Advertisement

Business Process Modeling: Perceived Benefits

  • Marta Indulska
  • Peter Green
  • Jan Recker
  • Michael Rosemann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5829)

Abstract

The process-centered design of organizations and information systems is globally seen as an appropriate response to the increased economic pressure on organizations. At the methodological core of process-centered management is process modeling. However, business process modeling in large initiatives can be a time-consuming and costly exercise, making it potentially difficult to convince executive management of its benefits. To date, and despite substantial interest and research in the area of process modeling, the understanding of the actual benefits of process modeling in academia and practice is limited. To address this gap, this paper explores the perception of benefits derived from process modeling initiatives, as reported through a global Delphi study. The study incorporates the views of three groups of stakeholders – academics, practitioners and vendors. Our findings lead to the first identification and ranking of 19 unique benefits associated with process modeling. The study in particular found that process modeling benefits vary significantly between practitioners and academics. We argue that the variations may point to a disconnect between research projects and practical demands.

Keywords

Business process modeling benefits modeling advantages Delphi study 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Green, P.: Business Process Modeling: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10, 333–363 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M. (eds.): Process Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software Through Process Technology. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davenport, T.H., Short, J.E.: The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign. Sloan Management Review 31, 11–27 (1990)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rabhi, F.A., Yu, H., Dabous, F.T., Wu, S.Y.: A Service-oriented Architecture for Financial Business Processes: A Case Study in Trading Strategy Simulation. Information Systems and E-Business Management 5, 185–200 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gartner Group: Meeting the Challenge: The 2009 CIO Agenda. EXP Premier Report January, 2009. Gartner, Inc., Stamford (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How do Practitioners Use Conceptual Modeling in Practice? Data & Knowledge Engineering 58, 358–380 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Recker, J.: Opportunities and Constraints: The Current Struggle with BPMN. Business Process Management Journal 16 (in press, 2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Indulska, M., Chong, S., Bandara, W., Sadiq, S., Rosemann, M.: Major Issues in Business Process Management: An Australian Perspective. In: Spencer, S., Jenkins, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Australasian Association for Information Systems, Adelaide, Australia (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Indulska, M., Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Process Modeling: Current Issues and Future Challenges. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering - CAiSE. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 501–514. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Friedman, M.: The Methodology of Positive Economics. In: Friedman, M. (ed.) Essays in Positive Economics, pp. 3–43. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1953)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dalkey, N., Helmer, O.: An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts. Management Science 9, 458–467 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murphy, M.K., Black, N.A., Lamping, D.L., McKee, C.M., Sanderson, C.F.B., Askham, J., Marteau, T.: Consensus Development Methods, and their Use in Clinical Guideline Development. Health Technology Assessment 2, 1–88 (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van de Ven, A.H., Delbecq, A.L.: The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes. Academy of Management Journal 17, 605–621 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Okoli, C., Pawlowski, S.D.: The Delphi Method as a Research Tool: an Example, Design Considerations and Applications. Information & Management 42, 15–29 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Powell, C.: The Delphi Technique: Myths and Realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing 41, 376–382 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoe, S.L.: The Boundary Spanner’s Role in Organizational Learning: Unleashing Untapped Potential. Development and Learning in Organizations 20, 9–11 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Richards, J.I., Curran, C.M.: Oracles on “Advertising": Searching for a Definition. Journal of Advertising 31, 63–76 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hall, C., Harmon, P.: The 2007, Enterprise Architecture, Process Modeling, and Simulation Tools Report. BPTrends.com (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blechar, M.J.: Magic Quadrant for Business Process Analysis Tools. Gartner Research Note G00148777. Gartner, Inc., Stamford (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cochran, S.W.: The Delphi Method: Formulation and Refining Group Judgments. Journal of Human Sciences 2, 111–117 (1983)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M. (eds.): The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications [Online Reproduction from 1975]. Addison-Wesley, London (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Bruin, T., Rosemann, M.: Using the Delphi Technique to Identify BPM Capability Areas. In: Toleman, M., Cater-Steel, A., Roberts, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, The University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia, pp. 643–653 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shang, S., Seddon, P.B.: Assessing and Managing the Benefits of Enterprise Systems: The Business Managers Perspective. Information Systems Journal 12, 271–299 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Murphy, K.E., Simon, S.J.: Intangible Benefits Valuation in ERP Projects. Information Systems Journal 12, 301–320 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ward, J., Taylor, P., Bond, P.: Evaluation and Realization of IS/IT Benefits: An Empirical Study of Current Practice. European Journal of Information Systems 4, 214–225 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brennan, R.L., Prediger, D.J.: Coefficient Kappa: Some Uses, Misuses, and Alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement 41, 687–699 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G.: The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 33, 159–174 (1977)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ouyang, C., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Mendling, J.: From Business Process Models to Process-Oriented Software Systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology 19 (in press, 2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wynn, M.T., Verbeek, H.M.V., Van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D.: Business Process Verification – Finally a Reality! Business Process Management Journal 15, 74–92 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ono, R., Wedemeyer, D.J.: Assessing the Validity of the Delphi Technique. Futures 26, 289–304 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marta Indulska
    • 1
  • Peter Green
    • 1
  • Jan Recker
    • 2
  • Michael Rosemann
    • 2
  1. 1.UQ Business SchoolThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.Information Systems ProgramQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations