Reifegrad zum Geschäftsprozessmanagement 2015

Mit der neus­ten Er­he­bung zum Rei­fe­grad des Ge­schäfts­pro­zess­ma­nage­ments (GPM) wur­den 216 Ex­per­tin­nen und Ex­per­ten be­fragt. Da­bei wur­de der Rei­fe­grad nach Bran­che und Grös­se der Or­ga­ni­sa­ti­on im De­tail ana­ly­siert. Auf ei­ner 5-stu­fi­gen Ska­la zei­gen die Er­geb­nis­se ei­nen über­ge­ord­ne­ten Rei­fe­grad der Stu­fe 2 an. Es sind deut­li­che Un­ter­schie­de zwi­schen den ver­schie­de­nen Bran­chen, je­doch we­ni­ge in Be­zug auf die Or­ga­ni­sa­ti­ons­grös­se erkennbar.

Das Ge­schäfts­pro­zess­ma­nage­ment hat sich in den letz­ten Jah­ren ra­sant ent­wi­ckelt. Als re­la­tiv jun­ge Ma­nage­ment­dis­zi­plin rückt es ver­mehrt in den Fo­kus von Mass­nah­men zur Stei­ge­rung der Wett­be­werbs­fä­hig­keit von Or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nen. Ge­schäfts­pro­zes­se stel­len eine be­deu­ten­de Di­men­si­on ei­ner Or­ga­ni­sa­ti­on dar, in der sich mit­tels Ein­satz be­stimm­ter Res­sour­cen die Leis­tungs­fä­hig­keit der Or­ga­ni­sa­ti­on ma­ni­fes­tiert. Ins­be­son­de­re die wert­schöp­fen­den Ge­schäfts­pro­zes­se ei­ner Or­ga­ni­sa­ti­on be­nö­ti­gen eine ste­ti­ge Ent­wick­lung, um ei­nen op­ti­ma­len Bei­trag zu leis­ten. Zu die­sem Zweck ging die­se Stu­die der Fra­ge nach, wie sich der Rei­fe­grad des Ge­schäfts­pro­zess­ma­nage­ments im Jah­re 2015 zeigt. Dazu ha­ben die Au­toren aus dem Ge­schäfts­be­reich iPro­cess­Re­se­arch der Or­ga­ni­sa­ti­ons­be­ra­tung iPro­cess AG aus Lu­zern in Ko­ope­ra­ti­on mit Ver­tre­te­rin­nen und Ver­tre­tern ver­schie­de­ner Hoch­schu­len das Rei­fe­grad­mo­dell iPM³ – iPro­cess Ma­nage­ment Ma­tu­ri­ty Mo­del – ent­wi­ckelt. Die­ses Mo­dell er­hebt den Rei­fe­grad in den Di­men­sio­nen Ein­füh­rungs­grad (wel­che Mass­nah­men wur­den in wel­chem Grad ein­ge­führt) und Kon­troll­grad (wie stark wer­den die ein­ge­führ­ten Mass­nah­men kon­trol­liert und wei­ter­ent­wi­ckelt). iPM³ folgt im­pli­zit der An­nah­me, dass die Wir­kung von ein­ge­führ­ten Mass­nah­men mit der Zeit nach­lässt, so­fern de­ren Ein­hal­tung nicht ste­tig kon­trol­liert wird. Da­bei rei­chen die Stu­fen von 1, «es be­steht ein Be­wusst­sein für GPM, je­doch wur­den kei­ne Kon­trol­len ein­ge­führt», bis zur Stu­fe 5, «Richt­li­ni­en und Me­tho­den sind stan­dar­di­siert und in­sti­tu­tio­na­li­siert und Kon­trol­len voll­stän­dig etabliert».

Die­se Stu­die fo­kus­siert sich auf die Er­he­bung des Rei­fe­gra­des des Ge­schäfts­pro­zess­ma­nage­ments in Ab­hän­gig­keit der Bran­che und der Grös­se von Or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nen. Dazu wur­den 216 Ex­per­tin­nen und Ex­per­ten aus der Schweiz, Ös­ter­reich und Deutsch­land be­fragt. Die Be­frag­ten ver­füg­ten im Durschnitt ca. 20 Jah­re Be­rufs­er­fah­rung, da­von ca. 9 Jah­re Er­fah­rung mit Ge­schäfts­pro­zess­ma­nage­ment. Der gröss­te Teil der Be­frag­ten konn­te den Bran­chen Dienst­leis­tung, Fi­nanz­dienst­leis­tung und Grund­ver­sor­gung zu­ge­ord­net wer­den und stamm­te zu un­ge­fähr der Hälf­te aus Or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nen mit we­ni­ger als 1‘000 Mit­ar­bei­ten­den. Die Er­geb­nis­se wei­sen ei­nen über­grei­fend durch­schnitt­li­chen Rei­fe­grad von 28% auf; dies ent­spricht der Stu­fe 2 (von ins­ge­samt 5 Stu­fen) des iPM³ Rei­fe­grad­mo­dells. Da­bei er­reicht der Ein­füh­rungs­grad die Rei­fe­grad­stu­fe 2, je­doch er­reicht der Kon­troll­grad nur die Rei­fe­grad­stu­fe 1, wes­halb der Ge­samt­rei­fe­grad aus über­grei­fen­der Be­trach­tung auf der Stu­fe 2 zu lie­gen kommt. Die Un­ter­schie­de zwi­schen dem Rei­fe­grad der Di­men­si­on Ein­füh­rungs­grad und Kon­troll­grad ver­deut­li­chen den Nach­hol­be­darf des Ge­schäfts­pro­zess­ma­nage­ments im Sin­ne des not­wen­di­gen und nach­hal­ti­gen Kon­troll­sys­tems. So liegt der Fo­kus mehr auf der Ein­füh­rung von Mass­nah­men und we­ni­ger auf der Kon­trol­le und Wei­ter­ent­wick­lung die­ser. Die­se Er­kennt­nis fin­det sich wie­der in der Aus­ge­stal­tung ver­schie­dens­ter GPM be­zo­ge­nen Aus- und Wei­ter­bil­dungs­pro­gram­men, wel­che sich bei­spiels­wei­se stark auf die Mo­del­lie­rung kon­zen­trie­ren, oder in der Ent­wick­lung von GPM-Soft­ware-Sys­te­men, wel­che häu­fig erst in der high-end Ver­si­on über Funk­tio­nen zur Real Time Über­wa­chung von Pro­zes­sen ver­fü­gen. In ei­ner wei­te­ren Ana­ly­se zeigt sich, dass Or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nen, die über eine hohe An­zahl Aus­sen­stel­len re­spek­ti­ve Fi­lia­len ver­fü­gen, in ei­nem po­si­ti­ven Zu­sam­men­hang mit dem Ein­füh­rungs­grad ste­hen. Durch den Netz­werk­ver­bund ste­hen die­se Or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nen wohl ei­nem hö­he­ren Stan­dar­di­sie­rungs­druck ge­gen­über, da un­ter an­de­rem der Kun­de über­all die glei­chen Dienst­leis­tun­gen be­zie­hen möch­te. Die Ana­ly­se der Rei­fe­gra­de nach Bran­chen weist ein dif­fe­ren­zier­te­res Bild auf.

Ei­nen über­durch­schnitt­li­chen Rei­fe­grad wei­sen Or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nen der Bran­chen Immobilien/Handel, Ban­ken und Trans­port auf. Hin­ge­gen ha­ben Or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nen der Bran­chen Dienst­leis­tun­gen, Grund­ver­sor­gung (z.B. En­er­gie, Was­ser), Pro­duk­ti­on, Tech­no­lo­gie und öf­fent­li­cher Sek­tor ei­nen tie­fe­ren Rei­fe­grad als der Durch­schnitt. Die Bran­chen Ver­si­che­run­gen und Aus-/Wei­ter­bil­dung lie­gen im Durch­schnitt. Es lässt sich dar­aus schlies­sen, dass Bran­chen, die sehr hu­man­res­sour­cen­in­ten­siv sind, also Wis­sens­or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nen, ei­nen über­durch­schnitt­lich ho­hen Rei­fe­grad des GPM auf­wei­sen. Das heisst, die­se Or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nen se­hen ein ho­hes Po­ten­zi­al in der Ent­wick­lung von Mass­nah­men im Ge­schäfts­pro­zess­ma­nage­ment. Hin­ge­gen kön­nen an­de­re Bran­chen eher zu­sätz­lich von an­ders ge­la­ger­ten Op­ti­mie­rungs­mass­nah­men pro­fi­tie­ren, wie z.B. von der Op­ti­mie­rung ei­nes Ma­schi­nen­parks. Eben­so ist die Wett­be­werbs­in­ten­si­tät der Bran­che mit­ent­schei­dend für das Aus­mass der GPM In­itia­ti­ven in ei­ner Bran­che – ein hö­he­rer Druck führt zu mehr In­itia­ti­ve. Dies wi­der­spie­gelt z.B. auch den eher tie­fen Rei­fe­grad von GPM bei öf­fent­li­chen Verwaltungen.

Für die Au­toren über­ra­schend in­ter­es­sant schei­nen die Er­geb­nis­se der Un­ter­su­chung aus der Op­tik der Or­ga­ni­sa­ti­ons­grös­se (An­zahl Mit­ar­bei­ten­de), wel­che nicht der weit­läu­fi­gen Ver­mu­tung aus der Pra­xis ent­spre­chen. Die Ana­ly­se der ge­sam­mel­ten Da­ten deckt näm­lich auf, dass die Or­ga­ni­sa­ti­ons­grös­se nicht in ei­nem po­si­ti­ven Zu­sam­men­hang zum Rei­fe­grad des GMP steht. Was be­deu­tet, dass KMUs über ei­nen eben­so ho­hen Rei­fe­grad des GPM ver­fü­gen wie Welt­kon­zer­ne. Es liegt die Ver­mu­tung nahe, dass gros­se Or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nen über vie­le Res­sour­cen ver­fü­gen und auch ent­spre­chend vie­le Res­sour­cen be­nö­ti­gen, um das GPM zu ent­wi­ckeln. KMU hin­ge­gen kön­nen die­ses Res­sour­cen­de­fi­zit of­fen­bar durch an­ders­ar­ti­ge Mass­nah­men aus­glei­chen. Bei­spiels­wei­se ver­fü­gen KMU über fla­che­re Hier­ar­chien, wo­durch ei­ner­seits Ent­schei­dungs­we­ge kür­zer wer­den und an­de­rer­seits die Um­set­zungs­ef­fi­zi­enz da­von pro­fi­tiert, dass ver­ant­wort­li­che Mit­ar­bei­ten­de über ein hö­he­res Pro­zess-Know-how ver­fü­gen, da sie nä­her am ei­gent­li­chen Lie­fer­ob­jekt stehen.

Ge­ne­rell zei­gen die Er­geb­nis­se die­ser fun­dier­ten Stu­die erst­mals im De­tail auf, dass sich das Ge­schäfts­pro­zess­ma­nage­ment – wenn auch nur lang­sam – in der Ent­wick­lung be­fin­det. Eben­so exis­tie­ren Un­ter­schie­de zwi­schen Bran­chen, je­doch we­ni­ge Un­ter­schie­de zwi­schen Gross­un­ter­neh­men und KMU.

Be­stel­len Sie hier den Studienbericht

Geschichte von Prozessmanagement

To bet­ter un­der­stand the mo­dern busi­ness di­sci­pli­ne of pro­cess ma­nage­ment it is ne­ces­sa­ry to re­turn to the ear­ly 1990s when Hen­ry Johansson's term busi­ness pro­cess re-en­gi­neer-ing (BPR) was first in vogue. So­me­time la­ter, Mi­cha­el Ham­mer and Ja­mes Cham­py re­de­fi­ned BPR as a fun­da­men­tal rethink and ra­di­cal re­de­sign of busi­ness pro­ces­ses to achie­ve dra­ma­tic im­pro­ve­ments in im­portant me­trics such as cost, qua­li­ty, ser­vice and cy­cle time. By the mid-1990's, BPR gai­ned the re­pu­ta­ti­on of be­ing a nice way of say­ing down­si­zing. Ac­cor­ding to Ham­mer and Cham­py, the lack of sus­tained ma­nage­ment com­mit­ment and lea­der­ship, un­rea­li­stic scope and ex­pec­ta­ti­ons, and re­sis­tance to ch­an­ge, prompt­ed ma­nage­ment to ab­an­don the con­cept of BPR.

In con­trast, busi­ness pro­cess op­ti­miza­ti­on (BPO), whe­re only more ef­fec­ti­ve or more ef­fi­ci­ent in­di­vi­du­al busi­ness pro­ces­ses should be de­si­gned, pro­vi­des the foun­da­ti­on for BPR from the point of view of in­ter­nal busi­ness (pro­cess) ana­ly­sis. The aim of BPO ty­pi­cal­ly lies in the re­duc­tion of pro­ces­sing time and the avo­id­ance of work red­un­dan­cy. Ac­cor­din­gly it should be ap­pli­ed to all busi­ness pro­ces­ses th­roug­hout the or­ga­ni­sa­ti­ons' va­lue chain so that it has a po­si­ti­ve im­pact on both the in­tra- and in­ter-or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nal work-flows. While busi­ness pro­cess op­ti­miza­ti­on has the ap­pearance of an ope­ra­tio­nal ac­ti­vi­ty, this ali­gnment with the or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nal va­lue chain im­pli­es a stra­te­gic emphasis.

As one es­sen­ti­al pha­se of stra­tegy de­ve­lo­p­ment, BPR ent­ails a ra­di­cal rethink of an organization's va­lue chain re­sul­ting in the core, sup­port­ing and ma­nage­ment pro­ces­ses be­ing sub­jec­ted to a busi­ness pro­cess op­ti­mi­sa­ti­on exer­cise. Ge­ne­ral­ly all of the­se ac­ti­vi­ties are fo­cu­sed on busi­ness pro­ces­ses that have a high ad­ded-va­lue po­ten­ti­al for the or­ga­ni­sa­ti­on and that will be par­ti­cu­lar­ly de­ri­ved from core pro­ces­ses and their un­der­ly­ing core com­pe­ten­ci­es. The busi­ness di­sci­pli­nes of Know­ledge Ma­nage­ment and In­for­ma­ti­on Ma­nage­ment, in con­junc­tion with re­le­vant in­for­ma­ti­on sys­tems mo­dels and as­so­cia­ted in­for­ma­ti­on tech­no­lo­gy so­lu­ti­ons for pro­cess sup­port, are used ex­ten­si­ve­ly here.

At the mo­ment, wi­thin busi­ness or­ga­ni­sa­ti­ons in the Ger­man-spea­king re­gi­on of Eu­ro­pe (in par­ti­cu­lar Ger­ma­ny, Aus­tria and Switz­er­land) the­re is a de­gree of hype sur­roun­ding Busi­ness Pro­cess Ma­nage­ment (BPM). Even so, the­re are a num­ber of fa­mi­li­ar or­ga­ni­sa­ti­ons, in va­rious in­dus­tries and in many places, whe­re im­ple­men­ta­ti­on pro­jects of one form or an­o­ther are un­der­way. With the­se ob­ser­va­tions in mind, an em­pi­ri­cal stu­dy was struc­tu­red to ad­dress a num­ber of dif­fe­rent aspects – ap­pli­ca­ti­ons in use, le­vel of ma­tu­ri­ty, rea­li­sed be­ne­fits, and pos­si­ble out­sour­cing op­por­tu­ni­ties – in re­la­ti­on to BPM.

Process Performance Management (Measurement)

Ear­lier it was sug­gested that im­ple­men­ta­ti­on of a well de­si­gned ba­lan­ced score­card was cri­ti­cal in un­der­stan­ding pro­gress toward achie­ving an organisation's stra­te­gic ob­jec­ti­ves. The first task in buil­ding an ef­fec­ti­ve ba­lan­ced score­card is to de­fi­ne stra­te­gic ob­jec­ti­ves, es­tab­lish in­itia­ti­ves and con­s­truct tar­gets across the four per­spec­ti­ves alt­hough, in this con­text, most em­pha­sis is pla­ced on the in­ter­nal busi­ness pro­ces­ses per­spec­ti­ve. Then, to me­a­su­re and mo­ni­tor it is ne­ces­sa­ry to de­ve­lop me­trics for per­for­mance against each of the tar­gets. The­se will be­co­me the KPIs on which the ef­fec­ti­ve im­ple­men­ta­ti­on of BPM will progress.

Every KPI, whe­ther it is used to sim­ply cla­ri­fy the cur­rent po­si­ti­on, gui­de the im­ple­men­ta­ti­on of BPM, check the ef­fec­ti­ve­ness of BPM or track ch­an­ges in the image of the fu­ture, will af­fect ac­tions and de­cis­i­ons. Choo­sing the right KPIs is cri­ti­cal to suc­cess but the road to good in­di­ca­tors is lit­te­red with pit­falls. Many seem right and are easy to me­a­su­re but have subt­le, coun­ter­pro­duc­ti­ve con­se­quen­ces. Others are more dif­fi­cult to me­a­su­re but fo­cus the or­ga­niza­ti­on on tho­se de­cis­i­ons and ac­tions that are cri­ti­cal to suc­cess. In this set­ting, the task at hand is to con­sider ways of as­ses­sing per­for­mance in a way that will enable an or­ga­ni­sa­ti­on to as­sess its BPM po­li­ci­es and practices.

The KPIs de­ve­lo­ped for eva­lua­ting BPM may be eit­her qua­li­ta­ti­ve or quan­ti­ta­ti­ve. Qua­li­ta­ti­ve me­a­su­res are ty­pi­cal­ly judgment ba­sed and are of­ten used when the item to be me­a­su­red or the at­tri­bu­te of in­te­rest does not lend its­elf to pre­cise or quan­ti­fia­ble me­a­su­re­ment. In­de­ed, they pro­vi­de an awa­re­ness of what is hap­pe­ning in the sen­se of the di­rec­tion, ra­ther than the speed, of ch­an­ge. Quan­ti­ta­ti­ve me­a­su­res, on the other hand, are used to me­a­su­re the rate of ch­an­ge and are usual­ly in­te­ger-ba­sed with two fur­ther di­vi­si­ons: fi­nan­cial and non-financial.

An ef­fec­ti­ve per­for­mance me­a­su­re­ment sys­tem in­cludes cri­ti­cal suc­cess fac­tors, a mix of fi­nan­cial and non-fi­nan­cial in­for­ma­ti­on, and a ba­lan­ce bet­ween dif­fe­rent views. What is more, ef­fec­ti­ve per­for­mance me­a­su­res are dy­na­mic and, as such, they will not be ap­pro­pria­te in every si­tua­ti­on and will be sub­ject to ch­an­ge at any time. At all times, ho­we­ver, they will be con­gru­ent with or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nal ob­jec­ti­ves, ea­si­ly un­ders­tood by all em­ployees and pro­mo­te in­ten­ded be­ha­vi­or wi­thin the organisation.

This will re­qui­re the de­ve­lo­p­ment of ex­ten­si­ve quan­ti­ta­ti­ve, main­ly ope­ra­tio­nal and fi­nan­cial, and qua­li­ta­ti­ve me­a­su­re­ments in sup­port of BPM. A quan­ti­ta­ti­ve ap­proach to me­a­su­re­ment pro­mi­ses a more sus­tainable in­for­ma­ti­on base com­pared to a qua­li­ta­ti­ve one. If, for wha­te­ver re­ason, a quan­ti­ta­ti­ve as­sess­ment is not a rea­li­stic op­ti­on, a qua­li­ta­ti­ve ap­proach to per­for­mance me­a­su­re­ment is a bet­ter op­ti­on than no me­a­su­re­ment at all.

His­to­ri­cal­ly, per­for­mance in­di­ca­tors fall into con­cep­tual­ly dif­fe­rent ca­te­go­ries. The­re are tho­se that ex­ami­ne the re­sults of a par­ti­cu­lar ob­jec­ti­ve and others that me­a­su­re ma­nage­ment of the me­ans or de­ter­mi­nants to com­pe­ti­ti­ve suc­cess. The mix of fac­tors used to gain a com­pe­ti­ti­ve ad­van­ta­ge will vary, of­ten si­gni­fi­cant­ly, among or­ga­ni­sa­ti­ons. As a con­se­quence, while in­di­ca­tors of out­co­mes may be si­mi­lar, tho­se of de­ter­mi­nants al­most cer­tain­ly will not.

Cle­ar­ly the­re is no uni­que so­lu­ti­on to this is­sue. Uni­que­ness only ari­ses in the need to have an ass­essa­ble stra­tegy and this doesn't ap­pear in an in­stant. Its de­ve­lo­p­ment is pro­gres­si­ve and re­pres­ents a fun­da­men­tal pa­ra­digm shift from the tra­di­tio­nal ope­ra­tio­nal ap­proach to a more stra­te­gic in­vol­vement in BPM. This makes it im­pos­si­ble to de­sign a com­ple­te­ly ge­ne­ric sys­tem for me­a­su­ring the per­for­mance of an organisation's BPM prac­ti­ces. In­de­ed, a cus­tom so­lu­ti­on is nee­ded for al­most every organisation.

The KPIs, which form the ba­sis of the con­trol sys­tem for the ef­fec­ti­ve im­ple­men­ta­ti­on of BPM, need to me­a­su­re cur­rent per­for­mance and gui­de the or­ga­ni­sa­ti­on toward its chan­ging image of the fu­ture. To do this ef­fec­tively a sys­tem should in­clude four com­pul­so­ry ele­ments be­fo­re con­trol may be ful­ly es­tab­lished. The­se ele­ments are a pre­de­ter­mi­ned set of tar­gets, a me­ans of me­a­su­ring cur­rent ac­ti­vi­ty, a me­ans of com­pa­ring cur­rent ac­ti­vi­ty with each tar­get, and a me­ans of cor­rec­ting de­via­ti­ons from the targets.

The­se tar­gets may be sci­en­ti­fi­cal­ly cal­cu­la­ted or set ar­bi­tra­ri­ly using re­asonable or to­tal­ly un­re­asonable ex­pec­ta­ti­ons, good or bad. The con­trol sys­tem me­re­ly pro­vi­des a me­ans by which ac­ti­vi­ty is di­rec­ted toward their achie­ve­ment. In ge­ne­ral, the pre­de­ter­mi­ned cri­te­ria should be sta­ted ex­pli­cit­ly and for this re­ason quan­ti­ta­ti­ve state­ments are pre­fer­red alt­hough not ab­so­lut­e­ly ne­ces­sa­ry. It is ge­ne­ral­ly con­side­red that uni­form and con­sis­tent me­a­su­re­ment of tar­gets are im­portant for ef­fec­ti­ve ma­nage­ment. So it seems that BPM, and par­ti­cu­lar­ly its per­for­mance me­a­su­re­ment di­men­si­on, is now re­co­gniz­sed by most or­ga­ni­sa­ti­ons as an im­portant ope­ra­tio­nal task. For ma­nage­ment ac­coun­tants, this si­tua­ti­on rai­ses the thor­ny is­sue of how to ac­count for its ma­nage­ment. They need to es­tab­lish a set of KPIs that as­sess their organisation's per­for­mance in im­ple­men­ting BPM.
In do­ing so, they should re­sist the tempt­a­ti­on to fo­cus only on what is ea­si­ly me­a­sura­ble, which ge­ne­ral­ly is the ef­fi­ci­en­cy di­men­si­on. Ra­ther, they should fo­cus on me­a­su­ring out­co­mes that meet real or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nal needs, which are more li­kely to re­pre­sent BPM ef­fec­ti­ve­ness ra­ther than ef­fi­ci­en­cy. While num­e­rous per­for­mance in­di­ca­tors may be de­ve­lo­ped, each is only useful if it al­lows ma­na­gers to eva­lua­te on­go­ing per­for­mance. As such, it is con­side­red ne­ces­sa­ry that se­ni­or ma­na­gers, who have a com­pre­hen­si­ve pic­tu­re of the organisation's vi­si­on and prio­ri­ties, are in­vol­ved in de­ve­lo­ping KPIs.

Empfohlene Literatur

Ab­dol­vand, N.; Al­b­ad­vi, A.; Fer­dowsi, Z., (2008). As­ses­sing Re­a­di­ness for Busi­ness Pro­cess Re­en­gi­nee­ring, in: Busi­ness Pro­cess Ma­nage­ment Jour­nal , Vol.14, Nr.4, pp.497-511

Acur, N. and Bi­tit­ci, U. (2004). ‘A ba­lan­ced ap­proach to pro­cess stra­tegy’. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Ope­ra­ti­ons and Pro­duc­tion Ma­nage­ment, 24,4, 388-408

Agui­lar-Sa­ven, R. S., (2004). Busi­ness Pro­cess Mo­de­ling: Re­view and Frame­work, in: In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Pro­duc­tion Eco­no­mics, Vol.90, Nr.2, pp.129-149

Al-Mas­ha­ri, M.; Zai­ri, M., (1999). BPR Im­ple­men­ta­ti­on Pro­cess: An Ana­ly­sis of Key Suc­cess and Fail­ure Fac­tors, in: Busi­ness Pro­cess Ma­nage­ment Jour­nal, 5(1)

Al-Mas­ha­ri, M. (2002). Edi­to­ri­al. Busi­ness Pro­cess Ma­nage­ment Jour­nal, 8, 1, 1-2

Al-Mas­ha­ri, M. and Zai­ri, M. (2000). ‘Re­vi­si­ting BPR: a ho­li­stic re­view of prac­ti­ce and de­ve­lo­p­ment’. Busi­ness Pro­cess Ma­nage­ment Jour­nal, 6, 1, 10-42.

Ar­mis­tead, C. (1996). ‘Prin­ci­ples of busi­ness pro­cess ma­nage­ment’. Ma­na­ging Ser­vice Qua­li­ty, 6, 6, 48-52

Ar­mis­tead, C., Prit­chard, J-P. and Ma­chin, S. (1999). ‘Stra­te­gic Busi­ness Pro­cess Ma­nage­ment for Or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nal Ef­fec­ti­ve­ness’. Long Ran­ge Plan­ning, 32, 1, 96–106.

Ar­mis­tead, C. and Ma­chin, S. (1997). ‘Im­pli­ca­ti­ons of busi­ness pro­cess ma­nage­ment for Ope­ra­ti­ons Ma­nage­ment’. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Ope­ra­ti­ons and Pro­duc­tion Ma­nage­ment, l, 17, 886-898.

At­ta­ran, M. (2003). ‘In­for­ma­ti­on tech­no­lo­gy and busi­ness-pro­cess re­de­sign’. Busi­ness Pro­cess Ma­nage­ment Jour­nal, 9, 4, 440-458.

Bal, J. (2002). ‘Pro­cess Ana­ly­sis Tools for Pro­cess Im­pro­ve­ment’, BPRC, War­wick University

Ba­te­man, N. and Rich, N. (2003). ‘Com­pa­nies’ per­cep­ti­ons of in­hi­bi­tors and enablers for pro­cess im­pro­ve­ment ac­ti­vi­ties’. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Ope­ra­ti­ons and Pro­duc­tion Ma­nage­ment, 23, 2, 185-189.

Be­cker, J.; Ku­ge­ler, M.; Ro­se­mann, M. (Hrsg.), (2008). Pro­zess-ma­nage­ment: Ein Leit­fa­den zur pro­zess­ori­en­tier­ten Or­ga­ni­sa­ti­ons­ge­stal­tung, 6. Aufl., Sprin­ger, Berlin.

Be­cker, J.; Al­ger­mis­sen, L.; Falk, T., (2007). Pro­zess­ori­en­tier­te Ver­wal­tungs­mo­der­ni­sie­rung: Pro­zess­ma­nage­ment im Zeit­al­ter von E-Go­vern­ment und New Pu­blic Ma­nage­ment, Sprin­ger, Berlin.

Ben­ba­sat, I., Gold­stein, D.K., Mead M., (1987). The case re­se­arch stra­tegy in stu­dies of in­for­ma­ti­on sys­tems. MIS Quar­ter­ly, 11, 3, 369-386.

Beret­ta, S. (2002). ‘Un­leas­hing the in­te­gra­ti­on po­ten­ti­al of ERP sys­tems’, Busi­ness Pro­cess Ma­nage­ment Jour­nal, 8, 3, 254-277

Brey­fog­le, F. W. (2003). ‘Im­ple­men­ting Six Sig­ma: smar­ter so­lu­ti­ons using sta­tis­ti­cal me­thods’, John Wi­ley & Sons

Burl­ton, R.T. (2001). ‘Busi­ness Pro­cess Ma­nage­ment’, Sams Publishing

Ca­me­ron, K.S. (1986). ‘Ef­fec­ti­ve­ness as pa­ra­dox: con­sen­sus and con­flict in con­cep­ti­ons of or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nal ef­fec­ti­ve­ness’, Ma­nage­ment Sci­ence, 32, 5.

Case, P. (1999). ‘Re­mem­ber re-en­gi­nee­ring? The rhe­to­ri­cal ap­peal of a ma­na­ge­ri­al sal­va­ti­on de­vice’, Jour­nal of Ma­nage­ment Stu­dies, 36, 4, 419-441.

Chil­de, S., Maull, R., Ben­nett, J., (1994). ‘Frame­works for un­der­stan­ding Busi­ness Pro­cess Re-en­gi­nee­ring’. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Ope­ra­ti­ons and Pro­duc­tion Ma­nage­ment, 14,12.

Cro­we, T.J., Fong, P.M., Bau­man, T.A., Za­yas-Cas­tro, J.L. (2002). ‘Quan­ti­ta­ti­ve risk le­vel esti­ma­ti­on of busi­ness pro­cess re­en­gi­nee­ring ef­forts’, Busi­ness Pro­cess Ma­nage­ment Jour­nal, 8, 3, 490-511

Da­ven­port, T. H. (1993). ‘Pro­cess In­no­va­ti­on: Re-en­gi­nee­ring Work Th­rough In­for­ma­ti­on Tech­no­lo­gy’, Har­vard Busi­ness School Press.

Da­ven­port, T. (2004). ‘At­ten­ding to Pro­cess’, pu­blished by www.BPMG.org, July.

Da­ven­port, T. and Short, J. (1990). ‘The new in­dus­tri­al en­gi­nee­ring: in­for­ma­ti­on tech­no­lo­gy and busi­ness pro­cess re­de­sign’, Slo­an Ma­nage­ment Re­view, 31, 4, 11-27.

Fitz­ge­rald, G. and Su­id­di­qui, F.A. (2002). ‘Busi­ness Pro­cess Re­en­gi­nee­ring and Fle­xi­bi­li­ty: A case For Uni­fi­ca­ti­on’, In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Fle­xi­ble Ma­nu­fac­tu­ring Sys­tems, 14, 73-86

Fink, C. A. (2003). Pro­zess­ori­en­tier­te Un­ter­neh­mens­pla­nung, 1. Aufl., Deut­scher Uni­ver­si­täts-Ver­lag, Wiesbaden.

Flick, U. (1998). ‘An in­tro­duc­tion to qua­li­ta­ti­ve re­se­arch’. 1000 Oaks, Ca­li­for­nia, Sage

Fliess, S. (2006). Pro­zess­or­ga­ni­sa­ti­on in Dienst­leis­tungs­un­ter­neh­men, Kohl­ham­mer, Stuttgart.

Gai­ta­ni­des, M. et al. (1994). Pro­zess­ma­nage­ment: Kon­zep­te, Um­set­zun­gen und Er­fah­run­gen des Re­en­gi­nee­ring. Carl Han­ser Ver­lag, Mün­chen, pp.21–36.

Gai­ta­ni­des, M. (1998). Busi­ness Re­en­gi­nee­ring / Pro­zess­ma­nage­ment: Von der Ma­nage­ment­tech­nik zur Theo­rie der Un­ter­neh­mung, in: Die Be­triebs­wirt­schaft (DBW), Vol.58 , pp.369-381.

Ger­bo­th, T. (2000). Pro­zess­con­trol­ling – Der nächs­te Schritt in ei­nem pro­zess­ori­en­tier­ten Con­trol­ling, in: Con­trol­ling, Vol.11, pp. 535-542

Gin­ge­le, J. Chil­de, S.J. Mi­les, M.E. (2002). ‘A mo­del­ling tech­ni­que for re-en­gi­nee­ring busi­ness pro­ces­ses con­trol­led by ISO 9001’, Com­pu­ters in In­dus­try, 49, 235-251.

Grint, K. and Case, P. (1998). ‘The Vio­lent Rhe­to­ric of Re-en­gi­nee­ring: Ma­nage­ment Con­sul­tancy on the Of­fen­si­ve’. Jour­nal of Ma­nage­ment Stu­dies, 35, 5, 557-577.

Gro­ver, V., Ket­tin­ger, W.J., Teng, J.T.C. (2000). ‘Busi­ness pro­cess ch­an­ge in the 21st cen­tu­ry’, Busi­ness and Eco­no­mic Re­view; Co­lum­bia, 46, 2, 14-18.

Gu­ne­se­keran, A. and Kobu, B. (2002). ‘Mo­del­ling and ana­ly­sis of busi­ness pro­cess re­en­gi­nee­ring’, In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Pro­duc­tion Re­se­arch, 40, 11, 2521-2546.

Ham­mer, M. und Cham­py, J. (1994). Busi­ness Re­en­gi­nee­ring: Die Ra­di­kal­kur für das Un­ter­neh­men, 2. Aufl., Frankfurt/New York (Cam­pus).

Ham­mer, M. (1990). ‘Re-en­gi­nee­ring work: don’t au­to­ma­te; obli­te­ra­te’, Har­vard Busi­ness Re­view, June,104-112.

Ham­mer, M. (1997). Das pro­zess­zen­trier­te Un­ter­neh­men: Die Ar­beits­welt nach dem Re­en­gi­nee­ring, 1. Aufl., Frankfurt/Main, New York: Cam­pus Verlag.

Ham­mer, M. (2001). ‘The Agen­da’, Busi­ness Books, IBSN 0 7126 1463 X

Ham­mer, M. (2002). ‘Pro­cess Ma­nage­ment and the fu­ture of six sig­ma’, MIT Slo­an Ma­nage­ment Re­view, Win­ter, 26-32

Ham­mer, M. and Cham­py, J. (1993). ‘Re-en­gi­nee­ring the Cor­po­ra­ti­on: A Ma­ni­festo for Busi­ness Re­vo­lu­ti­on’, Har­per Busi­ness, New York, NY.

Har­ring­ton, H. J. (1992). ‘Busi­ness Pro­cess Im­pro­ve­ment’, McGraw-Hill

He­s­kett, J. L., Jo­nes, T. O., Love­man, G. W., Sas­ser Jr, W. E., Schle­sin­ger, L. A. (1994). ‘Put­ting the Ser­vice Profit

Ka­plan, R. and Nor­ton, D. (1992). ‘The Ba­lan­ced Score­card: The Me­a­su­res that Dri­ve Per­for­mance’. Har­vard Busi­ness Re­view, Jan-Feb, 71-79

Ka­plan, R. and Nor­ton, D. (1996). ‘Using the Ba­lan­ced Score­card as a Stra­te­gic Ma­nage­ment Sys­tem’, Har­vard Busi­ness Re­view, Jan-Feb, 75-85

Khong, K.W. and Ri­chard­son, S. (2003). ‘Busi­ness pro­cess re-en­gi­nee­ring in Ma­lay­si­an banks and fi­nan­ce com­pa­nies’. Ma­na­ging Ser­vice Qua­li­ty, 13, 1, 54-71

Lee, R.G., and Dale, B.G. (1998). ‘Busi­ness pro­cess ma­nage­ment: a re­view and eva­lua­ti­on’. Busi­ness Pro­cess Ma­nage­ment Jour­nal, 4, 3, 214-225

Le­wis, M. A. (2003). ‘Ana­ly­sing or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nal com­pe­tence: im­pli­ca­ti­ons for the ma­nage­ment of ope­ra­ti­ons’. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Ope­ra­ti­ons and Pro­duc­tion Ma­nage­ment, 23, 7, 731-756

Lin, F.R. Yang, M-C. Pai, Y-H. (2002). ‘A ge­ne­ric struc­tu­re for busi­ness pro­cess mo­del­ling’. Busi­ness Pro­cess Ma­nage­ment Jour­nal, 8, 1, 19-41

Lin­der­man, K. Schroe­der, R.G. Za­heer, S. Choo, A.S. (2003). ‘Six Sig­ma: a goal theo­re­tic per­spec­ti­ve’, Jour­nal of Ope­ra­ti­ons Ma­nage­ment, 21, 193-203

Lle­wel­lyn, N. and Ar­mis­tead, C. (2000). ‘Busi­ness pro­cess ma­nage­ment. Ex­plo­ring so­cial ca­pi­tal wi­thin pro­ces­ses’. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Ser­vice In­dus­try Ma­nage­ment, 11, 3, 225-243

Love, P.E.D., Gu­na­se­keran, A., Li, H. (1998). ‘Put­ting an en­gi­ne into re-en­gi­nee­ring: towards a pro­cess-ori­en­ted or­ga­ni­sa­ti­on’. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Ope­ra­ti­ons and Pro­duc­tion Ma­nage­ment, 18, 9/10, 937-949

Lynch, R. and Cross, K. (1991). ‘Me­a­su­re Up! Yard­sticks for Con­ti­nuous Im­pro­ve­ment’. Blackwell

Mac­In­tosh, R. (2003). ‘BPR: ali­ve and well in the pu­blic sec­tor’. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Ope­ra­ti­ons and Pro­duc­tion Ma­nage­ment, 23, 327-244

Me­a­dows, M. and Me­ra­li, Y. (2003). ‘Pro­cess Im­pro­ve­ment with Vi­si­on: A Case Stu­dy From Fi­nan­cial Ser­vices’. Sys­te­mic Prac­ti­ce and Ac­tion Re­se­arch, 16, 3, 171-195

Mc­Cormack, K. and John­son, B. (2001). ‘Busi­ness pro­cess ori­en­ta­ti­on, sup­p­ly chain ma­nage­ment and the ecor­po­ra­ti­on’, IIE So­lu­ti­ons; Nor­cross, 33, 10, 33-37

Me­lan, E. (1989), ‘Pro­cess Ma­nage­ment: a uni­fy­ing frame­work’. Na­tio­nal Pro­duc­ti­vi­ty Re­view, 8, 395-406

Me­lao, N. and Pidd, M. (2000). ‘A con­cep­tu­al frame­work for un­der­stan­ding busi­ness pro­ces­ses and busi­ness pro­cess mo­del­ling’. In­for­ma­ti­on Sys­tems Jour­nal, 10, 105-129

Mer­edith, J. (1998). ‘Buil­ding ope­ra­ti­ons ma­nage­ment theo­ry th­rough case and field re­se­arch’. Jour­nal of Ope­ra­ti­ons Ma­nage­ment, 16, 441-454

Mintz­berg, H. and Quinn, J. B. (1996). ‘The Stra­tegy Pro­cess : con­cepts, con­texts, ca­ses’, 3rd Ed, Up­per Sadd­le Ri­ver NJ: Pren­ti­ce Hall

Nee­ly, A. (1999). ‘The Per­for­mance Me­a­su­re­ment Re­vo­lu­ti­on: Why Now and What Next?’. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Ope­ra­ti­ons and Pro­duc­tion Ma­nage­ment, 19, 2, 205-228

Nee­ly, A., Gre­go­ry, M., Platts, K. (1995). ‘Per­for­mance Me­a­su­re­ment Sys­tem De­sign: A Li­te­ra­tu­re Re­view and Re­se­arch Agen­da’, In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Ope­ra­ti­ons and Pro­duc­tion Ma­nage­ment, 15, 4, 80-116

Os­ter­loh, M. and Frost, J. (1996). Pro­zess­ma­nage­ment als Kern­kom­pe­tenz: Wie Sie Busi­ness Re­en­gi­nee­ring stra­te­gisch nut­zen kön­nen, Be­triebs­wirt­schaft­li­cher Ver­lag Dr. Th. Gab­ler, Wiesbaden.

Ould, M. (2003). ‘Pre­con­di­ti­ons for put­ting pro­ces­ses back in the hands of their ac­tors’. In­for­ma­ti­on & Soft­ware Tech­no­lo­gy, 45, 1071-1074

Parnaby, J. (1988). ‘A sys­tems ap­proach to the im­ple­men­ta­ti­on of JIT me­tho­do­lo­gies in Lu­cas In­dus­tries’. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Pro­duc­tion Re­se­arch, 26, 3, 483 – 493

Prit­chard, J-P. and Ar­mis­tead, C. (1999). ‘Busi­ness pro­cess ma­nage­ment – les­sons from Eu­ro­pean busi­ness’, Busi­ness Pro­cess Ma­nage­ment Jour­nal, 5, 1, 10-35

Rei­jers, H. A. and Li­man Man­sar, S. (2004). ‘Best prac­ti­ces in busi­ness pro­cess re­de­sign: an over­view and qua­li­ta­ti­ve eva­lua­ti­on of suc­cessful re­de­sign heu­ristics’, Ome­ga – The In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Ma­nage­ment Sci­ence, 33, 283-306

Roth, A.V. and Jack­son, W.E. (1995), ‘Stra­te­gic De­ter­mi­nants of Ser­vice Qua­li­ty and Per­for­mance: Evi­dence from the Ban­king In­dus­try’, Ma­nage­ment Sci­ence, 41, 11, 1720-1733

Rumm­ler, G. A. and Bra­che, A. P. (1990). ‘Im­pro­ving Per­for­mance: How to ma­na­ge the white space in the or­ga­niza­ti­on chart’, Jos­sey-Bass Pu­blishers, Oxford

Rust, R.T. and Zaho­rik, A. J. (1995) ‘Re­turn on Qua­li­ty (ROQ): Ma­king Ser­vice Qua­li­ty fi­nan­ci­al­ly ac­coun­ta­ble’, Jour­nal of Mar­ke­ting, 55, 2, 58-71

Sam­son, D. and Chal­lis, D. (2002), ‘Pat­terns of Busi­ness Ex­cel­lence’. Me­a­su­ring Busi­ness Ex­cel­lence, 6, 2, 15-21

Sar­kis, J. and Tal­lu­ri, S. (2002). ‘A Syn­er­gi­stic Frame­work for Eva­lua­ting Busi­ness Pro­cess Im­pro­ve­ments’. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Fle­xi­ble Ma­nu­fac­tu­ring Sys­tems, 14, 53-71

Schmen­ner, R. W. and Swink, M. L. (1998). On theo­ry in ope­ra­ti­ons ma­nage­ment, Jour­nal of Ope­ra­ti­ons Ma­nage­ment, 17, 1, 97-114

Scholz, R. und Vroh­lings, A. (1994). Rea­li­sie­rung von Pro­zess-ma­nage­ment. In: Gai­ta­ni­des et al (Hg): Pro­zess­ma­nage­ment. Kon­zep­te, Um­set­zun­gen und Er­fah­run­gen des Re­en­gi­nee­ring. Carl Han­ser Ver­lag, Mün­chen, S 21–36.

Sil­ves­tro, R. and West­ley, C. (2002). ‘Chal­len­ging the pa­ra­digm of the pro­cess en­ter­pri­se: a case stu­dy ana­ly­sis of BPR im­ple­men­ta­ti­on’. Ome­ga - The In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Ma­nage­ment Sci­ence, 30, 3, 215-225

Sim­mons, R. (2000). ‘Per­for­mance Me­a­su­re­ment and Con­trol Sys­tems for Im­ple­men­ting Stra­tegy’, Pren­ti­ce Hall, Up­per Sadd­le Ri­ver, NJ

Slack, N. Le­wis, M. Ba­tes, H. (2004). ‘The two world of ope­ra­ti­ons ma­nage­ment re­se­arch and prac­ti­ce can they meet, should they meet?’. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Ope­ra­ti­ons and Pro­duc­tion Ma­nage­ment, 24, 4, 372-387

Smart, P. A., Chil­de, S. J., Maull, R. S. (1999). ‘Sup­port­ing busi­ness pro­cess re-en­gi­nee­ring in in­dus­try: towards a me­tho­do­lo­gy’, in R Gul­ladge & J El­z­in­ga (eds), ‘Pro­cess En­gi­nee­ring: Ad­van­cing the Sta­te of the Art’. Bos­ton: Klu­wer Aca­de­mic, 283-319

Stuart, I. Mc­Cut­che­on, D. Hand­field, R. McLach­lin, R, Sam­son, D. (2002), ‘Ef­fec­ti­ve case re­se­arch in ope­ra­ti­ons ma­nage­ment: a pro­cess per­spec­ti­ve’. Jour­nal of Ope­ra­ti­ons Ma­nage­ment, 20, 419-433

Teece, D., Pis­a­no, G., Shuen, A. (1997). ‘Dy­na­mic ca­pa­bi­li­ties and stra­te­gic ma­nage­ment’, Stra­te­gic Ma­nage­ment Jour­nal, 18, 7, 509-534

Ter­zio­ski, M., Fitz­pa­trick, P., O’ Neil, P. (2003). ‘Suc­cessful pre­dic­tors of busi­ness pro­cess re­en­gi­nee­ring (BPR) in fi­nan­cial ser­vices’. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Pro­duc­tion Eco­no­mics, 84, 35-50

Vahs, D. (2012). Or­ga­ni­sa­ti­on: Ein Lehr- und Ma­nage­ment­buch, 8. Aufl., Schäf­fer-Poe­schel, Stuttgart.

Voss, C., Tsik­rikt­sis, N., Froh­lich, M. (2002). ‘Case Re­se­arch in Ope­ra­ti­ons Ma­nage­ment’. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Ope­ra­ti­ons and Pro­duc­tion Ma­nage­ment, 22, 2, 195-219

Voss, C. and Hux­ham, C. (2004). ‘Pro­blems, Di­lem­mas and Pro­mi­sing Prac­ti­ces’. Pro­cee­dings of the 11th An­nu­al Eu­ro­ma Con­fe­rence, 309-318

Wil­liams, A., Da­vid­son, J., Wa­ter­worth, S., Par­ting­ton, R. (2003). ‘To­tal qua­li­ty ma­nage­ment ver­sus busi­ness pro­cess re-en­gi­nee­ring: a ques­ti­on of de­gree’, Proc. Inst Mech. En­grs., 217, part B

Yung, W.K-C. and Chan, D. T-H. (2003). ‘Ap­pli­ca­ti­on of va­lue de­li­very sys­tem (VDS) and per­for­mance bench­mar­king in fle­xi­ble busi­ness pro­cess re­en­gi­nee­ring’. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Ope­ra­ti­ons & Pro­duc­tion Ma­nage­ment, 23, 3, 300-315.

Zai­ri, M. (1997). ‘Busi­ness pro­cess ma­nage­ment: a boun­da­ryl­ess ap­proach to mo­dern com­pe­ti­ti­ve­ness’. Busi­ness Pro­cess Ma­nage­ment Jour­nal, 3, 1, 64-80