Business & Information Systems Engineering

, Volume 60, Issue 6, pp 479–491 | Cite as

The Effect of Organization Size and Sector on Adopting Business Process Management

  • Amy Van LooyEmail author
  • Joachim Van den Bergh
Research Paper


The business process management (BPM) discipline is starting to recognize the importance of context-awareness. In spite of this recognition, few studies investigate the effect of diverse contextual factors on BPM. To fill this gap, the study statistically analyzes the effect of organization size and sector, as specific contextual factors, on the adoption of BPM. The latter is measured by means of BPM capabilities for which data was collected from 2309 employees in 72 organizations. The study relies on the Contingency Theory by hypothesizing that, in practice, organizations adopt BPM by taking into account factors that fit an organization’s context. Surprisingly, the results do not show a dependency between BPM adoption and organization size, suggesting that BPM adoption levels can equally be achieved by large or small organizations. In contrast, a dependency is found for organization sector (partly based on market velocity), suggesting different BPM adoption practices and/or speed in different sectors.


BPM maturity Adoption of BPM Context-aware BPM Contingency Organization size Organization sector Business strategy 


  1. Benzécri JP (1992) Correspondence analysis handbook. Marcel Dekker, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bucher T, Winter R (2010) Taxonomy of business process management approaches. In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management, vol 2. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bucher T, Klesse M, Kurpjuweit S, Winter R (2007) Situational method engineering. In: Ralyte J, Brinkkemper S, Henderson-Sellers B (eds) Situational method engineering. Fundamentals and experiences. IFIP, vol 244. Springer, Boston, pp 33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burns T, Stalker GM (1961) The management of innovation. Tavistock, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Child J (1975) Managerial and organizationsl factors associated with company performance – part II. A contingency analysis. J Manag Stud 12(1–2):12–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Bruin T, Rosemann M (2007) Using the Delphi technique to identify BPM capability areas. In: Proceedings of the 18th Australasian conference on information systems. AIS Electronic Library, Toowoomba, pp 642–653Google Scholar
  7. de Oliveira Lacerda RT, Ensslin L, Ensslin SR, Dutra A (2014) A constructiveist approach to manage business process as a dynamic capability. Knowl Process Manag 21(1):54–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donaldson L (2001) The contingency theory of organizations. Sage, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. du Preez N, Lutters D, Nieberding H (2009) Tailoring the development process according to the context of the project. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 1(3):191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strateg Manag J 21(10–11):1105–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enticott G, Boyne GA, Walker R (2009) The use of multiple informants in public administration research: data aggregation using organizational echelons. J Public Adm Res Theory 19(2):229–253. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mun017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fiedler F (1964) A contingency-model of leadership effectiveness. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 1:149–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forrester (2014) Predictions 2015: the age of the customer is set to disrupt the BPM market. Accessed 8 Jun 2015
  14. Greenacre M (2007) Correspondence analysis in practice. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammer M (2007) The process audit. Harv Bus Rev 85(4):111–123Google Scholar
  16. Harmon P (2013) Case studies in how organizations become more mature. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  17. Hothorn T, Hornik K, van de Wiel M, Zeileis A (2008). Coin: a computational framework for conditional inference. Accessed 5 Nov 2015
  18. Hribar B, Mendling J (2014). The correlation of organisational culture and success of BPM adoption. In: ECIS2014 Proceedings, Tel Aviv. AISEL LibraryGoogle Scholar
  19. Hung RY-Y (2006) Business process management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study. Total Qual Manag Amp Bus Excell 17:21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kalus G, Kuhrmann M (2013) Criteria for software process tailoring: a systematic review. In: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on software and system process. ACM Digital Library, New York, pp 171–180Google Scholar
  21. Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1969) Organization and environment: managing differentiation and integration. Irwin, HomewoodGoogle Scholar
  22. McCormack K, Johnson WC (2001) Business process orientation: gaining the e-business competitive advantage. Lucie Press, StCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCormack K, Willems J, Van den Bergh J, Deschoolmeester D, Willaert P, Stemberger MI, Skrinjar R, Trkman P, Ladeira MB, de Oliveira MPV, Bosilj V, Vlahovic VN (2009) A global investigation of key turning points in business process maturity. Bus Process Manag J 15(5):792–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller D, Friesen PH (1986) Porter’s (1980) generic strategies and performance: an empirical examination with American data part I: testing Porter. Organ Stud 7:37–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Niehaves B, Plattfaut R, Sarker S (2011) Understanding dynamic IS capabilities for effective process change: a theoretical framework and an empirical application. In: Proceedings of the 32nd international conference on information systems. AIS Electronic Library, Shanghai, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  26. Niehaves B, Poeppelbuss J, Plattfaut R, Becker J (2014) BPM capability development – a matter of contingencies. Bus Process Manag J 20(1):90–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Porter ME (2008) The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harv Bus Rev 86(1):78–93Google Scholar
  28. Rosemann M (2014) Proposals for future BPM research directions. In: Ouyang C, Jung J-Y (eds) Asia Pacific business process management (LNBIP 181). Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  29. Rosemann M, vom Brocke J (2010) The six core elements of business process management. In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management, vol 1. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosemann M, Recker J, Flender C (2008) Contextualization of business processes. Int J Bus Process Integr Manag 3(1):47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rumelt RP (1984) Towards a strategic theory of the firm. Alternative theories of the firm. Compet Strateg Manag 1984:556–570Google Scholar
  32. Skrinjar R, Bosilj-Vuksic V, Stemberger MI (2008) The impact of business process orientation on financial and non-financial performance. Bus Process Manag J 14(5):738–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smart PA, Maull RS, Childe SJ, Radnor ZJ (2004) Capitalizing on thematic initiatives: a framework for process-based change in SMEs. Prod Plan Control 15(1):2–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sousa R, Voss CA (2008) Contingency research in operations management practices. J Oper Manag 26(6):697–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18:509–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in action: social science bases of administrative theory. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Treacy M, Wiersema F (1993) Customer intimacy and other value disciplines. Harv Bus Rev 71(1):84–93Google Scholar
  38. Tregear R, Jenkins T (2007) Government process management. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  39. Trkman P (2010) The critical success factors of business process management. Int J Inf Manag 30:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Looy A, De Backer M, Poels G (2014) A conceptual framework and classification of capability areas for business process maturity. Enterp Inf Syst 8(2):188–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. vom Brocke J, Schmiedel T, Recker J, Trkman P, Mertens W, Viaene S (2014) Ten principles of good business process management. Bus Process Manag J 20(4):530–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weitlander D, Kohlbacher M (2015) Process management practices: organizational (dis-)similarities. Serv Ind J 35(1–2):44–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg Manag J 5:171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Willaert P, Van den Bergh J, Willems J, Deschoolmeester D (2007) The process-oriented organization: a holistic view. Developing a framework for business process orientation maturity. In: Alonso G, Dadam P, Rosemann M (eds) 5th international BPM conference. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  45. Wong KY, Aspinwall E (2004) Characterizing knowledge management in the small business environment. J Knowl Manag 8(3):44–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Xu P, Ramesh B (2007) Software process tailoring: an empirical investigation. J Manag Inf Syst 24(2):293–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business Informatics and Operations Management, Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Vlerick Business SchoolGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations