Search results

Selecting which processes to improve plays a critical role in the first phase of the business process management lifecycle, but it is a step with known pitfalls. Decision-makers rely on subjective criteria and their knowledge of the alternative processes put forward for selection is often inconsistent. This leads to poor quality decision-making and wastes resources. The purpose of this paper is to examine the proposition that decision-makers armed with context-enriched criteria make more logical, better-quality decisions. The context in question is qualitative, sensitive to decision-making bias and politically charged.

We applied a design-science approach, engaging 70 industry decision-makers through a combination of research methods to assess how different contextual configurations, in a hypothetical scenario adapted from the Australian banking industry, influenced and ultimately improved the quality of the process selection step.

The study highlights the impact of framing effects on context, and the need to adapt framing to decision-maker behavior and provides five guidelines to improve process selection effectiveness.

Process selection research to date has largely focused on quantitative evaluation techniques, with little attention paid to the role of context and the behavioral interplay of decision-making styles in practice.

This paper aims to examine how managers make non-generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) exclusion decisions depending on the regulatory guidance provided and their motivations. Guidance detail is a double-edged sword: resolving uncertainty but risking rule-based compliance over principled judgment.

This paper uses the context of non-GAAP measures in reporting, given the history of Securities and Exchange Commission changes in guidance detail. Drawing on theories of epistemic motivation and process accountability, this paper manipulates the goal of management (informativeness vs. opportunism) and guidance detail to examine effects on management decisions to exclude an ambiguous charge.

The 2×2 between participants experiment with 132 managers reveals that more detailed guidance increases likelihood of exclusion of an ambiguous charge. This paper further finds that this exclusion is more likely when management is given an informativeness goal, a result of a mediating effect of epistemic motivation. However, these findings only hold at low levels of process accountability.

The findings regarding the psychological concepts recognize the influence of perceived decision uncertainty by suggesting how managers respond to the level of regulatory guidance detail, offering regulators and auditors a basis for understanding and anticipating managerial reporting choices. Also, awareness of heightened epistemic motivation under the informativeness goal provides a nuanced practical understanding of non-GAAP decision drivers. Finally, the finding that effects are more pronounced for managers with lower process accountability highlights the significance of organizational accountability structures in guiding managerial choices, which can inform board-level governance and control decisions.

Pragmatically, this paper finds that detailed guidance leads to more appropriate exclusion decisions under a goal of informativeness but finds no such evidence where the goal is opportunism. No prior study has examined how the level of detail in guidance affects managers’ disclosure choices.