Exogenous Shocks and Business Process Management

Röglinger, Maximilian et al. Article — Published Version Exogenous Shocks and Business Process Management Business & Information Systems Engineering Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Röglinger, Maximilian et al. (2022) : Exogenous Shocks and Business Process Management, Business & Information Systems Engineering, ISSN 1867-0202, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, Wiesbaden, Vol. 64, Iss. 5, pp. 669-687, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-021-00740-w This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/305204 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ RESEARCH NOTES Exogenous Shocks and Business Process Management A Scholars’ Perspective on Challenges and Opportunities Maximilian Ro ¨glinger •Ralf Plattfaut •Vincent Borghoff •Georgi Kerpedzhiev • Jo ¨rg Becker •Daniel Beverungen •Jan vom Brocke •Amy Van Looy • Adela del-Rı ´o-Ortega •Stefanie Rinderle-Ma •Michael Rosemann • Flavia Maria Santoro •Peter Trkman Received: 3 August 2020 / Accepted: 14 December 2021 / Published online: 10 February 2022 The Author(s) 2022 Abstract Business process management (BPM) drives corporate success through effective and efficient processes. In recent decades, knowledge has been accumulated regarding the identification, discovery, analysis, design, implementation, and monitoring of business processes. This includes methods and tools for tackling various kinds of process change such as continuous process improvement, process reengineering, process innovation, and process drift. However, exogenous shocks, which lead to unintentional and radical process change, have been neglected in BPM research although they severely affect an organization’s context, strategy, and business processes. This research note conceptualizes the interplay of exogenous shocks and BPM in terms of the effects that such shocks can have on organizations’ overall process performance over time. On this foundation, related challenges and opportunities for BPM via several rounds of idea generation and consolidation within a diverse team of BPM scholars are identified. The paper discusses findings in light of extant literature from BPM and related disciplines, as well as present avenues for future (BPM) research to invigorate the academic discourse on the topic. Keywords Business process management Exogenous shocks Challenges Opportunities Accepted after three revisions by Christof Weinhardt. M. Ro ¨glinger (&) FIM Research Center, Project Group Business & Information Systems Engineering of the Fraunhofer FIT, University of Bayreuth, Wittelsbacherring 10, 95444 Bayreuth, Germany e-mail: [email protected] R. Plattfaut V. Borghoff South Westphalia University of Applied Sciences, Soest, Germany G. Kerpedzhiev Project Group Business & Information Systems Engineering of the Fraunhofer FIT, Bayreuth, Germany J. Becker European Research Center for Information Systems (ERCIS), University of Mu ¨nster, Mu ¨nster, Germany D. Beverungen Paderborn University, Paderborn, Germany J. vom Brocke University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Liechtenstein A. Van Looy Gent University, Gent, Belgium A. del-Rı ´o-Ortega University of Seville, Seville, Spain S. Rinderle-Ma University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria M. Rosemann Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia F. Santoro State University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil P. Trkman University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 123 Bus Inf Syst Eng 64(5):669–687 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-021-00740-w 1 Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has changed our daily lives since early 2020. Apart from its medical implications and humanitarian costs, the pandemic has had a profound effect on the global economy (Chakraborty and Maity 2020). Organizations have experienced disruptive changes, not only regarding their internal operations but also their interactions with their environment. The pandemic has led to a dramatic increase in employees working from home, hibernating organizations, the collapse of supply chains entailing the shutdown of production facilities and stores, digital rather than paper sign-off procedures, and fasttracked innovation and product go-lives (Guan et al. 2020; Gruszczynski 2020; Seetharaman 2020). This induced dramatic changes in managerial and operational processes. From an organizational perspective, the pandemic constitutes an exogenous shock – an unanticipated, low-likelihood event stemming from the external environment and entailing disruptive changes with potentially existencethreatening consequences (Taleb 2010). Despite its severity, the COVID-19 pandemic is not the only exogenous shock that organizations have had to tackle in recent years; for example, they also faced the 2008 global financial crisis (Roy and Kemme 2020), Brexit (Todd 2017), the US– China trade war (Thomas et al. 2020), and the Fukushima nuclear disaster (Wakiyama et al. 2014). While not all exogenous shocks have been, or will be, as severe as the COVID-19 pandemic, organizations will probably experience such events more frequently since the economy is becoming increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous, and hyperconnected (World Economic Forum 2016; Beverungen et al. 2020). While the market-level effects of exogenous shocks have already been studied (Kilian 2008; Fridgen et al. 2015; Chakrabarti 2015; Li et al. 2016), we focus on their effects on individual organizations – specifically on business processes and business process management (BPM). As a corporate capability (Rosemann and vom Brocke 2015), BPM drives intentional process change, particularly continuous process improvement and business process reengineering (Hammer et al. 2015). It also aims to enhance organizations’ ability to cope with unintentional process change, both by preventing it through process compliance and by harnessing positive effects in terms of positive deviance (Ko ¨nig et al. 2018). Unintentional process change encompasses process drift (Pentland et al. 2020; Beverungen 2014) and disruption (e.g., exogenous shocks) (Mendling et al. 2020). Since the latter affects organizations more severely than other kinds of process change, it is highly relevant to BPM researchers. Despite the presence of important works connected with crisis prevention and management, including organizational resilience and high-reliability organizations (Antunes and Moura ˜o2011; Salovaara et al. 2019), the intersection of exogenous shocks and BPM is neither well understood, nor do methods and tools for addressing associated challenges and opportunities exist. Against this backdrop, this research explores the following research question: What challenges and opportunities exist for BPM due to exogenous shocks? To answer this research question, a diverse group of BPM scholars, each with close connections to industry and BPM practice, joined forces and co-authored this research note. After developing a common conceptualization of the interplay between BPM and exogenous shocks, we identified 24 challenges and opportunities for BPM structured according to the well-known six core elements of BPM (de Bruin and Rosemann 2007) through multiple rounds of idea generation and consolidation. We discuss these challenges and opportunities considering literature from BPM and disciplines related to crisis management. Our results aim to foster the understanding of the interplay between exogenous shocks and BPM and to guide future BPM research. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In Sect. 2, we provide relevant background regarding exogenous shocks and BPM. After outlining our research approach in Sect. 3, we conceptualize the interplay of exogenous shocks and BPM in terms of their effects on overall process performance in Sect. 4. Thereafter, we present the identified challenges and opportunities in Sect. 5. We discuss these findings considering extant literature in Sect. 6and call on the BPM community to address relevant research gaps. We conclude in Sect. 7 with a summary of our work. 2 Background 2.1 Exogenous Shocks Disciplines such as disaster risk science, supply chain management, finance, and economics have already discussed exogenous shocks as well as various related terms. Shi (2019), for example, introduces a framework for studying hazards, disasters, and risks that incorporates a temporal and a process perspective, providing a comprehensive classification of natural or human-induced hazards (i.e., processes or phenomena that may have negative impacts on the economy, society, and ecology) based on their causes and intensity. Disasters, which are direct or indirect consequences of hazards, can lead to crises. Doern et al. (2019) characterize crises as extreme, unexpected, and unpredictable events that create challenges for organizations and require urgent responses. Such crises can be differentiated according to their origins, triggers, scale, and impacts. Based on an extensive overview of the crisis 123 670 M. Ro ¨glinger et al.: Exogenous Shocks and Business Process Management, Bus Inf Syst Eng 64(5):669–687 (2022) literature, Kuipers and Welsh (2017) distinguish various crisis types (e.g., armed conflict, health, terrorism) and associated themes (e.g., risk, preparedness, decision-making). They conclude that the crisis literature is mainly concerned with natural disasters, preparedness as the predominant theme, and managerial actions to mitigate the negative effects of crises. Bjo ¨rck (2016) consolidates existing crisis typologies based on dimensions such as predictability, controllability, and impact. In line with the concepts just introduced, the term ‘‘exogenous shock’’ is also present in the literature in multiple contexts: primarily economic, political, and financial. Exogenous shocks have been defined by the International Monetary Fund as ‘‘sudden event[s] beyond the control of the authorities that [have] a significant negative impact on the economy’’ (Geithner 2003, p. 4). They conceptualize crises by emphasizing the external origin of the shock-generating event. A similar concept is that of black swans, referring to highly improbable events with high impact (Taleb 2010). To the best of our knowledge, there is no framework or typology unifying the abovementioned terms. Rather, the concepts used in the literature reflect subtle nuances concerning the exact nature of relevant events and organizational responses. Since there is no established understanding of exogenous shocks across disciplines, we define them as unanticipated, low-likelihood, potentially high-impact events originating from an organization’s environment (Chakrabarti 2015). Thus, exogenous shocks pose risks (or opportunities) that cannot be fully predicted in advance (Trkman and McCormack 2009). Their occurrence requires substantial organizational reorientation (i.e., simultaneous and discontinuous shifts that transform structures, processes, and control mechanisms (Li and Tallman 2011). Even if organizations account for exogenous shocks, they may de-prioritize them in their risk management strategies, as risks are usually managed based on multiplying their probability with their expected magnitude of impact – and individual exogenous shocks have very low likelihoods (Zsidisin et al. 2004). In the long term, exogenous shocks may force organizations to realign their processes, structures, and strategies to fit the new environment shaped by the exogenous shock. According to the literature, we posit that exogenous shocks may arise from events of diverse origins (e.g., natural disasters, political crises, healthcare crises, or military conflicts). Importantly, in this research note, we view exogenous shocks from a single organization’s perspective. Thereby, we account for contextual characteristics (Morgeson et al. 2015), meaning that the magnitude and direction of the impact of shock-generating events depend on industry factors and organizational conditions (Li et al. 2017; Li and Tallman 2011). Events that constitute exogenous shocks for one organization or industry may be of marginal or no importance for others. An example is China’s accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001, which specifically led to a significant restructuring of the Portuguese footwear industry and constituted an external shock for related organizations (Corbo et al. 2018). However, the same event may have been of marginal importance for a German restaurant chain. In terms of impact, events that constitute exogenous shocks according to our definition have been studied in diverse fields (e.g., [macro-]economics, supply chain management, and information systems; (Fedorowicz et al. 2004; Fridgen et al. 2015; Lyytinen and Newman 2008; Singh et al. 2020; Lee 2004). From an economic standpoint, exogenous shocks may entail longand short-term unfavorable internal conditions, e.g., a loss of human capital causing the unavailability of productive skills or technical knowledge (Noy and Nualsri 2007; Geithner 2003). Some effects of exogenous shocks may be permanent or long-lasting, while others may be temporary. Furthermore, exogenous shocks can substantially impact an organization’s core business or target markets, limiting its access to vital resources or its ability to pursue growth opportunities (Chakrabarti 2015). Most often, an organization’s ‘‘old normal’’ business logic cannot be continued, and a ‘‘new normal’’ must be established (Gersick 1991). Overall, exogenous shocks affect organizations by forcing them to adapt their strategies, business models, structures, and business processes to react to changing conditions and avoid extinction (Martins et al. 2015). Next to the impact of exogenous shocks, there is ample research on preparing for, responding to, and recovering from unfavorable conditions brought about by exogenous shocks. As the umbrella term, crisis (or disaster) management reflects a continuous process that deals with decisionmaking, operational activities, actors, and technologies along the three phases of a crisis/disaster (i.e., pre-crisis, crisis, and post-crisis) (Lettieri et al. 2009; Khan et al. 2008; Pearson and Mitroff 1993). Thereby, mitigation and preparedness are the main topics in the pre-crisis stage, disaster response in the crisis phase, and recovery as well as organizational learning in the post-crisis phase (Lettieri et al. 2009; Bundy et al. 2017). In terms of preparedness, organizations strive for resilience, which is a key concept referring to the maintenance of positive adjustments under challenging conditions such that organizations emerge from those conditions strengthened and more resourceful (Vogus and Sutcliffe 2007). Organizational resilience has been extensively studied from multiple perspectives (i.e., capability, process, functional, results) (Chen et al. 2021; Hillmann and Guenther 2021). Examples include investigations on the relationship of resilience to concepts such as flexibility and coping capacity (Karman 2020), defining 123 M. Ro ¨glinger et al.: Exogenous Shocks and Business Process Management, Bus Inf Syst Eng 64(5):669–687 (2022) 671 resilience as an organizational meta-capability (Duchek 2020), and creating conceptual frameworks for the establishment of resilience (Tasic et al. 2020; Kantur and I ˙s¸eriSay 2012). As another key concept, high-reliability organizations have emerged as a research stream that examines organizations successfully operating almost error-free even in hostile environments (Roberts 1990; Sutcliffe 2011). In this regard, the idea of collective mindfulness has emerged as heightened alertness to changes/surprises which prioritizes safety over efficiency (Salovaara et al. 2019; Weick et al. 1999). In terms of responding to disasters, business continuity management has been proposed as an approach to identifying, managing, and mitigating risks that may disrupt essential processes and services (Gibb and Buchanan 2006). Moreover, a disaster contingency plan is an essential part of a business continuity plan and includes procedures to perform when disasters occur (Cerullo and Cerullo 2004). Crisis response has also been studied from a human resource viewpoint, with strategic human resource development (HRD) being proposed to enhance the operational capabilities during and capacity to learn after a crisis (Wang et al. 2009). In the post-crisis phase, organizational learning has been investigated in terms of organizations’ ability to derive insights from tackling disasters/ crises (Broekema et al. 2017). Thereby, promoting organizational learning also prior to and during crises has been shown to generate favorable effects in all stages of crisis management (Wang 2008). While the mentioned approaches do not fully cover the multi-faceted nature of research on crisis management and related approaches, they provide an overview of important research streams related to organizations’ preparedness, response, and recovery from crises/disasters. Thus, they are also highly relevant in the context of exogenous shocks as a specific form of crisis. We revisit the topics listed above in Sect. 6when discussing the implications of our results for BPM and related research areas. 2.2 Business Process Management and Process Change BPM is the science and practice of overseeing how work is performed to ensure consistent outcomes and capitalize on improvement opportunities (Dumas et al. 2018; van der Aalst 2013). It ‘‘consolidates how to best manage the (re-)design of individual business processes and how to develop a foundational capability in organizations catering for a variety of purposes and contexts’’ (vom Brocke and Rosemann 2015, p. viii). BPM is commonly structured through capability frameworks that include capability areas conducive to establishing process orientation in organizations (Poeppelbuss et al. 2015; Rosemann and vom Brocke 2015; Van Looy 2020). One of the most widely adopted BPM capability frameworks is that of de Bruin and Rosemann (2007), which groups capability areas according to six core elements of BPM – strategic alignment, governance, methods, information technology (IT), people, and culture – that have been extensively used in BPM research (Van Looy et al. 2017; Kerpedzhiev et al. 2020; vom Brocke and Mendling 2018). Table 1provides brief definitions of these core elements, which we use to structure the challenges and opportunities of exogenous shocks for BPM. In the BPM context, exogenous shocks represent a specific form of process change. According to the BPM literature, various types of process change can be distinguished based on dimensions such as intentionality, frequency, scope, degree of change, duration, or performance effects (Grisold et al. 2019;Ko ¨nig et al. 2018). To differentiate exogenous shocks from other types of process change and to specify its effects on processes, we focus on the intentionality and degree of change dimensions, perceiving process change as either intentional or unintentional and as incremental or radical. Table 2combines both dimensions and lists examples, which have been studied to a varying extent in the literature. Beginning with intentional change, business process reengineering is an example of radical change (Hammer and Champy 2006), whereas continuous process improvement (e.g., lean management) implies incremental change (Davenport 1997). The distinction between radical and incremental process change is also considered in the literature on ambidextrous BPM in terms of process exploration (opportunity-driven, radical change) and exploitation (problem-driven, incremental change) (Rosemann 2014; Grisold et al. 2019). Process drift, which is related to the gradual change of processes (van der Aalst et al. 2012; Pentland et al. 2020; Beverungen 2014), is an example of unintentional, incremental process change. In contrast to the other types of process change, unintentional radical process change, which could result from an exogenous shock, has received little attention in BPM research. However, two important related concepts established in BPM research are process resilience and agility (Chen et al. 2014; Antunes and Moura ˜o2011; Rosemann 2020; Gilbert et al. 2012). Process resilience relates to flexibility-by-design (i.e., the ability to incorporate alternative execution paths and fast change ad-hoc at design time; Schonenberg et al. 2008) and, thus, facilitates the organizations’ preparedness to address exogenous shocks. In contrast, process agility is associated with flexibility-bydeviation, allowing organizations to quickly react to environmental changes by deviating from prescribed process execution paths at runtime. Thus, both concepts directly relate to the pre-shock and in-shock phase and are cognate with the concepts mentioned in Sect. 2.1. Further, BPM research has also addressed organizational learning and 123 672 M. Ro ¨glinger et al.: Exogenous Shocks and Business Process Management, Bus Inf Syst Eng 64(5):669–687 (2022) knowledge management (Shelagowski 2015; Jung et al. 2007; Choi et al. 2004). Despite their potential to support and enrich the knowledge base regarding the handling of exogenous shocks throughout all phases, the mentioned concepts from the BPM literature have not been investigated in relation to exogenous shocks yet. Therefore, we set out to explore the intersection of BPM and exogenous shocks as a form of radical, unintentional process change against the background of relevant concepts from related disciplines. While we do not claim exhaustiveness, Table 3 provides a simplified overview of the discussed BPM concepts and those from Sect. 2.1 regarding their primary relevance prior to, during, and in the aftermath of exogenous shocks. Thereby, an unambiguous mapping of the concepts is unfeasible since they cover a wide spectrum of ideas, which normally has implications for all phases. 3 Research Approach To answer our research question, we followed a four-step research approach informed by the blueprint of rankingtype Delphi studies (Dalkey and Helmer 1963; Pare ´et al. 2013): definition,brainstorming,validation, and discussion. Figure 1provides an overview of the research approach. In the definition step, the initiating four co-authors of this paper (core team) conceptualized the interplay of BPM and exogenous shocks (Sect. 4). This conceptualization served as a foundation for structuring the subsequent steps. The core team then invited senior BPM scholars, all of whom have close connections with industry, to contribute to the identification of challenges and opportunities for BPM in the context of exogenous shocks and asked them to join the author team. Following Olbrich et al. (2015)as well as established expert selection criteria for Delphi studies (Okoli and Pawlowski 2004), we ensured diversity in terms of geographical activity, gender, and technology/management focus. With this, we aimed at achieving as comprehensive a perspective of the impact of exogenous shocks as possible. In the brainstorming step, the author team engaged in several rounds of idea generation and consolidation. Based on an initial exchange, all scholars individually brainstormed challenges and opportunities for BPM due to exogenous shocks as is typical in the related phases of Delphi studies (Pare ´et al. 2013). Thereby, they drew on their observations of how organizations had reacted to Table 1 Definitions of the six core elements of BPM (de Bruin and Rosemann 2007) Core element Definition Strategic alignment The continual tight linkage of organizational priorities and enterprise processes enabling achievement of business goals Governance Establishing relevant and transparent accountability and decision-making processes to align rewards and guide actions Methods The approaches and techniques that support and enable consistent process actions and outcomes Information technology The software, hardware, and information management systems that enable and support process activities People The individuals and groups who continually enhance and apply their process-related expertise and knowledge Culture The collective values and beliefs that shape process-related attitudes and behaviors Table 2 Exemplary types of process change Intentional Unintentional Incremental Continuous process improvement Process drift Radical Process reengineering, process innovation Exogenous shock, process disruption Table 3 BPM and further concepts related to tackling exogenous shocks Pre-shock phase In-shock phase Post-shock phase BPM research Process resilience; flexibility-by-design Process agility; flexibility-by-deviation – Related research Organizational resilience Business continuity; disaster recovery Organizational learning 123 M. Ro ¨glinger et al.: Exogenous Shocks and Business Process Management, Bus Inf Syst Eng 64(5):669–687 (2022) 673 exogenous shocks in the past. To structure their input and the overall results, we used the six core elements of BPM introduced in Sect. 2and the phase model presented in Sect. 4. The brainstorming resulted in an initial list of 111 challenges and opportunities. The core team consolidated the input following a consensus-oriented interpretivist paradigm promoted by the diversity of viewpoints on BPM. This approach follows an established epistemic theory of truth (Becker and Niehaves 2007). The core team members read the full lists and clustered the input using open coding (Glaser 1978; Strauss and Corbin 1991). To offset potential bias, the core team paid particular attention to avoiding challenges and opportunities that only related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was omnipresent when this research was conducted. This procedure was repeated two times until consensus was reached (Butler 1998). This resulted in 38 preliminary challenges and opportunities. In the validation step, all co-authors reviewed the consolidated list to ensure that their individual input had been appropriately incorporated and that the identified challenges and opportunities were consistent in terms of content and concept. They also provided feedback on the consolidated list, which was then incorporated by the core team. This step resulted in 24 challenges and opportunities for BPM, which are presented in Sect. 5. Since the author team agreed to include only those two challenges and two opportunities per core element of BPM in the results that are reflected the most in the input of all co-authors, we do not claim that our results are exhaustive. Rather, we see them as ‘‘food for thought’’ and stimuli for future research. Finally, in the discussion step, the identified challenges and opportunities were discussed against existing literature from BPM and other domains, predominantly getting back to concepts from Sect. 2. The idea was to identify relationships, underand un-explored topics as well as potential avenues for future research. The results of the discussion are presented in Sect. 6. 4 Interplay of BPM and Exogenous Shocks While intentional process change typically leads to positive performance effects, exogenous shocks commonly have adverse effects on process performance, which in turn is an important driver of organizational performance (Hammer 2015; Lehnert et al. 2016). As pointed out in Sect. 2.1, the magnitude of such effects depends on the nature of the shock-generating event as well as on industrial and organizational conditions. Hence, the impact of exogenous shocks needs to be contextualized (vom Brocke et al. 2015). Due to their unexpected nature and adverse effects, exogenous shocks are notorious for their potential to disrupt business processes and their possibly existencethreatening consequences for organizations. In the following, we conceptualize the effects of exogenous shocks on organizations’ overall process performance. We crossreferenced these effects with extant literature on disaster and crisis management and related phases (Sect. 2.1). Transferred to the context of exogenous shocks, the preshock phase usually involves preparatory activities, the inshock phase encompasses the direct impact of and response to exogenous shocks, and the post-shock phase comprises recovery activities. Figure 2shows the potential courses of an organization’s overall process performance in response to an exogenous shock, ranging from one steady state (with limited volatility and possibly drift under control) before the occurrence of an external shock (‘‘old normal’’) to another steady state (with limited volatility and maybe a positive or negative controlled drift) after the organization has adapted to the post-shock environment (‘‘new Fig. 1 Overview of the research approach 123 674 M. Ro ¨glinger et al.: Exogenous Shocks and Business Process Management, Bus Inf Syst Eng 64(5):669–687 (2022) normal’’). In line with the literature on crisis management and discussions within the author team, we distinguish five phases (I to V) with distinct effects on process performance, which we present below. Exogenous shocks impact business processes in two ways: First, they occur unexpectedly and disrupt organizations’ external environments, thereby creating also internal uncertainty that renders the pre-shock (I) business processes and ongoing change initiatives (e.g., process improvement roadmaps) inadequate. Hence, exogenous shocks impact overall process performance negatively in the pre-shock-in-shock transition phase (II) and may even drive organizations out of existence. In some cases, exogenous shocks can have a positive demand-side effect for some organizations (i.e., as for video conferencing providers during the COVID-19 pandemic). Nevertheless, overall process performance is still likely to suffer due to limited capacity or longer lead times. Second, as organizations begin to reconfigure their business processes to respond to the conditions caused by the shock, they experience highly volatile process performance due to great uncertainty and the internal disordering of processes in the in-shock phase (III). In this phase, exogenous shocks can create ‘‘aftershocks,’’ cycling between the two aforementioned effects (e.g., the following waves of the COVID-19 pandemic). However, with decreasing volatility and increasing adaptation to the new environment, organizations regain overall process performance as they transition from the in-shock to a post-shock phase (IV). This transition needs not to be continuous. Rather, organizations may ‘‘leapfrog’’ to the post-shock phase (V), if they substantially change their processes or successfully launch process, business model, or product innovations. An organization’s process performance in the post-shock phase (V) may be lower than, equal to, or higher than that in the pre-shock phase, depending on contextual and organization-specific factors (e.g., the availability of a recovery stimulus package, the capability to adapt business models to new external conditions, or the market entry of new competitors during the shock). Notably, phases I to V can vary in length according to the nature of the exogenous shock and the organization’s specific context. BPM can contribute to mitigating the adverse effects of exogenous shocks in multiple ways. First, it can help reduce the initial drop in process performance in the preshock–in-shock-transition phase (II). Second, it can reduce the volatility of process performance in the in-shock phase and shorten the duration of both the in-shock phase (III) and the in-shock-post-shock transition phase (IV). Finally, BPM can help ensure that process performance in the postshock phase (V) stabilizes at a higher level than that of the pre-shock phase (‘‘bounce forward’’) and to prevent stabilization at a lower level (‘‘bounce back’’). Thus, BPM can simultaneously contribute and benefit from approaches related to organizations’ preparedness (e.g., resilience), response (e.g., business continuity, disaster recovery), and dealing with the aftermath of exogenous shocks (e.g., organizational learning) to mitigate and possibly capitalize Fig. 2 Potential effects of exogenous shocks on organizations’ overall process performance 123 M. Ro ¨glinger et al.: Exogenous Shocks and Business Process Management, Bus Inf Syst Eng 64(5):669–687 (2022) 675 on the effects of exogenous shocks. We refer to the phases just introduced when elaborating on the challenges and opportunities in the following Sect. 5. 5 Challenges and Opportunities for BPM In line with our research approach, we compiled challenges and opportunities of exogenous shocks for BPM (Table 4), which we structure and present following the six core elements of BPM. When presenting the challenges and opportunities, we also refer to the phases introduced in Sect. 4. We added examples from diverse contexts to make the challenges and opportunities tangible. 5.1 Strategic Alignment Owing to exogenous shocks, the alignment between business processes and BPM capability, on the one hand, and organizational strategy, on the other, becomes strained. Exogenous shocks can render existing strategies obsolete and enforce an adaptation of business models and processes; for instance, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused educational institutions to quickly adopt online platforms and come up with new educational offerings (Seetharaman 2020). Organizations have different priorities regarding their objectives in the pre-shock (I), in-shock (III), and post-shock (V) phases, but existing processes typically no longer meet the right business objectives. Moreover, since exogenous shocks can render organizational strategy obsolete, both process and BPM objectives must be scrutinized. Building on these observations, we propose two challenges and opportunities for BPM. •C1: Sudden obsolescence of organizational strategy and uncertainty regarding the permanence of changes. BPM needs to support the fast switch between preshock (I), in-shock (III), and post-shock (V) strategies. Following the arguments in Sect. 4, BPM can help in identifying those process and strategic elements that can stay as-is, mitigating the negative effects on process performance. Hence, BPM needs to support dynamic strategic realignment, since there may be no consistent in-shock strategy and contexts may change rapidly within and outside organizations. Moreover, in the in-shock phase (III), BPM needs to support the identification of permanent and temporary changes to allow organizations to appropriately respond to the shock on the operational and strategic levels. •C2: Enforced reprioritization of business process improvement efforts. In the event of an exogenous shock, organizations may need to cancel or postpone Table 4 Challenges and opportunities of exogenous shocks for BPM Core element Challenges Opportunities Strategic Alignment C1. Sudden obsolescence of organizational strategy and uncertainty regarding the permanence of changes C2. Enforced reprioritization of business process improvement efforts O1. Need for novel (potentially process-based) value propositions and radical improvement of existing business processes O2. Improvement of process-enabled shock resilience Governance C3. Sudden inadequacy of existing BPM and process governance setups C4. Need for fast switches between different governance modes O3. Development of robust, multi-context BPM and process governance O4. Potential to instill process-oriented governance in an organization’s ‘‘DNA’’ Methods C5. Lack of agile process (re)design methods C6. Inadequacy of existing process roll-out and change management methods O5. Development of simplified and resilient business processes O6. Insights into the vulnerability of business processes Information Technology C7. Absence of scalable and remotely available process management tools C8. Obsolescence of existing process monitoring setups O7. Adoption of lightweight process automation, deployment, and experimentation techniques O8. Increased transparency through increased digitalization People C9. Absence of scalable process training concepts C10. High individual stress owing to misaligned business processes, reset of experience curve effects, and communication overload O9. Scaling of organization-wide process thinking and digital literacy O10. Leveraging the creative potential of employees for process improvement Culture C11. Potential deprioritization of customer orientation at the expense of internal shock management C12. Necessity to effectively unlearn existing business processes O11. Utilization of the shock experience as a foundation for future radical process changes O12. Transition toward a results-oriented culture of trust with improved work–life balance 123 676 M. Ro ¨glinger et al.: Exogenous Shocks and Business Process Management, Bus Inf Syst Eng 64(5):669–687 (2022) relevant beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, other shocks may entail new challenges or opportunities. For this reason, it is vital for future research to investigate the underlying mechanics of the effects presented in this research note and generalize them to allow for a comprehensive understanding of exogenous shocks. Finally, the relationship of exogenous shocks and overall process performance we outline in Sect. 4was intended to serve as a foundation for the identification of challenges and opportunities. Consequently, it represents only typical effects of shocks on process performance discussed in the literature. Naturally, these effects including moderating factors need to be studied in more detail and backed by empirical works. This would also enable the identification of salient issues within the presented challenges and opportunities and empower researchers from disciplines related to crisis management to leverage possibilities for the integration of BPM-centered approaches. By providing an initial conceptualization of the interplay of BPM and exogenous shocks as well as by presenting and discussing related challenges and opportunities, we hope our results stimulate a communitywide discussion on a hitherto neglected but highly relevant type of process change. In accordance with the topics discussed in Sect. 6, we call for more research located at the intersection of BPM and exogenous shocks. In light of currently aggravating global crises (e.g., climate crisis, rising geopolitical tensions), we believe that BPM research should not only understand the effects of exogenous shocks on business processes but also provide practitioners with guidance on how to mitigate shock-related challenges and leverage related opportunities throughout all phases of their management. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/. References Alter S (2014) Theory of workarounds. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03455 Annarelli A, Nonino F (2016) Strategic and operational management of organizational resilience: current state of research and future directions. Omega 62:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega. 2015.08.004 Antonacopoulou EP, Sheaffer Z (2014) Learning in crisis. J Manag Inq 23(1):5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492612472730 Antunes P (2010) BPM and exception handling: focus on organizational resilience. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern, Part C 41(3):383–392. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2010.2062504 Antunes P, Moura ˜o H (2011) Resilient business process management: framework and services. Expert Syst Appl 38(2):1241–1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.05.017 Baiyere A, Salmela H, Tapanainen T (2020) Digital transformation and the new logics of business process management. Eur J Inf Syst 29(3):238–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020. 1718007 Becker J, Niehaves B (2007) Epistemological perspectives on IS research: a framework for analysing and systematizing epistemological assumptions. Inf Syst J 17(2):197–214. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00234.x Beerepoot I, van de Weerd I, Reijers HA (2019) Business process improvement activities: differences in organizational size, culture, and resources. In: Hildebrandt T (ed) Business process management. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference BPM 2019, Vienna. Springer, Cham, pp 402–418 Beverungen D (2014) Exploring the interplay of the design and emergence of business processes as organizational routines. Bus Inf Syst Eng 6(4):191–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-0140335-3 Beverungen D, Buijs JCAM, Becker J, Di Ciccio C, van der Aalst WMP, Bartelheimer C, vom Brocke J, Comuzzi M, Kraume K, Leopold H, Matzner M, Mendling J, Ogonek N, Post T, Resinas M, Revoredo K, del-Rı ´o-Ortega A, La Rosa M, Santoro FM, Solti A, Song M, Stein A, Stierle M, Wolf V, (2020) Seven paradoxes of business process management in a hyper-connected world. Bus Inf Syst Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-02000646-z Bjo ¨rck A (2016) Crisis typologies revisited: an interdisciplinary approach. Central Eur Bus Rev 5(3):25–37. https://doi.org/10. 18267/j.cebr.156 Bowers MR, Hall JR, Srinivasan MM (2017) Organizational culture and leadership style: the missing combination for selecting the right leader for effective crisis management. Bus Horizons 60(4):551–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.04.001 Broekema W, van Kleef D, Steen T (2017) What factors drive organizational learning from crisis? Insights from the Dutch food safety services’ response to four veterinary crises. J Conting Crisis Manag 25(4):326–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973. 12161 de Bruin T, Rosemann M (2007) Using the Delphi technique to identify BPM capability areas. In: 18th Australasian conference on information systems, Toowoomba. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ acis2007/42 Bundy J, Pfarrer MD, Short CE, Coombs WT (2017) Crises and crisis management: integration, interpretation, and research development. J Manag 43(6):1661–1692. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206316680030 123 M. Ro ¨glinger et al.: Exogenous Shocks and Business Process Management, Bus Inf Syst Eng 64(5):669–687 (2022) 683 Butler T (1998) Towards a hermeneutic method for interpretive research in information systems. J Inf Technol 13(4):285–300. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.1998.7 Cerullo V, Cerullo MJ (2004) Business continuity planning: a comprehensive approach. Inf Syst Manag 21(3):70–78. https:// doi.org/10.1201/1078/44432.21.3.20040601/82480.11 Chakrabarti A (2015) Organizational adaptation in an economic shock: the role of growth reconfiguration. Strateg Manag J 36(11):1717–1738. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2309 Chakraborty I, Maity P (2020) COVID-19 outbreak: migration, effects on society, global environment and prevention. Sci Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138882 Chen Y, Wang Y, Nevo S, Jin J, Wang L, Chow WS (2014) IT capability and organizational performance: the roles of business process agility and environmental factors. Eur J Inf Syst 23(3):326–342. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.4 Chen R, Xie Y, Liu Y (2021) Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring organizational resilience: a multiple case study. Sustain 13(5):2517. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052517 Choi I, Jung J, Sung M (2004) A framework for the integration of knowledge management and business process management. Int J Innov Learn 1(4):399. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2004.005500 Corbo L, Pirolo L, Rodrigues V (2018) Business model adaptation in response to an exogenous shock. Int J Eng Bus Manag. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1847979018772742 Dalkey N, Helmer O (1963) An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag Sci 9(3):458–467. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458 Davenport TH (1997) Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston Denner M-S, Pu ¨schel LC, Ro ¨glinger M (2018) How to exploit the digitalization potential of business processes. Bus Inf Syst Eng 60(4):331–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0509-x Di Ciccio C, Maggi FM, Montali M, Mendling J (2017) Resolving inconsistencies and redundancies in declarative process models. Inf Syst 64(4):425–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2016.09.005 Dirani KM, Abadi M, Alizadeh A, Barhate B, Garza RC, Gunasekara N, Ibrahim G, Majzun Z (2020) Leadership competencies and the essential role of human resource development in times of crisis: a response to Covid-19 pandemic. Hum Resour Dev Int 23(4):380–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1780078 Doern R, Williams N, Vorley T (2019) Special issue on entrepreneurship and crises: business as usual? An introduction and review of the literature. Entrepreneurship Reg Dev 31(5–6):400–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1541590 Donahue AK, O’Leary R (2012) Do shocks change organizations? The case of NASA. J Publ Admin Res Theor 22(3):395–425. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur034 Duchek S (2020) Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization. Bus Res 13(1):215–246. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s40685-019-0085-7 Dumas M, La Rosa M, Mendling J, Reijers HA (2018) Fundamentals of business process management. Springer, Heidelberg Estrada-Torres B, Richetti PHP, del-Rı ´o-Ortega A, Baia ˜o FA, Resinas M, Santoro FM, Ruiz-Corte ´s A (2019) Measuring performance in knowledge-intensive processes. ACM Trans Internet Technol 19(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3289180 Fedorowicz J, Gogan JL, Ray AW (2004) The ecology of interorganizational information sharing. J Int Inf Manag 13(2): 1 Fridgen G, Stepanek C, Wolf T (2015) Investigation of exogenous shocks in complex supply networks – a modular Petri Net approach. Int J Prod Res 53(5):1387–1408. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00207543.2014.942009 Geithner T (2003) Fund assistance for countries facing exogenous shocks. Policy Development and Review Department. https:// www.imf.org/external/np/pdr/sustain/2003/080803.pdf. Accessed 2021-02-23 Gersick CJG (1991) Revolutionary change theories: a multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Acad Manag Rev 16(1):10–36. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991. 4278988 Gibb F, Buchanan S (2006) A framework for business continuity management. Int J Inf Manag 26(2):128–141. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijinfomgt.2005.11.008 Gilbert C, Eyring M, Foster RN (2012) Two routes to resilience. Harv Bus Rev 90(12):65–73 Glaser BG (1978) Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley Sociology Press, Mill Valley Grisold T, Groß S, Stelzl K, vom Brocke J, Mendling J, Ro ¨glinger M, Rosemann M (2021) The Five Diamond Method for explorative business process management. Bus Inf Syst Eng 8(1):21. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12599-021-00703-1 Grisold T, Gross S, Ro ¨glinger M, Stelzl K, vom Brocke J (2019) Exploring explorative BPM - setting the ground for future research. In: Hildebrandt T (ed) Business process management. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference BPM 2019, Vienna. Springer, Cham, pp 23–31 Gruszczynski L (2020) The COVID-19 pandemic and international trade: temporary turbulence or paradigm shift? Eur J Risk Regul 11(2):337–342. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.29 Guan D, Wang D, Hallegatte S, Davis SJ, Huo J, Li S, Bai Y, Lei T, Xue Q, Coffman D, Cheng D, Chen P, Liang X, Xu B, Lu X, Wang S, Hubacek K, Gong P (2020) Global supply-chain effects of COVID-19 control measures. Nat Hum Behav 4(6):577–587. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0896-8 Hammer M (2015) What is business process management? In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management 1. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 3–16 Hammer M, Champy J (2006) Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution. Collins, New York Hillmann J, Guenther E (2021) Organizational resilience: a valuable construct for management research? Int J Manag Rev 23(1):7–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12239 Ivanov D, Dolgui A (2021) A digital supply chain twin for managing the disruption risks and resilience in the era of Industry 4.0. Prod Plan Control 32(9):775–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287. 2020.1768450 Johannsen FA (2018) Process-related value propositions of enterprise social media use for the external communication with end consumers. Bus Process Manag J 24(1):183–215. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/BPMJ-03-2016-0049 Jung J, Choi I, Song M (2007) An integration architecture for knowledge management systems and business process management systems. Comput Ind 58(1):21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compind.2006.03.001 Kantur D, I ˙s¸eri-Say A (2012) Organizational resilience: a conceptual integrative framework. J Manag Organ 18(6):762–773. https:// doi.org/10.5172/jmo.2012.18.6.762 Kaplan RS, Leonard HB, Mikes A (2020) The risks you can’t foresee: what to do when there’s no playbook. Harv Bus Rev. https://hbr. org/2020/11/the-risks-you-cant-foresee. Accessed 11 Mar 2021 Karman A (2020) Flexibility, coping capacity and resilience of organizations: between synergy and support. J Organ Change Manag 33(5):883–907. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-10-2019-0305 Kerpedzhiev GD, Ko ¨nig UM, Ro ¨glinger M, Rosemann M (2020) An exploration into future business process management capabilities in view of digitalization. Bus Inf Syst Eng. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12599-020-00637-0 Khan H, Vasilescu LG, Khan A (2008) Disaster management cycle – a theoretical approach. Manag Mark J 6(1):43–50 123 684 M. Ro ¨glinger et al.: Exogenous Shocks and Business Process Management, Bus Inf Syst Eng 64(5):669–687 (2022) Kilian L (2008) Exogenous oil supply shocks: how big are they and how much do they matter for the U.S. economy? Rev Econ Stat 90(2):216–240. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.90.2.216 Ko ¨nig UM, Linhart A, Ro ¨glinger M (2018) Why do business processes deviate? Results from a Delphi study. Bus Res 12(2):425–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-018-0076-0 Koslowski T, Zimmermann C (2013) Towards a detective approach to process-centered resilience. In: Hutchison D, Kanade T, Kittler J, Kleinberg JM, Mattern F, Mitchell JC, Naor M, Nierstrasz O, Pandu Rangan C, Steffen B, Sudan M, Terzopoulos D, Tygar D, Vardi MY, Weikum G, Accorsi R, Ranise S (eds) Security and trust management. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 176–190 Kregel I, Koch J, Plattfaut R (2021) Beyond the hype: robotic process automation’s public perception over time. J Organ Comput Electron Commer 31(2):130–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10919392.2021.1911586 Kreuzer T, Ro ¨glinger M, Rupprecht L (2020) Customer-centric prioritization of process improvement projects. Decis Support Syst 133:113286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2020.113286 Kuipers S, Welsh NH (2017) Taxonomy of the crisis and disaster literature: themes and types in 34 years of research. Risk Hazards Crisis Publ Policy 8(4):272–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3. 12123 Lee HL (2004) The triple-A supply chain. Harv Bus Rev 82(10):102–112. https://hbr.org/2004/10/the-triple-a-supplychain. Accessed 19 Feb 2021 Lehnert M, Linhart A, Ro ¨glinger M (2016) Value-based process project portfolio management: integrated planning of BPM capability development and process improvement. Bus Res 9(2):377–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-016-0036-5 Lehnert M, Linhart A, Roeglinger M (2017) Exploring the intersection of business process improvement and BPM capability development. Bus Process Manag J 23(2):275–292. https://doi. org/10.1108/BPMJ-05-2016-0095 Lehnert M, Ro ¨glinger M, Seyfried J (2018) Prioritization of interconnected processes. Bus Inf Syst Eng 60(2):95–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0490-4 Lettieri E, Masella C, Radaelli G (2009) Disaster management: findings from a systematic review. Disaster Prev Manag 18(2):117–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560910953207 Li S, Tallman S (2011) MNC strategies, exogenous shocks, and performance outcomes. Strateg Manag J 32(10):1119–1127. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.918 Li L, Yin L, Zhou Y (2016) Exogenous shocks and the spillover effects between uncertainty and oil price. Energy Econ 54:224–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.11.017 Li J, Sun W, Jiang W, Yang H, Zhang L (2017) How the nature of exogenous shocks and crises impact company performance? Int J Risk Conting Manag 6(4):40–55. https://doi.org/10.4018/ IJRCM.2017100103 Lyytinen K, Newman M (2008) Explaining information systems change: a punctuated socio-technical change model. Eur J Inf Syst 17(6):589–613. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.50 Marcucci G, Antomarioni S, Ciarapica FE, Bevilacqua M (2021) The impact of operations and IT-related Industry 4.0 key technologies on organizational resilience. Prod Plan Control. https://doi. org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1874702 Marques da Rosa V, Saurin TA, Tortorella GL, Fogliatto FS, Tonetto LM, Samson D (2021) Digital technologies: an exploratory study of their role in the resilience of healthcare services. Appl Ergon 97(7):103517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103517 Martins LL, Rindova VP, Greenbaum BE (2015) Unlocking the hidden value of concepts: a cognitive approach to business model innovation. Strateg Entrepreneurship J 9(1):99–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1191 Mendling J, Pentland BT, Recker J (2020) Building a complementary agenda for business process management and digital innovation. Eur J Inf Syst 29(3):208–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X. 2020.1755207 Morgeson FP, Mitchell TR, Liu D (2015) Event system theory: an event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Acad Manag Rev 40(4):515–537. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012. 0099 Mu ¨ller G, Koslowski TG, Accorsi R (2013) Resilience - a new research field in business information systems? In: van der Aalst W, Mylopoulos J, Rosemann M, Shaw MJ, Szyperski C, Abramowicz W (eds) Business information systems workshops. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 3–14 Niemimaa M (2015) Interdisciplinary review of business continuity from an information systems perspective: toward an integrative framework. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. https://doi.org/10.17705/ 1CAIS.03704 Noy I, Nualsri A (2007) What do exogenous shocks tell us about growth theories? Working Paper, University of California, Santa Cruz Okoli C, Pawlowski SD (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manag 42(1):15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002 Olbrich S, Trauth EM, Niedermann F, Gregor S (2015) Inclusive design in IS: why diversity matters. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03737 Pare ´G, Cameron A-F, Poba-Nzaou P, Templier M (2013) A systematic assessment of rigor in information systems rankingtype Delphi studies. Inf Manag 50(5):207–217. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.im.2013.03.003 Pearson CM, Mitroff II (1993) From crisis prone to crisis prepared: a framework for crisis management. Acad Manag Perspect 7(1):48–59. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1993.9409142058 Pentland BT, Liu P, Kremser W, Haerem T (2020) The dynamics of drift in digitized processes. MIS Q 44(1):19–47. https://doi.org/ 10.25300/MISQ/2020/14458 Peterken H, Bandara W (2015) Business process management in international humanitarian aid. In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management 2. Strategic alignment, governance, people and culture. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 761–786 Plattfaut R, Borghoff V (2022) Robotic process automation: a literature-based research agenda. J Inf Syst (in press) Poeppelbuss J, Plattfaut R, Niehaves B (2015) How do we progress? An exploration of alternate explanations for BPM capability development. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. https://doi.org/10.17705/ 1CAIS.03601 Reichert M, Weber B (2012) Enabling flexibility in process-aware information systems. Springer, Heidelberg Roberts KH (1990) Managing high reliability organizations. Calif Manag Rev 32(4):101–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166631 Roche S, Propeck-Zimmermann E, Mericskay B (2013) GeoWeb and crisis management: issues and perspectives of volunteered geographic information. GeoJournal 78(1):21–40. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10708-011-9423-9 Rosemann M (2014) Proposals for future BPM research directions. In: Proceedings 2nd Asia Pacific Business Process Management Conference, Brisbane. Springer, Cham, pp 1–15 Rosemann M (2020) Explorative process design patterns. In: Proceedings of the international conference on business process management, pp 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03058666-9_20 Rosemann M, vom Brocke J (eds) (2015) Handbook on business process management 1. Springer, Heidelberg Roy S, Kemme DM (2020) The run-up to the global financial crisis: a longer historical view of financial liberalization, capital inflows, 123 M. Ro ¨glinger et al.: Exogenous Shocks and Business Process Management, Bus Inf Syst Eng 64(5):669–687 (2022) 685 and asset bubbles. Int Rev Financial Anal 69:101377. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.irfa.2019.101377 Sakurai M, Murayama Y (2019) Information technologies and disaster management – benefits and issues. Prog Disaster Sci 2:100012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2019.100012 Salovaara A, Lyytinen K, Penttinen E (2019) High reliability in digital organizing: mindlessness, the frame problem, and digital operations. MIS Q 43(2):555–578. https://doi.org/10.25300/ MISQ/2019/14577 Santoro FM, Baiao F, Revoredo K, Tavares Nunes V (2017) Modeling and using context in business process management: a research agenda. ISTE OpenScience. https://www.openscience. fr/IMG/pdf/mucv1n1a1santoro.pdf Sayegh L, Anthony WP, Perrewe ´PL (2004) Managerial decisionmaking under crisis: the role of emotion in an intuitive decision process. Hum Resource Manag Rev 14(2):179–199. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.05.002 Schmiedel T, vom Brocke J, Recker J (2015) Culture in business process management: how cultural values determine BPM success. In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management 2. Strategic alignment, governance, people and culture. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 649–663 Schonenberg H, Mans R, Russell N, Mulyar N, van der Aalst W (2008) Process flexibility: a survey of contemporary approaches. In: Dietz JLG, Albani A, Barjis J (eds) Advances in enterprise engineering I. Proceedings 4th International Workshop CIAO! and 4th International Workshop EOMAS, Montpellier. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 16–30 Seetharaman P (2020) Business models shifts: impact of Covid-19. Int J Inf Manag 54:102173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt. 2020.102173 Shelagowski M (2015) Becoming a learning organization through dynamic business process management. SSRN Electron J 3:45. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2578670 Shi P (2019) Hazards, disasters, and risks. In: Shi P (ed) Disaster risk science. BNUP; Springer, Beijing, pp 1–48 Singh S, Kumar R, Panchal R, Tiwari MK (2020) Impact of COVID19 on logistics systems and disruptions in food supply chain. Int J Prod Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1792000 Strauss AL, Corbin JM (1991) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage, Newbury Park Sutcliffe KM (2011) High reliability organizations (HROs). Best Pract Res Clin Anaesth 25(2):133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. bpa.2011.03.001 Syed HA, Schorch M, Hassan SS, Skudelny S, Grinko M, Pipek V (2020) From technology adoption to organizational resilience: a current research perspective, Siegen. https://doi.org/10.25819/ ubsi/2778 Taleb NN (2010) The Black Swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Penguin, London Tasic J, Amir S, Tan J, Khader M (2020) A multilevel framework to enhance organizational resilience. J Risk Res 23(6):713–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1617340 Thiemich C, Puhlmann F (2013) An agile BPM project methodology. In: Daniel F, Wang J, Weber B (eds) Business process management. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 291–306 Thomas O, Hagen S, Frank U, Recker J, Wessel L, Kammler F, Zarvic N, Timm I (2020) Global crises and the role of BISE. Bus Inf Syst Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-020-00657-w Todd J (2017) From identity politics to identity change: exogenous shocks, constitutional moments and the impact of Brexit on the Island of Ireland. Irish Stud Int Aff 28:57. https://doi.org/10. 3318/isia.2017.28.15 Travadel S (2017) Decision-making in extreme situations following the Fukushima Daiichi accident. In: Ahn J, Guarnieri F, Furuta K (eds) Resilience: a new paradigm of nuclear safety. From accident mitigation to resilient society facing extreme situations. Springer, Cham, pp 169–183 Trkman P, McCormack K (2009) Supply chain risk in turbulent environments – a conceptual model for managing supply chain network risk. Int J Prod Econ 119(2):247–258. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijpe.2009.03.002 Tsang EW, Zahra SA (2008) Organizational unlearning. Hum Rel 61(10):1435–1462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708095710 van der Aalst WMP (2013) Business process management: a comprehensive survey. ISRN Softw Eng 2013:1–37. https:// doi.org/10.1155/2013/507984 van der Aalst W, Adriansyah A, Medeiros AKA de, Arcieri F, Baier T, Blickle T, Bose JC, van den Brand P, Brandtjen R, Buijs J, Burattin A, Carmona J, Castellanos M, Claes J, Cook J, Costantini N, Curbera F, Damiani E, Leoni M de, Delias P, van Dongen BF, Dumas M, Dustdar S, Fahland D, Ferreira DR, Gaaloul W, van Geffen F, Goel S, Gu ¨nther C, Guzzo A, Harmon P, ter Hofstede A, Hoogland J, Ingvaldsen JE, Kato K, Kuhn R, Kumar A, La Rosa M, Maggi F, Malerba D, Mans RS, Manuel A, McCreesh M, Mello P, Mendling J, Montali M, MotahariNezhad HR, zur Muehlen M, Munoz-Gama J, Pontieri L, Ribeiro J, Rozinat A, Seguel Pe ´rez H, Seguel Pe ´rez R, Sepu ´lveda M, Sinur J, Soffer P, Song M, Sperduti A, Stilo G, Stoel C, Swenson K, Talamo M, Tan W, Turner C, Vanthienen J, Varvaressos G, Verbeek E, Verdonk M, Vigo R, Wang J, Weber B, Weidlich M, Weijters T, Wen L, Westergaard M, Wynn M (2012) Process mining manifesto. In: Daniel F, et al (eds) Business process management workshops. BPM 2011 International Workshops, Clermont-Ferrand. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 169–194 Van Looy A (2020) Capabilities for managing business processes: a measurement instrument. Bus Process Manag J 26(1):287–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2018-0157 Van Looy A, Shafagatova A (2016) Business process performance measurement: a structured literature review of indicators, measures and metrics. Springerplus 5(1):161. https://doi.org/10. 1186/s40064-016-3498-1 Van Looy A, Poels G, Snoeck M (2017) Evaluating business process maturity models. J Assoc Inf Syst 18(6):461–486. https://doi.org/ 10.17705/1jais.00460 Vogus TJ, Sutcliffe KM (2007) Organizational resilience: towards a theory and research agenda. IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics. IEEE, Piscataway, pp 3418–3422 vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) (2015) Handbook on business process management 1. Springer, Heidelberg vom Brocke J, Mendling J (2018) Business process management cases: digital innovation and business transformation in practice. Springer, Cham vom Brocke J, Zelt S, Schmiedel T (2015) On the role of context in business process management. Int J Inf Manag 36(3):486–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.10.002 vom Brocke J, Baier M-S, Schmiedel T, Stelzl K, Ro ¨glinger M, Wehking C (2021a) Context-aware business process management. Bus Inf Syst Eng 47(4):244. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12599-021-00685-0 vom Brocke J, van der Aalst WMP, Grisold T, Kremser W, Mendling J, Pentland B, Recker J, Roeglinger M, Rosemann M, Weber B (2021b) Process science: the interdisciplinary study of continuous change. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3916817 Vuori TO, Huy QN (2016) Distributed attention and shared emotions in the innovation process. Admin Sci Q 61(1):9–51. https://doi. org/10.1177/0001839215606951 Wakiyama T, Zusman E, Monogan JE (2014) Can a low-carbonenergy transition be sustained in post-Fukushima Japan? Assessing the varying impacts of exogenous shocks. Energy Policy 73:654–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.017 123 686 M. Ro ¨glinger et al.: Exogenous Shocks and Business Process Management, Bus Inf Syst Eng 64(5):669–687 (2022) Wang J (2008) Developing organizational learning capacity in crisis management. Adv Dev Hum Resourc 10(3):425–445. https://doi. org/10.1177/1523422308316464 Wang J, Hutchins HM, Garavan TN (2009) Exploring the strategic role of human resource development in organizational crisis management. Hum Resourc Dev Rev 8(1):22–53. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1534484308330018 Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D (1999) Organizing for high reliability: processes of collective mindfulness. Research in organizational behaviour. Elsevier, New York, pp 81–123 Weinzierl S, Wolf V, Pauli T, Beverungen D, Matzner M (2021) Detecting temporal workarounds in business processes – a deep learning-based method for analysing event log data. J Bus Anal (in Press). https://doi.org/10.1080/2573234X.2021.1978337 World Economic Forum (2016) Digital media and society: implications in a hyperconnected era. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/ WEFUSA_DigitalMediaAndSociety_Report2016.pdf Zahoransky RM, Brenig C, Koslowski T (2015) Towards a processcentered resilience framework. In: 10th international conference on availability, reliability and security. IEEE, pp 266–273 Zsidisin GA, Ellram LM, Carter JR, Cavinato JL (2004) An analysis of supply risk assessment techniques. Int J Phys Dist Logist Manag 34(5):397–413. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09600030410545445 123 M. Ro ¨glinger et al.: Exogenous Shocks and Business Process Management, Bus Inf Syst Eng 64(5):669–687 (2022) 687