ساختاردهی سیستمی عوامل مؤثر بر چابکی در فرآیندهای کسب‌وکار

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه جامع امام حسین(ع)، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه جامع امام حسین(ع)، تهران، ایران.

10.48308/jimp.14.1.182

چکیده

مقدمه و اهداف: امروزه سازمان­‌ها تغییرات و بحران­‌های پیچیده­ و غیرقابل پیش­بینی را پیرامون خود تجربه می­‌کنند. در این شرایط به‌منظور دستیابی به نوآوری و شرایط بهینه در محیط‌­های پیچیده، رفتن به سمت راه‌حل‌های منعطف و چابک ضروری به نظر می­‌رسد که یکی از زمینه­‌های بهبود این مسئله در رابطه با مفهوم مدیریت فرآیندهای کسب‌وکار، پرداختن به حوزه چابکی فرایندهای کسب­وکار و در شرایط پیچیده و پویا است. در این راستا هدف اصلی این مطالعه، ساختاردهی سیستمی به مسئله چابکی در فرآیندهای کسب­‌وکار است که یکی از مهم‌ترین الزامات آن، استفاده از رویکردهای تحقیق در عملیات نرم در راستای ساختاردهی سیستمی به مسئله است.
روش­‌ها: در این پژوهش ابتدا با استفاده از گام‌­های تکنیک فراترکیب و سپس به کمک ابزار مصاحبه­ نیمه­‌ساختاریافته، 18 نفر از خبرگان که از استادان دانشگاه و صاحب‌نظران فعال در حوزه­ مدیریت فرآیندها و همچنین افرادی که دارای سوابق تجربی در حوزه­‌های مرتبط با بهبود نظامات و فرآیندهای کاری در سازمان­‌های مختلف بودند، انتخاب شدند که انتخاب آن‌ها از طریق روش غیرتصادفی هدفمند و به روش گلوله‌برفی صورت گرفت. در گام بعدی پژوهش برای تبیین الگوی ارتباطات مدیریت فرآیندهای سازمانی چابک از رویکرد مدل‌سازی ساختاری ـ تفسیری (ISM) استفاده شده که با ابزار پرسشنامه داده‌­های مرتبط جمع‌­آوری شدند. درنهایت داده­‌های ­مده از طریق پرسشنامه به روش فرآیند رتبه‌­بندی تفسیری (IRP) مورد تجزیه‌وتحلیل قرار گرفتند.
یافته­‌ها: مبتنی بر پاسخ به سؤال­‌های مطرح­شده در این پژوهش، ابتدا پس از طی مراحل فراترکیب و تکمیل داده‌­های موردنیاز از طریق تعامل با خبرگان، چارچوبی کلی از تعداد 17 متغیر اصلی به­‌دست آمد. 
مؤلفه‌های چارچوب اصلی پیشنهادی شامل فرهنگ متناسب، رهبری فرایندها، حاکمیت فرایند، نیروی انسانی شایسته، زیرساخت فناوری و ساختار سازمان به‌عنوان عوامل توانمندسازهای سیستم، قابلیت استراتژی‌­سازی مبتنی بر بداهه، پایداری خلاق، قابلیت سازگاری پویا، قدرت یادگیرندگی سازمانی و درک و شناخت محیطی به‌عنوان قابلیت­‌ها و توانمندی­‌های سیستم، کنترل و پایش مستمر فرایندها، مدیریت کیفیت فرایند، یکپارچه‌سازی مدیریت دانش با فرایندهای سازمان و کارآمدسازی اجزای چرخه عمر مدیریت فرایند به‌عنوان کنش‌­ها و اقدامات اساسی و درنهایت ارتقای شاخص‌­های کمّی و کیفی به‌عنوان پیامد سیستم هستند. در ادامه با توجه به چارچوب مفهومی ISM شاخص­های توانمندساز و توانمندی در قالب چهار سطح طبقه‌بندی شدند. در گام بعدی از طریق فرآیند رتبه­بندی تفسیری، شاخص­‌ها اولویت‌بندی شدند. با توجه به‌ یافته‌­های به‌دست‌آمده از پژوهش و بر اساس ISM مؤلفه‌ی زیرساخت فناوری، به‌عنوان یک توانمندساز مهم در بالاترین سطح در نظر گرفته شد. طبق این تحلیل، فناوری اطلاعات با نفوذی که بر همه متغیرها از جمله فرهنگ فرآیندی، نیروی انسانی و ساختار متناسب سازمان دارد، باعث تقویت روحیه یادگیری و تحول، کار گروهی و مشارکتی در سازمان و ایجاد زمینه رشد مستمر کارکنان را فراهم می‌­آورد؛ همچنین با توجه به یافته­های فرایند رتبه‌­بندی تفسیری، رهبری فرآیندها در اولویت اول قرار گرفت.
نتیجه‌­گیری: نتایج نشان داد زیرساخت فناوری اطلاعات به‌عنوان متغیر مهمی در درون سیستم چابکی فرایندهای کسب‌وکار باید مدنظر قرار گیرد. از طرفی با توجه به متغیرهای عملکردی برون­‌سیستمی مورد­انتظار از پیاده­سازی سیستم چابکی در مدیریت فرآیندها، مؤلفه‌ رهبری فرآیندها بر اساس تمامی متغیرهای عملکردی مورد­انتظار (به‌جز کسب مزیت رقابتی) بر توانمندساز زیرساخت فناوری تسلط دارد؛ بنابراین سازمان‌­هایی که خواهان چابک­‌سازی در سیستم مدیریت فرآیندهای خود هستند، باید در مرتبه اول به ویژگی‌­های رهبری در فرآیندها توجه داشته باشند. پس از آن، نتایج نشان داد که درک و شناخت محیطی، نیروی انسانی آگاه و شایسته، بُعد یادگیرندگی سازمان، ساختارهای اقتضایی و متناسب، حاکمیت، استراتژی­‌سازی مبتنی بر بداهه، زیرساخت فناوری، سازگاری پویا، فرهنگ و پایداری خلاق به‌ترتیب در اولویت­‌های بعدی باید مدنظر قرار گیرند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Systemic Structuring of Factors Affecting the Agility of Business Processes

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sadegh Hasani Moghadam 1
  • Mohammad Mahdi Mohtadi 2
  • Hosein Bazargani 2
  • Ali Taheri 2
  • Mohsen Miri 2
1 PhD candidate, Faculty of Management and Economics, Imam Hossein University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management and Economics, Imam Hossein University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Today, organizations experience complex and unpredictable changes and crises around them. In this situation, in order to achieve innovation and optimal conditions in complex environments, it seems necessary to go towards flexible and agile solutions. The agility of business processes in complex and dynamic conditions. In this regard, the main goal of this study is the systematic structuring of the problem of agility in business processes, one of the most important requirements of which is the use of research approaches in soft operations in the direction of the systematic structuring of the problem.
Methods: In this research, first by using the steps of meta-combination technique and then with the help of semi-structured interview tools, a sample of 18 experts, who are university professors and experts active in the field of process management, as well as people who have experience in the fields of related to the improvement of work systems and processes in different organizations, were selected, which were selected through a targeted non-random method and snowball method. In the next step of the research, the ISM approach was used to explain the communication pattern of managing agile organizational processes, which was collected with the help of a questionnaire. Finally, the data collected through the questionnaire were analyzed using the Interpretive Rating Process
Results and discussion: Based on the answers to the questions asked in this research, first after going through the stages of synthesis and completing the required data throaugh interaction with experts, a general framework of 17 main variables was obtained. 
The components of the proposed main framework include appropriate culture, process leadership, process governance, human resources, technological infrastructure and organization structure as system enablers, The strategize based on improvisation, creative stability, dynamic adaptability, organizational learning and environmental understanding as capabilities of the system, continuous control and monitoring of processes, process quality management, integration of knowledge management with organizational processes and Making the components of the process management life cycle more efficient are the basic actions and measures and finally the improvement of quantitative and qualitative indicators as the result of the system. In the following, according to the conceptual framework of ISM, empowering and empowering indicators were classified into four levels. In the next step, the indicators were prioritized through the interpretive ranking process. According to the findings obtained from the research and based on ISM, the technology infrastructure component was considered as an important enabler at the highest level. According to this analysis, information technology with an influence that affects all variables including process culture, manpower and appropriate structure. organization, it strengthens the spirit of learning and transformation, teamwork and partnership in the organization and provides the basis for continuous growth of employees. Also, according to the findings of the interpretative ranking process, the leadership of the processes was given the first priority.
Conclusions: The results showed that IT infrastructure should be considered as an important variable in the agility system of business processes. On the other hand, according to the external performance variables expected from the implementation of the agile system in the management of processes, the process leadership component dominates the technology infrastructure enabler based on all the expected performance variables (except gaining a competitive advantage). Therefore, the organizations that want to be agile in their process management system should pay attention to the characteristics of leadership in the processes in the first place. After that, the results showed that environmental awareness, knowledgeable and competent human resources, organizational learning dimension, contingent and appropriate structures, governance, improvisation-based strategy-making, technological infrastructure, dynamic adaptation, culture and creative sustainability are prioritized respectively. The following should be considered.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Business Process Management
  • Agility
  • Soft Operations Research
  • Interpretive Structural Modeling
  • Interpretive Ranking Process
  1. Ahmad, T., & Looy, A. Van. (2020). Business process management and digital innovations: A systematic literature review. Sustainability (switzerland), 12(17). 6827. DOI:10.3390/SU12176827
  2. Alavi, S., Ramezanian, M., Bagheri, A., & Zeraati, V. (2022). Providing a model for achieving organisational agility with emphasis on business process management. International journal of process management and benchmarking, 12(5), 574–598. DOI:10.1504/IJPMB.2022.125312
  3. Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative research, 1(3), 385-405.
  4. Badakhshan, P., Conboy, K., Grisold, T. and vom Brocke, J. (2019). Agile business process management: A systematic literature review and an integrated framework. Business Process Management Journal, 26(6), 1505–1523. DOI: 10.1108/BPMJ-12-2018-0347.
  5. Bergaoui, N., & Ay chi Ghannouchi, S. (2021). A BPM-Based Agile Approach to Ensure Adaptive Learning, New Trends in Intelligent Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques H. Fujita and H. Perez-Meana (Eds.)
  6. Bernardo Junior, R., & de Padua, S. I. D. (2023). Toward agile Business Process Management: Description of concepts and a proposed definition. Knowledge and process management, 30(1), 14–32.
  7. Bider, I. & Jalali, A. (2016). Agile business process development: why, how and when-applying Nonaka’s theory of knowledge transformation to business process development. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 14(4), 693-731.
  8. Bititci, U. S. Ackermann, F. Ates, A. Davies, J. Garengo, P. Gibb, S. & Shafti, F. (2011). Managerial processes: business process that sustain performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(8), 851-891.
  9. Bitkowska, A., Damian D & Tomasz, G. (2022). Towards Cloud Agile Business Process Management. Communications of the ibima, 2, 1–20. DOI:10.5171/2022.821632
  10. Bruno, G., Dengler, F., Jennings, B., Khalaf, R., Nurcan, S., Prilla, M. and Silva, R. (2011), Key challenges for enabling agile BPM with social software, Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 4, 297-326.
  11. Busra Ozdenizci Kose, (2020). Business process management approach for improving agile software process and agile maturity. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.2331
  12. Fard, M., Kabarazad Ghadim, M. R., & Haghighat monfared, J. (2021). Designing a Digital Entrepreneurship Development Model in Small and Medium-Sized Knowledge-Based Companies with Emphasis on Resistance Economy Policies. Basij Strategic Studies,24(90), 103-140.
  13. Fernandez, A. D. R., Fernandez, D. R., Marcos-Jorquera, D., & Iglesias, V. G. (2020). Support System for Early Diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Based on the Service-Oriented Architecture Paradigm and Business Process Management Strategy: Development and Usability Survey Among Patients and Health Care Providers. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(3), 1-14.
  14. Fischer, M., Imgrund, F., Janiesch, C., & Winkelmann, A. (2020). Strategy archetypes for digital transformation: Defining meta objectives using business process management. Information and Management, 57(5), 1–13. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103262.
  15. Gebhart, M., Mevius, M., & Wiedmann, P. (2014). Business process evaluation in agile business process management using quality models. International journal on advances in life sciences, 6(3–4), 279–290.
  16. Genpact,. (2016). Accelerating the Pace and Impact of Digital Transformation. Havard Business School Publishing. Retrieved from https:..hbr.org.sponsored.2016.11. accelerating-the-pace-and-impact-of-digital-transformation.
  17. Gosnik, D., Maja Mesko, M & Igor Stubel. (2023). The Relationship between Leadership in BPM and Company Profitability. Administrative Sciences, 13(3), 1–14
  18. Gwet, K.L. (2014). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. Advanced Analytics LLC.
  19. Hasangholipour, H., Amiry, M., & Pourezzat, A. A. (2017). Developing a Model for the Evaluation of Effective Retention Policy for Faculty Members in Higher Education. Journal of Public Administration, 9(3), 489-516. doi: 10.22059/jipa.2018.247098.2140
  20. Heininger, Richard. (2012). Requirements for Business Process Management Systems Supporting Business Process Agility. International Conference on Subject-Oriented Business Process Management, 168-180.
  21. Hotel, O., Gzara, L., Verjus, H., & Triaa, W. (2020). Competency cataloging and localization to support organizational agility in BPM [presentation]. Business process management workshops: BPM 2020 international workshops, seville, spain, september 13--18, 2020, revised selected papers 18, 60–69.
  22. ISO 9001, InternationalStandard. (2015).
  23. Karimi, J. and Walter, Z. (2015). The role of dynamic capabilities in responding to digital disruption: a factor-based study of the newspaper industry. J. Inform. Syst, 32(1), 39–81.
  24. Kerpedzhiev, G, (2016). The Future of Business Process Management in the Future of Work, Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul, Turkey.
  25. Koopman, A & Seymour, S. (2020). Factors Impacting Successful BPMS Adoption and Use: A South African Financial Services Case Study, Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processingbook series
  26. Lederer, M., & Thummerer, J. (2022). Organizing a self-organized team: towards a maturity model for agile business process management [presentation]. Communications in computer and information science, 1632 CCIS, 152–164. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-19704-8_10
  27. Luthra, S., Garg, D. & Haleem, A. (2015). Critical success factors of green supply chain management for achieving sustainability in Indian automobile industry. Production Planning and Control, 26(5), 339-362, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2014.904532
  28. Manian, A., & ronaghi, M. H. (2015). A Comprehensive Framework for E-marketing Implementation by Meta-Synthesis Method. Journal of Business Management, 7(4), 901-920. doi: 10.22059/jibm.2015.57097
  29. Mehregan, A., Akhavannory, M & Raesifar, K. (2013). Designing and drawing a map of the new science of research in soft operations. The Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 4(4), 9-29. (In Persian).
  30. Meziani, R & Saleh, I. (2010). Towards a collaborative business process management methodology, International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems (ICMCS). 1-6.
  31. Meziani, R. (2014). Achieving Business Process Agility through a Pragmatic Approach. International Journal of Computer and Electrical Engineering, 6(1), 59-63.
  32. Mohaghar, A., Ansari, M, Sadeghi Moghadam, M, Mirkazemi, M. (2018). A Framework to Synthesize the Modeling Methods of Socio-Technical Systems using Critical Interpretive Meta-Synthesis. The Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 8(1), 9-38. (In Persian).
  33. Morovati Sharif Abadi., A., Zanjirchi, M., Abbas Abadi., O. (2022). Processes Management of Maintenance using PCF and Data Mining. The Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 12(2), 175-198. (In Persian)
  34. Moulai, E., Haji Gholam Serizdi, A. (2015). Dynamic analysis of the effect of business process reengineering factors on organizational agility (case study: Ports and Maritime Organization), The first international industrial management conference, Tehran: Iranian Industrial Management Scientific Association. (In Persian).
  35. Mundra, N., Mishra, R, & Upreti, G. (2021). Development of Framework for Lean Implementation: An Interpretive Structural Modeling and Interpretive Ranking Process Approach, SAE Int. J. Mater. Manuf., 14(2), 223 – 242. doi: 10.4271/05-14-02-0015 .
  36. Naqvi, A., Azar, A & Asadi, M. (2014). Prioritization of enabling factors of organizational agility in universities and higher education centers of Yazd city. research and planning quarterly in higher education, twenty-week period, number 1, (in persian).
  37. Oruthotaarachchi, C. R., & Wijayanayake, W. M. J. I. (2021). A Thematic Literature Review on Business Process Management. International journal of managing value and supply chains, 12(1), 1–13. DOI:10.5121/ijmvsc.2021.12101
  38. Rimassa, G. & Burmeister, B. (2007). Achieving business process agility in engineering change management with agent technology”, 8th AI*IA/TABOO Joint Workshop “From Objects to Agents”: Agents and Industry: Technological Applications of Software Agents (WOA), Genova, 1-7
  39. Rito-Silva, A., Meziani, R., Magalhaes, R., Martinho, D., Aguiar, A. & Flores, N. (2009), AGILIPO: embedding social software features into business process tools, in Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S. and Leymann, F. (Eds), Business Process Management Workshops, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, 219-230.
  40. Rodriguez, Denis & Molina, Enrique Silva. (2018). The experience of implementation with Agile Business Process Management. Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, 3(4), 284-294.
  41. Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2003). Toward a metasynthesis of qualitative findings on motherhood in HIV -positive women. Research in Nursing & Health, 26(2), 153 -170
  42. Santos, A.A.A.d.S.de Pádua, S.I.D.(2023). BPM promotion framework for startups: developing dynamic capabilities. Business Process Management Journal, 29(1), 140-158. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-11-2021-0727
  43. Selander, L & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2016). Digitalaction repertoires and transforming a social movement organization. MIS Quart, 40(2), 331–352.
  44. Sharma, P., Devidas Thakar, G & Gupta, R.C. (2013). Interpretive Structural Modeling of Functional Objectives (Criteria’s) of Assembly Line Balancing Problem. International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887). 83(13), 4-22.
  45. Sharma, V., Dixit, A.R. & Qadri, M.A. (2016). Modeling lean implementation for manufacturing sector, Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(2), 405-426. doi: 10.1108/JM2-05- 2014-0040.
  46. Staff (2015). Agile BPM: Agile Development and Business Process Management, https://www.sixsigmadaily.com/agile-bpm-agile-development-and-business-process-management
  47. Sultan Bagh-Shahi, T., Rizvani, H. (2018). Presenting a model to improve the performance of the organization through the agility of organizational processes in shipping companies. The second economic and accounting management conference with the organizational agility approach, Tehran. (In Persian).
  48. Sushil, D. (2009), Interpretive ranking process. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 10(4), 1-10, doi: 10.1007/BF03396567.
  49. Swenson Keith D & von Rosing Mark. (2015). What Is Business Process Management? In von Rosing,M., von Scheel, H. and Scheer, A.W. (Eds). The Complete Business Process Handbook: Body of Knowledge from Process Modeling to BPM, 77-88.
  50. Tavakli, G., MohammadZaheri, M & AghaZadeHabashi, J. (1401). A framework for stabilizing the relationship between the individual and the organization. Management Studies of Improvement and Transformation, 31(103), 95-122. (In Persian).
  51. Thiemich, C. and Puhlmann, F. (2013). An agile BPM project methodology, in Daniel, F. et al. (Eds), Business Process Management: 11th International Conference, BPM 2013, Proceedings, Springer, Beijing and Berlin Heidelberg, 291-306.
  52. Triaa, W., L. Gzara, & Verjus, H. (2017). Exploring the influence of Social software on Business Process Management, IFAC PapersOnLine, 50-1, 12968–12978.
  53. Vieira, C. S. M., Lohmann, P. A., Magdaleno, A. M., & Engiel, P. (2020). APRUMO (agile process modeling) - a method to process modeling using agile bpm [presentation]. ACM international conference proceeding series, 1–8. DOI: 10.1145/3411564.3411631
  54. von Rosing, M., von Scheel, J. and Gill, A.Q. (2015). Applying agile principles to BPM, in von Rosing, M., von Scheel, H. and Scheer, A.W. (Eds). The Complete Business Process Handbook: Body of Knowledge from Process Modeling to BPM, Morgan Kaufmann, 79-88.
  55. Wankhede, V.A.Vinodh, S.(2021). Analysis of barriers of cyber-physical system adoption in small and medium enterprises using interpretive ranking process. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-prin
  56. Zacarias, M., Martins, P.V. & Gonçalves, A. (2017). An agile business process and practice meta-model. Procedia Computer Science, 1