Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What affects the extent of business process management implementation? An empirical study of Malaysia’s manufacturing organizations

  • Published:
Operations Management Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study seeks to examine the factors that affect the extent of Business Process Management (BPM) among manufacturing firms in Malaysia. The factors comprised of internal and external drivers. Data was gathered from a survey of 200 manufacturing companies of which 59 respondents participated in this study. Our statistical results indicate that business environment is the key driver that affects the extent of BPM implementation, followed by organization strategy. The findings provide insight to managers that business environment, organization strategy and BPM programs are closely linked. To promote the adoption of BPM in Malaysia, these critical drivers should be emphasized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Source: AT Kearney Global Services Location Index 2011—Rank 1 (India—Total Score: 7.01), Rank 2 (China—Total score: 6.49), Rank 3 (Malaysia—Total score: 5.99), Rank 4 (Egypt—Total score: 5.81), Rank 5 (Indonesia—Total score: 5.78), Rank 6 (Mexico—Total score: 5.72), Rank 7 (Thailand—Total score: 5.72), Rank 8 (Vietnam—Total score: 5.69), Rank 9 (Philippines—Total score: 5.65), Rank 10 (Chile—Total score: 5.52). Factors considered: Financial attractiveness, People skills and availability, and Market environment.

References

  • Abdolvand N, Albadvi A, Ferdowsi Z (2008) Assessing readiness for business process reengineering. Bus Process Manag J 14:497–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psycho Bull 103:411–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariyachandra TR, Frolick MN (2008) Critical success factors in business performance management—Striving for success. Inf Syst Manag 25:113–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armistead C, Machin S (1998) Business process management: implications for productivity in multi-stage service networks. Int J Serv Ind Manag 9:323–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandara W, Gable G, Rosemann M (2005) Factors and measures of business process modelling: model building through a multiple case study. Eur J Inf Syst 14:347–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandara W, Indulska M, Chong S, Sadiq S (2007) Major issues in business process management: An expert perspective. PBTrends: 1–8

  • Bhat JM, Fernandez J (2008) A holistic adoption framework for long term success of BPM. In: Fisher L. (ed) BPM and workflow handbook digital edition v2, http://store.futstrat.com/servlet/Detail?no=42

  • Bose R (2004) Knowledge management metrics. Ind Manag Data Syst 104:457–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botha JC, Van Rensburg AC (2010) Proposed business process improvement model with integrated customer experience management. South Afr J Ind Eng 21:45–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Brocke JV, Sinnl T (2011) Culture in business process management: a literature review. Bus Process Manag J 17:357–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron KS, Quinn RE (1999) Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. Addison Wesley Longman, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW (1998) Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MISQ 22:7–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW (2000) Partial least squares for researchers: an overview and presentation of recent advances using the PLS approach. Available at: http://disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/icis2000plstalk.pdf

  • Chin WW, Gopal A, Salisbury WD (1997) Advancing the theory of adaptive structuration: the development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation. Inf Syst Res 8:342–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covin JG, Slevin DP (1989) The strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strateg Manag J 10:75–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dibb S, Simkin L, Pride WM, Ferrell OC (1994) Marketing Concepts and Strategies. 2nd European ed., Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA

  • Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM) Directory (2011). Malaysian industries, 42th ed. Kuala Lumpur: Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers

  • Fiedler FE (1964) A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C, Lacker DF (1981) Evaluation structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18:39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsberg R, Nilsson L, Antoni M (1999) Process orientation: the Swedish experience. Total Qual Manag 10:540–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frei FX, Kalakota R, Leone AJ, Marx LM (1999) Process variation as a determinant of bank performance: evidence from the retail banking study. Manag Sci 45:1210–1220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gates S (1999) Aligning strategic performance measures and results. The Conference Board, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Germain R (1996) The role of context and structure in radical and incremental logistics innovation adoption. J Bus Res 35:117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Garcia JR (2008) Using partial least squares in digital government research. In: Garson GD, Khosrow-Pour M (eds) Handbook of research on public information technology. Idea Group, Hershey, pp 239–253

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goold M, Campbell A, Luchs K (1993) Strategies and styles revisited-strategic control- is it tenable? Long Range Plan 26:54–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson A, Nilsson K, Johnson M (2003) The role of quality practices in service organizations. Int J Serv Ind Manag 14:232–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallgren M, Olhager J (2009) Lean and agile manufacturing: external and internal drivers and performance outcomes. Int J Oper Prod Manag 29:976–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer M (1996) Beyond reengineering: How the process-centered organization is changing our work and our lives. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon P (2010) The scope and evolution of business process management. In: J. vom Brocke and M. Rosemann (eds), Handbook on business process management 1, International Handbooks on Information Systems, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

  • Hendricks JAE, Deferitas DG, Walker DK (1996) Changing performance measures at Caterpillar. Management Accounting: 18–24

  • Hertz S, Johansson JK, de Jager F (2001) Customer-oriented cost cutting: process management at Volvo. Supply Chain Manag: Int J 6:128–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinterhuber H (1995) Business process management: the European approach. Bus Chang Reengineering 2:63–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho SMK (2010) Integrated lean TQM model for global sustainability and competitiveness. TQM J 22:143–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homann U, Rill M, Wimmer A (2004) Flexible value structures in banking. Commun ACM 47:34–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung RY (2006) Business process management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 17:21–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huo B, Selen W, Hoi JYY, Zhao X (2008) Understanding drivers of performance in the 3PL industry in Hong Kong. Int J Oper Prod Manag 28:772–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ittner CD, Larcker DF (1997) The performance effects of process management techniques. Manag Sci 43:522–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston R, Brignall S, Fitzgerald L (2002) Good enough performance measurement: a trade-off between activity and action. J Oper Res Soc 53:256–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanellis P, Lycett M, Paul R (1999) Evaluating business information systems fit: from concept to practical application. Eur J Inf Syst 8:65–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karim J, Somers TM, Bhattacherjee A (2007) The impact of ERP implementation on business process outcomes: a factor-based study. J Manag Inf Syst 24:101–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keen P (1997) The process edge: Creating value where it counts. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Khandwalla PN (1977) Some top management styles, their context and performance. Organ Adm Sci 7:21–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim S, Lee IJ (2004) Organizational factors affecting knowledge sharing capabilities in e-government: An empirical study. Paper presented at the 2004 Annual National Conference on Digital Government Research, Seattle, WA, May

  • Kohlbacher M (2009) The perceived effects of business process management, Science and Technology for Humanity (TIC-STH). IEEE Toronto Int Conf 2009:399–402

    Google Scholar 

  • KÜng P, Hagen C (2007) The fruits of business process management: an experience report from a Swiss bank. Bus Process Manag J 13:477–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfieldsmith K (1997) Management control systems and strategy: a critical review. Account Organ Soc 22:207–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau AWT, Tang SL (2009) A survey on the advancement of QA (quality assurance) to TQM (Total Quality Management) for construction contractors in Hong Kong. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 26:410–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockamy A, Cox JF (1995) An empirical study of division and plant performance measurement systems in selected world-class manufacturing firms-linkages for competitive advantage. Int J Prod Res 33:221–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorange P (1998) Strategy implementation: the new realities. Long Range Plan 31(1):18–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormack KP, Johnson WC (2001a) Business process orientation, supply chain management and the e-corporation. IIE Solutions, pp33-37

  • McCormack KP, Johnson WC (2001b) Business process orientation: Gaining the e-business competitive advantage. St Lucie Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald M (1996) Strategic marketing planning: theory, practice and research agendas. J Mark Manag 12:5–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melan EH (1989) Process management: a unifying framework for improvement. Natl Product Rev 8:395–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller D, Friesen PH (1983) Strategy-making and environment: the third link. Strateg Manag J 4:221–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton NA, Hu Q (2008) Implications of the fit between organizational structure and ERP: a structural contingency theory perspective. Int J Inf Manag 28:391–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikolaidou M, Anagnostopoulos D, Tsalgatidou A (2001) Business process modelling and automation in the banking sector: a case study. Int J Simul 2:65–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally J, Berstein I (1994) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Dell C, Grayson CJ (1998) If only we knew what we know. Identification and transfer of internal best practices. Calif Manag Rev 40:154–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ongaro E (2004) Process management in the public sector: the experience of one-stop shops in Italy. Int J Public Sector Manag 17:81–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard M (2001) General enterprise models as the core of a strategic decision support system, EngD Thesis, UMIST, Manchester

  • Rhee M, Mehra S (2006) Aligning operations, marketing, and competitive strategies to enhance performance: an empirical test in the retail banking industry. Omega 34:505–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekaran U, Bougie R (2010) Research methods for business: A skill building approach. Wiley, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvestro R, Westley C (2002) Challenging the paradigm of the process enterprise: a case-study analysis of BPR implementation. Omega 30:215–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohail MS, Teo BH (2003) TQM practices and organizational performances of SMEs in Malaysia: some empirical observations. Benchmarking: Int J 10:37–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trkman P (2010) The critical success factors of business process management. Int J Inf Manag 30:125–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ugboro IO, Obeng K (2000) Top management leadership, employee empowerment, job satisfaction and customer satisfaction in TQM organizations: an empirical study. J Qual Manag 5:247–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede HN, Weske M (2003) Business Process Management: A survey in proceedings of the International Conference of Business Process Management, 2003. Eidhoven, The Netherlands, June 26–27

  • Vergidis K, Tiwari A, Majeed B (2008) Business process analysis and optimization: beyond reengineering. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C: Appl Rev 38:69–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiser JR (2000) Organizational alignment: are we heading in the same direction? Kans Bank 90:11–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Zairi M (1997) Business process management: a boundaryless approach to modern competitiveness. Bus Process Manag J 3:64–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to the Research Creativity and Management Office at Universiti Sains Malaysia for supporting the study through the USM RU Grant (Account No: 1001/PMGT/816191)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Penang, Malaysia

    Marini Nurbanum, Aizzat Mohd. Nasurdin, Noor Hazlina Ahmad & Wai Peng Wong

Authors
  1. Marini Nurbanum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aizzat Mohd. Nasurdin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Noor Hazlina Ahmad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wai Peng Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wai Peng Wong.

Appendices

Appendix A:

Table 6 Factors affecting the successful adoption of BPM as reported by various authors
Full size table

Appendix B: Items used in operationalizing each construct in the questionnaire

Business environment:

  1. a.

    Our organization must change its marketing practices extremely frequently

  2. b.

    Rate of obsolescence is very high.

  3. c.

    Actions of competitors are unpredictable.

  4. d.

    Demand and consumer tastes are almost unpredictable.

Organization structure:

  1. a.

    The operations structure in my organization favors a strong tendency to let the expert in a given situation have the most say in decision making.

  2. b.

    A strong emphasis on getting things done even if it means disregarding formal procedures.

  3. c.

    Loose, informal control, heavy dependence on informal relationships and norms of cooperation for getting work done.

Organization strategy:

  1. a.

    Innovating at low cost is difficult for our organization.

  2. b.

    Very difficult to achieve operating efficiency or cost control.

  3. c.

    It is not profitable to price below the competitors.

  4. d.

    At times, it is hard to be first to the market with low cost products or services due to stiff competition.

  5. e.

    Improving quality of existing products is sometimes very costly and not recommended.

Organization culture:

  1. a.

    Formal procedures generally govern what people do.

  2. b.

    The leadership is generally considered to exemplify coordinating, organizing or smooth-running efficiency.

  3. c.

    The management style is characterized by security of employment, conformity, predictability and stability in relationships.

  4. d.

    There is an emphasis on being on the cutting edge.

  5. e.

    Emphasizes permanence and stability.

  6. f.

    Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling, and low cost production are critical.

Extent of BPM:

  1. a.

    Work processes are documented and documentation is kept up to date.

  2. b.

    We have standard process models for our major value chains.

  3. c.

    We have standard measures (e.g., KPIs = Key Performance Indicators) to evaluate the performance of major processes.

  4. d.

    We have defined and documented the skills needed to perform the tasks in the major processes.

  5. e.

    Process Improvement Programs are in place to maintain processes, to identify and improve problems, and remove defects.

  6. f.

    We include our vendors/partners in process design and modelling of new and running projects of the organization.

  7. g.

    Necessary training is provided to managers to redesign processes for existing and new projects.

  8. h.

    Managers use performance data to manage their processes.

  9. i.

    Managers in my organization possess sufficient expertise to manage core processes.

  10. j.

    Employees are encouraged to make essential decisions for problem solving and process improvement.

  11. k.

    There is increasing employees’ involvement in the way their work is planned.

  12. l.

    Employees are given the necessary resources to fix problems they encounter.

  13. m.

    Employees are encouraged to participate and share their experiences in process improvements and problem solving to enhance the productivity.

  14. n.

    There is a record of customers’ requests, complaints and transactions for future reference.

  15. o.

    Customers are requested to provide feedback on the products/service.

  16. p.

    Customers’ complaints and feedback are used to improve the products/services.

  17. q.

    There is a review of mistakes (post-mortem) when a customer is lost.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Research model

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nurbanum, M., Nasurdin, A.M., Ahmad, N.H. et al. What affects the extent of business process management implementation? An empirical study of Malaysia’s manufacturing organizations. Oper Manag Res 6, 91–104 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-013-0081-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-013-0081-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation