Identification of appropriate responsibilities and positions for business process management success

Abstract

Purpose -Identifying appropriate responsibilities and positions needed for successful business process management (BPM) initiatives has become a challenge. Past research efforts have been based on homogenous small samples. The purpose of this paper is to validate a BPM position and responsibility framework among a larger BPM community, by measuring the framework's validity, reliability, and level of agreement among BPM professionals. Design/methodology/approach -A survey of 111 BPM practitioners (19 percent outside of the USA), representing 98 different organizations (primarily in business services, manufacturing, public administration, and finance), was conducted to measure the construct validity and reliability of an existing BPM position and responsibility framework. Findings -The results indicate that the BPM responsibilities possess adequate reliability, and that the framework demonstrates excellent convergent and discriminant validity. BPM professionals indicated significant agreement with the four proposed BPM positions, along with responsibilities associated with the three higher level BPM positions. Interesting patterns of disagreement emerged for responsibilities associated with the lowest level BPM position. Research limitations/implications -This study furthers the understanding of BPM competencies required for BPM success. Continued research efforts are needed to understand how this BPM position and responsibility framework can work in actual BPM settings. Practical implications -This research relates to process organization and the core competencies required for BPM initiatives, assisting in the identification and alignment of appropriate responsibilities and positions required for BPM success. Originality/value -This paper represents the first large-scale study of industry best practices in defining and validating positions and responsibilities associated with the BPM field of work.

Investigating the Relationship between Process Management and Organizational Culture: Literature Review and Research Agenda

“…BPM is also not to be limited to a managerial approach. Rather it includes both aspects and is to be understood as a holistic and distinct research topic (Armistead et al, 1999;Lederer Antonucci & Goeke, 2011).…”

Toward a Business Process Owner Competency Framework

“…Technology is vital to BPM (Antonucci & Goeke, 2011) which together with strategic alignment, governance, methods, people, and culture is the core of BPM (Rosemann & vom Brocke, 2015). BPM systems (BPMS) can be used to manage, control and support operational processes and can connect with legacy systems, cloud networks and mobile devices (van der Aalst et al, 2016).…”

“…BPM is defined as a management practice that integrates business process knowledge and information technology with the aim of transforming business efforts into integrated and measurable cross-functional activities that deliver strategic and operational competitive advantage (Antonucci & Goeke, 2011). Moreover, BPM holds promise for increasing productivity, achieving operational excellence and saving costs (Recker & Mendling, 2016).…”

A template-based approach for responsibility management in executable business processes

“…In this context, responsibilites are defined at different levels. As evidenced by several studies, there are four acknowledged process positions (business process director, business process consultant, business process architect and business process analyst) and a specific set of responsibilities associated to each of them (Antonucci and Goeke 2011). However, organisations need to control not only the execution of processes as a whole but also the execution of every single activity carried out within them, which relates to a key role in process execution: the process participants.…”