MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971153689 · doi:10.1108/bpmj-10-2012-0112

Business process redesign project success: the role of socio-technical theory

2014· article· en· W1971153689 on OpenAlexaffabout
Junlian Xiang, Norm Archer, Brian Detlor

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness Process Management Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness process reengineeringProcess managementGeneralizability theoryBusinessBusiness processChange management (ITSM)Project managementEmpirical researchKnowledge managementOrganizational cultureCritical success factorComputer scienceMarketingManagementEngineeringLean manufacturingWork in processSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to seek to advance business process redesign (BPR) project research through the generation and testing of a new research model that utilizes formative constructs to model complex BPR project implementation issues. Instead of looking at management principles, the paper examines the activities of improving business processes from the project perspective. Design/methodology/approach – A survey of 145 managers and executives from medium and large-sized USA and Canadian companies was used to validate the model. Findings – The model, based on socio-technical theory, includes three implementation components (change management, process redesign, and information and communication technology infrastructure improvement), and links the effects of these components to BPR project outcomes. The empirical findings indicated that all three implementation components had a significant impact on BPR project success, with change management having the greatest effect. Interestingly, the results also showed that productivity improvement was no longer the main focus of companies carrying out BPR projects; instead, improvement in operational and organizational quality was more important. Research limitations/implications – The main limitation of this study is its generalizability with respect to company size and organizational culture. The sample in this study was drawn from medium- and large-sized companies in Canada and the USA, but small-sized organizations were excluded from this study due to their distinct features (e.g. superior flexibility or ability to reorient themselves quickly). Also, this study controlled the variable of organizational culture by limiting respondents to Canada and US companies. It would be very interesting to investigate BPR project implementations in other countries where the organizational working culture may be different. Practical implications – Based on the findings of this study, BPR practitioners can refer to the three BPR project implementation components and then prioritize and sequence the tasks in a BPR project to achieve their preset BPR goals. Originality/value – This is the first study which utilizes formative constructs to validate the important BPR project components.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness Process Management JournalSame topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207