Advertisement

Mixed Methods Approach as Requirements Analysis of a Method for Process Harmonization in Design Science Research

  • Irene SchönreiterEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 339)

Abstract

Process harmonization (PH) in the post-merger integration phase is essential for successful mergers & acquisitions (M&A). Especially in the service sector, the know-how is bundled in processes, thus PH is an essential success factor. In order to execute PH systematically under holistic consideration, a method for PH is desirable. The objective of the research project is the development of a corresponding artefact within the framework of the Design Science Research approach. To identify requirements for the artefact, the Mixed Methods (MiMe) research consisting of interviews with experts and questionnaire survey was used for the requirements analysis, whose results were already published in individual contributions. This article aims to evaluate critically the applied MiMe research and thus broaden its application in IS research. The result shows that the obtained meta-inferences hold a high validity and accordingly the requirements gained from MiMe research are an essential prerequisite for the development of an artifact for PH.

Keywords

Mixed methods research Process harmonization Design science Business Process Management 

References

  1. 1.
    Zephyr published by Bureau van Dijk: M&A Portal: M&A Review Global H1 2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haspeslagh, P.C., Jemison, D.B.: Managing Acquisitions: Creating Value Through Corporate Renewal. The Free Press, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Toppenberg, G., Henningsson, S.: Taking stock and looking forward: a scientometric analysis of IS/IT integration challenges in mergers. In: ECIS 2014 Proceedings, pp. 0–16 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rohloff, M.: Advances in business process management implementation based on a maturity assessment and best practice exchange. Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manag. 9(3), 383–403 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jochem, R., Geers, D., Heinze, P.: Maturity measurement of knowledge-intensive business processes. TQM J. 23(4), 377–387 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schönreiter, I.: Bedarfe zur Prozessharmonisierung in fusionierten Dienstleistungsunternehmen im Zeitalter Quality 4.0. In: Winzer, P. (ed.) Herausforderungen der Digitalisierung, 1/2016, pp. 35–49. Shaker, Aachen (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schönreiter, I.: Methodologies for process harmonization in the post merger integration phase - a literature review. Bus. Process Manag. J. 24(2), 330–356 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schönreiter, I.: Significance of quality 4.0 in post merger process harmonization. In: Piazolo, F., Geist, V., Brehm, L., Schmidt, R. (eds.) ERP Future 2016. LNBIP, vol. 285, pp. 123–134. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58801-8_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schönreiter, I.: Prozessharmonisierung in der Post Merger Integration - Qualitätskriterien für den Integrationsprozess. zfo - Zeitschrift Führung + Organ. 86(04), 253–260 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schönreiter, I.: Process harmonization phase model in post merger integration. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA 2016), pp. 3–22 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schönreiter, I.M.: Successful post merger process harmonization in the triangle of methodologies, capabilities and acceptance. In: Teniente, E., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPM 2017. LNBIP, vol. 308, pp. 656–668. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74030-0_53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Creswell, J.W., Clark, V.L.P.: Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Venkatesh, V., Brown, S.A., Bala, H.: Bridging the qualitative-quantitative devide: guidelines for constructing mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Q. 37(1), 21–54 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hug, T., Poscheschnik, G.: Empirisch forschen die Planung und Umsetzung von Projekten im Studium, 2nd edn. UVK Verl.-Ges, Konstanz, München (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Teddlie, C., Tashakorri, A.: Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Sage, Beverley Hills (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Turner, L.A.: Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J. Mix. Methods Res. 1(2), 112–133 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Borchardt, A., Göthlich, S.E.: Erkenntnisgewinnung durch Fallstudien. In: Albers, S., Klapper, D., Konradt, U., Walter, A., Wolf, J. (eds.) Methodik der empirischen Forschung, 1st edn, pp. 37–54. Dt. Univ.-Verl, Wiesbaden (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dresing, T., Pehl, T.: Praxisbuch Interview, Transkription & Analyse. Anleitungen und Regelsysteme für qualitativ Forschende, 6th edn. Eigenverlag, Marburg (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bogner, A., Littig, B., Menz, W.: Interviews mit Experten: eine praxisorientierte Einführungeine praxisorientierte Einführung. Springer, Wiesbaden (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19416-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mayring, P.: Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und TechnikenGrundlagen und Techniken. Beltz, Weinheim (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Riesenhuber, F.: Großzahlige empirische Forschung. In: Albers, S., Klapper, D., Konradt, U., Walter, A., Wolf, J. (eds.) Methodik der empirischen Forschung, 1st edn, pp. 1–18. Dt. Univ.-Verl, Wiesbaden (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stier, W.: Empirische Forschungsmethoden. Springer, Berlin (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-58460-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gläser, J., Laudel, G.: Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungenals Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen, 4th edn. VS, Verl. für Sozialwiss, Wiesbaden (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mayring, P.: Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. Klagenfurt (2014). www.beltz.de
  26. 26.
    Raab-Steiner, E., Benesch, M.: Der Fragebogen von der Forschungsidee zur SPSS-Auswertung, 3rd edn. Facultas, WUV, Wien (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Esser, H.: Differenzierung und Integration sozialer Systeme als Voraussetzungen der Umfrageforschung: Differentation and integration in social systems as prerequisites of survey research. Zeitschrift für Soziologie ZfS 4(4), 316–334 (1975)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Friedrichs, J.: Methoden empirischer Sozialforschung, 14th edn. Westdt. Verl, Opladen (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations