Quality-aware business process management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Business Process Management (BPM) has emerged as a popular management approach in both Information Technology (IT) and management practice. While there has been much research on business process modelling and the BPM life cycle, there has been little attention given to managing the quality of a business process during its life cycle. This study addresses this gap by providing a framework for organisations to manage the quality of business processes during different phases of the BPM life cycle. This study employs a multi-method research design which is based on the design science approach and the action research methodology. During the design science phase, the artifacts to model a quality-aware business process were developed. These artifacts were then evaluated through three cycles of action research which were conducted within three large Australian-based organisations. This study contributes to the body of BPM knowledge in a number of ways. Firstly, it presents a quality-aware BPM life cycle that provides a framework on how quality can be incorporated into a business process and subsequently managed during the BPM life cycle. Secondly, it provides a framework to capture and model quality requirements of a business process as a set of measurable elements that can be incorporated into the business process model. Finally, it proposes a novel root cause analysis technique for determining the causes of quality issues within business processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it