Process Virtualization Goes Mainstream: Diving into its Normalization

References

• Harvard Business Review. 2020 [accessed 2020 May 30]. https://hbr.org/2020/03/coronavirus-could-force-teams-to-work-remotely.
   Google Scholar
• Balci B, Rosenkranz C. Virtual or material, what do you prefer? Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems; 2014; Tel Aviv.
   Google Scholar
• Overby E. Process virtualization theory and the impact of information technology. Organ Sci. 2008;19(2):277–91. doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis GB. Anytime/anyplace computing and the future of knowledge work Communications of the ACM. Commun ACM. 2002;45(12):67–73. doi:10.1145/585597.585617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benbasat I, Moore GC. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res. 1991;2(3):192–222. doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Davis FD, Morris MG. Dead or alive? The development, trajectory and future of technology adoption research. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2007;8(4):267–86. doi:10.17705/1jais.00120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker E, Avery GC, Crawford J. Satisfaction and perceived productivity when professionals work from home. Res Pract Hum Res Manage. 2007;15(1):37–62.
   Google Scholar
• Agrawal K. Investigating the determinants of big data analytics (BDA) adoption in emerging economies. Acad Manage proc. 2015;2015(1):11290. doi:10.5465/ambpp.2015.11290abstract.
   Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425–78. doi:10.2307/30036540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baloh P. The role of fit in knowledge management systems: tentative propositions of the KMS design. J Organ End User Comput. 2007;19(4):22–41. doi:10.4018/joeuc.2007100102.
   Google Scholar
• Casper ES. The theory of planned behavior applied to continuing education for mental health professionals. Psychiat Serv. 2007;58(10):1324–29. doi:10.1176/ps.2007.58.10.1324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agrawal KP, Pani AK. Normalization of process virtualization in technology driven remote working practices. Acad Manage proc. 2022;2022(1). doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2022.13723abstract.
   Google Scholar
• May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology. 2009;43(3):535–54. doi:10.1177/0038038509103208.
   Google Scholar
• May C, Rapley T, Mair FS, Treweek S, Murray E, Ballini L, Macfarlane A, Girling M, Finch TL. Normalization process theory on-line users’ manual, toolkit and NoMAD instrument. 2015. http://www.normalizationprocess.org.
   Google Scholar
• Baruch Y, Yuen Y. Inclination to Opt for Teleworking – A Comparative Analysis of United Kingdom versus Hong Kong Employees. Int J Manpow. 2000;21(7):521–39. doi:10.1108/01437720010378980.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholefield G, Peel S. Managers’ Attitudes to Teleworking. New Zealand J Empl Relat. 2009;34:1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Donnelly N, Sarah B. Disrupted work: home‐based teleworking (HbTW) in the aftermath of a natural disaster. New Technol work Employment. 2015;30(1):47–61. doi:10.1111/ntwe.12040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez A, Perez M, Luis Carnicer P, Jimenez M. Teleworking and workplace flexibility: a study of impact on firm performance. Personnel Rev. 2007;36(1):42–64. doi:10.1108/00483480710716713.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balci B, Grgecic D, Rosenkranz C. Why people reject or use virtual processes: a test of process virtualization theory. AMCIS Proceedings. 2013. http://works.bepress.com/cristoph_rosenkranz/33.
   Google Scholar
• Duxbury LE, Higgins CA, Thomas DR. Work and family environments and the adoption of computer-supported supplemental work-at-home. J Vocat Behav. 1996;49(1):1–23. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.0030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamond D, Daniels K, Standen P. Virtual working or working virtually?: An overview of contextual and behavioral issues in teleworking. Fourth International Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute; 1997; Sydney, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Halford S. Hybrid workspace: respatialisations of work, organisation and management. New Tech Work Empl. 2005;20(1):19–33. doi:10.1111/j.1468-005X.2005.00141.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golden L. Limited access: disparities in flexible work schedules and work-at-home. J Fam Econ Issues. 2008;29(1):86–109. doi:10.1007/s10834-007-9090-7.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson S, Harvey DM, Bosco SM. Drawing the line when working from home: the benefits and challenges of telecommuters. Proceedings for the Northeast Region Decision Sciences Institute; 2014. p. 87–896.
   Google Scholar
• Sarbu M. Determinants of work-at-home arrangements for German employees. Rev Labor Econ Ind Relat. 2014;29(4):444–69. doi:10.1111/labr.12061.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom N, Liang J, Roberts J, Ying ZJ. Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Q J Econ. 2015;130(1):165–218. doi:10.1093/qje/qju032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beauregard TA, Basile KA, Canónico E. Telework: outcomes and facilitators for employees. In: Landers RN, editor. The Cambridge handbook of technology and employee behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019. p. 511–43.
   Google Scholar
• Eckhardt A, Endter F, Giordano A, Somers P. Three Stages to a Virtual Workforce. Mis Q Exec. 2019;18(1):19–35. doi:10.17705/2msqe.00006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choudhury P, Foroughi C, Larson B. Work-from-anywhere: the productivity effects of geographic flexibility. SSRN Electron J. 2019. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3494473.
   Google Scholar
• Haider M, Anwar A. The prevalence of telework under Covid-19 in Canada. ITP. 2023;36(1):196–223. doi:10.1108/ITP-08-2021-0585.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Overby E, Konsynski B. Task‐technology fit and process virtualization theory: an integrated model and empirical test. Emory Public Law Res. 2010;10–96. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1567097.
   Google Scholar
• Overby E. Information systems theory: explaining and predicting our digital society. In: Dwivedi YK, Wade MR, Schneberger SL, Dwivedi YK, Wade MR Schneberger SL, editors. Integrated Series in Information Systems. Dordrecht Heidelberg London: Springer New York; 2012. doi:10.1007/978‐1‐4419‐6108‐2.
   Google Scholar
• Barth M, Veit D. ‘Electronic service delivery in the public sector: understanding the variance of citizens’ resistance. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, Hawaii; 2011. p. 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Barth M, Veit D. Which processes do users not want online?: Extending the process virtualization theory. Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems; 2011; Shanghai.
   Google Scholar
• Graupner E, Maedche A. Process digitisation in retail banking: an empirical examination of process virtualization theory. IJEB. 2015;12(4):364–79. doi:10.1504/IJEB.2015.074613.
   Google Scholar
• Connolly A, Judge P. Process virtualization theory and social media’s effects on the decision to volunteer. AMCIS; 2016; San Diego, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Ofoeda J, Boateng R, Asmah A. Virtualization of government-to-citizen engagement process: enablers and constraints. Electron J Inf Syst Dev Countries. 2018;84(5):1–16. doi:10.1002/isd2.12037.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng Y, Park J, Feng M. What is holding back business process virtualization in the post-COVID-19 era? Based on process virtualization theory (PVT). Front in Psy. 2023;14:1084180. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1084180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeuge A, Schaefer C, Weigel A, Eckhardt A, Niehaves B. Crisis-driven digital transformation as a trigger for process virtualization: fulfilling knowledge work process requirements for remote work. Int J Inf Manage. 2023;70:102636. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102636. ISSN 0268-4012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshi K. A model of users’ perspective on change: the case of information systems technology implementation. MIS Q. 1991;15(2):229–42. doi:10.2307/249384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janes D. The applicability of normalisation process theory to speech and language therapy: a review of qualitative research on a speech and language intervention. Implement Sci. 2011;6(95):1–10. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-95.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hodge LM, Turner KMT, Sanders MR, Filus A. Sustained implementation support scale: validation of a measure of program characteristics and workplace functioning for sustained program implementation. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2016;44(3):1–23. doi:10.1007/s11414-016-9505-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeve J, Cooper L, Harrington S, Rosbottom P, Watkins J. Developing, delivering and evaluating primary mental health care: the co-production of a new complex intervention. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):470. doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1726-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazell C, Strauss C, Hayward M, Cavanagh K. Understanding clinician attitudes towards implementation of guided self-help cognitive behavior therapy for those who hear distressing voices: using factor analysis to test normalisation process theory. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):507. doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2449-z.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De’ R, Pandey N, Pal A. Impact of digital surge during Covid-19 pandemic: a viewpoint on research and practice. Int J Inf Manage. 2020;1(55):102171. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102171.
   Google Scholar
• Overby E, Slaughter S, Konsynski B. The design, use, and consequences of virtual processes. Inf Syst Res. 2010;21(4):700–10. doi:10.1287/isre.1100.0319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll N, Conboy K. Normalising the “new normal”: changing tech-driven work practices under pandemic time pressure. Int J Inf Manage. 2020;1;55:102186. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koren M, Rita P. Business disruptions from social distancing. Covid economics: vetted and real-time papers. PLos One. 2020;1:13–31.
   Google Scholar
• Charalampous CAG. Carlo Tramontano & EvieMichailidis. Systematically reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: a multidimensional approach. Eur J Work Organ Psy. 2019;28(1):51–73. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2018.1541886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCall B. Shut down and reboot—preparing to minimise infection in a post-COVID-19 era. Lancet Digit Health. 2020;2(6):e293–e94. doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30103-5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miele F, Tirabeni L. Digital technologies and power dynamics in the organization: a conceptual review of remote working and wearable technologies at work. Sociol Compass. 2020;14(6):e12795. doi:10.1111/soc4.12795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarker S, Sarker S, Schneider C. Seeing remote team members as leaders: a study of US-Scandinavian teams. IEEE Trans Profess Commun. 2009;52(1):75–94. doi:10.1109/TPC.2008.2012286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenberg PS, Greenberg RH, Antonucci YL. Creating and sustaining trust in virtual teams. Bus Horiz. 2007;50(4):325–33. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2007.02.005.
   Google Scholar
• Barth M, Veit D. Which processes do users not want online? Extending the process virtualization theory. Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems; 2011; Shanghai.
   Google Scholar
• Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Andriessen JHE. Mediated communication and new organizational forms. In: Cooper CL, and Robertson I, editors. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 6. Wiley; 1991. p. 17–70.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly MM. The next workplace revolution: telecommuting. Superv Manage. 1985;30:2–7.
   Google Scholar
• Pinnsonneault A, Boisvert M. The impacts of telecommuting on organizations and individuals: a review of the literature. In Johnson NJ, editor. Telecommuting and virtual offices: issues and opportunities. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing; 2001. p. 163–85. doi:10.4018/978-1-878289-79-7.ch010.
   Google Scholar
• Harsch K, Festing M. Dynamic talent management capabilities and organizational agility—A qualitative exploration. Hum Resour Manage. 2019;59(1):43–61. doi:10.1002/hrm.21972.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teece DJ. Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Plann. 2018;51(1):40–49. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khatri N, Gupta V, Varma A. The relationship between HR capabilities and quality of patient care: The mediating role of proactive work behaviors. Hum Resour Manage. 2017;56(4):673–91. doi:10.1002/hrm.21794.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saleh A, Watson R. Business excellence in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous environment (BEVUCA). TQM J. 2017;29(5):705–24. doi:10.1108/TQM-12-2016-0109.
   Google Scholar