A2BP: A Method for Ambidextrous Analysis of Business Process
Higor Santos and Carina Alves
Centro de Informática, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Jornalista Aníbal Fernandes, S/N, Recife, Brazil
Keywords: Business Process Management, Business Process Analysis, Organizational Ambidexterity, Design Thinking.
Abstract: In recent years, organizations have a growing concern to continually improve their processes and align them
to satisfy clients’ expectations, needs and experience. Traditionally, the discipline of Business Process
Management (BPM) focuses on ‘inside-out’ improvement of business processes that do not provide
appropriate capabilities and techniques to explore ‘outside-in’ opportunities. Design Thinking and
Organizational Ambidexterity are approaches that allow a balance between improving internal efficiency, as
well as supporting the analysis of the external environment in search of innovation. Inspired by these
approaches, our study aims to investigate how to exploit internal problems and explore external
opportunities of business processes. The main contribution of this paper is the design of a method called
A2BP that systematizes the analysis phase of BPM lifecycle by proposing exploitative and exploratory
techniques. We evaluated the A2BP method by means of expert opinion survey and observational case
study to assess its usefulness and ease-of-use. Overall, the evaluation of the method was positive and
constructive feedback was obtained to further refine the method in future studies.
1 INTRODUCTION
Business Process Management (BPM) is a holistic
management approach that has grown substantially
in the last decades. BPM has a strong focus on
information technology advances (van der Aalst,
2012). BPM is considered an assembly of techniques
to support the continuous and iterative improvement
of business processes in an organization (OMG,
2010). Examples of techniques normally used are:
Ishikawa Diagram, SWOT Analysis, Cycle Time
Analysis, Risk Analysis, and Gap Analysis.
However, Rosemann (2014) affirms that BPM as
a managerial discipline does not seem to be
sufficiently capable to harvest the potential of a
dynamic and opportunity-rich environment. One
main reason is because current BPM capabilities are
largely following an ‘inside-out’ paradigm, also
called analytical thinking. This paradigm addresses
management through exploitation techniques that
repeat themselves continuously over time (Martin,
2009).
Kohlborn et al. (2014) suggests that it is
necessary to complement a traditional BPM
approach with the ‘outside-in’ paradigm, also called
intuitive thinking. Intuitive thinking uses exploration
techniques. It is centered in the convergence and
divergence of ideas by using creativity, originality,
and innovation techniques (Martin, 2009).
Ambidextrous organizations have capabilities to
manage both analytical and intuitive thinking. It
encompasses two profoundly different features of
businesses - those focused on exploiting existing
capabilities for incremental improvements and those
focused on exploring new opportunities for growth.
As Table 1 indicates, the two features require very
different strategies, structures, processes, and
cultures (O'Reilly and Tushman, 2004; He and
Wong, 2004).
By deploying the idea of ambidextrous
organizations to the Business Process Management
discipline, Rosemann (2014) proposes the concepts
Exploitative BPM and Explorative BPM.
Exploitative BPM is aiming towards running and
incrementally improving business processes.
Exploitative analysis capabilities are dedicated to
assessing current processes with the aim to identify
and quantify process problems. Exploitative BPM
serves well industries and organizations with largely
static market conditions (e.g., banking back-offices,
shared service providers, and mass production).
On the other hand, Rosemann (2014) affirms that
Explorative BPM is a significant future opportunity,
and challenge for the BPM community. Explorative
Santos, H. and Alves, C.
A2BP: A Method for Ambidextrous Analysis of Business Process.
DOI: 10.5220/0006278702270238
In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2017) - Volume 3, pages 227-238
ISBN: 978-989-758-249-3
Copyright © 2017 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
227

Table 1: Alignment for ambidextrous features.
Alignment of: Exploitative Exploratory
Strategic intent
Cost, profit Innovation
Critical tasks
Operations,
efficiency,
incremental
innovation
Adaptability,
new products,
breakthrough
innovation
Competencies
Operational Entrepreneurial
Structure
Formal,
mechanistic
Adaptive, loose
Controls,
rewards
Margins,
productivity
Milestones,
growth
Culture
Efficiency, low
risk, quality,
customers
Risk taking,
speed,
flexibility
Leadership role
Authoritative Visionary
BPM is about crafting process visions that are so
compelling and transformational that they motivate
staff and customers, involved to explore how to
make a desired future state via a sequence of
transition states a reality, and by doing this turns the
current process obsolete. This is in sharp contrast to
exploitative BPM, which develops new (to-be)
processes in light of current shortcomings.
The balance between exploitation and
exploration, or between incremental and radical
organizational change has been a consistent theme
across several approaches to research in
organizational adaptation (O'Reilly and Tushman,
2004; Bauer and Leker, 2013; Chen and Katila,
2008). Design thinking is a well-established
approach that follows the ‘outside-in’ paradigm.
According to Brown and Wyatt (2010), design
thinking is an approach to support innovation and
that aims to align analytical with intuitive thinking.
Design thinking generates an environment highly
interactive and promotes innovation through the
following steps: empathy, define, ideate and
prototype.
Richardson et al. (2013) emphasizes that instead
of focusing on surface adoption of new customer
experience methods and techniques, design thinking
forces BPM teams to think about process problems
from a completely different perspective. This allows
teams to be more effective in their interactions with
executives, line-of-business owners, and
stakeholders when focused on improving and
optimizing for customer experience.
Despite the high number of studies promoting
the use of design thinking to create innovative
products and services (Brown, 2009; Martin, 2009;
Chasanidou et al., 2014), few studies in the BPM
area propose an integrated use of exploitative and
explorative techniques to support designing and
innovation of business processes models aligned to
expectation, experience and satisfaction of
customers (Rosemann, 2014; Richardson et al.,
2013; Luebbe and Weske, 2011).
Traditionally, business processes are analyzed in
a qualitative or quantitative form with the purpose to
exploit, reduce or eliminate existing problems in the
processes, such as bottlenecks, financial or resources
waste, cycle time and handworks (ABPMP, 2013;
Jeston and Nelis, 2008). Business process analysis is
an important phase of the BPM lifecycle because it
provides a critical examination of problems and
potential improvements of business processes.
However, few studies have been conducted to
provide novel techniques and methods for the
business process analysis phase (Vergidis al., 2008;
Kohlborn et al., 2014).
This paper aims to contribute to the emerging
area of ambidextrous BPM. In particular, our
research focuses on the phase of business process
analysis. Motivated by this scenario, the main
research problem of this study is to investigate: how
to exploit internal problems and explore external
opportunities of business process? This paper aims
to investigate the following research questions:
(RQ1) What are the features of a method that
supports the ambidextrous analysis of business
processes?
(RQ2) How is the ease-of-use and usefulness
perceived by process analysts of the proposed
method for ambidextrous analysis of business
processes?
The main contribution of this paper is to design a
method to support the ambidextrous analysis of
business process. The method was evaluated through
an expert opinion survey and an observational case
study at an organization with experience in BPM.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 outlines the research method. Section 3
describes the proposed method called A2BP. Section
4 presents the results of the empirical study. Finally,
Section 5 discusses the conclusions and presents
directions for future work.
2 RESEARCH METHOD
Given that our goal is to create a useful artifact, we
purposefully chose a Design Science Research
(DSR) approach. Hevner et al. (2004) propose that
DSR artifacts are defined as constructs (vocabulary
and symbols), models (abstractions and
representations), methods (algorithms and practices)
and instantiations (systems or prototypes).
ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
228

The DSR approach is suitable to address our
research objective and questions because it
emphasizes the investigation of a method artifact
with a problem context in order to improve the
business process analysis in organizational context.
Moreover, DSR guides us through an iterative, yet
structured process of building and evaluating the
artifact. In sum, this approach provides a well-suited
base to build an artifact of high utility, closely
connected to extant knowledge and a relevant, real-
world problem (Hevner et al., 2004; Wieringa,
2014).
As presented in Figure 1, our study adopts the
DSR framework suggested by Wieringa (2014). The
social context contains the stakeholders who may
affect the project or may be affected by it. In our
case, the stakeholders are business process analysts,
business specialists, internal stakeholders and
customers of the organization. The knowledge
context consists of existing theories from science
and engineering, useful facts about currently
available products. Our research was grounded in
the following areas of knowledge: BPM, Design
Thinking, Organizational Ambidexterity and Design
Science Research.
Initially, we defined the problem and the
research questions through a systematic literature
mapping. In order to investigate the research
problem stated in Section 1, automatic searches were
conducted in the digital libraries of the Association
for Computing Machinery (ACM), the IEEE
Computer Society, Emerald Insight, Science Direct
and Springer Link.
Figure 1: Instantiation of the DSR framework (Wieringa,
2014) in the context of our research.
We also used the pearl growing research strategy
cited by (Ramer, 2005). This strategy is similar to
snowball sampling strategy, but its focus is to
investigate the references used by the most relevant
articles of the main authors of the area.
Then, we designed the artifact called A2BP
method, which aims to investigate how to exploit
internal problems and explore external opportunities
of business. A core feature of the Design Science
Research is the empirical evaluation of the artifacts
in the appropriate environment. Thus, an expert
opinion survey with seven participants was
conducted in order to analyze the ease-of-use and
usefulness of the proposed method A2BP before
evaluating it in an organization. According to
Wieringa (2014), expert opinion is the simplest way
to validate an artifact. The design of an artifact is
submitted to a panel of experts, who imagine how
such an artifact will interact with problem contexts
imagined by them and then predict what effects they
think this would have. The experts are used as
instruments to “observe”, by imagining, a validation
model of the artifact.
To conduct the expert opinion, an e-mail was
sent explaining the context of the research to
experts. It included the time needed for evaluation, a
link to the website where the artifact is available (i.e.
the A2BP method) and a link to the evaluation
survey. After the critical analysis of the proposed
artifact, experts answered the semi-structured
questionnaire. It was categorized as follows:
perceived ease-of-use, perceived usefulness,
suggestions, and criticisms. The results of the expert
opinion are presented in Section 4.1.
The artifact was adjusted according to the
recommendations of the experts. Then, we carried
out an observational case study in a public sector
organization with the goal to conduct an empirical
evaluation of the proposed method. Wieringa (2014)
highlights that observational case studies are a useful
research method for implementation evaluation and
problem investigation, where the researcher
investigates the real world.
The case organization conducts a BPM initiative
for five years and has a Business Process
Management Office (BPMO) that plans and
manages several organization-wide business process
improvement projects. The criterion to select this
case was intentional, which as defined by Merriam
(1998), it is suitable for research of a qualitative
nature, aiming at the selection of a context that is
meaningful to the studied phenomenon. The specific
objective of this case study is to evaluate the ease-
of-use and usefulness of the A2BP Method to
support the needs of an ambidextrous analysis of
business processes by an organization. In addition,
A2BP: A Method for Ambidextrous Analysis of Business Process
229

the case study provided a rich feedback for us to
further improve the proposed method.
The case study participants included one BPM
manager and two analysts as the team responsible
for ambidextrous business analysis process. The
BPMO coordinator participated in some meetings
and activities in order to appraise the A2BP method.
One researcher was present during the whole case
study to observe and make notes in a diary about
everything that happened.
We also provided a journal for participants to
write their experiences and provide critical
reflections on the use of A2BP method.
Furthermore, they reported their experiences
regarding each method phase, tasks and activities
conducted by them. Finally, we designed a semi-
structured questionnaire and applied to the BPMO
coordinator, the BPM manager and the two process
analysts. This questionnaire was similar to the
instrument of the expert opinion survey. After
finishing the case study, a new version of the artifact
was generated based on the suggestions provided by
participants. The results of the case study are
described in Section 4.2.
3 A2BP: A METHOD FOR
AMBIDEXTROUS ANALYSIS
OF BUSINESS PROCESSS
In this section, we describe the artifact characterized
as a method according to Design Science Research.
The proposed method seeks answer the research
problem: how to exploit internal problems and
explore external opportunities of business process?
Our aim is to support the phase of business process
analysis by means of a novel method that stimulates
both analytical and intuitive thinking. Hevner et al.
(2004) state that a method is “a set of steps required
to perform a given task”. It can be graphically
represented or encapsulated in specific algorithms
and heuristics. Methods promote both the
construction and representation of the needs for
improvement of a phenomenon in a given context.
Aiming to design a new business process model
that addresses the characteristics of operational
efficiency and organizational innovation, the phase
of business process analysis should be conducted
differently from the conventional form (Vergidis et
al. 2008). To identify new opportunities, understand
customers’ needs and generate creative solutions, it
is necessary the inclusion of design and innovation
concepts in the process analysis phase (Rosemann,
2014).
In order to systematize the analysis of business
process, our method is categorized into: phases,
steps, activities, tasks, techniques and expected
results. Figure 2 presents an abstraction of these
elements proposed by the A2BP method. This
categorization was developed based on the PMBOK,
which the phases refer to the process groups
(initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and
closing); the tasks are the inputs; the techniques are
the tools; and the expected results are the outputs
(PMI, 2013).
As shown in Figure 2, we divided the business
process analysis into planning, executing and
closing phases. The planning phase aims to create
the analysis plan to guide the entire execution. The
execution phase is categorized in steps according to
design thinking approach (Brown and Wyatt, 2010):
empathize, define, ideate and prototype. Finally, the
closing phase involves the review of the data
collected and generation of the final documentation
of business process analysis. We suggest the use of
the method by any organizational unit, such as the
BPMO. The BPM manager and analyst team can
conduct the method during the analysis phase of the
BPM cycle.
For each phase of the A2BP, we established a set
of activities to be performed by the team. In order to
identify key improvements and key opportunities of
innovation in the business process, we have placed
the steps of design thinking inside the executing
phase. Also, we suggest that the exploration
techniques are used in combination with the
exploitation techniques. The exploration techniques
suggested by our method are available in
(DSCHOOL, 2009).
Figure 2: Abstraction of A2BP Method.
The A2BP method has as main input the model
of the current business process (as-is model). The
ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
230

main output is a documentation that will support the
BPM team responsible to design a new process
model (to-be model) by using techniques of
analytical and intuitive thinking. As intuitive
thinking takes into account the outside-in
perspective, we consider that the method is more
suitable for processes that begin and finish in the
customer organization, (i.e. end-to-end process).
Our intention is that business process analysts
can use the A2BP independently. However, we
believe that the depth and quality of outcomes
depend on professional experience. Furthermore, the
quantity of techniques and the time required to
perform the method will also depend on the size and
complexity of the process being analyzed. We
emphasize that the main reason to include
exploration techniques and practices include the
capability to stimulate divergent and convergent
thinking to generate ideas to make the business
process aligned with customer expectations.
The A2BP method is available on the website
(https://goo.gl/3r1HYW) to facilitate its application
during the empirical study. As exemplified in Figure
3, each step of the method contains activities, tasks,
techniques, expected results and a fictitious example
to illustrate how to use the techniques. As there are
different types of goals to analyze a business
process, the techniques proposed by the method are
presented as suggestions to analysts according to the
expected results of the tasks to be performed.
Exploration techniques are more present in the
execution phase because it was organized under the
structure of design thinking approach. Thus, it is
important to note that the method proposes
exploitation or exploration techniques for certain
tasks.
In the website of the method, we provide a
specific menu that presents the techniques and
recommended flow to be followed along the
ambidextrous analysis of business process. By
clicking on the title of the desired technique, the user
is directed to a page, such as in Table 2, that details
what is the technique, why to use it, how to use it
and the participants who can carry it out.
It is important to note that it is not the scope of
this research to investigate what are better
techniques for each proposed activity in the method.
Just as there are many consolidated exploitation
techniques, several exploration techniques have been
developed by academia and industry. However, the
application of exploration techniques in analyzing
and improving business processes is still an
emergent theme in literature (Richardson et al.,
2013; Luebbe and Weske, 2011).
Figure 3: Define step in the realization phase of A2BP.
A2BP: A Method for Ambidextrous Analysis of Business Process
231

Table 2: Example of Exploration Technique - User
journey.
User Journey Technique
What
is a visual or graphic interpretation of
the overall story from an
individual’s perspective of their
relationship with an organization,
process, service, product or brand,
over time and across channels.
Why
user journeys are a great way to
communicate what you are trying to
achieve with stakeholders; can help
you work out how users are going to
interact with your system and what
they expect from it. They help
identify possible functionality at a
high level – by understanding the key
tasks you can start to understand
what sort of functional requirements
will help enable those tasks.
How
1. Identify the activities and
interactions according to the defined
personas. In this way, each persona
will have his own journey designed
in order to create innovative solutions
for different points of contact from
the point of view of each profile;
2. Evaluate if an idea generated for a
persona at a specific point in the
journey may be interesting for other
personas;
3. Design the user journey according
to the personas and all the points of
contact they can have with the
business process.
Participants
This technique should be performed
with the participation of the analysis
team. The validation of the
information can be done with the
actors and clients to verify the
adherence of the characteristics and
needs described.
According to Rosemann (2014), in the current
scenario, process analysts are unaware of the design
thinking approach and may never had experience in
the use of exploration techniques in the context of
BPM. Given the large amount of existing
techniques, we suggest 16 exploration techniques so
that the understanding and application of the A2BP
method does not become over exhausting and
complex for the analysts. Otherwise, they would
spend a lot of time learning how to use several
existing exploration techniques.
In the empathize step, the goal is that the
analysts learn everything involved in the process.
From the customer perspective, it is important to
note that the business process begins when he is
deciding which product or service to request.
Furthermore, expectations and customer experience
about the process that he is demanding are important
variables to improve the product and/or service
offered. Exploration techniques such as empathy
interview and user camera can assist in this regard.
Desk research and check sheets are exploitation
techniques that support analysts to identify reworks,
activities automation alternatives, among other
aspects related to existing bottlenecks and problems
in the process.
After the analysts have collected data on how the
process happens through different perspectives, the
define step will assist in categorizing these data and
lists improvements and actions to be discussed at the
ideate step. Thus, analytical reports containing the
main problems and bottlenecks related to time, cost
and quality are derived from the documents and
interviews. Through the support of exploration
techniques, such as empathy map, insights cards,
personas and user journey, it becomes possible to
increase opportunities for improvement throughout
the business process. These techniques enable
process analysts to look beyond the organizational
boundary and explore subjective data.
The discussion of ideas and documentation of
how they may be developed are part of the business
process analysis. Thus, the ideate step is responsible
for selecting the best ideas generated according to
the feasibility and obstacles. The 5W2H
(exploitation technique) is often used to define
actions on what will be done in terms of
improvement, why, where, when, who, how and
how much the implementation of these actions. In
parallel, exploration techniques can be used to
explore new opportunities and organize them
according to the personas identified above, such as
brainstorming, brainwriting, menu ideas and
positioning matrix.
Finally, the prototype step aims to facilitate an
initial preview of how the selected ideas can be
transformed into a new process model (to-be model)
to support the final documentation of ambidextrous
analysis of business process. It is important to
highlight that the prototype step within the analysis
phase is characterized differently to the process
design, the next phase of the BPM cycle. In the
design phase, for example, the analysis
documentation will be used to define all the business
rules, metrics and more robust simulations. In
addition, the to-be model should be prepared more
accurately and analysts should provide details to
represent how the process is going to be performed
after its implementation.
ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
232

Therefore, the goal of the prototype step in the
analysis phase is to develop early versions of the
business process for quick and minimal test the
improvement opportunities identified by analysts,
stakeholders and customers. Business process views
should be developed through storyboards, paper and
screen prototypes or by the process modeling to be
presented to stakeholders and collect feedback. The
expected final result of the A2BP is the
documentation of these prototypes and feedback to
assist in the design of the new business process
model by using techniques that stimulates the
explorative and exploitative thinking.
4 EMPIRICAL STUDY
4.1 Expert Opinion
As described in Section 2, design science research
cycle includes the design and evaluation of an
artifact that has the theory as a foundation and has a
business context for which it should have practical
use. After designing the artifact, an expert opinion
was held. Briefly, the profile of each participant is
described in Table 3.
As the proposed artifact aims to be applied by
BPM professionals and organizations that want to
analyze and improve their business processes, we
invited experts who have experience in business
and/or IT with solid knowledge in BPM. Just one
expert reported to have participated in a project
involving design thinking, but said that his
experience in this matter is low. The others only
read about it or never had contact. This profile was
chosen because it is similar to what is founded in
organizations that will apply A2BP method.
The following sections describe the results of the
expert opinion survey to answer RQ2. Here we
analyzed the expert’s perceived ease-of-use and
usefulness of the A2BP method.
4.1.1 Perceived Ease-of-Use
The first question addressed the ease of
understanding and use of the phases, flow activities
and tasks proposed by the A2PB. Four experts said
they strongly agree and three marked that agree with
the assertion of the first question.
The second question of the survey was open. The
experts suggested ways to improve the
understanding and execution of the phases, activities
and tasks of the method. We present below two
Table 3: Experience of Experts.
Experts Experience
Expert 1 Has a MSc in BPM, worked as business
analyst for 2 years, structuring the BPMO
of a public organization.
Expert 2 Has over 10 years of experience in the IT
field, is a consultant in management
activities, systems analysis, requirements
analysis, negotiation and BPM.
Expert 3 Has worked for over 20 years in IT, having
worked as Manager, Business Analyst and
Data Architect. He is Project Management
Professional (PMP) and Certified Business
Process Professional (CBPP) and Certified
Scrum Master (CSM).
Expert 4 Has 23 years of professional experience in
IT and organizational consulting, has
experience as BPM analyst in public and
private companies. Has a MSc and PhD in
the BPM area and owns PMP and CBPP
certifications.
Expert 5 Is a master in computer science and works
in the implementation of tools for
organizational competitiveness and
efficiency in the areas of Project
Management, BPM, Digital Quality and
Audit. It has the PMP and CBPP
certifications.
Expert 6 Is a University lecturer and conducts
research in the BPM area. Has experience
in BPM projects in various companies.
Expert 7 has a MSc in BPM and has experience as
consultant and team manager of process
analysts in several companies through
improvement projects and process
automation for nearly 9 years.
recommendations given by experts:
 “Joining the last two tasks of the activity 2 of
empathize step. Place a broader term, something
like ‘To plan data collection’”;
 “Develop a glossary to explain terms that are not
self-explanatory, such as, 'partial alignment of
understanding’”.
The third question was an assertive on the clear
understanding of how to use the exploitation and
exploration techniques proposed by the method. As
results we had that: one expert does not agree, one
was undecided, four agree and one strongly agree
that the method provided clear instructions on how
to use the exploitation and exploration techniques.
The fourth question asked if the description of
the techniques could be improved to facilitate their
understanding. The suggestions given by the experts
are listed here:
 “For me, the how to use the techniques is not so
didactic. I think it would be interesting to number
A2BP: A Method for Ambidextrous Analysis of Business Process
233

the steps. For a first version, as a whole, the work
is very good”;
 "The method should make explicit who are the
mandatory and desirable participants to apply the
techniques".
The fifth question asked for suggestions of
improvements to the method website layout taking
into account the colors, fonts, images, layout of text,
templates, etc. All the experts who answered this
question praised the layout and organization of the
site. The only recommendation was to design the
website with better look and feel.
4.1.2 Perceived Usefulness
The sixth question asked if the phases, activities and
tasks are appropriate to carry out an ambidextrous
business analysis process. One expert marked as
undecided, five agreed and one strongly agreed with
the statement.
The seventh question asked suggestions to
increase or change the phases, activities and tasks to
make the method more useful for ambidextrous
business analysis process. The experts recommended
the method should provide more explicit advice on
when to use or make optional the execution of any
activity, task and/or technique.
The eighth question addresses whether the
experts consider the exploitation and exploration
techniques appropriate to perform incremental and
radical improvements of business processes. One
expert was undecided, five agreed and one strongly
agreed with the assertion. The ninth question asked
for suggestions to experts on the inclusion or
exclusion of any technique. There was no suggestion
given to this question.
In order to better illustrate how to use the A2BP
method, we created a fictitious project of an
ambidextrous analysis of a pizzeria business process
improvement. In this documentation, users can
observe the results of the application of the
techniques present in the proposed method.
Therefore, the question tenth asked if the pizzeria
example helps in use of the techniques. As a result,
an expert disagreed, two were undecided and four
fully agreed with the assertion. The question
eleventh asks for suggestions to improve the pizzeria
example. Two suggestions were given to make the
example more simple and straightforward.
4.1.3 Expert Experience and Criticisms
In order to understand the perception of experts
regarding the proposed method, the final question
asked experts to comment their experience in
general. Five experts reported their experiences:
 “I think it's a rich experience by using creative
techniques”;
 “I agree that it is interesting, certainly putting it to
test on a real project, I believe that the results
would be very interesting”;
 “I found quite interesting, but seemed a little"
‘heavy’ if considered at all steps / techniques”;
 “I found it interesting and curious because I saw
the junction of several good practices”;
 “I had a very good experience. The use of
exploration techniques stimulates us to think
beyond what we are used to”.
Finally, we also asked how the method could be
improved. Experts suggested the following
improvements:
 “Develop an explanatory video about the method
in general”;
 “Experience report about the difficulties and
facilities found in the use of the method”;
 “A model of evaluation with indicators established
to monitor the adherence of the method”.
4.1.4 Method Refinement
According to the DSR (Hevner et al., 2004), after
conducting the first cycle of empirical evaluation,
we must refine the method artifact. The following
feedbacks from experts were taken into account to
improve our A2BP method:
1. We adjusted the nomenclature of some tasks to
facilitate understanding;
2. We integrated some tasks that have similar
results;
3. We developed a glossary to explain terms that
are not self-explanatory;
4. We improved the images of some techniques;
5. We developed a video that contextualizes the
method in general.
4.2 Observational Case Study
After refining and improving the A2BP method with
feedback from experts, as discussed in previous
section, we carried out a case study to evaluate the
applicability of our method in an organization with
experience in BPM. The case study was conducted
between July and October 2016. The following
section describes the organization in which the
method was applied. Then, we also evaluated the
method by means of the perceived ease-of-use and
usefulness, as well as suggestions and critics of the
participants.
ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
234

4.2.1 Case Description
The organization chosen to implement the A2BP
Method has the function of assisting the Legislative
in the external control of the Public Administration.
It performs the monitoring and auditing of public
accounts. Because the method is suitable for
business processes that start and end on the
customer, we chose the complaint process. This
process aims to investigate information about
irregularities in the administrative, financial,
budgetary and balance of government agencies,
including indirect administration or those who
executed any public expenditure.
The complaint process has the following phases:
formalization, investigation, judgment and
publication. Initially, the citizen delivers a petition to
the protocol sector. It can be an individual or legal
person. Then, the admissibility requirements are
checked and the protocol sector forwards it to the
counselor to authorize the formalization of the
process. To be formalized, the process goes to the
investigation to audit.
The auditor writes a report with the outcome of
the investigation confirming or rejecting the facts
alleged by the complainant. Concluded the case to
judgment, the counselor's office provides the
preparation of the vote and submit the case to
judgment by the collegiate based on the audit report.
Following the decision, the process proceeds to the
implementation of the resolutions included in the
decision and its result is published in the official
journal of the State.
As described in Section 4, the application of the
A2BP method has as input the as-is process model.
The participants of the case study were a BPM team
of the case organization comprised of one manager
and two process analysts. During the case study one
researcher participated as observer of all activities
conducted by the team to apply the A2BP method.
To start the study, the team created the as-is
model of the complaint process by obtaining
information through interviews with three staff
responsible for the formalization phase, six staff of
the investigation, three staff involved in the
judgment and two in the publication. In total,
fourteen interviews were carried out to create the as-
is model.
With the input of the as-is model of the
complaint process, the case study began with the
activities of A2BP method planning phase. Initially
the team collected information related to the
complaint process through the exploitation technique
of desk research. Among some documents searched,
are the Organic Law No. 12,600 of 2004 and
Resolution 008/2006 regarding the complaint
process.
To establish the scope of the analysis, the team
invited three stakeholders responsible for the
complaint process who had roles of managers of
their functional areas. The team presented the as-is
model to stakeholders. They discussed problems and
opportunities with the brainstorming technique.
After the meeting, two Improvement Opportunities
(IO) to be explored during the analysis:
 IO1: there are two procedural rules that do
the same activities and are handled
differently (special audit and complaint).
That causes rework and waste of time;
 IO2: complainants write information on the
application form in very different manners.
This causes confusion and delays in the
complaint formalization sector.
Based on that, the first version of the analysis
plan was drawn up containing the main activities to
be carried along with a schedule. Then the team
started the executing phase of A2BP method
comprises the steps of empathize, define, ideate and
prototype. During the empathize step the team
carried out a review of the complaint process
(Activity 1) and conducted a preparation to learn
with the actors and customers of the complaint
process (Activity 2).
Activity 3 of the empathize step includes
learning more about the as-is process. Therefore, the
team conducted empathy interviews with a customer
and two employees of the protocol sector, who are
responsible to receive the petition with the
complainant (i.e. the customer of the process).
Through the technique of empathy interview, the
team identified that the customer does not receive
any estimate of when the facts will be investigated.
After entering the complaint letter, the complainant
receives a protocol number to track its progress
through the organization's website. However, from
the period when he enters the petition until its
formalization, the complainant does not receive any
information about the progress of his request. Thus,
beyond the two problems identified in the planning
phase, the team included another Improvement
Opportunity:
 IO3: the complainant cannot follow the
progress of his denunciation until it is
formalized.
The team noted this problem causes customer
frustration due to the lack of process visibility. It is
also evidence that the organization is not taking into
account customer satisfaction. After the empathy
interviews, the define step started. In Activity 4, the
team shared what they learned about the IO of the
A2BP: A Method for Ambidextrous Analysis of Business Process
235

complaint process. They reported the interviews and
filled the empathy map (explorative technique).
Then, the Activities 5 and 6 were performed to
categorize these learnings and to structure
opportunities identified. At that moment, the team
used the ishikawa diagram (exploitation technique)
as well as insights cards, affinity diagram, and user
journey (exploration technique). During this step,
the team categorized three new Improvement
Opportunities for the process, such as:
 IO4: a guideline on how to write a
complaint is not available for customers;
 IO5: there are no standard procedures for
the auditors on how to formalize petitions as
a complaint;
 IO6: the information on the organization’s
website regarding the reports of each sector
is not easy to understand for the customer
because they contain many acronyms and
jargons used internally by the organization.
Considering the six Improvement Opportunities
identified by analysis team, four were prioritized to
be further analyzed in the ideate step. The
prioritized IO were: IO1, IO2, IO3, IO4. For each
IO, several ideas were generated (Activity 7) and
refined (Activity 8) by using 5W2H (exploitation
technique) and brainstorming (exploration
technique).
After the team carried out discussions and
documented the ideas generated, in the prototype
step, they prototyped possible solutions for each IO
according to the Activities 9 and 10 of the A2BP
method. For IO1, the team investigated how other
similar organizations handle modalities of different
processes as a unique process. The team noted that it
would be feasible to implement this solution. For
IO2, a new version of the application form has been
generated in order to standardize all data concerning
the complaint process.
Regarding IO3, the idea chosen for prototyping
was to improve the traceability of the process
through notifications to the complainant whenever
their complaint letter change status within the
organization. This notification can be received by
SMS and/or e-mail according to customer choice. To
contemplate the IO4, the team decided to provide
guidelines at the organization's website on how to
fill in the complaint letter to avoid misunderstanding
and disagreements.
Finally, the team refined all the documentation
generated during the analysis of the complaint
process using the A2BP method. A meeting was
held with stakeholders in order to present the results
of the analysis. After the closing phase, the
application of A2BP method was completed and the
team conducted discussions about the design of the
to-be model of the complaint process.
After application of the A2BP method, a semi-
structured questionnaire was conducted with the
analysis team and the BPMO manager to assess the
perceived ease-of-use and usefulness, experience of
use and criticism of the method. Four participants
answered the questionnaire. These results are
presented in the following sections.
4.2.2 Perceived Ease-of-Use
The first question addressed the ease of
understanding and use of the phases, flow activities
and tasks proposed. One participant said he was
undecided, two partially agreed and strongly agreed
that the method was easy to use. The second
question asked for suggestions to facilitate the
understanding of the phases, activities and tasks of
the method. Two participants gave their opinions:
 “The method could make it clear that it is intended
to be used integrated with the existing BPM
methodology of the organization”;
 “It was not clear for me if I could perform again,
the activities already done”.
The third question was an assertion on the clear
understanding of how to use the exploitation and
exploration techniques suggested in the method. One
participant disagreed, two partially agreed and one
strongly agreed that it was clear on how to use the
techniques. In the fourth question, it was asked how
the description of the techniques could be improved
to facilitate their understanding. The suggestions are
listed below:
 “The templates of the techniques available were
not fully used because they do not look good when
printed”;
 “The sequence of exploration techniques was not
clear when the technique was required or
optional”.
There was no answer to the fifth question, which
asked if they have suggestions for improvement in
the website layout of the A2BP method. Two
participants praised the website layout.
4.2.3 Perceived Usefulness
The sixth question asked if the phases, activities and
tasks are appropriate to carry out an ambidextrous
business analysis process. One participant marked as
undecided and three agreed with the statement. The
seventh question asked for suggestions to make the
method more useful, but there was no answer to that
question.
The eighth question addressed whether the case
study participants consider the exploitation and
exploration techniques appropriate to perform
ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
236

incremental and radical improvements in the
business processes of the organization. One
participant was undecided, two agreed and one
strongly agreed with the assertion. The ninth
question asked for suggestions on the inclusion or
exclusion of any technique. One participant
suggested the method should include fewer
exploration techniques.
The tenth question asked if the example of the
pizzeria process helped in the learning on how to use
the techniques. As a result, one participant did not
agree, two agreed and one strongly agreed with the
statement. In question eleventh, the only suggested
improvement was to improve the details of the
results of the planning phase.
4.2.4 User Experience and Criticisms
In order to understand the experience of the
participants on the use of the proposed method, the
last question asked how was their experience in
general. The participants evaluated the method
positively:
 “Overall, the experience was very enriching. I
believe that using the method can bring a gain for
the organization, mainly by combining techniques
that make us stop to think and act not only
mechanically”;
 “I can say I learned innovative ways to analyze a
process. The idea of mapping for empathy,
personas, and user journey are important to know
how the idea of improvement is accepted or not by
the people who actually are working on the
process daily”;
 “For me it was very good. I felt a good
organization and focus to understand, analyze and
improve process.”.
4.2.5 Method Refinement
The following feedbacks from participants of the
case study were taken into account to improve our
A2BP method:
1. In the description of the method, we should
make more explicit that it contemplates only the
analysis phase of the BPM lifecycle;
2. We adjusted the templates of the techniques that
had problems of understanding and
visualization;
3. We described in the method that exploitative
and exploratory techniques are all desirable and
their application depends on the context and
nature of the business process to be improved.
After performing these refinements, we will be
able to continue the DSR cycle to further improve
our proposed artifact – the A2BP method.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we investigated organizational
ambidexterity and design thinking practices during
the phase of business process analysis. By adopting
a design science research approach, we proposed a
new method to support the ambidextrous analysis of
business processes, called A2BP method. The
method proposes a novel way to analyze business
processes by means of explorative and exploitative
techniques.
We also conducted empirical studies by means
of expert review and observational case study to
evaluate the method proposed. Both studies
evaluated the perceived usefulness, ease-of-use and
obtained suggestions and criticisms to improve the
method. In particular, the purpose of expert opinion
was to achieve a first round of refinement of the
method. According to their experience, experts
envisioned how to apply the method in their own
contexts. Then, with the case study we were able to
verify the method’s applicability in a real BPM
initiative. We observed the difficulties experienced
by the participants and collected new opportunities
for improving the method.
According to the results of the empirical studies,
we perceived that both experts and participants of
the case study assessed the A2BP method as easy-
of-use and useful to exploit internal problems and
explore external opportunities. In the case study, six
Improvement Opportunities were discovered. Of
which, four IO were problems identified internally
and two IO emerged based on the interactions with
the customer of the complaint process through the
use of exploratory techniques.
According to the case study participants,
probably these two IOs would not be identified if the
team used only traditional exploitation techniques
for business process analysis. Therefore, we
conclude that the exploration techniques proposed
by the A2BP method enriched the analysis of the
complaint process. As practical contribution, the
A2BP method is available for organizations
conducting BPM initiatives that aim to explore
innovative ways to continuously improve their
business processes.
Despite the methodological rigor adopted in our
research method, our empirical studies face some
limitations. The main limitation is related to a low
A2BP: A Method for Ambidextrous Analysis of Business Process
237

generalization of results because we applied the
method in only one BPM project at the case
organization. Another limitation lies in the nature of
expert opinion survey that our findings are based on
the perception of only a limited number of
participants.
As future work, we propose to apply the A2BP
method in several different contexts and business
processes. Furthermore, we suggest the conduction
of a quasi-experiment in order to compare the
analysis results with and without A2BP method.
REFERENCES
ABPMP. BPM CBOK - Guide to the Business Process
Management Common Body of Knowledge. V. 2.
2013.
Bauer, M.; Leker, J. 2013. Exploration and exploitation in
product and process innovation in the chemical
industry. In R&D Management, v. 43, n. 3, p. 196-212
Brown, T. 2009. Change by design: how design thinking
transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New
York: Harper Business.
Brown, T.; Wyatt, J. 2010. Design Thinking for Social
Innovation”. Open Knowledge Repository, July.
Available in:
<https://openknowledge.worldbank.com/handle/10986
/6068>. Accessed on July 2016.
Chasanidou, D.; Gasparini, A.; Lee, E. Design Thinking
Methods and Tools for Innovation in Multidisciplinary
Teams. In: Workshop Innovation in HCI. Helsinki,
Finland: NordiCHI’14. 2014. p. 27-30.
Chen, E.; Katila, R. 2008. Rival interpretations of
balancing exploration and exploitation: Simultaneous
or sequential? In: SHANE, S. Handbook of
Technology and Innovation Management. NY: Wiley,
v. 1.
DSCHOOL. 2009. Bootcamp Bootleg. Available in:
https://dschool.stanford.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2011/03/BootcampBootleg2010v2SLI
M.pdf. Accessed on October 2016.
He, Zi-Lin., Wong, Poh-Kam. 2004. Exploration vs.
Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity
Hypothesis. In: Organization Science. Pp. 481-494.
Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J. and Ram, S. 2004. Design
science in information systems research. In MIS
Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 75-106.
Jeston, J. and Nelis, J. 2008. Business Process
Management, practical guidelines to successful
implementations, 2nd edition, Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.
Kohlborn, T., Mueller, O., Poeppelbuss, J. and Roeglinger,
M. 2014. Interview with Michael Rosemann on
Ambidextrous Business Process Management, In:
Business Process Management Journal, vol. 20, no. 4,
pp. 634-638.
Luebbe, A.; Weske, M. 2011. Bringing Design Thinking
to Business Process Modeling. In: MEINEL, C.;
LEIFER, L.; PLATTNER, H. Design Thinking:
Understand – Improve – Apply. Berlin: Springer-
Verlag. p. 181-195.
Martin, R. 2009. The Design of Business: Why Design
Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage. 3th. ed.
Boston: Harvard Business Review.
Merriam, Sharan B. 1998. Qualitative research and case
study applications in education. 2. ed. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
O'Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. 2004. The
Ambidextrous Organization, In: Harvard business
review, vol. April, pp. 1-7.
OMG. 2010. Business Process Management with OMG
specifications, Available: http://www.bpm-
consortium.org/literature.htm. Accessed on Jun 2010.
PMI. 2013. A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge (PMBOK
®
Guide) - Fifth Edition. Project
Management Institute (PMI).
Ramer S. 2005. Site-ation pearl growing: Methods and
librarianship history and theory. In: Journal of the
Medical Library Association, v. 93, n. 3, pp. 397-400.
Richardson, C., Leaver, S., Cullen, A., Keenan, J. 2013.
Design For Disruption: Take An Outside-In Approach
To BPM. Cambridge: Forrester Research.
Rosemann, M. 2014. Proposals for future BPM research
directions, 2nd Asia Pacific Business Process
Management Conference, Brisbane, 1-15.
van der Aalst, W.M.P. 2012. A Decade of Business
Process Management Conferences: Personal
Reflections on a Developing Discipline', 10th
International Conference on BPM, March, pp. 1-12.
Vergidis, K., Tiwari, A. and Majeed, B. 2008. Business
Process Analysis and Optimization: Beyond
Reengineering, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man,
and Cybernetics, vol. 38, n. 1, pp. 69-82.
Wieringa, R. 2014. Design Science Methodology for
Information Systems and Software Engineering.
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
238