Information Systems and e-Business Management

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 693–731 | Cite as

Agile business process development: why, how and when—applying Nonaka’s theory of knowledge transformation to business process development

Original Article

Abstract

The traditional way of business process development is via creating a detailed model of a business process in question, acquiring an IT-system to support it, and then implementing it in the organizational practice. Acquiring a system can be done via designing and manufacturing it by the business itself, or via commissioning it to somebody else. Alternatively, a generic system can be bought and configured according to the business process model created. The traditional approach has a number of risks that become visible only during the latest phase of introducing the system in the organizational practice, e.g., when it becomes clear that the system does not fit the business and/or people who work in it. These risks could be mitigated by using an agile approach to the development of business processes. In agile approach: (a) the phases of process modeling, IT-system design, and manufacturing are merged into one, and (b) instead of using one big cycle, a series of smaller development cycles is used. The paper discusses what is needed to implement the agile approach, and in which business situations the agile approach is the most appropriate. Examples of tools to support agile development are presented and analyzed. The results presented in the paper have been achieved based on the knowledge transformation perspective along the lines suggested by Nonaka in SECI model. The modification of this model has been used to understand the risks and requirements connected to a particular process development strategy.

Keywords

Agile development Business process Knowledge transformation SECI model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to all members of our team without whose efforts this paper would have never been written. Special thanks to Tomas Andersson, Paul Johannesson, Erik Perjons, Rogier Svensson and Alexey Striy. The authors are also much in debt to the anonymous reviewers whose comments helped us to improve the structure and readability of this paper.

References

  1. Adams MJ, Ter Hofstede AH, Edmond D, van der Aalst WM (2005) Facilitating flexibility and dynamic exception handling in workflows through worklets. In: CAiSE’05 Google Scholar
  2. Andersson T, Andersson-Ceder A, Bider I (2002) State flow as a way of analyzing business processes–case studies. Logist Inf Manag 15(1):34–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson T, Bider I, Svensson R (2005) Aligning people to business processes experience report. Softw Proces Improv Pract 10(4):403–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker J, Kugeler M, Rosemann M (eds) (2011) Process management: a guide for the design of business processes. 2nd ed. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  5. Bider I (2014) Analysis of agile software development from the knowledge transformation perspective. In: Johansson B (ed) To appear in 13th international conference on perspectives in business informatics research (BIR 2014). Lund, Sweden. Springer, LNBIPGoogle Scholar
  6. Bider I, Striy A (2008) Controlling business process instance flexibility via rules of planning. IJBPIM 3(1):15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bider I, Johannesson P, Perjons E (2010) In search of the holy grail: integrating social software with BPM. Experience report. In: Enterprise, business-process and information systems modeling, LNBIP, Vol. 50. Springer, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  8. Bider I, Bellinger G, Perjons E (2011) Modeling an agile enterprise: reconciling systems and process thinking. In: The practice of enterprise modeling, LNBIP, Vol. 92. Springer, pp 238–52Google Scholar
  9. Bider I, Johannesson P, Perjons E, Johansson L (2012) Design science in action: developing a framework for introducing IT systems into operational practice. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information systems, ICIS. Orlando, Florida, USGoogle Scholar
  10. Box GEP, Draper NR (1987) Empirical model building and response surfaces. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruno G et al (2011) Key challenges for enabling agile BPM with social software. J Softw Maint Evol Res Pract 23(4):297–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conant R, Ashby R (1970) Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system. Int J Systems Sci 1(2):89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conboy K, Fitzgerald B (2004a) Toward a conceptual framework of agile methods: a study of agility in different disciplines. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM workshop on interdisciplinary software engineering research. Newport Beach. ACM, pp 37–44Google Scholar
  14. Conboy K, Fitzgerald B (2004b) Toward a conceptual framework of agile methods. In: Extreme programming and agile methods-XP-agile universe 2004. Springer, pp 105–16Google Scholar
  15. Fowler M, Highsmith J (2001) The agile manifesto. Softw Dev 9(8):28–35Google Scholar
  16. Gong Y, Janssen M (2011) From policy implementation to business process management: principles for creating flexibility and agility. Gov Inf Q 29:S61–S71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gram Consulting (2009) “Ba” for management development. http://gramconsulting.com/2009/04/ba-for-management-development/. Accessed 17 Aug 2013
  18. Highsmith J, Orr K, Cockburn A (2000) E-business application delivery, pp 4–17. www.cutter.com/freestuff/ead0002.pdf
  19. IbisSoft (2009) iPB reference manual. http://docs.ibissoft.se/node/3. Accessed 10 Aug 2013
  20. Jalali A (2014) Assessing aspect oriented approaches in business process management. In: Johansson B (ed) To appear in 13th international conference on perspectives in business informatics research (BIR 2014). Lund, Sweden. Springer, LNBIPGoogle Scholar
  21. Jalali A, Wohed P, Ouyang C (2012) Aspect oriented business process modelling with precedence. In: Business process model and notation, LNBIP, Vol. 125. Springer, pp 23–37Google Scholar
  22. Jalali A, Wohed P, Ouyang C, Johannesson P (2013) Dynamic weaving in aspect oriented business process management. In: 21st international conference on COOPERATIVE INFORMATION SYSTEMS (CoopIS 2013). Springer, pp 2–20Google Scholar
  23. Jensen K, Kristensen LM, Wells L (2007) Coloured petri nets and CPN tools for modelling and validation of concurrent systems. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf 9(3–4):213–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Khomyakov M, Bider I (2001) Achieving workflow flexibility through taming the chaos. In: OOIS 2000—6th international conference on object oriented information systems. Springer, pp 85–92Google Scholar
  25. Kiczales G et al (1997) Aspect-oriented programming. In: ECOOP’97—object-oriented programming. Jyväskylä. Springer, pp 220–242Google Scholar
  26. Kindermann H (2013) Empowering process participants—the way to a truly agile business process management. http://www.onthemove-conferences.org/index.php/keynotes2013/2013keynotekindermann. Accessed 15 Aug 2013
  27. Kueng P, Kawalek P (1997) Goal-based business process models: creation and evaluation. Bus Proces Manag J 3(1):17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Markovic I, Pereira AC (2008) Towards a formal framework for reuse in business process modeling. BPM 2007 workshops. Springer, Berlin, pp 484–495Google Scholar
  29. Meade LM, Sarkis J (2010) Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile manufacturing processes: an analytical network approach. Int J Prod Res 37(2):241–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ Sci 5(1):14–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. OMG (2011) Documents associated with business process model and notation (BPMN). http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/. Accessed 16 Aug 2013
  32. Perjons E, Bider I, Andersson B (2007) Building and exploiting a business process model for lobbying: experience report. Commun IIMA CIIMA 7(3):1–14Google Scholar
  33. Pesic M, Schonenberg H, Van der Aalst WMP (2007) DECLARE: full support for loosely-structured processes. In: EDOCGoogle Scholar
  34. Raschke RL, David JS (2005) Business process agility. In: AMCIS 2005 ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosemann M, Recker J, Flender C (2008) Contextualization of business processes. Int J Bus Proc Integr Manag 47–60Google Scholar
  36. Scholten DL (2010) Every good key must be a model of the lock it opens. http://www.goodregulatorproject.org/images/Every_Good_Key_Must_Be_A_Model_Of_The_Lock_It_Opens.pdf. Accessed 6 Aug 2013
  37. Schonenberg H et al (2008) Towards a taxonomy of process flexibility. In: CAiSE forumGoogle Scholar
  38. Seethamraju R, Seethamraju J (2009) Enterprise systems and business process agility—a case study. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  39. Sherehiy B, Karwowski W, Lawyer JK (2007) A review of enterprise agility: concepts, frameworks, and attributes. Int J Indus Ergonom 37:445–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shore J, Warden S (2008) The art of agile, O’ReillyGoogle Scholar
  41. Swenson KD (ed) (2010) Mastering the unpredictable: how adaptive case management will revolutionize the way that knowledge workers get things done. Meghan-Kiffer Press, TampaGoogle Scholar
  42. Thiemich C, Puhlmann F (2013) An agile BPM project methodology. In: BPM conferenceGoogle Scholar
  43. van der Aalst WMP (1998) The application of petri nets to workflow management. J Circuits Syst Comput 8(1):21–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van der Aalst WMP (2005) Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. Data Knowl Eng 53:129–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van der Aalst WM et al (2009) Flexibility as a service. In: Database systems for advanced applications. Springer, pp 319–33Google Scholar
  46. van der Aalst WMP, Weijters AJMM (2004) Process mining: a research agenda. Comput Ind 53(3):231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM, Kiepuszewski B, Barros AP (2003) Workflow patterns. Distrib Parallel Databases 14(1):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weske M (2012) Business process management: concepts, languages, architectures. 2nd ed. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  49. YAWL Foundation (2004). YAWL http://www.yawlfoundation.org/. Accessed 18 Aug 2013

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DSV - Stockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.IbisSoft ABStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations