لطفا منتظر باشید ...
12.2 Background — Previous Approaches to Process Innovation
The most systematic and explicit previous approaches to process innovation come from the literature on business process redesign (Armistead and Rowland 1996; Chen 1999; Davenport and Short 1990; Hammer and Short 1990; Grover et al. 1995; Hammer and Champy 1993; Kettinger et al. 1997b; Kubeck 1995, 1997; Nissen 1998, 1999; Pandya and Nelis 1998). For example, Kettinger et al. (1997b) provide an extensive survey of process redesign practices. Their stage activity framework proposes six stages of business reengineering: 'Envision', 'Initiate', 'Diagnose', 'Redesign', 'Reconstruct', and 'Evaluate'stages. The most relevant for the topic of this chapter is the redesign stage where the new process is defined and selected from among the alternatives.Kettinger et al. (1997b) categorize the existing tools for this redesign stage as follows:Creativity techniques (brainstorming, out-of-the-box thinking, nominal group, visioning, etc.)
IDEF modeling technology
Process simulation—variation of process variables such as cycle time, queuing times, inputs/outputs, resources.
Data modeling—data flow diagramming, flowcharting, case-based information engineering tools.
Only a few of these tools, however, genuinely address the generation of new design. For example, data modeling helps one analyze a given process, but it does not offer much help in redesigning or creating a new process model. Indeed, as Hammer and Champy (1993) point out, reliance on analytical techniques can have just the opposite effect, resulting in ''analysis paralysis.''Several of the techniques identified by Kettinger et al. (1997b) are explicitly oriented toward search (e.g., brainstorming) while benchmarking (Camp 1995; Committee 1992) helps with the generation of new alternatives by providing the designer with a set of cases that can be used as a template. However, none of these techniques provides any assurance that combinations of ideas are being systematically explored (Lee and Pentland 2000).Those tools that do support generation of new designs are the creativity techniques. These techniques are useful in producing novel ideas, but since they rely only on what happens to be on the minds of the participants, they are unlikely to support systematic exploration of the alternatives (Lee and Pentland 2000; Pentland 1995).Our approach, in contrast, provides a systematic means of designing new processes by finding and customizing cases and patterns selected from a richly structured repository of process knowledge. The advantages of this approach are that (1) it often takes less work to define a process since we are just customizing an existing one rather than designing from scratch, and (2) there is a better chance of producing an innovative high-quality process because it is based on a review of a wide range of practices, including for example those that leverage emerging phenomena such as the Internet. This approach thus offers the potential of designing better processes with less effort.
