Validating performance improvement projecrts
The effectiveness of any given performance measure depends on how it will be used.
For performance measures to have meaning and provide useful information, it is necessary to make comparisons.
This policy also establishes organizational expectations for process and product quality assurance being in place for all projects.
Process and product quality assurance must possess sufficient independence from project management to provide objectivity in identifying and reporting noncompliance issues.
Our simulation technique extracts decision probabilities and metrics from the event log of an existing process version and generates traces for the new process version based on this knowledge.
The results of simulation guide us towards AB testing where two versions (A and B) are operational in parallel and any new process instance is routed to one of them.
This assumption, however, does not necessarily hold, and any required compensatory action may be delayed until a new round in the BPM life-cycle completes.
This policy establishes organizational expectations for aligning measurement objectives and activities with identified information needs and project, organizational, or business objectives and for providing measurement results.
In this paper, we address this problem by integrating concepts from process execution with ideas from Dev Ops.
More specifically, we develop a methodology called AB-BPM that offers process improvement validation in two phases: simulation and AB tests.
Not all direction from senior management will bear the label “policy.” The existence of appropriate organizational direction is the expectation of this generic practice, regardless of what it is called or how it is imparted.
This policy establishes organizational expectations for establishing and maintaining baselines, tracking and controlling changes to work products (under configuration management), and establishing and maintaining integrity of the baselines.