Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
another communication partner. The latter processes the form and sets its status to
Finished or changes its status to something else that requires further processing, for
example, Question. In the former case, the form disappears from the actual list; but it
can still be found through search in the archive (if needed). In the second case, the
form disappears from the actual list of this communication partner and appears in the
list of some other communication partner, e.g. the one who originally filled the form.
Let us demonstrate how this scheme works on a particular example. Unscheduled
absences are reported by agents to their coaches via direct phone calls. A coach
communicates this information to the Tower via eForm with a couple of touches of
the keyboard by selecting the agent's name, time, and reason for an unscheduled
absence. While filling the form, the coach has access to the information about
previous unscheduled absences of the same agent. Thus, he/she has a possibility to see
a pattern of absences and discuss the matter with the agent. The coach has also a
possibility to promptly fill an absence form that concerns more than one agent, for
example, in case of an unscheduled training session.
As soon as the coach saves the form, it appears in the absentees list at the Tower. A
tower worker makes corrections to the schedule accordingly, after which the form
disappears from the actual list (but remains accessible via the archive search). In case
of any uncertainty, the Tower quickly returns the form to the coach with a comment
by changing its status to Questioned. The coach corrects the form, after which it again
appears in the Tower's absentees list.
5.2 Experience of Use
In eForm, there are no explicit “calls” to visit a shared space. The form appears in the
list of one of the participating partners dependent on the state of the process, more
exactly on the value of one or more fields of the form. From our experience, this
mechanism creates a very efficient communication channel, and the system is easy to
learn, and introduce in operational practice. This is an important factor in the above
business case, because the turnover of agents in a typical call center is, usually, quite
high. The communication mechanism works very well for simple real-time processes
with strong requirements on the speed of communication.
6 Identifying Communication Styles
Let us investigate differences between the three BPS systems types discussed in
Sections 3-5. First of all, there is a difference in the structure of shared spaces. In
ProBis - a shared space has a generalized, logical structure. Similar types of objects
are gathered on the same tab. For example, there is a separate tab for documents, a
separate tab for planned and completed tasks, etc. (see Fig. 1). This reflects the area of
ProBis usage - loosely structured processes for which it is not possible to create a
more exact structure. In iPB, a shared space is structured in steps according to the
“dynamics” of a particular business process type (see Fig. 4). In eForm, shared spaces
are quite simple and do not require complex structuring.
Secondly, these three systems implement, on the surface, completely different
mechanisms of using shared spaces to facilitate communication/collaboration. ProBis
uses collaborative planning. An iPB- based application uses assignment of owners/
