Practice P. A. Smart, H. Maddern and R. S. Maull Exeter Centre for Strategic Processes and Operations, School of Business and Economics, University of Exeter, Streatham Court, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4PU, UK Corresponding author email: p.a.smart@exeter.ac.uk This paper presents an empirically validated framework of business process manage- ment (BPM) to enable the pursuit of BPM theory. Phase 1 of the research focused on the development of an initial framework of BPM, derived from a synthesis of current literature. This comprised ve key themes, subsequently categorized as application components of BPM. The empirical validation of the framework was approached through case-based research, utilizing semi-structured interviews with managers of a large nancial services organization, to explore the dimensions of the framework. The results suggest that, in addition to conrming the ve application components of the initial framework, three additional conceptual components are important. These concepts dierentiate BPM from other process management activities, and suggest that developing a prerequisite process mindset is a fundamental component of a BPM approach. Introduction Process management has become widespread within the business community, impacting, to varying degrees, upon both organizational practice and organizational language (Armis- tead, Pritchard and Machin, 1999). The concept of process has repeatedly emerged in many of the prominent thematic initiatives (Smart et al., 2004) in the post-reengineering era. Customer relationship management, enterprise resource planning, Six Sigma, and more recently business process management (BPM), for example, all utilize the concept of process. In addition to transcending these initiatives process can also be found in multiple sectors, and as key elements of performance improvement frame- works (e.g. European Foundation for Quality Management, EFQM). However, while the take-up of process-based management, particu- larly BPM, has been extensive, there is also a substantial amount of variety in the semantics attributed to this management theme (Al-Ma- shari, 2002). The confusion surrounding BPM may be located in the relative paucity of conceptual analysis and rigorous empirical re- search. Melao and Pidd (2000), for example, in an exploration of business process modelling, note that there are few signicant attempts to develop theoretical positions on possible approaches to BPM, possibly because the development of BPM has been driven by practitioners rather than academics. This does not, however, preclude BPM from theoretical development. As exempli- ed by Schmenner and Swink (1998), the chal- lenge for academics within the operations management discipline is to pursue the construc- tion of productive theory. Furthermore, an additional challenge, noted by Slack, Lewis and Bates (2004), is for operations management to expand its horizons and embrace a wider service operations context for its research. In pursuit of these goals, fuelled by the extent of BPM practice and lack of theoretical foundation, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20, 491507 (2009) DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00594.x r 2008 British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA. the paper describes the derivation of a conceptual framework for BPM. The framework, derived from a systematic review and synthesis of current literature, and validated in empirical data from a case company in the service sector, provides a common foundation for future academic debate for the derivation of BPM theory. This conrms the approach described by Meredith et al. (1989) where a mental model of the suspected relation- ships are posited . . . (and) . . . evaluated by means of a framework that captures the essence of the system under investigation. Research method The research was structured into two main phases. The rst phase was concerned with the development of an initial framework which reected current BPM thinking (initial mental model). Models, concepts and approaches, found within the literature, were synthesized into ve key themes. To provide a focus for further exploratory research the following research ques- tion was formulated: to what extent do the ve themes emerging from existing literature ade- quately conceptualize BPM? The empirical work was based on in-depth case research. Case-based methods are widely recog- nized as an eective means for unpacking complex concepts en route to the development of explanatory theory (Meredith, 1998). The advantages of case research include studying the phenomenon in its natural setting and hence generating theory from actual practice; the ability to ask the why questions rather than just the what and how; the ability to uncover variables which may be misunderstood or unknown (Benbasat, Goldstein and Mead, 1987). Voss, Tsikriktsis and Frohlich (2002) represent the views of a growing number of researchers when they argue that case research has consistently been one of the most powerful research methods, particularly in the development of new theory. However, propo- nents of case methodology emphasize the rigour that must be applied. Eective case selection, underpinned by a structured research protocol, has been identied as critical in ensuring such rigour (Stuart et al., 2002; Voss, Tsikriktsis and Frohlich, 2002). Case selection for this project was informed through an initial workshop held with ten nancial services companies. This provided an opportunity to explore the extent to which these companies engaged in BPM practice. The com- pany which exhibited the most developed process management practices from this group was identied as an appropriate case company for the more in-depth research. The company, a large UK bank, was an early adopter of business process re-engineering (BPR). The bank had experienced a wave of mergers and acquisitions in the late 1990s, which culminated in the closure of its BPR programme. More recently, however, the bank had re-visited process management through the introduction of a Process Design Authority, charged with understanding, control- ling and improving processes. The bank is a complex organization, with a number of sub- sidiary companies, oering a wide range of nancial products through diverse business processes. The case study approach adopted aligns with the perspective of Yin (1981), where phenomena are studied in a real-life context, and with Barton (1995), where a history of past or current phenomena is drawn from multiple sources. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with seven experienced senior managers who were recognized as process experts and had a range of process management responsibilities. These included the Director of Group Opera- tions, Head of Customer Management, Head of Process Design and Improvement and Director of Payments Processing. The interviews focused on two key areas: the development of process management over time and an exploration of practitioners understanding of the meaning, scope, signicance and value of process manage- ment. Interviewees were encouraged to drive the discussion and consequently responses varied considerably in form and sequence. To support the interviews, and to triangulate the responses, an extensive range of secondary data was collected and analysed, including project documentation; examples of process management outputs (including process models and measurement data); central and local pro- cess communications; minutes; and terms of reference. These data were analysed, initially, using the thematic coding approach proposed by Flick (1998), to identify the existence of the ve theoretical BPM themes in the empirical data. 492 P. A. Smart, H. Maddern and R. S. Maull r 2008 British Academy of Management. Literature survey A plethora of research streams exist which are closely related to the concept of process. Rust and Zahorik (1995), for example, outline an approach for assessing the nancial return on investments which seek to enhance the service experience. They argue strongly that data must be collected against business processes: The idea is that business processes . . . are how the business is organized. Beretta (2002), meanwhile, explores the recent boom in enterprise resource planning systems. He suggests that the impact of their implementation on the operating performance of a company can be best appreciated by focusing measurement on the improvements that they produce in the performance of business pro- cesses. Voss and Huxham (2004) use process as the exemplar in their analysis of the absorption of new ideas into day-to-day operations: Successful practices become embedded in the organization . . . . An excellent example of this is business process re-engineering (BPR), which was used by many organizations in the 1990s. Today it is hard to nd an organization that is explicitly trying to re-engineer its processes. On the other hand it is also hard to nd a large organization that does not pay explicit attention to the design and management of its processes. Critical to an understanding of BPM is the disentangling of process from its re-engineering origins. The emphasis has switched from re- engineering to process: I no longer see myself as a radical person; instead I have become a process person (Hammer, 2001). The following sections attempt this disentanglement. It is our view that much of the current confusion surrounding BPM is a legacy of its antecedents in BPR. BPR In 1990, Michael Hammer introduced the con- cept of business re-engineering, with his plea for companies to Obliterate; dont automate (Hammer, 1990). The impact on the business community was profound, with surveys suggest- ing adoption rates for re-engineering across the business community as high as 75% (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 2000). The impact on management research was equally dramatic. One investigation into academic research found that over 700 papers linked to re-engineering were published in 1994 alone (Case, 1999). The research generally focused on two main issues: the extent to which BPR was successful; the factors related to successful implementation. A growing consensus emerged that BPR rarely delivered the targeted benets. By the end of the 1990s, the business community was deemed to be moving on to other issues such as customer relation- ship management and enterprise resource planning. BPR was regarded by many as simply another management fad with little to merit such high levels of research attention (Grint and Case, 1998). Nevertheless, a number of publications continue to report BPR activity. MacIntosh (2003), for example, declares that BPR is alive and well in his study of process activity within the public service sector. Similarly, a number of authors have reported ongoing BPR activity from economies outside western Europe (Khong and Richardson, 2003; Terziovski, Fitzpatrick and ONeil, 2003; Yung and Chan, 2003). Other researchers are investigating more detailed aspects of BPR: quan- tifying risk (Crowe et al., 2002); exibility (Fitzger- ald and Siddiqui, 2002); BPR and strategic alignment (Sarkis and Talluri, 2002); BPR and information technology (Attaran, 2003). The relationship between BPR and other im- provement interventions, most notably total qual- ity management, also continues to capture research attention. Williams et al. (2003) focus on this relationship within small and medium-sized en- terprises. Samson and Challis (2002) explore the shared pre-conditions that determine success in process-based interventions. Carpinetti, Buosi and Gerolamo (2003) develop a framework and refer- ence model for improvement activity incorporating BPR and continuous improvement methods. There has been considerable interest in the opportunities to automate business processes. This encompasses both the development of executable process management technology, as well as tools for modelling and designing processes. There is a rich literature on modelling tools themselves (Bal, 2002; Gingele, Childe and Miles, 2002; Gunasekaran and Kobu, 2002; Lin, Yang and Pai, 2002). Such research often categorizes this activity under the heading BPM. IT vendors, in particular, recognize this term and use it as a vehicle to develop and promote their products. However, perspectives are starting to emerge which emphasize a broader Understanding Business Process Management 493 r 2008 British Academy of Management. context: (BPM). . .has to be capable of modelling a process, brokering that process, delivering it with straight through processing, and then managing it, all within a single environment. Because of its far reaching implications for the ability of enterprises to adapt, it is much more than a technology fad but a management issue that needs to be on senior managements agenda, driving the IT support of the business (BPMI.org 1 ). In summary, BPR, itself, is no longer a signicant phenomenon. A limited amount of specialist BPR research continues to be reported, together with analyses of late adopters. Business process automation, often labelled BPM, is a growing activity, albeit one which tends towards a narrower, IT-centric, context. Process-based interventions, in particular Six Sigma, are in vogue, although doubts remain as to the dur- ability of such interventions in the absence of a process management framework (Hammer, 2002). Nevertheless, as noted earlier, process management continues to engage many busi- nesses, particularly within the services sector. The apparent contradiction between the demise of BPR and the re-emergence of a focus on process management has been examined by a number of researchers. However, although there is some commonality of thought on the nature of the re- birth of process there is currently much confu- sion and a lack of consensus. BPM Processes are considered a generic factor in all organizations. They are the way things get done (Armistead, Pritchard and Machin, 1999). Pro- cesses are also viewed as strategic assets, which require companies to take a business process orientation (McCormack and Johnson, 2001). Process is not simply the management fad of re- engineering, but a more pervasive issue, requiring serious attention. Process thinking has become mainstream (Grover, Kettinger and Teng, 2000). BPM in this context considers process as both a business imperative and a means of understand- ing and explaining business activities the way customer requirements get transformed into actual goods and services. A number of studies have raised our awareness of BPM, and begun the process of characteriza- tion (Armistead, 1996; Lee and Dale, 1998; Zairi, 1997). However, there is no current consensus on the principles or key characteristics of BPM found within the literature. We believe that the deriva- tion of a common framework, a pre-theory (Meredith, 1993) which provides a platform on which to engage in both academic inquiry and practitioner debate, will provide signicant op- portunities for both understanding and applying BPM. The initial framework presented here is the result of a systematic review and synthesis of the current literature. This has facilitated the identi- cation of ve key themes of BPM: process strategy, process architecture, process ownership, process measurement, process improvement. Process strategy Process strategy addresses the linkages between the articulation of strategic intent and the intended actions in the deployment and ongoing management of a process infrastructure. The linkage between strategic intent and deployment within BPM has been explicitly highlighted by Pritchard and Armistead (1999). These authors introduce the concept of an integrator which links strategic level planning with task level deployment. The articulation of a strategic intent to focus on processes has been identied by a number of authors (e.g. Bateman and Rich, 2003; Burlton, 2001; Grover, Kettinger and Teng, 2000; Lee and Dale, 1998; Meadows and Merali, 2003; Silvestro and Westley, 2002). While there is a consensus that BPM requires the articulation of strategy, there is some debate regarding the strategic performance achievable through BPM deployment. Silvestro and Westley (2002), for example, discuss the appropriateness of BPM for strategic dierentiation, but challenge the appro- priateness of BPM for a cost leadership position. This contrasts with the ndings of Armistead and Machin (1997) which suggest signicant oppor- tunities for the attainment of a cost reduction strategy, in addition to increased delivery relia- bility, speed of new product introduction, in- creased exibility and consistent product quality. This articulation of business strategy and the identication of possible dimensions of enhanced competitiveness depend on the strategic approaches adopted. Armistead, Pritchard and 1 Accessed 2005; no longer in operation. 494 P. A. Smart, H. Maddern and R. S. Maull r 2008 British Academy of Management. Machin (1999) draw on the broader literature in strategic management and suggest the categor- ization of prescriptive versus emergent, hard goals versus stakeholder aspirations, and strate- gic content versus strategic process when con- sidering the strategic approaches adopted by companies undertaking BPM. The ndings from their work indicate that a blend of prescriptive and stakeholder aspirations approaches are dominant, driven by the use of the EFQM model for achieving organizational eectiveness. This is consistent with analyses of the external market value chain and the identication of key business processes to compete in the identied market (Pritchard and Armistead, 1999). Increasing attention is being given, however, to the possible strategic leverage provided by under- standing and capitalizing on distinct capabilities attainable through specic resource congura- tions. A key aspect of BPM is the articulation of process capability which includes an understand- ing of resource capability. As companies become more process mature it is possible that strategic dierentiation will be based more on a capability- centric approach. However, capability driven strategy formulation, while receiving signicant attention (Lewis, 2003), has still not realized the paradigmatic neatness commented on by Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997). It is possible, however, to envisage a business-process-based strategic capability which synthesizes process capability and market-led strategies (Acur and Bititci, 2004). Business process capabilities provide signicant strategic opportunities (Roth and Jackson, 1995) and the processes themselves may be viewed as strategic assets (McCormack and Johnson, 2001). While it is possible to draw from the broader strategic management literature to discuss the relative merits of strategic approaches, the key issue here is the eective deployment of an intended strategy through an infrastructure that is process-centric. Armistead and Machin (1997) provided some examples where companies have linked their long-term plans with annual plans for key business processes. It is possible to suggest that BPM itself represents this deployment a strategy in action. Process management is more than a way to improve individual processes it is a way to operate and manage a business (Hammer, 2002). Xerox, for example, was driven to adopt BPM by the need to improve strategy implementation (Pritchard and Armistead, 1999). As these authors point out, the key is to link strategy with day to day operations; this inevitably invokes discussions regarding policy deployment. Our view is that this deployment is achievable through the consistent pattern of decisions (Mintzberg and Quinn, 1996) made in each of the four other themes described below. Eective communication of these decisions is paramount for success (Davenport, 2004; Meadows and Merali, 2003). As Pritchard and Armistead (1999) suggest, the inability of an organization to determine and communicate its view of process can create cynicism among its members which may be dicult to overcome by the time they are asked to implement the strategy. Deployment of the strategy through BPM is therefore based on the consistency of decisions and the cohesiveness between the decisions in each of the following areas: the architecture of processes, process ownership and organizational design, process measurement and associated award structure, and the continuous pursuit of process improvement. Process architecture A process architecture is constructed as a means for understanding the organization (Pritchard and Armistead, 1999) from a business process perspective. A business process as a unit of analysis and improvement was a central theme in previous literature relating to BPR (e.g. Davenport, 1993; Harrington, 1992; Rummler and Brache, 1990; Smart, Childe and Maull, 1999). To avoid the reiteration of the numerous denitions of process which emerged during this time we suggest the following points for clarication. Processes are the conceptual notation of what organizations do. They may be described as transformations which are cross-functional in nature and are customer facing. One property associated with business processes is their end-to- end nature (Armistead and Machin, 1997). Although various taxonomies of processes have been previously described (Childe, Maull and Bennett, 1994; Smart, Childe and Maull, 1999), there is growing consensus on the categor- ization of processes in terms of manage, operate and support (AMICE, 1989). We acknowledge, however, some deviation from this categorization, e.g. the separation of direction Understanding Business Process Management 495 r 2008 British Academy of Management. setting processes from manage (Armistead and Machin, 1997). The emphasis of the process architecture theme of BPM must, however, also include the linkages between processes (Zairi, 1997). Our experience concurs, in part, with the anecdotal evidence from the judges of the European quality award (described in Armistead, 1996), which indicates that many organizations focus on a discrete process and fail to look at an integrated set of processes. Our experience is that many organizations construct high level frame- works consisting of multiple processes, but fail to identify the physical and information ows that integrate the processes. This can result in the construction of horizontal silos which are no more eective than the functional silos they have replaced (Armistead, 1996). Hammer (2002) emphasizes the terms organized and together in describing the integration of activities within a business process. We extend this thinking to emphasize integration at a process level both the intra and inter connectedness of manage, operate and support processes. The purpose of the architecture is to provide a top level hierarchical model which integrates the ows within the business. This provides a coordinating mechanism for improvement and change. Silvestro and Westley (2002) deviate from the notion of common process and describe the implementation of a product-based process structure based on market segmentation. While this is an interesting structure which may be linked to process design utilizing the concepts of runners, repeaters, and strangers (Parnaby, 1988), there is little evidence of success. This is perhaps one of the reasons why the authors report diculties in their case companies attaining a cost leadership position. Previous work has indicated that processes are analogous to systems (Smart, Childe and Maull, 1999). Process architectures reect the principle of systemicity drawn from this discipline. This argument suggests the inclusion of both technical and non-technical resources responsible for the transformation of input to output, and the identication of control structures which con- strain these transformations. In addition, it is important to identify the conditions which trigger transformational activities (Ould, 2003). The process paradigm provides an approach for coordination across the whole organisation (Armistead and Machin, 1997). An additional systems principle of importance to the process architecture theme is hierarchy. Processes are often decomposed into greater levels of granu- larity which provides greater detail on the constituent parts of the integrated process. This has been observed by Armistead and Machin (1997) among others. Hammer (2002) also notes the requirement to consistently review and update relevant models. We extend this to include a review and update of the process architecture. In our experience this is achieved through a central repository of models often accessed through a corporate intranet. This is one aspect of the discipline required to successfully implement BPM. It (BPM) relies on systems and documented procedures to ensure discipline, consistency and repeatability (Zairi, 1997). Process ownership The identication of process owners and their allocation to core business processes has been identied by a number of authors as a key element of BPM (Armistead, Pritchard and Machin, 1999; Lee and Dale, 1998). Process owners are seen as champions of the process who have responsibility for process performance (Armistead, 1996; Pritchard and Armistead, 1999). This is also of particular importance in meeting the responsibilityaccountability require- ments of Sarbanes Oxley. Pritchard and Armistead (1999) suggest that process mature organizations exhibit a higher proportion of senior managers as process owners. Armistead (1996) also indicates that a key role for process owners is to work at the interfaces with other key processes. This mitigates against the creation of horizontal silos, and reinforces the underlying principle of sys- temicity described earlier. An additional element of this theme of BPM, evident in the literature, is the switch in emphasis to process-based teams (Armistead, 1996; Armis- tead, Pritchard and Machin, 1999; Pritchard and Armistead, 1999). These teams may be considered as networks of process operatives (Armistead and Machin, 1997) who work together to deliver process performance. Samson and Challis (2002) note: leading companies have broadened the scope and span of all employees mindsets and their cycle of objectives, performance and re- sponsibility. Functional barriers and parochial mindsets (the silo mentality) have been largely 496 P. A. Smart, H. Maddern and R. S. Maull r 2008 British Academy of Management. overcome and replaced by a unity of purpose and spirit of co-operation. This requirement for a switch to team-based structure necessitates the implementation of alternative reward and recognition structures (Hammer, 2002; Pritchard and Armistead, 1999). Hammer (2002), in forging strong links between Six Sigma and BPM, introduces the notion of two additional types of team: project teams and process design teams. Project teams are deployed within a process to identify and rectify the causes of poor process performance processes are a framework for a problem-solving regimen. Process design teams challenge the nature of a process and seek to recongure processes to minimize the amount of non-value- adding activities. This can be linked to lean thinking (Womack and Jones, 1996). The pro- cess owner obtains the resource that is required and manages the performance of the process, often irrespective of formal organizational struc- ture. The process owner therefore needs to ensure that the people performing the process under- stand it, are trained in it (Hammer, 2002) and receive the necessary reward and recognition for success. This gives rise to potential conict in the organizational design. The ambiguity which arises between process owners and their teams and the ongoing functional management may be a source of conict. However, research by Llewellyn and Armistead (2000) suggests that the value added from the end-to-end perspective supports front line sta in, for example, the resolution of problem jobs or situations. They develop the concept of social capital to describe this phenomenon, arguing that Social capital operates at a process level with social credits being traded across functional boundaries. Pritchard and Armistead (1999) point out that well progressed organizations have experienced structural changes as a result of BPM. This necessitates a discussion of trade-os between functional and process-based organizational structures. There is evidence that companies adopting BPM do not dismantle the established functional groups. A number of trade-os which emerge, as described by Armistead (1996), include the potential loss of a critical mass of experts with specialist knowledge versus greater process understanding and customer centricity; the clarity of a well understood functional structure versus a fuzzy network-type structure where individuals are allocated across more than one process; the establishment of empowered teams which foster innovation versus the for- malized control of performance. The tendency for organizations to preserve functional structure has led to the adoption of matrix-based organiza- tional structures (Silvestro and Westley, 2002). In their description of the adoption of a product- based process structure in their case companies, these authors note a marked shift in power from both function to product categories, or from function to customer business units. While neither of these cases exhibited an overlay of a process structure upon a traditional functional structure, functional optimization was less in evidence due to the reduction in size of the organizational units. Three options for organiza- tional structure are presented by Armistead, Pritchard amd Machin (1999): a predominant focus on process lines with functions providing a centre of expertise to support the processes; the coexistence of function and process as a matrix (although the authors point out that this needs a sophisticated approach to management, as illu- strated by Hewlett Packard); profunction (which) displays all the characteristic of a function and is embedded in a larger business process. In our view the latter structure appears to be in direct conict with the notion of processes being cross-functional in nature. Process measurement Process measurement is an integral part of BPM (Armistead, Pritchard and Machin, 1999; Melan, 1989) which seeks to optimize process perfor- mance against both customer requirements and economic targets. As Armistead, Pritchard and Machin (1999) also point out, single measures of performance can be dangerous. Simmons (2000) notes that performance measurement is very much inuenced by nancial reporting which does not reect the need for customer-focused, process-oriented learning organisations. How- ever, there is potential to integrate the work which has been undertaken into the design of performance measurement systems from the broader literature (e.g. Kaplan and Norton, 1992, 1996; Lynch and Cross, 1991; Neely, 1999; Neely, Gregory and Platts, 1995). These systems exhibit a number of key characteristics: Understanding Business Process Management 497 r 2008 British Academy of Management. they are balanced; drive organizational improve- ment; and link strategy to operations. It is important to note that strategic performance measurement systems have a role to play in both the articulation of business strategy and the deployment of strategy through a BPM ap- proach. For example, there is discussion in the literature regarding the merits of the use of the balanced scorecard in conjunction with goal- based (Cameron, 1986) quality frameworks such as the EFQM (Armistead, Pritchard and Machin, 1999) for BPM deployment. Armistead and Machin (1997) identify particular diculties in managing process performance with a large number of detailed measures which are not positioned into a higher level strategic measure. This reinforces the need for a performance measurement architecture which links strategic and operational targets. Our intention is not to delve into the intricacies of debate concerning these measurement systems, but to recognize that, in addition to economic- based assessments, a key aspect of process performance is the extent to which processes full customer requirements. Importance is given to customer satisfaction and customer loyalty in addition to measures of eciency (Armistead and Machin, 1997). This service measurement per- spective has received much attention in the literature with the growing popularity of the service prot chain (Heskett et al., 1994); how- ever, there is little evidence of a link to cross- functional process architectures (Maddern, Maull and Smart, 2007). The adoption of a process- based approach necessitates a reappraisal of the operational denitions of key performance me- trics. This linking of process-based measurement with existing measurement systems can be com- plex and demanding (Pritchard and Armistead, 1999). While there is an ensuing debate on appropriate dimensions of performance (e.g. Zairi (1997) identies cycle time, quality and cost dimensions), there is a growing recognition that a key factor of measurement is the variation of output from customer expectation. This measure, borrowed from the Six Sigma domain (Breyfogle, 2003; Linderman et al., 2003) and derived through a comparison of process output against critical-to-quality parameters identied by the customer, facilitates the monitoring of process eectiveness. These eectiveness measures, com- bined with more common eciency measures, provide a good basis for engaging in process improvement activity. Armistead (1996) extends this thinking and suggests that there is also a requirement to articulate volume, variety and variation in demand the 3Vs. Our experience is that in situations where each of the 3Vs is high there is a need to assess the dynamic behaviour of processes a move beyond static model and measurement. However, the fundamental issue within this theme is that the monitoring of performance against appropriate targets provides a mechanism for the prioritization of corrective action. Process improvement Improvement activity is central to realizing the benets of BPM. The ability to overcome problems in the white space (Rummler and Brache, 1995) remains the core source of value for improvement activity. This is based on having a structured, consistent approach to process improvement (Armistead and Machin, 1997; Lee and Dale, 1998) that delivers on continuous and radical improvements (Armistead, Pritchard and Machin, 1999; Hammer, 2002; Pritchard and Armistead, 1999). Reporting on the approach adopted by Texas Instruments, Armistead, Pritchard and Machin (1999) describe a three- level approach to obtaining process control: stabilization, which involves the deployment of statistical process control (a view supported by Love, Gunasekeran and Li, 1998) and Taguchi methods; continuous improvement using the seven quality control tools; radical change invol- ving BPR-type projects. They also suggest the use of the Hoshin Kanri methodology as a more rigorous approach. Organizations face the problem of selecting from a large stock of improvement methodolo- gies and tools ranging from the pure qualitative such as removal of duplicate activities or re-sequencing of activity (Reijers and Mansar, 2004) to systematic approaches for process opti- mization using factorial design (Breyfogle, 2003). Results Validating the ve themes The case-based research involved the collection of data from seven senior managers who were 498 P. A. Smart, H. Maddern and R. S. Maull r 2008 British Academy of Management. involved in the development of the process management practices at the bank. The primary data collection instrument was semi-structured interviewing addressing background and context; meanings and perspectives; process development (process origin, current practice, future state/ vision). This enabled the interviewees to provide independent articulation of the core construct. These interviews were taped and subsequently transcribed. In support of these data, and to achieve triangulation of the responses, secondary data, in the form of project documentation, process models and frameworks, minutes of meetings, and measurement data, were also collected. The analysis of the primary data adopted the thematic coding approach described by Flick (1998). This approach is related to a grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) but is initiated (in the rst iteration) through predetermined codes derived from the initial framework. Subsequent iterations of the coding process were used in an attempt to identify additional phenomena not represented within the initial framework. This process re- vealed 129 discrete coded items (coded according to the respondent/interview section as an initial identier) with 66 items corresponding to the themes in the initial framework. Table 1 is a summary of the frequency of the coded items related to each theme discussed by each of the seven participants (A, . . ., G). Each interviewee covered all of the issues, except the two interviewees that ignored the strategic dimension, which tended to reect their job role. In addition, some interviewees spent considerable time on a specic issue. For example, interviewee D spent a lot of time discussing the topic of measurement. The specic activities undertaken by the company in respect of the ve themes are described below. Process strategy In 2000, the Director of Group Operations had sought and obtained board level approval for the creation of a Process Design Authority (PDA). The Director had previously been involved in encouraging and managing process activity across the organization and was a recognized process champion. One of the rst actions of the PDA was to develop a process strategy that would enable the organization to understand, control and improve its processes. An extensive commu- nications programme was established including the creation of an intranet site and a Group Process Forum in which representatives from all business units explored process concepts and initiatives. Process was included in both executive messages and as a part of local team briengs. A key aspect of the strategy was the develop- ment and deployment of a process infrastructure based upon the creation of a group-wide process architecture; the introduction of dedicated Pro- cess Owner Teams (POTs); the creation of process dashboards providing ongoing process measurement, setting and monitoring perfor- mance improvement targets for processes and the systematic delivery of process improvements. Process architecture An enterprise-wide process framework had been developed which identied the key processes within the bank (Figure 1). The framework Table 1. Five BPM themes A B C D E F G Strategy 2 2 1 1 1 7 Architecture 1 2 2 2 4 3 2 16 Ownership 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 12 Measurement 1 1 3 6 4 1 1 17 Improvement 1 3 2 5 1 1 1 14 66 Figure 1. The enterprise process framework. Understanding Business Process Management 499 r 2008 British Academy of Management. focused on the sales and service processes through which a range of products and service are provided to customers: opening a cheque account, selling a mortgage, issuing a statement, making a claim, enquiries and concerns. These routine transactional processes operated within the context of processes that dealt with the overall customer relationship. These processes focused upon both the articulation of customer requirements for dierent segments (understand- ing customer groups) to assessing the extent to which customers were treated dierently. The eective delivery of services to customers was enabled by a set of support processes such as sta recruitment and systems management. Meanwhile, overall strategy and direction was dened and delivered through the Direct and Control processes. Finally, Innovate the Busi- ness embraced those processes which enabled the company to react rapidly to changing customer and market demands, a strategic imperative brought on by the dot.com revolution. Each of the Enterprise Processes was decom- posed into ve Generic Processes. For example, Deliver Sales and Service was broken down into manage sales; deliver transactions; change ser- vice; manage information; and control borrow- ing. These in turn were decomposed one further level to dene around a hundred operational business processes such as process claims and maturities and provide a statement. To facilitate a deeper understanding of the process framework, Deliver Sales and Service processes were represented in a process cube (Figure 2). The cube highlighted the need to understand and manage processes from a number of dierent perspectives. Most sta were familiar with product groupings; few had thought in terms of generic processes running across dier- ent products and channels. Over time, the cube became well recognized in many areas of the bank, eventually becoming part of the organiza- tional folklore as the Rubiks cube. Having established a common high level process framework, an extensive mapping pro- gramme was launched to understand processes at the operational level. Before the deployment of the group framework, process denitions had often varied across, and sometimes within, business units. For example, the terms managing out of order accounts and referred payments were used in dierent business units to describe exactly the same process. Similarly, a sales process in one business unit would include lead generation, quote and fullment. For another business unit the process would both start and end with the customer interview (i.e. dramatically narrower in scope). To overcome this, processes were mapped using IDEF 0 (FIPS, 1993), a hierarchical model- ling method which uses a top down approach for the creation of process hierarchies. The method also enforces the consistent integration of processes through information and physical ows at these levels. In addition, a process dictionary was developed which ensured consis- tent language and semantics within the maps. As-is customer facing processes were captured in a central repository, organized around the framework, to three levels of decomposition. A change management system was then put in place to support process governance and main- tain an ongoing representation of processes across the group. Process ownership Initially, ve high level POTs were introduced organized around the main product groups (e.g. banking, insurance). It soon became apparent that process management in retail banking demanded more detailed attention. Customer satisfaction was falling, following diculties with the implementation of a new integrated banking system. To address these problems, 14 lower level POTs were established to provide more hands Figure 2. Sales and service processes (the process cube). 500 P. A. Smart, H. Maddern and R. S. Maull r 2008 British Academy of Management. on management of key banking processes such as payments and enquiries. Their priority was to improve customer service. Dedicated resource was allocated to enable this, and Six Sigma performance improvement targets were set for each team. By 2002, POTs had identied and prioritized over 145 process improvements, in- cluding reducing lending complaints by 38% and improving the turnaround times for replacement cards and cheque books, which were previously the most signicant sources of customer com- plaints. Whilst the focus was on improving customer service, cost savings of d300,000 pa were also reported. Interestingly, in reporting the success of process ownership, emphasis was placed on the role in laying foundations for long-term benet: The POTs tangible benets are the outward signs of success, but the hidden achievements provide the foundations for long- term ongoing benets (Director of Payments Processing). The need to fully integrate process ownership within the bank was also recognized: The POTs have made a real dierence in the drive to make process ownership an integral part of the group culture. In an organization of this size, however, this is still only the start, because the enthusiasm to drive this forward needs to be in step with the readiness of the organization to accept cultural change (Head of Customer Management). Process measurement The Six Sigma methodology, pioneered by Motorola in the 1980s and championed by GE in the 1990s, was chosen as the method for measuring and systematically improving pro- cesses in the bank. It focuses on what is critical to the customer and seeks to eliminate any defects which may arise in meeting customer requirements. Introducing Six Sigma measurement involved the development of Process dashboards for all key processes. The dashboards contained a statement of customer needs and provided a simple representation of the process ow, linking custo- mer requirements to delivery. Operational mea- sures were identied regarding the accuracy and timeliness of each process against customer requirements. Numbers of defects were also identied and reported on a monthly basis. Whilst other measures, such as cost, productivity, system availability and complaints, were sched- uled for future development, an understanding of customer service performance across all key processes was considered the priority. The ambi- tion was to have 80% of customer touches in the retail bank under sigma measurement by the end of 2003. In addition stretch improvement targets were set for individual process performance. Process improvement The Six Sigma improvement methodology, known as DMAIC, was also introduced to systematically identify and deliver process im- provements. DMAIC represents the ve stages of the improvement cycle: dene, measure, analyse, improve and maintain. Training followed the GE model, where over 200 sta were trained in Six Sigma improvement techniques, led by twelve Six Sigma Black Belts. In addition, a dedicated process simulation team was established to support large-scale change projects. The decision to introduce a consistent, best practice approach to process improvement reected concerns that previous ad hoc improvement eorts had resulted in duplication and wasted eort. As part of the attempt to fully align systems and processes a revised change management system was intro- duced in which the process implications of all change projects were highlighted and evaluated prior to investment decisions. Identication of additional core concepts While the case ndings aligned closely with the ve themes synthesized from the literature, the initial ve-themed framework failed to fully account for the variety of responses found in the case data. A simple content analysis of the coded texts revealed that 49% (63/129) of the interviews were not explicitly related to the themes. A process of grouping data items to identify core categories in the residual of the codes was undertaken utilizing the 11 criteria found by Glaser (1978). The process architecture theme, for example, was considered both necessary and successful in helping to create an overall process infrastruc- ture. The framework informed the design of POTs; the repository provided a physical control Understanding Business Process Management 501 r 2008 British Academy of Management. of operational business processes. However, interviewees emphasized that the most signicant contribution of the architecture was to introduce a process language and key process concepts such as end-to-end thinking and customer focus. This customer-centric view of the process framework encouraged sta to relate their day-to-day activities to specic customer requirements an outside in view of the organization. In addition, the Rubiks cube focused attention on the end- to-end delivery of customer requirements across dierent business units, products and channels. A further analysis of these data identied three additional concepts: conscious, macro, centrality. We believe that these concepts form the key principles for managing by process. As Smart et al. (2004) highlighted: Articles that revoke thematic initiatives, that label them as failures, or that provide supercial explanations of the reasons for failure can be found in abundance. . . . More work, however, is required to understand the important management principles, encom- passed by the initiatives, which warranted them being heralded in the rst place. We believe that these additional concepts are critical for a full understanding of BPM, and are the central tenet on which the BPM application components deliver value. Table 2 indicates the frequency of coded data attributed to each of the emergent themes. We have no clear indication of bias by the respondents towards the application compo- nents or the additional concepts. The analysis has indicated, however, some consistency of reference to the three additional concepts. Each of these concepts is described in the following sections. Conscious process management Whilst there is considerable confusion surround- ing the meaning of such terms as BPR and BPM there is some consensus about the nature of a business process itself (Davenport and Short, 1990; Hammer and Champy, 1993). Zairi (1997), for example, reports the denition of a business process used by Post Oce Counters: A related series of actions, directed to the achievement of a goal, that transforms a set of inputs into desired outputs, by adding value. In our own research, process experts in the bank dened a business process as a set of related activities that create value for customers. The implications of this denition are signi- cant. Businesses provide goods and services to customers; if processes are the means through which those goods and services are delivered, then all businesses have processes. The universal nature of business processes emerged as a strong theme during interviews with bank sta. There is a given that says all organizations whether it be the corner shop or the multinational plc, yes weve all got processes, we must have (Head of Process Design and Improvement). Given the universal nature of processes, process management, in some form, is not optional. What is optional is the extent to which process management is pursued as a conscious activity, rather than simply happening by default. Again, the signicance of conscious process management was emphasized by bank sta. Processes exist in all organizations, as ways in which customers ask for something and even- tually it gets fullled, its how consciously you manage those processes thats important. Its like golf or snooker, some do it by touch or feel, they dont particularly know how theyre doing it, they just do it and it comes out well. So those lucky enough to do that have got a gift. For most people its harder than that, you have to train and practice more and more. Conscious process management is when you have to think about it more, you have to know when youre doing it (Director of Group Operations). Such thinking reects the idea that processes are conceptual constructions. Processes have to be discovered and managed as processes. This is particularly evident in service organizations where processes are less visible than in a manufacturing environment. Macro process management Process is also a hierarchical concept. Processes have subprocesses; subprocesses have activities; activities have tasks and so on. Most companies establish, control and, potentially, try to improve individual processes and subprocesses. Such Table 2. Additional BPM concepts A B C D E F G Total Conscious 6 2 4 1 3 3 2 21 Macro 1 4 5 2 1 4 6 23 Centrality 3 1 2 4 3 6 19 63 502 P. A. Smart, H. Maddern and R. S. Maull r 2008 British Academy of Management. activity does not constitute BPM. It is simply an ongoing operational practice. Companies who are engaged in BPM seek to understand the totality of processes, their boundaries and inter- relationships. By denition were managing a number of processes at any one time and a lot of them may be interdependable, but the net result is we have to succeed in the delivery of all of those processes (Director of Payments Processing). Moreover, BPM requires the management of processes on an end-to-end basis, from initial customer contact through to the fullment of the customer need. Few processes provide fullment at point of contact from a single engagement. Relatively simple customer requests, for example providing a credit card, may require input from a specialist risk assessment function and a card production unit. More complex products, such as mortgages, often demand input from several functions and fullment may extend over a number of weeks. Typically, however, the end- to-end process is not managed throughout its life cycle. The centrality of process Within BPM, the process concept is inextricably linked to the customer. Processes do not exist in isolation. They are discovered retrospectively from an understanding of customer needs. Processes are simply the means by which various customer needs are met: The whole reason were in business is to make prot; you make prot by satisfying your customers. To the customer, we are as good as our processes. So if youre not bothered about your processes, in my mind, youre not bothered about your business (Head of Customer Management). From this perspective, BPM is not a one-o activity. It demands a sustained focus on processes as a means of creating ongoing value for the organization. Companies engaging in change programmes, whether IT or personnel focused, need to be addressed from the process perspective. Achieving this sustained focus has profound implications for the nature of BPM implementa- tion. In contrast with the short, sharp, x methods associated with previous BPR initia- tives, BPM is a process journey. Introducing a process infrastructure, creating process models and measurement systems, can be actively man- aged and scheduled. It has a nite timetable. Permanently embedding the process concept, putting process at the centre of the organization, however, is an ongoing task. BPM an integrated framework The ndings suggest that a robust theoretical BPM framework needs to consider both the application of BPM and its conceptual under- pinnings (Figure 3). Much of the existing literature addresses the application of the tangi- ble aspects of BPM (as described in our ve- themed framework). Companies who embark on BPM must focus on identifying their processes, measuring them, establishing dedicated end- to-end process management, introducing a sys- tematic process improvement programme, all within an overall process strategy. We have labelled these the application components of BPM. The conceptual underpinnings of BPM are less visible. They address the fundamental nature and scope of BPM, and the thinking which informs business decisions to adopt and implement BPM. Findings from the case research lead us to characterize BPM as an optional management philosophy which seeks to create value from a sustained focus on business processes. It is predicated on the view that processes are the vehicle through which customer needs are satised. This view demands the conscious management of the totality of a companys end-to-end business processes. As an optional management philosophy, it requires an initiating intervention. However, the realization of the benets oered by the philosophy can only be achieved through a process journey, rather than a one-o intervention. Figure 3. An integrated framework for BPM. Understanding Business Process Management 503 r 2008 British Academy of Management. Summary and conclusions By examining the emergence of process manage- ment within the service sector, the paper supports the repeated calls for operations management research to extend the scope of its inquiries to embrace critical sectors and issues, and to provide insight and support to practitioners. The service sector has increasingly dominated the business landscape, yet, in comparison to the manufacturing sector, it remains relatively un- explored by the operations management research community. Within this sector, process manage- ment attracts extensive practitioner attention, yet suers from a lack of theoretical clarity. By disentangling the process concept from its BPR origins and a number of associated labels, the paper alerts the research community to the emergence of a coherent approach to the ongoing management of processes. Process management is no longer simply a taken for granted aspect of business activity; it is a phenomenon requiring dedicated analysis. Clarifying the various con- icting uses of the term process and establishing a common language is, of course, a necessary rst step in understanding this phenomenon. It provides a common platform for future research. The framework itself provides empirical sup- port to the existing BPM literature by reinforcing the importance of ve key themes which practi- tioners must address in the application of BPM. Further analysis of these themes would provide practitioners with a valuable insight into the challenge of eective implementation. More importantly, perhaps, the framework provides a new insight into the nature of BPM. A crucial distinction is made between process as a universal activity, and the conscious and sus- tained management of end-to-end processes which characterizes the BPM journey. These concepts serve not just to dierentiate BPM from other process activity; they have important implications for practitioners. The ndings sug- gest that these concepts inform a way of thinking about process which is necessary for the eective and sustained implementation of BPM. Develop- ing and encouraging this mindset may, however, prove the most dicult challenge. While we believe that these ndings are an important step along the journey towards BPM theory, we also acknowledge a number of weaknesses inherent in the approach, and suggest future research trajectories for further inquiry. The limitations of a single case study are recognized, particularly with reference to bias in the form of exaggeration of the salience of the data or the prominence of the specic contextual parameters. While the resultant framework is useful for the identication of key variables of BPM (from a theory building perspective), and a tentative proposition has been made which relates the conceptual components to the applica- tion components, sequential connections between concepts have not been addressed. Furthermore, the assessment of relative weighting in each of the concepts has not been calculated and causal links impacting upon these have not been addressed. We suggest that future research should seek to contest our emerging framework and to address the challenges of causality and prediction in relation to the individual concepts. References Acur, N. and U. Bititci (2004). A balanced approach to process strategy, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 24, pp. 388408. Al-Mashari, M. (2002). Editorial, Business Process Manage- ment Journal, 8, pp. 12. Al-Mashari, M. and M. Zairi (2000). Revisiting BPR: a holistic review of practice and development, Business Process Management Journal, 6, pp. 1042. AMICE (1989). CIM-OSA Open System Architecture for CIM (ESPRIT consortium). Berlin: Springer. Armistead, C. (1996). Principles of business process manage- ment, Managing Service Quality, 6, pp. 4852. Armistead, C. and S. Machin (1997). Implications of business process management for operations management, Interna- tional Journal of Operations and Production Management, l, pp. 886898. Armistead, C., J.-P. Pritchard and S. Machin (1999). Strategic business process management for organisational eective- ness, Long Range Planning, 32, pp. 96106. Attaran, M. (2003). Information technology and business- process redesign, Business Process Management Journal, 9, pp. 440458. Bal, J. (2002). Process analysis tools for process improvement, Business Processes Resource Centre, Warwick University. Barton, L. (1995). A dual methodology for case studies: synergistic use of longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. In G. Huber and A. Van de Ven (eds), Longitudinal Field Research Methods: Studying Processes of Organizational Change, pp. 3864. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bateman, N. and N. Rich (2003). Companies perceptions of inhibitors and enablers for process improvement activities, International Journal of Operations and Production Manage- ment, 23, pp. 185189. 504 P. A. Smart, H. Maddern and R. S. Maull r 2008 British Academy of Management. Benbasat, I., D. K. Goldstein and M. Mead (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems, MIS Quarterly, 11, pp. 369386. Beretta, S. (2002). Unleashing the integration potential of ERP systems, Business Process Management Journal, 8, pp. 254277. Breyfogle, F. W. (2003). Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter Solutions using Statistical Methods. Chichester: Wiley. Burlton, R. T. (2001). Business Process Management. Indiana- polis, IN: Sams Publishing. Cameron, K. S. (1986). Eectiveness as paradox: consensus and conict in conceptions of organisational eectiveness, Management Science, 32, pp. 539553. Carpinetti, L. C. R., T. Buosi and M. C. Gerolamo (2003). Quality management and improvement. A framework and a business process reference model, Business Process Manage- ment Journal, 9, pp. 543554. Case, P. (1999). Remember re-engineering? The rhetorical appeal of a managerial salvation device, Journal of Manage- ment Studies, 36, pp. 419441. Childe, S., R. Maull and J. Bennett (1994). Frameworks for understanding business process re-engineering, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 14, pp. 2234. Crowe, T. J., P. M. Fong, T. A. Bauman and J. L. Zayas-Castro (2002). Quantitative risk level estimation of business process reengineering eorts, Business Process Management Journal, 8, pp. 490511. Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process Innovation: Re-engineering Work Through Information Technology. Boston, MA: Har- vard Business School Press. Davenport, T. (2004). Attending to Process. Published by www.BPMG.org, July. Davenport, T. and J. Short (1990). The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign, Sloan Management Review, 31, pp. 1127. FIPS (1993). Integration Denition for Function Modelling (IDEF 0 ), Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 183. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. Fitzgerald, G. and F. A. Siddiqui (2002). Business process reengineering and exibility: a case for unication, Interna- tional Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 14, pp. 7386. Flick, U. (1998). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gingele, J., S. J. Childe and M. E. Miles (2002). A modelling technique for re-engineering business processes controlled by ISO 9001, Computers in Industry, 49, pp. 235251. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity, p. 164. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. and A. L. Strauss (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Grint, K. and P. Case (1998). The violent rhetoric of re- engineering: management consultancy on the oensive, Journal of Management Studies, 35, pp. 557577. Grover, V., W. J. Kettinger and J. T. C. Teng (2000). Business process change in the 21st century, Business and Economic Review, Columbia, 46, pp. 1418. Gunasekaran, A. and B. Kobu (2002). Modelling and analysis of business process reengineering, International Journal of Production Research, 40, pp. 25212546. Hammer, M. (1990). Re-engineering work: dont automate; obliterate, Harvard Business Review, June, pp. 104112. Hammer, M. (2001). The Agenda. New York: Business Books. Hammer, M. (2002). Process management and the future of Six Sigma, MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp. 2632. Hammer, M. and J. Champy (1993). Re-engineering the Corporation: a Manifesto for Business Revolution. New York: Harper Business. Harrington, H. J. (1992). Business Process Improvement. New York: McGraw-Hill. Heskett, J. L., T. O. Jones, G. W. Loveman, W. E. Sasser Jr and L. A. Schlesinger (1994). Putting the service prot chain to work, Harvard Business Review, MarchApril, pp. 164174. Kaplan, R. and D. Norton (1992). The balanced scorecard: the measures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review, JanuaryFebruary, pp. 7179. Kaplan, R. and D. Norton (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system, Harvard Business Review, JanuaryFebruary, pp. 7585. Khong, K. W. and S. Richardson (2003). Business process re- engineering in Malaysian banks and nance companies, Managing Service Quality, 13, pp. 5471. Lee, R. G. and B. G. Dale (1998). Business process manage- ment: a review and evaluation, Business Process Manage- ment Journal, 4, pp. 214225. Lewis, M. A. (2003). Analysing organisational competence: implications for the management of operations, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23, pp. 731756. Lin, F. R., M.-C. Yang and Y.-H. Pai (2002). A generic structure for business process modelling, Business Process Management Journal, 8, pp. 1941. Linderman, K., R. G. Schroeder, S. Zaheer and A. S. Choo (2003). Six Sigma: a goal theoretic perspective, Journal of Operations Management, 21, pp. 193203. Llewellyn, N. and C. Armistead (2000). Business process management. Exploring social capital within processes, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11, pp. 225243. Love, P. E. D., A. Gunasekeran and H. Li (1998). Putting an engine into re-engineering: towards a process-oriented organisation, International Journal of Operations and Pro- duction Management, 18, pp. 937949. Lynch, R. and K. Cross (1991). Measure Up! Yardsticks for Continuous Improvement. Oxford: Blackwell. MacIntosh, R. (2003). BPR: alive and well in the public sector, International Journal of Operations and Production Manage- ment, 23, pp. 327344. Maddern, H., R. Maull and P. A. Smart (2007). Customer satisfaction and service quality in UK nancial services, International Journal of Operations and Production Manage- ment, 27, pp. 9981019. McCormack, K. and B. Johnson (2001). Business process orientation, supply chain management and the e-corpora- tion, IIE Solutions; Norcross, 33, pp. 3337. Understanding Business Process Management 505 r 2008 British Academy of Management. Meadows, M. and Y. Merali (2003). Process improvement with vision: a case study from nancial services, Systemic Practice and Action Research, 16, pp. 171195. Melan, E. (1989). Process management: a unifying framework, National Productivity Review, 8, pp. 395406. Melao, N. and M. Pidd (2000). A conceptual framework for understanding business processes and business process modelling, Information Systems Journal, 10, pp. 105129. Meredith, J. (1993). Theory building through conceptual models, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 13, pp. 311. Meredith, J. (1998). Building operations management theory through case and eld research, Journal of Operations Management, 16, pp. 441454. Meredith, J., A. Raturi, K. Amoako-Gyampah and B. Kaplan (1989). Alternative research paradigms in operations, Journal of Operations Management, 8, pp. 297326. Mintzberg, H. and J. B. Quinn (1996). The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases, 3rd edn. 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, pp. 205228. Neely, A., M. Gregory and K. Platts (1995). Performance measurement system design: a literature review and research agenda, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 15, pp. 80116. Ould, M. (2003). Preconditions for putting processes back in the hands of their actors, Information and Software Technology, 45, pp. 10711074. Parnaby, J. (1988). A systems approach to the implementation of JIT methodologies in Lucas Industries, International Journal of Production Research, 26, pp. 483493. Pritchard, J.-P. and C. Armistead (1999). Business process management lessons from European business, Business Process Management Journal, 5, pp. 1035. Reijers, H. A. and S. L. Mansar (2004). Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics, Omega The International Journal of Management Science, 33, pp. 283 306. Roth, A. V. and W. E. Jackson (1995). Strategic determinants of service quality and performance: evidence from the banking industry, Management Science, 41, pp. 17201733. Rummler, G. A. and A. P. Brache (1995). Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space in the Organization Chart. Oxford: Jossey-Bass. Rust, R. T. and A. J. Zahorik (1995). Return on quality, (ROQ): making service quality nancially accountable, Journal of Marketing, 55, pp. 5871. Samson, D. and D. Challis (2002). Patterns of business excellence, Measuring Business Excellence, 6, pp. 1521. Sarkis, J. and S. Talluri (2002). A synergistic framework for evaluating business process improvements, International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 14, pp. 5371. Schmenner, R. W. and M. L. Swink (1998). On theory in operations management, Journal of Operations Management, 17, pp. 97114. Silvestro, R. and C. Westley (2002). Challenging the paradigm of the process enterprise: a case study analysis of BPR implementation, Omega The International Journal of Management Science, 30, pp. 215225. Simmons, R. (2000). Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Slack, N., M. Lewis and H. Bates (2004). The two worlds of operations management research and practice: can they meet, should they meet?, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 24, pp. 372387. Smart, P. A., S. J. Childe and R. S. Maull (1999). Supporting business process re-engineering in industry: towards a methodology. In R. Gulladge and J. Elzinga (eds), Process Engineering: Advancing the State of the Art, pp. 283319. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic. Smart, P. A., R. S. Maull, S. J. Childe and Z. J. Radnor (2004). Capitalising on thematic initiatives: a framework for process-based change in SMEs, Production Planning and Control, 15, pp. 212. Stuart, I., D. McCutcheon, R. Handeld, R. McLachlin and D. Samson (2002). Eective case research in operations management: a process perspective, Journal of Operations Management, 20, pp. 419433. Teece, D., G. Pisano and A. Shuen (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management, Strategic Manage- ment Journal, 18, pp. 509534. Terziovski, M., P. Fitzpatrick and P. ONeil (2003). Successful predictors of business process reengineering (BPR) in nancial services, International Journal of Production Eco- nomics, 84, pp. 3550. Voss, C. and C. Huxham (2004). Problems, dilemmas and promising practices, Proceedings of the 11th Annual Euroma Conference, pp. 309318. Paris: INSEAD. Voss, C., N. Tsikriktsis and M. Frohlich (2002). Case research in operations management, International Journal of Opera- tions and Production Management, 22, pp. 195219. Williams, A., J. Davidson, S. Waterworth and R. Partington (2003). Total quality management versus business process re- engineering: a question of degree, Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 217, Part B, pp. 110. Womack, J. P. and D. T. Jones (1996). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster. Yin, R. (1981). The case study crisis: some answers?, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, pp. 5865. Yung, W. K.-C. and D. T.-H. Chan (2003). Application of value delivery system (VDS) and performance benchmarking in exible business process reengineering, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23, pp. 300315. Zairi, M. (1997). Business process management: a boundary- less approach to modern competitiveness, Business Process Management Journal, 3, pp. 6480. 506 P. A. Smart, H. Maddern and R. S. Maull r 2008 British Academy of Management. Dr Philip Andrew Smart is a Senior Lecturer in Management and Director of Exeter Centre for Strategic Processes and Operations (XSPO) at the University of Exeter. Since obtaining his PhD in 1996 Andis research has focused on process management, business process design grounded in the systems discipline. Andi is also engaged in the development and promotion of service operations management which he is undertaking in his role as a EurOMA board member. Harry Maddern is a Research Fellow at the University of Exeter. He has considerable business experience in strategic and change management and was Head of Process Design at a large UK bank before joining the University to complete his Doctorate. His research interests include BPM, service management, strategy and systems theory. He has previously published in the International Journal of Operations and Production Management. Roger Maull is Professor of Management Systems at the University of Exeter. With Dr Andi Smart he leads the Exeter Centre for Strategic Processes and Operations (XSPO). He believes strongly in the need for relevant research that informs practitioners and has researched and published widely from sectors such as manufacturing, banking, health, telecommunications and various public bodies. His current focus is on drawing out the aspects of systems thinking which will underpin a generic set of process design rules. Understanding Business Process Management 507 r 2008 British Academy of Management. Copyright of British Journal of Management is the property of Blackwell Publishing Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.