=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Process Owners in the Wild: Findings from a Multi-method Descriptive Study
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-603/ER-POIS10_Paper1.pdf
|volume=Vol-603
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/caise/ReijersP10
}}
==Process Owners in the Wild: Findings from a Multi-method Descriptive Study==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-603/ER-POIS10_Paper1.pdf
Process Owners in the Wild:
Findings from a Multi-method Descriptive Study
Hajo A. Reijers1 and Roel L.J.L Peeters2
1
Eindhoven University of Technology, School of Industrial Engineering,
Den Dolech 2, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
h.a.reijers@tue.nl
2
YNNO, Orteliuslaan 9, 3528 BA Utrecht, The Netherlands
roel.peeters@ynno.com
Abstract. Process ownership is widely considered as a key element in process-
oriented organizations. However, no consistent view on this role can be found
in the literature and only a limited insight exists into its fulfillment within
industrial practice. This paper reports on the findings from a descriptive
research study into process ownership. These findings are gathered through a
survey and two in-depth case studies. A main conclusion is that tasks and
responsibilities of process owners have a different focus for organizations at an
early stage of BPM maturity compared to organizations at more progressed
levels. Furthermore, the formal and actual fulfillment of this role may vary
considerably. In this paper, we reflect on the implications of these findings for
practice and research.
Keywords: Process ownership, process roles, BPM, BPM maturity
1 Introduction
The most visible difference between a process enterprise and a traditional
organization is arguably the existence of process owners [8]. In a traditional
organization, a geographical or functional manager oversees both the operations and
the people performing them. In a process-oriented organization, it is the process
owner who is responsible for the effective and efficient execution of a process [20].
Process ownership is broadly recognized as a crucial element in the effectiveness
of process-oriented organizations. For example, Hammer describes a case of a newly
designed order-fulfillment process where “the process owner didn’t have the authority
to force unit heads to implement it, so the effort floundered” [6]. Rummler and
Brache refer to the interfaces between functional departments as “white spaces” and
simply state that “without a process owner, the white spaces will be ignored” [18].
Also, in current frameworks for assessing Business Process Management (BPM)
maturity of organizations, the existence of process owners and other BPM-related
roles are considered as a major element of the governance structure [6;15;16].
Given the importance attributed to process ownership, actually very little is known
about what process owners do or are supposed to do. There is consensus about
B. Mutschler, J. Recker, R. Wieringa, J. Ralyté, and P. Plebani (Eds.):
CAiSE 2010 Workshop ER-POIS, Hammamet, Tunisia, pp. 1-12, 2010.
2 Hajo A. Reijers and Roel L.J.L Peeters
process owners being responsible for the management of processes across the various
phases of its lifecycle (see e.g. [2;8;20]), but little beyond that. It is the aim of this
paper to shed light on these and other issues that relate to how process owners operate
in industrial practice. The contribution of this paper is that it provides a
contemporary, descriptive view on process ownership. This view may help
organizations to reflect on their process ownership fulfillment. Our work may be used
as the academic starting point for creating and supporting an informed, uniform, and
prescriptive view on this subject.
To gather the insights we desire, we conducted both a survey and two case studies
in The Netherlands with a descriptive research design. An important principle that
guided our design is that process ownership is probably not a static role. In one of the
few studies that empirically investigates process ownership, it was established that
organizations that are well progressed with BPM or, in other words, display a high
level of BPM maturity (BPMM) appoint a higher proportion of process owners
compared to organizations in early stages of BPM adoption [14]. Also, but then from
a prescriptive point of view, it has been argued that the role of the process owner must
change as the organization’s BPM initiative matures [5]. Therefore, our investigation
of process ownership goes hand-in-hand with determining the maturity that
organizations display with respect to their BPM initiatives.
The structure of the paper is then as follows. In the next section we will provide a
review of the literature on process ownership. The review will particularly highlight
the omissions in the existing body of knowledge. Next, we discuss in Section 3 our
research design, followed by a presentation of the results from the survey and case
studies in Section 4. Section 5 contains a discussion of the results and our
conclusions.
2 Literature review
Process owners are broadly recognized as being important in a process-oriented
approach to manage business operations. Hammer describes no less than four phases
of process ownership in his tool to assess the maturity of business processes and
enterprises [6]. Similarly, process owners – next to other process-related roles – are
also considered as part of the governance structure in a recent BPM maturity model
[16;17]. It should be noted, however, that support for the importance of process
ownership is mostly anecdotic, as in e.g. [8].
The only empirical work known to us that considers the process owner role both
methodologically and empirically is [14]. The authors’ main insight is that
organizations that are well progressed with BPM appoint a higher portion of process
owners and that these are more often to be found at both a senior level and
supervisory / frontline level than is the case for early stage organizations. It should be
mentioned that the survey at the basis of these findings was carried out in 1996, more
than a decade ago. That there is a notable uncertainty on process ownership in
industrial practice was reported more recently in [10]. As the authors put it “often
there is no explicit or implicit agreement of process ownership [within an
organization]”.
Process Owners in the Wild: Findings from a Multi-method Descriptive Study 3
Except that process owners are considered important, little consensus exists on
what process owners really are. Hammer & Champy [7] use the notion to identify the
person responsible for the reengineering of a specific process, including establishing
the standards of performance. As summarized in [10], Hammer cum suis state that the
process owner must have the end-to-end accountability for a process. Rather than
Hammer’s powerful technocrat, Siemieniuch and Sinclair see process owners
implementing an administrative function with as main responsibilities and tasks the
documentation of a process and the evaluation and approval of process changes [19].
A more reflective, observing interpretation of the process owner role can also be
found in [20]. Hardjono and Bakker describe a more elaborate role for the process
owners as fulfilling a management and control function [9]. But in contrast to
Hammer’s strong emphasis on the reengineering phase of a process, Hardjono and
Bakker clearly link the process owner to all phases of the process lifecycle.
Furthermore, they argue that process ownership should be assigned as low in the
organization as possible, to encourage ‘a spirit of entrepreneurship’. The additional
benefit of this level is that this is beneficial for the organization’s customer focus.
Clearly, this sharply contrasts with the examples provided by Hammer in [6] and [8]
where process owners are senior managers. Hardjono and Bakker’s view is also not
consistent with the evolving nature of process owners in [14].
The only attempt that we are aware of to arrive at a prescriptive view on the tasks
and responsibilities of a process owner from a more or less methodological
requirements analysis is given in [10]. However, this attempt specifically aims at the
situation where process ownership is implemented in an inter-organizational context
and the role is closely linked to the implementation of IT.
In summary, the literature provides limited insight into process ownership. Firstly,
in most publications where process ownership is addressed, the topic is treated
superficially – almost as if authors take the subject for granted. Secondly, only little
empirical research has been conducted in this area. Thirdly, most articles in which
process ownership is touched are prescriptive in nature, but are in disagreement in
many respects. This leads to a situation in which little consensus exists on the
preferable fulfillment of process ownership and no insight at all into how
organizations actually implement this role.
3 Research design
The main research question that we address with this work is: How is process
ownership fulfilled in practice across different levels of BPM maturity? This question
is considered at two levels of abstraction. In the first place, we are interested in the
organizational level. At this level we consider how organizations formally give shape
to the role of the process owner. Secondly, we consider process ownership at the
individual level: How do process owners really act, either within or perhaps beyond
the formal limits of their role?
Since the concept of process ownership is well-entrenched in the managerial
discourse without, however, an exact understanding of its specific aspects, we
addressed our research question with a descriptive design. Two complementing data
4 Hajo A. Reijers and Roel L.J.L Peeters
collection methods were selected: a survey, which aims at gathering quantitative data,
and two in-depth case studies, aimed at gaining a qualitative insight. A multi-method
model of research like this one is not common in IS research, although the case for
combining qualitative and quantitative research methods is strong [4]. In the
application of both research methods the two concepts of interest are addressed, i.e.
process ownership and BPM maturity (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Multi-method approach.
In order to ensure comparable data was gathered in the research, a theoretical
framework has been developed on the basis of literature on job (performance)
analysis. The framework is based on Boyatzis’ dynamic interaction model [1] and
amended with BPM-related contextual factors to get insight into both the
organizational implementation and individual fulfillment of process ownership. For
more details, see Table 1.
Table 1: Variables of the analysis framework.
Organizational demands /
Organizational Environment Competences
actual fulfillment
Organizational demographics Hierarchical position Characteristics
Organizational strategy Ownership hierarchy Capacities
BPM drivers / strategy Full-time / part-time
BPM structure Responsibilities
BPM maturity Authorities
BPM governance Tasks
A further specification was made for the content-related aspects in the category
‘organizational demands / actual fulfillment’: responsibilities, authorities and tasks
(see the second column in Table 1). Our review of the literature revealed two main
responsibilities: responsibility (1) for process performance and (2) for process
improvement. Also, the following authorities are taken into account: (1) decision-
rights on e.g. process design [8], (2) establishing or distributing budget for realizing
process goals and process improvement [8], (3) assigning capacity to e.g. process
Process Owners in the Wild: Findings from a Multi-method Descriptive Study 5
improvement projects, and (4) access to management information. To apply a
structural approach investigating process owners’ tasks, the managerial practices from
[22] were extended with tasks assigned by Mintzberg’s to his ‘figurehead’ and
‘entrepreneur’ role [11].
3.1 Survey
The general purpose of a descriptive survey is to find out what situations, events,
attitudes, or opinions are occurring in a population [13]. For this research, our interest
is with a particular situation: the implementation of the process owner role in a
specific organization. Because of the necessary precaution with limiting the size of a
survey to minimize non-response, we only addressed process ownership at the
organizational level in our survey. For the same reason, we did not use one of the
instruments available to assess an organization’s BPM maturity level, as they are
rather extensive. Instead, we used De Bruin’s BPM structure variable as a proxy for
BPM maturity since it appears to provide a reasonable cluster to distinguish an
organization’s evolution with respect to BPM over time [3]. This variable
distinguishes whether an organization carries out BPM initiatives either in an ad hoc
fashion, in the form of projects, coordinated from a BPM team or centre of
excellence, or within the setting of an enterprise-wide program.
Overall, the descriptive survey contained four sections. The first section contained
a statement of confidentiality and anonymity (to encourage truthful responses and
minimize non-response) and an explanation of important concepts, such as BPM and
BPM maturity. The second section queried the respondent for several details, such as
the name of the organization and its type of industry. The third section addressed the
organization’s type of BPM undertaking and structure, while the last section dealt
with the organizational implementation of process ownership. The exact aspects
addressed in the survey can be seen in the second column in Table 1.
The survey was distributed at three professional conferences on process
management in The Netherlands during 2007 and 2008 and made available online to
industry contacts of the authors. In total, approximately 130 individuals were invited
to fill in the survey, which resulted in 56 complete responses. From these we filtered
out the responses from consultancy firms. Their answers generally did not refer to a
specific organization, which made them unreliable for our purposes. Also, we filtered
out organizations without any BPM initiative. As a result, we arrived at 22 responses.
3.2 Case studies
In contrast to a survey, case studies provide the opportunity to get an in-depth,
qualitative insight of the subject of study and allow for retaining the holistic and
meaningful characteristics of real-life events. Following [4], case studies can aid in
capturing the richness of organizational behavior. For this research project this means
investigating both the organizational fulfillment of the process owner role and the
individual fulfillment of process ownership in the case setting. The organizational
6 Hajo A. Reijers and Roel L.J.L Peeters
fulfillment is addressed similarly as in the survey, but as we recall from Figure 1 the
individual fulfillment is only addressed in the case studies.
The methodology applied in the case studies follows the case study method as
described by [21]. Potential case organizations were targeted via personal interaction
at three professional conferences on process management in The Netherlands. Several
criteria for participation were determined: (a) the organization needed to undertake
some form of BPM initiative or program, (b) the organization needed to have process
owners, and (c) the organization allowed for the application of our entire theoretical
framework to ensure comparable data collection. From the three organizations willing
to participate, two met all criteria; the study of these cases is further described in this
paper. Note that since the exact approaches to BPM are of strategic value to both
organizations, they are made anonymous in this paper.
Within the case studies, three sources of data were used: (1) documentation; (2) an
online survey, and (3) semi-structured interviews. The desk research was primarily
aimed at gaining insight into the organizational environment and the organizational
fulfillment of the process owner role. The survey was applied as a first investigation
of the individual fulfillment of the process owner role and for assessing the
organization’s level of BPM maturity. For triangulation purposes, the latter topics
were also covered in the semi-structured interviews.
4 Results
4.1 Survey
With our descriptive survey we investigated the organizational implementation of the
process owner role across various levels of BPM maturity. As the survey outcomes
support the research of [14] – where it was found that organizations already
progressed with BPM fulfill process ownership differently than those in the early
stages of BPM – the outcomes are presented for each of these two groups separately.
To this end, we combined responses from organizations at the two lowest levels of the
BPM structure variable into an “early stage” group and the remaining organizations
into a “progressed stage” group. Note that the number of responses did not allow for a
further split-up into groups. Also note that the presented outcomes are the scores on
the elements in the second column of Table 1. The following are the findings that are
independent of the organizational level of BPM maturity:
a) The vast majority (77%) of organizations with a BPM program assign
process owners, implicating that this role is a common aspect in BPM.
b) Three-quarters of the respondents report that their BPM program can best be
described as either ‘ad hoc’ or ‘project-based’ – the two early stages of BPM
maturity adoption – whereas one-quarter describes program as more
progressed (BPM team / enterprise-wide). This points at a rather immature
BPM landscape in The Netherlands.
Process Owners in the Wild: Findings from a Multi-method Descriptive Study 7
Table 2: Comparison of survey outcomes per level of BPM maturity
BPM maturity level Early Progressed
Stage stage
(n=16) (n=6)
Process owner assignment
Not assigned 31% 0%
Part-time occupation 69% 67%
Full-time occupation 0% 33%
Organizational level
Ownership in the board 6% 50%
Ownership in staff 38% 33%
Ownership in line management 63% 50%
Process owners assigned on multiple 25% 50%
levels (hierarchy)
Responsibilities
Process performance 75% 67%
Process improvement 50% 67%
None of these responsibilities 6% 33%
Authorities
Decision rights 63% 83%
Budget 38% 33%
Capacity 56% 33%
Access to management information 50% 50%
Comparing the survey outcomes of both groups, several differences come to light. In
both groups, approximately two-thirds of the organizations assign process ownership
as a part-time role. However, whereas the remaining one-third in the early stage group
concerns organizations that have not assigned process owners at all, the remaining
one-third in the progressed group has full-time process owners. This implies that
progressed organizations recognize the added value of and necessity for process
owners.
Comparing the organizational levels on which process owners operate, two
differences can be distinguished. Firstly, only a quarter of the early stage
organizations has process owners on multiple levels in the organization, versus half of
the progressed organizations. This indicates that process ownership is more common
and elaborate in progressed organizations as part of a process-based governance
structure. Secondly, there is a big difference of in the assignment of process owners
on a board-level in favor of the progressed organizations. This finding supports earlier
research: It is in line with [3], where support was found for the importance of
executive ownership / commitment. It also supports the research of [14], where it was
found that process owners are more often positioned at the executive level in
progressed organizations.
Only half of the early stage organizations report that process owners have a
responsibility for process improvement versus two-third of the organizations in the
second category. It seems that the progressed organizations have their business
8 Hajo A. Reijers and Roel L.J.L Peeters
processes under control and shift their focus towards process improvement. Another
substantial difference concerning responsibilities is that one-third of the respondents
in the progressed group indicates that process owners have a responsibility beyond
process performance and process improvement vs. 6% in the early stage group. It is
an open issue to what these responsibilities relate, but it would be highly interesting to
investigate this further.
Regarding authorities that process owners are facilitated with, no connection with
a difference in BPMM was found, which is a rather surprising outcome. Basically,
process owners have similar a similar authority at both levels.
Comparing the tasks carried out by process owners on both BPMM levels (not
shown in the table), it could be established that in the progressed group, the process
owner role is extended with ‘external’ tasks such as ‘representing the process’
compared to the role in early stage organizations. Also, the task ‘initiating process
improvement’ is much more often mentioned by respondents in the progressed group,
which is in line with our earlier finding that process owners have a responsibility for
process improvement in progressed organizations.
4.2 Case studies
While the survey outcomes had a focus on the organizational level, we like to recall
that the case studies allowed for investigating both the organizational implementation
of the process owner role and the actual fulfillment of the role at an individual level.
Case A
Case organization A is a financial service provider primarily servicing small and
medium enterprises. The organization established a BPM department, which indicates
that their BPM initiative can be classified as ‘progressed’. The aim of the BPM
department is to optimize all processes within the organization in order to increase the
control and level of standardization, and to decrease operational risk. A year prior to
our research, the BPM department implemented a BPM governance structure in one
from its many ‘process chains’ as a pilot-test for the implementation of BPM within
the business. Table 4 displays the organizational implementation of process
ownership for this process chain, of which the primary process concerns the collection
of money from cash-dispensers by customers. This is a intensively automated process,
which strongly leans on the support from various involved departments. Considering
the content of Table 4, it can be seen that process owners in case A are responsible for
process performance and budget allocation (for process improvement). Since BPM
governance is still in a pilot phase in this organization, all aspects concerning budgets
only exist on paper. The process owner tasks are: enabling process design,
coordinating process improvement, ensuring correct process measures (KPIs), and
chairmanship of process chain meetings, where performance issues are addressed
among others. The authorities that process owners have are (joint) decision making
regarding process design and the determination of process requirements (KPIs).
Process Owners in the Wild: Findings from a Multi-method Descriptive Study 9
Table 3: Organizational fulfillment process ownership cases A and B
Element Case A Case B
Hierarchical Line management (product Line manager (responsible for a
position manager) part of the process)
Individual/ Individual role Individual role
team role
Ownership Limited to process owner and Domain owner, process owner,
hierarchy work process managers process manager
Full-time / Part-time Part-time
part-time
Responsibility Process performance (on Ensuring effective and efficient
KPIs) process design
Budget monitoring Ensuring compliance with
legislation
Ensuring synchronization with
stakeholders
Validating and approving process
changes
Tasks Enabling process design Translating strategy into process
Translating strategy into KPIs requirements
Coordination / conduct of Keeping process documentation
process improvement up-to-date
Chairmanship of process chain Assessing for the need for process
meetings improvement
Reporting to stakeholders Communication with stakeholders
Authorities Design process (within Process design
requirements of Marketing)
Determine KPIs
Allocating budget
The individual fulfillment of the process owner role differs substantially from the
organizational fulfillment as described above. The tasks we found to be most
important for the process owners are ‘monitoring process improvement’, ‘problem
solving’ and ‘initiating process improvement’. Clearly, these tasks are in line with the
formal responsibility for managing process performance. But as the process owner –
as one of the very few in the entire organization – has gained the knowledge and
complete overview of the entire process chain, this person has become a central
contact point for all kinds of issues regarding the process chain. And because of the
centralization of responsibilities to the process owner role, a start is being made with
the development policies to the benefit of the entire chain in areas on which policies
were lacking prior to the implementation of the BPM governance structure. For
example, in the situation before the implementation of the BPM governance structure
local branches could request the installation of a cash-dispenser from the IT
department. In the current situation, such requests are assessed against a policy that
maximizes overall organizational profit. Finally, the process owner carries out various
‘external’ tasks such as forming a contact point for all kind of process chain-related
10 Hajo A. Reijers and Roel L.J.L Peeters
issues, which do not follow from the formal description of the role. Summarizing, the
actual process owner role can best be summarized as that of process chain manager.
Case B
Case organization B is a maintenance, repair and overhaul service provider in the
airline industry. The organization has established a BPM department which aims to
support the business in reaching its goals by a continuous optimization of process,
organization and information. One of the instruments of the BPM department in
reaching their goals is the roll-out of an enterprise-wide BPM governance structure.
The existence of a BPM-department and an enterprise-wide approach classifies this
organization's BPM program as 'progressed'. The process domain under consideration
in case B is the end-to-end process of servicing engines. The organizational
implementation of process ownership can also be seen in Table 4. As the table shows,
the organizational fulfillment of process owner role in case B contains aspects of
process performance, process improvement, and process documentation. The process
owner role is primarily assigned to line managers who are responsible for the
performance and improvement of their part of the business process. This is odd for
two reasons. In the first place, the idea of process owners is that it is a cross-
functional role. Secondly, there is no distinction between the hierarchal manager and
the process owner in this set-up. Therefore, it is questionable if this part of the
organizational fulfillment of the role truly represents process ownership or whether
this is a nominal indication only.
Regarding the individual fulfillment of process ownership, the process owners
indicated that not much has changed by the implementation of the BPM governance
structure. This is perhaps not surprising given the organizational fulfillment that was
just discussed. Process owners report that their function has only been extended with
designing the process and validating potential process changes, or in their own words
with “keeping the process documentation up-to-date”. The image on the actual
fulfillment of process ownership that emerges here, is only a modest role resembling
the one in [19], where BPM is approached from a knowledge management
perspective. As the organization can be described as a ‘Machine Bureaucracy’, one of
Mintzberg’s organizational archetypes [12] which relies heavily on the
standardization of rules, procedures and work processes, the process owner role in
case B resembles an administrative function but not someone who has an end-to-end
accountability for a process.
5 Discussion and conclusion
The first important insight from our research, in particular from our survey, is that
process ownership is a role that seems to progress with an organization’s level of
BPM maturity. This coincides with an early insight from [14]. On the basis of our
descriptive research, it is not possible to say whether this is intrinsically a good or a
bad thing. Nonetheless, it seems sensible that organizations that want to move
towards a higher level of BPM maturity should assign their process owners with the
Process Owners in the Wild: Findings from a Multi-method Descriptive Study 11
task to look for process improvement opportunities beyond their regular operational
duties in managing a process.
The second insight is that the fulfillment of the process owner role on the
individual level can be very different from the organizational level. In other words,
process owners do different things than what they are supposed to do. This insight
follows most clearly from our case studies, where distinctive discrepancies were
noted between the organizational and individual levels. It seems prudent that process
ownership should be assigned to the best and most motivated people in an
organization, as they may be expected to look for the maximal leverage they can get
out this position. Our case study A clearly shows what such a ‘soul of fire’ can
achieve beyond the formal duties that he or she is assigned with. Another suggestion
we like to make is to clearly detach process ownership from conventional managerial
roles. Our case study B shows the risk that otherwise process ownership will not be
seen as something new and therefore not as something of value. In this particular case
study, process owners become mere “process clerks”.
The scientific contribution of this paper is that it gives an empirical and
contemporary insight into the fulfillment of the process ownership role. Our work
provides an indication for the importance of (executive) process ownership, which
justifies further research in this area. As our research was limited to describing how
process ownership is fulfilled in practice, future research may aim to explore what
makes the fulfillment of process ownership and BPM governance successful /
effective across various levels of BPM maturity.
The main limitations surrounding the survey are related to the respondents, the
number of responses, and the survey content. The respondents are not sampled from a
completely random group, as they represent attendants to professional BPM
conferences as well as contacts from our industrial network. This group gives our
research a bias towards frontrunners in this field. Also, there is a clear bias towards
the regional and cultural area of The Netherlands. Finally, the number of responses
that was usable is limited to 22. Limitations surrounding the conduct of the case
studies relate mainly to the generalization of its outcomes. Both cases studies concern
organizations that are progressed with respect to their BPM maturity, so the noted
differences between the organizational and individual level of process ownership
should be clearly seen in this context.
Building on these preliminary insights, the next step is to broaden the empirical
basis for this research both in numbers of respondents and in other geographical and
cultural zones. If we rely on the assumption that increasing BPM maturity will lead to
improved effectiveness cf. [6], the connection between process ownership fulfillment
and BPM maturity should then be investigated in more detail. In the end, we would
hope for sufficient insights and evidence to advice organizations to become truly
process-oriented, to the merit of all their stakeholders.
Acknowledgements. This research is supported by the Technology Foundation STW,
applied science division of NWO, and the technology programme of the Dutch
Ministry of Economic Affairs.
12 Hajo A. Reijers and Roel L.J.L Peeters
References
[1] Boyatzis, R. E.: The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance.
Wiley (1982).
[2] Davenport, T. H.: Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through
Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press (1993).
[3] de Bruin, T.: Insights into the Evolution of BPM in Organisations, in:
Toleman, M., Cater-Steel, A., and Roberts, D. (eds.) Proc. ACIS 2007, pp. 632-
642, 2007.
[4] Gable, G. G.: Integrating Case Study and Survey Research Methods: an
Example in Information Systems. EJIS, 3(2), 112-126 (1994).
[5] Hammer, M.: Beyond Reengineering. Harper Business (1996).
[6] Hammer, M.: The Process Audit. HBR, 85(4), 111-123 (2007).
[7] Hammer, M. and Champy, J.: Reengineering the Corporation. Harper Business
(1993).
[8] Hammer, M. and Stanton, S.: How Process Enterprises Really Work. HBR,
77(6), 108-118 (1999).
[9] Hardjono, T. W. and Bakker, R. J. M.: Management Van Processen:
Identificeren, Besturen, Beheersen En Vernieuwen. Kluwer (2002).
[10] Larsen, M. H. and R. Klischewski: Process Ownership Challenges in IT-
Enabled Transformation of Interorganizational Business Processes, Proc.
HICSS 2004, pp. 11, 2004.
[11] Mintzberg, H.: The Nature of Managerial Work. Prentice-Hall (1980).
[12] Mintzberg, H.: Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Prentice-
Hall (1983).
[13] Pinsonneault, A. and Kraemer, K. L.: Survey Research Methodology in
Management Information Systems: an Assessment. JMIS, 10(2), 75-105
(1993).
[14] Pritchard, J. P. and Armistead, C.: Business Process Management: Lessons
From European Business. BPM Journal, 5(1), 10-32 (1999).
[15] Reijers, H. A.: Implementing BPM Systems: the Role of Process Orientation.
BPM Journal, 12(4), 389-409 (2006).
[16] Rosemann, M. and de Bruin, T.: Towards a Business Process Management
Maturity Model. Proc. ECIS 2005, (2005).
[17] Rosemann, M., de Bruin, T., and Hueffner, T.: A Model for Business Process
Management Maturity. Proc. ACIS 2004, (2004).
[18] Rummler, G. A. and Brache, A. P.: Improving Performance. Jossey-Bass
(1990).
[19] Siemieniuch, C. E. and Sinclair, M. A.: On Complexity, Process Ownership
and Organisational Learning in Manufacturing Organisations, From an
Ergonomics Perspective. Applied Ergonomics, 33(5), 449-462 (2002).
[20] Vanhaverbeke, W. and Torremans, H.: Organizational Structure in Process-
Based Organizations. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(1), 41-52
(1999).
[21] Yin, R. K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage (2003).
[22] Yukl, G. A.: Leadership in Organizations. Prentice Hall (1994).