Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating the success of operational business process management systems

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Business process management systems (BPMS) belong to a class of enterprise information systems that are characterized by the dependence on explicitly modeled process logic. Through the process logic, it is relatively easy to manage explicitly the routing and allocation of work items along a business process through the system. Inspired by the DeLone and McLean framework, we theorize that these process-aware system features are important attributes of system quality, which in turn will elevate key user evaluations such as perceived usefulness, and usage satisfaction. We examine this theoretical model using data collected from four different, mostly mature BPM system projects. Our findings validate the importance of input quality as well as allocation and routing attributes as antecedents of system quality, which, in turn, determines both usefulness and satisfaction with the system. We further demonstrate how service quality and workflow dependency are significant precursors to perceived usefulness. Our results suggest the appropriateness of a multi-dimensional conception of system quality for future research, and provide important design-oriented advice for the design and configuration of BPMSs.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agostini A, De Michelis G (2000) A light workflow management system using simple process definitions. Comput Support Coop Work 9(3/4):335–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bowers J, Button G, Sharrock W (1995) Workflow from within and without: technology and cooperative work on the print industry shopfloor. In Marmolin H, Sundblad Y, Schmidt K, (eds) Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Kluwer Academic Publishers Norwell, MA, USA, pp 51–66

  3. Burton-Jones A, Gallivan MJ (2007) Toward a deeper understanding of system usage in organizations: a multilevel perspective. MIS Q 31(4):657–679

    Google Scholar 

  4. Casati F, Ceri S, Pernici B, Pozzi G (1998) Workflow Evolution. Data Knowl Eng 24(3):211–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Centefelli RT, Schwarz A (2011) Identifying and testing the inhibitors of technology usage intentions. Inf Syst Res 22(4):808–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chin W (1998) Issues and opinion on structural equation modelling. MIS Q 22(1):7–16

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cugola G (1998) Tolerating deviations in process support systems via flexible enactment of process models. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24(11):982–1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Davenport TH (1993) Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  9. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Delone W, Mclean ER (2004) Measuring e-Commerce a success: applying the DeLone & McLean information systems success model. Int J Electron Commer 9(1):31–47

    Google Scholar 

  11. Delone W, Mclean ER (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J Manag Inf Syst 19(4):9–30

    Google Scholar 

  12. De Waal B, Batenburg R (2009) Do users go with the new workflow? From user participation to quality of work during WFM deployment. In Alexander T, Turpin M, Van Deventer JP (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems, Verona, Italy, 1–13

  13. Diamantopoulos A, Siguaw JA (2006) Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration. Br J Manag 17(4):263–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Diamantopoulos A, Winklhofer M (2001) Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. J Market Res 38(2):269–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dishaw MT, Strong DM (1999) Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Inf Manag 36(1):9–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Doherty NF, Perry I (2001) The cultural impact of workflow management systems in the financial services sector. Serv Ind J 21(4):147–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Doll WJ, Xia W, Torkzadeh G (1994) Confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Q 18(4):453–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dourish P (2001) Process descriptions as organizational accounting devices: the dual use of workflow technologies. In Ellis C, Zigurs I (Eds.) Proceedings of the ACM international conference on supporting group work, ACM, New York, pp 52–60

  19. Dumas M, Vander Aalst WMP, Terhofstede AHM (2005) Process aware information systems: bridging people and software through process technology. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Ellis CA, Keddara K (2000) Ml-Dews: modeling language to support dynamic evolution within workow systems. Comput Support Coop Work 9(3/4):293–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gable GG, Sedera D, Chan T (2008) Re-conceptualizing information system success: the IS-impact measurement model. J Assoc Inf Syst 9:377–408

    Google Scholar 

  22. Georgakopoulos D, Hornick M, Sheth A (1995) An overview of workflow management: from process modeling to workflow automation infrastructure. Distrib Parallel Databases 3(2):119–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Goodhue DL (1998) Development and measurement validity of a task-technology fit instrument for user evaluations of information systems. Decis Sci 29(1):105–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Grefen P, Pernici B, Sanchez G (1999) Database support for workflow management: the WIDE project. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Grover V, Jeong SR (1995) The implementation of business process reengineering. J Manag Inf Syst 12(1):109–144

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hair JF, Anderson R, Tatham RL, Black WC (2006) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hammer M, Champy J (1993) Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution. Nicholas Brealey, London

    Google Scholar 

  28. Heinl P, Horn S, Jablonski S, Neeb J, Stein K, Teschke M (1999) A comprehensive approach to flexibility in workflow management systems. Software Eng Notes 24(2):79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics RR (2009) The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv Int Market (AIM) 20:277–320

    Google Scholar 

  30. Housel T, Bell A (2001) Managing and measuring knowledge. McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ives B, Olson MH, Baroudi JJ (1983) The measurement of user information satisfaction. Commun ACM 26(10):785–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jablonski S, Bussler C (1996) Workflow management: modeling concepts, architecture and implementation. International Thomson Computer Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  33. Karagiannis D (1995) BPMS: business process management systems. ACM SIGOIS Bull 16(1):10–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kueng P, Hagen C (2007) The fruits of business process management: an experience report from a Swiss bank. Bus Process Manag J 13(4):477–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kueng P, Hagen C (2004) Increased performance through business process management: an experience report from a Swiss bank. In: Neely AD, Kennerley MP, Walters AH (eds) Performance measurement and management—public and private. Cranfield University, Cranfield, pp 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  36. Landrum H, Prybutok VR, Strutton D, Zhang X (2008) Examining the merits of usefulness versus use in an information service quality and information system success web-based model. Inf Resour Manag J 21(2):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Leymann F, Roller D, Schmidt MT (2002) Web services and business process management. IBM Syst J 41(2):198–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lin H-F (2007) Measuring online learning systems success: applying the updated DeLone and McLean model. CyberPsychol Behav 10(6):817–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mahmood MA, Burn JM, Gemoets LA, Jacquez C (2000) Variables affecting information technology end-user satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Int J Hum Comput Stud 52(4):751–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Morris MG, Venkatesh V, Ackerman PL (2005) Gender and age differences in employee decisions about new technology: an extension to the theory of planned behavior, Engineering Management. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 52(1):69–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nelson RR, Todd PA, Wixom BH (2005) Antecedents of information and system quality: an empirical examination within the context of data warehousing. J Manag Inf Syst 21(4):199–235

    Google Scholar 

  42. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. Pavlou PA, Housel TJ, Rodgers W, Jansen E (2005) Measuring the return on information technology: a knowledge-based approach for revenue allocation at the process and firm level. J Assoc Inf Syst 6(7):199–226

    Google Scholar 

  44. Petter SDW, Delone W, Mclean E (2008) Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. Eur J Inf Syst 17:236–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Petter SDW, Straub W, RAI A (2007) Specifying formative constructs in IS research. MIS Q 31(4):623–656

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pinsonneault A, Kraemer KL (1993) Survey research methodology in management information systems: an assessment. J Manag Inf Syst 10(2):75–105

    Google Scholar 

  47. Poelmans S (2002) Making workflow systems work: an investigation into the importance of task-appropriation fit, end-user support and other technological characteristics. Ph. D. Dissertation, Faculty of Economic and Business, KU Leuven

  48. Rai A, Lang SS, Welker RB (2002) Assessing the validity of is success models: an empirical test and theoretical analysis. Inf Syst Resarch 13(1):50–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Reijers HA, Heusinkveld S (2004) Business process management: attempted concepticide?. In Khosrow-Pour M (Ed.) Proceedings of the 14th information resources management conference on information systems, IDEA Group, Hershey, pp 128–131

  50. Reijers HA, Poelmans S (2007) Re-configuring workflow management systems to facilitate a “smooth flow of work”. Int J Coop Inf Syst 15(2):155–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Straub DW (2012) Editor’s comments: a critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. MIS Q 36(1):iii–xiv

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ringle CM, Wende S, Will S (2005) SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta, Hamburg. http://www.smartpls.de

  53. Seddon PB (1997) A respecification and extension of the Delone and McLean model of IS success. Inf Syst Res 8(3):240–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Seen M, Rouse AC. Beaumont N (2007) Explaining and predicting information systems acceptance and success: an integrative model. In Hubert Österle H, Schelp J, Winter R (Eds.) Proceedings of the european conference on information systems conference proceedings, University of St. Gallen, St Gallen, pp. 1356–1367

  55. Segars AH, Grover V (1993) Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: a confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Q 17(4):517–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Van Der Aalst WMP, Reijers HA, Weijters AJMM, Van Dongen BF, Alves De Medeiros AK, Song M, Verbeek HMW (2007) Business process mining: an industrial application. Inf Syst 32(5):713–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Van Der Aalst WMP, Weske M, Grünbauer D (2005) Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. Data Knowl Eng 53(2):129–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Van Der Aalst WMP, Van Hee KM (2002) Workflow Management: models, methods, and systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  59. Wang Y, Liao Y (2008) Assessing eGovernment systems success: a validation of the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success. Gov Inf Q 25(4):717–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Weber B, Sadiq S, Reichert M (2009) Beyond rigidity dynamic process lifecycle support: a survey on dynamic changes in process-aware information systems. Comput Sci Res Develop 23(2):47–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Wixom BH, Todd PA (2005) A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Inf Syst Res 16(1):85–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wu J-H, Wang Y-M (2006) Measuring KMS success: a respecification of the DeLone and McLean’s model. Inf Manag 43:728–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Wu I-L, Wu K-W (2005) A hybrid technology acceptance approach for exploring e-CRM adoption in organizations. Behav Inf Technol 24(4):303–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics and Business, Business Information Management, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Stephan Poelmans

  2. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Architecture of Information Systems Group, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Hajo A. Reijers

  3. Research and Development, Business Process Management Research Group, Perceptive Software, Naarden, The Netherlands

    Hajo A. Reijers

  4. Faculty of Science and Technology, Information Systems School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

    Jan Recker

Authors
  1. Stephan Poelmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hajo A. Reijers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Recker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephan Poelmans.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Operationalization of the relevant constructs

Notes:

1.The questions below are grouped by construct, in the real questionnaire, not all the questions were listed in this order.

2.The items are translated to English. Sometimes, certain words were also replaced by case-specific terms or labels. [BPMA] stands for “BPMS application” and was replaced by a specific name used in a project.

1.1 User satisfaction

  1. 1.

    To what degree are you currently satisfied with [the BPMA]?

  2. 2.

    “Globally, I am really satisfied with the [BPMA].”

1.2 Perceived usefulness

  1. 1.

    [The BPMA] is very well suited to do the tasks that it is supposed to do.

  2. 2.

    Using [the BPMA] enables me to handle my [cases/work items] well.

  3. 3.

    In using [the BPMA], I can do my tasks in the process more efficiently.

  4. 4.

    [The BPMA] really has added value in the business process.

1.3 System quality

  1. 1.

    [The BPMA] was easy to learn.

  2. 2.

    [The BPMA] is easy to use.

  3. 3.

    [The BPMA] does what I want it to do (without too much effort).

1.4 Input quality

How do you evaluate the data entry options in [the BPMA]?

  1. 1.

    Do you have sufficient data entry facilities in [the BPMA]?

  2. 2.

    Can you insert the data in a clear and understandable way? (with convenient windows, menu’s, fields, …).

  3. 3.

    Do you have sufficient means to correct and/or change the data in [the BPMA]?

  4. 4.

    Do you have sufficient help/support when inserting data? (e.g. drop down lists, search facilities, pre-entered data, …).

  5. 5.

    Can you enter data when you need to enter data in [the BPMA]?

  6. 6.

    Can you enter the data in sufficiently detailed way.

1.5 Information quality

Please Rate the information that is provided by [the BPMA]:

  1. 1.

    Reliability or accuracy of the information.

  2. 2.

    Completeness of the information.

  3. 3.

    Readability and understandability of the information/the reports.

  4. 4.

    Electronic presentation/format of the information (on the screen).

  5. 5.

    Printed version/presentation of the information.

  6. 6.

    The speed with which the information can be gathered/retrieved.

  7. 7.

    The up-to-datedness of the information in [the BPMA].

  8. 8.

    Is the available information sufficient for your tasks in [the BPMA]?

  9. 9.

    Do you have sufficient access to the information available in [the BPMA]?

1.6 System quality attributes

  • Reliability (general)

    1. 1.

      Is the BPMS available if required?

    2. 2.

      Does information get lost in [the BPMA]?

    3. 3.

      Does the [BPMA] crash or get stuck?

  • Responsiveness (general)

    1. 1.

      How do you evaluate the reaction time of the [BPMA]?

    2. 2.

      Is the speed of the [BPMA] sufficient for your purposes?

  • Integration (general)

    • How well can you use [the BPMA] in combination with [list of tools]?

    • “[Tool x] is well integrated in [BPMA]”.

    • [List with specific tools].

  • Routing Quality (BPMS-specific)

How do you evaluate the following features of [the BPMA]?

  1. 1.

    Forwarding [work items] to the next step/activity.

  2. 2.

    Putting work items back into previous steps?

  • Allocation Quality (BPMS-specific)

How do you evaluate the following features of [the BPMA]?

  1. 1.

    Selecting the files/work items from [the personnel in-basket/inbox]?

  2. 2.

    (Re-)Distribute files/work items among your colleagues with the same role?

1.7 Service quality

  • Training

    1. 1.

      The formation/training that I received was good.

    2. 2.

      In general, I received sufficient training to be able to work with the [BPMA].

  • Support

    1. 1.

      In general, how well are you being supported to be able to work properly with [the BPMA]?

    2. 2.

      Do you receive sufficient support to work with [the BPMA]?

1.8 Workflow dependency

  • How many hours do you spend in the [BPMA]? … per week, Or … per month.

Appendix 2: Construct correlation matrix

See Table 6.

Table 6 Pearson correlation coefficients between the (reflective) 1st order constructs
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Poelmans, S., Reijers, H.A. & Recker, J. Investigating the success of operational business process management systems. Inf Technol Manag 14, 295–314 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-013-0167-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-013-0167-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation