The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm

BPMJ
26,1 Business process management
maturity and performance
A multi group analysis of sectors
132 and organization sizes
Received 13 August 2018
Guido Ongena and Pascal Ravesteyn
Revised 29 December 2018 Research Centre Innovation and Business,
27 March 2019
Accepted 17 April 2019 HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Abstract
Purpose – The importance of contextual factors is increasingly recognized in the field of business process
management (BPM). The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relation between BPM maturity and
process performance and the uncharted differences of two contextual factors (size and sector) in this relation.
Design/methodology/approach – An empirical investigation is presented based on a sample of 165
organizations. Using partial least square-multi group analysis (PLS-MGA) differences between size and sector
are investigated.
Findings – Overall, information technology, resources and knowledge and process measurement are the
most pivotal BPM maturity dimensions that contribute to a better organizational process performance. The
results showed no differences between private and public organizations in the relation between BPM maturity
dimensions and process performance. In contrast, product organizations benefit more than service
organizations from continuous improvement of their processes. Moreover, utilizing IT technology is more
beneficial for small organizations rather than large organizations.
Originality/value – There is a clear lack of empirical studies investigating the role of context. This research
extends the limited body of literature that investigated contextual factors in the field of BPM. It is the first
study to add size and sector in the posited multi-dimensional model of BPM maturity dimensions and process
performance. The results provide guidance for scholars and practitioners that work on BPM practices in
different contexts.
Keywords Process performance, Sector, Business process management, BPM maturity, Organization size,
Partial least square-multi group analysis (PLS-MGA)
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Processes are at the core of every organization. It is cogently argued that managing
and improving these processes enables long-term sustained competitive advantage
and compliance (e.g. Hung, 2006). The predominant field of practice and research
which is primarily process oriented is that of business processes management (BPM).
BPM is a widely recognized research field in academia. In the information systems
discipline BPM, which entails approaches as business process reengineering (BPR),
process innovation, business process modeling, business process automation and
workflow management, gained much attention resulting in numerous publications
(Rosemann and de Bruin, 2004).
In practice, many organizations aim at enhancing the maturity of their business
processes. Processes are increasingly viewed as assets requiring investment and
development as they mature (McCormack et al., 2009). Over the years, approaches have
been developed to guide organizations in reaching higher maturity levels. According to
Rosemann and de Bruin (2004) the roots of these so-called maturity models can be traced
Business Process Management
Journal back to the Capability Maturity Model (Humphrey, 1988). Recent literature shows empirical
Vol. 26 No. 1, 2020
pp. 132-149
evidence of a significant relation between BPM maturity and organizational performance
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-7154
(Kohlbacher and Reijers, 2013; Wong et al., 2014; Dijkman et al., 2016). The role of contextual
DOI 10.1108/BPMJ-08-2018-0224 factors in this relation is, however, a mostly uncharted research endeavor. In response to
recent calls to examine contextual factors in BPM (vom Brocke et al., 2016) this study BPM maturity
investigates the role of context in the relation between BPM maturity and performance. and
Current BPM maturity models are often designed and tested against specific sectors. These performance
maturity models are increasingly utilized across a variety of contexts as the interest of BPM
maturity spreads. However, the question arises whether the used maturity models, or more
specifically its dimensions, have the same effect in outcomes in terms of improved
performance in different business contexts. A deeper understanding on the role of context in 133
the relationship between BPM maturity and performance is thus important.
This study considers two context factors, namely organization size and sector.
We intend to contribute to the extant body of literature that investigated organization size
and sectors in the context of process management. Van Looy and Van den Bergh (2017),
for instance, examined the effect of organization size and sector on BPM adoption.
Additionally, Weitlaner and Kohlbacher (2015) studied (dis)similarities in BPM practices.
However, to the best of our knowledge there is yet no study that investigated differences
across sectors and organizational size when it comes to the relation between BPM
maturity and process performance. This specific knowledge gap is previously pointed out
by Kohlbacher and Reijers (2013) and specifically by Weitlaner and Kohlbacher (2015) as
potential future research. This motivates our empirical inquiry into organization size and
sector differences in the direct relation between BPM maturity and an organization’s
process performance. The value of this study lies therein, that it contributes to a more
profound understanding on the role of contextual factors in BPM. Therefore, the research
question of this paper is:
RQ. To what extent are there differences in the relation between business process
management (BPM) maturity and process performance between sectors and
organizational size?
In order to answer this question a structural equation modeling approach is used based on
a data set consisting of 165 organizations with 532 respondents. Differences are examined
by means of a multi group analysis with partial least squares (PLS) in SmartPLS
v3 (Ringle, et al., 2015). The next section of this paper provides a literature review on
BPM maturity dimensions, its linkages to organizational performance and the role of
contextual factors. This section concludes with the formulation of hypotheses.
Subsequently in Section 3, the study’s method is specified which entails a description
of the measures used and the data collection. This is followed by a presentation of the
empirical findings with the group comparisons in Section 4. The paper concludes with
a discussion of the results in Section 5 and conclusions, implications and opportunities for
further research in Section 6.

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

2.1 BPM maturity model dimensions
The amount of BPM maturity models has grown steadily over the years. In general, the aim
of these models is to outline the stages/levels of maturity. Maturity models can be
descriptive, prescriptive, and comparative. A maturity model serves a descriptive purpose if
it can be applied for as-is assessments. It serves a prescriptive purpose if it indicates how to
identify desirable future maturity levels and if it provides guidance on how to implement
according improvement measures (Röglinger et al., 2012).
For our study we adopted the integrated model suggested by Ravesteyn et al. (2012).
This model is based on the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) and the work of
Rosemann and de Bruin (2005). It encompasses seven dimensions each consisting of a set of
BPM capabilities. First, process awareness stipulates the importance of commitment
from higher management (Kohlbacher and Reijers, 2013; Wong et al., 2014). This is often a
BPMJ neglected area of importance (Ravesteyn and Batenburg, 2010). This dimension also
26,1 includes the acceptance of process orientation with the organization’s employees.
Furthermore, a tight linkage of organizational priorities and enterprise processes is an
essential factor of BPM (Rosemann and vom Brocke, 2015). A prerequisite for managing
processes is to know which business processes are performed within the organization and
how they are related to each other (Kohlbacher and Reijers, 2013). Modeling and
134 documentation of processes is thus an element of concern in maturing the organization’s
processes. This dimension is labeled process description. To be able to control and improve
processes one must define the goals of a process, related performance indicators and
responsibilities related to collecting, analyzing and reporting. Measuring the performance
(Hinterhuber, 1995) is found to be a critical success factor of BPM practices (Škrinjar and
Trkman, 2013). Hence, processes measurement is defined as third dimension. Next, process
control reflects elements of governance like defining clear roles and responsibilities, using
best practices and/or standards for process management. Sometimes referred to as process
ownership (Weitlaner and Kohlbacher, 2015). The fifth dimension is the continuous
improvement of processes (process improvement). Rather than a fixed design of the process
architecture modern BPM approaches aim to have an organization adopt a cycle of
continuous improvement (Zairi, 1997). Additionally, providing the right resources (tools,
money, time), skills, expertise, education and knowledge sharing opportunities are essential
elements of BPM (Rosemann and vom Brocke, 2015). Resources and knowledge are thus
identified as a sixth dimension of the maturity model. Lastly, information technology plays
a pivotal role in BPM maturity (Rosemann and vom Brocke, 2015; Karimi et al., 2007) and is
therefore a separate dimension in the maturity model. Table I provides a summary of the
dimensions with a short description.

2.2 Process performance dimensions

Organizational performance is posited as outcome of BPM maturity. Initiatives aiming at
increasing an organization’s BPM maturity thus subsequently lead to better organizational
performance. This positive relationship has been a subject of interest for many years in
BPM research and successfully argued by early scholars (McCormack and Johnson, 2001;
Burlton, 2001), but also in recent literature by, for instance, Dijkman et al. (2016). We refer to
their work for an overview, though not exhausitive, of empirical studies scrutinizing the
relation between maturity and organizational performance.

Dimension Description

Processes awareness Recognition of the importance of a process-oriented organization and

inclusion in the organization’s strategy by its higher management
Process description Captured documentation of processes and related information within
the organization
Process measurement System to measure and control processes is in place in order to be able to
improve processes
Process control Process-owners are assigned within the organization whom are “horizontally”
responsible for managing processes
Process improvement The organization strives to continually improve processes and there is a
system in place to enable this
Resources and knowledge The organization has adequate resources (such as people with process
Table I.
knowledge) to create a “culture of process orientation”
Summary of BPM
maturity model Information technology The organization uses IT to design, simulate and execute processes, and to
dimensions used in provide real-time measurement information (key performance indicators)
this study Source: Adapted from Ravesteyn et al. (2012)
Organizational performance or success is, however, influenced by many variables and can BPM maturity
rapidly change due to the organization’s environment. This makes it hard to measure or and
monitor (Škrinjar and Trkman, 2013). For our study we comply with the notion that the performance
relation between BPM maturity and actual organizational performance is mediated by
the performance of an organization’s processes (Rosemann and de Bruin, 2005). The so-
called first-order effects of BPM maturity is primarily shown at the operational level within
the organization (Karimi et al., 2007) and is thus reflected in process performance rather than 135
the performance on an organizational level. Hence, rather than examining performance at an
organizational level as used by several studies (e.g. Kohlbacher and Reijers, 2013;
Dijkman et al., 2016; Wong et al., 2014) we use process performance or success as proxy for
organizational performance similarly as this has been used in prior studies (e.g. Karimi et al.,
2007; Ravesteyn et al., 2012; Thompson et al., 2009; Škrinjar and Trkman, 2013).
More recent research also found that business process outcomes typically relate to
efficiency, effectiveness, and agility/flexibility (Rudden, 2007; Karimi et al., 2007). Process
efficiency is gained by lowering inventory costs, increasing throughput or reducing labor
costs. An increase in employee efficiency is also a result of (business) process automation
(McDaniel, 2001). Process effectiveness is acquired by enhanced customer focus, better
quality and employee satisfaction. Process flexibility relates to the organization’s ability to
easily adapt or change to new circumstances. Previous research already showed a
significant relationship between these process outcomes and organization’s performance
( Jayaram et al., 2010).

2.3 Adding contextual factors

Context is a broad concept and is defined as the circumstances that form the setting for an
event, statement, or idea (Oxford University Press, 2018). Propelled by an increased research
interest into the value of BPM against different contextual conditions, the contingency
theory is more and more used as it provides theoretical underpinnings for research in this
field (Sousa and Voss, 2008). The main idea of the contingency theory is that an organization
must strive for a perfect fit between the business environment and business processes
(Trkman, 2010). Postulating the statement that the one-size-fits-all approach, which has been
a common practice for most BPM projects, are prone to fail, vom Brocke et al. (2016) propose
an integrated framework of contextual factors in BPM. The organization-dimension in their
morphological box comprises our focal area of study: industry (or sector) and size.
The size of the organization is well studied in (total) quality management literature, in
which BPM is rooted, but with inconclusive results. Whilst several studies found no
evidence of a significant role of organization size (e.g. Sila, 2007; Shah and Ward, 2003)
others did found evidence of a prominent role (e.g. Jayaram et al., 2010). The common motive
for researching this contextual factor is the non-existence of bureaucracy at smaller
organizations. These tend to have flatter organizational structures, be more flexible and
have informal communication channels enabling quality system design elements to be more
effective compared to large organizations. More recent, Van Looy and Van den Bergh (2017)
found that BPM adoption seems independent of the organization size. Also, Dijkman et al.
(2016) did not find a significant role of organization size. This outcome surprised them as the
expectation was that larger organizations have more resources to engage in process
innovation projects. Thus, to paraphrase the authors, this remains a topic for future study.
Over the years, BPM practices in different sectors or industries are studied. These include
the public sector (Rodney and Donaghy, 1999), the photography and paint industries
(Benner and Tushman, 2002), the service industry (Reijers, 2003; Pyon et al., 2011), healthcare
( Jansen-Vullers and Reijers, 2005) and metal and machinery industry (Kohlbacher and Reijers,
2013). It is, however, the question, as vom Brocke et al. (2016) stipulate, whether these practices
apply to all industries. Earlier BPM research showed differences in BPM adoption between
BPMJ private and public organizations but similarities between product and service organizations
26,1 (Van Looy and Van den Bergh, 2017). Similarly, Weitlaner and Kohlbacher (2015)
found differences in BPM maturity between manufacturers and service organizations on
the dimensions of process improvement, management commitment, process ownership and
performance measurement.

136 2.4 Hypotheses

Derived from the first two paragraphs of this theoretical background we propose a multi-
dimensional research model which posits organizational process performance as
endogenous variable. We position the different BPM maturity dimensions as exogenous
variables in the model. This study intends to examine differences in this model in sector or
industry and size. For reasons of group comparison and sufficient statistical power we
formulate three hypotheses where we compare two groups each time.
The first comparison is between the product industry and the service industry. The latter
is heavily knowledge driven. These so-called knowledge workers have an historical
antipathy to formalized processes. Many knowledge workers will view the formalization of
processes, which is a common practice in BPM, as bureaucratic (Davenport, 2010).
Moreover, services are highly interactive, intangible and heterogeneous, and they rely
heavily on improvisational work. Although BPM principles are also applicable in the service
industry (Weitlaner and Kohlbacher, 2015), BPM thus did not come to fruition in this sector
(Trkman, 2010). The product industry on the other hand, benefits from routinization and
systemic work as organizations in this industry rely on formal rules, methods and
standards. This is also the industry where BPM is rooted (vom Brocke et al., 2016).
Considering the different nature of the work related with these industries, we expect
product-oriented organizations benefit more from a higher BPM maturity than service-
oriented organizations and formulate the following hypothesis:
H1. The relation between BPM maturity dimensions and process performance is
significantly higher for organizations in the product industry when compared to the
service industry.
Second, differences between commercial and non-commercial organizations are assessed.
BPM has received much attention in the industrial engineering and manufacturing
(Gulledge Jr and Sommer, 2002). BPM maturity models are developed against these
backgrounds. It is questionable whether these models and its relation with process
performance is similar in the context of the public sector as they fundamentally differ. In the
seminal work of Rainey et al. (1976) three main differences are stipulated: environmental
factors (i.e. factors outside the organization), organization–environment transactions (i.e.
transactions of organizations with their environments), and internal structure and processes
(i.e. factors within the organization). Differences between private and public organizations
are also found in BPR practices (Thong et al., 2000). Considering the (engineering)
background of the maturity dimensions, we expect a significant better relation between the
dimensions and process performance in a commercial context (i.e. private sector). We thus
postulate the following hypothesis:
H2. The relation between BPM maturity dimensions and process performance is
significantly higher for organizations in the private sector when compared to the
public sector.
Weitlaner and Kohlbacher (2015) found differences in BPM maturity dimensions between
small and large organizations. It is argued that larger organizations have more resources to
assign when developing their BPM capabilities. Moreover, in order to stay manageable,
larger organizations have a more urgent need for well-defined and structured processes
(Dijkman et al., 2016). Subsequently, for this study, we expect that larger organization show BPM maturity
higher scores on the maturity dimensions as well as a better process performance. To see and
whether these differences are salient in our model, we explore this issue and postulate a performance
hypothesis that emphasizes this question:
H3. The relation between BPM maturity dimensions and process performance is
significantly higher for large organizations when compared to small organizations.
137
3. Research method
3.1 Measures
To investigate the differences in the relations between the constructs, we conducted a
survey, which is a common and increasingly used method in BPM research (Roeser and
Kern, 2015). The survey consisted of questions that operationalized the constructs of BPM
maturity dimensions. These were measured by a Likert-scale 1−5 and based on prior work
of Ravesteyn et al. (2012). The questionnaire consisted of 43 items related to the core
constructs of the research: BPM maturity (36 items (BPM capabilities) across seven
dimensions) and process performance (seven items). Furthermore, several general questions
were formulated to capture supporting variables such as size, sector, knowledge and
experience in BPM. Based on the literature as presented in Section 2.2 the following
variables were defined to measure process performance: costs, efficiency, lead-time,
customer focus, quality, employee satisfaction and flexibility. Table II shows the number of
items per latent variable for the BPM maturity construct. The full set of questions is
presented in Appendix.
Organization size was measured on an ordinal scale with seven categories and in regards
to the sectors respondents had 12 different options to choose from. The questions about
process performance were directly related to the maturity dimensions in order to ensure one
of the criteria of causality, which is about time precedence. It is assumed that implementing
more BPM capabilities across the seven dimensions leads to better performance.

3.2 Data collection and sample

Data were collected at Dutch companies during three years (2010, 2013 and 2017). Selection of
respondents was done via convenient sampling through the researcher’s personal network and
also by bachelor and master students as part of their internships or BPM courses. The students
used the questionnaire to collect data via structured interviews. Furthermore, the questionnaire
was made available online (throughout the years different survey tools were used such as
SurveyMonkey and Limesurvey). For each of the periods the data were exported to Excel,
checked for validity and added to a masterfile. To provide valid and reliable measures of
organizational properties (Enticott et al., 2009), multiple respondents per organization were
asked to fill out the questionnaire. The data were initially gathered to provide practitioners
insights in their organization’s level of BPM maturity. For the purpose of this study, we
pooled the data together which resulted in a set that comprised 947 respondents. We then
pre-processed the pooled data set. The results were abstracted from an individual-level to an
organization-level. In doing so we first eliminated the response where the organization was

Dimension No. of items Dimension No. of items

Processes awareness 4 Process improvement 6

Process description 6 Resources and knowledge 4 Table II.
Process measurement 5 Information technology 6 Number of items
Process control 5 Process performance 7 per construct
BPMJ unknown and/or was not fully completed. Second, the measures of individual respondents
26,1 belonging to the same organization were averaged. This resulted in a final data set of 165
organizations with 532 respondents. Table III provides the distribution of the sizes of the
organization and the sectors in this data set.

4. Results
138 PLS is used to test the model as it makes less demand on measurement scales (Gefen et al.,
2000; Hair et al., 2011) and normal distribution (Chin, 1998). Using the software SmartPLS
(Ringle et al., 2015), the measurement model is examined to assess reliability and validity
before testing the structural model and thus test the hypotheses. As both the variables of
sector and organization size are categorical we take the advice of Henseler and Fassott
(2010) and utilize a group comparison approach for our analysis (PLS-MGA). PLS-MGA is a
non-parametric bootstrapping method. It compares the path coefficients of two samples
(groups) and finds significant differences between them.

4.1 Measurement model

Tables IV−VI present the measurement model results. Cronbach’s α values are between
0.793 and 0.894, the composite reliabilities of multi-item scales modeled with reflective
indicators are 0.70 or greater, suggesting that the scales have a high level of internal
consistency reliability (Hair et al., 2009). The values of ρA are also acceptable as they are
above 0.70 (Henseler et al., 2016). Using the commonly applied criterion of average variance
extracted (AVE) being at least 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) the figures also demonstrate
sufficient convergent validity of the constructs.
To assess discriminant validity the Fornell−Larcker criterion (Fornell and Cha, 1994) is
examined. A latent construct should better explain the variance of its own indicator rather
than the variance of other latent constructs. Therefore, the square root of each construct’s
AVE should have a greater value than the correlations with other latent constructs. Table V
provides the results for our study and shows that the criterion holds for every construct.

n Percent

Size ( full-time equivalent employees)

1−100 69 41.8
101−500 38 23.0
501−1000 12 7.3
1001−2000 10 6.1
2001−3000 10 6.1
3001−5000 5 3.0
W5000 21 12.7
Sector
Distribution and transport 9 5.5
Financial services 19 11.5
Local government 12 7.3
Manufacturing and industry 8 4.8
Education and research 6 3.6
Retail and consumer products 16 9.7
Government and public sector 20 12.1
Telecommunication and media 6 3.6
Table III. Utilities 6 3.6
Distribution of sample Business services 56 33.9
organizations across Healthcare 7 4.2
sectors and size Note: n ¼ 165
Additionally, following the latest guidelines, the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of BPM maturity
correlations is also used to assess discriminant validity. Henseler et al. (2015) argued a and
strong case of using this approach. The authors also showed poor performance of performance
cross-loadings in measurement models and thus this is left out of this study. In order to
clearly discriminate between two factors, the HTMT should be smaller than 0.90 (Henseler
et al., 2016). As Table VI shows, all correlations comply to that criterion. Hence, discriminant
validity is demonstrated by the Fornell−Larcker criterion and the HTMT ratio. 139
To test for multicollinearity, the variance inflation factors (VIFs) were computed (Kock,
2015). One item on information technology showed a somewhat higher VIF then others
(W3) and was thus removed. All others were found to be less than the conservative
threshold of 5 with a minimal value of 1.32 and a maximum value of 2.99, thus suggesting
that multicollinearity was not a major issue in the study.

4.2 Structural model

Before discussing the multi group analysis, the overall structural model is assessed.
To assess the model’s explanatory power the two endogenous latent variable’s coefficients

Cronbach’s α ρA Composite reliability AVE

Information technology (IT) 0.851 0.869 0.890 0.579

Resources and knowledge (RK) 0.793 0.820 0.866 0.620
Process awareness (PA) 0.813 0.826 0.876 0.639
Process control (PC) 0.862 0.883 0.900 0.644 Table IV.
Process description (PD) 0.879 0.916 0.903 0.612 Cronbach’s α,
Process improvement (PI) 0.894 0.918 0.917 0.650 composite reliabilities
Process measurement (PM) 0.874 0.884 0.909 0.668 and average variance
Process performance (PP) 0.892 0.899 0.915 0.606 extracted (AVE)

IT RK PA PC PD PI PM PP

IT 0.761
RK 0.547 0.788
PA 0.492 0.523 0.799 Table V.
PC 0.614 0.726 0.562 0.803 Correlations (off-
PD 0.577 0.661 0.630 0.738 0.782 diagonal elements)
PI 0.662 0.718 0.622 0.773 0.656 0.806 and square root of
PM 0.527 0.646 0.643 0.719 0.720 0.686 0.817 the AVEs
PP 0.597 0.645 0.552 0.582 0.589 0.638 0.604 0.778 (diagonal elements)

IT RK PA PC PD PI PM

RK 0.669
PA 0.568 0.642
PC 0.716 0.873 0.662
PD 0.669 0.770 0.731 0.838 Table VI.
PI 0.763 0.852 0.700 0.886 0.731 Heterotrait-monotrait
PM 0.587 0.770 0.758 0.823 0.804 0.760 ratio of
PP 0.665 0.747 0.621 0.635 0.590 0.661 0.666 correlations (HTMT)
BPMJ of determination (R2) are examined. The R2 and the adjusted R2 indicate an average level of
26,1 explanatory power (Chin, 1998) in explaining process performance at 0.549 and 0.529
respectively. Hence, the independent variables explain a fair amount of variance in the
process performance.
Following the procedure suggested by Hair et al. (2011), a bootstrap analysis was carried
out. The non-parametric bootstrap analysis of 1,000 samples revealed that three out of the
140 seven proposed relationships were significant as shown in Table VII. Process performance
is associated with the maturity dimensions information technology, resources and
knowledge, and process measurement. In other words, an increased maturity on these
dimensions has a positive effect on the performance of an organization’s processes in terms
of flexibility, lowering costs, increased quality, etc. Though not significant, it is noteworthy
that the path coefficient of process control is negative, implying that there might be a
possible negative effect.

4.3 Partial least square-multi group analysis

Tables VIII−X show the path coefficients and t-values for each of the two group
comparisons (product vs service sectors, public vs private sectors, and large vs small
organizations). To compare the groups, the differences in the path coefficients and p-values
are presented. Following the guidelines of Henseler and Fassott (2010), p-values below 0.05
and higher than 0.95 indicate significant values. A value below 0.05 points out that the
bootstrapping results of Group 1 is higher than Group 2. A value higher than 0.95 indicate
that the bootstrapping results of Group 2 are higher than Group 1.
When comparing the model of using the PLS-MGA algorithm between the product
organizations and service organizations, significant differences concerning the effects of
process improvement on performance exist. It is worthwhile mentioning that process
control has a negative effect on an organization’s performance for product organizations.

Dimension β t-value

Information technology 0.238 2.835***

Resources and knowledge 0.294 2.768***
Process awareness 0.123 1.575
Process control −0.096 0.830
Table VII. Process description 0.063 0.641
Structural model Process improvement 0.123 1.145
results for Process measurement 0.148 1.762*
process performance Notes: *po 0.10; **p o0.05; ***p o0.01

Product sector Service sector Difference

Dimension β t-value β t-value β-diff. p-value

Information technology 0.236 2.181** 0.250 2.404** 0.014 0.454

Resources and knowledge 0.400 2.800*** 0.288 2.020** 0.112 0.716
Process awareness 0.119 0.818 0.141 1.425 0.021 0.447
Process control −0.394 2.256** −0.073 0.518 0.321 0.069
Table VIII. Process description 0.348 2.144** 0.012 0.093 0.336 0.943
Hypothesis testing Process improvement 0.442 2.539** 0.085 0.596 0.357 0.947
across product and Process measurement −0.047 0.406 0.167 1.493 0.214 0.089
service sector Notes: *po 0.10; **p o0.05; ***p o0.01
However, the difference is not significant when compared with service organizations. This BPM maturity
also holds, but then positively, for process description. and
According to Table IX, no differences exist between public and private organizations performance
regarding the linkages of BPM maturity dimensions and performance. The results, however,
show significant path coefficients concerning information technology, resources and
knowledge, process improvement and measurement for private organizations which are not
apparent for public organizations. 141
The results of the comparative analysis regarding size (Table X) indicate that the path
coefficient of information technology and performance is stronger for small organizations
(o100 employees). Other dimensions show no significant differences between small and large
enterprises. It is, however, noteworthy that the path coefficient of the dimension process
awareness is significant for small organization whilst it is not for large organizations. On the
contrary, process measurement is significantly associated with performance when it concerns
large organization but is not significant with regard to small organizations.

5. Discussion
Drawing upon a data set of 165 organizations with multiple respondents per organization,
this study explored the role of the contextual factors sector an organization is acting in as
well as the size of the organization in regards to the relation between BPM maturity
dimensions and performance.

5.1 BPM maturity and performance

The results of the general structural model on the entire data set showed that the
dimensions of information technology, resources and knowledge and process measurement
play a pivotal role in the performance of an organization. It is perhaps not surprising that IT
shows a significant role. With a traditional focus on process analysis and process modeling,

Public sector Private sector Difference

Dimension β t-value β t-value β-diff. p-value

Information technology 0.248 1.559 0.252 2.386** 0.004 0.506

Resources and knowledge 0.345 1.229 0.276 2.227** 0.069 0.418
Process awareness 0.270 1.400 0.076 0.832 0.194 0.177
Process control 0.003 0.009 −0.151 1.129 0.153 0.319
Process description 0.060 0.205 0.098 0.910 0.038 0.525 Table IX.
Process improvement −0.020 0.056 0.200 1.773* 0.220 0.714 Hypothesis testing
Process measurement −0.047 0.231 0.183 1.782* 0.230 0.850 across public and
Notes: *p o0.10; **p o 0.05; ***p o 0.01 private organizations

Large organizations Small organizations Difference

Dimension β t-value β t-value β-diff. p-value

Information technology −0.071 0.565 0.472 4.918*** 0.543 0.999

Resources and knowledge 0.383 2.382** 0.295 2.666*** 0.088 0.321
Process awareness 0.055 0.367 0.169 1.946* 0.114 0.746
Process control 0.031 0.161 −0.127 1.192 0.159 0.233
Process description 0.013 0.078 0.133 1.211 0.120 0.722 Table X.
Process improvement 0.163 0.960 0.002 0.016 0.161 0.219 Hypothesis testing
Process measurement 0.208 1.658* 0.162 1.396 0.045 0.394 across large and
Notes: *p o0.10; **p o 0.05; ***p o 0.01 small organizations
BPMJ BPM-related IT solutions increasingly manifest themselves (Rosemann and vom Brocke,
26,1 2015). We thus agree with Karimi et al. (2007) that information technology is a key
determinant of business process outcomes. Our study also shows that resources and
knowledge is a significant factor to the performance of the organization. Although the
importance of education, skills and knowledge is previously stipulated (Rosemann and
de Bruin, 2005; Rosemann and vom Brocke, 2015), this is, to the best of our knowledge, the
142 first empirical study that included resources and knowledge as a BPM maturity dimension
in relation to performance. This result suggests that the human capital factor should not be
ignored when practicing BPM maturity. Lastly, process measurement is a salient factor
regarding performance. Through the measurement of processes, employees are constantly
informed about the results with respect to performance indicators. This facilitates
employees to adjust their behavior to reach the targets (Škrinjar and Trkman, 2013). Our
results show that facilitating this process benefits the organization’s performance, which
agrees with prior research in this field (Kohlbacher and Reijers, 2013).

5.2 Differences for sector

Although the pace of BPM adoption is found to be slower by service organizations in
relation to product organizations (Van Looy and Van den Bergh, 2017), both types of
organizations eventually benefit from information technology, and resources and
knowledge. Our results present, however, empirical evidence of differences between
product and service sector with respect to process improvement. The improvement of
existing processes is more beneficial for organizations in the product sector than the service
sector. Weitlaner and Kohlbacher (2015) already found differences on this dimension in the
same context. They explain this difference by the fact that service organizations do not rely
on methodologies (e.g. Lean and Six Sigma). We agree with this and contribute to this
discussion as our results suggest that investments in reaching a higher maturity level in
continuous improvement of processes will not lead to a better performance. Hence, this
indicates that this dimension is less beneficial for service organizations.
We observe no differences between organizations in the public or the private sector with
regard to performance. The general findings that information technology, and resources and
knowledge play an important role in a higher performance holds for both commercial
organizations as well as non-commercial organizations. Considering the fact that public
organizations are lagging behind with the adoption of BPM practices (Van Looy and
Van den Bergh, 2017) there is an urge for public organizations to invest in IT-support and
heighten employees’ expertise (e.g. trainings or knowledge sharing communities) as this can
leverage the organization’s performance.

5.3 Differences for size

Overall no differences are present between small and large organization, with the exception
of information technology. Small organizations benefit heavily of the utilization of software
tools for their processes or completely automated processes. Prior research stipulated the
importance of information technology. Lester and Tran (2008), for instance, stated that IT is
a key component in today’s competitive environments as it can ameliorate the crises of
growth. Our results show empirical evidence for the need for small organizations to invest in
information technology.

6. Conclusions
This paper addressed the research question: to what extent are there differences in the relation
between BPM maturity and process performance between sectors and organizational size.
Through an empirical study, this paper adopted the Contingency Theory to scrutinize the role
of these two context factors. The formulated hypotheses were tested using PLS-MGA. BPM maturity
Apart from the context factor, one of the main findings is that, more than others, and
information technology, and resources and knowledge play a pivotal role in the organization’s performance
performance. Based on this a general BPM capability framework is developed that
organizations can use when initiating activities to enhance process performance.
Although services and products are systematically different due to the inherent
interactivity, intangibility and heterogeneity they show only differences in terms of process 143
improvement. In contrast to product organizations, continuous improvement is not beneficial
for service organizations. Despite popular belief that there are differences between public and
private organizations we found no evidence of BPM maturity dimensions that are more or less
beneficial in the context of the public sector. However, it is imperative to indicate that the used
maturity model is partially derived from commercial and product-related contexts. It can be
the case that other dimensions are applicable in the public and service context.

6.1 Implications
Based on the outcomes of this study we propose that organizations initiating activities to
improve the performance of their processes primarily focus on capabilities related to
information technology and resources and knowledge. Therefore, based on this study, the
BPM capability framework is developed (see Table XI). Using software tools to describe,
model and simulate processes enables cost and lead-time analyses leading to more
efficient processes. Furthermore, the use of information systems to fully (straight through
processing) or partially (e.g. workflow management or case management) automate
processes can also reduce costs and lead-time while simultaneously ensuring quality and
heightening employee satisfaction by removing simple repetitive tasks. However, when
focusing on IT capabilities organizations should keep in mind that this might also introduce
complexity and thereby limit the adoption of BPM (Ramdani et al., 2009; Ismail and Ali,
2013; Gabryelczyk, 2018).
To be able to execute a process conform its goals it is important to have the right people
and resources (money, facilities, systems) available. This confirms research by Gabryelczyk
(2018), Alshamaila et al. (2013) and Ismail and Ali (2013) whom all found that the availability

Dimension BPM capabilities to improve process performance

Information Technology Software tooling is used to describe and model processes

Software is used to simulate processes
Processes are coordinated by information systems (e.g. workflow management or
case management)
Where possible processes have been automated completely (straight through
processing)
The organization uses software to (automatically) identify bottlenecks within
processes
The IT department is actively involved in improving the processes of the
organization
Resources and Knowledge To execute a process, conform its goals, the right people (numbers, knowledge,
experience) and resources (money, facilities, systems) are provided
People that participate in a process are sufficiently trained and have the
competences needed to execute the process
Employees are aware of the process in which they are participating, its goals, and
their role, and are also actively cooperating to achieve the stated goals
Within the organization there are formal and informal communities in which Table XI.
process-oriented employees (e.g. process-owners, process-analysts) actively share BPM capability
their knowledge and experiences framework
BPMJ of organizational resources is important for the adoption of BPM. Employees performing
26,1 activities as part of a process should be sufficiently trained and have the competences
needed to execute the process (Škrinjar and Trkman, 2013) as this improves efficiency,
quality and employee satisfaction and can also enhance customer focus and flexibility. To
enable learning and knowledge sharing by process-oriented employees (e.g. process-owners,
process-analysts) an organization should have formal and informal learning communities in
144 which best-practices and new developments can be shared.

6.2 Limitations and future work

As any empirical study, limitations must be recognized. First, the data set entailed only
Dutch organizations. It thus cannot be ensured that results can be generalized to other
countries, cultures and contexts. Second, the distribution of organizations over sectors is
somewhat favored by service organizations. Third, the research question is approached
with a survey design. This means the measurements are self-reported and thus could can
contain potential sources of bias. Fourth, by utilizing existing measures, alternative
explanations (spuriousness) are excluded as much as possible. However, one must be
aware alternative explanations could exist. Fifth, process performance is used in this
study as a proxy for the performance of an organization. Alternatively, actual performance
like turnover and profit could be used.
Several future research endeavors exist. First, our study is limited to two context factors.
Future research should consider more factors. For instance, competitiveness within
organization’s industry or uncertainty of the environment. Second, different BPM maturity
dimensions for these contexts should be explored. The used BPM maturity dimensions and
capabilities are constructed partially against a product and commercial background.
Additional dimensions could be apparent in the light of service and/or non-commercial
sectors. Third, extensive case studies in the different contexts could be performed to further
research the relationship between implementing BPM capabilities and process performance.
Lastly, a longitudinal study could give insights in the dynamics of BPM maturity
dimensions and performance and the efforts put in maturing the organization’s BPM.

References
Alshamaila, Y., Papagiannidis, S. and Li, F. (2013), “Cloud computing adoption by SMEs in the north
east of England: a multi-perspective framework”, Journal of Enterprise Management, Vol. 26
No. 3, pp. 250-275.
Benner, M. and Tushman, M. (2002), “Process management and technological innovation: a
longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 676-706.
Burlton, R. (2001), Business Process Management: Profiting from Process, Sams, Indianapolis, IN.
Chin, W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, in Marcoulides, G.
(Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ,
pp. 1295-1336.
Davenport, T. (2010), “Process management for knowledge work”, in vom Brocke, J. and Rosemann, M.
(Eds), Handbook on Business Process Management 1, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg,
pp. 17-35.
Dijkman, R., Lammers, S. and de Jong, A. (2016), “Properties that influence business process
management maturity and its effect on organizational performance”, Information Systems
Frontiers, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 717-734.
Enticott, G., Boyne, G. and Walker, R. (2009), “The use of multiple informants in public administration
research: data aggregation using organizational echelons”, Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 229-253.
Fornell, C. and Cha, J. (1994), “Partial least squares”, in Bagozzi, R.P. (Ed.), Advanced Methods of BPM maturity
Marketing Research, Blackwell, Cambridge, pp. 52-78. and
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable performance
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gabryelczyk, R. (2018), “An exploration of BPM adoption factors: initial steps for model development.
Poznan, Poland”, Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, Poznan,
September 9-12. 145
Gefen, D., Straub, D. and Boudreau, M. (2000), “Structural equation modeling techniques and
regression: guidelines for research practice”, Communications of AIS, Vol. 4 No. 7, pp. 1-77.
Gulledge, T. Jr and Sommer, R. (2002), “Business process management: public sector implications”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 1463-7154.
Hair, J., et al. (2009), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hair, J., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Henseler, J. and Fassott, G. (2010), “Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: an illustration of
available procedures”, in Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook
of Partial Least Squares, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp. 713-735.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P. (2016), “Using PLS path modeling in new technology research:
updated guidelines”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 2-20.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Hinterhuber, H.H. (1995), “Business process management: the European approach”, Business Change &
Re-engineering, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 63-73.
Humphrey, W.S. (1988), “Characterizing the software process: a maturity framework”, IEEE Software,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 73-79.
Hung, R. (2006), “Business process management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical
study”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 21-40.
Ismail, W. and Ali, A. (2013), “Conceptual model for examining the factors that influence the likelihood
of Computerised Accounting Information System (CAIS) adoption among Malaysian SME”,
International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 122-151.
Jansen-Vullers, M. and Reijers, H. (2005), “Business process redesign in healthcare: towards a
structured approach”, INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research, Vol. 43 No. 4,
pp. 321-339.
Jayaram, J., Ahire, S. and Dreyfus, P. (2010), “Contingency relationships of firm size, TQM duration,
unionization, and industry context on TQM implementation − a focus on total effects”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 345-356.
Karimi, J., Somers, T. and Bhattacherjee, A. (2007), “The impact of ERP implementation on business
process outcomes: a factor-based study”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 101-134.
Kock, N. (2015), “Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach”,
International Journal of e-Collaboration, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Kohlbacher, M. and Reijers, H. (2013), “The effects of process-oriented organizational design on firm
performance”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 245-262.
Lester, D. and Tran, T. (2008), “Information technology capabilities: suggestions for SME growth”,
Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 72-88.
McCormack, K. and Johnson, W. (2001), Business Process Orientation: Gaining the E-business
Competitive Advantage, St Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.
BPMJ McCormack, K., Willems, J., van den Bergh, J., Deschoolmeester, D., Willaert, P., Indihar Štemberger, M.,
26,1 Škrinjar, R., Trkman, P., Bronzo Ladeira, M., Paulo Valadares de Oliveira, M., Bosilj Vuksic, V.
and Vlahovic, N. (2009), “A global investigation of key turning points in business process
maturity”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 792-815.
McDaniel, T. (2001), “Ten pillars of business process management”, eAI Journal, November, pp. 30-34.
Oxford University Press (2018), “Oxford English dictionary – the definitive record of the English
146 language”, available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/context (accessed June 21, 2018).
Pyon, C., Woo, J. and Park, S. (2011), “Service improvement by business process management using
customer complaints in financial service industry”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38
No. 4, pp. 3267-3279.
Rainey, H., Backoff, R. and Levine, C. (1976), “Comparing public and private organizations”, Public
Administration Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 233-244.
Ramdani, B., Kawalek, P. and Lorenzo, O. (2009), “Predicting SMEs’ adoption of enterprise systems”,
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 22 Nos 1/2, pp. 10-24.
Ravesteyn, P. and Batenburg, R. (2010), “Surveying the critical success factors of BPM-systems
implementation”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 492-507.
Ravesteyn, P., Zoet, M., Spekschoor, J. and Loggen, R. (2012), “Is there dependence between process
maturity and process performance?”, Communications of the IIMA, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 65-80.
Reijers, H. (2003), Design and Control of Workflow Processes: Business Process Management for the
Service Industry, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.-M. (2015), SmartPLS 3, SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt.
Rodney, M. and Donaghy, J. (1999), “Business process re-engineering in the public sector: a study of
staff perceptions and critical success factors”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 33-52.
Roeser, T. and Kern, E. (2015), “Surveys in business process management – a literature review”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 692-718.
Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß, J. and Becker, J. (2012), “Maturity models in business process management”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 328-346.
Rosemann, M. and de Bruin, T. (2004), “Application of a holistic model for determining BPM maturity”,
in Akoka, Comyn-Wattiau and Favier (Eds), Proceedings of the 3rd Pre-ICIS Workshop on
Process Management and Information Systems, Washington DC, December 12.
Rosemann, M. and de Bruin, T. (2005), “Towards a business process management maturity model”, in
Bartmann, D., Rajola, F., Kallinikos, J., Avison, D., Winter, R., Ein-Dor, P. et al. (Eds), ECIS 2005
Proceedings of the Thirteenth European Conference on Information Systems, Regensburg,
May 26-28.
Rosemann, M. and vom Brocke, J. (2015), “The six core elements of business process management”,
in vom Brocke, J. and Rosemann, M. (Eds), Handbook on Business Process Management 1.
International Handbooks on Information Systems, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp. 105-122.
Rudden, J. (2007), Making the Case for BPM: A Benefits Checklist, BPTrends, Newton, MA.
Shah, R. and Ward, P. (2003), “Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 129-149.
Sila, I. (2007), “Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens
of organizational theories: an empirical study”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 83-109.
Škrinjar, R. and Trkman, P. (2013), “Increasing process orientation with business process management:
critical practices”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 48-60.
Sousa, R. and Voss, C.A. (2008), “Contingency research in operations management practices”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 697-713.
Thompson, G., Seymour, L. and O’Donovan, B. (2009), “Towards a BPM success model: an analysis in BPM maturity
South African financial services organisations”, in Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., and
Schmidt, R., Soffer, P. and Ukor, R. (Eds), Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems
Modeling, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp. 1-13. performance
Thong, J., Yap, C. and Seah, K. (2000), “Business process reengineering in the public sector: the case of
the housing development board in Singapore”, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 245-270.
147
Trkman, P. (2010), “The critical success factors of business process management”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 125-134.
Van Looy, A. and Van den Bergh, J. (2017), “The effect of organization size and sector on adopting
business process management”, Business & Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 60 No. 6,
pp. 479-491.
vom Brocke, J., Zelt, S. and Schmiedel, T. (2016), “On the role of context in business process
management”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 486-495.
Weitlaner, D. and Kohlbacher, M. (2015), “Process management practices: organizational (dis-)
similarities”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 35 Nos 1-2, pp. 44-61.
Wong, W., Tseng, M. and Tan, K. (2014), “A business process management capabilities perspective on
organisation performance”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 602-617.
Zairi, M. (1997), “Business process management: a boundaryless approach to modern competitiveness”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 64-80.

(The Appendix follows overleaf.)

BPMJ Appendix
26,1

Process awareness
PA1 The organization understands the usefulness of a process-oriented approach to organizing work
148 PA2 Executive management is paying attention to and has insight in the organization processes
PA3 There is a clear relation between the strategy and goals of the organization and the processes
PA4 Process changes are easily adopted by the organization and the employees
Process control
PC1 For each process a process-owner is assigned
PC2 For each process a plan is developed to determine budget, number of employees and resources needed,
based on predicted demand, targets and outputs
PC3 Explicit roles are defined that are responsible for managing different process aspects such as process
design, analyses, implementation, execution, and improvement
PC4 A standard approach is defined and used to manage processes (maintenance, improvement)
PC5 The manner in which processes are executed is controlled (e.g. by audits). If this deviate from the
process design, action is taken
Process description
PD1 Important processes are described in a process architecture/high-level overview
PD2 Each process is captured in a process model and/or process description
PD3 Work instructions and guidelines are written based on process models/descriptions
PD4 Roles, tasks and responsibilities are defined for each process
PD5 For each process the organization has identified the stakeholders (customers, suppliers, employees,
management, etc.)
PD6 For each process it is clear how it contributes to the goals of the organization
Process measurement
PM1 For each process the output and deliverables are defined
PM2 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are defined for each process and process performance is actively
being measured
PM3 Specific quantitative goals are defined that are related to both customer needs and the organizations
strategy
PM4 It is clear who is responsible for measuring, collecting and reporting the process KPIs
PM5 Process performance is regularly evaluated. When performance deviates from predefined norms
measures are taken to adjust this
Process improvement
PI1 If a process needs to be adjusted (changed, improved) it is clear who is responsible for this
PI2 Employees are actively involved with continuously improving the processes within the organization
PI3 Relevant stakeholders are sufficiently involved in process design and improvement
PI4 The organization uses process improvement methods and techniques such as Lean, Six Sigma, Theory
of Constraints
PI5 The organization strives to continuously improve processes and actively plans and manages the
improvement process using quantitative techniques and a plan-do-check-act cycle
PI6 Management is actively involved in improving processes
Resources and knowledge
RK1 To execute a process, conform its goals, the right people (numbers, knowledge, experience) and
resources (money, facilities, systems) are provided
RK2 People that participate in a process are sufficiently trained and have the competences needed to execute
the process
RK3 Employees are aware of the process in which they are participating, its goals, and their role, and are
also actively cooperating to achieve the stated goals
Table AI.
Questionnaire items (continued )
RK4 Within the organization there are formal and informal communities in which process-oriented
BPM maturity
employees (e.g. process-owners, -analysts) actively share their knowledge and experiences and
Information technology
performance
IT1 Software tooling is used to describe and model processes
IT2 Software is used to simulate processes
IT3 Processes are coordinated by information systems (e.g. workflow management or case management)
IT4 Where possible processes have been automated completely (straight through processing) 149
IT5 The organization uses software to (automatically) identify bottlenecks within processes
IT6 The IT department is actively involved in improving the processes of the organization
Process performance
PP1 The processes within the organization are executed against acceptable costs
PP2 Processes within the organization are efficient
PP3 The processes within the organization have an acceptable lead-time
PP4 Processes within the organization are customer centric
PP5 The results delivered by processes within the organization are of good quality
PP6 Processes within the organization contribute to the employee satisfaction
PP7 Processes within the organization can easily be changed Table AI.

Corresponding author
Guido Ongena can be contacted at: guido.ongena@hu.nl

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.