لطفا منتظر باشید ...
6.3 Processes as Theory
Most theories in organizational and I/S research are variance theories. Variance theories comprise constructs or variables, and propositions or hypotheses linking them. Such theories predict the levels of dependent or outcome variables from the levels of independent or predictor variables, where the predictors are seen as necessary and suffcient for the outcomes. A multi-level variance theory is one that includes constructs and variables from different levels of analysis. The link between levels takes the form of a series of bridging or linking propositions involving constructs or variables defined at different levels of analysis.An alternative to a variance theory is a process theory (Markus and Robey 1988). Rather than relating levels of variables, process theories explain how outcomes of interest develop through a sequence of events (Mohr 1982). Typically process theories are of some transient process leading to exceptional outcomes, such as events leading up to an organizational change or to acceptance of a system. However, I will focus instead on what might be called ''everyday''processes: those performed regularly to create an organization's products or services.
A description of a process has a very different form from the boxes and arrows of a variance theory, but it is still a theory, in that it summarize a set of observations and predictions about the world. In a process theory the observations and predictions are about the performance of events leading up to organizational outcomes of interest. Such a theory might be very specific, that is, descriptive of only a single performance in a specific organization. More desirably the theory might describe a general class of performances or even performances in multiple organizations. As Orlikowski (1993) puts it, ''Yin (1984) refers to this technique as 'analytic generalization'to distinguish it from the more typical statistical generalization that generalizes from a sample to a population. Here the generalization is of theoretical concepts and patterns.''Kaplan (1991, p. 593) states that process theories can be ''valuable aids in understanding issues pertaining to designing and implementing information systems, assessing their impacts, and anticipating and managing the processes of change associated with them.''The main advantage of process theories is that they can deal with more complex causal relationships than variance theories, and provide an explanation of how the inputs and outputs are related, rather than simply noting the relationship. Likewise I argue that process theories provide a link between individual and organizational phenomena and a milieu for interplay between research paradigms. However, to make this point, I will first describe the components of a process theory, in contrast to the variables and hypotheses of a variance theory.
6.3.1 Components of a Process
In this section, I develop a series of increasingly elaborate process conceptualizations. I begin by discussing processes as wholes, and then as compositions of activities with constraints on assembly. The goal of this discussion is to understand the connection between processes and individual work, on the one hand, and processes and organizational outcomes on the other.Processes as Wholes A simple view is that processes are ways organizations accomplish desired goals. In fact, as Malone et al. (1999) point out, processes are often named by the goals they accomplish (e.g., product development or order ful-fillment). The goal identifies the desired result or output of the process, or the set of constraints the process satisfies (Cyert and March 1963; Simon 1964), that is necessary to link to organizational outcomes (i.e., how quickly or effciently different process options meet the constraints and produce the output). By focusing at the level of a process, I seek to avoid the problems outlined by March and Sutton (1997) who noted the instability of organizational performance.
A related view is that a process is a transformation of an input to an output. This view focuses on the resources that flow through the process. The business process concept has strong roots in industrial engineering (IE) and its subfield of process engineering (Sakamoto 1989). Other process concepts borrow heavily from operations research (OR) and operations management (OM), in particular, the design and control of manufacturing and product-producing processes of the firm. This view of a process is also similar to the root definition (RD) from soft systems methodology (SSM) (Checkland and Scholes 1990).A key point in SSM, to which I also adhere, is that there is not a single correct RD for a process. Instead, there can be many RDs reflecting different view of the process. For example, one RD might focus on the offcial rationale for the process and the concrete items created. Another might focus on the way the organization allocates resources to different processes. Instead of arguing that whichever model chosen is a true representation of the work, I view the description as a discursive product, that is, as an artifact, with an author, intended to accomplish some goal. Checkland (1981) similarly describes models as ''opening up debate about change''rather than ''what ought now to be done''(p. 178).Describing a process as a way to accomplish a goal or as a transformation of an input to an output establishes the link between processes and organizational outcomes. For example, at this level of detail the effciency of a process can be stated as the process outputs divided by the inputs. However, at this level of detail, the link to individual work or ICT use is not yet apparent.
6.3.2 Processes as Activities and Interdependencies
To progress further, we need a more detailed view of processes that will allow us to say more about differences in how individuals contribute to processes and especially how the use of ICT might make a difference to these contributions. To do so, I start with the definition of a process as a sequence of events, focusing specifically on events as activities performed by individual or groups. Such a description will be a theory of the process in the sense that it summarizes a set of observations about what activities happened when the process was performed in the past and a set of predictions about what will happen when the process is performed in the future.
Representing a process as a sequence of activities provides insight into the linkage between individual work and processes, since individuals perform the various activities that comprise the process. As individuals change what they do, they change how they perform these activities and thus their participation in the process. Conversely, process changes demand different performances from individuals. ICT use might simply make individuals more effcient or effective at the activities they have always performed. However, an interesting class of impacts involves changing which individuals perform which activities. Buyers might search real estate listings themselves, performing activities that the agent used to perform. ICT might be used to automate the performance of certain activities, thus changing the activities that comprise the process. Analysis of these possibilities requires an even more detailed view of the process, which I present next.To understand how changes in individual work might affect the process, it is necessary to examine the constraints on assembling activities that limit the possible arrangements and rearrangements of activities into processes. To identify these constraints, I focus in particular on the implications of dependencies for process assembly. In focusing on dependencies, I both follow and diverge from a long tradition in organization theory. Thompson (1967) viewed subunit interdependency as the basic building block of organizational structure and behavior. Following Thompson, two basic conceptualizations of organizational interdependency have evolved: resource interdependency, generated through exchanges between organizational members (e.g., people); and work flow interdependency, generated between organizational units located in the division of labor (Victor and Blackburn 1987).In both cases dependencies were seen as arising between individuals or groups. In contrast to these earlier views, I believe that conceptualizing dependencies as arising between activities provides more insight into processes. This view makes it easier to consider the implications of reassigning work to different actors. In my view, the limits on the orders of activities arise from the flow of resources between them, that is, on resource interdependencies.Malone and Crowston (1994) proposed two major classes of dependencies: flow or producer/consumer dependencies and shared resource dependencies. Producer/ consumer dependencies arise when one activity creates a resource that is then used by another activity. Shared resource dependencies arise when two or more activities require the same resources (because of space limitations, this class of dependency will not be discussed further in this chapter).Both kinds of dependencies have implications for changes to processes. Since the activities can not be performed without the necessary resources, the existence of the dependencies constrains how the process can be assembled. In particular, producer/ consumer dependencies restrict the order in which activities can be performed. On the other hand, activities that are not involved in a dependency can be freely rearranged. Therefore we can limit possible arrangements of the activities in analyzing existing processes or in designing new ones.
As well as constraining the order of activities, interdependencies often require additional activities to manage them. According to Malone and Crowston (1994), the producer/consumer interdependency described above not only constrains the order of the activities (a precedence dependency) but may also require additional activities to manage the transfer of the resource between or to ensure the usability of the resource. Precedence requires that the producer activity be performed before the consumer activity. This dependency can be managed in one of two ways: either the person performing the first activity can notify the person performing the second that a resource is ready, or the second can monitor the performance of the first. ICT may have an effect by providing a mechanism for cheap monitoring. Transfer dependencies are managed by a range of mechanisms for physically moving resources to the actors performing the consuming activities, and vice versa. For example, inventory management systems can be classified here. Usability can be managed by having the consumer specify the nature of the resources required or by having the producer create standardized resources expected by the user, among other mechanisms.In general, there may be numerous different coordination mechanisms that could be used to address a given dependency. Different organizations may use different mechanisms to address similar problems, resulting in a different organizational form. Because these coordination mechanisms are primarily information processing, they may be particular affected by the use of ICT.Processes as a Milieu for the Interplay of Research Paradigms As should be clear from the preceding discussion, developing a model of a process raises numerous problems, such as how activities are identified and determined to be relevant to the process or choosing an appropriate level of decomposition for the process description. These choices can be problematic because processes involve numerous individuals with possibly different interpretations of the process. Resolution of these choices raises questions about the theoretical assumptions underlying the theory.As a framework for discussing these underlying assumptions, Burrell and Morgan (1979) suggest a 2 by 2 categorization of social theories: order-conflict and subjective-objective (assumptions about ontology, epistemology, human nature, and methodology). The combination of these two dimensions results in four distinct paradigms for research. Burrell and Morgan (1979) present their four paradigms as incommensurable approaches to research. However, Schultz and Hatch (1996) suggest a research project can draw on and contrast multiple paradigms. They identify several ways research might cross paradigms, including sequential (e.g., Lee 1991), parallel, bridging, and interplay. Schultz and Hatch argue that interplay ''allows the findings of one paradigm to be recontextualized and reinterpreted in such a way that they inform the research conducted within a different paradigm.''
In Burrell and Morgan's (1979) framework, theories of processes clearly focus on the ordering of society—stability, integration, functional co-ordination, and consensus—rather than on conflict. However, they could provide a milieu for interplay between subjective and objective perspectives. A process study might contrast realist and nominalist ontologies to achieve a richer description. Activities performed might be viewed as real (e.g., stamping metal) or nominal (e.g., many information processes). Flows of physical goods have a physical reality, though many interesting processes are largely information processing for which a nominalist position is more appropriate.A study might contrast positivist and antipositivist epistemologies. On the one hand, viewing a process as a way to accomplish organizational goals implies a positivist conception of the process. On the other, focusing on individuals and their conceptions of their work implies an antipositivist view of activities. A possible result of this contrast is to explicitly problematize the question of how individuals come to contribute to the higher-order goals. For example, although individuals make sense of the world themselves, there must still be some degree of agreement among members of a group, such as about the meaning and nature of a shared process, meaning that individual perceptions are subjective but not completely arbitrary. Numerous researchers have investigated the nature of such shared cognitions and the social processes by which they are built (Walsh 1995). For example, Weick and Roberts (1993) show how aircraft carrier flight deck operations are made reliable by the ''heedful interrelating''of flight deck personnel.A study might contrast deterministic and voluntaristic assumptions about human nature. Individuals working in a group do not have total freedom in what they do if they are to contribute to the group, but are not totally constrained either. Again, consideration of interplay between these positions is possible. For example, Simon (1991) raises the question of why individuals adopt organizational goals in the first place.To summarize, the objective-subjective debate is often presented as a dichotomy and a matter of prior assumption. However, as Schultz and Hatch (1996) say, ''the assumption of impermeable paradigm boundaries reinforces and is reinforced by 'either–or'thinking. We believe that paradigm boundaries are permeable and claim that when paradigm contrasts are combined with paradigm connections, interplay becomes possible.''Process theories provide a milieu for such interplay.
6.3.3 A Process-Centered Research Framework
Crowston and Treacy (1986) noted that linking the use of ICT to any kind of organizational-level impact requires some theory about the inner workings of organizations. Processes provide a possible bridge between individual, organizational (and even industrial) level outcomes of the use of ICT. This framework is shown pictorially in figure 6.1. The framework acknowledges that ICT, by themselves, do not change organizations, nor are they merely tools of managerial intent. Rather, ICT use opens up new possibilities for individual work, and these changes in work in turn have implications for the processes and thus the organizations in which these individuals participate.
Figure 6.1: Relationship between ICT-induced changes in individual work and changes in organizational and industrial structures and outcomes
These work and process changes, in turn, may involve changes in organizational structures and outcomes, and vice versa. In other words, as individual workers incorporate various forms of ICT in their work, they alter both how they conduct their work and how they participate in the organization's structure, and thus indirectly how their organizations participate in the industrywide value chain. Conversely, there are organizational and industrywide forces shaping how work is done. These forces also affect how individuals do their work. The interaction of these forces is what shapes the uses of ICT, new forms of work and new ways of organizing.In the next section, I use this framework in the study of the use of an information system in a restaurant to show how processes can provide a link between individual and organizational-level phenomena.
