PROCESS MODELLING FOR SERVICE PROCESSES

Modelling methods extensions for specifying and analysing customer integration

Karsten Klose, Ralf Knackstedt, Jörg Becker

European Research Center for Information Systems, University of Muenster, Leonardo-Campus 3, Münster, Germany

Keywords: Service Processes, Customer Integration, Method Engineering, Business Process Management, Outsourcing,

Contract Formulation

Abstract: Service Provider business processes require extensive customer participation. Due to the customer’s

substantial impact on the successful implementation of performance processes, measures of customer

interaction must be planned meticulously. At present, there are numerous modelling techniques for a model-

based structuring of these processes. Admittedly, most of these models provide only general operations for

model modifications such as the ability to delete and add elements. This paper demonstrates possible

extensions for process modelling techniques which are intended to assist service providers in analysing their

processes with particular regard to customer integration and contract formulation.

1 INTRODUCTION

Active customer participation is one of the most

important success factors in service processes

(Lasher & Ives & Jarvenpaa, 1991; Henderson,

1990; Fließ & Kleinaltenkamp, 2004). Strictly

speaking, without customer participation, services

processes can not take place (e. g. Fließ &

Kleinaltenkamp, 2004; Chase, 1978; Lovelock &

Young, 1979) because it is essential for service

providers to integrate external factors in order to

accomplish their service processes. Service

providers are inevitably dependent on customer

information about their service requirements.

Furthermore, they often depend on additional

external factors such as human resources, legal

rights, and the assets at their disposal (Fließ &

Kleinaltenkamp, 2004; Kelly & Skinner & Donelly,

1992).

Consequently, one of the most important goals

for service providers is to ensure an appropriate

customer integration in service processes (Palmer &

Cole, 1995). The foundation of successful customer

integration is already determined within the pre-

contract phase and at the point, where the service

contract is concluded. At this very early point of

time, service providers and customers have to

negotiate and define exactly how the service process

is going to be accomplished. However, contract

formulation is a complex task, because a broad

variety of experts from different academic

disciplines (e. g. law, business administration, and

information technology) are involved. Therefore, the

aim of this paper is to develop a methodological

support for the specification and analysis of

customer activities in business processes of service

providers, which also supports the appropriate

definition of service contracts. For that reason, we

combine the Event-Driven Process Chains (EPC)

(Scheer, 2000; Nüttgens & Rump, 2002; Nüttgens &

Rump, 2003) from the information research area and

the ServiceBluePrinting approach (Fließ &

Kleinaltenkamp, 2004; Kingman-Brundage, 1989;

Kingman-Brundage & George & Bowen 1995;

Shostack 1982; Zeithaml & Bittner 1996) from

marketing research forming an integrated method.

The remainder of the paper is organised as

follows. Section 2 presents our modelling methods

extensions to support the specification and the

analysing of customer integration. Section 3

illustrates the applicability of our approach by

analysing experience from a project where the

method has been applied. Finally, conclusions are

presented in Section 4.

2 MODELLING METHOD

EXTENSIONS

Our approach aims to provide a checklist-based

preparation of process models. It comprises of

260

Klose K., Knackstedt R. and Becker J. (2005).

PROCESS MODELLING FOR SERVICE PROCESSES - Modelling methods extensions for specifying and analysing customer integration.

In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - DISI, pages 260-265

 SciTePress

specific components presented below, that extend

common process modelling techniques. Hence, we

contribute to process modelling method

development. The following components feature

suitable rules for the above-mentioned area of

additional problem-solving techniques. The most

important components and their relationships are

illustrated in the meta model in Figure 1. This

Entity-Relationship-Model is a meta model, because

it describes linguistic extensions of process

modelling methods. The most important components

are:

Segmentation

schema

(S)

Seg-PME-

Ass.

(0,n)

Segment

(Seg)

S-Seg-Ass.

(2,n) (1,1)

Central question

(CQ)

Seg-CQ-Ass.

(1,n)

(0,n)

Process model

element (PME)

(0,n)

Segment

structure

(0,n)

Segment group

(SegGrp)

Seg-SegGrp-

Ass.

(0,n) (1,n)

SegGrp-

CQ-Ass.

(1,n)

(0,n)

Figure 1: Meta model for a methodical extension of

process models

Segmentation schema: In order to facilitate an

appropriate process analysis, specifications for

segments of process models have to be developed.

The design of these segmentation schemas is

essential for a theoretical foundation of the

checklists provided. For example, from a knowledge

management perspective, it is highly relevant to

distinct function in terms of data created, data

stored, data distributed or data used. At least, a

segmentation schema has to distinguish two

segments. Each segment belongs exactly to one

segmentation schema. A segmentation schema can

be suitable for more than one perspective. In turn,

one perspective can access several segmentation

schemas. The segmentation structure expresses that

segments can comprise other segments. Whereas

segments structures are used to depict refinement

relationships, segment groups allow for

miscellaneous compositions of segments.

Central Questions: Checklists are compound of

central questions that provide process analysts with

design options. In context of knowledge

management, for example, central questions have to

ask if data stored by a specific function is used in

other functions as well. Central questions are

assigned to segments or segment groups. Central

questions that simultaneously address different

process modelling areas are predestined for an

assignment to segment groups. All central questions

of a segmentation schema result in a perspective

specific checklist.

Assignment of segments to process model

elements: By means of an assignment of segments to

process model elements checklist are linked to

process models. For example, the assignment can be

realised through a direct or indirect attribution of

process model elements. In case of a direct

attribution, segment descriptions are used as

attribute values of process model elements. In case

of an indirect assignment, rules are defined and

computed which derive the corresponding segments

through origin process model attribute values which

are used independently from our approach for other

purposes of process modelling.

According to the meta model in Figure 1,

corresponding segments must be identified that

constitute the segmentation schema. Appropriate

perspectives on customer activities are presented in

different theoretical concepts from marketing theory.

For a bilateral consideration of a business

relationship, we propose the following distinction

(see Figure 2).

• Firstly, it must be determined which activities are

perceived as corporate internal opposed to

external. This is reflected by the outsourcing

/make-or-buy decision. In the ServiceBlue-

printing approach this distinction is regarded in

Front-

office

Facility

Prepa-

ration

Support

Front-

office

Service provider

or company internal

(standardization)

(stakeholder)

comprehensive

(stakeholder)

individual

Beyond perception

of business partner/

stakeholder

Outsourcing/

Make or Buy

Facility

Prepa-

ration

Support

Customer

or company external

(standardization)

(stakeholder)

individual

(stakeholder)

comprehensive

Beyond perception

of business partner/

stakeholder

potential or

execution

Visible Visible

potential or

execution

Figure 2: Segmentation schema for customer integration management.

PROCESS MODELLING FOR SERVICE PROCESSES - Modelling methods extensions for specifying and analysing

customer integration

261

the line of interaction.

• Within a bilateral business relationship, both

from the company’s point of view and from that

of the business partner, it must be decided

whether activities are executed individually for

each business partner or comprehensively for all

business partners. Standardization aspects affect

all business relationship participants (Service-

Blueprinting line of order penetration).

• In case of comprehensive processes, a distinction

must be drawn between potential processes

(ensuring the company’s operating capability)

and execution activities that establish

performance processes. Potential processes are

called facility processes; execution activities are

called preparation processes (ServiceBlue-

printing line of implementation).

• Individual stakeholder processes can be

differentiated with respect to their reference to

customers. Direct customer-contact activities are

so-called front-office processes; activities

without direct customer contact are called

support processes (ServiceBlueprinting line of

visibility).

• The decision as to whether to make activities

visible is not solely limited to the business

partner under consideration. The visualization of

comprehensive activities between partners has to

be considered as well. For each activity, it is

necessary to record which activity aspects are

visible to the business partner and how this

visibility is to be established organisationally and

technically. Activities with direct business

partner contact are visible per se. As opposed to

other categorisation approaches, Figure 3

emphasises the orthogonal relationship between

visibility and standardization. In the bilateral

case, this question should be answered both from

the company’s point of view and from that of the

external partner. In the case of considering

another business partner, the question of

visibility must always be discussed individually

with each respective business partner.

Furthermore, a distinction must be made between

activities that are visible by themselves and those

that become visible through information

activities regarding to certain aspects.

Since the customer depicted on the right side of

Figure 2 may maintain customer relationships on his

own, the provider aspects are reflected on the

customer side. Hence, the same segments count for

this aspect.

The question of institutionalising functions at a high

level of granularity has already been addressed,

where the decision on outsourcing or make-or-buy

was elaborated. Within the scope of designing a

company organization structure, this question has to

be addressed further at a lower level of granularity.

Thus, further differentiations of the company’s

organization structure are not made here.

The questions appear in related approaches,

especially in form of ‘shifting the lines’ which

define the boundaries of the different areas of

activity (Fließ & Kleinaltenkamp, 2004). Table 1

contains an excerpt of the decision terms for

different areas of activity proposed in the

segmentation schema. For the purpose of this paper,

the below-listed questions focus on the perspective

of IT service providers. Likewise, central questions

for the remaining area of activities can be posed.

Examples for the appliance of the questions are

given in Section 3.

Table 1: Excerpt of central questions for analysing

customer activities in service processes

Segment Customer Activities

In which customer processes does the service provider wish

to participate? Which is the relevant customer process that is

to be supported by the service provider?

Which specific tasks of customer processes are to be

provided by the service provider? Is cooperation with other

companies necessary or reasonable in order to map the

complete customer process?

Which activities in the performance creation process are

adopted by the customer?

What is the impact of customer involvement on the process?

Where do problems occur if customers do not contribute in a

required timely, qualitative and quantitative manner (e. g.

service requirements and other information)?

How can adequate customer involvement be accelerated to

simplify provider planning activities (e. g. by timely

contribution demands)?

How can customer involvement be simplified from the

customer perspective (e. g. by pooling customer activities in

a timely manner and on-site)?

Must the division of work between provider and customer to

be changed (shifting of line of outsourcing / make-or-buy)?

How can the deployment of communication channels and

media (e. g. internet portals, call centres) at the customer

interface be improved?

Which customer contact channels and media are to be

offered to which customer groups at what stage of market

transaction?

Are the number and quality of customer interaction points

adequate or to be improved?

What customer data is to be collected from which interaction

channel?

ICEIS 2005 - INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND SPECIFICATION

262

Segment Front-office Activities

Where is the process line of visibility towards the customer?

Are activities that are perceived as relevant, visible to

customers?

What is the (estimated) customer judgement on visible

activities? What data is to be collected in what form to

evaluate visible activities from the customer perspective?

Which aspects of front-office activities should be visible to

customers?

Which channels (internet, phone etc.) should be used to

provide customers with the required information? Should a

push or pull principle be used?

Segment Support Activities

How is customer data to be evaluated and managed so as to

utilise them for subsequent processes?

What are internal coordination problems?

• between customer contact and support staff?

• with regard to the cooperation of support staff?

• with regard to the cooperation of front-office staff?

How can internal cooperation be improved? What types of

coordination functions and systems are necessary or

reasonable (e. g. access to shared databases)?

Is the centralisation or decentralisation of certain tasks

preferable?

Which organisational unit is to be associated to these tasks?

Which aspects of front-office activities should be visible to

customers?

Which channels (internet, phone etc.) should be used to

provide customers with support activities that have been

made visible? Should a push or pull principle be used?

Should support activities be relocated?

In order to facilitate the application of our approach,

a process modelling technique must be selected and

integrated into the segmentation schema. In this

context, the EPC has been selected. EPCs are

directed graphs which comprise three basic elements

(functions, events and logical connectors) indicating

the control flow (Scheer, 2000). In addition to basic

notation objects, EPCs can easily be enriched with a

large number of additional objects (e. g.

organizational units, application systems, and

outcomes) which leads to the extended event-driven

process chain (eEPC). Various extensions of the

EPC can be found in specific domains such as

knowledge and document management, e-

Government, or risk management (Nüttgens &

Rump, 2002; Nüttgens & Rump, 2003). We apply

the following widley-used extensions in our

approach (cp. e.g. Scheer, 2000):

• An application system is a piece of software

supporting a certain function.

• An organisational unit represents any type of

organizational entity found within a company,

for example within subsidiaries, divisions,

departments, or special project teams.

• A detailed function refers to a more detailed

model. It is used with regard to the readability of

process models.

Additionally, specific extensions with regard to the

analysis and specification of customer activities

have to be made:

• Segments (and their corresponding areas of

activity) extend the conceptual aspects of the

eEPC for a proper analysis of customer activities.

Each function of the EPC is a specialization of

‘process model element (PME)’ of our meta

model in figure 1. In consequence, business

process functions can be divided in specific

segments building up the areas of activity. The

above-mentioned detailed functions are generally

not assigned to a specific area of activity,

because the underlying detailed models may be

segmented into different areas of activity.

• As business relationships initiate the negotiation

and formulation of contracts, business process

models can also be used as a sound basis for the

structuring and formulation of contracts.

Especially complex business processes require

time-consuming pre-contract, completion and

post-contract phases involving experts from

different working areas and scientific domains

(such as business administration, information

technology, and law). As a result,

communication problems and ambiguities arise,

which can be handled by business process

models. Using business process models as an

attachment to contracts provides an appropriate

communication tool and a structured procedure

for the negotiation and formulation of contract

paragraphs. Therefore, (contract) paragraphs are

assigned to functions of the process models.

Thus, we extended the meta model of the eEPC

by the entity type ‘paragraph’ and the

relationship type ‘paragraph structure’.

For the application of the extension, corresponding

notation constructs are needed both for segments and

paragraphs. We propose to illustrate the activity

areas by means of the swimlane notation which

leads to a segmentation of business processes

(Scheer, 2000). Alternative notations could also use

different colours for an alignment to segments (each

colour representing a specific area of activity). To

represent paragraphs we used rectangles including

paragraph symbols and numbers which refer to a

detailed description of the underlying contract

clauses.

PROCESS MODELLING FOR SERVICE PROCESSES - Modelling methods extensions for specifying and analysing

customer integration

263

3 UTILISATION OF THE

APPROACH

The application of our approach can be structured

into four phases. During the first phase, as-is models

of service provider’s business processes are

generated. For this purpose, a business framework

should be used. Moreover, existing contracts of the

company have to be investigated as they determinate

the as-is situation. Based on the framework and on

the exiting contracts, as-is business processes can be

identified and documented. In Phase 2, an analysis

of the business process models takes place with

special attention to customer activities. In this phase,

business process designers are supported by means

of the central questions catalogue which has been

developed. By answering these questions, process

designers are effectively assisted in identifying

strengths and weaknesses in their customer

processes. Based on both, the answers to the central

questions and the created as-is models, to-be models

can be created, that allow for higher levels of

customer-integration in each area of activity in phase

3. The to-be models are on the one hand the

foundation of the final implementation phase,

because they represent the requirements definition of

business processes to be implemented in the

information systems. On the other hand, they can be

used for the contract negotiation and design between

the service provider and customer.

Our method for customer integration has been

applied at a medium-sized IT service provider which

offers broad IT infrastructure support for its

customers on such areas as acquisition, installation

and maintenance of hard and software, configuration

of networks, and IT consulting in general. For the

most part, the customers (currently 550) are tax

consultancies, solicitors, management consultancies,

wholesaler, and retailer. The customer integration

management method has been applied with regard to

the procedure model.

Phase 1: As-is modelling: Initially, a business

process framework for the as-is service processes

has been developed. The IT service provider under

consideration exhibits seven core processes and

eight support processes that are embodied in value

chains. Each value chain consists of several

subordinated value chains that in turn comprise

detailed process models. In the following, we focus

on the processes ‘Project preparation’ and ‘Project

performance’ of the IT service provider which are

subordinated processes of the core process ‘project

business’.

Phase 2: Customer activities analysis: For the

analysis of the as-is models, the central questions

catalogue was applied. Thus, the level of customer

integration in each process business model is

analysed.

• Answering, for example, the central question

‘Which activities in the performance creation

process are adopted by the customer?’ (see row

‘customer activities’ in Table 1) reveals for the

as-is model of the ‘Project performance’, that

customers are nor explicitly informed about

preparations they have to make (e. g. provisions

of rooms, availability of necessary staff

members, access to information systems) in

order to ensure a frictionless service

performance. Moreover, customers are not

regularly informed about the current project

status and upcoming project milestones.

• Answering the central question ‘Which aspects

of support activities should be visible to

customers?’ exposes for the ‘Project preparation

process’, that no customer integration in the

support area has taken place during the

preparation phase of outsourcing projects. Thus,

customers had no opportunity to follow or

participate in the process.

Phase 3: To-be modelling and contract

formulation: The analysis of the as-is models

resulted in a variety of requirements with respect to

a higher level of customer integration in each area of

activity.

• Requirements formulated for the ‘Project

performance process’ were, for example, that

necessary customer preparations are explicitly

communicated by the IT service provider. In

return, the customer ensures their observance.

Within the to-be model the two additional

functions ‘Transfer customer preparations’ and

‘Make preparation’ were introduced in the front-

office and customer area. The according

paragraphs have been assigned to the process

functions. Paragraph 3.2 of the IT outsourcing

contract comprises, for example, that the service

provider has to inform the customer about the

above-mentioned preparations two weeks in

advance. Moreover, the customer has to be

reminded one day before the on-site appointment

takes place. Additional process design

recommendations can be found in several new

functions and events (e. g. ‘Send delivery delay

notice’, ‘Check observance of project plan’, and

‘Post-processing of appointment’).

• Requirements exposed for the ‘Project

preparation process’ were, for example, that

important information for the customer should be

ICEIS 2005 - INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND SPECIFICATION

264

communicated as early as possible (such as

determination of a project manager or contact

person for technical questions, pre-existing

documentations about the IT infrastructure of the

customer). Thus, several new functions were

created within the front-office area of activity

(e. g. ‘Present project manager to customer’,

‘Transfer evaluation’, and ‘Transfer project plan

to customer’).

Phase 4: Implementation: Finally the requirements

documented in the to-be models have to be

implemented. The implementation of the above-

mentioned additional events from the ‘Project

preparation and Performance process’ facilitated

customers in a very early phase of the project to

knew, where, why, and which services will take

place and in which parts he/she has to participate.

Furthermore, customers were able to evaluate

support services performed by the service provider.

Hence, they were able to understand the resulting

invoice in detail. Moreover, the business process

models supported the efficient and effective

formulation of the corresponding outsourcing

contracts (not only at the point where the contract

was concluded, but also in the pre- and post contract

phases).

4 CONCLUSIONS

The application of the proposed method showed that

the identification of improvement potential of

business processes in the context of service

providing, can be supported efficiently by using a

number of central questions. To some extent, these

central questions indicate specific options for action.

At minimum, they indicate critical points which

must in turn be examined in more detail.

Segments allow – in an upstream analysis step –

a segmentation of process models into separate

fields of functions or areas of activity. Furthermore,

they enable the formulation of segment-specific

central questions for comprehensive corporate

process models that are more specific than a global

list of questions. In addition, they allow for a

focussing of analysis.

The eEPC proved to be a process modelling

technique which can be extended without difficulty

for the analysis of customer integration and contract

formulation. It should be mentioned, however, that

the proposed concept is designed to be easily

transferable to other process modelling techniques.

For this purpose, adequate model elements must be

identified which are suitable for assignment to

segments.

REFERENCES

Chase, R. B. (1978). Where does the customer fit in a

Service Operation. Harvard Business Review, 56 (6),

1978: pp. 137-140.

Fließ, S., & Kleinaltenkamp, M. (2004). Blueprinting the

service company: Managing service processes

efficiently. Journal of Business Research, 57 (4),

2004: pp. 392-405.

Henderson, J. C. (1990). Plugging into strategic

partnerships: the critical IS connection. Sloan

Management Review, 30 (3), 1990: pp. 7-18.

Kelly, S. W., Skinner, S. J., & Donelly, J. H. (1992).

Organizational Socialization of Service Customers.

Journal of Business Research, 25 (3), 1992: pp. 197-

214.

Kingman-Brundage, J. (1989). The ABC’s of Service

System Blueprinting. In Bitner, M. J., Crosby, L. A.

(Eds.) Designing a Winning Service Strategy. AMA.

Chicago, pp. 30-33.

Kingman-Brundage, J., George, W. R., & Bowen, D. E.

(1995). “Service logic”: achieving system integration.

International Journal of Service Industry

Management, 6 (4), 1995: pp. 20-39.

Lasher, D. R., Ives, B., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1991). USAA-

IBM partnerships in information technology:

management the image project. MIS Quarterly, 15 (4),

1991: pp. 551-565.

Lovelock, C. H., & Young, R. F. (1979): Look to

Customers to Increase Productivity. Harvard Business

Review. 57 (3), 1979: pp. 168-179.

Nüttgens, M., & Rump, F. (2002). EPK 2002 –

Geschäftsprozessmanagement mit Ereignisgesteuerten

Prozessketten. In Proceedings of the first Workshop

der Gesellschaft für Informatik e. V. (GI). Trier.

Nüttgens, M., Rump, F. (2003). EPK 2003 –

Geschäftsprozessmanagement mit Ereignisgesteuerten

Prozessketten. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop

der Gesellschaft für Informatik e. V. (GI). Bamberg.

Palmer, A., & Cole, C. (1995). Services marketing.

Principles and practice. Englewood Cliffs. New York.

Scheer, A.-W. (2000). ARIS – Business Process Modeling.

Springer. Berlin, 3

edition.

Shostack, G. L. (1982). How To Design a Service.

European Journal of Marketing, 16 (1), 1982: pp. 49-

63.

Zeithaml, V. A., & Bittner, M. J. (1996). Services

Marketing. Irwin McGraw-Hill. New York.

PROCESS MODELLING FOR SERVICE PROCESSES - Modelling methods extensions for specifying and analysing

customer integration

265