Relative to the dynamics and variation of processes in a situation, different requirements for task coordination, within and between activities, come to the fore. Processes need to be supported seamlessly and to incorporate administrative processes (highly structured); production workflows (semi-structured workflows); and ad-hoc workflows (unstructured process).
A collaborative project commencement may exhibit patterns of unstructured process forms, evolving to semi-structured forms and then into structured forms. In situations where disruption occurs, what was previously a structured or semi-structured pattern may require replacement by unstructured patterns and then re-evolve. Therefore, a coordination process representation ranges between highly structured and unstructured extremes, as well as factoring in the level of automation involved. Processes that are strictly defined, where no process instance can stray from the process model, are highly structured and are usually managed and coordinated by a BPMS or workflow system.
Structured processes are usually represented as workflows, which can only be enacted
82
administrator is required before execution is continued (Dustdar & Gall, 2002). This ensures that they are frequently predictable, pre-defined and easily subject to automation.
Table 3.6: Process Examples and Supporting Collaborative Tools
PROCESS COOPERATIVE
GROUPWARE WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES Work-
practice mechanisms
UNSTRUCTURED Group awareness Toxic farm availability/presence awareness of members +document state changes reporting Google calendar: Entry/Scheduling Google site; Document transfer
Sugar sync –Doc
sharing
Support for Data level
integration
Enterprise Resource Planning and SAP, PeopleSoft Groupware-based synchronous/asynchronous communication and workspace cooperative tools Plans, specifications, standards, manuals, instructions Paper based transactions Highly structured ―heads-down‖ paper processing Highly structured ―heads-down‖ paper processing HIGHLY
STRUCTURED Project/task management
Ad hoc Project management tools MS
project; project
management (Tasks are defined but not enacted).
5PM Web-based
project and task management software for teams Online Project management of task (Glasscubes, liquid planner)
Process modelling & enactment IBM Flow mark fully specified control-flow, resource and data
SAP Status and Action
Management (object state specific). Open WFE, Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN)+ workflow systems Workflow interoperability support: OZ, (point to point) a multisite collaborative WFMS (interoperate heterogeneous and autonomous processes) Process modelling
can present useful view of ―big picture‖ inter-organisational process. Action-Metro technologies Business process composition SEMI-
STRUCTURED Lotus Notes or Microsoft‘s Exchange that provides some basic (script-based) workflow functionality.
SourceForge Toxic farm, workflow
support/process awareness based on to- do lists (Create/assign new task, + consult list of tasks and their states).
Basic Support for Cooperative Work (BSCW) shared work space Syspro Workflow solutions, CSE/Workflow system Personalised activities work-list Process model-focused awareness
Dynamic global business process formation
Collaborative semi- structured business process support
Service Process integration (Ecommerce community like transaction based
workflow in Amazon/eBay The
integration of the functional flow processing btw the applications.
SemanticGov one stop
portal for live event artful
process support context drive citizen Self-service
Service-oriented approach units of work, composition to an end-to-end process
83
The strengths of traditional WFMS, such as Flowmark, Status and Action Management (SAP), reside with the highly structured processes, which limits their usability when continuous adaptation to new situations is necessary. With highly structured workflow, once data is entered, usually no additional input from a human is required. Many workflow products appear to utilise the logic of stored process models relatively, which defines task dependencies and execution control flows to support coordination (WFMC, 2001). However, these are usually only effective in the case of routine, highly repetitive processes, where process models and coordination rules can be fully specified in advance. The information required to perform a workflow instance is typically wholly directed by the workflow management system. Some aspects of business-oriented virtual communities, like the Amazon transaction-related service, subscribe to this model, where some patterns are pre-defined in code This triggers the execution of a structured process, for instance, to perform payment verification to provide services to users. Internet-based process management solutions, for example Action-Metro, address the needs of organisations that wish to automate their business processes across a virtual enterprise.
Additionally, although groupware systems, such as project or task management applications, do not support enactment of the tasks, they are highly structured. They manually capture, order and deconstitute tasks to guide project execution. This usually utilised to support the classic project management (Allen, 2005) processes which include, project initiating, planning, executing, monitoring/controlling and closing (PMBOK guide, 2013; Mauk, 2009). This is utilised by project managers, who are commonly the only ones with an overview or insight into the overall complexities. Contrasting to WFMS, these applications do not provide a machine- processable process definition capability as a basis for workflow automation. Workflow automated systems are examples of applications that reduce the need to communicate and to coordinate, while enabling the efficient use of organisational routines through automatic and timely routing of work-related information rules, documents and activities.
Contrary to the highly structured workflow, the unstructured process (ad-hoc workflows) frequently requires some form of human intervention. As such, human inputs play a significant and sometimes dominant role in the process, usually directed by a framework or guideline, but only as a recommendation. Each instance of an unstructured process may distinctly vary from another, based on the circumstances, situation, content and skills of the people involved (Goesman, 2000). Highly dynamic situations often depend on informal discussions or negotiations when utilising groupware. These groupware tools are employed for the planning and definition of informal processes, such
84
as a shared work plan document or a shared calendar tool, using apparatuses, for instance Lotus Notes or Microsoft Exchange. As predominantly human-to-human interaction is required, coordination is often characterised by tacit or explicit contextual and general knowledge (Markus et al., 2002). As such, groupware, similar to certain virtual communities, supports emergent business processes, with no exclusively ideal structure or sequence.
While a lot of solutions may exist to support dynamic, evolving, knowledge-intensive business processes, Markus et al. (2002) contend that the effective integration of these technologies, both with the work processes and with other tools, is the primary requirement. Skaf-Molli et al. (2007) assert that the problem lies in finding the appropriate balance of the right tools and their integration. These authors further advocate that the combination of solutions from different domains should complement each other seamlessly. Furthermore, in regard to the often dynamic state of business activities, the need to support both structured and unstructured processes and the uniform, unbroken transition between them has been emphasised.
Semi-structured processes represent a composite of highly structured as well as
unstructured processes. Similar to the case with unstructured processes, human input plays a role. Essentially, the semi- structured process presents a circumstance where some activities of the process are structured and others are not. In situations where exceptions occur or the model does not hold, unstructured processes are invoked. Coordination can shift from the model specification in workflow technologies, to tenets of groupware and other knowledge management systems (Hill et al., 2006). Frequently, a focus on effective data integration to support, for instance, human decision-making, is employed to support emergent business processes. Thus, interoperability of distributed support systems is suggested, in order to facilitate information sharing, enabling coordination (Gouws, 2000). Relative to dynamic emergent processes, with highly unpredictable potential users, work contexts and information requirements, it is necessary to have collaborative groupware support.
To realise collaborative business processes successfully different types of procedures, with various levels of structuring, must be executable. One requirement toward flexible business processes is supporting existing social models in the organisation, through additional informal communication or cooperative means (Marjanovic, 2005; Siebert, 1999). Haake and Wang (1999); Hollingsworth (2010); Marjanovic (2005); and Siebert (1999) contend that, since business processes vary with respect to their fluidity, a system needs to provide, in addition to other factors, support for different types of processes. This must happen in consort with appropriate provision for integration and the execution of these processes, along with backing for the explicit formation of goals to
85
guide the processes. Moreover, concepts of communication, coordination and cooperation must be supported together, to ensure collaborative success.