Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A Stakeholder Engagement Model for Process Improvement Initiatives

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Business Process Management (BPM 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12875))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 3791 Accesses

Abstract

Despite cries from practice and academia, stakeholder engagement in Business Process Ma(BPM) is an under-explored area of research. Developing a comprehensive understanding of what factors influence stakeholder engagement is the first step towards addressing this. While diverse factors are briefly mentioned in prior literature, there has not been any holistic synthesis nor empirical investigation to this. This study presents the first empirically supported framework of stakeholder engagement factors for process improvement projects. The framework was built with a synthesis of literature applying Kassin’s [1] social psychology framework as a theoretical lens, and empirical insights from a rich case study conducted at an Australian Financial service provider. The framework presents five levels namely; ‘micro’, ‘meso’, ‘exo’, ‘macro’, and ‘chrono’ which represents different ‘systems’ that host a range of factors that influence stakeholder engagement in process improvement projects. It provides an invaluable point of reference for BPM practitioners when designing stakeholder engagement and intervention programs, especially to develop sustainable strategies for change that enables successful outcomes. It also is a solid foundation and springboard for further academic research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    ABC Finance is a pseudonym to protect the anonymity of the organization and participants.

  2. 2.

    The organisational level represents the reporting hierarchy within the case study. Senior Management, reports to an executive (a category not included in the sample respondents); a Middle Manager, has team leaders report to them; a Team Leader has individual contributors report to them and; an Individual Contributor have no direct reports.

  3. 3.

    Expectancy theory posits that individuals will only make an effort if they believe that the amount of effort result in a particular performance and they will only exert a particular behaviour (performance) if they expect to achieve a certain outcome (McShane et al., 2010).

References

  1. Kassin, S.M., Fein, S., Markus, H., McBain, K.A., Williams, L.: Social Psychology: Australian & New Zealand, 1st edn. Cengage Learning, South Melbourne, VIC (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., Song, M.: Digital innovation management: reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. Mis Q. 41(1), 223–238 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  3. de Waal, B.M.E., Batenburg, R.: The process and structure of user participation: a BPM system implementation case study. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 20(1), 107–128 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Griffin, J.J.: Tracing stakeholder terminology then and now: convergence and new pathways. Bus. Ethics: Eur. Rev. 26(4), 326–346 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Thennakoon, D., Bandara, W., French, E., Mathiesen, P.: What do we know about business process management training? Current status of related research and a way forward. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 24(2), 478–500 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. vom Brocke, J., Schmiedel, T., Recker, J., Trkman, P., Mertens, W., Viaene, S.: Ten principles of good business process management. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 20(4), 530–548 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gorbacheva, E., Stein, A., Schmiedel, T., Müller, O.: The role of gender in business process management competence supply. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 58(3), 213–231 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Trkman, P.: The critical success factors of business process management. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 30(2), 125–134 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Freeman, R.E.: Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Vol. Book, Whole. Boston, MA, Pitman (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kahn, W.A.: Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag. J. 33(4), 692–724 (1990). https://doi.org/10.2307/256287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Boell, S.K., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D.: A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 34(1), 257–286 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., Kitsiou, S.: Synthesizing information systems knowledge: a typology of literature reviews. Inf. Manage. 52(2), 183–199 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Freeman, R.E.: Stakeholder theory: 25 years later. Philos. Manage. 8(3), 97–107 (2015). https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20098310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J.: Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22(4), 853–886 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bone, K.D.: The bioecological model: applications in holistic workplace well-being management. Int. J. Workplace Health Manag. 8(4), 256–271 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bordia, P., Restubog, S.L.D., Jimmieson, N.L., Irmer, B.E.: Haunted by the past: effects of poor change management history on employee attitudes and turnover. Group Org. Manag. 36(2), 191–222 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601110392990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chun, R., Davies, G.: The effect of merger on employee views of corporate reputation: time and space dependent theory. Ind. Mark. Manage. 39(5), 721–727 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.02.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Herzig, S.E., Jimmieson, N.L.: Middle managers’ uncertainty management during organizational change. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 27(8), 628–645 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Devaraj, U.S., Easley, R.F., Michael, C.J.: How does personality matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Inf. Syst. Res. 19(1), 93–105 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cordery, J., Sevastos, P., Mueller, W., Parker, S.: Correlates of employee attitudes toward functional flexibility. Hum. Relat. 46(6), 705–723 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nicholds, B.A., Mo, J.P.T.: Estimating performance from capabilities in business process improvement. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 22(6), 1099–1117 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Finney, S.: Stakeholder perspective on internal marketing communication: an ERP implementation case study. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 17(2), 311–331 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jones, S.L., Van de Ven, A.H.: The changing nature of change resistance. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 52(4), 482 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316671409

  24. Bandara, W., Indulska, M., Chong, S., Sadiq, S.: Major issues in business process management: an expert perspective. In: The 15th European Conference on Information Systems. St Gallen, Switzerland, University of St. Gallen (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  25. vom Brocke, J., Zelt, S., Schmiedel, T.: On the role of context in business process management. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 36(3), 486–495 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Latta, G.F.: Modeling the cultural dynamics of resistance and facilitation interaction effects in the OC3 model of organizational change. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 28(6), 1013–1037 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-07-2013-0123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. De Bruin, T., Rosemann, M.: Towards a business process management maturity model. In: Bartmann, D., Rajola, F., Kallinikos, J., Avison, D., Winter, R., Ein-Dor, P., et al. (eds.) The Thirteenth European Conference on Information Systems. Verlag and the London School of Economics, Germany, Regensburg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bronfenbrenner, U.: The ecology of human development experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Yin, R.K.: Case study research: design and methods. 5th ed., SAGE, Los Angeles (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory. Sage (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, US (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Glaser, B.G.: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory: Theoretical Sensitivity. University of California (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kotter, J.P.: Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Spitzer, D.R.: Transforming Performance Measurement Rethinking the Way We Measure and Drive Organizational Success. American Management Association, New York, (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Barki, H.: Thar’s gold in them thar constructs. ACM SIGMIS Database: DATABASE Adv. Inf. Syst. 39(3), 9–20 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Handfield, R.B., Melnyk, S.A.: The scientific theory-building process: a primer using the case of TQM. J. Oper. Manag. 16(4), 321–339 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lynham, S.A.: Theory building in the human resource development profession. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 11(2), 159–178 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Charmaz, K.:  Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage, London (2006)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, Australia

    Charon Abbott, Wasana Bandara & Erica French

  2. School of Information Management, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Mary Tate

  3. Independent BPM and Business Innovation Practitioner, Brisbane, Australia

    Paul Mathiesen

Authors
  1. Charon Abbott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wasana Bandara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erica French
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mary Tate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul Mathiesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wasana Bandara .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia

    Artem Polyvyanyy

  2. NICTA Queensland Research Lab, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Moe Thandar Wynn

  3. Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Amy Van Looy

  4. Institut fur Datenbanken, Info System, Universitat Ulm, Ulm, Germany

    Manfred Reichert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Abbott, C., Bandara, W., French, E., Tate, M., Mathiesen, P. (2021). A Stakeholder Engagement Model for Process Improvement Initiatives. In: Polyvyanyy, A., Wynn, M.T., Van Looy, A., Reichert, M. (eds) Business Process Management. BPM 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12875. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85469-0_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85469-0_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-85468-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-85469-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics