Advertisement

Social Technology Affordances for Business Process Improvement

  • Paul MathiesenEmail author
  • Jason WatsonEmail author
  • Wasana BandaraEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 342)

Abstract

Organisations across diverse industries have started to embed Enterprise Social Technology (EST) to create collaborative, human-centric environments in their day-to-day operations. With this growing trend, the use of EST within process improvement initiatives is gaining popularity. While the potential that EST brings (in particular with better connecting and influencing people’s participation) to process improvements is widely acknowledged, research providing insights into how this actually takes place and specifically contributes towards process improvement efforts is very limited. This study adopts a ‘technology affordance’ perspective to identify and conceptualise affordances of EST within the context of process improvement activities. Based on forming theory on this topic, a process improvement effort that applied EST was investigated through a series of interviews. The interviews were rigorously designed, and carefully executed and analyzed via a tool-supported data coding and analysis approach. The study outcomes resulted with a refined and partially validated ‘EST affordances for process improvements’ model with 9 EST affordances and 3 ‘contingency variables’.

Keywords

Business process improvement Enterprise Social Technology Qualitative research Affordance NVivo 

References

  1. Abbate, T., Coppolino, R.: Open innovation and creativity: conceptual framework and research propositions. In: Paper Presented at the VII Conference of the Italian Chapter of AIS (itAIS 2010) (2010)Google Scholar
  2. Akkermans, H., van Helden, K.: Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: a case study of interrelations between critical success factors. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 11(1), 35–46 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ariouat, H., Hanachi, C., Andonoff, E., Benaben, F.: A conceptual framework for social business process management. Procedia Comput. Sci. 112, 703–712 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.08.151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balzert, S., Fettke, P., Loos, P.: A framework for reflective business process management. In: 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on Paper presented at the System Science (HICSS), 4–7 Jan 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. Barki, H.: Thar’s gold in them thar constructs. ACM SIGMIS Database 39(4), 90 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, J., Kugeler, M., Rosemann, M.: Business Process Lifecycle Management. White paper (2001)Google Scholar
  7. Bradley, A.: The Six Core Principles of Social-Media-Based Collaboration (2009). Gartner.comGoogle Scholar
  8. Brambilla, M., Fraternali, P., Vaca, C.: A notation for supporting social business process modeling business process model and notation. In: Dijkman, R., Hofstetter, J., Koehler, J. (eds.) BPMN 2011. LNBIP, vol. 95, pp. 88–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25160-3_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brambilla, M., Fraternali, P., Ruiz, C.K.V.: Combining social web and BPM for improving enterprise performances: the BPM4People approach to social BPM. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference companion on World Wide Web, Lyon, France (2012a)Google Scholar
  10. Brambilla, M., Fraternali, P., Vaca, C.: BPMN and design patterns for engineering social BPM solutions. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) Business Process Management Workshops, vol. 99, pp. 219–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2012b).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dengler, F., Koschmider, A., Oberweis, A., Zhang, H.: Social software for coordination of collaborative process activities business process management workshops. In: zur Muehlen, M., Su, J. (eds.) BPM 2010. LNBIP, vol. 66, pp. 396–407. Springer, Berlin (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20511-8_37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dollmann, T., Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Web 2.0 enhanced automation of collaborative business process model management in cooperation environments. In: ACIS 2009 Proceedings, vol. 41 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33143-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erol, S., et al.: Combining BPM and social software: contradiction or chance? J. Softw. Maint. Evol.: Res. Pract. 22(6–7), 449–476 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fereday, J., Muir-Cochrane, E.: Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int. J. Qual. Methods 5(1), 80–92 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fiedler, K.D., Grover, V., Teng, J.T.C.: An empirical study of information technology enabled business process redesign and corporate competitive strategy. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 4, 17–30 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleiss, J.L., Levin, B., Paik, M.C.: The measurement of interrater agreement. Stat. Methods Rates Proportions 2, 212–236 (1981)Google Scholar
  18. Frazier, P.A., Tix, A.P., Barron, K.E.: Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. J. Couns. Psychol. 51(1), 115–134 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gasson, S.: A genealogical study of boundary-spanning IS design. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 26–41 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibson, J.J.: The theory of affordances. In: Perceiving, Acting and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, pp. 67–82 (1977)Google Scholar
  21. Gottanka, R., Meyer, N.: ModelAsYouGo: (Re-) design of S-BPM process models during execution time. In: Stary, C. (ed.) S-BPM ONE 2012. LNBIP, vol. 104, pp. 91–105. Springer, Berlin (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29133-3_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hailemariam, G., vom Brocke, J.: What is sustainability in business process management? A theoretical framework and its application in the public sector of Ethiopia. In: zur Muehlen, M., Su, J. (eds.) BPM 2010. LNBIP, vol. 66, pp. 489–500. Springer, Berlin (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20511-8_45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Helms, R.W., Booij, E., Spruit, M.R.: Reaching out: involving users in innovation tasks through social media. In: ECIS 2012 Proceedings, Paper 193 (2012)Google Scholar
  24. King, A.: In vivo coding. In: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE, Thousand Oaks (2008)Google Scholar
  25. Koschmider, A., Song, M., Reijers, H.A.: Social software for modeling business processes. In: Ardagna, D., Mecella, M., Yang, J. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNBIP, vol. 17, pp. 666–677. Springer, Berlin (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00328-8_67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee, M.J., McLoughlin, C.: Harnessing the affordances of web 2.0 and social software tools: can we finally make “student-centered” learning a reality? In: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (2008)Google Scholar
  27. Lübbe, A.: Principles for business modelling with novice users. In: Proceedings of the Participatory Innovation Conference, Sønderborg, Denmark, pp. 318–322 (2011)Google Scholar
  28. Magdaleno, A.M., Cappelli, C., Baiao, F.A., Santoro, F.M., Araujo, R.: Towards collaboration maturity in business processes: an exploratory study in oil production process. Inf. Syst. Manage. 25(4), 302–318 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martinho, D., Rito-Silva, A.: ECHO an evolutive vocabulary for collaborative BPM discussions. In: zur Muehlen, M., Su, J. (eds.) BPM 2010. LNBIP, vol. 66, pp. 408–419. Springer, Berlin (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20511-8_38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mathiesen, P., Bandara, W., Watson, J.: The affordances of social technology: a BPM perspective. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Information Systems, Milan (2013)Google Scholar
  31. Mathiesen, P., Watson, J., Bandara, W., Rosemann, M.: Applying social technology to business process lifecycle management. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 231–241. Springer, Berlin (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McLoughlin, C., Lee, M.J.W.: Social software and participatory learning: pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the web 2.0 era. In: Proceedings of ascilite Singapore 2007 Paper presented at the ICT: Providing Choices for Learners and Learning (2007)Google Scholar
  33. Neumann, G., Erol, S.: From a social Wiki to a social workflow system. In: Ardagna, D., Mecella, M., Yang, J. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNBIP, vol. 17, pp. 698–708. Springer, Berlin (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00328-8_70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Newman, M., Zhao, Y.: The process of enterprise resource planning implementation and business process re-engineering: tales from two Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises. Inf. Syst. J. 18(4), 405–426 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Niehaves, B., Henser, J.: Boundary spanning practices in BPM: a dynamic capability perspective. In: AMCIS 2011 Proceedings - All Submissions, Paper 230 (2011)Google Scholar
  36. Niehaves, B., Plattfaut, R.: Collaborative business process management: status quo and quo vadis. Bus. Process Manage. J. 17(3), 384–402 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Riemer, K., Alexander, R.: Tweet inside: microblogging in a corporate context. In: BLED 2010 Proceedings Paper 41 (2010)Google Scholar
  38. Rossi, D., Vitali, F.: Workflow enactment in a social software environment. In: Ardagna, D., Mecella, M., Yang, J. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNBIP, vol. 17, pp. 716–722. Springer, Berlin (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00328-8_72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saldaña, J.: The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage, Beverly Hills (2012)Google Scholar
  40. Seigel, D.G., Podgo, M.J., Remaley, N.A.: Acceptable values of kappa for comparison of two groups. Am. J. Epidemiol. 135(5), 571–578 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmidt, R., Nurcan, S.: BPM and social software. In: Ardagna, D., Mecella, M., Yang, J. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNBIP, vol. 17, pp. 649–658. Springer, Berlin (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00328-8_65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Silva, A.R., Meziani, R., Magalhães, R., Martinho, D., Aguiar, A., Flores, N.: AGILIPO: embedding social software features into business process tools. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 219–230. Springer, Berlin (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12186-9_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tarafdar, M., Gordon, S.: Understanding the influence of information systems competencies on process innovation: a resource-based view. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 16(4), 353–392 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Treem, J., Leonardi, P.: Social media use in organizations: exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Commun. Yearb. 36, 143–189 (2012)Google Scholar
  45. Volkoff, O., Strong, D.M.: Critical realism and affordances: theorizing IT-associated organizational change processes. MIS Q. 37(3), 819–834 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wacker, J.G.: A theory of formal conceptual definitions: developing theory-building measurement instruments. J. Oper. Manage. 22(6), 629–650 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walsh, J., Deery, S.: Refashioning organizational boundaries: outsourcing customer service work. J. Manage. Stud. 43(3), 557–582 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zammuto, R.F., Griffith, T.L., Majchrzak, A., Dougherty, D.J., Faraj, S.: Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organ. Sci. 18(5), 749–762 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Systems SchoolQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations