Exploring the Design, Use, and Outcomes of Process Guidance Systems - A Qualitative Field Study

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9661)

Abstract

Organizations define processes specifying employees’ daily work and require them to be process compliant in order to prevent expensive mistakes and ensure a high quality. Employees have difficulties in being process compliant, among other reasons, due to lacking process knowledge. Addressing this lack of process knowledge and the need to support employees’ process execution, we investigate the process guidance concept. In this research, we present a process guidance system implemented in a case company and its evaluation in the form of a qualitative field study. The findings from the interviews and focus groups confirm the intended outcomes of process guidance on the users’ process knowledge, performance, and process compliance. Moreover, we discuss in detail the outcomes of process guidance usage and identify opportunities for future research.

Keywords

Process guidance Design principles Qualitative field study 

References

  1. 1.
    Davenport, T.H., Short, J.E.: The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign. Sloan Manag. Rev. 31, 1–31 (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schaefer, T., Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Control patterns - bridging the gap between is controls and BPM. In: ECIS 2013 Proceedings (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morana, S., Schacht, S., Scherp, A., et al.: Designing a process guidance system to support user’s business process compliance. In: ICIS 2014 Proceedings (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ceaparu, I., Lazar, J., Bessiere, K., et al.: Determining causes and severity of end-user frustration. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 17, 333–356 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singh, D.T.: Incorporating cognitive aids into decision support systems: the case of the strategy execution process. Decis. Support Syst. 24, 145–163 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rice, R.E., Cooper, S.D.: Organizations and Unusual Routines. A Systems Analysis of Dysfunctional Feedback Processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Becker-Kornstaedt, U., Hamann, D., Kempkens, R., Rösch, P., Verlage, M., Webby, R., Zettel, J.: Support for the process engineer: the spearmint approach to software process definition and process guidance. In: Jarke, M., Oberweis, A. (eds.) CAiSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1626, pp. 119–133. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burkhart, T., Krumeich, J., Werth, D., et al.: Flexible support system for email-based processes: an empirical evaluation. Int. J. E-Bus. Dev. 2, 77–85 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krumeich, J., Werth, D., Loos, P.: Business process learning on the job: a design science oriented approach and its empirical evaluation. Knowl. Manag. E-Learn.: Int. J. 4, 395–414 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., et al.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28, 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Tuunanen, T., Vaezi, R.: Design science research evaluation. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 398–410. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhattacherjee, A.: Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices. Textbooks Collection. Book 3. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/
  13. 13.
    Silver, M.: Decisional guidance. Broadening the Scope. Adv. Manage. Inf. Syst. 6, 90–119 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gregor, S., Benbasat, I.: Explanations from intelligent systems: theoretical foundations and implications for practice. MIS Q. 23, 497–530 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arnold, V., Collier, P.A., Leech, S.A., et al.: Impact of intelligent decision aids on expert and novice decision-makers’ judgments. Acc. Financ. 44, 1–26 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Montazemi, A.R., Wang, F., Nainar, S.M.K., et al.: On the effectiveness of decisional guidance. Decis. Support Syst. 18, 181–198 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Glover, S., Prawitt, D., Spilker, B.: The influence of decision aids on user behavior: implications for knowledge acquisition and inappropriate reliance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 72, 232–255 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dhaliwal, J.S., Benbasat, I.: The use and effects of knowledge-based system explanations: theoretical foundations and a framework for empirical evaluation. Inf. Syst. Res. 7, 342–362 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Limayem, M., DeSanctis, G.: Providing decisional guidance for multicriteria decision making in groups. Inf. Syst. Res. 11, 386–401 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shen, M., Carswell, M., Santhanam, R., et al.: Emergency management information systems: could decision makers be supported in choosing display formats? Decis. Support Syst. 52, 318–330 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arnold, V., Clark, N., Collier, P.A., et al.: The differential use and effect of knowledge-based system explanations in novice and expert judgment decisions. MIS Q. 30, 79–97 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kuechler, B., Vaishnavi, V.: Theory development in design science research: anatomy of a research project. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17, 489–504 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hevner, A.R.: A three cycle view of design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19, 87–92 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Eggert, M., et al.: Generalizability and applicability of model-based business process compliance-checking approaches – a state-of-the-art analysis and research roadmap. Bus. Res. 5, 221–247 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tan, W.G., Cater-Steel, A., Toleman, M.: Implementing IT service management: a case study focussing on critical success factors. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 50, 1–12 (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bhattacherjee, A.: Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Q. 25, 351–370 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Myers, M.D.: Qualitative Research in Business and Management. SAGE, Los Angeles (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tremblay, M.C., Hevner, A.R., Berndt, D.J.: The use of focus groups in design science research. In: Hevner, A., Chatterjee, S. (eds.) Design Research in Information Systems, 22, pp. 121–143. Springer, US, Boston, MA (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thomas, D.R.: A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am. J. Eval. 27, 237–246 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Steinbart, P.J., Accola, W.L.: The effects of explanation type and user involvement on learning from and satisfaction with expert systems. J. Inf. Syst. 8, 1–17 (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Morana
    • 1
  • Silvia Schacht
    • 2
  • Alexander Maedche
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Information Systems and MarketingKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Enterprise SystemsUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations