IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2304.05033.html

Five guidelines to improve context-aware process selection: an Australian banking perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Nigel Adams
  • Adriano Augusto
  • Michael Davern
  • Marcello La Rosa

Abstract

As the first phase in the Business Process Management (BPM) lifecycle, process identification addresses the problem of identifying which processes to prioritize for improvement. Process selection plays a critical role in this phase, but it is a step with known pitfalls. Decision makers rely frequently on subjective criteria, and their knowledge of the alternative processes put forward for selection is often inconsistent. This leads to poor quality decision-making and wastes resources. In recent years, a rejection of a one-size-fits-all approach to BPM in favor of a more context-aware approach has gained significant academic attention. In this study, the role of context in the process selection step is considered. The context is qualitative, subjective, sensitive to decision-making bias and politically charged. We applied a design-science approach and engaged industry decision makers through a combination of research methods to assess how different configurations of process inputs influence and ultimately improve the quality of the process selection step. The study highlights the impact of framing effects on context and provides five guidelines to improve effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Nigel Adams & Adriano Augusto & Michael Davern & Marcello La Rosa, 2023. "Five guidelines to improve context-aware process selection: an Australian banking perspective," Papers 2304.05033, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2304.05033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.05033
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    2. Brocke, Jan vom & Zelt, Sarah & Schmiedel, Theresa, 2016. "On the role of context in business process management," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 486-495.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. Edwards, Kimberley D., 1996. "Prospect theory: A literature review," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 19-38.
    6. Trkman, Peter, 2010. "The critical success factors of business process management," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 125-134.
    7. John A. List, 2004. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Olapeju Comfort Ogunmokun & Oluwasoye P. Mafimisebi & Demola Obembe, 2023. "Prospect theory and bank credit risk decision-making behaviour: a systematic literature review and future research agenda," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 1-25, April.
    2. Yuval Arbel & Danny Ben-Shahar & Stuart Gabriel, 2016. "Are The Disabled Less Loss Averse? Evidence From A Natural Policy Experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 1291-1318, April.
    3. Ariane Charpin, 2018. "Tests des modèles de décision en situation de risque. Le cas des parieurs hippiques en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 779-803.
    4. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    5. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    6. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    7. Gurevich, Gregory & Kliger, Doron & Levy, Ori, 2009. "Decision-making under uncertainty - A field study of cumulative prospect theory," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(7), pages 1221-1229, July.
    8. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.
    9. Lucy Ackert & Narat Charupat & Bryan Church & Richard Deaves, 2006. "An experimental examination of the house money effect in a multi-period setting," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 5-16, April.
    10. Francisco Galarza, 2009. "Choices under risk in rural peru," Artefactual Field Experiments 00047, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. Per Engström & Katarina Nordblom & Henry Ohlsson & Annika Persson, 2015. "Tax Compliance and Loss Aversion," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(4), pages 132-164, November.
    12. Hongli Feng & Xiaodong Du & David A. Hennessy, 2020. "Depressed demand for crop insurance contracts, and a rationale based on third generation Prospect Theory," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 59-73, January.
    13. Wakker, Peter P., 2023. "A criticism of Bernheim & Sprenger's (2020) tests of rank dependence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Lahdelma, Risto & Salminen, Pekka, 2009. "Prospect theory and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 961-971, October.
    15. Moshe Levy, 2022. "An evolutionary explanation of the Allais paradox," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1545-1574, November.
    16. Cosmina Lelia Voinea, 2017. "Managerial Cognition, Strategy and Performance of Foreign SMEs in Romania," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(12), pages 48-67, December.
    17. Joshua Huang & Teresa Serra & Philip Garcia, 2021. "The Value of USDA Announcements in the Electronically Traded Corn Futures Market: A Modified Sufficient Test with Risk Adjustments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 712-734, September.
    18. repec:edn:sirdps:428 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    20. Giuseppe De Nadai & Paolo Pianca, 2007. "Cumulative prospect theory and second order stochastic dominance criteria: an application to mutual funds performance," Working Papers 157, Department of Applied Mathematics, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    21. Engström, Per & Nordblom, Katarina & Stefánsson, Arnaldur, 2022. "Loss aversion and indifference to tax rates: Evidence from tax filing data," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 287-311.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2304.05033. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.