Search results

The criminal justice system (CJS) in England and Wales went through extensive reform under the Coalition Government of 2010-2015. In this paper, and through the lens of policing, prisons and probation, the authors set out to identify the direction and qualities of these reforms. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The authors review key policy documents produced by the Coalition Government as well as relevant critiques. The authors concentrate on policing, prisons and probation on the basis that interrogation of these major aspects of the CJS should enable the principles underpinning the Coalition’s approach to the CJS to be discerned.

The authors identify key themes, and their contradictions, that emerged in the Coalition Government’s approach to the CJS, these being: devolution and centralism; marketization with a growing emphasis on payment by results; politicisation and de-politicisation; and, evidence-based policy.

This is a review of recent government policy and as such some of the implications and outcomes resulting from that policy are not yet clear.

This paper will be of particular use to those working in or studying UK criminal justice policy. Given that the majority partner in the Coalition went on to form the current government policy trends from the recent Coalition are likely to have some relevance to current government policy making in the CJS.

To date there have only been limited attempts to identify key policy trends emerging from the Coalition Government.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

This study investigated the interplay between business process management (BPM) and digitalization in organizations and developed principles for designing their interaction.

This study was explorative and used a questionnaire-based survey that involved experts in BPM and digitalization who were actively engaged in these two domains in their organizations to come up with the design principles. The survey and the design principles were based on Rosemann and vom Brocke's (2010) six core elements of BPM.

Digitalization was seen as influencing how BPM is practiced in organizations by strengthening organizations’ focus on BPM, and conversely, BPM was perceived as beneficial for digitalization and digitalization outcomes. In addition, based on Rosemann and vom Brocke’s six core elements of BPM, we proposed six principles for designing the interplay of BPM and digitalization in organizations.

Our empirical investigation was situated in a Norwegian context and included 104 respondents. While we have no reason to believe that our findings should not be valid and useful in other regions, this is a limitation in generalizing our findings, and a natural follow-up would be to investigate our research questions in other geographical areas. We are also aware of the potential response bias in our sample. Moreover, to outline the principles for designing the interactions of BPM and digitalization, we applied the six core elements of BPM by Rosemann and vom Brocke (2010) as our theoretical lens. We acknowledge that there are more issues related to the interplay of BPM and digitalization than we have dealt with in this study.

This study has several implications for organizations. First, managers may use our proposed design principles to decide how to integrate BPM and digitalization. Second, although this study showed that each discipline nurtures its own culture, building an organizational culture that combines values from each discipline can enable a process-oriented organization to innovate its operations and services with digital technology. Third, managers should align the responsibilities and tasks of process owners with the demands for the digitalization of business processes. Fourth, managers, when integrating BPM and digitalization, should take care not to impede the generative attributes of each discipline.

Processes and digital technologies play important roles in society at all levels. BPM seeks to understand how processes unfold and explores how new practices may better serve individuals, organizations and society (vom Brocke et al., 2021), while digitalization is concerned with how various kinds of modern digital technologies may trigger organizational and social changes (Markus and Rowe, 2023; Suri and Jack, 2016).

This study is one of the first studies to investigate the interplay between BPM and digitalization – how digitalization affects BPM practices in organizations and how BPM influences digitalization outcomes. In addition, this study offers novel principles for designing the interaction between BPM and digitalization.

The above quotations highlight the adverse consequences of corruption in many countries around the world today. Indeed, the research taboo on corruption, which Gunnar Myrdal identified in 1968, no longer exists, and the silence on the “C” word (corruption) in the World Bank was broken by James Wolfensohn in his famous October 1996 speech, which focused on the negative consequences of the “cancer of corruption” on the World Bank's aid programs.