Proposals for Future BPM Research Directions

  • Michael Rosemann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 181)


Business Process Management has substantially matured over the last two decades. The techniques, methods and systems available to scope, model, analyze, implement, execute, monitor and even mine a process have been scientifically researched and can be in most cases deployed in practice. In fact, many of these BPM capabilities are nowadays a commodity. However, an opportunity-rich environment and rapidly emerging digital disruptions require new BPM capabilities. In light of this context, this paper proposes three future research and development directions for BPM academics and professionals. First, Ambidextrous BPM demands the shift of focus from exploitative to explorative BPM. Second, Value-driven BPM postulates a stronger focus on the desired outcomes as opposed to the available BPM methods. Third, Customer Process Management suggests complementing the dominating internal view of BPM with a stronger, design-inspired view on the process experiences of external stakeholders.


Ambidextrous BPM value-driven BPM customer process management design-led process innovation configurable BPM 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hammer, M.: Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate. Harvard Business Review, 104–112 (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davenport, T.: Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology. Harvard Business Review Press (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Taylor, F.: The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper & Brothers (1911)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scheer, A.-W.: ARIS - Business Process Modeling, 3rd edn. Springer (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Business Process Management. A Comprehensive Survey. ISRN Software Engineering, Article ID 507984 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sarker, S., Lee, A.S.: IT-enabled organizational transformation: A case study of BPM failure at TELECO. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 8, 83–103 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosemann, M., Lehmann, S.: zur Muehlen, M., Laengle, S.: BPM Governance in Practice. Accenture: Philadelphia (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duncan, R.: The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In: Killman, R.H., Pondy, L.R., Sleven, D. (eds.) The Management of Organization, pp. 167–188. North Holland, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    March, J.G.: Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2, 71–87 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Reilly, C.A., Tushman, M.L.: The Ambidextrous Organization. Harvard Business Review, 74-81 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T.: The machine that changed the world. Free Press (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldratt, M.E.: Theory of Constraints. North River Press (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leslie, S.W.: Boss Kettering: Wizard of General Motors. Columbia University Press (1983)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Franz, P., Kirchmer, M., Rosemann, M.: Value-driven Business Process Management, Philadelphia, USA (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Edelman, J., Grosskopf, A., Weske, M.: Tangible Business Process Modeling: A New Approach. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design. Stanford University, Stanford (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brown, R., Recker, J., West, S.: Using virtual worlds for collaborative business process modeling. Journal of Business Process Management 17(3), 546–564 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Porter, M.: Competitive Strategy. Free Press (1980)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Potts, C.: RecrEAtion: Realizing the Extraordinary Contribution of your Enterprise Architects. Technics Publications (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosemann, M.: The Internet of Things – New Digital Capital in the Hand of Customers. Business Transformation Journal 9, 6–14 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brown, T.: Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 84-92 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Rosemann
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Systems SchoolQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations