Factors that Determine the Extent of Business Process Standardization and the Subsequent Effect on Business Performance

Abstract

Business process standardization is the activity of unifying different variants of a family of business processes. While the positive effects of business process standardization are well-described, it is often undesirable to fully unify different variants due to cultural, legal, or operational reasons. Consequently, a decision has to be made about the extent to which a family of business processes should be standardized. However, little is known about the factors that drive that decision. This paper fills that gap, by presenting factors that drive the extent to which business processes can be standardized, performance properties that are influenced by business process standardization, and relations between these concepts.

Full text

1
Factors that determine the extent of business process standardization
and the subsequent effect on business performance
Abstract
Business process standardization is the activity of unifying different variants of a
family of business processes. While the positive effects of business process
standardization are well-described, it is often undesirable to fully unify different
variants due to cultural, legal, or operational reasons. Consequently, a decision has to
be made about the extent to which a family of business processes should be
standardized. However, little is known about the factors that drive that decision. This
paper fills that gap, by presenting factors that drive the extent to which business
processes can be standardized, performance properties that are influenced by business
process standardization, and relations between these concepts.
Keywords: Business processes, Standardization, Contextual factors, Literature survey

2
1 Introduction
Business process standardization aims to make similar business processes in an organization
uniform. Intuitively, the idea of business process standardization is to ensure that if an
organization performs the same activity in different places, it does so in the same way
(Harmon, 2010). There are many claimed benefits to business process standardization. It has
been claimed to lower the cost of executing processes and improve collaboration, both
between departments and between an organization and its business partners (Carmichael,
1997; Hammer and Stanton, 1999; Davenport, 2005). There also exists empirical evidence
that business process standardization decreases the throughput time of a process, reduces cost
and improves quality and control (Jayaram et al., 2000; Beimborn et al., 2009; Münstermann
et al., 2010a).
Moreover, process standardization is considered to be a critical step in ERP system
implementation. It ensures the alignment of an ERP system and the business processes that
support those processes (Botta-Genoulaz et al. 2005, p.514), facilitates a more uniform
implementation of the ERP system, reduces future maintenance costs, and increases agility in
process changes (Richen and Steinhorst, 2005, p.3). These positive effects are easy to see. If
departments that do similar work share a similar – standardized – process, it is easier to
develop and maintain an ERP system that supports that process, than when these departments
all have their own process and need a unique ERP system implementation. Although the
efficiency with which software systems can be implemented and maintained is a positive
result of standardization, software systems can also hamper standardization. If different
departments have their own legacy software, it is harder to standardize their processes than
when they do not. This paper considers both relations between software systems and process
standardization.
While business process standardization has clear benefits, there are also good reasons to
maintain some variability between business processes. Major reasons for having variations of
a process include: requiring the ability to deal differently with different types of customers
and different cultures; and leaving different business units with reasonable autonomy to avoid
micro-management (Hammer and Stanton, 1999; Manrodt and Vitasek, 2004; Tregear, 2010).
Also, it has been empirically shown that some variability cannot be avoided (Frei et al.,
1999). Exactly for these reasons, business process modeling techniques have been developed
that enable the major variations of a business process to be mapped out, in addition to the
standard flow of the business process (Hallerbach et al., 2009; La Rosa et al., 2011).
These observations lead to the conclusion that, when standardizing processes, a balance must
be defined between the benefits of making those processes uniform on the one hand and the
benefits of allowing variability on the other. Tregear (2010) describes this trade-off in detail.
While the benefits of process standardization are studied in detail, little is known about the
factors that drive the trade-off between uniformity and variability. Therefore, the aim of this
study is to identify the factors that determine the extent to which an organization's processes
can be standardized and the performance benefits that the organization achieves through

3
process standardization. These factors are identified through an analysis of existing literature
and summarized in a conceptual model.
2 Theoretical foundation
To work towards the goal of this paper – the definition of a conceptual model – we introduce
a framework for such a model, using contingency theory as a guiding theory. The framework
is shown in Figure 1.
Fig. 1 Relation between contextual factors, process standardization and organizational
performance
Contingency theory suggests that successful organizations choose structures and process
characteristics that ‘‘fit’’ to the degree of uncertainty in their environment (Duncan, 1972;
Miller, 1992). It is a class of behavioral theory that emphasizes that there is no single best
way to manage an organization, and the optimal course of action is contingent upon the
internal and external situation.
Using this theory, we propose that the extent to which business processes can be standardized
is dependent on contextual factors in the organization and its environment. This study fits
with the assumptions of contingency theory stating that each unit of analysis is unique and has
to be analyzed based on contextual factors (Zeithaml and Zeithaml, 1988).
In the remainder of this section, we discuss each of the framework’s elements in more detail.
2.1 Contextual factors
In contingency theory, contextual factors are described as environmental, organizational and
individual characteristics of a firm's external and internal environment. Contingency theory
proposes a fit between the organization and those factors.
In the remainder of this paper, we will focus on contextual factors for which a relation to
standardization has been investigated in previous work. However, we will maintain the
distinction between external factors and internal factors, which is often made (Gupta and
Govindarajan, 1984; Sila, 2007), where external factors are out of the control of the
organization, while internal factors are internal to the organization and can be changed.
2.2 Process standardization
Business process standardization is “…the unification of business processes and the
underlying actions within a company…” (Davenport, 2005; Schäfermeyer et al., 2010). The

4
goal of process standardization is to achieve uniformity of process activities across the value
chain and across firm boundaries (Wüllenweber et al. 2008, pp.2011-2012) “… in order to
facilitate communication about how the business operates, to enable handoffs across process
boundaries in terms of information, and to improve collaboration and develop comparative
measures of process performance …” (Schäfermeyer et al., 2010).
While this suggests that complete uniformity is the ultimate goal of business process
standardization, complete uniformity is not always achieved in practice. Therefore, some
papers relate the extent to which uniformity is achieved to the success of a process
standardization effort (Schäfermeyer et al., 2010; Wüllenweber et al. 2008). Other papers
even state that complete uniformity should not be strived for, but rather that a trade-off should
be struck between local variability and global uniformity (Tregear, 2010). The term
‘harmonization’ is also used to stress this trade-off (Fernandez and Bhat, 2010; Girod, 2011).
In this paper, we take the perspective that complete uniformity is not always achieved and,
independent of whether that determines the success of process standardization or not, the
extent to which it is achieved depends on contextual factors as explained in the previous
sections. We also argue that, in turn, the extent to which uniformity is achieved influences the
extent to which business performance benefits associated with process standardization can be
achieved.
2.3 Business performance
Business performance is an overall concept of organizational effectiveness, which includes
both indicators of operational performance (i.e. nonfinancial indicators) and indicators of
financial performance (Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986). The level of performance a
business attains is a function of the efficiency and effectiveness of the actions it undertakes
(Neely et al., 2005).
Business performance can be measured using different metrics and evaluated at different
levels in the organization, such as the process level and the overall organizational level. At a
process level, the operational efficiency of specific business processes is evaluated, using
different measures, such as customer satisfaction and operational costs. Some examples of
measures at the organizational overall firm level include productivity and level of
responsiveness (Melville et al., 2004)
3 Methodology
The research method selected to develop a conceptual model for process standardization is a
literature review. The research approach that we used followed the five stages defined by
Cooper (1982). Each phase is described in detail in further subsections.
3.1 Problem formulation
A problem formulation includes the definition of the research questions that will guide the
literature review (Cooper, 1988) and the set of inclusion/ exclusion criteria used for the

5
selection process. The research questions are based on the goal and focus of the review
(Randolph, 2009). Consequently, three research questions are formulated: From the previous
literature, what is the effect of contextual factors on the extent to which business processes
are standardized, and what is the effect of the extent of standardization on business
performance? What methods have been used to investigate this effect? The inclusion and
exclusion criteria are provided in Appendix A.
3.2 Data collection
The data collection step includes a definition of the search strategy and the selection of
relevant articles that are included in the review. An exhaustive search with selective citations
was conducted, which consists of a pre-search, a systematic search and a cross-reference
search. A pre-search was conducted using Google Scholar as a search engine, to identify how
extensive the literature on this topic is and to determine the keywords to be used for the
search. After conducting the pre-search step, a systematic search step was conducted, using
the keywords that were identified in the pre-search step and three search engines:
ABI/INFORMS, EMERALD and SPRINGER. The cross-reference search is performed using
a backward tracing technique, after completing the first search cycle and selecting a set of
articles using the selection criteria specified in Section 3.1. The criteria and search terms used
in and the results of these steps are presented in Appendix A.
3.3 Data Evaluation
In this step, we describe the type of data that is extracted from each article selected during
the data collection. Because the focus of this literature review is on outcome and methods,
we extracted information about contextual factors, process standardization and business
performance, and the methods used by authors to derive their results.
All selected articles were classified using a theoretical model that was derived by extending
the framework of Figure 1 with the framework by Kumar (2010, p.60). Our framework
presents the different relations that we investigate, while Kumar’s presents the different
types of relations that may exist among variables. This results in the theoretical model
depicted in Figure 2, which shows a chain of causes and effects, where in the first segment
‘contextual factors’ are the cause that determine the extent to which the effect of ‘processes
standardization’ can achieved, while in the second segment ‘process standardization’ is the
cause that determines to which extent the effect of ‘business performance’ benefits can be
achieved. Consequently, the theoretical model contains three concepts that are interrelated:
(A) process standardization, (B) contextual factors, and (C) business performance.

6
Fig. 2 A model for classifying the literature in process standardization
For the first concept, contextual factors, we extracted the different factors, the type of
relationship exerted on process standardization (direct effect, moderator or mediator) and the
methodology used by authors to derive these relations such as case studies or literature
review.
For the second concept, process standardization, we identify how different authors
operationalize the concept. The operationalization includes the identification of variables or
indicators that are used to measure the extent to which processes are standardized and the
identification of the methods used to evaluate the validity and reliability of the variables and
indicators.
The third concept, business performance, includes different performance indicators that are
used to evaluate the effect of process standardization on business performance.
A coding sheet is used to evaluate the information in the articles in a systematic manner
(Stock, 1994). The coding sheet is included in Appendix B. For each of the 35 papers that
were the result of the data collection method described in Section 3.2, it provides the
elements for the conceptual model that are extracted from it. This provides complete
traceability between the papers that are found in the literature review and the resulting
conceptual model.
3.4 Data analysis and interpretation
A qualitative synthesis of the data extracted is performed. This type of analysis is appropriate
in our case, because we have to combine a mixture of quantitative and qualitative results
(Randolph, 2009). The method used is a thematic synthesis proposed in Thomas and Harden
(2008).
In particular, one of the authors went through the papers that were identified in the data
collection step, to identify sentences that relate to elements of the framework shown in
Figure 2. In particular, sentences were identified that contain statements about: factors that
influence the extent to which processes can be standardized, means to measure the extent of to
which processes are standardized, or effects of process standardization on organizational

7
performance. Subsequently, the author unified factors, measures or effects that were similar in
nature according to the author.
The results of that effort are presented in Section 4. In order to identify the different aspects of
business process standardization operationalization, we studied the operationalizations that
were found in the literature to determine what was measured. For example, Münstermann et
al. (2010) measure the extent to which processes, and actions are standardized and
Schäfermeyer et al. (2012) also measure the extent to which documents are standardized.
4 Results
This section summarizes the results of the study. It consists of three parts, using the model
depicted in Figure 2: (1) the effect of contextual factors on the extent to which processes are
standardized, (2) operationalization of process standardization, and (3) the effect of process
standardization on business performance. From the set of 35 articles selected, 10 only concern
contextual factors that impact process standardization, 15 only concern the effects of process
standardization on business performance, 6 concern both contextual factors and effect, and 4
only concern operationalization of the concept of process standardization.
4.1 Contextual factors and process standardization
The contextual factors identified in the literature include: cultural differences, different
regulations, power distance, number of different locations, IT governance centralization,
product type, maturity level, organizational structure, number of mergers and acquisitions,
process type, level of process structuredness, and personal differences. The factors included
the list are not mutually exclusive, due to the different (overlapping) ways in which they are
defined by different authors. However, they do summarize the relations that are identified and
proven in the collected literature. Most of the relations found between contextual factors and
process standardization are direct and do not include moderators or mediators. Appendix C
provides a complete overview of the contextual factors, which we explain below.
Ang and Massingham (2007, p.17) analyze how the decision of standardization versus
adaptation should be made, taken into consideration the level of differences in national
culture. Standardization refers to a common approach to business throughout the world, while
adaptation requires a different approach in each market. They suggest that the greater the
cultural differences, the greater the difficulty in knowledge transfer across cultures.
There are mandatory and unavoidable variations that come from differences in regulations
such as financial regulations, taxation regimes, import/export regulations and employment
practices (Tregear 2010, p.314). Therefore, this situation definitely influences the level of
standardization that can be achieved for global companies.
In inter-firm collaborations, the characteristic of the relationship among firms is an aspect of
organizational differentiation that has been widely recognized for affecting the scope,
structure and performance these collaborations. It includes various factors such as power
distance, partners’ financial and legal independence, and operational and cultural diversity. It

8
was observed that organizations with low power distance had a higher level of integration of
their business practices, while those with medium and high power distance had a low level of
integration (Moffat 2004, p.263). Knowledge management is considered as a mediator in the
effect that power distance has on process standardization.
For globally operating companies, having different locations does not only affect the level of
standardization because of differences in their legal requirements, but also due to the
frequency of interaction between individuals performing different tasks. Each individual has
their own way of working (personal differences) and it is shaped by its cultural background.
What works in one location may not be feasible in another location considering that the
necessary resources are not available or affordable. Also differences in local market
imperatives increase process variations. It is difficult to isolate the effect of location because
the effect is mixed with differences in national or regional culture, customer expectations,
market maturity and local market conditions (Tregear 2010, p.314).
The centralization of IT governance may lead to a higher level of standardization. IT plays a
significant role in reaching business objectives. In heterogeneous IT landscapes characterized
by different systems in similar functional areas, decentralized IT departments, or insufficient
IT service levels, the decision to standardize definitely provides significant improvements
(Buchta et al., 2009).
Mergers between companies with a different range of products or services demand also
adaptations of their supporting activities such as purchasing and marketing. Differences in
products and services may require variation in the processes that create, deliver and maintain
them (Tregear 2010, p.314).
Rosenkranz et al. (2010, p.59) observed that organizations which perform better in their
standardization initiatives, have at least a moderate level of process maturity. They conclude
that maturity level has a positive correlation with standardization potential.
Organizational structure was also identified as a contextual factor that exerts an influence in
the level of standardization. Girod and Bellin (2011) describes how a hierarchical network
based on both vertical and horizontal relationships, facilitates the centralization of decisions
by headquarters. Standardization leverages the principle of distributed leadership contained in
the hierarchical network to allow managers to make joint decisions and benchmark their
processes. In the study, the authors suggested that differences in company size and industry
sector as potential mediator in this relation.
Mergers and acquisitions definitely influence the level of standardization of business
processes, because they increase the number of process variants that coexists. The
standardization of these variants consolidates processing volumes and allows the organization
to exploit economies of scale. If the firm merges several variants of the same process, it can
identify the variant showing the highest performance and apply it as the new process standard
(Beimborn et al. 2009, p.8).

9
The level of process structuredness has been operationalized in different ways in different
papers, considering either the level of transactionality of the process or the level of
routineness. A highly transactional process is a process that facilitates a single business
transaction between a provider and a consumer. A highly routine process is a process in which
most cases are handled in the same manner, as opposed to, for example, creative processes in
which this is usually not the case. Both transactionality and routineness have an impact on the
standardization potential, and therefore on the success of a process standardization (Lillrank,
2003; Schäfermeyer et al. 2010, pp.6-9). "Nonroutine processes are less applicable to
standardization than routine processes …" (Rosenkranz et al. 2010, p.62). The underlying
reason is that different parts of a process need to be open for creative decision making. There
are also unstructured, unmeasured and unrepeatable processes that can lead to a low level of
standardization. For instance, "Knowledge work is often said to be impossible to document
and model as a process …” (Tregear 2010, p.314).
The potential of a process to be successfully standardized also depends on personal
differences that are introduced in the process by employees. These have also been
operationalized in a different manner. Processes demanding employees with medium to high
work experience or tacit knowledge, have less potential to be successfully standardized
(Schäfermeyer et al. 2010, p.5). Also, a strong difference in personal preference, in particular
of managers, hampers standardization (Tregear 2010, p.314).
4.2 Operationalizations of Business Process Standardization
The literature found on business process standardization can be classified into three groups
based on the type of operationalization it provides. These groups are presented in detail in
Appendix D.
The first type of articles only describes the concept of standardization without providing any
way to measure the extent to which processes are standardized. For instance, Lillrank (2003)
suggests that a process can be standard, routine or nonroutine, depending on how it is
structured in relation to its environment and resources, but does not provide a means to
measure routineness.
The second type of articles uses attributes, which are characteristic of an organization that has
achieved standardization to a certain extent. Ross et al. (2006, p.29) present two levels of
standardization, low and high. One of the attributes of the low level is that IT application
decisions are made in business units. Tregear (2010) presents three levels, which describe a
trajectory for reengineering processes towards a global standard. He neither presents a
detailed distinction between the three different levels of standardization, nor specific criteria
to indicate when a shift from one level to another occurs.
The third type of articles uses a numerical scale to measure the extent of standardization.
Articles in this category defined process standardization as a construct that was measured
using indicators (Beimborn et al., 2009; Münstermann et al., 2009; Münstermann et al.,
2010a; Schäfermeyer et al., 2012; Wüllenweber et al., 2008).

10
Five of the articles reviewed defined indicators for process standardization and all of them
used multiple reflective indicators. The list of indicators identified is depicted precisely in
Appendix E. Literature reveals that the extent to which processes are standardized is
associated with the standardization of their: data content, activities, control-flow, information
technology, resources and management. There is little commonality among authors with
respect to the indicators used, except that they all use a seven point Likert scale. The five
articles validate the indicators in various ways. Based on the evaluation of the different
indicators, we conclude that the set of six indicators derived by Münstermann et al. (2009)
performs the best.
4.3 Effect of process standardization on business performance
The effect of process standardization is well acknowledged in the literature. Process
standardization is recognized in literature as a driver of performance improvements in terms
of cost, time, efficiency, effectiveness, quality and responsiveness. The effects are
summarized in Appendix F.
The effect of standardization initiatives on financial performance is the one that attracted the
most attention, both at firm (Kobayashi et al., 2002; Moffat and Archer, 2004; Mortense and
Lemoine, 2008) and at operational level (Parego and Salgaro, 2010; Quintens et al., 2005;
Wüllenweber et al., 2008). This is followed by the effect on operational performance,
including time, quality, efficiency and effectiveness (Münstermann et al., 2010a; Zhao, 2004).
Finally, a few studies explore the impact of process standardization on strategic performance,
such as growth rate or the success of a managerial strategy.
The effect of process standardization on business performance is not always direct. For
instance, Wüllenweber et al. (2008) describe the case in which the effect is mediated by
relational governance (specifically communication, coordination and consensus) and
contractual governance. They argue that: "Using process standards allows for a better
understanding about how the business operates and can be improved. This facilitates
communication and coordination between exchange partners and allows realigning disparate
goals and actions to solve day-to-day problems. These findings show that process
standardization increases the effectiveness of relational governance" (Wüllenweber et al.
2008, p.218). This applies in a context with a high business and technological uncertainty
where contractual provisions can hardly be designed. The second indirect effect is mediated
by contractual governance. Process standardization provides transparency with better
documentation of processes. That leads to a higher measurability of process output and
control throughout the process. Under this situation, more specific and complete contracts can
be designed and negotiated between parties involved, positively affecting the outsourcing
success.
Another case, in which the effect of process standardization is not direct, was described by
Beimborn et al. (2009). In this paper the effect of process standardization on performance is
mediated by process control and moderated by IT intensity. The mediation effect through
process control is significant only on efficiency, while the effect of IT intensity is direct and

11
also moderates the effect of process standardization.
Another interesting finding was presented Dai et al. (2011, p.162). In this paper process
standardization is presented as the mediator in the effect of market volatility and business
performance. When market volatility rises, firm performance increases also as a result of
primary business process standardization. In this case the type of business process (primary
or secondary) serves as a moderator. "Standardizing primary business processes exerts a
direct impact on how the firm delivers value activities. Standardizing support business
processes will have a less direct impact, and should result in leverage for tactical
improvements, not strategic ones".
Most of the relations observed between process standardization and business performances
were validated using empirical research, including case studies and surveys. The majority of
these studies was exploratory and provided descriptive interpretations of their results without
using quantitative methods to guide them.
5 Conceptual model
This section presents a conceptual model that integrates the literature in process
standardization, based on the literature survey described in the previous sections. This can be
used as a meta-model for classifying the exiting literature and to examine the different factors
that influence the extent to which a process can be standardized and the subsequent effect on
business performance.
The model consists of three parts as shown in Figure 3. In the first part we classify the
contextual factors identified in Section 4.1 in three categories (external, internal and
immediate), depending on the level of the organization that they characterize. The second part
indicates different aspects of process standardization that can be affected by contextual factors
in an organization. The third part concerns the type of business performance effect that can be
expected with improvements in the extent of standardization of an organization. The arrows
linking the three parts articulate the interdependencies among them (i.e. between a contextual
factor and extent of standardization, or extent of standardization and business performance)
and the signs indicate the type of relationship (positive, i.e. an increase of the source implies
an increase in the target; or negative, i.e. an increase in the source implies a decrease in the
target). For purposes of readability, moderators and mediators are not shown in the figure,
they are included in Appendix C and Appendix F.

12
Fig. 3 A conceptual model explaining the drivers and effect of process standardization
The first part of the model distinguishes three different levels in the organizational context.
The immediate level includes factors that are internal and directly related to the process under
study, such as the level of structuredness of a process and personal differences in terms of
knowledge and experience. The internal level considers factors that are part of the internal
environment of an organization, i.e. organizational structure and number of different
locations. The external level considers factors that characterize the business network and the
macro-economic context in which the organization operates and that are beyond the control of
an individual organization, such as legal requirements for specific industries. The eleven
contextual factors identified are divided in two immediate factors, six internal and three
external, as depicted in Figure 3.
The second part of the conceptual model shows six aspects that can be differentiated when
evaluating the extent of standardization of business processes. These aspects were derived
from the set of indicators described in the literature to measure the level of standardization, as
discussed in Section 4.2. They include: data, activities, control-flow, resources, information
technology and management. The conceptual model does not define how the contextual
factors affect each aspect separately, because such relations were not identified in literature.
However, it suggests that when analyzing the effect of contextual factors, we should not only
think about standardization of a process as a whole, but also about standardization of each
individual aspect of a process.
The third part of the model shows twelve elements of business performance that are affected
by changes in the level of process standardization. The performance measures identified in the
literature were further classified in three groups: strategic, tactical and operational. They
should be evaluated in a particular organizational unit in which standardization takes place.

13
The last element of the model is the arrows and their signs, which indicate the type of
relations between different parts of the model. For instance, an arrow with a positive sign
between “level of standardization” and “efficiency”, which is an operational measure of
business performance, shows that an increase in the level of standardization will increase the
level of efficiency at an operational level. In some cases we indicate two signs; they refer to
cases in which we found opposite relations suggested by different authors. For example, this
is the case for costs. It is expected that the level of standardization will reduce costs at the
operational level for the economies of scale that can be achieved; however there are also
significant costs involved in the implementation of standardization initiatives. Therefore it is
not straightforward that a higher level of standardization will always produce a reduction in
costs.
6 Conclusions
This paper presents a conceptual model that conceptualizes and operationalizes process
standardization, contextual factors that drive the extent to which processes can be
standardized, performance benefits that can be gained through standardization and relations
between these concepts. The model builds on existing theory about process standardization
and is developed by means of a literature survey.
By doing so, the paper contributes to the current literature in that it provides an overview of
existing factors that influence, or are influenced by, process standardization. In addition to
that, it summarizes the hypotheses that have been specified in literature with respect to these
factors. In particular, the literature survey provides ample evidence that the level of
standardization that organizations strive for, depends on certain contextual factors. We found
eleven contextual factors, which we classified in three groups (external, internal and
immediate) based on the level of the organization that they characterize. In addition, the
literature survey summarizes the hypothesized and proven effects of process standardization
on business performance, found in literature. The paper summarizes all these relations in a
conceptual model.
At this stage, the conceptual model remains to be proven empirically. In future work, we aim
to perform that task in two steps, focusing on the relation between contextual factors and
standardization, because this relation is studied in less detail than the relation between
standardization and its effects. As a first step, we aim to define a constructive
operationalization of process standardization. While all current operationalizations are
descriptive, the benefit of having a constructive operationalization is that a constructive
operationalization also provides the aspects that can be changed to make processes more
standardized. We aim to develop our operationalization, by taking the measures from this
literature review and validating and expanding on them in structured interviews with
practitioners. This should lead to a complete constructive operationalization of process
standardization. We then aim to validate that operationalization by performing a quantitative
survey, through which we compare the constructive operationalization of the process
standardization construct with known descriptive operationalizations. As a second step, we
aim to validate the relations between the contextual factors that are identified in this paper and

14
process standardization. To this end, we aim to do comparative case studies, in which we
investigate the contextual factors that are present in these organizations and the level of
standardization that these organizations have. The benefit of using a case study approach is
that it helps to develop a deeper understanding of the relationships under study, which makes
it the most suitable approach to answer the question how contextual factors influence process
standardization.
In addition to the limitation mentioned above - that the result of this study remains to be
empirically proven - there are methodological limitations as well. First, it is difficult to
compare the results obtained from different studies considering that majority of them discuss
their relations in a descriptive way without conducting any quantitative analysis. Therefore, in
our model we cannot define which of the identified relations are more significant, to provide
better means for control than others. In order to study that, a uniform study is necessary that
analyses the different relations in a uniform, comparable, manner. Second, due to the fact that
the conceptual model was developed from different literature sources that used different
operationalizations of the various contextual factors, it is possible that there is overlap
between contextual factors. It is also clear already from the conceptual model that some
papers identify a direct relation between a contextual factor and process standardization, while
other papers identify a mediating or moderating relation. Third, the search and selection of
relevant literature was done by a single researcher. This can cause bias in the selection
process. We reduced the risk of bias due to this, by presenting clearly verifiable inclusion and
exclusion criteria. Despite these limitations, this study represents an original effort to deepen
our understanding of the factors that play a role in the success of process standardization
initiatives in an organization.
References
1. Ang, Z., and Massingham, P. (2007). National culture and the standardization versus
adaptation of knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 5-
21.
2. Beimborn, D., Gleisner, F., Joachim, N., and Hackethal, A. (2009 January). The role of
process standardization in achieving IT business value. In System Sciences, 2009.
HICSS'09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 1-10). IEEE.
3. Boersma, K., and Kingma, S. (2005). Developing a cultural perspective on ERP.
Business Process Management Journal, 11(2), 123-136.
4. Botta-Genoulaz B, Millet P, Grabot B (2005) A survey on the recent research literature
on ERP systems, Computers in Industry 56 (6): 510-522.
5. Buchta, D., Eul, M., and Schulte, H. (2009). IT Optimization—Reducing Costs without
Diminishing Returns. Strategic IT Management: Increase value, control performance,
reduce costs. Gabler Verlag 2007, 133-153.
6. Carmichael, D. (1997). IBM's journey towards a market-driven process-managed
business model. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 2(1), 99-103.
7. Cooper, H. M. (1982). Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research
reviews. Review of educational research, 52(2), 291-302.
8. Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature
reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1(1), 104-126.
9. Dai Q, Kau R. and Wang B (2011) The value of IT-enabled business process
standardization from the real options perspective: Exploring the Grand Challenges for

15
Next Generation E-Business. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing
52(1,3): 160-165.
10. Davenport, T. H. (2005). The coming commoditization of processes. Harvard Business
Review, 83(6), 100-108.
11. Duncan, R.B., 1972. Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived
environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (3), 313–327
12. Fernandez, J., and Bhat, J. (2010). Addressing the Complexities of Global Process
Harmonization. Handbook of Research on Complex Dynamic Process Management:
Techniques for Adaptability in Turbulent Environments, IGI Global, 368-385.
13. Frei, F.X., Kalakota, R., Leone, A.J., and Marx, L.M. 1999. "Process Variation as a
Determinant of Bank Performance: Evidence from the Retail Banking Study,"
Management Science (45:9), pp 1210-1220.
14. Girod, S. J., and Bellin, J. B. (2011). Revisiting the “Modern” Multinational Enterprise
Theory: An Emerging-market Multinational Perspective. Research in Global Strategic
Management, 15, 167-210.
15. Gupta, A. K. and Govindarajan, V. (1984) Business Unit Strategy, Managerial
Characteristics, and Business Unit Effectiveness at Strategy Implementation. The
Academy of Management Journal, 27 (1), pp. 25-41.
16. Hallerbach, T. Bauer, M. Reichert. Capturing variability in business process models:
the Provop approach Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and
Practice, 22 (6–7) (2009), pp. 519–546
17. Hammer, M.; Stanton, S. (1999): How process enterprises really work. In: Harvard
Business Review, 77 (6), S. 108-120.
18. Harmon P (2010) Business process change: A guide for managers and BPM and six
sigma professionals. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco
19. Helfert, M. (2009). Challenges of business processes management in healthcare:
Experience in the Irish healthcare sector. Business Process Management Journal, 15(6),
937-952.
20. Jayaram, J., Vickery, S.K., and Droge, C. 2000. "The Effects of Information System
Infrastructure and Process Improvements on Supply Chain Time Performance,"
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management (30:3/4), pp
314-440.
21. Kobayashi, T., Onoda, S. I., and Komoda, N. (2002). Workflow Business Template for
Application Processes in Administration Department. Information Technology and
Management, 3(1-2), 43-66.
22. Kubicek, H., Cimander, R., and Scholl, H. J. (2011). Wants and Needs When Pursuing
Interoperability. In Organizational Interoperability in E-Government (pp. 79-84).
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
23. Kumar R. Research methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners. 2nd ed. Sydney,
NSW: Pearson Longman; 2005.
24. Kumar, S., and Harms, R. (2004). Improving business processes for increased
operational efficiency: a case study. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 15(7), 662-674.
25. La Rosa, M., Dumas, M., Ter Hofstede, A. H., and Mendling, J. (2011). Configurable
multi-perspective business process models. Information Systems,36(2), 313-340.
26. Lee, J. Y., Lee, S., Kim, K., and Kim, H. (2005). A process-centric engineering Web
services framework. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 26(9), 1173-1183.
27. Lillrank, P. (2003). The quality of standard, routine and nonroutine processes.
Organization Studies, 24(2), 215-233.

16
28. Manrodt, K. B., and Vitasek, K. (2004). Global process standardization: a case
study. Journal of Business Logistics, 25(1), 1-23.
29. Martins, P. V., and Silva, A. R. D. (2006). A case study applying process and project
alignment methodology. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society,12(3), 65-82.
30. McLaren, T., Head, M., and Yuan, Y. (2002). Supply chain collaboration alternatives:
understanding the expected costs and benefits. Internet Research,12(4), 348-364.
31. Melville, N., Kraemer, K., and Gurbaxani, V. (2004). Review: Information technology
and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value. MIS
quarterly, 28(2), 283-322
32. Miller, D., 1992. Environmental fit versus internal fit. Organization Science 3 (2), 159–
178.
33. Moffat, L., and Archer, N. (2004). Knowledge management in production
alliances. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 2(2-3), 241-267.
34. Mortensen, O., and Lemoine, O. W. (2008). Integration between manufacturers and
third party logistics providers?. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 28(4), 331-359.
35. Münstermann, B., Eckhardt, A., and Weitzel, T. (2009, January). Join the standard
forces-Examining the combined impact of process and data standards on business
process performance. In System Sciences, 2009. HICSS'09. 42nd Hawaii International
Conference on (pp. 1-10). IEEE.
36. Münstermann, B., Eckhardt, A., and Weitzel, T. (2010). The performance impact of
business process standardization: An empirical evaluation of the recruitment
process. Business Process Management Journal, 16(1), 29-56.
37. Muenstermann, B., Moederer, P., & Weitzel, T. (2010a). Setting up and managing
business process standardization: Insights from a case study with a multinational e-
commerce firm. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2010 43rd Hawaii International
Conference on (pp. 1-11). IEEE
38. Neely, A., Gregory, M., and Platts, K. (2005). Performance measurement system
design: a literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 25(12), 1228-1263
39. Norta, A., and Eshuis, R. (2010). Specification and verification of harmonized
business-process collaborations. Information Systems Frontiers, 12(4), 457-479.
40. Nurcan, S., Grosz, G., & Souveyet, C. (1998, January). Describing business processes
with a guided use case approach. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering,
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 339-362.
41. Pentland, B.T. (2003a) Sequential variety in work processes. Organizational Science
14(5), 528-540.
42. Pentland, B.T. (2003b) Conceptualizing and measuring variety in the execution of
organizational work processes. Management Science, 49(7), 857-870.
43. Perego, A., and Salgaro, A. (2010). Assessing the benefits of B2B trade cycle
integration: a model in the home appliances industry. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 17(4), 616-631.
44. Quintens, L., Pauwels, P., and Matthyssens, P. (2005, September). A globalizing
perspective on purchasing strategies. In Proceeding of the Annual IMP Conference,
Rotterdam (Vol. 21).
45. Randolph, J. J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review.Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(13), 2.
46. Richen, A., and Steinhorst, A. (2005, November). Standardization or Harmonization?
You need Both. BPTrends.

17
47. Rosemann, M., Recker, J., and Flender, C. (2008). Contextualisation of business
processes. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management, 3(1),
47-60.
48. Rosenkranz, C., Seidel, S., Mendling, J., Schaefermeyer, M., and Recker, J. (2010,
January). Towards a framework for business process standardization. InBusiness
process management workshops (pp. 53-63). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
49. Ross, J. W., Weill, P., and Robertson, D. C. (2006). Enterprise architecture as strategy:
Creating a foundation for business execution. Harvard Business Press.
50. Schäfermeyer, D. K. M., Rosenkranz, C., and Holten, R. (2012). The Impact of
Business Process Complexity on Business Process Standardization. Business and
Information Systems Engineering, 4(5), 261-270.
51. Schäfermeyer, M., Grgecic, D., and Rosenkranz, C. (2010, January). Factors
Influencing Business Process Standardization: A Multiple Case Study. InSystem
Sciences (HICSS), 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 1-10). IEEE.
52. Schmidt, A., Otto, B., and Österle, H. (2010). Integrating information systems: case
studies on current challenges. Electronic Markets, 20(2), 161-174.
53. Shang, S., and Seddon, P. B. (2007). Managing process deficiencies with enterprise
systems. Business Process Management Journal, 13(3), 405-416.
54. Sila, I. (2007). Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance
through the lens of organizational theories: an empirical study. Journal of Operations
management, 25(1), 83-109.
55. Sorenson, O., and Sørensen, J. B. (2001). Finding the right mix: Franchising,
organizational learning, and chain performance. Strategic Management Journal,22(6-
7), 713-724.
56. Stock, W. A. (1994). Systematic coding for research synthesis. The handbook of
research synthesis, 236, 125-138.
57. Thomas, J., and Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative
research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology,8(1),45.
58. Tregear, R. (2010). Business process standardization. In Handbook on Business
Process Management 2 (pp. 307-327). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
59. Tsikriktsis, N., and Heineke, J. 2004. "The Impact of Process Variation on Customer
Dissatisfaction: Evidence from the U.S. Domestic Airline Industry," Decision Sciences
(35:1), pp 129-142.
60. Zeithaml, V. A., and Zeithaml, C. P. (1988). The contingency approach: its foundations
and relevance to theory building and research in marketing.European Journal of
Marketing, 22(7), 37-64.
61. van Leijen, H. (2005). The Role of Contextuality in Process Standardization. In
Knowledge Management and Management Learning (pp. 251-286). Springer US.
62. van Liere, D. W., Hagdorn, L., Hoogeweegen, M. R., and Vervest, P. H. (2004).
Embedded coordination in a business network. Journal of Information
Technology, 19(4), 261-269.
63. Venkatraman, N., and Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance
in strategy research: a comparison of approaches. Academy of management
review, 11(4), 801-814.
64. Webster, J., and Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future:
writing a literature review. MIS quarterly, 26(2)
65. Wüllenweber, K., Beimborn, D., Weitzel, T., and König, W. (2008). The impact of
process standardization on business process outsourcing success. Information Systems
Frontiers, 10(2), 211-224.

18
66. Zeithaml, V. A., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1988). The contingency approach: its foundations
and relevance to theory building and research in marketing. European Journal of
Marketing, 22(7), 37-64.
67. Zhao, F. (2004). Management of information technology and business process re-
engineering: a case study. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 104(8), 674-680.