Business & Information Systems Engineering

, Volume 58, Issue 1, pp 55–72 | Cite as

The State of the Art of Business Process Management Research as Published in the BPM Conference

Recommendations for Progressing the Field
State of the Art

Abstract

The research field of Business Process Management (BPM) has gradually developed as a discipline situated within the computer, management and information systems sciences. Its evolution has been shaped by its own conference series, the BPM conference. Still, as with any other academic discipline, debates accrue and persist, which target the identity as well as the quality and maturity of the BPM field. In this paper, we contribute to the debate on the identity and progress of the BPM conference research community through an analysis of the BPM conference proceedings. We develop an understanding of signs of progress of research presented at this conference, where, how, and why papers in this conference have had an impact, and the most appropriate formats for disseminating influential research in this conference. Based on our findings from this analysis, we provide conclusions about the state of the conference series and develop a set of recommendations to further develop the conference community in terms of research maturity, methodological advance, quality, impact, and progression.

Keywords

Research progress Maturity Literature review Recommendations Citation analysis Research methodology Business process management 

Supplementary material

12599_2015_411_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (571 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 571 kb)

References

  1. ACM (2012) The 2012 ACM computing classification system. Association for Computing Machinery. http://www.acm.org/about/class/2012. Accessed 2 Dec 2014
  2. Bandara W, Gable GG, Rosemann M (2006) Business process modelling success: an empirically tested measurement model. In: Straub DW, Klein S (eds) 27th International conference on information systems, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Association for Information Systems, pp 895–914Google Scholar
  3. Barros AP, Dumas M, ter Hofstede AHM (2005) Service interaction patterns. In: van der Aalst WMP, Benatallah B, Casati F, Curbera F (eds) Business process management—BPM 2005. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3649. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 302–318Google Scholar
  4. Basili VR (1984) A methodology for collecting valid software engineering data. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 10(6):728–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basili VR (1996) The role of experimentation in software engineering: past, current, and future. In: Rombach HD (ed) 18th International conference on software engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Berlin, pp 442–449Google Scholar
  6. Basili VR (2007) The role of controlled experiments in software engineering research. In: Basili VR, Rombach HD, Schneider K, Kitchenham B, Pfahl D, Selby RW (eds) Empirical software engineering issues: critical assessment and future directions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4336. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baskerville R, Wood-Harper AT (1998) Diversity in information systems action research methods. Eur J Inf Syst 7(2):90–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Manag Rev 28(2):238–256Google Scholar
  9. Chan HC, Kim H-W, Tan WC (2006) Information systems citation patterns from international conference on information systems articles. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57(9):1263–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen WS, Hirschheim R (2004) A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001. Inf Syst J 14(3):197–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Compeau DR, Marcolin BL, Kelley H, Higgins CA (2012) Generalizability of information systems research using student subjects: a reflection on our practices and recommendations for future research. Inf Syst Res 23(4):1093–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davenport TH, Beers MC (1995) Managing information about processes. J Manag Inf Syst 12(1):57–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davidson SB, Boulakia SC, Eyal A, Ludäscher B, McPhillips TM, Bowers S, Anand MK, Freire J (2007) Provenance in scientific workflow systems. IEEE Data Eng Bull 30(4):44–50Google Scholar
  14. Dumas M, Recker J, Weske M (2012) Management and engineering of process-aware information systems: introduction to the special issue. Inf Syst 37(2):77–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dumas M, La Rosa M, Mendling J, Reijers HA (2013) Fundamentals of business process management. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy Manag Rev 14(4):532–550Google Scholar
  17. Elzinga DJ, Horak T, Lee C-Y, Bruner C (1995) Business process management: survey and methodology. IEEE Transact Eng Manag 42(2):119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eysenbach G (2011) Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. J Med Internet Res 13(4):123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fahland D, van der Aalst WMP (2012) Repairing process models to reflect reality. In: Barros AP, Gal A, Kindler E (eds) Business process management BPM2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7481. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 229–245Google Scholar
  20. Fischer L (ed) (2011) Social BPM: work, planning and collaboration under the impact of social technology. Future Strategies Inc, Lighthouse PointGoogle Scholar
  21. Galliers RD, Whitley EA (2007) Vive les differences? Developing a profile of European information systems research as a basis for international comparisons. Eur J Inf Syst 16(1):20–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gauch HG (2003) Scientific method in practice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilbert P (2010) The next decade of BPM. In: Hull R, Mendling J, Tai S (eds) Business process management BPM 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6336. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  24. GRADE Working Group (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J 328(7454):1490–1494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gregor S, Hevner AR (2013) Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q 37(2):337–355Google Scholar
  26. Grover V, Markus ML (2008) Business process transformation. Advances in management information systems. M. E. Sharpe, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Grover V, Ayyagari R, Gokhale R, Lim J, Coffey J (2006) A citation analysis of the evolution and state of information systems within a constellation of reference disciplines. J Assoc Inf Syst 7(5):270–325Google Scholar
  28. Günther C, van der Aalst WMP (2007) Fuzzy mining: adaptive process simplification based on multi-perspective metrics. In: Alonso G, Dadam P, Rosemann M (eds) Business process management BPM 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4714. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 328–343Google Scholar
  29. Harman D (1993) Overview of the First TREC conference. Paper presented at the 16th annual International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  30. Harmon P (2008) Business process management: today and tomorrow. In: Dumas M, Reichert M, Shan M-C (eds) Business process management BPM 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5240. Springer, Heidelberg, p 1Google Scholar
  31. Harzing A-W (2010) The publish or perish book: your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. Tarma Software Research Pty Limited, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  32. Heinrich LJ, Riedl R (2013) Understanding the dominance and advocacy of the design-oriented research approach in the business informatics community: a history-based examination. J Inf Techn 28(1):34–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hevner AR, Chatterjee S (2010) Design research in information systems: theory and practice. Integrated series in information systems, vol 22. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  34. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105Google Scholar
  35. Hinz S, Schmidt K, Stahl C (2005) Transforming BPEL to petri nets. In: van der Aalst WMP, Benatallah B, Casati F, Curbera F (eds) Business process management BPM 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3649. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 220–235Google Scholar
  36. Houy C, Fettke P, Loos P (2010) Empirical research in business process management: analysis of an emerging field of research. Bus Process Manag J 16(4):619–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Houy C, Fettke P, Loos P, van der Aalst WMP, Krogstie J (2011) Business process management in the large. Bus Inf Syst Eng 3(6):385–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hruschka DJ, Schwartz D, St. John DC, Picone-Decaro E, Jenkins RA, Carey JW (2004) Reliability in coding open-ended data: lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods 16(3):307–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Indulska M, Chong S, Bandara W, Sadiq S, Rosemann M (2006) Major issues in business process management: an australian perspective. In: Spencer S, Jenkins A (eds) 17th Australasian conference on information systems, Adelaide, Australia. Australasian Association for Information SystemsGoogle Scholar
  40. Jans M, Alles MG, Vasarhelyi MA (2014) A field study of the use of process mining of event logs as an analytical procedure in auditing. Account Rev 89(5):1751–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jedlitschka A, Ciolkowski M, Pfahl D (2008) Reporting experiments in software engineering. In: Shull F, Singer J, Sjøberg DIK (eds) Guide to advanced empirical software engineering. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 201–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kettinger WJ, Teng JTC, Guha S (1997) Business process change: a study of methodologies, techniques, and tools. MIS Q 21(1):55–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kitchenham B, Pretorius R, Budgen D, Brereton OP, Turner M, Niazi M, Linkman S (2007) Systematic literature reviews in software engineering: a tertiary study. Inf Softw Technol 52(8):792–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Klein HK, Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Q 23(1):67–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kohlborn T, Müller O, Poeppelbuss J, Röglinger M (2014) Interview with Michael Rosemann on ambidextrous business process management. Bus Process Manag J 20(4):634–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lacity MC, Khan SA, Willcocks LP (2009) A review of the IT outsourcing literature: insights for practice. J Strateg Inf Syst 18(3):130–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lakshmanan GT, Rozsnyai S, Wang F (2013) Investigating clinical care pathways correlated with outcomes. In: Daniel F, Wang J, Weber B (eds) Business process management BPM2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8094. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 323–338Google Scholar
  48. Larsen MA, Myers MD (1997) BPR Success or failure? A business process reengineering project in the financial services industry. In: Kumar K, DeGross JI (eds) 18th International conference on information systems, Atlanta, Georgia. Association for Information Systems, pp 367–382Google Scholar
  49. Leidner DE, Kayworth T (2006) Review: a review of culture in information systems research: toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Q 30(2):357–399Google Scholar
  50. Levy Y, Ellis TJ (2006) A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Inform Sci 9:181–212Google Scholar
  51. Lisée C, Larivière V, Archambault É (2008) Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information: a bibliometric analysis. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 59(11):1776–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Maggi FM, Montali M, Westergaard M, van der Aalst WMP (2011) Monitoring business constraints with linear temporal logic: an approach based on colored automata. In: Rinderle-Ma S, Tournani F, Wolf K (eds) Business process management BPM 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6896. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 132–147Google Scholar
  53. Meho LI (2007) The rise and rise of citation analysis. Phys World 20(1):32–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mendling J (2008) Metrics for process models: empirical foundations of verification, error prediction and guidelines for correctness. Lecture notes in business information processing, vol 6. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  55. Mettler T, Eurich M, Winter R (2014) On the use of experiments in design science research: a proposition of an evaluation framework. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 34(10):223–240Google Scholar
  56. Meyer A, Pufahl L, Fahland D, Weske M (2013) Modeling and enacting complex data dependencies in business processes. In: Daniel F, Wang J, Weber B (eds) Business process management BPM 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8094. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 171–186Google Scholar
  57. Müller SD, Mathiassen L, Balshøj HH (2010) Software process improvement as organizational change: a metaphorical analysis of the literature. J Syst Softw 83(11):2128–2146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nevo S, Nevo D, Ein-Dor P (2009) Thirty years of IS research: core artifacts and academic identity. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 25(24):221–242Google Scholar
  59. Niehaves B, Plattfault R (2011) Collaborative business process management: status quo and quo vadis. Bus Process Manag J 17(3):384–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ouyang C, van der Aalst WMP, Dumas M, ter Hofstede AHM, Mendling J (2009) From business process models to process-oriented software systems. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 19(1):2–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Overhage S, Birkmeyer DQ, Schlauderer S (2012) Quality marks, metrics, and measurement procedures for business process models: the 3QM-framework. Bus Inf Syst Eng 5(4):229–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Paré G, Trudel M-C, Jaana M, Kitsiou S (2015) Synthesizing information systems knowledge: a typology of literature reviews. Inf Manag 52(2):183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pentland BT (2003) Conceptualizing and measuring variety in the execution of organizational work processes. Manag Sci 49(7):857–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Polyvyanyy A, García-Bañuelos L, Dumas M (2010) Structuring acyclic process models. In: Hull R, Tai S, Mendling J (eds) Business process management BPM 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6336. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 276–293Google Scholar
  65. Ramezani E, Fahland D, van der Aalst WMP (2012) Where did I misbehave? Diagnostic information in compliance checking. In: Barros A, Gal A, Kindler E (eds) Business process management BPM 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4781. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 262–278Google Scholar
  66. Rebuge Á, Ferreira DR (2012) Business process analysis in healthcare environments: a methodology based on process mining. Inf Syst 37(2):99–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Recker J (2014) Suggestions for the next wave of BPM research: strengthening the theoretical core and exploring the protective belt. J Inf Technol Theory Appl 15(2):5–20Google Scholar
  68. Recker J, Rosemann M (2010) A measurement instrument for process modeling research: development, test and procedural model. Scand J Inf Syst 22(2):3–30Google Scholar
  69. Recker J, Mutschler B, Wieringa R (2011) Empirical research in business process management: introduction to the special issue. Inf Syst e-Bus Manag 9(3):303–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rivard S (2014) Editor’s comments: the ions of theory construction. MIS Q 32(2):3–13Google Scholar
  71. Rosemann M (2008) Understanding and impacting the practice of business process management. In: Dumas M, Reichert M, Shan M-C (eds) Business process management BPM 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5240. Springer, Heidelber, p 2Google Scholar
  72. Rosemann M (2014) Proposals for future BPM research directions. In: Ouyang C, Jung J-Y (eds) Asia Pacific business process management: AP-BPM 2014. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 181. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  73. Rosemann M, Vessey I (2008) Toward improving the relevance of IS research to practice: the role of applicability checks. MIS Q 32(1):1–22Google Scholar
  74. Rosemann M, Recker J, Vessey I (2010) An examination of IS conference reviewing practices. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 26(15):287–304Google Scholar
  75. Rowe F (2014) What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. Eur J Inf Syst 23(3):241–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Runeson P, Höst M (2009) Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empir Softw Eng 14(2):131–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sadiq S, Governatori G, Niamiri K (2007) Modeling control objectives for business process compliance. In: Alonso G, Dadam P, Rosemann M (eds) Business process management BPM 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4714. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 149–164Google Scholar
  78. Sanders P (2009) Algorithm Engineering: an attempt at a definition. In: Albers S, Alt H, Näher S (eds) Efficient algorithms: essays dedicated to kurt mehlhorn on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5760. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 321–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schmiedel T, vom Brocke J, Recker J (2014) Development and validation of an instrument to measure organizational cultures’ support of business process management. Inf Manag 51(1):43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Seaman CB (1999) Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 25(4):557–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Senderovich A, Weidlich M, Gal A, Mandelbaum A (2014) Mining resource scheduling protocols. In: Sadiq S, Soffer P, Völzer H (eds) Business process management BPM 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8659. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 200–216Google Scholar
  82. Sidorova A, Isik O (2010) Business process research: a cross-disciplinary review. Bus Process Manag J 16(4):566–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stein M-K, Galliers RD, Whitley EA (2014) Twenty years of the European information systems academy at ECIS: emergent trends and research topics. Eur J Inf Syst. doi:10.1057/ejis.2014.25
  84. Straub DW, Anderson C (2010) Editor’s comments: journal quality and citations: common metrics and considerations about their use. MIS Q 34(1):3–12Google Scholar
  85. Straub DW, Boudreau M-C, Gefen D (2004) Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 13(24):380–427Google Scholar
  86. Strauss AL, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  87. Tansey O (2007) Process tracing and elite interviewing: a case for non-probability sampling. Political Sci Politics 40(4):765–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tremblay MC, Hevner AR, Berndt DJ (2010) Focus groups for artifact refinement and evaluation in design research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 26(27):599–618Google Scholar
  89. van der Aalst WMP (2012) A decade of business process management conferences: personal reflections on a developing discipline. In: Barros AP, Gal A, Kindler E (eds) Business process management BPM2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7481. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  90. van der Aalst WMP (2013) Business process management: a comprehensive survey. ISRN Softw Eng 2013:1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM, Weske M (2003) Business process management: a survey. In: van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM, Weske M (eds) Business process management BPM 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2678. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  92. Venable JR, Pries-Heje J, Baskerville R (2014) FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research. Eur J Inf Syst. doi:10.1057/ejis.2014.36
  93. Vessey I, Ramesh V, Glass RL (2002) Research in information systems: an empirical study of diversity in the discipline and its journals. J Manag Inf Syst 19(2):129–174Google Scholar
  94. vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) (2010a) Handbook on business process management 1: introduction, methods and information systems. International handbooks on information systems. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  95. vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) (2010b) Handbook on business process management 2: strategic alignment, governance, people and culture. International handbooks on information systems. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  96. vom vom Brocke J, Sinnl T (2011) Culture in business process management: a literature review. Bus Process Manag J 17(2):357–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Weber R (2012) Evaluating and developing theories in the information systems discipline. J Assoc Inf Syst 13(1):1–30Google Scholar
  98. Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q 26(2):13–23Google Scholar
  99. Weidlich M, Mendling J (2012) Perceived consistency between process models. Inf Syst 37(2):80–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Whitley EA, Galliers R (2007) An alternative perspective on citation classics: evidence from the first ten years of the European conference on information systems. Inf Manag 44(5):441–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2000) Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction. Kluwer, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zhu X, Recker J, Zhu G, Santoro FM (2014) Exploring location-dependency in process modeling. Bus Process Manag J 20(6):794–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. zur Muehlen M, Rosemann M (2004) Multi-paradigm process management. In: Grundspenkis J, Kirikova M (eds) Proceedings of the CAiSE’04 workshops in connection with the 16th conference on advanced information systems engineering, vol 2., Faculty of Computer Science and Information TechnologyRiga Technical University, Riga, pp 169–175Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Systems SchoolQueensland University of Technology (QUT)BrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Institute for Information BusinessWirtschaftsuniversität WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations