3rd International Workshop on BPMN

Posted by on

The Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) standard has seen a huge uptake in both, industry and academic research. Its promise of being one language for Business and IT has made it very popular with business analysts, tool vendors, practitioners, and end users. After two successful workshops in Vienna, Austria and Potsdam, Germany, this third workshop brings together practitioners and researchers to share experiences and discuss the latest developments around BPMN. There will be a practitioner session, a scientic session and an exhibition. Topics include:

  • Practical experience with BPMN
  • Empirical research on BPMN
  • BPMN as a modeling language
  • BPMN tools and runtimes
  • BPMN for business analysis
  • BPMN for process execution
  • Future directions of BPMN

The worshop will take place in Lucerne, Switzerland, from November 21-22, 2011. For detailed information, visit the workshop website.

The Components of Business Process Management

Posted by on

This article summarizes the study “Process orientation: Conceptualization and Measurement” by Kohlbacher M. and Gruenwald S., to be published in the Business Process Management Journal in 2011, Volume 17, Issue 2.
The paper empirically explores the “building blocks” (“components”) of business process management. The article first considers the following definitions of business process management:

  • The approach of process orientation emphasizes processes as opposed to hierarchies (McCormack and Johnson, 2001).
  • Process orientation means focusing on business processes ranging from customer to customer instead of placing emphasis on functional structures (Reijers, 2006).
  • Process management capitalizes on improving an organization’s efficiency through high-level coordination of an organization’s activities in a rationalized system of end-to-end processes (Benner and Tushman, 2002).
  • The process management philosophy is a comprehensive problem-solving heuristic that is process-oriented, customer-focused, fact-based, and participative throughout a firm (Winter, 1994).
  • Business process management incorporates the discovery, design, deployment, execution, interaction, control, analysis and optimization of business processes (Smith and Fingar, 2003).

Based on these definitions, the paper builds up a model consisting of different business process management aspects. The final empirical analysis of the model suggests that process management is a concept consisting of seven “building blocks” (“components”):

  1. design and documentation of business processes
  2. management commitment towards process orientation
  3. the process owner role
  4. process performance measurement
  5. a corporate culture in line with the process approach
  6. application of continuous process improvement methodologies, and
  7. process-oriented organizational structure.

At present, many managers are looking for ways to make their organization more process-oriented. The findings of the paper indicate that business process management involves many different aspects, ranging from design and documentation of business processes to process-oriented organizational structure. The developed model in the paper has potential use for an organization to review its internal progress of process-oriented organizational design and has potential use for process assessment, either as an alternative or supplementary measurement of process capability and organizational maturity.

ECIS 2011: The 19th European Conference on Information Systems

Posted by on

The 19th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2011) will take place from June 9-11, 2011 in Helsinki, Finland. The conference will be held in the premises of Aalto University School of Economics. The Business Process Management track of the conference will focus topics such as

  • Success factors and measures of BPM
  • BPM adoption models
  • BPM governance
  • Business process innovation
  • Business process outsourcing
  • Process-aware Information Systems
  • Inter-organizational BPM
  • Process performance measurement
  • BPM in different industries
  • Process reference models

For further details, visit the conference website.

Survey on Process Management: Aspects of Corporate Culture

Posted by on

Process orientation is also a matter of enterprise culture. The real problems when implementing the process orientation approach are of a cultural nature (Hinterhuber, 1995). The cultural fit is an important issue since people and processes must combine to produce output (Armistead and Machin, 1997). Only a culture based on teamwork, willingness to change, customer orientation, personal accountability, and a cooperative leadership style goes hand in hand with the process approach (Hammer, 2007). This article discusses the results related to corporate culture of the process management survey. Survey details (research design, sample, etc.) can be found here.

A process-oriented organization needs a culture which values teamwork, since business processes cutting across functions must be operated by people in a team (Hammer, 2007). Most of the surveyed firms state that teamwork is a matter of course in their organization. The item “Teamwork (also between different departments) can be taken for granted in the organization” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 6,67%: Disagree
  • 34,67%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 58,67%: Agree
Teamwork (also between different departments) can be taken for granted in the organization.

Teamwork (also between different departments) can be taken for granted in the organization.

It is often argued that organizations emphasizing functions and hierarchy are failing to focus on the customer (Hinterhuber, 1995; Schmelzer and Sesselmann, 2006; Gulati, 2007). By contrast, in a process-oriented organization, each business process has a clearly defined customer who receives the result of the process (Schantin, 2004). The item “Our organization’s employees understand that the purpose of their work is to fulfill the needs of the internal/external customers” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 7,33%: Disagree
  • 44,67%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 48,00%: Agree
Our organization's employees understand that the purpose of their work is to fulfill the needs of the internal/external customers.

Our organization's employees understand that the purpose of their work is to fulfill the needs of the internal/external customers.

Only organizations whose culture values personal accountability will find it possible to move forward with their degree of process orientation (Hammer, 2007). The item “Our firm’s employees feel accountable for enterprise results” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 9,33%: Disagree
  • 62,00%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 28,67%: Agree
Our firm's employees feel accountable for enterprise results.

Our firm's employees feel accountable for enterprise results.

The lack of a change-supportive culture is often blamed when process improvement actions fail (Tenner and DeToro, 2000). As business conditions change, process designs need to evolve, and it is the task of process owners to guide that evolution (Hammer and Stanton, 1999). A remarkable part of a company’s change-capability is based on its employees (Nyhuis et al., 2008). The item “Changes in the way work is performed are accepted by the employees in a sluggish manner” (note that the item is reverse-coded) was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 26,67%: Disagree
  • 49,33%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 24,00%: Agree

Therefore, in most of the surveyed firms, the employees’ willingness to change is on a moderate level.

Changes in the way work is performed are accepted by the employees in a sluggish manner.

Changes in the way work is performed are accepted by the employees in a sluggish manner.

Process orientation is a construct which becomes “real” by communication and interaction, i.e. the construct becomes real if it is communicated by means of a language. By communicating about business processes and their design, process management becomes a reality (Gaitanides, 2007). The item “Employees on all levels of the organization are speaking about business processes, customers, teams, process performance indicators, etc.” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 36,00%: Disagree
  • 42,00%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 22,00%: Agree
Employees on all levels of the organization are speaking about business processes, customers, teams, process performance indicators, etc.

Employees on all levels of the organization are speaking about business processes, customers, teams, process performance indicators, etc.

The need to empower staff is often mentioned by literature on team and process-based organizations (Armistead and Rowland, 1996). Traditional management styles have no place in a process enterprise. Managers can’t command and control but they have to negotiate and collaborate (Hammer and Stanton, 1999). The item “The management’s leadership style is based on hierarchical command and control” (note that the item is reverse-coded) was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 44,00%: Disagree
  • 34,67%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 21,33%: Agree
The management's leadership style is based on hierarchical command and control.

The management's leadership style is based on hierarchical command and control.

Business Process Management Conference 2011

Posted by on

The Business Process Management Conference 2011 will be held in Clermont-Ferrand, France, from the 30th of August to the 1st of September 2011. The conference will be organized by the LIMOS Laboratory, CNRS, Université Blaise Pascal and will take place at the Campus des Cézeaux. Research topics include, but are not limited to:

  • Modeling and theory of business operations and processes (process modeling languages, reference process models, process simulation and static analysis, etc.)
  • Process architectures and platforms (process-oriented software architectures, service-oriented architectures for BPM, workflow management systems and infrastructure, etc.)
  • Management of process execution data (process tracing and monitoring, dynamic process analysis and process performance measurement, process mining, process data warehousing, etc.)
  • Process evolution and flexibility (process exception handling, process change management, etc.)
  • Human-centric BPM (people-intensive processes, cross-organizational processes, integrating strategy, process, people and IT, etc.)
  • Non-traditional BPM scenarios (knowledge-intensive processes, data-driven business processes, etc.)
  • Management issues and empirical studies (business process lifecycle management, relationship of business strategy and business process, BPM governance and compliance management, BPM maturity, adoption and practice of BPM, case studies and experience reports in BPM, etc.)

See all details at http://bpm2011.isima.fr.

Survey on Process Management: Process Performance Measurement

Posted by on

By focusing measurement on processes rather than functions, alignment and common focus across separate organizational units can be achieved (Hammer, 2007). This article discusses the concept of process performance measurement of the process management survey. Details on the survey (research design, sample, etc.) can be found here.

Implementing measures and taking corrective actions are operating precepts of process management (Melan, 1989). The results of the survey show that the concept of process performance measurement is partly established by organizations (see figures below). More than 40% of the surveyed firms state that process performance measurement is not implemented in the firm.

The item “Performance indicators are specified for our organization’s business processes” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 42,67%: Disagree
  • 27,33%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 30,00%: Agree
Performance indicators are specified for our organization’s business processes.

Performance indicators are specified for our organization’s business processes.

Process performance indicators have to be derived from the process objectives which themselves have to be derived from business objectives. The results of the survey reveal that most of the firms which defined process performance indicators derived these indicators from enterprise goals and/or customer requirements. The item “Process performance indicators are derived from enterprise goals and/or from (internal) customer requirements” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 25,33%: No process performance indicators defined
  • 10,00%: Disagree
  • 22,00%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 42,67%: Agree
Process performance indicators are derived from enterprise goals and/or from (internal) customer requirements

Process performance indicators are derived from enterprise goals and/or from (internal) customer requirements.

Process performance measurement only makes sense if performance indicators are calculated from process performance data which is collected continuously. Most firms which defined process performance indicators also continuously collect performance data. The item “Process performance data is continuously collected” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 25,33%: No process performance indicators defined
  • 14,00%: Disagree
  • 18,00%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 42,67%: Agree
Process performance data is continuously collected.

Process performance data is continuously collected.

Measuring process performance without reacting on poor performance stresses resources, but does not lead to any improvements. Most firms which defined process performance indicators also initiate improvement actions if process performance is poor. The item “Improvement actions are actually initiated if poor process performance is encountered” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 25,33%: No process performance indicators defined
  • 9,33%: Disagree
  • 24,67%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 40,67%: Agree
Improvement actions are actually initiated if poor process performance is encountered.

Improvement actions are actually initiated if poor process performance is encountered.

Process workers who know the performance of the business process are able to timely react on bad performance. Most organizations which defined process performance indicators also make the data available to process performers. The item “Process metrics are periodically presented to process performers (for e.g. awareness and motivation)” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 25,33%: No process performance indicators defined
  • 18,00%: Disagree
  • 22,00%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 34,67%: Agree
Process metrics are periodically presented to process performers (for e.g. awareness and motivation).

Process metrics are periodically presented to process performers (for e.g. awareness and motivation).

Process benchmarking uses business processes as comparison units and aims to identify best operating practices (Delpachitra and Beal, 2002). The results of the survey reveal that process benchmarking is infrequently used by organizations. The item “Process benchmarking (for several processes) is carried out in the organization” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 25,68%: No process performance indicators defined
  • 37,84%: Disagree
  • 29,73%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 6,76%: Agree
Process benchmarking (for several processes) is carried out in the organization.

Process benchmarking (for several processes) is carried out in the organization.

Activity based costing captures costs horizontally in line with business processes (Hinterhuber, 1995). The results of the study reveal that activity based costing is rarely used by organizations. The item “Activity-based costing is comprehensively applied in the organization.” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 25,50%: No process performance indicators defined
  • 45,64%: Disagree
  • 21,48%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 7,38%: Agree

Activity-based costing is comprehensively applied in the organization.

Activity-based costing is comprehensively applied in the organization.


Survey on Process Management: The Role of the Process Owner

Posted by on

The existence of process owners is the most visible difference between a process enterprise and a traditional organization (Hammer and Stanton, 1999). This article discusses the issue of the process owner role of the process management survey. Details on the survey (research design, sample, etc.) can be found here.

A business process needs to have a process owner having end to end responsibility of the process (Suter, 2009). The results of the survey show that the role of the process owner is established in most of the firms (see figures below). It is worth mentioning that 28% of the surveyed firms state that the role of the process owner does not exist.

The item “The role of the process owner is established in our organization and a process owner has been assigned to each business process” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 28%: Disagree
  • 16%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 56%: Agree

A process owner needs to have leadership experience (Schmelzer and Sesselmann, 2006). The results of the survey reveal that most of the firms which implemented the process owner role have assigned experienced leaders/managers to this role. The item “Process owners are experienced leaders/managers“ was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 22,67%: Role of process owner does not exist
  • 8,00%: Disagree
  • 26,00%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 43,33%: Agree
Process owners are experienced leaders/managers.

Process owners are experienced leaders/managers.

Process owners have to have the authority to take all measures necessary to coordinate and improve the business process (Hinterhuber, 1995). The item “Process owners are members of the enterprise’s seniormost decision-making body” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 22,67%: Role of process owner does not exist
  • 8,00%: Disagree
  • 21,33%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 48,00%: Agree
Process owners are members of the enterprise’s seniormost decision-making body.

Process owners are members of the enterprise’s seniormost decision-making body.

An important task of a process owner is the continuous improvement and optimization of the process the owner is responsible for (Schmelzer and Sesselmann, 2006). The item “Process owners are responsible for the continuous improvement of their processes and they perform this task proactively” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 22,67%: Role of process owner does not exist
  • 11,33%: Disagree
  • 34,67%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 31,33%: Agree
Process owners are responsible for the continuous improvement of their processes and they perform this task proactively.

Process owners are responsible for the continuous improvement of their processes and they perform this task proactively.

In an ideal process-oriented organization, budgeting is done by process instead of by department (Hammer and Stanton, 1999). The item “Process owners take on budgeting responsibility” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 22,82%: Role of process owner does not exist
  • 16,11%: Disagree
  • 24,16%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 36,91%: Agree
Process owners take on budgeting responsibility

Process owners take on budgeting responsibility

Process performance logically depends on the workers executing the actual work within the process. If process owners have influence over personnel assignments, they thereby also have more influence on the performance of the process. The item “Process owners have strong influence over personnel assignments” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 22,67%: Role of process owner does not exist
  • 16,67%: Disagree
  • 22,00%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 38,67%: Agree
Process owners have strong influence over personnel assignments.

Process owners have strong influence over personnel assignments.

Continuous Process Improvement, Business Process Orientation and Innovation

Posted by on

This article is a brief summary of the paper “Dynamic Capabilities through Continuous Improvement, Organizational Process Alignment and Innovation” by M. Kohlbacher and M. Ringhofer, which will be presented next week at the 30th Annual International Conference of the Strategic Management Society in Rome (http://rome.strategicmanagement.net). The paper examines the interaction effect of continuous improvement initiatives (e.g. Six Sigma or KAIZEN) and business process orientation on innovation. The empirical study uses a sample of 67 Austrian manufacturing companies.

 The empirical evidence shows that firms which apply continuous improvement methods and at the same time

  • have a culture in line with the process approach (i.e. a culture based on teamwork and customer orientation; and where  process workers have detailed knowledge of how their process is executed, etc.) or
  • a strong top management commitment towards the process approach (i.e. where management does not perceive the process program as a single project, but as a way of managing the business; and where management is actively engaged in the process program)

can develop their products to the market more quickly. The paper will be presented in Track I, Session 203.

Survey on Process Management: Management Commitment towards Process Management

Posted by on

This article discusses the issue “management commitment towards the process approach” of the process management survey. Details on the survey (research design, sample, etc.) can be found here.

In most of the firms, management supports the process program (see figures below). It is worth mentioning that about 25% of the firms state that senior executives are not committed to process management.

The item “The management of our organization perceives process management not as a single project, but as a way of managing the business” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 26,17%: Disagree
  • 32,89%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 40,94%: Agree

The item “There is at least one senior executive who has taken leadership of, and responsibility for, the process program” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 25,33%: Disagree
  • 21,33%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 53,33%: Agree

The item “The senior executive team is actively engaged in the process program” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 25,50%: Disagree
  • 28,86%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 45,64%: Agree


Survey on Process Management: Definition and Documentation of Business Processes

Posted by on

This article discusses the issue “documentation of business processes” of the process management survey. Details on the survey (research design, sample, etc.) can be found here.

Most firms have defined a complete and uniform enterprise process model. The item “Our firm has developed a complete and uniform enterprise process model illustrating the business processes of the organization” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 22,00%: Disagree
  • 16,67%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 61,33%: Agree

Most firms document the design of their business processes (and keep the documentation up-to-date). The statement “The business processes of our firm are documented in a sufficiently detailed way” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 15,33%: Disagree
  • 29,33%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 55,33%: Agree

The statement “Process documentation is always timely updated after process design has changed” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 18,00%: Disagree
  • 28,00%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 54,00%: Agree

Most firms have defined inputs, outputs, customers and suppliers of their business processes. The statement “Inputs and outputs of our firm’s processes are clearly defined” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 16,67%: Disagree
  • 36,67%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 46,67%: Agree

The statement “The internal/external customers as well as the internal/external suppliers of our organization’s processes are clearly defined” was rated by the firms in the sample as follows:

  • 13,51%: Disagree
  • 37,16%: Neither agree nor disagree
  • 49,32%: Agree