Advertisement

How Context-Aware Are Extant BPM Methods? - Development of an Assessment Scheme

  • Marie-Sophie Denner
  • Maximilian Röglinger
  • Theresa Schmiedel
  • Katharina Stelzl
  • Charlotte Wehking
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11080)

Abstract

Context awareness is vital for business process management (BPM) success. Although many academics have called for context-aware BPM, current BPM research and practice do not seem to sufficiently account for various contexts. To examine whether this statement holds true, we developed an assessment scheme that enables determining to which extent existing BPM methods can be applied in various contexts. We identified 25 exemplary BPM methods based on a structured literature review and rated them according to their applicability to different context dimensions, i.e., goal, process, organization and environment dimension. Our results indicate that most BPM methods are rather context-independent, i.e., they are not geared to specific contexts. Accordingly, the investigated BPM methods follow a one-size-fits-all approach and practitioners have no guidance on how to tailor BPM in their organizations. In particular, there is a lack of BPM methods for explorative purposes as well as for knowledge- and creativity-intense business processes. In the digital age, which is characterized by volatility and high pressure for innovation, these domains are very important. Our research is a first step toward context-aware BPM methods and structured guidance for organizations regarding the systematic selection and configuration of BPM methods.

Keywords

BPM methods Context awareness Assessment scheme Literature review 

References

  1. 1.
    Anastassiu, M., Santoro, F.M., Recker, J., Rosemann, M.: The quest for organizational flexibility: driving changes in business processes through the identification of relevant context. Bus. Process Manag. J. 22(4), 763–790 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antunes, A.S., Rupino da Cunha, P., Barata, J.: MUVE IT: reduce the friction in business processes. Bus. Process Manag. J. 20(4), 571–597 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Association for Information Systems: Senior Scholars’ Basket of Journals. https://aisnet.org/?SeniorScholarBasket. Accessed 30 May 2018
  4. 4.
    Benner, M.J., Tushman, M.L.: Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28(2), 238–256 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bergener, P., Delfmann, P., Weiss, B., Winkelmann, A.: Detecting potential weaknesses in business processes: an exploration of semantic pattern matching in process models. Bus. Process Manag. J. 21(1), 25–54 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bisogno, S., Calabrese, A., Gastaldi, M., Ghiron, N.L.: Combining modelling and simulation approaches: how to measure performance of business processes. Bus. Process Manag. J. 22(1), 56–74 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bolsinger, M., Elsäßer, A., Helm, C., Röglinger, M.: Process improvement through economically driven routing of instances. Bus. Process Manag. J. 21(2), 353–378 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Breuker, D., Matzner, M., Delfmann, P., Becker, J.: Comprehensible predictive models for business processes. MISQ 40(4), 1009–1034 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Business Process Management Journal. http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=bpmj. Accessed 30 May 2018
  10. 10.
    Cohen, J.: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 20(1), 37–46 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Boer, F.G., Müller, C.J., Schwengber ten Caten, C.: Assessment model for organizational business process maturity with a focus on BPM governance practices. Bus. Process Manag. J. 21(4), 908–927 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Bruin, T., Rosemann, M.: Towards a business process management maturity model. In: Bartmann, D., Rajola, F., Kallinikos, J., Avision, D., Winter, R., Ein Dor, T., et al. (eds.) ECIS 2005 Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Information Systems, Regensburg, Germany (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Denner, M.-S., Püschel, L., Röglinger, M.: How to exploit the digitalization potential of business processes. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 60(4), 1–19 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    do Prado Leite, J.C.S., Santoro, F.M., Cappelli, C., Batista, T.V., Santos, F.J.N.: Ownership relevance in aspect-oriented business process models. Bus. Process Manag. J. 22(3), 566–593 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fengel, J.: Semantic technologies for aligning heterogeneous business process models. Bus. Process Manag. J. 20(4), 549–570 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Field, A.: Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd edn. Sage Publications Ltd., London (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fiorentino, R.: Operations strategy: a firm boundary-based perspective. Bus. Process Manag. J. 22(6), 1022–1043 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hakim, A., Gheitasi, M., Soltani, F.: Fuzzy model on selecting processes in business process reengineering. Bus. Process Manag. J. 22(6), 1118–1138 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harmon, P., Wolf, C.: The State of Business Process Management 2014: A BPTrends Report. BPTrends (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harmon, P., Wolf, C.: The State of Business Process Management 2018: A BPTrends Report. BPTrends (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hosseini, S., Kees, A., Manderscheid, J., Röglinger, M., Rosemann, M.: What does it take to implement open innovation? Towards an integrated capability framework. Bus. Process Manag. J. 23(1), 87–107 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Inês Dallavalle de Pádua, S., Mascarenhas Hornos da Costa, J., Segatto, M., Aparecido de Souza Júnior, M., José Chiappetta Jabbour, C.: BPM for change management: two process diagnosis techniques. Bus. Process Manag. J. 20(2), 247–271 (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jacoby, J., Matell, M.S.: Three-point likert scales are good enough. J. Mark. Res. 8(4), 495–500 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johannsen, F., Leist, S., Tausch, R.: Wand and Weber’s good decomposition conditions for BPMN: an interpretation and differences to event-driven process chains. Bus. Process Manag. J. 20(5), 693–729 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kerpedzhiev, G., König, U., Röglinger, M., Rosemann, M.: BPM in the Digital Age: BPM Capability Framework. http://digital-bpm.com/bpm-capability-framework/. Accessed 30 May 2018
  26. 26.
    Kerpedzhiev, G., König, U., Röglinger, M., Rosemann, M.: Business Process Management in the Digital Age. http://digital-bpm.com/. Accessed 30 May 2018
  27. 27.
    Khlif, W., Ben-Abdallah, H., Ayed, N.E.B.: A methodology for the semantic and structural restructuring of BPMN models. Bus. Process Manag. J. 23(1), 16–46 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khosravi, A.: Business process rearrangement and renaming: a new approach to process orientation and improvement. Bus. Process Manag. J. 22(1), 116–139 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kohlborn, T., Mueller, O., Poeppelbuss, J., Roeglinger, M.: Interview with michael rosemann on ambidextrous business process management. Bus. Process Manag. J. 20(4), 634–638 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lamberti, E., Michelino, F., Cammarano, A., Caputo, M.: Open innovation scorecard: a managerial tool. Bus. Process Manag. J. 23(6), 1216–1244 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G.: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1), 159–174 (1977)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lavikka, R., Smeds, R., Jaatinen, M.: A process for building inter-organizational contextual ambidexterity. Bus. Process Manag. J. 21(5), 1140–1161 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Likert, R.: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 22(140), 1–55 (1932)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lindman, M., Pennanen, K., Rothenstein, J., Scozzi, B., Vincze, Z.: The value space: how firms facilitate value creation. Bus. Process Manag. J. 22(4), 736–762 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I.: Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 2(3), 192–222 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Morton, N.A., Hu, Q.: Implications of the fit between organizational structure and ERP: a structural contingency theory perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 28(5), 391–402 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nahm, A.Y., Rao, S.S., Solis-Galvan, L.E., Ragu-Nathan, T.S.: The Q-sort method: assessing reliability and construct validity of questionnaire items at a pre-testing stage. J. Modern Appl. Stat. Methods 1(1), 114–125 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pereira Librelato, T., Pacheco Lacerda, D., Rodrigues, L.H., Veit, D.R.: A process improvement approach based on the value stream mapping and the theory of constraints thinking process. Bus. Process Manag. J. 20(6), 922–949 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Polpinij, J., Ghose, A., Dam, H.K.: Mining business rules from business process model repositories. Bus. Process Manag. J. 21(4), 820–836 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rangiha, M.E., Comuzzi, M., Karakostas, B.: A framework to capture and reuse process knowledge in business process design and execution using social tagging. Bus. Process Manag. J. 22(4), 835–859 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rocha, R.D.S., Fantinato, M., Thom, L.H., Eler, M.M.: Dynamic product line for business process management. Bus. Process Manag. J. 21(6), 1224–1256 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Roeser, T., Kern, E.-M.: Surveys in business process management – a literature review. Bus. Process Manag. J. 21(3), 692–718 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rogers, P.R., Miller, A., Judge, W.Q.: Using information-processing theory to understand planning/performance relationships in the context of strategy. Strateg. Manag. J. 20(6), 567–577 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rosemann, M.: Proposals for future BPM research directions. In: Ouyang, C., Jung, J.-Y. (eds.) AP-BPM 2014. LNBIP, vol. 181, pp. 1–15. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08222-6_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rosemann, M., Recker, J., Flender, C.: Contextualisation of business processes. Int. J. Bus. Process Integr. Manag. 3(1), 47–60 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schmiedel, T., vom Brocke, J., Recker, J.: Which cultural values matter to business process management? Bus. Process Manag. J. 19(2), 292–317 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Trkman, P., Mertens, W., Viaene, S., Gemmel, P.: From business process management to customer process management. Bus. Process Manag. J. 21(2), 250–266 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Business process management: a comprehensive survey. ISRN Softw. Eng. 1–37 (2013)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    vom Brocke, J., Mendling, J.: Frameworks for business process management: a taxonomy for business process management cases. In: vom Brocke, J., Mendling, J. (eds.) Business Process Management Cases. MP, pp. 1–17. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58307-5_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    vom Brocke, J., Schmiedel, T., Recker, J., Trkman, P., Mertens, W., Viaene, S.: Ten principles of good business process management. Bus. Process Manag. J. 20(4), 530–548 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, Kai, Plattfaut, R., Cleven, A.: Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. In: 17th ECIS, Verona, Italy, pp. 2206–2217 (2009)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    vom Brocke, J., Zelt, S., Schmiedel, T.: On the role of context in business process management. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36(3), 486–495 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26(2), xiii–xxiii (2002)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zhu, X., Recker, J., Zhu, G., Maria Santoro, F.: Exploring location-dependency in process modeling. Bus. Process Manag. J. 20(6), 794–815 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie-Sophie Denner
    • 1
  • Maximilian Röglinger
    • 1
  • Theresa Schmiedel
    • 2
  • Katharina Stelzl
    • 1
  • Charlotte Wehking
    • 2
  1. 1.FIM Research CenterUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany
  2. 2.University of LiechtensteinVaduzLiechtenstein

Personalised recommendations