Content uploaded by Han van der Aa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Han van der Aa on Apr 21, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Factors Leading to Business Process Noncompliance
Twenty-second Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Diego, 2016 1
Factors Leading to Business Process
Noncompliance and its Positive and Negative
Effects: Empirical Insights from a Case Study
Full paper
Ermeson Andrade
Federal Rural University of Pernambuco
ermeson.andrade@ufrpe.br
Han van der Aa
VU University Amsterdam
j.h.vander.aa@vu.nl
Henrik Leopold
VU University Amsterdam
h.leopold@vu.nl
Steven Alter
University of San Francisco
alter@usfca.edu
Hajo A. Reijers
VU University Amsterdam
h.a.reijers@vu.nl
Abstract
Many organizations face noncompliance in their business processes. Such noncompliant behavior can
range from well-intended actions to the deliberate omission of essential tasks. The current view on
noncompliance is mostly negative and many researchers discuss how to avoid it altogether. A gap in the
research is a lack of empirical insights on when noncompliance has positive and when it has negative
effects. Against this background, we conduct a qualitative study in the customer service department of a
company hosting one of Europe’s leading online project platforms. Differing from previous studies on
business process noncompliance, the starting point of our study is direct observations of how employees
conduct their work. We found that noncompliant behavior with a positive intention had a mostly positive
effect on business process outcomes. Unintended factors of noncompliance, such as a lack of knowledge
or carelessness, caused the most severe negative impact on business process outcomes. !
Keywords
Business Process Noncompliance, Noncompliant Behavior, Process Outcomes
Introduction
Deviations from prescribed work practices are part of the reality of many organizations (Lalley and
Malloch 2010; Röder et al. 2014b). Noncompliant behavior manifests itself in many diverse ways, ranging
from well-intended actions to help out customers (Alter 2014) to the unthoughtful and accidental
omission of essential tasks (Unger et al. 2015).
Most researchers express negative views on noncompliant behavior and many researchers have defined
strategies to avoid it. Most notably, a wide range of technical solutions are available that aim at preventing
and detecting noncompliant behavior (Outmazgin and Soffer 2013; Türetken et al. 2011). Examples of
detrimental effects of business process noncompliance include a loss of control over business processes
(Sadiq et al. 2007), reduced productivity (Bagayogo et al. 2013), or even financial penalties imposed by
authorities (Lu et al. 2008). On the other hand, both theoretical work and other examples suggest that
noncompliance can also have positive effects (Alter 2015), for instance, on process execution times
(Ferneley and Sobreperez 2006). A related gap in the research is the lack of empirical insights on when
noncompliance has positive effects and when it has negative effects. Against this background, this paper
Factors Leading to Business Process Noncompliance
Twenty-second Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Diego, 2016 2
aims to answer the following research question: What factors trigger process noncompliance and what
are its positive and negative effects on business process outcomes?
To answer this question, we conduct a qualitative study in the customer service department of an IT
company hosting one of Europe’s leading online project platforms. Differing from previous studies on
business process noncompliance that built on after-the-fact interviews (Outmazgin 2012; Röder et al.
2014a; Röder et al. 2014b; Wiesche et al. 2013), the starting point of our study is direct observations of
how employees conduct their work. We found that noncompliant behavior can be classified as intended
and unintended business process noncompliance. Intended noncompliance, that is, deliberate deviations
from prescribed work practices, may have positive or negative effects. We found that noncompliant
behavior with a positive intention, such as the desire to prevent future mishaps, had a mostly positive
effect on business process outcomes. In some cases, such positive noncompliant behavior even included
innovative strategies to solve unforeseen problems. Unintended noncompliance occurs by accident or
through a lack of necessary knowledge. A quite unexpected finding was that such unintended
noncompliance accounted for the cases with the most severe negative impact on process outcomes.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. We first discuss the theoretical foundations of
business process noncompliance. We then elaborate on our research methodology, including the context
of our case study and the data collection procedure. In the findings section, we describe the business
processes we identified, the factors triggering noncompliant behavior, and the effects of this behavior on
business process outcomes. In the discussion, we reflect on the implications of our work for research and
practice. The conclusion summarizes our results and reflects on limitations of our approach.
Business Process Noncompliance
The term business process refers to any collection of inter-related activities that lead to a valuable
outcome for the customer of an organization (Dumas et al. 2013). Examples of business processes range
from customer relationship processes to production processes. What most business processes have in
common, is that it is possible to specify their essential activities and the order in which the activities
should be executed. In practice, this is typically accomplished using business process models (Rosemann
2006). In contexts where such a specification guides the work of employees, noncompliance refers to any
behavior that does not conform with this specification (Alter 2015).
Noncompliant behavior can manifest itself in different manners, such as skipping activities, performing
additional activities, or performing activities without proper authorization. These acts can occur for
various reasons. Brander et al. (2011) conclude that gaps between process specifications and practical
requirements are inevitable and noncompliant behavior occurs to bridge this gap. Melão and Pidd (2000)
recognize that process participants work under environmental constraints. The social interaction fosters
debates and collaboration and, thus, deviations from intended structures need to be expected. While
noncompliance can occur for a broad variety of reasons, an important distinction should be made between
intended and unintended acts of noncompliance. Intended noncompliance, often in the form of
workarounds, receives considerable attention in literature, cf. (Alter 2014; Halbesleben et al. 2010;
Koopman and Hoffman 2003; Lalley and Malloch 2010; Röder et al. 2014a). The theory of workarounds
proposed by (Alter 2014) describes how a variety of factors lead to the consideration and development of
workarounds. Typical goals of workarounds include overcoming inadequate IT functionality or other
obstacles and preventing future mishaps. There are also malicious workarounds in the form of lying,
cheating, and stealing for personal benefit. Unintended acts of noncompliance receive considerably less
attention in existing literature. This unintended behavior occurs in the form of mistakes and often due to
a lack of knowledge about procedures (Alter 2015).
Noncompliance can have positive as well as negative effects on organizations, as recognized in literature,
cf. (Alter 2015; Regev et al. 2007; Reichert and Weber 2012; Soffer 2005). Because the interests and goals
of stakeholders involved in a process often differ, a single act of noncompliance might be beneficial to
some and detrimental to others (Alter 2015). This follows from the fact that acts of noncompliance
typically affect different performance dimensions. For example, noncompliant behavior can
simultaneously have a positive result on the quality of a provided service, but a negative effect on the
service time. These tradeoffs between effects on different performance dimensions play an important role
in the causes and impact of noncompliance. Employees calculate potential benefits of noncompliance by
Factors Leading to Business Process Noncompliance
Twenty-second Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Diego, 2016 3
weighing the positive and negative effects (Röder et al. 2014a). When employees are not knowledgeable
about the full effects of their actions, this can impede their ability to determine whether an act of
noncompliance is beneficial or not. Despite the aforementioned works that consider the effects of
noncompliance, no research that we are aware of has investigated both factors leading to noncompliance
and the positive or negative effects on business process outcomes. This paper's goal is to address this gap.
Research Methodology
To answer our research question, we conducted an exploratory case study (Yin 2013). In the context of
this case study, we performed direct observations, conducted semi-structured interviews, and studied
secondary data such as notes and work descriptions. In this way, we were able to gain deep insights into
the daily activities of the employees, the motives and intentions behind their behavior, and the (perceived)
effects of noncompliant behavior on the organization. The following subsections introduce the details of
our case study and discuss the data collection procedure.
Case Study Context
As the subject for our case study, we chose a German IT company hosting one of Europe’s leading online
project platforms. The company was founded in 2009 and currently employs over 30 people from various
nations. The key business of this company is the development and maintenance of an online platform that
allows freelancers to offer and request different services, such as the design of a new web site. Using this
platform, freelancers can publish descriptions of projects they seek to be implemented. Service providers
can then apply to these projects by offerings bids. As of today, more than 225,000 service providers have
registered for the platform and have generated a total project volume of over 150 million Euros.
Due to a strong growth in recent years, this organization faces a number of challenges with respect to the
management of its business processes. In particular noncompliance with current work practices in its
customer support effort recently resulted in a number of critical problems with customers. The support
department consists of six employees, including a head of support and a head of financial services. All
employees face a high workload caused by a high number of requests and unexpected issues. Their main
task is to provide support via e-mail, but also via telephone and mail if required. Customers can contact
customer service in English, German, Spanish, French, and Italian. To solve issues from customers, the
support department collaborates closely with the technical department (e.g., to fix bugs in the platform)
and with the financial department (e.g., to resolve financial issues related to projects or memberships).
The customer service department of this organization is well suited for investigating factors leading to
noncompliance and the positive and negative effects of noncompliance on business process outcomes.
First, the customer support staff faces a high number of unexpected inquiries and problems. Hence, they
frequently have to deviate from established work procedures. Second, according to management, those
deviations from business processes generated both positive and negative impacts on business process
outcomes. The combination of those two factors makes this organization a potentially valuable site for
studying different factors leading to noncompliance, different types of noncompliance, and different
positive and negative outcomes.
Data Collection
We performed three main steps to collect the data for answering our research question: (1) process
discovery, (2) deviation assessment, and (3) classification.
In the process discovery phase, we explored the work practices of the employees in the customer service
department. Recognizing that different process discovery methods have distinct strengths and weaknesses
(Dumas et al. 2013), we combined direct observations and semi-structured interviews. To adequately
capture our insights, we documented the work practices using business process models. We started by
passively observing the four customer support employees. We observed each employee for approximately
four hours without any interaction. We took notes about the activities they performed and created initial
documentation of the business processes the employees were involved in. In a subsequent feedback
session, we refined our understanding of the processes and the individual activities. Building on these
insights, we developed a guideline for a semi-structured interview, which we then used to infer the
Factors Leading to Business Process Noncompliance
Twenty-second Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Diego, 2016 4
management-intended business processes as well as the actual business processes. To document the
business processes, we followed the procedure proposed by Frederiks and Van der Weide (2006) and the
guidelines from Becker et al. (2000). In this way, we obtained consistent and high-quality process models.
In the deviation assessment, we compared the actual business processes with those that were intended by
the management team. In collaboration with the respective process owners, we assessed whether each
noncompliant behavior had a positive, a neutral, or a negative effect. We considered a noncompliant
activity as positive if the process output improved or if the execution time decreased. We categorized a
noncompliant activity as neutral if the process execution was changed slightly, but the output was not
affected. We categorized it as negative if output quality decreased or execution time increased.
In the classification step, we used the notes from the direct observations and the interviews to tag each
noncompliant behavior with the factor that triggered the deviation. Moreover, we tagged each occurrence
as intended or unintended in order to differentiate between purposeful and accidental behavior.
Findings
In this section, we discuss the findings of our study. We first describe the discovered business processes.
Second, we discuss the different factors triggering noncompliant behavior we observed in these processes.
Finally, we elaborate on the effect of these factors on business process outcomes.
Business Processes that Were Discovered
We identified nine main business processes in the process identification step. We here briefly describe the
version of each process that management considered to be compliant:
• Account Deactivation (P1): This process is concerned with deactivating accounts for users that did
not pay their invoices. The process is triggered automatically after a pre-specified waiting time. After
this, customer support sends request reminding the user to pay the open amount. If the user has not
paid after the third reminder, their account is deactivated.
• Account Deletion (P2): This process is concerned with deleting a user account. It is triggered upon a
user’s request. The customer support department then checks whether the user has any open invoices.
If this is the case, the user is contacted and asked to pay the invoices. Once all invoices were paid, the
customer support department deletes the user’s account.
• Account Upgrade / Downgrade (P3): This process is concerned with upgrading or downgrading a
user account. It is triggered upon the user’s request. In case of an upgrade, the customer support
department sends instructions to the user on how to downgrade the account. In case of an upgrade,
customer support forwards the request to the sales department, which then takes care of the upgrade.
• Data Change Request (P4): This process concerns changing or updating personal user information.
Depending on the available time, the customer supports department changes the respective information
or sends an instruction to the user how they can change the information themselves.
• Mediation (P5): This process is concerned with the mediation between a customer and service
provider in case of a cancelled project. The process is triggered by a refund request from one of the
involved parties. The customer support department first collects detailed information about the project.
Then it informs both parties about the necessity to reach an agreement and suggests how to split the
money that is involved. Customer support must continuously mediate and remain as neutral as possible
until both parties have reached an agreement.
• Mediation with Safepay (P6): This process is similar to the mediation process (P5). However, it
uses a Safepay mechanism to store money in an escrow account. The money will remain in this account
until both parties have reached an agreement or a court has decided on the case. The role of the
customer support department is to remain neutral and mediate between the parties. Once both parties
have reached an agreement, the money is transferred.
• Sales Request (P7): This process is concerned with sales-related issues. It is triggered when a user
asks for solving a sales-related problem. The customer support department first checks whether a
solution for the problem is available in the records. If this is not the case, they forward the request to
the sales department.
Factors Leading to Business Process Noncompliance
Twenty-second Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Diego, 2016 5
• Money Discrepancy (P8): This process is automatically triggered if the Safepay system detects a
mismatch between the money transferred for a project and the project volume. The customer support
department first checks whether the project volume is higher or lower than the amount transferred.
Depending on the outcome, they contact the customer or provider and ask to either decrease the project
volume or to increase the payment. In case of problems (e.g., customer or provider do not answer), the
customer support department sends reminders. If the problem cannot be solved, the project is canceled.
• Technical Request (P9): This process is concerned with technical issues. It is triggered when a
customer informs the department about a technical problem (e.g., some system functionality is not
available). The customer support employee first checks whether the problem is known and whether a
solution is available in the records. If this is not the case, they inform the technical department. If the
technical department does not answer within seven days, the support department employee sends a
reminder. Once the technical department has resolved the problem, the customer is informed about
how the problem was or can be fixed.
Factors Triggering Noncompliance
Our study detected five main factors triggering noncompliant behavior. Table 1 gives an overview of these
factors and provides examples for each type of noncompliant behavior. We here distinguish between
factors associated with intended and unintended noncompliance. The number of observed instances per
factor is indicated in brackets.
Class
Factor
Example
Intended
(63)
Desire to improve
process outcome
(27)
- Asking why customer wants to delete account (P1).
- Performing task on behalf of customer (P2,P3).
- Calling customer instead of writing an e-mail (P4,P7,P9).
Desire to prevent
future mishaps (4)
- Inquiring a signed statement for a refund request (P5,P6).
- Demanding a proof of payment in case of money discrepancy (P8).
Desire to avoid
tedious tasks (32)
- Not sending reminders before deactivating account (P1).
- Not mediating between customer and service provider (P5,P6).
- Not documenting finished case (occurred in all processes).
- Forwarding case to sales department without checking whether solution
exists (P7).
Unintended
(61)
Lack of knowledge
(23)
- Not deactivating user account although possible (P1).
- Not providing mediation service if user does not use Safepay option (P5).
Carelessness (38)
- Not checking whether user exists in system (P2,P3,P4).
- Not inquiring why user wants to downgrade membership (P3).
Table 1. Factors Triggering Noncompliant Behavior
Intended noncompliance relates to actions that employees conduct fully aware of the fact that they are
deviating from prescribed work practices. Unintended noncompliance results from mistakes or from a
lack of knowledge about procedures. In the following, we describe the details of each factor related to
intended and unintended noncompliance.
Desire to Improve Process Outcome
A desire of employees to improve the outcome of a process or the provided services can result in
noncompliant behavior. As an example, consider the Account Deletion process (P2). We observed that
some employees inquired about the reasons for closing an account. In this way, they hoped to collect
feedback for improving the services of the organization in the future. Another example relates to actions
that employees conducted on behalf of the customer. In the Account Deletion process (P2) as well as in
the Account Upgrade / Downgrade process (P3), employees offered to take care of the deletion, upgrade
or the downgrade in order to save customers from these efforts.
Factors Leading to Business Process Noncompliance
Twenty-second Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Diego, 2016 6
Desire to Prevent Future Mishaps
This factor relates to actions that are triggered by a desire to prevent potential problems in the future. For
instance, the process Mediation with Safepay (P6) does not require employees to ask for a signed
statement related to a refund request. However, we observed that employees did inquire for such
statements. By doing so, they wished to avoid legal problems they have experienced in the past, when a
consensus was not reached between the parties. We noted similar behavior in the Money Discrepancy
process (P8), where employees demanded a proof of payment.
Desire to Avoid Tedious Tasks
Noncompliance associated with this factor relates to tedious and repetitive actions that employees decide
to (occasionally) skip. As an example, consider the Account Deactivation process (P1), in which
employees are required to send three reminders before deactivating a user account because of open
invoices. We observed several instances of this process where employees did not send any reminders, but
deactivated the account right away. Another example relates to the Mediation with Safepay process (P6).
There, it is essential that an employee continuously mediates between the parties in order to reach a
settlement related to a cancelled project. However, we noted several occasions where no mediation took
place. In all processes, we furthermore found cases where documentation activities were skipped.
Lack of knowledge
This form of unintended noncompliant behavior occurred when employees were not aware of the
possibility or the necessity of certain tasks. As an example of not being aware of certain possibilities,
consider the Account Deactivation process (P1). In the context of this process, we observed several cases
where the employee was not aware of the opportunity to deactivate an account in case the customer did
not pay. As an example for not knowing about the necessity of a task, consider the Mediation process (P5).
In several instances of this process, employees did not provide any mediation service because they
thought that this is only required in the context of the Mediation with Safepay process (P6).
Carelessness
Actions associated with this factor relate to situations in which employees know about the requirement to
conduct a certain task, but simply forget to do it (properly) for a specific case. For example, we observed
several instances of employees not checking whether a user actually exists in the system before helping
them (P2,P3,P4). In the interviews we learnt that the employees knew about necessity of this step, but
forgot about it on particular occasions.
Mediation with Safepay
Support Department
Support Department
Gather
information
about project
Inform both
parties about
refund request
and send
confirmation file
Does service
provider
object?
Inform about
how amount can
be splitted
Maintain neutral
and mediate
Inform parties
that money
stays on escrow
account until
agreement
Agreement reached
or court decision
available?
Ask for
comprehensive
description
of issue
Receive signed
agreement from
both parties
Transfer money
according to
agreement
Save incident
detail
Refund was
requested
Request signed
statement for a
refund request
No
No Yes
Yes
Desire to avoid
tedious tasks
Lack of
knowledge
Carelessness
Desire to prevent
future mishaps
Figure 1. Noncompliance in the Mediation with Safepay Process
Effects of Noncompliance
We collaborated with the management team of our case study organization to assess the effects of the
noncompliant behavior that we observed. Figure 1 illustrates the results by showing a process model of
the Mediation with Safepay process (P6) in the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN).
Factors Leading to Business Process Noncompliance
Twenty-second Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Diego, 2016 7
Each box in the model refers to an activity that needs to be executed. The bold solid (red) line denotes that
a particular activity was subject to noncompliance with negative effects. In the context of this process, this
either resulted from partially executing an activity (e.g., “Maintain neutrality and mediate”) or from
omitting an activity altogether (e.g., “Save incident details”). The bold dashed (green) line denotes
activities that relate to noncompliance with positive effects. In this case, the activity “Request signed
statement for a refund” was added to process, that is, the management team did not ask the customer
support employees to perform this activity.
Figure 2 gives a complete overview of all instances of noncompliant behavior along with the occurrence of
positive or negative effects for each type of behavior. The reported numbers are grouped with respect to
the factors we introduced in the previous section.
100 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 100
Desire to improve process quality
Desire to prevent future mishaps
Desire to avoid tedious tasks
Subtotal
Lack of knowledge
Carelessness
Subtotal
Total
Intended Unintended
Number of Instances
negative positive
Subtotal
Subtotal
Total
Figure 2. Effects of Noncompliant Behavior on Business Process Outcomes
Altogether, Figure 2 shows that most noncompliant behavior has a negative effect on business process
outcomes. Out of the 124 cases of noncompliance we observed, the management team considered 95 as
negative, 23 as positive, and 6 as neutral (not depicted). A detailed analysis of the classes of noncompliant
behavior (intended versus unintended) as well as the related factors leads to a number of useful
conclusions about the effects of noncompliance on business process outcomes:
• Well-intended noncompliance has mostly positive effects: Well-intended noncompliance is
often based on the desire to improve process outcomes and the desire to prevent future mishaps. That
is, employees who were involved in such noncompliant behavior had the intention to improve the
outcome of a particular process instance or to avoid anticipated problems. Hence, the effect of these
actions on the outcome of the respective business processes was mostly positive. As an example,
consider an employee asking customers why they want to delete their account (P1). Such an inquiry may
result in valuable feedback for improving the company’s services. Another example relates to
performing tasks on behalf of a customer such as upgrading or downgrading accounts (P3). Such
service-oriented actions improve the customer experience and, therefore, may positively contribute to
customer satisfaction and loyalty. However, in a few cases such well-intended actions also had negative
effects. For instance, in the Data change request process (P4), we observed employees performing data
changes on behalf of the customer without having sufficient time available. As a result, the handling of
urgent issues was delayed.
• Negative effects of intended noncompliance are mainly caused by the avoidance of
tedious tasks: The desire to avoid tedious tasks is the main intended factor that negatively affects
business process outcomes. The severity of the consequences resulting from this type of noncompliance
varies considerably. Some noncompliant behavior related to this factor has rather manageable
consequences. As an example, consider the direct forwarding of a case to the sales department without
checking whether a solution exists in the database (P7). In the worst case, this noncompliance increases
response time. The process goal will still be reached, however. In other cases, by contrast, severe
consequences might occur. One example is when an employee deletes a user account and creates a new
Factors Leading to Business Process Noncompliance
Twenty-second Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Diego, 2016 8
one instead of modifying the existing account (P4). This act of noncompliance results in a complete loss
of the customer’s historical data.
• Unintended noncompliance is a considerable risk for process outcomes: We observed that
unintended noncompliant behavior occurs quite frequently (61 out of 124) and is almost exclusively
associated with negative effects on business process outcomes. For example, carelessness in the form of
a failure to (accurately) document relevant information can result in data inconsistencies and data
incompleteness. The most negative cases of noncompliance are triggered by a lack of knowledge and
occur when employees are not aware of their responsibility to perform certain actions. As an example,
consider the absence of mediation between service provider and customer (P5). In fact, the settlement
of disagreements with respect to the services that have been provided by service providers is one of the
key services of the organization. Inadequate service in this area is likely to result in customer churn and
could harm the company's reputation.
Implications for Research
Our study shows that a more differentiated view on noncompliance is required. Noncompliance with
clearly negative effects should be prevented, while noncompliance with mostly positive effects should not
be prevented, and in some cases should be encouraged.
With respect to noncompliance with negative effects, our study highlights the need to better understand
unintended noncompliance. While researchers have recognized the phenomenon of unintended
noncompliance in general (Alter 2015), detailed insights are missing. Two promising directions for
increasing the understanding of unintended noncompliance include the consideration of psychological as
well as cognitive factors. From a psychological perspective, it is important to understand when employees
perceive tasks as tedious and what organizations can do to motivate employees to execute such tasks
thoroughly. Possible angles to investigate this matter include work motivation theory (Latham and Pinder
2005) or self-determination theory (Gagné and Deci 2005). From a cognitive perspective, it is interesting
to investigate why employees cannot remember certain tasks (lack of knowledge) or why they forget to
execute them (carelessness). Here, particularly the cognitive load theory can help to understand why
employees may not be able to memorize or correctly recall procedures (Sweller 1994). A possible outcome
could be to improve existing process documentation or to make new types of documentation available to
employees. In the medical domain and aviation, for instance, checklists are widely established key aids to
ensure the execution of critical tasks (Gawande 2010).
As for noncompliance with positive effects, our study reveals that it is worthwhile investigating how to
foster beneficial noncompliance. One possible angle is to study how the design of commercial software,
such as Enterprise Resource Planning or workflow systems, can facilitate positive noncompliance. One
possibility might be to enable software to recognize exceptional circumstances and allow employees to
handle these cases in a more flexible way. Another angle is to increase the understanding of how the work
environment affects the occurrence of noncompliance with positive effects. For example, existing research
has studied the relationship between the work environment, creativity, and innovation (Dul and Ceylan
2014). This may represent a promising starting point for understanding how to foster positive
noncompliance in situations where relevant opportunities can be identified in advance.
Implications for Practice
From a practical perspective, our study highlights the need to implement measures for preventing
negative effects of noncompliance. Depending on the factor triggering this noncompliance, different
measures are required.
With respect to intended noncompliance, our study suggests that it is particularly important to make sure
that tedious tasks, such as documentation and reporting, are conducted thoroughly. One way to improve
this situation is by increasing the awareness about the importance of these tasks. We found that
employees often did not consider these tasks as important as their other responsibilities. In these cases,
training could already increase the level of compliance considerably. A technical alternative is to ensure
the execution of tedious tasks through workflow systems or to implement monitoring systems that
discourage detrimental noncompliance (Alter 2014). A more flexible solution is to develop mechanisms
Factors Leading to Business Process Noncompliance
Twenty-second Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Diego, 2016 9
that support execution of tedious tasks, for instance, with automated documentation features. In the
medical domain, such systems have been proven to be promising (Banner and Olney 2009).
To ensure that (originally) well-intended noncompliance does not eventually lead to negative effects, it is
essential to define guidelines. For instance, it must be clear to employees how much time they can allocate
on supporting the customer in an unforeseen way. To this end, organizations should train their employees
in a) recognizing situations in which noncompliance can be beneficial and b) how to prioritize such well-
intended noncompliance in relation to other activities.
As for unintended noncompliance, training and different types of process documentation may help
employees to correctly recall particular process steps. As discussed by Van der Aa et al. (2015), not all
employees find it easy to read and interpret process models. For these employees, verbal work
instructions or checklists may represent a more promising choice.
Conclusion
In this paper, we investigated the factors triggering noncompliant behavior that might have positive and
negative effects on business process outcomes. To this end, we conducted a qualitative study in the
customer service department of an IT company hosting one of Europe’s leading online project platforms.
Our study identified five main factors that trigger noncompliance. Three of them relate to intended
noncompliance and two relate to unintended noncompliance. We found that the desire of employees to
prevent future mishaps and to improve the process outcomes were factors that generally had a very
positive effect. The avoidance and omission of tasks caused the most negative effects. One of the key
findings of our study is that unintended noncompliance relates to the cases with the most severe negative
impact on process outcomes. As a whole, our study highlights the notion that the research discussion
about noncompliance may benefit from a more differentiated view. In particular, noncompliance should
not solely be regarded as a negative phenomenon. Our study shows that it can result in highly positive
outcomes and may include innovative strategies to solve unforeseen problems. Thus, noncompliance with
positive effects should be fostered, not prevented.
While the findings help to better understand noncompliant behavior, we acknowledge that there are
limitations to our study. First, our findings are based on a case study in a single organization from a
specific sector. We therefore cannot extrapolate to noncompliant behavior that, for instance, may occur in
a production environment. Second, our findings are limited to a number of specific factors because we did
not observe emergencies or other urgent cases. Despite these limitations, we believe that our study
provides valuable insights for understanding the effects of noncompliance and for informing future
studies with a complementary focus.
REFERENCES
Alter, S. 2014. "Theory of Workarounds," Communications of the Association for Information Systems (34:55), pp.
1041-1066.
Alter, S. 2015. "Beneficial Noncompliance and Detrimental Compliance: Expected Paths to Unintended
Consequences," in: Americas Conference on Information Systems.
Bagayogo, F., Beaudry, A., and Lapointe, L. 2013. "Impacts of IT Acceptance and Resistance Behaviors: A Novel
Framework,").
Banner, L., and Olney, C.M. 2009. "Automated Clinical Documentation: Does It Allow Nurses More Time for
Patient Care?," Computers Informatics Nursing (27:2), pp. 75-81.
Becker, J., Rosemann, M., and Von Uthmann, C. 2000. "Guidelines of Business Process Modeling," in Business
Process Management. Springer, pp. 30-49.
Brander, S., Hinkelmann, K., Hu, B., Martin, A., Riss, U.V., Thönssen, B., and Witschel, H.F. 2011. "Refining
Process Models through the Analysis of Informal Work Practice," in Business Process Management.
Springer, pp. 116-131.
Dul, J., and Ceylan, C. 2014. "The Impact of a Creativity‐Supporting Work Environment on a Firm's Product
Innovation Performance," Journal of Product Innovation Management (31:6), pp. 1254-1267.
Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., and Reijers, H.A. 2013. Fundamentals of Business Process Management.
Springer.
Factors Leading to Business Process Noncompliance
Twenty-second Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Diego, 2016 10
Ferneley, E.H., and Sobreperez, P. 2006. "Resist, Comply or Workaround? An Examination of Different Facets of
User Engagement with Information Systems," European Journal of Information Systems (15:4), pp. 345-
356.
Frederiks, P.J.M., and Van der Weide, T.P. 2006. "Information Modeling: The Process and the Required
Competencies of Its Participants," Data & Knowledge Engineering (58:1), pp. 4-20.
Gagné, M., and Deci, E.L. 2005. "Self‐Determination Theory and Work Motivation," Journal of Organizational
behavior (26:4), pp. 331-362.
Gawande, A. 2010. Checklist Manifesto, the (Hb). Penguin Books India.
Halbesleben, J.R., Savage, G.T., Wakefield, D.S., and Wakefield, B.J. 2010. "Rework and Workarounds in Nurse
Medication Administration Process: Implications for Work Processes and Patient Safety," Health care
management review (35:2), pp. 124-133.
Koopman, P., and Hoffman, R.R. 2003. "Work-Arounds, Make-Work, and Kludges," Intelligent Systems, IEEE
(18:6), pp. 70-75.
Lalley, C., and Malloch, K. 2010. "Workarounds: The Hidden Pathway to Excellence," Nurse Leader (8:4), pp. 29-
32.
Latham, G.P., and Pinder, C.C. 2005. "Work Motivation Theory and Research at the Dawn of the Twenty-First
Century," Annu. Rev. Psychol. (56), pp. 485-516.
Lu, R., Sadiq, S., and Governatori, G. 2008. "Compliance Aware Business Process Design," Business Process
Management Workshops: Springer, pp. 120-131.
Melão, N., and Pidd, M. 2000. "A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Business Processes and Business
Process Modelling," Information systems journal (10:2), pp. 105-129.
Outmazgin, N. 2012. "Exploring Workaround Situations in Business Processes," Business Process Management
Workshops: Springer, pp. 426-437.
Outmazgin, N., and Soffer, P. 2013. "Business Process Workarounds: What Can and Cannot Be Detected by Process
Mining," in Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. Springer, pp. 48-62.
Regev, G., Bider, I., and Wegmann, A. 2007. "Defining Business Process Flexibility with the Help of Invariants,"
Software Process: Improvement and Practice (12:1), pp. 65-79.
Reichert, M., and Weber, B. 2012. "Business Process Compliance," in Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware
Information Systems. Springer, pp. 297-320.
Röder, N., Wiesche, M., and Schermann, M. 2014a. "A Situational Perspective on Workarounds in It-Enabled
Business Processes: A Multiple Case Study,").
Röder, N., Wiesche, M., Schermann, M., and Krcmar, H. 2014b. "Why Managers Tolerate Workarounds–the Role
of Information Systems,").
Rosemann, M. 2006. "Potential Pitfalls of Process Modeling: Part A," Business Process Management Journal
(12:2), pp. 249-254.
Sadiq, S., Governatori, G., and Namiri, K. 2007. "Modeling Control Objectives for Business Process Compliance,"
in Business Process Management. Springer, pp. 149-164.
Soffer, P. 2005. "On the Notion of Flexibility in Business Processes," Proceedings of the CAiSE, pp. 35-42.
Sweller, J. 1994. "Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty, and Instructional Design," Learning and instruction
(4:4), pp. 295-312.
Türetken, O., Elgammal, A., van den Heuvel, W.-J., and Papazoglou, M.P. 2011. "Enforcing Compliance on
Business Processes through the Use of Patterns," ECIS.
Unger, M., Leopold, H., and Mendling, J. 2015. "How Much Flexibility Is Good for Knowledge Intensive Business
Processes: A Study of the Effects of Informal Work Practices," Proceedings of the HICCS: pp. 4990-4999.
Van der Aa, H., Leopold, H., Mannhardt, F., and Reijers, H.A. 2015. "On the Fragmentation of Process Information:
Challenges, Solutions, and Outlook," in Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling.
Springer, pp. 3-18.
Wiesche, M., Schermann, M., and Krcmar, H. 2013. "When It Risk Management Produces More Harm Than Good:
The Phenomenon Of mock Bureaucracy" Proceedings of the HICCS: pp. 4502-4511.
Yin, R.K. 2013. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage publications.
