Search results

Several organizations choose a process‐oriented organizational design as a source for competitive advantage. The purpose of this paper is to explore empirically the relationship between process orientation (PO) and firm performance. The paper considers PO as a multidimensional construct and examines how its underlying dimensions impact different aspects of organizational performance.

The paper uses an exploratory research design and investigates the effects of the different PO dimensions on profitability, customer satisfaction, product quality, and time‐based performance using a random sample of Austrian manufacturing firms.

The empirical findings reveal that process performance measurement, a process‐oriented organizational structure, the application of continuous process improvement methods, and – in particular – a culture in line with the process approach, are significantly and positively associated with organizational performance.

While a few studies examined the effects of PO on financial performance, there is a clear lack of quantitative studies investigating the effects of PO on other, non‐financial performance measures. In addition, since most of the existing studies treated PO as a single measure, there is a clear lack of studies that investigate the performance effects of individual PO dimensions. The paper incorporates the multidimensional nature of PO and examines the effects of individual PO dimensions on several firm performance aspects.

The purpose of this paper is to explore empirically the interaction effect of process performance measurement and the process owner role on organizational performance.

Using a sample of Austrian manufacturing companies, the paper uses multivariate data analysis techniques to test the joint effect of process performance measurement and process ownership on firm performance.

The empirical evidence indicates that implementing process performance measurement or the process owner role only is insufficient to achieve high performance. Organizations must implement both concepts – process performance measurement and the process owner role – to reap the fruits of process management.

Several research limitations apply. First, the sample only included Austrian manufacturing firms. The generalizability of the findings to other industries or other countries is open to scrutiny. Second, only one interview per firm was conducted. Interviewing several managers per firm would have led to even higher data quality. A third important limitation of this work is the small number of cases in the regression models. Such a small number of cases are not appropriate for a clear demonstration of empirical effects. Fourth, this work relies on survey data, which leaves open the possibility of self‐serving bias in the data.

The promise of process management is to help firms gain competitive advantage, and, as such, managers facing organizational problems may adopt process management practices as a response to these problems. But managers must fully understand the concept of process management to ensure these practices are used in the appropriate contexts. Managers must understand the multidimensional nature of process orientation and the importance of its key dimensions. The empirical evidence of the study suggests that managers should put their effort into establishing process owners as well as process performance measurement as both process management concepts are needed in order to achieve firm performance improvements.

While the importance of process management has often been highlighted, much more remains to be understood about the performance impact of specific process management practices. This paper focuses on the process owner role and process performance measurement – as empirical studies investigating the interaction effect of these two practices have been remarkably limited to date.

Attention to processes has increased, as thousands of firms have adopted the process view of their organization. Process orientation (PO) means focusing on business processes rather than emphasizing functional structure or hierarchy. Despite the huge growth in the business process management literature, a methodological gap still remains about a certain ambiguity in the definition of the construct specifying its theoretical domain and dimensionalization. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the literature on PO through the creation and validation of a model to measure the key dimensions of the PO construct.

The authors derive from literature several dimensions which shape the concept of PO. In a second step, the study includes factor analysis on a sample of 152 Austrian manufacturing companies to verify that the model is empirical valid.

The paper provides insight in the concept of PO. It concludes that PO is a multidimensional construct, consisting of the following dimensions: design and documentation of business processes; management commitment towards PO; the process owner role; process performance measurement; a corporate culture in line with the process approach; application of continuous process improvement methodologies; and process‐oriented organizational structure.

The sample used in this work only included Austrian firms operating in manufacturing industry. Generalizability of the findings to other industries or other countries is open to scrutiny.

Several studies into process management use proxy variables as an indicator for PO (e.g. ISO 9000 certification). Other studies treat the construct as a unidimensional measure. However, unidimensional measures meet with increasing criticism, as they turn out to be insufficient to capture the richness of such a complex construct. This paper attempts to rectify the content deficiencies in the literature on the construct by specifying its theoretical domain and dimensionalization.

This paper aims to empirically explore the impact of absorptive capacity (AC) on explorative and exploitative innovation in business cluster settings, and the environment's moderating role on these relationships.

Using a sample of Central European companies, the paper applies multivariate data analysis techniques to test the effect of AC on innovation performance and potential moderators, respectively.

The empirical evidence indicates that AC impacts both explorative and exploitative innovation, and that the strength of the impact depends on the business clusters' level of dynamism and competitiveness. Environmental dynamism and competitiveness positively moderate the effect of AC on explorative innovation, and negatively moderate the effect of AC on exploitative innovation.

Several research limitations apply. First, only one interview per firm was conducted on a self‐reporting basis. Second, the survey's focus was on SMEs. Third, questionnaire translations and differing interviewer behaviour may bias the results.

The findings suggest that firms in business clusters must develop AC to gain the fruits of agglomeration effects. Furthermore, attention should be paid to the cluster's environmental conditions, since dynamism and competition play a significant role for innovation.

Although the importance of AC has often been highlighted, much more remains to be understood about its role in business cluster settings. This issue is addressed in this work by providing systematic, empirical evidence on how AC affects innovation performance at the firm level, and on how this relationship depends on the business cluster's environmental characteristics.

The purpose of this paper is to carry out a literature review of studies that have analyzed the effects of process orientation (PO).

An examination of the literature is undertaken to review studies that report about the influence of PO on organizational performance. Studies are classified into statements without straight empirical support, quantitative studies, and case studies.

A total of 26 studies are identified that report about effects of PO on organizational performance. Studies where positive effects are obtained are predominant. The effects most often reported are speed improvements, increase of customer satisfaction, improvement of quality, reduction of cost, and improvement of financial performance.

According to the results of the paper, positive effects of PO are clearly more often reported than negative effects. It might be the case that popular press and case studies tend to report positive effects more often than no (or negative) effects. This possible bias towards positive effects is an important limitation of this paper. The paper identifies a lack of quantitative studies investigating the effects of PO on organizational performance.

The paper offers interesting implications for managers, pointing out that a process‐oriented organizational design may result in a positive influence on organizational performance.

The findings are derived from a comprehensive literature review of studies that have investigated the PO‐organizational performance link. In addition, ideas for improving future research in this field are provided.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the state-of-the-art in research on process owners, a key role within business process management and process governance, and thus to increase our understanding of the role of process owners.

The author conducts a systematic literature review of research shedding light on the role of process owners. The review includes 100 academic papers and 10 books on BPM.

Findings from the review demonstrate the significance of appointing process owners and showcase process owners’ role and responsibilities, as well as obstacles to and enablers of effective process ownership.

Based on the findings from the review, the author proposes a comprehensive framework on process ownership. The review provides a knowledge base for future research to build upon and can serve as a guide for practitioners. The review also identifies several research gaps and opportunities for future research.

Process orientation is important for improving organizational performance. The process view is considered a key enabler of digital transformation, and thus management control systems (MCS) are expected to incorporate this view. However, the existing body of knowledge is fragmented, as different process approaches are often considered independently following a reductionist view of control practices. This paper aims to provide recommendations for further research as well as guidance for practice by a systematic review of the state of research of MC for process orientation. It is based on both a comprehensive view to MC using an MCS package approach and a comprehensive view of process orientation.

A systematic literature review addressing major types of process orientation approaches was performed by applying the comprehensive MC framework of Malmi and Brown. The results were synthesized and propositions were developed.

All components of the MC framework, as well as MCS packages, are highly relevant for process orientation. Propositions regarding configurations of MC for process orientation show directions for future research. However, comprehensive considerations of packages and of individual components, especially cultural controls, remain scarce in the literature.

To the best of the authors‘ knowledge, this paper is the first of its kind to provide a comprehensive, structured overview of MC for process orientation, applying a nonreductionist view, based on an MCS Package approach, and consolidating the so far fragmented view of different process approaches.

While much research exists on methods and tools to support business processes, little research exists on the interrelationship with cultural and structural aspects. The purpose of this paper is to explore the chronological sequence in which culture and structure are important, as evidenced in 13 non-profit organisations that are changing towards a process-oriented way of working.

The authors use a positivist case study methodology with pattern-matching to falsify or confirm three theoretical perspectives that claim to explain the phenomena of organisational structure and culture, and their impact on business processes. The competing perspectives are: process lifecycle theories, organisational design theories and cultural and motivational theories.

The case studies cover six scenarios based on a recurrent sequence of changes and perceived outcome. The (theoretical and empirical) relationships between business processes, a process-oriented culture and a process-oriented structure are then combined in a process capability success model.

Although limited to the non-profit sector, the findings agree that the process lifecycle is insufficient. Cultural and motivational theories prevail over organisational design theories to explain and predict process success.

From the process capability success model, a roadmap for (un)successful business process management (BPM) is derived with best practices and advice on the sequence of process improvements.

While the relevance of culture and structure has been touched in research before, the aspect of chronological sequence and pattern-matching sheds new light on the topic. The case studies performed also help to evidence how important it is to believe in process-oriented developments for organisations that want to apply BPM.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the ongoing debate on the appropriate organizational design for the process management implementation. Using the lens of institutional theory, the paper discusses how organizations adapt to a required implementation of a process view alongside their organizational structures.

The study is designed as a single case study of a Norwegian shipping company. On the one hand, shipping companies are traditionally managed by functions due to the specifics of maritime operations and high safety-related risks of the work. On the other hand, the rising demands of regulatory bodies and customers within the offshore logistics are calling for implementation of a process view within the organizations, which implies management by processes.

The study analyses conflicting requirements of the institutional environment influencing organizational structure and how these conflicts are addressed by the company. Besides, it describes the decoupling mechanism the company uses to balance between such requirements and adapt to the changes of the institutional pressures.

The study introduces a situational-based organizational structure as an alternative for both process and vertical views implementation within the companies operating in the highly demanding institutional environments.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how business process management (BPM) is incorporated within organisational structure. The authors demonstrate how a strategic interest in BPM and formal responsibilities for BPM activities shape the efficiency, quality and agility of BPM initiatives. By conducting field research, useful empirical insights were drawn about the necessary conditions for ensuring the success of BPM initiatives.

A questionnaire survey of BPM adoption practices was conducted among private- and public-sector organisations with more than 50 employees. A cross-national sample of 60 Croatian and 51 Slovenian companies is analysed by applying a subsampling strategy and using inferential statistics methods.

The study clearly shows how particular structural decisions can foster the operational excellence of BPM initiatives. Formal process roles and specialised BPM units were recognised as important drivers of organisational success. In addition, how strategic support and related structural choices create a synergistic effect and make process efforts worthwhile is explained.

The research findings offer useful benchmarking of current BPM practices. The developed BPM commitment matrix represents a simple tool for self-assessment. Its path-dependent logic provides guidelines for improving the outcomes of BPM governance in general, and BPM initiatives specifically.

The paper extends previous research by showing the performance effects of several BPM governance practices. The results clearly suggest that the best outcomes of BPM initiatives were achieved by organisations that had introduced a strategic approach to BPM, along with having defined a centralised BPM responsibility and assigned decentralised process ownership roles.