Business process management (BPM) is an important area of organizational design and an acknowledged source of corporate performance. Over the last decades, many approaches, methods, and tools have been proposed to discover, design, analyze, enact, and improve individual processes. At the same time, BPM research has been and still is paying ever more attention to BPM itself and the development of organizations’ BPM capability. Little, however, is known about how to develop an organization’s BPM capability and improve individual processes in an integrated manner. To address this research gap, we developed a planning model. This planning model intends to assist organizations in determining which BPM- and process-level projects they should implement in which sequence to maximize their firm value, catering for the projects’ effects on process performance and for interactions among projects. We adopt the design science research (DSR) paradigm and draw from project portfolio selection as well as value-based management as justificatory knowledge. For this reason, we refer to our approach as value-based process project portfolio management. To evaluate the planning model, we validated its design specification by discussing it against theory-backed design objectives and with BPM experts from different organizations. We also compared the planning model with competing artifacts. Having instantiated the planning model as a software prototype, we validated its applicability and usefulness by conducting a case based on real-world data and by challenging the planning model against accepted evaluation criteria from the DSR literature

Purpose Despite an obvious connection, business process improvement and business process management (BPM) capability development have been studied intensely, but in isolation. The authors thus aim to make the case for the research located at the intersection of both streams. The authors thereby focus on the integrated planning of business process improvement and BPM capability development as this is where, in the authors’ opinion, both streams have the closest interaction. The authors refer to the research field located at the intersection of business process improvement and BPM capability development as process project portfolio management. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach The authors structure the field of process project portfolio management drawing from extant knowledge related to BPM, project portfolio management, and performance management. The authors also propose a research agenda in terms of exemplary research questions and research methods. Findings The proposed structure shows which business objects and interactions should be considered when engaging in process project portfolio management. The research agenda contains exemplary questions structured along the intersections of BPM, project portfolio management, and performance management. Research limitations/implications This paper’s main limitation is that it reflects the authors’ individual viewpoints based on experiences of several industry projects and prior research. Originality/value This paper addresses a neglected research field, opens up new avenues for interdisciplinary BPM research, and contributes a novel perspective to the ongoing discussion about the future of BPM.

No abstract

Organizational ambidexterity (OA) is an essential capability for surviving in dynamic business environments that advocates the simultaneous engagement in exploration and exploitation. Over the last decades, knowledge on OA has substantially matured, covering insights into antecedents, outcomes, and moderators of OA. However, there is little prescriptive knowledge that offers guidance on how to put OA into practice and to tackle the trade-off between exploration and exploitation. To address this gap, we adopted the design science research paradigm and proposed an economic decision model as artefact. The decision model assists organizations in selecting and scheduling exploration and exploitation projects to become ambidextrous in an economically reasonable manner. As for justificatory knowledge, the decision model draws from prescriptive knowledge on project portfolio management and value-based management, and from descriptive knowledge related to OA to structure the field of action. To evaluate the decision model, we discussed its design specification against theory-backed design objectives and with industry experts. We also instantiated the decision model as a software prototype and applied the prototype to a case based on real-world data.

Despite substantial investments in business process management (BPM), every organization experiences deviant processes, i.e., processes that show different behavior than intended. Thus, process deviance is an essential topic of BPM research and practice. Today, research on process deviance is mainly driven from a computer science perspective. IT-based methods and tools (e.g., deviance mining and prediction or compliance checking) detect process deviance by comparing log data from past process instances with normative process models or execution traces of currently running instances. However, requiring process models and event logs as input, existing approaches are expensive and limited to processes executed in automated workflow environments. Further, they can only detect process deviance, not explain why it occurs. Thus, knowledge about reasons for process deviance is immature. What is missing is a systematic exploration of reasons for process Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (