MUVE IT: reduce the friction in business processes

– The purpose of this paper is to present a lightweight approach to help diagnose and eliminate issues in existing business processes, which cause participants to resist following them as modelled. The analysis is made accessible by the use of drillable graphical dashboards. , – Two action research cycles in two distinct industries were used to test and refine the approach, while also solving the specific organizational issues. , – The approach was considered simple to use and proved capable of identifying pain points causing friction in the smooth operation of business processes. Various longer-term positive effects were reported by one of the organizations that is ISO 9001-certified. , – This type of research benefits from experiments in new cases with different contexts that can challenge it. In particular, it would be interesting to evaluate the approach in an organization with a more ad hoc view of processes, as opposed to the more standards-based cases of this paper. , – Using the proposed approach to tune the processes, so that participants are more willing to follow them, removes some inconsistency of operations and potential non-conformities in audits. , – The proposed approach is aimed at the “social sustainability” of the business processes, as it seeks to eliminate people grievances with those processes and make them sustainable in the long term. , – Although there is a lot written about process improvement, the literature is scarce in lightweight, pragmatic approaches to identify and resolve the social aspects that cause participants to deviate from the processes, or see them as a burden instead of valuable help for their everyday tasks.

[1]  Paulo Rupino da Cunha,et al.  Who are the Players? Finding and Characterizing Stakeholders in Social Networks , 2010, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[2]  Samir Chatterjee,et al.  A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research , 2008 .

[3]  K. Popper Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography , 1976 .

[4]  Margareth Stoll,et al.  Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management , 2008, EIAT/IETA.

[5]  Tracy Hall,et al.  De-motivators for software process improvement: an analysis of practitioners' views , 2003, J. Syst. Softw..

[6]  Jan Mendling,et al.  A Discourse on Complexity of Process Models , 2006, Business Process Management Workshops.

[7]  Richard Y. Wang,et al.  A product perspective on total data quality management , 1998, CACM.

[8]  Ilia Bider,et al.  Design Science Research as Movement Between Individual and Generic Situation-Problem–Solution Spaces , 2013 .

[9]  Paulo Rupino da Cunha,et al.  Reducing Uncertainty in Business Model Design: A Method to Craft the Value Proposal and its Supporting Information System , 2008, ECIS.

[10]  A. T. Wood-Harper,et al.  A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research , 2016 .

[11]  F. Caeldries Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution , 1994 .

[12]  Diane M. Strong,et al.  Beyond Accuracy: What Data Quality Means to Data Consumers , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[13]  Jan Recker,et al.  Enablers and Barriers to the Organizational Adoption of Sustainable Business Practices , 2010, AMCIS.

[14]  Richard Hung Business process management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study , 2006 .

[15]  William R. King Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning , 2009 .

[16]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  Business process mining: An industrial application , 2007, Inf. Syst..

[17]  Jorge S. Cardoso,et al.  Measuring the Compliance of Processes with Reference Models , 2009, OTM Conferences.

[18]  A. Figueiredo,et al.  Action Research and Design in Information Systems: Two Faces of a Single Coin , 2006 .

[19]  Paulo Rupino da Cunha,et al.  Action-research And Critical Rationalism : A Virtuous Marriage , 2002, ECIS.

[20]  Paul Timmers,et al.  Business Models for Electronic Markets , 1998, Electron. Mark..

[21]  Francis Y. Lau,et al.  Toward a framework for action research in information systems studies , 1999, Inf. Technol. People.

[22]  Jon Iden,et al.  Investigating process management in firms with quality systems: a multi-case study , 2012, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[23]  Jan Mendling,et al.  What Makes Process Models Understandable? , 2007, BPM.

[24]  Sue Holwell,et al.  Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field , 1998 .

[25]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[26]  Didar Zowghi,et al.  Critical success factors for software process improvement implementation: an empirical study , 2006, Softw. Process. Improv. Pract..

[27]  R. Morris Employee work motivation and discretionary work effort , 2009 .

[28]  Hongyan Ma,et al.  Process-aware information systems: Bridging people and software through process technology , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[29]  Ilia Bider,et al.  Design Science in Action: Developing a Framework for Introducing IT Systems into Operational Practice , 2012, ICIS.

[30]  Teija Aarnio The Strengthened Business Process Matrix – A Novel Approach for Guided Continuous Improvement at Service‐Oriented SMEs , 2015 .

[31]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Detection and prediction of errors in EPC business process models , 2007 .

[32]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  When it comes to “best practices” — Why do smart organizations occasionally do dumb things? , 1996 .