Investigating process management in firms with quality systems: a multi‐case study

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate whether investment in a quality system leads to process management. Do firms that have invested in documenting their processes in a quality system also manage their processes?Design/methodology/approachThe research question is approached by applying four fundamental dimensions of process management: process awareness, process ownership, process measurement and process improvement. A multi‐case study based on interviews and live demonstrations of the quality systems in question is designed, and quality managers in 23 firms are interviewed. Various analyzing techniques such as descriptive and interpretive analysis, meaning condensation, and thematic scoring are applied.FindingsThis research finds that investments in quality systems have not resulted in process management. Business executives are not particularly concerned about their firms' business process on a daily basis, process accountability has not been institutionalized, explicit process goals are seldom set and measured, and continuous improvement practices are rarely found. This could be read as if the executives view their quality system as an artifact which is forced upon them, rather than a valuable resource for managing and developing their companies.Practical implicationsFirst, without process management, firms do not know whether they are satisfying quality requirements and achieving customer satisfaction. Ideas as to what quality managers could do to move toward process management are consequently provided. Second, the findings challenge the present certification arrangement. Although a certain firm is certified, a substantial gap may exist between how the processes are described in the quality system and how they are practiced by the employees. This should be discussed by those who consider a quality system as a written guarantee for managed quality.Originality/valueGiven that the processes in a quality system must be managed, it has not been found that the question of whether investments in quality system leads to process management is empirically investigated in as detailed a manner as one would expect. In this multi‐case study, it was found that a quality system is viewed as something enforced upon the firms. A quality system is a prerequisite for doing business, and the investment is primarily a consequence of external orders, demands and expectations. In the context of quality systems, firms are not concerned about developing better organizational and management practices, i.e. process management; they are concerned about satisfying external requirements in order to stay in business.

Making process ownership work: Evidence from a global Delphi study

“…Executive commitment requires that executives believe in the value of BPM (Herzog, Polajnar, & Tonchia, ) and are “committed to employing a process focus to improve performance for both customers and shareholders” (Spanyi, , p. 232–233). Executives must thus have the right motives for appointing POs, not merely to satisfy an external demand, for instance, related to a certification (Iden, ). Further, executives should ensure strategic alignment (Hung, ; Škrinjar & Trkman, ) and ensure that process performance is measured (Niehaves et al, ).…”

“…A large percentage of process-oriented organizations appoint POs (Iden, 2012;Neubauer, 2009), and making process ownership work is very important for organizations. However, the role is highly demanding, many organizations struggle with establishing process ownership according to the principles set out in the literature (Hammer, 2010;Spanyi, 2010), and some organizations appoint POs without taking steps to make process ownership real and effective (Iden, 2012), perhaps also because the knowledge base this would require is insufficient. Reijers and Peeters (2010) stated This study seeks to answer the following research question: How can organizations make process ownership work?…”

Strategising IT service management through ITIL implementation: model and empirical test

“…Without process management, ITIL will not be a success beyond its initial implementation. Although the literature offers various models for BPM (Fisher, 2004;Hammer, 2007;Rosemann, de Bruin, & Power, 2006), a number of characteristics are representative (Iden, 2012). Based on this literature, we define BPM practices in the context of ITIL implementation as the executive, administrative, and supervisory control that ensures that the organisation's processes are compliant with business objectives.…”

A Constructivist Approach to Manage Business Process as a Dynamic Capability

“…Process management can foster alignment and enhance the complementarities of effort (synergy) of the departments of a company and implies that goals are set for each process and that goal achievements are systematically measured (Iden, ). This feature highlights the common purpose among the internal actors of an organization, encouraging the emergence of different ways of adding value to its stakeholders, in a systemic way.…”