Abstract
This chapter reports on the experiences of an Australian government department in selecting a BPM tool to support its process modeling, analysis, and design activities. With the growing number of tools in the market that claim to support BPM, the variance in actual functionality supported by these tools, and the potentially significant cost of such a purchase, BPM tool selection has become an arduous task. While there is some independent guidance available on how various tools support different aspects of BPM initiatives, organizations still need to determine what their specific needs are and be able to establish how information gathered on tool functionality can be evaluated against these needs. The chapter presents the evaluation criteria that the Queensland Courts derived and used for their needs; the process followed to find and short-list candidate tools to evaluate; and a discussion on findings against the established criteria. While the requirements and evaluation criteria will differ for each organizational context, this chapter provides guidance for business managers on how they may structure and conduct a BPM tool evaluation from a business user perspective. In particular, it provides a score sheet tailored for a business process redesign initiative, which other organizations can use as a starting point and further refine to their specific needs. In addition, it provides suggestions on methods for identifying candidate tools for evaluation (i.e., via market research, on-site visits, gathering recommendations from experiences of others, etc.) from the multitude of BPM solutions currently available. The chapter also highlights the need for BPM tool vendors to invest more in understanding the varying needs of organizations across the BPM spectrum so as to provide accurate information to the right market in a way that potential business users/customers can understand.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
http://qgcio.govnet.qld.gov.au/02_infostand/downloads/BPMN%20Process%20Modelling%20Guidelines%20v1.0.0.pdf, (date accessed: Nov 2007).
- 2.
- 3.
From Department of Justice and Attorney-General Annual Report 2007–08.
- 4.
From 2008–09 Queensland State Budget - Service Delivery Statements – Department of Justice and Attorney-General.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
This report is not yet published.
- 8.
References
Baram G, Steinberg G (1989) Selection criteria for analysis and design CASE tools. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 14(6):73–80. ACM, New York. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=70739.70748. Accessed Feb 2009
Belton V (1985) The use of a simple multiple-criteria model to assist in selection from a shortlist. J Oper Res Soc 36(4):265–274. Palgrave Macmillan on behalf of the Operational Research Society. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2582412. Accessed Feb 2009
Blechar MJ, Sinur J (2006) Magic quadrant for business process analysis tools, 27 February 2006 ID Number: G00137850, Gartner Research
Blechar MJ (2007) Magic quadrant for business process analysis tools, 8 June 2007 ID Number: G00148777, Gartner Research
Blechar MJ (2008a). Magic quadrant for business process analysis tools, 23 September 2008 ID Number: G00161090, Gartner Research
Blechar MJ (2008b) Consider eight areas of focus when selecting a business process analysis tool, 7 August 2008 ID Number: G00160260, Gartner Research
Blechar MJ (2008c) Understanding vendor placement in the BPA tools magic quadrant, 23 September 2008 ID Number: G00161106, Gartner Research
Davis R, Brabander E (2007) ARIS designer platform: getting started with BPM. Springer, Heidelberg
de Bruin T (2006) Evaluating and advancing BPM using a BPM maturity model. In: Proceedings of IQPC’s business process management conference, Sydney, May 29–30 2006
Griffith A, Headley JD (1997) Using a weighted score model as an aid to selecting procurement methods for small building works. Constr Manage Econ 15(4):341–348
Harmon P (2007) Intro-1. Why the current interest in business processes? BPTrends 2007 Enterprise Architecture, Process Modeling & Simulation Tools Report 2.1. http://www.bptrends.com/reports_toc_02.cfm. Accessed Nov 2007
Harmon P (2008) Software tools for BPM. BPTrends Spotlight 1(6). http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/spotlight_062008.pdf. Accessed Nov 2008
Hill JB, Sinur J, Flint J, Melenovsky MJ (2006) Gartner’s position on business process management, 16 February 2006 ID Number: G00136533, Gartner Research
Hill JB, Cantara M, Deitert E, Kerremans M (2007). Magic quadrant for business process management suites, 2007, 14 December 2007 ID Number: G00152906, Gartner Research
Hill JB, McCoy DW, Cantara M, Blechar M, Kerremans M, Lheureux BJ, Gilbert MR, Shegda KM, Schulte RW, Genovese Y, Olding E, Gassman B, Natis YV, Norton D (2008) Hype cycle for business process management, 2008, 9 July 2008 ID Number: G00159215, Gartner Research
Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York
Peyret H, Tenbner C (2006) The forrester wave: business process modeling Tools, Q3 2006, 29 September 2006. www.proformacorp.com/Downloads/files/ForresterWaveQ3.pdf. Accessed Nov 2007
Peyret H (2009) The forrester wave: business process analysis, EA tools, and IT planning, Q1 2009, 7 January 2009. http://www.metastorm.com/news/analyst_archives.asp. Accessed Jan 2009
Rosemann M, de Bruin T, Power B (2006) Chapter 27 – a model to measure business process management maturity and improve performance. In: Jeston J, Nelis J (eds) Business process management. Butterworth-Heinemann, London
Rosemann M (2004) Business process lifecycle management. Whitepaper, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane
Rosemann M, vom Brocke J (2014) The six core elements of business process management. In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management, vol 1, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 105–122
Shyur H-J (2003) A semi-structured process for ERP systems evaluation: applying analytic network process. J e-Bus 5(1):33–48
Stephenson C, Bandara W (2007) Enhancing best practice in public health: using process patterns for business process management. In: Proceedings of European conference of information systems, St. Gallen, Switzerland
Weske M (2007) Business process management: concepts, languages and architectures. Springer, Berlin
Wolf C (2007) Foreword. BPTrends 2007 enterprise architecture, process modeling & simulation Tools Report 2.1. http://www.bptrends.com/reports_toc_02.cfm
Additional Sources Used to Evaluate the Tools
DiToro L (n.d.) BPM Software Report: Lombardi TeamWorks Enterprise Edition. www.bpmenterprise.com/content/c060918a.asp. Accessed Nov 2007
DiToro L (n.d.) BPM software report: Savvion business manager. www.bpmenterprise.com/content/c060717a.asp. Accessed Nov 2007
DiToro L (n.d.) BPM software report: BPM simplicity with iGrafx. www.bpmenterprise.com/content/c070305a.asp. Accessed Nov 2007
Hall C, Harmon P (2007) Proforma corporation’s provision, the 2007 Enterprise architecture, process modeling and simulation tools report – version 2.1 July 2007. www.bptrends.com/reports_toc_02.cfm. Accessed Dec 2007
Hall C, Harmon P (2007) IDS Scheer’s ARIS, the 2007 Enterprise architecture, process modeling and simulation tools report – version 2.1 July 2007. www.bptrends.com/reports_toc_02.cfm. Accessed Dec 2007
Hall C, Harmon P (2007) iGrafx’s iGrafx, the 2007 Enterprise architecture, process modeling and simulation tools report – version 2.1 July 2007. www.bptrends.com/reports_toc_02.cfm. Accessed Dec 2007
Hall C, Harmon P (2007) MEGA’s mega suite, the 2007 Enterprise architecture, process modeling and simulation tools report – version 2.1 July 2007. www.bptrends.com/reports_toc_02.cfm. Accessed Dec 2007
Hall C, Harmon P (2007) Holocentric’s Holocentric Modeler, the 2007 Enterprise architecture, process modeling and simulation tools report – version 2.1 July 2007. www.bptrends.com/reports_toc_02.cfm. Accessed Dec 2007
Hall C, Harmon P (2007) Popkin Software’s System Architect, the 2007 Enterprise architecture, process modeling and simulation tools report – version 2.1 July 2007. www.bptrends.com/reports_toc_02.cfm. Accessed Dec 2007
Miers D, Harmon P, Hall C (2007) Metastorm Inc’s Metastorm BPM, the 2007 BPM suites report – version 2.1, July 2007. www.bptrends.com/reports_toc_01.cfm. Accessed Dec 2007
Thompson M (2007) Technology audit, Metastorm BPM v7 November 2007 Ref Code: TA001330BPM. www.metastorm.com/library/reports/AR_Butler_Metastorm_BPM_V7.pdf. Accessed Dec 2007
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reeves, M., Davies, I. (2015). BPM Tool Selection: The Case of the Queensland Court of Justice. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds) Handbook on Business Process Management 1. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45100-3_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45100-3_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-45099-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-45100-3
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)