Business Process Engineering: Importance and Challenges

This article discusses the importance of business process engineering and the challenges faced in implementing it. It reviews an article on the topic and compares it with other relevant materials. The paper also discusses the research methods used and the findings of the studies. The article is relevant to management as it provides insights on how to enhance organizational performance.

Business Process Engineering 1
BUSINESS PROCESS ENGINEERING
Name
Course
Tutor
University
City
Date
Business process engineering
Introduction
Business process engineering refers to a way in which companies carry out research
about their current undertakings and come up with new strategies to enhance efficiency,

Business Process Engineering 2
operational costs, and productivity. The purpose of this article is to review a research article
which discusses the importance of applying business process engineering and the changing
environments in business (Ko, Lee, and Lee 2009, p. 780). The paper also presents the
importance of using automated workflows to control and monitor business processes (Adamo et
al. 2018, p. 54). I will review an article regarding these concepts and also support the report with
other relevant materials. I will discuss an item by the name “Foundations, Engineering,
Management” by Weske, Montali, Weber, and Brocke. Weske et al. (2018, p. 3) mainly talks
about the motivation and background for the introduction of a tracking system and experiences
gathered at the international conference of business process management (BPM). The paper will
give more details about this article and provide more information from other sources to support
the main topic.
Body
Weske et al. main intention is to discuss on the experience gathered at BPM 2018
conference and to introduce a tracking system at the BPM. Weske et al. state that the
development of BPM conference towards the structure of tracking depends on two observations.
The first one is connected to the stringent reviewing procedure that could be observed at BPM
during the recent years. Most of the reviewers do not only focus on a robust technical
involvement, but they also want a convincing empirical assessment. The criteria apply to
different research methods based on the enterprise science paradigm, but this is not suited for
credentials while looking at the foundational concepts. According to Weske et al., systems
engineering contribute significantly to the technical development. When looking at the real-
world set-ups in BPM, management plays an essential role in the event of an enterprise. The
article considers three tracks which contain management, foundational and engineering aspects
which are the main aspects of BPM.
Weske et al. state that the steering board introduced a track system to address different
challenges faced at BPM. The new development leads to the separation of engineering research,
management research, and foundational research. All the tracks presented in this article have
different evaluation methods to allow fair evaluation. The report, therefore, discusses more on
engineering, foundation and management aspects which are the critical components of BPM.

Business Process Engineering 3
Research method used
For Track, I, which is the Foundations aspect, the research method used is the one which
follows computer science. It includes the use of algorithms, computational theories, and methods
of analyzing and modelling business processes besides papers investigating the existing BPM
principles. The track even covers documents on architectures, novel languages, and other aspects
underlying information systems which are aware of the processes. The record also uses papers
which apply conceptual modeling methods to investigate issues in the analysis and the design of
BPM structures. The foundation aspect is evaluated in regards to the standards of computer
science, encompassing convincing argumentation, implementation of the proof of elements and
sound formalization. It indicates that the concepts are easy to implement, however, papers are
not applied immediately in real marketing environments which means that empirical evaluation
is not very important in track I. Foundations requires an emphasis on a particular multi-
perspective model where, data, decisions, multiple instances, and temporal aspects are
considered together with other traditional practice dimensions.
In the second aspect which is engineering, the methods of research used are the ones
which follow the engineering information systems. The study focusses on the examination of
policies and artifacts in the business environment while supporting the enterprise design
approach. In this track, papers have a stronger empirical evaluation when compared to Track I
because it tests areas such as the added value or the usefulness of a particular artifact. The track
covers the business course intelligence encompassing process mining models, and the application
of process representations for enactment, interaction with deployment architectures and services
such as cloud, and model-driven engineering.
The track also covers the business process management systems in some domains like
smart mobility, internet, or the digital health of things. In this aspect, empirical assessments are
vital to demonstrate the importance of the artifacts introduced. In this track, an emerging artifact
(similar, system, method or algorithm) is rigorously tested or suggested. The track, therefore, the
emphasis on self and robust critical evaluation. The evaluation is expected to expose the given
artifact to realistic or real conditions besides assessing its qualities about the aim of its design
(Maamar et al. 2018, p. 130). According to Weske et al., the central theme in the set of accepted

Business Process Engineering 4
documents is checking conformance, with different proposals on how to enhance accuracy and
efficiency or relating it to an operational setting. In the engineering aspect, it is evident that deep
learning and machine learning, play a significant part as existing technologies.
The third track which covers on management invites documents whose intention is to
increase our understanding of how BPM can help to improve business value. For example, it
helps us to understand how administration builds the capabilities of an organization to innovate,
transform, or grow the same business. In this track, papers that educate on the impact and
application of BPM tools and techniques in the contexts are welcome through empirical
observation. In this study, there are many areas which are investigated including governance,
strategic alignment, information technology, human aspects encompassing culture and people
and even methods (Fleig, Augenstein, and Maedche 2018, p. 230). In management aspect, we
look for the contributions that expand our knowledge on how entities can advance such
capabilities to achieve specific goals in a given organizational setting (Chen et al. 2018, p. 37).
The study may involve different strategies to get relevant information including action research,
significant data investigation research, economic research, literature evaluation research, focus
group examination, neuroscience research, survey research, design science study and action
research. The papers are evaluated depending on the information systems and management
standards.
The administration track concentrates on how to apply BPM to enhance organizational
change. The investigating papers focus on the impact and development of BPM competencies in
BPM engineering, management, and foundations to deliver strategic objectives such as
improvement and innovation. The study aims at aligning particular aspects of management with
technology in different organizations.
Findings
According to this paper, the track structure is something which is functional. After the
research, BPM conference received one hundred and forty submissions which are more than the
number of papers submitted during the previous discussions. It was a success, but many lessons
and experiences were discovered during the conference mainly from the review. After the studies
were carried out, it was found that coming up with a modern structure to extend the scientific

Business Process Engineering 5
community and the conference requires several iterations and years so that the discussion can be
settled. Communicating about the Track structure to the society was introduced and motivated
during the previous conference (Röglinger, Schwindenhammer, and Stelzl 2018, p. 194).
According to the study, BPM can help organizations to gain managerial discipline, and this is a
significant achievement (Kumar et al., 2008, 180). It is well-known that introducing a different
system and incorporating another subject in the structure is very challenging. It was discovered
that most reviewers focused more on Track I, and Track II but they did not focus on Track III as
they did to the others. Differences in the quality and details of the appraisals were also evident in
the reviews. But according to different discussions the research carried out can help
organizations to improve their management, technologies, and foundations based on BPM.
Problems highlighted by the authors
There are different problems underscored by Weske et al. in their article as discussed in
this paragraph. The authors argue that introducing a different structure in the meeting and
prolonging a scientific society will require several iterations and several years so that the
conference can settle (Rehse, and Fettke 2018, p. 3). The members will, therefore, be forced to
support the change by carrying out discussions on the lessons learned during the organization of
BPM 2018 (Ould, 2006, 48). The chairs of BPM 2018 did a great job in giving information to the
public using different channels. They also informed peers about the track structure through
personal conversations and direct emails. But organizations learn differently depending on the
phase of reviewing.
The authors admit that incorporating new disciplines and introducing new structures to a
conference which was already established is challenging. The chairs, therefore, had to
communicate on how to evaluate and even motivate the tracking scheme to the different
committees involved. Despite the efforts made to match the criticality and the details of the
reviews with the tracks, when the deadline for the review reached, the condition of these tracks
appeared different (Eshuis 2018, p. 67). Differences in the quality and details of the assessments
also seemed to be different. Some reviewers tried to base their commendations on the evaluation
procedure of different tracks, for instance by supporting foundational results on empirical data

Business Process Engineering 6
(Schulte et al. 2015, p. 37). Differences existed between how authors and reviewers carried out
their reviews.
Conclusions and how they are relevant to the management
In summary, the article has summarized the experiences collected during the rehearsal of
this track system. The track system is something which is functional as agreed in the conference
but some challenges need to be addressed before the next meeting. It is evident that there is
always a change in the courses, reviewing processes and topics but we hope that the different
experiences will shape the future of BPM community. BPM should not do away with particular
and high-quality reviewing standards. However, the reviewers should have a positive attitude
when reviewing submissions made by the community. But the knowledge on the track systems is
fundamental to organizations as it helps in creating disciplined management and educates the
administration to link themselves with the people (Denisov et al. 2018, p. 140). Knowledge on
BPM model allows entities to align customer needs with the business functions which helps in
execution of different activities, monitoring of events and the measuring of company resources.
Compare ideas with other articles
Other authors may have different or similar thoughts or views on the application of BPM.
Let’s look at other authors and give a comparison of their opinions and opinions. Corradini et al.
(2016, p. 83) state that BPM can help in increasing understanding of the organizational
behavior, the flow of activities and it can even enhance the flow of information between different
entities. The use of models can also help to improve the IT systems, and this shows that Weske et
al. and Corradini et al. have the same ideas about the use of BPM to enhance organizational
performance. Posenato, Zerbato, and Combi, (2018, p. 108) emphasizes on time as an essential
aspect in the use of business models. Posenato, Zerbato, and Combi, (2018, p. 108) states that the
management should have a set time to achieve their goals which are not emphasized by Weske et
al. in their article. (Posenato, Zerbato, and Combi 2018, p. 110) state that it is essential to check
on time when allocating resources in an organization. Combi, Sala, and Zerbato, (2018, p. 23)
suggests that understanding and modeling the time to carry out different activities as something
which is very cumbersome. The writers also emphasize the time taken to complete various

Business Process Engineering 7
activities but Weske et al. do not even consider the time factor. Weske et al. have written their
article very well but adding the time element could have given more relevance to the paper.
Conclusion
The paper has very brilliant information on business process management engineering
and management which can be applied to the organizational setting. The paper has also given
different methods used for research and the findings for the studies. It has an in-depth analysis of
a research article and a comparison of the information presented in the section with data from
other materials. According to this paper, it is evident that implementing new things can lead to
challenges because it will require a shift from the old methods to the latest techniques.
Organizations should, therefore, develop ways to adapt to new changes so that they do not get
conflicting results from the society.

Business Process Engineering 8
References
Adamo, G., Borgo, S., Di Francescomarino, C., Ghidini, C., Guarino, N. and Sanfilippo, E.M.,
2018, September. Business Process Activity Relationships: Is There Anything Beyond Arrows?.
In International Conference on Business Process Management (pp. 53-70). Springer, Cham.
Chen, T., Wang, W., Indulska, M. and Sadiq, S., 2018, September. Business Process and Rule
Integration Approaches-An Empirical Analysis. In International Conference on Business Process
Management (pp. 37-52). Springer, Cham.
Corradini, F., Muzi, C., Re, B., Rossi, L. and Tiezzi, F.,2016, Animating Multiple Instances in
BPMN Collaborations: from Formal Semantics to Tool Support.
Combi, C., Sala, P. and Zerbato, F., 2018, September. A Logical Formalization of Time-Critical
Processes with Resources. In International Conference on Business Process Management (pp.
20-36). Springer, Cham.
Denisov, V., Fahland, D. and van der Aalst, W.M., 2018, September. Unbiased, fine-grained
description of processes performance from event data. In International Conference on Business
Process Management (pp. 139-157). Springer, Cham.
Eshuis, R., 2018, September. Feature-Oriented Composition of Declarative Artifact-Centric
Process Models. In International Conference on Business Process Management (pp. 66-82).
Springer, Cham.
Fleig, C., Augenstein, D. and Maedche, A., 2018, September. Designing a Process Mining-
Enabled Decision Support System for Business Process Standardization in ERP Implementation
Projects. In International Conference on Business Process Management (pp. 228-244). Springer,
Cham.
Kumar, V., Smart, P.A., Maddern, H. and Maull, R.S., 2008. Alternative perspectives on service
quality and customer satisfaction: the role of BPM. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 19(2), pp.176-187.
Ko, R.K., Lee, S.S. and Wah Lee, E., 2009. Business process management (BPM) standards: a
survey. Business Process Management Journal, 15(5), pp.744-791.

Business Process Engineering 9
Maamar, Z., Sellami, M., Faci, N., Ugljanin, E. and Sheng, Q.Z., 2018, September. Storytelling
Integration of the Internet of Things into Business Processes. In International Conference on
Business Process Management (pp. 127-142). Springer, Cham.
Ould, M.A., 2006. Business Process Management: a rigorous approach. Springer.
Posenato, R., Zerbato, F. and Combi, C., 2018, September. Managing decision tasks and events
in time-aware business process models. In International Conference on Business Process
Management (pp. 102-118). Springer, Cham.
Röglinger, M., Schwindenhammer, L. and Stelzl, K., 2018, September. How to Put
Organizational Ambidexterity into Practice–Towards a Maturity Model. In International
Conference on Business Process Management (pp. 194-210). Springer, Cham.
Rehse, J.R. and Fettke, P., 2018, September. Process Mining Crimes–A Threat to the Validity of
Process Discovery Evaluations. In International Conference on Business Process Management
(pp. 3-19). Springer, Cham.
Schulte, S., Janiesch, C., Venugopal, S., Weber, I. and Hoenisch, P., 2015. Elastic Business
Process Management: State of the art and open challenges for BPM in the cloud. Future
Generation Computer Systems, 46, pp.36-50.
Weske, M., Montali, M., Weber, I. and vom Brocke, J., 2018, September. BPM: Foundations,
Engineering, Management. In International Conference on Business Process Management (pp. 3-
11). Springer, Cham.