A Case Study of Business Process Simulation in the Context of Enterprise Engineering Yang Liu, Junichi Iijima 2015.06.16
Contents Background research- EE based simulation A case study Future researches 2
3 1. Background research - Enterprise engineering based simulation
1.1 Problem analysis Redesign business model, vision and mission Business process improvement Business process change However, we see unbelievable high failure rates in business process change related projects (Dietz & Hoogervorst, 2012) Problem: Current methodologies in business process re-design and re-engineering are not effective enough to support requirements of business process change. Reasons: Perspective Methods 4
1.1 Problem analysis 1.1.1 Workflow perspective Workflow Perspective is that it has clear definable inputs and outputs and clear causal relationship between input and output. Limitations Limitation1: Emphasis too much on details without an entire and high level view; Problems Problem1: Enterprise is not considered as an integrated whole Limitation2: Answers how to question, but weak in why and what required Problem 2: Inconsistency before and after change Limitation3: Non-modularized Problem 3 Changes are un- controllable 5
1.1 Problem analysis 1.1.2 Methods Modeling Executable models Simulation DEMO BPMN UML IDEF DEMOpetri net DEMO processor BPEL DEVS Agent Base Petri-net System Dynamic 6 Limitations: -Un-executable -Un-measurable Problems: -Undiscovered problem -Can not evaluate alternative solutions Limitations : -Executable but not measurable; Problems: -cannot fully support BPS requirements Limitations : -Weak at describing large, complex systems; -The complexity of changing models to simulate new designs in BPR Problems: -Have difficulty in supporting management and BPR -Unable to confirm the consistency
1.2 EE based simulation 1.2.1 Research objectives New Perspective: New perspective emphasizes on: Analyzing enterprise as a whole and different levels; Answers why, what required and how to ; Modularized; New Method: New method emphasizes on: Executable Measurable; Powerful in describing large system; Modularized that it supports changes and to-be simulation Ontology model Conceptual model Simulation model EE based simulation Q1 Is DEMO enough for specifying Q1 simulation? DEMO Q2.2: If not, what type of conceptual Q3 model should we define?? Q2 Q2.3: How can we translate this conceptual model into executable simulation model? (AnyLogic) AnyLogic
1.2.2 DEMO++ Q1 Is DEMO enough for specifying simulation? Passive Resource Modularized model in high level abstraction; Describing ontology not implementation of a social system; Describing different structure in semantic; Q2.2: If not, what type of conceptual model should we define? Decision Point Seize Resource R (Resource) pmt1 AR Components pmt1 Active Resource Execution Steps Release Resource Main T (Transaction Type) O (Object) IC Port stt01 pmt01 Ontology level Implementation level Main level AT (Aggregate Transaction Type) AR (Actor Role) T (Transaction Type) Decision Point O (Object) Seize Resource AT (Aggregate Transaction Type) Ontology AR (Actor Role) AR Components Implementation Passive Resource R (Resource) Execution Steps Release Resource Ontology Implementation Not enough Active Resource
1.2.3 DEMO++ based AnyLogic library Q2.3: How can we translate this conceptual model into executable simulation model? (AnyLogic) T R AR O AT Main AR components
11 2. A case study
2.1 Research objectives Q: How can this enterprise engineering based business process simulation help in a real case? Research Objectives: To evaluate the advantages, potentials and limitations of the methodology; To standardize and demonstrate the developing process; To observe problems and to provide suggestions for improvement on company D s selected process; 12
2.2 Proposal and estimation process in company D Case Sales Sales manager Sales TL Developer High-risk case CRS? Review board Office Quality assurance Risk checking point: customer 1. Are they new customers? 2. Credits? 3. Financial situation? CEO Executive Symposium officer Executive Symposium Risk evaluation High-Risk evaluation Risk checking point: proposal possibility -Risk checking list Proposal Risk checking point: project 1. Profit? 2. Safety? 3. Technical issues? 4. Project issues? Proposal evaluation High-risk- Proposal evaluation Supper-High-risk- Proposal evaluation 13
2.3 Ontology level: 2.3.1 OCD of case D (CM) *Red: business level transaction *Green Lines: Information link Objective: To grasp the essence of construction Proposal& Estimate T 2 Case acceptance decision A 2 case T 3 acceptance responser High risk case acceptance decision A 3 high risk case acceptance responser T 4 A 4 case evaluater CA 1 A 1 Case evaluation T 5 High risk case evaluation A 5 high risk case evaluater Customer Base customer T 1 Case proposal case responser T 6 Proposal completion A 6 proposal completer T 7 Proposal evaluation A 7 proposal evaluater T 8 High risk proposal evaluation A 8 high risk proposal evaluater T 9 Supper high risk proposal evaluation A 9 supper high risk proposal evaluater Rule Base 14
2.3 Ontology level: 2.3.2 PSD of case D (PM) rq rq pm pm Case proposal T1 ex rq pm T2 ex ac Case receipt 0...1 rq T3 ac High-risk case receipt rq T4 Case evaluation ac Objective: To describe the process sequences 0...1 rq T5 ac High-risk case evaluation Proposal completion rq T6 st ac ac Proposal evaluation rq T7 st ac ac 0...1 High-risk proposal evaluation rq T8 st ac ac 0...1 15 Supper-high-risk proposal evaluation rq T9 ac
2.3 Ontology level: : 2.3.3 FM of case D Customer (C). creditapplication. companysummary. financialinformation P3. proposalsymposiumrecord C is customer of case S Case (S) -receipttime (date) -proposaltime (date) -risklevel (int) -requestcrs_yn (boolean) -casereceipt_yn (boolean) -requestprb_yn (boolean) -PRBResult_YN (boolean) P2 *PRB: Prior-Review Board *RRB: Regular Review Board *Proposal= Proposal contents+ estimate *RB:Review Board A B A is a property of B Objective: To understand the key objects, states, properties of objects and relations between objects P5. PRBRecord P4. riskcheckingsheet P1 P is a proposal for case S Proposal (P) -proposalevaluationresult_yn (date) -estimateevaluationresult_yn (date) -requestrrb_yn (date) -rrbresult_yn (date) -requestexecutivesymposium_yn (date). casesummary P9 P8 P7 P6.excutiveSymposiumRecord.RRBRecord.creditSetup.developmentStandardSetup.determineOfApplication.estimateSymposiumRecord.approximateEstimationSheet.materialsIndicatingEstimate.proposal 16
2.3 Ontology level: : 2.3.4 Action Rule Table Objective: To understand the rules AR: A1 WHEN THEN WITH FACT OBJECT CONDITION REACT OBJECT CONDITION ASSIGMENT When rqedt1 For Case is done. If none Then rqt2 For Case with If none Then none When stedt2 For Case is done. If none Then act2 For Case with If none Then none When acedt2,rqedt1 For Case is done. If case.receipt_yn==true Then pmt1 For Case with If none Then none If case.receipt_yn==false Then dct1 For Case with If none Then none When stedt4 For Case is done. If none Then act4 For Case with If none Then new proposal requestp When acedt4 For Case is done. If PRB is required Then rqt5 For Case with If none Then RB_YN=tr ue If PRB is not required Then rqt6 For Case with If none Then When acedt5 For Case is done. If none Then rqt6 For Case with If none Then none When stedt6 For Proposal is done. If none Then rqt7 For Proposal with If none Then none When stedt7 For Proposal is done. If proposal.requestrrb_yn==false Then act7 For Proposal with If none Then none When acedt8,stedt7 For Proposal is done. If none Then act7 For Proposal with If none Then none When acedt7,stedt6 For Proposal is done. If none Then act6 For Proposal with If none Then none When acedt6,pmedt1 For Proposal is done. If none Then ext1 For Case with If none Then none Then stt1 For Case With If none Then none When pmedt1 For Case is done. If none Then rqt4 For Case With If none Then none requestp RB_YN=fa lse 17
2.4 Implementation level 2.4.1 Actor-Actor Role-Function mapping R1 Sales T1.E T2.O T4.O,T4.R T5.O (info) T6.O T7.O T3.O (info) T6.E T8.O (info) Sales Dep. R2 Sales TL 18 R3 Sales PM T5.O T2.E T3.O T3.E T3.E T3.E T4.E Actors R&D Dep. RB QA Dep. CEO ES Office Functions R6 R8 R4 Quality R7 Executive Actor Roles R&D R5 assurance Executive symposium department RB office department officer office F1 F2 F3 F4 T5.E T5.E T5.E T5.E (info) T5.E T7.E T8.E T8.E T8.E T8.E (info) T8.E T9.O (info) T9.O T9.E T9.E (info) A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 case responser case acceptance responser high-risk-case acceptance responser proposal risk estimator high-risk-proposal risk estimator proposal completer proposal evaluator high-risk-proposal evaluator supper-high-riskproposal evaluator Objective: -To understand the organizational structure; - who and why cooperate? -To know the resources required for each actor role
2.4 Implementation level 2.4.2 Processor table Actor Transaction Need Actor Transaction Need Act Act Role type processor? Role type processor? CA1 T1rq A1 T6rq A1 T1pm/dc TRUE A6 T6pm/dc A1 T1 ex,st A6 T6 ex,st TRUE CA1 T1 T1ac/rj A1 T6 T6ac/rj TRUE A1 T2rq A1 T7rq A2 T2pm/dc TRUE A7 T7pm/dc A2 T2 ex,st TRUE A7 T7 ex,st TRUE A1 T2 T2ac/rj A1 T7 T7ac/rj A2 T3rq TRUE A7 T8rq TRUE A3 T3pm/dc A8 T8pm/dc TRUE A3 T3 ex,st TRUE A8 T8 ex,st A2 T3 T3ac/rj A7 T8 T8ac/rj A1 T4rq TRUE A8 T9rq TRUE A4 T4pm/dc A9 T9 pm/dc TRUE A4 T4 ex,st TRUE A9 T9 ex,st A1 T4 T4ac/rj A8 T9 T9ac/rj A1 T5rq TRUE A5 T5pm/dc TRUE A5 T5 ex,st A1 19 T5 T5ac/rj Objective: To clarify whether the ontological act need to be analyzed in details or not: - Related with resource allocation; - With complex infological, data-logical steps; - Have alternative implementations
2.4 Implementation level 2.4.3 Actor role components T01-pm/dc Case receipt decline Case receipt promise Case risk evaluation documenting T04-rq T01-dc T01-pm No Case receipt decision Yes Objective: To describe the details of implementation T05-rq Prior-RB documenting Prior-RB request acrjt6 Request a proposal review T07-rq T01-ex,st Proposal to customer 20
2.5 DEMO++ based simulation 2.5.1 Data collection and setup 63 days. A total of 416 cases coming rate: 0.85 (pieces/hour) Risk level: S: A: B: C =0.1%:5.7%:4%:90.2% Execution time = standard time*risk level/skill level A: B: C= 0.8: 1.0 : 1.5 Resource Name capacity r1 sales person 25 r2 sales TL 16 r3 sales PM 16 r4 R&D staff 10 r5 RB officer 10 r6 Q&A 3 r7 executive officer 6 r8 executive symposium 2 21
2.5 DEMO++ based simulation 2.5.2 Simulation result-animation 22
2.5 DEMO++ based simulation 2.5.3 Simulation result-statistic 23
2.5 DEMO++ based simulation 2.5.4 Simulation result-analysis (1) Resources Utilization (2) r1 (sales person): Total time spend in B/I/D level (3) r1 (sales person): Total time spend in playing different actor (4) average delaye time of each transaction type (5) utilization of resource r1 24
2.6 Proposals for improvement (1) By analyzing the resources for coordination (S1) Resource allocation: 25 sales staffs => 40 sales staffs 47%>10 days => 5% >10 days (S2) Effects of resource properties: Skill level? (A-20%; B-60%;C-20% => A-34%; B- 58%; C-8%) r1 occupation time is reduced about 1%-2 % Capacity? More workable area is better or not? (2) By analyzing the coordination. (S3) Who coordinates: Add assistant staff to reduce I-level and d-level work of sales 10 assistant staffs added for I/D works=> 6% >10 days (S4) How to coordinate: D-level work 20% reduced?=> 8%> 10 days 25
2.7 Feedbacks from company D Concerning the results: 26 S1: Company D should consider to hire more sales staffs; S2 and S3 may works; S4 is very interesting perspective; Limitations: data collection problem; what is the normal distribution of B-I-D level works in Japanese company? Concerning the method: Interesting with potential; But need to be improved: animation; key factors analysis; B-I-D level analysis Suggestions and expectations: Whether it can assist in investigating the relationships that exist among the enterprise key factors; Better animation interface; Improving B/I/D level analysis
27 3. Future researches
3 Future researches On method: To semi-automating the whole model generation and transfer process; On simulation: To combine agent base and system dynamic with current framework for a more abroad analysis (e.g. risk control with BPR); Improve B-I-D level analysis to assist in BPR; To simulate an organizational structure change and to describe the effect of this change (effects of different actor-actor role mapping)? On going projects Simulation on business process improvement for Japanese Pension System; Simulation on risk control focused business process improvement for a finical company in China; 28
29
References Dietz, J. L. G., & Hoogervorst, J. A. P. (2012). The Principles of Enterprise Engineering. In A. Albani, D. Aveiro, & B. Joseph (Eds.), Advances in Enterprise Engineering VI: EEWC 2012 Proceedings, LNBIP 110 (pp. 15 30). Heidelberg: Springer- Verlag, Berlin. Taylor, F.. (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper Brothers. Rummler, G. (1984) Japanese Productivity: Observations of a Human Performance Technologist. Performance and Instruction Journal. Davenport, T.H., Young, E. & Stoddard, D.B. (1994) Reengineering: Business Change of Mythic Proportions? MIS Quarterly, June (Issues&Opinions: Myths About Reengineering): 121 124. Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993) Reengineering the corporation. Nicolas Brealey, London. Harmon, P. (2007) Business Process Change: A Guide for Business Managers and BPM and Six Sigma Professionals. Second Edi. Morgan Kaufann. Dietz, J.L.G. (2006) Enterprise Ontology. Springer. Flores, F. (1991) Offering New Principles for a Shifting Business World. Belmont, Calif.:Business Design Associates. Keen, T., Knapp, E.M. (1995) Every Manager s Guide to Business Processes: A Glossary of Key Terms & Concepts for Today's Business Leader. Harvard Business School Press. Dietz, J.L.G., Hoogervorst, J.A.P., Albani, A., Aveiro, D., Babkin, E., Barjis, J., Caetano, A., Huysmans, P., Iijima, J., Kervel, S.J.H. Van, Mulder, H., Op`t Land, M., Land, T., Proper, H. a., Sanz, J., Terlouw, L., Tribolet, J., Verelst, J. & Winter, R. (2013) The discipline of enterprise engineering. International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering, 3 (1): 86. Du, X., Gu, C. & Zhu, N. (2012) A survey of business process simulation visualization. 2012 International Conference on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and Safety Engineering: 43 48. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6246184. 30