7/21/2019 Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Organizational Cultures’ Support of Business Process Ma… http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/development-and-validation-of-an-instrument-to-measure-organizational-cultures 1/14 Developmentandvalidationof aninstrumenttomeasure organizationalcultures’supportof BusinessProcessManagement Theresa Schmiedel a, *, Jan vom Brocke a , Jan Recker b a Universityof Liechtenstein, Instituteof InformationSystems, Fuerst-Franz-Josef-Strasse, 9490Vaduz, Liechtenstein b QueenslandUniversityof Technology, InformationSystemsSchool, 126 Margaret Street,Brisbane,QLD4000, Australia 1.Introduction BusinessProcessManagement (BPM) hasbecomearecognized fieldof researchintheInformationSystemsdiscipline. Thepurpose of BPMistoincreasetheefficiencyandeffectivenessof organizational processes throughimprovement andinnovation [22].Earlyapproaches inbothresearchandpracticehavefocused ontheroleof informationtechnology(IT)insupportingBPM[4], butamoreholisticunderstandingof BPMhasbeenestablished sincethenthatrecognizesthestrategicandgovernanceelements of BPM,aswellassoftfactors,suchaspeopleandcultureissues [54].Cultureinparticularhasoftenbeenidentifiedascriticaltothe successof businessprocesses andIT-drivenchange[11], asbotha driverandapotential inhibitorof BPMinitiatives[40,60]. Animportant concept thathasbeenproposedinthiscontextis the notion of a BPM culture, i.e., a culture that supports BPM objectives. Whilesomeresearchershavereferredtothisconceptin theirwork[69,30],itsmeaningwasnotfullyexploreduntil recently. InapriorglobalDelphistudywithexperts fromBPM researchandpractice, weanalyzedandconceptualizedthe characteristics of anorganizational culturethatsupports BPM andidentifiedfourdistinctvaluesthatdefinetheBPMculture concept [56]. Nevertheless, thereislittleknowledgeabouthowvarious culturalconceptsorconceptualizations of cultureintervenein BPMprojects. Onepossiblereasonforthedearthof researchinthis areaisthelackof anappropriate operationalization of culture. Empirical studiesof culturalsettingsandtheirinfluenceon processes oroutcomes of BPMrequirereliableandvalid measurement instruments. Suchinstruments wouldalsoprovide practitioners withananalysisandbenchmarkingtoolthatcouldbe usedtoexaminetheextenttowhichtheirorganizational culture facilitatestheirBPMapproach. Toaddress thisgap,the purposeof thisstudyistodevelopand validateameasurement instrument withwhichtoassessan organizational culture’ssupport of BPM.Weadopt amulti-stage approachtoinstrument development thatinvolvesexperts from BPMresearchandpracticefromaroundtheworld. AsBPMisan established management approach worldwide, we deem an international studynecessary. Wereportonconstructandscale development, operationalization, andmeasurement instrument validationandapplication, buildingonandextendingthe definitionof theBPMcultureconceptfromaprevious Delphi study[56]. Weproceedasfollows.Next, weprovidearelevanttheoretical backgroundonthemainconceptsof ourresearch–BPM, organizational culture,andthenotionof BPMculture–which composetheconceptualbasisforourstudy.Wethenprovidean overviewof themethodological approachanddescribethe procedure thatwefollowedinthevariousstagesof instrument Information &Management51(2014)43–56 AR TICL EINFO Article history: Received10 July2012 Received in revised form 20 December 2012 Accepted31August2013 Available online 10 September 2013 Keywords: BusinessProcessManagement Organizational culture BPMculture Measurementinstrument Construct development Scaledevelopment ABSTR ACT The purpose of Business Process Management (BPM) is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of organizational processesthrough improvement and innovation. Despite a common understandingthat culture isanimportant element inBPMefforts,thereisa dearthoftheoreticalandempirical research on culture as a facilitator of successful BPM. Wedevelop theBPM culture constructandproposea validated instrument with which to measure organizational cultures’ support of BPM. The operationalization of the BPM culture concept provides a theoretical foundation for future research and a tool to assist organizations in developing a cultural environment that supports successful BPM. 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. * Tel.:+4232651309;fax:+4232651301. E-mailaddress:[email protected](T.Schmiedel). ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect Information & Management journalhomepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/im 0378-7206/$–seefrontmatter2013Elsevier B.V.Allrightsreserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.08.005
14
Embed
Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Organizational Cultures’ Support of Business Process Management
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/21/2019 Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Organizational Cultures’ Support of Business Process Ma…
Development and validation of an instrument to measure
organizational
cultures’
support
of
Business
Process
Management
Theresa Schmiedel a,*, Jan vom Brocke a, Jan Recker b
aUniversity of Liechtenstein, Institute of Information Systems, Fuerst-Franz-Josef-Strasse, 9490 Vaduz, LiechtensteinbQueensland University of Technology, Information Systems School, 126 Margaret Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
1. Introduction
Business Process Management (BPM) has become a recognized
field of research in the Information Systems discipline. The purpose
of BPM is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of
organizational processes through improvement and innovation
[22]. Early approaches in both research and practice have focused
on the role of information technology (IT) in supporting BPM [4],
but a more holistic understanding of BPM has been established
since then that recognizes the strategic and governance elements
of BPM, as well as soft factors, such as people and culture issues
[54]. Culture in particular has often been identified as critical to the
success of business processes and IT-driven change [11], as both a
driver and a potential inhibitor of BPM initiatives [40,60].
An important concept that has been proposed in this context is
the notion of a BPM culture, i.e., a culture that supports BPMobjectives. While some researchers have referred to this concept in
their work [69,30], its meaning was not fully explored until
recently. In a prior global Delphi study with experts from BPM
research and practice, we analyzed and conceptualized the
characteristics of an organizational culture that supports BPM
and
identified
four
distinct
values
that
define
the
BPM
culture
concept [56].
Nevertheless, there is little knowledge about how various
cultural concepts or conceptualizations of culture intervene in
BPM projects. One possible reason for the dearth of research in this
area is the lack of an appropriate operationalization of culture.
Empirical studies of cultural settings and their influence on
processes or outcomes of BPM require reliable and valid
measurement instruments. Such instruments would also provide
practitioners with an analysis and benchmarking tool that could be
used to examine the extent to which their organizational culture
facilitates their BPM approach.
To address this gap,
the
purpose
of
this
study is to develop and
validate a measurement instrument with which to assess an
organizational culture’s support of BPM. We adopt a multi-stage
approach to instrument development that involves experts from
BPM research and practice from around the world. As BPM is an
established management approach worldwide, we deem aninternational study necessary. We report on construct and scale
development, operationalization, and measurement instrument
validation and application, building on and extending the
definition of the BPM culture concept from a previous Delphi
study [56].
We
proceed
as
follows.
Next,
we
provide
a
relevant
theoretical
background on the main concepts of our research – BPM,
organizational culture, and the notion of BPM culture – which
compose the conceptual basis for our study. We then provide an
overview
of
the
methodological
approach
and
describe
the
procedure that we followed in the various stages of instrument
Information & Management 51 (2014) 43–56
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:Received 10 July 2012
Received in revised form 20 December 2012
Accepted 31 August 2013
Available online 10 September 2013
Keywords:
Business Process Management
Organizational culture
BPM culture
Measurement instrument
Construct development
Scale development
A B S T R A C T
The purpose of Business Process Management (BPM) is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of organizational processes through improvement and innovation. Despite a common understanding that
culture is an important element in BPMefforts, there is a dearthof theoretical andempirical research on
culture as a facilitator of successful BPM.
Wedevelop theBPM culture construct andpropose a validated
instrument with which to measure organizational cultures’ support of BPM. The operationalization of
the BPM culture concept provides a theoretical foundation for future research and a tool to assist
organizations in developing a cultural environment that supports successful BPM.
0.001C_e_2 Our organization incorporates customer expectations into its business processes. 0.89 p
< 0.001
C_e_3 Our organization uses customer complaints as an opportunity to reflect on the redesign of business processes. 0.87 p
< 0.001
C_e_4 Our organization includes our customers in the design of our business processes. 0.78 p
< 0.001
C_e_5 Our organization understands the processes of our customers that lead to an interaction with
our organization.
0.83 p < 0.001
C_i C_i_1 Our organization defines internal customers for all business processes. 0.82 p
< 0.001
C_i_2 Employees of our organization focus on the requirements of colleagues who receive their work. 0.89 p
< 0.001
C_i_3 Employees of our organization have a good understanding of who their internal customers are. 0.90 p < 0.001
C_i_4 Managers of our organization encourage employees to meet the needs of colleagues who receive their work. 0.89 p
< 0.001
C_i_5 Employees treat people within our organization as customers when providing them with internal services. 0.87 p
< 0.001
E_ci E_ci_1 Our organization regularly evaluates its business processes for improvement opportunities. 0.87 p
< 0.001
E_ci_2 Employees of our organization strive to improve our business processes continually. 0.85 p
< 0.001
E_ci_3 Our organization regularly implements best practices that improve business processes. 0.84 p
< 0.001
E_ci_4 Managers of our organization regularly invite ideas from our employees on ways to improve
business processes.
0.82 p
< 0.001
E_ci_5 Our organization regularly uses performance indicators to find ways to improve business processes. 0.86 p
< 0.001
E_i E_i_1 Team leaders in our organization honor cutting-edge ideas for the innovation of business processes. 0.84 p
< 0.001
E_i_2 Our top management rewards employees who present pioneering ideas for enhancing the performance of
business processes.
0.80 p < 0.001
E_i_3 Our organization welcomes concepts for fundamental innovations that increase the performance of
business processes.
0.91 p
< 0.001
E_i_4 Our organization encourages thinking ‘‘outside the box’’ to create innovative solutions in business processes. 0.92 p
< 0.001
E_i_5 Managers of our organization are open to radical changes that enhance the performance of business processes. 0.78 p
< 0.001
R_a R_a_1 Process owners of our organization have the authority to make decisions on business processes. 0.84 p
< 0.001
R_a_2 Managers of our organization are rewarded based on the performance of the overall business processes
for which they are responsible.
0.79 p
< 0.001
R_a_3 Responsibilities for business processes are clearly defined among members of our management board. 0.85 p
< 0.001
R_a_4 Process owners of our organization are accountable for the performance of business processes. 0.87 p < 0.001
R_a_5 Our organization appoints process owners for all business processes. 0.81 p
< 0.001
R_c R_c_1 Employees of our organization go above and beyond their formally defined responsibilities to achieve the
objectives of business processes.
0.82 p
< 0.001
R_c_2 Our organization highly values personal dedication to reaching performance targets of business processes. 0.88 p
< 0.001
R_c_3 It motivates employees of our organization that their actions contribute to the achievement of business
process objectives.
0.92 p
< 0.001
R_c_4 Our organization uses current achievements to encourage employees’ commitment to process objectives. 0.90 p < 0.001R_c_5 Employees of our organization feel an inner obligation to attain the performance goals of business processes. 0.88 p
< 0.001
T_f T_f_1 Our organization properly aligns the goals of the departments that are involved in one business process. 0.88 p
< 0.001
T_f_2 Managers of our organization routinely arrange cross-departmental meetings to discuss current topics of
business processes.
0.84 p
< 0.001
T_f_3 The overall goals of a business process in our organization are binding on all departments involved in
that particular business process.
0.90 p
< 0.001
T_f_4 Our organization does well in coordinating the tasks of the departments that are involved in one
business process.
0.90 p
< 0.001
T_f_5 It is the policy of our organization that employees share their process knowledge with those in
other departments.
0.85 p < 0.001
T_i T_i_1 Employees of our organization enjoy working with their process colleagues from other departments. 0.86 p
< 0.001
T_i_2 Employees of our organization have many opportunities for informal interaction with their process
colleagues from other departments.
0.83 p
< 0.001
T_i_3 Employees of our organization not only identify with their department but also with their process team. 0.86 p
< 0.001
T_i_4 Employees of our organization informally exchange information about current topics in business processes. 0.81 p
< 0.001
T_i_5 Our organization encourages informal activities that break down departmental barriers. 0.79 p < 0.001
T. Schmiedel et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 43–56 49
7/21/2019 Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Organizational Cultures’ Support of Business Process Ma…
[1] M.I. Aguirre-Urreta, G.M. Marakas, Revisiting bias due to constructmisspecifica-tion: different results from considering coefficients in standardized form, MISQuarterly 36, 2012, pp. 123–138.
[2] I. Ajzen, M. Fishbein, Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior,Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1980.
[3] N.J. Allen, J.P. Meyer, The measurement and antecendents of affective, continu-ance and normative commitment to the organization, Journal of OccupationalPsychology 63, 1990, pp. 1–18.
[4] M. Attaran, Exploring the relationship between information technology andbusiness process reengineering, Information & Management 41, 2004, pp. 585–596.
[5] R.P. Bagozzi, Measurement and meaning in information systems and organiza-tional research:Methodologicaland philosophicalfoundations, MISQuarterly35,2011, pp. 261–292.
[6] S. Balzano, L. Trinchera, Structural equation models and student evaluation of teaching: APLSpathmodelingstudy, in:AttanasioM., CapursiV. (Eds.), StatisticalMethods for the Evaluationof University Systems, Springer, Berlin, 2011, pp. 55–66.
[7] W. Bandara, A. Alibabaei, M. Aghdasi, Means of achieving business processmanagement success factors, 4th Mediterranean Conference on InformationSystems (MCIS 2009), Athens, Greece, 2009.
[8] G.D. Bhatt, M.D. Troutt, Examining the relationship between business processimprovement initiatives, information systems integration andcustomer focus: anempirical study, Business Process Management Journal 11, 2005, pp. 532–558.
[9] S. Caffyn, Development of a continuous improvement self-assessment tool,International Journal of Operations & Production Management 19, 1999, pp.1138–1153.
[10] R.T. Centefelli, G. Bassellier, Interpretation of formative measurement in infor-mation systems research, MIS Quarterly 33, 2009, pp. 689–708.
[11] R.B. Cooper, The inertial impact of culture on IT implementation, Information &Management 27, 1994, pp. 17–31.
[12] T. de Bruin,M. Rosemann,Using theDelphitechnique to identify BPMcapabilityareas, 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2007), Too-woomba, Australia, 2007.
[13] A. Diamantopoulos, Incorporating formative measures into covariance-basedstructural equation models, MIS Quarterly 35, 2011, pp. 335–358.
[14] A. Diamantopoulos, H.M.Winklhofer, Index construction with formative indica-tors: an alternative to scaledevelopment, Journal ofMarketingResearch38, 2001,pp. 269–277.
[15] A. Diamantopoulos, P. Riefler, K.P. Roth, Advancing formative measurementmodels, Journal of Business Research 61, 2008, pp. 1203–1218.
[16] J.R. Edwards, Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research:
an
integrative analytical framework, Organizational Research Methods 4, 2001,pp. 144–192.
[17] K.R. Ferris, N. Aranya, A comparison of two organizational commitment scales,Personnel Psychology 36, 1983, pp. 87–98.
[18] C. Fornell, D.F. Larcker, Evaluatingstructuralequationmodels withunobservablevariables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research 18, 1981, pp.39–50.
[19] D. Gefen, D.W. Straub, A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph:tutorial and annotated example, Communications of theAssociation for Informa-tion Systems 16, 2005, pp. 91–109.
[20] R. Goffee, G. Jones,What holdsthe moderncompany together?Harvard BusinessReview 74, 1996, pp. 133–148.
[21] D.L. Goodhue, W. Lewis, R. Thompson, Comparing PLS to regression and LISREL: aresponse toMarcoulides, Chin, andSaunders,MISQuarterly36,2012,pp. 703–716.
[22] M. Hammer, What is business process management? in: J . vom Brocke, M.Rosemann (Eds.), Handbook on Business Process Management: Introduction,Methods and Information Systems, Springer, Berlin, 2010, pp. 3–16.
[23] G. Hofstede,Culturesand Organizations, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill,New York, 2005.