Market, Network, Hierarchy: Emerging Mechanisms of Governance in Business Process Management

  • Bjoern Niehaves
  • Ralf Plattfaut
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6846)


Both financial pressure and customer and service-quality orientation force governments to “innovate their processes.” With governmental processes affecting a large variety of stakeholders both inside and outside the government sector, involving these stakeholders in process innovation becomes an important means of increasing know-how, capacity, and ultimately ensure the legitimacy and acceptance of reform efforts. We contribute to the study of collaborative process innovation by applying a governance theory perspective, in order to understand the factors that impact on collaboration. Our quantitative study of 357 local governments reveals that, with an increasing maturity in process innovation, all types of collaboration (market, network, hierarchy) are increasing in importance. Moreover, we find that, under financial stress, governments tend to involve network partners (e.g. other local governments) in process innovation, while a lack of process management knowledge leads to market-oriented collaboration with consultants. We derive implications for management practice and discuss how the study enhances our understanding of process innovation and collaboration in the public sector.


Public Sector Business Process Management Collaboration Innovation Networks Quantitative Study 


  1. 1.
    Pollitt, C., Bouckaert, G.: Public management reform: a comparative analysis, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lenk, K.: Der Staat am Draht. Electronic Government und die Zukunft der öffentlichen Verwaltung - eine Einführung. Berlin (2004a)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reichard, C.: Local public management reforms in Germany. Public Administration 81(2), 345–363 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    von Hippel, E.: Innovation by User Communities: Learning From Open-Source Software. MIT Sloan Management Review 42(4), 82–86 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chesbrough, H.W.: Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gil-Garcia, R., Chengalur-Smith, I.S., Duchessi, P.: Collaborative E-Government: Impediments and Benefits of Information-Sharing Projects in the Public Sector. European Journal of Information Systems 16(2), 121–133 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sorrentino, M., Ferro, E.: Does the Answer to eGovernment Lie in Intermunicipal Collaboration? An Exploratory Italian Case Study. In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, H.J., Ferro, E. (eds.) EGOV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5184, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Becker, J., Niehaves, B., Ortbach, K.: Does the Answer Lie in Collaboration? - A Case Study on E-Government and Societal Aging. In: Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Verona, Italy (2009) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Traunmüller, R., Wimmer, M.: Directions in E-Government: Processes, Portals, Knowledge. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop On the Way to Electronic Government in Conjunction with DEXA, Munich, Germany, September 3- 7, pp. 313–317. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kubicek, H., Millard, J., Westholm, H.: Methodology for Analysing the Relationship between the Reorganisation of the Back Office and Better Electronic Public Services. In: Traunmüller, R. (ed.) EGOV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2739, pp. 199–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Palkovits, S., Wimmer, M.: Processes in e-Government - A Holistic Framework for Modelling Electronic Public Services. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on E-Government, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 213–219 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scholl, H.J.: The dimensions of business process change in electronic government. In: Huang, W., Siau, K., Wei, K. (eds.) Electronic government strategies and implementation, pp. 44–67. Idea Group Pub., Hershey (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scholl, H.J(J.), Fidel, R., Liua, S(M.), Paulsmeyer, M., Unsworth, K.: E-Government Field Force Automation: Promises, Challenges, and Stakeholders. In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, J., Grönlund, Å. (eds.) EGOV. LNCS, vol. 4656, pp. 127–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Niehaves, B., Malsch, R.: Democratizing Process Innovation? On Citizen Involvement in Public Sector BPM. In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, H.J., Janssen, M., Traunmüller, R. (eds.) EGOV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5693, pp. 245–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weber, I., Sure, Y.: Towards an Implementation of the EU Services Directive with Semantic Web Services. In: 12th International Conference on Business Information Systems, Poznan, Poland, pp. 217–227 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fisher, D.M.: The Business Process Maturity Model. A Practical Approach for Identifying Opportunities for Optimization. BPTrends 9(4) (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosemann, M., de Bruin, T.: Towards a Business Process Management Maturity Model. In: Bartmann, D., Rajola, F., Kallinikos, J., Avison, D., Winter, R., Ein-Dor, P., Becker, J., Bodendorf, F., Weinhardt, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Regensburg, pp. 521–532 (2005b)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Niehaves, B., Plattfaut, R.: Collaborative Business Process Management: Status Quo and Quo Vadis. Business Process Management Journal 17(3), 384–402 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosemann, M., vom Brocke, J.: Handbook on Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosemann, M., de Bruin, T., Power, B.: A model to measure business process management maturity and improve performance. In: Jeston, J., Nelis, J. (eds.) Business Process Management, pp. 299–315. Butterworth Heinemann, Burlington (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Powell, S.W.: Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research In Organizational Behavior 12(1), 295–336 (1990)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A.: Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal 18(7), 509–533 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Walker, G., Weber, D.: A Transaction Cost Approach to Make-or-Buy Decisions. Administrative Science Quarterly 29(3), 373–391 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Williamson, O.E.: Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. Free Press, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Williamson, O.E.: The Institutions of Governance. The American Economic Review 88(2), 75–79 (1998)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thorelli, H.B.: Networks: Between markets and hierarchies. Strategic Management Journal 7(1), 37–51 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Becker, J., Niehaves, B., Plattfaut, R.: Stakeholder Involvement in Business Process Management Agenda-Setting and Implementation. In: Proceedings of the 16th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Lima, Peru (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosen, D., Barnett, G.A., Kim, J.H.: Social networks and online environments: when science and practice co-evolve. Social Network Analysis and Mining 1(1), 27–42 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chin, W.W., Dibbern, J.: Permutation Based Procedure for Multi-Group PLS Analysis: Results of Tests of Differences on Simulated Data and a Cross of Information System Services between Germany and the USA. In: Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications in Marketing and Related Fields. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marcoulides, G.A., Chin, W.W., Saunders, C.: A Critical Look at Partial Least Squares Modeling. MIS Quarterly 33(1), 171–175 (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Henseler, J., Fassott, G.: Testing Moderating Effects in PLS Path Models: An Illustration of Available Procedures. In: Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications in Marketing and Related Field. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilson, B., Henseler, J.: Modeling Reflective Higher-Order Constructs using Three Approaches with PLS Path Modeling: A Monte Carlo Comparison. In: Thyne, M., Deans, K.R., Gnoth, J. (eds.) Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, pp. 791–800. University of Otago, New Zealand (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Will, S.: SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta. Hamburg (2005),
  34. 34.
    Diamantopoulos, A., Siguaw, J.A.A.: Formative versus Reflective Indicators in Organizational Measure Development: A Comparison and Empirical Illustration. British Journal of Management 17(4), 263–282 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Afifi, A.A., Elashoff, R.M.: Observations in Multivariate Statistics: I. Review of the Literature. Journal of the American Statistical Association 61(315), 595–604 (1966)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hinton, P.R., Brownlow, C., McMurvay, I., Cozens, B.: SPSS explained. Routledge Inc., East Sussex (2004)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fornell, C., Larker, D.F.: Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research 18(3), 382–388 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Plattfaut, R., Niehaves, B., Pöppelbuß, J., Becker, J.: Development of BPM Capabilities - Is Maturity the Right Path? In: Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Helsinki, Finland (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bjoern Niehaves
    • 1
  • Ralf Plattfaut
    • 1
  1. 1.European Research Center for Information SystemsWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations