Consider whether activities may be executed in parallel
Reijers, H., & Liman Mansar, S. (2005). Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics. Omega, 33(4)
The heuristic is mentioned by Rupp and Russell (1994), Berg and Pottjewijd (1997), and Van der Aalst and Van Hee (2002). Van der Aalst (2000b) provides quantitative support for this heuristic.
The obvious effect of applying this heuristic is that the throughput time may be considerably reduced. The applicability of the heuristic in workflow redesign is large. In practical experiences we have had with analyzing existing workflows, tasks were mostly ordered sequentially without the existence of hard logical restrictions prescribing such an order.
A drawback of introducing more parallelism in a workflow that incorporates possibilities of knock-outs is that the cost of workflow execution may increase. The management of workflows with concurrent behavior can become more complex also, which may introduce errors (quality) or restrict run-time adaptations (flexibility).
Foundational free Patterns
Combine small activities into composite activities
Let workers perform as many steps as possible for single cases
Assign a responsible individual for handling each case type
Determine whether activities are related to the same type of case and, if necessary, distinguish new business processes
Design business processes for typical cases and isolate exceptional cases from the normal flow
Move activities to more appropriate places
Let customers interact with the company wherever they want to
Offer customers the possibility to serve themselves
Distribute tasks by interdepartmental interactions to enable or restrict involvement