Socio-economic management theory related to BPM: A case study of dysfunctions in digital transformation strategy

Yanfei Zhang; Emmanuel Monod; Gerard Beenen; Yuewei Jiang; Chris Willis

doi:10.53102/2023.37.01.1153

Auteurs

Yanfei ZHANG UCMT& Ecole des Ponts ParisTech business school https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4725-4929
Emmanuel Monod Paris-Dauphine University and UCMT, China https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1290-2277
Gerard Beenen California State University at Fullerton, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4503-3688
Yuewei Jiang UCMT, China
Chris H. Willis Old Dominion University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4937-5888

DOI :

https://doi.org/10.53102/2023.37.01.1153

Mots-clés :

BPM, Gestion Des Processus D’Affaires, Transformation NumErique, Dysfonctions, Architecture d’Entreprise

Résumé

Une inconsistance entre les efforts de transformation numérique des organisations et leur architecture d’entreprise (AE) est mise en relief par la recherche actuelle. Ce phénomène a pour conséquence des redondances d’investissements, des retards de mise en œuvre, et de fréquents échecs de projets de transformation numérique. Afin de mieux comprendre une telle inconsistance, nous avons recours à la théorie du management socio-économique (SEAM). Une analyse critique de quatre études de cas au sein d’une entreprise industrielle permet une clarification du le lien entre la transformation numérique et l’AE ainsi qu’une mise en lumière des dysfonctions dans une perspective fondée sur le management socio-économique et sur la gestion des processus d’affaires (BPM). Du point de vue pratique, cette recherche intègre la transformation numérique et l’AE afin de proposer une approche contextuelle permettant la planification et la conception d’une stratégie de transformation numérique.

Biographies des auteurs

Yanfei Zhang, UCMT& Ecole des Ponts ParisTech business school

Yanfei Zhang is the DBA Candidate of ENPC (École des Ponts) and serves as a business process and change consultant in the industry. Her main research directions are business process management, change management, IT management, and innovation. She is also a professional industry-certified holder in these business management domains.

Emmanuel Monod, Paris-Dauphine University and UCMT, China

Emmanuel Monod, PhD, is currently professor at Paris-Dauphine University and UCMT Shanghai. Emmanuel is also vice-president of U2, the Universal University, and of the EMSS society. He was previously professor at the Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. He holds a PhD from Paris Tech-Telecom. He is the President of the SIG of the AIS on Philosophy and IS, the Vice-President of the AIS SIG Culture and IS and the international relations representative for the Management Education and Development division of the AIS

Gerard Beenen, California State University at Fullerton, USA

Gerard Beenen is a Professor of Management at California State University, Fullerton, and an Adjunct Professor in the MBA programs at both the University of California, Irvine and Carnegie Mellon University. His research focuses on workplace motivation and leadership. A recipient of numerous research grants and awards, he teaches courses in organizational behavior, organizational change, team leadership and negotiation. He completed his Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior and Theory at Carnegie Mellon University, his MBA at Northwestern University, and his MA at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, CA. Prior to his academic career, he was a technology entrepreneur, and a management consultant with both Bain & Company and Ernst & Young.

Yuewei Jiang, UCMT, China

Dr. Jiang Yuewei, PhD, is currently the Chairman of CPMC and of UCMT. He is also the President of Asian Region of CMA - World Committee on Lifelong Learning Founder affiliated to UNESCO. In addition, he is the President of the Engaged Management Scholars Society (EMSS), the Chairman of the Global DBA Association and the Vice-Chairman of Shanghai Management Science Society (SMS).

Chris Willis, Old Dominion University, USA

Chris H. Willis is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Management at the Strome College of Business, Old Dominion University. His research interests center on the intersection of entrepreneurship, international governance, and research methods.

Références

Banaeianjahromi, N. (2018a). The role of top management commitment in enterprise architecture development in governmental organizations. Complex Systems Informatics and Modeling Quarterly, 17, 95–113. https://doi.org/10.7250/csimq.2018-17.05 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7250/csimq.2018-17.05

Banaeianjahromi, N. (2018b). Where enterprise architecture development fails: A multiple case study of governmental organizations. 2018 12th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS). https://doi.org/10.1109/rcis.2018.8406644 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/RCIS.2018.8406644

Benhayoun, L., & Saikouk, T. (2022). Untangling the critical success factors for blockchain adoption in supply chain: A social network analysis. Revue Française De Gestion Industrielle, 36(1), 27–59. https://doi.org/10.53102/2022.36.01.915 DOI: https://doi.org/10.53102/2022.36.01.915 [RFGI]

Blosch, M., & Burton, B. (2016). Using EA to support a palette of business strategy approaches. Gartner Report, 25 March 2016, G00291302.

Cameron, B. H., & McMillan, E. (2013). Analyzing the current trends in enterprise architecture frameworks. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 9(1), 60-71. https://eapad.dk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2012-4.pdf#page=60

Cappelletti, L., Voyant, O., Savall, H., & Noguera, F. (2018). 40 years of socio-economic approach of management (SEAM): What we know and where we go? Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1), 11756. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.11756abstract DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.11756abstract

Chandler, A. D. (1959). The beginnings of “big business” in American industry. Business History Review, 33(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.2307/3111932 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3111932

Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. A. (2013). Fundamentals of business process management. Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56509-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33143-5

Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process innovation: Reengineering work through Information technology. Harvard Business School Press, 1993. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.30-4486 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/CHOICE.30-4486

Denner, M. S., Püschel, L. C., & Röglinger, M. (2018). How to exploit the digitalization potential of business processes. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 60(4), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0509-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0509-x

Derrouiche, R., Lamouri, S., & Naoui-Outini, F. (2022). Supply Chain 4.0 : Rôles et opportunités de la gestion industrielle. Revue Française De Gestion Industrielle, 36(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.53102/2022.36.01.1112 DOI: https://doi.org/10.53102/2022.36.01.1112 [RFGI]

Dumoutier, A. L., Lions, J., & Burlat, P. (2022). Les apports du Jumeau Numérique pour le pilotage en flux tiré Conwip. Revue Française De Gestion Industrielle, 36(1), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.53102/2022.36.01.929 DOI: https://doi.org/10.53102/2022.36.01.929 [RFGI]

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258557

Essien, J. (2019). Model-driven strategy for aligning business motivation with enterprise business processes. International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications, 3(4). https:// http://www.ijarp.org/published-research-papers/may2020/Model-driven-Strategy-For-Aligning-Business-Motivation-With-Enterprise-Business-Processes.pdf

Haki, M.K., Legner, C., & Ahlemann, F. (2012). Beyond EA frameworks: Towards an understanding of the adoption of enterprise architecture management. European Conference on Information Systems. https:// http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2012/241

Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering work: Don’t automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 104–112. https:// http://www.vincenzocalabro.it/pdf/reengineering_work_dont_automate_obliterate.pdf

Henderson, J. & Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic alignment: A framework for strategic information technology management. Center for Information Systems Research, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https:// https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/49117/strategicalignme00hend.pdf

Hinkelmann, K., & Pasquini, A. (2014). Supporting business and IT alignment by modeling business and IT strategy and its relations to enterprise architecture. 2014 Enterprise Systems Conference. https://doi.org/10.1109/es.2014.65 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ES.2014.65

Jusuf, M. B., & Kurnia, S. (2017). Understanding the benefits and success factors of enterprise architecture. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2017.593 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.593

Kappelman, L. A., & Zachman, J. A. (2013). The enterprise and its architecture: Ontology & challenges. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 53(4), 87–95. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08874417.2013.11645654 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645654

Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.2307/249410 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249410

Korhonen, J. J., & Halen, M. (2017). Enterprise architecture for digital transformation. 2017 IEEE 19th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI). https://doi.org/10.1109/cbi.2017.45 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/CBI.2017.45

Kotusev, S., Kurnia, S., Taylor, P., & Dilnutt, R. (2020). Can enterprise architecture be based on the business strategy? Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2020.690 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2020.690

Kudryavtsev, D., & Kubelskiy, M. (2018). Using enterprise architecture management methods and technologies for knowledge structuring in strategic management. Working Papers 15112, Graduate School of Management, St. Petersburg State University. https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/15112/1/Kudryavtsev,%20Kubelskiy_WP_8-2018.pdf

Lankhorst, M. (2016). Enterprise architecture at work: Modelling, communication and analysis (The Enterprise Engineering Series). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53933-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53933-0

Lesueur-Cazé, M., Bironneau, L., Lux, G., & Morvan, T. (2022). Réflexions sur les usages de la blockchain pour la logistique et le Supply Chain Management : Une approche prospective. Revue Française De Gestion Industrielle, 36(1), 60–82. https://doi.org/10.53102/2022.36.01.917 DOI: https://doi.org/10.53102/2022.36.01.917 [RFGI]

Lissillour, R. (2021). Contradictions institutionnelles et catégories cognitives: Un couplage mis à mal suite à la mise en place de Progiciels de Gestion Intégrée. Gestion 2000, 38(5), 19-47. https://doi.org/10.3917/g2000.385.0019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/g2000.385.0019

Lissillour, R., & Rodríguez-Escobar, J. A. (2020). Flexible coupling-weakness or strength? Evidence in the post-implementation of an ERP system. Recherches en Sciences de Gestion, 141(6), 31-65. https://doi.org/10.3917/resg.141.0031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/resg.141.0031

Lissillour, R., & Rodriguez-Escobar, J. A. (2022). Organizational ambidexterity and the learning organization: The strategic role of a corporate university. The Learning Organization (ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/tlo-01-2021-0011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-01-2021-0011

Lissillour, R., Rodríguez-Escobar, J. A., & Wang, Y. (2020). A strategic alignment to leverage the role of corporate universities. Gestion 2000, 37(3), 39-65. https://doi.org/10.3917/g2000.373.0039 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/g2000.373.0039

Lissillour, R., & Sahut, J. M. (2022). How to engage the crowd for innovation in a restricted market? A practice perspective of Google's boundary spanning in China. Information Technology & People. https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-11-2019-0610 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-11-2019-0610

Lissillour, R., & Wang, J. (2021). Organizational subculture, constructive deviance and technology adoption: Post-implementation of an Enterprise Information System in China. Recherches en Sciences de Gestion, 145(4), 153-181. https://doi.org/10.3917/resg.145.0153 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/resg.145.0153

Monod, E., Lissillour, R., Köster, A., & Jiayin, Q. (2022). Does AI control or support? Power shifts after AI system implementation in customer relationship management. Journal of Decision Systems, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2022.2066051 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2022.2066051

Myers, M. D., & Newman, M. (2007). The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft. Information and Organization, 17(1), 2–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INFOANDORG.2006.11.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2006.11.001

Nowakowski, E., Hausler, M., & Breu, R. (2018). Analysis of enterprise architecture tool support for industry 4.0 transformation planning. 2018 IEEE 22nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOCW.2018.00034 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOCW.2018.00034

Paraponaris, C. (1995). Les dilemmes de la planification dans l’industrie. Revue Française De Gestion Industrielle, 14(3–4), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.53102/1995.14.03-4.247 DOI: https://doi.org/10.53102/1995.14.03-4.247

Paschek, D., Ivascu, L., & Draghici, A. (2018). Knowledge management – The foundation for a successful business process management. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 238, 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2018.03.022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2018.03.022

Proper, H. A. (2014). Enterprise architecture: Informed steering of enterprises in motion. Enterprise Information Systems, 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09492-2_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09492-2_2

Saab, R. (2017). Upgrading corporate governance regulations to foster sustainability: An intervention research process in supply chain resilience. https://www.intercostos.org/documentos/congreso-15/SAAB.pdf

Sahut, J. M., & Lissillour, R. (2023). The adoption of remote work platforms after the Covid-19 lockdown: New approach, new evidence. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113345 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113345

Savall, H., & Zardet, V. (2008). Mastering hidden costs and socio-economic performance (Research in Management Consulting). Information Age Publishing.

van de Wetering, R., Hendrickx, T., Brinkkemper, S., & Kurnia, S. (2021). The impact of EA-driven dynamic capabilities, innovativeness, and structure on organizational benefits: A variance and fsQCA perspective. Sustainability, 13(10), 5414. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13105414 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105414

Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1057/EJIS.1995.9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.1995.9

Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Zhang, Y. (2021). Process assets: The construction of enterprise core capabilities from components to solutions (Chinese Edition). China Legal Publishing House.