New technologies, notably service-oriented architectures and Web services, are enabling a third wave of business process management (BPM). Supporters claim that BPM is informed by complexity theory and that business processes can evolve and adapt to changing business circumstances. It is suggested by BPM adherents that the business/IT divide will be obliterated through a process-centric approach to systems development. The evolution of BPM and its associated technologies are explored and then coevolutionary theory is used to understand the business/IT relationship. Specifically, Kauffman's NKC model is applied to a business process ecosystem to bring out the implications of coevolution for the theory and practice of BPM and for the relationship between business and IT. The paper argues that a wider view of the business process ecosystem is needed to take account of the social perspective as well as the human/non-human dimension.
BrownS., and EisenhardtK. (1998). Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
6.
BurtR. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
CapraF. (1996). The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter, London: Harper Collins.
8.
CapraF. (2002). The Hidden Connections, London: Harper-Collins.
9.
CarrN. (2003). IT Doesn't Matter, Harvard Business Review81(5): 41–49.
10.
ChampyJ. (2002). X-Engineering the Corporation: Reinvent your Business in the Digital Age, Hodder and Stoughton, London.
11.
ClarkT., and StoddardD. (1996). Interorganizational Business Process Redesign: Merging technological and process innovation, Journal of Management Information Systems13(2): 9–28.
DavenportT., and ShortJ. (1990). The New Industrial Engineering: Information technology and business process redesign, Sloan Management Review31(4): 11–27.
14.
DavenportT., and StoddardD. (1994). Reengineering: Business change of mythic proportions, MIS Quarterly18(2): 121–127.
15.
EhrlichP., and RavenP. (1964). Butterflies and Plants: A study in coevolution, Evolution18: 586–608.
16.
GiddensA. (1984). The Constitution of Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
17.
GroverV. (1999). From Business Reengineering to Business Process Change Management: A longitudinal study of trends and practices, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management46(1): 36–46.
18.
GroverV., and KettingerK. (1995). Toward a Theory of Business Process Change, Journal of Management Information Systems12(1): 1–21.
19.
HabermasJ. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests, London: Heinemann.
20.
HagelJ. (2002). Out of the Box: Strategies for Achieving Profits Today and Growth Tomorrow Through Web Services, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.
HammerM. (2001). The Agenda: What Every Business Must Do to Dominate the Decade, Random House Business Books, New York, NY.
23.
HammerM., and ChampyJ. (1993). Reengineering the Corporation, A Manifesto for Business Revolution, London: Nicholas Brealey.
24.
HarringtonH. (1991). Business Process Improvement, New York: McGaw-Hill.
25.
HirschheimR., and KleinH. (1989). Four Paradigms of Information Systems Development, Communications of the ACM32(10): 1199–1216.
26.
HordijkW., and KauffmanS. (2005). Correlation Analysis of Coupled Fitness Landscapes, Complexity10(6): 41–49.
27.
JonesM. (1998). Information Systems and the Double Mangle: Steering a course between the Scylla of embedded structure and the Charybdis of strong symmetry, in LarsenT., LevineL., and DeGrossJ. (eds.) Information Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes, Proceedings of IFIP WG8.2/8.6 joint Working Conference, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 287–302.
28.
KauffmanS. (1993). The Origins of Order: Self Organization and Selection in Evolution, New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
KauffmanS. (1995a). At Home in the Universe, London: Penguin Books.
30.
KauffmanS. (1995b). Escaping the Red Queen Effect, The McKinsey Quarterly1: 119–129.
31.
LatourB. (1987). Science in Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
Leonard-BartonD. (1988). Implementation as Mutual Adaptation of Technology and Organization, Research Policy17(5): 251–267.
33.
LevinthalD., and WarglienM. (1999). Landscape Design: Designing for local action in complex worlds, Organization Science10(3): 342–357.
34.
LewinA., and VolberdaH. (1999). Prolegomena on Coevolution: A framework of research on strategy and new organizational forms, Organization Science10(5): 519–534.
35.
MaguireS., McKelveyB., MirabeauL., and ÖztasN. (2006). Complexity Science and Organization Studies, in CleggS., HardyC., and LawrenceT. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
McCarthyI. (2003). Technology Management – A complex adaptive systems approach, International Journal of Technology Management25(8): 728–745.
37.
McKelveyB. (forthcoming). MicroStrategy from MicroLeadership: Improving distributed intelligence via complexity science, in LewinA., and VolberdaH. (eds.) Mobilizing the Self-Renewing Organization, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
38.
McKelveyB. (1999). Avoiding Complexity Catastrophe in Coevoutionary Pockets: Strategies for rugged landscapes, Organization Science10(3): 294–321.
39.
MetcalfeJ. (1998). Evolutionary Economics and Creative Destruction, London: Routledge.
40.
Mitleton-KellyE. (2000). Co-Evolution and an Enabling Infrastructure: A solution to legacy? in HendersonP. (ed.) Systems Engineering for Business Process Change, Springer-Verlag, London.
41.
NielsenJ. (1993). Usability Engineering, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
42.
PeppardJ., and BreuK. (2003). Beyond Alignment: A revolutionary view of the information systems strategy process, in:Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, December, Seattle, WA.
43.
PettigrewA., WhittingtonR., MelinL., Sanchez-RundeC., van den BoschF., RuigrokW., and NumagamiT. (2003). Innovative Forms of Organizing, London: Sage Publications.
44.
PickeringA. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency and Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45.
RigginsF., and MukhopadhyayT. (1994). Interdependent Benefits from Interorganizational Systems: Opportunities for business partner reengineering, Journal of Management Information Systems11(2): 37–57.
46.
RivkinJ. (2001). Reproducing Knowledge: Replication without imitation at moderate complexity, Organization Science12(3): 274–293.
47.
RivkinJ., and SiggelkowN. (2003). Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design, Management Science49(3): 290–311.
48.
RowleyT. (1997). Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences, Academy of Management Review22(4): 887–910.
49.
Silicon.com (2003). Web services are the next IT storm, Forrester CEO says. 10 March 2003,www.silicon.com.
50.
SmithH., and FingarP. (2003). Business Process Management: The Third Wave, Tampa, FL: Meghan-Kiffer Press.
StaceyR. (2003). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity, 4th edn. Financial Times Prentice-Hall, Harlow, England.
53.
StalM. (2002). Web Services: Beyond component-based computing, Communications of the ACM45(10): 71–76.
54.
StreatfieldP. (2001). The Paradox of Control in Organizations, London: Routledge.
55.
Taylor-CummingsA. (1998). Bridging the User-IS Gap: A study of major information systems projects, Journal of Information Technology13: 29–54.
56.
the451, (2002). The SOAP Bubble: a Web services taxonomy. White Paper.www.the451.com (accessed 12 December 2004).
57.
Van ValenL. (1973). A New Evolutionary Theory, Evolutionary Theory1: 1.
58.
WrightS. (1932). The Roles of Mutation, Inbreeding, Crossbreeding and Selection in Evolution, Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Genetics1: 356–366.
