256 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers 1 Received: 28th May 2021; revised: 23rd August 2021; accepted: 20th September 2021 The FunCaps Framework: Reconceptualizing Operational Alignment Olfat GANJI BIDMESHK 1,2 , Mohammad MEHRAEEN 1,3* , Alireza POOYA 1 , Yaghoob MAHARATI 1 1 Department of Management, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran, olfat.ganjibidmeshk@mail.um.ac.ir, m-lagzian@um.ac.ir (*corresponding author), alirezapooya@um.ac.ir, maharati@um.ac.ir 2 Department of Management Information Systems, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Van- couver, Canada 3 Department of Information Systems, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada Background and purpose: Operational alignment, the alignment between business processes (BPs) and infor- mation systems (ISs), is a well-acknowledged requirement for improving business efficiency. However, a lack of sound foundation for the practical implementation of operational alignment remains in the existing literature. This is, in part, because previously developed coarse-grained strategic alignment models for operational alignment have overlooked the differences between strategic and operational levels of alignment. Additionally, while some studies have recognized these differences, they remain limited. This is partly due to their negligence of the IS’s socio-tech- nical nature or their focus on identifying the social antecedents and their effect on operational alignment, without considering how ISs meet the business requirements in achieving operational alignment. To overcome this potential lack of applicability, the purpose of this paper is to determine the right level of abstraction for describing BPs and ISs and reconceptualizing operational alignment. Methodology: This paper conducts empirical research using a grounded theory (GT), centering on semi-structured interviews with 28 experts involved in the Iranian top public universities. Data were analyzed by using MAXQDA software. Results: The resulting FunCaps framework specifies the required combinations of BP functions and IS capabilities for operational alignment. Conclusion: FunCaps reconceptualizes operational alignment based on operational planning and reciprocal inte- gration and establishes the broader picture by considering an IS as a socio-technical system. Keywords: Operational alignment, information system, business process, socio-technical system, grounded theory DOI: 10.2478/orga-2021-0018 1 Introduction In the study of information system (IS), it is essential to move from silo to system thinking to achieve ISs and business alignment and improve business efficiency. The IS was considered a separate department of a business, before the 1970s, that did not share the same priorities, goals, or tools with the other departments (Luftman et al. 2017). As a result, the IS department operated as an in- dividual business entity and was viewed solely as a cost for the business (Kappelman et al. 2019). As long as the functions of IS were only maintenance and processing of the records and documents, the silo thinking did not lead to major challenges (Karpovsky and Galliers 2015). Howev- er, challenges emerge when competition increases, and as such, efficiency becomes vital for the business. Businesses must move from silo thinking to systems thinking (Bagheri et al. 2019) to improve business efficiency. Systems think- ing is a holistic approach focused on how the departments 257 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers in a business and their constituents work together efficient- ly over time. As a result, system thinking necessitates the alignment of business and ISs, as the business constituents, at both strategic and operational levels (Hinkelmann et al. 2016). To achieve business-IS alignment, we need to realize alignment at both strategic and operational levels. Strate- gic alignment refers to aligning IS strategies with business strategies and helps meet future IS needs of the business (Levstek et al. 2018). Operational alignment investigates the alignment of ISs with the business by ensuring the ef- fectiveness and efficiency of ISs in supporting daily busi- ness operations (Zhou et al. 2018). Additionally, while strategic alignment focuses on “What should be done?” (Henderson and Venkatraman 1993), operational align- ment is rooted in answering “How to perform activities?” (Gerow et al. 2016). As such, alignment is not achieved unless it is realized at both strategic and operational levels (Renaud et al. 2016). Business-IS alignment, at both levels (strategic and operational), has been a main concern of the information technology (IT) leaders since 1984 (Kappelman et al. 2018). Similarly, CIOs at top public universities (TPUs) in Iran remain concerned about the alignment of IS and business process (BP) (hereafter operational alignment). TPUs are leading universities in developing IT/IS capabil- ities. Despite CIOs’ desire for the practical implementation of the existing models and frameworks at TPUs, they are limited in efficient and effective achievement of operation - al alignment. Therefore, operational alignment remains an open problem for the CIOs at the TPUs. The concern in achieving operational alignment relates to (1) adaptation of the approaches in strategic alignment for operational alignment and (2) limitations of existing approaches specific for achieving operational alignment. Firstly, while the strategic level is coarse-grained, the op- erational level is fine-grained. Therefore, in the adaptation of alignment approaches at the strategic level, high-level strategic concepts must be converted into precise, well-de- fined, and low-level operational concepts. Secondly, al- though only a handful of the extensive previous studies on business-IS alignment have considered the differenc- es between strategic and operational levels of alignment (Malshe et al. 2017), they remain limited in their appli- cability to operational alignment. The existing approaches that have used modeling languages (MLs) to link models in BPs and software systems (SSs) (e.g., Aversano et al. 2016; Li et al. 2015; Kraiem et al. 2014) should be im- proved for achieving operational alignment. Because these studies do not consider SS as a socio-technical system, and yet IS, not considered by MLs, is a sociotechnical system. The remainder of the handful of approaches that have con- sidered the differences between strategic and operational alignment are limited because they do not consider how ISs meet business requirements in achieving operational alignment. Instead, they are focused on identifying social antecedents (e.g., communication) and their effect on the operational alignment (e.g., Wagner et al. 2014; Zhou et al. 2018; Bagheri et al. 2019). The right abstraction level must be used to identify what to include and what to exclude in achieving operational alignment in order to address the limitations of the existing approaches. Abstraction is the process in which some features are chosen to be presented while some are rejected (Kaul et al. 2017). The right level of abstraction, here, means that abstraction must (1) con- sider the differences between the strategic and operational levels of alignment and translate high-level strategic con- cepts into low-level operational concepts, (2) consider IS as a socio-technical system, and (3) consider how ISs meet business requirements. The issues mentioned above necessitate further re- search to determine: Research Question: What is the right level of abstrac- tion to describe BPs and ISs for achieving operational alignment? Here, we used Grounded theory (GT) as a bottom-up approach to scrutinize operational alignment. GT starts from fine-grained elements and classifies them to form coarse-grained dimensions. As a result, using GT, we will achieve a higher-level abstraction without missing low- er-level details and elicit the socio-technical aspect of op- erational alignment. This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the approaches used in the previous research on busi- ness-IS alignment and the research gap. Section 3 explains the use of GT as a research method. Section 4 presents the results of the analysis and coding of the data. Section 5 po- sitions the results of this research in the relevant literature and integrates the results with related model. And, Section 6 discusses the limitations of the study and presents some suggestions for future studies. 2 Literature review Business-IS alignment is an extensively studied topic (Zhou et al. 2018). This section reviews the approaches in the previous literature on business-IS alignment and their research gap. 2.1 Approaches used in the previous research on business-IS alignment The approaches used in the existing studies are cate- gorized into two main categories: (1) approaches that aim to achieve strategic alignment and (2) approaches that aim to achieve operational alignment. We explained selected studies on two main categories in Appendix A. 258 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers 2.2 Research gap 2.2.1 Approaches at the strategic level Challenges in existing approaches at the strategic level of alignment are rooted in the level of planning and the direction of integration (Grover and Lyytinen 2015). Ex- isting literature at the strategic level is based on strategic planning, while the realization of operational alignment is contingent upon operational planning (Malshe et al. 2017). Strategic planning aims to answer the questions: “Where does the organization want to be in the future?” and “How will organizational vision, mission, and objectives be reached?”. In contrast, operational planning supports stra- tegic planning to meet organizational goals (Schwarz et al. 2010). In terms of the direction of integration, the direc- tion of integration in strategic alignment is sequential or reciprocal, while the direction of integration in operational alignment is reciprocal (Rahimi et al. 2016). Sequential in- tegration is one-way planning of business; in other words, IS focuses primarily on providing business support. Re- ciprocal integration refers to two-way planning with a re- ciprocal and interdependent relationship between business and IS, where IS plays a role in supporting and influenc- ing business (Teo and King 1997). To achieve operational alignment, we must consider the (1) distinctions between the two levels of planning (strategic and operational) and (2) reciprocal integration. Our detailed literature review on business-IS align- ment at the strategic level showed that proposed models and frameworks are influenced by the strategic level of planning and place a low priority on the reciprocal integra- tion between BPs and ISs. Concerning strategic planning, these models demonstrate the required actions to achieve strategic alignment. These actions are based on long-term objectives dependent on fluctuating environmental condi- tions and various internal organizational factors (Bergeron et al. 2004). Therefore, models and frameworks at the stra- tegic level are high-level concepts, and not generalizable to operational alignment, based on operational planning and short-term objectives. In terms of reciprocal integration, the models and frameworks for strategic alignment place a low priority on the interplay between BPs and ISs, which is a higher priority for achieving alignment at the opera- tional level (Renaud et al. 2016). According to Pantazi and Georgopoulos (2006), operational alignment is based on a two-way relationship and reciprocal integration, which means that ISs not only facilitate and support the success- ful implementation of BPs but also increase the agility and flexibility of BPs in conformity with the environmental dynamic. In summary, both the development of ISs based on BPs and the fulfilment of BPs according to ISs, play a crucial role in operational alignment (Trang et al. 2021). However, most of the existing models and frameworks do not take the differences between strategic and operational planning, and the reciprocal integration between BPs and ISs, into account and, therefore, there remains a need for further investigation to realize operational alignment (Ko- tusev, 2020). 2.2.2 Approaches at the operational level Existing literature at the operational level used one of two approaches: (1) using MLs to link models in BPs and SSs, and (2) focusing on identifying social antecedents and their effect on operational alignment. Studies using MLs to link models in BPs and SSs (e.g., Aversano et al. 2016; Li et al. 2015; Kraiem et al. 2014; Frankova et al. 2011) are commonly based on two fundamentally limiting premises: their focus is limited to SS, and they mainly draw from Strategic Alignment Model (SAM). The limited focus of previous studies of operational alignment implementation on SS gives rise to challenges for implementing their outcomes. The majority of exist- ing ML approaches have taken up operational alignment by linking models in BP with SS instead of with ISs. Bo- strom and Heinen (1977) argue that an IS consists of two interactive parts, namely, technical and social subsystems, where the technical subsystem includes technology, arti- facts, processes, tasks, procedures, and physical environ- ment, and the social subsystem comprises elements such as structure and people (with their viewpoints, behaviours, and relationships) (Bostrom and Heinen 1977). According to the socio-technical system (STS) theory, although tech- nical and social subsystems are closely interrelated, they are intrinsically distinct. Technical subsystems aim to at- tain specified performance parameters. Social subsystems, however, are dependent on humans with unpredictable be- haviours. Technical subsystems traditionally dominate the investigation of systems and focus on the technical aspect of SSs without considering the social aspects. Yet, in con- trast to SS, IS is a socio-technical system (Walker et al. 2008). Thus, the emerging approaches using MLs should consider IS as a socio-technical system to improve their applicability in achieving operational alignment. Besides, most ML approaches build on SAM. Accord- ing to Renaud et al. (2016), SAM is grounded in assump- tions that are recognized as no longer valid and hence must be updated by reconceptualizing its dimensions. Others have challenged Henderson and Venkatraman’s (1993) valuable model (i.e., SAM) due to its three possible major shortcomings depending on (1) the true nature of organiza- tional strategy, (2) the performativity of the model, and (3) managerial rationality and redundancy of organizational members (Renaud et al. 2016). The first challenge is that SAM takes a managerial and top-down approach in which IS strategy or business strategy is intended exclusively for an elite group within the organization (Renaud et al. 2016). SAM does not emphasize the importance of the stream of Strategy as Practice (SaP). SaP defines strategy as some- 259 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers thing for which actors are responsible and is not simply the content or the action plan resulting from a decision. Instead, SaP breaks away from conventional literature on the strategy that focuses primarily on top managers and challenges the notion that only one elite group within an organization can act strategically (Renaud et al. 2016). Secondly, SAM is an abstract “black box” that may not reflect its corresponding environmental complexity. As a result, SAM might overlook the organizational reality, and managers might face difficulty in effectively appropriating its dimensions (Avison et al. 2004). Renaud et al. (2016) later also pinpointed that due to SAM’s high level of ab- straction, it might lack an approximate representation of practical reality. Finally, SAM’s is virtually designed ex- clusively for top managers. This model presumes that if the managers follow the model’s rational prescriptions, or- ganizational performance should improve (but often does not) (Renaud et al. 2016). Moreover, SAM emphasizes the technical aspect and underestimates the importance of the social aspect of the IS because of its theoretical abstrac- tions. Interestingly, at the time of the SAM model’s initial proposal, an IS was hardly considered a socio-technical system (Renaud et al. 2016). Today, however, studies find that ISs, users, and organizations are intrinsically embed- ded and interrelated since each of them shapes the others. Hence, emerging approaches need to consider SaP, low level of abstraction, and, similar to the abovementioned, consider IS as a socio-technical system to address the lim- itations of SAM and improve the applicability of MLs for achieving operational alignment. Finally, the studies of operational alignment that focus on social antecedents overlook the need for a multi-dimen- sional understanding of operational alignment and how the ISs meet business requirements. Firstly, alignment must be assessed with a multi-dimensional model (Hanson et al. 2011). Our assessment of the existing literature, focused on identifying social antecedents and their effect on op- erational alignment (e.g., Wagner et al. 2014; Zhou et al. 2018; Bagheri et al. 2019), shows that these studies are particularly focused on the social antecedents and did not consider the other antecedents (i.e., dimensions) of opera- tional alignment. Additionally, these studies consider how social antecedents affect operational alignment, regardless of how ISs meet business requirements. Therefore, there is a need for approaches that not only consider operational alignment as a multi-dimensional concept but also empha- size how ISs meet the business requirements in achieving operational alignment. Consequently, the discussed shortcomings of the two fundamental premises of ML approaches and approaches considering only the social antecedents result in limita- tions in their applicability for achieving operational align- ment. In this study, we posit that the underlying rationale for these limitations stems from the conceptualization of operational alignment and empirical methodology. Given the research gap mentioned above, we use a bottom-up approach to reconceptualize operational alignment, where elements and dimensions of operational alignment are ex- plored, and the reality and practice at the operational level are different from that of the strategic level. 3 Research methodology 3.1 Grounded Theory and approaches In this study, we used GT to determine the right lev- el of abstraction for describing BPs and ISs in achieving operational alignment. GT is a qualitative research meth- odology, which transcends survey and content analysis techniques by using conceptualization (Lings and Lundell 2005). GT is based on a bottom-up approach and focuses on answering questions like “What is going on in an area of research?” by generating formal or substantive theory (Corbin and Strauss 2008). Although GT has been initially used in social studies, it is also a useful method for a wide range of IS field topics (Wiesche et al. 2017). There are two main reasons for selecting GT as the most appropri- ate research methodology for conducting this study. First- ly, GT has a high capacity for exploring and interpreting complex and multifaceted phenomena (Corbin and Strauss 2008), such as operational alignment with multiple dimen- sions and elements. Secondly, this research considers an IS to be a socio-technical system. GT enables the disentan- glement of the social processes underlying human inter- actions (Glaser and Holton 2007) and, therefore, is best suited for studying issues with a socio-technical nature. We used an emergent approach in this study. The emergent approach is flexible and unstructured. In the case that the previous studies are insufficient, the emergent ap- proach extracts a theory from the data rather than imposing a theory on the data (Glaser and Holton 2007). We used the emergent approach for two main reasons. Firstly, this approach is instrumental in constructing a novel perspec- tive on a well-known area (Stern 1994), which was our research goal. Secondly, the emergent approach is suitable where the work is not driven by a hypothesis up-front and the goal of the study is to establish a conceptual frame- work grounded in data (Glaser and Holton 2004). In this research, we did not predefine assumptions; we investigat- ed participants’ main concerns in operational alignment to discover how they can be resolved. Here, we used the emergent approach to obtain a new perspective on oper- ational alignment and establish a conceptual framework grounded in data. 3.2 The empirical context We conducted this study at top public universities (TPUs) in Iran for the following reasons. First and foremost, TPUs have a long-standing need for operational alignment 260 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers and CIOs are concerned about operational alignment. Sec- ondly, TPUs meet the foundational requirements for oper- ational alignment investigation and implementation as (1) TPUs are leaders among universities in the Middle East in developing IT/IS capabilities and (2) TPUs widely use ISs at various levels and have effective BP management. De- partments of BPs and ISs at TPUs are separate, with each having independent plans and responsibilities. As a result, TPUs not only have the need for operational alignment but also meet the foundational requirements for the implemen- tation of operational alignment. Therefore, exploration of the elements and dimensions for appropriate actualization of operational alignment is facilitated at TPUs. 3.3 Sampling and data collection To carry out this study, we targeted experts in the field of business-IS alignment. Initially, we contacted a few ex- perts familiar with business-IS alignment via email and phone to seek their consent for participation. To identify more qualified experts, we employed snowball sampling, which is a method of expanding the sample by asking one informant or participant to recommend others for inter- viewing (Stern 1994). Furthermore, due to (1) business-IS alignment being multifaceted (different antecedents related to different fields) and (2) data triangulation being neces- sary in qualitative research (Corbin and Strauss 2008), we selected the experts from different fields (i. e., IS, BP, and operational alignment) and groups. We categorized experts into either academic researchers or managers and senior experts (i.e., policymakers in both IS and BP). The man- agers and senior experts are individuals who have respon- sibilities in five different sectors at the TPUs (1) learning, (2) administrative and financial affairs, (3) planning and development resources, (4) research, and (5) the cultural, social, and student area. The most appropriate data collection method in GT is semi-structured interviewing (Glaser and Holton 2007), which we employed in the present study. Based on theo- retical sampling in GT, we performed 28 semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Theoretical sampling is non-proba- ble, purposive, and subject to the researchers’ judgment (Glaser and Hon 2005). The basic approach of theoretical sampling is to identify the new groups or subgroups that should be chosen for the next stage of data collection (Gla- ser 2008) to fill the emergent gaps in the theory during the coding process (Glaser and Holton 2004). 3.4 Data analysis We analyzed data using the coding process of the emergent approach based on substantive coding (open and selective) and theoretical coding. Substantive and theo- retical coding are not distinct stages in the interpretation process; rather, they are different ways to work with the textual data that the researchers may dislocate or integrate. The interpretation process begins with open coding and uses selective and theoretical coding during the final steps of analysis. In terms of tool support, we used MAXQDA 10, a powerful computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (Schonfelder 2011), to analyze and manage the GT-required steps. 4 Results 4.1 Open coding During the open coding step, we extracted open codes and concepts. At first, we obtained 321 open codes. Then, we categorized open codes by their similarities and differ- ences. We extracted and organized 106 concepts by do- main: 45 concepts in the BP domain and 61 concepts in the IS domain. 4.2 Selective coding We filtered, separated, unified, and regulated the re- sulted concepts from open coding during the selective cod- ing step. This was achieved by reducing the initial number of codes to an explanatory framework of high-level cat- egories (i.e., dimensions). We selected dimension names based on in vivo code matching that uses the interviewees’ statements to ensure close support of the findings by the data. In addition, the name of a dimension was selected to connect the related or similar concepts. The dimensions, therefore, have higher conceptual strength than concepts because they link many of the concepts. Using selective coding, we categorized the 45 concepts identified in the BP domain into 11 dimensions and categorized 61 concepts in the IS domain into four dimensions. We describe each dimension obtained from selective coding in BP and IS do- mains in the following two sections. Hereafter, concepts are referred to as the “elements”, or constituents, of their respective identified dimension. 4.2.1 Dimensions in the BP domain The dimensions in the BP domain consist of the de- velopment of ISs to support each of the BP functions. BP functions are learning management, research manage- ment, strategic management, quality management, student services management, social and cultural management, communication management, assets management, human resource management (HRM), financial resource manage- ment, and information and communication technology (ICT) management. In the interest of conciseness, only 261 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers one of the dimensions in the BP domain is explained here, described by a selected quotation from the interviewees. Dimension BP1: Development of ISs to support learn- ing management. In response to questions about the com- patibility of ISs with BPs, most respondents argued that it would not be possible to develop ISs without considering ISs in supporting the key learning management processes at the university (e. g., Expert E6). From their perspective, the use of ISs in the admin- istrative and teaching services, learning planning, admis- sion, learning assessment, and termination of study would improve services at the TPUs and provide the TPUs with adequate information for refining the decision outcomes concerning learning management. The development of a comprehensive learning pro- gram is dependent on the presence of activities such as the management of learning units, the planning of learn- ing activities and documentation, and the modification of learning regulations. In addition, ISs are instrumental in providing essential information for the fulfilment of these activities. (Expert E6) 4.2.2 Dimensions in the IS domain Dimensions derived from selective coding in the IS do- main include the development of BPs commensurate with the IS capabilities, namely strategic, management, knowl- edge-based, and operational capabilities. For brevity, only one of the dimensions in the IS domain is explained here and described by a selected quotation from the interview- ees. Dimension IS1: Development of BP commensurate with the strategic capabilities of IS. The majority of ex- perts argue that university processes should be designed by utilizing the IS’s strategic capabilities to create and im- prove strategic benefits (e. g., Expert E4). Strategic capabilities allow environmental assessments and analysis of the business for identifying long-term stra- tegic goals. For instance, collecting and processing various student data could identify a more effective and individ- ualized student learning processes. Strategic capabilities include flexible and diverse internal and external resources that would enable change, as well as timely availability of information to analyze environmental opportunities and threats for the business and the strengths and weaknesses of the business. In my opinion, the sustainable and competitive advan- tage of the university is contingent upon improving the design of the educational services to use the capabilities of the IS for reducing the current service costs and enhanc- ing service provisions. Further, we all know that university processes are continually changing due to environmental changes, and therefore, the flexibility of the ISs supports our ability to respond to these changing processes. (Expert E4) 4.3 Theoretical coding To develop the theoretical framework, we defined the main categories extracted from the coding steps and their relationships based on Glaser’s type family. The type fam- ily presents the main categories and their relationships based on their types, forms, kinds, and styles (Glaser 2008). In this regard, first, based on related literature, we identified the types of BP functions of the extracted dimen- sions in the BP domain (Section 4.3.1) and the types of IS capabilities of obtained dimensions in the IS domain (Sec- tion 4.3.2). Then, we reviewed all the memos generated throughout the study to relate and enrich the main catego- ries in the presented framework (Section 4.3.3). 4.3.1 Types of BP functions We categorized the BP functions in our study based on previous literature (Porter and Millar 1985; Bucher et al. 2009; Boguslauskas and Kvedaraviciene 2009). After we reviewed the open codes, concepts (elements), and catego- ries (dimensions) several times, we grouped BP functions into two main types: primary and support. The primary functions are defined as functions that focus on develop- ing products, distributing them, and offering after-sale ser- vices on products. In contrast, the support functions are defined as functions that provide inputs and infrastructure that enable the primary functions (Porter and Millar 1985). In comparison, management functions, business func- tions, and support functions are value-adding functions de- fined by Bucher et al. (2009) that can be paralleled to the Porter and Millar’s categorization of primary and support functions. In this categorization, management functions comprise all fundamental management activities dealing with an organization’s development, design, leadership, and control. Business functions are defined as functions that represent the actual execution of all market-side op- erations, focused on the immediate creation of consumer value. And finally, support functions are defined as func- tions that involve the infrastructure provision and internal services production, required for efficient and effective execution of the processes. Therefore, the primary func- tions defined by Porter and Miller (1985) are virtually the management and business functions as described by Bu- cher et al. (2009) because both management and business functions are focused on product development directly or indirectly. Specifically, while management functions indi- rectly contribute to consumer value, business functions are directly involved in this process as well as the develop- ment of the product, market-sided activities, and after-sale services. The support functions in the study of Bucher et al. (2009) are, in turn, equivalent to the support functions in the study of Porter and Miller (1985) because by both definitions, these are the functions that provide inputs and 262 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers support the infrastructures for implementation of other functions. Finally, business functions can be categorized into core and non-core functions. Core business functions relate most directly to the basic business of the organization and represent the key organizational activities (Boguslauskas and Kvedaraviciene 2009). Therefore, core business func- tions are the critical business operation activities that an organization is founded on, and these functions are the main source of organizational profits and success. In com- parison, non-core business functions exist only to facilitate the business (Weerakkody et al. 2003). Thus, based on the discussed categorizations above (Porter and Millar 1985; Bucher et al. 2009; Boguslauskas and Kvedaraviciene 2009), in our study, the types of BP functions are primary and support functions, where prima- ry functions consist of management functions, core busi- ness functions, and non-core business functions. Appendix B shows the different types of BP functions. 4.3.2 Types of IS capabilities We categorized the IS capabilities in our study based on a four-level pyramid of ISs (O’Brien 2000) and STS theory (Bostrom and Heinen 1977). Regarding the four-level pyramid of ISs, this model identifies several ISs and links their capabilities to the four organizational lev- els: strategic, management, knowledge, and operational. In our study, we similarly described IS capabilities based on these four levels. ISs at the strategic level focus on stra- tegic issues and long-term trends. The ISs at the manage- ment level monitor, control, and make decisions to show how the organization is performing. ISs at the knowledge level create, distribute, and share knowledge. And the ISs at the operational level record initial activities and transac- tions of organizations. The STS theory considers an IS as a socio-technical system consisting of social and technical subsystems (Bo- strom and Heinen 1977) with four interacting components: (1) actor, (2) structure, (3) task, and (4) technology (Lyyt- inen and Newman 2008). (1) Actors are the entities (in- dividuals, organizations, consumers, policymakers, etc.) who make decisions and are involved in processes by performing different roles. (2) The structure includes both the normative aspect, that is, values, norms, and general role expectations, and the behavioural aspect, that is, the patterns of behaviour as actors communicate, exercise au- thority, or work. The structure covers one or more of three systems: the authority system, the workflow system, and the communication system. The authority system shows the required regulations, standards, and rules for facili- tating tasks. The workflow system is related to standard- ization for tasks. And the communication system refers to norms and patterns of behaviour in communication. (3) The task component elucidates how the work gets done within the organization. (4) Technology denotes technical infrastructure required, including network, hardware, and software (Lyytinen and Newman 2008). The interaction of the components is the actor doing (creating or performing) tasks associated with (producing or using) technology and connecting to (creating or under) a specific structure. Following the abovementioned studies (O’Brien 2000; Bostrom and Heinen 1977; Lyytinen and Newman 2008), we described types of IS capabilities based on four levels of ISs. We considered ISs at each level as a socio-technical system with its own components. Appendix C shows the different types of IS capabilities. 4.3.3 Relating BP functions and IS capabilities: FunCaps framework We reconceptualized operational alignment based on the main categories and their relationship in a novel “Func- tions and Capabilities (FunCaps) framework” to show the combinations of BP functions and IS capabilities that need to be aligned to achieve operational alignment. We stud- ied the open codes, concepts, dimensions, and types of BP functions and IS capabilities several times to identi- fy the main categories (the types of BP functions and IS capabilities) and their relationships. The main categories and their relationships surfaced to achieve the alignment between BP functions (primary and support) and IS ca- pabilities (strategic, management, knowledge-based, and operational). These main categories detect the conceptual relations that connect all higher-level dimensions and all elements and dimensions derived in the coding process re- fer to them. Finally, based on the main categories and their relationships, we reconceptualized operational alignment as shown in Figure 1. The FunCaps framework provides a visual framework to determine the combinations of BP functions and IS ca- pabilities that need to be aligned to achieve operational alignment (Figure 1). For instance, for alignment of core business functions and IS capabilities, learning manage- ment and research management need to be aligned with all four types of IS capabilities (strategic capabilities, man- agement capabilities, knowledge-based capabilities, and operational capabilities). 5 Discussion and integration with existing frameworks 5.1 Positioning the findings in foundational business-IS alignment terminologies We positioned our findings based on the four funda- mental considerations of business-IS alignment that other 263 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers researchers have reached a consensus on, despite the dif- ferences in terminology used for business-IS alignment. Alignment has been discussed since 1970s (Renaud et al. 2016), and different researchers have described alignment with terms such as integration, fit, bridge, harmony, and linkage (Avison et al. 2004). The diversity in the termi- nology used for definition and exploration of alignment highlights the time-dependent understanding of alignment in the field. However, most researchers acknowledge busi- ness-IS alignment as a continuous process involving four fundamental considerations: (1) integration level (Hender- son and Venkatraman 1993), (2) integration direction (Teo and King 1997), (3) the perspective of fit (Venkatraman 1989), and (4) categories of misfit (Strong and V olkoff 2010). Table 1 illustrates a summary of the positioning of our findings in the abovementioned foundational consid- erations. Figure 1: The FunCaps framework for operational alignment In comparison to SAM, the FunCaps framework aims to actualize and reconceptualize operational alignment to overcome the limitations of SAM. The FunCaps frame- work and SAM capture the alignment between processes and infrastructures for business and IS domains. How- ever, the FunCaps framework goes further than SAM by opening up the operational integration boxes and their re- lationships in SAM and addressing three of SAM’s short- comings. Firstly, FunCaps framework, unlike SAM, em- phasizes the importance of Strategy as Practice (SaP) by describing the types of IS capabilities based on a four-level pyramid of ISs (O’Brien 2000). Each level is considered a socio-technical system, where strategy at each level is not considered solely as an action plan developed by the top business management. Instead, in this socio-technical sys- tem, actors at all four levels of the pyramid are responsible for strategy. Secondly, FunCaps is fine-grained and, hence, shows the practical reality of the organization. This framework visualizes and reconceptualizes operational alignment based on low level, precise, and well-defined operation- al concepts. As such, FunCaps provides a useful way for policy makers, managers, and senior IS experts to adopt its dimensions and elements in both BP and IS domains. Thirdly, FunCaps considers an IS as a socio-technical system and describes IS capabilities based on its compo- nents (actor, structure, task, and technology). The mutual interaction between these components, in turn, results in creating and modifying IS capabilities. Figure 3 shows the integration of the FunCaps framework and SAM. 6 Conclusion and future research Achievement of Operational alignment has been a key challenge for organizations in recent decades (Kappelman et al. 2019) due to the limitations of existing models and frameworks. Operational alignment enables organizations to not only make the BPs implementation feasible but also to increase the utilization of ISs. In addition, it helps the ISs to be business-centered and to adjust the requirements for developing BPs (Tallon et al. 2016). Multiple models and frameworks exist in the field of business-IS alignment. In practice, however, they have not been effective for the realization of operational alignment due to three major lim- itations. Firstly, most existing models are coarse-grained as they focus on the strategic level of alignment. These models do not consider the discrepancies between the two Legend: lines betweeen dimensions mean alignment 264 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers Reference Foundational considerations Description This paper Henderson and Ven- katraman (1993) Integration level Strategic The link between the business strategies and IS strategies, reflecting the external components of the business Operational The link between business infrastructures and processes, and IS infrastructures and processes, dealing with internal components of the business * Teo and King (1997) Integration direction Administrative Development of business and IS, based on separate planning Sequential One-way planning process and IS, focused primarily on pro- viding support for business Reciprocal Two-way planning process and IS, playing a role in both sup- porting and influencing business * Full integration Concurrent development of business and IS in the same inte- gration planning process Venka- traman (1989) Perspective of fit Moderation Conceptualizing alignment as the interaction between two variables (e.g., strategic orientation and strategic IS manage- ment), and studying their interactional effect on firm perfor- mance Mediation Considering alignment as an intervening variable between antecedent variables such as strategic orientation and con- sequent variables such as firm performance Matching Defining alignment as a match between the two variables * Covariation Adopting a conceptualization based on the internal consis- tency among a set of underlying related variables Profile deviation Assuming an ideal profile exists, i.e., ideal values of variables are the values of high performers Gestalt Conceptualizing alignment as frequently recurring clusters of attributes Strong Volkoff (2010) Categories of misfit Functionality Occurring when BP executions, using the enterprise system (ES), lead to reduced efficiency or effectiveness * Data Resulting from data quality issues (such as inaccuracy) caused by data or data characteristics stored in, or needed by, the ES Usability Occurring when the required interactions with the ES for task execution are cumbersome or confusing Role Arising from inconsistencies between the roles in the ES and the available skills Control Stemming from excessive or insufficient controls within the ES-embedded controls Culture Resulting from contradictions between ES requirements and organizational norms Table 1: Positioning the findings in foundational considerations of business-IS alignment levels of alignment (strategic and operational). Secondly, existing studies neglect the socio-technical nature of the IS. Thirdly, previous studies are focused on identifying social antecedents and their effect on operational align- ment without considering how ISs meet business require- ments in achieving operational alignment. This research determined the right level of abstraction to describe BPs and ISs for achieving operational alignment and address the current discussed gaps in the existing studies. We adopted GT as a bottom-up approach to reconceptualize operational alignment and used an adaptive approach in the description of BPs and ISs instead of confirming or imposing a theory on business-IS alignment. The result was the FunCaps framework. This framework considers differences between strategic and operational alignment and reconceptualizes operational alignment based on oper- 265 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers Figure 2: SAM (From Henderson and Venkatraman 1993) Figure 3: The integration of FunCaps framework and SAM Legend: lines betweeen dimensions mean alignment 266 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers ational planning and reciprocal integration. Thus, FunCaps is a fine-grained framework that translates high-level, stra- tegic concepts into low level, precise, and well-defined operational concepts. (i.e., BP functions and IS capabili- ties). FunCaps, in addition, establishes the broader picture of the operational alignment by considering an IS to be a socio-technical system. This study has three main limitations that can offer op- portunities for future studies in this area. The first is the focus of TPUs in Iran. Broader research at educational in- stitutions in other countries can add to the number of ex- perts and enhance the results of the research. The second limitation is the neglect of the other two levels of align- ment (strategic and tactical). Future studies might identify the dimensions and elements of alignment at all levels and provide a model for achieving business-IS alignment at all three levels. The third limitation arises from the focus on STS theory. To describe the types of IS capabilities and situate them in STS theory, we did not explicitly assess the interaction of components (actor, structure, task, and technology) in this study. Future studies can further ex- plore this socio-technical approach toward operational alignment for both BP and IS domains and consider the interaction between the components. Literature Alavi, M., & Yoo, Y . (1995). Productivity gains for BPR. Information Systems Management, 12(4), 43-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399019508963002 Alsudiri, T., Al-Karaghouli, W., & Eldabi, T. (2013). Align- ment of large project management process to business strategy: A review and conceptual framework. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 26(5), 596- 615. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-07-2013-0050 Attaran, M. (2003). Information technology and busi- ness process redesign. Business Process Man- agement Journal, 9(4), 440-458. https://doi. org/10.1108/14637150310484508 Aversano, L., Grasso, C., & Tortorella, M. (2016). Man- aging the alignment between business processes and software systems. Information and Software Tech- nology,72, 171-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inf- sof.2015.12.009 Avison, D., Jones, J., Powell, P., & Wilson, D. (2004). Using and Validating the Strategic Alignment Model. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(3), 223- 246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2004.08.002 Bagheri, S., Kusters, R.J., Trienekens, J.J.M., & Grefen, P.W.P.J. (2019). A Reference Model-Based User Re- quirements Elicitation Process: Toward Operational Business-IT Alignment in a Co-Creation Value Net- work. Information and Software Technology, 111, 72- 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2019.03.012 Bergeron, F., Raymond, L., & Rivard, S. (2004). Ideal Patterns of Strategic Alignment and Business Per- formance. Information & Management, 41(8), 1003- 1020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.10.004 Boguslauskas, V ., & Kvedaraviciene, G. (2009). Difficul- ties in identifying Company’s Core Competencies and Core Processes. Engineering Economics, 62(2), 75-80. Bostrom, R.P. & Heinen, J.S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: a socio-technical perspective. Part I: the causes. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), 17-32, https://doi. org/10.2307/248710 Bucher, T., Gericke, A., & Sigg, S. (2009). Process-cen- tric business intelligence. Business Process Man- agement Journal, 15(3), 408-429, https://doi. org/10.1108/14637150910960648 Cibran, M.A. (2009). Translating BPMN models into UML activities. In Business Process Management Work- shops on pp. 236-247, Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Re- search: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Los Angeles. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108324514 Cram, W. (2012). Aligning organizational values in systems development projects. Management Re- search Review, 35(8), 709-726. https://doi. org/10.1108/01409171211247703 De Castro, V ., Marcos, E., & Vara, J. M. (2011). Apply- ing CIM-to-PIM model transformations for the ser- vice-oriented development of information systems. Information and Software Technology,53(1), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.09.002 Doumi, K., Baina, S., & Baina, K. (2013). Strategic busi- ness and IT alignment: representation and evaluation. Journal of Theoretical& Applied Information Technol- ogy, 47(1), 41-52. Elvesater, B., Panfilenko, D., Jacobi, S., & Hahn, C. (2010). Aligning business and IT models in service-oriented architectures using BPMN and SoaML. In Proceed- ings of the First International Workshop on Model Driven Interoperability, pp. 61-68, ACM, https://doi. org/10.1145/1866272.1866281 Frankova, G., Séguran, M., Gilcher, F., Trabelsi, S., Dör- flinger, J., & Aiello, M. (2011). Deriving business processes with service level agreements from early requirements. Journal of Systems and Software, 84(8), 1351-1363, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2011.03.077 Gehlert, A., Bramsiepe, N., & Pohl, K. (2008). Goal-driv- en alignment of services and business requirements. In Service-Oriented Computing: Consequences for En- gineering Requirements, SOCCER’08, International Workshop on pp. 1-7, IEEE, https://doi.org/10.1109/ SOCCER.2008.5 Gerow, J., Grover, V ., & Thatcher, J. (2016). Alignment’s Nomological Network: Theory and Evaluation. Infor- mation & Management, 53(5), 541-553, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.im.2015.12.006 Glaser, B.G. (2008). Conceptualization: on theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Jour- nal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 23-38, https://doi. 267 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers org/10.1177/160940690200100203 Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling Ground- ed Theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2), 1-17, https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-5.2.607 Glaser, B.G. & Holton, J. (2007). Remodeling Grounded Theory. Historical Social Research, 19(32), 47-68, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40981068 Glaser, B. G., & Hon. (2005). Staying Open: The Use of Theoretical Codes in Grounded Theory. The Grounded Theory Review, 5(1), 1-20. Grover, V ., & Lyytinen, K. (2015). New State of Play in Information Systems Research: The Push to the Edges. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 271-296, https://doi. org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.01 Han, F., Moller, E., & Berre, A.J. (2009). Organizational interoperability supported through goal alignment with BMM and service collaboration with SoaML. In In- teroperability for Enterprise Software and Applications China, IESA’09, International Conference on pp. 268- 274, IEEE, 10.1109/I-ESA.2009.55 Hanson, J.D., Melnyk, S.A., & Calantone, R.A. (2011). Defining and measuring alignment in performance management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(10), 1089-1114, https:// doi.org/10.1108/01443571111172444 Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 472- 484, https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.382.0472 Hinkelmann, K., Gerber, A., Karagiannis, D., Thoenssen, B., Merwe, A., & Woitsch, R. (2016). A New Paradigm for the Continuous Alignment of Business and IT: Combining Enterprise Architecture Modelling and En- terprise Ontology. Computers in Industry, 79, 77-86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2015.07.009 Kanter, J. (1996). Guideline for attaining information liter- acy. Information Strategy, 12(3), 6-11. Kappelman, L., Torres, R., McLean, E., Maurer, Ch., John- son, V ., & Kim, K. (2019). The 2018 SIM IT issues and trends study. MIS Quarterly Executive, 18(1), 51-84, https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol18/iss1/7 Kappelman, L., Johnson, V ., Maurer, Ch., McLean, E., Torres, R. & Nguyen, Q. (2018). The 2017 SIM IT is- sues and trends study. MIS Quarterly Executive, 17(1), 53-88, https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol17/iss1/6 Karpovsky, A., & Galliers, R. D. (2015). Aligning in prac- tice: from current cases to a new agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 30(2), 136-160, https://doi. org/10.1057/jit.2014.34 Kaul, M., Storey, V .C., & Woo, C. (2017). A Framework for Managing Complexity in Information Systems. Journal of Database Management, 28(1), 31-42, https://doi.org/10.4018/JDM.2017010103 Kotusev, S. (2020). The Hard Side of Business and IT Alignment. IT Professional, 22(1), 47-55, https://doi. org/10.1109/MITP.2019.2912136 Kraiem, H.K., Jamil, D. & Zuhoor, A.K. (2014). Map- ping from MAP Models to BPMN Processes. Journal of Software Engineering, 8(4), 252-264, https://doi. org/10.3923/jse.2014.252.264 Lederer, A., & Mendelow, A. (1989). Co-ordination of Information Systems Plans with Business Plans. Jour- nal of Management Information Systems, 6(2), 5-19, https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1989.11517854 Lester, D. L., & Parnell, J. A. (2002). Aligning factors for successful organizational renewal. Leadership & Or- ganization Development Journal, 23(2), 60-67, https:// doi.org/10.1108/01437730210419189 Levstek, A., Hovelja, T., & Pucihar, A. (2018). IT Gover- nance Mechanisms and Contingency Factors: Towards an Adaptive IT Governance Model. Organizacija, 51(4), 286-310, https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2018- 0024 Li, Z., Zhou, X., Gu, A., & Li. Q. (2015). A complete ap- proach for CIM modelling and model formalizing. In- formation and Software Technology, 65, 39-55, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.04.003 Lings, B., & Lundell, B. (2005). On the adaptation of grounded theory procedures: Insights from the evolution of the 2G method. Information Tech- nology and People, 18(3): 196-211, https://doi. org/10.1108/09593840510615842 Luftman, J. (2003). Assessing IT/business alignment. In- formation Systems Management, 20(4), 9-15, https:// doi.org/10.1201/1078/43647.20.4.20030901/77287.2 Luftman, J., Lyytinen, K., & Ben Zvi, T. (2017). Enhanc- ing the measurement of information technology (IT) business alignment and its influence on company per- formance. Journal of Information Technology, 32(1), 26-46, https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.23 Lyytinen, K., & Newman, M. (2008). Explaining infor- mation systems change: a punctuated socio-techni- cal change model. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(6), 589-613, https://doi.org/10.1057/ ejis.2008.50 Malshe, A., Friend, S. B., Al-Khatib, J., Al-Habib, M., & Al-Torkistanid, H. (2017). Strategic and operational alignment of sales-marketing interfaces: Dual paths within an SME configuration. Industrial Marketing Management, 66, 145-158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. indmarman.2017.08.004 O’Brien, J.A. (2000). Introduction to Information Systems: Essential for the Internetworked Enterprise. 9th ed., Ir- win/McGraw-Hill, New York, NY . Pantazi, M.A., & Georgopoulos, N.B. (2006). Investigat- ing the Impact of Business process- Competent Infor- mation Systems (ISs) on Business Performance. Man- aging Service Quality: An International Journal, 16(4), 421-434, https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520610675739 Porter, M., & Millar, V . (1985). How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business Re- view, 63(4) 149-174. Preston, D., & Karahanna, E. (2009). Antecedents of IS Strategic Alignment: A Nomo logical Network. Infor- mation Systems Research, 20(2), 159-179, http://www. jstor.org/stable/23015478 268 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers Pyburn, P.J. (1983). Linking the MIS plan with corporate strategy: an exploratory study. MIS Quarterly, 7(2), 1-14, https://doi.org/10.2307/248909 Rahimi, F., Moller, Ch., & Hvam, L. (2016). Business Pro- cess Management and IT Management: The Missing integration. International Journal of Information Man- agement,36, 142-154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfo- mgt.2015.10.004 Reich, B., & Benbasat, I. (2000). Factors that Influence the Social Dimension of Alignment between Business and Information Technology Objectives. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 81-113, https://doi.org/10.2307/3250980 Renaud, A., Walsh, I., & Kalika, M. (2016). Is SAM Still Alive? A Bibliometric and Interpretive Mapping of the Strategic Alignment Research Field. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 25(2), 75-103, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2016.01.002 Schonfelder, W. (2011). CAQDAS and qualitative syllo- gism logic-NVivo 8 and MAXQDA 10 compared. Fo- rum Qualitative Social Research, 12(1) Art. 21, http:// nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1101218. Schwarz, A., Kalika, M., Kefi, H., & Schwarz, C. (2010). A Dynamic Capabilities Approach to Understanding the Impact of IT-Enabled Businesses Processes and IT-Business Alignment on the Strategic and Opera- tional Performance of the Firm. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 26(1), 57-84, https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02604 Sledgianowski, D., Luftman, J., & Reilly, R. (2006). De- velopment and validation of an instrument to measure maturity of IT business strategic alignment mecha- nisms. Information Resources Management Journal, 19(3), 18-33, https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2006070102 Sousa, H. P., & do Prado Leite, J. C. s. (2014). Model- ing organizational alignment. In International Confer- ence on Conceptual Modeling, pp. 407-414. Springer, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12206-9_34 Stern, P.C. (1994). Eroding grounded theory. in Morse, J.M.(Ed.), Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 212-223. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publ. Strong, D. M., & V olkoff, O. (2010). Understanding orga- nization-enterprise system fit: a path to theorizing the information technology artifact. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 731-756, https://doi.org/10.2307/25750703 Tallon, P., Queiroz, M., Coltman, T., & Sharma, R. (2016). Business Process and Information Technology Align- ment: Construct Conceptualization, Empirical Illustra- tion, and Directions for Future Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(9), 563- 589, https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00438 Tarafdar, M., & Qrunfleh, S. (2009). IT-Business Align- ment: A Two-Level Analysis. Information Sys- tems Management, 26(4), 338-349, https://doi. org/10.1080/10580530903245705 Teo, T.S.H., & King, W.R. (1997). Integration between Business Planning and Information Systems Planning: An Evolutionary-Contingency Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(1), 185-214, https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1997.11518158 Trang, S., Mandrella, M., Marrone, M., & Kolbe, L. (2021). Co-creating business value through IT-business opera- tional alignment in inter-organisational relationships: empirical evidence from regional networks. European Journal of Information Systems, 1-22, https://doi.org/1 0.1080/0960085X.2020.1869914 Venkatraman, N. (1989). The Concept of Fit in Strategy Research: Toward Verbal and Statistical Correspon- dence. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 423- 444, https://doi.org/10.2307/258177 Wagner, H.T., Beimborn, D., & Weitzel, T. (2014). How Social Capital Among Information Technology and Business Units Drives Operational Alignment and IT Business Value. Journal of Management Informa- tion Systems, 31(1), 241-272, https://doi.org/10.2753/ MIS0742-1222310110 Walker, G.H., Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M. & Jenkins, D.P. (2008). A review of socio-technical systems theory: a classic concept for new command and control para- digms. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9(6), 479-499, https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220701635470 Wan-Kadir, W. M., & Loucopoulos, P. (2004). Relating evolving business rules to software design. Journal of Systems architecture, 50(7), 367-382, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2003.09.006 Weerakkody, V ., Currie, W., & Ekanayake, Y . (2003). Re‐ engineering business processes through application service providers: Challenges, issues and complexities. Business Process Management Journal, 9(6), 776-794, https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150310506693 Wiesche, M., Jurisch, M.C., Yetton, P.W. & Krcmar, H. (2017). Grounded theory methodology in informa- tion systems research. MIS Quarterly, 41(3), 685-701, http://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.3.02 Zhou, J., Bi, G., Liu, H., Fang, Y ., & Hua, Z. (2018). Un- derstanding employee competence, operational IS alignment, and organizational agility – An ambidexter- ity perspective. Information & Management, 55, 695- 708, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.02.002 Olfat Ganji Bidmeshk is a Ph.D. candidate in Information T echnology Management at the Department of Management, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran. Her research interests include Business-IT alignment, systems analysis and design, and Business Informatics. She is currently working as a visiting Ph.D. student at the Sauder School of Business, Management Information Systems Department, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 269 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers Mohammad Mehraeen is a Professor of Information Systems at the Department of Management, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran. He obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Manchester, UK. His current research interests include electronic government, digital transfor- mation, business Informatics, Big data and IoT. He is currently working as a visiting professor at the DeGroote School of Business, Information Systems Department, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. Alireza Pooya is a Professor of Industrial Management at the Department of Management, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran. He obtained his Ph.D. from the Tarbiat Modares University, Iran. His current research interests include systems thinking, dynamic systems, optimal control, operations management, production planning, manufacturing strategy, and business process management. Currently, he is a Manager of Human Resource and Organizational Change at the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Yaghoob Maharati is an Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship Management at the Department of Management, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran. He obtained his Ph.D. from the University Putra Malaysia (UPM). His current research interests include entrepreneurship, research method, management theory, critical review of management theory, and business plan. Currently, he is a Manager of Planning and Budgeting at the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Ogrodje FunCaps: rekonceptualizacija operativne uskladitve Ozadje in namen: Operativna uskladitev, uskladitev poslovnih procesov (BP) in informacijskih sistemov (IS), je dobro znana zahteva za izboljšanje poslovne učinkovitosti. Vendar se v obstoječi literaturi kaže pomanjkanje trdnih temeljev za praktično izvajanje operativne uskladitve. Deloma zato, ker so predhodno razviti grobozrnati modeli strateške uskladitve za operativno usklajevanje spregledali razlike med strateško in operativno ravnjo usklajenosti. Nekatere študije so ugotovile te razlike, vendar jih niso poglobljeno proučile. To je lahko deloma posledica zanemar - janja družbeno-tehnične narave IS, kot tudi njihove osredotočenosti na prepoznavanje socialnega ozadja in njegove- ga učinka na operativno usklajenost, ne da bi upoštevali, kako IS izpolnjujejo poslovne zahteve pri doseganju ope- rativne usklajenosti. Da bi premagali to morebitno pomanjkanje uporabnosti, je namen tega prispevka določiti pravo raven abstrakcije za predstavitev poslovnih procesov in IS ter ponovno konceptualizacijo operativne uskladitve. Metodologija: Izvedli smo empirično raziskavo z uporabo utemeljene teorije (Grounded theory – GT)T). Izvedli smo polstrukturirane intervjuje z 28 strokovnjaki z vrhunskih iranskih javnih univerz. Podatke smo analizirali s program- sko opremo MAXQDA. Rezultati: Predlagano- ogrodje FunCaps določa zahtevane kombinacije funkcij BP in zmogljivosti IS za operativno uskladitev. Zaključki: FunCaps rekonceptualizira operativne usklajenosti na podlagi operativnega načrtovanja in vzajemne integracije, katere prednost je, da vzpostavi širšo sliko z obravnavanjem IS kot socio-tehničnega sistema. Ključne besede: Operativna uskladitev, Informacijski sistem, Poslovni proces, Družbeno-tehnični sistem, Utemelje- na teorija 270 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers Appendix A: Literature review on business-IS alignment We categorize approaches on business-IS alignment into two main categories: (1) approaches that aim to achieve stra- tegic alignment and (2) approaches that aim to achieve operational alignment. A.1. Approaches focusing on strategic alignment Studies that aim to achieve strategic alignment can be categorized into studies that emphasize three main aspects: (1) social and structural, (2) technical, and (3) socio-technical (Table A.1). Aspect Key concept Reference Social Flexibility of organizational structure (data processing procedures, delegation of authority, and segregation of departments) to manage organizational changes Lester & Parnell (2002) Top management team’s (TMT) trust in chief information officer (CIO), CIO’s trust in TMT, shared language, and shared understanding of the role of IT. Preston & Karahanna (2009) Management styles, culture of innovation and risk-taking among staff, beliefs and shared values among staff, partnership, cooperation and trustworthiness among them Cram (2012) Communication, senior management support, the participation of research and development managers in the development of strategies, and interdisciplinary support by IS and business during the development of IS Alsudiri et al. (2013) Technical Standards available in the field of IT to create a common language among the de- partments and provide interdisciplinary information sharing. Henderson & Venkatraman (1993) Integration of IT architecture and infrastructure Sledgianowski et al. (2006) Socio-technical Decision style of senior management, fluctuations of management tenure, the way the applications are developed, the complexity of management tasks, and the physical location of IS managers Pyburn (1983) Transparency and perception of the mission, objectives and priorities of the or- ganization, effective communication, IS managers’ involvement in the process of planning, and their realistic expectations of IS Lederer & Mendelow (1989) Communication, governance, skill, sourcing, IT professionals, and project. Tarafdar & Qrunfleh (2009) Strategic alignment maturity based on six dimensions: communication, competen- cy and value measurements, governance, participation, scope and architecture, and skill. Luftman (2003) Intellectual and social alignment Reich & Benbasat (2000) Table 2: A.1. Selected studies on strategic alignment A.2. Approaches focusing on operational alignment Existing literature focused on the operational level of alignment either have used modeling languages (MLs) to link models in BPs and software systems (SSs) or have focused on identifying the social antecedents and their effect on opera- tional alignment (Table A.2). 271 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers Table 3: A.2. Selected studies on modeling langauges Category Focus Reference Modeling Languages Aligning BR (Business Requirements) and BP (Business Processes) BR BP SS GRL BPMN - Li et al. (2015) MAP BPMN - Kraiem et al. (2014) i* BPMN - Sousa and Julio (2014) Tropos BPEL - Frankova et al. (2011) Aligning BR and SS (Software Systems) BMM - SoaML Han et al. (2009) Tropos - Tropos Gehlert et al. (2008) UML - UML Wan-Kadir and Loucopoulos (2004) Aligning BP and SS UML UML Aversano et al. (2016) - BPMN & e3 value UML DeCastro et al. (2011 - BPMN SoaML Elvesater et al. (2010) - BPMN UML Cibran (2009), Aligning BR, BP and SS i* UML UML Doumi et al. (2013) Social antecedents Social capital (cognitive linkage, structural linkage, and relational linkage) Wagner et al. (2014) Shared competence between business and IS departments Zhou et al. (2018) Shared understanding between business and IS by overcoming seven user-related elici- tations problems: (1) communication flaws between the project team and customer, (2) terminological problems, (3) weak knowledge of application domain, (4) stakeholders with difficulties in separating requirements from previously known solution design, (5) in- complete and hidden requirements, (6) missing traceability, and (7) inconsistent require- ments. Bagheri et al. (2019) 272 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers Table 4: B.1. Types of BP functions Appendix B: Types of BP functions BP function Element of BP function Type of BP Function Strategic management  Strategy compilation  Strategy implementation  Strategy assessment Management functions Primary functions Quality management  Process management  Project management  Performance measurement Learning management  Learning planning  Planning for admissions  Planning administrative and teaching services  Learning assessment  Admitting a study Core business functions Research management  Research policy  Research services  Research achievements  Technology transfer Student services management  Plan student services  Provide student services  Monitor and evaluate student services  Terminate student services Non-core busi- ness functions Social and cultural manage- ment  Provide cultural and social planning  Provide cultural and social services & products  Provide cultural and social facilities  Monitor cultural and social services Communication management  Public relations  Interactions with community  International university interactions  Provide out-of-school services Assets management  Physical resources management  Goods and services management Support functions Financial resource manage- ment  Resource and financial expenses planning  Collection and distribution of financial credits  Payment of expenses  Financial monitoring HRM  Providing human resources planning  Hiring, supplying and selecting human resourc- es  Developing HR’s skills  Providing facilities and benefits for human re- sources  Providing safety and health of human resources  Transferring and retiring human resources ICT management  ICT planning  Communication and networks management  Information and data management  Information and communication security man- agement  Software and systems management  Software and hardware support 273 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers Appendix C: Types of IS capabilities Table 5: C.1. Types of IS capabilities based on Socio-Technical System (STS) theory IS capability Element of IS capability Type of IS capability Strategic level of ISs  Strategic capa- bilities  Top business management  IS management Actor Social subsystem  Commitment to the strategic use of IS should be considered by the top business management.  Expectation of IS capabilities by top business management should be realistic.  The top business management awareness of the contribution of IS to business goals should be raised.  The top business management awareness of the quality and quantity of IS-based service should be raised.  Business missions and objectives should be reflected in the IS plan.  The horizon of the planning in business and IS should be similar.  Allocating IS resources should be delegated to IS management.  The culture of the organization should be built on innovation and change-readiness. Authority system Structure Setting up proper standards for ISs to enable the following:  Adaptation of diversified internal and external IS resources (network, hardware, software, data, and people), which are adjusted according to the business goals  Flexibility of ISs  Integration of ISs Workflow system  Creating common norms and patterns of behavior among IS strategic committee members Commu- nication system  Analyzing the environmental opportunities and threats and the busi- ness strengths and weaknesses  Creating sustainable competitive advantage Task Technical subsystem  Expert System (ES)  Executive Support System (ESS) Technology Management level of ISs  Management capabilities  BP management  IS management Actor Social subsystem  Knowledge of IS-based services should be acquired by BP manage- ment.  Support of IS activities should be considered by BP management.  Logical decision-making style should be adopted by BP and IS man- agement.  Participatory management should be adopted by BP and IS manage- ment.  Perspective of BP and IS management should be compatible with BP requirements. Authority system Structure  Setting up proper standards for IS projects investment based on the business projects Workflow system  Defining common language between BP and IS managements Commu- nication system  Planning IS projects/resources based on BP requirements  Organizing IS projects/resources based on BP requirements  Coordinating IS projects/resources based on BP requirements  Decision making in IS projects/resources based on BP requirements  Measuring the performance of IS projects/resources based on BP re- quirements Task Technical subsystem  Decision Support System (DSS)  Management Information System (MIS) Technology 274 Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 4, November 2021 Research Papers IS capability Element of IS capability Type of IS capability Knowledge level of ISs  Knowl- edge-based capabilities  Knowledge workers Actor Social subsystem  Close bilateral cooperation should be in place for knowledge workers in BP and IS departments.  Mutual trust and common values should be perceived between knowledge workers in BP and IS departments.  Participatory programs should be frequently and formally held be- tween knowledge workers in BP and IS departments.  Job rotation should be available between BP and IS departments. Authority system Structure Setting up proper standards for  Interdepartmental interactions between BP and IS departments  Interdepartmental reporting between BP and IS departments Workflow system  Establishing an informal communications network between IS and BP departments. Commu- nication system  Knowledge creation and gathering  Knowledge assessment  Knowledge sharing and dissemination  Knowledge contextualization  Knowledge application Task Technical subsystem  Knowledge Work System (KWS)  Group Collaboration System (GCS)s  Office System (OS) Technology Operational level of IS  Operational capabilities  Organizational workers Actor Social subsystem Information in the IS infrastructure should be:  Transparent  Accessible  Accurate  Reliable  Up-to-date Authority system Structure  Recording of daily activities and transactions  Using historical data on activities in organization  Monitoring the performance of internal processes and relations with the external environment Task Technical subsystem  Office Automation System (OAS)  Transaction Processing System (TPS) Technology Table 5: C.1. Types of IS capabilities based on Socio-Technical System (STS) theory (coninues)