European Journal of Information Systems (2005) 14, 347–360

& 2005 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/05 $30.00
www.palgrave-journals.com/ejis

Factors and measures of business process

modelling: model building through a multiple
case study

Wasana Bandara1, Abstract

Guy G Gable1 and Business process modelling has gained widespread acceptance as a valuable
design and management technique for a variety of purposes. While there has
Michael Rosemann1 been much research on process modelling techniques and corresponding tools,
1
there has been little empirical research into the success factors of effective
School of Information Systems, Queensland process modelling, and the post hoc evaluation of process modelling success.
University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland,
This paper reports on the first attempt to identify process modelling success
Australia
factors and measures, as empirically evidenced in case studies of nine process
Correspondence: modelling projects in three leading Australian organizations.
Wasana Bandara, European Journal of Information Systems (2005) 14, 347–360.
School of Information Systems, Queensland doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000546
University of Technology, Brisbane,
Queensland 4001, Australia. Keywords: business process modelling; success factors; success measures; case study
Tel: þ 61 7 3864 1919; method
Fax: þ 61 7 3864 1969;
E-mail: w.bandara@qut.edu.au

Introduction
Process modelling is an approach for visually depicting how businesses
conduct their operations: defining and depicting entities, activities,
enablers and the relationships between them (Curtis et al., 1992; Gill,
1999, p 5). It is widely used within organizations as a method to increase
awareness and knowledge of business processes, and to deconstruct
organizational complexity (Davenport, 1993; Hammer & Champy, 1993;
Smith & Fingar, 2003). In this study, the term ‘Business Process Modelling’
encompasses all graphical representations of business processes, and
related elements such as data, resources, etc., as employed for diverse
purposes including process documentation, process improvement, com-
pliance, software implementation or quality certification, among others.
Flowcharting and process mapping have been around since F.W. Taylor
and the dawn of Taylorism. Today more commonly referred to as process
‘modelling’, this approach is claimed to be more disciplined, standardized,
consistent, mature and scientific (i.e., Scheer, 2000), and increasingly
focused on the modelling of business processes. Business process modelling
initiatives have grown in size and complexity, with some organizations
conducting process modelling enterprise-wide, even globally (i.e., Gulla &
Brasethvikt, 2000; Forsberg et al., 2000; Scheer et al., 2003; Becker et al.,
2005). Concomitantly, the related investment in process modelling tools,
methodologies, training and the modelling activity has for these
organizations become large enough to attract scrutiny.
Received: 3 February 2005 The success or not of process modelling has become a critical concern, as
Revised: 22 May 2005 its consequences can often be substantial, resulting in the implementation
Accepted: 30 August 2005 of new processes, organizational structures and subsequently IT systems.
348 Factors and measures of business process modelling Wasana Bandara et al

Yet, little research attention has been directed at process specifically state the advantages of process modelling in
modelling best practices, or on the post hoc evaluation of IS projects and classify process modelling benefits into
process modelling projects. This study addresses this three main categories. These include Documentation
knowledge gap, with two main research questions: benefits (a common language with clients, a means for
basic communication and having a flexible template);
 How can the success of a process modelling initiative
Design benefits (understanding the current business
be measured?
processes, generation of new possibilities and a means
 What are the important success factors of process
of planning for the project implementation), and Use
modelling?
benefits (visual representation of processes, supporting
To our knowledge, this is the first published study that the iterative development process of systems and time
attempts to empirically measure the success of process efficiency).
modelling initiatives. The study unit-of-analysis is the Most of the published work pertaining to process
‘process modelling project’. In the context of this study, modelling describes how to use certain modelling tools
the process modelling project is considered a success if it (e.g., Scheer, 1998a) or describes the application of
is effective and efficient. A process modelling project can be modelling languages (e.g., Rosemann & zur Mühlen,
considered effective to the extent it fulfills its objectives. A 1997). Some articles provide descriptions in the form of
process modelling project can be considered efficient to case narratives based on reflective learning from past
the extent that process modelling activities are com- projects (e.g., Scheer et al., 2002). New streams of process
pleted within the allocated time and budget. The study modelling research, such as the use of reference process
aims to evaluate multiple independent variables (here- models, are now emerging (e.g., Rosemann & Chan,
after referred to as success factors) and multiple depen- 2000; Fettke & Loos, 2003). One framework deemed
dent variables (hereafter referred to as success measures) relevant and useful for the process modelling context is
pertaining to the success of process modelling projects. the Guidelines of Modelling framework (Becker et al.,
This paper reports on the first attempt to identify 2000). It presents six dimensions of quality that can be
process modelling success factors and measures, as used to evaluate a process model. However, no empirical
empirically evidenced in case studies of nine process testing of the framework has been reported to date.
modelling projects in three large Australian organiza- Overall, empirical studies on process modelling are scarce
tions. The remainder of the paper will first present a brief and, to the authors’ best knowledge, there have been no
literature review followed by the multiple case study studies that identify and describe essential elements that
design employed. Next, the case studies are briefly should exist in a process modelling project or how to
introduced, followed by discussion of the findings. The evaluate the overall success of a process modelling
paper concludes by summarizing the study contributions, project. Addressing this gap has been the motivation for
limitations and recommended follow-up. this study.

Literature review Research design

Past studies have described and justified the use of An a priori process modelling success model was derived
process modelling at various stages of systems imple- from the literature, and a multiple case study design
mentations. Process modelling is used for (1) model- chosen to further validate the a priori model.
based identification of process weaknesses, (2) adapting
best business practices, (3) the design of a new business Deriving the a priori model
blueprint (as a form of documentation and communica- Success factors within the context of this research can be
tion), and (4) end-user training (Curtis et al., 1992; defined as those key elements that will ensure the process
Becker, Rosemann & Schütte, 1997; Bartholomew, 1999; modelling project to proceed effectively and complete
Gulla & Brasethvik, 2000; Peristeras & Tarabanis, 2000; successfully (following Mcnurlin & Sprague, 1989, p. 97).
Rosemann, 2000). The literature also reports how process Owing to the lack of theoretical and empirical evidence
modelling has been employed in a range of different of process modelling success factors, a review of related
applications, including: activity based costing, supply literature sought to identify analogous factors of success.
chain management, customer relationship management, Domains explored included (1) business process model-
total quality management, workflow management, ling; (2) software engineering and conceptual modelling
knowledge management and simulation (Curtis et al., success; (3) information model quality features; (4)
1992; Becker et al., 2000, Rosemann, 2000). Information business process reengineering and Enterprise Systems
systems (IS) success factor studies, especially those success; and (5) IS success. Sedera et al. (2001) report in
reporting on large-scale multimillion dollar implementa- detail on the identification and justification of the
tions such as Enterprise Systems projects, explicitly and selected analogous domains, and the rational for success
implicitly suggest the importance of process modelling factor adoption. Table 1 summarizes their results.
and its contribution to the success of these projects Preliminary analysis of factors identified from the
(Clemons et al., 1995; Bancroft, 1998; Wreden, 1998; literature suggested 11 candidate success factors. These
Parr et al., 1999; Forsberg et al., 2000). Kesari et al. (2003) factors were broadly grouped within two categories:

European Journal of Information Systems

 Table 1 Cross-reference literature review of candidate process modelling success factors (from Sedera et al., 2001)
Study Area/domain Model-specific factors Context-specific factors
Methodology Tool Language Modeller’s Team or- Project man- User parti- Top manage- User Project cham- Communi-
expertise ientation agement cipation ment support training pionship cation

Factors and measures of business process modelling

Bingi et al. (1999) ES X* X* X* X X
Sumner (1998) ES X* X X
Holland et al. (1999) ES X* X X X X X
Stefanou (1999) ES X X X* X X
Raymond et al. (1995) BPR X* X*
Grover et al. (1995) BPR X* X X*
Clemons (1995) BPR X* X* X* X* X*
Evans (1994) BPR X* X
Larsen & Myers (1998) BPR X X X
Murphy & Staples (1998) BPR X* X* X X X
Davenport (1993) BPR X
Kettinger & Teng (1997) BPR X
Carr & Johanson (1995) BPR X
Hammer & Champy (1993) BPR X X X X
Amoroso (1998) BPR
Smyth (1999) CASE X*
Burkhard (1990) CASE X X X X X X
McClure (1979) Software engineering X X X X
Brash (1999) Enterprise modelling X
Rosemann (1998) Process modelling – X* X* X* X* X
quality
Moody & Shanks (1997) Data modelling – X* X X

Wasana Bandara et al
quality
Moody (1996) Data modelling X X X
Lindland et al. (1994) Conceptual model- X X X X* X
ling – quality
Green & Rosemann (2000) Process modelling – X
ontological evaluation
Batini et al. (1985) Conceptual model- X*
ling – (diagramming)
Krogstie et al (1995a, b) Requirements engi-
neering – quality
Delone & Mc Lean (1992) IS X
Bailey & Pearson (1983) IS X
Ginzberg (1981) IS X
European Journal of Information Systems

Ives & Olson (1984) IS X

Lucas (1981) IS X
Lucas et al. (1998) IS X
Raymond (1995) IS X
Fisher (2000) IS X
Davis (1989) IS X
Warne & Hart (1996) IS X*
Inchusta et al. (1998) IS X* X X X
Srivihok (1999) IS – EIS X X* X
Rainer & Watson (1995) IS – EIS X X
Chuang & Shaw (2000) ES and IS X X* X* X
‘X’ ¼ studies where the identified factors were identified as being particularly important for success.

349
‘X*’ ¼ studies that implied the existence of the factors would benefit the initiative (complete references to the studies presented in this table can be obtained in Sedera et al., 2001).
350 Factors and measures of business process modelling Wasana Bandara et al

‘modelling-related factors’ (factors that were specific to success frameworks and extracted measures, relating
process modelling) and ‘project-specific factors’ (factors them to the process modelling context. Five a priori
that are common to most IS projects). Both these process modelling success measures were identified
categories were investigated, with the aim of obtaining through this process (see Table 3).
a holistic view on those factors that are most influential The process modelling success measures were mainly
on the level of process modelling success experienced. based on the De Lone & Mclean (1992) model together
Table 2 includes brief definitions of the 11 a priori process with its subsequent revised versions and adaptations. The
modelling success factors identified through this process. ‘Modeller Satisfaction’ construct is unique to the pro-
Success is a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon. posed model. This was included in the model to tap into
Hence, having a correct and complete set of measure- the affective attitude of the modeller (analogous to the
ment dimensions is important (Garrity & Sanders, 1998, developer of a system rather than a user) (Sedera et al.,
p 31; Kanellis et al., 1999). Gable (1996) suggests that the 2002, p 335). The system quality and information quality
employment of only one or a subset of the dimensions of dimensions of the original IS success frameworks were
success as a surrogate for overall success may be one of replaced by the new dimension ‘process-model quality’
the reasons for mixed results reported in the literature (Sedera et al., 2002, p 336). ‘Use’ has been identified as
regarding the antecedents of IS success (e.g., Ginzberg, one of the most frequently reported measures of success
1981; Ives & Olson, 1984; Barki & Hartwick, 1989; Hawk of an IS (De Lone & Mclean, 1992, p 66). This framework
& Aldag, 1990; Gatian, 1994, Myers et al., 1998). also proposes ‘model use’ to be an important dimension
Owing to the lack of any reported process modelling of process modelling success (Sedera et al., 2002, p 336).
success studies, IS success frameworks were sought as a ‘User satisfaction’ has been employed as a core dimension
proxy to identify candidate process modelling success of IS success in many past studies (Sedera et al., 2002, pp
measures (e.g., De Lone & Mclean, 1992; Goodhue, 1992; 336–337) and hence was adopted herein as well. Most of
Seddon, 1997; Garrity & Sanders, 1998; Myers et al., the success frameworks reviewed included an ‘impact’
1998). Sedera et al. (2002) describe and justify the section to capture either the individual, workgroup,
identification, re-specification and adaptation of these organizational or social impacts of the IS. In the context
of this study, we have used ‘process impact’ in lieu of the
other impacts proposed in analogous literature (Sedera
Table 2 Defining the a priori constructs – independent et al., 2002, p 337).
variables: success factors Figure 1 depicts the resultant a priori model. The a priori
model derived from the literature ostensibly reflects a
Modelling methodology: A detailed set of instructions that describes
and guides the process of modelling.
complete set of success factors and success measures.
Modelling language: The grammar or the ‘‘syntactic rules’’ of the
selected process modelling technique.
The use of case studies
Modelling tool: The software that facilitates the design, maintenance
The case study method emphasizes qualitative analysis..
and distribution of process models.
Modellers’ expertise: The experiences of the process modellers in
It is a scientific and recommended way to research an
terms of conceptual modelling in general and process modelling in emerging area in which few previous studies have been
particular. conducted (Lee, 1989; Yin, 1994). A single pilot-case
Modelling team structure: The ‘infrastructure’ that should exist in a study and subsequent multiple case studies were em-
successful process modelling team, such as an appropriate mix of ployed in this research, the primary goal being to
internal and external members, representatives from all modelled
business units, team leadership and vision.
Project management: The management of the process modelling Table 3 Defining the a priori constructs – the dependent
project including defining the project scope, aims, milestones and variables: success measures
plans.
User participation: The degree of input from the process model users Modeller satisfaction: The extent to which the modellers (those who
to the design, approval and maintenance of the process models. design the process models) believe process modelling fulfills the
User competence: The amount of knowledge the model users have objectives that underlay the modelling project.
about the modelled domain and the modelling procedures. Process model quality: The extent to which all desirable properties of a
Top management support: The level of commitment by senior model are fulfilled to satisfy the needs of the model users in an
management in the organization to the process modelling project, effective and efficient way.
in terms of their own involvement and the willingness to allocate Model use: The extent to which the process models are applied and
valuable organizational resources. utilized.
Leadership (a.k.a. project championship): The existence of a high level User satisfaction: The extent to which the model users believe
sponsor who has the power to steer the project, by setting goals and process modelling fulfills the objectives that underlay the modelling
legitimate changes. project.
Communication: The exchange of information (feedback and re- Process impact: The effects of process modelling on the process’
views) amongst the project team members and the analysis of performance. Here, the ‘process’ refers to the processes or functions
feedback from users. to which process modelling is being applied.

European Journal of Information Systems

 Factors and measures of business process modelling Wasana Bandara et al 351

Success
Success Factor Measures

Modeler
Project-specific factor Modelling Satisfaction
related factors
Modeller User
Expertise Participation Model
Modelling Quality
Methodology
Team Management
Structure Support User
Satisfaction
Modelling
Language
Project Leadership
Management
Model
Use
Modelling
User Tool
Competence Communication
Individual
Impacts

Figure 1 A priori model.

instantiate the candidate success factors and measures Huberman, 1994) and close linkages between the
identified from the literature review. research questions, evidence, interpretations and conclu-
sions were maintained throughout the analysis. The
qualitative data analysis tool NVivo 2.0 was utilized
Case study design
during this phase to capture, code and report the findings
In attention to several known potential weaknesses of the
of the case study. Construct validity was strengthened
case study method (Benbasat et al., 1987), a case study
within the study through the use of multiple sources of
protocol was designed, carefully documenting all proce-
evidence, establishing a chain of evidence with a well-
dures relating to the data collection and analysis phases
structured case database, and by having key informants
of the study.
review draft case study reports at the completion of data
Qualitative data collection mechanisms including in-
analysis at each case site. Predictive validity was increased
depth interviews, and content analysis of existing
through data analysis techniques such as pattern match-
documentation were used to collect ‘rich’ evidence about
ing and explanation building (Yin, 1994). External
the process modelling projects. Observations and doc-
validity, or extensibility of the findings, has been
umentation were used only to augment and corroborate
improved through the conduct of multiple cases studies.
interview data, which was the main input to data
analysis. Whenever possible, interviews were conducted
with multiple stakeholders in the process modelling Introducing the case studies
project(s), namely the modellers and the project spon- Case studies were conducted of four, one and four (nine
sors. The interviews were semi-structured, each com- in total) process modelling projects (the process model-
pleted within 60–90 min. All interviews followed the ling project is the unit of analysis) in three large
same structure and format (as prespecified by the case Australian organizations – Queensland Rail (QR), Queens-
protocol), commencing with an open discussion on land Treasury and Telstra, respectively.
perceived success/failure factors and measures of process QR is a Queensland State Government owned corpora-
modelling success in relation to the selected project. tion that provides transport and logistics business solu-
Subsequently, the individual constructs of the a priori tions to a diverse range of customers throughout the
model were introduced (for the first time), and the State, Australia and overseas. Business process modelling
respondents’ opinions on the overall relevance and is used within QR for a variety of purposes. Over a period
importance of these constructs were sought. This of 4 months (July–November 2002), 18 interviews/meet-
approach enabled the researchers to obtain new ideas to ings were conducted with modellers and project sponsors
enhance the model, while simultaneously validating involved in four process modelling projects within QR.
existing a priori constructs. Over 30 project-related documents (e.g., project charters,
Reliability was enhanced through the use of a detailed business cases, modelling-related procedures, project
case protocol and a structured case database. All relevant management documentation, etc.) were analysed in
data (interview transcripts, research memos, sample detail.
process models, documented modelling guidelines, etc.) Queensland Treasury provides core economic and finan-
were maintained in a ‘case database’ (Yin, 1994; Miles & cial policy advice to the Queensland Government, and

European Journal of Information Systems

352 Factors and measures of business process modelling Wasana Bandara et al

assists the government in managing the State’s finances, nal or external modeller, or project sponsor) within each
including the preparation and oversight of the budget to of the nine modelling projects. The primary goal of this
meet community needs. Over a 4-week period (April–May analysis was: (a) to evaluate the sufficiency of the set of
2003), four detailed interviews and over 10 different model constructs, and (b) to evaluate the necessity of
types of documents were assessed in relation to a each model construct. Table 4 reflects 16 success factors
single detailed process modelling project at Queensland (F1–F16) and nine success measures (S1–S9). F1–F11 are
Treasury. the starting 11 success factors of the a priori model, while
Telstra is a semi-government telecommunications or- F12–F16 are new independent variables identified
ganization with a 100-year history of providing telecom- through the case studies. S1–S5 are the starting five
munications services to the whole of Australia. Telstra success measures of the a priori model, while S6–S9 are
competes in a very competitive global market, and is new success measures identified through the case studies.
continuously revising its strategies and business pro- In addition to analysing the general citations for each
cesses. Small- and large-scale projects have been initiated construct, we also (a) conducted redundancy checks with
within Telstra for the continuous improvement of its ‘matrix intersection and difference’ searches using NVivo,
products and services. Process modelling has played a and (b) analysed each construct against its general
substantial role in many of these corporate initiatives. citations and those instances in which it was specifically
Four process modelling projects were analysed over a stated as being important for a successful process
period of 2 months (June–August 2003). Six key respon- modelling initiative (hereafter referred to as specific
dents were interviewed at 11 meetings, and a range of citations). Matrix intersection search is a type of Boolean
project-related documents were analysed in detail. search made available through NVivo. It takes one feature
from each collection at a time, and finds passages in the
Multiple case study findings documents or nodes, which contain both. Matrix differ-
Explicit or implicit counts are often reflected in qualita- ence search, another type of NVivo Boolean search, takes
tive analysis when judgments are made. For example, we one feature from each collection at a time, and finds
‘identify themes or patterns that happened a number of passages in the documents or nodes having the feature
times and that consistently happen a specific way’ (Miles from the first collection but not the second. Complete
& Huberman, 1984, p 215). Analysis of the case study evidence of this data analysis results (such as sample
data was conducted mainly by coding the data (through citations and resulting matrices) was not included in this
the use of NVivo 2.0), thereby yielding counts and data paper due to space constraints, but can be provided upon
points that were then analysed further. request.
A starting set of codes was defined (‘Codes are tags or Redundancy checks enabled the researcher to identify
labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or possible instances where two or more constructs over-
inferential information compiled during a study’; Miles & lapped each other, and when potential sub-constructs
Huberman, 1984, p 55, 57); these codes were refined, as were incorrectly depicted as core constructs in the a priori
the analysis evolved. A tree-like node structure was model. The tool’s (NVivo 2.0) capacity to maintain a
initially created within NVivo to depict the success chain of evidence, with its provision to move back and
factors and success measures of the a priori model. The forth from the summary matrices to the original
coding of the interview data was then conducted in three transcripts and memo notes in the case database, aided
phases: the researchers to carefully analyse and justify modifica-
Phase 1: Phase 1 coded any direct or implied existence tions to the model, raised through these redundancy
of the constructs (of the a priori model) within the data, checks.
simultaneously identifying any new constructs. Comparison of citations that merely mentioned a
Phase 2: Phase 2 analysed the information already construct with instances that specifically stated its
coded within phase 1 (extracting the information already importance was used to justify the criticality or necessity
coded under each of the constructs), to confirm the of each construct. These ‘specific’ citations were analysed
appropriateness with the categorization. Furthermore, in conjunction with the general citations and redun-
the codes assigned to the data were refined to distinguish dancy matrixes as further evidence when deciding the
between citations that indicated mere existence of the inclusion/exclusion and merging of a priori constructs for
constructs, vs those that specified the criticality of the the re-specified model. The following section describes
construct. the process of deriving the re-specified model.
Phase 3: Phase 3 conducted in vivo coding, that is, a
method of coding available through NVivo, in which the Respecifying the independent variables: the success
selected document text becomes the title of a new node, factors
created to hold that text. Key words are identified and Top Management Support (F1) was consistently cited across
allocated to each construct as a means of identifying interviewees (modellers and project sponsors), across
potential sub-constructs. projects and across case sites.. However, overlap was
Table 4 indicates general citations (each time the perceived across the case sites with other a priori
construct was merely mentioned) by interviewee (inter- constructs such as Leadership. Close analysis of the

European Journal of Information Systems

 Factors and measures of business process modelling Wasana Bandara et al 353

interview data suggested that aspects of management project). However, Modeller Expertise, overlapped with
support, such as funding and management participation, other constructs, for example, Communication and
played a substantial role in successful modelling projects. Getting Information (Information Resources). This sug-
Thus, Top Management Support was kept as a separate gested possible overlap with the Modeller Expertise sub-
construct, and the overlap with other constructs was constructs that included the ‘required skills’, ‘knowledge’
noted, to guide subsequent model operationalization. and ‘experience’ the modeller ought to have, in order to
The respondents consistently cited Leadership (F2), ar- succeed on a process modelling project. The specific
guing its relevance and importance as a success factor of citations on modeller expertise clearly stated its impor-
process modelling projects. However, as suggested, there tance. This justified Modeller Expertise as a separate
was substantial overlap with the data coded under Top construct, thus it remained in the model and the other
Management Support (this became evident after a matrix overlapping constructs were analysed with care.
intersection search through NVivo), respondents often User Participation (F7) had consistent supporting cita-
referring to the ‘need to have support for the initiation of tions across all projects and perspectives, a very clear
the project’ and ‘support within the major decision indication of its importance as a success factor. However,
making of the project’. the data suggested that respondents were referring to
Although Leadership was at times referred to as Participation in general and more specifically to the
Management Support, the phrases simultaneously re- participation of the Process stakeholders. Process stake-
ferred to other sub-constructs of Management Support holders have a role in the processes being modelled, and
such as availability of funding, resources, etc. This led us may or may not be model users, and hence this construct
to conclude that Top Management Support is a multi- was re-defined as Stakeholder Participation. It was also
dimensional construct that should be included in the noted that Participation overlapped to some extent with
model, and that Leadership is a sub-construct of Top Communication, and Getting Information (Information
Management Support that relates to the participation Resources) (evident after a matrix intersection search
and decision-making power shown by managerial staff on through NVivo). Data coded under each of these were
the process modelling project. Thus, Leadership was reviewed carefully to remove these potential redundancy
removed from the model and appropriate sub-constructs issues. However, Participation remained in the re-speci-
were included within the Top Management Support fied model, due to the relatively strong citations that
construct to compensate for the removal of Leadership. specifically stated its importance (19 specific citations in
Project Management (F3) was the most cited success total, mostly with strong emphasis on its importance).
factor across all three case sites (a total of 84 general While the importance of Communication (F8) was
citations). Data highlighted its multi-dimensional nature, specifically mentioned several times (45 general citations
with different respondents referring to Project Manage- and 16 specific citations about its importance), there
ment sub-constructs such as Scope and Objective defini- seemed to be a high level of overlap with the data coded
tions, Quality Management, Knowledge Management, under other constructs, especially Participation and
Time Management and Communication Management. Modeller Expertise. A closer analysis of the Communica-
However, there was substantial overlap between Project tion construct aided in making the observation that there
Management and other constructs of the a priori model were two types of communication processes within a
(such as Team Structure, and Communication). Following modelling project: (a) Information Sharing: communica-
detailed analysis of this overlap, and considering tion among the modelling team members for sharing
those citations that specifically stated the importance of information and (b) Feedback: communication between
Project Management (a total of 20 specific citations of its the modellers and the users to confirm the correctness of
importance), Project Management remained in the model. the models. The content coded under ‘Feedback’ was
While the Team Structure (F4) construct was mentioned identical to the intersection between Communication
within the interview data, there were only a few citations and User Participation. Thus, this segment was identified
that specifically stated its importance (a total of only two as a sub-construct of User Participation rather than a
citations across all case sites, and these two citations also separate construct of its own.
overlapped with the project management citations). Information Sharing was perceived to be an aspect that
Furthermore, this construct substantially overlapped should be planned for and addressed within a good
with other constructs such as Project Management and project management plan. Thus, this was included under
Communication. Given weak evidence of its existence, Project Management. A matrix differences search con-
Team Structure was removed from the model. Similar to ducted between Communication and the two re-located
Team Structure, User Competence (F5) had few general sub-constructs of Communication (Feedback and Infor-
citations (19 in total) and specific statements (six in total) mation Sharing) supported the conclusion that the core
that described its low relevance as a success factor for aspects of communication are captured under Parti-
process modelling, thus, was removed from the model. cipation (the ‘Feedback’ sub-construct) and Project
Modeller Expertise (F6) was consistently cited as an Management (the ‘Information Sharing’ sub-construct).
important element of success in process modelling (16 Hence, there was no need for a separate Communication
citations specifically stating its criticality for a modelling construct in the re-specified model.

European Journal of Information Systems

European Journal of Information Systems

354
Table 4 Counts of ‘general’ citations of model constructs: by interviewee, within the nine process modelling projects

Factors and measures of business process modelling

Success factors

A priori New

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 FI0 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16

Top mgmt Leadership Project Team User competence Modeller User participation Communi- Modelling Modelling Modelling Complexity Importance Culture Information Need
Support mgmt structure expertise cation language method tool resources

P1: Work request automation project: Technical Services Group (TSG)

6 2 2 4 3 2 6 2 2 5 3 4 3
P2: Freight booking system project: Infrastructure Services Group (ISG)
6 2 2 2 2 4 6 1 0 2 4 2 3
P3: Train control transition project: across Queensland Rail
3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 2
3 8 2 4 1 7 7 6 0 3 5
P4: Rail Supply Chain Optimization (SCOR) Project: supply division
2 0 4 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 1
4 3 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1
24 17 14 13 11 20 24 15 7 12 17 7 0 4 0 3
P5: Knowledge–economy Project

Wasana Bandara et al
7 4 7 1 - 1 2 5 5 1 6 2 2 3 1
2 2 12 2 2 3 3 2 2 6 5 2 3 2 —
1 3 5 3 1 5 9 2 4 3 2 3 3 1 —
4 2 17 7 1 2 6 4 3 4 5 5 — 1 —
14 11 41 13 4 11 20 13 14 14 18 12 8 7 1 0
P6: IP Telephony Assurance Project
4 2 7 0 2 2 2 3 2 4 4 2 1 2 9
P7: Interim Mini-Stats Ordering Project
7 4 11 1 1 7 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
P8: Pay phone Faults Detection Project
3 2 4 0 0 7 7 4 2 3 6 5 2 1 8
P9: Supplementary Worker Project
2 4 7 2 1 7 2 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 6
16 12 29 3 4 23 13 17 6 9 13 9 5 5 35 0
54 40 84 29 19 54 57 45 27 35 48 28 13 16 36 3
 Continued

Factors and measures of business process modelling

Table 4

Interviewee Success measures

A priori New

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
Modeller Model quality Model use User satisfaction Process mod- Usefulness Individual Process Others
satisfaction elling impact impact impact

QUEENSLAND RAIL
Internal modeler 0 0 1 1 0

Irternal modelers 0 0 0 1 0

Internal modeler 0 2 4 0 1
Project sponsors 0 0 3 0 0

Irternal modelers 1 1 2 0 1
Project sponsor 0 0 3 0 4
OVERALL SITE analysis 1 3 13 2 6
QUEENSLAND TREASURY

Wasana Bandara et al
Eternal modeller 1 1 3 5 2 2 2 1 Achieved objective 3
Externalmodeller 2 0 5 4 1 2 1 0 Achieved objective 2
Internal modeller 3 1 3 4 3 1 5 4 Achieved objective 1
Project sponsor 1 3 2 1 5 0 6 Achieved objectives 3
OVERALL SITE analysis 3 14 15 7 10 8 11 9
TELSTRA QUEENSLAND
Internal modeller 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 met purpose 1

Internal modeller 1 1 2 0 5 3 2 2 met purpose 1

European Journal of Information Systems

Internal modeller 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0

Internal modeller 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0
OVERALL SITE analysis 2 4 2 11 0 5 6 3 2
Consolidated Total 6 21 30 20 6 15 14 14 N/A

355
356 Factors and measures of business process modelling Wasana Bandara et al

A new issue (or factor) ‘Getting Information’ was raised modelled as well as how the detailed modelling was to
in data gathered within the second and third case sites. be done’. This construct was further justified in the
We identified this as a success factor because of the succeeding case studies and was later re-specified and re-
relatively high number of citations (a total of 34 general defined as ‘the many different features of the processes
citations and 14 specific citations that stated its impor- modelled’ (such as the number of inputs, outputs,
tance). After careful analysis of the data gathered within variants, involved stakeholders of a process, etc.), captur-
the case study, this construct was re-specified as Informa- ing the complexity of the processes being modelled.
tion Resources (F15) and defined as ‘those resources Based on this analysis, both Complexity and Importance
available to inform the modelling project’. This new (previously known as ‘Need’) were included in the re-
construct substantially overlapped with the Participation specified process modelling success model, as moderating
construct. This can be explained by the fact that variables. They were hypothesized as moderating vari-
Participation, in the context of process modelling ables as (a) neither Complexity of the process nor the
initiatives, was important, mainly to gather relevant Importance of the project are things that one can
information to undertake the modelling, and for review- influence or change once the project is approved
ing the completed models. However, it was made evident (whereas all other independent factors of the model are
from the data that Information Resources emphasized the manageable to some extent), and (b) while their existence
state of information available, while Participation em- did not prove to have any direct impact on the
phasized the process of gathering information. Thus, both dependent variables, they seemed to influence how other
constructs remained in the re-specified model. success factors such as Top Management Support, Project
All three initial modelling-specific constructs, the Management, Modeller Expertise, Modelling Tool and
Modelling Tool (F11), the Modelling Technique (a.k.a. Model- Modelling Technique, etc. related to the dependent
ling Language) (F9) and the Modelling Guidelines (a.k.a. variables (evident from a matrix intersection search
Modelling methodology) (F10), remained in the model. It through NVivo2.0).
was interesting to note that although they all had citations
to support their relevance and importance in a process Re-specifying the dependent variables: the success
modelling project, they all scored lower overall general measures
citations than the project-specific factors Participation, The data analysis strategies employed for the success
Project Management and Top Management support (see measures were the same as those for the success factors..
Table 4, last row). This suggests the relative importance of However, it is noted that the amount of data coded under
project-specific factors within a process modelling project. the success measurement nodes was relatively less com-
Five new success factors were identified across the case pared to that for the success factors. Respondents were
studies (see Table 4, columns F12–F16). The most often not very familiar with concepts of ‘success measure-
substantial of these, ‘Getting Information’ (Information ment’, especially within the context of process modelling.
Resources), was discussed earlier. Two new constructs Modeller Satisfaction (S1) was the least supported success
were identified from the first case site: Need (F16) and measure, with relatively fewer general citations. There
Culture (F14). The Need construct captured ‘how impor- were citations that specifically denoted its irrelevance as a
tant the overall initiative is’ (in other words, what success measure (three in total – 50% of total general
motivated the process modelling project), and Culture citations). Respondents referred to its potential for being
was ‘the organizational readiness to accept and partici- biased, especially when respondents are modellers, and
pate in a modelling initiative’. The Need construct was suggested it is unsuitable as a success measure. Thus, it
later re-defined with some reference to past literature was removed from the modified model.
(e.g., Seddon, 1997), to Importance (F13), which was Both Model Quality (S2) and User Satisfaction (S4)
defined as the criticality of the process modelling project constructs were supported by the case studies, always
to the organization. This new Importance construct was scoring a relatively higher number of general citations
further justified in the succeeding case studies and was and specific citations (Model Quality 7, User Satisfaction
included in the modified model. However, no strong 13) discussing its importance. Thus, both Model Quality
evidence was collected from any of the case studies to and User Satisfaction were integrated as success measures
justify having Culture as a separate construct in the in the modified model. Model Use (S3) received the
modified model (only four citations had mentioned its highest number of general citations (30 in total).
importance). The data suggested that culture would be However, very few respondents supported its relevance
influential for the ‘initiation of a modelling project rather as a success measure and they commonly agreed on the
than for the ‘success’ of the project’. Furthermore, difficulty in effectively measuring the ‘level of model
Culture was a reflection on the Leadership and Top use’, thus denoting that it was not a suitable measure for
Management Support constructs. Thus, it was not process modelling success. Furthermore, this construct
included as a separate construct in the modified model. substantially overlapped with the new Usefulness, In-
Complexity (F12) was another new construct, which was dividual Impacts and Process Impacts constructs (evident
identified from the very first case study. Initially, it was from a matrix intersection search). Thus, Use was
defined as ‘the complexity of the processes being removed from the modified model.

European Journal of Information Systems

 Factors and measures of business process modelling Wasana Bandara et al 357

Earlier case study analysis raised concerns about the project’s ability to maximize invested resources in
‘Use’ construct (i.e., in terms of difficulty of measurement relation to the obtained outcomes. While this was
and irrelevance to the context of process modelling). considered important, it did not ‘fit’ within any of the
Similar concerns are raised in the IS success literature. existing measurement constructs. Thus, a new measure-
Seddon propose usefulness in place of use (Seddon, 1997). ment construct Process Efficiency was later added to cater
Thus, Usefulness (S6) was integrated into the modified a for this, and was defined as ‘the process modelling
priori model for the latter case studies (after the Queens- project’s ability to maximize the obtained outcomes in
land Rail project analysis was completed). While there relation to the invested resources’.
were a substantial number of citations on usefulness (15
in total from just five investigated process modelling The overall re-specified process modelling success
projects), it also showed substantial overlap with the model
impacts constructs, when an intersection search was Figure 2 summarizes the re-specified success model
conducted through NVivo. Thus, it was removed from derived from the multiple case studies. In summary, the
the modified model. analysis of the success factors resulted in: (a) Leadership,
The a priori Process Modelling Impacts (S5) construct was Team Structure, User Competence, Communication and
decomposed into two separate constructs after the data Culture being removed from the model due to overlap
analysis of the first case site. The decomposition with other more holistic (deemed so, by the support from
consisted of Individual Impacts (S7) (which refers to how the literature and specific statements from case data)
process modelling has influenced the Process stake- constructs and/or due to lack of evidence to support their
holders; those who have a role in the processes being existence as a separate success factor; (b) a new success
modelled) and Process Impacts (S8) (which refers to the factor, ‘Information Resources’ (Getting Information); (c)
overall effect of process modelling on the processes two new moderating variables – Complexity and Im-
modelled). This was initially identified within the portance, and (d) User Participation was re-defined as
analysis of Queensland Treasury. This decomposition Stakeholder Participation.
was further tested within the Telstra projects and was The analysis of the success measures resulted in the
supported (most impacts related citations were around following insights: (a) two levels of potential process
the two main themes of impacts to individuals and modelling impacts were identified. Process modelling
impacts to the processes being modelled). Thus, the impacts at the individual Process stakeholder level
single a priori ‘Impacts’ construct was replaced by the two (Individual Impacts) and process modelling impacts at
decomposed constructs of ‘Individual Impacts’ and the overall process level; (b) Modeller Satisfaction was
‘Process Impacts’ in the modified model. removed from the model due to its potential for bias and
Other potentially useful success measures were care- its perceived lack of relevance as a success measure; (c)
fully explored from the data collected on the case studies. The Model Use and Usefulness constructs were removed
The degree to which the modelling activities fulfilled from the model because of perceived overlap with the
their initial objectives and met intended goals was raised other measurement constructs; and (d) a new success
as an important measure at several points in the case measure; Project Efficiency was identified and included in
studies. Citations often referred to the process modelling the model.

Success
Success Factors Measures
Importance
Model
Quality
Project-specific factors Modelling
related factors
User
Satisfaction
Modelling
Stakeholder Management Methodology
Participation Support
Individual
Impacts
Modelling
Information Project
Language
Resources Management
Process
Impacts
Modeller
Expertise Modelling
Tool Complexity
Project
Efficiency

Figure 2 Re-specified process modelling success model.

European Journal of Information Systems

358 Factors and measures of business process modelling Wasana Bandara et al

Study contributions, limitations and outlook to establish the initial set of candidate success factors and
This paper reported on the extent to which multiple case measures. It is recognized that these ‘other domains’ may
studies contributed to the design of a process modelling have been overly influential (due to differences in
success model. The identified success factors (both context). Case studies of process modelling projects were
modelling specific and generic factors) can be usefully conducted to empirically modify and further ‘build’ the
addressed by practitioners to plan and conduct a model- model. The case study data and approach did not allow
ling project. The reported process modelling success for rigorous testing of the relative influence of the success
model also provides clear guidance on how to practically factors on the success measures – an inherent weakness of
measure the effectiveness and efficiency of a modelling most success factor studies (Nandhakumar, 1996). The
project. It is anticipated that the model reported in this study will next be extended to address these limitations.
study can also be readily adapted and tested within other The model will be operationalized for the purpose of a
modelling domains. quantitative survey and subsequent statistical testing of
No theory exists in relation to the study questions. model completeness and validity. These data will also
Thus, relying on extant theory was not possible. The facilitate testing the predictive power of the success
study draws heavily on referent and analogous domains factor.

About the authors

Wasana Bandara (nee Wasana Sedera) is a Lecturer at Pacific Asia Region Editor for Journal of Strategic Informa-
the School of Information Systems, Queensland Univer- tion Systems and for Journal of Global Information Manage-
sity of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia. She is ment, and inaugural Editorial Board Member of Journal of
currently pursuing Doctoral research on ‘Process Model- the AIS and Information Systems Frontiers.
ling Success Factors and Measures’ at QUT under the Professor Michael Rosemann Co-Chairs the Business
supervision of Michael Rosemann and Guy Gable. Her Process Management Research Program at Queensland
research interests include: Business Process management, University of Technology. His key research interests are:
IT/IS Education and IT/IS Research Methodologies. Business Process Management, Process Modelling, En-
Professor Guy Gable Chairs the IT Professional Services terprise Systems and Ontologies. His MBA and his
Research Program at Queensland University of Technol- doctorate are from the University of Muenster, Germany.
ogy. His key research interests are: IT Professional Besides more than 120 refereed journal publications,
Services, IT Research Methods, Enterprise Systems and conference publications and book chapters, he has
Measuring Success. His doctorate is from University of published a number of books on BPM. He is a member
Bradford, England, and his MBA from Richard Ivey of the Editorial Board of six journals.
School of Business, University of Western Ontario. He is

References
AMOROSO DL (1998) Developing a model to understand Reengineering BENBASAT I, GOLDSTEIN DK and MEAD M (1987) The case research strategy
project success. IEEE reference number 1060-3425/98. in studies of Information Systems. Management Information Systems
BAILEY JE and PEARSON SW (1983) Development of a tool for measuring Quarterly 11(3), 369–386.
and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Management Science 29(5), BINGI P, SHARMA MK and GODLA JK (1999) Critical issues affecting an ERP
530–545. implementation. Journal of Information Systems Management 7–14.
BANCROFT NH (1998) Implementing SAP R/3: How to Introduce Large BRASH D (1999) The contributions of participants to Enterprise Modeling.
Systems into Large Organizations, 2nd edn. Manning, Greenwich. In Proceedings of the Tenth Australasian Conference of Information
BARKI H and HARTWICK J (1989) Rethinking the concept of user Systems (ACIS ’99) (HOPE B and YOONG P, Eds), 1–3 December 1999,
involvement. MIS Quarterly 13(1), 52–63. Wellington.
BARTHOLOMEW D (1999) Process is back. Industry week. Cleveland. BURKHARD DL (1990) Examination of factors contributing to the success of
BATINI C, FURLANI L and NARDELLI E (1985) What is a good diagram? A the implementation of Computer-Aided-Software-Engineering Tech-
pragmatic approach. In Proceedings of the Fourth International nology. IEEE reference number 0073-1129/90/0000/0418.
Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach: The Use of ER Concept CARR DK and JOHANNSON HJ (1995) Best Practices in Re-engineering – What
in Knowledge Representation (CHEN PP-S, Ed), pp 312–319, Elsevier, Works and What Doesn’t in the Re-engineering Process. McGrow Hill,
North-Holland. New York.
BECKER J, KUGELER M and ROSEMANN M (2005) Process Management, 2nd CHUANG M and SHAW WH (2000) Distinguishing the critical success
edn. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. factors between E- commerce, Enterprise Resource Planning, and
BECKER J, ROSEMANN M and SCHüTTE R (1997) Business to business process Supply Chain Management. IEEE, Reference number 0-7803-6442-
integration: functions and methods. In Proceedings of the Fifth European 2/00.
Conference on Information Systems (ECIS’97) (GALLIERS R et al, Eds), Vol. CLEMONS EK, THATCHER ME and ROW MC (1995) Identifying sources
2, pp 816–827, June 19–21 Cork, Ireland. of reengineering failures: a study of behavioural factors contributing
BECKER J, ROSEMANN M and VON UTHMANN C (2000) Guidelines of business to reengineering risks. Journal of Management Information Systems
process modelling. In Business Process Management: Models Techniques 12(2), 9.
and Empirical Studies (VAN DERAALST W, SEDEL J and OBERWEIS A, Eds), CURTIS B, KELLER MI and OVER J (1992) Process modelling. Communications
pp 30–49, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. of ACM 35(9), 75–90.

European Journal of Information Systems

 Factors and measures of business process modelling Wasana Bandara et al 359

DAVENPORT T (1993) Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through pp 1–11, Web Centre, School of Management and Information
Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Systems, Edith Cowen University, Perth, Australia.
DAVIS FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user KETTINGER WJ, TENG JTT and GUHA S (1997) Business process change: a
acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. study of methodologies, techniques and tools. MIS Quarterly.
DE LONE WH and MCLEAN ER (1992) Information systems success: the KROGSTIE J, LINDLAND OI and SINDRE G (1995a) Defining quality aspects for
quest for the dependent variable. Journal of Information Systems conceptual models. Proceeding of the International Conference on
Research 3(1), 60–95. Information systems Concepts: Towards a Consolidated View, 28–30
EVANS R (1994) The human side of Business Process Re-engineering. March, Marburg.
Management Development Review l7(6). KROGSTIE J, LINDLAND OI and SINDRE G (1995b) Towards a deeper
FETTKE P and LOOS P (2003) Classification of reference models – a understanding of quality in requirements engineering. In Proceedings
methodology and its application. In Information Systems and e-Business of the Seventh International Conference on Advance Information Systems
Management (ISSN 1617–9846), Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 35–53. Engineering (CAiSE ’95), pp 82–95.
FISHER J (2000) User satisfaction and system success: considering the LARSEN MA and MYERS MD (1998) BPR success or failure? A business
development team. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian process reengineering project in the financial services industry.
Conference of Information Systems (ACIS ’00). (GABLE G and VITALE M, Communications of ACM 367–381.
Eds), 6–8 December, Brisbane. LEE AS (1989) A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. Management
FORSBERG T, RöNNE G and VIKSTRöM J (2000) Process Modelling in ERP Information Systems Quarterly 13(1), 32–50.
projects – a discussion of potential benefits, available at: http:// LINDLAND IO, SINDRE G and SOLVBERG A (1994) Understanding quality in
www.processworld.com/content/22.doc, last accessed date 25th, conceptual modeling. IEEE software 11(2), 42–49.
March 2001. LUCAS CH (1981) Implementation of the Key to Successful Information
GABLE GG (1996) A multidimensional model of client success Systems. New York, Colombia.
when engaging external consultants. Management Science 42(8), LUCAS CH, WALTON JE and GINZBERG JM (1998) Implementing package
1175–1198. software. MIS quarterly, 537–549.
GARRITY EJ and SANDERS GL (1998) Dimensions of IS Success in Information MCCLURE CL (1979) Software development: failure and success. IEEE
Systems Success Measurement. Series in Information Technology Manage- reference number CH1515–6/79/0000–0001.
ment, (GARRITY EJ and SANDERS GL, Eds), pp 13–45, Idea Group MCNURLIN CB and SPRAGUE HR (1989) Information Systems Management in
Publishing, Hershey, PA. Practice, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
GATIAN AW (1994) Is user satisfaction a valid measure of system MILES MB and HUBERMAN AM (1984) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Source
effectiveness. Information and Management 26(3), 119–131. Book of New Methods. Sage Publications, California.
GILL PJ (1999) Application development: business snapshot – business MOODY D (1996) Seven habits of highly effective data modelers.
modelling tools help companies align their business and technology Database Programming and Design 57–64.
goals. Information week, April 1999. MOODY D and SHANKS G (1994) What makes a good data model?
GINZBERG MJ (1981) Early diagnosis of misimplementation failure: Evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. In Proceedings of
promising results and unanswered questions. Management Science the Thirteenth International Conference on the Entity Relationship
27(4), 459–478. approach (ER ’94), Business Modeling and Reengineering (LOUCOPOULOS
GOODHUE DL (1992) User evaluations of MIS success: what are we really P, Ed), pp 94–111, Springer, Berlin.
measuring? In Proceedings of the 25th Hawaii International Conference MURPHY F and STAPLES S (1998) Reengineering in Australia: factors
on Systems Sciences, pp 303–314, IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 4–4. affecting success. Proceedings from the Ninth Australasian Conference of
GREEN P and ROSEMANN M (2000) Ontological analysis of integrated Information systems, 29 September – 02 October, Sydney.
process modeling: some initial insights. In Proceedings of the Eleventh MYERS BL, KAPPELMAN LA and PRYBUTOK VR (1998) A comprehensive model
Australasian Conference on Information Systems (GABLE G and VITALE M, for assessing the quality and productivity of the information systems
Eds.), 6–8 December, Brisbane. function: toward a theory for information systems assessment. In
GROVER V, JEONG SR, KETTINGER WJ and TENG JTC (1995) The implementa- Information Systems Success Measurement, Series in Information Tech-
tion of Business process reengineering. Journal of Management nology Management, (GARRITY EJ and SANDERS GL, Eds), pp 94–121, Idea
Information Systems 12(1), 109–139. Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.
GULLA AJ and BRASETHVIK T (2000) On the challenges of business NANDHAKUMAR J (1996) Design for success?: critical success factors in
modelling in large-scale reengineering projects. In Proceedings of the executive information systems. European Journal of Information Systems
Fourth International Conference on Requirements Engineering, (CHENG 5, 62–73.
BHC and WEISS D, Eds), pp 17–26, 19–23 June, Schaumburg, IL. PARR AN, SHANKS G and DARKE P (1999) Identification of necessary factors
HAMMER M and CHAMPY JM (1993) Reengineering the Corporation: A for successful implementation of ERP systems. In new information
Manifesto for Business Revolution. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, Allen technologies and theoretical organizational processes: field studies and
and Urwin, London. theoretical reflections on the future of work. IFIP Conference Proceed-
HAWK SR and ALDAG RJ (1990) Measurement biases in user involvement ings, Vol 149, Kluwer B.V Deventer, Netherlands.
research. Omega 18(6), 605–613. PERISTERAS V and TARABANIS K (2000) Towards an enterprise architecture
HOLLAND CP, LIGHT B and GIBSON N (1999) Critical success factors model for public administration using a top-down approach. European Journal
for Enterprise Resource Planning implementations. In Proceedings of of Information Systems 9, 252–260.
the Seventh European Conference of Information Systems (ECIS ’99), Vol. RAINER RK and WATSON HJ (1995) The key to executive information
1, pp 273–297. system success. Journal of Management Information Systems 12(2).
INCHUSTA SP, PINA A and BULDAIN G (1998) Economic feasibility and RAYMOND EM, COLEMAN Jr HJ and CREED WED (1995) Key to success in
success factors in Information Technology Implementations: a cooperate redesign. California Management Review.
case study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering ROSEMANN M (1998) Managing the complexity of multi-perspective
and Technology management, (IEMC ’98), Pioneering New Techno- information models using the guidelines of modeling. In Proceedings of
logies: Management Issues and Challenges in the Third Millennium, the Third Conference on Requirements Engineering- ACRE, 26–27 October.
pp 88–93. ROSEMANN M (2000) Using reference models within the enterprise
IVES BM and OLSON MH (1984) User involvement and missuccess: a resource planning life cycle. Australian Accounting Review 3(22), 19–31.
review of research. Management Science 30(5), 586–603. ROSEMANN M and CHAN R (2000) Structuring and modelling knowledge
KANELLIS P, LYCETT M and PAUL RJ (1999) Evaluating business information in the context of ERP. Proceedings of the Fourth Pacific Asia Conference
systems fit: from concept to practical application. European Journal of on Information Systems (PACIS 2000) (CD-ROM) (THONG JP, CHAU KY
Information Systems 8(1), 65–77. and TAM HK Eds), 1–3 June 2000.
KESARI M, CHANG S and SEDDON PB (2003) A content analysis of the ROSEMANN M and ZUR MüHLEN M (1997) Evaluation of workflow
advantages and disadvantages of process modelling. In Proceedings of management systems – a meta model approach. Australian Journal of
the Australasian Conference of Information System (LETHBRIDGE N, Eds), Information Systems 6(1), 103–116.

European Journal of Information Systems

360 Factors and measures of business process modelling Wasana Bandara et al

SCHEER A-W (1998a) ARIS Business Process Modelling, 2nd edn. Springer- SMYTH RW (1999) Understanding CASE success: a basis for ongoing case
Verlag, Berlin. adoption. In Proceedings of the Seventh European conference of
SCHEER A-W (2000) ARIS – Business Process Frameworks, 3rd edn. Springer- Information Systems (ECIS ’99), Vol. 2.
Verlag, Berlin. SRIVIHOK A (1999) Understanding executive information systems imple-
SCHEER A-W, ABOLHASSAN F, JOST W and KIRCHMER M (2002) Business mentations: an empirical study of EIS success factors. In Proceedings of
Process Excellence: ARIS in Practice. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. the 32nd Annual Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences.
SCHEER A-W, ABOLHASSAN F, JOST W and KIRCHMER M (Eds) (2003) STEFANOU CJ (1999) Supply Chain Management (SCM) and organiza-
Business Process Change Management: ARIS in Practice. Springer-Verlag, tional key factors for successful implementation of Enterprise Resource
Berlin. Planning (ERP) Systems. In Proceedings from the Americas Conference of
SEDDON P (1997) A re-specification and extension of the De Lone and Information Systems.
Mclean model of IS success. Information Systems Research 8(3). SUMNER M (1998) Critical success factors in enterprise wide information
SEDERA W, ROSEMANN M and GABLE GG (2001) Process modelling for management systems projects. Proceedings from the 5th Americas
Enterprise Systems: factors critical to success. In The Proceedings of the Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS ’98), August 13–15,
12th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (FINNIE G, LO B and Wisconsin, USA.
CECEZ-KEKMANOVIK D, Eds), pp 585–595, School of Multi Media and WARNE L and HART D (1996) The impact of organizational politics on
Information Technology, Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour. Information Systems Project failure – A case study. In Proceedings of the
SEDERA W, ROSEMANN M and GABLE GG (2002) Measuring process 29th Annual Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences.
modelling success. In Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference of WREDEN N (1998) Model business processes. Information week, Septem-
Information Systems, (WRYCZA S, Ed), pp 331–341, Gdansk, Poland. ber, pp 1A–8A.
SMITH H and FINGAR P (2003) Business Process Management. The Third YIN RK (1994) Case Study Research Methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publications,
Wave. Meghan-Kiffer Press, Tampa. California.

European Journal of Information Systems

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.