## 4 Case Study- Business Process Innovation and Improvement
### Redesigned Business Process Implementation and Monitoring: BOOPM Steps 5 & 6  
As indicated in Step 5, the NVA activities are removed and a \"to-be\" process model developed as shown in Figure 5 is implemented and a redesigned system register is maintained. As shown in Table 3, the System Register keeps track of the quality testing outcomes as well as any implementation issues. Based on the changes recommended through the \"to-be\" model, the class diagram in Figure 2 would require remodeling to include the 'Allot Job' data object that was identified through the process redesign. This is an illustration of how our BOOPM framework helps the reengineered modelling to interlink both data and process, rather than deal with them separately. Figure 5: To-Be process model for the case study (BOOPM Step 4 key artefact). Finally, by following Step 6, feedback is gained, which indicates that the waiting time required for each customer's job request to be picked up by Level-1 and Level-2 staff was very much reduced. Similarly, certain NVA activities were removed resulting in sufficient process innovation and improvement. For instance, by removing the activity of Level-2 staff required to send the resolution back to Level-1 staff so as to communicate to the customer on the job status, there was a considerable improvement in CTE. Many such manual tasks were automated by having the job tracking system to update the status and to send email notifications automatically. By comparing the time, resources and the resulting monetary gain and service efficiency between the \"as-is\" process model and \"to-be\" process model, the organisation could make a decision in allocating more resources and enhanced enterprise systems that could lead to the desired BPI. Table 4 gives a comparison of certain key criteria between \"as-is\" process model and \"to-be\" process model. Let us assume that on an average 50 new job requests are made every day, and there are five Level-1 staff, each paid $40 per hour, and three Level-2 staff, each paid $60 an hour. In the \"to-be\" model, it is proposed to exclude Level-1 staff since the online job-tracking system is introduced to log in a job by the customer directly from their computer connected via Internet to the enterprise system. This not only saves the processing time for Level-1 staff to get the job that is manually entered into the job tracking system, it saves money and time for the organisation. Table 4 illustrates how the key criteria for BPI and business performance measurements/metrics could be compared before taking up the change management for adopting such a re-designed process model. Metrics such as number of requests handled by helpdesk staff per day, TCT for each job, the total staff pay per hour required to commit, etc. could help in decision making. The customer satisfaction is also impacted by how automated the processes are, level of errors encountered or waiting times experienced in the helpdesk job process. For the case study, by eliminating Level-1 staff and hiring two extra Level-2 staff in the \"to-be\" model, the waiting time was decreased by one-third. In addition, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Key Criteria for BPI/KPI/Metrics** & **As-Is Process Model** & **To-Be Process Model** \\ \hline \hline Requests handled by staff/day & 50 & 40 \\ \hline Total cycle time/job & 46.5 hours & 4.23 hours \\ \hline Staff pay/hour & \$380 [(40 ×5) + (60 ×3)] & \$300 [60 ×5] \\ \hline Customer satisfaction impact & Manual and prone to errors & Automated and error free \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison between As-Is and To-Be process models (BOOPM Step 6 key artefact).