Abstract

Purpose ‐ Business process management (BPM) requires a holistic perspective that includes managing the culture of an organization to achieve objectives of efficient and effective business processes. Still, the specifics of a BPM-supportive organizational culture have not been examined so far. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to identify the characteristics of a cultural setting supportive of BPM objectives. Design/methodology/approach ‐ The paper examines the constituent values of a BPM-supportive cultural setting through a global Delphi study with BPM experts from academia and practice and explore these values in a cultural value framework. Findings ‐ The paper empirically identifies and defines four key cultural values supporting BPM, viz., customer orientation, excellence, responsibility, and teamwork. The paper discusses the relationships between these values and identifies a particular challenge in managing these seemingly competing values. Research limitations/implications ‐ The identification and definition of these values represents a first step towards the operationalization (and empirical analysis) of what has been identified as the concept of BPM culture, i.e. a culture supportive of achieving BPM objectives. Practical implications ‐ Identifying these cultural values provides the basis for developing an instrument that can measure how far an existing cultural context is supportive of BPM. This, in turn, is fundamental for identifying measures towards achieving a BPM culture as a necessary, yet not sufficient means to obtain BPM success. Originality/value ‐ The paper examines which cultural values create an environment receptive for BPM and, thus, specifies the important theoretical construct BPM culture. In addition, the paper raises awareness for realizing these values in a BPM context.
www.uni.li
This is the author’s version of a work that was
submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:
Schmiedel, T., vom Brocke, J., & Recker, J. (2013). Which cultural
values matter to business process management? Results from a
global Delphi study. Business Process Management Journal
(BPMJ), 19(2), 292-317.
Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes
such as copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this
document. For a definitive version of this work, please refer to
the published source.
The final publication is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=170864
31&show=abstract
0
Which cultural values matter to business process management?
Results from a global Delphi study
Abstract
Purpose – Business Process Management (BPM) requires a holistic perspective that includes
managing the culture of an organization to achieve objectives of efficient and effective
business processes. Still, the specifics of a BPM-supportive organizational culture have not
been examined so far. Thus, the purpose of our paper is to identify the characteristics of a
cultural setting supportive of BPM objectives.
Design/methodology/approach – We examine the constituent values of a BPM-supportive
cultural setting through a global Delphi study with BPM experts from academia and practice
and explore these values in a cultural value framework.
Findings – We empirically identify and define four key cultural values supporting BPM, viz.,
customer orientation, excellence, responsibility, and teamwork. We discuss the relationships
between these values and identify a particular challenge in managing these seemingly
competing values.
Research implications – The identification and definition of these values represents a first
step towards the operationalization (and empirical analysis) of what has been identified as the
concept of BPM culture, i.e. a culture supportive of achieving BPM objectives.
Practical implications – Identifying these cultural values provides the basis for developing
an instrument that can measure how far an existing cultural context is supportive of BPM.
This, in turn, is fundamental for identifying measures towards achieving a BPM culture as a
necessary, yet not sufficient means to obtain BPM success.
Originality/value – We examine which cultural values create an environment receptive for
BPM and, thus, specify the important theoretical construct BPM culture. In addition, we raise
awareness for realizing these values in a BPM context.
Keywords
Cultural Values, Business Process Management, Delphi Study, Construct Development, BPM
Culture, Organizational Culture
1
Introduction
Business Process Management (BPM) has evolved into an established research area that
concerns the continuous improvement and the fundamental innovation of business processes
to increase an organization’s efficiency and effectiveness (Smith and Fingar, 2004). In recent
years, many organizations increasingly streamlined and aligned their business processes
through tremendous efforts in organizational BPM initiatives (vom Brocke et al., 2010;
Bharadwaj et al., 2010). At the same time, research on BPM developed and intensified a
growing awareness that BPM not only concerns technological aspects but requires a holistic
organizational perspective including personal and cultural aspects related to business
processes (Hammer, 2010).
The culture factor, specifically, has often been alluded to as a key driver of BPM initiatives
(Rosemann and vom Brocke, 2010; Harmon, 2010; Spanyi, 2003). Culture refers to the shared
basic assumptions, values, or beliefs of a group (Schein, 2004). While research to date has
mainly addressed cultural barriers towards successful BPM implementation or the need for
cultural change due to BPM initiatives, little research can be found on what kind of culture
supports a BPM approach, i.e. reduces respective cultural barriers and gives directions for
cultural change (vom Brocke and Sinnl, 2011).
Some authors refer to the cultural requirements for a successful BPM approach with the
concept of BPM culture (Zairi, 1997; Jesus et al., 2010). It is defined as a facet of
organizational culture which consists of a certain set of values that are directly supportive of
BPM objectives, i.e. efficient and effective processes (vom Brocke and Sinnl, 2011). While
this general understanding of the BPM culture concept can be identified in the literature, it has
not been empirically examined which exact cultural values actually define the concept of
BPM culture.
In this paper, we intend to address this research gap and, more specifically, the research
question Which cultural values create an environment receptive for BPM? Addressing this
question, the purpose of this paper is to specify the important theoretical construct BPM
culture on the basis of a global Delphi Study as previous research suggested (vom Brocke and
Schmiedel, 2011). Since BPM is a widely practiced management approach around the globe,
we follow a Delphi study approach that includes BPM experts worldwide to gain a most
general understanding of what can be called the BPM culture construct.
In the following, we present the research background underlying our Delphi study and
introduce our understanding of the major concepts our study builds on. We then take a closer
look at the methodological approach chosen to address the identified research gap before we
present and discuss the findings of our Delphi study against the background of existing
literature. Determining the implications of the results for research and practice, we also point
out limitations and derive areas for future research. Concluding the paper, we provide a
summary and outlook.
Research Background
Business Process Management
Business Process Management can be described as a holistic management approach focused
on organizational processes as opposed to organizational functions. The function-oriented
view on business was to a large extent based on Taylorism, which promoted the division of
2
labor in the last century. Only in the 1980s/1990s, awareness for a process-oriented view on
organizations increased. This perception meant cutting through the isolated task-related silo
mentality and calling for a cross-functional orientation on customer value.
Early research on BPM focused on technical aspects, highlighting ways to support business
processes and their design via technology (Reijers, 2003; van der Aalst et al., 2003). The
focus on modeling workflows and using information technology (IT) for automation purposes
may have been substantiated through a number of IT solutions that emerged along with the
concept of BPM (Jeston and Nelis, 2008). While obviously IT may serve as an essential
driver of organizational change towards process-orientation (Davenport, 1993; Willcocks and
Smith, 1995), BPM goes beyond a focus on IT systems (Lee and Dale, 1998) and is
increasingly discussed as an integrated management approach (Chang, 2006; DeToro and
McCabe, 1997; Pritchard and Armistead, 1999).
This change in focus is also evident in recent BPM maturity models, such as the one by
Rosemann and de Bruin (2005) which includes several core factors beyond IT, i.e. strategic
alignment, governance, methods, people, and culture. More importantly, since this model was
developed on the basis of several case studies and Delphi studies (de Bruin and Rosemann,
2007), it provides empirically well-grounded evidence for the relevance of culture as a core
factor in BPM.
While culture has been characterized as a source of both failure and success (Ravesteyn and
Versendaal, 2007; Majchrzak and Wang, 1996; Singh et al., 2009) and while early academic
contributions on BPM already pointed out the importance of cultural aspects in BPM practice
(Llewellyn and Armistead, 2000; Spanyi, 2003; Zairi, 1997), culture seems not to have played
a prominent role in BPM research until recently (Fisher, 2004; Hammer, 2007; Kohlbacher et
al., 2010). Despite this increasing attention, it has not yet been empirically analyzed which
specific cultural values prove to be supportive of BPM.
Cultural Values
While various definitions of the culture concept exist (Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952), our
study follows the understanding that the concept of culture is mainly defined through invisible
values, that manifest themselves in visible actions and structures, such as ceremonies,
manners, technology, products, organization charts, etc. (Parsons and Shils, 1951; Schein,
2004; vom Brocke and Sinnl, 2011). In fact, many scholars have identified shared values as
the core element of culture (Straub et al., 2002). Hofstede’s culture onion, for example,
displays layers of culture “around a core that consists of values” (2005). A recognized
definition of the value concept is provided by Kluckhohn who describes values as a
conception of the desirable, i.e. “what is felt or thought proper to want” (1951). Against this
background, we define values as what a group considers as desirable, i.e. ideals that influence
behavioral and organizational patterns of a group.
It is important to notice that a cultural group sharing common values refers to a plurality of
individuals, be it a nation, a region, an ethnic group, an organization, a department, or a work-
group, and that a person can have a number of cultural identities, respectively belong to
various cultural groups, simultaneously (Kluckhohn, 1951; Tajfel and Turner, 1986;
Huntington, 1997). Culture research commonly differentiates between national,
organizational, and sub-unit culture, but apart from the referenced group, the concept of
culture does not differ fundamentally (Leidner and Kayworth, 2006) but mostly builds on a
value-based conceptualization of culture (Lenartowicz and Roth, 1999).
3
Taking a closer look at culture in BPM research, topics comprise, in fact, country-specific
cultures influencing process management (Agrawal and Haleem, 2003; Baba et al., 1996;
Martinsons et al., 2009; Peppard and Fitzgerald, 1997), difficulties due to organizational
culture (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 1999; Armistead and Machin, 1997; Pritchard and Armistead,
1999; Smart et al., 2009; Trkman, 2010), and influences of work group cultures on business
processes (Baba et al., 1996), often visible in a clash between business and IT (Reich and
Benbasat, 1996). While a strong focus on cultural challenges in BPM can be identified in the
literature, there is also evidence of a lack of research on the specifics of a cultural setting that
is supportive of BPM (vom Brocke and Sinnl, 2011). In the following, we present our
methodological approach to address this research gap.
Methodological Approach
Delphi Study Design
To conduct our research, we decided to employ a Delphi study design. The Delphi method
relies on the use of expert opinions “to obtain the most reliable consensus” via a series of
questionnaires with controlled feedback (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963). The purpose of this
technique is either forecasting/issue identification or concept/framework development (Okoli
and Pawlowski, 2004). It is applied to structure group communication when dealing with a
complex issue that requires diverse backgrounds regarding expertise and geography (Linstone
and Turoff, 1975; Czinkota and Ronkainen, 1997; Czinkota and Ronkainen, 2009). Therefore,
we chose to apply the Delphi method to develop a deeper understanding of the BPM culture
concept, i.e. to examine which cultural values support a BPM approach.
Participants of the Delphi study were selected on the basis of their levels of BPM expertise.
Two types of BPM experts were distinguished: academics and practitioners. This was done to
balance opinions from academia and practice as both have an influence on the development
and diffusion of BPM as a management approach. The involvement of the two expert groups
allowed us to avoid potential biases from each of the two groups alone, and include
perspectives supporting both rigor and relevance of the study results.
To identify Delphi participants with profound knowledge in the area of BPM, specific
selection criteria for potential panelists from academia required them to be actively engaged
in research on BPM and to hold at least a PhD. Our participation requirements for
practitioners included holding a senior position or key role in organizational BPM initiatives
or BPM consulting, but also included contributions to BPM-related discussions, e.g. through
publications. The latter requirement was posited to ensure the ability to actively engage in the
discussion and consensus-building activities in the Delphi study. Furthermore, a
geographically widespread distribution of panel members was targeted to include diverse
perspectives from various countries that may contribute to the generalizability of our findings.
We aimed to identify leading experts contributing to the contemporary body of knowledge in
BPM. Therefore, we reviewed the authors of seminal BPM literature with regard to the above
selection criteria. The recently published International Handbook on BPM (vom Brocke and
Rosemann, 2010a; vom Brocke and Rosemann, 2010b) served as a premier source for
identifying potential panelists as it represents a collection of perspectives by “the world’s
leading experts in the field” (p. viii). In addition, we addressed authors of seminal
contributions regarding culture in BPM; they were identified by means of a recent literature
review published in the Business Process Management Journal (vom Brocke and Sinnl, 2011).
The invited experts were allowed to suggest further BPM professionals to identify additional
4
key academics/practitioners in the field. Based on recommendations, further potential panel
members were addressed, provided that their profile added to the diversity of the panel.
Overall, 60 top BPM-experts (30 academics, 30 practitioners) from 21 countries were invited
for participation.
More experts generally increase reliability (Murphy et al., 1998). However, some researchers
warn that a large number of experts is not only difficult to manage but also does not guarantee
better results than from smaller groups of experts (Keeney et al., 2011). Though there is no
consensus among researchers regarding the panel size for Delphi studies (Akins et al., 2005),
a group of 10-18 experts is recommended (Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004). Against this
background, we aimed at a minimum of 20 responses throughout our study and thus targeted
an initial expert panel of around 30 members to account for dropouts during the course of the
study. With an acceptance rate of 60 %, 36 experts committed themselves to support our
study. Actual participants were defined through their response in the first round, i.e. over six
rounds, 27 experts (see Table 1 for details) supported our study.
Countries # of
participants
Positions # of
participants
Total # of
participants
Academics
Australia
Austria
Brazil
Estonia
Germany
Hong Kong
Iran
Slovenia
South Africa
Sweden
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Scientific Assistant
Senior Lecturer
7
2
2
1
2
14
Practitioners
Australia
Austria
Brazil
Canada
Germany
Liechtenstein
USA
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
Enterprise Architect
Business Architect
CIO
Head of IT Business
Process Comp. Centre
Director
Consultant
Executive Partner
Analyst
1
1
1
1
2
5
1
1
13
Table 1. Delphi study participants
Delphi Study Procedure
The Delphi study was conducted between February and May 2011. Data was collected via
email communication in six rounds over 12 weeks. As to the optimal number of rounds, the
classic Delphi technique consists of four rounds (Erffmeyer et al., 1986). Still, some authors
recommend between two and six rounds (Bradley and Stewart, 2003), depending on
situational factors such as the meaningfulness of results and sample fatigue (Hasson et al.,
2000). In our study, we executed six rounds. The first five rounds were used to identify,
condense, and rank core cultural values supportive of BPM objectives, including the
definitions of these values, while the last (sixth) round served to critically evaluate the
findings. The total number of rounds was determined by the level of consensus reached on the
condensed values and the amount of input given by the experts to further improve the
findings. After the fifth round, no additional insights were provided by the experts in this
5
regard and the targeted level of consensus was reached. While references on how to determine
consensus can hardly be found in the literature, we followed recent Delphi studies that
measured the expert’s level of satisfaction with the codification on a scale from 1 (highly
dissatisfied) to 10 (highly satisfied) and take a level of satisfaction of at least 8.0 points and a
standard deviation of below 2.0 as an indication for consensus (de Bruin and Rosemann,
2007; Indulska et al., 2009). To ensure an even higher level of agreement through less
variability of opinions, we chose to set the target level for the standard deviation to below 1.5
points. Table 2 provides an overview of the six Delphi study rounds.
Round
1 2 3 4 5 6
Theme
Collection
of initial
values
Validation
of initial
values
Discussion and validation
of condensed values
Rating of
value
importance
Evaluation
of results
Responses
27 25 24 24 24 22
Response
rate
100% 93% 89% 89% 89% 81%
Level of
satisfaction
- 8.6
a
7.4 8.2 8.3 -
Standard
deviation
- 1.2
a
1.6 1.9 1.4 -
Number of
values
135 42 8 6 5 4
Table 2. Overview on Delphi study procedure
a
Please note that, in the second round, the experts had only evaluated the codification of their individual responses, not the
overall list of values. For this reason, we perceive the level of satisfaction and the standard deviation in the second round not
as a consensus among the panelists but as a validation of the aggregated list of individual responses.
Experts were given one week for responding to the current round and received feedback on
the findings together with the task for the new round after an additional week. During this
time, only the research team could follow up for clarifications if necessary. Panel members
were anonymous to each other and to the coder team. Three independent coders from three
different countries analyzed the qualitative data during every second week. Selection criteria
for the coders included an academic degree, experience with rigorous empirical research,
familiarity with the research domain, non-involvement in the research topic, sufficient time
resources, and motivation for the coding task. With these criteria, we aimed to identify coders
that are capable, unbiased, and committed to pursue their task. These criteria were met by
three research assistants from two universities who were also doctoral students engaged in
BPM research. The independence of the three coders from each other and the communicable
criteria for their selection are perceived as two important conditions for generating reliability
data (Krippendorff, 2004). A third requirement refers to unambiguous coding instructions. We
conducted an exemplary codification round prior to the study to ensure that the coding
instructions were clear to the coders, thus adding to reproducibility, i.e. inter-coder reliability
(Weber, 1990).
The response items were coded in iterative loops (Krippendorff, 2004). All coders started
each Delphi round with an individual codification of the response items, i.e. identifying
categories plus their definitions. This was followed by an iterative consolidation of the
individual results which usually needed three cycles to ensure consistent and sufficiently
refined data. Differences in the individual codifications, which manifested in the use of
diverse concepts and differing corresponding term definitions, were discussed intensively
until consensus was reached. In the first consolidation cycle, at least two of three coders
6
needed to find an agreement on abstract categories and their definition. In the second cycle,
two of two coders needed to agree and in the third cycle, one coder did a final check on the
consistency of the data. In between these cycles, the research team served as a mirror, asking
for clarification of classification conflicts to improve the iterative coding process. An extract
of the codification details is provided in Tables 6 through 9 in the appendix.
The continuous verification and evaluation of the codification results (after each round)
through the study participants was critical to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings
(Keeney et al., 2011; Skulmoski et al., 2007). Compared to other research methods, a Delphi
study has a major advantage regarding the validity of its findings in that experts can be asked
to validate the categorization of their responses (Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004).
Round 1 – Collection of Initial Values. Starting the Delphi study, we posed the following
question in the first round: Which organizational values do you consider directly supportive
of achieving BPM objectives? The experts were provided with our understanding of the major
concepts in this question. We defined values as what a group considers as desirable (ideals
that influence behavioral and organizational patterns of a group), and we identified two major
BPM objectives (DeToro and McCabe, 1997; Smith and Fingar, 2004; Drucker, 2002): (1)
efficient processes that meet internal requirements (executing processes right) and (2)
effective processes that meet external requirements (executing the right processes). The
experts were asked to name up to five values and provide a brief explanation of each in one
sentence. Following other researchers (Saunders and Benbasat, 2007; Dickson et al., 1984),
we limited the number of possible responses with the intention that the experts focus on the
most important values for BPM only. While a minimum number of responses may have
enforced artificial answers, and while no quantitative requirements may have led response
bias, the upper limit of responses was further thought to encourage participation through a
short and precise task (Lummus et al., 2005; Schmidt et al., 2001). The first round resulted in
a total of 135 individual response items. These were given to the coding team in a
standardized coding spreadsheet that provided room for the individual codes and their
explanation, and for the consolidated results. Coding was performed in an inductive approach
(Saunders et al., 2009). The response items were categorized at a basic level as suggested by
the descriptive/topic coding method (Saldaña, 2009). This so-called first cycle coding method
resulted in 42 initial values. For each value, the coding team agreed on a description based on
the explanations provided by the experts.
Round 2 – Validation of Initial Values. The purpose of this round was to validate the initial
categorization of the response items. Through this round, we could ensure construct validity
already at a very early point in time (Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004). We also perceived this step
to be crucial for the commitment of the experts as it demonstrated concern for understanding
their input in the intended way (Lummus et al., 2005). Each participant received a
personalized email that contained the personal original response (values and explanations),
the corresponding coded classifications, and their descriptions. We asked the experts to state
their level of satisfaction with the codification, and to provide any clarifications or
suggestions for improvement. Throughout the study, the expert’s level of satisfaction with the
codification was indicated on a scale from 1 (highly dissatisfied) to 10 (highly satisfied).
Round 3 and 4 – Discussion and Validation of Condensed Values. In rounds 3 and 4, it
was our intention to grasp the essence of the list of values identified before and find
consensus on a clear, distinct core of values supportive of efficient and effective business
processes. Thus, the list of initial values was condensed through the elimination of
overlapping and a consideration of most frequently coded response items as frequency is
considered to indicate the importance of the provided ideas (Krippendorff, 2004). In both
7
rounds, the experts were provided – where appropriate – with a report on how their personal
input had been addressed together with an overview of the (revised) value lists. They were
asked to indicate whether they deem the condensed codification appropriate and clear, and to
discuss possible shortcomings, i.e. provide suggestions or clarifications for the refinement of
the codification. Regarding the latter, experts entered their improvement ideas on concepts
and related definitions in provided spaces. Regarding both appropriateness and clarity of
definition, perceptions were indicated on a 5-point scale from 1 (not appropriate/unclear) to 5
(appropriate/clear) with a required target level of appropriateness/clarity of at least 4 points.
This was realized in round 4. In addition, the overall satisfaction with the codification was
examined as described before.
Round 5 – Rating of Value Importance. At the end of round 4, the experts’ responses
seemed ambiguous with respect to commitment as one of the identified values (see Table 3).
Some experts perceived it as a vague concept that is not distinct from some of the other
identified values; others were content with the codification. Thus, we took the chance in
round 5 to directly ask whether this specific value should be kept as a separate value or taken
from the list. The main purpose of this round was yet to rate the defined values. Therefore, we
asked the experts to indicate how relatively important they deem the identified values by
allocating a total of 100 points among each of two lists of values (Arnold and Feldman, 1981;
Indulska et al., 2009). We used two lists of values as it was, at that point, unclear whether the
final list would consist of four or five values. In addition, we asked the panelists again to
indicate their overall satisfaction with the codification.
Round 6 – Evaluation of Results. While the first five Delphi study rounds were
continuously supported by around 90 % of the panelists, participation in the sixth round
slightly dropped but still remained at over 80 %. In the final round, the experts were provided
with the results of the Delphi study. Aiming at an evaluation of the results through the
panelists themselves, we posed some open-ended questions, such as “What do you think are
the implications of the identified values for BPM research / BPM practice?” The resulting
responses were analyzed by the authors through categorization and condensation of the
statements the panelists provided. This codification of the experts’ reflections provides the
basis for our own examination of the study’s outcome.
Delphi Study Results
The findings of our Delphi study were developed over several stages. Table 3 provides an
overview on how the condensed values developed during the course of our study. After the
initial individual responses had been validated by the experts, consensus finding started with a
number of eight condensed values that were discussed in round three. Major critiques in this
round referred to the perceptions that the concepts partially did not refer to values, that other
concepts were overlapping, and that the definitions included too many concepts. Apart from
improving definitions and value terms (e.g. development was renamed into improvement,
determination was called commitment), some major changes are based on the following
perceptions. The experts understood leadership not as a value but as a personal capability to
transfer values in a group. Instead, responsibility was considered an important value. Entirety
was understood as mainly overlapping with cooperation which resulted in the value
collaboration in the next round. And strategy awareness was resolved as it was perceived
unspecific to BPM and partially overlapping with customer orientation.
The revision of the values resulted in six condensed values in round four. These were then
further refined by the panel experts and coders. One major aspect concerned the fact that
8
improvement was considered overlapping with excellence. Further, collaboration was not
perceived as an appropriate value term and therefore was renamed into teamwork. Apart from
addressing these points, the definitions of the values were refined. This resulted in five
condensed values. Yet, with regard to commitment, the experts’ responses seemed ambiguous
as to whether this value is distinct from the other values. In fact, direct feedback on this
question revealed that only around one third of the experts supported keeping commitment as
a separate value. On the basis of the experts’ feedback, the coders merged commitment with
responsibility. This resulted in a list of core values supportive of BPM objectives (see Table
4), which represents the main findings of our Delphi study.
Value Definition
8 Condensed Values (round 3)
Customer orientation refers to the responsiveness for internal and external customers' needs.
Excellence refers to the orientation towards optimality in process performance through
discipline, quality awareness and sustainability.
Development refers to the orientation towards continuous change and innovation through open-
mindedness, creativity and risk awareness.
Leadership refers to professional integrity, responsibility, competence and pragmatism.
Determination refers to the feeling of ownership, ambition, motivation and commitment towards
process objectives.
Cooperation refers to transparency amongst stakeholders, cross-functionality and the
orientation towards constructiveness in communication.
Entirety refers to an integrated view on an organization oriented towards business
processes as opposed to functional units.
Strategy awareness refers to the orientation towards growth and competitive advantage through
awareness for the alignment of resources.
6 Condensed Values (round 4)
Customer orientation refers to the proactive and responsive attitude towards product and service
recipients.
Excellence refers to the orientation towards perfection in process performance.
Improvement refers to the orientation towards constant advancement and innovation.
Responsibility refers to the orientation towards accountability for the consequences of one's
actions.
Commitment refers to the motivation to actively contribute towards the achievement of process
objectives.
Collaboration refers to the positive attitude towards cross-functional cooperation.
5 Condensed Values (round 5)
Customer orientation refers to the proactive and responsive attitude towards the needs of process output
recipients.
Excellence refers to the orientation towards continuous improvement and innovation to
achieve superior process performance.
Responsibility refers to the positive attitude towards empowerment and accountability for
process decisions.
Commitment refers to the desire and willingness to contribute towards the achievement of
process objectives.
Teamwork refers to the positive attitude towards cross-functional collaboration.
Table 3. Overview of preliminary results during the Delphi study rounds
Consensus on the condensed list of values was initially relatively low (level of satisfaction at
7.4 with standard deviation 1.6), considering the targeted value for the level of satisfaction
(8.0 with a standard deviation below 1.5) (de Bruin and Rosemann, 2007). Yet, consensus
9
constantly increased to 8.3 (1.4) during the course of the study until consensus was reached
on a condensed list of core values supportive of achieving BPM objectives and on respective
definitions of these values. Based on the acronym of these values, we also refer to them as
CERT values. Table 4 provides an overview on this final list of cultural values, including the
average relative importance which the Delphi panelists attributed to each value through
allocating a total of 100 points among the four values.
Value Definition Average # of allocated
importance points
Customer orientation (C) refers to the proactive and responsive attitude towards
the needs of process output recipients
34.47
Excellence (E) refers to the orientation towards continuous
improvement and innovation to achieve superior
process performance
34.11
Responsibility (R) refers to the commitment to process objectives and the
accountability for process decisions
26.32
Teamwork (T) refers to the positive attitude towards cross-functional
collaboration
26.16
Table 4. Consensus on core values supportive of BPM objectives: The CERT values
Further results of the Delphi study include the reflections of the panel members on the study
output. One of the experts summarized the results after the fourth round, identifying “a nice
‘credo’ of an ideal employee in a process oriented company: ‘I am committed to work with
others to continually improve the performance of my business process to deliver excellent
service/product to the customer and I take full responsibility for my actions’.”. Even though
the average level of satisfaction with the codification in the fifth round led to a consensus on
core values supportive of BPM, responses varied largely, ranging from “I like the revised
codification a lot” to “I am not too happy with the result”. Therefore, we perceived it even
more necessary to critically reflect on the study results in round six.
Examining face validity of the findings in the sixth round, we revealed further insights on the
perceived impact of the study findings. It is interesting to notice that there are differences in
perception between academics and practitioners. Academics tend to either respond very
positive (“I think that your research will have great impact on both BPM research and practice
as culture is an important […] determinant of firm performance.”) or balance their arguments
(“I think the reduction of the initial factors to 4 generic values is both good and bad.”), while
practitioners tend to take extreme positions on both positive (“The values are the key to the
success of BPM in practice.”) and negative (“I don’t see a specific impact of these findings.”)
sides or suggest specific ideas (“We need to further study how to develop those values in an
organization.”). Overall, the face validity of the study results was particularly emphasized by
the experts. We further discuss the perceived implications for research and practice in the
implications sections.
Discussion
Analysis of the Findings against the Background of Related Work
Comparing the findings of our Delphi study to existing findings in the literature provides us
with the opportunity to analyze the validity of our results (Powell, 2003; Skulmoski et al.,
2007). More specifically, we examine our results against the background of a recent literature
10
review (vom Brocke and Schmiedel, 2011). This review has been conducted with the
intention to examine the concept of BPM culture on a theoretical basis and to identify cultural
values that serve as a basis for the specification of this culture concept. The authors derive
BPM values from few source referring to the concept of BPM culture. While the findings of
this literature review are mainly based on the authors interpretation of extant work, the results
provide first insights on the concept of BPM culture.
In Table 5, we contrast the core values supportive of BPM (CERT) that resulted from the
Delphi study and the values derived from the literature (vom Brocke & Schmiedel, 2011). On
the basis of their definitions, we compared all values and mapped them to the four core values
identified in the Delphi study. This mapping was also performed by two additional coders.
Both comparisons resulted in the same classifications. While customer orientation and
responsibility are present in both lists, teamwork is named differently in the literature review
and excellence serves as higher level category in the list of Delphi CERT values.
Delphi Study:
CERT Values
Literature Review:
BPM Values
(vom Brocke & Schmiedel, 2011)
Customer
orientation
Customer
orientation
the focus on customers as the driver and goal of business processes
Excellence Continuous
improvement
the focus on the constant revision of extant conditions and processes to
eliminate possible shortcomings
Innovation
the focus on creative changes that fundamentally renew business
processes and/or their outcomes
Leanness
the focus on the efficiency of business processes, i.e. the streamlining and
simplification of business processes
Quality the focus on excellence and optimum performance
Responsibility Responsibility the focus on commitment, inner engagement and duty
Teamwork Cross-functional
orientation
the focus on processes rather than functional departments, i.e. the all-
encompassing perception of various organizational functions along the
core business process
Table 5. Comparison of identified BPM-supportive cultural values
Though differences exist with regard to the granularity and particularly the definitions of the
value concepts, our study revealed partially identical value terms (e.g., customer orientation
and responsibility). Regarding methodology, however, the approaches differ largely: While
vom Brocke and Schmiedel (2011) rely on a literature review, our findings are based on a
rigorously conducted empirical study. In fact, our Delphi study was able to substantiate and
confirm the findings of the literature review. In turn, we received evidence for the validity of
our results. Thus, we conclude that the four core values identified in our Delphi study
represent essential and distinct elements of what is called the BPM culture concept.
Analysis of the Relation between the Identified CERT Values
As challenges in BPM due to organizational culture have often been reported (Al-Mashari and
Zairi, 1999; Pritchard and Armistead, 1999; Smart et al., 2009; Trkman, 2010), the identified
CERT values appear to be difficult to manifest consistently in BPM practice. In order to find
possible explanations for the difficulties in realizing a BPM culture, we sought to analyze the
relationships between the identified CERT values. To that end, we discuss our findings
against the background of the Competing Values Framework (CVF) (Cameron and Quinn,
11
2006; Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983) as it has been reported “one of the most influential and
extensively used models in the area of organizational culture research” (Yu and Wu, 2009)
that illustrates relationships between organizational culture values.
The framework consists of two dimensions: focus (internal vs. external) and structure
(flexibility vs. stability). The two dimensions provide the basis for the identification of four
types of organizational culture labeled with the following action imperatives (see Figure 1):
collaborate, control, compete, and create (Quinn et al., 2011). Quinn et al. (2011) use the four
terms as shorthand labels referring to a complex set of cultural characteristics which can be
summarized as follows: Focusing on internal aspects, the collaborate culture is characterized
by a strong sense of belonging to a community, while the control culture is driven by
organizational rules, policies, and processes which account for security, efficiency, and
uniformity. Regarding an external focus, the compete culture is concerned “with productivity,
performance, and goal achievement” (Quinn et al., 2011), while the create culture emphasizes
growth, risk taking, trend identification, innovation, and adaptability to changing
environments.
STRUCTURE
FOCUS
Internal Focus
External Focus
Flexibility
Stability
collaborate
create
compete
control
Excellence
(continuous
improvement/
innovation)
Customer orientation
(proactiveness/responsiveness)
Teamwork
(cross-functional collaboration)
Responsibility
(commitment/
accountability)
Figure 1. CERT values (in italics, with short definitions) in the Competing Values
Framework
Comparing the identified four BPM core values with the specifications of the two CVF
dimensions, we can observe the following: Looking at the dimension focus, customer
orientation relates to an external focus from the perspective of an organization. Teamwork
relates to an internal focus on collaboration within an organization across functional
boundaries. A closer look at the dimension structure provides the following insights:
Excellence, defined as the orientation towards continuous improvement and innovation,
emphasizes flexibility in that constant change in an organization is perceived as a trigger to
12
performance enhancement. Finally, it can be argued that responsibility, defined as the
commitment to process objectives and the accountability for process decisions, relates to
stability because commitment and accountability represent a structural control mechanism
that provides stability.
The comparison shows how the core values identified in our Delphi study can be linked to the
characteristics of the two CVF dimensions (as per Figure 1). The relation to the CVF suggests
that the competing nature of the four CERT values may be the reason for difficulties in
realizing a BPM culture in practice. For example, organizations may perceive a trade-off
between focusing on the excellence of internal processes and focusing on adapting to
changing external customer requirements; or they may perceive fixed responsibilities as a
static structural element that inhibits the creative atmosphere that is required for innovations.
In other words, the CVF provides a possible explanation for organizational cultural obstacles
in BPM practice.
Yet, this argumentation needs to be expanded through a more detailed look at the CVF.
Though the CVF is labeled competing because the criteria within the model seem conflicting
opposites at first, the originators of the framework recognize that the criteria are neither
mutually exclusive nor necessarily orthogonal (Quinn et al., 2011). In fact, they acknowledge
it is possible and desirable for organizations to take all four perspectives simultaneously. This
understanding allows us to extend our argumentation as follows. While the four CERT values
may be considered opposing and provide an explanation for the apparent difficulties of
realizing a BPM culture in practice, they should be considered complementary as only their
simultaneous presence makes up a BPM culture. In other words, CERT values can and should
be realized simultaneously in order to provide a supportive cultural setting for a BPM
approach.
This interpretation suggests that while an existing organizational culture may be primarily
determined by one of the four culture quadrants of the CVF, the other three can also be
present, complementing this predominant culture focus. For example, as the experts of our
study rated the identified values according to their perceived importance in the context of
BPM, we can also determine a specific focus of a BPM culture on the basis of our study: The
relatively strong perceived importance of customer orientation and excellence (see Table 4),
i.e. external focus and flexible structure, emphasizes the create culture as a cultural
background that particularly supports achieving BPM objectives. In other words, an
organization’s ability to adapt to changing environments can be identified as a major
determinant of BPM success, represented by the values customer orientation and excellence.
Yet, according to our findings, a sole focus on a create culture would not be supportive of
BPM in the long run as it would not give consideration to the comparative nature of the
CERT values. This means that a successful BPM approach requires customer orientation
which ensures that external requirements are carried in the organization along the value chain.
Yet, these requirements can only be realized within the organization through teamwork
between different functions. In short, external customer requirements need to be translated
into internal cross-functional teamwork to fulfill these needs. Furthermore, it can be argued
that the ability to adapt business processes to changing environments is based on the
organization’s stability. Defined responsibilities support embedding improvements and
innovations in stable organizational structures. In this regard, BPM culture also comprises the
interaction between change and adherence.
13
Implications for research
Contribution to the body of knowledge on BPM. Our Delphi study provides rigorous
empirical evidence for the particular relevance of the identified CERT values for BPM. In this
regard, our findings address the identified research gap regarding a lack of empirical
examination of the BPM culture concept. Going beyond theoretical assumptions, our research
firmly established the specific supportiveness of the CERT values for achieving efficient and
effective business processes. In other words, our study established the specific relation
between organizational culture and BPM objectives.
In fact, our research not only identified the CERT values but also provides concise conceptual
definitions which offer a solid basis for future research on the BPM culture concept as
outlined below. Additionally, the participants of our study suggested that the identification
and definition of the four CERT values specifically adds value to BPM research. They
recognized a lack of consideration of exactly these concepts in research on BPM, particularly
customer orientation, teamwork, and responsibility.
Furthermore, a major contribution of our study lies in the explanatory power of BPM culture
phenomena that is inherent in the nature of the relation between the CERT values which we
could identify through their analysis in the CVF. While the CERT values are in line with the
four competing culture quadrants of the CVF, we propose that they reflect complementary
aspects of the holistic organizational culture that BPM requires. We posit that the duality of
cultural values that support a BPM approach has not been considered before in BPM research
and provides important insights in explaining and overcoming organizational cultural
obstacles.
For example, realizing customer-driven innovations may be perceived as a trade-off to
realizing efficient internal cross-functional processes. While, in fact, realizing both may
require additional efforts, the two aspects are rather complementary than competing and are a
pre-requisite for BPM success. In order to overcome cultural difficulties organizations need to
understand that realizing efficient and effective business processes requires living all four
CERT values at the same time. The duality of the CERT values particularly emphasizes the
demanding efforts that BPM requires with regard to the establishment of an organizational
culture that comprises all four values.
Though our research is intended to mainly contribute to the body of knowledge in BPM, we
propose that the above mentioned duality which is also inherent in the CVF may offer
perspectives for future studies in organizational culture research. While the originators of the
CVF recognize the complementary nature of the culture perspectives, their research seems to
focus on analyzing and changing organizational cultures without suggesting to particularly
consider all four culture quadrants. Yet, it remains subject to future organizational culture
research to what extent the CVF can be applied this way.
Areas of future research. Researchers can use our study findings in various ways. First, the
CERT values serve to analyze cultural challenges of BPM initiatives in more detail. More
specifically, future research can now qualitatively examine how far the CERT values have
been perceived as competing values and how far a focus on only one, two or three CERT
values may have caused cultural difficulties in realizing a BPM approach.
Further, the identification and definition of the CERT values represents a first step towards
the operationalization of what has been identified as the concept of BPM culture. Identifying
these cultural elements helps to derive an instrument that can quantitatively measure how far
an existing cultural context is supportive of achieving BPM objectives. Such an instrument
14
can be used to analyze how far the identified cultural values are actually lived in an
organization, i.e. how far an organization’s culture is supportive of realizing efficient and
effective business processes.
This would, in turn, serve as a basis for identifying measures towards achieving such a culture
as a necessary, yet not sufficient means to obtain BPM success. It could be examined what
methods or techniques stimulate the CERT values in order to develop a set of actions that
could be implemented to achieve higher levels of each value. For that purpose, best practices
and lessons learned could be analyzed. This could also involve studies on the differences
between industry cultures or national cultures in implementing the values as the given cultural
context may call for the need to realize the four values differently in daily operations.
In addition, future research may also examine how exactly the identified CERT values relate
to BPM success, i.e. efficient and effective business processes. For example, one may assume
that some of the CERT values can rather be associated with efficiency (e.g. teamwork) and
others more with effectiveness (e.g. customer orientation). An analysis of these relations
would provide insights for organizations regarding the specific value(s) they would need to
develop to improve either efficiency or effectiveness.
Implications for practice
Our work provides input to cultural frameworks to be used in process-oriented projects in
organizations. The identified CERT values are perceived as critical culture factors for a
successful BPM approach in practice. The face validity of these findings was specifically
valued by the practitioners involved in our Delphi study. They suggested that the identified
values could immediately provide a common understanding of what is important to all parties
at the beginning of new BPM projects, and also for established BPM programs.
Furthermore, they argued that the identified values were tacitly present among practitioners,
yet raising awareness on their importance would provide clarification regarding the
organizational capabilities required when aiming at more process orientation in an
organization. In addition, the awareness for values supportive of BPM would represent a first
step towards their realization in an organization.
In turn, living the identified cultural values was perceived as a foundation for employee
participation in BPM efforts. One of the Delphi participants put it this way: “I believe BPM
practice in general needs to focus more on cultural and behavioral issues to achieve further
acceptance and truly engage people in business transformation.” (Practitioner response in
round six). Beyond these perceptions of the participating experts of our study, we further
suggest the following implications for BPM practice.
While our Delphi study included a ranking of the CERT values on the basis of their relative
importance, our analysis of the CERT values in the CVF shows that the establishment of a
BPM culture requires the institutionalization of all four CERT values rather than a
reductionist focus on single values only. Therefore, we posit that for realizing a BPM culture
in practice, a balanced approach is necessary that ensures the institutionalization of all
identified values in visible actions and structures of an organization. For example, CERT
values can be institutionalized in corporate training programs; they can be used as guides in
project team selection and even for hiring decisions; they can be used in end-of-year peer
performance evaluations; and they can be used as a guide for managers on how to recognize
and reward employees.
15
Limitations
Having thoroughly crafted our Delphi study, our research also contains limitations. First of
all, it lies in the nature of the Delphi method that our findings are based on the perception of
only a limited number of participants. While we carefully selected the involved experts,
claims about the representativeness of our panel cannot be made (Schmidt et al., 2001).
Inviting both BPM academics and practitioners from various countries worldwide, we
intended to avoid biases based on one-sided perspectives of participants and to establish a
panel of BPM experts with different perspectives.
Whilst our methodological approach allowed us to consider views from experts around the
globe, we did not study cross-professional, cross-organizational, or cross-national culture
perspectives on BPM-supportive cultural values. One specific limitation stemming from the
use of the Delphi method is the achievement of consensus about construct definitions without
accounting for potential cultural differences on the topic (Sackman, 1975). Seeking consensus
about BPM-supportive cultural values could have eliminated cultural specifics that are of
relevance in a particular organizational or national cultural context (e.g., in Asia but not
Europe). Notwithstanding this limitation, our design allowed us to identify four key cultural
values that appear to be generally relevant to BPM initiatives globally.
Conclusions
The purpose of this paper was to examine which cultural values create an environment
supportive of BPM objectives. Through our work, we developed an understanding of four key
values that define the concept of BPM culture as a culture supportive of achieving efficient
and effective business processes: customer orientation, excellence, reliability, and teamwork.
Our Delphi study and the analysis of its results improved our understanding of BPM as
summarized in the following conclusions:
BPM culture comprises a set of four complementary values.
Practitioners may perceive these values as competing values.
A successful BPM approach requires the institutionalization of all CERT values.
The identification of the CERT values is an important basis for future research that may
further examine their institutionalization in visible employee behavior and organizational
structures. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the BPM culture
concept and would also allow for its operationalization in assessment tools and methods.
16
References
Agrawal, V.K. and Haleem, A. (2003), "Culture, environmental pressures, and the factors for
successful implementation of business process engineering and computer-based information
systems", Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 4, No. 1&2, pp. 27–46.
Akins, R.B., Tolson, H. and Cole, B.R. (2005), "Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel:
Application of bootstrap data expansion", BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 5, No.
37, pp. 1-12.
Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (1999), "BPR implementation process", Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 87–112.
Armistead, C. and Machin, S. (1997), "Implications of business process management for operations
management", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17, No.
9-10, pp. 886.
Arnold, H.J. and Feldman, D.C. (1981), "Social desirability response bias in self-report choice
situations", The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 377-385.
Baba, M.L., Falkenburg, D.R. and Hill, D.H. (1996), "Technology management and American
culture", Research Technology Management, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 44–55.
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. 1, pp. 168-180.
Bradley, L. and Stewart, K. (2003), "A Delphi study of internet banking", Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 272-281.
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (2006), Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on
the competing values framework, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Chang, J.F. (2006), Business process management systems, Auerbach Publications, Boca Raton.
Czinkota, M.R. and Ronkainen, I.A. (1997), "International business and trade in the next decade:
Report from a Delphi study", Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.
827-844.
Czinkota, M.R. and Ronkainen, I.A. (2009), "Trends and indications in international business: Topics
for future research", Management International Review, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 249-266.
Dalkey, N. and Helmer, O. (1963), "An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of
experts", Management Science, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 458-467.
Davenport, T. (1993), Process innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
de Bruin, T. and Rosemann, M. (2007), "Using the Delphi technique to identify BPM capability
areas", 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2007), Toowoomba,
Australia.
DeToro, I. and McCabe, T. (1997), "How to stay flexible and elude fads", Quality Progress, Vol. 30,
No. 3, pp. 55–60.
Dickson, G.W., Leitheiser, R.L., Wetherbe, J.C. and Nechis, M. (1984), "Key information systems
issues for the 1980's", Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 135-
148.
Drucker, P.F. (2002), The effective executive, HarperCollins, New York.
Erffmeyer, R.C., Erffmeyer, E., S. and Lane, I.M. (1986), "The Delphi technique: An empirical
evaluation of the optimal number of rounds.",
Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 11, No.
1/2, pp. 120-128.
Fisher, D.M. (2004), "The business process maturity model", BPTrends, No. September 2004, pp. 1–7.
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: Introduction, methods and information
systems, Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg, pp. 3–16.
Harmon, P. (2010), "The scope and evolution of business process management", in vom Brocke, J. and
Rosemann, M. (Eds.), Handbook on business process management. Introduction, methods and
information systems, Springer, Berlin, pp. 37-81.
17
Hasson, F., Keeney, S. and McKenna, H. (2000), "Research guidelines for the Delphi survey
technique", Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 1008-1015.
Hofstede, G. (2005), Cultures and organizations, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Huntington, S.P. (1997), The clash of civilizations and the remaking of the world order, Touchstone,
New York.
Indulska, M., Green, P., Recker, J.C. and Rosemann, M. (2009), "Business process modeling:
Perceived benefits", 28th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Gramado,
Brazil.
Jeston, J. and Nelis, J. (2008), Business process management. Practical guidelines to successful
implementations, Elsevier, Oxford.
Jesus, L., Macieira, A., Karrer, D. and Caulliraux, H. (2010), "BPM center of excellence. The case of a
Brazilian company", in vom Brocke, J. and Rosemann, M. (Eds.), Handbook on business
process management. Strategic alignment, governance, people and culture, Springer, Berlin,
pp. 283-303.
Keeney, S., McKenna, H. and Hasson, F. (2011), The Delphi technique in nursing and health care,
Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951), "Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: An exploration in
definition and classification", in Parsons, T. and Shils, E.A. (Eds.), Toward a general theory
of action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 388-433.
Kohlbacher, M., Gruenwald, S. and Kreuzer, E. (2010), "Corporate culture in line with business
proccess orientation and its impact on organizational performance", 8th International
Conference on Business Process Management (BPM 2010), Hoboken, NJ.
Krippendorff, K. (2004), Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kroeber, A.L. and Kluckhohn, C. (1952), Culture, Peaboy Museum, Cambridge, MA.
Lee, R.G. and Dale, B.G. (1998), "Business process management", Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 214–225.
Leidner, D.E. and Kayworth, T. (2006), "A review of culture in information systems research",
Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 357–399.
Lenartowicz, T. and Roth, K. (1999), "A framework for culture assessment", Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 781-798.
Linstone, H.A. and Turoff, M. (Eds.) (1975), The Delphi method: Techniques and applications,
Addison-Wesley, London, England.
Llewellyn, N. and Armistead, C. (2000), "Business process management", International Journal of
Service Industry Management, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 225–243.
Lummus, R.R., Vokurka, R.J. and Duclos, L.K. (2005), "Delphi study on supply chain flexibility",
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43, No. 13, pp. 2687-2708.
Majchrzak, A. and Wang, Q. (1996), "Breaking the functional mind-set in process organizations",
Harvard Business Review, Vol. September-October, No., pp. 93-99.
Martinsons, M.G., Davison, R.M. and Martinsons, V. (2009), "How culture influences IT-enabled
organizational change and information systems", Communications of the ACM
, Vol. 52, No. 4,
pp. 118–123.
Murphy, M.K., Black, N.A., Lamping, D.L., McKee, C.M., Sanderson, C.F.B., Askham, J. and
Marteau, T. (1998), "Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline
development", Health Technology Assessment, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 1-88.
Okoli, C. and Pawlowski, S.D. (2004), "The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design
considerations and applications", Information & Management, Vol. 42, No., pp. 15-29.
Parsons, T. and Shils, E.A. (1951), Toward a general theory of action, Transaction Publishers, New
Brunswick, New Jersey.
Peppard, J. and Fitzgerald, D. (1997), "The transfer of culturally-grounded management techniques",
European Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 446–460.
Powell, C. (2003), "The Delphi technique: Myths and realities", Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol.
41, No. 4, pp. 376-382.
Pritchard, J.-P. and Armistead, C. (1999), "Business process management: Lessons from European
business", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 10–35.
18
Quinn, R.E., Faerman, S.R., Thompson, M.P., McGrath, M. and St. Clair, L.S. (2011), Becoming a
master manager: A competing values approach, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983), "A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a
competing values approach to organizational analysis", Management Science, Vol. 29, No. 3,
pp. 363-377.
Ravesteyn, P. and Versendaal, J. (2007), "Success factors of business process management systems
implementation", 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2007),
Toowoomba, Australia.
Reich, B.H. and Benbasat, I. (1996), "Measuring the linkage between business and information
technology objectives", Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 55–
81.
Reijers, H.A. (2003), Design and control of workflow processes, Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg.
Rosemann, M. and de Bruin, T. (2005), "Towards a business process management maturity model",
13th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2005), Regensburg, Germany.
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.
Introduction, methods and information systems, Springer, Berlin, pp. 109-124.
Sackman, H. (1975), Delphi critique, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Saldaña, J. (2009), The coding manual for qualitative researchers, Sage Publications, London.
Saunders, C. and Benbasat, I. (2007), "A camel going through the eye of a needle", Management
Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. iv-xviii.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009), Research methods for business students, Pearson
Education, Harlow.
Schein, E.H. (2004), Organizational culture and leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M. and Cule, P. (2001), "Identifying software project risks: An
international Delphi study", Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.
5-36.
Singh, R., Keil, M. and Kasi, V. (2009), "Identifying and overcoming the challenges of implementing
a project management office", European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.
409-427.
Skulmoski, G.J., Hartman, F.T. and Krahn, J. (2007), "The Delphi method for graduate research",
Journal of Information Technology Education, Vol. 6, No., pp. 1-21.
Smart, P.A., Maddern, H. and Maull, R.S. (2009), "Understanding business process management:
Implications for theory and practice", British Journal of Management, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 491-
507.
Smith, H. and Fingar, P. (2004), "Process management maturity models", BPTrends, No. July 2004,
pp. 1–5.
Spanyi, A. (2003), Business process management is a team sport, Anclote Press, Tampa, Florida.
Straub, D., Loch, K., Evaristo, R., Karahanna, E. and Srite, M. (2002), "Towards a theory-based
measurement of culture", Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 13–
23.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), "The social identity theory of inter-group behavior", in Worchel, S.
and Austin, L.W. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago.
Trkman, P. (2010), "The critical success factors of business process management", International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 125-134.
van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M. and Weske, M. (2003), "Business process management:
A survey", International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM 2003), Berlin,
Germany.
vom Brocke, J., Petry, M., Sinnl, T., Kristensen, B. and Sonnenberg, C. (2010), "Global processes and
data: The culture journey at Hilti Corporation", in vom Brocke, J. and Rosemann, M. (Eds.),
Handbook on business process management: Strategic alignment, governance, people and
culture, Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg, pp. 539-558.
vom Brocke, J. and Rosemann, M. (Eds.) (2010a), Handbook on business process management:
Introduction, methods and information systems, Springer, Berlin.
19
vom Brocke, J. and Rosemann, M. (Eds.) (2010b), Handbook on business process management:
Strategic alignment, governance, people and culture, Springer, Berlin.
vom Brocke, J. and Schmiedel, T. 2011. Towards a conceptualisation of BPM culture: Results from a
literature review. 15th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2011).
Brisbane, Australia.
vom Brocke, J. and Sinnl, T. (2011), "Culture in business process management: A literature review",
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 357-377.
Weber, R.P. (1990), Basic content analysis, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Willcocks, L. and Smith, G. (1995), "IT-enabled business process reengineering", The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 279–301.
Yu, T. and Wu, N. (2009), "A review of study on the competing values framework", International
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 4, No. 7, pp. 37-42.
Zairi, M. (1997), "Business process management", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 3, No.
1, pp. 64–80.
20
Appendix
Value Definition # of
codes
Accountability Accountability refers to the desire of defined and implemented liabilities. 2
Ambition Ambition is the desire to execute effectively and efficiently. 1
Awareness Awareness refers to the consciousness of processes and their improvement. 1
Collaboration Collaboration is the positive attitude towards inter-departmental and inter-organizational
interaction.
7
Commitment Commitment refers to the motivation of an organization's members to play an active role
regarding the achievement of BPM objectives.
3
Communication Communication means a positive attitude towards the formal and informal constructive
interaction with internal and external stakeholders on all organizational levels.
3
Continuous
improvement
Continuous improvement refers to a positive attitude towards an ongoing advancement of
organizational processes.
5
Contribution Contribution refers to the desire of employees to deliver value to internal and external
customers.
2
Control Control refers to the positive attitude towards process review and performance
measurement.
2
Coordination Coordination refers to the ideal of aligning the allocation of resources and units with the
organizational strategy.
4
Creativity Creativity is the positive attitude towards thinking out of the box to create new process
solutions.
6
Customer
orientation
Customer orientation refers to the preference of actively identifying and serving internal
and external customers' needs.
15
Discipline Discipline refers to the positive attitude towards following systematic approaches and
organizational rules to drive business processes.
2
Effectiveness Effectiveness is the ideal of executing the right processes through strategic decisions to
achieve organizational goals.
2
Efficiency Efficiency is the ideal of executing processes right through the economic allocation of
resources.
4
Empathy Empathy refers to the ideal of caring for others. 1
Employee
orientation
Employee orientation refers to the prioritization of the people in an organization. 1
Empowerment Empowerment is the ideal that process responsible employees have the competences and
authority to make process decisions.
4
Entirety Entirety refers to an integrated view on an organization and its processes. 6
Excellence Excellence refers to the desire to constantly realize best practices and systematically operate
business processes with precision and accuracy.
5
Factual
Orientation
Factual orientation refers to the preference for a decision-making process that is based on
facts derived from a measurement system.
1
Flexibility Flexibility is the opportunity and the willingness of people across an organization to adapt
to new ways of working and new ideas.
4
Growth Growth refers to the desire to constantly increase organizational performance. 4
Harmony Harmony refers to the willingness to resolve conflict. 1
Innovation Innovation refers to the positive attitude towards developing and optimizing processes in
order to achieve a competitive advantage.
3
Integrity Integrity is the desire to keep promises and agreements. 1
Table 6. Codification of initial values (in alphabetical order) – part I
21
Value Definition # of
codes
Leadership Leadership means the preference for professional integrity, constructive communication and
pragmatic approaches to achieve BPM objectives.
4
Learning Learning means a positive attitude towards the ongoing acquisition of knowledge or skills
for professional and personal development.
3
Motivation Motivation refers to the preference of internal and external incentives to achieve goals. 3
Openness Openness refers to the ideal of being responsive towards a challenging environment. 1
Openness for
change
Openness for change refers to the positive attitude towards adopting new ways of doing
things.
8
Ownership Ownership refers to the ideal that all employees think and act like business owners to
achieve organizational success.
1
Process
orientation
Process orientation refers to the focus of an organization on processes as opposed to units. 4
Quality Quality refers to the preference of realizing standards in process execution to deliver
products and services that meet customer expectations.
4
Responsibility Responsibility refers to the inner feeling of obligation towards achieving process objectives. 5
Responsiveness Responsiveness is the orientation of an organization to respond quickly to internal and
external inquiries
2
Result
orientation
Result orientation refers to the ideal that employees work together with the end in mind. 1
Risk aversion Risk aversion refers to an organization's preference to minimize risks in their operations. 1
Risk support Risk support refers to an organization's preference for risk taking to improve processes. 1
Rivalry Rivalry refers to the preference of competing aggressively against other organizations. 1
Simplification Simplification refers to the preference for reducing complexity in business processes. 2
Skill Skill refers to the preference of using knowledge and competences for the execution of
reliable processes.
1
Standardization Standardization means the orientation of an organization to provide standardized products
and services.
1
Sustainability Sustainability refers to the ideal of constantly maintaining enduring high organizational
performance through the deliberate handling of resources and capabilities.
4
Teamwork Teamwork refers to ideal of cooperating in groups to achieve common goals. 5
Transparency Transparency refers to the ideal that relevant process-based information is available to serve
both employees and customers.
1
Vision Vision refers to the ideal of streamlining efforts through clear targets. 1
Table 7. Codification of initial values (in alphabetical order) – part II
22
Value Definition # of
codes
Development Development refers to the orientation towards continuous change and innovation
through open-mindedness, creativity and risk awareness.
33
Openness for
change
Openness for change refers to the positive attitude towards adopting new ways of doing
things.
8
Creativity Creativity is the positive attitude towards thinking out of the box to create new process
solutions.
6
Continuous
improvement
Continuous improvement refers to a positive attitude towards an ongoing advancement of
organizational processes.
5
Flexibility Flexibility is the opportunity and the willingness of people across an organization to adapt to
new ways of working and new ideas.
4
Innovation Innovation refers to the positive attitude towards developing and optimizing processes in
order to achieve a competitive advantage.
3
Learning Learning means a positive attitude towards the ongoing acquisition of knowledge or skills for
professional and personal development.
3
Openness Openness refers to the ideal of being responsive towards a challenging environment. 1
Risk aversion Risk aversion refers to an organization's preference to minimize risks in their operations. 1
Risk support Risk support refers to an organization's preference for risk taking to improve processes. 1
Skill Skill refers to the preference of using knowledge and competences for the execution of
reliable processes.
1
Excellence Excellence refers to the orientation towards optimality in process performance through
discipline, quality awareness and sustainability.
27
Excellence Excellence refers to the desire to constantly realize best practices and systematically operate
business processes with precision and accuracy.
5
Efficiency Efficiency is the ideal of executing processes right through the economic allocation of
resources.
4
Quality Quality refers to the preference of realizing standards in process execution to deliver products
and services that meet customer expectations.
4
Sustainability Sustainability refers to the ideal of constantly maintaining enduring high organizational
performance through the deliberate handling of resources and capabilities.
4
Control Control refers to the positive attitude towards process review and performance measurement. 2
Discipline Discipline refers to the positive attitude towards following systematic approaches and
organizational rules to drive business processes.
2
Effectiveness Effectiveness is the ideal of executing the right processes through strategic decisions to
achieve organizational goals.
2
Simplification Simplification refers to the preference for reducing complexity in business processes. 2
Factual
Orientation
Factual orientation refers to the preference for a decision-making process that is based on
facts derived from a measurement system.
1
Standardization Standardization means the orientation of an organization to provide standardized products
and services.
1
Cooperation Cooperation refers to transparency amongst stakeholders, cross-functionality and the
orientation towards constructiveness in communication.
19
Collaboration Collaboration is the positive attitude towards inter-departmental and inter-organizational
interaction.
7
Teamwork Teamwork refers to ideal of cooperating in groups to achieve common goals. 5
Communication Communication means a positive attitude towards the formal and informal constructive
interaction with internal and external stakeholders on all organizational levels.
3
Empathy Empathy refers to the ideal of caring for others. 1
Harmony Harmony refers to the willingness to resolve conflict. 1
Result
orientation
Result orientation refers to the ideal that employees work together with the end in mind. 1
Transparency Transparency refers to the ideal that relevant process-based information is available to serve
both employees and customers.
1
Table 8. Codification of 8 condensed values (shaded in grey) – Part I
23
Value Definition # of
codes
Customer
orientation
Customer orientation refers to the responsiveness for internal and external
customers' needs.
17
Customer
orientation
Customer orientation refers to the preference of actively identifying and serving internal
and external customers' needs.
15
Responsiveness
Responsiveness is the orientation of an organization to respond quickly to internal and
external inquiries
2
Leadership
Leadership refers to professional integrity, responsibility, competence and
pragmatism.
17
Responsibility
Responsibility refers to the inner feeling of obligation towards achieving process
objectives.
5
Empowerment
Empowerment is the ideal that process responsible employees have the competences and
authority to make process decisions.
4
Leadership
Leadership means the preference for professional integrity, constructive communication
and pragmatic approaches to achieve BPM objectives.
4
Accountability Accountability refers to the desire of defined and implemented liabilities.
2
Employee
orientation Employee orientation refers to the prioritization of the people in an organization.
1
Integrity Integrity is the desire to keep promises and agreements.
1
Entirety
Entirety refers to an integrated view on an organization oriented towards business
processes as opposed to functional units.
11
Entirety Entirety refers to an integrated view on an organization and its processes.
6
Process
orientation Process orientation refers to the focus of an organization on processes as opposed to units.
4
Awareness Awareness refers to the consciousness of processes and their improvement.
1
Determination
Determination refers to the feeling of ownership, ambition, motivation and
commitment towards process objectives.
10
Commitment
Commitment refers to the motivation of an organization's members to play an active role
regarding the achievement of BPM objectives.
3
Motivation Motivation refers to the preference of internal and external incentives to achieve goals.
3
Contribution
Contribution refers to the desire of employees to deliver value to internal and external
customers.
2
Ambition Ambition is the desire to execute effectively and efficiently.
1
Ownership
Ownership refers to the ideal that all employees think and act like business owners to
achieve organizational success.
1
Strategy
awareness
Strategy awareness refers to the orientation towards growth and competitive
advantage through awareness for the alignment of resources.
10
Coordination
Coordination refers to the ideal of aligning the allocation of resources and units with the
organizational strategy.
4
Growth Growth refers to the desire to constantly increase organizational performance.
4
Rivalry Rivalry refers to the preference of competing aggressively against other organizations.
1
Vision Vision refers to the ideal of streamlining efforts through clear targets.
1
Table 9. Codification of 8 condensed values (shaded in grey) – Part II
... Delphi studies are a well-established method in IS and BPM research that strives for consensus on a specific topic with a panel of experts over multiple rounds utilizing questionnaires interspersed with feedback (Gupta and Clarke 1996;Skinner et al. 2015). Prominent examples of the use of the method in the IS and BPM literature include the identification of BPM capabilities in the digital age (Kerpedzhiev et al. 2021), the identification and rating of reasons for process deviance (König et al. 2019), the establishment of criteria for selecting cloud service providers (Lang et al. 2018), the identification of grand challenges for IS (Becker et al. 2015), the examination of the constituent values of a BPM-supportive cultural setting (Schmiedel et al. 2013), and the identification of perceived benefits of process modeling (Indulska et al. 2009). ...
... Thirdly, we invited experts from both academia and industry to participate in the study to account for the diversity of the PM field (Okoli and Pawlowski 2004;Paré et al. 2013). Thus, we aimed to recruit experts from different countries, backgrounds, and PM subcommunities (Schmiedel et al. 2013). Regarding the selection of academic and industry experts, we posed formal requirements that participants in the study had to fulfill (Okoli and Pawlowski 2004). ...
... Finally, we judged the quality and convergence of the study's results both quantitatively and qualitatively. From a quantitative perspective, we followed the well-established practice of measuring the experts' satisfaction with the coding of opportunities and challenges (coding satisfaction) as well as their overall satisfaction with the study (Kerpedzhiev et al. 2021;Schmiedel et al. 2013). We employed a 7-point Likert scale: 1 (extremely dissatisfied), 2 (moderately dissatisfied), 3 (slightly dissatisfied), 4 (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied), 5 (slightly satisfied), 6 (moderately satisfied), and 7 (extremely satisfied). ...
Article
Full-text available
Process Mining is an active research domain and has been applied to understand and improve business processes. While significant research has been conducted on the development and improvement of algorithms, evidence on the application of Process Mining in organisations has been far more limited. In particular, there is limited understanding of the opportunities and challenges of using Process Mining in organisations. Such an understanding has the potential to guide research by highlighting barriers for Process Mining adoption and, thus, can contribute to successful Process Mining initiatives in practice. In this respect, this paper provides a holistic view of opportunities and challenges for Process Mining in organisations identified in a Delphi study with 40 international experts from academia and industry. Besides proposing a set of 30 opportunities and 32 challenges, the paper conveys insights into the comparative relevance of individual items, as well as differences in the perceived relevance between academics and practitioners. Therefore, the study contributes to the future development of Process Mining, both as a research field and regarding its application in organisations.
... Change management is essential in implementation of BPM (Trkman 2010;Schmiedel et al. 2013). Problems may occur, for instance, if organizations strategy is not aligned with the BPM efforts, top management doesn't give their support for BPM efforts or the organizational culture does not support BPM (Trkman 2010;Schmiedel et al. 2013). ...
... Change management is essential in implementation of BPM (Trkman 2010;Schmiedel et al. 2013). Problems may occur, for instance, if organizations strategy is not aligned with the BPM efforts, top management doesn't give their support for BPM efforts or the organizational culture does not support BPM (Trkman 2010;Schmiedel et al. 2013). Among other things, it's important that employees are trained and they have access to process models and the models are actively used for example in improvements and audits (Trkman 2010;Laamanen 2003, 96-97). ...
Article
Full-text available
This essay is based on theory of process modeling and the case study conducted in a Finnish nation-wide health care service organization where 112 processes were defined and modeled by 59 employees in 102 workshops. The case organization has totally more than 500 employees. Health care organizations can be regarded as high-reliability organizations, which must continuously perform in a near error-free manner despite their complex, unpredictable and dangerous operating environments. Therefore, high-quality descriptions of the processes will in particular help the activities of such organisations. Published on TALK by STUDENT Journal on 8 th of June, 2022: https://talkbystudents.turkuamk.fi/master-school/challenges-of-process-modelling-in-theory- and-practice
... Subsequent work conceptualizes the BPMsupportive culture notion of BPM culture and its corresponding values. BPM-supportive culture is defined as an organizational culture that supports BPM objectives and is shaped by the following four cultural values: customer orientation, excellence, responsibility and teamwork (abbreviated as CERT) (vom Brocke and Schmiedel, 2011;Schmiedel et al., 2013). Table 1 (left) provides definitions for these values. ...
... For the constructs of BPM-supportive culture and IPO, validated measurement models are available in the literature. To measure CUL, the scale developed by Schmiedel et al. (2013Schmiedel et al. ( , 2014) was adopted. The IPO was measured using the construct proposed by Leyer et al. (2015). ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose Organizations rely on their business processes to achieve their business objectives and ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations. Hence, conformance to process specifications is essential to remain compliant. Various factors influence an organization’s ability to operate in conformance to its process specifications. This study investigates the influence of business process management (BPM)-supportive culture and individual process orientation on process conformance. Design/methodology/approach A construct was created for perceived process conformance and two constructs were selected from literature to represent BPM-supportive culture and individual process orientation. A survey was conducted with 178 employees of a global enterprise, hypotheses were formulated, and a statistical model was constructed and validated. Findings Results pinpoint the key role of the BPM-supportive culture in influencing both individual process orientation and conformance. Individual process orientation is also found to have a significant influence on process conformance. The findings provide additional evidence for the significance of human-related aspects of BPM in achieving BPM success. Originality/value The contributions of this paper help better understand how soft factors of BPM contribute to employees’ process conformance drawing on and relating concepts of BPM and organizational routines.
... Therefore, the organization has to dedicate time and resources to improve the skills and knowledge of their workforce regarding BPM and create a shared organizational culture (Armistead et al. 1999). Schmiedel et al. (2013) find that there are four aspects of an organizational culture that drive BPM. These drivers are customer orientation, teamwork, responsibility, and (operational) excellence. ...
... The third cultural value is excellence which is based on the understanding in the lean philosophy that every process can be improved. The final cultural driver of BPM is a responsibility which indicates the importance of strong process governance (Schmiedel et al. 2013; Ubaid and Dweiri 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
This essay proposes a Business Process Management (BPM) maturity model. The developed BPM maturity model is based on the review of existing models combined with the insights of BPM professionals. The developed model enables organizations to gain insight into their own operations, and also supports in setting up a roadmap for improvement. It offers a stepping stone with which organizations can determine whether their ambitions are in line with their initial situation. Overall this essay provides a first overview of a framework for a detailed analysis of BPM capabilities within organizations. Further research on this BPM maturity model should be done by empirically testing the model in multiple business environments.
... As a result, this leads to a mismatch in the way processes are performed and degrades the effectiveness and efficiency of their management and the communication of process participants (Jurczuk, 2019). This problem is considered more extensively by researchers in the context of the process culture of organisations (Schmiedel et al., 2013;Štemberger et al., 2018). A major challenge for the operation of PG mechanisms is also the standardisation of processes and their compliance with external regulations and standards. ...
... It is noted that the usability of the measurement system is influenced by the quality of the evaluation criteria of the process measures themselves and their information potential, and the quality of the data captured (Khosravi, 2016). As with the previous PG core element, a significant barrier to measurement and performance is the low level of process competence of employees and an organisation's process culture that is not aligned with the circumstances (Schmiedel et al., 2013;Jurczuk, 2019). The lack of a well-developed process culture of an organisation may affect the attitudes of process stakeholders in identifying and responding to problems in processes and the reliability of information and data supporting process governance. ...
Article
Full-text available
One of the main challenges in implementing process-oriented management is establishing a governance mechanism in the organisation. It creates a coherent framework for the execution, management and perception of business processes, which is the foundation of consistent Business Process Management (BPM). Process governance (PG) refers to an organisation’s ability to manage its relationships with all process stakeholders and support the value chain for its customers. Its implementation involves establishing process regulation mechanisms and stakeholder-oriented criteria to support prioritisation, cascading, and change management within BPM initiatives. A review of the domain literature reveals that while process governance has been discussed from several but separated perspectives (strategy, business roles, performance, and maturity), only a few studies identify and synthesise the barriers to its implementation in organisations. The paper mainly aims to identify and classify the key barriers to the implementation of process governance. The author’s approach refers to the six core elements of Business Process Management capability and process governance frameworks. Research results confirm that most process governance barriers polarise around the competence gaps of the process stakeholders and the immaturity of the process-oriented culture of companies. Another significant group of constraints to process governance arises from the existing organisation’s structure. They are mainly related to the proper division of responsibilities and a weak position or the lack of BPM centres of excellence. The research contributes to the literature on management by identifying potential barriers to business process governance that constrain BPM initiatives. The identified PG challenges can provide a basis for developing a theoretical framework for Business Process Management and models for BPM success factors.
Chapter
Organisations need to measure enterprise content management (ECM) workflow systems performance to achieve their mission and objectives. This requires an exploration of the business environment where ECM workflow systems operate using an appropriate decision-making method and business process management (BPM) values. This paper describes the Delphi method as an appropriate methodology and identifies CERT values as appropriate BPM values with the support from experts and experienced professionals to measure ECM workflow systems performance. CERT values are Customer orientation (C), Excellence (E), Responsibility (R) and Teamwork (T). The purpose of this paper is to explain how the Delphi method can be used to measure ECM workflow systems performance. Further, CERT values are described to drive the business processes through the Delphi method to measure workflow system performance. The paper examines the academic literature on Delphi studies, ECM and CERT values and the benefits of this combination of ideas are revealed. The Delphi method strengths are identified to measure ECM workflow systems performance. Overall, this study focuses on the Delphi rounds as decision-making criteria to formulate a methodology in combination with CERT values to evaluate ECM workflow systems performance.
Article
A intensificação das relações de comércio internacional tem modificado a atuação e a importância estratégica do profissional da área de compras internacional. O objetivo desse estudo é identificar os fatores determinantes para a performance do comprador de bens e serviços provenientes de fora do Brasil, além disso, quais são as maiores dificuldades encontradas e quais são os fatores críticos de sucesso. Para tanto se realizou um estudo descritivo com abordagem quantitativa, no qual se analisaram 55 questionários com auxílio de ferramentas de análise estatística descritiva e cruzamento de dados. Por meio dos resultados obtidos, foi possível verificar que, conhecimento em idiomas, habilidade de negociação, conhecimento técnico, comunicação interpessoal, capacidade analítica e ética são as principais características que devem compor as habilidades do comprador/negociador internacional. Além dessas características, o estudo revelou dificuldades durante as negociações devido a diferenças culturais e a dificuldades do idioma.
Article
Purpose The purpose of this case study is to develop a complete understanding of the sales and operations planning (S&OP) process implementation effort at ASTRO Inc. and to determine the influential factors that led to its success, the interrelationship between them, as well as the level of influence of each factor compared to their counterparts. As we trace the evolution of S&OP in the organizational context, the view that its implementation leads to a positive impact in changing the way companies do business is not in itself novel. To date, there is limited academic investigation on how and why the S&OP process implementation leads to a successful organizational transformation. Design/methodology/approach The data used in this case study were collected through semi-structured interviews with selected employees and through documentary analyses based on the archives at ASTRO Inc., a large North American company, for the period from 2016 to 2018. The paper adopts a methodology based on a retrospective study and interviews. Findings The analysis shows that the S&OP process design and its implementation required efforts on many distinct but complementary fronts to be successful. However, the level of influence varies across the organizational enablers that contribute to this success. Its successful implementation is fundamentally dependent on the managers' ability to create mindset changes in the organizational culture, and to plan and coordinate the S&OP process deployment. The key enablers need to be skillfully combined, taking into account the contextual variables, namely, the company's internal context, the company's external context and the specific characteristics of the industry in which the company belongs. Originality/value The current study provides a better understanding of the implementation of the S&OP process and highlights the key enablers that led to its successful implementation. It provides practical managerial guidelines for designing, deploying and using an S&OP process in response to and in anticipation of customer demands, and competitive pressures.
Article
Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the direct and indirect effects of organizational culture and quality improvement practices on the relationship between green practices and sustainability performances by using the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. Design/methodology/approach Structured questionnaires were used to collect data from 330 full-time managerial employees in established businesses. The relationships depicted in the proposed conceptual model were tested through six hypotheses. IBM SPSS Statistics and SEM-AMOS were used to test the hypotheses. Findings The results supported proposed relationships in the model, except the one between organizational culture and green practices. The findings indicate that the more employees are aware of companies’ green practices, the more likely they are going to feel positive about the sustainability performance of the organization. Additionally, a strong organizational culture that supports the green movement and quality improvement practices lead to positive sustainability outcomes. Research limitations/implications A larger sample size in several major industries would allow the development of industry-specific sustainability strategies and best practices. In addition, a study based in a different geographical location in the USA or in a different country is recommended to see if the findings can be generalized across different industries, geographical locations or countries. Practical implications Sustainability has undoubtedly become a major concern for many companies today. The findings of this study provide important guidelines for practitioners to balance the implementation of green practices, organizational culture, quality improvement practices and sustainability performance dimensions. Profitability and sustainability can be achieved together when companies are willing to continuously pay attention to environmental issues and strategically invest in initiatives that are cost-efficient and eco-friendly. Originality/value This study is one of the first that explores how organizational culture and quality improvement practices affect directly and indirectly the relationship between green practices and sustainability performance. The results imply that organizational culture and quality improvement practices significantly affect the relationship between green practices and the sustainability performance dimensions.
Book
Full-text available
El contenido de este libro trata sobre una ingeniería global y sostenible que guie a la sociedad en su tránsito por el Nuevo Orden Mundial. Los autores de cada capítulo plasman sus pensamientos acerca de muchas de estas cuestiones, tan necesarias en la actual situación del Planeta, ofreciendo una perspectiva global de la ingeniería para el mundo, y no para atender al neoliberalismo imperial. Las investigaciones desde las que se generan los capítulos aquí incluidos son de carácter transdisciplinar, ya que esta deberá la manera en que se desarrolle la ingeniería en la Nueva Era que estamos viviendo.
Chapter
This chapter reveals how business process management (BPM) complements and extends service-oriented architecture (SOA) to enable the definition, integration, and continuous improvement of services. BPM is a management discipline that focuses on the design of business processes and continuous improvement of the speed, cost, and quality of business operations. BPM emphasizes the documentation of repeatable business processes as the basis for analysis and improvement. This includes both manual and automated business processes. Information technology provides the ability to model business processes for more precise specifications and the ability to automate processes for controlled execution. Though not all business processes are automated, the speed, reliability, and discipline of automated processes suggest that most business processes should be automated, if possible. In particular, the processes that drive the integration and high-level execution of service unit activities should be automated to support consistent and effective operations. Consequently, though the agile enterprise includes manual business processes, our emphasis here is on the automated business processes that, for the most part, drive the operation of an agile enterprise. SOA brings a fundamental pattern to the design of business processes. Business processes do not exist independent of service units, and processes are confined to management of activities within an associated service unit. Business processes specify how service units produce value. For readers who are familiar with object-oriented programming, service units are like objects and business processes are like methods.
Article
The Delphi Technique in Nursing and Health Research is a practical guide to using the Delphi methodology for students and researchers in nursing and health. It adopts a logical step-by-step approach, introducing the researcher to the Delphi, outlining its development, analysing key characteristics and parameters for its successful use and exploring its applications in nursing and health. The book addresses issues of methodology, design, framing the research question, sampling, instrumentation, methodological rigour, reliability and validity, and methods of data analysis. The Delphi Technique in Nursing and Health Research enables the reader to be aware of the limitations of the technique and possible solutions, to design a Delphi questionnaire for each of the different rounds of a study, to consider different approaches to the technique in relation to a study, to analyse the data from each round of a Delphi study, and to understand the importance of feedback between rounds. Key Features. A practical guide to facilitate use of the Delphi technique. Provides the reader with the necessary information to participate in and conduct Delphi studies. Examines different types of Delphi, including the e-Delphi, and modifications made to the technique. Includes examples of real empirical investigations, brief case scenarios and key learning points for each chapter. Explores the role of the Delphi researcher. Explores ethical issues and issues of anonymity, use of experts and controlled feedback.
Article
With business process management, organizations will avoid total allegiance to one approach.
Article
Culture creates barriers to business process reengineering. Three distinctive levels of culture must be recognized in process redesign-national, corporate and work group culture. American national culture has the most profound influence. Individualism and autonomy are key features of American culture that work against the logic of process integration and commonization by rewarding individuals for pursuing their own self-interests. This tendency also generates a lack of trust, which in turn creates barriers to sharing electronic data. Reengineering difficulties are exacerbated by an American fascination with technological solutions, and a view of new technology as a "silver bullet" that yields benefits automatically. Often, process redesign cannot be implemented without culture change. Culture can be influenced by exposing internal groups to external pressures, ensuring employee participation in reengineering, recognizing that training alone does not achieve culture change, redefining group boundaries, managing anti-champions, building trust, and leveraging the strengths of national and corporate culture.
Article
This article first appeared in Business Process Re‐engineering & Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, 1995, pp. 8‐30.
Article
This paper gives an account of an experiment in the use of the so-called DELPHI method, which was devised in order to obtain the most reliable opinion consensus of a group of experts by subjecting them to a series of questionnaires in depth interspersed with controlled opinion feedback.