2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Science
Business processes as sociomaterial networks: exploring the multiple
dimensions of flexibility in process modeling
João Porto de Albuquerque
Department of Computer Systems, ICMC-USP
University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
[email protected]
Marcel Christ
Department of Informatics
University of Hamburg, Germany
[email protected]
Abstract
studies claim that BPM is currently in its third
generation (the so-called Third Wave) [2, 3]. This
new generation is attempting to bring together the
benefits of past BPM approaches by seeking to model
and manage the processes, while simultaneously
maintaining the capacity of the organization for
change and thus its ability to readily adapt to new and
unforeseen situations. Thus, the goal of flexibility has
clearly been given prominence in recent approaches
to process modeling.
Process modeling thus currently pursues two
different objectives: the documentation of work
practices into diagrams and flexibility. These two
objectives may appear to be contradictory: process
modeling entails formalizing processes through
models, so that work can be structured and
organizational activities made more uniform and
predictable. At the same time, the documentation of
organizational practices in models, and ensuring
these models are strictly adhered to, can reduce the
degree of organizational flexibility. This is because
the fixed nature of the process activities that result
can prevent an organization from responding to new
and unforeseen situations. For this reason, process
modeling projects must tread a fine line between the
formalization of processes (possibly leading to
automation) and adopting strategies to preserve
organizational flexibility.
This ambivalent ambition of process modeling is
bound up with the wider theoretical investigation into
the relationship between documents/models and
organizational practices. The following question
arises: what are the implications of process modeling
for organizational flexibility?
Research on business process management has
often adopted a technological approach, particularly
with regard to flexibility [4]. As a result, flexibility is
mainly regarded as an attribute of the technical
artifacts which have to be achieved by means of an
appropriate configuration or the employment of
specific techniques in that artifact. Although these
approaches are useful, they fall short of addressing
In the last few years, it has become common for
organizations to document work practices by means
of business processes diagrams. An analysis of the
assumptions underlying process modeling, shows that
this procedure pursues two seemingly contradictory
goals: on the one hand, it aims at formalizing work
practices into diagrams that set out a defined
sequencing of activities; on the other, it seeks to
bestow flexibility on the organization – i.e. to allow it
to maintain its ability to respond to unforeseen
situations. On the basis of this seemingly
contradictory motivation, this paper analyzes the
implications of process modeling for flexibility by
adopting a sociomaterial perspective that is
grounded on the Actor-Network Theory. This is
employed to conduct an empirical study of a processbased quality management project in a large aircraft
maintenance company. The main contribution of this
study is to provide a sociomaterial, multidimensional interpretation of the relationship
between process modeling and flexibility.
1. Introduction
In recent decades, the concept of the business
process has increased in popularity and become
widespread as a basic construct for structuring
organizational work in conjunction with information
systems in the so-called Business Process
Management (BPM) [1, 2]. One of the core activities
in BPM is the modeling of business processes, i.e. the
documentation of work practices in the form of
process diagrams or models, which are generally
based on a graphical notation like that of a flowchart.
These diagrams define the activities of a process and
their mutual relations, in a way that allows the
established activity sequencing to be subject to
restrictions that must be observed in social practice.
Although the practice of documenting work with
flowchart diagrams is not a new phenomenon, recent
978-1-4799-2504-9/14 $31.00 © 2014 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/HICSS.2014.192
1485
the complex social and organizational negotiations
that take place in process modeling projects, as well
as how the flexibility is (and can be) achieved in
practice. In other words, empirical studies are needed
that provide a deeper understanding of modeling
projects and the way they can achieve (or fail to
achieve) flexibility [5].
This paper seeks to make an additional
contribution to the existing empirical studies on
business process modeling [6, 7], particularly by
tackling the issue of flexibility from a sociomaterial
perspective. In the pursuit of this goal, we adopt an
approach which draws on the Actor-Network Theory
[8, 9]. This sociomaterial perspective is used in the
present paper for conducting an empirical study of an
integrated quality management system, based on
business process modeling, within a large aircraft
maintenance corporation.
The remainder of this paper is structured as
follows: Section 2 outlines the theoretical
underpinnings of the research; Section 3 describes the
research design and methodology employed.
Following this, the case study is described and
analyzed in Section 4, and Section 5 concludes the
paper by holding a discussion of the results obtained.
there are essential differences between “dead” formal
artifacts – which are usually regarded as abstract,
homogeneous, and symbolic – and “live” human
actions – whose messy, dynamic and contingent
character can never be entirely mapped into formal
artifacts. If this differentiation is transposed to the
organizational domain, it is necessary to distinguish
between formal, “dead” business process models and
the represented informal, “live” business process
[14].
In this line of reasoning, there is an underlying
assumption that formal artifacts (e.g. process models)
and enacted organizational practices (e.g. business
processes) belong to distinct and detached domains of
reality: whereas the former are affiliated to the
technical realm of mechanical determinism, the latter
form a part of the living world, and are the locus of
human agency and interpretation. Although this
dichotomy of two ontological categories tends to be
implicitly assumed rather than explicitly theorized, it
has practical consequences. From this standpoint,
organizational flexibility must be regarded as an
exclusive attribute of the social, human domain of
work practices [13]. Since models are elements of the
formal world, they are impoverished representations
of these social practices. This means that models are
rigid by their very nature and hence,
formalization/control and flexibility must be seen as
mutually exclusive objectives, which are frequently
represented as antithetical poles of a one-dimensional
axis [17]. As a result, there is a trade-off between
formalization and flexibility: Each step in the
direction of more documentation/formalization
means a corresponding loss of flexibility.
In recent decades, academic research in the field
of Science and Technology Studies (STS) has
challenged the putative ontological dichotomy that
exists between the social and material (or technical)
world, and it has been argued that this essentialist
view is not able to account for the complexity of the
situation found in practice, since human activity is
closely intertwined with technical and formal
artifacts [9, 18, 19]. In fact, the reification of
“essential properties” in both formal artifacts and
human activities conceals some of the implicit and
necessary counterparts from the “other side”. These
include, for instance, the “configured” human
behavior that is implied in the workings of the
artifacts [20], as well as the constitutive role played
by material artifacts in social relations [9].
Moreover, as a result of the entanglement of
formal artifacts and human action, “new competences
for workers can be achieved, higher levels of
complexity in work tasks can be reached, and
activities can be coordinated over time and place”
2. Formal Models, Organizational
Practices and Flexibility
In analyzing the relationship between business
process models and organizational flexibility,
account should be taken of how these models are
related to organizational work practices. Business
process models are often conceptualized as portrayals
or representations of patterns of action in the
organization, called business or organizational
processes. Although they have a distinctive
connotation that is derived from the “process view”
mentioned earlier, processes can be basically seen as
organizational routines. In fact, although the terms
“process” [10] and “routines” [11] are used in the
literature in an ambivalent way, both are generally
associated with recurring patterns of action that are
embedded and anchored in the organization. Recent
research studies have highlighted the dynamic
character of organizational routines [12-14]: since
they are human practices, they must be carried out in
a continuous way to allow routine activities (or
processes) to be undertaken and in this way make it
possible for variations and changes to occur.
In fact, the relation between formal models and
work practices has been the focus of a large number
of research studies during the last few years [15]. As
Berg [16] points out, it is commonly assumed that
1486
[16]. Recent scholarship in the field of organization
studies has echoed these notions and, it has been
argued that before the relationship between
technology and organizational practices can be fully
understood, we must question the validity of the
ontological dichotomy between the “social” and
“material” and recognize the relevance of materiality
in organizational practices [21-23].
Furthermore, as the empirical research on the coconstitution of documents and organizational
contexts has shown, documents “do not simply force
certain reading on their reader” [24]. As pointed out
by Suchman [19], situated actions that emerge from
the embedding of a plan (or model) in social
practices cannot be regarded as a mere ‘execution’ of
the plan, since these actions have their own
dynamics and those who carry them out must be
prepared to deal with the contingencies of new
situations. By analogy, it would be misleading to
consider that process models (such as documents)
“force” the performance of certain work practices,
and that this will inexorably lead to a loss of
flexibility.
Building upon the insights found in these studies,
we argue that on the basis of the ontological premise
that underlines the essential dichotomy between
“live” processes (on the social side) and “dead”
artifacts (on the material side), it is impossible to
grasp the constitutive character and generative power
that business process models may have in practice. In
a way that is analogous to the findings of Lee and
Hassard [25], we argue that the essentialist divide
that attributes flexibility solely to the versatility of
humans, is not a useful method of analyzing how
(and to what extent) the liveliness and flexibility of
organizations operate in practice when business
process models are used – especially now that
modelers are explicitly incorporating flexibility as a
goal (as seen in the previous section).
2.1. Processes
networks
as
sociomaterial
The association of the different actors to build a
relatively stable network of alliances is known in
ANT as ‘translation’, i.e. a process that “relates,
defines, and orders objects, human and otherwise”
[28]. It should be underlined however, that the
relative stability of the relations that are translated
and “black-boxed” in a network is not guaranteed,
but should be seen as a precarious [27] and uncertain
[9] achievement that needs to be continuously
enacted in organizational practices. Thus, an actor
cannot be said to exist “outside” of the network,
because it simultaneously constitutes and is
constituted by the network of relations with the other
actors. This means that the terms actor, actornetwork, and actant can, in effect, be employed
interchangeably (as they are in this work).
Following Latour [9, 29], we understand ANT as
a relational ontology or metaphysics, in which the
entities of the world (actors) are constitutively
defined by the set of relations they perform with
other entities (the network). In view of this, ANT can
be seen as a part of the larger body of practice
theories [30] that rely on a relational thinking where
“subjects, social groups, networks, or even artifacts
develop their properties only in relation to other
subjects, social groups, or networks” [31].
The relational ontology of ANT should not be
confused with the proposition of complete
equivalence between humans and non-humans, but as
a refusal to take for granted a priori divisions
between material/technical and social features [23,
32]. Thus, ANT provides a sociomaterial lens that is
capable of overcoming the ontological divide
explained in the previous section by revealing the
sociomaterial actor-networks within which the
organizational practices and business process models
are co-constituted.
From the sociomaterial perspective of ANT, the
formalization of organizational practices that takes
place in business process modeling can be seen as the
knitting together of a heterogeneous, sociomaterial
actor-network around a business process model. In
other words, a model artifact (i.e. an actor) is created
together with a relatively stable set of relations
around (i.e. the network), and is put into circulation.
This entails a departure from viewing process
modeling as an abstraction in its most common
connotation, i.e. the production of impoverished
representations of organizational practices that are
caused by the subtraction of most aspects of
organizational reality. Instead of this, the
sociomaterial perspective of ANT regards process
modeling as the addition of a new actor-network to
the organizational scene, i.e. as the creation of a
model artifact that simultaneously builds a
actor-
To overcome the ontological divide outlined
above, we draw on theories derived from Science and
Technology Studies and known as the Actor-Network
Theory (ANT). ANT is the most prominent body of
literature within “sociomateriality” studies [23]. As
units of analysis, ANT relies on heterogeneous,
sociomaterial arrangements called hybrids [26], or
actor-networks [9, 27]. These entities comprise both
human and non-human ‘actants’ – a word borrowed
from semiotics to refer indistinctively to human and
non-human actors, such as people, texts, concepts,
machines and so forth.
1487
sociomaterial network around it. Moreover, this
perspective entails regarding model artifacts and their
putative properties (e.g. rigidity, formality, durability
etc.) as ongoing achievements in the performances of
the network relations.
From this perspective, before it is possible to
consider how flexibility can be understood and
whether it can be achieved in practice (or not), we
must examine the hybrid, sociomaterial actornetworks within which the organizational routines
and business process models are co-constituted.
3. Research Design and Methodology
This paper seeks to understand the implications of
process models on the flexibility of organizations, i.e.
their ability to change. This question is analyzed by
means of a case study that involved a process
modeling project led by the quality management
department of a large-scale aircraft maintenance
company in Germany (henceforth called AMC).
We adopt a qualitative, interpretive approach as a
guiding principle [33]. The empirical material was
obtained by means of interviews about the historical
background, and the reasons for undertaking the
project. It also included direct observations carried
out in several modeling workshops, and an analysis
of secondary sources. In summary, the sources of
information for this research include the following: a)
semi-structured interviews with members of the
quality management department, including the head
of the project and two process modelers; b) field
notes taken during the observations in some of the
modeling workshops and tutorials about the
developed software tool; c) e-mail interviews with
the process modelers, to address questions that came
up during the analysis; d) secondary documents, i.e.
printed documents and manuals for instructing
employees about new features and how to use the
software tool, official Internet information about the
company, and the official environmental statement of
AMC.
The data was collected by one of the authors over
a period of about four years (2007-2010), as a part of
his larger PhD project. While the data was being
collected, the analysis was conducted in a
collaborative and interactive way to provide guidance
on other issues that had to be addressed during the
fieldwork that followed [34].
The analysis followed the procedure proposed by
Latour [9] of “follow[ing] the actors themselves or
rather that which makes them act, namely the
circulating entities”, which is analogous to the
principle of the hermeneutic circle of Klein and
Myers [34]. In our case, this entailed examining the
empirical data and attempting to distinguish between
the different actor-networks that were constituted
during the process modeling workshops of the
project. In the initial stage, this involved coding the
data by making use of the elementary concepts actor,
network, change, irreversibility, and flexibility. This
enabled us to identify the main actors and networks
in the analyzed project, as well as to disclose
different conceptualizations of flexibility from the
perspective of the organizational actors themselves.
The next stage consisted of providing a description of
the main actor-networks identified, and establishing a
2.2. The irreversibility of networks and
flexibility
The concept of irreversibility of translations as
defined by Callon [8] is instrumental in investigating
the flexibility of the heterogeneous networks that are
built around models of business processes. The
degree of irreversibility of a network is said to
depend on two things: “(a) the extent to which it is
subsequently impossible to go back to a point where
that translation was only one amongst others”; and
(b) “the extent to which it shapes and determines
subsequent translations” [8]. This means that, the
irreversibility of a network inhibits its ability to
change, i.e. it is antagonistic to the concept of
flexibility.
As Callon points out, this definition of a
translation is a relational matter, which “can only be
measured when it is put to the test” [8]. Thus, before
one is able to investigate flexibility in process
modeling, it is first necessary to identify the
heterogeneous actor-networks that are built around
the process models, and map their constituent
elements. Following this, it must be determined
whether the arrangement of the network elements
engenders a state of irreversibility in the translations
and thus leads to inflexibility. This task can be
accomplished by examining how process networks
are able to deal with competing translations, i.e. how
they cope with changes that challenge the relations
and associations established in the network.
The concept of irreversibility is particularly useful
in this context because, as it is based on the premise
that a process model is constitutively embedded in a
heterogeneous actor-network, it implies that
flexibility is a property that arises from the
sociomaterial network as a whole. Hence, flexibility
cannot be analyzed by only taking account of the
properties of the isolated constituent elements of the
actor-networks involved, but consists of an emergent
property (in the sense that is used in System Theory)
from those sociomaterial networks.
1488
connection with the different kinds of flexibility. This
led us to abstract and generalize by employing the
concept of “dimensions of flexibility” explained in
Section 4.3. Finally, the proposed dimensions of
flexibility were checked with the interviewees by
conducting further interviews and e-mail exchanges,
with a view to improving the internal validity of the
study.
getting rid of the old text-based documents and nonstandardized diagrams.
Although the focus of our analysis lies in the
modeling processes (explored more fully below), it is
useful to start by briefly analyzing the establishment
of the project network. In our case, the quality
management department must interact with the
following actors (as seen from its own perspective):
Business Unit Managers: these are concerned
with improving the quality of the business processes
in their units. They are also assumed to be
responsible for asking the employees in their units to
become involved in the project.
Employees: these have a practical (tacit)
knowledge of business processes, but their practices
are uncoordinated and sometimes in conflict. They
tend to adopt a critical stance to quality
management, since it may entail additional work.
However, they are interested in tools that can make it
easier for them to carry out their activities.
Modeling Framework/Tool: this enables the
processes to be standardized and provides a better
form of visualization by documenting the work
practices as business process diagrams.
Aeronautical Authority: this seeks transparency in
providing it with access to the process models so that
it can check that the rules and regulations are being
complied with.
In this manner, the project sets out by establishing
a system of alliances between the actors involved,
which in turn (re)defines their interests and groups
them around a common goal. However, the project
will only be effective if the modeling is successful
and the process models are used in practice – and this
leads us to the question of the modeling workshops.
4. Case Analysis
AMC has about 22,000 employees and is a global
network with affiliates and subsidiaries spread
around the world. According to the head of the
quality management department, AMC's Business
Process Modeling (BPM) project which is analyzed
below was triggered by a technical failure in a plane
during its takeoff. It was this incident that led the
quality management department to decide to reorganize and re-establish its quality management
system. Until then, quality management had been
regarded by people in AMC as simply an
inconvenient requirement of the aeronautical
authority. In fact, the company had a repository of
interrelated documents such as operational
instructions, safety measures, and environmental
guidelines, as well as quality management directives.
These were designed to ensure the maintenance of
standards at work, but basically consisted of lengthy
documents and a wide range of heterogeneous
diagrams.
These documents were drawn up by different
business departments, each using its own language
and particular definitions of procedures and roles. As
a result, before it was possible to find out about
business processes in different business units, it was
necessary to read a large number of documents with
various graphical notations, different formats, and
divergent terminologies. Thus, it is not surprising
that these documents were rarely used.
4.2 Modeling workshops: defining processes
and owners
The modeling of business processes was carried
out in workshops and conducted by a modeler from
the quality management department with up to ten
(generally three to six) employees as representatives
of their business units, e.g. repair personnel (on the
shop floor), lawyers (legal department) and sales staff
(sales
and
insurance
departments).
The
representatives were interviewed by the modeler
about the most important activities carried out,
decisions made, and data used in their daily work. On
the basis of their answers, the models were designed
in an interactive way while being projected onto a big
screen. Each modeling session took up to three hours,
and at the end, all the process models that had been
devised were shared among the participants (by email) for a final inspection and submission of
4.1 Prelude: the Quality Management Project
When we began this study, the Quality
Management Project (QMP) had been carried out on
a national level for about five years. It was aimed at
improving the quality of standards and making
business processes more transparent and easier to
manage by gradually modeling them for each
business unit. The ultimate goal was to integrate all
the organizational processes into a corporation-wide,
easy-to-use process map that could be used by
employees to visualize the process models – thus
1489
feedback. If necessary, the participants would agree
to meet again at another modeling workshop to
improve or change the model.
With the introduction of the process-based
modeling tool in QMP, each business unit now had to
appoint someone to play the role of process owner.
The responsibilities of this person were: (a) to control
and (b) regularly update the process models of the
corresponding business. The final versions of the
models are then inspected by the process owners,
who decide whether they are suitable and ready for
the final ‘conformity check’. The employees of the
quality management department then check the
extent to which the process model complies with the
requirements laid down by the aeronautical authority.
Once this last check has been carried out, the process
is integrated into the “repository” (process map) and
“goes live” – i.e. it becomes publicly available and
can thus be accessed by all the employees of AMC.
In this way, during this procedure the figure of the
process owner acts as a key component. As
mentioned above, before QMP was started there was
no conception of “business processes”, and the
disconnected operation instructions and diagrams
were largely ignored by the employees (whether
consciously or not). With QMP and the modeling
formalism employed, the assignment of an owner for
each process – which was already inscribed into the
modeling technique – is mandatory and binding. As
one of the process owners whom we interviewed,
stated:
When there is ambiguity, for example, when one
worker executes a process differently from what is
specified, and I get to know about this, then I go
to the worker and we discuss this.
The process owner is thus responsible for the
accuracy of the process model, which entails both
ensuring that the model documents current work
practices and seeing that everybody’s practice in fact
complies with the model.
When accommodating changes, the quality
management software tool provides revision and
feedback functions by means of which any employee
can request updates to the model. The requests are
first checked by the process owner, and if considered
reasonable, are passed on to the quality management
department for the conformity check discussed
earlier. After undergoing a successful check, the
modified model is transferred to the repository.
In the strictly regulated environment of AMC,
most work procedures are standardized, which means
that incremental innovations based on small changes
become very important. As a quality coordinator
pointed out:
We need licenses for maintenance and repairs
and we have a license for making improvements
[…]. , These are not real innovations, but rather
small changes, for example in the assembly line,
and they enable us to be better than our
competitors.
In this way, the process models remain (at least
partially) negotiable in the QMP network, and
provide each of the process networks with a certain
degree of flexibility. Indeed, the channels are kept
open as a result of the negotiations of representatives
in the modeling workshops, and the opportunity that
the software tool provides for any employee to make
model update requests. This allows changes and
incremental innovations to occur in the work
practices of the organization, and thus prevents the
process networks from becoming completely
irreversible.
The roles acquired by both the employees and the
process models in the QMP network, are of crucial
importance to preserve this level of flexibility. The
employees do not participate in the project network
as mere ‘performers’ of rational processes that have
been designed by outside experts to optimal
standards, but rather are employed as active problemsolving agents and process designers themselves.
Hence, in the process networks the models act as
devices for guiding practice (and not laying down
fixed rules that have to be strictly followed), and
these can be updated and renegotiated.
Another interesting aspect of the way in which
changes can be incorporated in the process networks,
was raised by a team leader we interviewed:
Have you been to the other shop floor? They are
doing everything “lean” now. It’s great how they
have managed to become more productive; the
figures are impressive. I want to do the same here
too. […] I can make the whole shop floor “lean”
and keep the processes [i.e. diagrams] the same!
The interviewee thus stated that there are many
aspects of the current work practices which are not
4.3 Examining the irreversibility of networks:
the many facets of flexibility
According to the quality management department,
the QMP approach is based on flexibility and the
number and nature of the model processes,
organization charts, and roles are all constantly
changing. The members of the quality department
emphasized this dynamic character several times in
the interviews, e.g. “the process world never stops!”
Moreover, the factory floor workers we interviewed
confirmed that changes are frequent in the process
models of AMC.
1490
other words, the resulting responsibility of the owner
with regard to his/her own process models, is much
less flexible. In this way, the process owner becomes
accountable for the processes s/he owns.
However, the process owner is not accountable
for all the aspects of the processes s/he owns. Indeed,
the project network has configured the scope of
accountability in such a precise way, that each group
of actors must be accountable for specific aspects of
the modeled processes. This fact was illustrated in
practical terms by the following anecdote which is
based on a true story related by an employee of the
quality management department:
Can you imagine what goes on here when an
aircraft crashes somewhere? Everybody panics
and asks: have we maintained this aircraft? What
went wrong? We work with aircrafts from all over
the world, and before the fact-finding committee
shows up, the first thing managers do in such a
situation is to check if the corresponding
processes [i.e. the process diagrams] are
correct/compliant. If they are, we can say: we did
nothing wrong, some [shop floor] worker must
have caused the failure. But the opposite also
holds true: if the processes are wrong, the worker
can say: I only did what was written here, it’s not
my fault.
This anecdote illustrates the high degree of
irreversibility of the project network with regard to
accountability. In situations of crisis like this, many
competing translations arise: Who was responsible,
i.e. whom should the failure be imputed to? Here we
can see how the sociomaterial arrangement of the
project network reduces the space for disputes about
the accountability of the actors by making a
designated actor group answerable for a particular
aspect of the modeled processes. The quality
department is responsible for assuring that ‘what’ is
modeled in the diagrams is compliant with official
regulations. In contrast, the process owner is
accountable for the accuracy of ‘how’ the modeled
activities are performed in practice, i.e. s/he must
ensure that the current work practices are in fact
carried out in the same way (or in a ‘near-enough’
fashion) as what is shown in the process model.
Thus, as illustrated in the anecdote above, this
distribution of responsibilities is the basis for
defining ‘imputability’ for the occurrence of failures.
If the model had complied with the official rules and
regulations, the quality department personnel could
have breathed a sigh of relief, since it could be shown
that the failure was not their fault. However, the
contrary holds true too: if the process models turn out
to be non-compliant with the rules, then the
consequences will affect the quality management
displayed in the process model. These features can be
changed without having to alter the modeled
elements in the diagrams (in fact, he also listed a
series of possible changes).
From a sociomaterial perspective, it can be seen
that, in establishing the process network in the
modeling workshops, some of the features of the
work practices involved are selected and aligned with
the graphical elements of the diagram – these consist
of ‘what’ an employee is expected to do. All that was
left out of the model becomes the question of ‘how’
these modeled tasks are carried out. Before the
drawing of a diagram in a given modeling workshop,
the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects of the corresponding
organizational practices were not clearly discernible.
In fact, this division into a ‘how’ and a ‘what’ is a
contentious area, and we observed many situations in
the modeling workshops in which there were
different opinions about what should be documented
in the models and what should be left out. In this
manner, the distinction between the ‘what’ and ‘how’
aspects of the organizational practices, is in fact an
important outcome of the business process modeling.
And it is even more important if we consider the
different degrees of flexibility that the ‘what’ and
‘how’ aspects entail. Apparently, it is easier to make
changes in the non-modeled, ‘how’ features of the
work practices. Since there is no prescription for
them in the models, the process network can be
correspondingly changed without affecting the
arrangements inscribed in the model.
However, after a careful examination of the
updating procedure described above, a third factor
related to flexibility is apparent. In the project
network, the ways of introducing changes into
process diagrams are not arbitrary, but must follow a
clearly determined procedure. The procedure to
request a change has to pass through the following:
(a) the software tool, (b) the process owner, and (c)
the quality management department. The first
interesting point to note in this procedure is the
degree of irreversibility that can be found in the
assignment of the process owner. Unlike what occurs
with the remaining contents of the process models
(i.e. the other “what” aspects), no revision
mechanism is provided for the assignment of the
process-owner. Additionally, each change request
restates the association of the owner with her/his
process by making sure s/he is aware of and
complying with the changes introduced into the
model.
Thus, while the process models are amenable to
updates and provided with some flexibility, the range
of responsibilities delegated by means of the owner
assignment has a higher degree of irreversibility. In
1491
department. As a result, the accountability of these
two actor groups that is laid down by the project
network has a low degree of flexibility, as it cannot
be easily negotiated.
With regard to the ‘what’ dimension, i.e. the
activities shown in the models, a reasonable degree of
flexibility was achieved because a systematic
revision of the models was possible. Decisive factors
in bringing this about were the roles played by the
models and employees in the actor-network. In these,
formal artifacts (process models) are not imposed by
an “outside” actor (e.g. a consultancy firm), but
produced together with organizational actors. This
means that the associations in the network between
the model features and organizational actors (that
translate a certain ordering of these actors) could be
reversed, i.e. renegotiated by means of revisions.
As for the ‘how’ dimension of the process
networks, the process modeling tends to impose less
restrictions on the flexibility of these associations,
since they are not directly related to model features.
Nevertheless, this does not mean that all the
organizational features of the processes that are not
related to elements in the diagrams are only loosely
connected and their associations are not binding. The
accountability that emerges from the project – in the
‘who’ dimension – has proved to be very robust.
Indeed, the formal attribution of ‘process ownership’
and the procedure of compliance assurance reduce
the margin for disputes about the imputability of the
actors in the event of a technical failure, i.e. it
reduces the degree of flexibility in negotiating the
extent of accountability.
4.3 Interpreting flexibility: exploring multiple
dimensions
On the basis of our analysis, we propose an
interpretation of the implications of process modeling
for flexibility, which is able to resolve the apparent
contradiction between modeling business processes
and maintaining flexibility in the organization. This
contradiction is also reflected in the different facets
of flexibility that emerged from our analysis in the
previous section, according to which different aspects
of the project network have varying degrees of
flexibility.
The concept of multiple dimensions is put
forward as a means of making sense of the different
facets of flexibility identified in our case.
Accordingly, the relationship between process
modeling and flexibility must be analyzed by taking
account of the different dimensions engendered by
the associations that compose the sociomaterial
network in which the process diagram is embedded.
This multi-dimensional interpretation of the
implications for flexibility is based on the sociomaterial perspective of ANT outlined in Section 2.
According to this, processes can be regarded as
complex actor-networks, and their degree of
flexibility should be assessed in terms of the degree
of irreversibility of these networks. Some of the
associations of a network can prove to be more
irreversible than others and, as such, prevent the
network from incorporating new translations of a
certain type. As a result, there is a reduced degree of
flexibility in one dimension of the network. However,
the same network may still be able to renegotiate
some of its translations or enlist other (types of)
actors, and thus retain flexibility in another
dimension.
The point becomes clearer in the analysis of our
case study. In summary, we found that three different
dimensions of flexibility emerged from the project
network: (1) ‘what’ activities and relationships are
shown in the process models (which are kept
relatively flexible by the fact that it was possible to
update the models); (2) ‘how’ the modeled activities
are carried out in practice (this is left out of the
models and thus has a even greater degree of
flexibility); (3) ‘who’ should be accountable for
certain organizational activities (this dimension has a
considerably low degree of flexibility).
5. Discussion and Conclusion
This paper has sought to illustrate the use and
value of adopting a sociomaterial perspective, based
on the Actor-Network Theory (ANT), and provide
new insights into the different implications of
documenting work practices in process models and
the implications for flexibility that result from them.
The study makes clear that there is a benefit in
adopting a sociomaterial perspective that integrates
human and non-human (material/technical) elements.
Since business process models often serve as a basis
for automation, which is operated by different types
of computerized information systems (e.g. Enterprise
Resource
Planning,
and
Business
Process
Management Systems), they thus form the missing
link between the ‘social world’ of organizational
routines, and the ‘technical world’ of Information
Technology artifacts. Being a hybrid, sociomaterial
object par excellence, business process models are
often studied either from a technical perspective (e.g.
to define workflow methods and software tools), or a
social perspective (e.g. in the study of organizational
routines). However, this a priori fragmentation of
process modeling into technical and social issues fails
1492
dimension with particular implications for flexibility
in the case at hand.
It is impossible (and not our wish) to claim that
the dimensions that have been identified in the
analyzed project exhaust the possibilities for every
process modeling project. In fact, the ‘what’ and
‘how’ dimensions are quite general and can be said to
be present in every project that relies on process
modeling. This is because every process model can
be seen as a 'how' of a particular 'what', and one can
envisage an arbitrary disintegration of this type of
relationship, depending on the degree of granularity
that is required in describing a business process. For
this reason, one important outcome of our analytical
framework is that it enables a relationship to be
established between the degree of flexibility of a
certain dimension and the sociomaterial network
established during the modeling project. Moreover,
depending on the configuration of the sociomaterial
networks involved, in other projects the ‘who’
dimension might only play a minor role, while other
dimensions that have not been identified here, may be
of much greater importance.
This type of analysis is clearly a further step
towards revealing the sociomateriality involved in
process modeling, an area that has often been ignored
and not consciously reflected on, in conventional
technically-oriented approaches. Only a process
modeling practice that is aware of the effects that
emerge from the models within the associated social
practices, will be capable of identifying and dealing
with their implications with regard to flexibility, in an
appropriate manner.
to take full account of the sociomaterial complexity
that arises from the constitutive intertwining and coevolution of the postulated social and material
worlds.
One practical consequence of the ANT
perspective is that it enables a fine-grained analysis
to be conducted of flexibility in process modeling, as
illustrated in our case study. Although formalization
and flexibility are often considered to be antithetical
poles of a one-dimensional axis [17], the case study
that is analyzed above, sets out a different picture of
the relationship between the formalization of work
practices in business process models and
organizational flexibility. By employing the concept
of irreversibility, it can be seen that the ‘translations’
carried out in the formalizing process models have
formed some associations which are more
irreversible than others.
On the basis of our analysis, we suggest that the
flexibility brought about by process modeling is
multi-dimensional, i.e. it must be analyzed with
regard to the different dimensions engendered by the
associations that compose the sociomaterial network
in which the process model is embedded. Each
modeling project might thus engender different
dimensions of flexibility, depending on the
configuration of the networks that are established
around the models.
In this manner, the results of this analysis clearly
show that the relation between formalization and
flexibility is much more complex than the “zero-sum
game” between formalization (into ‘dead’ models)
and flexibility (of ‘live’ processes) that is often taken
for granted as being applicable in a social analysis of
process modeling, e.g. [14]. On the other hand, the
symmetrical approach of ANT also goes beyond
technical approaches that treat flexibility as an
attribute that can be achieved by means of
configurations or the employment of specific
techniques in the artifact [4].
The distinction between the ‘what’ and ‘how’
dimensions of work practices is not entirely new. It
echoes Suchman’s classical distinction between plans
and situated actions (cited above) [19]. It is also
related to two concepts used in the technical research
on business process management: “process type” (i.e.
‘what’ should be executed) and “process instances”
(i.e. the actual executions of a process type) [35].
What is new in our study is that it involves a
sociomaterial perspective based on ANT that enables
us to be more specific about the different
implications of the ‘what’ and ‘how’ dimensions for
organizational flexibility based on a detailed analysis
of the sociomaterial networks involved. Furthermore,
it allowed us to identify the ‘who’ as another
6. Acknowledgement
João Porto de Albuquerque would like to express
gratitude for the support granted by FAPESP
(processes 2011/23274-3 and 2012/18675-1) and by
the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
7. References
[1] Weske, M., Business Process Management: Concepts,
Languages, Architectures, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2007.
[2] Smith, H., and Fingar, P., Business Process
Management: The Third Wave, Megahn-Kiffer Press,
Tampa, Florida, 2003.
[3] Chang, J.F., Business Process Management Systems:
Strategy and Implementation, Auerbach Pub, Boca Raton,
FL, 2006.
[4] Nurcan, S., "A Survey on the Flexibility Requirements
Related to Business Processes and Modeling Artifacts",
Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International
1493
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008), 2008, pp.
378-378.
[20] Woolgar, S., "Configuring the User: The Case of
Usability Trials", in (Law, J., 'ed.' A Sociology of
Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination),
Routledge, London, 1991.
[5] Becker, J., Bergener, K., Mueller, O., and MuellerWienbergen, F., "Documentation of Flexible Business
Processes-a Healthcare Case Study", AMCIS 2009
Proceedings, 2009, pp. 93.
[21] Leonardi, P., and Barley, S., "Materiality and Change:
Challenges to Building Better Theory About Technology
and Organizing", Information and Organization, 18(3),
2008, pp. 159-176.
[6] Sarker, S., Sarker, S., and Sidorova, A., "Understanding
Business Process Change Failure: An Actor-Network
Perspective", Journal of Management Information Systems,
23(1), 2006, pp. 51-86.
[22] Orlikowski, W.J., "Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring
Technology at Work", Organization Studies, 28(9), 2007,
pp. 1435-1448.
[7] Albuquerque, J.P., and Christ, M., "Revealing the
Sociotechnical Complexity of Business Process Modeling –
an Actor-Network Theory Approach", AMCIS 2012
Proceedings, 2012, Paper 5.
[23] Orlikowski, W.J., and Scott, S.V., "Sociomateriality:
Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and
Organization", The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1),
2008, pp. 433-474.
[8] Callon, M., "Techno-Economic Networks and
Irreversibility", in (Law, J., 'ed.' Sociology of Monsters?
Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Routledge,
London, 1991, pp. 132-161.
[24] Østerlund, C.S., "Documents in Place: Demarcating
Places for Collaboration in Healthcare Settings", Computer
Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 17(2-3), 2007, pp.
195-225.
[9] Latour, B., Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to
Actor-Network Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
2005.
[25] Lee, N., and Hassard, J., "Organization Unbound:
Actor-Network Theory, Research Strategy and Institutional
Flexibility", Oganization, 6(3), 1999, pp. 391-404.
[10] Lindsay, A., Downs, D., and Lunn, K., "Business
Processes—Attempts to Find a Definition", Information
and Software Technology, 45(15), 2003, pp. 1015-1019.
[26] Latour, B., Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of
Science Studies, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Mass., 1999.
[11] Becker, M.C., "Organizational Routines: A Review of
the Literature", Ind Corp Change, 13(4), 2004, pp. 643-678.
[27] Law, J., "Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network:
Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity", Systems Practice,
5(4), 1992, pp. 379-393.
[12] Cohen, M.D., "Reading Dewey: Reflections on the
Study of Routine", Organization Studies, 28(5), 2007, pp.
773-786.
[28] Law, J., "Actor Network Theory and Material
Semiotics", in (Turner, B.S., 'ed.' The New Blackwell
Companion to Social Theory), Wiley-Blackwell, West
Sussex, UK, 2009, pp. 141-158.
[13]
Feldman,
M.S.,
and
Pentland,
B.T.,
"Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of
Flexibility and Change", Administrative Science Quarterly,
48(1), 2003, pp. 94-118.
[29] Latour, B., "On Actor-Network Theory", Soziale Welt,
47(4), 1996, pp. 369–381.
[14] Pentland, B., and Feldman, M., "Designing Routines:
On the Folly of Designing Artifacts, While Hoping for
Patterns of Action", Information and Organization, 18(4),
2008, pp. 235-250.
[30] Reckwitz, A., "Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A
Development in Culturalist Theorizing", European Journal
of Social Theory, 5(2), 2002, pp. 243-263.
[15] Albuquerque, J.P., "Rethinking Formalization
Processes in Computerized Systems: Analyzing the CoEvolution between Software and Organizational Practices",
RECIIS - Electronic Journal of Communication,
Information and Innovation Health, 3(2), 2009, pp. 7-15.
[31] Østerlund, C., and Carlile, P., "Relations in Practice:
Sorting through Practice Theories on Knowledge Sharing
in Complex Organizations", The Information Society,
21(2), 2005, pp. 91-107.
[32] Mcmaster, T., and Wastell, D., "The Agency of
Hybrids: Overcoming the Symmetrophobic Block",
Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 17(1), 2005,
pp. 175-182.
[16] Berg, M., "Of Forms, Containers, and the Electronic
Medical Record: Some Tools for a Sociology of the
Formal", Science, Technology & Human Values, 22(4),
1997, pp. 403-433.
[33] Walsham, G., Interpreting Information Systems in
Organizations, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1993.
[17] Cobb, C.G., Enterprise Process Mapping: Integrating
Systems for Compliance and Business Excellence,
American Society for Quality, Quality Press, Milwaukee,
2005.
[34] Klein, H.K., and Myers, M.D., "A Set of Principles for
Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in
Information Systems", MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 1999, pp. 6794.
[18] Barad, K., "Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an
Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter", Signs,
28(3), 2003, pp. 801-831.
[35] Schonenberg, H., Mans, R., Russell, N., Mulyar, N.,
and Van Der Aalst, W., "Towards a Taxonomy of Process
Flexibility", Proceedings of CAiSE'08, 2008, pp. 81-84.
[19] Suchman, L., Human-Machine Reconfigurations:
Plans and Situated Actions 2nd Edition, Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY, 2007.
1494