Suchergebnisse

Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to examine how business process management (BPM) is incorporated within organisational structure. The authors demonstrate how a strategic interest in BPM and formal responsibilities for BPM activities shape the efficiency, quality and agility of BPM initiatives. By conducting field research, useful empirical insights were drawn about the necessary conditions for ensuring the success of BPM initiatives.


Design/methodology/approach
– A questionnaire survey of BPM adoption practices was conducted among private- and public-sector organisations with more than 50 employees. A cross-national sample of 60 Croatian and 51 Slovenian companies is analysed by applying a subsampling strategy and using inferential statistics methods.


Findings
– The study clearly shows how particular structural decisions can foster the operational excellence of BPM initiatives. Formal process roles and specialised BPM units were recognised as important drivers of organisational success. In addition, how strategic support and related structural choices create a synergistic effect and make process efforts worthwhile is explained.


Practical implications
– The research findings offer useful benchmarking of current BPM practices. The developed BPM commitment matrix represents a simple tool for self-assessment. Its path-dependent logic provides guidelines for improving the outcomes of BPM governance in general, and BPM initiatives specifically.


Originality/value
– The paper extends previous research by showing the performance effects of several BPM governance practices. The results clearly suggest that the best outcomes of BPM initiatives were achieved by organisations that had introduced a strategic approach to BPM, along with having defined a centralised BPM responsibility and assigned decentralised process ownership roles.

PurposeAlthough improving customer experience (CX) has always been one of the top priorities of business process management (BPM), the evidence on the actual contribution made by traditional BPM to improving CX and customer experience management (CXM) is mixed. Recently, new and enhanced capability areas have been added to the traditional BPM frameworks, yet it is unclear which of them contribute to CXM. Moreover, it is not known which of them are necessary and which are sufficient conditions. The aim of this research is to shed light on the research gap concerning which BPM capabilities, especially new and enhanced ones, are relevant to CXM.Design/methodology/approachQuantitative data from 268 medium and large companies in 3 EU countries were analysed using hierarchical linear regression analysis and necessary condition analysis.FindingsThe results show that traditional BPM capabilities are a necessary condition for CXM, but with minor significance. Most highly significant necessary conditions and also most highly or medium significant sufficient conditions belong to the People or Culture area. Agile Process Improvement is the only new or enhanced BPM capability area in the Methods/IT area that is a necessary and also a sufficient condition for CXM maturity. Advanced Process Digitalisation was identified as neither a significant necessary nor a sufficient condition for CXM.Originality/valueThis research contributes to better understanding of the role played by BPM for CXM, where previous research provides mixed results.

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.