in groupware-supported business process reengineering

Decision Support Systems

AR Dennis; TA Carte; GG Kelly

2003 Brainstorming Out-of-the-Box thinking Visioning Rule-based

Communication Voting Modeling Repository

2 2059 Is there a future for pathways? Five pieces of the puzzle

International Journal of Care Pathways

K Vanhaecht; M Panella; R van Zelm et al

2009

2 BFT3 Collaborative business engineering: a decade of lessons from the field

Journal of Management Information Systems

M Hengst; GJ de Vreede

2004 Communication Modeling Simulation Repository

87

2 BFT7 Prevalence and use of clinical pathways in 23 countries - an international survey by the European Pathway Association

International Journal of Care Pathways

K Vanhaecht; M Bollmann; K Bower et al

2006

2 AC2 The implementation of business process reengineering

Journal of Management Information Systems

V Grover; SR Jeong; WJ Kettinger et al

1995

2 AC7 Business process reengineering: application and success - an Australian study

International Journal of Operations & Production Management

P O'Neill; AS Sohal 1998

Table E.3. Method element codings per study (Method.Technique, Method.Tool). P = Part.

Working Papers Beta 2009 - 2013 nr. Year Title Author(s)

437 436 435 434 433 432 431 430 429 428 427 426

2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013

Methodological support for business process Redesign in healthcare: a systematic literature review Dynamics and equilibria under incremental Horizontal differentiation on the Salop circle Analyzing Conformance to Clinical Protocols Involving Advanced Synchronizations Models for Ambulance Planning on the Strategic and the Tactical Level Mode Allocation and Scheduling of Inland Container Transportation: A Case-Study in the Netherlands Socially responsible transportation and lot sizing: Insights from multiobjective optimization Inventory routing for dynamic waste collection Simulation and Logistics Optimization of an Integrated Emergency Post Last Time Buy and Repair Decisions for Spare Parts A Review of Recent Research on Green Road Freight Transportation Typology of Repair Shops for Maintenance Spare Parts A value network development model and Implications for innovation and production network

Rob J.B. Vanwersch, Khurram Shahzad, Irene Vanderfeesten, Kris Vanhaecht, Paul Grefen, Liliane Pintelon, Jan Mendling, Geofridus G. Van Merode, Hajo A. Reijers B. Vermeulen, J.A. La Poutré, A.G. de Kok Hui Yan, Pieter Van Gorp, Uzay Kaymak, Xudong Lu, Richard Vdovjak, Hendriks H.M. Korsten, Huilong Duan J. Theresia van Essen, Johann L. Hurink, Stefan Nickel, Melanie Reuter Stefano Fazi, Tom Van Woensel, Jan C. Fransoo Yann Bouchery, Asma Ghaffari, Zied Jemai, Jan Fransoo Martijn Mes, Marco Schutten, Arturo Pérez Rivera N.J. Borgman, M.R.K. Mes, I.M.H. Vliegen, E.W. Hans S. Behfard, M.C. van der Heijden, A. Al Hanbali, W.H.M. Zijm Emrah Demir, Tolga Bektas, Gilbert Laporte M.A. Driessen, V.C.S. Wiers, G.J. van Houtum, W.D. Rustenburg B. Vermeulen, A.G. de Kok

425 424 423 422 421 420 419 418 417 416 415 414

2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013

management Single Vehicle Routing with Stochastic Demands: Approximate Dynamic Programming Influence of Spillback Effect on Dynamic Shortest Path Problems with Travel-Time-Dependent Network Disruptions Dynamic Shortest Path Problem with Travel-Time-Dependent Stochastic Disruptions: Hybrid Approximate Dynamic Programming Algorithms with a Clustering Approach System-oriented inventory models for spare parts Lost Sales Inventory Models with Batch Ordering And Handling Costs Response speed and the bullwhip Anticipatory Routing of Police Helicopters Supply Chain Finance. A conceptual framework to advance research Improving the Performance of Sorter Systems By Scheduling Inbound Containers Regional logistics land allocation policies: Stimulating spatial concentration of logistics firms The development of measures of process harmonization BASE/X. Business Agility through Cross- Organizational Service Engineering

C. Zhang, N.P. Dellaert, L. Zhao, T. Van Woensel, D. Sever Derya Sever, Nico Dellaert, Tom Van Woensel, Ton de Kok Derya Sever, Lei Zhao, Nico Dellaert, Tom Van Woensel, Ton de Kok R.J.I. Basten, G.J. van Houtum T. Van Woensel, N. Erkip, A. Curseu, J.C. Fransoo Maximiliano Udenio, Jan C. Fransoo, Eleni Vatamidou, Nico Dellaert Rick van Urk, Martijn R.K. Mes, Erwin W. Hans Kasper van der Vliet, Matthew J. Reindorp, Jan C. Fransoo S.W.A. Haneyah, J.M.J. Schutten, K. Fikse Frank P. van den Heuvel, Peter W. de Langen, Karel H. van Donselaar, Jan C. Fransoo Heidi L. Romero, Remco M. Dijkman, Paul W.P.J. Grefen, Arjan van Weele Paul Grefen, Egon Lüftenegger, Eric van der Linden, Caren Weisleder

413 412 411 410 409 408 407 406 405 404 403 402 401

2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2012

The Time-Dependent Vehicle Routing Problem with Soft Time Windows and Stochastic Travel Times Clearing the Sky - Understanding SLA Elements in Cloud Computing Approximations for the waiting time distribution In an M/G/c priority queue To co-locate or not? Location decisions and logistics concentration areas The Time-Dependent Pollution-Routing Problem Scheduling the scheduling task: A time Management perspective on scheduling Clustering Clinical Departments for Wards to Achieve a Prespecified Blocking Probability MyPHRMachines: Personal Health Desktops in the Cloud Maximising the Value of Supply Chain Finance Reaching 50 million nanostores: retail distribution in emerging megacities A Vehicle Routing Problem with Flexible Time Windows The Service Dominant Business Model: A Service Focused Conceptualization Relationship between freight accessibility and Logistics employment in US counties

Duygu Tas, Nico Dellaert, Tom van Woensel, Ton de Kok Marco Comuzzi, Guus Jacobs, Paul Grefen A. Al Hanbali, E.M. Alvarez, M.C. van der van der Heijden Frank P. van den Heuvel, Karel H. van Donselaar, Rob A.C.M. Broekmeulen, Jan C. Fransoo, Peter W. de Langen Anna Franceschetti, Dorothée Honhon,Tom van Woensel, Tolga Bektas, GilbertLaporte. J.A. Larco, V. Wiers, J. Fransoo J. Theresia van Essen, Mark van Houdenhoven, Johann L. Hurink Pieter Van Gorp, Marco Comuzzi Kasper van der Vliet, Matthew J. Reindorp, Jan C. Fransoo Edgar E. Blanco, Jan C. Fransoo Duygu Tas, Ola Jabali, Tom van Woensel Egon Lüftenegger, Marco Comuzzi, Paul Grefen, Caren Weisleder Frank P. van den Heuvel, Liliana Rivera,Karel H. van Donselaar, Ad de

400 399 398 397 396 395 394 393 392 391 390

2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012

A Condition-Based Maintenance Policy for Multi-Component Systems with a High Maintenance Setup Cost A flexible iterative improvement heuristic to Support creation of feasible shift rosters in Self-rostering Scheduled Service Network Design with Synchronization and Transshipment Constraints For Intermodal Container Transportation Networks Destocking, the bullwhip effect, and the credit Crisis: empirical modeling of supply chain Dynamics Vehicle routing with restricted loading capacities Service differentiation through selective lateral transshipments A Generalized Simulation Model of an Integrated Emergency Post Business Process Technology and the Cloud: Defining a Business Process Cloud Platform Vehicle Routing with Soft Time Windows and Stochastic Travel Times: A Column Generation And Branch-and-Price Solution Approach Improve OR-Schedule to Reduce Number of Required Beds How does development lead time affect performance over the ramp-up lifecycle?

Jong,Yossi Sheffi, Peter W. de Langen, Jan C.Fransoo Qiushi Zhu, Hao Peng, Geert-Jan van Houtum E. van der Veen, J.L. Hurink, J.M.J. Schutten, S.T. Uijland K. Sharypova, T.G. Crainic, T. van Woensel, J.C. Fransoo Maximiliano Udenio, Jan C. Fransoo, Robert Peels J. Gromicho, J.J. van Hoorn, A.L. Kok J.M.J. Schutten E.M. Alvarez, M.C. van der Heijden, I.M.H. Vliegen, W.H.M. Zijm Martijn Mes, Manon Bruens Vasil Stoitsev, Paul Grefen D. Tas, M. Gendreau, N. Dellaert, T. van Woensel, A.G. de Kok J.T. v. Essen, J.M. Bosch, E.W. Hans, M. v. Houdenhoven, J.L. Hurink Andres Pufall, Jan C. Fransoo, Ad de Jong

389 388 387 386 385 384 383 382 381 380 379

2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012

Evidence from the consumer electronics industry The Impact of Product Complexity on Ramp- Up Performance Co-location synergies: specialized versus diverse logistics concentration areas Proximity matters: Synergies through co-location of logistics establishments Spatial concentration and location dynamics in logistics:the case of a Dutch province FNet: An Index for Advanced Business Process Querying Defining Various Pathway Terms The Service Dominant Strategy Canvas: Defining and Visualizing a Service Dominant Strategy through the Traditional Strategic Lens A Stochastic Variable Size Bin Packing Problem With Time Constraints Coordination and Analysis of Barge Container Hinterland Networks Proximity matters: Synergies through co-location of logistics establishments

Andreas Pufall, Jan C. Fransoo, Ad de Jong, Ton de Kok Frank P.v.d. Heuvel, Peter W.de Langen, Karel H. v. Donselaar, Jan C. Fransoo Frank P.v.d. Heuvel, Peter W.de Langen, Karel H. v.Donselaar, Jan C. Fransoo Frank P. v.d.Heuvel, Peter W.de Langen, Karel H.v. Donselaar, Jan C. Fransoo Zhiqiang Yan, Remco Dijkman, Paul Grefen W.R. Dalinghaus, P.M.E. Van Gorp Egon Lüftenegger, Paul Grefen, Caren Weisleder Stefano Fazi, Tom van Woensel, Jan C. Fransoo K. Sharypova, T. van Woensel, J.C. Fransoo Frank P. van den Heuvel, Peter W. de Langen, Karel H. van Donselaar, Jan C. Fransoo Heidi Romero, Remco Dijkman, Paul Grefen, Arjan van Weele

378 377 375 374 373 372 371 370 369 368 367 366 365 364

2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011

A literature review in process harmonization: a conceptual framework A Generic Material Flow Control Model for Two Different Industries Improving the performance of sorter systems by scheduling inbound containers Strategies for dynamic appointment making by container terminals MyPHRMachines: Lifelong Personal Health Records in the Cloud Service differentiation in spare parts supply through dedicated stocks Spare parts inventory pooling: how to share the benefits Condition based spare parts supply Using Simulation to Assess the Opportunities of Dynamic Waste Collection Aggregate overhaul and supply chain planning for rotables Operating Room Rescheduling Switching Transport Modes to Meet Voluntary Carbon Emission Targets On two-echelon inventory systems with Poisson demand and lost sales Minimizing the Waiting Time for Emergency Surgery

S.W.A. Haneya, J.M.J. Schutten, P.C. Schuur, W.H.M. Zijm H.G.H. Tiemessen, M. Fleischmann, G.J. van Houtum, J.A.E.E. van Nunen, E. Pratsini Albert Douma, Martijn Mes Pieter van Gorp, Marco Comuzzi E.M. Alvarez, M.C. van der Heijden, W.H.M. Zijm Frank Karsten, Rob Basten X.Lin, R.J.I. Basten, A.A. Kranenburg, G.J. van Houtum Martijn Mes J. Arts, S.D. Flapper, K. Vernooij J.T. van Essen, J.L. Hurink, W. Hartholt, B.J. van den Akker Kristel M.R. Hoen, Tarkan Tan, Jan C. Fransoo, Geert-Jan van Houtum Elisa Alvarez, Matthieu van der Heijden J.T. van Essen, E.W. Hans, J.L. Hurink, A. Oversberg Duygu Tas, Nico Dellaert, Tom van Woensel, Ton de Kok

363 362 361 360 359 358 357 356 355 354 353 352 351 350 349 348

2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011

Vehicle Routing Problem with Stochastic Travel Times Including Soft Time Windows and Service Costs A New Approximate Evaluation Method for Two-Echelon Inventory Systems with Emergency Shipments Approximating Multi-Objective Time-Dependent Optimization Problems Branch and Cut and Price for the Time Dependent Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Window Analysis of an Assemble-to-Order System with Different Review Periods Interval Availability Analysis of a Two-Echelon, Multi-Item System Carbon-Optimal and Carbon-Neutral Supply Chains Generic Planning and Control of Automated Material Handling Systems: Practical Requirements Versus Existing Theory Last time buy decisions for products sold under warranty Spatial concentration and location dynamics in logistics: the case of a Dutch provence Identification of Employment Concentration Areas BOMN 2.0 Execution Semantics Formalized as Graph Rewrite Rules: extended version Resource pooling and cost allocation among independent service providers A Framework for Business Innovation Directions The Road to a Business Process Architecture: An Overview of Approaches and their Use

Erhun Özkan, Geert-Jan van Houtum, Yasemin Serin Said Dabia, El-Ghazali Talbi, Tom Van Woensel, Ton de Kok Said Dabia, Stefan Röpke, Tom Van Woensel, Ton de Kok A.G. Karaarslan, G.P. Kiesmüller, A.G. de Kok Ahmad Al Hanbali, Matthieu van der Heijden Felipe Caro, Charles J. Corbett, Tarkan Tan, Rob Zuidwijk Sameh Haneyah, Henk Zijm, Marco Schutten, Peter Schuur M. van der Heijden, B. Iskandar Frank P. van den Heuvel, Peter W. de Langen, Karel H. van Donselaar, Jan C. Fransoo Frank P. van den Heuvel, Peter W. de Langen, Karel H. van Donselaar, Jan C. Fransoo Pieter van Gorp, Remco Dijkman Frank Karsten, Marco Slikker, Geert-Jan van Houtum E. Lüftenegger, S. Angelov, P. Grefen Remco Dijkman, Irene Vanderfeesten, Hajo A. Reijers K.M.R. Hoen, T. Tan, J.C. Fransoo G.J. van Houtum

347 346 345 344 343 342 341 339 338 335 334 333 332

2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

Effect of carbon emission regulations on transport mode selection under stochastic demand An improved MIP-based combinatorial approach for a multi-skill workforce scheduling problem An approximate approach for the joint problem of level of repair analysis and spare parts stocking Joint optimization of level of repair analysis and spare parts stocks Inventory control with manufacturing lead time flexibility Analysis of resource pooling games via a new extenstion of the Erlang loss function Vehicle refueling with limited resources Optimal Inventory Policies with Non-stationary Supply Disruptions and Advance Supply Information Redundancy Optimization for Critical Components in High-Availability Capital Goods Analysis of a two-echelon inventory system with two supply modes Analysis of the dial-a-ride problem of Hunsaker and Savelsbergh Attaining stability in multi-skill workforce scheduling Flexible Heuristics Miner (FHM) An exact approach for relating recovering surgical patient workload to the master surgical schedule

Murat Firat, Cor Hurkens R.J.I. Basten, M.C. van der Heijden, J.M.J. Schutten R.J.I. Basten, M.C. van der Heijden, J.M.J. Schutten Ton G. de Kok Frank Karsten, Marco Slikker, Geert-Jan van Houtum Murat Firat, C.A.J. Hurkens, Gerhard J. Woeginger Bilge Atasoy, Refik Güllü, TarkanTan Kurtulus Baris Öner, Alan Scheller-Wolf Geert-Jan van Houtum Joachim Arts, Gudrun Kiesmüller Murat Firat, Gerhard J. Woeginger Murat Firat, Cor Hurkens A.J.M.M. Weijters, J.T.S. Ribeiro P.T. Vanberkel, R.J. Boucherie, E.W. Hans, J.L. Hurink, W.A.M. van Lent, W.H. van Harten Peter T. Vanberkel, Richard J. Boucherie, Erwin W. Hans, Johann L. Hurink, Nelly Litvak

331 330 329 328 327 326 325 324 323 322 321 320 319

2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

Efficiency evaluation for pooling resources in health care The Effect of Workload Constraints in Mathematical Programming Models for Production Planning Using pipeline information in a multi-echelon spare parts inventory system Reducing costs of repairable spare parts supply systems via dynamic scheduling Identification of Employment Concentration and Specialization Areas: Theory and Application A combinatorial approach to multi-skill workforce scheduling Stability in multi-skill workforce scheduling Maintenance spare parts planning and control: A framework for control and agenda for future research Near-optimal heuristics to set base stock levels in a two-echelon distribution network Inventory reduction in spare part networks by selective throughput time reduction The selective use of emergency shipments for service-contract differentiation Heuristics for Multi-Item Two-Echelon Spare Parts Inventory Control Problem with Batch Ordering in the Central Warehouse Preventing or escaping the suppression mechanism: intervention conditions Hospital admission planning to optimize major

M.M. Jansen, A.G. de Kok, I.J.B.F. Adan Christian Howard, Ingrid Reijnen, Johan Marklund, Tarkan Tan H.G.H. Tiemessen, G.J. van Houtum F.P. van den Heuvel, P.W. de Langen, K.H. van Donselaar, J.C. Fransoo Murat Firat, Cor Hurkens Murat Firat, Cor Hurkens, Alexandre Laugier M.A. Driessen, J.J. Arts, G.J. v. Houtum, W.D. Rustenburg, B. Huisman R.J.I. Basten, G.J. van Houtum M.C. van der Heijden, E.M. Alvarez, J.M.J. Schutten E.M. Alvarez, M.C. van der Heijden, W.H. Zijm B. Walrave, K. v. Oorschot, A.G.L. Romme Nico Dellaert, Jully Jeunet. R. Seguel, R. Eshuis, P. Grefen.

318 317 316 315 314 313

2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

resources utilization under uncertainty Minimal Protocol Adaptors for Interacting Services Teaching Retail Operations in Business and Engineering Schools Design for Availability: Creating Value for Manufacturers and Customers Transforming Process Models: executable rewrite rules versus a formalized Java program Getting trapped in the suppression of exploration: A simulation model A Dynamic Programming Approach to Multi-Objective Time-Dependent Capacitated Single Vehicle Routing Problems with Time Windows

Tom Van Woensel, Marshall L. Fisher, Jan C. Fransoo. Lydie P.M. Smets, Geert-Jan van Houtum, Fred Langerak. Pieter van Gorp, Rik Eshuis. Bob Walrave, Kim E. van Oorschot, A. Georges L. Romme S. Dabia, T. van Woensel, A.G. de Kok

312 2010 Tales of a So(u)rcerer: Optimal Sourcing Decisions Under Alternative Capacitated Suppliers and General Cost Structures

Osman Alp, Tarkan Tan

311 2010 In-store replenishment procedures for perishable inventory in a retail environment with handling costs and storage constraints

R.A.C.M. Broekmeulen, C.H.M. Bakx

310 2010 The state of the art of innovation-driven business models in the financial services industry

E. Lüftenegger, S. Angelov, E. van der Linden, P. Grefen

309 2010 Design of Complex Architectures Using a Three Dimension Approach: the CrossWork Case R. Seguel, P. Grefen, R. Eshuis

308 2010 Effect of carbon emission regulations on transport mode selection in supply chains

K.M.R. Hoen, T. Tan, J.C. Fransoo, G.J. van Houtum

307 2010 Interaction between intelligent agent strategies for real-time transportation planning

Martijn Mes, Matthieu van der Heijden, Peter Schuur

306 2010 Internal Slackening Scoring Methods Marco Slikker, Peter Borm, René van den Brink

305 2010 Vehicle Routing with Traffic Congestion and Drivers' Driving and Working Rules

A.L. Kok, E.W. Hans, J.M.J. Schutten, W.H.M. Zijm

304 2010 Practical extensions to the level of repair analysis R.J.I. Basten, M.C. van der Heijden, J.M.J. Schutten

303 2010 Ocean Container Transport: An Underestimated and Critical Link in Global Supply Chain Performance

Jan C. Fransoo, Chung-Yee Lee

302 2010 Capacity reservation and utilization for a manufacturer with uncertain capacity and demand Y. Boulaksil; J.C. Fransoo; T. Tan

300 2009 Spare parts inventory pooling games F.J.P. Karsten; M. Slikker; G.J. van Houtum

299 2009 Capacity flexibility allocation in an outsourced supply chain with reservation Y. Boulaksil, M. Grunow, J.C. Fransoo

298

2010

An optimal approach for the joint problem of level of repair analysis and spare parts stocking

R.J.I. Basten, M.C. van der Heijden, J.M.J. Schutten

297 2009 Responding to the Lehman Wave: Sales Forecasting and Supply Management during the Credit Crisis

Robert Peels, Maximiliano Udenio, Jan C. Fransoo, Marcel Wolfs, Tom Hendrikx

296 2009 An exact approach for relating recovering surgical patient workload to the master surgical schedule

Peter T. Vanberkel, Richard J. Boucherie, Erwin W. Hans, Johann L. Hurink, Wineke A.M. van Lent, Wim H. van Harten

295

2009

An iterative method for the simultaneous optimization of repair decisions and spare parts stocks

R.J.I. Basten, M.C. van der Heijden, J.M.J. Schutten

294 2009 Fujaba hits the Wall(-e) Pieter van Gorp, Ruben Jubeh, Bernhard Grusie, Anne Keller

293 2009 Implementation of a Healthcare Process in Four Different Workflow Systems

R.S. Mans, W.M.P. van der Aalst, N.C. Russell, P.J.M. Bakker

292 2009 Business Process Model Repositories - Framework and Survey

Zhiqiang Yan, Remco Dijkman, Paul Grefen

291 2009 Efficient Optimization of the Dual-Index Policy Using Markov Chains

Joachim Arts, Marcel van Vuuren, Gudrun Kiesmuller

290 2009 Hierarchical Knowledge-Gradient for Sequential Sampling

Martijn R.K. Mes; Warren B. Powell; Peter I. Frazier

289 2009 Analyzing combined vehicle routing and break scheduling from a distributed decision making perspective

C.M. Meyer; A.L. Kok; H. Kopfer; J.M.J. Schutten

288 2009 Anticipation of lead time performance in Supply Chain Operations Planning

Michiel Jansen; Ton G. de Kok; Jan C. Fransoo

287 2009 Inventory Models with Lateral Transshipments: A Review

Colin Paterson; Gudrun Kiesmuller; Ruud Teunter; Kevin Glazebrook

286 2009 Efficiency evaluation for pooling resources in health care

P.T. Vanberkel; R.J. Boucherie; E.W. Hans; J.L. Hurink; N. Litvak

285 2009 A Survey of Health Care Models that Encompass Multiple Departments

P.T. Vanberkel; R.J. Boucherie; E.W. Hans; J.L. Hurink; N. Litvak

284 2009 Supporting Process Control in Business Collaborations

S. Angelov; K. Vidyasankar; J. Vonk; P. Grefen

283 2009 Inventory Control with Partial Batch Ordering O. Alp; W.T. Huh; T. Tan

282 2009 Translating Safe Petri Nets to Statecharts in a Structure-Preserving Way R. Eshuis

281 2009 The link between product data model and process model J.J.C.L. Vogelaar; H.A. Reijers

280 2009 Inventory planning for spare parts networks with delivery time requirements I.C. Reijnen; T. Tan; G.J. van Houtum

279 2009 Co-Evolution of Demand and Supply under Competition B. Vermeulen; A.G. de Kok

B. Vermeulen, A.G. de Kok

278 277

2010 2009

Toward Meso-level Product-Market Network Indices for Strategic Product Selection and (Re)Design Guidelines over the Product Life-Cycle An Efficient Method to Construct Minimal Protocol Adaptors

R. Seguel, R. Eshuis, P. Grefen

276 2009 Coordinating Supply Chains: a Bilevel Programming Approach Ton G. de Kok, Gabriella Muratore

275 2009 Inventory redistribution for fashion products under demand parameter update G.P. Kiesmuller, S. Minner

274 2009 Comparing Markov chains: Combining aggregation and precedence relations applied to sets of states

A. Busic, I.M.H. Vliegen, A. Scheller-Wolf

273 2009 Separate tools or tool kits: an exploratory study of engineers' preferences

I.M.H. Vliegen, P.A.M. Kleingeld, G.J. van Houtum

272

2009

An Exact Solution Procedure for Multi-Item Two-Echelon Spare Parts Inventory Control Problem with Batch Ordering

Engin Topan, Z. Pelin Bayindir, Tarkan Tan

271 2009 Distributed Decision Making in Combined Vehicle Routing and Break Scheduling

C.M. Meyer, H. Kopfer, A.L. Kok, M. Schutten

270 2009 Dynamic Programming Algorithm for the Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Windows and EC Social Legislation

A.L. Kok, C.M. Meyer, H. Kopfer, J.M.J. Schutten

269 2009 Similarity of Business Process Models: Metics and Evaluation

Remco Dijkman, Marlon Dumas, Boudewijn van Dongen, Reina Kaarik, Jan Mendling

267 2009 Vehicle routing under time-dependent travel times: the impact of congestion avoidance A.L. Kok, E.W. Hans, J.M.J. Schutten

266 2009 Restricted dynamic programming: a flexible framework for solving realistic VRPs

J. Gromicho; J.J. van Hoorn; A.L. Kok; J.M.J. Schutten;

Working Papers published before 2009 see: http://beta.ieis.tue.nl