Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (13) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (13) (remove)
Keywords
- Prozessautomatisierung (1)
- Prozessverbesserung (1)
- RPA (1)
- Robotic Process Automation (1)
- Selektionskriterien (1)
Institute
- Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften (13) (remove)
Häufig bremsen geringe IT-Ressourcen, fehlende Softwareschnittstellen oder eine veraltete und komplex gewachsene Systemlandschaft die Automatisierung von Geschäftsprozessen. Robotic Process Automation (RPA) ist eine vielversprechende Methode, um Geschäftsprozesse oberflächenbasiert und ohne größere Systemeingriffe zu automatisieren und Medienbrüche abzubauen. Die Auswahl der passenden Prozesse ist dabei für den Erfolg von RPA-Projekten entscheidend. Der vorliegende Beitrag liefert dafür Selektionskriterien, die aus einer qualitativen Inhaltanalyse von elf Interviews mit RPA-Experten aus dem Versicherungsumfeld resultieren. Das Ergebnis umfasst eine gewichtetet Liste von sieben Dimensionen und 51 Prozesskriterien, welche die Automatisierung mit Softwarerobotern begünstigen bzw. deren Nichterfüllung eine Umsetzung erschweren oder sogar verhindern. Die drei wichtigsten Kriterien zur Auswahl von Geschäftsprozessen für die Automatisierung mittels RPA umfassen die Entlastung der an dem Prozess mitwirkenden Mitarbeiter (Arbeitnehmerüberlastung), die Ausführbarkeit des Prozesses mittels Regeln (Regelbasierte Prozessteuerung) sowie ein positiver Kosten-Nutzen-Vergleich. Praktiker können diese Kriterien verwenden, um eine systematische Auswahl von RPA-relevanten Prozessen vorzunehmen. Aus wissenschaftlicher Perspektive stellen die Ergebnisse eine Grundlage zur Erklärung des Erfolgs und Misserfolgs von RPA-Projekten dar.
Researching the field of business intelligence and analytics (BI & A) has a long tradition within information systems research. Thereby, in each decade the rapid development of technologies opened new room for investigation. Since the early 1950s, the collection and analysis of structured data were the focus of interest, followed by unstructured data since the early 1990s. The third wave of BI & A comprises unstructured and sensor data of mobile devices. The article at hand aims at drawing a comprehensive overview of the status quo in relevant BI & A research of the current decade, focusing on the third wave of BI & A. By this means, the paper’s contribution is fourfold. First, a systematically developed taxonomy for BI & A 3.0 research, containing seven dimensions and 40 characteristics, is presented. Second, the results of a structured literature review containing 75 full research papers are analyzed by applying the developed taxonomy. The analysis provides an overview on the status quo of BI & A 3.0. Third, the results foster discussions on the predicted and observed developments in BI & A research of the past decade. Fourth, research gaps of the third wave of BI & A research are disclosed and concluded in a research agenda.
Domain experts regularly teach novice students how to perform a task. This often requires them to adjust their behavior to the less knowledgeable audience and, hence, to behave in a more didactic manner. Eye movement modeling examples (EMMEs) are a contemporary educational tool for displaying experts’ (natural or didactic) problem-solving behavior as well as their eye movements to learners. While research on expert-novice communication mainly focused on experts’ changes in explicit, verbal communication behavior, it is as yet unclear whether and how exactly experts adjust their nonverbal behavior. This study first investigated whether and how experts change their eye movements and mouse clicks (that are displayed in EMMEs) when they perform a task naturally versus teach a task didactically. Programming experts and novices initially debugged short computer codes in a natural manner. We first characterized experts’ natural problem-solving behavior by contrasting it with that of novices. Then, we explored the changes in experts’ behavior when being subsequently instructed to model their task solution didactically. Experts became more similar to novices on measures associated with experts’ automatized processes (i.e., shorter fixation durations, fewer transitions between code and output per click on the run button when behaving didactically). This adaptation might make it easier for novices to follow or imitate the expert behavior. In contrast, experts became less similar to novices for measures associated with more strategic behavior (i.e., code reading linearity, clicks on run button) when behaving didactically.