In many organisations, work no longer begins with a conversation or a decision made by a supervisor. Instead, it starts when a task appears on a computer screen. Employees open their systems, check their dashboards, and follow instructions generated automatically by software. For many, this has become so routine that it feels almost invisible.
Yet this invisibility is precisely what makes modern digital systems so powerful, and potentially problematic. When software quietly coordinates who does what, when, and how, it shapes not only efficiency but also autonomy, stress, and trust at work.
This dynamic is particularly evident in Business Process Management Systems (BPMS). These systems are designed to coordinate tasks, route work and ensure that organisational processes unfold in a predefined way. While BPMS are often praised for improving efficiency and consistency, recent research suggests that their success depends less on technical sophistication and more on how employees experience their role within these automated processes.
From manual control to automated coordination
Not long ago, employees had direct control over most aspects of their work. Tasks were assigned informally, priorities were negotiated, and processes could be adapted on the fly. As organisations grew and became more complex, this flexibility was gradually replaced by standardisation and automation.
BPMS represent a decisive step in this evolution. They do not simply record work; they actively coordinate it. Tasks are allocated automatically, workflows are enforced, and deviations are monitored. In theory, this reduces errors and delays. In practice, it also changes how employees perceive their work.
Research based on users of mature BPMS shows that employees are not passive recipients of this coordination. Their acceptance depends on whether they believe the system genuinely helps them perform their tasks more effectively.
Why perceived usefulness matters more than constant use
Using a BPMS frequently does not automatically mean valuing it. In many organisations, BPMS use is mandatory. Employees must interact with the system to complete their work, regardless of their personal opinions.
However, perceived usefulness, the belief that the system improves job performance, is what ultimately determines whether users accept or resist the system’s logic. Employees who see value in the system are more likely to adapt to automated coordination and trust the tasks assigned to them. Those who do not may comply superficially while relying on informal workarounds.
This insight challenges the assumption that compliance equals success. Mandatory systems can function technically while failing socially, generating frustration and disengagement rather than genuine adoption.
When coordination becomes invisible and stressful
BPMS coordinates work largely in the background. Task routing, sequencing, and prioritisation often happen automatically, without users fully understanding how decisions are made. Interestingly, the research shows that employees may not even perceive some of the most distinctive features of BPMS, such as task allocation and routing, because these processes are invisible by design.
This invisibility has consequences. When users do not understand why tasks appear in a certain order or why responsibilities shift, trust can erode. Employees may feel that control has been taken away from them, even if the system is functioning correctly.
This finding helps explain why system quality alone does not guarantee acceptance. A system can be fast, reliable, and well integrated, and still fail to convince users that it supports them meaningfully.
The anchor of trust in automated work
When BPMS provides accurate, timely, and relevant information, employees are more likely to trust the system’s decisions. Clear explanations, reliable data, and well-structured information help users understand the logic behind automated workflows. Without this, coordination feels arbitrary and opaque.
This is not just a technical issue. Poor information quality increases mental effort, contributes to stress and undermines confidence at work. In public organisations, it can also affect citizens indirectly, through delays, errors or inconsistent decisions.
Training and support as social safeguards
Another crucial factor is service quality, particularly in terms of training and user support. Automated coordination requires learning. Employees need to understand not only how to use the system, but how it structures their work.
Training helps users understand and interpret automated decisions, thereby reducing the feeling of loss of control. Support services, meanwhile, reassure employees that problems can be addressed and that the organisation takes their experience seriously.
From a broader perspective, training and support act as social safeguards. Without them, digital coordination can amplify inequalities, benefiting only those who are more technologically confident while leaving others behind.
Implications for organisations and public policy
For organisations, the implications are clear. BPMS should not be treated as neutral infrastructure. They actively shape work experiences, autonomy, and trust. Investing in automation without investing in information quality, training, and transparency risks undermining employee well-being.
For public policymakers, these findings are particularly relevant. As public services become increasingly automated, the quality of internal coordination systems has a direct impact on citizens. Systems that alienate employees are unlikely to deliver responsive, fair, and reliable public services.
Policies promoting digital transformation should therefore emphasise human-centred automation, transparency in task coordination, and continuous support for employees.
Automation works best when people still feel in control
BPMS are powerful tools for coordinating complex work. But coordination alone is not enough. Employees must understand, trust, and value the systems that guide their daily tasks.
When digital systems support rather than overshadow human judgement, organisations become more resilient, work becomes less stressful, and services improve. When they do not, automation risks becoming a silent source of dissatisfaction.
Ultimately, successful digital coordination is not about controlling work — it is about enabling people to work more effectively together.
🔬🧫🧪🔍🤓👩🔬🦠🔭📚
Journal reference
Martín-Navarro, A. M., Lechuga-Sancho, M. P., & Medina-Garrido, J. A. (2025). Is user perception the key to unlocking the full potential of Business Process Management Systems (BPMS)? Enhancing BPMS efficacy through user perception. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.4018/JOEUC.364099
