Business Process Management
at Czech Technical University in Prague
Lessons Learned
Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Faculty of Information Technology
1
Pavel Náplava
Robert Pergl
Pavel Náplava
CTU FEE in Prague
Centre for Knowledge Management
Since 2009
• Information Management
• Information Systems
• Business Process
Management
• Project Management
• Business Analytics
• Business Informatics
• Applied Management
• Clouds
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
2
Robert Pergl
CTU FIT in Prague
Centre for Conceptual Modelling and
Implementation
Since 2012
•
•
•
•
•
•
Conceptual Modelling
Enterprise Engineering
Software Engineering
Theoretical Computer Science
Programming Paradigms
Software Development
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
3
TRANSFORMATION REASONS
http://hs-ib.ism-online.org/
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
4
PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS
 Lower budget
 Higher competition
 Minimal costs
 Minimal redundancy
 Automation of processes
 Full-Cost model
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
5
BUSINESS PROCESS MAGEMENT (BPM)
• Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports prepared basic framework for
effective academic institutions based on Lean Methodology.
• New BPM project with the following goals
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Map and describe supporting processes
Optimize supporting processes
Present all processes to employess, students and public
Reduce redundancies
Automate selected processes
Examine BPM in order to determine its usage for the university
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
6
STORY #1
FEE
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
7
PROCESS AS A SERVICE
• Based on BPMN notation
• Scenario of user actions
• Group of all related processes
and information for doing
an activity
• Combination of AS-IS
and TO-BE state
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
8
PROCESS PORTAL
• Part of the faculty web
• Can be used by employees,
teachers, students and
public
• Anyone can provide a
feedback
• Anyone can make a new
proposal
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
9
PRESENT STATE OF THE BPM PROJECT
• All Supporting processes are mapped
• 300 Process maps
• 150 Processes as a service
• Process portal is working
• 3 Processes were selected
for the automation
• Process models are used
for the faculty operations
• Position of the centre is established
and strong
• State of the project: SUCCESSFUL
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
10
BPM PROJECT KEY SUCCESS FACTORS
1. ENVIRONMENT - understanding of an institution and its culture
2. TEAM - creation of an experienced and acceptable team
3. COMMUNICATION - building of communication channels and
continuous communication
4. PRESENTATION - selection of the appropriate form of presentation
of results
5. GOALS - definition of real, achievable and meaningful goals
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
11
KEY SUCCESS FACTOR MATURITY MODEL
0 = nothing
• New area for us
2 = basic
• Having basic idea
4 = complex
• Knowing nearly everything
about the area
5 = excellent
• Having excellent knowledge
• Minimal sucess value = 2
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
12
MATURITY MODEL DEVELOPMENT 2009-2010
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
13
MATURITY MODEL DEVELOPMENT 2011-2012
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
14
MATURITY MODEL DEVELOPMENT 2013-2014
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
15
EXTERNAL COOPERATION
• West Bohemia University
in Pilsen
• Similar but unsuccessful project
• Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering at CTU in Prague
• Process portal
• ŠKODA PRAHA Invest
• Commercial project
• New experiences & source
of financing
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
16
CONCLUSION
• PROJECT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL
• Reasons why the project was successful
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Internal Center of Excellence
Full responsibility for the project
Combination of practical experiences and student’s flexibility
Patience and tolerance of mistakes
Not tightly defined goals at the beginning of the project
Flexibility, appropriate communication, feedback, creativity, …
• Further steps:
• Cooperation with the Rector’s Office
• Preparation of the university information strategy
• Mapping of selected main processes
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
17
STORY #2
FIT
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
18
CONTEXT
• FIT originated in 2009 by splitting the Dept. of Computer Science from
FEE.
• “Everybody doing everything”.
• Process mapping initiative similar to FEE 2010-2013.
• However a different goal: automation ASAP.
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
19
BUSINESS PROCESS ORCHESTRATION
BUSINESS PROCESS ORCHESTRATION
OPEN SOURCE SOLUTIONS
INDUSTRIAL CUTTING EDGE
USER PORTAL
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
21
OPEN SOURCE SOLUTIONS
• Extensive evaluation -> Activity + Liferay
• Currently 2 systems running:
• Portal for cooperation with industry
• Alumni portal
+ Free licences => can be offered to other universities
+ Transparent, open architecture
- Missing functionalities
- Elaborate “explorative” development
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
22
INDUSTRIAL CUTTING EDGE
• IBM BPM
• Currently 4 systems running + several more at FEE + projects for industry
•
•
•
•
Bachelor’s and Master’s theses whole process
States exams administration
Ph.D. study agenda
Registration of external cooperators
+ Development process
+ Functionality
- License prices
- Closed system, one hell of a complexity to configure and maintain
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
23
EEWC 2015
24
EEWC 2015
25
USER PORTAL
EEWC 2015
26
SUCCESS?
• Possibly yes, all the systems serve their purposes well and are
successfully maintained and regularly upgraded.
• Development cost fragment of commercial apps at the University.
• However, not ideal.
• Future way? Not sure yet.
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
27
STORY #3
FIT
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
28
APPLYING DEMO FOR BPM
• Experiment performed on DEMO Bachelor students: semester project
• I.e. not a profi DEMO project (yet ;-)
• Processes previously mapped in BPMN at FEE (Story #1):
• Getting to essential models?
• Improving quality of models?
• + How well will the students perform? What will be easy form them and will
be hard?
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
29
TASKS
1. Divide the existing process description into ontological, infological
and datalogical parts.
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
30
TASKS
2. Elaborate basic DEMO models (OCD, PM, OFD)
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
31
RESULTS
The students exhibited:
• Better skills in precise formulations (better naming and expressions).
• The ability to discern ontological, infological and datalogical levels and
their importance.
• The essential model approx. 21% of the original model.
Challenges faced:
• Not able to reach the most essential and simple models.
• Struggle with proper formulations of transaction products.
• Struggle of abstracting actor roles from actors.
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
32
RESULTS
At the general level, the study helped us considerably with formulating
current shortcomings of our BPM analysis (Story #1):
• There are confusions about distinguishing red, green and blue levels
in the original models -- for some activities, like report generation, it
is not generally clarified to which level does it belong.
• Negotiating about competences -- right now, process mapping is
sometimes blocked by petty discussions who will do what.
• Improving BPMN models using DEMO analysis requires participation
of the stakeholders: e.g. sometimes it is necessary to clarify some
concepts to decide about the ontological level.
DETAILS: CBI 2015
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
33
CONTACTS
naplava@fel.cvut.cz
robert.pergl@fit.cvut.cz
http://czm.fel.cvut.cz
http://ccmi.fit.cvut.cz
Pavel Náplava and Robert Pergl
EEWC 2015
34
Thank you
Questions?