Defining a process for developing responsive knowledge pathways

Abstract

To identify how organizations approach the development and implementation of their core processes in a manner that focuses on continued flexibility and responsiveness to changing customer needs, and environmental impact factors through improved knowledge transfer. The research follows an empirically based multiple case study approach across six national/multi-national knowledge-based organizations. A core-complex process was identified within IBM and then tested and refined across five over national/multinational organizations. Within each organization key employees interviewed concerning the manner in which their core processes were managed and modified. Those organizations that identified their core business processes as being responsive, and flexible enough to meet changing customer expectations could be shown to follow a 'nine-step' process lifecycle. However, those that had less-responsive processes seemed to share similar organizational and managerial issues. The findings are based on a limited sample size of six organizations, and the nature of the findings are presented in an inductive-theory building way. Therefore, the findings are not presented as a final position, but as a starting point for further research into complex, knowledge transfer intensive business process development and design. From the findings a nine-stage process lifecycle model has been defined. Within any service-orientated organization core business processes are under pressure to manage continually changing customer requirements. Therefore, it is important not just to build efficient and effective processes, but to understand how the organization must be aligned in order ensure continued performance within a constantly changing operating environment.

Making process ownership work: Evidence from a global Delphi study

“…A PO has important leadership and managerial responsibilities for setting targets, developing performance measures and monitoring process performance (Hertz, Johansson, & de Jager, 2001;Parkes & Davern, 2011;Sinclair & Zairi, 1995), and for leading a process team (Elzinga, Horak, Lee, & Bruner, 1995;Rahimi, Møller, & Hvam, 2016). Process owners are instrumental in incremental and radical process change (Hammer & Stanton, 1999;Kohlbacher & Reijers, 2013;Ongaro, 2004), as to detecting the need for and opportunities for change (Elzinga et al, 1995;Vanhaverbeke & Torremans, 1999), prioritizing change suggestions (Mclaughlin, 2010) and initiating, supporting, or leading change projects (Balaji et al, 2011;Palmberg & Garvare, 2006;Siemieniuch & Sinclair, 2002). As a change agent, the PO must promote process changes, motivate for process compliance (Parkes & Davern, 2011;Siemieniuch & Sinclair, 2002), and work on creating process awareness in the organization (Balzarova, Bamber, McCambridge, & Sharp, 2004).…”

Process owners in business process management: a systematic literature review

“…Process owners must follow the competitive environment, technological progress and changing customer requirements (Vanhaverbeke and Torremans, 1999; Jones, 1994; Harrington, 1991; Hammer, 1996; Palmberg and Garvare, 2006; Ho et al , 2009) to detect and evaluate the need for process improvement and identify opportunities for process innovation (Armistead and Machin, 1997; Elzinga et al , 1995; Hammer and Stanton, 1999; Buavaraporn and Tannock, 2013). The process owner should ensure that proposed changes are beneficial for the process and for the organization as a whole (Jones, 1994; Siemieniuch and Sinclair, 2002; McLaughlin, 2010), in order to avoid suboptimization (Harrington, 1991). If they are beneficial, then the process owners initiate process changes (e.g.…”