Beneath the surface of organizational processes: a social representation framework for business process redesign

ABSTRACT

This paper raises the question, “What is an effective representation framework for organizational process design?” By combining our knowledge of existing process models with data from a field study, the paper develops criteria for an effective process representation. Using these criteria and the case study, the paper integrates the process redesign and information system literatures to develop a representation framework that captures a process' social context. The paper argues that this social context framework, which represents people's motivations, social relationships, and social constraints, gives redesigners a richer sense of the process and allows process redesigners to simultaneously change social and logistic systems. The paper demonstrates the framework and some of its benefits and limitations.

REFERENCES

• 1: A. Agostini , G. de Michelis , M. A. Grasso , S. Patriarca, Reengineering a business process with an innovative workflow management system: a case study, Proceedings of the conference on Organizational computing systems, p.154-165, November 01-04, 1993, Milpitas, California, United States [doi>10.1145/168555.168571]
• 2: AVISON,D.E.AND WOOD-HARPER, A. T. 1990. MULTIVIEW: An Exploration in Information Systems Development. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
• 3: Liam J. Bannon, The politics of design: representing work, Communications of the ACM, v.38 n.9, p.66-68, Sept. 1995 [doi>10.1145/223248.223267]
• 4: BARLEY, S. 1986. Technology as an occasion for restructuring. Administrative Science Quarterly 31, 1, 78-108.
• 5: BARUA, A., LEE,C.H.S.,AND WHINSTON, A. B. 1996. The calculus of engineering. Information Systems Research 7, 4, 409-428.
• 6: BASHEIN, B., MARKUS, L., AND RILEY, P. 1994. Preconditions for BPR success. Information Systems Management 11, 2, 7-13.
• 7: BOSTROM,R.P.AND HEINEN, J. S. 1977. MIS problems and failure: a sociotechnical perspective (Part I). MIS Quarterly 1, 3, 17-32.
• 8: CARROLL,J.M.,THOMAS,J.C.,AND MALHOTRA, A. 1980. Presentation and representation in design problem-solving. British Journal of Psychology 71, 1, 143-153.
• 9: Peter Checkland , Jim Scholes, Soft systems methodology in action, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1990
• 10: CLEMONS,E.K.,THATCHER,M.E.,AND ROW, M. C. 1995. Identifying sources of reengineering failures: A study of the behavioral factors contributing to reengineering risks. Journal of Management Information Systems 12, 2, 9-36.
• 11: CULE, P. E. 1995. Business process reengineering: Theory and practice-views from the field. In V. Grover and W. J. Kettinger (Eds.), Business Process Change. Idea Group Publishing, Harrisburg, PA, 230-249.
• 12: CUMMINGS,T.G.AND MARKUS, M. L. 1979. A socio-technical systems view of organizations. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Behavioral Problems in Organizations. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 59-77.
• 13: DAVENPORT, T. 1993. Process Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
• 14: DAVENPORT, T. 1995. The fad that forgot people. Fast Company 1, 1, 70.
• 15: Thomas H. Davenport , Donna B. Stoddard, Reengineering: business change of mythic proportions?, MIS Quarterly, v.18 n.2, p.121-127, June 1994 [doi>10.2307/249760]
• 16: DOUMEINGTS,G.AND BROWNE, J. 1997. Modeling Techniques for Business Process Reengineering and Benchmarking. Chapman & Hall, London.
• 17: DRAZIN,R.AND SANDELANDS, L. 1992. Autogenesis: A perspective on the process of organizing. Organization Science 3, 2, 230-249.
• 18: C. Eden , F. Ackermann, Strategic options in development and analysis (SODA) - using a computer to help with the management of strategic vision, Knowledge based management support systems, Halsted Press, New York, NY, 1989
• 19: EDEN, C., ACKERMANN, F., AND CROPPER, S. 1992. The analysis of cause maps. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 3, 309-324.
• 20: EIN-DOR,P.AND SEGEV, E. 1978. Organizational context and the success of management information systems. Management Science 24, 1, 23-35.
• 21: FISCHHOFF, B., SLOVIC, P., AND LICHTENSTEIN, S. 1978. Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 4, 2, 330-344.
• 22: Jay R. Galbraith, Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1973
• 23: Chris P. Gane , Trish Sarson, Structured Systems Analysis: Tools and Techniques, Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, 1979
• 24: Elihu M. Gerson , Susan Leigh Star, Analyzing due process in the workplace, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), v.4 n.3, p.257-270, July 1986 [doi>10.1145/214427.214431]
• 25: GIDDENS, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
• 26: GITLOW, H., GITLOW, S., OPPENHEIM, A., AND OPPENHEIM, R. 1989. Tools and Methods for the Improvement of Quality. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
• 27: GROVER, V., JEONG,S.R.,KETTINGER,W.J.,AND TENG, J. T. C. 1995. The implementation of business process reengineering. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12, 1, 109- 144.
• 28: GROVER,V.AND KETTINGER,W.J.,EDS. 1995. Business Process Change. Idea Group Publishing, Harrisburg, PA.
• 29: HAMMER, M. 1990. Reengineering work: Don't automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review, (July-August), 104-112.
• 30: HAMMER,M.AND CHAMPY, J. 1993. Reengineering the Corporation. Harper Business, New York.
• 31: HAMMER,M.AND STANTON, S. A. 1995. The Reengineering Revolution. Harper Business, New York.
• 32: HARRINGTON, H. J. 1991. Business Process Improvement. McGraw-Hill, New York.
• 33: Anatol W. Holt, Diplans: a new language for the study and implementation of coordination, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), v.6 n.2, p.109-125, April 1988 [doi>10.1145/45941.45942]
• 34: HUCKVALE,T.AND OULD, M. 1995. Process modeling-Who, what and how. In V. Grover and W. J. Kettinger (Eds.), Business Process Change. Idea Group Publishing, Harrisburg, PA, 230-249.
• 35: JONES,D.R.AND SCHKADE, D. A. 1995. Choosing and translating between problem representations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 61, 2, 214-223.
• 36: KAPLAN,C.A.AND SIMON, H. A. 1990. In search of insight. Cognitive Psychology 22, 374-419.
• 37: KETTINGER,W.J.AND GROVER, V. 1995. Special section: Toward a theory of business process change management. Journal of Management Information System 12, 1, 9-30.
• 38: Gary A. Klein, Using knowledge engineering to preserve corporate memory, The psychology of expertise: cognitive research and empirical AI, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY, 1992
• 39: KLING,R.AND IACONO, S. 1984. Computing as an occasion for social control. Journal of Social Issues 40, 3, 77-96.
• 40: LAND, F. F. 1985. Is an information theory enough?, Computer Journal 28, 3, 211-215.
• 41: LARKIN,J.H.AND SIMON, H. A. 1987. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11, 65-99.
• 42: LEDERER,A.AND NATH, R. 1991. Managing organizational issues in information systems development. Journal of Management Systems 42, 11, 23-28.
• 43: Thomas W. Malone, Modeling coordination in organizations and markets, Management Science, v.33 n.10, p.1317-1332, October 1, 1987 [doi>10.1287/mnsc.33.10.1317]
• 44: Thomas W. Malone , Kevin Crowston, The interdisciplinary study of coordination, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.26 n.1, p.87-119, March 1994 [doi>10.1145/174666.174668]
• 45: MARCH, J. G. 1981. Footnotes to change. Administrative Science Quarterly 26, 4, 563- 577.
• 46: MARCH,J.G.AND SIMON, H. A. 1958. Organization. Wiley, New York.
• 47: M. Lynne Markus, Power, politics, and MIS implementation, Communications of the ACM, v.26 n.6, p.430-444, June 1983 [doi>10.1145/358141.358148]
• 48: MARKUS,L.AND KEIL, M. 1994. If we build it they will come: Designing information systems that users want to use. Sloan Management Review 35, 4, 11-25.
• 49: MAYER,R.J.,BENJAMIN,P.C.,CARAWAY,B.E.,AND PAINTER, M. K. 1995. A framework and a suite of methods for business process reengineering. In V. Grover and W. J. Kettinger (Eds.), Business Process Change: Reengineering Concepts, Methods, and Technologies. Idea Group Publishing, Harrisburg, PA, 245-290.
• 50: MCCANN,J.E.AND FERRY, D. L. 1979. An approach for assessing and managing inter-unit interdependence. Academy of Management Review 4, 1, 113-119.
• 51: MCCANN,J.E.AND GALBRAITH, J. R. 1981. Interdepartmental relations. In P. C. Nystrom and W. H. Starbuck, Handbook of Organization Design, Vol. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 60-84.
• 52: MUMFORD, E. 1983. Designing Human Systems for New Technology: The ETHICS Method. Manchester Business School, Manchester.
• 53: NELSON,R.R.AND WINTER, S. G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
• 54: Allen Newell, Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1972
• 55: NONAKA, I. 1994. Dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Sci-ence 5, 1, 14-37.
• 56: ORLIKOWSKI, W. J. 1993. CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development; MIS Quarterly 17, 3, 309-340.
• 57: ORLIKOWSKI, W. J. 1996. Improvising organization transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research 7, 1, 63-92.
• 58: PASMORE,W.A.AND SHERWOOD, J. J. 1978. Sociotechnical Systems: A Sourcebook. Univer-sity Associates, La Jolla, CA.
• 59: PAVA, C. 1990. Redesigning sociotechnical systems design: concepts and methods for the 1990s. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 22, 3, 201-221.
• 60: PENTLAND, B. T. 1992. Organizing moves in software support hotlines. Administrative Science Quarterly 37, 4, 527-548.
• 61: PENTLAND, B. T. 1995. Grammatical models of organizational processes. Organization Sci-ence 6, 5, 541-556.
• 62: PENTLAND,B.T.AND RUETER, H. H. 1994. Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly 39, 3, 484-510.
• 63: PFEFFER,J.AND SALANCIK, G. 1978. The External Control of Organizations. Harper and Row, New York.
• 64: PONDY, L. R. 1970. Toward a theory of internal resource allocation. In Mayer N. Zald (Ed.), Power in Organizations. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, TN, 270-311.
• 65: QUINN,B.J.,ANDERSON, P., AND FINKLESTEIN, S. 1996. Leveraging intellect. Academy of Management Executive 10, 3, 7-27.
• 66: RAMPRASAD,A.AND POON, E. A. 1985. A computerized interactive technique for mapping influence diagrams (MIND). Strategic Management Journal 6, 4, 377-392.
• 67: REYNOLDS, B. 1994. The rap on reengineering. Computerworld, September 26.
• 68: George P. Richardson , Alexander L. Pugh, Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling with Dynamo, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981
• 69: RUMMLER,G.A.AND BRACHE, A. P. 1995. Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on the Organization Chart. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
• 70: Patricia Sachs, Transforming work: collaboration, learning, and design, Communications of the ACM, v.38 n.9, p.36-44, Sept. 1995 [doi>10.1145/223248.223258]
• 71: August-Wilhelm Scheer, ARIS Toolset: a software product is born, Information Systems, v.19 n.9, p.607-624, Dec. 1994
• 72: SIMON, H. A. 1964. On the concept of organizational goals. Administrative Science Quarterly 9, 1-22.
• 73: SIMON,H.A.AND HAYES, J. R. 1964. The understanding process: Problem isomorphs. Cognitive Psychology 8, 165-190.
• 74: SINGH,B.AND REIN, G. L. 1992. Role interaction nets (RINs): A process description formalism. Technical Report CT-083-92. Austin, TX. Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation.
• 75: SMITH, G. F. 1989. Representation effects of the solving of an unstructured decision problem. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 19, 5, 1083-1090.
• 76: STODDARD,D.AND JARVENPAA, S. 1995. Reengineering: It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Harvard Business Review (November-December), 16-17.
• 77: STRAUSS, G. 1962. Tactics of lateral relationship: The purchasing agent. Administrative Science Quarterly 7, 2, 601-168.
• 78: Diane M. Strong , Steven M. Miller, Exceptions and exception handling in computerized information processes, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), v.13 n.2, p.206-233, April 1995 [doi>10.1145/201040.201049]
• 79: Lucy A. Suchman, Office procedure as practical action: models of work and system design, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), v.1 n.4, p.320-328, Oct. 1983 [doi>10.1145/357442.357445]
• 80: Lucy Suchman, Representations of work, Communications of the ACM, v.38 n.9, p.33-35, Sept. 1995 [doi>10.1145/223248.223257]
• 81: TAYLOR,J.C.AND FELTEN, D. F. 1993. Performance by Design: Sociotechnical Systems in North America. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
• 82: James T. C. Teng , Seung Ryul Jeong , Varun Grover, Profiling successful reengineering projects, Communications of the ACM, v.41 n.6, p.96-102, June 1998 [doi>10.1145/276609.276625]
• 83: THOMPSON, J. 1967. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• 84: VICTOR,B.AND BLACKBURN, R. S. 1987. Interdependence: An alternative conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 12, 3, 486-498.
• 85: WEICK, K. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing (2nd ed.). Random House, New York.
• 86: WHITE, J. B. 1996. 'Next big thing': Re-engineering gurus take steps to remodel their stalling vehicles. Wall Street Journal (November 26), pp. A1, A6.
• 87: Terry Winograd , Fernando Flores, Understanding computers and cognition, Ablex Publishing Corp., Norwood, NJ, 1986
• 88: YU,E.AND MYLOPOULOS, J. 1994. Using goals, rules, and methods to support reasoning in business process reengineering. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (Hawaii, January), 4, 234-243.
• 89: YU,E.AND MYLOPOULOS, J. 1995. From E-R to 'A-R'-Modeling strategic/actor relationships for business process reengineering. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 4, 2 & 3, 125-144.
• 90: Shoshana Zuboff, In the age of the smart machine: the future of work and power, Basic Books, Inc., New York, NY, 1988

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.4 COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY

General Terms:
Design, Performance

Keywords:
business process redesign, organizational change, process representation