Innovation in Business Processes A Discussion of Research Methods to Study the Process of Innovation

Transcription

1 Proceedings of the 28th Annua Hawaii Internationa Conference on System Sciences Innovation in Business Processes A Discussion of Research Methods to Study the Process of Innovation Arne Henne Department of Information Science, University of Bergen Eva M. tier IS1 A/s Abstract Our primaty concern is innovation in business processes, especiay with focus on how to anayze occurrences of radica rnnovation as a resut of Business Process Redesign (BPR) pr0ject.s. BPR is a new fied. and there has so far been itte deveopment of theories and methodoogy in the area. Important questions we address are: can BPR and innovaton in business processes be studied according to the same principes as used in stuuhes of information systems, what are the consequences of this aternative, and do we have other aternatives? 1. Introduction The arriva of the computer and its use in information processing has been one of the most important organizationa innovatons in the past 30 years. The fied that has emerged to study this deveopment is Information Systems Research (ISR). This is mainy a combination of two fieds, computer and management science, but with a host of supporting discipines, such as psychoogy, socioogy, statistics, poitica science, economics, phiosophy, inguistic, mathematics, etc. In 1986 a survey on the methodoogies of information science was conducted which produced a ist of 32 disciphnes that are reated to ISR [I]. ISR is III other words a highy mutidiscipinary fied. In 1990 two artices, Reengineering Work: Don t Automate, Obiterate by M. Hammer and The New industria Engineering: nfotmation Technoogy and Business Process Redesign by T.H. Davenport, were pubished [ 12; 181. Since then Business Process Rcengineering or Business Process Redesign (BPR) has amost become an obsession in the business commumty. BPR s primary concern is renewa of business processes Change of work processes does not necessariy depend on use of Information Tecnoogy (IT), but IT today enabes a degree of f?eedom in designing these processes that were earier unthinkabe. With business processes we refer to the concept as used in the BPR iterature. Here a process is defmed as: A structured, measured set of activities, designed to produce a specified output for a particuar customer or market. [ 1 I p. 51. Another important characteristic is that:.. processes cross organizationa boundaries and are independent of forma organizationa structure [ 19). This paper has been written at the beginning of a project with the objective to examine experiences of BPR. In the discussion of a research strategy we sha give exampes from our study which is sti in progress: a case study in a major Norwegian industry company. 1.1 Simiarities between system deveopment and business process redesign BPR has been aunched as a competey new invention. However, we find some simiarities between BPR and the way traditiona system deveopment is performed One of the most known system deveopment methods, Structured Anaysis and Design Method [ 141, incudes the concept of ogica datafow diagrams, a technique that shoud hep the system deveopers to think about the minimum set of functions needed to run a business function. Aso, in some of the Scandinavian iterature on systems deveopment methods we find a strong focus on change anaysis as basis for systems anaysis and design [27]. These works, which date back to the mid-seventies, of cause were never presented under the abe BPR But if we appy a /95$ IEEE 581

2 Proceedings of the 28th Annua Hawaii Internationa Conference on System Sciences historica perspective we wi argue that BPR is not quite as new an invention as its gurus often argue. 1.2 Differences between system deveopment and business process redesign An important distinction between traditiona system deveopment and BPR is the atters demand of radica and dramatic improvement of the organization BPR stresses use of IT in an innovative and creative way, and chaenges the business word to break estabished rues by appying new technoogy. Rather than to anayze and try to fmd soutions to aready known probems, BPR directs us to think inductivey of technoogy during the reengineering process: Find the ong-standing rue or rues that technoogy aows the company to break, then see what business opportunities are created by breaking those rues. [ 19, p. 9 I]. This means that BPR has a wider scope than just appying IT to known probems by using commony accepted modes. This aso impies that BPR projects are a high risk / high reward endeavour [4]. BPR in this respect is a representative of the change in the roe of IT and its use during the ast 15 years From a technoogy focussing on efficiency, IT evoved from deveoping appications for effectiveness, to how the technoogy can be utiized in organizationa competitiveness [9]. Probaby as a consequence of the focusing on the business opportunities and probems, top management more often is invoved in BPR projects than has been tradition in IS-projects. 1.3 Cassica IS Research Traditionay, IS research has concentrated on the technica aspects of design at the expense of the human and often has had a tendency to base its work on a narrow definition of cost effectiveness as a system goa. The cassica approach to research in information systems has been dominated by the engineering mode (Senko 1975, in [28]: [24]). This mode has the foowing characteristics:. An information system IS designed to contribute to specific ends. The primary roe of a systems anayst is to be an expert in technoogy, toos and methods of systems anaysis and design.. It is based on a reaity that is measurabe and essentiay the same for everyone. The roe of the systems deveoper is to design systems that mode this reaity in a way that wi turn the system into a usefu too for its users. Systems anaysis processes. and design become primariy technica Diverting focus to BPR, we find that unti now, itte systematic research has been done. A review of BPR iterature is found in Bashein 1993, and much of the BPR research is imited to normative writings in the management iterature. As with a new directions there is a danger that BPR wi turn out to be just another fad that wi pass in a few years. This concern though shoud not keep us horn investigating if it entais new sound principes and yieds demonstrabe resuts. t ooks ike BPR has eements that might be of interest to transfer to traditiona system deveopment. One question we have to ask is, can BPR and innovation in business processes be studied according to the same principes as used in the cassica approach to ISR, and what are the consequences of this aternative. 2. The Research Question For two hundred years peope have founded and buit companies around Adam Smith s idea that industria work shoud be broken down into its simpest and most basic parts In the postindustria business age we now see corporations reunifying these tasks into coherent business processes. Numerous companies have conducted projects to restructure their business. Use of modem technoogy in genera, and use of IT in particuar, has been a key factor. The goa of these redesign efforts are dramatic improvement of performance, by achieving major gains in cost, service or time. Resuts in the order of 40% cost reduction, 50% process-time reduction or 25 % quaity improvements are not unusua. Case studies show order of magnitude resuts, and one pubished academic assessment reports improvements in the order of 100 times on some performance. dimensions [ 131. It is our opinion that these magnificent resuts are not accidenta. It is possibe to ident@ methods that can ead to the same resuts for other organizations. Our objective is to investigate the conditions for innovation as a resut of BPR processes. With such a focus some of the probems we have to confront are: What are the factors that promote innovation dunng the BPR process? What are the techniques that are use during a BPR project? How do we conduct an anaysis to form the basis of innovation? How do we manage a process of change which consists of technoogica as we as human components? With innovation we understand: the process of bringing an> new, probemsoving idea into use. (...) Innovation is the genera- 582

3 Proceedings of the 28th Annua Hawaii Internatio na Conference on System Sciences tion, acceptance, and impementation of new ideas, processes, products, or services. It can thus occur in any part of a corporation and it can invove creative use as we as origina invention. [22, p Reated to our concern we fmd two features of specia interest in this definition: (1) it focuses on the process of innovation, and (2) innovation in process as we as in product is emphasized. 2.1 The probem - anayzing BPR projects Our primary concern is innovation in business processes, especiay with a focus on how to anayze occurrences of radica innovation in business processes. Our interest is not directed at anayzing automation or margina improvements of existing routines. By radica we understand...disregarding a existing structures and procedures and inventing competey new ways of accompishing work [ 19, p.331. Radica change impies starting with a cean piece of paper rather than makmg changes to something that is aready in pace. This differs dramaticay from traditiona system deveopment methods, which have a strong focus on how things are. This demand of BPR to redesign business processes III a competey new way impies that BPR, to be a success, by deinition is innovative. Not a organizationa change invoves m- novation, [37] - and of cause it may we be that a BPR project resuts in changes that are not innovative. However, in that case the project shoud be evauated as a BPR faiure. Figure 1 shows the object of study. A BPR project consrsts of mainy three parts: A change process, and business processes before and after the change process has been carried through. Treating innovation as a binary attribute: before and after change, gives us a static picture of the process. This coud be interesting, but is imited in scope. Instead our interest is to see: innovation as a time-dependent process - a series of events that eventuay eads to adoption or faiure to adopt. nnovation w11 be an attribute to the change process. The amount of innovation depends on how the change process is conducted and managed. This means we ought to examine the innovatron as a process in itsef. A process perspective invoves aspects ike the stages an innovation runs through, the significance of change championship, how resistance to change is considered and managed communication, etc. Innovation in business processes is a time-dependent phenomenon - we know that a process cannot be substituted by a new one in a coupe of days or weeks, because change in business processes invoves among other things eements of earning and organization cuture. Research has shown that the most successfu BPR projects are those that manipuate a of the foowing six factors: roes and responsibiities, measurements and incentives, organizationa structure, information technoogy, shared vaues, and skis [ 171. These two aspects of the research, the static before/a&r, and the change process that eads from one state to the other, are both important. One of them shoud not dominate the other, and none of them shoud be examined in isoation because reationships might exist between them. 2.2 The nature of the probem and the issue of seecting a research method The goa of any research methodoogy is that it shoud be capabe of successfuy achieving the research objectives. With methodoogy we refer to the process, principes and procedures by which we approach probems and seek answers. [5, p. I]. The nature of the object of study has considerabe impicatons on the choice of research method. We must discuss whether BPR sha be characterized as a technica or an organizationa probem. For some the technoogy is crucia, whie others ook at IT as one among other enabers that make changes possibe. n its own opinion BPR is primariy an organizationa phc- Figure 1, The object of study. 583

4 Proceedings of the 28th Annua Hawaii Internationa Conference on System Sciences nomenon or a set of ideas. Cited 6om M. Hammer s book we find: (This book) is about ideas. These ideas we beieve are as important to business today as Adam Smith s ideas were to the entrepreneurs and managers of the ast two centuries. We beieve that the appications of the principes of business reengineering wi have effects as significant and dramatic as those created by Smith s principes of industria organization [ 19, p.61. This tes us that BPR is not ony a technoogica phenomenon. If we attack it as such we wi ose important eements in our understanding. To understand and anayze the process we have to reate to humans and their coaboration in an organizationa perspective - at the same time we must be abe to examine and understand the use of IT to achieve entirey new ways of work. The hybrid nature of business processes and of BPR, consisting of both humans and technoogy, requires the researcher to be particuary carefu in seecting an appropriate research method for a particuar situation, and in the interpretation of the resuts in the ight of the method chosen. The main probem for the researcher of business processes is that any situation under investigation wi combine aspects from severa discipines that normay woud have been tacked by different research methods Our main focus in the rest of this paper is on the theoretica framework, methods, and toos required to deveop description and further understanding of the BPR process. 3. Science and method The main purpose of science is to acquire new knowedge which can be used to sove probems in a imited fied. A major phiosophica probem is how do we know that something is true. This has troubed phiosophers for centuries. 3.1 Science as probem-soving - the rationaistic approach The modem view of the nature of scientific investigation, with its strong emphasis on rigour, goes back to Rent: Descartes. Unti the eary 20th century this is caed exact science and in contemporary phiosophica iterature the method is referred to as the empirica-anaytica approach Descartes formuated four methodoogica rues, documented in Discourse on Method n our context the second and third rues are of specia importance: 2. Divide each of the difficuties which I examined into as many parts as possibe. and as seemed requisite in order that it might be resoved in the best manner possibe. 3 Carry on my refections in due order; commencing with objects that were the most simpe and easy to understand m order to rise itte by itte. or by degrees, to knowedge of the most compex, assuming an order, even if a fictitious one, among those which do not foow a natura sequence reativey to another. [ 151 The Cartesian rues have certain very important genera consequences for scientific method, First; they estabish a certain order of priority between anaysis (decomposition of a compex) and synthesis (recomposition of the same compex). In this approach anaysis is ogicay prior to synthesis. No vaid statement about the nature or behaviour of a compex phenomenon can be made without having performed an a priori anaysis or decomposition of the phenomenon into its constituent parts. Second; they impy a certain genera view of nature as a compex whoe, and any compex whoe can be understood by reducing it to its basic buiding bocks and by ocating the mechanism by which these eements interact. These points of view, known as the priority of anaysis and reductionism respectivey, have become so deepy ingrained in our cuture that they have often been identiied with the scientific method as such. Combined with a mechanistic word view, modem mathematica techniques, and the Cartesian mind-body duaism, they have ever since formed a powerfu genera framework for research. The other sciences accepted to a arge degree these perspectives as an adequate f?amework for scientific investigation and as a genera description of reaity, and sought to mode their own theories accordingy. Current thinking about computers and their impact on society has aso mainy been shaped by this tradition. On the other hand in spite of the inteectua power of this framework overemphasis on the Cartesian method has had adverse consequences. Some of these consequences can briefy be mentioned:. hagrnentation and reductionism in science, the extended appication of a mechanistic view and the probems arising by treating organisms as machines, the negect of aternative ontoogica positions. Descartes method of thought and his view of nature can sti be veiy usefu, but ony if its imitations arc recognized. 3.2 Chaenges to the rationaistic approach Many authors have written critiques concerning the scientific method in 1s research [24; 29; 351. Numerous socia scientists are convinced that the reason we have made so itte progress is our conception of science. It is too imiting and not appropriate for the object of study, i.e., human beings. The rationaistic ap- 584

5 Proceedings of the 28th Annua Hawaii Internationa Conference on System Sciences preach may be appropriate for the natura sciences, but not necessariy for the socia sciences. The key characteristics and strengths of the scientific method stated in the previous chapter might quicky turn out to be weaknesses, or at east probems, when considering what is appropriate for socia science, and more particuary IS research. The question of probem definition A main criticism eveed against those who adhere to the rahonaistic paradigm when conhonted with a rea-word probem is that they sometimes fai to defme propery the probem at hand. Invariaby they commit two sins, they sedom take the whoe probem into account. their cosed modes do not represent accuratey the word, where systems are open. The danger of rationaism when appied to the resoution of practica probems ies in a narrowing of probem perception to those aspects that are researchabe by a given scientific method. Hoism vs. reductionism Adherents of the scientific method divide the probem into parts. Their primary argument for doing this is that it is a convenient way to hande compexity. The method by which sctence deas with compexity is based on Descartes second rue, namey to divide probems into manageabe parts. The assumption is that the division wi not distort the phenomenon bemg studied. The evidence is that this assumption is reasonabe in the natura sciences, ess so in the socia sctences. The question of observabiity and contro An important research assumption is that the researcher is an impartia, neutra observer of reaity. We have the epistemoogica ideas of object/subject spit, the myth of objectivity and the notions of neutraity and of non-invovement. Observers are never actuay impartia - we a have expectattons about the objects we are studying. This is why some of the most astonishing discovertes have been made by researchers who foowed up what others might have regarded as random errors, cf. the discovery of peniciin. We seek to use reevant facts at the expense of specuation, and we seek to ensure that a trained observers at a tunes shoud be abe to reach the same concusions But no matter how ngourous a study is, the desired resut wi not aways be achievabe Repeatabiity of mation system vs. the uniqueness of an infor- Repeatabiity is one of the cornerstones of the scientific method. What the researcher must show is that the variabes to be controed are identica in a cases, and the fact that it is these variabes that are the significant ones. There is nothing new in postuating how di&cuh it is to duct repeatabe experiments in the context of socia science. con- The probem of making predictions of socia happenings must be a matter of shared compexity, the fact that what happens is aways a mix of intended and unintended effects. But additionay there are other probems. For one thing, predictions on the outcome of observed happening in socia science may change the outcome. Physica systems cannot react to predictions made about them, socia systems can. [8, p.701 Therefore to conduct a controed experiment is very difftcut. It might be possibe to ook at two simiar situations, but two organizations wi never be identica. What is repeatabe is instances of some genera principe that can be abstracted from some particuar observations. Checkand [7] summarizes the distinguishing features of socia as compared to scientific inquiry as: The possibiity of many different interpretations of a socia phenomenon. The impact of the socia scientist on the socia system being studied. The probems associated with forecasting future events concerned with human activity. 4. Science in a postmodern period - an aternative approach 4.1 IS research in a postmodem period As mentioned above severa writers in the fied of ISR have pointed to the imitations and probems raised by the rationaistic approach and the need to broaden the perspective. The criticism eveed against the rationaistic approach becomes especiay important to our object of study, the BPR process. We raise the question: coud it be usefu to pace ISR, together with the socia sciences, in a postmodemistic research tradition? Various studies exist of postmodemism, or what has become known as the controversy between modernism and postmodemism. In the beginning it was imited to schoary exchange on iterature, design arts, music, performance arts, fims, and architecture. Graduay the fire spread to socia sciences and natura sciences [25]. 585

6 Proceedings of the 28th Annua Hawaii internationa Conference on System Sciences Based on Khtkhuhn we can ist the foowing aspects of postmodern science as the most interesting to IS research [I]: 4 b) d 4 4 Postmodem science is best served by methodoogica phnaism. - Important scientific progress has been made by scientists who decided to ignore estabished methodoogica rues. Postmodem science is guided by admiration, surprise, and curiosity. The word is much more compex than WC thought, and our apparenty compete understanding of some aspects of it often turns out to be either wrong or incompete. Postmodem science considers that scientiiic research and appication cannot be carried out without restraint or boundaries. Postmodem science recognizes the cogency of a few cases. Postmodem scientific research woud do we to be directed more towards quaity than quantity. There may be severa consequences of a postmodem approach to ISR In our study the fact that the postmodem approach eads to methodoogica puraism is among the most important. Achterberg et a. (1 ] points to two arguments for this point, one Iimdamenta and one more pragmatic: First, the fact that we have come a ong way from the beief that ony positivism can open the door to the chamber of truth. Feyerabend is among those who have articuated a postmodernist view of epistemoogy and ontoogy, concuding that the whoe endeavour of scientific research is wre-served by methodoogica puraism. [ 161. Second, the pragmatic argument: IS probems encompass a highy compex and wide-ranging coection of cross-discipinary issues. Achterberg et a. argue convincingy that most issues of IS are muhidisciphnary in character, and that most of the probems in an IS situation are unstructured. This situation requires us to adopt the methodoogica outook of those discipines, and if necessary, to deveop hybrid ones. [I, p Reated to our objective, the approach drafted above offers a number of new possibiities, and confronts us with new chaenges that have to be soved. BPR is tn its nature definitey a muti-discipinary fied and we shoud consider, and be wiing to use theories and research methods deveoped within other areas. 4.2 A research strategy for examination of innovation in a BPR project The proposa to adopt the methodoogica outook of other discipines guides us to research in innovation Here we find some usefu theories that may guide our further research especiay theories concerning modes of change. Aso other theories from the area of innovation are of reevance. Among those we especiay mention the discussion of radica vs. incrementa change. In research of innovation there has been a widespread tendency to conceptuaize innovation as a sharp dichotomy between radica and incrementa innovation. - The dichotomy has achieved the status of a styized fact. [ 10, p. IO]. The discussion of radica innovation can be used to criticize and define more precisey the BPR concept of radica change, and to examine and cassify occurrences of innovation which is the resut of a BPR process. However, theories of the mode of change are of specia interest, as our perception of the change process wi infuence the methodica approach chosen. Therefore we sha concentrate the discussion on the process perspective and eave the discussion of radica vs. incrementa innovation, and other reevant theories from innovation research. To guide our examination of the change process we have severa modes. Kapan [23], describes three groups of modes that are reevant to ISR: (a) The Probem Soving Modes, (b) the Research, Deveopment and DifIGion Modes and (c) the Socia- Interaction Modes. Though the three groups have differences they aso have a strong resembance in that they focus on the tmportance of dissemination and utiization as an act of communication and in that they intend to treat change as a process that deveops through different stages. [23]. It is our opinion that the Probem-Soving (PS) type of mode, based on Lewin s stage theory (unfreezing, moving, refreezing) ies impicit or expicit in much of the normative BPR iterature. The PS mode is described in this way: According to the PS perspective, change agents start by diagnosing cient needs. Coaboration with the cient is stressed as essentia to the change process. Change is viewed as occurring in stages in which needs are identified and then articuated as probems. Next soutions are reached for, one is seected, and then appied in order to reduce the needs. [23, p We find this type of mode as a basis in severa of the consutancy companies guideines to the BPR process 12; 20; 2 I]. To anayze the change process, we have to consider how to deveop an understanding of the process that renders a sufficienty exact picture of reaity. What is needed is a research design providing moving pictures of processes through time m- stead of snap shot pictures For that purpose Rogers [32] rccommends: I) fied experiments. 2) ongitudina pane studies, 3) use of archiva records, and 586

7 Proceedings of the 28th Annua Hawaii Internationa Conference on System Sciences ) case studies of the process from mutipe respondents. Foowing these guideines means adopting a quaitative research methodoogy that has often been considered antipositivist or phenomenoogica [6]. With quaitative methods we mean research procedures that produce descriptive data: peope s own written or spoken words and observabe behaviour [5, p.41 When questioning process aspects we are aware that a quaitative research approach may give us a far better opportunity to investigate the phenomenon than any other approach. At east a quaitative research approach has often been chosen exacty for that purpose. This has been pointed out by severa writers, e.g. Bryman: There is an impicit ongitudina eement buit into much quaitative research, which is both a symptom and cause of an undertaking to view socia ife in processua, rather than static terms. (...) The genera image that quaitative research conveys about the socia order is one of interconnection and change [6, p We want a research method that promotes a hoistic perspectivc on the subject. [n presentations of quaitative methods [34; 61 it has often been focused on the fact that quaitative methods encourage a more hoistic view. This approach directs itsef at settings and the individuas within those settings hoisticay; that is, the subject of the study, be it an organization or an individua, is not reduced to an isoated variabe or to an hypothesis, but is viewed instead as part of a whoe [5, p.41 We are warned against two reated, major biases, common to a three groups of change modes: Pro-Innovation Bias - marked by the beief that an innovation shoud be diffused and adopted, that it shoud be diffused rapidy, and that it shoud be neither rejected nor changed by the adopters [23, p Individua-Bame Bias - a tendency to hod an individua responsibe for his or her probems, rather than to seek reasons in the system of which that individua is part. [23, p Kapan suggests that information systems research be refocussed in three ways to moderate these biases: 1. Seecting research sites and systems 2. Understanding the broader context 3. Understanding viewpoints 1. Seecting research sites and systems By seecting different research sites and systems for study the pro-innovation bias can be moderated Choosing not ony successfu systems for study, but aso faied systems, woud aow comparative anaysis [23, p This point is in accordance with Pennings: We know reativey itte about organizations that considered innovations but abandoned attempts to adopt them (...) Some peope might consider this a faiure, but faiure might entai a mutitude of meanings. Some faiures might be a success. At any rate, studying innovation faiure and its antecedent factors can enhance our understanding of adoption as a earning process. [3 I, p. 91. To achieve a contemporary investigation of such phenomena, starting research without fixed hypothesizes is required - adoption of or faiure to adapt to an innovation wi not be known unti the process has been competed, and the researcher must be wiing to submit to reaity. Such a starting point is far f?om unknown in quaitative research in genera: What distinguishes participant observation and a quaitative methods &om other methodoogies is that the participant observer s questions are framed in genera terms. Most practitioners of the methodoogy attempt to enter the fied without specific hypotheses or preconceived notions. [5, p Not east for studies of BPR projects these aspects might be of interest, taken into account that as much as 70 % of BPRprojects fai [4]. But those who are responsibe for or heaviy mvoved in these capsized projects, are not eager to et researchers in to investigate their faiures. The tendency is that ony successfu projects are aowed to be examined. As a consequence amost the ony case stories that are tod refer to success stories of BPR, and thus in fact give a fase and gorified picture of this highy risky venture. One strategy to get access to a kinds of projects, faiures, partia faiures as we as successes is to examine the project whie it is carried through, to obeserve how it is accompished and what the effects are, for good or bad. Ony this way it wi be possibe to get a picture of BPR that aows us to use these experiences in a process of improvement. 2. Understanding the broader context Understanding the broader context means investigating the context in which an information system deveops and is used, asking questions ike how the initia decision is made, how the system is reated to other innovations and existing practices, etc. In reation to the examination of the BPR phenomenon this means that IT shoud be seen in connection with the tota process; that the process we are interested in starts a ong time before the decision about a technoogica soution is made. This may aso mean that we have to examine the business process in connection with tbe company s business strategy, and in connection with existing practices in the company and mnovation strategies for typica process types [ 111. Understanding the broader context wi hep evauate to what extent the soution is an innovation. Aso it wi hep to under- 587

8 Proceedings of the 28th Annua Hawaii Internationa Conference on System Sciences stand if the changes are a resut of the BPR project or if they have been initiated earier. In our case study, what was known as the reengineering project consisted of a series of attempts and subprojects, of which severa were started at an earier time. When it was decided to carry through the reengineering a reated subprojects and attempts were coected under one umbrea: the reengineering project. That means that some very significant improvements may be regarded as the resut of initiatives that were started earier, and that are not necessariy a consequence of BPR. However, adherents of reengineering argue that ony the hoistic approach of reengineering has made the resuts possibe. 3. Understanding viewpoints Understanding the viewpoints of a actors invoved in the process heps combat both biases, the pro-innovation bias as we as the individua- bame bias. The demand that innovation shoud not be treated as a neutra process aso has been put forward by Cark and Staunton in their cnticism of research in innovation: What IS needed (...) is a perspective which consciousy examines the roe of socia structures and actors, especiay the strugges which accompany and impact the paths which umovation take. [ 10, p Kapan (with reference to Rogers [32]) has three suggestions to hep understand the viewpoints of the participants in the process: Acknowedge that rejection, discontinuance, and reinvention frequenty occur, and that such behavior may be rationa and appropriate from the individua s point of view [23, p. 606). Examine motivations for why a system was thought needed and why it was or was not adopted by the individuas using it. [23, p Here we are warned against focusing on economic motivations to the excusion of considerations such as status and prestige. We are aso reminded that an adoption/rejection de&on is aways right in the eyes of the individua who is making the innovation-decision (at east at the time the decision is made) [32, p Guard agamst change agencies defmrtions of probems because the tend to focus on individua bame. In the case of mformatron systems, researchers shoud seek out viewpoints other than those of a system s deveopers and promoters, and other than those of management. [23; p This means we shoud invove in the study those who opt out of the process as we as those who are centra to the process. For a of the three suggestions it is of utmost importance to view the innovation through the eyes of the individuas being studied Again we find our study is supported best by a method- oogy that has to be characterized as a phenomenoogica point of view. A commitment to capturing the interpretation of reaity of those individuas is an important feature in a phenomenoogica approach [6]. An exampe from our case shows the reevance of this point: One of the concusions so far, expressed by a key person in the project, is that The term reengineering is dead, but the concept wi survive. That means that the company is starting new initiatives with a hoistic process perspective, with strong top management invovement and with support from key IT-resources. But this initiative is not going to be refcred to in the company as a reengineering project! After having observed and interviewed a tota of 25 persons, change agents as we as those who have opted out of the process, and those who were never invited to participate, we have got sufficient background to understand this expression as we as simiar remarks. The reengineering project we are observing was started top down, with invovement of persons that were panned to be assigned to key positions in the new organization, and with reativey itte degree of information to empoyees. There has been a strong poarity between those who were inside the process, who got information and were invoved, and those that were not part of tbe process, who fet they didn t get mformation, and who expressed their feeings as 2. rank citizens in the company. n Scandinavia it is unusua to hande panning of a major reorganisation in this way. This has ead to strong resistance against the reengineering effort as such - and to the remark that reengineering is dead The strategy of focusing on key persons, whie part of ine management was given a more passive roe, further added to the annoyance. This strategy ead to that empoyees in even esser degree were informed of what they might expect horn their future working situation, because ine management themseves were not aways fuy informed. t is ony in diaogue with a parts invoved it has been possibe to understand these conficts. on one side the wish from the process team to get peace to work, and on the other side the consequence of this stand for the rest of the empoyees. 5. Concusion. Seecting a research method for examination of the BPR process There seems to be an emerging beief in methodoogica puraism that ascertains that there is no singe correct method of science, but many methods. The correct method is contingent to the probem to be studied and shoud be capabe of successfuy achreving the research objective 588

9 Proceedings of the 28th Annua Hawaii Intemationu Conference on System Sciences As stated above, our primary wncem is innovation in business processes, especiay with a focus on how to anayze occurrences of radica innovation in business processes. This means the examination has to be conducted in a rea setting, not as an experiment. Our main focus is on the change process, the change which is conducted in stages from anaysis of the existing business process through redesign and to impementation of the redesigned process. The objective of the change process is radica innovation, not automation of existing routines. Focus on change as a process invoves aspects of knowedge, communication, socia structures and the roe of actors. We want to achieve a hoistic understanding of the change process as dynamic, and to a esser extent static snapshots of states, For our study use of quaitative methods stand out as an actua research strategy. This has been a common research strategy in socioogy and poitica science because it makes understanding of compex socia phenomena in rea-ife settings possibe. As a resut of this, our project is conducted as a case study which makes an in depth examination of one occurrence of a BPR project. Severa sources of data are used, written fies (memos, project descriptions, meeting minutes etc.), open interviews and observation of various sorts of meetings. Unti now 13 persons, representing a eves of the organisation, have been questtoned, some of them severa tunes, and 25 persons have been observed durmg project meetings. We have argued why we have chosen to conduct our study using this puraistic approach, based on a phenomcnoogica viewpoint: 1) The approach supports examination of processes. 2) The approach supports examination of contemporary events F 171 If [I 1121 Davenport, T.H., Short, J.E. The New Industria Engineering: Information Technoogy and Business Process Redesign. Soan Management Review, 3 1,4, I131 Bashein, B.J., Markus, L. M., Riey, P. Business Proccss Reengmeetig: What does the Literature Say? Unpubished, The Caremont Graduate Schoo, revised August Bashein, B.J., M arkus, L. M., Riey, P. Business Process Reengineering: Preconditions for Success (and Faiure). Information Systems Management, February Bogdan R, Tayor S.J. Introduction to Quaitative Research Methods. Wiey, New York, Brymann, A. Ouantitv and Ouaitv in Socia Research, Unwin Hyman, London, Checkand, P. Science and the Science Paradigm. e nationa Journa of genera Svstems, 3 pp , Checkand, P. Svstems Thinking. Systems Praa Wiey, Chichcster, John Christensen, G.E., Grenand, SE., Methie, L.B. Informasionsteknoopi, Bedriftsokonomens Forag, Oso, Cark, P., Staunton, N. Innovation m Technooav and Organization. Routedge, London, Davenport, T.H. Process Innovation. Reenaineerine, Work through Information Technoogy. Harward Business Schoo Press, Boston, Davidson, W. H., Beyond Reengineering: The Three Phases of Business Transformation.. 1BM Systems Journa, January ) The approach has an understanding of the participant s own perception as a basis DeMarco, T., Structured Anaysis and System Soesifica- & Yourdon Press, New York However, the demands of a scientific examination sti have to be taken into account. The researcher s goa is to generaize theories (anaytic generaization) and not to enumerate frequencies (statutica generaization) [36]. References [] Achterberg, J.S., van Es, G-A., Heng, M.S.H. Information Systems Research in the Postmodem Period. n Nissen, H.-E. et a (cds.), 1991 [2] AT&T, Rcen gineerina Handbook> AT&T Be Laboratories, Indianapois, I Descartes, R, Discourse on Methods. in Great Books of the Western Word Chicago, Feyerabend, P. Against methods. London, NLB, Ha, G., Rosentha, J., Wade, J. How to make reengineering reay work Harvard Busmess Review:, Nov-Dec Hammer, M. Reengincenng Work: Don t Automate, Obiterate Harvard Business Review, Juy-Aug., Hammer, M., Champy, J. ReenGnerine the Corporation. Nichoas Breacy, London, IS1 Change the IS1 way BPR - News.. Des James Martin Associates Business Process Rcengincering, Version 5 1,

10 Proceedings of the 28th Annua Hawaii Internutionai Conference on System Sciences WI Kanter, R,M. The Change Masters, Counterpoint, London, Kapan, B. Modes of change and information systems research. In H.-E. Ntssen et a. (eds), [241 Kein, H. The Poverty of Scientism in Information Systems, in Research methods in Information Svstems, E. Mumford (Ed.) North-Hoand 1985 I251 Kukhuhn, A. Hvwtese van het heden, Nijmegen, Netherands: Markant, Laudan, L. Proeress and Its probems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth, Routedge and Kegan Pau: London, Lundeberg, M., Godkuh, G, Nisson, A. Svstemerina, Studentitteratur, Lund, Lyytinen, K., & Kein, H. The Critica theory of Jtirgen Habermas as a basis for a theory of Information Science in Research methods in Information Systems, E. Mumford (Ed.) North-Hoand Nissen H.E. Acquirmg Knowedge of Information Systems - Research m a Methodoogica Quagmire in & search Methods in hrformation Svstems, E. Mumford (Ed.) North-Hoand [301 Nissen, H.-E., Kein, H.K. and Hirschheim, R (Eds.) Information Svstems Research: Contemporarv annroaches and Emergent Traditions. Esevier Science Pubishers B.V. (North-Hoand). IFIP Pennings, J. M. On the Nature of new Technoogy as organizationa Innovation, in Pennings, J.M, and Buitendam, A. (Eds): New Technoogv as organizationa Imrovat& Bainger Pubishing Company, Cambridge, r331 [341 [ [371 Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York, Senko, M.E. Information Systems; Records, Reationships, sets, Entities, and Things, Information Svstems, vo. 1 pp. 3-13, Siverman, D. Intermeting Ouaitative Data, Sage Pubications, London Wood-Harper, T. Research Methods in Information Systems: using Action Research, in Research Methods in Information Svstems, E. Mumford (Ed.) North-Hoand, Yin, RK. Case Studs Research. Sage Pubications, Newbury Park, Zatman, G., Duncan, R and Hobek, J. Innovations and organizations. John Wiey, New York,