JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS - PART C: APPLICATION AND REVIEWS, VOL. X, NO. X, MONTH YEAR 1
Unleashing the Effectiveness of Process-oriented
Information Systems: Problem Analysis,
Critical Success Factors, Implications
Bela Mutschler, Manfred Reichert, and Johannes Bumiller
Abstract—Process-oriented information systems (IS) aim at the computerized support of business processes. So far, contemporary IS have often fail
to meet this goal. To better understand this drawback, to systematically identify its rationales, and to derive critical success factors for business process
support, we conducted three empirical studies: an exploratory case study in the automotive domain, an online survey among 79 IT professionals, and
another online survey among 70 business process management (BPM) experts. This paper summarizes the findings of these studies, puts them in
relation with each other, and uses them to show that ”process-orientation” is scarce and ”process-awareness” is needed in IS engineering.
Index Terms—Process-oriented Information Systems, Business Process Support, Critical Success Factors, Case Study, Online Survey.
✦
1 MOTIVATION
Providing effective IT support for business processes has be-
come crucial for enterprises to stay competitive in their market
[1]. In the automotive domain, for example, a broad spectrum
of business processes, ranging from simple administrative
procedures to very complex, knowledge-intense engineering
processes has to be effectively supported [2], [3]. Similar
scenarios exist in many other domains like e-commerce [4],
transportation [5], or healthcare [6]. In all these cases, domain-
specific processes must be defined, implemented, enacted,
monitored, and continuously adapted to a changing context.
Thus, process life cycle support [7] and continuous process
improvement adopt a key role in contemporary and future
enterprise computing.
The process life cycle (cf. Fig. 1) starts with the (re)de-
sign of a business process. Process modeling and process
analysis tools can be used during this phase. Thereafter,
the business process has to be implemented resulting in a
process-oriented IS. As a typical example consider a product
data management (PDM) system which offers a broad range
of business functions to deploy models and documentation
of the managed product(s) to involved user groups (e.g.,
engineers, managers, suppliers). Following the implementation
and deployment phase, multiple instances of the implemented
business process can be created and executed during the enact-
ment phase. Finally, process enactment logs can be analyzed
and mined in the diagnosis phase to identify potentials for
process optimizations.
This paper focuses on the implementation phase, i.e., the
development and maintenance of process-oriented IS. We
investigate why contemporary IS often fail to provide effective
•B. Mutschler and J. Bumiller are with the Department Process
Design, DaimlerChrysler Group Research, Ulm, Germany (email:
{bela.mutschler;johannes.bumiller}@daimlerchrysler.com).
•M. Reichert is with the Information Systems Group, University of Twente,
Manuscript received November 28, 2006; revised March 14, 2007.
Process
Design
Process
Implementation
Process
Enactment
Process
Diagnosis
Fig. 1. Process Life Cycle [7].
business process support. We will consider business process
support as being effective, if the following two goals are
achieved: (1) the cost-effective implementation or customiza-
tion of processes, and (2) the availability of a technical
infrastructure supporting all phases of the process life cycle.
Based on this, our empirical work has been guided by the
following two research questions:
•Research Question 1:What are the major problems
leading to ineffective process support by IS?
•Research Question 2:What are critical success factors
enabling effective process support by IS?
In order to cope with these research questions, we conducted
three empirical studies (cf. Fig. 2): one exploratory case study
and two online surveys. The case study was accomplished in
the automotive domain. Its goal was to identify major problem
areas derogating the development and operational use of IS in
practice. Following this case study, we accomplished an online
survey among IT professionals in order to analyze and study
selected findings of our case study in more detail. Finally, we
conducted another online survey among BPM experts to derive
critical success factors for process-oriented IS. While the first
two studies address Research Question 1, the second survey
is associated with Research Question 2 (cf. Fig. 2).
This work has been conducted in the EcoPOST project
[8], [9], [10]. This project deals with the development of
a comprehensive methodology, which enables IS engineers
Study 1 Deriving the Baseline
Step 1: Interviews with Domain
Experts and IS Users
Step 2: Analysis of Process &
Software Documentation
Step 3: Derivation of Shortcomings
and Problem Areas
Engineers, Draw Chek-
kers, Documentarists, etc.
System Handbooks, Pro-
cess Instructions, etc.
>120 Critical Items,
5 Problem Areas
Step 5: Cross-organizational
Survey involving BPM Experts
Step 4: Cross-organizational
Survey involving IT Professionals
79 Participants from more
than 65 Enterprises
Exploratory
Case Study
70 Participants from more
than 55 Organizations
First
Survey
Second
Survey
1
2
3
Study 2 Detailed Analysis of Selected Issues
Study 3 Critical Success Factor Analysis
Research
Question 1
Research
Question 2
Consecutive Accomplishment
Steps: Information Sources:
Case Study Results:
Information Source:Online Survey:
Information Source:Online Survey:
Fig. 2. Three Empirical Studies.
to model and evaluate the complex economics of process-
oriented IS. In particular, we focus on the interplay between
technological, organizational, and project-specific evaluation
factors and resulting effects.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section
2 summarizes findings of the case study and details them
based on results of the first survey. Section 3 summarizes
results of the second survey. Section 4 discusses our overall
findings and explains why ”process-orientation” is scarce and
”process-awareness” is needed in IS engineering. Section 5
shows how we utilized our results in the EcoPOST project.
Section 6 discusses related work, and Section 7 concludes with
a summary and an outlook.
2 PROBLEM INVESTIGATION
This section summarizes and discusses major findings of our
case study and our first survey.
2.1 Deriving the Baseline: An Exploratory Case Study in
the Automotive Domain
Over a period of three months we analyze two characteristic
automotive processes (a release management process and a
data retrieval process) as well as their IT support (e.g., by
a PDM system with more than 5000 users). We conduct
26 interviews with software developers, domain experts, and
end users. The interviews are based on a predefined, semi-
structured protocol comprising two parts. The first one ad-
dresses the investigated process, whereas the second part deals
with specific problems of the supporting IS. Besides, we
analyze process documentation and organizational handbooks.
Altogether, we collect more than 120 shortcomings related
to the development and operational use of the investigated IS.
These included both organizational and technological aspects.
Due to lack of space, we cannot present all of these 120
shortcomings in detail. Instead, we summarize major results
along five main problem areas:
•Problem Area 1: Process Evolution. According to our
case study, many problems are related to the evolution of
business processes and their variability. In the analyzed
domain, frequent process changes require the continuous
adaptation of the supporting IS. However, realizing such
adaptations is a difficult task to accomplish (cf. Problem
Area 2 and Problem Area 3).
•Problem Area 2: Hard-coded Process Logic. The ana-
lyzed IS exhibit a ”hard-coded” process logic, i.e., process
logic is hidden in the application code and is not sepa-
rately managed, e.g., by a workflow management system
(WfMS). Each time a business process changes, deep
inspections and customizations of source code modules
become necessary. This, in turn, results in large efforts
and inefficient IS adaptations.
•Problem Area 3: Complex Software Customizing. The
analyzed IS are realized based on standard software
components. Insufficient customization features of these
components also result in an ineffective adaptation of
process changes. In particular, existing software compo-
nents lack possibilities to customize process logic at a
sufficiently flexible and detailed level. This complicates
the alignment of process-oriented IS to organization-
specific requirements.
Besides these fundamental problem areas, we have iden-
tified two additional problem areas. These are not directly
related to the development of IS, but can be linked to the
analysis of requirements prior to IS implementation:
•Problem Area 4: Inadequate Business Functions. Our
case study reveals that provided business functions do
not effectively support business processes. Many of the
implemented business functions are never used and are
therefore without any ”value”. Other business functions
provide more functionality than actually needed. Also,
business functions which are actually needed for process
support are missing, making the automation of certain
process activities impossible.
•Problem Area 5: Missing Process Information. Some of
the analyzed IS log event-based execution data or status
information (e.g., related to the start and completion of
process activities). However, the structure of log data
differs from system to system. Hence, keeping track of the
processes or mining them generates large efforts (e.g., for
normalizing available data). In any case, missing process
information makes it difficult to identify possible process
optimizations, process cycle times are longer than needed,
and resources are not allocated in a cost-effective way.
In summary, our exploratory case study has provided initial
insight into many practical problems related to the develop-
ment and maintenance of IS.
2.2 A Detailed Analysis of Selected Case Study Findings:
Results from an Online Survey
In order to investigate the most-relevant results from our
domain-specific case study in detail, we performed an ad-
ditional (online) survey. Selected results of this survey are
described in the following.
Background Information. The survey does not only in-
volve IT professionals from the automotive domain, but also
from other organizations and domains as well, such as public
services,public transportation, and steel industry (cf. Fig. 3).
79 IT professionals (equating to a response rate1of 20.2%)
from more than 65 companies from Germany, Austria, and
Switzerland have participated.
Most survey participants are IT consultants or software
engineers. Others work in the field of IT management or IT
controlling. Quality management, project management, and
process design are represented as well.
0
5
10
15
20
25
A B C D E F G H I J K L
A:01 (01.27%) telecommunication
B:22 (27.85%) IT
C:22 (27.85%) IT consulting
D:04 (05.06%) automotive
E:00 (00.00%) aerospace
F:03 (03.80%) pharmaceutical/chemical
G:02 (02.53%) engineering
H:09 (11.39%) financial sector
I :01 (01.27%) energy sector
J:01 (01.27%) service sector
K:01 (01.27%) industrial research
L:11 (13.92%) other
absolute nominations*
*Two participants did not answer this question.
Fig. 3. Survey Background Information.
The questionnaire has been distributed via a Web-based
delivery platform and comprises 29 questions. Most questions
are structured, i.e., they provide a predefined set of possible
answers. Some questions additionally allow to denote other
than predefined answers. Some questions also allow to denote
multiple answers (such questions are designated with ”*” in
the subsequent Figures, e.g., in Fig. 7).
Survey Results. We first asked the survey participants
whether the current degree of process-orientation is sufficient.
25.32% of the participants state that IS only partly provide
a sufficient degree of process-orientation (cf. Fig. 4). 8.86%
even state that current IS do not provide a sufficient degree of
process orientation at all. 29.11% of the participants consider
the realized process support neither as problematic nor as ad-
vantageous. Only 32.92% of the participants consider available
business process support as (largely or completely) sufficient.
One of the problem areas identified during our case study
concerns process evolution (cf. Problem Area 1). Survey
results confirm that the need to continuously adapt IS to
1. Mehta and Sivadas [11] describe that response rates for electronic surveys
range from 40% to 64%. Bachmann et. al [12] identify response rates of 19%
for email and 46% for mail surveys. Falconer and Hodgett [13] note that
reasonable response rates for IS research are likely to be in the range of
10% to 35%. Thus, given the low response rates to IS and email surveys in
general, and the large number of 29 questions, we regard the response rate to
our survey as acceptable.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Question: Do process-oriented IS provide a
sufficient degree of business process support?
A B C D E F
absolute nominations
A:01 (01,27%) yes
B:25 (31,65%) largely
C:23 (29,11%) indifferent
D:20 (25,32%) only partly
E:07 (08,86%) no
F:03 (03,80%) don’t know
Fig. 4. Degree of Process Support.
evolving processes constitutes a problem in practice. 43.04%
of the survey respondents (cf. Fig. 5) answer the question,
whether their current enterprise IS can be adopted to evolving
business processes (and therefore to evolving requirements)
quickly enough with no (2.53%) or only partly (40.51%). Only
2.53% answer this question with yes, 27.85% with largely.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Question: Can process-oriented IS be adopted to
evolving business processes quickly enough?
ABCD
A:02 (02,53%) yes
B:22 (27,85%) largely
C:18 (22,78%) indifferent
D:32 (40,51%) only partly
E:02 (02,53%) no
F:03 (03,80%) don’t know
E F
absolute nominations
Fig. 5. Information System Adaptations.
More than 90% of the participants agree that business
processes change very often,often or sometimes in their
organization (cf. Fig. 6A).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Question: Will the frequency of business process change
increase in future when compared to today?
A:54 (68,35%) increase
B:18 (22,78%) indifferent
C:05 (06,33%) decrease
D:02 (02,53%) don’t know
absolute nominations
AB C D
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Question: How often do business processes
change in your organisation?
A B C D E F
A:02 (02,53%) very often
B:36 (45,57%) often
C:36 (45,57%) sometimes
D:04 (05,06%) rarely
E:00 (00,00%) never
F:01 (01,27%) don’t know
absolute nominations
A
B
Fig. 6. Process Changes.
Additionally, 68.35% believe that the frequency of business
process changes will increase in future (cf. Fig. 6B).
We also analyzed drivers for process evolution. Participants
state that the need for process optimization (65.82%) is thereby
the most important driver (cf. Fig. 7). Others are organiza-
tional engineering (49.37%), compliance issues (46.84%), and
market dynamics (49.37%).
Question: What are factors leading to business processes evolution?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
absolute nominations
A:39
B:37
C:52
D:39
E:26
F:22
G:20
H:08
I :03
J:15
K:08
L:18
M:04
N:26
O:00
P:02
(49,37%)
(46,84%)
(65,82%)
(49,37%)
(32,91%)
(27,85%)
(25,32%)
(10,13%)
(03,08%)
(18,99%)
(10,13%)
(22,78%)
(05,06%)
(32,91%)
(00,00%)
(02,53%)
organizational engineering
laws and policies (compliance)
process optimizations
market dynamics
management order
change of enterprise goals
new software technologies
new hardware technologies
compatibility with suppliers
compatibility with customers
norms and standards
high process complexity
low user acceptance
quality program
don’t know
others
Fig. 7. Drivers of Evolution*.
Besides, we also investigate the problem of inadequate
business function support in more detail (cf. Problem Area
4). 45.57% of the respondents share the opinion that business
process requirements (specifying which business functions are
to be implemented) must be considered when developing an
IS (cf. Fig. 8A).
0
10
20
30
40
50
Question: The requirements and needs of the business
processes are currently considered when developing
respectively customizing process-oriented IS?
A B C D
A:07 (08,86%) yes
B:42 (53,16%) largely
C:15 (18,99%) indifferent
D:13 (16,46%) only partly
E:00 (00,00%) no
F:02 (02,53%) don’t know
EF
absolute nominations
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Question: The requirements and needs of the business
processes should be considered when developing
respectively customizing process-oriented IS?
A B C D
A:36 (45,57%) yes
B:33 (41,77%) if possible
C:07 (08,86%) indifferent
D:01 (01,27%) only partly
E:01 (01,27%) no
F:01 (01,27%) don’t know
E F
absolute nominations
A
B
Fig. 8. Considering Process Requirements.
41.77% state that respective requirements should be consid-
ered if possible. Therewith, 87.34% of the participants expect
business process requirements to be considered when imple-
menting an IS. However, and this is important, only 62.02%
of the participants acknowledge that respective requirements
are indeed (yes and largely) considered when developing IS
(cf. Fig. 8B).
2.3 Discussion
The results of both our case study and our online survey
show that current IS are unable to provide business process
support as needed in practice. In our case study, we have
identified five major reasons for this drawback: (i) continuous
evolution of business processes, (ii) hard-coded process logic
of the supporting IS, (iii) complex software customization,
(iv) inadequate business functions, and (v) missing process
information.
Our survey confirms these problems. Moreover, it provides
further insights, e.g., into the drivers of process evolution or
the compliance of IS with process requirements. Picking up
Research Question 1, our results provide insights into critical
issues aggravating the introduction and operational use of IS.
3 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR ANALYSIS
In order to derive critical success factors (CSF) for achieving
effective business process support (cf. Research Question 2),
we have conducted a second online survey. As we want
to identify success factors from a business process support
perspective, only BPM experts have been involved in this
survey. This section gives background information about this
survey, presents major results, and discusses them.
3.1 Background Information
We performed our second survey over a period of two months
in 2006. Like the first one, it was distributed via a Web-based
questionnaire. The number of 70 participants corresponds to a
response rate of 26.21%. Fig. 9 gives background information
about survey participants.
The questionnaire is based on a profound literature study on
critical success factors (CSF) for IS implementation in general
(cf. Section 6) as well as on the results of the case study and
our first online survey.
3.2 Survey Results
Basic to the survey2is the distinction between organization,
project-, and technology-specific CSFs.
Organization-specific Critical Success Factors. Organi-
zation-specific CSFs deal with attributes of an organization
that bias the development of process-oriented IS. As an
example consider domain knowledge and its positive impact
on the redesign of business processes. Another example is
provided by organizational process maturity. Process maturity
can be assessed by dedicated maturity models that describe
characteristics of effective process organizations. Examples are
the capability maturity model integration (CMMI) [15] or the
software process improvement and capability determination
(SPICE) model [16]. If the process maturity of an organization
is low, it will be more difficult to implement (optimized)
business processes.
In our survey, end user participation (47.14%) and access to
required information (42.86%) are those organization-specific
CSFs that aggregate most nominations as ”essential factor”
2. We have described the complete findings of this survey in [14].
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
A B C D E F
Question: How would you rate your own knowledge regarding BPM?
absolute nominations
A:16
B:36
C:12
D:05
E:00
F:01
(22.86%)
(51.43%)
(17.14%)
(07.14%)
(00.00%)
(01.43%)
expert knowledge
good knowledge
some knowledge
little knowledge
no knowledge
don’t know
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
A B C D E
Question: How long are you working in the field of BPM?
absolute nominations
A:25
B:20
C:16
D:07
E:02
(35.71%)
(28.57%)
(22.86%)
(10.00%)
(02.86%)
>5 years
>3 years
>1 year
<1 year
don’t know
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
A B C D E
Question: What is your background?
absolute nominations
A:46
B:04
C:12
D:00
E:08
(65.71%)
(05.71%)
(17.14%)
(00.00%)
(11.43%)
university
industrial research
industrial
don’t know
other
A
B
C
Fig. 9. Survey Background Information.
(cf. Fig. 10). Factors that are considered as ”very important”
are as follows: reorganization of information,availability of
process documentation,ability to redesign business processes,
and the ability of an organization to adapt its IT governance.
In order to better understand the relevance of the analyzed
evaluation factors, Fig. 11 shows the mean for each CSF.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10
Question: Evaluate the following ORGANIZATION-specific critical
success factors regarding their importance for the use of BPM technology.
absolute nominations
Q 1
Q 2
Q 3
Q 4
Q 5
Q 6
Q 7
Q 8
Q 9
Q 10
A
(22.86%)
(34.29%)
(18.57%)
(32.86%)
(47.14%)
(42.86%)
(12.86%)
(14.29%)
(10.00%)
(17.14%)
Experiences in using BPM technology
Ability to redesign business processes
Reorganization of information
Domain knowledge
End user participation
Access to required information
Organizational process maturity
Availability of process documentation
Mature technology infrastructure
Ability to adapt the IT governance
E
(08.57%)
(07.14%)
(07.14%)
(11.43%)
(05.71%)
(07.14%)
(07.14%)
(05.71%)
(08.57%)
(08.57%)
D
(01.43%)
(00.00%)
(01.43%)
(05.71%)
(01.43%)
(00.00%)
(10.00%)
(07.14%)
(12.86%)
(10.00%)
C
(41.43%)
(20.00%)
(24.29%)
(12.86%)
(15.71%)
(17.14%)
(32.86%)
(44.29%)
(44.29%)
(35.71%)
B
(25.71%)
(38.57%)
(48.57%)
(37.14%)
(30.00%)
(32.86%)
(37.14%)
(28.57%)
(24.29%)
(28.57%)
Aessential Bvery important Cimportant D unimportant Edon’t know
Fig. 10. Organizational CSFs.
Project-specific Critical Success Factors. Project-specific
End user participation
10 3
unimportant
important
2
very important
Experiences in using BPM technology
Ability to redesign/reengineer business processes
Reorganization of information
Domain knowledge
Access to required information
Organizational process maturity
essential
Availability of process documentation
Mature technology infrastructure
Ability to adapt the IT governance
Organization-specific
Critical Success Factors
(shows the mean
for each factor)
Mean Values
Fig. 11. Organizational CSFs (Means).
CSFs deal with project-driven attributes which influence the
development of process-oriented IS. As examples consider
factors such as knowledge about existing processes or access
to required skills.
Question: Evaluate the following PROJECT-specific critical success
factors regarding their importance for the use of BPM technology.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10 Q 11 Q 12 Q 13
absolute nominations
Aessential Bvery important Cimportant D unimportant Edon’t know
Q 1
Q 2
Q 3
Q 4
Q 5
Q 6
Q 7
Q 8
Q 9
Q 10
Q 11
Q 12
Q 13
A
(35.71%)
(32.86%)
(25.71%)
(11.43%)
(04.29%)
(02.86%)
(20.00%)
(45.71%)
(67.14%)
(15.71%)
(25.71%)
(22.86%)
(38.57%)
Overview of existing processes
Knowledge about existing processes
Information about existing processes
Evolutionary process redesign
Revolutionary process redesign
Degree of job redesign
End user fears
Communication with end users
Management commitment
Use of process modeling tools
Adequate planning
Access to required skills
Motivation for the project
E
(11.43%)
(10.00%)
(10.00%)
(14.29%)
(17.14%)
(18.57%)
(18.57%)
(10.00%)
(10.00%)
(08.57%)
(08.57%)
(10.00%)
(08.57%)
D
(01.43%)
(01.43%)
(00.00%)
(08.57%)
(15.71%)
(12.86%)
(02.86%)
(01.43%)
(01.43%)
(02.86%)
(02.86%)
(02.86%)
(01.43%)
C
(20.00%)
(18.57%)
(32.86%)
(44.29%)
(44.29%)
(45.71%)
(17.14%)
(12.86%)
(05.71%)
(40.00%)
(28.57%)
(27.14%)
(18.57%)
B
(31.43%)
(37.14%)
(31.43%)
(21.43%)
(18.57%)
(20.00%)
(41.43%)
(30.00%)
(15.71%)
(32.86%)
(34.29%)
(37.14%)
(32.86%)
Fig. 12. Project-specific CSFs.
According to our survey (cf. Fig. 12), management commit-
ment (67.14%) and communication with end users (45.71%)
aggregate most nominations as ”essential” project-specific
factors. Several other CSFs are considered as ”very important”,
including degree of job redesign,information about existing
processes, and project motivation. Fig. 13 shows the mean for
each CSF.
Technology-specific Critical Success Factors. Technolo-
gy-specific CSFs deal with the technical infrastructure for
developing and maintaining IS. As an example consider the
degree of flexibility provided by an IS (e.g., regarding its ability
to allow for dynamic process changes at run-time; cf. Problem
Area 1). Another example is the use of standards for process
specification (e.g., BPMN, WS-BPEL, BPML).
10 32
unimportant
important
very important
essential
Revolutionary process redesign
Overview of existing processes
Knowledge about existing processes
Information about existing processes
Evolutionary process redesign
Degree of job redesign
End user fears
Communication with end users
Management commitment
Use of process modeling tools
Adequate planning
Access to required skills
Motivation for the project
Project-specific Critical
Success Factors
(shows the mean
for each factor)
Mean Values
Fig. 13. Project-specific CSFs (Means).
Finally, consider the availability of development tools.
Recently, business process intelligence (BPI) tools [17] are
often discusses in this context. BPI tools analyze event-based
process execution data (e.g., start and completion times of
process activities, resources consumed by a process activity,
process cycle times).
Question: Evaluate the following TECHNOLOGY-specific critical success
factors regarding their importance for the use of BPM technology.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10 Q 11 Q 12
absolute nominations
Aessential Bvery important Cimportant D unimportant Edon’t know
Q 1
Q 2
Q 3
Q 4
Q 5
Q 6
Q 7
Q 8
Q 9
Q 10
Q 11
Q 12
A
(12.86%)
(10.00%)
(12.86%)
(12.86%)
(07.14%)
(14.29%)
(04.29%)
(17.14%)
(05.71%)
(05.71%)
(20.00%)
(04.29%)
Technical maturity of the BPM platform
Experiences using the BPM platform
Available support for the BPM platform
Supported degree of process flexibility
Availability of developing tools
Support of standards and norms
Low license costs
Good documentation
Regular product updates
Model-driven application development
Usability of the BPM platform
Powerful application programming interface
E
(12.86%)
(11.43%)
(11.43%)
(11.43%)
(15.71%)
(11.43%)
(12.86%)
(12.86%)
(12.86%)
(14.29%)
(11.43%)
(14.29%)
D
(04.29%)
(11.43%)
(07.14%)
(08.57%)
(08.57%)
(14.29%)
(34.29%)
(04.29%)
(30.00%)
(15.71%)
(04.29%)
(17.14%)
C
(38.57%)
(35.71%)
(32.86%)
(27.14%)
(34.29%)
(32.86%)
(35.71%)
(27.14%)
(38.57%)
(37.14%)
(27.14%)
(32.86%)
B
(31.43%)
(31.43%)
(35.71%)
(40.00%)
(34.29%)
(27.14%)
(12.86%)
(38.57%)
(12.86%)
(27.14%)
(37.14%)
(31.43%)
Fig. 14. Technological CSFs.
Interestingly, none of the listed technology-specific CSFs
is considered as essential by the majority of the survey
respondents (cf. Fig. 14). Good documentation (17.14%) and
usability (20%) get most nominations as ”essential factors”.
Moreover, these two factors are considered as ”very important”
by many survey participants (38.57% and 37.14%).
Several CSFs are considered as ”very important” or ”im-
portant”. These CSFs include: available vendor support for a
BPM system and availability of suitable development tools.
Note that the number of survey respondents giving no
answer (i.e., denoting ”don’t know”) does only slightly vary
along the analysis of technology-specific CSFs (cf. Fig. 14).
This indicates that some survey participants might not have
been able to interpret the listed CSFs. Fig. 15 shows the mean
for each CSF.
Availability of developing tools
Technical maturity of the BPM platform
Experiences using the BPM platform
Available support for the BPM platform
Supported degree of process flexibility
Support of standards and norms
Low license costs
Good documentation
Regular product updates
Model-driven application development
Usability of the BPM platform
Powerful application programming interface
10 32
unimportant
important
very important
essential
Technology-specific
Critical Success Factors
(shows the mean
for each factor)
Mean Values
Fig. 15. Technological CSFs (Means).
3.3 Discussion
Based on the results of the second survey, we answer Research
Question 2 (cf. Section 1). Thereby, it seems hardly possible
to consider all technology-specific CSFs when introducing an
IS. In any case, these CSFs represent a validated baseline
for enterprises that want to increase the effectiveness of their
process-oriented IS.
Basic to our survey is the distinction between organization-
, project-, and technology-specific CSFs. It is possible to
categorize CSFs in another way (e.g., using more technical
categories). We consider the chosen categorization as the most
useful one. In particular, it provides an intuitive baseline that
can be easily understood by IT professionals (including our
survey participants).
To ensure internal validity of our survey results we have
developed the questionnaire based on the results of the pre-
ceding case study and online survey as well as on a literature
study on CSFs for IS implementation (cf. Section 6).
To increase external validity, only BPM experts may par-
ticipate, i.e., we exclude answers of respondents having no
”process background” since the ”assumed answers” of these
participants would falsify results. In this context, it is also
important to mention that the survey questionnaire has allowed
to denote other than the predefined answers. However, this
opportunity was not used.
4 IMPLICATIONS
Based on results of our first survey, we take a closer look at the
dissemination of process-oriented software technologies and
explain why ”process-orientation” is scarce and why ”process-
awareness” is needed in practice.
4.1 Process-oriented Software Technologies
In recent years, many process support paradigms (e.g., work-
flow management, service orchestration and service choreogra-
phy, case handling), process specification standards (e.g., WS-
BPEL, BPML, BPMN), and BPM tools (e.g., ARIS Toolset,
Tibco Staffware, FLOWer) have emerged [18]. Their goal is
to realize effective IT support for business processes. In our
first survey, we have investigated the dissemination of these
approaches in more detail.
63.29% of the respondents confirm the use of WfMS (cf.
Fig. 16). 36.71% even deploy more comprehensive BPM
systems. 53.16% of the respondents confirm the (exploratory)
use of web services. 32.91% already set up complete service-
oriented architectures.Enterprise application integration plat-
forms (e.g., to enable process integration) are applied by
39.24% of the respondents.
These results do not allow for any conclusion regarding
the extent to which enterprises use a respective technology.
Nevertheless, the increasing importance and use of process-
oriented software technologies is indicated.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
A B C D E F G H
Question: Which software technologies are
used in your organization today?
I J K L M
absolute nominations
A:50
B:29
C:31
D:26
E:19
F:25
G:53
H:36
I :24
J:42
K:27
L:05
M:03
(63,29%)
(36,71%)
(39,24%)
(32,91%)
(24,05%)
(31,65%)
(54,43%)
(45,57%)
(30,38%)
(53,16%)
(34,18%)
(06,33%)
(03,80%)
Workflow management systems
BPM systems
Enterprise application integration
Service-oriented architectures
Rule-based systems
Process portals
Knowledge and enterprise portals
Data warehousing technologies
Business intelligence
Web services
Collaboration tools
Don’t know
Others
Fig. 16. Technologies used Today*.
In order to investigate the sustainability of this trend, we
have asked survey participants about which process-oriented
software technologies they will use in future (cf. Fig. 17). The
most frequent answers are WfMS (39.24%), services-oriented
architectures (36.71%), web services (32.91%), and process
portals (30.38%). This indicates a continuing dissemination
of process-oriented software technologies.
4.2 Process-aware Information Systems
Our empirical studies (cf. Fig. 18) indicate that providing
effective business process support by IS is a difficult task
Question: Which software technologies are
planned to be used in your organization in the future?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
A B C D E F G H I J K L M
absolute nominations
A:31
B:22
C:17
D:29
E:12
F:24
G:21
H:21
I :23
J:26
K:17
L:16
M:04
(39,24%)
(27,85%)
(21,52%)
(36,71%)
(15,19%)
(30,38%)
(26,58%)
(26,58%)
(29,11%)
(32,91%)
(21,52%)
(20,25%)
(06,06%)
Workflow management systems
BPM systems
Enterprise application integration
Service-oriented architectures
Rule-based systems
Process portals
Knowledge and enterprise portals
Data warehousing technologies
Business intelligence
Web services
Collaboration tools
Don’t know
Others
Fig. 17. Technologies used Tomorrow*.
to accomplish. The currently realized degree of ”process-
orientation” in IS is by far not satisfactory. By contrast,
enterprises more and more crave for approaches that enable
them to improve their business process performance. Reflect-
ing the aforementioned results, we conclude that conventional
process-oriented IS are scarce. What we need instead, are
process-aware IS (PAIS), i.e., IS that support all phases all
of the process life cycle.
PAIS can be implemented in two ways [18]: (1) by de-
veloping an organization-specific process support system, or
(2) by configuring a generic process support system. In the
former case, the PAIS is build ”from scratch” and incorporates
organization-specific information about the structure and pro-
cesses to be supported. As an example consider an enterprise
resource planning (ERP) system. In the latter case, the PAIS
does not contain any information about the structure and the
processes of a particular organization. Instead, an organization
needs to configure the PAIS by specifying processes, organi-
zational entities, and business objects. As an example consider
the configuration of a WfMS.
In any case, PAIS strictly separate process logic (comprising
the activities to be executed) from application code [19], i.e.,
PAIS are driven by process models rather than program code.
PAIS are realized based on powerful process engines which
orchestrate processes at run-time [20]. These process engines
also provide extensive libraries of process-oriented functions at
build-time, e.g., for accomplishing automatic process analysis
(based on BPI tools). Empirical studies [21] confirm that
PAIS enable the fast and cost-effective implementation and
customization of new and of existing processes (cf. Problem
Areas 2 + 3).
Realizing PAIS also implies a significant shift in the field
of IS engineering. Traditional IS engineering methods and
paradigms (e.g., procedural programming) have to be supple-
mented with engineering principles particularly enhancing the
operational support of business processes. This is crucial to tie
up to those requirements that have been neglected by current
Organization-specific CSFs Technology-specific CSFs
Process-oriented
Information Systems
Problem
Areas (PA)
Process-aware
Information Systems
Critical
Success
Factors
enable the
introduction of
Project-specific CSFs
Process
Evolution
Hard-coded
Process Logic
Complex Soft-
ware Customizing
Inadequate
Business Functions
Missing Pro-
cess Information
Case Study
Survey 2
Research Question 1: What are the major problems leading to ineffective process support by IS?
Research Question 2: What are CSFs enabling effective process support by IS?
PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PA5
Survey 1
Subject of
Analysis
promise to
overcome
Fig. 18. Three Empirical Studies: The Big Picture.
process-oriented IS so far. However, such a shift is difficult
to accomplish as IS projects often use software technologies
– at least today – that do not support the needed degree of
process-orientation.
5 UTILIZING OUR RESULTS IN ECOPOST
In the EcoPOST project, we are developing a framework for
modeling and investigating the complex interplay between the
numerous technological, organizational and project-driven cost
and impact factors which arise in the context of process-
oriented IS and PAIS (and which do only partly exist in
projects dealing with data- or function-centered IS).
Costs for business process redesign, for example, may be
influenced by an intangible impact factor ”Willingness of Staff
Members to support Redesign Activities”. If staff members
do not contribute to a redesign project by providing needed
information (e.g., about process bottlenecks), any redesign
effort will be ineffective and will increase costs. If staff
willingness is additionally varying during the redesign activity
(e.g., due to a changing communication policy), business
process redesign costs will be subject to more complex effects.
5.1 Motivating Example
In order to make the dependencies and the interplay between
technological, organizational and project-driven factors ex-
plicit in the EcoPOST project, we have developed the notion
of evaluation models [10]. These models are formulated using
the System Dynamics notation [22]. In addition, they can be
simulated in order to unfold the dynamic behavior described
by them. In the following, we abstract from formal and
technical details regarding our evaluation models. Instead, we
show how we validate our evaluation models based on the
present survey results along an example.
Example. Fig. 19 shows a model which describes the
influence of an impact factor ”End User Fears” on a cost factor
”Costs for Business Process Redesign”. More specifically, this
model reflects the assumption that the introduction of a PAIS
may cause end user fears, e.g., due to job redesign and due
to changed social clues. Such fears can lead to emotional
resistance of end users. This, in turn, can make it difficult to
get needed support from end users, e.g., during an interview-
based process analysis.
Illustrating Example: Analyzing the Role of „End User Fears“
LOOP
Degree of
Job Redesign
Change of
Social Clue and
Interactions
End User
Fears
Communication
Ability to redesign
Business
Processes Ability to
acquire Process
Knowledge
Emotional
Resistance of
End Users
+
-
+
+
-
+
Costs for Business
Process Redesign
+
+
Fig. 19. Modeling the Impact of User Fears.
Basic to this evaluation model is a cyclic structure (or
feedback loop) connecting the four factors ”End User Fears”,
”Emotional Resistance of End Users”, ”Ability to acquire
Process Knowledge”, and ”Ability to redesign Business Pro-
cesses”. Their arrangement illustrates the following coherence:
increasing end user fears lead to increasing emotional resis-
tance of end users. This dependency is represented by a ”pos-
itive link” from ”End User Fears” to ”Emotional Resistance
of End Users” (cf. Fig. 19).
In our evaluation models, a positive link between variables x
and y (with y the dependent variable) indicates that y tends in
the same direction if a change occurs in x. A negative link, by
contrast, would denote that y tends in the opposite direction.
Returning to our example, an increasing emotional resis-
tance of end users may result in a decreasing ability to ac-
quire process knowledge. Reason is that increasing emotional
resistance makes profound process analysis, e.g., based on
interviews with process participants, a difficult task to accom-
plish. This causal dependency is represented by a negative
link pointing from ”Emotional Resistance of End Users” to
”Ability to acquire Process Knowledge”.
The inability to acquire process knowledge, in turn, may
result in a decreasing ability to redesign business processes (as
needed information is missing). Finally, an increasing ability
to redesign business processes can even enforce end user
fears. Reason is that end users often consider business process
redesign activities as a potential threat for their own job.
Note that the variable ”End User Fears” is not only influ-
enced by the ”Ability to redesign Business Processes”, but
by other variables as well, e.g., the expected ”Degree of Job
Redesign” or the ”Change of Social Clue and Interactions”.
Moreover, ”Communication” can decrease end user fears, e.g.,
by informing end users about the goals associated with the
introduction of a PAIS. This is described by a negative link
pointing from ”Communication” to ”End User Fears”.
Model Validation. Such evaluation models (cf. Fig. 19) are
of significant value for PAIS engineers. They can be used, for
example, as a starting point for building more complex eval-
uation models enabling the performance of cost simulations
[23], or as a means for clarifying causal dependencies in PAIS
engineering projects.
However, the expressiveness of such evaluation models
depends on the availability, plausibility and resilience of data
supporting the modeled causal dependencies. One approach to
derive such data is the accomplishment of both empirical and
experimental research activities (e.g., software experiments,
online surveys, case studies).
Taking the results of our second online survey (cf. Section
3), for example, we can validate some of the causal depen-
dencies from the evaluation model in Fig. 19.
5.2 Empirical Model Validation
In the second online survey we analyzed, for example, the
causal dependency between ”End User Fears” and ”Emotional
resistance of End Users” as well as the dependency between
”Communication” and ”End User Fears”.
For this purpose, we use a four-step sequence of questions
to derive data. First, we ask for the relevance of a given factor
(Question 1). Second, we want to know whether there exists a
causal dependency between this factor and another one (Ques-
tion 2). Only those survey participants – and this is important
for understanding related results – who answer this second
question with ”yes” are directed to two additional questions.
These additional questions deal with the further specification
of the previously confirmed dependency. Question 3 deals
with the semantic specification of the dependency, whereas
Question 4 addresses the strength of the impact.
0
5
10
15
20
25
A B C D E
Question 4: How strong is the specified impact of this relationship?
absolute nominations
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
A B C D E F
Question 3: What is the direction of this relationship?
absolute nominations
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
A B C
Question 2: Does there exists a relationship between end user
fears and emotional resistance against BPM technology?
absolute nominations
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
A B C D E
Question 1: How critical are end user fears for the success
of a BPM project / for introducing BPM technology?
absolute nominations
A
B
C
D
A:20
B:32
C:06
D:04
E:08
(28.57%)
(45.71%)
(08.57%)
(05.71%)
(11.43%)
very critical
critical
negligible
not critical
don’t know
A:49
B:06
C:15
(70.00%)
(08.57%)
(21.43%)
yes
no
don’t know
A:21
B:23
C:03
D:00
E:02
(42.86%)
(46.94%)
(06.12%)
(00.00%)
(04.08%)
very strong
strong
weak
very weak
don’t know
A:41
B:02
C:03
D:00
E:02
F:01
(83.67%)
(04.08%)
(06.12%)
(00:00%)
(04.08%)
(02.04%)
increasing UF increasing ER
increasing UF decreasing ER
increasing ER increasing UF
increasing ER decreasing UF
don't know
there is another relationship
UF = End User Fears
ER = Emotional Resistance
Fig. 20. The Impact of End User Fears.
Dealing with End User Fears. Consider Fig. 20. A majority
of 74.28% of the participants consider end user fears as ”very
critical” (28.57%) or ”critical” (45.71%) for the overall success
of a BPM project (cf. Fig. 20A). More specifically, 70% of
the respondents confirm that there is a relationship between
end user fears and the emotional resistance of end users
against BPM technology (cf. Fig. 20B). This confirms the link
between ”End User Fears” and ”Emotional Resistance of End
Users” in Fig. 19.
What is still not clear at this point is the direction of the
causal dependency – there are several possibilities in this
respect (cf. Fig. 19). However, the semantics of the link can
be clarified based on the next question.
83.67% share the opinion that increasing end user fears
result in increasing emotional resistance (cf. Fig. 20C). This
confirms that ”End User Fears” and ”Emotional Resistance of
End Users” need to be connected with a positive link pointing
from the former variable to the latter one.
Finally, 89.8% of the respondents state (cf. Fig. 20D)
that the impact of end user fears on emotional resistance
is either ”very strong” (42.86%) or ”strong” (46.94%). This
information helps us to quantify the causal dependency when
we simulate the evaluation model.
Dealing with Communication. In the evaluation model
from Fig. 19, we assume that increasing communication results
in decreasing end user fears. 92.86% of the survey participants
consider communication between the stakeholders of a BPM
project as ”essential” (47.14%), ”very important” (35.71%)
or ”important” (10%) for its success. Furthermore, 78.57%
of the respondents confirm that there is a causal dependency
between communication and end user fears. Out of these,
74.55% are the opinion that an increasing communication
results in decreasing end user fears. This confirms that ”Com-
munication” and ”End User Fears” can be connected with a
negative link pointing from the former variable to the latter
one. Finally, 85.45% of the respondents consider the impact
of communication on end user fears as either ”very strong”
(29.09%) or ”strong” (56.36%). This information helps us
when specifying a corresponding EcoPOST simulation model
for this evaluation model.
These results exemplify how we utilize survey results for
validating (or deriving) EcoPOST evaluation models.
6 RELATED WORK
There exist several studies dealing with CSFs for imple-
menting IS, mainly in the context of ERP systems. Yusufa
et. al [24], for example, investigate the introduction of an
ERP system in a large manufacturing organization. This work
focuses on technological and cultural CSFs and compares
expected benefits of the realized ERP system with its actual
ones. Vogt [25] analyzes failed ERP projects and identifies
– from a software engineering viewpoint – factors which
help to avoid such failures. A similar study is described by
Voordijk [26], who investigates ERP implementations in large
construction firms. Mandal et. al [27] describe experiences
gathered during during the planning and implementation stages
of an ERP implementation in a water corporation. Daneva
and Wieringa use a ”success model” for reasoning about
the factors enabling successful ERP implementations [28].
Focusing on risk factors, Sumner [29] investigates the re-
engineering of processes prior to an ERP project. Discussed
issues imply the recruiting and training of IT professionals, the
involvement of consultants, and the integration of application-
specific knowledge and technical expertise into the project
team.
CSFs for workflow implementations are described by Parkes
[30], [31]. Thereby, three CSFs are identified as being particu-
lar important: management commitment, communication, and
participation by end users. Note that our results confirm the
importance of these three factors.
Focusing on organizational issues, Sarmento and Machado
[32] investigate the impact of workflow implementations on
an organization, identify relevant contingency factors, and
describe organizational domains which are affected by a
WfMS. In his qualitative study [33], Kueng also investigates
the impact of WfMS on organizations.
Davenport [34] deals with only one CSF, namely the ability
of an organization to align its IS to business processes and
business strategy. Baroudi et. al [35] investigate the impact of
user involvement on IS usage and information satisfaction.
Their results demonstrate that user involvement during IS
development will enhance system usage and user satisfaction.
Their results also show that growing user satisfaction results
in greater system usage.
All these studies have been considered when conducting our
empirical research. In particular, the work of Parkes [30], [31]
has contributed to the design of the questionnaire for our sec-
ond survey. However, none of these studies distinguishes be-
tween organization-, project-, and technology-specific factors
(though Parkes [30], [31] distinguishes between organizational
and technological factors).
7 SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
Two research questions (cf. Section 1) have guided the em-
pirical research presented in this paper. In this context, we
have conducted three empirical studies: an exploratory case
study in the automotive domain and two cross-organizational
online surveys. The case study and the first survey enable
us to identify and analyze major problems related to the
development, maintenance and operational use of process-
oriented IS (cf. Research Question 1). The second online
survey deals with CSFs for building better, i.e., more effective
process-oriented IS and/or PAIS (cf. Research Question 2).
We have also discussed potential implications of our find-
ings to the field of IS engineering. In particular, we have indi-
cated that mere ”process-orientation” is scarce, but ”process-
awareness” is needed in practice. In this context, we have
also given a short characterization of PAIS. Finally, we have
described the utilization of our results to validate causal de-
pendencies in evaluation models of the EcoPOST framework.
Altogether, this paper provides insights into important issues
and challenges related to the introduction and use of IS in
practice. It helps both IT professionals and researchers to
understand those factors that can improve the operational
effectiveness of process-oriented IS.
Future work will include additional case studies, online
surveys, and controlled software experiments to generate ad-
ditional data we can use for validating our evaluation models.
Finally, we will investigate the impact of agile software
development processes on the realization of PAIS.
REFERENCES
[1] Y. L. Antonucci, Using Workflow Technologies to Improve
Organizational Competitiveness, Int’l. Journal of Management,
14(1), pp.117-126, 1997.
[2] E. Knippel and A. Schulz, Lessons Learned from Implementing
Config. Manag. within Electrical/Electronic Development of an
Automotive OEM, Proc. 14th INCOSE, 2004.
[3] D. M¨
uller, J. Herbst, M. Hammori, and M. Reichert, IT Support
for Release Management Processes in the Automotive Industry,
Proc. 4th BPM, LNCS 4102, pp.368-377, 2006.
[4] J. Gordijn and H. Akkermans, Value-based Requirements En-
gineering: Exploring Innovative E-Commerce Ideas, Int’l. J. of
Requirements Engineering, 8, pp.114-134, 2003.
[5] S. Bassil, Workflow Technology for Complex Socio-Technical
Systems, PhD Thesis, University of Montreal, 2005.
[6] R. Lenz and M. Reichert, IT Support for Healthcare Processes:
Premises, Challenges, Perspectives, Data and Knowledge Engi-
neering, Volume 61, pp.39-58, 2007.
[7] W. M. P. van der Aalst, Business Process Management - A
Personal View, BPM Journal, 10(2), pp.248-253, 2004.
[8] B. Mutschler, M. Reichert, and J. Bumiller, An Approach for
Evaluating WfMS from a Value-Based Perspective, Proc. 10th
IEEE EDOC, pp.477-482, 2006.
[9] B. Mutschler, M. Reichert, and J. Bumiller, Why Process-
Orientation is Scarce: An Empirical Study of Process-oriented
Information Systems in the Automotive Industry, Proc. 10th IEEE
EDOC, pp.433-438, 2006.
[10] B. Mutschler, M. Reichert, and S. Rinderle, Analyzing the
Dynamic Cost Factors of Process-aware Information Systems:
A Model-based Approach, Proc. 19th CAiSE, pp.589-603, 2007.
[11] R. Mehta and E. Sivadas, Comparing Response Rates and
Response Content in Mail versus Electronic Mail Surveyed, J.
of the Market Research Society, 37, pp.429-439, 1995.
[12] D. Bachmann, J. Elfrink, and G. Vazzana, E-mail and Snail
Mail Face Off in Rematch, Marketing Research, 11(4), pp.11-
15, 2000.
[13] D. J. Falconer and R. A. Hodgett, Why Executives Don’t
Respond to Your Survey, Proc. 10th ACIS, pp.279-285, 1999.
[14] B. Mutschler and M. Reichert, A Survey on Evaluation Factors
for Business Process Management Technology, Technical Report
TR-CTIT-06-63, University of Twente, 2006.
[15] CMMI, Capability Maturity Model Integration, Software Engi-
neering Institute: www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/, 2007.
[16] SPICE, Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermi-
nation, www.sqi.gu.edu.au/spice/, 2007.
[17] B. Mutschler, M. Reichert, and J. Bumiller, An Approach
to Quantify the Costs of Business Process Intelligence, Proc.
EMISA Workshop, LNI P-75, pp.152-165, 2005.
[18] M. Dumas, W. M. P. van der Aalst, and A. ter Hofstede,
Process-aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Soft-
ware through Process Technology, Wiley, 2005.
[19] J. Dehnert and W. van der Aalst, Bridging the Gap between
Business Models and Workflow Specification, Int’l. J. of Coop.
IS, 13(3), 289-332, 2004.
[20] M. Reichert, S. Rinderle, U. Kreher, and P. Dadam, Adaptive
Process Management with ADEPT2, Proc. 21th ICDE, pp.1113-
1114, 2005.
[21] N. Kleiner, Can Business Process Changes be cheaper Imple-
mented with Workflow-Management-Systems?, Proc. IRMA ’04,
pp.529-532, 2004.
[22] J. D. Sterman, Business Dynamics - Systems Thinking and
Modeling for a Complex World, McGraw-Hill, 2000.
[23] B. Mutschler and M. Reichert, Exploring the Dynamic Costs
of Process-aware IS through Simulation, Proc. Workshops and
Doctoral Consortium at 19th CAiSE ’07, Volume 1, EMMSAD
Workshop, pp.173-182, 2007.
[24] Y. Yusufa, A. Gunasekaranb, and M. S. Abthorpe, Enterprise
Information Systems Project Implementation: A Case Study of
ERP in Rolls-Royce, Int’l. J. of Production Economics, Volume
87, pp.251-266, 2004.
[25] C. Vogt, Intractable ERP: A comprehensive Analysis of failed
Enterprise-Resource-Planning Projects, ACM SIGSOFT Soft-
ware Engineering Notes, 27(2), pp.62-68, 2002.
[26] H. Voordijk, A. van Leuven, and A. Laan, Enterprise Resource
Planning in a Large Construction Firm: Implementation Anal-
ysis, Construction Management and Economics, 21(5), pp.511-
521, 2003.
[27] P. Mandal and A. Gunasekaran, Issues in Implementing ERP:
A Case Study, European Journal of Operational Research, 146,
pp.274-283, 2003.
[28] M. Daneva and R. Wieringa, A Conceptual Framework for
Research in Cross-organizational ERP Cost Estimation, Proc.
PROMan Workshop, 2005.
[29] M. Sumner, Risk Factors in Enterprise-wide/ERP Projects, J.
of Information Technology, 15(4), pp.317-327, 2000.
[30] A. Parkes, Critical Success Factors in Workflow Implementation,
Proc. 6th PACIS, pp.363-380, 2002.
[31] A. Parkes, A Case Study of Workflow Implementation Success
Factors, Proc. 15th ACIS, 2004.
[32] A. Sarmento and A. Machado, The Adoption of Workflow
Systems: Proposal of a Model for a Methodology to Analysis
the Impact of Workflow Systems in Organizations, Proc. 2nd
ICEIS, pp.349-355, 2000.
[33] P. Kueng, The Effects of Workflow Systems on Organization: A
Qualitative Study, Business Process Management, LNCS 1806,
pp.301-316, 2000.
[34] T. H. Davenport, Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of
Enterprise Systems, 2000.
[35] J. J. Baroudi, M. H. Olson, and B. Ives, An Empirical Study of
the Impact of User Involvement on System Usage and Informa-
tion Satisfaction, Comm. ACM, 29(3), pp.232-239, 1986.
Bela Mutschler Bela Mutschler received his diploma
in computer science from the University of Ulm, Ger-
many, in 2003. Currently he works as a process engi-
neer at DaimlerChrysler (Group Research), Germany.
Bela is an expert in the fields of automotive process
management and software engineering, business pro-
cess management (BPM), and process maturity mod-
els (such as CMMI). Besides, he is an external Ph.D.
student in the Information Systems Group at the Uni-
versity of Twente (UT), The Netherlands, where he is
currently finishing his Ph.D. thesis. In his dissertation,
Bela investigates causal dependencies and resulting cost effects in projects
dealing with the introduction of process-aware information systems.
Manfred Reichert Manfred Reichert holds a Ph.D. in
computer science and is currently Associate Profes-
sor in the Information Systems Group at the University
of Twente (UT), The Netherlands. At UT he is also a
member of the Management Team of the Centre for
Telematics and Information Technology (CTIT), which
is the largest ICT research institute in the Nether-
lands. Before Manfred joined UT in January 2005,
he had been assistant professor in the Institute for
Databases and Information Systems at the University
of Ulm, Germany. There, he also finished his Ph.D
thesis on adaptive process management in July 2000 (with honours). Manfred
received several awards for his outstanding work on the ADEPT process
management technology. He is an expert in the field of business process man-
agement (BPM) and has conducted many BPM-related projects in application
domains like healthcare and automotive engineering.
Johannes Bumiller Johannes Bumiller received a
diploma in computer science from the University of
Karlsruhe, Germany. Afterwards, he joined the AEG
research center in Ulm, Germany, which was later
merged in the DaimlerChrysler corporate research.
Johannes is an expert on the the development of
interactive systems, on the design of user interfaces,
and on workflow support. Currently, his research is
concentrating on the integration of distributed E/E
development processes.
