Establishment of a Central Process Governance Organization Combined with Operational Process Improvements

Insights from a BPM Project at a Leading Telecommunications Operator in the Middle East
  • Christian CzarneckiEmail author
Part of the Management for Professionals book series (MANAGPROF)


  1. (a)

    Situation faced: Because of customer churn, strong competition, and operational inefficiencies, the telecommunications operator ME Telco (fictitious name due to confidentiality) launched a strategic transformation program that included a Business Process Management (BPM) project. Major problems were silo-oriented process management and missing cross-functional transparency. Process improvements were not consistently planned and aligned with corporate targets. Measurable inefficiencies were observed on an operational level, e.g., high lead times and reassignment rates of the incident management process.

  2. (b)

    Action taken: The project was structured into three phases. First, countermeasures were identified and planned based on an analysis of the current situation. Second, a new organizational unit responsible for a central BPM was established and equipped with BPM methods and tools. Based on the reference model enhanced Telecom Operations Map (eTOM), a company-wide process framework was defined. A process ownership model linked the central governance with the execution. As a pilot implementation, the incident management was improved on an operational level. The project was accompanied by continuous communication and training. Third, the project results were monitored and transferred to daily operations.

  3. (c)

    Results achieved: Quantitative performance improvements in the incident management process were achieved, such as reducing the average lead time from 13.0 days to 3.6 days. Those results confirmed the BPM artifacts that were developed. All of the artifacts (methods, tools, process framework, and process models) were officially accepted and communicated. The new BPM department was staffed with eight employees. The process ownership was implemented through nominations of responsible persons. In total 290 employees were trained in the new BPM methods and operational process changes. A company-wide repository was introduced that contains the process framework and all detailed process models.

  4. (d)

    Lessons learned: (1) Process content is an important success factor in a BPM implementation. (2) Process ownership requires consideration of the various BPM elements. (3) Early involvement of stakeholders from top management to the operational level is essential for successful implementation. (4) Customization of reference models requires a transparent approach to decision making. (5) General BPM governance and methods are important for an operational process improvement.



  1. Bruce, G., Naughton, B., Trew, D., et al. (2008). Streamlining the telco production line. Journal of Telecommunications Management, 1, 15–32.Google Scholar
  2. Bub, U., Picot, A., & Krcmar, H. (2011). The future of telecommunications. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 3, 265–267. doi: 10.1007/s12599-011-0178-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Czarnecki, C., & Dietze, C. (2017). Reference architecture for the telecommunications industry: Transformation of strategy, organization, processes, data, and applications. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Czarnecki, C., Winkelmann, A., & Spiliopoulou, M. (2010). Services in electronic telecommunication markets: A framework for planning the virtualization of processes. Electronic Markets, 20, 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Czarnecki, C., Winkelmann, A., & Spiliopoulou, M. (2012). Transformation in telecommunication – Analyse und clustering von real-life Projekten. In D. C. Mattfeld & S. Robra-Bissantz (Eds.), Multi-Konferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2012 (pp. 985–998). Braunschweig: GITO.Google Scholar
  6. Czarnecki, C., Winkelmann, A., & Spiliopoulou, M. (2013). Reference process flows for telecommunication companies: An extension of the eTOM model. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 5, 83–96. doi: 10.1007/s12599-013-0250-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. A. (2013). Fundamentals of business process management. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grover, V., & Saeed, K. (2003). The telecommunication industry revisited. Communications of the ACM, 46, 119–125. doi: 10.1145/792704.792709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hammer, M. (2007). The process audit. Harvard Business Review, 85, 111–123.Google Scholar
  10. Hammer, M. (2010). What is business process management? In J. vom Brocke & M. Rosemann (Eds.), Handbook on business process management (Vol. 1, pp. 3–16). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28, 75–105.Google Scholar
  12. Kelly, M. B. (2003). The TeleManagement forum’s enhanced telecom operations map (eTOM). Journal of Network and Systems Management, 11, 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Picot, A. (Ed.). (2006). The future of telecommunications industries. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Pousttchi, K., & Hufenbach, Y. (2011). Value creation in the mobile market: A reference model for the role(s) of the future mobile network operator. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 3, 299–311. doi: 10.1007/s12599-011-0175-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rosemann, M., & vom Brocke, J. (2010). The six core elements of business process management. In J. von Brocke & M. Rosemann (Eds.), Handbook on business process management (Vol. 1, pp. 107–122). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schermann, M., Prilla, M., Krcmar, H., & Herrmann, T. (2008). Bringing life into references process models: A participatory approach for identifying, discussing, and resolving model adaptations. Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik.Google Scholar
  17. vom Brocke, J., Zelt, S., & Schmiedel, T. (2015). Considering context in business process management: The BPM context framework. BPTrends Class Notes, 1–15.Google Scholar
  18. Wulf, J., & Zarnekow, R. (2011). Cross-sector competition in telecommunications: An empirical analysis of diversification activities. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 3, 289–298. doi: 10.1007/s12599-011-0177-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hochschule für Telekommunikation LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations