Abstract
The often used notion of ‘best practice’ can be hard to nail down, especially when a process involves multiple stakeholders with conflicting interests, as is common in healthcare, banking, and insurance domains. This exploratory paper presents a novel method that leverages both domain knowledge and historical precedence as recorded in IT systems to derive relevant dimensions, measures and behaviours representing best practice. To test our approach, we explored best practice in the area of injury compensation claims management involving multiple stakeholders. We evidence that best practice can be identified by semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (a qualitative method) allowing their perspectives to guide the application of various forms of analytics on historical data (a quantitative method). This led to the identification of four best practice dimensions: process fairness, process quality, process cost, and process timeliness and their respective measures, which are then used to assess the performance of compensation claim cases (i.e., ‘which claims are the best performing cases?’). By analysing the process behaviours of those cases through historical data together with additional stakeholder input, we propose to identify potential best practice behaviours.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
References
van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining: Data Science in Action. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49851-4
van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adriansyah, A., van Dongen, B.F.: Replaying history on process models for conformance checking and performance analysis. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 2(2), 182–192 (2012)
van der Aalst, W.M., Dustdar, S.: Process mining put into context. IEEE Internet Comput. 16(1), 82–86 (2012)
Alshenqeeti, H.: Interviewing as a data collection method: a critical review. English Linguist. Res. 3(1), 39–45 (2014)
Andrews, R., et al.: Exposing impediments to insurance claims processing. In: vom Brocke, J., Mendling, J. (eds.) Business Process Management Cases. MP, pp. 275–290. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58307-5_15
Bose, J., Mans, R., van der Aalst, W.: Wanna improve process mining results? It’s high time we consider data quality issues seriously. In: CIDM, pp. 127–134. IEEE (2013)
Charmaz, K., Bryant, A.: Grounded theory and credibility. Qual. Res. 3, 291–309 (2011)
Cho, M., Song, M., Comuzzi, M., Yoo, S.: Evaluating the effect of best practices for business process redesign: an evidence-based approach based on process mining techniques. Decis. Support Syst. 104, 92–103 (2017)
Christmann, P.: Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost advantage: the role of complementary assets. Acad. Manag. J. 43(4), 663–680 (2000)
Creswell, J.W., Miller, D.L.: Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Pract. 39(3), 124–130 (2000)
Denzin, N.: Sociological Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)
van Eck, M.L., Lu, X., Leemans, S.J.J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: PM\(^2\): a process mining project methodology. In: Zdravkovic, J., Kirikova, M., Johannesson, P. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9097, pp. 297–313. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19069-3_19
Fernández, W.D., et al.: The grounded theory method and case study data in is research: issues and design. In: Information Systems Foundations Workshop: Constructing and Criticising, vol. 1, pp. 43–59 (2004)
Flick, U.: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage Publications Limited, Thousand Oaks (2018)
Galletta, A.: Mastering the Semi-structured Interview and Beyond: From Research Design to Analysis and Publication. NYU Press, New York (2013)
Glaser, B.: Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Sociology Press (1998)
Iglesias, M., Walsh, J.: Accident compensation claims management-lessons learnt and claimant outcomes (2009)
Kis, I., Bachhofner, S., Di Ciccio, C., Mendling, J.: Towards a data-driven framework for measuring process performance. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Gulden, J., Nurcan, S., Guédria, W., Bera, P. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2017. LNBIP, vol. 287, pp. 3–18. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59466-8_1
Kotsiantis, S.B.: Supervised machine learning: a review of classification techniques. In: Emerging Artificial Intelligence Applications in Computer Engineering (2007)
Leemans, S.J.J., Fahland, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Discovering block-structured process models from event logs containing infrequent behaviour. In: Lohmann, N., Song, M., Wohed, P. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNBIP, vol. 171, pp. 66–78. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06257-0_6
Mannhardt, F., De Leoni, M., Reijers, H.A.: The multi-perspective process explorer. BPM (Demos) 1418, 130–134 (2015)
Mansar, S., Reijers, H.A.: Best practices in business process redesign: use and impact. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 13(2), 193–213 (2007)
Martin, P.Y., Turner, B.A.: Grounded theory and organizational research. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 22(2), 141–157 (1986)
Myers, M.D., Newman, M.: The qualitative interview in is research: examining the craft. Inf. Organ. 17(1), 2–26 (2007)
Newman, I., Lim, J., Pineda, F.: Content validity using a mixed methods approach: its application and development through the use of a table of specifications methodology. J. Mix. Methods Res. 7(3), 243–260 (2013)
Partington, A., Wynn, M.T., Suriadi, S., Ouyang, C., Karnon, J.: Process mining for clinical processes: a comparative analysis of four Australian hospitals. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 5(4), 19 (2015)
Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K., Saunders, C.S.: Information processing view of organizations: an exploratory examination of fit in the context of interorganizational relationships. JMIS 22(1), 257–294 (2005)
Reijers, H., Mansar, S.: Best practices in process redesign: an overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics. Omega 33(4), 283–306 (2005)
del Rio-Ortega, A., Resinas, M., Cabanillas, C., Ruiz-Cortes, A.: On the definition and design-time analysis of process performance indicators. Inf. Syst. 38(4), 470–490 (2012)
Urquhart, C., Fernández, W.: Using grounded theory method in information systems: the researcher as blank slate and other myths. In: Willcocks, L.P., Sauer, C., Lacity, M.C. (eds.) Enacting Research Methods in Information Systems: Volume 1, pp. 129–156. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29266-3_7
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S.A., Sullivan, Y.W.: Guidelines for conducting mixed-methods research: an extension and illustration. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 17(7), 435–494 (2016)
Wynn, M.T., et al.: ProcessProfiler3D: a visualisation framework for log-based process performance comparison. Decis. Support Syst. 100, 93–108 (2017)
Acknowledgments
The work presented in this paper was funded by a grant from the Queensland Motor Accident Insurance Commission (MAIC).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wynn, M.T. et al. (2019). Grounding Process Data Analytics in Domain Knowledge: A Mixed-Method Approach to Identifying Best Practice. In: Hildebrandt, T., van Dongen, B., Röglinger, M., Mendling, J. (eds) Business Process Management Forum. BPM 2019. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 360. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26643-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26643-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26642-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26643-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)