Advertisement

Unlocking the Potential of the Process Perspective in Business Transformation

  • Greet BontinckEmail author
  • Öykü Isik
  • Joachim Van den Bergh
  • Stijn Viaene
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 260)

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to gain insights in the positioning and role of the business process support function and, more generally, process-oriented thinking in a business transformation context. The main promise that has been associated with the discipline of Business Process Management (BPM) and process orientation is providing critical support for making business transformation successful. Thus, intuitively, we can expect process support functions in organizations which apply the BPM principles in day-to-day business activities, to take a prominent role in realizing their organization’s current transformation agenda. But is this the case? Through an interview-based qualitative research approach, the question is raised whether business process support function today, in what is claimed to be a more turbulent business environment than before, is actually a co-driver for business transformation. From this research, key takeaways are distilled on the elements shaping the context for process support functions to co-drive business transformation.

Keywords

Business transformation Process Management Change management Qualitative research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all organizations that have contributed by investing their time to inform this research. We also thank Eddy Helsen and Annelies Helsen of ViCre for the funding of this research.

References

  1. 1.
    Hung, R.Y.: Business process management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excellence 17(1), 21–40 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harmon, P.: Business Process Change A Business Process Management Guide for Managers and Process Professionals, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Waltham (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hammer, M.: What is business process management? In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann; M. (ed.) Handbook on Business Process Management 1: Introduction, Methods and Information Systems. pp. 3–16. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hammer, M.: The process audit. Harvard Bus. Rev. 85(4), 111–123 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kohlbacher, M., Reijers, H.: The effects of process-oriented organizational design on firm performance. Bus. Process Manage. J. 19(2), 245–262 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hammer, M., Stanton, S.: How process enterprises really work. Harvard Bus. Rev. 77, 108–120 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gartner, Inc. Predicts 2016: Business Transformation and Process Management Bridge the Strategy-to-Execution Gap. Gartner, Inc (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trkman, P.: The critical success factors of business process management. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 30, 125–134 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malinova, M., Mendling, J.: A qualitative research perspective on BPM adoption. In: La Rosa, M., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPM Workshops, pp. 77–88. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karim, J., Somers, T.M., Bhattacherjee, A.: The impact of ERP implementation on business process outcomes: A factor-based study. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 24(1), 101–134 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosemann, M.: Proposals for future BPM research directions. In: Ouyang, C., Jung, J.-Y. (eds.) AP-BPM 2014. LNBIP, vol. 181, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    vom Brocke, J., Zelt, S., Schmiedel, T.: On the role of context in business process management. Int. J. Inf. Manage. (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.10.002
  13. 13.
    Harmon, P.: The scope and evolution of business process management. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.), Handbook on Business Process Management 1: Introduction, Methods and Information Systems. pp. 37–82. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davenport, T.: The coming commoditization of processes. Harvard Bus. Rev. 83(6), 101–108 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Boer, F., Müller, C., Schwengber ten Caten, C.: Assessment model for organizational business process maturity with a focus on BPM governance practices. Bus. Process Manage. J. 21(4), 908–927 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fiedler, F.: A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In: Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 1, pp. 149–190. Academic Press, New York (1964)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    vom Brocke, J., Schmiedel, T., Recker, J., Trkman, P., Mertens, W., Viaene, S.: Ten principles of good business process management. Bus. Process Manage. J. 20(4), 530–548 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ahadi, H.R.: An examination of the role of organizational enablers in business process reengineering and the impact of information technology. Inf. Resour. Manage. J. 17(4), 1–19 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paper, D., Chang, R.-D., Rodger, J.: Managing radical transformation at Fannie Mae: A holistic paradigm. Total Qual. Manage. Bus. Excellence 14(4), 475–489 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Franklin, M.: 3 lessons for successful transformational change. Ind. Commercial Training, 46(7), 364–370Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jansen, J., George, G., Van den Bosch, F., Volberda, H.: Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: the moderating role of transformational leadership. J. Manage. Stud. 45(5), 982–1007 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Benner, M.J., Tushman, M.L.: Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Acade. Manage. Rev. 28(2), 238–256 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Reilly, C., Tushman, M.: The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Bus. Rev. 82(4), 74–81 (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fisher, D.M.: The Business Process Maturity Model: A Practical Approach for Identifying Opportunities for Optimization. BPTrends (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Luftman, J.N., Bullen, C.V.: Managing the Information Technology Resource: Leadership in the Information Age. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Turk, D., Butler, C., Muldoon, K.: A case study on the challenges and tasks of moving to a higher CMMI level. J. Inf. Technol. Manage. 26(2), 20–40 (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Desouza, K., Evaristo, J.: Project management offices: A case of knowledge-based archetypes. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 26(5), 414–423 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van den Bergh, J., Işik, Ö., Viaene, S., Helsen, E.: Re-positioning Business Process Management: Exploring Key Capabilities for Successful Business Transformation, 17p. (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Darlington, Y., Scott, D.: Qualitative Research in Practice: Stories from the Field. Open University Press, Buckingham (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kurian, G.T.: The AMA Dictionary of Business and Management. AMACOM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Redlich-Amirav, D., Higginbottom, G.: New emerging technologies in qualitative research. Qual. Rep. 19(12), 1–14 (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Flick, U.: Triangulation in Qualitative Research. In: Flick, U., Kardoff, E., Steinke, I. (eds.) A Companion to Qualitative Research, pp. 178–183. Sage, London (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rentrop, C., Zimmermann, S.: Shadow IT evaluation model. In: Proceedings of the Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, pp. 1023–1027 (2012)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hobbs, B., Aubry, M.: An empirically grounded search for a typology of project management offices. Proj. Manage. J. 39(S1), 69–82 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Müller, R., Glückler, J., Aubry, M.: A relational typology of project management offices. Proj. Manage. J. 44(S1), 59–76 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Greet Bontinck
    • 1
    Email author
  • Öykü Isik
    • 1
  • Joachim Van den Bergh
    • 1
  • Stijn Viaene
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Vlerick Business SchoolGhentBelgium
  2. 2.KU LeuvenLouvainBelgium

Personalised recommendations