Advertisement

Business & Information Systems Engineering

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 213–231 | Cite as

The Role of Gender in Business Process Management Competence Supply

  • Elena GorbachevaEmail author
  • Armin Stein
  • Theresa Schmiedel
  • Oliver Müller
Research Paper

Abstract

While Business Process Management (BPM) was originally focused on Information Technology as a key factor driving the efficiency and effectiveness of organizational processes, there is now a growing consensus among practitioners and academics that BPM represents a holistic management approach that also takes such factors as corporate governance, human capital, and organizational culture into account. Studies show that the BPM practice faces a shortage of competence supply that stems from a shortage of qualified BPM professionals. At the same time, there is a distinct underrepresentation of women in technology-related fields; it has been suggested that gender stereotypes are one of the reasons for this underrepresentation. The goal of this research paper is, thus, to better understand the role of gender in the BPM competences supply. In this study 10,405 LinkedIn profiles of BPM professionals were analyzed using a text mining technique called Latent Semantic Analysis. Twelve distinct categories of supplied BPM competences were identified and it was investigated how far gender biases exist among BPM professionals. The nature of BPM-related competences is discussed, together with the differences in their presentation by male and female professionals, which indicate potential existence of gender stereotypes. Further, it is discussed how the apparent underrepresentation of women among BPM professionals can be addressed to close the competence gap in the field. The study contributes to both the call for research on human capital in the BPM field, and the calls for research on gender and gender stereotypes in technology-related fields.

Keywords

Business process management Competences Skills Latent semantic analysis Text mining Gender diversity BPM workforce 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is part of a project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Grant agreement No 645751. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. We gratefully acknowledge the support of Ms. Megha Anand during the data collection process.

Supplementary material

12599_2016_428_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (132 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 131 kb)

References

  1. Adam A, Griffiths M, Keogh C et al (2006) Being an “it” in IT: gendered identities in IT work. Eur J Inf Syst 15(4):368–378. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adya MP (2008) Women at work: differences in IT career experiences and perceptions between South Asian and American women. Hum Resour Manag 47(3):601–635. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20234 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adya MP, Kaiser KM (2005) Early determinants of women in the IT workforce: a model of girls’ career choices. Inf Technol People 18(3):230–259. doi: 10.1108/09593840510615860 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahuja MK (2002) Women in the information technology profession: a literature review, synthesis and research agenda. Eur J Inf Syst 11(1):20–34. doi: 10.1057/palgrave/ejis/3000417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ahuja MK, Thatcher JB (2005) Moving beyond intentions and toward theory of trying: effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technology use. MIS Q 29(3):427–459Google Scholar
  6. Aichner T, Jacob F (2015) Measuring the degree of corporate social media use. Int J Mark Res 57(2):257–275. doi: 10.2501/IJMR-2015-018 Google Scholar
  7. Altinkemer K, Ozcelik Y, Ozdemir ZD (2011) Productivity and performance effects of business process reengineering: a firm-level analysis. J Manag Inf Syst 27(4):129–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Antonucci YL, Goeke RJ (2011) Identification of appropriate responsibilities and positions for business process management success: seeking a valid and reliable framework. Bus Process Manag J 17(1):127–146. doi: 10.1108/14637151111105616 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ashcraft C, Eger E, Friend M (2012) Girls in IT: the facts. https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/girlsinit_thefacts_fullreport2012.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2016
  10. Atwater LE, Brett JF, Waldman D et al (2004) Men’s and women’s perceptions of the gender typing of management subroles. Sex Roles A J Res 50(3–4):191–199. doi: 10.1023/b:sers.0000015551.78544.35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Australian Computer Society (2012) Australian ICT statistical compendium. CanberraGoogle Scholar
  12. Bandara W, Chand DR, Chircu AM et al (2010) Business process management education in academia: status, challenges, and recommendations. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 27:743–776Google Scholar
  13. Barker L, Mancha C, Ashcraft C (2014) What is the impact of gender diversity on technology business performance? Research Summary. https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/impactgenderdiversitytechbusinessperformance_print.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2016
  14. Bassot B (2012) Upholding equality and social justice: a social constructivist perspective on emancipatory career guidance practice. Aust J Career Dev 21(2):3–13Google Scholar
  15. Bastian M, Hayes M, Vaughan W et al (2014) LinkedIn skills: large-scale topic extraction and inference. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Recommender systems, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  16. Bayer Corporation (2010) Bayer facts of science education XIV: female and minority chemists and chemical engineers speak about diversity and underrepresentation in STEM – Executive summary. http://bayerfactsofscience.online-pressroom.com/download/quote_sheet.zip. Accessed 12 Feb 2016
  17. Butler J (1990) Feminism and the subversion of identity. Roudledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Camp T (2012) Computing, we have a problem…. ACM Inroads 3(4):34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cañibano C, Otamendi J, Andújar I (2008) Measuring and assessing researcher mobility from CV analysis: the case of the Ramón y Cajal programme in Spain. Res Eval 17(1):17–31. doi: 10.3152/095820208X292797 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carsenat E (2013) Onomastics and big data mining. http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6311. Accessed 21 Feb 2016
  21. Cejka MA, Eagly AH (1999) Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 25(4):413–423. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025004002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chelaru S, Herder E, Naini KD, Siehndel P (2014) Recognizing skill networks and their specific communication and connection practices. Proceedings of the 25th ACM conference on Hypertext and social media – HT’14. ACM Press, New York, pp 13–23Google Scholar
  23. Clayton K, Beekhuyzen J, Nielsen S (2012) Now I know what ICT can do for me! Inf Syst J 22(5):375–390. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.00414.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Craig A (2015) Theorising about gender and computing interventions through an evaluation framework. Inf Syst J. doi: 10.1111/isj.12072 Google Scholar
  25. Cramér H (1946) Mathematical methods of statistics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  26. Dumas M, La Rosa M, Mendling J, Reijers HA (2013) Fundamentals of business process management. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eagly AH, Wood W, Diekman AB (2000) Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: a current appraisal. In: Eckes T, Trautner HM (eds) The developmental social psychology of gender. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, pp 123–174Google Scholar
  28. European Commission (2012) She figures 2012: gender in research and innovation – statistics and indicators. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  29. Evangelopoulos N, Visinescu L (2012) Text-mining the voice of the people. Commun ACM 55:62–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Evangelopoulos N, Zhang X, Prybutok VR (2012) Latent semantic analysis: five methodological recommendations. Eur J Inf Syst 21(1):70–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Game A, Pringle R (1983) Sex-typing in computerland. Aust Soc 2:3–8Google Scholar
  32. Gartner (2008) Gartner says most organizations lack all the skills needed to implement and optimize their business processes. http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/767412. Accessed 24 Nov 2014
  33. Gartner (2011) Gartner CIO Survey 2011. http://www.gartner.com/it/. Accessed 22 Nov 2014
  34. Gartner (2013) Hunting and harvesting in a digital world – insights from the 2013 Gartner CIO agenda report. http://www.gartner.com/imagesrv/cio/pdf/cio_agenda_insights2013.pdf. Accessed 01 Nov 2014
  35. Gartner (2014a) Flipping to digital leadership – insights from the 2015 Gartner CIO agenda report. http://www.gartner.com/imagesrv/cio/pdf/cio_agenda_insights2015.pdf. Accessed 01 Nov 2014
  36. Gartner (2014b) Fifteen skills critical to success with business process management. http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2674619. Accessed 02 Oct 2015
  37. Gefen D, Straub DW (1997) Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: an extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Q 21(4):389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hammer M (2015) What is business process management? In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management 1 – introduction, methods, and information systems, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 3–16Google Scholar
  39. Harding SG (1987) Feminism and methodology: social science issues. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  40. Henwood F, Plumeridge S, Stepulevage L (2000) A tale of two cultures? Gender and inequality in computer education. In: Wyatt S, Henwood F, Miller N, Senker P (eds) Technology and in/equality: questioning the information society. Routledge, pp 111–128Google Scholar
  41. Howcroft D, Trauth EM (2008) The implications of a critical agenda in gender and IS research. Inf Syst J 18(2):185–202. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2008.00294.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Indulska M, Hovorka DS, Recker J (2012) Quantitative approaches to content analysis: identifying conceptual drift across publication outlets. Eur J Inf Syst 21(1):49–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Institute of Management & Leadership (2011) Ambition and gender at work. LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Joshi KD, Kuhn KM (2007) What it takes to succeed in information technology consulting: exploring the gender typing of critical attributes. Inf Technol People 20(4):400–424. doi: 10.1108/09593840710839815 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kokkonen AB (2014) Expertise in the illustrative context of BPM. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/79546/1/Alex_Kokkonen_Thesis.pdf. Accessed 09 Sept 2015
  46. Larsen KR, Monarchi DE, Hovorka DS, Bailey CN (2008) Analyzing unstructured text data: using latent categorization to identify intellectual communities in information systems. Decis Support Syst 45(4):884–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Launonen M, Kess P (2002) Team roles in business process re-engineering. Int J Prod Econ 77(3):205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lee DMS, Nielsen S, Trauth EM, Venkatesh V (2000) Addressing the IT skills crisis: gender and the IT profession. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems 2000. Paper 85Google Scholar
  49. Light B (2007) Introducing masculinity studies to information systems research: the case of Gaydar. Eur J Inf Syst 16(5):658–665. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. LinkedIn Corporation (2015) About LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/company/linkedin. Accessed 10 Aug 2015
  51. Litzler E, Samuelson CCC, Lorah JAJ (2014) Breaking it down: engineering student STEM confidence at the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender. Res High Educ 55(8):810–832. doi: 10.1007/s11162-014-9333-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lohmann P, Zur Muehlen M (2015) Business Process management skills and roles: an investigation of the demand and supply side of BPM professionals. In: Business process management. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 317–332Google Scholar
  53. Loiacono E, Urquhart C, Beath CM et al (2013) Thirty years and counting: do we still need the ICIS women’s breakfast? Commun AIS 33(1):81–96Google Scholar
  54. Mackinnon A (1995) Women and computing: an overview. In: Bishop P, Dyer M, Griffin P (eds) Women, computing and culture. Research Centre for Gender Studies & The School of Communication and Information Studies, University of South Australia, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  55. Manning CD, Raghavan P, Schutze H (2008) Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Manstead AS, Hewstone ME, Fiske ST et al (1995) The Blackwell encyclopedia of social psychology. Wiley, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  57. Müller O, Schmiedel T, Gorbacheva E, vom Brocke J (2014) Towards a typology of business process management professionals: identifying patterns of competences through latent semantic analysis. Enterp Inf Syst 10(1):1–31. doi: 10.1080/17517575.2014.923514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. NamSor (2014) NamSor Applied Onomastics – we sort names, what do YOU do? http://namesorts.com/api/. Accessed 02 Nov 2014
  59. No author (2013) How accurate is Linkedln? Financ Manag 42(5):16Google Scholar
  60. Nordhaug O (1993) Human capital in organizations: competence, training, and learning. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  61. Oxford Dictionaries (2015) Glass ceiling. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/glass-ceiling. Accessed 20 Oct 2015
  62. Panteli N (2012) A community of practice view of intervention programmes: the case of women returning to IT. Inf Syst J 22(5):391–405. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.00415.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Panteli N, Stack J, Atkinson M, Ramsay H (1999) The status of women in the UK IT industry: an empirical study. Eur J Inf Syst 8(3):170–182. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pearson K, Galton F (2012) Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Interpret A J Bible Theol 14:1–10. doi: 10.4135/9781412961288 Google Scholar
  65. Pierce CA, Block CA, Aguinis H (2004) Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educ Psychol Meas 64(6):916–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Quesenberry JL, Trauth EM (2012) The (dis)placement of women in the IT workforce: an investigation of individual career values and organisational interventions. Inf Syst J 22(6):457–473. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.00416.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Quinn KM, Monroe BL, Colaresi M et al (2010) How to analyze political attention with minimal assumptions and costs. Am J Pol Sci 54(1):209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Reuter N, Vakulenko S, vom Brocke J et al (2014) The role of information systems in achieving energy-related environmental sustainability. In: European Conference on Information Systems. Tel AvivGoogle Scholar
  69. Ridley G, Young J (2012) Theoretical approaches to gender and IT: examining some Australian evidence. Inf Syst J 22(5):355–373. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.00413.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Robertson M, Newell S, Swan J et al (2001) The issue of gender within computing: reflections from the UK and Scandinavia. Inf Syst J 11(2):111–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rosemann M, vom Brocke J (2015) The six core elements of business process management. Handbook on business process management 1, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 105–122Google Scholar
  72. Rosemann M, de Bruin T, Power B (2006) Chapter 27. BPM maturity. In: Jeston J, Nelis J (eds) Business process managment: practical guidelines to successful implementations. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 299–315Google Scholar
  73. Sahlgren M (2008) The distributional hypothesis. Ital J Linguist 20(1):33–54Google Scholar
  74. Sandberg S (2013) Lean in: women, work, and the will to lead. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  75. Sandström U (2009) Combining curriculum vitae and bibliometric analysis: mobility, gender and research performance. Res Eval 18:135–142. doi: 10.3152/095820209X441790 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schmiedel T, vom Brocke J, Recker J (2013) Which cultural values matter to business process management? Bus Process Manag J 19(2):292–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schmiedel T, vom Brocke J, Recker J (2014) Development and validation of an instrument to measure organizational cultures’ support of business process management. Inf Manag 51(1):43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sidorova A, Evangelopoulos N, Valacich JS, Ramakrishnan T (2008) Uncovering the intellectual core of the information systems discipline. MIS Q 32(3):467–A20. doi: 10.2307/25148852
  79. Spence JT (1985) Implications for the concepts of masculinity and femininity. In: Sonderegger TB (ed) Psychology and gender. University of Nebraska Press, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  80. Statista (2015) Registered members of LinkedIn worldwide as of April 2015, by country. http://www.statista.com/statistics/272783/linkedins-membership-worldwide-by-country/. Accessed 10 Aug 2015
  81. Sturm RE, Taylor SN, Atwater LE, Braddy PW (2014) Leader self-awareness: an examination and implications of women’s under-prediction. J Organ Behav 35(5):657–677. doi: 10.1002/job.1915 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Todd PA, McKeen JD, Gallupe RB (1995) The evolution of IS job skills: a content analysis of IS job advertisements from 1970 to 1990. MIS Q 19(1):1–27. doi: 10.2307/249709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Trauth EM (2002) Odd girl out: an individual differences perspective on women in the IT profession. Inf Technol People 15(2):98–118. doi: 10.1108/09593840210430552 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Trauth EM (2011) Rethinking gender and MIS for the twenty-first century. In: Galliers R, Currie W (eds) The Oxford handbook of management information systems: critical perspectives and new directions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 560–585Google Scholar
  85. Trauth EM (2013) The role of theory in gender and information systems research. Inf Organ 23(4):277–293. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Trauth EM, Quesenberry JL, Huang H (2009) Retaining women in the U.S. IT workforce: theorizing the influence of organizational factors. Eur. J Inf Syst 18(5):476–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Trauth EM, Cain CC, Joshi KD et al (2012) Embracing intersectionality in gender and IT career choice research. In: 50th annual conference on Computers and People Research, pp 199–212Google Scholar
  88. Trauth EM, Cain CC, Joshi KD et al (2016) The influence of gender-ethnic intersectionality on gender stereotypes about IT skills and knowledge. In: The data base for advances in information systems (forthcoming) Google Scholar
  89. Trkman P (2010) The critical success factors of business process management. Int J Inf Manage 30(2):125–134. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Turney PD, Pantel P (2010) From frequency to meaning: vector space models of semantics. J Artif Intell Res 37:141–188Google Scholar
  91. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013) Employment by detailed occupation, 2012 and projected 2022. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_102.htm. Accessed 03 Sep 2013
  92. Van Looy A, De Backer M, Poels G, Snoeck M (2013) Choosing the right business process maturity model. Inf Manag 50(7):466–488. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2013.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. VCAA Statistics (2013) Senior secondary certificate statistical information. In: Vic. Curric. Assess. Authority. http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Pages/vce/statistics/subjectstats.aspx. Accessed 20 Oct 2015
  94. Venkatesh V, Morris MG (2000) Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Q 24(1):115–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (2015) Handbook on business process management 1: introduction, methods, and information systems. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. von Hellens L, Nielsen S, Beekhuyzen J (2004) An exploration of dualisms in female perceptions of IT work. J Inf Technol Educ 3:103–116Google Scholar
  97. von Hellens L, Trauth EM, Fisher J (2012) Editorial. Inf Syst J 22:343–353. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.00412.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wajcman J (1991) Feminism confronts technology. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  99. West C, Zimmerman DH (1987) Doing gender. Gend Soc 1(2):125–151. doi: 10.1177/0891243287001002002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. WHO (2013) What do we mean by “sex” and “gender”? In: World Heal Organ http://apps.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/. Accessed 19 Feb 2016
  101. Wilson M (2004) A conceptual framework for studying gender in information systems research. J Inf Technol 19(1):81–92. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Gorbacheva
    • 1
    Email author
  • Armin Stein
    • 1
  • Theresa Schmiedel
    • 2
  • Oliver Müller
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Münster, ERCISMünsterGermany
  2. 2.University of LiechtensteinVaduzLiechtenstein

Personalised recommendations