Article Preview
TopIntroduction
In order to compete in a fast-paced and often volatile economy, many organizations have concentrated their efforts at streamlining business operations by integrating end-to-end business processes (Fingar, 2005; McCormack, 2007). As a result, Business Process Management (BPM) practices continue to gain interest among managers who seek to improve their organization's efficiency, effectiveness, agility, and competitive position (Hill, Sinur, Flint, & Melenovsky, 2006; Palmberg, 2010; Towers & Schurter, 2005; Wolf & Harmon, 2010).
While process management activities have been in existence for some time, the depth and breadth of these activities have evolved from early industrial management techniques to more continuous and complex optimization of end-to-end business processes involving the integration of business and information technology (Hill et al., 2006; Towers & Schurter, 2005; vom Brocke & Sinnl, 2011). Consequently, the definition of BPM has evolved, from having a relatively narrow system-technology orientation to its current form as a general discipline dedicated to a process-centric, customer-focused organization using cross-functional processes and integrating information technologies for both strategic and operational activities, such that customer satisfaction and overall effectiveness are improved (Hill et al., 2006; Hung, 2006; Melenovsky, 2005; Smart, Maddern, & Maull, 2009). Despite the promise that BPM holds for long term gains in process performance, many organizations have struggled with the actual implementation of broad cross-functional process management (Abdolvand, Albadvi, & Ferdowski, 2008; Spanyi, 2010a; Trkman, 2010).
One reason for the uneven progress being made with BPM stems from the fact that some of the changes considered central to BPM success can be very difficult to implement (Ranganathan & Dhaliwal, 2001; Spanyi, 2005, 2006; Trkman, 2010). Three of these changes include establishing the BPM organization, defining process owners, and creating process governance boards. Given that BPM has largely been driven by practitioners (Hung, 2006; Smart et al., 2009), the details regarding the deployment of these necessary facets depend on the organization (Hammer & Hershman, 2010). Moreover, there is disagreement regarding the efficacy of BPM to the service sector, with some taking the affirmative position (Smart et al., 2009, p. 494), while others are much less optimistic (Trkman, 2010, p. 126).
The present research examines the effect that industry affiliation has on the degree to which a formal BPM organization, cross-functional process ownership, and governance have been implemented. If industry related patterns are detected, then this knowledge may add valuable insight into how BPM can continue to move forward.