簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 陳世瑋
Wiraputra - Sutan
論文名稱： Benchmarking Based Process Reengineering for Construction Management
Benchmarking Based Process Reengineering for Construction Management
指導教授： 鄭明淵
Min-Yuan Cheng
口試委員: 郭斯傑
none
楊亦東
none
潘南飛
none
謝佑明
none
呂守陞
none
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 工程學院 - 營建工程系
Department of Civil and Construction Engineering
論文出版年： 2007
畢業學年度： 95
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 102
中文關鍵詞： benchmarking 、business process reengineering (BPR) 、semantic similarity
外文關鍵詞： benchmarking, business process reengineering (BPR), semantic similarity
相關次數： 點閱：317  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is considered to be the fastest methodology to be used in order to improve business process in a current fast-changing environment. BPR attempts to achieve dramatic improvements in critical measures of performance by using the power of modern information technology (IT) fundamentally to rethink and radically to redesign the business process. However, many construction industries proposed BPR to evaluate the business process, not to redesign the business process. This study focuses on the idea of “Business Process Reengineering (BPR)” in applying benchmarking philosophy to redesign the business process.
    The construction industry has been slow to adopt competitive benchmarking as a tool for continuous improvement. Identifying, and adapting the best-practice process are the important factors of benchmarking. In order to determine the most suitable process from best practice companies’ to be adapted in the benchmarking company, an accurate analysis of the gaps between best-practice processes and benchmarking company’s process is essential for the redesign of business processes.
    This research integrates BPR philosophy, semantic similarities concept and trend model concept to develop a benchmarking-oriented process reengineering (BOPR) that enables a project team to determine the most suitable process from the best practice company. A four-phased process analysis including business process modeling, process similarities analysis, process communication index analysis and process adaptability calculation was developed. An approach of applying the concepts of semantic similarities analysis to find the semantic-related objects between best-practice processes and benchmarking process was also proposed. In addition, trend model concept was applied to evaluate the degree of communication ease of best-practice processes when it is adapted in a benchmarking company.
    Summarily, by referring the proposed BOPR method, project team will have better understanding in determining the most suitable process from best-practice companies to be adapted in benchmarking company.

    Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is considered to be the fastest methodology to be used in order to improve business process in a current fast-changing environment. BPR attempts to achieve dramatic improvements in critical measures of performance by using the power of modern information technology (IT) fundamentally to rethink and radically to redesign the business process. However, many construction industries proposed BPR to evaluate the business process, not to redesign the business process. This study focuses on the idea of “Business Process Reengineering (BPR)” in applying benchmarking philosophy to redesign the business process.
    The construction industry has been slow to adopt competitive benchmarking as a tool for continuous improvement. Identifying, and adapting the best-practice process are the important factors of benchmarking. In order to determine the most suitable process from best practice companies’ to be adapted in the benchmarking company, an accurate analysis of the gaps between best-practice processes and benchmarking company’s process is essential for the redesign of business processes.
    This research integrates BPR philosophy, semantic similarities concept and trend model concept to develop a benchmarking-oriented process reengineering (BOPR) that enables a project team to determine the most suitable process from the best practice company. A four-phased process analysis including business process modeling, process similarities analysis, process communication index analysis and process adaptability calculation was developed. An approach of applying the concepts of semantic similarities analysis to find the semantic-related objects between best-practice processes and benchmarking process was also proposed. In addition, trend model concept was applied to evaluate the degree of communication ease of best-practice processes when it is adapted in a benchmarking company.
    Summarily, by referring the proposed BOPR method, project team will have better understanding in determining the most suitable process from best-practice companies to be adapted in benchmarking company.

    Table 4.1 Definitions of Activity Functions (De Antonellis and Zonta, 1990)57 Table 4.2 Name Set Affinity (Nsa) of Input Data Set of Procurement Process between Benchmarking Company and Best practice Company 160 Table 4.3 Name Set Affinity (Nsa) of Output Data Set of Procurement Process between Benchmarking Company and Best practice Company 160 Table 4.4 Name Set Affinity (Nsa) of Input Data Set of Procurement Process between Benchmarking Company and Best practice Company 261 Table 4.5 Name Set Affinity (Nsa) of Output Data Set of Procurement Process between Benchmarking Company and Best practice Company 261 Table 4.6 Name Set Affinity (Nsa) of Input Data Set of Procurement Process between Benchmarking Company and Best practice Company 362 Table 4.7 Name Set Affinity (Nsa) of Output Data Set of Procurement Process between Benchmarking Company and Best practice Company 362 Table 4.8 Process Function Similarities (PFSim) of Procurement Process between Benchmarking Company and Best practice Company 164 Table 4.9 Process Function Similarities (PFSim) of Procurement Process between Benchmarking Company and Best practice Company 264 Table 4.10 Process Function Similarities (PFSim) of Procurement Process between Benchmarking Company and Best practice Company 365 Table 4.11 Activity Relationship Matrix (ARM) Benchmarking Company Referring to Best practice Company 1 Procurement Process72 Table 4.12 Activity Relationship Matrix (ARM) Benchmarking Company Referring to Best practice Company 2 Procurement Process72 Table 4.13 Activity Relationship Matrix (ARM) Benchmarking Company referring to Best practice Company 3 Procurement Process.72 Table 4.14 Pairwise Comparison76 Table 4.15 Inconsistent Matrix of Pairwise Comparison77 Table 4.16 Normalized Matrix, Row Sums77 Table 4.17 Totaling the Entries78 Table 4.18 Overall priorities of Ki79 Table 4.19 Communication Resistance Matrix (CRM) Benchmarking Company referring to Best practice Company 1 Procurement Process80 Table 4.20 Communication Resistance Matrix (CRM) Benchmarking Company referring to Best practice Company 2 Procurement Process80 Table 4.21 Communication Resistance Matrix (CRM) Benchmarking Company referring to Best practice Company 3 Procurement Process80 Table 4.22 Total Resistance Calculation of Benchmarking Company referring to Best practice Company 1 Procurement Process82 Table 4.23 Total Resistance Calculation of Benchmarking Company referring to Best practice Company 2 Procurement Process…………………………………..82 Table 4.24 Total Resistance Calculation of Benchmarking Company referring to Best practice Company 3 Procurement Process82 Table 4.25 Total Resistance Index of Benchmarking Company82 Table 4.26 Total Communication Index of Benchmarking Company83 Table 4.27 Adaptability Index (AI) Pairwise Comparison between Process Similarity and Process Communication Index85 Table 4.28 Adaptability Index (AI) Pairwise Comparison between PI Sim and PF Sim.85 Table 4.29 Inconsistent Matrix of Process Similarity and Process Communication Index86 Table 4.30 Relative Weight of Process Similarity and Process Communication Index86 Table 4.31 Inconsistent Matrix of PI Sim and PF Sim86 Table 4.32 Relative Weight of PI Sim and PF Sim86 Table 4.33 Process Information Similarity (PI SIM) Normalization87 Table 4.34 Process Functional Similarity (PF SIM) Normalization87 Table 4.35 Adaptability Index (AI) of Procurement Process88

    Andrea, M., Egenhofer Max J. (2003). “Determining Semantic Similarity among Entity Classes from Different Ontologies.” IEEE Transactions onn Knowledge and Data Engineering, 15(2), 442-456.
    Bennigson, L. A. ~1971!. ‘‘TREND: New management information from networks.’’ Proc., 3rd Int. Congress on Project Planning by Network Techniques, 44–60.
    Camp, Robert C. “Benchmarking”. ASQ.1989. New York
    Castano, S. and De Antonellis, V. (1995a). “Reengineering processes in public administrations”. In Proc. of OO-ERJ95- Int. Conf. on the Object-Oriented and Entity-Relationship Modelling,. 282-295, Gold Coast, Australia.
    Castano, S. and De Antonellis, V. (1995b). “Reference conceptual architectures for re-engineering information systems.” International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 49(2&3):213-235.
    Castano, S. and De Antonellis, V. (1997) “A multi-perspective framework for the analysis of legacy information systems.” In Proc. of CAiSE'97 - Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 117-130, Barcelona, Spain.
    Castano, S., De Antonellis,V. (1998). “A framework for expressing semantic relationships between multiple information systems for cooperation”, Information Systems 23(3/4), pp.253-277.
    De Antonellis, V. and Zonta, B. (1990). “A Disciplined Approach to Offine Analysis. “ IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(8), 822-828.
    Furnas, G.W., Landauer, I.K., Gomez, L.M., and Dumais, S.T. (1987). “The vocabulary problem in human-system communication.” Communications of the ACM, 30(11), 964-971
    Galbraith, J.R.(1973). “Designing Complex Organizations”. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
    James T. O’Connor and Steven J. Miller, “Constructability Programs: Method for Assessment and Benchmarking.” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. 8(1), 1994, pp.46-64.
    Li, Y., Bandar, Z.A., Mclean, D. (2003). “An approach for measuring semantic similarity between words using multiple information sources,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 15(4), 871 - 882.
    M. Hammer, Reengineering work: Don’t automate, obliterate, Harvard Business Review, (1990) 104-112.
    M. Hammer, J. Champy, Reengineering the corporation-A manifesto for business revolution, Harper Collins, New York, 1993.
    Min-Yuan, Cheng., Cheng-Wei., Su. and Horng-Yuh, You, “Optimal Project Organizational Structure for Construction Management”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 129(1), 2003, pp.70-79.
    Min-Yuan. Cheng, M.H. Tsai, “Reengineering of Construction Management Process.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 129(1), 2003, pp.105-114.
    M.H. Tsai, (2007). Reengineering of Cross-organization Process for Design-Build Projects. Ph.D. Dissertation, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology.
    Planning, organizing and managing Benchmarking activities: User’s guide.” (1992). Am. Productivity and Quality Ctr., Houston, Tex.
    Poulson, B., 1996, Process benchmarking in retail financial services. Management Services, June, 12–14.
    Ricardo R. Ramirez, Luis Fernando C. Alarcon and Peter Knights, “Benchmarking System for Evaluating Management Practice in the Construction Industry.” Journal of Management in Construction. 20(3), 2004, pp.110-117.
    Sang-Hoon Lee, Stephen R. Thomas, and Richard L. Tucker. “Web-Based Benchmarking System for the Construction Industry.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 131(7), 2005, pp.790-798.
    Scheer, A. W., (2000), ARIS: Business Process Modeling, (Berlin: Springer).
    Sciore, E., Siege, M., and Rosenthal, A. (1994). “Using semantic values to facilitate interoperability among heterogeneous information systems”. ACM Tbnsactions on Database Systems, 19(2), 254-290.
    Sheth, A. and Kashyap, V. (1992). “So Far (Schematically) Yet So Near (Semantically).” Proc. IFIP WG2.6 Database Semantic Conf. Interoperable Database Systems. DS-5, 283-312.
    Spendolini, Michael J. ”The Benchmarking Book”. Amacom. 1992. New York.
    Taiichi, O. (1990). Toyota production System: Beyond large scale production. Productivity Press, Cambridge, Mass.
    Thamhain, H. J. (1991). “Benchmarking of project management systems: How to measure yourself against the best.” Seminar Proc., Project Management Institute, Dallas, Tex., 471-476.
    Tenner, A. R. and Detoro, I.J., 1997, Process Redesign: The Implementation Guide for Managers (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley)
    Watson, G. H. (1993). Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,, London, England.
    Y, C. Juan and C. Ou-Yang., 2004, Systematic approach for the gap analysis of business process. International Journal of Production Research Vol.42, No. 7, 1325-1364.
    Zairi, M. (1992). “Competitive Benchmarking: An executive guide,” Technical Communications Ltd., Letchworth, U.K.

    QR CODE