Search results

This research proposes how Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) provides a complementary approach for business process management (BPM) lifecycle implementation in order to address gaps identified in the current literature.

The mandatory elements of a method (MEM) framework is used to illustrate DFSS's maturity as a process redesign method. The use of DFSS in a BPM context is described through several action research case examples.

This research specifies the procedure model (order of development activities), techniques, results, roles and information/meta model (conceptual data model of results) associated with using DFSS to address BPM-related challenges. The action research case examples provided discuss the details of implementing BPM using DFSS to design, implement and test redesigned processes to ensure they fulfill the needs of process participants.

While the case examples discussed were performed in only a few settings, which limits the generalizability of their results, they provide evidence regarding the wide range of domains in which the proposed DFSS-BPM approach can be applied and how the tools are used in different contexts.

This research offers a road map for addressing the challenges practitioners often face with BPM lifecycle implementation.

This research provides the first attempt to integrate DFSS as a complementary method for BPM lifecycle implementation.

This study aims to provide healthcare managers with a meaningful synthesis of state of the art knowledge on error proofing strategies. The purpose is to provide a foundation for understanding medical error prevention, to support the strategic deployment of error proofing strategies, and facilitate the development and implementation of new error proofing strategies.

A diverse panel of 40 healthcare professionals evaluated the 150 error proofing strategies presented in the AHRQ research monograph using classification systems developed by earlier researchers. Error proofing strategies were ranked based on effectiveness, cost, and ease of implementation as well as based on their aim/purpose, i.e. elimination, replacement, facilitation, detection, or mitigation of errors.

The findings of this study include prioritized lists of error proofing strategies from the AHRQ manual based on the preferred characteristics (i.e. effectiveness, cost, ease of implementation) and underlying principles (i.e. elimination, replacement, facilitation, detections mitigation of errors) associated with each strategy.

The results of this study should be considered in light of certain limitations. The sample size of 40 panelists from hospitals, medical practices, and other healthcare related companies in the Gulf Coast region of the USA prevents a stronger generalization of the findings to other groups or settings. Future studies that replicate this approach, but employ larger samples, are appropriate. Through the use of public forums and expanded sampling, it may be possible to further validate research findings in this paper and to expand and build on the results obtained in this study.

Using the error‐proofing strategies identified provides a starting point for researchers seeking to better understand the impact of error proofing on healthcare services, the quality of those services and the potential financial ramifications. Further, the results presented enhance the strategic deployment of error proofing strategies by bringing to light some of the important factors that healthcare managers should consider when implementing error proofing solutions. Most notably, healthcare managers are encouraged to implement effective solutions, rather than those that are merely inexpensive and/or easy to implement, which is more often the case.

This study provides a much‐needed forum for sharing error‐proofing strategies, their effectiveness, and their implementation.