Process Mining for Six Sigma

Process mining offers a set of techniques for gaining data-based insights into business processes from event logs. The literature acknowledges the potential benefits of using process mining techniques in Six Sigma-based process improvement initiatives. However, a guideline that is explicitly dedicated on how process mining can be systematically used in Six Sigma initiatives is lacking. To address this gap, the Process Mining for Six Sigma (PMSS) guideline has been developed to support organizations in systematically using process mining techniques aligned with the DMAIC (Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control) model of Six Sigma. Following a design science research methodology, PMSS and its tool support have been developed iteratively in close collaboration with experts in Six Sigma and process mining, and evaluated by means of focus groups, demonstrations and interviews with industry experts. The results of the evaluations indicate that PMSS is useful as a guideline to support Six Sigma-based process improvement activities. It offers a structured guideline for practitioners by extending the DMAIC-based standard operating procedure. PMSS can help increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of Six Sigma-based process improving efforts. This work extends the body of knowledge in the fields of process mining and Six Sigma, and helps closing the gap between them. Hence, it contributes to the broad field of quality management

Summative assessment of portfolios: an examination of different approaches to agreement over outcomes

The issue of arriving at agreement over outcomes in summative assessment of portfolios has been a major concern, given the complexity of the assessment task, the educational and political context, and the widespread and growing use of portfolios in higher education. This article examines research findings in this area. The discussion takes place in a philosophical and theoretical context. The first section of this article considers various approaches to portfolio assessment (e.g. positivist, interpretivist, feminist) and the assumptions underlying them. The second section examines research findings in these different traditions, pointing out the findings and gaps in each, as well as suggesting potential meeting points between them. The article does not argue that any approach offers all answers to all problems connected with agreement over outcomes in portfolio summative assessment. Rather, the purpose of this article is to clarify the choices facing assessors. The underlying issues raised here have relevance to other methods of assessment, apart from portfolios