Analyzing Process Acceptance with IT-Enabled Experimental Research

Authors

  • Volker Nissen Ilmenau University of Technology, 29, Ehrenbergstraße, Ilmenau, 98693, Germany
  • Thomas Müllerleile Ilmenau University of Technology, 29, Ehrenbergstraße, Ilmenau, 98693, Germany
  • Elena O. Kazakova Flexalex
  • Tatiana A. Lezina St. Petersburg State University, 7–9, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8323-9436

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu05.2016.307

Abstract

The positive results that are frequently associated with business process management, can only be achieved through triggering of the process by its users and the correct execution by the process operators. Unfortunately, business scandals in various domains have shown that companies, or rather the process operating subjects, sometimes do not execute their processes according to given standards or do not use existing processes at all. This failure in process execution can lead not only to suboptimal performance but also to life threatening disasters. By circumvention of official channels, individuals within the company create shadow organizations. Thus, unofficial processes and shadow IT systems emerge, which run alongside the official organization. This in turn has several disadvantages, among others increased complexity and lack of transparency, compliance risks and higher costs.
It is, therefore, of crucial importance to understand, why people accept or dismiss official business processes. Basically, this question calls for an explorative empirical research approach. A possible way of investigation is field studies in business organizations. However, such a form of study is expensive, time-consuming and it is difficult to attract a sizeable number of qualified participants. Moreover, there are known methodical problems with empirical research that relies on questioning people about their own sphere of responsibility. In this paper, we suggest to proceed in a different way to determine
whether a process fits the end users. Our methodology is based on setting up process acceptance experiments in a crowdsourcing environment that allow for a more objective investigation at reduced time and cost, as compared to classical field studies. Refs 27. Figs 6. Tables 3.

Keywords:

process acceptance, business process management, measuring process acceptance, process acceptance testing, crowdsourcing environment

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

Author Biographies

Volker Nissen, Ilmenau University of Technology, 29, Ehrenbergstraße, Ilmenau, 98693, Germany

Univ.-Prof., Chair of Business & Information Systems Engineering in Services,

Thomas Müllerleile, Ilmenau University of Technology, 29, Ehrenbergstraße, Ilmenau, 98693, Germany

Diplom-Kaufmann, Lecturer, Chair of Business & Information Systems Engineering in Services

Elena O. Kazakova, Flexalex

Web-developer

Tatiana A. Lezina, St. Petersburg State University, 7–9, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation

Phd in Physics and Mathematics, Associate Professor

References

Литература на русском языке


References in Latin Alphabet

Alter S. Theory of Workarounds. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2014, vol. 10, pp. 1041–1066.

Antunes A. S., da Cunha P. R. Business Processes the Way They Should be: Tuning for Low Friction and Sustainability. Proceedings ECIS 2013. Utrecht, Paper 59.

Baddoo N., Hall T. De-Motivators for Software Process Improvement: An Analysis of Practitioners Views. Journal of Systems and Software, 2003, vol. 66, pp. 23–33.

Baina K., Baina S. User Experience-based Evaluation of Open Source Workflow Systems: The Cases of Bonita, Activiti, jBPM, and Intalio. Proceedings of 3rd International Symposium ISKO-Maghreb. 2013 (DOI: 10.1109/ISKO-Maghreb.2013.6728122).

Bagozzi R. P. The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2007, vol. 8, pp. 244–254.

Process Management: A Guide for the Design of Business Processes. Eds. J. Becker, M. Kugeler, M. Rosemann. Berlin, London, Springer, 2011. 596 p.

Behrens S. Shadow Systems: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Communications of the ACM, 2009, vol. 52, pp. 124–129.

Bendoly E., Cotteleer M. J. Understanding Behavioral Sources of Process Variation following Enterprise System Deployment. Journal of Operations Management, 2008, vol. 26, pp. 23–44.

Bergkvist L., Rossiter J. R. The Predictive Validity of Multiple‐Item versus Single‐Item Measures of the Same Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 2007, vol. 44, pp. 175–184.

Bortz J, Döring N. Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human-und Sozialwissenschaftler. 4 ed. Berlin, Springer, 2006. 811 p.

Churchill G. A. A Paradigm for Developing better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 1979, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 64–73.

Corbin J. M., Strauss, A. L. Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 1990, vol. 13, pp. 3–21.

Davis F. D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 1989, vol. 13, pp. 319–340.

Dethloff C. Akzeptanz und Nicht-Akzeptanz von technischen Produktinnovationen. Berlin et al., Pabst, 2004. 356 p.

Diamantopoulos A. The C-OAR-SE Procedure for Scale Development in Marketing: a Comment. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2005, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–9.

Fleischmann A., Schmidt W., Stary C., Obermeier S., Brger E. Subject-Oriented Business Process Management (S-BPM). Berlin, Springer, 2012. 376 p.

Frei F. X., Kalakota R., Marx L. M. M. Process Variation as a Determinant of Service Quality and Bank Performance: Evidence from the Retail Banking Study. Wharton, Report 97-36, 1999.

Howe J. The Rise of Crowdsourcing. Wired Magazine. June 2006. Available at: http://www.wired.com/2006/06/crowds/ (accessed: 02.04.2016).

International Atomic Energy Agency: Report on the Preliminary Fact Finding Mission Following the Accident at the Nuclear Fuel Processing Facility in Tokaimura. Japan, TR., Vienna, 1999.

Kittur A., Chi E. H., Suh B. Crowdsourcing User Studies with Mechanical Turk. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’08) . New York, ACM, 2008, pp. 453–456.

Kramp M. Exploring Life and Experience through Narrative Inquiry. Foundations for Research: Methods in Education and the Social Sciences. Eds. K. B. de Marrais, S. D. Lapan. Mahwah, 2004, pp. 103–121.

Lange K., Kühn S., Filevich E. Just Another Tool for Online Studies (JATOS): An Easy Solution for Setup and Management of Web Servers Supporting Online Studies. PLoS ONE, 2015, vol. 10, no. 7. e0134073 [doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134073].

London K. R. The People Side of Systems. New York, McGraw Hill, 1976. 281 p.

Lucke D. Akzeptanz: Legitimität in der Abstimmungsgesellschaft. Leverkusen, VS Verlag, 1995. 452 p.

Markus M. L., Keil M. If we Build It, They will Come: Designing Information Systems that People Want to Use. Sloan Management Review, 1994, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 11–25.

McDonnell J. V., Martin J. B., Markant D. B., Coenen A., Rich A. S., Gureckis T. M. psiTurk (Version 1.02) [Software]. New York University, 2012. Available at: https://github.com/NYUCCL/psiTurk (accessed: 02.04.2016).

Melao N., Pidd M. A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Business Processes and Business Process and Business Process Modelling. Information Systems Journal, 2000, vol. 10, pp. 105–129.

Müllerleile T., Nissen V. When Processes Alienate Customers: Towards a Theory of Process Acceptance. Proceedings S-BPM One. Eds. A. Nonopoulos, W. Schmidt. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (LNBIP) . Berlin, Springer, 2014, pp. 171–180.

Müllerleile T., Ritter S., Englisch L., Nissen V., Joenssen D. The Influence of Process Acceptance on BPM: An Empirical Investigation. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 17th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI 2015) , 2015, pp. 125–132.

Müllerleile T., Martinovic D., Joennssen D., Orner M., Grimm M., Nissen V., Reuss H.-C. Fully Charged: Process Acceptance of Different EV Charging Processes. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2834600 (accessed: 02.04.2016).

Niazi M., Wilson D., Zowghi D. Critical Success Factors for Software Process Improvement Implementation: An Empirical Study. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 2006, vol. 11, pp. 193–211.

Nissen V., Müllerleile T. Prozessakzeptanzforschung. Warum manche Prozesse gelebt und andere umgangen werden. Handbuch Dienstleistungsmanagement. Eds. H. Corsten, T. Roth. München, Vahlen, 2016 (accepted). Nguyen H., Dumas M., La Rosa M., Maggi F. M., Suriadi S. Mining Business Processes Deviance: a Quest for Accuracy. Proceedings of “On the move to meaningful internet systems” (OTM 2014). LNCS 8841. Berlin et al., Springer, 2014, pp. 436–445.

Oppenheimer D. M, Meyvis T., Davidenko N. Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to Increase Statistical Power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2009, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 867–872.

Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V. A., Berry L. L. Servqual. Journal of Retailing, 1988, vol. 64, pp. 12–40.

Reichwald R. Zur Notwendigkeit der Akzeptanzforschung bei der Entwicklung neuer Systeme der Bürotechnik. Technical Report. München, Hochschule d. Bundeswehr, 1978. 55 p.

Ritter S., Müllerleile T., Nissen V. Prozessakzeptanz — Der Schlüssel für gelebte Prozesse. Qualität und Zuverlässigkeit, 2016, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 38– 41.

Rozinat A., Aalst W. v.d. Conformance Checking of Processes Based on Monitoring Real Behavior. Information Systems, 2008, vol. 33, pp. 64–95.

Rossiter J. R. The C-OAR-SE Procedure for Scale Development in Marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2002, vol. 19, pp. 305–335.

Rossiter J. R. Measurement for the Social Sciences: The C-OAR-SE Method and Why It Must Replace Psychometrics. Berlin, Springer Science & Business Media, 2010. 186 p.

Strauss L. A. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, 1987. 336 p.

Strauss A. L., Corbin J. M. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, SAGE, 1990. 400 p.

Tsikritsis N., Heineke J. The Impact of Process Variation on Customer Dissatisfaction: Evidence from the U. S. Domestic Airline Industry. Decision Sciences, 2004, vol. 35, pp. 129–142.

Venkatesh V., Bala H. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences, 2008, vol. 39, pp. 273–315.

Wohlin C., Runeson P., Höst M., Ohlsson M. C., Regnell B., Wesslén, A. Experimentation in Software Engineering. Berlin et al., Springer, 2012. 236 p.

Zairi M. Business Process Management: A Boundaryless Approach to Modern Competitiveness. Business Process Management Journal, 1997, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 64–80.


Translation of references in Russian into English

Downloads

Published

2016-09-30

How to Cite

Nissen, V., Müllerleile, T., Kazakova, E. O., & Lezina, T. A. (2016). Analyzing Process Acceptance with IT-Enabled Experimental Research. St Petersburg University Journal of Economic Studies, (3), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu05.2016.307

Issue

Section

Economics of firms and industrial management