The process analysis network method for business process re-engineering

There is considerable interest in “re-engineering” business processes to take up the opportunities provided by information technology. The tools used in traditional data modelling and other forms of systems design have been adopted for use in analyzing processes. However, this adaptation is inadequate. This paper describes a method Process ANalysis Network (ProcessANN) that has been designed specifically to analyze processes. The ProcessANN method incorporates stakeholder analysis, Interpretative Structural Modelling, Lana’s N2 charts, and Gantt charts into one succinct form for representing the resources used in a process. It can be used to determine which tasks in the process are the nwst critical and then to suggest how these critical tasks can be enhanced. Now there is wide-spread realization of the ability to develop radically different processes, services, and businesses through the use of information systems. The work of Davenport and Hammer, either alone [4, 5, 14, 151 or together [6], has had considerable impact upon the managers of organizations. Of course, there have been arguments about the novelty of ‘Business Process Re-engineering’ [14] or process redesign or re-shaping. To many, it is business analysis re-visited [lo]; to others it is a variant of continuous improvement, along with Total Quality Management. Others could not care less about what it is called; all they are interested in is that at last senior managers are interested at looking at what can be done to use information systems to enable improvements to their business. Business Process Re-engineering has provoked considerable effort but it has had problems. There are at least two Internet fora (BPR-L from is.twi.tudelft.nl and BPR from mailbase.ac.uk) where the difficulties are discussed. There have been many failures [ 13, IS]. One problem seems to be that there are inadequate tools and techniques for carrying out the re-designs or continuous improvements [31, 321. The existing approaches involve datalogical methods, such as Data Flow Diagrams, or function-based tools, such as affinity charts or Critical Success Factors. These methods were developed for detailed systems analysis, where they have a useful role in documenting systems, but they have little value in designing new systems [9]. These methods have even less value in designing process-based systems that lead to changes in business operations. Even the current move to Integrated computer aided manufacturing DEFinition (IDEF), which is becoming mandated in US Government circles [7, 21, 251, has its limitations. This representation is a variant of Structured Analysis and Design Technique (SADT) and shares the limitations of all data-driven, graphical techniques. It does not give sufficient indication of the behaviour of processes [18]; it does not show well enough who is responsible for what tasks; it is very hard to follow for people responsible for verifying the representation; and it gives no insight into the design of “What Should Be”.