Search results

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

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

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

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

The purpose of this paper is to propose a representation scheme based on the i* strategic actor model to represent the process owner information and show how to incorporate this approach into the event driven process chain and Business Process Modeling Notation-BPMN meta-models and also into the aspect-oriented business process modeling (BPM) context.

The authors use a case study in a real setting to evaluate the proposal and a controlled experiment to get more evidence about its relevance.

The authors presented evidence both from a case study in a real-world library showing the importance of representing – previously unavailable – process owner information, and from an experiment which involved participants analyzing the same models of the case study, confirming the preliminary evidences. It is important to stress the recognition that the proposed representation provided more transparency, in terms of ownership, than the usual BPM models. These benefits are due to the combination of the aspect-oriented approach and the strategic actor model, providing ownership information in a more transparent way.

The authors not only argue the importance of clearly established process ownership, both of the core process and the aspectual process, but also the authors presented an approach to represent the actor involved in process and aspect ownership as an instantiation of the i* strategic actor. Using this approach, the process owner can be defined in terms of actors instead of the activities performed. It is also possible to define the aspect owner and to include the aspectual process concept in the business process model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncertainty management (UM) in projects has been a point of attention for researchers for many years. Research on UM has mainly been aimed at uncertainty analyses in the front-end and managing uncertainty in the construction phase. In contrast, UM components in the design phase have received less attention. This research aims to improve knowledge about the key components of UM in the design phase of large road projects.

This study adopted a literature review and case study. The literature review was used to identify relevant criteria for UM. These criteria helped to design the interview guide. Multiple case study research was conducted, and data were collected through document study and interviews with project stakeholders in two road projects. Each case's owners, contractors and consultants were interviewed individually.

The data analysis obtained helpful information on the involved parties, process and exploit tools and techniques during the design phase. Johansen's (2015) framework [(a) human and organisation, (b) process and (c) tools and techniques)] was completed and developed by identifying relevant criteria (such as risk averse or risk-taker, culture and documentation level) for each component. These criteria help to measure UM performance. The authors found that owners and contractors are major formal UM actors, not consultants. Empirical data showed the effectiveness of Web-based tools in UM.

The studied cases were Norwegian, and this study focussed on uncertainties in the project's design phase. Relevant criteria did not cover all the criteria for evaluating the performance of UM. Qualitative evaluation of criteria allows further quantitative analysis in the future.

This paper gave project owners and managers a better understanding of relevant criteria for measuring UM in the owners and managers' projects. The paper provides policy-makers with a deeper understanding of creating rigorous project criteria for UM during the design phase. This paper also provides a guideline for UM in road projects.

This research gives a holistic evaluation of UM by noticing relevant criteria and criteria's interconnection in the design phase.

The study proposes competence models for the roles of process owners, process analysts and industrial engineers based on qualitative research.

The research methodology is a combination of a questionnaire survey and interviewing in Czech companies, which develop the process approach. The proposed competence models can be utilized during business process management (BPM) implementation while appointing process owners, analysts and industrial engineers and their further development.

This paper emphasizes the role of human factor and presents research results concerning most important BPM roles and their competencies.

There is lack of research (a research gap) in the field of BPM roles, what they do and what they should do.

A system of competence models is thus a tool for human resource management and should increase the success rate of BPM projects. Another possible utilization is in higher education in business administration.

Another possible utilization is in higher education in business administration.

It proposes competence models for the roles of process owners, process analysts and industrial engineers based on qualitative research.

High-density development requires large land parcels, but fragmented land ownership can impede redevelopment. While earlier compact city development in Sydney occurred on large-scale brownfield sites, redeveloping and re-amalgamating older strata-titled properties is now integral to further densification. The purpose of this study is to examine collective sales activity in one Sydney suburb where multiple strata-titled redevelopments and re-amalgamations have been attempted. The authors explore how owners navigate the process of selling collectively, focusing on their experience of legislation introduced to facilitate this process, the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 [New South Wales (NSW)].

By reviewing sales listings, development applications and media coverage, and interviewing owners, lawyers and estate agents, the authors map out collective sale activity in a case study area in Sydney’s northwest.

Strata collective sales are slow and difficult to complete, even when planning and market drivers align. Owners find the Strata Scheme Development Act 2015 (NSW) difficult to navigate and it has not prevented strategic blocking attempts by competing developers. The long timelines required to organise collective sales can result in failure if the market shifts in the interim. Nonetheless, owners remain interested in selling collectively.

This case study is important for understanding the barriers to redevelopment to achieve a more compact city. It highlights lessons for other jurisdictions considering similar legislative changes. It also suggests that legislative change alone is insufficient to resolve the planning challenges created by hyper-fragmentation of land through strata-title development.

Currently, building information modelling (BIM) is largely seen as a 3D model, not as an information model or information management tool. This wrong perception of BIM and low interest in 3D asset management (AM) is one of the major reasons for the slow adoption by clients in the architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) industry. The purpose of this paper is to identify the techniques and strategies of streamlining AM systems for BIM-based integration, and how the information is captured from physical assets towards BIM-based integration for clients to derive value from BIM investments.

A qualitative case study strategy was used to study the strategic implementation process of integrating BIM with AM systems and the business value of BIM in AM by a large asset owner in the UK.

The paper identifies key strategies in the adoption of BIM-based processes by an asset owner, the implementation process, the challenges and the benefits attained. Several barriers were identified as the challenges of adopting BIM-based processes in AM: complexity and cost associated with BIM; irrelevance of 3D geometric data in AM processes; nature of asset ownership structure; managing the asset handover process; managing change within the organisation. Organisations will have to consider the following issues in streaming asset information with BIM: the development for a clear strategy prior to adoption; connecting the strategy to the business goals; and conducting the discovery exercise to identify organisational information needs.

The research addresses a significant gap in the development of techniques and strategies for asset owners to streamline BIM with AM systems and derive business value from such integration. The research context is a case study involving a large owner-operator in the UK that has been able to derive value from BIM systems in their AM processes. The key value of the paper is improving asset owners’ understanding of BIM in AM by demonstrating the implementation strategies, linkage to organisational objectives, challenges, value management process and business value of BIM in AM. Another contribution of the paper is improving the understanding of BIM, which is usually viewed as 3D models and that 3D geometric data do not have much value for AM tasks.

Process management is becoming an essential part of contemporary organizations in all industries. However, many organizations experience problems during the implementation of a process management approach. The purpose of this paper is to explore and describe the organizational implications when implementing process management, how to handle the relationship between the functional organization and a process perspective, and the roles of managers, teams, and individuals.

A multiple‐case study approach is used to get an extensive picture of and analyze how three Swedish organizations have worked with process management.

The studied organizations have introduced a process management structure into their functional organizational structure, including the introduction of new management positions such as process owners and process leaders. A discourse is identified in earlier research between those arguing for a full transformation from a functionally oriented to a fully process‐oriented organizational structure, and those promoting a more moderate transformation where a process management structure is “matrixed onto” the existing organization. The analysis could be interpreted as supporting the second line of reasoning, where the functional and process structures co‐exist in the organization, creating a constructive dynamic.

The paper provides two major contributions. First, the empirical descriptions and analysis of implementing process management contribute to the knowledge and understanding among both practitioners and researchers. The second major contribution is the identified need of co‐existence of a process and functional perspective, and the implication that complexity is created rather than reduced in organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the area of process ownership and management in cross‐functional make‐or‐buy decision processes.

Multiple case studies are used including both a longitudinal in‐depth case study and two retrospective case studies. The data were analyzed using cross‐case comparison as well as analysis through existing literature in the field of make‐or‐buy decision processes, after which propositions for further research were developed.

The propositions found concern in the fact that the function being responsible for the industrial network also should own the decision process. Letting research and development become a more powerful decision maker and distinguish between different types of make‐or‐buy decisions are also important aspects to consider.

The findings are a first attempt in creating a foundation for future research in the area of process ownership and management of make‐or‐buy decisions. A future need to further develop these propositions is essential.

The function mostly affected by the outcome of the decision should be in charge of the process, and should also be process manager. The process owner should create awareness of different types of make‐or‐buy decisions.

Recently, make‐or‐buy decision processes are considered strategic decision processes, but neither in research nor industry is it clear who should own and manage these decision processes. The paper stretches this fact and brings forth possible owners.

Managing by process at Xerox is accomplished by the core process champions and owners through cross organizational process owner councils. The council members are owners of the subprocesses comprising the end‐to‐end core process. The process owner council is literally a company‐wide learning network. Its members, using the the Xerox Business Architecture as the context, exchange best practices, benchmark both within Xerox divisions and with external companies, and execute coordinated process reengineering initiatives.