=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-236/paper-6
|storemode=property
|title=Defining Requirements for Business Process Flexibility
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-236/paper8.pdf
|volume=Vol-236
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/caise/KumarN06
}}
==Defining Requirements for Business Process Flexibility==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-236/paper8.pdf
BPMDS'06 137
Defining Requirements for Business Process Flexibility
Kuldeep Kumar1,2,3 and Murali Mohan Narasipuram4
1 Visiting Professor, Department of Information Systems,
City University of Hong Kong, 83 Tat Chee Avenue, Hong Kong
http://fbweb.cityu.edu.hk/staff_info/staff_cv2.cfm?sno=kkumar
2 Professor of IS Research, RSM, Erasmus University, NL
3 Professor of IS, Florida International University, Miami, USA
4
Associate Professor, Department of Information Systems,
City University of Hong Kong, 83 Tat Chee Avenue, Hong Kong
http://fbweb.cityu.edu.hk/scripts/staff_cv2.cfm?sno=ISMOHAN
Abstract. The recent work on business process flexibility focuses primarily on
defining and classifying business process flexibility and developing strategies,
architectures, and tactics for achieving it. However, to specify the required type
and level of business process flexibility it is essential to understand how the
need for flexibility arises in the first place, and how this need affects the re-
quirements for flexibility. The objective of this position paper is to examine the
characteristics of the environmental variations that provide the stimulus for de-
signing business process flexibility and its implications for the design and man-
agement of business processes.
1.0 Introduction
Regev and Wegmann (2005) define flexibility as the ability to yield to a change with-
out disappearing. Business Process Flexibility (BPF) is the capability of business
process to change. Thus, a business process is considered flexible if it is possible to
change it without replacing it completely (Regev, Soffer, and Schmidt, 2006). Regev,
Soffer, and Schmidt (2006) go on to compile a comprehensive set of the possible
types of changes in business processes, thereby creating a taxonomy of business proc-
ess flexibility. This, in turn, leads to significant investigations about concepts and
techniques for modeling business process flexibility and strategies, architectures, and
tactics for achieving it.
Thus business process flexibility can be examined from three perspectives: the char-
acteristics of the stimulus that generates the requirements for business process flexi-
bility; business process flexibility itself; and the strategies and tactics employed to
achieve business process flexibility. These three perspectives together define an over-
all framework for examining business process flexibility (Figure 1).
138 Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support
Stimulus for Strategies and Business
Business Process Tactics for Process
Flexibility (BPF) Achieving BPF Flexibility (BPF)
Figure 1: A Framework for Studying Business Process Flexibility
Ideally all three perspectives of flexibility should work in consonance. Business Proc-
ess Flexibility should be designed in such a way so as to meet the demands of varia-
tions, whereas the strategies and tactics for achieving business process flexibility
would be appropriate to meeting the BPF design requirements. Practically, sometimes
the link between these three perspectives of flexibility is sometimes not explicit.
The recent work on flexibility in general and business process flexibility in particular
focuses primarily on defining and classifying business process flexibility and devel-
oping strategies, architectures, and tactics for achieving the requisite levels of flexibil-
ity. There is only minimal work that examines the antecedents of business process
flexibility, that is, the characteristics of the variations that give rise to the need for
flexibility. However, to specify the required type and level of business process flexi-
bility it is essential to understand how the need for flexibility arises in the first place,
and how this need affects the requirements for flexibility.
The objective of this position paper is to examine the characteristics of the environ-
mental variations that provide the stimulus for designing business process flexibility
and its implications for the design and management of business processes.
The paper is organized as follows. The next section describes the theoretical under-
pinnings of the need for flexibility derived from Herbert Simon’s conceptualization of
the design of an artifact (Simon 1996) and Ashby’s law of requisite variety (Ashby
1958). Section 3.0 presents a definition and categorization of the need or stimulus for
flexibility. Section 4.0 relates this categorization to the various responses to this need
as outlined in taxonomy of business process flexibility proposed by Regev, Soffer,
and Schmidt (2006). Finally Section 5.0 ends with a set of concluding remarks about
the implications of this framework.
2.0 Theoretical Underpinnings of the need for Business Process
Flexibility
“Only variety can destroy variety” (Ashby 1958)
In this section we discuss two seminal works from system sciences and cybernetics
that underlie our discussion of the rationale or stimulus for flexibility: Herbert
Simon’s concept of an artifact, and Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety.
BPMDS'06 139
Following Herbert Simon (1996), we consider business processes to be goal-oriented
design artifacts that need to adapt to the requirements of its inner and outer environ-
ments. The outer environment of the business process is the environment the process
operates in, including the demands (or outcome demands) from its customers, the
sourcing of process resources from its suppliers, and its social, technical, and eco-
nomic contexts. The inner environment of the business process is its structure, its
actors and resources, and the flows and business rules. Simon defines the design of
the artifact as the design at the interface between the outer and inner environments
(Simon 1991, p.7). Flexibility of the designed artifact (in our case the business proc-
ess) is its ability to adapt to the variations in or changing requirements of its environ-
ment, in order to continuing meeting its goals. The adaptation in the process artifact
can either be reactive, as a result of experiencing a variation in the environment, or
proactive, as in anticipation of a variation or changes.
The Law of Requisite Variety, often called Ashby’s Law (Ashby 1958), provides
guidelines for designing flexibility in systems. The law tells us that a "system" has
"requisite variety" if its repertoire of responses (that is, its flexibility) is at least as big
as the number of different stimuli it may encounter in its environment. A system
without requisite variety will fail whenever it encounters the unexpected and as such
is not a "viable system". We see examples of this all the time in business processes
where a process with a limited set of responses is unable to react to greater variations
in the requirements on the process.
We differentiate between two types of business process flexibility – Pre-Designed
Flexibility: the need for process flexibility is anticipated and by the process designer
and therefore process flexibility is pre-designed; and Just-in-Time Responsive Flexi-
bility – flexibility that is created on the fly by the process manager1 at the time of
occurrence of the unanticipated or ambiguous variation. Pre-designed flexibility is
built into the design of the process; just-in-time responsive flexibility requires an
intelligent process manager who can interpret the unanticipated variation and design
the flexible response to it at the time the variation occurs. The differences between the
two types of flexibilities depend upon the nature of the variability of the environment,
the underlying reason or stimulus for flexibility.
3.0 Need or Stimulus for Business Process Flexibility
Design of requisite business process flexibility thus requires an understanding of the
variations and perturbations that is the stimuli that require a flexible response from
the business process. In this section we explore the characteristics of the stimuli and
1 Process manager is a role that is responsible for the management of the overall busi-
ness process. The incumbent in this role could be an individual or a team of people.
140 Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support
their general relationship to business process flexibility. We provide a taxonomy of
stimuli to Business Process Flexibility in Table 1. The BPF stimuli are explained in terms of
their description, the number of paths for process fulfillment, the response responsibility and
the level of flexibility resolution. Then, we illustrate this taxonomy by using two exam-
ples, one from disaster response processes, and the other from the example of an
order fulfillment process for computers.
A Business Process is a collection of interrelated work-tasks, initiated in response to
an event that intends to achieve a specific result for the customer of a process. Work-
tasks are performed by Process actors. Actors may manage other actors, tasks may
consist of other tasks, actors manage or control resources, and actors deploy the re-
sources in performing tasks to meet the customer’s requirements. Process manage-
ment is a higher level process that monitors, adapts and controls the overall process.
The intended specific result for the customer is expected to be achieved despite the
variety and variations in the stimulus to the process. The process identity arises
through the identification with the process customer-type and their required process
deliverables. Thus, as long as the customer-types and the required deliverable-types
are constant, the process maintains its identity even though the tasks within the proc-
ess and their interrelationships, or process actors and resources may change.
Ilia Bider (2005) in his keynote talk last year in BPMDS 2005 observes: “When you
ask people how they do things, they, most probably, will know how things are done
in “normal” circumstances, forgetting many of not so normal cases. ….No wonder the
end users then start complaining about “lack of flexibility” as soon as the system is in
place.” (Bider 2005, p.7) Thus, often systems are designed only for the normal case,
and therefore have a monotonic response behavior. However, as Bider points out,
monotonic systems are rare, and systems that are designed to be monotonic are often
the result of inadequate requirements analysis.
Next, following the discussion in Section 2.0 we recognize that the requirements for
flexibility may arise due to variety in stimuli that can either be pre-identified and pre-
defined, or can be the result of ambiguous or unanticipated variations in stimuli. We
further differentiate between ambiguous variations in stimuli, i.e. variations that can
not easily be understand and classified, but are still within the range of existing ex-
perience, and variations that come as complete and total surprise.
In the case of variations in stimuli that can be anticipated and pre-defined the designer
of the process can build-in the flexible response at the level of the process itself. This
requires that all variations are identified crisply as mutually exclusive and collectively
exhaustive. Thus pre-defined selection/decision points in the process can be used to
steer the process in line with the contingency. Flexibility is thus resolved within the
process. However, in the case where variation in the stimuli is either ambiguous, or is
totally unexpected, the requisite flexibility cannot be built into the process. In these
cases, process flexibility can be achieved by passing the responsibility for interpreting
the variation and designing the response to an intelligent and innovative decision-
maker above the process, the process manager.
BPMDS'06 141
To illustrate the variations in characteristics of the stimuli for business process flexi-
bility we next examine two examples: (i) processes for responding to a hurricane, and
(ii) an order fulfillment process for an order for a computer. We will describe the BPF
stimulus, typical response and the response responsibility for two examples above in
Tables 2 & 3 respectively.
4.0 Relationship between the Stimulus for Flexibility and Business
Process Flexibility
Regev et al (2006) have classified business process flexibility with respect to the
types of changes it enables. Their classification includes three orthogonal dimensions:
the abstraction level of the change (type and instance), the subject of change (func-
tional perspective, operational perspective, behavioral perspective, informational
perspective, and organizational perspective) and the properties of the change (extent,
duration, swiftness, and anticipation). We suggest that the characteristics of the stimu-
lus defined above can be used to identify the requirements for business process flexi-
bility identified by Regev et al.
However, before we do so, we need to re-clarify the understanding of the concept of
flexibility and change. Above we had defined flexibility as the capacity of adapting to
variations. We also demonstrated that this capacity, to some extent, can be built into
the design of the process itself (Type B stimulus). Thus in case of stimuli Type B we
do not need to change the design of the process. We have a self-adaptive process. The
process flexibility is inherent in the process design and manifests itself through the
choice of alternate paths for different process cases.
However, in cases C and D the flexibility is not completely built into the process
design. It requires an intelligent process manager to interpret variations, select or
change the design of the process in response to the variation, and execute it. Thus
qualitatively, this change is different than the type B change and includes changes in
process design as well as process enactment.
Tables 4, 5 & 6 show how the BPF taxonomy proposed in this paper explains the
three orthogonal dimensions described above. It is possible that in some cases, we
may not directly relate the level of stimulus to the type of business process change.
Perhaps this could be part of the discussion in the workshop. It is our conjecture that
this problem could be due to two types of ambiguity. First, there is considerable am-
biguity in the commonly used terms “flexibility” and “change.” For example, it is not
clear if the change is with respect to the “normal” case or is it with respect to the
designed process. It can be argued that all changes are only with respect to the “nor-
mal” case. In that case, any variations from the norm, whether anticipated and de-
signed for as a contingency, or unanticipated, will be considered a flexibility require-
ment and hence a change. On the other hand, if the change is with respect to the de-
signed process, the need for flexibility and therefore change arises only in the case of
142 Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support
anticipated change. Second, the difference between ‘Process Type’ and ‘Process
instance’ needs clarification. For example, in the case of anticipated and designed
variations, each unique path may be considered a process instance. In this situation,
the anticipated variation would lead to a designed change as a new process instance.
On the other hand, an unanticipated and therefore, not designed for variation may
result in changes to the process design (type) itself. Therefore, it is important that
such ambiguities in definitions of change be clarified before the levels of stimulus can
be substantively related to business process flexibility changes. Perhaps, this could
be a matter for discussion and clarification during the Workshop.
5.0 Learning in Business Processes
The taxonomy of BPF stimulus described above also suggests that learning occurs in
organizations in the way they progressively deal with the different types of BPF
stimulus. From the simplistic view of BPF stimulus as Type A (constant), organiza-
tions may learn the different exceptions to be handled and mature the stimulus model
into Type B. Organizations learn from their ambiguous situations how to model and
manage the ambiguities, thus bring down Type C to Type B. Similarly, organizations
may learn to move Type D to Type C once the ‘surprise’ has occurred at least in am-
biguous terms, and then to Type B by defining a predefined crisp set of stimuli. For
example, in the aftermath of 2004 Tsunami, governments and disaster relief organiza-
tions are installing early warning systems and revising their standard operating proce-
dures to include processes for assessing and managing future Tsunamis.
The target of business process flexibility designers is to design processes with re-
sponse sets for the utopian Type A BPF stimuli and at least, the more pragmatic Type
B stimuli. In addition, the designers should build in continuous learning mechanisms
in the processes to move the Type C & D stimuli into Type B.
6.0 Conclusions
As the above discussion shows, before we can specify and design flexible processes
we need to understand the requirements that lead to the need for flexibility. Accord-
ing to both Simon and Ashby, systems, to survive, need to continuously be responsive
to and adapt to variations in their inner and outer environments. Thus, an understand-
ing and assessment of the variations that drive the need for flexibility are prerequi-
sites to designing flexibility. Moreover, we need to establish clear connections be-
tween these stimuli for flexibility and the design of business process flexibility. This,
in turn, requires a crisper definition and classification of both the stimuli as well as
the flexibility options.
BPMDS'06 143
References
Ashby, W. R. (1958). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems.
In George J. Klir (1991), Facets of systems science.
Bider, I. ‘Masking flexibility behind rigidity: Note on how much flexibility people are willing
to cope with”, Proceedings of CAiSE05 Workshops – J Castro and E. Teniente (Eds.).
Gil Regev, Pnina Soffer, Rainer Schmidt, “Taxonomy of Flexibility in Business Processes”,
CFP, BPMDS 2006, CAiSE 2006.
Hofstede, G. Cultural dimensions in management and planning, Asia Pacific Journal of Man-
agement, Springer Netherlands , Vol. 1, No. 2 , January 1984 , p. 81 - 99
Regev, G., Wegmann, A.: A Regulation-Based View on Business Process and Supporting
System Flexibility, Proceedings of the CAiSE’05 Workshop, p. 91-98.
Simon, Herbert A. ‘The Sciences of the Artificial’, 3e, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1996.
Volberda, H. W. Building the flexible firm: how to remain competitive. Oxford University
Press. 1998
Type of Stimulus Description Number of paths for Response responsibility Level of flexibility 144
process fulfillment resolution
Type A: Constant There are no variations in Only one fixed process Process actors are respon- No resolution required
the stimulus to the proc- path. sible for performing fixed because of the assump-
ess. No contingency pre-defined tasks. No refer- tion of no variation in
planning is done. A fixed ence to the process man- stimulus.
response is defined. ager is needed because the
response is pre-defined and
Note: As quoted from fixed.
Bider (2005, p.7) above,
such situations are rela-
tively rare and often exist
due to inadequate and
inaccurate analysis.
Type B: Uncertain A finite set of crisply pre- Multiple paths (all the Process actors perform the Resolution completely
but crisply prede- identified and defined possible paths are enumer- tasks. They are provided within the process level
fined contingencies, each asso- ated at the process design with the crisp, predefined (The process has built-
ciated with a certain stage). The pre-defined set of contingencies that in mechanisms to iden-
probability of occurrence. process paths (cases) are they can clearly identify, tify the variation and
This can be viewed as a mutually exclusive and and select their associated choose appropriate
distribution of contingen- collectively exhaustive. No responses. No reference to course of actions)
cies and an associated new paths can be added. Process manger is needed.
distribution of responses.
Table 1: Taxonomy of Stimulus to Business Process Flexibility (continued on next page)
Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support
Type C: Ambiguous There are ambiguities in Once the ambiguity in the Process manager is respon- The resolution is above
identifying the stimulus. stimulus has been resolved, sible for interpreting and the level of the process
The variations in the classifying the stimulus, and happens at the
BPMDS'06
the choice between the
stimulus form a finite set existing paths can be made and identifying the associ- process manager level.
of fuzzy stimuli. using the now unambigu- ated response. Decision This is because the
ously identified stimulus. making is centralized at the variation is ambiguous
level of Process Manager. and process actors can
not clearly identify the
options. Therefore, they
need to refer to a higher
authority, the process
manager who interprets
the contingencies and
determines the path of
action.
Type D: Surprise The contingency has not Completely new response The reaction and decision The resolution happens
been envisaged at all at paths can be added some- making lie in the hands of wherever there is either
the time of defining the times involving new set of actors on the ground those an actor or a manager
process. process actors and re- are in a position to observe available and capable of
sources. the situation and make a making sense of the
timely and informed stimulus and choosing a
choice. Thus decision path of action. Leader-
making may often be de- ship emerges.
centralized to the scene of
action.
Table 1: Taxonomy of Stimulus to Business Process Flexibility (continued from previous page)
145
146
Type of BPF Response Response responsibility
Stimulus
Type A: Irrespective of the situation, evacuate all people in the region threatened by the hurri- Relief management personnel
Constant cane
Type B: Pre-specified response according to the classification of hurricane categories into five Relief management personnel are provided with
Crisply categories: the categories and responses, and are expected to
predefined (http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/hurricanerelated/HURRICANECATEGORIES.htm). perform based on this set.
categories of
hurricanes
(Level 1 to
5)
Type C: When Katrina hit New Orleans, the possible effects of the hurricane on the levees United Sates government did not interpret the
Ambiguous (dams) were not fully understood by the authority. That is, the assessment of the stimulus properly leading to the failure of appro-
interpretation stimulus was ambiguous. Consequently the hurricane was treated as a Type B stimu- priate response measures1. It is also to be noted
of a stimu- lus and the corresponding response measures only for Level 4 hurricane were put in that when process manager fails to be sensitive,
lus. place. However the breach of levees, which was not well understood, caused major the process actors may lower down the Type C
long term flooding related problems not associated with normal hurricanes. stimulus to Type B or even to Type A and take
actions accordingly.
Type D: When 2004 Tsunami hit Asia in 2004, no early warning systems were in place nor Even process managers do not know how to react
Surprise were the disaster relief measures and plans world-wide. The Tsunami, its occurrence, as it is a surprise. This is a situation where process
its magnitude, and its possible effects were, at that time, much beyond the experience actors assume autonomy and come up with their
and imagination of most of the disaster relief agencies. Thus the Tsunami and its decisions, innovative or otherwise. In the case of
effects were truly a surprise to most relief agencies and governments. the 2004 Tsunami, in the early days none of the
disaster relief agencies could understand its mag-
nitude and respond. Most responses were local,
organized by local governments and local people
to support local devastation. Even in the case of
organized response, such as the Indian Navy’s
response in helping Sri Lanka, it was due to the
local initiatives improvised by local Naval com-
manders and district officials empowered to act on
their own initiative by the government.
Table 2. Taxonomy of stimulus and responses in the case of a hurricane
(Note 1 above : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201210.html)
Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support
BPF Stimulus Response Response responsibility
Type A: Constant Selling process of a computer for cash/credit card in a Sales person at the retail store
or fixed computer retail store
BPMDS'06
sales procedure
Type B: Crisply Customized order on Dell’s web site with a variety of Dell’s value chain personnel
defined sales options in configuration, and payment and delivery
options for accept- modes
ing and fulfilling
sales orders at
Dell
Type C: Ambigu- Order for Notebook computers for mobile sales force of The Notebooks specifications are not clear; system func-
ous a company. The order, in its initial form is somewhat tional and compatibility requirements are not clear; the
abstract and fuzzy and therefore the routine order entry process actors cannot fulfill the process; decision making
and fulfillment process at Dell can not cope with it. Thus will be pushed up to Process manager who will work to
Dell may escalate the order to a higher level where clarify the requirements for the Notebooks.
business relationship managers may clarify the Order
with the customer and generate unambiguous specifica-
tions. Once the ambiguity is resolved, the now unambi-
guous order can be processed through Dell’s regular
order fulfillment process.
Type D: Surprise Tender for computational and storage power require- It is not clear what kinds of computers are required itself.
ments by NSF to create an eScience grid. In this case the Process actors and managers as well are in limbo in
order is much beyond the experience and imagination of meeting such an order. The responsibility of making
most people in Dell’s order entry process. In this case sense out of this surprise order now rests on those groups
Dell’s R&D staff may work together with the Dell Sales that are empowered to deal with this opportunity. If Dell
staff and customers to develop computing grid architec- does not have this level of empowerment, it may lose a
tures and the requirements for distributed computing valuable opportunity of building a very lucrative new
nodes. line of business.
Table 3. Taxonomy of stimulus and responses in the case of order fulfillment process of an order for a computer
147
BPF Stimulus Flexibility in Business Process Instance Flexibility in Business Process Type
148
Type A: Constant No No
Type B: Uncertain but crisply predefined Yes No
Type C: Ambiguous Yes No
Type D: Surprise Yes Yes
Table 4. Mapping BPF Stimulus to the abstraction level of the process change
BPF Stimulus Changes in func- Changes in opera- Changes in behav- Changes in informa- Changes in organiza-
tional perspective tional perspective ioral perspective tional perspective tional perspective
Type A: Constant No No No No No
Type B: Uncertain but No No No No No
crisply predefined
Type C: Ambiguous No No No No No
Type D: Surprise Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table 5. Mapping BPF Stimulus to the subjects of the process change
BPF Stimulus Incremental Revolution- Temporary Permanent Immediate Deferred Adhoc Planned
ary
Type A: Constant No No No No No No No No
Type B: Uncertain No No No No No No No Yes
but crisply prede-
fined
Type C: Ambigu- No No No No No No No Yes
ous
Type D: Surprise Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table 6. Mapping BPF Stimulus to the properties of the process change
Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support