Business Process Management Journal
Surveys in business process management – a lit erat ure review Tobias Roeser, Eva-Maria Kern,Article information:
To cite this document:Tobias Roeser, Eva-Maria Kern, (2015) "Surveys in business process management – a literature review", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 21 Issue: 3,pp. 692-718, doi: 10.1108/ BPMJ-07-2014-0065
Permanent link t o t his document :
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-07-2014-0065
Downloaded on: 30 March 2017, At : 21: 12 (PT)
Ref erences: t his document cont ains ref erences t o 82 ot her document s. To copy t his document : permissions@emeraldinsight . com
The f ullt ext of t his document has been downloaded 2040 t imes since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2015),"From business process management to customer process management", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp. 250-266 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-02-2014-0010 (2014),"Ten principles of good business process management", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 4 pp. 530-548 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2013-0074
Access t o t his document was grant ed t hrough an Emerald subscript ion provided by emerald-srm: 602779 [ ]
For Authors
If you would like t o writ e f or t his, or any ot her Emerald publicat ion, t hen please use our Emerald f or Aut hors service inf ormat ion about how t o choose which publicat ion t o writ e f or and submission guidelines are available f or all. Please visit www. emeraldinsight . com/ aut hors f or more inf ormat ion.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and pract ice t o t he benef it of societ y. The company manages a port f olio of more t han 290 j ournals and over 2, 350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an ext ensive range of online product s and addit ional cust omer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Relat ed cont ent and download inf ormat ion correct at t ime of download.
Surveys in business process
management
–
a literature review
Tobias Roeser and Eva-Maria Kern
Chair for Knowledge Management and Business Process Design,
Universitaet der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany
Abstract
Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to conduct a literature review to provide an overview of
surveys focussing on business process management (BPM)/business process orientation (BPO) or on BPM-related topics in order to describe the status quo, uncover trends, classify survey contributions and assess the possible further development of survey research.
Design/methodology/approach–In order to achieve the research goals, the authors conduct a
literature review. The authors analyze the retrieved literature by means of a developed analysis framework which allows the authors to examine the surveys from the meta-perspective and content-based perspective.
Findings–A lot of surveys focussing on BPM/BPO or on BPM-related topics have been published in
German- and English-speaking literature over the last years. Nevertheless, the authors find out that while some topics, countries/regions and industries are well explored others were neglected in the past. Moreover, the authors provide first evidence that companies have a different BPM demand. Finally, the authors conclude that although the implications of the incorporated surveys provide a good starting point for practitioners they seem to be too abstract to be helpful for them. Thus, the authors recommend the conduction of qualitative research endeavors to develop adaptable theories for practitioners.
Research limitations/implications–This literature review focusses on survey research in BPM.
It could be repeated in order to verify the findings and moreover to track progress. However, although the authors followed the steps proposed for a literature review, the selection of relevant articles might be a limitation of this paper.
Originality/value–The literature review provides an overview of surveys focussing on BPM/BPO or
on BPM-related topics that have been published so far. The developed and strictly applied analysis framework supports a systematic analysis of survey research and could therefore provide a detailed picture of the current state of this research field. To the best of the authors’knowledge, no comparable literature review has been undertaken until now.
KeywordsSurveys, Business process management, Literature review, Business process orientation
Paper typeLiterature review
1. Introduction
Research in business process management (BPM) started in the late 1980s triggered by the seminal work published by Davenport and Short (1990) and Hammer and Champy (1994). Because BPM turned out to be not another temporary management fashion, scholars have published a huge number of both theoretical and empirical contributions allowing BPM to reach a certain maturity (Houyet al., 2010). In this study, we focus on empirical work and more precisely on surveys in the BPM domain. We mean by the terms survey and study a quantitative method collecting information in a structured format about BPM in practice by asking individuals (Malhotra and Grover, 1998). From our point of view, survey research is an important methodology within the BPM domain because, first, empirical research is important for the development process of BPM and survey research is quite often used within the BPM domain (Houyet al., 2010) and, second, surveys will become a more useful methodology to elaborate, clarify and challenge existing theory (Edmondson and McManus, 2007) as BPM research and thus Business Process Management
Journal Vol. 21 No. 3, 2015 pp. 692-718
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1463-7154
DOI 10.1108/BPMJ-07-2014-0065
Received 8 July 2014 Revised 9 November 2014 Accepted 3 December 2014
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm
692
BPMJ
21,3
BPM theory matures. A plethora of published surveys has followed, since Elzingaet al. (1995) published their survey results in 1995. However, that bears the risk that scholars lose track. Unfortunately, to date and to best of our knowledge, no similar review has been published in the literature so far. Houy et al. (2010) analyzed empirical BPM-publication in their literature review by examining the meta-perspective, the content-based perspective and the methodical perspective. However, their analysis from the content-based perspective was done only on high level. In another literature review Kohlbacher (2010) examined the performance effects of business process orientation (BPO) by analyzing the findings of empirical work. Therefore, we would like to answer the following research question (RQ) in this contribution:
RQ1. What is the current state with regard to surveys within the BPM domain? By answering this RQ, we aim to achieve the following four research objectives:
(1) provide a summary of past surveys within the BPM domain by means of a literature review;
(2) develop an analysis framework to examine the surveys in a structured and consistent manner from the meta- and content-based perspective;
(3) discuss the retrieved surveys; and
(4) deduce conclusions for further empirical BPM research.
Thus, we examine the status quo of surveys that have been published within the BPM domain and how surveys are used within it. Our conclusions can be used as a starting point for further development in this empirical research field. We expect that the results of our contribution are relevant for both BPM researchers and BPM practitioners, as they can get a fast overview of existing surveys within the BPM domain. Moreover, BPM researcher can use our findings to conduct further research addressing the deduced research gaps, incorporate our developed analysis framework and our classification schema to track progress.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides the necessary theoretical foundation, explains our research approach and describes our developed analysis framework. In Section 3, we present our analysis results, discuss them and deduce our conclusions. Finally, we summarize our findings in Section 4.
2. Definitions and research approach
In this section we first define the term BPM and explain the Business Process Management Maturity Model (BPMMM) used in this paper for our further analysis. Afterwards, we explain our research approach, i.e. the steps conducted in this review.
2.1 BPM
BPM has its roots in the concepts total quality management (TQM) (Deming, 1986) and business process reengineering (BPR) (Davenport and Short, 1990; Hammer and Champy, 1994; Davenport, 1993). It can have various meanings (Palmberg, 2009) ranging from a Plan-Do-Check-Act–Lifecycle approach (Elzingaet al., 1995; Lee and Dale, 1998) to a management approach (Jeston and Nelis, 2008; Rosemann and vom Brocke, 2010). In this paper we consider BPM as a management approach (Rosemann and vom Brocke, 2010). BPM focusses on business processes (BP). A BP is a“horizontal sequence of activities that transforms an input (need) to an output (result) to meet the needs of customers or
693
Surveys in
business
process
management
stakeholders”(Palmberg, 2009, p. 207). BPM is a tool to increase BPO (Škrinjar and Trkman, 2013). The latter one emphasizes on BP as the “platform for organizational structure and strategic planning”(Kohlbacher and Gruenwald, 2011a, p. 267) rather than on the functional structure or hierarchy (Kohlbacher and Gruenwald, 2011a). Since BPM and BPO are closely intertwined, surveys focussing on BPM and BPO are both considered in this literature review.
As already mentioned, BPM is heterogeneously defined in the literature. Therefore, we need a standardized framework which allows us to “harmonize” the different meanings of BPM over all surveys and for our check which BPM-related topics are covered by them. For that reason we incorporate a BPM maturity model. In the recent years several BPM maturity models have appeared (Rosemann and vom Brocke, 2010) aiming to measure the progress of BPM in an organization by covering different BPM-related topics (e.g. Rosemannet al., 2006; Hammer, 2007). We have decided to use the BPMMM developed by Rosemannet al.(2006) as standardization framework since it is based on a sound academic development process, the authors consider BPM as a management approach and it has been approved as applicable in practice (Rosemann and vom Brocke, 2010). Moreover, the authors of the BPMMM provide a detailed description which is not usual to other published BPM maturity models (Röglinger et al., 2012).
The BPMMM uses six so called factors to measure the maturity of a company’s BPM, i.e. Strategic Alignment (S), Governance (G), Methods (M), Information Technology (IT), People (P) and Culture (C). Each factor is further divided in five capability areas (Rosemann and vom Brocke, 2010). The factor Strategic Alignment stresses the importance that BPM must be tightly linked to the strategy of an organization. Governance has to define appropriate and clearly defined accountabilities as well as standards to guide process-related actions. Every tool and methodology (e.g. BP modeling, BP design) that is used along the BP lifecycle is subsumed in the factor Methods. Information Technology as a mean for efficient and effective modeling, execution and monitoring of BP is another factor of the BPMMM. The ways people are trained (BP- and BPM-knowledge), work together and are guided by the leaders is summarized in the factor People. The factor Culture points out the importance of a corporate culture (Alibabaei et al., 2009) which supports BPM (e.g. through BP values and beliefs) (Rosemann and vom Brocke, 2010). All factors and the associated capability areas are depicted in Table I.
After having pointed out our understanding of the concept BPM and introduced the BPMMM, we describe our research approach in the next section.
2.2 Research approach
A literature review (Jessonet al., 2011) is a possible mean to shed light on surveys in BPM. It is a mean to summarize past research (Cooper, 2010) and to “uncover areas where research is needed”(Webster and Watson, 2002, p. xiii). Research synthesists doing a literature review have to follow a process that must meet“the same rigorous methodological standards that are applied to primary researchers”(Cooper, 2010, p. 3). Therefore, this section describes in detail the steps required to reach maximum transparency (vom Brockeet al., 2009).
This paper follows the key phases proposed by Jessonet al.(2011) for a literature review. According to them, a literature review should contain the following phases:
• comprehensive search (cf. Section 2.2.1);
• quality assessment (cf. Section 2.2.1);
694
BPMJ
21,3
Strategic Alignment
(S) Governance (G) Methods (M)
Information Technology
(IT) People (P) Culture (C) Factors
Process improvement planning (S1)
Process management and decision making (G1)
Process design and modelling (M1)
Process design and modelling (IT1)
Process skills and expertise (P1)
Responsiveness to process change (C1)
Strategy and process capability linkage (S2)
Process roles and responsibilities (G2)
Process implementation and execution (M2)
Process implementation and execution (IT2)
Process management knowledge (P2)
Process values and beliefs (C2)
Capability areas
Enterprise process architecture (S3)
Process metrics and performance linkage (G3)
Process monitoring and control (M3)
Process monitoring and control (IT3)
Process education (P3)
Process attitudes and behaviors (C3) Process measurement (S4) Process-related standards (G4) Process improvement and innovation (M4)
Process improvement and innovation (IT4)
Process
collaboration (P4)
Leadership attention to process (C4)
Process customers and stakeholders (S5)
Process management compliance (G5)
Process program and project management (M5)
Process program and project management (IT5) Process management leaders (P5) Process management and social networks (C5)
Source:Rosemann and vom Brocke (2010, p. 112)
Table I. Factors and capability areas
695
Surveys
in
business
process
management
• data extraction (cf. Section 2.2.1);
• synthesis (cf. Section 3); and
• write up.
Each of the proposed steps is briefly described in the next sections, except the step
“write up.”
2.2.1 Describing the literature retrieval process. We conducted a search using the scientific databases EBSCO, Emerald, ProQuest, AISeL and WISO and the following search term as well as its German translation.
(“Process Management”OR “Process Orientation”OR “Business Process*”) AND (Study OR Questionnaire OR Survey OR Empirical OR“Status Quo”OR Sample OR Interview).
Through the first part of the search term we intended to find papers focussing on BPM, BPO or on BPM-related topics while through the second one we intended to remove non-empirical work. As far as possible, the fields title, abstract and keywords were searched but since not all databases allow searching these fields, modifications in the search fields were necessary (see the Appendix). The search was conducted in October 2013. As suggested by Jessonet al. (2011) we read the abstract of all hits to decide whether they should be kept or dropped by using a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria (Jesson et al., 2011). When we were unsure whether the article should be kept or dropped after reading the abstract, we read the whole article.
Papers have been included (inclusion criteria) if standardized questionnaires have been used disregarding whether the data are collected by phone or via a postal survey or by an online survey. Moreover, papers have been selected if BPM or BPM-related topics (e.g. BP modeling, BP outsourcing) are of primary research interest. Some contributions have been built on already existing data but investigate another aspect compared with the former publications, which rely on the same data. These papers have been included, too. In order to assure a certain quality standard (Jesson et al., 2011), papers must have appeared in a ranked journal. Thereto, we utilized the latest version 2.1 of the journal ranking published by the German Academic Association for Business Research (VHB) which is available online in English[1].
On the other side, papers have been excluded (exclusion criteria) if an experiment or a case study has been used as research method. Studies using a multi-method approach (e.g. case studies or detailed expert interviews before conducting a survey) have not been taken into consideration as well. Some contributions solely summarize the results of other surveys or integrate BPM as one dimension among others in their research model (e.g. Anderson et al., 1995; Meyer and Collier, 2001). Both kinds of research papers have been dropped. Surveys focussing on related concepts like BPR or concepts focussing on quality management (e.g. TQM) have been also out of scope of this literature review. Finally, after applying these inclusion and exclusion criteria 51 publications have built the basis for our further analysis.
Next, we extract and code relevant data of the surveys (e.g. authors, title, overall goal, journal, journal ranking, year of publication, sample country, sample industry, covered BPMMM factors) for our analysis (Jessonet al., 2011).
2.2.2 Analyzing the surveys. After completing the coding process, we analyze the meta-perspective as well as the content-based perspective of the surveys. We use the same labels for both perspectives as those proposed by Houyet al.(2010).
696
BPMJ
21,3
Within the meta-perspective we analyze the meta-information of the relevant journals/proceedings, i.e. the journal/proceeding-name and -ranking according to VHB, as well as the year of publication to uncover trends. Thereafter, the analysis of the content-based perspective of the included survey is following. Our first goal is to derive criteria in order to categorize the retrieved literature in classes for a further discussion. After checking different characteristics to build classes, we found out that the surveys can be categorized by summarizing them based on their research goal. This seems to be the only reasonable possibility to create satisfying classes. We checked other aspects (e.g. research focus, sample, addressed BPMMM factors) as well but we concluded that from our perspective the use of them would not result in meaningful classes. In order to discuss each class in a consistent manner, we develop an analysis framework containing the criteria research focus and sample. Figure 1 depicts our analysis framework.
The retrieved surveys have either a broad or a narrow research focus. Surveys with a narrow research focus examine a specific BPM-related topic while surveys with a broad research focus investigate BPM/BPO addressing different BPM-related topics. By examining the research focus we have been able to check which BPMMM factors have been mostly addressed by the surveys, which were neglected and finally whether surveys with a broad research focus addressed all BPMMM factors or not. In order to check this we use the description of the BPMMM (Rosemann and vom Brocke, 2010). Based on this description, we have assigned the questions asked in the respective surveys to the BPMMM factors. However, not all authors have published their incorporated questionnaires. In this case, we have analyzed the text to draw conclusions regarding the covered BPMMM factors. Some other authors exert the questionnaires out of former publications. In this situation, we have analyzed those original papers. Finally, we discuss the samples chosen in the surveys with respect to the region/countries, industry and role (e.g. CxO, process manager, quality manager) of the interviewees within the organizations.
Content-based perspective Meta-perspective
Journal/Journal-Ranking
Proceedings/Proceedings-Ranking Year of publication
Research Focus
Narrow Research Focus • Strategy Alignment • Governance • Methods
• Information Technology • People
• Culture
Sample
• Region/Countries • Industry
• Role of interviewees Broad Research Focus • Business Process Management • Business Process Orientation
Research Goal
Figure 1.
Analysis framework
697
Surveys in
business
process
management
3. Surveys in BPM
Having introduced BPM, explained our research approach and introduced our analysis framework in the previous section, we present and discuss our results in the current one. Additionally, we explicate our deduced conclusions in the Section 3.3.
3.1 Results from the meta-perspective
Meta-perspective results show that in total, four contributions have been published in German while 47 papers have been written in English. Most of the papers have been published in the Business Process Management Journal (29 percent) followed by the Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems(ICIS) (6 percent) as well as the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems(AMCIS) and theInformation Systems Research(each 4 percent).
Figure 2 depicts the annual number of publications from 1995 to 2013. In general, it reveals a growing trend of published surveys. Houyet al.(2010) showed that the number of articles in BPM research – especially the published theoretical work – increased significant since 2003. According to Houyet al.(2010), the already developed theory had to be proofed through empirical studies. However, this might be one possible explanation for the increase we have observed.
An analysis of the journals/proceeding rankings indicates that slightly more than 50 percent of the incorporated publications were published in C-ranked journals while only 17 percent of the papers were published in top journals or top ranked proceedings (A+, A), respectively. Figure 3 summarizes that result.
Moreover, we analyze the journals’ranking of the journals in which the surveys have appeared on a yearly base (cf. Figure 4). Publications in top-ranked journals/proceedings (A+/A) and B-ranked journals/proceedings appear in irregularly intervals. No trend
seems to emerge. This statement seems to be valid for D-/E-ranked journals, too. Publications in C-ranked journals grow steadily until 2011 with a sharp decline in 2012. However, in 2013 their number raised again nearly to the level of 2011.
This presentation of the meta-perspective results is followed by the analysis results of the content-based perspective which is presented and discussed in the next section.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Num
ber of
publica
tions
Year of publication
Number of published surveys per year
Figure 2.
Number of published BPM surveys per year
698
BPMJ
21,3
3.2 Results from the content-based perspective
By summarizing studies according to their research goal, we derived six classes depicted in Figure 5. We numbered the classes based on the number of assigned articles in a descending order.
In the next sections we describe each class as well as the papers assigned to it by incorporating the analysis framework explained in Section 2.2.2. Each section (3.2.1-3.2.6) is structured in the following way: first, we explain briefly the research goal of the papers assigned to a class. Second, we list the papers in a table that provides general information for each publication assigned to the respective class, i.e. the author, the publication title and the BPMMM factors covered. Additionally, the table of class II gives an overview which relationship between BPM/BPO or a BPM-related topic and a dependent variable (e.g. financial performance, non-financial performance) has been tested. We sort the
A+ 5.88 %
A 11.76 %
B 13.73 %
C 50.98 % D 11.76 %
E 5.88 %
Ranking of Journals and proceedings
Figure 3.
BPM surveys and journal rankings
A+ A B
C D
E 0
1 2 3 4 5
1997 1998
2000 2003
2005 2006
2007 2008
2009 2010
2011 2012 1995
2013 Jou
rna l ra
nking
Num
ber
of
publications
Year of publication
Figure 4.
Yearly distribution of publications in ranked journals/ proceedings
699
Surveys in
business
process
management
studies in the table by the year of publication and the authors name both in an ascending manner. Third, a short summary of the papers is given and finally, details regarding the sample population are discussed.
3.2.1 Class I: investigation regarding BP modeling and BP design. In principle, papers in this class consider aspects like BP modeling or BP design. These 20 studies are listed in Table II.
As it can be seen, the biggest number of papers investigates topics related to BP outsourcing (no. 2-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16, 18 and 19) while the authors of the surveys no. 11, 15 and 17 answer BP modeling related RQs and the authors of the surveys no. 1 and 7 investigate the usage of BP redesign methods in practice. Finally, the authors of survey no. 20 verifies special characteristics for knowledge-intensive BP in contrast to non-knowledge-intensive BP and investigate additionally whether different process improvement methods for each BP type are applied in practice. All studies in this class have a very narrow research focus and thus, they could be assigned to one specific BPMMM factor, which is in the context of this review either the BPMMM factor Strategic Alignment or the BPMMM factor Methods.
It is also noteworthy that the authors of 11 studies have collected their data by asking manager, quality- and process-manager (55 percent) while students from different universities have been asked by the authors of one survey. Eight studies (40 percent) have not described the roles of the focussed interviewees. In total, 14 studies describe which countries or regions have been considered while six studies do not provide any information. Moreover, no information regarding the industry of interest could be found in five contributions (25 percent). Furthermore, the majority of the authors have interviewed employees of organizations operating in different industries (50 percent). The authors of two studies focus on the financial industry or BPO service provider, respectively (each 10 percent), and one study aims to interview students (5 percent).
3.2.2 Class II: investigation of the impact of BPM/BPO on a dependent variable. Class II contains 16 papers. Common to all of them is that they examine the impact of an independent variable on a dependent one. The independent variable is a construct consisting of single items either to operationalize BPM/BPO (considered as a management approach) or BPM-related topics (e.g. BP improvement initiatives). The contributions investigate the effect of this independent variable on a dependent variable, i.e. either a BP, an organization, an IT-endeavor or on employees (cf. Table III).
Table III reveals that the authors of several studies (no. 21, 22, 24-27, 29, 33, 35, 36) assigned to this class define BPM as a management approach (broad research focus).
Research Goal
Class II
(16
surveys)
Investigation of the
im
pact of
BPM/BPO on a
dependent
variable Class IV
(4 surveys) Presentation of the status quo of BPM in practice
Class III (5
surveys) Investigation of the im plem entation of the BPM/BPO-concept Class I (20 surveys) Investigation reg arding BP m o deling and BP design Class VI (3 surveys) Operationalization of the BPO concept Class V (3 surveys) Investigation of the requirem ents of practitioners vs. the
scientific research focus
Figure 5.
Derived classes based on the research goals of the classes
700
BPMJ
21,3
The respective studies are labeled with BPM or BPO in the third column of Table III (column heading “[…] test(s) the impact of […]”). However, only three contributions
(no. 24, 27 and 33) cover all BPMMM factors while the IT aspect was neglected in the surveys no. 21, 25, 26, 29, 35 and 36. The papers no. 23, 28, 30-32 and 34 focus on
No. Author Title S G M IT P C
1 Povey (1998) The development of a best practice business process
improvement methodology x
2 Maniet al.(2005) Of governance and the BPO paradox: the impact of information capabilities on service satisfaction x 3 Whitakeret al.
(2005)
Antecedents of onshore and offshore business process
outsourcing x
4 Maniet al.(2006) Successfully governing business process outsourcing
relationships x
5 Kim and Won (2007)
HR BPO service models for small and medium
enterprises x
6 Maniet al.(2007) Conflict resolution or informational response? An empirical analysis of the determinants of governance choice in business process outsourcing relationships
x
7 Mansar and Reijers (2007)
Best practices in business process redesign: use and
impact x
8 Tanriverdiet al. (2007)
The choice of sourcing mechanisms for business
processes x
9 Bharadwaj and Saxena (2009)
Building winning relationships in business process
outsourcing services x
10 Gewald and Dibbern (2009)
Risks and benefits of business process outsourcing: a study of transaction services in the German banking industry
x
11 Kocket al.(2009) Communication flow orientation in business process modeling and its effect on redesign success: results from a field study
x
12 Bharadwajet al. (2010)
Building a successful relationship in business process
outsourcing: an exploratory study x
13 Maniet al.(2010) An empirical analysis of the impact of information capabilities design on business process outsourcing performance
x
14 Whitakeret al. (2010)
Organizational learning and capabilities for onshore and offshore business process outsourcing x 15 Eikebrokket al.
(2011)
Understanding the determinants of business process
modeling in organizations x
16 Raviet al.(2011) An analysis of business process outsourcing strategies of public and private sector banks in India x 17 Reijers and
Mendling (2011)
A study into the factors that influence the
understandability of business process models x 18 Luoet al.(2012) Task attributes and process integration in business
process offshoring: a perspective of service providers from India and China
x
19 Maniet al.(2012) An empirical analysis of the contractual and information structures of business process outsourcing relationships x 20 Isiket al.(2013) Practices of knowledge intensive process management:
quantitative insights x
Total 14 0 6 0 0 0
Note:x, at least one“Capability Area”of this“Factor”is thematically addressed in the survey
Table II.
Studies in class I
701
Surveys in
business
process
management
No. The author(s)…
…test(s) the impact of …
…on…
BPMMM factors
…a process
…an
organization …an IT-endeavor …
employees S G M IT P C
21 Ittner and Larcker (1997)
BPM Financial
performance x x x x x
22 Ravichandran and Rai (2000)
(Software)-BPM Process capability Process design Process control
x x x x
23 Bhatt and Troutt (2005) Business process improvement initiatives
Customer integration
Information systems
integration x
24 Diller and Ivens (2006) BPO Process
Performance x x x x x x
25 Vera and Kuntz (2007) BPO Hospital
efficiency x x x x
26 Kumaret al.(2008) BPO ERP implementation
success x x x x x
27 Škrinjaret al.(2008) BPO Financial performance Non-financial performance
x x x x x x
28 Münstermann
et al.(2009)
Process standardization Process
Performance x
29 Kumaret al.(2010) BPO ERP implementation
usage x x x x x
30 Münstermannet al.
(2010)
Process standardization Process
Performance x
31 Kohlbacher and Gruenwald (2011b)
Process ownership Process performance management
Financial
performance x x
32 Hernauset al.(2012) Strategic alignment of BPM
Financial
Performance x
(continued)
Table
III.
Studies
in
class
II
702
21,3
BPMJ
No. The author(s)…
…test(s) the impact of …
…on…
BPMMM factors
…a process
…an
organization …an IT-endeavor …
employees S G M IT P C
Process performance management
Non-financial performance 33 Niehaveset al.(2012) BPM (maturity) Business process
governance x x x x x x
34 Schäfermeyeret al.
(2012)
Process complexity Process standardization efforts
x
35 Kohlbacher and Reijers (2013)
BPO Financial
performance Non-financial performance
x x x x x
36 Tanget al.(2013) BPO Customer
integration Cross-functional integration
Innovation
behavior x x x x x
Total 12 11 14 4 8 9
Note:x, at least one“Capability Area”of this“Factor”is thematically addressed in the survey
Table
III.
703
Surveys
in
business
process
management
specific BPM-related topics for which reason these do not cover all BPMMM factors (narrow research focus).
In most of the cases the data are collected through interviews with manager, quality- and process-manager (75 percent) while the rest of the studies do not explain who has been asked or do not give any information which roles the interviewees in the organizations must have. In total, 14 studies examine data from industrial countries like USA, Canada, Germany, Austria and Japan. One study uses a sample of organizations from emerging countries, i.e. Croatia and Slovenia while the remaining study investigates organizations all over the world. Nine of the articles assigned to this class examine different industries while the seven articles survey the data from organizations of a particular industry (e.g. manufacturing companies, public administration, service companies, automobile industry and computer industry).
3.2.3 Class III: investigation of the implementation of the BPM/BPO-concept. We summarize surveys in this class which explain or shed light on how organizations implement or evolve BPM/BPO. Table IV summarizes the studies of class III.
It is noticeable that all papers except paper no. 40 try to find patterns in the data how organizations implement or evolve BPM/BPO. Paper no. 40 validates a BPM roles and responsibilities framework with the help of BPM practitioners. Beside contributions no. 40, contribution no. 39 has also a narrow research focus. It investigates success factors of BPM-IT-system implementation. The papers no. 37, 38 and 41 investigate the implementation/evolution of BPM/BPO. They cover all BPMMM factors. Aligned with their respective research goals, class III studies cover either one single BPMMM factor or almost all of them.
We found out in our analysis that organizations in European countries have been mostly incorporated (80 percent) while in paper no. 4 participants from all over the world have participated in the survey. Last but not least, neither a particular industry has been focussed by any study nor have the roles of the interviewees been particularized in advance.
3.2.4 Class IV: presentation of the status quo of BPM in practice. In total, four papers have been assigned to class IV. They survey the status quo of BPM or a BPM-related
No. Author Title S G M IT P C
37 Bucher and Winter (2009a)
Geschäftsprozessmanagement–Einsatz, Weiterentwicklung und
Anpassungsmöglichkeiten aus Methodiksicht
x x x x x x
38 Bucher and Winter (2009b)
Project types of business process
management: toward a scenario structure to enable situational method engineering for business process management
x x x x x x
39 Ravesteyn and Batenburg (2010)
Surveying the critical success factors of
BPM-systems implementation x
40 Antonucci and Goeke (2011)
Identification of appropriate responsibilities and positions for business process management success: Seeking a valid and reliable framework
x
41 Škrinjar and Trkman (2013)
Increasing process orientation with business
process management: critical practices x x x x x x
Total 3 4 3 4 3 3
Note:x, at least one“Capability Area”of this“Factor”is thematically addressed in the survey
Table IV.
Studies in class III
704
BPMJ
21,3
topic in practice. Table V presents the authors, the title of the publication as well as the covered BPMMM factors.
The authors of the publications no. 42 and 45 explore the status quo of BPM in practice. Contribution no. 43 investigates the usage of process simulation in practice while the authors of the research paper no. 44 explore the status quo regarding a combined application of BPM and Six Sigma. Even though the authors of contributions no. 42 and 45 explore the status quo of BPM in practice they do not cover all BPMMM factors. It is worth mentioning that the authors of publication no. 42 consider BPM as a lifecycle approach while the authors of contribution no. 45 do not define it at all. The former one covers the BPMMM factors Methods and Information Technology while the latter one covers the BPMMM factors Strategic Alignment, Governance, Methods and Information Technology. Due to their narrow research focus the authors of the contributions no. 43 (usage of process simulation) and 44 (combined use of BPM and Six Sigma) focus on the BPMMM factor Methods. Any survey write-up contains the questionnaire used by the authors. Therefore, we have inferred from an analysis of the write-ups to the asked questions. Finally, Table V shows that culture- and people-related aspects have been neglected in all surveys assigned to this class.
Regarding the sample, surveys no. 44 and 45 were conducted in Germany. The remaining two surveys focus on the UK (no. 43) or the USA (no. 42). Only the authors of the contributions no. 42 and 45 define the preferred survey participants in advance. They ask manager, quality- and process-manager to complete the questionnaire. The authors of the surveys no. 43 and 44 invite interested persons to participate in their survey regardless of their role within their company and of the company’s industry. Except study no. 45 that focusses on the public administration in Germany, the remaining three studies do not survey a particular industry.
3.2.5 Class V: investigation of the requirements of practitioners vs the scientific research focus. Class V consists of three contributions which are listed in Table VI. It is common to all those publications that they survey the requirements of practitioners regarding BPM/ BPO or a BPM-related topic and compare these with the research focus of BPM scholars. The contributions no. 46 and 47 determine the status quo in BPM research and compare it with the requirements of practitioners across different industries (contribution no. 46) or of the service industry (paper no. 47), respectively. Contribution no. 48 collects
No. Author Title S G M IT P C
42 Elzingaet al.(1995) Business process management: Survey
and methodology x x
43 Melão and Pidd (2003) Use of business process simulation:
A survey of practitioners x
44 Leyendecker and Komus (2009)
Kombination von
Geschäftsprozessmanagement und Six Sigma - Zugkräftiges Gespann
x
45 Proske and Gronau (2012)
Dem Projekt entwachsen - noch nicht erwachsen : zum Stand von Prozessmanagement in deutschen Kommunalverwaltungen
x x x x
Total 1 1 4 2 0 0
Note:x, at least one“Capability Area”of this“Factor”is thematically addressed in the survey Studies in class IVTable V.
705
Surveys in
business
process
management
the requirements of companies on a BP modeling language in order to select the most appropriate one. Due to its narrow research focus study it covers the BPMMM factor Methods. In contrast, the contributions no. 46 and 47 address all BPMMM factors except the BPMMM factor Culture.
Apart from contribution no. 46 which focusses on Brazilian companies the other two contributions do not contain any information which country they have incorporated for their survey. Study no. 47 focusses on the service industry while the two other surveys incorporate different industries. Common to all three surveys is that they do not define the targeted roles of the interviewees within the surveyed organizations.
3.2.6 Class VI: operationalization of the BPO-concept. Papers in class VI operationalize the BPO by developing and testing scales. These scales consist of a number of single items each representing one aspect of BPO. Papers of this class are summarized in Table VII. The authors of the studies no. 49 and 51 develop scales to measure BPO. Contribution no. 51 uses existing measures to derive BPO dimensions from BPM/BPO-literature and verify those using a survey. The authors of study no. 49 perform a review in logistics, supply chain and operations management literature to develop a scale for later testing with the help of practitioners while the authors of survey no. 50 derive groups of stakeholders from the surveyed data. Our analysis reveals that survey no. 51 covers all six BPMMM-factors. Anyway, this is not surprising since its authors regard BPM as management approach.
The authors of study no. 49 have the objective to develop a scale measuring BPO. However, they do not incorporate the Methods-, Information Technology-, People- and Culture-BPMMM factor. Due to their narrow research focus the authors of study no. 50 focus on the Strategic Alignment BPMMM factor, consequently.
Regarding the sample of the surveys, it is to be said that different industries in different countries (China, Germany and Austria) were questioned. The authors of the
No. Author Title S G M IT P C
46 Paimet al.(2008) Process management tasks: a conceptual
and practical view x x x x x
47 Vergidiset al.(2008) Business process perspectives: theoretical
developments vs real-world practice x x x x x 48 Patig and
Casanova-Brito (2011)
Requirements of process modeling languages–results from an empirical investigation
x
Total 2 2 3 2 2 0
Note:x, at least one“Capability Area”of this“Factor”is thematically addressed in the survey
Table VI.
Papers of class V
No. Author Title S G M IT P C
49 Chenet al.(2009) Measuring process orientation x x 50 Beckeret al.(2010) Stakeholder involvement in business process
management agenda-setting and implementation x 51 Kohlbacher and
Gruenwald (2011a)
Process orientation: conceptualization and
measurement x x x x x x
Total 3 2 1 1 1 1
Note:x, at least one“Capability Area”of this“Factor”is thematically addressed in the survey
Table VII.
Papers of class VI
706
BPMJ
21,3
surveys no. 49 and 50 defined manager as well as quality- and process-manager as the most appropriate participants. Governmental officials responsible for BPM in their local government were the target respondents in study no. 50.
3.3 Discussion and conclusions
In this section we discuss our findings and deduce conclusions. We have organized this section according to the structure of our analysis framework. First, we discuss our analysis results taking the meta-perspective. Thereafter, we review the findings from the content-based perspective.
In general, we could say that the number of published BPM surveys has increased since 2005. The Business Process Management Journal seems to be the most appropriate journal to publish surveys addressing BPM/BPO or BPM-related topics. Additionally, we found out that the retrieved literature has been published in journals of different academic disciplines thus providing evidence that BPM is a multi-disciplinary subject matter (Isiket al., 2013; vom Brockeet al., 2010). Most of the retrieved literature has not appeared in top-ranked journals. Our analysis (cf. Figure 4) does not reveal any trends supporting the claim that there is a change in the number of surveys that appear in top-ranked journals/proceedings. However, an increase in the maturation of BPM research might be able to change this in the future. Therefore, future surveys have to follow rigorous methodological standards to increase the quality of research results. However, they must not lose relevance for practitioners (see the discussion at the end of this section).
Next, we discuss the findings from the content-based perspective. We build six classes using the survey’s research goals. Studies assigned to class I addresses BP modeling and BP design related RQs. Studies organized in class II test the impact of BPM/BPO or a BPM-related topic on a dependent variable. Class III consists of papers investigating the implementation and the evolution of BPM in organizations. We assign studies to class IV when these explore the status quo of BPM in practice. Studies in class V compare the emphasis of scientific research with the needs of practitioners. Finally, class VI summarizes research papers which developed scale items to measure BPM/BPO.
Afterwards, we analyze the research focus of the surveys. Studies have either a narrow research focus or a broad research focus. The former ones investigate a particular BPM-related topic (e.g. BP modeling, BP outsourcing) that fits thematically one particular BPMMM factor. Our analysis reveals that this kind of studies mostly investigates topics that can be assigned to the BPMMM factors Strategic Alignment and Methods. Only two of the studies with a narrow research focus investigate topics of the BPMMM factor Governance while only one survey addresses a BPM-related topic that could be thematically assigned to the Information Technology BPMMM factor. We retrieved no study that has a narrow research focus and investigates capability areas of the People or Culture-BPMMM factor. However, there is a broad consensus in the BPM literature that the culture has to be in line with the process approach (vom Brocke and Sinnl, 2011; Hammer, 2010; Alibabaeiet al., 2009) and that the success of process management heavily relies on peoples’
knowledge and skills (Hammer, 2010; Alibabaeiet al., 2009). As both capability areas have been less investigated and thus little theory has been developed so far (vom Brocke et al., 2010), qualitative research endeavors are more suitable than survey research in future investigations (Edmondson and McManus, 2007). Surveys which have a broad research focus should aim to cover all BPMMM factors.
707
Surveys in
business
process
management
However, our analysis reveals that in some cases they do not cover all of them. Therefore, we recommend that authors of surveys should utilize reference frameworks (e.g. Jeston and Nelis, 2008; Rosemann and vom Brocke, 2010) or BPM maturity models to ensure that surveys get a comprehensive view of BPM.
While we were analyzing the surveys from the content-based perspective, we found evidence in surveys of almost every class supporting the assumption that companies have a different BPM demand. Studies in class I reveal that organizations have a different demand on BP design or BP modeling which is likely to be influenced by internal and external parameters. Studies in class II operationalize BPM/BPO using scales measuring the organization’s BPM/BPO (maturity) level. Some studies imply that a higher maturity level results in a better performance of the dependent variable. In any case, it might be interesting to know the“best”maturity level (Röglinger and Kamprath, 2012). Further evidence that organizations follow a different approach to BPM is provided by some studies pooled in class III, since it was found out that organizations adapt BPM differently and mostly strive for a customized BPM approach (Bucher and Winter, 2009b). It could be interesting to explore what a customized BPM approach constitutes and whether one for each organization or one “best-practice” for a particular industry exists. The authors of one study assigned to class V found out, among others, that practitioners ask for suggestions how to introduce BPM in their organizations and to determine the factors in order to choose the most appropriate BPM (Paimet al., 2008). Research in this field can help organizations to design a tailored BPM solution that fits their internal and external environment. A misfit might result in expenses for an ineffective BPM solution which does not get paid-off (Plattfaut et al., 2011). In the future, scholars should, first, confirm this research gap by incorporating all research contributions, second, operationalize the BPM demand and explore the internal and environmental (external) characteristics that influence it and, third, explore how and why this is the case. However, such research endeavors could be hardly investigated using surveys (see the discussion at the end of this section).
Subsequently, we analyzed the samples used in the surveys. The majority of authors of the analyzed surveys do not interrogate organizations of a particular industry. However, based on both our finding that organizations might have a different BPM demand and the claim of some authors for further research (e.g.Škrinjar and Trkman, 2013; Kohlbacher and Reijers, 2013), we conclude that it would be worthwhile to draw a sample of a particular industry to gather, for example industry-specific BP design/BP modeling requirements (class I), draw conclusions regarding the performance impact of BPO (class II), shed light on industry-specific development/evolution paths (class III), survey the status quo in an industry (class IV), collect the scientific research demand of the respective industry (class V) and, finally, develop industry-specific BPO scales (class VI). Our analysis reveals that BPM has been studied in different regions/countries to different extends. Mostly, BPM was studied in Europe (Germany, England, Holland, Croatia, Norway, Austria, Portugal, Switzerland and Slovenia), America (Brazil, Canada and USA) and Asia (China, India, Japan and South Korea). We did not found any study through our review that has appeared in a ranked journal/proceeding and explicitly surveyed organizations in African or Oceania countries. Therefore, future research might conduct surveys in further countries or regions that have hardly/not been addressed by BPM researcher so far. Such research endeavors contribute to the BPM body of
708
BPMJ
21,3
knowledge, by verifying the validity of theories in other countries (e.g. Škrinjar et al., 2008; Bucher and Winter, 2009a; Kohlbacher and Reijers, 2013) and by examining the effect of the country’s specific contextual embeddedness on BPM (e.g. Niehaves, 2011; Škrinjar and Trkman, 2013). Moreover, our analysis reveals that the targeted interviewees were mainly managers as well as quality- and process-managers (role of interviewees). This might bear the risk of getting biased answers due to the lack of triangulation (Malhotra and Grover, 1998). On the other hand, operative staff might not have the necessary insights to answer the questions properly. Nevertheless, further surveys should incorporate the answers of both the operational staff and managers. This allows a bigger and more comprehensive picture of BPM and especially about how BPM is recognized on the “shop-floor”
to be drawn.
Our literature review shows that a lot of surveys have been published in the BPM literature so far. We found descriptive surveys that present the status quo of BPM, explorative surveys that allow to become more familiar with BPM topics and explanative surveys that test theories (Houyet al., 2010; Edmondson and McManus, 2007; Malhotra and Grover, 1998). Although, survey research seems to be very useful for these kinds of research endeavors, they are accompanied by limitations and shortcomings (see, e.g. Malhotra and Grover, 1998 as well as Bailey, 1992 for a discussion). Since surveys allow to collect quantitative data (Edmondson and McManus, 2007) and thus, cannot account for potentially but important variations related to the specific context (Bailey, 1992), there is the risk of producing “reliable but insignificant ‘so what’ results” (Bailey, 1992, p. 50). Consequently, such research results can be helpful for practitioners as a starting point only but the latter ones ask for adaptable theories due to their different BPM demand (compare our conclusion above in this section). However, such theories allowing tailoring BPM implementations to specific requirements of practitioners could not be developed through survey research as they rely on quantitative data and do not consider the context. Some authors of the surveys incorporated in this review emphasize the importance of taking into account the context and suggest qualitative research endeavors to investigate the influence of the context on BPM (e.g. Ittner and Larcker, 1997; Mansar and Reijers, 2007; Münstermannet al., 2010; Isiket al., 2013;Škrinjar and Trkman, 2013). As a result, in order to gain such insights, qualitative open-ended inquiries using qualitative data are necessary to develop “tentative theories” (Edmondson and McManus, 2007). By developing such theories the scientific community could satisfy the specific requirements of the BPM practitioners more likely. Thus, we expect that the scientific community is the target audience of the surveys although in almost all contributions the authors claim implications for practice. From our point of view, these implications provide good starting points for practitioners. However, most of these implications seem to be too abstract for practitioners as they provide too less detail how to adapt them in order to exploit their opportunities or to resolve problems (cf. Siponen and Vance, 2014; Benbasat and Zmud, 1999). Our suspicion is supported by findings in some of the incorporated contributions (e.g. Paimet al., 2008; Vergidiset al., 2008).
4. Summary
Our literature review contributes to the existing BPM body of knowledge by shedding light on surveys within the BPM domain. It provides an overview of surveys that have been published so far. The retrieved surveys were analyzed, categorized and briefly described. Finally, by discussing the results, conclusions were deduced and explicated:
709
Surveys in
business
process
management
• In order to achieve our research goal (1) we conducted a literature review following the approach proposed by Jessonet al.(2011). To be in line with their approach, we formulated RQs, described the literature retrieval process, conducted a synthesis, deduced conclusion out of the synthesis and wrote this paper. We searched several renowned academic research databases using a defined set of keywords to minimize the risk of missing relevant papers. We found a huge number of surveys that have been published over the last years. In order to discuss these surveys we built six classes categorizing our incorporated studies based on their research goals.
• Next, we developed an analysis framework in order to discuss the surveys assigned to each class in a consistent manner. Thereby, research goals (2) and (3) were achieved.
• By means of the discussion we were able to deduce conclusions (4).
Taking the meta-perspective we find out, among others, that surveys do appear in top-ranked journal only to a moderate extent. Therefore, future research should emphasize rigorous methodological standards to get published in top-ranked journals and to increase the quality of the produced research results at the same time. Our analysis from the content-based perspective reveals that while some topics of the BPMMM factors have been intensively studied, i.e. the BPMMM factors Strategic Alignment and Methods, others have hardly/not been inquired, i.e. the BPMMM factors Governance, Information Technology, People and Culture. Therefore, we recommend that future research should focus especially on the latter ones. Moreover, it turned out that surveys with a broad research focus do not cover all BPMMM factors thematically. Hence, we suggest incorporating BPM maturity models or BPM frameworks to ensure comprehensiveness. This literature review provides evidence that organizations have a different BPM demand which seems to be influenced by internal (e.g. the process characteristics) and external characteristics (e.g. market, culture). Thereafter, future research could explore the organizations BPM demand.
Our analysis shows that mostly cross-industrial samples were investigated. Thus, we recommend that future surveys should choose industry-specific samples to gain deeper insights about how BPM is applied in particular industries. Furthermore, we suggest conducting surveys in countries or regions that have been neglected so far. That might help to elaborate, clarify and challenging existing theories. One further point that is revealed through our analysis is the fact that mostly managers are interviewed. In order to minimize the risk of getting biased answers, we suggest both managers and employees in an organization to be interviewed in future surveys.
Finally, we conclude that surveys are often used by BPM scholars for descriptive, explorative and explanative purposes. Due to the fact that surveys rely on quantitative data, they cannot take into account the context of the organization and investigate its influence on BPM. Thus, the implications in surveys provide a good starting point but usually they are too abstract for practitioners. In order to satisfy the need of practitioners for specific BPM implementations, research has to build (relevant) theories using rich qualitative data and taking into account the context of the organizations.
Note
1. http://vhbonline.org/en/service/jourqual/ (last accessed 23 June 2014).
710
BPMJ
21,3
References
Alibabaei, A., Bandara, W. and Aghdasi, M. (2009),“Means of achieving business process management success factors”,Proceedings of the 4th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, Athens, September 25-27.
Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R.G. and Devaraj, S. (1995), “A path analytic model of a theory of quality management underlying the deming management method: preliminary empirical findings”,Decision Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 637-658.
Antonucci, Y.L. and Goeke, R.J. (2011), “Identification of appropriate responsibilities and positions for business process management success: seeking a valid and reliable framework”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 127-146.
Bailey, M.T. (1992), “Do physicists use case studies? Thoughts on public administration research”,Public Administration Review, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 47-54.
Becker, J., Niehaves, B. and Plattfaut, R. (2010),“Stakeholder involvement in business process management agenda-setting and implementation”, Proceedings of the 16th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Lima, August 12-15.
Benbasat, I. and Zmud, R.W. (1999),“Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 3-16.
Bharadwaj, S.S. and Saxena, K.B.C. (2009), “Building winning relationships in business process outsourcing services”,Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 109 No. 7, pp. 993-1011.
Bharadwaj, S.S., Saxena, K.B.C. and Halemane, M.D. (2010),“Building a successful relationship in business process outsourcing: an exploratory study”,European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 168-180.
Bhatt, G.D. and Troutt, M.D. (2005), “Examining the relationship between business process improvement initiatives, information systems integration and customer focus: an empirical study”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 532-558.
Bucher, T. and Winter, R. (2009a),“Geschäftsprozessmanagement–Einsatz, Weiterentwicklung und Anpassungsmöglichkeiten aus Methodiksicht”,HMD–Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik,
Vol. 46 No. 266, pp. 5-16.
Bucher, T. and Winter, R. (2009b),“Project types of business process management: towards a scenario structure to enable situational method engineering for business process management”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 548-568. Chen, H., Tian, Y. and Daugherty, P. (2009),“Measuring process orientation”,The International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 213-227.
Cooper, H.M. (2010), Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach, Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
Davenport, T. (1993),Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Davenport, T. and Short, J. (1990),“The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign”,Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 11-27.
Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA.
Diller, H. and Ivens, B.S. (2006),“Process oriented marketing”,Marketing–Journal of Research and Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 14-29.
Edmondson, A.C. and McManus, S.E. (2007),“Methodological fit in management field research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1155-1179.
711
Surveys in
business
process
management
Eikebrokk, T.R., Iden, J., Olsen, D.H. and Opdahl, A.L. (2011),“Understanding the determinants of business process modelling in organisations”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 639-662.
Elzinga, D., Horak, T., Chung-Yee, L. and Bruner, C. (1995),“Business process management: survey and methodology”,IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 119-128. Gewald, H. and Dibbern, J. (2009),“Risks and benefits of business process outsourcing: a study of transaction services in the German banking industry”,Information & Management, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 249-257.
Hammer, M. (2007),“The process audit”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 111-123. Hammer, M. (2010),“What is business process management?”, in vom Brocke, J. and Rosemann, M.
(Eds),Handbook on Business Process Management 1, Vol. 1, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 3-16. Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1994),Reengineering the Corporation–A Manifesto for Business
Revolution, HarperBusiness, New York, NY.
Hernaus, T., PejićBach, M. and Bosilj Vukšić, V. (2012),“Influence of strategic approach to BPM
on financial and non-financial performance”,Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 376-396.
Houy, C., Fettke, P. and Loos, P. (2010),“Empirical research in business process management–
analysis of an emerging field of research”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 619-661.
Isik, Ö., Mertens, W. and Van den Bergh, J. (2013),“Practices of knowledge intensive process management: quantitative insights”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 515-534.
Ittner, C.D. and Larcker, D.F. (1997), “The performance effects of process management techniques”,Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 522-534.
Jesson, J.K., Matheson, L. and Lacey, F.M. (2011),Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques, Sage, London.
Jeston, J. and Nelis, J. (2008), Management by Process: A Practical Road-Map to Sustainable Business Process Management, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Kim, G.-M. and Won, H.J. (2007),“HR BPO service models for small and medium enterprises”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 694-706.
Kock, N., Verville, J., Danesh-Pajou, A. and DeLuca, D. (2009),“Communication flow orientation in business process modeling and its effect on redesign success: results from a field study”,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 562-575.
Kohlbacher, M. (2010),“The effects of process orientation: a literature review”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 135-152.
Kohlbacher, M. and Gruenwald, S. (2011a), “Process orientation: conceptualization and measurement”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 267-283. Kohlbacher, M. and Gruenwald, S. (2011b), “Process ownership, process performance
measurement and firm performance”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 60 No. 7, pp. 709-720.
Kohlbacher, M. and Reijers, H.A. (2013),“The effects of process-oriented organizational design on firm performance”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 245-262. Kumar, U., Lavassani, K.M., Kumar, V. and Movahedi, B. (2008), “Measurement of business
process orientation in transitional organizations: an empirical study”, in Aalst, W., Mylopoulos, J., Sadeh, N.M., Shaw, M.J., Szyperski, C., Abramowicz, W. and Fensel, D. (Eds), Business Information Systems, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 7, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 357-368.
712
BPMJ
21,3
Kumar, V., Movahedi, B., Lavassani, K.M. and Kumar, U. (2010),“Unleashing process orientation: a comparative study of enterprise system implementation in Canadian and US firms”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 315-332.
Lee, R. and Dale, B. (1998),“Business process management: a review and evaluation”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 214-225.
Leyendecker, B. and Komus, A. (2009),“Kombination von Geschäftsprozessmanagement und Six Sigma. Zugkräftiges Gespann”,Qualität und Zuverlässigkeit, Vol. 54 No. 11, pp. 19-23. Luo, Y., Wang, S.L., Zheng, Q. and Jayaraman, V. (2012),“Task attributes and process integration
in business process offshoring: a perspective of service providers from India and China”,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 498-524.
Malhotra, M.K. and Grover, V. (1998), “An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs to theory”,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 407-425. Mani, D., Barua, A. and Whinston, A.B. (2005),“Of governance and the BPO paradox: the impact
of information capabilities on service satisfaction”,Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Information Systems, Las Vegas, December 11-14.
Mani, D., Barua, A. and Whinston, A.B. (2006), “Successfully governing business process outsourcing relationships”,MIS Quarterly Executive, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Mani, D., Barua, A. and Whinston, A.B. (2007),“Conflict resolution or informational response? An empirical analysis of the determinants of governance choice in business process outsourcing relationships”, Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Information Systems, Montréal, December 9-12.
Mani, D., Barua, A. and Whinston, A.B. (2010), “An empirical analysis of the impact of information capabilities design on business process outsourcing performance”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 39-62.
Mani, D., Barua, A. and Whinston, A.B. (2012),“An empirical analysis of the contractual and information structures of business process outsourcing relationships”, Information Systems Research, Part 1, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 618-634.
Mansar, S.L. and Reijers, H.A. (2007),“Best practices in business process redesign: use and impact”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 193-213.
Melão, N. and Pidd, M. (2003),“Use of business process simulation: a survey of practitioners”,
Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 2-10.
Meyer, S.M. and Collier, D.A. (2001),“An empirical test of the causal relationships in the Baldrige Health Care Pilot Criteria”,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 403-426. Münstermann, B., Eckhardt, A. and Weitzel, T. (2010),“The performance impact of business process standardization: an empirical evaluation of the recruitment process”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 29-56.
Münstermann, B., Joachim, N. and Beimborn, D. (2009),“An empirical evaluation of the impact of process standardization on process performance and flexibility”,Proceedings of the 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, August 6-9.
Niehaves, B. (2011),“Democratizing process innovation: a comparative study of public sector business process management networks”,Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, January 4-7.
Niehaves, B., Plattfaut, R. and Becker, J. (2012),“Business process governance: a comparative study of Germany and Japan”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 347-371.
Paim, R., Caulliraux, H.M. and Cardoso, R. (2008),“Process management tasks: a conceptual and practical view”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 694-723.
713
Surveys in
business
process
management
Palmberg, K. (2009), “Exploring process management: are there any widespread models and definitions?”,The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 203-215.
Patig, S. and Casanova-Brito, V. (2011),“Requirements of process modeling languages - results from an empirical investigation”, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Zurich, February 16-18.
Plattfaut, R., Niehaves, B., Pöppelbuß, J. and Becker, J. (2011),“Development of BPM capabilities -is maturity the right path?”,Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, June 9-11.
Povey, B. (1998), “The development of a best practice business process improvement methodology”, Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 27-44.
Proske, N. and Gronau, N. (2012),“Dem Projekt entwachsen - noch nicht erwachsen. Zum Stand von Prozessmanagement in deutschen Kommunalverwaltungen”, Verwaltung und Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 212-217.
Ravesteyn, P. and Batenburg, R. (2010),“Surveying the critical success factors of BPM-systems implementation”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 492-507. Ravichandran, T. and Rai, A. (2000),“Software process management: an organisational learning
perspective”,Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems, Vienna, July 3-5.
Ravi, S.P., Jain, R.K. and Sharma, H.P. (2011), “An analysis of business process outsourcing strategies of public and private sector banks in India”,International Business & Economics Research Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Reijers, H.A. and Mendling, J. (2011), “A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 449-462.
Röglinger, M. and Kamprath, N. (2012),“Prozessverbesserung mit Reifegradmodellen”,Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 509-538.
Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß, J. and Becker, J. (2012), “Maturity models in business process management”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 328-346. Rosemann, M. and vom Brocke, J. (2010), “The six core elements of business process
management”, in vom Brocke, J. and Rosemann, M. (Eds),Handbook on Business Process Management 1, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 107-122.
Rosemann, M., Bruin, T.d. and Power, B. (2006),“BPM maturity”, in Jeston, J. and Nelis, J. (Eds),
Business Process Management: Practical Guidelines to Successful Implementations, Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, VT, pp. 299-315.
Schäfermeyer, M., Rosenkranz, C. and Holten, R. (2012), “The impact of business process complexity on business process standardization”, Business & Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 261-270.
Siponen, M. and Vance, A. (2014), “Guidelines for improving the contextual relevance of field surveys: the case of information security policy violations”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 289-305.
Škrinjar, R. and Trkman, P. (2013), “Increasing process orientation with business process management: critical practices”,International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 48-60.
Škrinjar, R., Bosilj-Vukšic, V. and Indihar-Štembe
