Theorising Robotic Process Automation as Socio-Technical Change: A Process Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v29.5451Keywords:
Robotic process automation, Implementation, Process theory, Socio-technical change, Case studyAbstract
Robotic process automation (RPA) is increasingly adopted as a relatively inexpensive automation solution to reduce routinised and repetitive tasks and to initiate an organisation’s broader automation programme. Prior research has focused on highlighting RPA benefits for organisations with suggestions on how to maximise benefits and avoid challenges in RPA implementation. There is less understanding of the emergent and dynamic nature of RPA implementation. Drawing on key elements of socio-technical change, we conducted a process study of RPA implementation in a university. From our analysis, we identified five process patterns: initiation, mobilisation, configuration, adaptation, and evaluation, each of which has different implications for organisational trajectories of RPA implementation. Our findings also offer insights into how the changing role of RPA as an epistemic, technical, and agentic object is intertwined with the dynamics of automation and augmentation in RPA’s conception, development, incorporation into work routines, and evaluation of the initiative’s future.
References
Abdallah, C., Lusiani, M., & Langley, A. (2019). Performing process research. In Boyd, B., Crook, T. R., Lê, J. K., & Smith, A. D. (Eds.) Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Traditions and Innovations in Research Methodology (pp. 91-113). Emerald.
Aguirre, S., & Rodriguez, A. (2017). Automation of a business process using robotic process automation (RPA): A case study. In Figueroa-García, J., López-Santana, E., Villa-Ramírez, J., Ferro-Escobar, R. (Eds.) Applied Computer Sciences in Engineering (pp. 65-71). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66963-2_7
Andersson, C., Hallin, A., & Ivory, C. (2022). Unpacking the digitalisation of public services: Configuring work during automation in local government. Government Information Quarterly, 39(1), 101662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101662
Asatiani, A., Copeland, O., & Penttinen, E. (2023). Deciding on the robotic process automation operating model: A checklist for RPA managers. Business Horizons, 66(1), 109-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2022.03.004
Asatiani, A., & Penttinen, E. (2016). Turning robotic process automation into commercial success – Case OpusCapita. Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases, 6(2), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1057/jittc.2016.5
Baird, A., & Maruping, L. M. (2021). The next generation of research on IS use: A theoretical framework of delegation to and from agentic IS artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 315-341. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/15882
Baptista, J., Stein, M. K., Klein, S., Watson-Manheim, M. B., & Lee, J. (2020). Digital work and organisational transformation: Emergent digital/human work configurations in modern organisations. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 29(2), 101618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2020.101618
Benbya, H., Pachidi, S., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2021). Special issue editorial: Artificial intelligence in organizations: Implications for information systems research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(2), 281-303. https://doi.org/ 10.17705/1jais.00662
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brugali, D., & Gherardi, L. (2016). HyperFlex: A model-driven toolchain for designing and configuring software control systems for autonomous robots. In A. Koubaa (Ed.), Robot Operating System (ROS) (pp. 509-534). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26054-9_20
Bygstad, B., Nielsen, P. A., & Munkvold, B. E. (2010). Four integration patterns: A socio-technical approach to integration in IS development projects. Information Systems Journal, 20(1), 53-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00280.x
Cloutier, C., & Langley, A. (2020). What makes a process theoretical contribution? Organization Theory, 1(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720902473
Coombs, C., Hislop, D., Taneva, S. K., & Barnard, S. (2020). The strategic impacts of Intelligent Automation for knowledge and service work: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 29(4), 101600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2020.101600
Cornelissen, J. (2017). Editor’s comments: Developing propositions, a process model, or a typology? Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0196
Cornish, F., Gillespie, A., & Zittoun, T. (2014). Collaborative analysis of qualitative data. In U. Flick (Ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 79-93). SAGE.
Crawford, H. K., Leybourne, M. L., & Arnott, A. (2000). How we ensured rigour in a multisite, multi-discipline, multi-researcher. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.1.1122
Dey, S., & Das, A. (2019). Robotic process automation: Assessment of the technology for transformation of business processes. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management, 9(3), 220-230. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPIM.2019.100927
Engel, C., Ebel, P., & Leimeister, J. M. (2022). Cognitive automation. Electronic Markets, 32, 339-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-021-00519-7
Engeström, Y., & Blackler, F. (2005). On the life of the object. Organization, 12(3), 307-330. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508405051268
Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as ‘epistemic objects’. Organization Studies, 30(1), 7-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084060808301
EY (2017). Get Ready for Robots: Why Planning Makes the Difference Between Success and Disappointment. https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/emeia-financial-services/ey-get-ready-for-robots.pdf
Fachin, F. F., & Langley, A. (2017). Researching organizational concepts processually: The case of identity. In Cassell, C., Cunliffe, A. L., & Grandy, G. (Eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods. (pp. 308-327). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526430212
Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., & Sayegh, K. (2018). Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Information and Organization, 28(1), 62-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.005
Farinha, D., Pereira, R., & Almeida, R. (2024). A framework to support robotic process automation. Journal of Information Technology, 39(1), 149-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962231165066
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0612
Fügener, A., Grahl, J., Gupta, A., & Ketter, W. (2022). Cognitive challenges in human–artificial intelligence collaboration: Investigating the path toward productive delegation. Information Systems Research, 33(2), 678-696. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2021.1079
Gherardi, S. (2009). Knowing and learning in practice-based studies: An introduction. Learning Organization, 16(5), 352-359. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470910974144
Glaser, V. L. (2017). Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2126-2154. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0842
Güner, E., Han, S., & Juell-Skielse, G. (2020). Robotic process automation as routine capability: A literature review. In Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/153
Haase, J., Kremser, W., Leopold, H., Mendling, J., Onnasch, L., & Plattfaut, R. (2024). Interdisciplinary directions for researching the effects of robotic process automation and large language models on business processes. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 54(1), 579-604. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05421
Hallikainen, P., Bekkhus, R., & Pan, S. (2018). How OpusCapita used internal RPA capabilities to offer services to clients. MIS Quarterly Executive, 17(1), 41-52. https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol17/iss1/4
Herm, L. V., Janiesch, C., Reijers, H. A., & Seubert, F. (2021). From symbolic RPA to intelligent RPA: Challenges for developing and operating intelligent software robots. In A. Polyvyanyy, M. T. Wynn, A. Van Looy, & M. Reichert (Eds.) Business Process Management (pp. 289-305). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85469-0_19
Hofmann, P., Samp, C., & Urbach, N. (2020). Robotic process automation. Electronic Markets, 30(1), 99-106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00365-8
Kimberly, J. R., & Bouchikhi, H. (1995). The dynamics of organizational development and change: How the past shapes the present and constrains the future. Organization Science, 6(1), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.1.9
Knorr Cetina, K. (2008). Objectual practice. In M. Mazzotti (Ed.), Knowledge as Social Order (pp. 1-15). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315591148
Kokina, J., & Blanchette, S. (2019). Early evidence of digital labor in accounting: Innovation with Robotic Process Automation. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 35, 100431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2019.100431
Lacity, M. C., & Willcocks, L. P. (2016). Robotic process automation at Telefónica O2. MIS Quarterly Executive, 15(1), 21-35. https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol15/iss1/4
Lacity M., & Willcocks, L. (2021). Becoming strategic with intelligent automation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 20(2), 169-182. https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol20/iss2/7
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710. https://doi.org/10.2307/259349
Langley, A. (2023). Approaches to studying continuity and change. In Hernes, T., & Feuls, M. (Eds.) A Research Agenda for Organisational Continuity and Change (pp. 225-246). Edward Elgar.
Langley, A., & Ravasi, D. (2019). Visual artifacts as tools for analysis and theorizing. In Zilber, T. B., Amis, J. M., & Mair, J. (Eds.) The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory (pp. 173-199). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059010
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van De Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.4001
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, Lawrence, T. B., & Nord, W. R. (Eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 215-254). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608030.n7
Leno, V., Polyvyanyy, A., Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., & Maggi, F. M. (2021). Robotic process mining: Vision and challenges. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 63(3), 301-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-020-00641-4
Leonardi, P. M. (2015). Studying work practices in organizations: Theoretical considerations and empirical guidelines. Annals of the International Communication Association, 39(1), 235-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11679177
Lyytinen, K., & Newman, M. (2008). Explaining information systems change: A punctuated socio-technical change model. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(6), 589-613. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.50
Lyytinen, K., Newman, M., & Al-Muharfi, A.-R. A. (2009). Institutionalizing enterprise resource planning in the Saudi steel industry: A punctuated socio-technical analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 24(4), 286-304. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2009.14
McLeod, L., & Doolin, B. (2012). Information systems development as situated socio-technical change: A process approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 176-191. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.43
Moderno, O., Braz, A. C., & Nascimento, P. (2024). Robotic process automation and artificial intelligence capabilities driving digital strategy: A resource-based view. Business Process Management Journal, 30(1), 105-134. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05421
Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612-629. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0664
Nicolini, D., & Monteiro, P. (2016). The practice approach: For a praxeology of organisational and management studies. In Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies (pp. 110-126). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957954
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.398
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63-92. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.7.1.63
Østerlund, C., & Carlile, P. (2005). Relations in practice: Sorting through practice theories on knowledge sharing in complex organizations. The Information Society, 21(2), 9-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240590925294
Pentland, B. T. (1999). Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 711-724. https://doi.org/10.2307/259350
Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/3106908
Plattfaut, R., & Borghoff, V., (2022). Robotic process automation: A literature-based research agenda. Journal of Information Systems, 36(2), 173-191. https://doi.org/10.2308/ISYS-2020-033
Plattfaut, R., Borghoff, V., Godefroid, M., Koch, J., Trampler, M., & Coners, A. (2022). The critical success factors for robotic process automation. Computers in Industry, 138, 103646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2022.103646
Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation-augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192-210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
Ranerup, A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2019). Value positions viewed through the lens of automated decision-making: The case of social services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.004
Rheinberger, H. (2005). A reply to David Bloor: "Toward a sociology of epistemic things." Perspectives on Science, 13(3), 406-410. https://doi.org/10.1162/106361405774287973
Rheinberger, H. (2011). Consistency from the perspective of an experimental systems approach to the sciences and their epistemic objects. Manuscrito, 34(1), 307-321. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-60452011000100014
Riemer, K., & Peter, S. (2020). The robo-apocalypse plays out in the quality, not in the quantity of work. Journal of Information Technology, 35(4), 310-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268396220923677
Ritvala, T., & Kleymann, B. (2012). Scientists as midwives to cluster emergence: An institutional work framework. Industry and Innovation, 19(6), 477-497. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2012.718875
Salmimaa, T., Hekkala, R., & Pekkola, S. (2018). Dynamic activities for managing an IS-enabled organizational change. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 60, 133-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0524-6
Santos, F., Pereira, R., & Vasconcelos, J. B. (2020). Toward robotic process automation implementation: An end-to-end perspective. Business Process Management Journal, 26(2), 405-420. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-12-2018-0380
Schmitz, M., Dietze, C., & Czarnecki, C. (2019). Enabling digital transformation through robotic process automation at Deutsche Telekom. In N. Urbach & M. Röglinger (Eds.) Digitalization Cases: How Organizations Rethink Their Business for the Digital Age (pp. 15-33). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95273-4_2
Seeber, I., Waizenegger, L., Seidel, S., Morana, S., Benbasat, I., & Lowry, P. B. (2020). Collaborating with technology-based autonomous agents: Issues and research opportunities. Internet Research, 30(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-12-2019-0503
Siemon, D. (2022). Elaborating team roles for artificial intelligence-based teammates in human-AI collaboration. Group Decision and Negotiation, 31, 871-912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-022-09792-z
Siemon, D., & Kedziora, D. (2023). From accountant to software developer – Transforming employees with robotic process automation (RPA). Proceedings of the 56th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 4244- 4253). https://aisel-aisnet-org/hicss-56/in/digital_transformation/6
Staaby, A., Hansen, K., & Gronli, T. M. (2021). Automation of routine work: A case study of employees’ experiences of work meaningfulness. Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 156-165). https://aisel-aisnet-org/hicss-54/cl/ai_and_future_work/4/
Syed, R., Suriadi, S., Adams, M., Bandara, W., Leemans, S. J. J., Ouyang, C., ter Hofstede, A. H. M., van de Weerd, I., Wynn, M. T., & Reijers, H. A. (2020). Robotic process automation: Contemporary themes and challenges. Computers in Industry, 115, 103162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.103162
Techatassanasoontorn, A. A., Waizenegger, L., & Doolin, B. (2023). When Harry, the human, met Sally, the software robot: Metaphorical sensemaking and sensegiving around an emergent digital technology. Journal of Information Technology, 38(4), 416-441. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962231157426
Vaast, E., & Pinsonneault, A. (2021). When digital technologies enable and threaten occupational identity: The delicate balancing act of data scientists. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1087-1112. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/16024
van den Broek, E., Sergeeva, A., & Huysman, M. (2021). When the machine meets the expert: An ethnography of developing AI for hiring. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1557-1580. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/16559
Van De Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying organizational change. Organization Studies 26(9), 1377-1404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605056907
van der Aalst, W. M. P., Bichler, M., & Heinzl, A. (2018). Robotic process automation. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 60(4), 269-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0542-4
Viehhauser, J., & Doerr, M. (2021). Digging for gold in RPA projects – A quantifiable method to identify and prioritize suitable RPA process candidates. In La Rosa, M., Sadiq, S., & Teniente, E. (Eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering (pp. 313-327). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79382-1_19
Waizenegger, L., & Techatassanasoontorn, A. A. (2022). When robots join our team: A configuration theory of employees' perceptions of and reactions to robotic process automation. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 26, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v26i0.3833
Willcocks, L., Hindle, J., & Lacity, M. (2019). Keys to RPA Success: How Blue Prism Clients Are Gaining Superior Long Term Business Value Knowledge Capital Partners Executive Research Report.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Bill Doolin, Angsana A. Techatassanasoontorn, Lena Waizenegger , Erin Wallace-Carter
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
AJIS publishes open-access articles distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Non-Commercial and Attribution License which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and AJIS are credited. All other rights including granting permissions beyond those in the above license remain the property of the author(s).
