New Technology, Work and Employment 22:2 ISSN 0268-1072
Teleworkflow: supporting remote control with Workflow Management Systems Diana Limburg and Paul J. Jackson This paper explores the links between the management of remote workers and dispersed teams and the use of Workflow Management Systems. Using case studies, it demonstrates how such systems can support diverse control approaches independent of the location of employees and managers and thus enhance the success of distant working.
Introduction Developments in information and communication technologies (ICT) have enabled a variety of dispersed organisational forms. Although their existence depends on ICT, the adoption of teleworking and other instances of these new organisational forms is regarded as being social rather than technological in nature (e.g. Huws, 1995; Jackson, 1999). An important factor in this is management control. The appropriateness of traditional control methods and management styles for managing a dispersed organisation has been widely scrutinised, given that the distance between supervisors and workers precludes visual observation being used as a control tool (e.g. Adami, 1999; Depickere, 1999). Consequently, unimaginative or ‘old-fashioned’ managers have often been accused of irrational resistance to the implementation of telework and other forms of remote working. As the feasibility and success of distance working has always been closely linked to the use of Information Systems (IS) (e.g. Olson, 1982; Ruppel and Howard, 1998), it is an obvious focal area for studying possibilities of improving the management and control of remote working.
Diana Limburg (
[email protected]) is Senior Lecturer in Business Information Systems at Oxford Brookes University. Her research interests are new ways of working and ICT-related change management. Paul Jackson (
[email protected]) is e-Government Advisor at the Institute of Public Finance. He has recently worked on government-funded projects on Enterprise Workflow and e-Government Business Case management. Paul has worked as an academic researcher and lecturer in both the UK and the Netherlands. He is the author and editor of numerous books and articles related to information technology and new ways of working. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA, 02148, USA
146
New Technology, Work and Employment
Whether traditional or modern control methods are applied, IS still play an important role, both by gathering evidence of performance and by supporting analysis and feedback on work processes. Dimitrova (2003: 191), however, found no evidence for more use of technology for control when organisations introduced teleworking. Dimitrova’s findings may well reflect the fact that: (1) managers are unaware of the potential uses of some types of IS, combined with (2) that hitherto technologies were not ideally suited to supporting remote control. Consequently, organisations are not availing themselves of the full range of opportunities presented by new technologies in dealing with the management of remote workers. In this article, we will focus on the use of a specific type of information systems, namely Workflow Management Systems (WfMSs). These systems can support the definition, execution, registration and control of business processes, in theory without regard to the actual location of the workers and managers. It is argued that these systems are particularly interesting because of the way they break down work into different activities that are connected by business logic. This allows for a more explicit link between control needs and the supporting IS. By partly automating the flow of work, WfMSs decrease the control workload of managers and make their role less dependent on proximity. There have been earlier attempts at bringing together WfMSs and teleworking (e.g. Dangelmaier et al., 1999; Ortner and Stary, 1999). These studies led to suggestions for architectures of WfMSs specifically suited to remote working but did not deal with the practical and conceptual links between management control and the WfMS. To address these points, we start by exploring the difficulties in the management of a remote workforce. As part of this, we introduce a categorisation of control approaches and their appropriateness for managing distant workers. We then study how IS in general, and WfMSs specifically, support management control. Three case studies are then introduced, which help to illustrate the applicability of WfMSs in supporting remote management control. In the discussion, we present a framework that connects control approaches with the capabilities of WfMSs.
Management and control of remote workers With the inception of so-called office automation systems in the 1970s, the recognition grew that new IS would open up the possibility for ‘distance work’ (see Olson, 1982)—with workers operating remotely from their supervisors, team members and even customers. Since then, there has been an ongoing debate on the essence and importance of remote work. Under such names as ‘telecommuting’ (e.g. Nilles et al., 1976), ‘telework’ (the more European term), ‘e-work’, and virtual teams and organisations, this phenomenon has been subjected to substantial attention for some time. Currently, the most relevant types of remote work are those listed in Table 1. Over the years, aspects of management and control have been at the heart of studies into the success and failure of different types of remote working, for example in telework (see e.g. Adami, 1999; Depickere, 1999; Dimitrova, 2003), virtual teams (Piccoli et al., 2004), call centers (e.g. D’Cruz and Noronha, 2006; Varca, 2006) and virtual organisations (Wilson, 1999; Grimshaw et al., 2002; Brown et al., 2005). This level of interest is hardly surprising, bearing in mind that traditional control by direct supervision is complicated if workers and managers are physically separated (see e.g. Adami, 1999; Depickere, 1999). Additionally, control is also a key area of organisational studies in general. We will outline different types of control in organisations and explain some of the challenges that remote working presents in the succeeding discussions. Classic control approaches The fundamental intention of organisational control is to align the actions of individuals with the interests of their employing firm (Tannenbaum, 1968, in Snell, 1992). Tannenbaum (1962: 239) defines control broadly as © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Teleworkflow
147
Table 1: Different types of remote working Type of work
Description
Homework
Worker works in private home using ICT to connect to the organisation; usually combined with working in office (examples: clerical workers, consultants). Worker uses mobile technology (laptop, mobile phone, wireless network) to be able to connect to the organisation from any location, either when travelling or when at client’s location (examples: sales representatives, technical service people). Office is visited less frequently. Call centre employees can work from any location; they can be physically separated from the organisation in their entirety (potentially offshore, where call centres are moved to low-wage countries), and/or individual call centre employees can be home based or based in (rural) telework offices. Temporary teams (e.g. in software development) of experts from several locations are brought together to realise a pre-defined outcome that requires a set of expertises that is difficult to find in one location. Team members may never actually meet in the course of the project.
Mobile work
Call centre
Virtual teams
Note: ICT, information and communication technologies.
. . . any process in which a person or group of persons or organisation of persons determines, i.e., intentionally affects, what another person or group or organisation will do.
Part of the aim of control is also gaining customers’ confidence and trust (Knights et al., 2001). There are also more ‘negative’ interpretations that see the aim of control to be the prevention of unproductive and trust-undermining behaviour. Within organisational theory, control is often conceptualised as a cybernetic system (originating from Wiener, 1948) revolving around: (1) the establishment of superiors’ (organisational) intentions; (2) an influence mechanism; and (3) evaluation and feedback. Many control mechanisms rely heavily upon IS to collect ‘objective’ data on employees and their performance in order to be able to compare actual performance and behaviour with set standards. We will further elaborate upon the relationship between IS and control in the next section. Generally, three types of supervisory managerial control available to managers are distinguished (e.g. Ouchi and Maguire, 1975; Snell, 1992): output control, behaviour control, and input control. For each type of supervisory control, different control mechanisms can be used. What mechanism is applied and will be successful depends on the situation (Ouchi, 1977; Snell, 1992):
•
•
148
Behaviour control systems structure the transformation process of work. They are based on the assumption of a centralised hierarchy. Behaviour control is initiated top-down in the form of articulated operating procedures. To ensure that subordinates adhere to procedure, superiors closely monitor and evaluate subordinates’ actions over time. This type of control is also referred to as ‘formal control’ (e.g. Bijlsma-Frankema and Costa, 2005). Supervisors can apply this form of control mechanism when they have insight into what behaviour will lead to the desired effects. In output control systems, superiors set targets, such as financial results, for subordinates to pursue. IS are often used here to support linking appraisal and rewards to results achieved. Output control is only applicable if standards of desirable performance can be defined. New Technology, Work and Employment
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
•
Input control systems use employee selection and training to regulate the knowledge, skills, abilities, values and motives of employees. They try to align the goals of individuals with those of the company in order to help prevent performance problems. If neither output control nor behaviour control is feasible, organisation will have to rely on this form of control. Recent control approaches
Organisational forms have been developed and applied, which rely on providing employees with discretion to change their work routines to meet with changing demands (e.g. Depickere, 1999). Related appropriate input control might take the shape of management concepts like empowerment, coaching and entrepreneurship. Classic labour process approaches tend to interpret such control mechanisms as managerial attempts to produce workers who discipline and control themselves (Rosenthal, 2004). Rosenthal, however, also finds several studies showing that employees equally use such control mechanisms to help them to achieve their own goals. This demonstrates one of the difficulties in discussing the effects of certain control approaches on employees: different ‘interpretative communities’ writing about control bring their own value systems to their analysis (Fish, 1980; Schouteten and Benders, 2004). In addition to the previously mentioned control mechanisms, we can also introduce the notion of self-control (Henderson and Lee, 1992). This occurs when an individual exercises freedom or autonomy to determine both the actions required in a particular work situation and how to execute these. Self-control is likely to be implemented when organisations cannot adequately measure behaviour or standardise procedures (e.g. Van de Ven et al., 1976). It has also been argued that for certain types of work, selfcontrol can improve performance. This also links to the notion of ‘horizontal’ or peer control—where the presence of a work community influences an individual’s actions. Adami (1999) labels this ‘professional control’, which relates to the ‘image’ of professionals with their peers, customers and supervisors, as well as to interaction and togetherness with colleagues. Self-control and peer control are interwoven with managerial control; in any practical situation, a mix of control systems will usually be applied. D’Cruz and Noronha’s (2006) study of call centre employees in Bangalore demonstrates this by showing how close monitoring and direct control are successfully combined with encouraging a strong sense of professionalism in the agents. Another call centre study finds that strain caused by electronic surveillance can be reduced by introducing an additional (limited) amount of employee autonomy (labelled ‘personal control’ in this study) (Varca, 2006). Finally, Barrett (2001) finds that an Australian software development firm applies a ‘hybrid strategy’ of direct control (mostly output appraisal) and autonomy, fitting the very specific characteristics of this industry. Remote control The introduction of remote working affects control systems in different ways. Output and input control systems, for example, can still be used despite a growing dispersion of workers, as both input and output measurement are relatively independent of location. This is not the case for traditional methods used in behaviour control systems, given their heavy reliance on visual surveillance by the manager. These methods tend to lose their effectiveness when the distance between manager and worker is increased. Managers respond to these changes by either resisting telework or adapting their control methods (Kurland and Cooper, 2002). Dimitrova (2003) argues that this adaptation can go two ways: either there will be more worker autonomy or managers will introduce more formal, explicit and stringent supervisory procedures to cope with the physical absence of their employees. Several empirical studies she quotes show that the actual changes in control structures depend on the work and organisational context. Interestingly, Piccoli et al. (2004) found no difference in performance or satisfaction between self-directed and behaviour-controlled virtual teams. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Teleworkflow
149
Whatever the control system, it will have to rely somehow on information to establish whether or not each employee’s performance is sufficiently aligned with corporate goals and with other employees’ performance. In addition, as more business processes are mediated by information technology, the relationship between control and ICT becomes more significant (Orlikowski, 1991). ICT-enabled information collection and distribution, as well as communication in general, therefore play an increasingly important role in organisations. Moreover, they have the ability to decrease the importance of co-location for management and control. We will now look at the role one particular technology, WfMSs, might play here, particularly in supporting different approaches to controlling remote workers.
WfMSs and management control The role of IS in the control of work processes IS are always closely linked to the management and control of work processes. They collect and store data about inputs, processes and outputs (see Figure 1), which enables managers to continuously supervise and monitor these processes and the people involved, as well as support decisions about short and long-term corrections when appropriate. Moreover, data can be aggregated, collated and analysed for management information. Ongoing data collection and storage creates a lot of objectified and quantifiable information that makes control at a remove in time possible (Zuboff, 1988). ICT, as used to support IS, create an enhanced capacity for (invisible) monitoring of personal detail (Lyon, 1993), even though in practice such capabilities are often limited (see e.g. Bain and Taylor, 2000). Also, while they traditionally focus on collecting and analysing data, IS are increasingly used for communication, which is another essential part of control. With reference to Figure 1, this communication involves aspects such as informing employees about targets and constraints, providing them with access to information for executing their tasks, reporting progress and output to colleagues and managers, and delivering/receiving feedback. WfMSs WfMSs are a specific type of IS usually classified as ‘office automation systems’ (Chaffey, 2003). Such systems support the definition, execution, registration and control of business processes (Van der Aalst, 1998). Like developments such as telework, WfMSs have been around for decades (the initial research into workflow specification dates back to Zisman, 1977), but their take-up has lagged behind expectations. A WfMS takes care of delivering the right piece of work to the right resource at the right time (Reijers, 2002). Through the WfMS, users can often access other types of information technology such as databases, document management systems and transaction systems. Alternatively, workflow functionality can be embedded in other applications such as Customer System Environment Management
Control Mechanism
Information System
Input
Process
Output
Figure 1: Information System as an organisational control mechanism (Chaffey, 2003: 40) 150
New Technology, Work and Employment
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Relationship Management (CRM) systems and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems. Because a WfMS records all of its actions, it provides both historical data, as well as real-time information about the status quo of business processes. This is not limited to intraorganisational workflows, as there is a growing interest in supporting interorganisational, e-Business workflows as well (Basu and Kumar, 2002). Three different dimensions of workflow can be identified, which reflect the different meanings that people employ when they talk about the subject. These are: (1) workflow ‘software tools’, which operate as part of a broader (2) workflow ‘system’ (or technical architecture), to improve the way (3) ‘business processes’ (or workflows) are organised and managed. See also Van der Aalst and Van Hee (2002) for a discussion on the important links between workflow management and workflow technology. Workflow tools enable rules related to business processes to be written into work systems, thus representing the rules or ‘logic’ of the process. Such tools also allow for greater automation, both of work itself and the transmission of work elements. Grinter (2000) captures the workflow functionality in three basic steps: 1. 2. 3.
Categorisation: reduce the work to be done to a basic form by breaking up work into elements such as activities, documents and user roles. Formalisation: define formal relations between the components of work (business rules). Automation: use formalism to automate some aspects of the work entirely.
The implementation of WfMSs starts with the modelling of business processes (steps 1 and 2 in the previous discussion), for which several modelling languages have been developed. Kettinger et al. (1997) also found 25 business process-modelling methodologies, 72 techniques and 102 tools. There is evidently little consensus on what are the essential ingredients of a workflow specification language, which has resulted in a huge variety of WfMSs, each based on different paradigms and concepts. Much of the WfMS debate therefore revolves around appropriate methods of describing and formalising business processes and controls, which extends into publications that specifically address WfMSs for telework (Dangelmaier et al., 1999; Ortner and Stary, 1999). The modelling process is usually combined with some business process redesign aimed at optimising process flows and coordination, as well as creating more options for automation. Because WfMS involve the formalisation of business processes, they are mostly associated with simple, well-structured routine work, such as claim processing (see Van der Aalst and Basten, 2002). However, as Grinter (2000), for example, shows, they can also be very useful in less structured settings, such as software development. Different types of workflow systems have been developed for different contexts, each achieving a different balance between flexibility (being able to deal with new, unpredictable situations) and supporting standard processes (Reijers et al., 2003; see Figure 2). Supporting management control with WfMSs As well as supporting the process of work execution, by their very nature, WfMSs also support management control. More specifically, as Reijers et al. (2003) point out, such systems deliver the following benefits:
• • • •
Less coordination effort: the system will do some (or most) of the (routine) coordination that previously had to be done by people. Higher quality: users of the system will always receive at least the minimum amount of work needed to deliver the required level of quality. Higher efficiency: the users will receive at most the work that is required to deliver an acceptable result. Higher maintainability: the business control flows will be taken away from the traditional applications (e.g. ERP) and moved to the WfMS. This makes it easier to adjust the business processes and their related IS support.
Workflow tools can ensure that each item of work gets to the right person while they also allow monitoring and tracking to check that this has indeed taken place. Also, by © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Teleworkflow
151
Degree of flexibility/support provided
high support
flexibility
low
Groupware
Ad-hoc W f
Case Handling W f Production W f
•data-driven •unstructured
•process-driven •Ad-hoc structured
•Data and Process-driven •Process-driven •Implicitely structured •Explicitely structured
Type of ‘workware’ Figure 2: The trade-off between flexibility and support for different types of ‘workware’ (based on Reijers et al., 2003: 387–388)
using workflow systems, processes necessarily become much more transparent, generating real-time management information as well as historical data. At a tactical and operational level, this allows for monitoring the progress of particular items, the performance of given processes, work groups and individuals, and enables intervention where needed. When a user logs on to a WfMS, the system (and therefore others using the system such as managers and colleagues) will know who the users are, for which tasks they are qualified/authorised and which work groups they are currently assigned to. Additionally, the system will provide a ‘work list’. For example, for a ‘requisition’, it will illustrate the subject of the requisition, when it was sent and when authorisation is due. By clicking on the subject, the details of the requisition can be viewed. The work list is called up by the user and provides details of jobs to be done, as well as where a given job is in the process. While all of this might give the impression that WfMSs mostly satisfy a managerial control need, there is evidence that such formalisation supports employees as well, both by helping them to do their work well (and therefore potentially earn more) and to more easily align their work with organisational goals (Leidner, 1993, in Rosenthal, 2004). WfMSs to support management control for remote work Hence, in short, WfMS are intended for and able to support control in organisations. Moreover—and what specifically interests us here—is that these systems can do so without regard to the actual location of the workers and managers. While WfMSs have been specifically developed to support workflow in telework (see Dangelmaier et al., 1999; Ortner and Stary, 1999) and in virtual enterprises and cross-organisational workflows (see e.g. Ricci et al., 2002), such applications of WfMS seem to be rare. Ortner and Stary (1999) suggest that compared to an ‘ordinary WfMS’, a system for teleworking has to deal with a higher complexity of workflow management and an increased need for flexibility and coordination. Studies into WfMSs supporting remote collaboration, however, generally focus on technical design solutions to overcome traditional WfMSs’ difficulty with non-sequential tasks (e.g. Caro et al., 2003). None of these and similar studies look into managerial control in great detail or acknowledge different types of 152
New Technology, Work and Employment
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
remote work. Moreover, based on the previous discussion, the location of a worker should be inconsequential for a WfMS in the first place, provided they have been well designed and implemented. In the next section, we will study how three very different organisations have applied WfMSs and IS with workflow capabilities to support management and control of different types of remote working.
Cases: the use of WfMSs in different contexts The case descriptions in this section aim to provide insight into the range of possibilities WfMSs have to support control of remote working. The case studies reflect different modes of working, different control approaches and different uses of technology, together showing a wide variety of options. The first case study is based on primary research conducted by the authors; the other two are based on published case studies. Table 2 provides an overview of the cases. Each case study will start with a description of the functionality and purpose of the WfMSs. This will be followed by an analysis of how the WfMSs have been, or could have been, used to support each of the five different control approaches we recognised earlier in this article: behaviour control, output control, input control, peer control and self-control. This is done with particular attention to the contribution of the WfMSs to the management of remote workers. Case 1—Supporting neighbourhood teams in a local government organisation This case study focuses on the Revenue and Benefits department of a large local government organisation that serves a population of over 150,000, with more than 60,000 residential properties and almost 3,000 business premises. It is a ‘classic’ workflow situation with highly structured, predictable and repetitive processes. The department offers two services: the receipt and processing of council tax bills and payments, and the provision of housing and other benefits to council residents. At a management level, the two services are closely linked, and for customer service purposes, efforts are made to replicate this at an operational level. During the implementation of the WfMS, one of the authors was involved in quality assurance, learning support and ‘toolkit’ development for the project. This took place within a central government-funded initiative intended ‘to facilitate the development of enterprise workflow in a local authority context’. Information for this case study was collected:
• • •
by participant observation during the implementation period (which started on April 2003 and ran for 12 months); in interviews with the project manager and one of the benefits managers, in which specific attention was paid to the experiences with home working; using data from an internal telework evaluation study, which involved eight participants (all using the WfMS); the study included quantitative performance data and sickness absence rates, and feedback from teleworkers, office workers and managers.
The WfMS was introduced in response to an audit that showed that the department failed to meet performance targets and was not working as efficiently as it could. The two main roles of the new WfMS were to automatically distribute incoming tasks to employees in batches, where previously managers would manually distribute the work, and to route a random sample of all processed claims to the appropriate supervisors for a quality check. By automating these flows of work, the average claim processing time went down from 84 days in 2002–2003 to 43 days in 2003–2004. Because their role in the initiation of the workflows has been automated, managers can now focus on quality control and process improvements. The WfMS has also allowed the department to form neighbourhood teams, with the work being automatically distributed based on postcodes. This contributed further to © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Teleworkflow
153
154
New Technology, Work and Employment
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Increased control through new IS support for mobile sales people (Watad and DiSanzo, 2000)
A configuration management tool to coordinate software development (two organisations) (Grinter, 1995; 2000)
2
3 A vendor (developer) of configuration management systems, which also uses this system to support their own software development process and a vendor of an operating system.
Sales department of a 150-person company providing interactive marketing and sample distribution services for pharmaceutical industry.
Department in a large local government organisation, handling routine processes of benefit provision and council tax bill processing.
Type of organisation and work
IS, Information Systems; ICT, information and communication technologies.
Supporting neighbourhood teams in a local government organisation
1
Case
Partially virtual team (software development).
Mobile (sales): the sales people travel to clients, and do not have to come to the office for paperwork.
Home working (clerical): some employees work from home.
Type of remote work
Table 2: An overview of the case studies
Secondary—research papers on workflow management systems.
Secondary—practitioner-oriented study about teleworking and related ICT and information from software provider.
Primary—focus on workflow management system.
Type of case study
faster processing and higher output quality. Incoming documents were batched up during the day, scanned and indexed off-site (an outsourced process) and then automatically returned. In principle, each employee can do all tasks within the service. The tasks involve checking whether clients have filled in forms correctly, whether all evidence and documentation has been provided, cross-checking with other claims, initiating action to correct the claim if needed and making a decision on the claim. The WfMS will automatically generate the appropriate letters. The organisation has a policy of providing flexible ways of working, including home working. The WfMS was seen as a contribution to the sort of IT infrastructure needed for the introduction of home working in this department. The WfMS ensures that the workflow is instant and two-way, no matter where the employee is. An audit trail is always available in the system to identify who has been working on a claim, and additional work can be directed to or taken from the homeworker as and when necessary. A pilot study was conducted between May 2003 and October 2004, with very positive outcomes. Not only did the home working trial substantially reduce sick leave, provide employees with a better work/life balance and helped retain experienced staff; four out of seven employees showed an average improved performance in excess of 30 per cent, with one employee even averaging an 84-per cent performance increase when working at home. We will now describe how the WfMS supported—or could have supported—the different control approaches;
•
•
•
Behaviour control: the employees follow procedures in handling the claims, with the work pre-structured in the WfMS. They have no discretion in the order they handle tasks, but they are encouraged to check all documents in the WfMS, not just the items in their work tray, to ensure inconsistencies are picked up across both services. Before the introduction of the WfMS, employees would ask for new jobs when they had finished their stack. This meant incoming claims were not necessarily handled in the best order, and time was lost because the manager had to manually distribute the work while employees were idle. Because work distribution and most correspondence are done by the system, the location of the employees has become less relevant. Output control: the organisation has a classic public sector payment system based on job descriptions; there is no direct link between rewards and output levels. Output, however, is monitored continuously through the WfMS to ensure targets are met and no backlogs develop. Employees are set targets of a number of weighted claim units per day. These targets are agreed and discussed between the team manager and the individual at quarterly ‘performance review and development’ meetings. If targets are not met, the information from the WfMS is used to help identify whether or not this is because of a skills problem. If higher standards are achieved, the employee has the option of advancing to the next grade. Managers can run reports to see which work items are not processed by the target date in order to identify areas and individuals that need specific attention before a substantial backlog is created. The team supervisors check a percentage of all processed claims to see whether they have been handled correctly or not. The WfMS has enabled managers to target specific high-risk areas, where there have been changes in legislation or where inexperienced staff are employed. Individuals can also be shown their performance in comparison to other workers’. The information from the WfMS was also used to measure performance differences between homeworkers and those who worked in the office in order to provide objective comparative evidence. Because of the WfMS, output monitoring is now independent of the location of the employees, which is very helpful for managing the remote workers. Peer control: graphs of the outstanding number of items per team are displayed weekly, which encourages employees to consider their own and others’ contribution to the team output and could help to achieve some peer control. Mistakes by
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Teleworkflow
155
•
•
others can have an effect on the workload and output of individuals, which again could encourage them to pay attention to the performance of others in their team. Self-control: the homeworkers have attended a time management workshop, which they felt was useful in helping them to manage their work and home life. The homeworkers have also indicated that they would prefer more flexibility in working times than what is now permitted by the limited availability of the system, which is off-line in the evening to allow for batch-processing. Individuals can use the comparative performance figures to increase their work pace if they are behind target or to ask for support or training if they feel this is because of a skills problem. Input control: a standard skill set is required for the job, which is partly achieved through training ‘on-the-job’. Because of changing legislation, the processes can change substantially. The WfMS is used to monitor performance on different tasks. If performance falls below standard and if this is attributed to a skills shortage, an individual training action plan will be provided, which will be reviewed on a regular basis. Team leaders found it difficult to offer the appropriate training to homeworkers if it required looking at the same screen. This problem can be solved by giving administrator rights to the team leaders so they can log on to the employee’s computer and can shadow the employee.
Employees had their reservations about two aspects of the WfMS: the fact that it ‘forced’ work to them and that the supervisors were watching more closely the amount of work done. Management defended the second aspect by stressing that this was done to identify skills’ weaknesses in order to be able to correct those with training rather than to push the performance level up. That the automation of the workflows by the WfMS allowed home working is considered a very positive effect. Case 2—Increased control through new IS support for mobile sales people Pharmco is a 150-person company providing interactive marketing and sample distribution services for the pharmaceutical industry (this case description is based on Watad and DiSanzo, 2000). It introduced a teleworking programme for its sales force as part and parcel of upgrading its IT infrastructure. This upgrade was intended to increase throughput and decrease order-processing time, together with increased accountability and improved service delivery. Savings on office space were also made. Before the upgrade, procedures were largely paper based, with heavy reliance on voice and face-to-face communications. On top of the ICT needed to cover distances (e.g. laptop computers, remote-access software, security hard- and software), three salesspecific applications were introduced. These have some workflow capabilities and characteristics, but they are not explicitly described as such. The first system is a cost-accounting application that forces the sales people to allocate daily working time across various client accounts (options for allocating time are client-id, travel time, meetings, editing proposals, entertaining). When these activities result in a sale, the system links the associated expenses to show the true costs of obtaining the order. The next application is an off-the-shelf CRM package. This software requires the sales people to track their sales activities and to download the information monthly so that management can use it to compile reports on frequency and quality of field activities. Management uses this to support forecasting and planning, and the system automatically generates items such as follow-up letters and thank-you notes. Finally, a new order-entry application allows the sales people to initiate job orders and enter sales contact information from the field (directly or from the CRM application) rather than transferring the transaction to a client service representative (in the back office) using a form. In the old situation, the representative would then organise the realisation of the order by liasing with the different departments and using the various resources to create and distribute the product. For each order, a paper folder was created that would travel from division to division as each department completed its tasks. This whole procedure has been digitalised and automated by the order-entry application. 156
New Technology, Work and Employment
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The WfMS characteristics of the new systems include categorisation, as the sales’ tasks are split into different categories and formalisation because they comprise procedures on job roles, task sequences, and rules on how sales activities are linked to accounts and invoices. Finally, automation has occurred, involving several previously manual handovers. Taken together, the systems allow for a faster and more reliable flow of information through the organisation, as well as subjecting the sales force to controls that had hitherto not been possible. Looking at the overall impact of the new technology, WfMSs are here used to tighten management control while simultaneously decreasing the autonomy of the sales people. In terms of the control framework, we can see the following:
•
•
• • •
Output control: the sales people work on quarterly and yearly targets and have to call five customers per week. Targets are related to accounts, with the most experienced or successful sales agents handling the largest accounts. The system helps to measure whether or not targets have been achieved, but more importantly, supports a shift from management relying on output control, to allowing for close behaviour control. The rationale given for this change is twofold: first, by the time it shows that a sales person is performing below target, it may be too late for corrective actions; and second, managers expressed a sense of loss of control over remote workers despite the sales force already being very independent. Behaviour control: before the new technology was introduced, sales people would regularly be out of touch for days, but now they are forced to check their voice- and email daily, as well as permanently record and specify their activities, and relate these to specific accounts, which allows for a continuous monitoring of their work. The resulting management information is also used for better, more reliable forecasting and planning of sales activities, resulting in adjusted targets and procedures for the sales force. Peer control: is not apparent from the case; the only interaction between sales people that is mentioned is in sales meetings. The capabilities of the CRM system could, however, be used to support peer control, sharing of information and learning. Self-control: the new system decreases the sales force’s autonomy. Previously, selfcontrol would have been based on self-assessment of whether or not targets were going to be met. This has been replaced by behaviour control, where the managers check progress regularly. Input control: the level of experience and previous success determine who will cover which accounts. The increased capability of the system to analyse performance enhances the possibility of making such choices.
In this case, a combination of a technology upgrade and a cost-rationale to support remote working has had a strong impact on control, in particular, the system has provided new modalities for managers to exercise control—and at a distance from their mobile workforce. Remarkably, it was already practice for the sales people to be off-site before the introduction of the technical support for remote working. The change towards enhanced remote control was greeted with great enthusiasm by management, while the sales agents were understandably unhappy about losing their autonomy. Case 3—A configuration management (CM) tool for coordinating software development Rebecca Grinter (1995; 2000) describes and analyses the use of a CM tool for software development coordination. Her study draws on two organisations: first, a vendor (developer) of configuration management systems, which also uses the same technology for their own software development process, and second, an operating system vendor. The developers in one of the organisations were all co-located on one floor of a single building. In the other organisation, many worked at the company’s headquarters in Silicon Valley, with several others located in other states and even other countries. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Teleworkflow
157
Grinter focuses on the workflow-like aspects of this tool and how it supports its users. CM tools have been developed to alleviate the huge coordination effort within software development, created because any modern software involves many components, produced by many different developers. All these components must interact with each other to produce the desired functionality. The individuals responsible for those related pieces must therefore continually align their development efforts. Several times during the creation of a software product—more frequently when nearing the completion—‘build managers’ will assemble the components for testing. This will result in the identification of problems, which are fed back to the developers. At the start of a project, and each time a problem is identified, managers will prioritise tasks in the system and the relevant developers will receive an automatic notification of their tasks. Developers can also create their own tasks if they have identified a problem with their own components. The CM tool identifies different stages in the development of each component, such as: (1) checked-out (somebody is currently working on the code, including who that is); (2) checked-in (finished working on the code); (3) unit tested; (4) system tested; and (5) released. It also distinguishes a set of user roles, defining what an individual may do to an artefact within a certain stage. When one user has finished a task, he or she can transfer the results to the next person, who will have a different responsibility. In the so-called ‘time-line view’, each developer can report the status of their ‘own’ components and check the status of interrelated components. One important reason for this is to avoid the problem of ‘parallel processing’, in which two developers are working on the same component. Ultimately, this also automates most of the build management work; this is because the tool can identify and gather the latest version of any component, knows how they are related and can detect any version problems. While Grinter primarily discusses issues in terms of ‘coordination’, the CM tool can also be seen as supporting different control approaches.
•
•
•
•
158
Peer control: the developers depend on each other for their own components, both for the timing and the quality of the final outcome. They can see in the system who is/has been working on what, report problems and discuss coordination issues (e.g. if a developer needs another to finish his task before he/she can continue working on a specific artefact). The system logs information about changes, knows about roles and provides shared feedback mechanisms. The ultimate product is very much a collaborative effort, which is reflected in the time-line view and the process steps. Most of the process appears to involve few management activities; control is mostly carried out by peers. The one problem reported with the CM tool is that it fails to provide insight into how each component fits into the ‘bigger picture’, which may lead to missed opportunities. This is also relevant for the system’s contribution to self-control. Self-control: the case study suggests the developers have a lot of autonomy. Tasks are delivered through to system to each individual, who can thus track their own progress. Although the system provides information about priorities, developers can make their own decisions about the order in which tasks are completed, which can reflect dependencies between different tasks. Also, when developers find a problem, they can create and prioritise their own tasks to solve it. Output control: all developers are given tasks; these, however, are flexible throughout the project because the software being developed is far too complicated for the whole process to be planned in advance. The progress of work on each artefact is transparent to managers and co-developers. Any changes and problems are logged, and it is often possible to measure how long each task has taken to complete. The ultimate output control is bound up with the ability to check whether or not the deliverable actually works according to the requirements, which is itself supported by the build management functionality. Input control: by keeping track of the output and process, information is gathered that can be used to decide whether developers’ skills are still adequate for the task/organisation, whether they need additional training, or whether they should New Technology, Work and Employment
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
•
be moved on to other types of tasks. This supports input control by making sure the right developers are hired (and the wrong ones are reassigned). Behaviour control: the system formalises the workflows and allows the work to be broken down into several steps and roles. This provides for some behaviour control, although in practice a lot of autonomy is still left to the developers, to decide on the order of work, and especially also on their own routines (the way they solve problems).
From the case description, they appear to work together very little in face-to-face settings. Where Grinter does mention meetings taking place, this is limited to identifying and prioritising problems. Also, if merging two components needs additional communication, the system enables the users to identify and locate the persons involved, why it may lead to face-to-face communication (as well as use of other media). It is clear, though, that most of the development, control, and coordination could take place independent of the location of any of the involved parties and that this is supported strongly by the use of the CM tool. Grinter (2000: 189) states that the tool was useful and useable ‘precisely because it formalized and automated certain activities’. However, many organisations will struggle to reach the same level of clarity about work roles that is needed to create this way of working, especially when multiple sites are involved (see e.g. Herbsleb and Grinter, 1999).
Discussion We will now go on to analyse the use of WfMSs in the three case studies. We first provide a summary of how WfMSs have been—or could have been—used to support the different control mechanisms in the cases. We will then analyse control issues across the three cases. This is followed by a general discussion of how WfMSs can be used in the management of remote work arrangements. Summary of the case studies Table 3 gives an overview of the way WfMSs were applied in the three case studies to support the different control mechanisms. Analysis of the control approaches As behaviour control is based on prescribing work processes top-down and on monitoring adherence to the procedures contained in them, it was to be expected that WfMS would be most relevant in supporting this control approach, especially where work processes are predictable and relatively stable. The cases, however, show that WfMS applications and functionality are helpful in a wide range of management settings. In making work processes more transparent and in providing information needed in the processes—as well as gathering information about the processes—the other types of control mechanisms can be supported, too. Interestingly, in case 2, the WfMS has been used to replace the existing output control approach with behaviour control. One recognises that this is a management choice and that the system could have been used in output control, or even for self and/or peer control. It is not the system itself that creates this ‘backward step’, but a change in management style. However, it is a change that is itself supported by the technology. There are parallels here with the findings of Darr (2003), who studied the control and autonomy of sales engineers. The engineers became the object of increased ‘control by documentation’, partly supported by technology. From a perspective of professionalism, and to assist their clients, this can be seen as part of a peer control mechanism and was as such accepted by the engineers. However, it was also viewed as an unpopular attempt by management to create more transparency in work processes, which would both allow for easier replacement of the engineers and for increased behaviour control. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Teleworkflow
159
Case 2: mobile sales force
Case 3: software development
The WfMS distributes tasks based on indexation and their part in the business process. This is now automated, whereas previously managers distributed work manually in paper form. WfMS selects and distributes work automatically for quality check by management. Processes are monitored by WfMS; the resulting management information is used to improve processes.
Procedures are embedded in the WfMS; this forces sales people to follow them and allows for continuous monitoring by management (instead of output control). The resulting management information is used to improve procedures and targets, and for better planning.
The WfMS formalises the workflows and allows the work to be broken down into several steps and roles. This would allow for enhanced behaviour control, but in practice, the developers have a great deal of autonomy in deciding on the order of work and their own work routines. This is needed because of the nature of the work on individual parts and because a lot of flexibility may be required.
Input control
WfMS are used to monitor performance; underperformance is a possible sign of skills shortage, which management will try to correct by providing training.
Performance analysis capabilities of the WfMS support management in assigning appropriate accounts to the sales force (linked to their experience and successes).
The information on the processes and outputs would allow for the system to be used to look for skills shortages or in selecting the best developer for certain tasks. It is not apparent from the case that the information is currently used in this way.
Achievement against targets is monitored and where appropriate corrective action is taken. The system is used to check whether or not performance (and hence skills) are adequate (see input control) and to find problem areas.
Quarterly and yearly targets were main the control mechanism before the WfMS was introduced. The system now allows for continuous monitoring, which managers feel gives them earlier warnings of underperformance, as well as more control over the remote working sales force.
Output control does not play an important role in this organisation. Although each developer is given tasks (deadlines, deliverables), these are quite flexible because requirements change and problems need solving. The system would allow for setting and monitoring some output targets (such as speed, responsiveness, etc).
Behaviour control
Case 1: local government
Output control
Table 3: The use of WfMSs to support different control mechanisms in the 3 cases
160
New Technology, Work and Employment
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Self-control
Peer control
Table 3: Continued Case 1: local government
Case 2: mobile sales force
Case 3: software development
The WfMS provides information on who has worked on a claim; this is transparent to everyone working on that claim at any point. Comparative performance information is also provided.
There is little apparent interaction between sales colleagues. The WfMS (embedded within the CRM system) could support peer control (as it could make one another’s performance transparent) and could also support sharing of information and learning.
The WfMS provides information about who is working on which components, how these relate to each other, what the development history is, etc. This information all supports peer control, which is essential because the final product is a collaborative effort, with substantial coordination need.
The limited availability The new WfMS The developers have a lot of the system restricts decreases autonomy of autonomy. The flexible work times for —instead of sales system delivers the homeworkers. people themselves tasks to them by As the system feeds monitoring whether or allowing them to track tasks directly to not targets would be their own progress workers, there is no met, the system allows (possibly autonomy in choosing this to be done by the benchmarking it or scheduling tasks, managers. Of course, against others). The only in the times when the sales force could system provides they are undertaken still use the system for prioritisation (up to a point monitoring their own information, which anyway). performance as well. helps to decide on the Performance reports order of tasks. The (against targets) can system also generates be used to adjust the necessary work pace. information about the progress of other components being developed, as well as the relationships between the components.
WfMS, Workflow Management Systems; CRM, Customer Relationship Management.
For input control, the WfMS can provide information about how any individual handles a given task (by looking at the process as well as the output). This can be used to identify skills shortages or to spot excellence. Management can use this information to draw up individual and organisation-wide training plans, as well as to decide on retention and recruitment issues. Output can also be monitored through WfMSs, although in none of the cases is this done as part of a strict output control system. In contrast to case 2, where the organisation appears not to trust their remote workers to perform their jobs adequately without management involvement (see previous discussion), in case 1 the WfMS has been used © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Teleworkflow
161
to automate much of such management involvement. This leaves the managers free to focus on the general quality of the processes rather than continually getting involved in initiating and monitoring instances of work. Because WfMSs encourage transparency of relationships between tasks, roles and people, they have a strong potential to support peer control, as is illustrated in the third case. The system provides a shared information source and gives insight into the progress of any process, as well as who has done/is doing what. This allows for colleagues to interact very directly and to give feedback on performance. This is even truer for self-control: being constantly aware of the status of one’s own tasks supports autonomous decisions that, without the system, would have required a process overview that usually only managers have (case 3). This enhances a perception of empowerment, as it not only gives employees clear information about what contribution their efforts make to the organisation’s performance but also how they contribute (Scott-Morton, 1991). In a case study of an Australian public sector organisation, Brown et al. (2005) found that sophisticated project management tools were introduced to create a networked workforce. This involved the design of standardised and integrated business systems, similar to those in case 3 but based on project management support. Brown et al. state that having the technology to guide a project from start to finish could result in a shift towards direct control approaches, suggesting that this might be an inherent result of this type of technology. They imply that trust and reputation would form the basis of an alternative to the application of technology for control. We, however, suggest that there is a false dualism here and that this type of technology provides modalities that can actually support the dynamics of trust and reputation-related control. WfMS capabilities in supporting remote control As we have seen in the cases, WfMSs offer considerable flexibility in handling different control approaches. Combined with the fact that such systems will support work processes independent of the location of workers, they are potentially powerful tools in the management of remote working. In contrast to Dimitrova’s (2003) findings, the cases show how some organisations introduced technologies with the specific intent to control remote workers (case 2), or only implemented remote working after they adopted technology that enabled that control (case 1). The use of WfMSs in itself does not, however, inherently limit management in their choice of control approaches to remote working. At the same time, such systems allow the dispersion of work processes by providing both workers and managers with the respective information they need to support their part in the process. The previous discussion has demonstrated that WfMSs are capable of supporting each of the five control approaches (behaviour, output, input, peer and self) independent of the location of employees and managers. They do so by providing information about business logic and roles either by ‘forcing’ tasks onto employees or by presenting options. This is combined with delivering inputs and outputs of work, which supports the day-to-day business processes. Moreover, the WfMS collects information about the processes, which managers and employees can use for longer-term control activities such as maintaining and enhancing a skills base, balancing workload criteria, and optimising processes. We can now link Chaffey’s (2003) model of IS as an organisational control mechanism (see Figure 1) with the five control approaches in order to demonstrate how WfMS capabilities support management control (see Table 4). This framework could in time be extended to include other types of IS. Looking at Table 4, it seems surprising that many authors appear to see the role of technology in control as monitoring and electronic surveillance (e.g. Grimshaw et al., 2002). These technologies are widely acknowledged to create opportunities for new ways of working, such as those discussed in this article. At the same time, however, there appears to be widespread scepticism as to whether or not such developments will change control structures towards more employee autonomy and flexibility (see e.g. 162
New Technology, Work and Employment
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Control approach
Behaviour control
Input control
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Teleworkflow
163
Process
WfMSs register, monitor and guide behaviour, such as keystrokes, time taken to complete a task and adherence to procedures.
WfMSs support communication about task execution, and support teamwork by providing transparency of tasks, roles and processes.
Input
WfMSs provide access to resources for tasks, as well as data used in those tasks (i.e. using document management systems).
WfMSs model and log skills and knowledge of employees and keep up to date with the changes in skills (both of the workers and those required for the work). The systems also keep a performance record, which provides insight into the exercise of skills.
Use of WfMS
WfMSs document process outputs as part of performance records, which provide assistance in assigning employees to tasks.
WfMSs record outputs to help the manager in analysing the link between worker behaviour and output.
Output
Feedback is aimed at improving the match between employee skills and the tasks at hand. For example, underperformance will lead to a requirement for a worker to undertake extra training.
Feedback provided by the WfMS is used to instigate corrective action, for example to improve throughput of particular items.
Feedback
Table 4: WfMS capabilities in supporting different control approaches
Management can use information from the WfMS to check whether: the overall skills base is sufficient, that it meets requirements in the longer term and that employee performance leads to desired outcomes.
Management can use information from the WfMS to check whether: prescribed work routines are followed, processes lead to the desired outcomes, or process changes are needed. WfMSs can also be used to implement such process changes.
Management information
New Technology, Work and Employment
Control approach
Output control
Peer control
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Process
WfMSs monitor cumulative goal attainment and thus any deviance from targets.
The WfMSs support interaction about and for task execution; it contains information on who should do which task and allows for process monitoring by peers.
WfMSs provide information about progress on targets and use of resources. They give insight into the contribution of one’s work to the ‘bigger picture’ (the process overview).
Input
WfMSs help to measure the use of resources in achieving outputs; it also records and communicates individual output targets.
WfMSs can provide information about skills, knowledge and performance records. They also contain process and role descriptions, which could be used for the group itself to assign tasks.
The WfMS provides specific individual targets or information about organisational goals/overall targets and how they are linked to individual tasks.
Use of WfMS
WfMS, Workflow Management Systems.
Self control
164 The WfMS measures output levels, analyses the contribution of an individual’s output to organisational goals/overall targets. They also link the history of outputs to individuals.
WfMSs document process outputs as part of performance records (transparent for all peers). They can also link the history of outputs to individuals.
WfMSs measure output levels, compare these with target output and (possibly) calculate performance rewards. They can also link the history of outputs to individuals.
Output
Table 4: Continued
The feedback takes place within the individual and is therefore closely bound up with work processes and outputs, allowing for corrective action on an ongoing basis.
Feedback is aimed at evaluating each individuals’ status in the process, their contribution to outcomes, their training needs, etc.
Feedback is aimed at communicating deviance from targets and (possibly) what the consequences are for the individual in pay and reward terms.
Feedback
Management information provides insight into whether cumulative outputs lead to desired organisational outcomes. Moreover, they monitor whether roles, processes and infrastructure empower the individuals to control their own work.
Management can use information from the WfMS to check: whether the overall skills base of the peer group is sufficient, if it meets requirements in the longer term and whether performance leads to the desired outcomes. It also helps to decide if roles, processes and infrastructure adequately support team working.
Management can use information from the WfMS (1) to check whether cumulative outputs lead to desired outcomes and (2) for target setting.
Management information
Wilson, 1999). Rather, there is a belief that management will use the enhanced technological capabilities for stronger centralised controls, very much like our case study 2. Or, putting it in a different way, information will be used to replace mutual trust between employer and employee (Gooday, 1998, in Collins, 2005). Although this seems a partly normative debate, we maintain that it is to a degree because of a lack of insight into, and experience with, the contribution of such technologies to other types of control approaches, as we have demonstrated. The fact that something is technically possible does not, of course, guarantee it will happen, and certainly not automatically. Providing more insight into the possibilities for technologies to be used to support more democratic control approaches will, however, increase the awareness in organisations of alternatives to central formalised control and the benefits of these. This should, in turn, also lead to the development of more IS that explicitly support self-control and peer control.
Conclusion In the context of the increasing dispersion of organisations, we set out to investigate the contribution WfMSs could make to various management control approaches. We found that such systems have the capabilities to support both formal, centralised forms of control and more democratic forms like self-control and peer control. Moreover, we also demonstrated that this could be done independent of co-location. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that many of the technologies used in today’s organisations provide most of the information needed to support any control approach. This is because on top of traditional output measurement capabilities, such technologies can also be designed with the business process logic that allows for ongoing organisationwide insight into work roles and processes. We suggest that two steps need to take place to achieve improved alignment between IS and management control approaches. First, a realisation is needed, both by organisations and software developers, that IS have a more extensive contribution to make to management control than collecting performance data as part of behaviour and output control (as demonstrated in the tables and case studies). This should lead to the development and deployment of IS that are better geared to this purpose. Second, organisations should seek to appropriate more of the flexibility provided by different types of existing IS in supporting the full range of control approaches, as outlined in previous sections. Together, these will help to overcome control issues as one of the barriers to wider diffusion of remote forms of organising and working. However, the availability of these technologies does not imply that there is no need at all for face-to-face contact in organisations. Such contact can have other purposes than the exchange of information needed to support a certain control approach, as it can contribute to such essential factors as social cohesion, trust, knowledge creation and exchange, and organisational culture. References Adami, L.M. (1999), ‘Autonomy, Control and the Virtual Worker’, in P.J. Jackson (ed.), Virtual Working: Social and Organisational Dynamics (London: Routledge), pp. 131–149. Bain, P. and P. Taylor (2000), ‘Entrapped by the “electronic Panopticon”? Worker resistance in the call centre’, New Technology, Work and Employment 15, 1, 2–18. Barrett, R. (2001), ‘Labouring under an Illusion? The Labour Process of Software Development in the Australian Information Industry’, New Technology, Work and Employment 16, 1, 18–34. Basu, A. and A. Kumar (2002), ‘Research Commentary: Workflow Management Issues in e-Business’, Information Systems Research 13, 1, 1–14. Bijlsma-Frankema, K. and A.C. Costa (2005), ‘Understanding the Trust-Control Nexus’, International Sociology 20, 3, 259–282. Brown, K., S. Royer, J. Waterhouse and S. Ridge (2005), ‘Virtual Workforces and the Shifting Frontier of Control’, The Journal of Industrial Relations 47, 3, 310–325. Caro, J.L., A. Guevara and A. Aguayo (2003), ‘Workflow: A Solution for Cooperative Information System Development’, Business Process Management Journal 9, 2, 208–220. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Teleworkflow
165
Chaffey, D. (ed.) (2003), Business Information Systems; Technology, Development and Management for the e-Business (Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.). Collins, M. (2005), ‘The (Not So Simple) Case for Teleworking: A Study at Lloyd’s of London’, New Technology, Work and Employment 20, 2, 115–132. Dangelmaier, W., S. Kress and R. Wenski (1999), ‘TelCoW: Telework under the Co-Ordination of a Workflow Management System’, Information and Software Technology 41, 8, 341–353. Darr, A. (2003), ‘Control and Autonomy among Knowledge Workers in Sales: An Employee Perspective’, Employee Relations 25, 1, 31–41. D’Cruz, P. and E. Noronha (2006), ‘Being Professional, Organizational Control in Indian Call Centers’, Social Science Computer Review 24, 3, 342–361. Depickere, A. (1999), ‘Managing Virtual Working. Between Commitment and Control?’ in P.J. Jackson (ed.), Virtual Working: Social and Organisational Dynamics (London: Routledge), pp. 99–120. Dimitrova, D. (2003), ‘Controlling Teleworkers: Supervision and Flexibility Revisited’, New Technology, Work and Employment 18, 3, 181–195. Fish, S. (1980), Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretative Communities (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Gooday, G. (1998), The Location and Nature of Work in the Information Age (Leicester: De Montford University Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility). Grimshaw, D., F.-L. Cooke, I. Grugulis and S. Vincent (2002), ‘New Technology and Changing Organisational Forms: Implications for Managerial Control and Skills’, New Technology, Work and Employment 17, 3, 186–203. Grinter, R.E. (1995), ‘Using a Configuration Management Tool to Coordinate Software Development’, Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Organizational Computing Systems, COOCS 95 (New York: ACM Press), pp. 168–177. Grinter, R.E. (2000), ‘Workflow Systems: Occasions for Success and Failure’, Computer Supported Cooperative Work 9, 2, 189–214. Henderson, J.C. and S. Lee (1992), ‘Managing I/S Design Teams: A Control Theories Perspective’, Management Science 38, 6, 757–777. Herbsleb, J.D. and R.E. Grinter (1999), ‘Architectures, Coordination, and Distance: Conway’s Law and Beyond’, IEEE Software, September/October, 63–70. Huws, U. (1995), Social Europe: Follow up to the White Paper—Teleworking. European Commission DGV, Office for Official Publications of the European Commission, Luxembourg. Jackson, P. (1999), ‘Organisational Change and Virtual Teams: Strategic and Operational Integration’, Information Systems Journal 9, 4, 313–332. Kettinger, W., J. Teng and S. Guha (1997), ‘Business Process Change: A Study of Methodologies, Techniques and Tools’, MIS Quarterly 21, 1, 55–80. Knights, D., F. Noble, T. Vurdubakis and H. Willmott (2001), ‘Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust’, Organization Studies 22, 20, 311–336. Kurland, N.B. and C.D. Cooper (2002), ‘Manager Control and Employee Isolation in Telecommuting Environments’, Journal of High Technology Management Research 13, 1, 107–126. Leidner, R. (1993), Fast Food, Fast Talk: Service Work and the Routinisation of Everyday Life (Berkeley: University of California Press). Lyon, D. (1993), ‘An Electronic Panopticon? A Sociological Critique of Surveillance Theory’, The Sociological Review 41, 4, 653–678. Nilles, J.M., F.R. Carlson, P. Gray and G.J. Hanneman (1976), The TelecommunicationsTransportation Tradeoff (Chichester: Wiley). Olson, M.H. (1982), ‘New Information Technology and Organizational Culture’, MIS Quarterly 6, Special Issue, 71–92. Orlikowski, W.J. (1991), ‘Integrated Information Environment or Matrix of Control?: The Contradictory Implications of Information Technology’, Accounting, Management and Information Technology 1, 1, 9–42. Ortner, W. and C. Stary (1999), ‘Virtualization of Organizations: Consequences for Workflow Modelling’, Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science HICSS (Washington DC: IEEE Computer Society), pp. 1–9. Ouchi, W.G. (1977), ‘The Relationship between Organizational Structure and Organizational Control’, Administrative Science Quarterly 22, 2, 95–111. Ouchi, W.G. and M.A. Maguire (1975), ‘Organizational Control: Two Functions [J]’, Administrative Science Quarterly 20, 10, 559–569. Piccoli, G., A. Powell and B. Ives (2004), ‘Virtual Teams: Team Control, Structure, Work Processes and Team Effectiveness’, Information Technology and People, 17, 5, 359–379.
166
New Technology, Work and Employment
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Reijers, H.A. (2002), Design and Control of Workflow Processes. Business Process Management and Design for the Service Industry (Eindhoven, the Netherlands: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven). Reijers, H.A., J.H.N. Rigter and W.M.P. van der Aalst (2003), ‘The Case Handling Case’, International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 12, 3, 365–391. Ricci, A., A. Omicini and E. Denti (2002), ‘Virtual Enterprises and Workflow Management as Agent Coordination Issues’, International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 11, 3–4, 355–379. Rosenthal, P. (2004), ‘Management Control as an Employee Resource: The Case of Froin-Line Service Workers’, Journal of Management Studies 41, 4, 601–622. Ruppel, C.P. and G.S. Howard (1998), ‘Facilitating Innovation Adoption and Diffusion: The Case of Telework’, Information Resources Management Journal 11, 3, 5–15. Schouteten, R. and J. Benders (2004), ‘Lean Production Assessed by Karasek’s Job Demand-Job Control Model’, Economic and Industrial Democracy 25, 3, 347–373. Scott-Morton, M. (1991), The Corporation of the 1990’s: Information Technology and Organizational Transformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Snell, S.A. (1992), ‘Control Theory in Strategic Human Resource Management: The Mediating Effect of Administrative Information’, The Academy of Management Journal 35, 2, 292–327. Tannenbaum, A.S. (1962), ‘Control in Organizations: Individual Adjustment and Organizational Performance’, Administrative Science Quarterly 7, 2, 236–257. Tannenbaum, A.S. (1968), The Social Psychology of Work Organization (Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole). Van der Aalst, W. (1998), ‘The Application of Petri Nets to Workflow Management’, The Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers 39, 2, 97–66. Van der Aalst, W. and K. Van Hee (2002), Workflow Management—Models, Methods and Systems (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Van der Aalst, W. and T. Basten (2002), ‘Inheritance of Workflows: An Approach to Tackling Problems Related to Change’, Theoretical Computer Science 27, 1–2, 125–203. Van de Ven, A.H., A.L. Delbecq and R. Koenig (1976), ‘Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations’, American Sociological Review 41, 2, 322–338. Varca, P.E. (2006), ‘Telephone Surveillance in Call Centers: Prescriptions for Reducing Strain’, Managing Service Quality 16, 3, 290–305. Watad, M.M. and F.J. DiSanzo (2000), ‘Case Study. The Synergism of Telecommuting and Office Automation’, Sloan Management Review 41, 2, 85–96. Wiener, J.S. (1948), Cybernetics and Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (New York: Wiley). Wilson, F. (1999), ‘Cultural Control within the Virtual Organization’, The Sociological Review 47, 4, 672–694. Zisman, M.D. (1977), Representation, Specification and Automation of Office Procedures, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Working Paper 77-09-04 (Philadelphia: Warthon School, University of Pennsylvania). Zuboff, S. (1988), In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power (New York: Basic Books).
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Teleworkflow
167
