درک رفتار مدیریت ارشد در ترویج نقش استراتژیک IT درمهندسی مجدد فرایند : استفاده از تئوری عمل منطقی

Information technology has been considered as both a strategic catalyst and enabler of business process reengineering (BPR). An area of major concern has been the difficulty to convince senior management’s reluctant behavior toward promoting the strategic role of IT in process reengineering. There has been relatively little research on this topic. Furthermore, one common approach might be merely to study senior management’s behavior as a whole. What appears to be missing is an examination of the possible underlying reasons for senior management’s behavior. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) may provide a basis for analyzing the behavior. In particular, it can be used to assess the effects of interventions designed to change behavior. Basically, this framework has three steps: (1) examining original behavior, (2) developing remedial actions for negative behavior, and (3) assessing the changed behavior. Furthermore, this framework is examined by an empirical study to understand its application in practice.

Business process reengineering (BPR) has become a new corporate issue and is ranked as one of the most important issues for CIOs since the early 1990s [5] and [36]. It concerns the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to obtain dramatic and sustainable improvements in time, cost, human resources, etc. More and more firms have decided to adopt process reengineering as the primary vehicle for their organizational transformation. Under this context, information technology (IT) should be viewed as more than an automating or mechanizing force, it can fundamentally reshape the way business is done. It is considered as both a strategic catalyst and enabler of process reengineering [6], [15] and [19]. In particular, when Internet-based e-business becomes pervasive in business organizations, this consideration will become extremely important. Thus, the use of IT to rethink business processes from a high-level or strategic direction is significant to the future success of process redesign. Despite the importance of the strategic impact of IT in process reengineering as above cited, an area of much concern has been the difficulty associated with convincing senior management of the innovative use of IT in process reengineering. Even if senior management has a positive attitude toward process reengineering, they are likely to remain ambiguous about the actual role of IT in process reengineering. Recent studies found that senior management were unaware of those concepts and merely emphasized the role of automating or supporting existing process [34]. For instance, management have typically asked, “how can we use new IT to enhance, streamline, or improve what we are already doing?” Whereas they should ask, “how can we use new IT to allow us to do things that we are not already doing?” The misuse of IT can block reengineering by reinforcing old ways of thinking and old behavior patterns. This causes senior management to be reluctant to promote the strategic role of IT in process reengineering. This is the major concern of the study. Thus, if IS researchers are to be able to influence or change such decisions, they will need to have a firm understanding of why such resistance exists. What appears to be missing is an examination of the possible underlying reasons for senior management’s unwillingness toward the behavior. Such a research approach can help IS researchers identify the basis for the resistance toward the behavior, and then design effective ways to overcome it. One approach might be merely to study senior management’s attitude toward the behavior in hopes of understanding their future behavior. Many researchers in MIS, psychology, and other disciplines have studied attitude, attitude change, and satisfaction. A richer study of behavior, behavioral intention, and other behavior determinants, however, would provide a more complete assessment of senior management’s position toward the behavior. Furthermore, it is imperative that researchers approach this problem systematically and base their efforts on a solid theoretical foundation. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) may provide this foundation [13]. It examines attitudinal and normative influences on behavior, which might explain the reasons for senior management’s reluctance toward the behavior. In particular, it can used to assess the effects of interventions designed to change behavior. Therefore, this study proposed a three-step framework using the TRA as an analysis technique: (1) studying original behavior; (2) proposing remedial actions for negative behavior; (3) verifying the changed behavior. This framework is then examined in an empirical study.

As process reengineering continues to be considered as an important way for organizations to achieve competitive advantage, senior management should be cautiously aware of IT’s strategic role to assure its success. However, senior management has been reluctant to promote the strategic role and instead, considered it just an automating tool; i.e. operational. Thus, it is necessary for IS researchers and practitioners to have a clear understanding of why such senior management’s behavior exists. The TRA is an approach to systematically diagnose the possible underlying determinants of the behavior in question and bases them to design effective treatments to change the behavior. Therefore, this study proposed a three-step framework, using the TRA as an analysis technique. Some results from the empirical study were discussed. There were approximately 71.4% of the executives with the negative behaviors. All the salient consequences after the remedial actions, both positive and negative consequences, have produced substantial improvements for the executive beliefs, and in turn, as did the attitude. Similarly, all the salient referents, both favorable and unfavorable referents, have presented the same effects, and in turn, as did the subjective norm. In sum of the two components, the behavior in question has reached significant improvements. However, as discussed previously, the elicitation of the salient consequences and referents are not unique and some deviations could be possible. Accordingly, the proposed remedial actions for the consequences and referents are therefore different. Thus, it can be expected that the results will be different to some degrees, but it remains robust and stable for a significant improvement on the negative behavior in general. The implications for practitioners are as noted below. This approach helps to determine the most influential bases of the behavior and bases them to develop effective remedial actions, and then an effective strategy can be implemented by a comprehensive and multi-pronged attack on all the bases, rather than a traditional approach with a single and direct attack on the behavior in general. On a positive note, organizations that follow this approach and effectively develop such an evaluation system could prove to be invaluable sources for these beliefs linking the behavior to consequences and referents. This approach can be refined for some of the specific details, i.e. consequences and referents, and applied extensively to explore the behavior toward other targets. In addition, this approach may also provide a valuable guide to other similar problems, such as behavior in IS usage for organizational members. Subsequent research could be based on the foundation to elaborate it. First, prior research in exploring behavior focused more on attitudinal component and less on discussion of the subjective norm component for its role in behavioral influence. This study demonstrates useful findings for the effect of subjective norm in behavior. This suggests researchers that both of the components are almost equally effective ways to remedy the behavior. Second, future research can be focused more on uncovering different beliefs for different types of industries and develop more specific remedial actions for different requirements. Third, a longitudinal study should be more suitable when remedial actions are provided for the executives for at least a while and a questionnaire is then used to collect their beliefs after change. This will ensure that the executives have enough time to digest or experience these facts and make more effective changes in their beliefs. Finally, although this research has produced some useful results, a number of limitations are inherent in it. For example, the response rate was relatively low in the first survey, despite efforts to improve it. It might well be understandable for collecting questionnaire information from the executives since the focuses of their work are particularly on making important decisions. Nevertheless, the responding sample was a representative of the sample frame as discussed above. The results for this analysis should be reflected in a manner of relative validation.