A framework for synchronizing human behavior, processes and ...

To be published in Lecture Notes in Business Informatics (LNBIP) #175 ©Springer, 2014

A framework for synchronizing human behavior, processes and support systems using a socio-technical approach Ilia Bider1,2, Stewart Kowalski1 1

DSV Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden 2 IbisSoft AB, Stockholm, Sweden {ilia|stewart}@dsv.su.se

Abstract. The paper suggests a framework for achieving alignment between a process and its external and internal environment. The framework consists of two components. The first component concerns alignment between the process and its external environment - business environment in which the process functions or is to function. The second component concerns alignment between the process and its internal environment the most important part of which are people participating in the process. The second component, which is in the focus of the paper, is based on the socio-technical view on information systems. The framework is aimed to move the focus of business process reengineering/improvement from local optimization through the use of technology to the needs of satisfying business goals, and fostering human capital that is needed to achieve them. Keywords: business process, human factors, socio-technical, work system Culture eats strategy for breakfast Attributed to Peter Drucker

1

Introduction

The epigraph “Culture eats strategy for breakfast” chosen for this paper means that no good decision on strategy can be made without considering the human aspects of the enterprise or organization. This statement is in high degree applicable to the area of business process development, and development of business process support (BPS) systems. It is counterproductive to design the best possible process without considering how the people that participate in it would accept and use it. The same is true for BPS systems. A system that contradicts the process participants’ view on how to run the process can be rejected or misused if imposed by force. The goal of this paper is to draft a framework that could help in synchronizing processes, BPS systems and organizational culture in order to achieve strategic goals of the enterprise.

The framework consists of two parts, the first part connects external environment to the properties of the process suitable for it. The external environment is defined in the terms of positioning in the market, while properties of the process are defined via proportion of different kinds of rules used in the process. This part of the framework has been built based on the works that belong to the field of management [1,2,3,4] and our own work on the application of deontic logic to the domain of business processes [5]. The second part of the framework connects properties of the process to the internal environment which consists of human process participants, technology and techniques used by process participants in the frame of the process. This part of the framework has been built based on the socio-technical perspective [6] on work systems [7] in the Information Systems (IS) discipline, and works on organizational culture [8,9]. The rest of the paper follows the following plan. In section 2, we give an overview of the research method and background of our research. In Section 3, we introduce a categorization of processes based on the proportion of different kind of rules used in defining and running the process. In Section 4, we investigate the suitability of different process categories to the external environment – positioning in the market. In Section 5, we discuss alignment between the process categories and the internal environment - organizational culture, techniques and technology used. Section 6 is devoted to discussing potential usefulness of the framework, while Section 7 summarizes the results and discusses steps needed for the framework validation.

2

Method and background

As follows from the introduction, our stated task in this research is the development of a framework that can be useful in aligning processes with their internal and external environment. When coping with this task we used Design Science Research (DSR) approach [10], more specifically its interpretation according to [11]. In this interpretation, DSR, as a way of generating and testing hypotheses for generic solutions, requires researchers to act in two different worlds: (a) the real world of specific problems and solutions in local practices, and (b) the abstract world of generic situation, problems and solutions. There is no specific requirement on the order in which the movement is completed. Researchers can start with searching a solution for a practical problem before or after generalizing it, or they can start with building a solution for the problem “unknown”, and then finding for what purpose a solution is good. The main point is to have in the end a description of the triad and one or several test cases that shows that the generic solution applied in a specific situation can solve the instantiation of the generic problem that exist in this situation. The generic problem our solution is aimed to solve is defined as aligning the processes to their environment. The solution consists of using the framework suggested in this paper for analysis of the situation-as-is or to-be in order to find out whether the process is aligned to the environment or not, and introduce measures to ensure align-

2

ment. This particular paper concerns the design of the framework as such, how to validate the usefulness of this framework is discussed in Section 7. The background of this research consists of two parts. Firstly, it is our own experience of building and, especially, introducing BPS system in the practice of organizations that has been partly reported in [12,13]. During this experience a number of practical questions have been raised. For example, why some BPS systems are easy to introduce, while introduction of others takes too much efforts and time. Another question of the same sort is why the same kind of a BPS system can be accepted in one part of the organization, and for one kind of processes, while rejected in another part, or for other processes. The second part of the background is research and practical literature. Here, in the first place, we did not use literature from the business process management domain, but from management theory and Information Systems (IS) theory. The works from the management theory that we used are works on business cycles [1,2], classical works of Perrow on comparative analysis of organizations [3], works on balance between efficiency and effectiveness [4] and on organizational culture [8,9]. From the IS theory, we used the concept of work systems [7], and a socio-technical view on information systems from [6]. The foundation for our design might look arbitrary for the reader. In connection to this, we need to point out that the goal of this work is to suggest a heuristic framework, as to the best of our knowledge none exists for the moment. We are not attempting to create the best possible framework.

3

Process categories

There are many definitions of the notion of business process, each of them highlighting different aspects, as described by [14]. In this paper, we need to define a process in a general way to be able to deal with different categories of business processes. Firstly, we want to highlight only one particular side of a business process – standardization or structuring of work. Secondly, we want to highlight that term business process encompasses two distinct concepts: business process type and business process instance (or case). Considering both goals we give the following working definitions for both terms: • Business process type (BPT) is a plan/template for handling business situations of a certain type. • Business process instance (BPI) is a situation being handled according to a plan/template suggested by a given business process type. The dichotomy type/instance is accepted in all branches of BPM literature. However, different terms are used to express this dichotomy. For example, the type can be referred to as a process model. Another convention that is often used is to employ term process to refer to the type, while case or run to denote the instance. In this paper we are focused on considering the process types, and therefore will use term process to denote BPT.

The plan/template that corresponds to a given process type can reside in any combination of the following (see a similar discussion about work systems in [7]): • In the minds of staff members who participate in instances of this type of business process (i.e., tacit knowledge). This knowledge guides the participants in the process in what is permitted, obliged, and/or prohibited, without requiring them to reflect about it. • As written documents, including process maps and other kinds of process descriptions (i.e., explicit knowledge) stored on paper or electronically, e.g., in the form of web-based hypertext. These documents contain explicit instructions of what is permitted, obliged, and/or prohibited. • In software systems/services used to support the running of the instances of the process (i.e., built-in or embedded knowledge). The usage of such systems forces process participants to carry out some actions in a certain way and/or in a certain order. In other words, the knowledge about processes can range from being completely tacit (e.g., residing in the minds of the process participants), to being totally explicit (e.g., being depicted in detailed process maps). The way of defining the template can differ dependent on the nature of the process and/or convention used in the given organization. Independent of how a given BPT is represented, we can consider it as consisting of a number of explicit or tacit rules that concern: • • • •

When - what situations require action (how to detect the situation) What - what needs to be done in certain situations, i.e. goals to achieve How – what actions should be completed to achieve the goals Who – who is to complete the actions.

There are various ways of defining the rules. To categorize the type of rules used in a particular process independent of the way they are actually formulated, we will use the classification suggested in [5] that was inspired by deontic logic [15]. According to [5], the rules can be divided into four types: 1. Obligations – what must be done, independent of the will or judgment of the process participants (e.g. prescribe by law) 2. Recommendations – what is normally recommended, but could be overridden by process participants in a particular process instance 3. Negative recommendations – what is not recommended, but could be employed by process participants in a particular process instance 4. Prohibitions - what must never be done, independent of the will or judgment of the process participants (e.g. prescribe by law). Note that Obligations and Prohibitions are essentially different from Recommendations and Negative recommendations. While the first two establish constraints on what is allowed to do, the second two do not impose any constraints. Note also that constraints can be of two types externally imposed, e.g. physical or juridical laws, or

4

internally introduced. The latter can be a mutual agreement by process participants, or a decision of the upper management. Dependent on the proportion of different type of rules in a given process type, we can roughly identify four categories of processes Loose, Guiding, Restrictive and Strict according to the Table 1. Note that the flexibility of the processes decreases while going from loose to strict, while rigidness increases. Table 1. Process categories

Process category

Rules category Obligations Recommendations Negative recommendations Prohibitions

Loose1

Guiding2

Restrictive3

Strict4

Some None None Some

Some Many Many Some

Many Some Some Many

Many None None Many

1

All that is not prohibited is allowed. Some obligation exists Differs from Loose by presence of guidelines for most typical situations 3 Small room for actions that falls outside Obligation + Recommendation and not Prohibited. 4 All that is not covered by obligations is prohibited. 2

4

Alignment between a Process and its External Environment

There are a number of business and economic cycles theories which provide explanations as to why external economic environment for a company or organization will always be a in a state of flux [1]. There are also some, like [2], that suggests the innovation, both technological and institutions, being the basic drivers of these cycles. Consequently an organization needs a framework to align their business processes with the environment, dependent on their position in the cycle. For building such a framework, we adapt the uncertainty/exceptions matrix [3]. The resulting matrix, depicted in Fig 1, identifies four distinct types of the process external environment called Market Positions (MPs). MPs are related to the state of the market in which an enterprise can be active, as shown in Fig. 1. Each MP requires different ratio between flexibility/rigidness of the process: MP1. Exploration requires flexible processes and collaboration inside loosely structured teams. Strict division of responsibilities and other strict constraints imposed on the processes can be harmful at this stage. MP2. Standardization requires division of responsibilities, i.e. specialization, and establishing templates for different types of business processes. Without standardization, chances of being able to handle the expansion will be diminished. MP3. Optimization requires highly optimized standard processes for minimizing cost and increasing the profit to stay competitive in the existing market. MP4. Freezing does not warrant any extra efforts; it can employ rigid processes with less people and less specialization than when in MP3 but with rigid routines.

Employing flexible processes at this stage can be a waste, as the market is on the decline.

Fig. 1. Market positions – MPs. Adapted from [3].

Note that in practice, an enterprise may find itself in different MP regarding its different products/services segments. This makes the overall picture more complex requiring coexistence of different categories of processes. Let us consider now which categories of processes suit particular MPs. According to Fig. 1, an organization has different goals in each of the MP quadrant; therefore the process category needs to be related to the goal of the corresponding MP. To relate the goals and process categories, we use the effectiveness/efficiency matrix suggested in [4], see Fig. 2. In tis matrix, effectiveness is defined as doing the right things – fit to the situation at hands, while efficiency as doing the things right – without waste. Relating efficiency to the process categorization in Table 1, we can conclude that moving from loose category to strict potentially provides better efficiency as it eliminates disturbances connected to making arbitrary decisions in the frame of flexibility allowed in each category of processes. Real efficiency, naturally, depends on the particular process design.

Fig. 2. Efficiency/Effectiveness matrix adapted from [4]

6

As far as effectiveness of each category is concerned, we consider it dependent on the external environment, and thus on MP in which a given organization operates at the moment. Combining matrixes in Fig. 1 and 2 and relating the combination to the table 2, we get a nested matrix in Fig. 3 that shows the level of efficiency/effectiveness for each process category and each MP. The most suitable category for each MP is denoted via a diamond in the quadrant that corresponds to this MP, the levels of efficiency/effectiveness of other categories are denoted via circles.

Fig. 3. Suitability of process categories for different MPs based on Fig.1 and 2 and Table 1.

Summarizing the nested matrix in Fig. 3, we get the guidelines for alignment between a process and external environment depicted in Table 2. A cross in a cell shows alignment between the process category and MP. Table 2. Alignment between processes and external environment

Process category MP MP1: Exploration MP2: Standardization MP3: Optimization MP4: Freezing

Loose

Guiding

Restrictive

Strict

X X X X

5

Alignment between a Process and its Internal Environment

In this section, we establish the rules of alignment between a process and its internal environment based on the socio-technical view on a work system suggested in [6]. 5.1

Components of Socio-technical Systems

The socio-technical view from [6] identifies four components in a work system - people, structure, tasks, and technology. In our case, as a work system we consider all people engaged in a given process type using a particular technology and completing particular tasks when running process instances of the given process type. In our case, the process type creates a structure in which people operate in the work system. Each component of the work system affects the overall system behavior in its own way, thus the needs arise for the components to be aligned in order for the work system to function properly. To formulate the rules of alignment, we classify the components of the socio-technical system independently of each other, and then consider interconnection between them. The classification is presented in the right hand side of Fig. 4, where the concept of Organizational Culture is used to characterize people engaged in the process, Process Category from Table 1 is used to characterize the structure of the work system, Combination of Techniques in Use is used to characterize tasks completed by people, and Type of Business Process Support employed in the process is used to characterize the technology. These concepts are described below. 5.1.1 Organizational Culture. We define organizational culture as a predominant (shared by majority) mental model that guides the behavior of process participants. The concept of organizational culture is widely debated in the management literature [8,9]. Here, we follow the classical work of [9] that identifies seven dimensions in organizational culture. However, we use only three of these dimensions, more exactly, the ones that characterize the existing patterns of behavior, not the efforts of management to create a particular work structure (the latter is covered by the concept of process category). To the dimensions we consider related to the culture as such belong aggressiveness, innovation & risk taking, and attention to detail. While borrowing these dimensions from [9], we both rename them and give them more specific meaning - more suitable for considering alignment of our socio-technical system. The dimensions of organizational culture we use and their values are as follows: • World view (substitutes aggressiveness): competitive/cooperative – the degree in which process participants consider internal environment as competitive vs. cooperative. • Resourcefulness (substitute innovation & risk taking): low/medium/high - the degree to which the process participants are able and allowed to find and complete tasks by themselves rather than waiting instructions on what to do and how to do it. • Scope (substitute attention to detail): narrow, medium, wide – the context that is taken into consideration by process participants while completing actions in the frame of process instances. Narrow corresponds to the immediate surroundings 8

like input and output of a particular activity. Medium corresponds to the process instance in the frame of which the current activity is taking place, e.g., the goal to be reached in this process instance. Wide corresponds to all process instances under execution, and the objectives of the process as such, e.g., importance of a particular customer even when the customer order is of lesser magnitude. The three dimensional characterization of organizational culture is aimed to depict the predominant mental model of process participants. It does not exclude the presence of process participants with a different mental model, for example with resourcefulness, or scope that distinguishes itself from the one of the others. Also, assigning particular values to the dimensions of organizational culture does not mean that process participants are not capable to, for example, having a wider scope. Narrow scope may mean that they have adjusted their behavior to the situation in which either they do not have enough information/knowledge to consider the wider scope, or are discouraged to do so.

Table 2

Fig. 4. Characteristics of socio-technical systems, adapted from [6]

5.1.2 Process category. This concept has already been described in Section 2. In addition to using it as a characteristic of the work system structure, it is used to connect the external and internal environments, as shown in the left hand side of Fig. 4. 5.1.3 Combination of techniques in use. We differentiate three techniques used in the frame of business processes: 1. Follow instructions – work is completed according to predefined instructions. 2. Instance based decision making – decision making based on the information on the development of a particular process instance, e.g., deciding on the course of action in a particular case. We will refer to this type as to tactical decision making. 3. Type-based decision making – decision making based on the situation in the whole work-system, e.g. prioritizing some process instances from all running instances of the given type when resources are limited. We will refer to this type of decision making as to strategic decision making. A combination of techniques in use is a triple that describes proportions of tasks that corresponds to these three different techniques in the instances of the given process type. For example triple characterize a process with high level of well-defined tasks, and very few decision-makings on the tactical and strategic level.

5.1.4 Type of business process support. This concept characterizes systems/tools that assist process participants in running process instances. For our purpose, we characterize such tools from the point of view of how they affect communication/collaboration between process participants in the frame of process instances of the given type. From this perspective, we differentiate three dimensions to characterize the type of business process support (BPS): 1. Structuredness of data. This dimension characterizes the degree of structuredness of data (information) introduced by BPS. A low level of structuredness means that the exchange is done informally in a natural language, e.g. in conversations or written document exchange. A high level of structuredness means that the exchange is done through formalized documents, e.g., that include numbers, check lists, or selections from a fixed number of alternatives. 2. Orderliness of task flow. This dimension characterizes in what degree the order of the tasks completion is predefined in process instances of the given process type. In a process with high degree of Orderliness, the order of tasks execution can be depicted as a flowchart which may contain loops and branches. In a process with a low degree of Orderliness, the order is established on the fly, separately for each process instance. The latter does not exclude the existence of some rules that defined partial order in the form of Obligations or Prohibitions. 3. Information Logistics. This dimension referrers to the way information is delivered to process participants that need it for completing their tasks in the frame of a process instance. Roughly, we identify two types of Information logistics: (1) messaging logistics, when information is sent to a person who needs it, and shared space logistics, when all information is placed in a shared space accessible to other participants. The difference between these two schemes is explained in [16], where messaging logistics is referred to as conveyer belt logistics, and shared spaces logistics – as construction site logistics. Combining these three dimensions we can categorize existing tools that are used. For example: • Using word processor + emails as BPS = • Using social software, such as a forum, or a wiki, as BPS = • A traditional workflow system with form support = • A case management system = 5.2

Rules of Alignment between Components of Socio-technical systems

As follows from Fig. 4, there are six relationships between the four components of socio-technical systems under consideration. The rules of alignments between the components along the six relationships are presented in the form of tables, one for 10

each of the relationships, see Table 3-8. The tables refer to the double edged arrows in Fig. 4. Rows in a table correspond to the categories of one of the component of relationship, while columns correspond to the categories of the other component. A cell states a condition when the column category is aligned to the row category. The meaning of such conditions is explained in the upmost header of the table. If the categories do not need alignment, the cell is given value “-“. The tables are constructed via logical analysis of the concepts that corresponds to the rows and columns of each table; these concepts are described in Section 5.1 above. Additional explanations are provided in the footnotes to the tables and the text below. Table 3. Arrow 1: Proportion of different kind of tasks in different categories of processes.

Process categories Loose Guiding Restrictive Strict Footnotes:

Follow instructions1 Low Medium High High

Proportion of techniques used Tactical decision Strategic decision making2 making2 High High High Medium Medium Low Low Low

1

The number of rules that describe when, what, how and by whom tasks are to be completed grows when going from the loose processes to the strict ones. Thus the proportion of tasks that requires “follow instructions” grows 2 The more rules that needs to be followed, the less needs for decision making. Table 4. Arrow 2: Alignment between Techniques and Organizational culture. The table shows the values of three cultural dimensions required for the three types of techniques

Techniques Follow instructions Tactical decision making Strategic decision making

Values according to dimensions of organizational culture World view Resourcefulness Scope Low Narrow Medium Medium High Wide

Table 5 (arrow 3 in Fig. 4), which describes correspondence between business process categories and organizational culture, has been derived from Table 3 and 4 (arrows 1 and 2 in Fig. 4). This has been done by comparing columns of Table 3 and rows of Table 4, and choosing values of cultural dimensions that correspond to the high proportion of techniques in use. In addition, the need for cooperative behavior for loose and guiding categories of processes has been taken into consideration (see the footnote in Table 5). According to Table 5, loose and guiding processes require the cooperative organizational culture with high enough level of resourcefulness and width of scope. Restrictive and strict processes can be conducted in the competitive organizational environment with low-level of resourcefulness, and relatively narrow scope.

Table 5. Arrow 3: Alignment between Process categories and Organizational culture

Process categories Loose Guiding Restrictive Strict 1

Values according to dimensions of organizational culture World view Resourcefulness Scope Cooperative1 High Wide 1 Cooperative Medium Medium Medium or Low Medium or Narrow Low Low -

Loose and guiding processes have high to medium proportion of decision-making. The latter leads to high probability of different decisions being made by different process participants. With lack of cooperation the decision will contradict each-other. Table 6. Arrow 4: Alignment between Techniques and BPS. The table shows the values of three BPS dimensions required for the three types of techniques

Techniques Follow instructions Tactical decision making Strategic decision making

Values according to dimensions of BPS Structuredness Orderliness Logistics High High Messaging Medium or Low

Medium or Low

Shared space

Low

Low

Shared space

Table 7 (arrow 5 in Fig. 4), which describes correspondence between business process categories and BPS parameters, has been derived from Table 3 and 6 above (arrow 1 and 4 in Fig. 4). This has been done by comparing columns of Table 3 and rows of Table 6, and choosing values of BPS parameters that correspond to the high proportion of techniques in use. Table 7. Arrow 5: Alignment between Process categories and BPS

Process Categories Loose Guiding Restrictive Stringent

Values according to dimensions of BPS Structuredness Orderliness Logistics Low Low Shared space Medium Medium or Low Shared space High or Medium High or Medium Messaging or Shared space High High Messaging

Based on Table 7, the following types of BPS system may suit well different categories of processes: • • • •

Loose - social software, e.g. wiki or forums Guiding - case or adaptive case management system Restrictive - flexible, e.g. declarative, workflow with form support Strict - classical workflow with form support

12

Table 8. Arrow 6: Alignment between Organizational culture and BPS

Dimensions of organizational culture Competitive World view Collaborative Low Resourcefulness Medium High Narrow Scope Medium High

Values according to dimensions of BPS Structuredness Orderliness Logistics High1 High1 Messaging2 High3 High3 Medium Medium Low or medium4 Low or Medium4 Messaging5 Shared space6

1

The competitive organizational culture requires high level of structuredness/standardization to “force” competing personality to contribute to the common goals. 2 Using shared spaces in competitive culture could be counterproductive, as competitive personalities might be reluctant to sharing extra information between each other. 3 High structuredness is needed to compensate the low level of resourcefulness 4 High structuredness might set too many restrictions on a resourceful personality, which may result in him/her using other means outside the BPS system employed, or doing the work formally with low quality, or quitting the job altogether. 5 Personalities with narrow scope might feel it more comfortable when getting only information related to the task at hands. Too much information in a shared space might be confusing for them. 6 Using messaging in a culture where personalities are accustomed to getting a wider context of the tasks at hand might lead to extra messages floating around to request and get clarifications on the context. The latter will diminish the productivity. There is also a risk that the culture might change to scope becoming narrow.

6

Potential usefulness of the framework

We see the following areas of usage for our heuristic framework: 1. Analysis of past successes and failures of an organization in general, or a particular organizational change completed or tried. Such analysis can be a part of the strategy of becoming a learning organization through reflecting on own practice. The framework covers a wide range of possible failures. A failure could be due to a wrong process category chosen for a given MP, e.g. a restrictive process was used for MP1 – entering a new market. A failure can also be due to the wrong BPS chosen for the given process category, or missing the needs to change the organizational culture when introducing a new process or/and BPS system. For example, introducing a BPS based on shared spaces in the competitive organizational culture might be unsuccessful, especially if in addition the scope=narrow and/or resourcefulness = low. 2. Analyzing risks connected to a particular organizational change, especially risks connected to the human factors. For example, there is a risk of resourceful people leaving the organization when a restrictive or strict process is introduced in the

culture with high resourcefulness. Alternatively, the resourceful people might go around a BPS system that enforces such a process moving the process to the category of guiding. Another example is a risk of a BPS with shared spaces not being properly used in the competitive organizational culture, as the competing process participants might avoid uploading all relevant information into the shared space. 3. Devising measures to mitigating the risks involved in a specific organizational change. For example, introducing a restrictive or strict process in the culture with high resourcefulness could be successful if participants of this process are engaged in it only part time, spending the rest of their time working in loose or guiding processes and spending their resourcefulness in the latter. Another example, if a BPS system with shared spaces is introduced in the competitive organizational culture in order to change it to cooperative, it could be helpful for the system having support for messaging as well. This will allow to gradually changing the mode of operation from messaging to using shared spaces along with the progress of changing the organizational culture.

7

Summary and Future Research

The generic situation and problem that all organization face is how to best optimize their resources in any given o possible environment. In this paper, we have presented a generic model in the form of Table 1-8 of a process as a work system that connects possible external environments of this system with its possible internal characteristics. In particular, we have identified four distinct types of the process external environment called Market Positions (MPs) of exploration, standardization, optimization and freezing. Then, we have connected these positions to the categories of business processes and through the latter to organizational culture and characteristics of business process (BPS) systems of structuredness, orderliness, and logistics. In our model, we have connected the three classical dimensions of organizational culture (aggressiveness, innovation & risk taking, and attention to detail) to the properties of BPS systems and the process external environment. To the best of our knowledge, this is a new kind of model, and, as we discussed in the previous section, it could be useful for organizational learning, risk assessment and planning an organizational change that includes changing or introducing a new process and/or BPS system. Models are by nature a simplification or representation of reality but are of course not reality themselves. According to [17] “all models are wrong bust some of them are useful”. To validate the usefulness of our model, we plan to use historical data on companies which have changed their market positions, successfully and unsuccessfully, and attempt to extract information on their internal environments at different times. Another source of historical information that could be useful for our purpose is reports on successful and unsuccessful introductions of BPS systems. Having such reports or access to people with experience in such introductions, we can analyze correspondence between the organizational culture, the process and BPS. Another way to validate the usefulness of the model is via using game simulation, though it would require development resources for designing a suitable game. By configuring 14

the game for different processes and BPS, and instructing the players to behave according to the patterns of different organizational cultures, it could be possible to see the results of alignment or misalignment of the socio-technical system from figure 4.

References [1] A. Burns and W. Mitchel, Measuring Business Cycles. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1946. [2] C Perez, Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages. London: r 2002. London: Elgar, 2002. [3] C. Perrow, "A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organizations," American Sociological Review, pp. 194–208, 1967. [4] M. McDonald, Marketing plans, How to Prepare Them : How to Use Them. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1989. [5] I. Bider and A. Striy, "Controlling business process instance flexibility via rules of planning," IJBPIM , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 15-25, 2008. [6] R. P. Bostrom and J. S Heinen, "MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective," MIS Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 17-32, 1977. [7] S. Alter, The Work system method: Connecting people, processes, and IT for business results.: Work System Press, 2006. [8] E. H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership.: John Wiley & Sons, 2006. [9] S. P. Robbins and M. Coulter, Management, 12th ed.: Prentice Hall, 2014. [10] A. R. Hevner, S.T. March, and Park, J. and, "Design Science in Information Systems Research," MIS Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 75-105, 2004. [11] I. Bider, P. Johannesson, and E. Perjons, "Design science research as movement between individual and generic situation-problem-solution spaces," in Organizational Systems. An Interdisciplinary Discourse.: Springer, 2013, pp. 35-61. [12] T. Andersson, I. Bider, and R. Svensson, "Aligning people to business processes experience report," SPIP, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 403-413, 2005. [13] I. Bider, P. Johannesson, E. Perjons, and L. Johansson, "Design Science in Action: Developing a Framework for Introducing IT Systems into Operational Practice," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS, Orlando, Florida, US, 2012. [14] I. Bider and E. Perjons, "Evaluating Adequacy of Business Process Modeling Approaches," in. Handbook of Research on Complex Dynamic Process Management: Techniques for Adaptability in Turbulent Environments.: IGI , 2009, pp. 79-102. [15] R.Hilpinen, Ed., Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings.: Reidel Publishing Company, 1971. [16] I. Bider, P. Johannesson, and R. Schmidt, "Experiences of Using Different Communication Styles in Business Process Support Systems with the Shared Spaces Architecture," in Proceedings of CAiSE 2011. Springer, LNCS, Vol. 6741, 2011, pp. 299313. [17] G. E.P. Box and N. R. Draper, Empirical Model Building and Response Surfaces. New York, NY.: John Wiley & Sons, 1987.