Digital transformation and the new logics of business process management

References

• Baiyere, A., & Hukal, P. (2020, January). Digital disruption: a conceptual clarification. In Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2007). Assimilation of interorganizational business process standards. Information Systems Research, 18(3), 340–362.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandara, W., Gable, G. G., & Rosemann, M. (2005). Factors and measures of business process modelling: Model building through a multiple case study. European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 347–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., & King, J. L. (2016). Routines as shock absorbers during organizational transformation: integration, control, and nasa’s enterprise information system. Organization Science, 27(3), 551–572.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berente, N., & Yoo, Y. (2012). Institutional contradictions and loose coupling: Postimplementation of NASA’s enterprise information system. Information Systems Research, 23(2), 376–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besson, P., & Rowe, F. (2012). Strategizing information systems-enabled organisational transformation: A transdisciplinary review and new directions. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21, 103–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beverungen, D. (2014). Exploring the interplay of the design and emergence of business processes as organizational routines. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 4, 191–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O., Pavlou, P., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Visions and voices on emerging challenges in digital business strategy. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 633–662.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bossert, O. (2016). A two-speed architecture for the digital enterprise. In Emerging trends in the evolution of service-oriented and enterprise architectures (pp. 139–150). Springer, Cham.
   Google Scholar
• Broadbent, M., Weill, P., & St Clair, D. (1999). The implications of information technology infrastructure for business process redesign. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton-Jones, A., Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P. F., & Weber, R. (2017). Assessing representation theory with a framework for pursuing success and failure. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1307–1333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, B. S., & Gray, P. H. (2006). Reliability, mindfulness, and information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 211–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciborra, C. U., & Hanseth, O. (1995). Introduction. In Ciborra, C.U., Braa, K., Cordella, A., Dahlbom, B., Failla, A., Hanseth, O., Hepsø, V., Ljungberg, J., Monteiro, E., and Simon, K.A. (eds.)., From control to drift: The dynamics of corporate information infrastructure (pp. 1–11). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coghlan, D. (1998). The interlevel dynamics of information technology. Journal of Information Technology, 13, 139–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crick, C., & Chew, E. K. (2017). Business processes in the agile organisation: A socio-technical perspective. Software Systems Modelling, 16, 631–648.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curtis, B., Marc, K., & Over, J. (1992). Process modeling. Communications of the ACM, 35(9), 75–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Datta, A. (1998). Automating the discovery of as-is business process models: Probabilistic and algorithmic approaches. Information Systems Research, 9(3), 275–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davenport, T. H., & Short, J. E. (1990). The new industrial engineering: Information technology and business process redesign.Sloan Management Review, 31 (4).
   Google Scholar
• de Albuquerque, J. P., & Christ, M. (2015). The tension between business process modelling and flexibility: Revealing multiple dimensions with a sociomaterial approach. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24, 189–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demirkan, H., Spohrer, J. C., & Welser, J. J. (2016). Digital innovation and strategic transformation. IT Professional, 18(6), 14–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dernbecher, S., & Beck, R. (2017). The concept of mindfulness in information systems research: a multi-dimensional analysis. European Journal of Information Systems, 26(2), 121–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., Van Dongen, B., Käärik, R., & Mendling, J. (2011). Similarity of business process models: Metrics and evaluation. Information Systems, 36(2), 498–516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumas, M., Van der Aalst, W. M., & Ter Hofstede, A. H. (2005). Process-aware information systems: Bridging people and software through process technology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, C., & Peppard, J. W. (1994). Business process redesign: Hype, hope or hypocrisy? Journal of Information Technology, 9, 251–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El Sawy, O. A., Malhotra, A., Park, Y., & Pavlou, P. A. (2010). Research commentary—seeking the configurations of digital ecodynamics: It takes three to tango. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 835–848.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organisational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gersick, C. J. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 10–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gust, G., Flath, C. M., Brandt, T., Ströhle, P., & Neumann, D. (2017). How a traditional company seeded new analytics capabilities. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(3), 215–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering work: Don’t automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 104–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation. New York: HarperBusiness.
   Google Scholar
• Hammer, M., & Stanton, S. (1999). How process enterprises really work. Harvard Business Review, 77(6), 108–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harmon, P. (2010). Business process change: A guide for business managers and BPM and Six Sigma professionals. Morgan Kaufmann.Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Henfridsson, O., & Bygstad, B. (2013). The generative mechanisms of digital infrastructure evolution. MIS Quarterly, 37, 907–931.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hung, R. Y. Y. (2006). Business process management as competitive advantage: A review and empirical study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 17(1), 21–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janz, B. D., Wetherbe, J. C., Davis, G. B., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Reengineering the systems development process: The link between autonomous teams and business process outcomes. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(1), 41–68.
   Google Scholar
• Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Standaert, W. (2018). Digital probes as opening possibilities of generativity. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(10), 982–1000.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karimi, J., Somers, T. M., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2007). The role of information systems resources in ERP capability building and business process outcomes. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(2), 221–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, G., Shin, B., Kim, K. K., & Lee, H. G. (2011). IT capabilities, process-oriented dynamic capabilities, and firm financial performance. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(7), 487–517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23, 67–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klun, M., & Trkman, P. (2018). Business process management–at the crossroads. Business Process Management Journal, 24(3), 786–813.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. T., Wyner, G. M., & Pentland, B. T. (2008). Process grammar as a tool for business process redesign. MIS Quarterly, 32(4), 757–778.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legner, C., Eymann, T., Hess, T., Matt, C., Böhmann, T., Drews, P., … Ahlemann, F. (2017). Digitalization: Opportunity and challenge for the business and information systems engineering community. Business Information Systems Engineering, 59, 301–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loebbecke, C., & Picot, A. (2017). Reflections on societal and business model transformation arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24, 149–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyytinen, K., & Rose, G. M. (2006). Information system development agility as organisational learning. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 183–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mantere, S., & Ketokivi, M. (2013). Reasoning in organisation science. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 70–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markus, M. L., & Benjamin, R. I. (1997). The magic bullet theory in IT-enabled transformation. Sloan Management Review, 38, 55–68.
   Google Scholar
• Melão, N., & Pidd, M. (2000). A conceptual framework for understanding business processes and business process modelling. Information Systems Journal, 10(2), 105–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muller, S. D., Mathiassen, L., Saunders, C. S., & Kraemmergaard, P. (2017). Political maneuvering during business process transformation: A pluralist approach. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 18(3), 173–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, M. D. (1999). Investigating information systems with ethnographic research. Communications of the AIS, 2(23), 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029–1055.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, M., & Zhao, Y. (2008). The process of enterprise resource planning implementation and business process re–engineering: Tales from two Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises. Information Systems Journal, 18, 405–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organisation, 18(4), 235–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485–501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Recker, J. (2014). Suggestions for the next wave of BPM research: Strengthening the heoretical core and exploring the protective belt. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 15(2), 5–20.
   Google Scholar
• Recker, J., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., & Green, P. (2010). The ontological deficiencies of process modeling in practice. European Journal of Information Systems, 19, 501–525.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., & Green, P. (2009). Business process modelling – A comparative analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(4), 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosemann, M. (2014, July). Proposals for future BPM research directions.Asia–Pacific conference on business process management (pp. 1–15). Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rosemann, M., Recker, J., & Flender, C. (2008). Contextualisation of business processes. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management, 3(1), 47–60.
   Google Scholar
• Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. (2000). Research commentary: The organizing logic for an enterprise’s IT activities in the digital era—A prognosis of practice and a call for research. Information Systems Research, 11(2), 105–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarker, S., Sarker, S., & Sidorova, A. (2006). Understanding business process change failure: An actor–network perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(1), 51–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebastian, I., & Ross, J. (2016, April). The schindler group: Driving innovative service integration with schindler digital business AG. MIT Sloan CISR Working Paper No. 411.
   Google Scholar
• Sebastian, I., Ross, J., Beath, C., Mocker, M., Moloney, K., & Fonstad, N. (2017). How big old companies navigate digital transformation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(3) 197–213.
   Google Scholar
• Sidorova, A., Torres, R., & Beayeyz, A. A. (2014). The role of information and ICT in business process management. In J. Vom Brocke & M. Rosemann Eds. Handbook on business process management (pp. 333–350). 1. Springer
   Google Scholar
• Silva, L., & Hirschheim, R. (2007). Fighting against windmills: Strategic information systems and organisational deep structures. MIS Quarterly, 31(2),327–354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, A., & Hess, T. (2017). How chief digital officers promote the digital transformation of their companies. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(1), 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 633–642.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svahn, F., Mathiassen, L., & Lindgren, R. (2017). Embracing digital innovation in incumbent firms: How Volvo cars managed competing concerns. Mis Quarterly, 41(1), 239–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takeoka-Chatfield, A. T., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (1997). The impact of IOS-enabled business process change on business outcomes: Transformation of the value chain of Japan airlines. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(1), 13–40.
   Google Scholar
• Tanriverdi, H., Konana, P., & Ge, L. (2007). The choice of sourcing mechanisms for business orocesses. Information Systems Research, 18(3), 280–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. The Sage Handbook of Organisational Institutionalism, 840, 99–128.
   Google Scholar
• Trkman, P. (2010). The critical success factors of business process management. International Journal of Information Management, 30(2), 125–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Utesheva, A., Simpson, J. R., & Cecez–Kecmanovic, D. (2016). Identity metamorphoses in digital disruption: A relational theory of identity. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(4), 344–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Aalst, W. M. (2013). Business process management: A comprehensive survey. ISRN Software Engineering, 2013,1–37
   Google Scholar
• Van der Aalst, W. M., La Rosa, M., & Santoro, F. M. (2016). Business process management. Business Information Systems Engineering, 58(1), 1–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Maanen, J. (2011). Ethnography as work: Some rules of engagement. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 218–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1c17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems. 28, 118–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vom Brocke, J., & Rosemann, M. (2010). Strategic alignment, governance, people and culture. In Handbook on business process management (Vol. 2). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Vom Brocke, J., & Rosemann, M. (2014). Handbook on business process management: Strategic alignment, governance, people and culture (Vol. 2). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Vom Brocke, J., Schmiedel, T., Recker, J., Trkman, P., Mertens, W., & Viaene, S. (2014). Ten principles of good business process management. Business Process Management Journal, 20(4), 530–548.
   Google Scholar
• Vom Brocke, J., Zelt, S., & Schmiedel, T. (2016). On the role of context in business process management. International Journal of Information Management, 36, 486–495.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(3), 320–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1995). On the deep structure of information systems. Information Systems Journal, 5(3), 203–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, X., Conboy, K., & Pikkarainen, M. (2012). Assimilation of agile practices in use. Information Systems Journal, 22(6), 435–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weill, P., & Woerner, S. L. (2018). Is your company ready for a digital future? MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(2), 21–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessel, L., Baiyere, A., Ologeanu-Taddei, R., Cha, J., & Jensen, T. (2020). Unpacking the difference between digital transformation and IT-enabled organizational transformation. Journal of Association of Information Systems. Forthcoming.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). Leading digital: Turning technology into business transformation. United States: Harvard Business Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yoo, Y. (2012). The tables have turned: How can the information systems field contribute to technology and innovation management research? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(5), 4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research commentary—The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar