bpm - theory and practice

8/11/2019 BPM - Theory and Practice

1/18

Understanding Business ProcessManagement: Implications for Theory and

Practice

P. A. Smart, H. Maddern and R. S. MaullExeter Centre for Strategic Processes and Operations, School of Business and Economics, University of Exeter,

Streatham Court, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4PU, UKCorresponding author email: [email protected]

This paper presents an empirically validated framework of business process manage-ment (BPM) to enable the pursuit of BPM theory. Phase 1 of the research focused onthe development of an initial framework of BPM, derived from a synthesis of currentliterature. This comprised ve key themes, subsequently categorized as applicationcomponents of BPM. The empirical validation of the framework was approachedthrough case-based research, utilizing semi-structured interviews with managers of alarge nancial services organization, to explore the dimensions of the framework. Theresults suggest that, in addition to conrming the ve application components of theinitial framework, three additional conceptual components are important. Theseconcepts differentiate BPM from other process management activities, and suggest thatdeveloping a prerequisite process mindset is a fundamental component of a BPMapproach.

Introduction

Process management has become widespreadwithin the business community, impacting, tovarying degrees, upon both organizationalpractice and organizational language (Armis-tead, Pritchard and Machin, 1999). The conceptof process has repeatedly emerged in many of the prominent thematic initiatives (Smart et al .,2004) in the post-reengineering era. Customerrelationship management, enterprise resourceplanning, Six Sigma, and more recently businessprocess management (BPM), for example, allutilize the concept of process. In addition totranscending these initiatives process can alsobe found in multiple sectors, and as keyelements of performance improvement frame-works (e.g. European Foundation for QualityManagement, EFQM). However, while thetake-up of process-based management, particu-larly BPM, has been extensive, there is also asubstantial amount of variety in the semantics

attributed to this management theme (Al-Ma-shari, 2002). The confusion surrounding BPM

may be located in the relative paucity of conceptual analysis and rigorous empirical re-search. Melao and Pidd (2000), for example, in anexploration of business process modelling, notethat there are few signicant attempts to developtheoretical positions on possible approaches toBPM, possibly because the development of BPMhas been driven by practitioners rather thanacademics. This does not, however, precludeBPM from theoretical development. As exempli-ed by Schmenner and Swink (1998), the chal-lenge for academics within the operationsmanagement discipline is to pursue the construc-tion of productive theory. Furthermore, anadditional challenge, noted by Slack, Lewis andBates (2004), is for operations management toexpand its horizons and embrace a wider serviceoperations context for its research.

In pursuit of these goals, fuelled by the extent of BPM practice and lack of theoretical foundation,

British Journal of Management, Vol. 20, 491507 (2009)DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00594.x

r 2008 British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, OxfordOX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/18

the paper describes the derivation of a conceptualframework for BPM. The framework, derivedfrom a systematic review and synthesis of currentliterature, and validated in empirical data from acase company in the service sector, provides acommon foundation for future academic debate

for the derivation of BPM theory. This conrmsthe approach described by Meredith et al . (1989)where a mental model of the suspected relation-ships are posited . . . (and) . . . evaluated by meansof a framework that captures the essence of thesystem under investigation.

Research method

The research was structured into two mainphases. The rst phase was concerned with the

development of an initial framework whichreected current BPM thinking (initial mentalmodel). Models, concepts and approaches, foundwithin the literature, were synthesized into vekey themes. To provide a focus for furtherexploratory research the following research ques-tion was formulated: to what extent do the vethemes emerging from existing literature ade-quately conceptualize BPM?

The empirical work was based on in-depth caseresearch. Case-based methods are widely recog-nized as an effective means for unpacking

complex concepts en route to the developmentof explanatory theory (Meredith, 1998). Theadvantages of case research include studying thephenomenon in its natural setting and hencegenerating theory from actual practice; the abilityto ask the why questions rather than just the whatand how; the ability to uncover variables whichmay be misunderstood or unknown (Benbasat,Goldstein and Mead, 1987). Voss, Tsikriktsis andFrohlich (2002) represent the views of a growingnumber of researchers when they argue that caseresearch has consistently been one of the mostpowerful research methods, particularly in thedevelopment of new theory. However, propo-nents of case methodology emphasize the rigourthat must be applied. Effective case selection,underpinned by a structured research protocol,has been identied as critical in ensuring suchrigour (Stuart et al ., 2002; Voss, Tsikriktsis andFrohlich, 2002).

Case selection for this project was informedthrough an initial workshop held with ten

nancial services companies. This provided anopportunity to explore the extent to which thesecompanies engaged in BPM practice. The com-pany which exhibited the most developed processmanagement practices from this group wasidentied as an appropriate case company for

the more in-depth research. The company, a largeUK bank, was an early adopter of businessprocess re-engineering (BPR). The bank hadexperienced a wave of mergers and acquisitionsin the late 1990s, which culminated in the closureof its BPR programme. More recently, however,the bank had re-visited process managementthrough the introduction of a Process DesignAuthority, charged with understanding, control-ling and improving processes. The bank is acomplex organization, with a number of sub-sidiary companies, offering a wide range of

nancial products through diverse businessprocesses.The case study approach adopted aligns with

the perspective of Yin (1981), where phenomenaare studied in a real-life context, and with Barton(1995), where a history of past or currentphenomena is drawn from multiple sources. Datawere collected through semi-structured interviewswith seven experienced senior managers whowere recognized as process experts and had arange of process management responsibilities.These included the Director of Group Opera-

tions, Head of Customer Management, Head of Process Design and Improvement and Directorof Payments Processing. The interviews focusedon two key areas: the development of processmanagement over time and an exploration of practitioners understanding of the meaning,scope, signicance and value of process manage-ment. Interviewees were encouraged to drive thediscussion and consequently responses variedconsiderably in form and sequence.

To support the interviews, and to triangulatethe responses, an extensive range of secondarydata was collected and analysed, includingproject documentation; examples of processmanagement outputs (including process modelsand measurement data); central and local pro-cess communications; minutes; and terms of reference. These data were analysed, initially,using the thematic coding approach proposedby Flick (1998), to identify the existence of theve theoretical BPM themes in the empiricaldata.

492 P. A. Smart, H. Maddern and R. S. Maull

r 2008 British Academy of Management.


3/18

Literature survey

A plethora of research streams exist which areclosely related to the concept of process. Rustand Zahorik (1995), for example, outline anapproach for assessing the nancial return oninvestments which seek to enhance the serviceexperience. They argue strongly that data mustbe collected against business processes: The ideais that business processes . . . are how the businessis organized. Beretta (2002), meanwhile, exploresthe recent boom in enterprise resource planningsystems. He suggests that the impact of theirimplementation on the operating performance of a company can be best appreciated by focusingmeasurement on the improvements that theyproduce in the performance of business pro-cesses. Voss and Huxham (2004) use process asthe exemplar in their analysis of the absorption of new ideas into day-to-day operations: Successfulpractices become embedded in the organization. . . . An excellent example of this is businessprocess re-engineering (BPR), which was used bymany organizations in the 1990s. Today it is hardto nd an organization that is explicitly trying tore-engineer its processes. On the other hand it isalso hard to nd a large organization that doesnot pay explicit attention to the design andmanagement of its processes.

Critical to an understanding of BPM is thedisentangling of process from its re-engineeringorigins. The emphasis has switched from re-engineering to process : I no longer see myself as aradical person; instead I have become a processperson (Hammer, 2001). The following sectionsattempt this disentanglement. It is our view thatmuch of the current confusion surrounding BPMis a legacy of its antecedents in BPR.

BPR

In 1990, Michael Hammer introduced the con-cept of business re-engineering, with his pleafor companies to Obliterate; dont automate(Hammer, 1990). The impact on the businesscommunity was profound, with surveys suggest-ing adoption rates for re-engineering across thebusiness community as high as 75% (Al-Mashariand Zairi, 2000). The impact on managementresearch was equally dramatic. One investigationinto academic research found that over 700

papers linked to re-engineering were publishedin 1994 alone (Case, 1999).

The research generally focused on two mainissues: the extent to which BPR was successful; thefactors related to successful implementation. Agrowing consensus emerged that BPR rarely

delivered the targeted benets. By the end of the1990s, the business community was deemed to bemoving on to other issues such as customer relation-ship management and enterprise resource planning.BPR was regarded by many as simply anothermanagement fad with little to merit such highlevels of research attention (Grint and Case, 1998).

Nevertheless, a number of publications continueto report BPR activity. MacIntosh (2003), forexample, declares that BPR is alive and well in hisstudy of process activity within the public servicesector. Similarly, a number of authors have

reported ongoing BPR activity from economiesoutside western Europe (Khong and Richardson,2003; Terziovski, Fitzpatrick and ONeil, 2003;Yung and Chan, 2003). Other researchers areinvestigating more detailed aspects of BPR: quan-tifying risk (Crowe et al ., 2002); exibility (Fitzger-ald and Siddiqui, 2002); BPR and strategicalignment (Sarkis and Talluri, 2002); BPR andinformation technology (Attaran, 2003).

The relationship between BPR and other im-provement interventions, most notably total qual-ity management, also continues to capture research

attention. Williams et al . (2003) focus on thisrelationship within small and medium-sized en-terprises. Samson and Challis (2002) explore theshared pre-conditions that determine success inprocess-based interventions. Carpinetti, Buosi andGerolamo (2003) develop a framework and refer-ence model for improvement activity incorporatingBPR and continuous improvement methods.

There has been considerable interest in theopportunities to automate business processes.This encompasses both the development of executable process management technology, aswell as tools for modelling and designingprocesses. There is a rich literature on modellingtools themselves (Bal, 2002; Gingele, Childe andMiles, 2002; Gunasekaran and Kobu, 2002; Lin,Yang and Pai, 2002). Such research oftencategorizes this activity under the headingBPM. IT vendors, in particular, recognize thisterm and use it as a vehicle to develop andpromote their products. However, perspectivesare starting to emerge which emphasize a broader

Understanding Business Process Management 493



4/18

context: (BPM). . .has to be capable of modellinga process, brokering that process, delivering itwith straight through processing, and thenmanaging it, all within a single environment.Because of its far reaching implications for theability of enterprises to adapt, it is much more

than a technology fad but a management issuethat needs to be on senior managements agenda,driving the IT support of the business(BPMI.org 1 ).

In summary, BPR, itself, is no longer asignicant phenomenon. A limited amount of specialist BPR research continues to be reported,together with analyses of late adopters. Businessprocess automation, often labelled BPM, is agrowing activity, albeit one which tends towardsa narrower, IT-centric, context. Process-basedinterventions, in particular Six Sigma, are in

vogue, although doubts remain as to the dur-ability of such interventions in the absence of aprocess management framework (Hammer,2002). Nevertheless, as noted earlier, processmanagement continues to engage many busi-nesses, particularly within the services sector. Theapparent contradiction between the demise of BPR and the re-emergence of a focus on processmanagement has been examined by a number of researchers. However, although there is somecommonality of thought on the nature of the re-birth of process there is currently much confu-

sion and a lack of consensus.

BPM

Processes are considered a generic factor in allorganizations. They are the way things get done(Armistead, Pritchard and Machin, 1999). Pro-cesses are also viewed as strategic assets, whichrequire companies to take a business processorientation (McCormack and Johnson, 2001).Process is not simply the management fad of re-engineering, but a more pervasive issue, requiringserious attention. Process thinking has becomemainstream (Grover, Kettinger and Teng, 2000).BPM in this context considers process as both abusiness imperative and a means of understand-ing and explaining business activities the waycustomer requirements get transformed intoactual goods and services.

A number of studies have raised our awarenessof BPM, and begun the process of characteriza-tion (Armistead, 1996; Lee and Dale, 1998; Zairi,1997). However, there is no current consensus onthe principles or key characteristics of BPM foundwithin the literature. We believe that the deriva-

tion of a common framework, a pre-theory(Meredith, 1993) which provides a platform onwhich to engage in both academic inquiry andpractitioner debate, will provide signicant op-portunities for both understanding and applyingBPM. The initial framework presented here is theresult of a systematic review and synthesis of thecurrent literature. This has facilitated the identi-cation of ve key themes of BPM: processstrategy, process architecture, process ownership,process measurement, process improvement.

Process strategy

Process strategy addresses the linkages betweenthe articulation of strategic intent and theintended actions in the deployment and ongoingmanagement of a process infrastructure. Thelinkage between strategic intent and deploymentwithin BPM has been explicitly highlighted byPritchard and Armistead (1999). These authorsintroduce the concept of an integrator whichlinks strategic level planning with task leveldeployment. The articulation of a strategic intent

to focus on processes has been identied by anumber of authors (e.g. Bateman and Rich, 2003;Burlton, 2001; Grover, Kettinger and Teng, 2000;Lee and Dale, 1998; Meadows and Merali, 2003;Silvestro and Westley, 2002). While there is aconsensus that BPM requires the articulation of strategy, there is some debate regarding thestrategic performance achievable through BPMdeployment. Silvestro and Westley (2002), forexample, discuss the appropriateness of BPM forstrategic differentiation, but challenge the appro-priateness of BPM for a cost leadership position.This contrasts with the ndings of Armistead andMachin (1997) which suggest signicant oppor-tunities for the attainment of a cost reductionstrategy, in addition to increased delivery relia-bility, speed of new product introduction, in-creased exibility and consistent product quality.

This articulation of business strategy andthe identication of possible dimensions of enhanced competitiveness depend on the strategicapproaches adopted. Armistead, Pritchard and1 Accessed 2005; no longer in operation.




5/18

Machin (1999) draw on the broader literature instrategic management and suggest the categor-ization of prescriptive versus emergent, hardgoals versus stakeholder aspirations, and strate-gic content versus strategic process when con-sidering the strategic approaches adopted by

companies undertaking BPM. The ndings fromtheir work indicate that a blend of prescriptiveand stakeholder aspirations approaches aredominant, driven by the use of the EFQM modelfor achieving organizational effectiveness. This isconsistent with analyses of the external marketvalue chain and the identication of key businessprocesses to compete in the identied market(Pritchard and Armistead, 1999).

Increasing attention is being given, however, tothe possible strategic leverage provided by under-standing and capitalizing on distinct capabilities

attainable through specic resource congura-tions. A key aspect of BPM is the articulation of process capability which includes an understand-ing of resource capability. As companies becomemore process mature it is possible that strategicdifferentiation will be based more on a capability-centric approach. However, capability drivenstrategy formulation, while receiving signicantattention (Lewis, 2003), has still not realized theparadigmatic neatness commented on by Teece,Pisano and Shuen (1997). It is possible, however,to envisage a business-process-based strategic

capability which synthesizes process capabilityand market-led strategies (Acur and Bititci,2004). Business process capabilities providesignicant strategic opportunities (Roth andJackson, 1995) and the processes themselvesmay be viewed as strategic assets (McCormackand Johnson, 2001).

While it is possible to draw from the broaderstrategic management literature to discuss therelative merits of strategic approaches, the keyissue here is the effective deployment of anintended strategy through an infrastructure thatis process-centric. Armistead and Machin (1997)provided some examples where companies havelinked their long-term plans with annual plans forkey business processes. It is possible to suggestthat BPM itself represents this deployment astrategy in action. Process management is morethan a way to improve individual processes it isa way to operate and manage a business(Hammer, 2002). Xerox, for example, was drivento adopt BPM by the need to improve strategy

implementation (Pritchard and Armistead, 1999).As these authors point out, the key is to linkstrategy with day to day operations; thisinevitably invokes discussions regarding policydeployment. Our view is that this deployment isachievable through the consistent pattern of

decisions (Mintzberg and Quinn, 1996) made ineach of the four other themes described below.Effective communication of these decisionsis paramount for success (Davenport, 2004;Meadows and Merali, 2003). As Pritchard andArmistead (1999) suggest, the inability of anorganization to determine and communicate itsview of process can create cynicism among itsmembers which may be difficult to overcome bythe time they are asked to implement the strategy.Deployment of the strategy through BPM istherefore based on the consistency of decisions

and the cohesiveness between the decisions ineach of the following areas: the architecture of processes, process ownership and organizationaldesign, process measurement and associatedaward structure, and the continuous pursuit of process improvement.

Process architecture

A process architecture is constructed as a meansfor understanding the organization (Pritchardand Armistead, 1999) from a business process

perspective. A business process as a unit of analysis and improvement was a central theme inprevious literature relating to BPR (e.g. Davenport,1993; Harrington, 1992; Rummler and Brache,1990; Smart, Childe and Maull, 1999). To avoidthe reiteration of the numerous denitions of process which emerged during this time wesuggest the following points for clarication.Processes are the conceptual notation of whatorganizations do. They may be described astransformations which are cross-functional innature and are customer facing. One propertyassociated with business processes is their end-to-end nature (Armistead and Machin, 1997).

Although various taxonomies of processeshave been previously described (Childe, Maulland Bennett, 1994; Smart, Childe and Maull,1999), there is growing consensus on the categor-ization of processes in terms of manage,operate and support (AMICE, 1989). Weacknowledge, however, some deviation from thiscategorization, e.g. the separation of direction




6/18

setting processes from manage (Armistead andMachin, 1997). The emphasis of the processarchitecture theme of BPM must, however, alsoinclude the linkages between processes (Zairi,1997). Our experience concurs, in part, with theanecdotal evidence from the judges of the

European quality award (described in Armistead,1996), which indicates that many organizationsfocus on a discrete process and fail to look at anintegrated set of processes. Our experience is thatmany organizations construct high level frame-works consisting of multiple processes, but fail toidentify the physical and information ows thatintegrate the processes. This can result in theconstruction of horizontal silos which are nomore effective than the functional silos they havereplaced (Armistead, 1996). Hammer (2002)emphasizes the terms organized and together

in describing the integration of activities within abusiness process. We extend this thinking toemphasize integration at a process level boththe intra and inter connectedness of manage,operate and support processes. The purpose of the architecture is to provide a top levelhierarchical model which integrates the owswithin the business. This provides a coordinatingmechanism for improvement and change. Silvestroand Westley (2002) deviate from the notion of common process and describe the implementationof a product-based process structure based on

market segmentation. While this is an interestingstructure which may be linked to process designutilizing the concepts of runners, repeaters, andstrangers (Parnaby, 1988), there is little evidenceof success. This is perhaps one of the reasons whythe authors report difficulties in their casecompanies attaining a cost leadership position.

Previous work has indicated that processes areanalogous to systems (Smart, Childe and Maull,1999). Process architectures reect the principleof systemicity drawn from this discipline. Thisargument suggests the inclusion of both technicaland non-technical resources responsible for thetransformation of input to output, and theidentication of control structures which con-strain these transformations. In addition, it isimportant to identify the conditions which triggertransformational activities (Ould, 2003). Theprocess paradigm provides an approach forcoordination across the whole organisation(Armistead and Machin, 1997). An additionalsystems principle of importance to the process

architecture theme is hierarchy . Processes areoften decomposed into greater levels of granu-larity which provides greater detail on theconstituent parts of the integrated process. Thishas been observed by Armistead and Machin(1997) among others.

Hammer (2002) also notes the requirement toconsistently review and update relevant models.We extend this to include a review and update of the process architecture. In our experience this isachieved through a central repository of modelsoften accessed through a corporate intranet. Thisis one aspect of the discipline required tosuccessfully implement BPM. It (BPM) relies onsystems and documented procedures to ensurediscipline, consistency and repeatability (Zairi,1997).

Process ownership

The identication of process owners and theirallocation to core business processes has beenidentied by a number of authors as a keyelement of BPM (Armistead, Pritchard andMachin, 1999; Lee and Dale, 1998). Processowners are seen as champions of the process whohave responsibility for process performance(Armistead, 1996; Pritchard and Armistead,1999). This is also of particular importance inmeeting the responsibilityaccountability require-

ments of Sarbanes Oxley. Pritchard and Armistead(1999) suggest that process mature organizationsexhibit a higher proportion of senior managers asprocess owners. Armistead (1996) also indicatesthat a key role for process owners is to work atthe interfaces with other key processes. Thismitigates against the creation of horizontal silos,and reinforces the underlying principle of sys-temicity described earlier.

An additional element of this theme of BPM,evident in the literature, is the switch in emphasisto process-based teams (Armistead, 1996; Armis-tead, Pritchard and Machin, 1999; Pritchard andArmistead, 1999). These teams may be consideredas networks of process operatives (Armisteadand Machin, 1997) who work together to deliverprocess performance. Samson and Challis (2002)note: leading companies have broadened thescope and span of all employees mindsets andtheir cycle of objectives, performance and re-sponsibility. Functional barriers and parochialmindsets (the silo mentality) have been largely




7/18

overcome and replaced by a unity of purpose andspirit of co-operation.

This requirement for a switch to team-basedstructure necessitates the implementation of alternative reward and recognition structures(Hammer, 2002; Pritchard and Armistead,

1999). Hammer (2002), in forging strong linksbetween Six Sigma and BPM, introduces thenotion of two additional types of team: projectteams and process design teams. Project teamsare deployed within a process to identify andrectify the causes of poor process performance processes are a framework for a problem-solvingregimen. Process design teams challenge thenature of a process and seek to recongureprocesses to minimize the amount of non-value-adding activities. This can be linked to leanthinking (Womack and Jones, 1996). The pro-

cess owner obtains the resource that is requiredand manages the performance of the process,often irrespective of formal organizational struc-ture. The process owner therefore needs to ensurethat the people performing the process under-stand it, are trained in it (Hammer, 2002) andreceive the necessary reward and recognition forsuccess.

This gives rise to potential conict in theorganizational design. The ambiguity whicharises between process owners and their teamsand the ongoing functional management may be

a source of conict. However, research byLlewellyn and Armistead (2000) suggests thatthe value added from the end-to-end perspectivesupports front line staff in, for example, theresolution of problem jobs or situations. Theydevelop the concept of social capital to describethis phenomenon, arguing that Social capitaloperates at a process level with social creditsbeing traded across functional boundaries.

Pritchard and Armistead (1999) point out thatwell progressed organizations have experiencedstructural changes as a result of BPM. Thisnecessitates a discussion of trade-offs betweenfunctional and process-based organizationalstructures. There is evidence that companiesadopting BPM do not dismantle the establishedfunctional groups. A number of trade-offs whichemerge, as described by Armistead (1996),include the potential loss of a critical mass of experts with specialist knowledge versus greaterprocess understanding and customer centricity;the clarity of a well understood functional

structure versus a fuzzy network-type structurewhere individuals are allocated across more thanone process; the establishment of empoweredteams which foster innovation versus the for-malized control of performance. The tendencyfor organizations to preserve functional structure

has led to the adoption of matrix-based organiza-tional structures (Silvestro and Westley, 2002). Intheir description of the adoption of a product-based process structure in their case companies,these authors note a marked shift in power fromboth function to product categories, or fromfunction to customer business units. Whileneither of these cases exhibited an overlay of aprocess structure upon a traditional functionalstructure, functional optimization was less inevidence due to the reduction in size of theorganizational units. Three options for organiza-

tional structure are presented by Armistead,Pritchard amd Machin (1999): a predominantfocus on process lines with functions providing acentre of expertise to support the processes; thecoexistence of function and process as a matrix(although the authors point out that this needs asophisticated approach to management, as illu-strated by Hewlett Packard); profunction (which) displays all the characteristic of afunction and is embedded in a larger businessprocess. In our view the latter structure appearsto be in direct conict with the notion of

processes being cross-functional in nature.

Process measurement

Process measurement is an integral part of BPM(Armistead, Pritchard and Machin, 1999; Melan,1989) which seeks to optimize process perfor-mance against both customer requirements andeconomic targets. As Armistead, Pritchard andMachin (1999) also point out, single measures of performance can be dangerous. Simmons (2000)notes that performance measurement is verymuch inuenced by nancial reporting whichdoes not reect the need for customer-focused,process-oriented learning organisations. How-ever, there is potential to integrate the workwhich has been undertaken into the design of performance measurement systems from thebroader literature (e.g. Kaplan and Norton,1992, 1996; Lynch and Cross, 1991; Neely,1999; Neely, Gregory and Platts, 1995). Thesesystems exhibit a number of key characteristics:




8/18

they are balanced; drive organizational improve-ment; and link strategy to operations. It isimportant to note that strategic performancemeasurement systems have a role to play in boththe articulation of business strategy and thedeployment of strategy through a BPM ap-

proach. For example, there is discussion in theliterature regarding the merits of the use of thebalanced scorecard in conjunction with goal-based (Cameron, 1986) quality frameworks suchas the EFQM (Armistead, Pritchard and Machin,1999) for BPM deployment. Armistead andMachin (1997) identify particular difficulties inmanaging process performance with a largenumber of detailed measures which are notpositioned into a higher level strategic measure.This reinforces the need for a performancemeasurement architecture which links strategic

and operational targets.Our intention is not to delve into the intricaciesof debate concerning these measurement systems,but to recognize that, in addition to economic-based assessments, a key aspect of processperformance is the extent to which processesfull customer requirements. Importance is givento customer satisfaction and customer loyalty inaddition to measures of efficiency (Armistead andMachin, 1997). This service measurement per-spective has received much attention in theliterature with the growing popularity of the

service prot chain (Heskett et al ., 1994); how-ever, there is little evidence of a link to cross-functional process architectures (Maddern, Maulland Smart, 2007). The adoption of a process-based approach necessitates a reappraisal of theoperational denitions of key performance me-trics. This linking of process-based measurementwith existing measurement systems can be com-plex and demanding (Pritchard and Armistead,1999). While there is an ensuing debate onappropriate dimensions of performance (e.g.Zairi (1997) identies cycle time, quality and costdimensions), there is a growing recognition that akey factor of measurement is the variation of output from customer expectation. This measure,borrowed from the Six Sigma domain (Breyfogle,2003; Linderman et al ., 2003) and derivedthrough a comparison of process output againstcritical-to-quality parameters identied by thecustomer, facilitates the monitoring of processeffectiveness. These effectiveness measures, com-bined with more common efficiency measures,

provide a good basis for engaging in processimprovement activity. Armistead (1996) extendsthis thinking and suggests that there is also arequirement to articulate volume, variety andvariation in demand the 3Vs. Our experience isthat in situations where each of the 3Vs is high

there is a need to assess the dynamic behaviour of processes a move beyond static model andmeasurement. However, the fundamental issuewithin this theme is that the monitoring of performance against appropriate targets providesa mechanism for the prioritization of correctiveaction.

Process improvement

Improvement activity is central to realizing thebenets of BPM. The ability to overcome

problems in the white space (Rummler andBrache, 1995) remains the core source of valuefor improvement activity. This is based on havinga structured, consistent approach to processimprovement (Armistead and Machin, 1997;Lee and Dale, 1998) that delivers on continuousand radical improvements (Armistead, Pritchardand Machin, 1999; Hammer, 2002; Pritchard andArmistead, 1999). Reporting on the approachadopted by Texas Instruments, Armistead,Pritchard and Machin (1999) describe a three-level approach to obtaining process control:stabilization, which involves the deployment of statistical process control (a view supported byLove, Gunasekeran and Li, 1998) and Taguchimethods; continuous improvement using theseven quality control tools; radical change invol-ving BPR-type projects. They also suggest the useof the Hoshin Kanri methodology as a morerigorous approach.

Organizations face the problem of selectingfrom a large stock of improvement methodolo-gies and tools ranging from the pure qualitativesuch as removal of duplicate activities orre-sequencing of activity (Reijers and Mansar,2004) to systematic approaches for process opti-mization using factorial design (Breyfogle, 2003).

ResultsValidating the ve themes

The case-based research involved the collectionof data from seven senior managers who were




9/18

involved in the development of the processmanagement practices at the bank. The primarydata collection instrument was semi-structuredinterviewing addressing background and context;meanings and perspectives; process development(process origin, current practice, future state/

vision). This enabled the interviewees to provideindependent articulation of the core construct.These interviews were taped and subsequentlytranscribed. In support of these data, and toachieve triangulation of the responses, secondarydata, in the form of project documentation,process models and frameworks, minutes of meetings, and measurement data, were alsocollected. The analysis of the primary dataadopted the thematic coding approach describedby Flick (1998). This approach is related to agrounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss,

1967) but is initiated (in the rst iteration)through predetermined codes derived from theinitial framework. Subsequent iterations of thecoding process were used in an attempt toidentify additional phenomena not representedwithin the initial framework. This process re-vealed 129 discrete coded items (coded accordingto the respondent/interview section as an initialidentier) with 66 items corresponding to thethemes in the initial framework.

Table 1 is a summary of the frequency of thecoded items related to each theme discussed by

each of the seven participants (A, . . ., G). Eachinterviewee covered all of the issues, except thetwo interviewees that ignored the strategicdimension, which tended to reect their job role.In addition, some interviewees spent considerabletime on a specic issue. For example, intervieweeD spent a lot of time discussing the topic of measurement.

The specic activities undertaken by thecompany in respect of the ve themes aredescribed below.

Process strategy

In 2000, the Director of Group Operations hadsought and obtained board level approval for thecreation of a Process Design Authority (PDA).The Director had previously been involved inencouraging and managing process activity acrossthe organization and was a recognized processchampion. One of the rst actions of the PDAwas to develop a process strategy that wouldenable the organization to understand, controland improve its processes. An extensive commu-nications programme was established includingthe creation of an intranet site and a GroupProcess Forum in which representatives from allbusiness units explored process concepts andinitiatives. Process was included in both executivemessages and as a part of local team briengs.

A key aspect of the strategy was the develop-ment and deployment of a process infrastructurebased upon the creation of a group-wide processarchitecture; the introduction of dedicated Pro-cess Owner Teams (POTs); the creation of process dashboards providing ongoing processmeasurement, setting and monitoring perfor-mance improvement targets for processes andthe systematic delivery of process improvements.

Process architecture

An enterprise-wide process framework had beendeveloped which identied the key processeswithin the bank (Figure 1). The framework

Table1. Five BPM themes

A B C D E F G

Strategy 2 2 1 1 1 7Architecture 1 2 2 2 4 3 2 16Ownership 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 12Measurement 1 1 3 6 4 1 1 17Improvement 1 3 2 5 1 1 1 14

66Figure 1. The enterprise process framework.




10/18

focused on the sales and service processesthrough which a range of products and serviceare provided to customers: opening a chequeaccount, selling a mortgage, issuing a statement,making a claim, enquiries and concerns.

These routine transactional processes operated

within the context of processes that dealt with theoverall customer relationship. These processesfocused upon both the articulation of customerrequirements for different segments (understand-ing customer groups) to assessing the extent towhich customers were treated differently.

The effective delivery of services to customerswas enabled by a set of support processes such asstaff recruitment and systems management.Meanwhile, overall strategy and direction wasdened and delivered through the Direct andControl processes. Finally, Innovate the Busi-

ness embraced those processes which enabled thecompany to react rapidly to changing customerand market demands, a strategic imperativebrought on by the dot.com revolution.

Each of the Enterprise Processes was decom-posed into ve Generic Processes. For example,Deliver Sales and Service was broken down intomanage sales; deliver transactions; change ser-vice; manage information; and control borrow-ing. These in turn were decomposed one furtherlevel to dene around a hundred operationalbusiness processes such as process claims and

maturities and provide a statement.To facilitate a deeper understanding of the

process framework, Deliver Sales and Serviceprocesses were represented in a process cube(Figure 2). The cube highlighted the need tounderstand and manage processes from a numberof different perspectives. Most staff were familiarwith product groupings; few had thought interms of generic processes running across differ-ent products and channels. Over time, the cubebecame well recognized in many areas of thebank, eventually becoming part of the organiza-tional folklore as the Rubiks cube.

Having established a common high levelprocess framework, an extensive mapping pro-gramme was launched to understand processes atthe operational level. Before the deployment of the group framework, process denitions hadoften varied across, and sometimes within,business units. For example, the terms managingout of order accounts and referred payments wereused in different business units to describe exactly

the same process. Similarly, a sales process in onebusiness unit would include lead generation,quote and fullment. For another business unitthe process would both start and end with thecustomer interview (i.e. dramatically narrower inscope).

To overcome this, processes were mappedusing IDEF 0 (FIPS, 1993), a hierarchical model-ling method which uses a top down approachfor the creation of process hierarchies. Themethod also enforces the consistent integrationof processes through information and physical

ows at these levels. In addition, a processdictionary was developed which ensured consis-tent language and semantics within the maps.

As-is customer facing processes were capturedin a central repository, organized around theframework, to three levels of decomposition.A change management system was then put inplace to support process governance and main-tain an ongoing representation of processesacross the group.

Process ownershipInitially, ve high level POTs were introducedorganized around the main product groups (e.g.banking, insurance). It soon became apparentthat process management in retail bankingdemanded more detailed attention. Customersatisfaction was falling, following difficulties withthe implementation of a new integrated bankingsystem. To address these problems, 14 lower levelPOTs were established to provide more hands

Figure 2. Sales and service processes (the process cube).




11/18

on management of key banking processes suchas payments and enquiries . Their priority was toimprove customer service. Dedicated resourcewas allocated to enable this, and Six Sigmaperformance improvement targets were set foreach team. By 2002, POTs had identied and

prioritized over 145 process improvements, in-cluding reducing lending complaints by 38% andimproving the turnaround times for replacementcards and cheque books, which were previouslythe most signicant sources of customer com-plaints. Whilst the focus was on improvingcustomer service, cost savings of d300,000 pawere also reported. Interestingly, in reporting thesuccess of process ownership, emphasis wasplaced on the role in laying foundations forlong-term benet: The POTs tangible benetsare the outward signs of success, but the hidden

achievements provide the foundations for long-term ongoing benets (Director of PaymentsProcessing). The need to fully integrate processownership within the bank was also recognized:The POTs have made a real difference in thedrive to make process ownership an integral partof the group culture. In an organization of thissize, however, this is still only the start, becausethe enthusiasm to drive this forward needs to bein step with the readiness of the organization toaccept cultural change (Head of CustomerManagement).

Process measurement

The Six Sigma methodology, pioneered byMotorola in the 1980s and championed by GEin the 1990s, was chosen as the method formeasuring and systematically improving pro-cesses in the bank. It focuses on what iscritical to the customer and seeks to eliminateany defects which may arise in meeting customerrequirements.

Introducing Six Sigma measurement involvedthe development of Process dashboards for all keyprocesses. The dashboards contained a statementof customer needs and provided a simplerepresentation of the process ow, linking custo-mer requirements to delivery. Operational mea-sures were identied regarding the accuracy andtimeliness of each process against customerrequirements. Numbers of defects were alsoidentied and reported on a monthly basis.Whilst other measures, such as cost, productivity,

system availability and complaints, were sched-uled for future development, an understanding of customer service performance across all keyprocesses was considered the priority. The ambi-tion was to have 80% of customer touches in theretail bank under sigma measurement by the end

of 2003. In addition stretch improvement targetswere set for individual process performance.

Process improvement

The Six Sigma improvement methodology,known as DMAIC, was also introduced tosystematically identify and deliver process im-provements. DMAIC represents the ve stages of the improvement cycle: dene, measure, analyse,improve and maintain. Training followed the GEmodel, where over 200 staff were trained in Six

Sigma improvement techniques, led by twelve SixSigma Black Belts . In addition, a dedicatedprocess simulation team was established tosupport large-scale change projects. The decisionto introduce a consistent, best practice approachto process improvement reected concerns thatprevious ad hoc improvement efforts had resultedin duplication and wasted effort. As part of theattempt to fully align systems and processes arevised change management system was intro-duced in which the process implications of allchange projects were highlighted and evaluated

prior to investment decisions.

Identication of additional coreconcepts

While the case ndings aligned closely with theve themes synthesized from the literature, theinitial ve-themed framework failed to fullyaccount for the variety of responses found inthe case data. A simple content analysis of thecoded texts revealed that 49% (63/129) of the interviews were not explicitly related to thethemes. A process of grouping data items toidentify core categories in the residual of thecodes was undertaken utilizing the 11 criteriafound by Glaser (1978).

The process architecture theme, for example,was considered both necessary and successful inhelping to create an overall process infrastruc-ture. The framework informed the design of POTs; the repository provided a physical control




12/18

of operational business processes. However,interviewees emphasized that the most signicantcontribution of the architecture was to introducea process language and key process concepts suchas end-to-end thinking and customer focus. Thiscustomer-centric view of the process framework

encouraged staff to relate their day-to-dayactivities to specic customer requirements anoutside in view of the organization. In addition,the Rubiks cube focused attention on the end-to-end delivery of customer requirements acrossdifferent business units, products and channels.

A further analysis of these data identied threeadditional concepts: conscious, macro, centrality.We believe that these concepts form the keyprinciples for managing by process. As Smartet al . (2004) highlighted: Articles that revokethematic initiatives, that label them as failures, or

that provide supercial explanations of thereasons for failure can be found in abundance. . . .More work, however, is required to understandthe important management principles, encom-passed by the initiatives, which warranted thembeing heralded in the rst place. We believe thatthese additional concepts are critical for a fullunderstanding of BPM, and are the central teneton which the BPM application componentsdeliver value. Table 2 indicates the frequency of coded data attributed to each of the emergentthemes. We have no clear indication of bias by

the respondents towards the application compo-nents or the additional concepts. The analysis hasindicated, however, some consistency of referenceto the three additional concepts. Each of theseconcepts is described in the following sections.

Conscious process management

Whilst there is considerable confusion surround-ing the meaning of such terms as BPR and BPMthere is some consensus about the nature of abusiness process itself (Davenport and Short,1990; Hammer and Champy, 1993). Zairi (1997),for example, reports the denition of a business

process used by Post Office Counters: A relatedseries of actions, directed to the achievement of agoal, that transforms a set of inputs into desiredoutputs, by adding value. In our own research,process experts in the bank dened a businessprocess as a set of related activities that create

value for customers.The implications of this denition are signi-cant. Businesses provide goods and services tocustomers; if processes are the means throughwhich those goods and services are delivered,then all businesses have processes. The universalnature of business processes emerged as a strongtheme during interviews with bank staff. There isa given that says all organizations whether it bethe corner shop or the multinational plc, yesweve all got processes, we must have (Head of Process Design and Improvement).

Given the universal nature of processes,process management, in some form, is notoptional. What is optional is the extent to whichprocess management is pursued as a consciousactivity, rather than simply happening by default.Again, the signicance of conscious processmanagement was emphasized by bank staff.Processes exist in all organizations, as ways inwhich customers ask for something and even-tually it gets fullled, its how consciously youmanage those processes thats important. Its likegolf or snooker, some do it by touch or feel, they

dont particularly know how theyre doing it,they just do it and it comes out well. So thoselucky enough to do that have got a gift. For mostpeople its harder than that, you have to train andpractice more and more. Conscious processmanagement is when you have to think about itmore, you have to know when youre doing it(Director of Group Operations).

Such thinking reects the idea that processesare conceptual constructions. Processes have tobe discovered and managed as processes. This isparticularly evident in service organizationswhere processes are less visible than in amanufacturing environment.

Macro process management

Process is also a hierarchical concept. Processeshave subprocesses; subprocesses have activities;activities have tasks and so on. Most companiesestablish, control and, potentially, try to improveindividual processes and subprocesses. Such

Table2. Additional BPM concepts

A B C D E F G Total

Conscious 6 2 4 1 3 3 2 21Macro 1 4 5 2 1 4 6 23Centrality 3 1 2 4 3 6 19

63




13/18

activity does not constitute BPM. It is simply anongoing operational practice. Companies whoare engaged in BPM seek to understand thetotality of processes, their boundaries and inter-relationships. By denition were managing anumber of processes at any one time and a lot of

them may be interdependable, but the net result iswe have to succeed in the delivery of all of thoseprocesses (Director of Payments Processing).

Moreover, BPM requires the management of processes on an end-to-end basis, from initialcustomer contact through to the fullment of thecustomer need. Few processes provide fullmentat point of contact from a single engagement.Relatively simple customer requests, for exampleproviding a credit card, may require input from aspecialist risk assessment function and a cardproduction unit. More complex products, such as

mortgages, often demand input from severalfunctions and fullment may extend over anumber of weeks. Typically, however, the end-to-end process is not managed throughout its lifecycle.

The centrality of process

Within BPM, the process concept is inextricablylinked to the customer. Processes do not exist inisolation. They are discovered retrospectivelyfrom an understanding of customer needs.

Processes are simply the means by which variouscustomer needs are met: The whole reason werein business is to make prot; you make prot bysatisfying your customers. To the customer, weare as good as our processes. So if youre notbothered about your processes, in my mind,youre not bothered about your business (Headof Customer Management).

From this perspective, BPM is not a one-offactivity. It demands a sustained focus onprocesses as a means of creating ongoing valuefor the organization. Companies engaging inchange programmes, whether IT or personnelfocused, need to be addressed from the process perspective .

Achieving this sustained focus has profoundimplications for the nature of BPM implementa-tion. In contrast with the short, sharp, xmethods associated with previous BPR initia-tives, BPM is a process journey. Introducing aprocess infrastructure, creating process modelsand measurement systems, can be actively man-

aged and scheduled. It has a nite timetable.Permanently embedding the process concept,putting process at the centre of the organization,however, is an ongoing task.

BPM an integrated framework

The ndings suggest that a robust theoreticalBPM framework needs to consider both theapplication of BPM and its conceptual under-pinnings (Figure 3). Much of the existingliterature addresses the application of the tangi-ble aspects of BPM (as described in our ve-themed framework). Companies who embark onBPM must focus on identifying their processes,

measuring them, establishing dedicated end-to-end process management, introducing a sys-tematic process improvement programme, allwithin an overall process strategy. We havelabelled these the application components of BPM.

The conceptual underpinnings of BPM are lessvisible. They address the fundamental nature andscope of BPM, and the thinking which informsbusiness decisions to adopt and implement BPM.Findings from the case research lead us tocharacterize BPM as an optional managementphilosophy which seeks to create value from a

sustained focus on business processes. It ispredicated on the view that processes are thevehicle through which customer needs are satised.This view demands the conscious management of the totality of a companys end-to-end businessprocesses. As an optional management philosophy,it requires an initiating intervention. However, therealization of the benets offered by the philosophycan only be achieved through a process journey,rather than a one-off intervention.

Figure 3. An integrated framework for BPM.




14/18

Summary and conclusions

By examining the emergence of process manage-ment within the service sector, the paper supportsthe repeated calls for operations managementresearch to extend the scope of its inquiries to

embrace critical sectors and issues, and toprovide insight and support to practitioners.The service sector has increasingly dominatedthe business landscape, yet, in comparison to themanufacturing sector, it remains relatively un-explored by the operations management researchcommunity. Within this sector, process manage-ment attracts extensive practitioner attention, yetsuffers from a lack of theoretical clarity.

By disentangling the process concept from itsBPR origins and a number of associated labels,the paper alerts the research community to the

emergence of a coherent approach to the ongoingmanagement of processes. Process managementis no longer simply a taken for granted aspect of business activity; it is a phenomenon requiringdedicated analysis. Clarifying the various con-icting uses of the term process and establishing acommon language is, of course, a necessary rststep in understanding this phenomenon. Itprovides a common platform for future research.

The framework itself provides empirical sup-port to the existing BPM literature by reinforcingthe importance of ve key themes which practi-

tioners must address in the application of BPM.Further analysis of these themes would providepractitioners with a valuable insight into thechallenge of effective implementation.

More importantly, perhaps, the frameworkprovides a new insight into the nature of BPM.A crucial distinction is made between process as auniversal activity, and the conscious and sus-tained management of end-to-end processeswhich characterizes the BPM journey. Theseconcepts serve not just to differentiate BPM fromother process activity; they have importantimplications for practitioners. The ndings sug-gest that these concepts inform a way of thinkingabout process which is necessary for the effectiveand sustained implementation of BPM. Develop-ing and encouraging this mindset may, however,prove the most difficult challenge.

While we believe that these ndings are animportant step along the journey towards BPMtheory, we also acknowledge a number of weaknesses inherent in the approach, and suggest

future research trajectories for further inquiry.The limitations of a single case study arerecognized, particularly with reference to bias inthe form of exaggeration of the salience of thedata or the prominence of the specic contextualparameters. While the resultant framework is

useful for the identication of key variables of BPM (from a theory building perspective), and atentative proposition has been made whichrelates the conceptual components to the applica-tion components, sequential connections betweenconcepts have not been addressed. Furthermore,the assessment of relative weighting in each of theconcepts has not been calculated and causal linksimpacting upon these have not been addressed.We suggest that future research should seek tocontest our emerging framework and to addressthe challenges of causality and prediction in

relation to the individual concepts.

References

Acur, N. and U. Bititci (2004). A balanced approach to processstrategy, International Journal of Operations and ProductionManagement , 24 , pp. 388408.

Al-Mashari, M. (2002). Editorial, Business Process Manage-ment Journal , 8 , pp. 12.

Al-Mashari, M. and M. Zairi (2000). Revisiting BPR: a holisticreview of practice and development, Business ProcessManagement Journal , 6 , pp. 1042.

AMICE (1989). CIM-OSA Open System Architecture forCIM (ESPRIT consortium). Berlin: Springer.

Armistead, C. (1996). Principles of business process manage-ment, Managing Service Quality , 6 , pp. 4852.

Armistead, C. and S. Machin (1997). Implications of businessprocess management for operations management, Interna-tional Journal of Operations and Production Management , l,pp. 886898.

Armistead, C., J.-P. Pritchard and S. Machin (1999). Strategicbusiness process management for organisational effective-ness, Long Range Planning , 32 , pp. 96106.

Attaran, M. (2003). Information technology and business-process redesign, Business Process Management Journal , 9,pp. 440458.

Bal, J. (2002). Process analysis tools for process improvement,Business Processes Resource Centre, Warwick University.

Barton, L. (1995). A dual methodology for case studies:synergistic use of longitudinal single site with replicatedmultiple sites. In G. Huber and A. Van de Ven (eds),Longitudinal Field Research Methods: Studying Processes of Organizational Change , pp. 3864. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Bateman, N. and N. Rich (2003). Companies perceptions of inhibitors and enablers for process improvement activities,International Journal of Operations and Production Manage-ment , 23 , pp. 185189.




15/18

Benbasat, I., D. K. Goldstein and M. Mead (1987). The caseresearch strategy in studies of information systems, MIS Quarterly , 11 , pp. 369386.

Beretta, S. (2002). Unleashing the integration potential of ERPsystems, Business Process Management Journal , 8, pp.254277.

Breyfogle, F. W. (2003). Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter

Solutions using Statistical Methods . Chichester: Wiley.Burlton, R. T. (2001). Business Process Management . Indiana-polis, IN: Sams Publishing.

Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: consensusand conict in conceptions of organisational effectiveness,Management Science , 32 , pp. 539553.

Carpinetti, L. C. R., T. Buosi and M. C. Gerolamo (2003).Quality management and improvement. A framework and abusiness process reference model, Business Process Manage-ment Journal , 9 , pp. 543554.

Case, P. (1999). Remember re-engineering? The rhetoricalappeal of a managerial salvation device, Journal of Manage-ment Studies , 36 , pp. 419441.

Childe, S., R. Maull and J. Bennett (1994). Frameworks for

understanding business process re-engineering, International Journal of Operations and Production Management , 14,pp. 2234.

Crowe, T. J., P. M. Fong, T. A. Bauman and J. L. Zayas-Castro(2002). Quantitative risk level estimation of business processreengineering efforts, Business Process Management Journal ,8, pp. 490511.

Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process Innovation: Re-engineeringWork Through Information Technology . Boston, MA: Har-vard Business School Press.

Davenport, T. (2004). Attending to Process . Published bywww.BPMG.org, July.

Davenport, T. and J. Short (1990). The new industrialengineering: information technology and business processredesign, Sloan Management Review , 31 , pp. 1127.

FIPS (1993). Integration Denition for Function Modelling(IDEF 0 ) , Federal Information Processing StandardsPublication 183. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Fitzgerald, G. and F. A. Siddiqui (2002). Business processreengineering and exibility: a case for unication, Interna-tional Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems , 14, pp.7386.

Flick, U. (1998). An Introduction to Qualitative Research .Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gingele, J., S. J. Childe and M. E. Miles (2002). A modellingtechnique for re-engineering business processes controlled by

ISO 9001, Computers in Industry , 49 , pp. 235251.Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity , p. 164. Mill Valley,CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. and A. L. Strauss (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research . NewYork: Aldine De Gruyter.

Grint, K. and P. Case (1998). The violent rhetoric of re-engineering: management consultancy on the offensive,Journal of Management Studies , 35 , pp. 557577.

Grover, V., W. J. Kettinger and J. T. C. Teng (2000). Businessprocess change in the 21st century, Business and EconomicReview, Columbia , 46 , pp. 1418.

Gunasekaran, A. and B. Kobu (2002). Modelling and analysisof business process reengineering, International Journal of Production Research , 40 , pp. 25212546.

Hammer, M. (1990). Re-engineering work: dont automate;obliterate, Harvard Business Review , June, pp. 104112.

Hammer, M. (2001). The Agenda . New York: Business Books.Hammer, M. (2002). Process management and the future of

Six Sigma, MIT Sloan Management Review , Winter, pp.2632.Hammer, M. and J. Champy (1993). Re-engineering the

Corporation: a Manifesto for Business Revolution . New York:Harper Business.

Harrington, H. J. (1992). Business Process Improvement . NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Heskett, J. L., T. O. Jones, G. W. Loveman, W. E. Sasser Jrand L. A. Schlesinger (1994). Putting the service prot chainto work, Harvard Business Review , MarchApril, pp.164174.

Kaplan, R. and D. Norton (1992). The balanced scorecard: themeasures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review ,JanuaryFebruary, pp. 7179.

Kaplan, R. and D. Norton (1996). Using the balancedscorecard as a strategic management system, Harvard Business Review , JanuaryFebruary, pp. 7585.

Khong, K. W. and S. Richardson (2003). Business process re-engineering in Malaysian banks and nance companies,Managing Service Quality , 13 , pp. 5471.

Lee, R. G. and B. G. Dale (1998). Business process manage-ment: a review and evaluation, Business Process Manage-ment Journal , 4, pp. 214225.

Lewis, M. A. (2003). Analysing organisational competence:implications for the management of operations, International Journal of Operations and Production Management , 23, pp.731756.

Lin, F. R., M.-C. Yang and Y.-H. Pai (2002). A genericstructure for business process modelling, Business ProcessManagement Journal , 8 , pp. 1941.

Linderman, K., R. G. Schroeder, S. Zaheer and A. S. Choo(2003). Six Sigma: a goal theoretic perspective, Journal of Operations Management , 21 , pp. 193203.

Llewellyn, N. and C. Armistead (2000). Business processmanagement. Exploring social capital within processes,International Journal of Service Industry Management , 11 ,pp. 225243.

Love, P. E. D., A. Gunasekeran and H. Li (1998). Putting anengine into re-engineering: towards a process-orientedorganisation, International Journal of Operations and Pro-duction Management , 18 , pp. 937949.

Lynch, R. and K. Cross (1991). Measure Up! Yardsticks forContinuous Improvement . Oxford: Blackwell.

MacIntosh, R. (2003). BPR: alive and well in the public sector,International Journal of Operations and Production Manage-ment , 23 , pp. 327344.

Maddern, H., R. Maull and P. A. Smart (2007). Customersatisfaction and service quality in UK nancial services,International Journal of Operations and Production Manage-ment , 27 , pp. 9981019.

McCormack, K. and B. Johnson (2001). Business processorientation, supply chain management and the e-corpora-tion, IIE Solutions; Norcross , 33 , pp. 3337.


http://www.bpmg.org%2C/http://www.bpmg.org%2C/


16/18

Meadows, M. and Y. Merali (2003). Process improvement withvision: a case study from nancial services, Systemic Practiceand Action Research , 16 , pp. 171195.

Melan, E. (1989). Process management: a unifying framework,National Productivity Review , 8 , pp. 395406.

Melao, N. and M. Pidd (2000). A conceptual framework forunderstanding business processes and business process

modelling, Information Systems Journal , 10 , pp. 105129.Meredith, J. (1993). Theory building through conceptualmodels, International Journal of Operations and ProductionManagement , 13 , pp. 311.

Meredith, J. (1998). Building operations management theorythrough case and eld research, Journal of OperationsManagement , 16 , pp. 441454.

Meredith, J., A. Raturi, K. Amoako-Gyampah and B. Kaplan(1989). Alternative research paradigms in operations,Journal of Operations Management , 8 , pp. 297326.

Mintzberg, H. and J. B. Quinn (1996). The Strategy Process:Concepts, Contexts, Cases , 3rd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Neely, A. (1999). The performance measurement revolution:

why now and what next?, International Journal of Operationsand Production Management , 19 , pp. 205228.

Neely, A., M. Gregory and K. Platts (1995). Performancemeasurement system design: a literature review and researchagenda, International Journal of Operations and ProductionManagement , 15 , pp. 80116.

Ould, M. (2003). Preconditions for putting processes back inthe hands of their actors, Information and SoftwareTechnology , 45 , pp. 10711074.

Parnaby, J. (1988). A systems approach to the implementationof JIT methodologies in Lucas Industries, International Journal of Production Research , 26 , pp. 483493.

Pritchard, J.-P. and C. Armistead (1999). Business processmanagement lessons from European business, BusinessProcess Management Journal , 5 , pp. 1035.

Reijers, H. A. and S. L. Mansar (2004). Best practices inbusiness process redesign: an overview and qualitativeevaluation of successful redesign heuristics, Omega TheInternational Journal of Management Science , 33, pp. 283 306.

Roth, A. V. and W. E. Jackson (1995). Strategic determinantsof service quality and performance: evidence from thebanking industry, Management Science , 41 , pp. 17201733.

Rummler, G. A. and A. P. Brache (1995). ImprovingPerformance: How to Manage the White Space in theOrganization Chart . Oxford: Jossey-Bass.

Rust, R. T. and A. J. Zahorik (1995). Return on quality,

(ROQ): making service quality nancially accountable,Journal of Marketing , 55 , pp. 5871.Samson, D. and D. Challis (2002). Patterns of business

excellence, Measuring Business Excellence , 6 , pp. 1521.Sarkis, J. and S. Talluri (2002). A synergistic framework for

evaluating business process improvements, International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems , 14 , pp. 5371.

Schmenner, R. W. and M. L. Swink (1998). On theory inoperations management, Journal of Operations Management ,17 , pp. 97114.

Silvestro, R. and C. Westley (2002). Challenging the paradigmof the process enterprise: a case study analysis of BPRimplementation, Omega The International Journal of Management Science , 30 , pp. 215225.

Simmons, R. (2000). Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy . Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Slack, N., M. Lewis and H. Bates (2004). The two worlds of operations management research and practice: can they meet,should they meet?, International Journal of Operations and Production Management , 24 , pp. 372387.

Smart, P. A., S. J. Childe and R. S. Maull (1999). Supportingbusiness process re-engineering in industry: towards amethodology. In R. Gulladge and J. Elzinga (eds), ProcessEngineering: Advancing the State of the Art , pp. 283319.Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Smart, P. A., R. S. Maull, S. J. Childe and Z. J. Radnor (2004).Capitalising on thematic initiatives: a framework forprocess-based change in SMEs, Production Planning and Control , 15 , pp. 212.

Stuart, I., D. McCutcheon, R. Handeld, R. McLachlin and D.Samson (2002). Effective case research in operationsmanagement: a process perspective, Journal of OperationsManagement , 20 , pp. 419433.

Teece, D., G. Pisano and A. Shuen (1997). Dynamiccapabilities and strategic management, Strategic Manage-ment Journal , 18 , pp. 509534.

Terziovski, M., P. Fitzpatrick and P. ONeil (2003). Successfulpredictors of business process reengineering (BPR) innancial services, International Journal of Production Eco-nomics , 84 , pp. 3550.

Voss, C. and C. Huxham (2004). Problems, dilemmas andpromising practices, Proceedings of the 11th Annual Euroma

Conference , pp. 309318. Paris: INSEAD.Voss, C., N. Tsikriktsis and M. Frohlich (2002). Case research

in operations management, International Journal of Opera-tions and Production Management , 22 , pp. 195219.

Williams, A., J. Davidson, S. Waterworth and R. Partington(2003). Total quality management versus business process re-engineering: a question of degree, Proceedings of the Instituteof Mechanical Engineers , 217 , Part B, pp. 110.

Womack, J. P. and D. T. Jones (1996). Lean Thinking: BanishWaste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation . New York:Simon & Schuster.

Yin, R. (1981). The case study crisis: some answers?,Administrative Science Quarterly , 26 , pp. 5865.

Yung, W. K.-C. and D. T.-H. Chan (2003). Application of

value delivery system (VDS) and performance benchmarkingin exible business process reengineering, International Journal of Operations and Production Management , 23, pp.300315.

Zairi, M. (1997). Business process management: a boundary-less approach to modern competitiveness, Business ProcessManagement Journal , 3 , pp. 6480.




17/18

Dr Philip Andrew Smart is a Senior Lecturer in Management and Director of Exeter Centre forStrategic Processes and Operations (XSPO) at the University of Exeter. Since obtaining his PhD in1996 Andis research has focused on process management, business process design grounded in thesystems discipline. Andi is also engaged in the development and promotion of service operationsmanagement which he is undertaking in his role as a EurOMA board member.

Harry Maddern is a Research Fellow at the University of Exeter. He has considerable businessexperience in strategic and change management and was Head of Process Design at a large UK bankbefore joining the University to complete his Doctorate. His research interests include BPM, servicemanagement, strategy and systems theory. He has previously published in the International Journal of Operations and Production Management .

Roger Maull is Professor of Management Systems at the University of Exeter. With Dr Andi Smarthe leads the Exeter Centre for Strategic Processes and Operations (XSPO). He believes strongly inthe need for relevant research that informs practitioners and has researched and published widelyfrom sectors such as manufacturing, banking, health, telecommunications and various public bodies.His current focus is on drawing out the aspects of systems thinking which will underpin a generic set

of process design rules.




18/18

Copyright of British Journal of Management is the property of Blackwell Publishing Limited and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

bpm - theory and practice

Documents