Paper Number
ECIS2026-2622
Paper Type
CRP
Abstract
Business Process Management (BPM) intervenes in processes to improve them and is therefore inherently normative. Yet, data-driven BPM risks unfair outcomes, opaque decisions, and diffused accountability. To address this, we offer a procedural account of responsibility grounded in the practical philosophy of methodical constructivism. We reconstruct BPM as practical reasoning that links descriptive findings with directive value choices to yield directive recommendations, and from this derive a duty of the analyst to respond to doubts about justification by either providing reconstructable reasons or revising analytical decisions. We operationalize this through a heuristic procedure with iterative cycles that (i) recognize doubts, (ii) localize and explain them, and (iii) address them through issue-specific securing activities. An illustrative demonstration in a social court use case shows how this procedure systematizes existing responsible BPM techniques and strengthens the justification of BPM results.
Recommended Citation
Lepsien, Arvid; Plumhoff, Svenja; Jelonnek, Stefan; Aleknonyte-Resch, Milda; and Koschmider, Agnes Agnes, "Methodical Responsibility For Business Process Management" (2026). ECIS 2026 Proceedings. 9.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2026/bpm/bpm/9
Methodical Responsibility For Business Process Management
Business Process Management (BPM) intervenes in processes to improve them and is therefore inherently normative. Yet, data-driven BPM risks unfair outcomes, opaque decisions, and diffused accountability. To address this, we offer a procedural account of responsibility grounded in the practical philosophy of methodical constructivism. We reconstruct BPM as practical reasoning that links descriptive findings with directive value choices to yield directive recommendations, and from this derive a duty of the analyst to respond to doubts about justification by either providing reconstructable reasons or revising analytical decisions. We operationalize this through a heuristic procedure with iterative cycles that (i) recognize doubts, (ii) localize and explain them, and (iii) address them through issue-specific securing activities. An illustrative demonstration in a social court use case shows how this procedure systematizes existing responsible BPM techniques and strengthens the justification of BPM results.