A Case Study of Business Process Simulation in the Context of Enterprise Engineering Yang Liu, Junichi Iijima

A Case Study of Business Process

Simulation in the Context of

Enterprise Engineering

Yang Liu, Junichi Iijima

Contents

Background research- EE based simulation

A case study

Future researches

1. Background research

- Enterprise engineering based simulation

Problem:

Current

methodologies

in business process re-design

and re-engineering are

not effective enough

to

support requirements of business process change.

1.1 Problem analysis

However, we see unbelievable high failure rates in business

process change related projects

(

Dietz & Hoogervorst, 2012)

Perspective

Methods

Reasons:

4

Redesign business model, vision and mission

Business process improvement

1.1 Problem analysis

1.1.1 Workflow perspective

5

Limitation1:

Emphasis too much on details

without an entire and high

level view;

Limitation2:

Answers “how to ” question,

but weak in “why” and “what

required” Limitation3:

Non-modularized

Problem1:

Enterprise is not considered as an integrated whole

Problem 2:

Inconsistency before and after change

Problem 3

Changes are un- controllable

Limitations _Problems

Workflow Perspective

is that it has clear definable

inputs

and

outputs

and clear

causal relationship

1.1 Problem analysis

1.1.2 Methods



Modeling



Simulation

DEVS DynamicSystem

Limitations: -Un-executable -Un-measurable Problems: -Undiscovered problem

-Can not evaluate alternative solutions

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 

Executable models

-Executable but not measurable;

Problems:

-cannot fully support BPS requirements

1.2 EE based simulation

1.2.1 Research objectives

New perspective emphasizes on:

• Analyzing enterprise as a whole

and different levels;

• Answers “why”, “what required”

and “how to”;

• Modularized;

New method emphasizes on:

• Executable

• Measurable;

• Powerful in describing large

system;

• Modularized that it supports

changes and “to-be” simulation

New Perspective: New Method: EE based simulation Ontology model Conceptual model

DEMO

Q3

?

AnyLogic

Q1

Q2

Q2.2: If not, what type of conceptual model should we define?

Q2.3: How can we translate this conceptual

model into executable simulation model ?

(AnyLogic)

Q1 Is DEMO enough for specifying simulation?

Ontology

Implementation

1.2.2 DEMO++

• Modularized model in high level abstraction;

• Describing ontology not implementation of a social system;

• Describing different structure in semantic;

Active Resource Passive Resource R (Resource) Release Resource Decision Point Execution Steps

Seize Resource AR Components T (Transaction Type) AT (Aggregate Transaction Type) O (Object) AR (Actor Role) Main T (Transaction Type) AT (Aggregate Transaction Type) O (Object) Release Resource Decision Point Execution Steps

Seize Resource

AR Components

Active Resource Passive Resource_(Resource)R

AR (Actor Role) IC Port Ontology level Implementation level Main level Implementation Ontology

Q1 Is DEMO enough for specifying simulation?

Q2.2: If not, what type of conceptual model should we define?

1.2.3 DEMO++ based

AnyLogic library

Q2.3: How can we translate this

conceptual model into executable simulation model ? (AnyLogic)

2. A case study

2.1 Research objectives

12

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;

Q: How can this enterprise engineering based

business process simulation help in a real case?

2.2 Proposal and estimation

process in company D

13

Case High-risk_case CRS?

Risk evaluation _evaluationHigh-Risk

Proposal

Proposal evaluation High-risk-Proposal evaluation

Supper-High-risk-Proposal evaluation

Sales Sales manager Sales TL Developer Review board

Office Quality assurance CEO

Executive Symposium officer

Executive Symposium Risk checking point: customer

1. Are they new customers? 2. Credits?

3. Financial situation?

Risk checking point: proposal possibility

-Risk checking list

Risk checking point: project

1. Profit? 2. Safety?

3. Technical issues? 4. Project issues?

2.3 Ontology level:

2.3.1 OCD of case D (CM)

14

high risk case acceptance

responser 3 A

high risk case evaluater

5 A

supper high risk proposal evaluater ９ A proposal evaluater 7 A case acceptance responser 2 A case evaluater 4 A case responser 1 A customer 1 CA Case evaluation 4 T

High risk case evaluation 5 T proposal completer 6 A Proposal completion 6 T Proposal evaluation 7 T

Supper high risk proposal evaluation ９ T Proposal& Estimate Customer Base Case proposal 1 T

Case acceptance decision 2 T

High risk case acceptance decision

3 T

＊Red: business level transaction　 ＊Green Lines: Information link

Rule Base Rule Base high risk proposal evaluater ８ A

High risk proposal evaluation

８

T

Objective:

To grasp the essence of construction

T7 T1 T2 T3 rq rq rq pm rq ex ac pm ac T4 pm rq T5 rq 0...1 0...1 T6 ac ac T8 rq 0...1 st T9 rq 0...1 ex ac rq Case proposal Case receipt

High-risk case receipt

Case evaluation

High-risk case evaluation

Proposal completion

High-risk proposal evaluation

Supper-high-risk proposal evaluation st Proposal evaluation _st rq ac ac ac ac ac _ac

2.3 Ontology level:

2.3.2 PSD of case D (PM)

2.3 Ontology level: :

2.3.3 FM of case D

16

＊PRB: Prior-Review Board ＊RRB: Regular Review Board

＊Proposal= Proposal contents+ estimate ＊RB：Review Board A is a property of B P2 Customer (C) . creditApplication . companySummary . financialInformation . caseSummary . riskCheckingSheet . PRBRecord A B -receiptTime (date) -proposalTime (date) -riskLevel (int) -requestCRS_YN (boolean) -caseReceipt_YN (boolean) -requestPRB_YN (boolean) -PRBResult_YN (boolean) Case (S) -proposalEvaluationResult_YN (date) -estimateEvaluationResult_YN (date) -requestRRB_YN (date) -rrbResult_YN (date) -requestExecutiveSymposium_YN (date) Proposal (P) P4 P1 P5 P3 .creditSetup .developmentStandardSetup .determineOfApplication .estimateSymposiumRecord .RRBRecord P9 .excutiveSymposiumRecord P8 . proposalSymposiumRecord P7 .approximateEstimationSheet .materialsIndicatingEstimate .proposal P6 P is a proposal for case S

C is customer of case S

Objective:

To understand the key objects, states, properties of

objects and

relations between objects

2.3 Ontology level: :

2.3.4 Action Rule Table

17 AR: A1

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

When acedT4 For Case is done. If PRB is required Then rqT5 For Case with If none Then

requestP RB_YN=tr ue

If PRB is not required Then rqT6 For Case with If none Then

requestP RB_YN=fa lse

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

WHEN THEN WITH

FACT OBJECT CONDITION REACT OBJECT CONDITION ASSIGMENT Objective:

To understand the rules

2.4 Implementation level

2.4.1 Actor-Actor Role-Function mapping

18

R&D Dep. RB QA Dep. CEO ES Office

R1 Sales R2 Sales TL R3 Sales PM R4 R&D department R5 RB office R6 Quality assurance department R7 Executive officer R8 Executive symposium office F1 F2 F3 F4 T1.E T2.O T4.O,T4.R

T5.O (info) T5.O T6.O

T7.O

T2.E T3.O (info) T3.O

T3.E T3.E T3.E

A3 high-risk-case acceptance responser T4.E A4 proposal risk estimator T5.E T5.E T5.E T5.E (info) T5.E A5

high-risk-proposal risk estimator T6.E A6 proposal completer T7.E T8.O (info)

T8.E T8.E T8.E T8.E (info) T8.E T9.O (info) T9.O

T9.E T9.E (info) A9

supper-high-risk-proposal evaluator A7 proposal evaluator A8 high-risk-proposal evaluator Actor Roles Functions Sales Dep. Actors A1 case responser A2 case acceptance responser 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

A1 T1 ex,st A6 T6 ex,st TRUE

CA1 T1ac/rj A1 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 T2ac/rj A1 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 T3ac/rj A7 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 T4ac/rj A8 T9ac/rj A1 T5rq TRUE A5 T5pm/dc TRUE A5 T5 ex,st A1 T5ac/rj T9 T6 T7 T8 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Objective:

To clarify whether the ontological act need to be analyzed in details or not:

- Related with resource allocation;

- With complex info-logical, data-logical steps;

- Have alternative implementations

2.4 Implementation level

2.4.3 Actor role components

20

acrjT6

Case risk evaluation documenting T04-rq Prior-RB request Prior-RB documenting T05-rq

Case receipt decision Case receipt decline

Case receipt promise

Yes No T01-pm T01-dc T01-pm/dc Proposal to customer T01-ex,st Request a proposal review T07-rq Objective:

To describe the details of implementation

2.5 DEMO++ based simulation

2.5.1 Data collection and setup

21 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

• 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

22

2.5 DEMO++ based simulation

23

2.5 DEMO++ based simulation

2.5.3 Simulation result-statistic

24

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

2.6 Proposals for improvement

25

(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:

2.7 Feedbacks from company D

26



Concerning the results:



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;

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;

References

30

 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.