Search results

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to support the application of a combined BPM (business process management)/SOA (service‐oriented architecture) approach and contribute to the body of knowledge on the business value of SOA.Design/methodology/approachThis case study highlights the promising results of a process reengineering project at Belgacom Mobile, Belgium's largest mobile telecommunications operator. The reengineering effort centered around a key automation pillar involving in particular the optimization of the SIM card ordering process. SOA principles were applied to ensure both the flexibility of the redesigned process and its capability of dealing with newly emerging SIM card types. This case demonstrates the potential benefits of combining BPM and SOA concepts to establish IT‐enabled process innovation.FindingsIn terms of performance improvement, the studied project resulted in: increased process flexibility and consistency, considerably shorter lead times, and enhanced process control.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings from this case study present useful insights for other companies trying to reap the benefits of combined BPM and SOA. However, the single case study approach presents some limitations to the generalizability of the proposed learning points and concepts. Some case specific features such as the sector or company size might influence the generalizability. Nevertheless, the paper rather intends to trigger conceptual thinking about IT‐enabled process innovation and an architectural approach.Originality/valueThe added value of this project, which contributes to the general understanding of SOA potential for BPM, lies in its innovative approach, whereby product and process are separated by means of production process ID creation. The redesign approach thus provides a sustainable answer to the ever shortening life cycle of products and technologies. In particular process practitioners will find value in reading the learning points from this paper.

This book presents a series of twelve short interviews with inspiring practitioners and academics sharing insights in the world of process and transformation. The interviews tackle issues and questions about the future of Business Process Management (BPM), the impact of emerging technologies and customer centricity. It focuses on the pitfalls in BPM implementations as well as cultural aspects and many more specific views. With the insights and experiences of leading experts, the book provides a basis for the reader to achieve the next level of business process excellence, a discipline that holds potential for both practice and research

PurposeIn contemporary businesses, the importance of knowledge workers and the knowledge intensive business processes (KIBPs) is ever increasing, yet they seem very hard to control and manage. The purpose of this paper is to grasp the specific characteristics of KIBPs and how they differ from non‐knowledge intensive business processes (non‐KIBP), also to question how organizations are using business process management (BPM) to manage and improve KIBPs. The differences in maturity and effectiveness of both types of processes are also evaluated.Design/methodology/approachData for this research were collected through an online survey. The survey was designed based on a previously conducted exploratory study with semi‐structured interviews as well as the literature. The target group was BPM practitioners and the final sample included 98 respondents. Due to non‐normality, the analyses were conducted with non‐parametric tests. The research questions were analysed using Mann‐Whitney U test and Spearman's correlations.FindingsIt was found that KIBP and non‐KIBP have clearly different characteristics, such as the level of complexity, repeatability and creativity required. Also it was found that these processes are not managed or improved differently than non‐KIBPs, and suggest that organizations need to take these differences into consideration while managing and improving these processes. Furthermore, the results suggest that applying methodologies that aim to provide operational improvements may not necessarily produce the best results for KIBPs.Originality/valueThe paper answers a call for further development of the body of knowledge on knowledge‐intensive business processes, a rapidly emerging field of interest for BPM practitioners, where a clear gap in literature exists.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to report on the results of research into the precedence of the maturity factors, or key turning points in business process maturity (BPM) implementation efforts. A key turning point is a component of BPM that stabilizes within an organization and leads to the next maturity level.Design/methodology/approachSeveral years of data from over 1,000 companies in the USA, Europe, China, and Brazil that have completed a BPM assessment are analyzed to identify which components of BPM stabilize, when and in what order. Different analysis methods are employed in order to identify global commonalities and differences.FindingsThe paper identifies key turning points from several different perspectives using several different approaches and develops some conclusions common to all methods used in this research.Research limitations/implicationsThe relationship between the components (dependencies) is only suggested but not statistically analyzed. Several data sets are also on the low end of sample size for the methods used and some parts of the research used ad hoc selection of companies of arbitrarily distributed companies into different groups.Practical implicationsThe results can be useful for leaders and teams that are attempting the journey to process maturity. The guide‐posts, milestones, and measures can help answer the question "Where am I on this journey and what is next?"Originality/valueA plethora of maturity models has emerged that claim to guide an organization through the process of building levels of maturity that lead to competitive advantage. To date, there has been a lack of quantitative studies documenting these road‐maps. The paper provides global, quantitative evidence of the critical maturity components associated at each level of maturity.