**4. Results and discussion**

#### **4.1 The factors, which affect business process performance related to employee performance: qualitative view**

The personal dimensions represent an internal potential of any man or woman, while they play a role of principal importance, his/her labor career. When considering the labor aspects, they are closely related to following questions: "What the man or woman is able?", "What the man or woman does want?", "What the man or woman is?" A structure of personal image might be postulated, when combining those aspects, while the structure is unique for any personality and includes many different and specific features closely related to that personality only. However, the labor requirements might greater than, the disposals of man or woman are as well, while a conformity between set of labor requirement and set of the employee capabilities might create adequate labor conditions [7].

A fact, that the actual working or labor time in the day seems to be more suitable than the other one is given by regular variations being internally generated by functional organism states within 24 hours of the day. However, the abovementioned variations exist not only because of psychological reasons, but they are observed and verified within all physiological functions as well, despite that the external conditions might be constant or unchanged. On the other hand, the diurnal variations cannot be described with use of one universal curve, because different functions indicate various course or progress and sometimes that course or progress might indicate a contradictory visual representation.

Moreover, the performance course or progress in the day depends on labour activity nature, as for instance, because the works with different requirements may indicate quite different performance course or progress. As a result of that, the most suitable time intervals for the actual work cannot be determined generally, because they are dependent on the labor or working activity type and appropriate time requirements as well.

However, individual differences also represent the next factor, which plays a significant role related to labor or working performance, while the phase displacement of biorhythmic curve to earlier or later day time seems to be the most significant aspect and that aspect correlates with the man or woman morning or evening Chrono type in a great deal. The preference of an appropriate day time interval seems to be more significant, when considering the above-mentioned individual differences.

We can determine less or more suitable time intervals for the work in the day, while we can support an opinion presented by Vašašová [3] who says that a labor motivation plays a role of principle importance there, while that motivation is a process, which is initiated and enables achieving the pre-defined aim and where or motional forces of individual man or woman are getting started and running in order to achieve that pre-defined aim as well. When considering the hygienic factors, the interpersonal relations, work conditions, employment reliability, relations to supervisors, position among people, wages, the firm or company culture and working check and control seem to be a matter of principal importance, while the motivation seems to be the principal step to be satisfied. With respect to that work results, the firm or company should place emphasis on motivation and satisfaction and a good feeling of its employees. However, that statement corresponds to research results provide by [3] as well.

With respect to the actual research results and findings achieved by Jackson and Gerard [19], further research related to diurnal Chrono types work performance is recommended and should be extended. On the other hand, there is needed a longterm research in order to identify pre-dispositions, which affect a personality, its working performance and social behavior as well. A set of such research results creates a good basis for quantification and modelling relations between performance of business processes running in the actual firm or company and a performance of employees interested in a functionality of those processes (human resources), while it is known that human resources represent an important component of business process metrics too. The problems related to solution of the above-mentioned relation represent a subject of those contribution further sub-chapters [2].

### **4.2 The factors, which affect business process performance related to employee performance: quantitative view**

*4.2.1 Derivation of PBPL Equation concerned with relation between investigated business process performance and the performance of employees interested in that BP functionality*

With respect to qualitative considerations contained within material denoted as "Chrono psychological aspects of labour performance in the world of labour psychology and management informatics" the objective factor attributes and their values might be stored in appropriate linguistic sets, which have an adequate hierarchical structure.

Let us consider the {[HR<sup>4</sup> \_performance (i, j)]}, where i = 1....n – index indicates a serial number of BP to be investigated and modelled, which appropriate human resources are assigned to j = 1, 2 … .m5 – the linguistic set serial number, which creates an integral part of

{[HR\_performance (i, j)]} linguistic set while formula (5) might be postulated<sup>5</sup>

$$\{\left[\text{HR\\_performance (i,j)}\right]\} = \{\left[\mathbf{a11(i,j\_1)}\right], \left[\mathbf{a21(i,j\_2)}\right], \left[\mathbf{a31(i,j\_3)}\right], \left[\mathbf{a41(i,j\_4)}\right]\}\tag{5}$$

<sup>4</sup> {[HR\_performance (i, j)]} – performance of human resources (employees).

<sup>5</sup> [a11(i, j1)] = HR\_01 Labour content, [a21(i, j2)] = HR\_02 Labour motivation, [a31(i, j3)] = HR\_03 Labour conditions, [a41(i, j4)] = HR\_04 Employee capabilities.

*Business Process versus Human Resources Performance DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98944*

We shall apply the PBPL Equation in order to quantify a relation between performance of business to be investigated and performance of employees interested in that BP functionality, while its basic form is represented by formula (6)

$$\{ [\text{Petx } (\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j}')] \} \otimes \{ [\text{Pe } (\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j})] \} = \{ [\text{Res } (\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j})] \} \tag{6}$$

The {[Petx (i, j')]} and {[Res (i, j)]} create an integral part of external metrics related to business process quantified via {[Pe (i, j)]} and the relationship between {[Petx (i, j')]} and {[Res (i, j)]} will not be investigated and discussed within that article and {[Petx (i, j')]} linguistic set is considered to be the empty one {[Petx (i, j')]} = ∅ and we shall discus the relationship between {[Pe (i, j)]} and {[Res (i, j)]} linguistic sets {[Pe (i, j)]} and {[Res (i, j)]}, while formula (7) might be postulated

$$\{ [\text{Pe } (\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j})] \} \Leftrightarrow \{ [\text{Res } (\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j})] \}$$

However, the {[Pe (i, j)]} linguistic set consist of three subsets as well, while formula (9) might be postulated.

$$\{\left[\text{HR\\_performance (i,j\_1)}\right]\left[\text{Pe (i,j)}\right]\} = \{\left[\text{Dev (i,j'')}\right], \left[\text{Tool (i,j'')}\right], \left[\text{HR\\_performance (i,j\_1)}\right]\}\tag{8}$$

Because of that, we shall investigate and discuss the relationship between business process performance based on output products represented by so called good products, repair products and waste products<sup>6</sup> and the data concerned to those products are stored within {[Res (i, j)]} linguistic set, the linguistic subsets [Dev (i, j")] and [Tool (i, j")] are considered to be empty as well. With respect to the above-mentioned assumptions, the equation represented by formula (8) is being reduced, while formula (9) might be postulated

$$\{\left[\text{HR\\_performance (i,j\_1)}\right]\} \leftrightarrow \{\left[\text{Res (i,j)}\right]\}\tag{9}$$

Now, let us try explaining structure and content of {[HR\_performance (i, j1)]} linguistic set, the structure and content of {[Res (i, j)]} linguistic set is explained within Section 4.2.3. In order to achieve that, the following consideration is postulated.

#### *4.2.1.1 Consideration no.1*

The {[HR\_performance (i, j1)]} has a hierarchic structure, while the linguistic subsets at the first hierarchic level are defined, with respect to formulas (10), (11), (12) and (13)

$$\left[\mathbf{a11(i,j\_1)}\right] = \text{HR\\_01 Labor\ content} \tag{10}$$

$$\left[\mathbf{a}\mathbf{21}(\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j}\_2)\right] = \mathbf{H}\mathbf{R}\\_\mathbf{02}\,\mathbf{Labour\ motivation}\,\text{motion}\,\tag{11}$$

$$\mathbf{a}\begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{a}\mathbf{31}(\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j}\_3) \end{bmatrix} = \mathbf{H}\mathbf{R}\\_0\mathbf{3}\,\text{Labour conditions}\tag{12}$$

$$\left[\mathbf{a}\mathbf{41(i,j\_4)}\right] = \text{HR\\_04 Employee capabilities} \tag{13}$$

<sup>6</sup> A semantic meaning of terms good products, repair products and waste products is explained within further section of that contribution.

Any element of that set a11, a21, a31, a41 is represented by adequate ordered pair (see also formula (14)

$$\mathbf{a11}\ (\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{a}\ (\mathbf{j}\_6)) = \left(\mathbf{a11}\text{atr}\ (\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{a}\ (\mathbf{j}\_6)), \mathbf{a11}\text{hattval}\ (\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{a}\ (\mathbf{j}\_6))\right)\mathbf{j}\_6 = \mathbf{1}, 2, \dots \\ \mathbf{m}\_6 \qquad \text{(14)}$$

(a11atr (α (j6)) - is the investigated variable attribute

(a11hatrval (α (j6)) - is the investigated variable attribute value

However, the above-mentioned attributes and attribute values has so called time dimension,<sup>7</sup> while formula (8) might be postulated

$$\mathbf{a11}\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{i},\mathbf{a}\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{j}\_6\end{pmatrix}\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{a11}\text{hatrval}\ \left(\mathbf{a}\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j}\_6\end{pmatrix}\right),\mathbf{t}\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{j}\_{10}\end{pmatrix}\end{pmatrix}\tag{15}$$

If appropriate statistic values of (a11hatrval (α (i, j6)), t(j10)) attributes according to t(j10) index are being generated (it means average – Avg and extend of variation Vaprp, formula (15) is being transformed to formulas (16) and (17)

$$\{\left[\text{b11(i,j\_1)}\right]\} = \{\left[\left(\text{a11atr (u \text{ (j\_6)})}\right)\right], \left[\text{Avg (a11hatval (u \text{ (i,j\_6)}))}\right], \left[\text{Varp (a11hatval (u \text{ (i,j}\_6)))}\right]\}.\tag{16}$$

$$\{\left[\mathbf{b11(i,j\_1)}\right]\} \subseteq \{\left[\mathbf{P} \text{trx}\left(\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j}'\right)\right]\}\tag{17}$$

As mentioned above the {[Petx (i, j')]} linguistic set is considered to empty one and {[Petx (i, j')]} = ∅, however that set contains elements concerned to material inputs related to business process to be investigated and modelled as well, while it would be suitable to define structure of those elements (see also Consideration no. 2).

#### *4.2.1.2 Consideration no. 2*

The aim of business process to be investigated and modelled is to generate predefined output products, while a set of appropriate material outputs are required in order to achieve that aim.

It means, the business process to be modelled represented by {[Pe (i, j)]} linguistic set generates pre-defined output products quantified via {[Res1 (i, j)]} linguistic set based on adequate material inputs quantified via {[Mat (i, j), (j=1, 2, … m1)]} linguistic set, while formula (18) might be postulated

$$\forall \{ [\text{Pe } (\text{i}, \text{j})] \} \exists \{ [\text{Res1 } (\text{i}, \text{j})] \} \text{ and } \{ [\text{Mat } (\text{i}, \text{j}), (\text{j} = 1, 2, \dots \text{m}\_1)] \} \Leftrightarrow \{ [\text{Mat } (\text{i}, \text{j}), [] \} \otimes \{ [\text{Pe } (\text{i}, \text{j})] \} \} = \{ [\text{Res1 } (\text{i}, \text{j})] \} \tag{18}$$

On the other hand, the {[Mat (i, j), (j=1, 2, … m1)]} applied for quantification of material inputs contains elements, closely related to attributes and values concerned with individual materials represented by [(Matatritem (i, j1, t10), material attribute item and [(Matatrvalue (i, j1, t10)], material attribute value with adequate time dimension (see also formula (19). Furthermore, that linguistic set contains subset, the content of which material attribute statistic values Avg (Matatrvalue (i, j1)], Vaprp (Matatrvalue (i, j1)] calculated by an appropriate time dimension, while formula (19) might be postulated

<sup>7</sup> The term attribute time dimension is expressing the time intervals, when the values have been measured.

$$\forall \{ \left[ \mathbf{Mat} \left( \mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j} \right), \left( \mathbf{j} = \mathbf{1}, 2, \dots \mathbf{m}\_{1} \right] \right] \} \exists \left[ \left[ \mathbf{Mat}\_{\text{attr}} \left( \mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j}\_{1} \right), \mathbf{j} \mathbf{1} = \mathbf{1}, 2 \dots \mathbf{m} \mathbf{3} \right] \right] \forall \mathbf{s} \left[ \left[ \mathbf{Mat}\_{\text{attr}} \left( \mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j}\_{1} \right) \right] \right] \mathbf{j},$$

$$= \{ \left[ \left( \mathbf{Mat}\_{\text{attr}} \left( \mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j}\_{1}, \mathbf{t}\_{10} \right) \right), \left[ \left( \mathbf{Mat}\_{\text{attr}} \left( \mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j}\_{1}, \mathbf{t}\_{10} \right) \right) \right], \ \left[ \mathbf{Avg} \left( \mathbf{Mat}\_{\text{attr}} \left( \mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j}\_{1} \right) \right) \right],$$

$$\left[ \mathbf{Vapr} \left( \mathbf{Mat}\_{\text{attribute}} \left( \mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j}\_{1} \right) \right) \right] \tag{19}$$

$$\begin{array}{l} \text{HF (i,j'')} \big| = \{ \left[ \text{HR\\_performance (i,j)} \right] \big\} \\ = \{ \left[ \mathbf{a11}(\mathbf{i,j\_1}) \right], \left[ \mathbf{a21}(\mathbf{i,j\_2}) \right] \big) \big\} , \left[ \mathbf{a31}(\mathbf{i,j\_3}) \right] \big\rangle , \left[ \mathbf{a41}(\mathbf{i,j\_4}) \right] \big\} \end{array} \tag{20}$$

$$\begin{array}{l} \{ \left[ \mathtt{a11}(\mathtt{i}, \mathtt{j}\_{1}) \right], \left[ \mathtt{a21}(\mathtt{i}, \mathtt{j}\_{2}) \right] \}, \left[ \mathtt{a31}(\mathtt{i}, \mathtt{j}\_{3}) \right] \}, \left[ \mathtt{a41}(\mathtt{i}, \mathtt{j}\_{4}) \right] \\\ = \{ \left[ \mathtt{Outbpf} \left( \mathtt{i}, \left( \mathtt{nvyrgood}(\mathtt{i}, \mathtt{j} \mathtt{3}) \right), \left( \mathtt{nvyrrepair}(\mathtt{i}, \mathtt{j} \mathtt{3}) \right), \left( \mathtt{nvyrreate}(\mathtt{i}), \mathtt{j} \mathtt{3} \right) \right] \} \end{array} \} \end{array} \tag{21}$$

#### *4.2.2.1 Consideration no. 3*

Because, the subject of investigation is a relation between modelled business process performance and performance of employees interested in that BP functionality, we might apply PBPL equation modified with respect to formula (23)

$$\begin{array}{l} \{ \left[ \mathtt{a1}(\mathtt{i}, \mathtt{j}\_{1}) \right], \left[ \mathtt{a2}(\mathtt{i}, \mathtt{j}\_{2}) \right] \}, \left[ \mathtt{a3}(\mathtt{i}, \mathtt{j}\_{3}) \right] \}, \left[ \mathtt{a4}(\mathtt{i}, \mathtt{j}\_{4}) \right] \} \\ = \{ \left[ \mathtt{Outbpf} \left( \mathtt{i}, \left( \mathtt{nvyrgood}(\mathtt{i}, \mathtt{j} \mathtt{3}) \right), \left( \mathtt{nvyrrepair}(\mathtt{i}, \mathtt{j} \mathtt{3}) \right), \left( \mathtt{nvyrwaste}(\mathtt{i}), \mathtt{j} \mathtt{3} \right) \right] \} \end{array} \} \end{array} \tag{23}$$

Furthermore, let us make the following assignments

$$\{ \left[ \mathbf{a11(i,j\_1)} \right], \left[ \mathbf{a21(i,j\_2)} \right] \} \left[ \mathbf{a31(i,j\_3)} \right] \left[ \right], \left[ \mathbf{a41(i,j\_4)} \right] \} = \{ \left[ \mathbf{a14(i,j2)} \right] \} \tag{24}$$

<sup>f</sup> **Outbpf i**, **nvyrgood i**, **j3** , **nvyrrepair i**, **j3** , **nvyrwaste i**ð Þ, **j3** g ¼ f g ½ � a15 i, j2 ð Þ (25)

With respect to formula (31)-(33) and formulas (23) and (24) formulas (26) and (27) might be postulated

$$\{ [\mathbf{a15}(\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j2})] \} \approx \{ [\mathbf{a14} \ (\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j2})] \} \tag{26}$$

$$\{ [\mathbf{a15}(\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j2})] \} = \{ [\mathbf{k54}(\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j2})] \} \otimes \{ [\mathbf{a14}(\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j2})] \} \tag{27}$$

which represent a basic relationship between investigated BP performance and performance of employees interested in that BP functionality. Because a strict analytical solution of equation (4.20b) is not possible, it is needed to introduce the **{**[k54 (i, j2)]**}** linguistic set**,** which contains coefficients determining a relation between items, which represent performance of the investigated BP and items, which represent performance of employees interested in functionality of that BP.

With respect to that, we have to describe **{[Outbpf (i, (nvyrgood(i, j3)), (nvyrrepair(i, j3)),(nvyrwaste (i), j3)]}** linguistic set content, while each of the subordinated set contains only one element concerned to number of good, repaired and waste BP output products, while that fact might be represented by adequate semantic network (see also **Figure 1**).

The similar approach could be applied, when quantifying a content of Employee performance linguistic set, however that structure is more complicated as well, while the subsets at hierarchic level no.1 are closely related to labor content, labor motivation and labour conditions and employee capabilities.

#### *4.2.3 Time instant semantic network*

The **{[Outbpf (i, (nvyrgood(I, j3)), (nvyrrepair (i, j3)), (nvyrwaste (i, j3))]}** linguistic set**,** which enables quantifying the investigated business process performance and the **{[Vyk\_zam (i, a21a (i) , a21b (i), a31 (i), a41(i))]}** linguistic set create an integral part of semantic network (see also **Figure 2**), which enables answering the question "How the investigated BP performance is affected by performance of employee interested in that BP functionality (performance)? However, that relation is visualized within instant of time as well, and therefore that type of semantic network might be denoted as **time instant semantic network**.

#### *4.2.4 Time interval semantic network*

If there is a requirement to establish the semantic network, which visualizes appropriate items and their values within pre-defined time interval, adequate

**Figure 1.**

*Structure and functionality of the ES\_BP\_HRP model Source: The Authors.*

statistic values – average Avg and extend of variation Vaprp should be determined, which are closely related to **(nvyrgood(i, j3)),(nvyrrepair(i, j3)), (nvyrwaste (i), j3)** values as well as to items and values contained within a21a, a21b, a31 a a41 linguistic sets and an adequate semantic network might be created subsequently. This type of semantic network is denoted as **time interval semantic network.**

The similar approach should be applied, when quantifying the linguistic set employee performance; however a structure of that linguistic set is more complicated. The subsets [a11(i, j1)] = HR\_01 Labor content, [a21(i, j2)] = HR\_02 Labor motivation, [a31(i, j3)] = HR\_03 Labor conditions and [a41(i, j4)] = HR\_04 Employee capabilities at the first hierarchic level contain appropriate items and values. When comparing it with time instant semantic network, there is one difference. We have to determine appropriate statistic values Avg and Vrozp concerned to the above-mentioned items and values and after that we are allowed to create the time interval semantic network.

The **{[Outbpf (i, (nvyrgood(I, j3)), (nvyrrepair (i, j3)), (nvyrwaste (i, j3))]}** linguistic set**,** which enables quantifying the investigated business process performance and the **{[Vyk\_zam (i, a21a (i) , a21b (i), a31 (i), a41(i))]}** linguistic set create an integral part of semantic network which enables answering the question "How the investigated BP performance is affected by performance of employee interested in that BP functionality (performance) within appropriate time interval?", while the above-mentioned statistic values should be respected. However, the above-mentioned relation is visualized within adequate time interval.

#### **Figure 2.**

*The Vyk\_zam (Employee performance) content within instant semantic network Source: The Authors.*
