Workflow Cycle Time

The analysis of structured interviews indicates that nearly 76 per cent of the respondents thought that workflows are completed in less time (measured in number of days) than conventional paper workflows (see Table 6.2). The main reason given by the respondents is a reduction in

message delivery and reaction time, particularly in workflow involving staff from different functions (departments) and sites.

Message delivery and reaction time generally described by respondents as the time needed to get a message (request) to the right parties, including the recipients acting upon the message i.e. a chain of reactions (alternative actions to be evaluated by participants of the workflow). Several respondents noted that workflow cycle time tends to increase with cultural and language heterogeneity.

Table 6.2: Effects on Workflow Cycle Time

Interestingly, cultural and language (site) heterogeneity in the CRI team formed at STS seems to be strongly correlated with functional (departmental) heterogeneity, a phenomenon that is in our view strongly influenced by the choice of events selected for workflow modeling and

deployment. This is confirmed by a correlation test between the numbers

of departments and sites involved in the workflows shown in Table 6.1. The Pearson correlation coefficient obtained from this test was r = 0.97 (Refer to Appendix F for details), which suggest a strong correlation between number of departments and number of sites in the workflows studied.

When asked about the influence of workflow automation on participants from the same site, but not necessarily working in the same room, most respondents indicated that workflows would still be completed in less time. The main reason given is that there is less functional disruption and not having to adapt their individual timetables to accommodate a face-to- face meeting.

98

About 10 per cent of the respondents (only 8 respondents) thought that workflow automation will take longer than conventional paper workflows. These respondents are unanimous in their explanation. As one

of them put it in a structured interview: “Individually, (it is) probably

faster to route a workflow than ring around [i.e. telephone]. However, I have no idea how long it will take people to read their inbox messages and respond. Sometimes this is where the delays are caused and it can work out quicker to just call them”.

That is, according to these respondents’ perception, the individual response time can be higher in workflow automation. Members may take longer to respond to electronic messages than to verbal request for opinions and information made over the telephone or in a face-to-face meeting (see Table 6.3, below). The mean individual response time to a workflow messages (STS.E1) in this AR iteration, was approximately 5 hours. The mean response time in a face-to-face meeting is almost immediate (feedback). This comparison does have a considerable impact on the respondents’ perceptions of workflow automation on individual response time.

Table 6.3: Effects on Response Time

As our research focus is on strategic performance management of supply

chains; workflow cycle time (see Table 6.4, below) is seen as taking

precedence over individual response time and therefore more significant in the discussion of the workflow automation effects on one of the main anchor variables i.e. synchronization efficiency.

99

Table 6.4: Mean Workflow Cycle Time

6.5.2. Demand for Leadership Skills

Data analysis seems to suggest that workflow automation reduces the demand for leadership skills in coordinating and expediting in supply chain. These leadership skills can take different forms, such as the ability to solve conflicts and to coordinate the work of autonomous entities in the supply chain. It is not our goal to precisely define and measure the main components of leadership skills, but rather to assess respondent's general perceptions about workflow automation effects on leadership skill requirements. Statements of two key, workflow team leaders, who admitted having had severe difficulties in the past when they had to lead face-to-face meeting (on problem solving coordination and expediting) supported the perception that there is a decrease in the demand for

leadership skills. Those difficulties are, in their view, completely

eliminated by workflow automation.

Unstructured interviews indicated that the above effect may have been linked with two other workflow automation effects. One of these effects is called hierarchy (boundary/barrier) suppression i.e. the suppression of barriers to free communication due to hierarchy differences (Josserand, 2004). The other effect is a reduction of individual influence by workflow automation. Over 71 per cent of structured interview and questionnaire respondents are of the opinion that workflow automation suppresses hierarchy barriers in workflows (see Table 6.5, below). Some of them stated that, as subordinates, they feel less constrained by their managers.

100

Table 6.5: Effects on Barriers Suppression

Approximately 45 per cent of the respondents feel that individual member influence on proceedings in coordination and expediting is reduced in workflow automation (see Table 6.6, below). Individual influence may be unrelated to managerial level, resulting from other factors such as oral communication skills and physical appearance. The main explanation given by respondents for both hierarchy suppression and lower individual influence in workflows is the relative perceive "anonymity" present in workflow automation. Some respondents’ noted that this "anonymity effect" is still present when team members know each other well (e.g. participants from different departments who meet periodically).

Table 6.6: Effects on individual influence

However, about 11 per cent of the respondents suggest that individual influence could be increased in workflows, particularly when members know each other well, because authoritarian and confrontational individuals would feel less constrained to try and impose their will on others than they would in face-to-face meetings.