A Theoretical Model for Business Process

Standardization

Bastian Wurm(B) and Jan Mendling

Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria

{[Link],[Link]}@[Link]

Abstract. Process standardization is for many companies a matter of

strategic importance. Process standardization enables companies to pro-
vide consistent quality to customers and to realize returns of scale.
Research in this area has investigated how process standardization
impacts process outcomes, such as cycle time, quality, and costs. How-
ever, there are only limited insights into antecedents that lead to process
standardization. Furthermore, it is not clear which contextual elements
play a role when standardizing business processes. In this paper, we
address this research gap by developing a theoretical model for busi-
ness process standardization. The model is relevant for academics and
practitioners alike, as it helps to explain and predict business process
standardization by various antecedents and contextual factors.

Keywords: Process standardization · Theoretical model · Theory

development

1 Introduction
Business process management (BPM) is a management paradigm that allows
companies to improve their performance by managing their business processes
in an end-to-end fashion [17]. Among others, associated advantages of BPM are
increased customer satisfaction [25], product quality [34] and profitability [19].
One of the main challenges companies face when adapting a process-oriented
management view is determining the trade-off of process standardization versus
process variation [18]. When too many variants of the process are allowed to
coexist, the variability in the process leads to inefficiencies [10]. A mechanism to
cope with this is business process standardization (BPS) [42].
Empirical research about BPS has been mainly centered around the relation
of process standardization to process performance [35,41]. [53] also investigated
the effect process complexity and standardization effort have on BPS. There
is, however, a lack of research on antecedents of business process standardiza-
tion that explains how process standardization can be achieved. In particular, it
remains unclear how different contextual factors [7], e.g. the knowledge-intensity
of the business process or environmental uncertainty, mediate the effect of pro-
cess standardization on business process performance. This is a problem as it
c Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
D. Fahland et al. (Eds.): BPM Forum 2020, LNBIP 392, pp. 281–296, 2020.
[Link]
282 B. Wurm and J. Mendling

limits our understanding of how process standardization can be achieved and

when it might be disadvantageous.
In this paper, we address this research gap by developing a theoretical model
for business process standardization. Our research question thus reads as follows:

W hat are antecedents of business process standardization?

We address this question by conducting a structured literature review [32] and

multiple expert interviews. The result of our work is a theoretical model that
identifies and interrelates antecedents of business process standardization and
connects them to different context elements. The model is relevant for research
and practice, as it summarizes and integrates existing knowledge on building
blocks that are required when standardizing business processes. This way, man-
agers can understand what it takes to standardize processes, and what are impor-
tant factors that they may not be able to influence, but should take into account
as well.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First, we elaborate on
the current state of the literature on process standardization and socio-technical
systems theory that we use as a theoretical lens. Second, we present the method
that we used to derive our theoretical model. Third, we outline our findings
and how this leads us to propose a theoretical model for business process stan-
dardization. We then discuss implications and limitations of our work. Last, we
conclude the paper by summarizing its key contribution.

2 Research Background

In this section we discuss the research background against which we position

our work. We first present the literature on BPS. Afterwards, we elaborate on
socio-technical systems theory that serves us as an important theoretical lens in
this paper.

2.1 Business Process Standardization

From a procedural perspective, process standardization can be understood as

the alignment of a set of process variants towards a defined meta-process [42].
By contrast, different process variants are generated from a meta-process in
order to comply with legislative requirements of different countries [40], to serve
specific customer needs [16,18], or to tailor services and products to different
markets [64,65]. Figure 1 visualizes process standardization and process vari-
ant generation schematically. Accordingly, we define BPS as the unification of
business process variants and their underlying actions [9,51]. Similarly to BPS,
process harmonization [45] aims at the alignment of business processes, but
leaves more degrees of freedom with respect to the exact implementation. Con-
sequently, we understand process harmonization as a specific instance of process
 A Theoretical Model for Business Process Standardization 283

Fig. 1. Process standardization/variant generation (extended from [42])

standardization. Importantly, not all standardization initiatives lead to imple-

mentation of standard processes that are carried out exactly the same in each
and every part of the organization.
To facilitate process standardization, researchers have proposed different pro-
cedure models [31,38,42]. The reference model by [31], for example, comprises
a total of three phases. In the first phase, a process owner and his or her team
is appointed. In the second phase, the actual standard process is developed.
This is done by comparing, merging existing processes and by positioning the
newly created standard process. The comparison of processes allows to bench-
mark processes against one another and identify best practices. Then, and the
standard processes is defined and modeled. The second phase is completed with
the identification of implementation barriers and the estimation of the return on
investment expected from implementing the process. Third, the standard process
is implemented and substitutes existing process variants in place. [31] suggest
to introduce the standard process gradually at more and more locations. Before
the process is released, the process owner is trained to manage and improve the
process in a centralized manner.
According to [36,37], processes form a continuum ranging from standard, over
routine to non-routine processes. Standard processes, on one side of the contin-
uum, are very effective and efficient, as they make use of asset specificity. How-
ever, they can only deal with predefined scenarios and schemata. Non-routine
processes, on the other end of the continuum, are non-repetitive and cannot be
described prior to execution. For this type of process, task accomplishment serves
as the most important criterion to evaluate execution success (compare [21,54]).
Especially for multinational enterprises, process standardization serves as an
essential mechanism to improve operational efficiency [41]. It helps organizations
to realize returns of scale and reduce costs [35,65]. BPS enables the reduction of
organizational complexity while increasing transparency [29], ultimately leading
to enhanced control over large corporations. Yet, there are significant drawbacks
and barriers to BPS. First, process standardization comes at the cost of limiting
flexibility [22,58]. Second, [49] found, that process standardization should not
target pockets of creativity [55], i.e. creative parts of processes. Additionally,
slack is emphasized as an important element, which allows routine and non-
routine processes to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity [36]. This is one of
284 B. Wurm and J. Mendling

the reasons, why very complex processes are said to be roadblocks for process
standardization [36,53].
Empirical research on business process standardization has primarily focused
on the relation between process standardization and process performance [35,41].
In particular, these studies explored the resulting effect of BPS on efficiency gains
in cycle time, process quality, and process cost. However, there are at least four
important limitations. First, there seems to be only little clarity on the delim-
itation of the concept and construct of business process standardization and
other concepts that are related to BPS. E.g. [52,53] operationalize BPS mainly
from an execution perspective, but also include one item concerned with process
documentation. [44] additionally consider Information Technology as one of the
facets of process standardization. Second, antecedents of process standardization
have not been examined, yet. Even though multiple authors mention the con-
nection of BPS with governance [58], documentation [60], and strategic focus [7],
the relations are neither described in detail nor hypothesized. Third, while there
is substantial research on the effects of process standardization, there is lim-
ited work on how to actually achieve it. It seems needless to say that only once
something has been achieved, its true effects can be realized. Fourth, research
on process standardization is largely acontextual. However, to allow for precise
predictions and managerial implications, we need to consider mediating factors,
and context [7]. In summary, research on BPS would benefit from explicating
the nomological network in which it is embedded.

2.2 Business Processes as Socio-Technical Systems

Socio-technical systems theory (STST) [4,5] has influenced information systems

research to a great extend. The theory as captured in Fig. 2 essentially states that
the technical sub-system, comprised by technology and tasks, and the social sub-
system, formed by structure and people, are interdependent. Still today, many
IS projects fail due to the exclusive focus on either one of the sub-systems, while
neglecting the other.
Instead of designing and managing each sub-system individually, the techni-
cal and the social sub-system should be jointly designed and managed to guar-
antee its functioning. The socio-technical systems perspective can be applied
to business process as well. In business processes, participants (social system)
carry out tasks by use information technology (technical system) [10]. Business
processes comprise certain authority relations (structure) that define who makes
decisions and what processes are ought to be executed. Thus, business processes
are socio-technical systems and are in turn part of more complex and larger
socio-technical systems within organizations and beyond. This view is also rep-
resented by work system theory [1].
In terms of business process standardization, many authors have focused the
characteristics of process execution or its effects on process performance (e.g. [45]
and [41]). However, the broader socio-technical system that business processes
are part of and that plays a role for process standardization has received limited
 A Theoretical Model for Business Process Standardization 285

Fig. 2. The socio-technical systems view [5]

attention. In a similar way, [7] argue for a contingent approach to BPM. Con-
sequently, a theoretical model that explains and predicts [14] the antecedents
of business process standardization has to consider socio-technical elements, like
culture [33] and the knowledge-intensity [22] of business processes.

3 Method
To develop our theoretical model, we carried out a structured literature
review [32] and conducted several expert interviews within a multinational orga-
nization. We describe the details of our methodological approach in the following.

3.1 Literature Review

We conducted a systematic literature review to identify, evaluate, and interpret
the literature [32,33] on business process standardization and harmonization.
As the primary source to retrieve literature, we used four databases that cover
a wide range of publication outlets: ProQuest, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, and
IEEE Xplore. Each database is widely recognized and covers publications from
Information Systems, Business Process Management, Information Technology,
and other research fields. This inclusive scope in literature search helped us to
avoid a bias. We applied the search terms “Process Harmoni*” OR “Process
Standard*” to search titles, abstracts, and keywords of publications without any
restrictions to specific periods of time.
The literature search yielded more than 250 publications (journal articles and
conference papers) matching the search criteria. Table 1 shows how the search
hits are distributed over the different databases that we used. Additionally, we
286 B. Wurm and J. Mendling

carried out backward and forward search [63] to identify literature that was
relevant, but did not show up in our direct search. All papers that we found
were assessed using the same rigorous selection process [13]. First, we considered
and retrieved only articles in English or German. Second, all duplicate papers
were removed. For all remaining papers, we read title, abstract, and conclusion in
order to evaluate whether they should be subject to full text assessment. Those
papers that appeared to be relevant were then studied in detail.

Table 1. Search results

Database URL Number of search hits

Science Direct [Link] 93
Proquest [Link] 51
EBSCOHost [Link] 58
IEEE Xplore [Link] 53
Sum 255

3.2 Interviews

Furthermore, we carried out expert interviews with process experts of a multina-

tional company to complement our literature analysis. In total, we conducted five
semi-structured in-depths interviews with experienced subject matter experts in
the area of BPM. The goal of the interviews was to triangulate our findings from
the literature review, to gather concrete illustrations of how BPS is achieved in
practice, as well as to detect and address any blind spots that may have been
present.
All interview partners were highly experienced employees of a manufacturing
company in the construction industry. The case company has its head quarters in
a German-speaking country and operates subsidiaries in more than 120 countries
worldwide. Overall, the company has a workforce of more than 22,000 people.
The case company is one of the market leaders and its products mainly address
the premium segment. Our case company is very process-oriented; it operates
a Center of Excellence for process management and a dedicated community of
process managers on a global, regional, and on country level. In more general
terms, our case company is well known for its highly mature IT capabilities and
IT landscape. All this makes it a very interesting and promising case to study.
In order to collect different perspectives on process standardization, we pur-
posefully sampled interview participants that were responsible for the manage-
ment of processes on a country and on a global level. Table 2 lists all interview
partners, including the ‘head of process excellence and IT governance’, the ‘head
of Human Resources (HR) management processes and systems team’, a global
process manager for the marketing process as well as a ‘local process coordinator
and process expert’. When quoting parts of interviews as means of illustrative
 A Theoretical Model for Business Process Standardization 287

evidence, we will point to the respective interview. The interviews lasted between
1 and 3 h. All interviews were recorded and transcribed, followed by a detailed
analysis.

Table 2. Interview participants

Interview Position
Interview 1 Head of process excellence and IT governance
Interview 2 Release manager for core systems and coordinator for ISO
standardization activities
Interview 3 Local coordinator for processes and process experts, France
Interview 4 Head of HR management processes and systems team
Interview 5 Global process manager for a marketing process

4 A Theoretical Model for Business Process

Standardization

Based on the literature and interviews we derived the theoretical model depicted
in Fig. 3. For ease of understanding, we will first discuss the different constructs
that we identified as relating to business process standardization, followed by
the propositions that result form their inter-relation.

Strategic Focus. Strategic alignment between the management of business pro-

cesses and corporate strategy is one of the key principles of BPM [48]. Pursuing
process standardization is first and foremost a matter of strategic focus. The
weight that an organization puts on profit versus growth influences extend to
which companies will aim at process standardization versus local innovation and
variation of business processes [64]. This also relates to the dual definition of
quality [37]. Quality can be either perceived as the conformance to ex-ante spec-
ified requirements or the tailoring of products and services to specific customer
needs.
Further, the implementation of standard processes is a strategic question,
since it requires top management support and management involvement [30,
31,62]. Only with necessary top-level project sponsors, crucial organizational
change can be carried out and governance mechanisms can be implemented that
promote continuous process standardization efforts.

Governance. The design and implementation of organizational structures,

roles, responsibilities, and performance measurements are essential parts of pro-
cess governance [56, p. 223]. Governance of business processes affects all parts
of the process life-cycle, from design and implementation, over day-to-day man-
agement activities up to redesign and optimization of business processes [39].
288 B. Wurm and J. Mendling

Process standardization requires the centralization of governance mechanisms

and instruments. For all stages of the process life-cycle, there is a clear shift of
competencies and authority from subsidiaries and business units towards head-
quarters compared to a localized business process [44]. Process design is not
elaborated in single business units, but by the headquarters from where it is
distributed to all business units for execution [58]. Where processes are not
designed from the scratch, internal or external best practices can serve as a tem-
plate for the process standard [42]. Process decisions are mandated centrally,
which market organizations need to adhere to. Clear roles and responsibilities
for all process stakeholders are defined [59]. Often this is combined with peri-
odical process audits, checking whether defined practices are followed on a local
level [3,40]. On top of that, process improvements are coordinated centrally. This
requires a sophisticated schema including the assessment of process optimization
and redesign proposals from business units for the overall organization as well
as the adaption of the global standard and the distribution of eventual process
changes back to the process in each business unit [31,58].

Documentation and Training. Without rigorous documentation and train-

ing, employees are left to act on their own discretion. This can lead to each
employee executing the business process differently. In a standardized process,
documentation will guide employees. Even though the target of good documen-
tation should not be to overstrain employees, documenting the business process
without leaving room for interpretation helps a uniform process performance [8,
p. 6]. To achieve a high level of process standardization, there should be only
one set of documentation materials available [18], which is regularly updated [59]
and employees can refer to.

Information Technology. IT is an integral component of comprehensive BPM.

It has not anymore only supportive functionality, but has become a business
driver itself [23]. The Strategic Alignment Model of [24] stresses the importance
of strategic and functional integration of business and IT. IT can never be an
end in itself, but contributes to process change and redesign to improve business
performance [6]. Thus, IT and business (processes) are highly interrelated and
should not be treated independently; on the contrary a tight integration should
be pursued [43]. This is especially true with regards to BPS.
Variations in processes will most often go hand in hand with variations on
IT side and vice versa. By use of an integrated and common information sys-
tem irrespective of location, consistent processes can be assured [61, p. 1008].
Wherever differences in processes are needed, information systems have to be
customized accordingly (Interview 4; Interviewee 5) or different software has to
be employed [50]. In a similar manner, legacy systems in different business units
can call for the adoption of business processes [41]. With process standardization,
information systems can be much more standardized and leading than recording.
In fragmented information systems, manual workarounds via Excel or other tools
are needed connecting various applications. Not only is this frequently a source
of error, but it also for process variation (Interviewee 5). On the contrary, IT
 A Theoretical Model for Business Process Standardization 289

systems in highly standardized processes are not only well integrated [57], but
can help leading employees through the process. Finally, BPS builds the basis
for and makes significant contribution towards process automation [41].

Knowledge-intensity. The more a business process relies on experience and

judgment of employees rather than rules that can be pre-specified, the more
knowledge-intensive the process is [28,68]. Knowledge-intensive processes are
hard to impossible to model, as it the exact steps of the process cannot be spec-
ified before its actual execution [20]. This also affects the design of information
Technology. IT that is designed around knowledge-intensive processes can only
provide rough specifications for process execution. E.g. information technology
in hospitals often provides only very rough guidance, as patients’ symptoms and
according treatments vary considerably. Instead, doctors need to rely on their
medical education and the experience they gained [37].

Legal. Regulatory Compliance Management (RCM) is a field in BPM, which

has been gaining more and more interest recently [11]. Legal requirements and
external regulations, e.g. ISO norms (ISO, n.d.), and hence need to be con-
sidered for standard building and process execution. External requirements in
Compliance Management can be divided in ‘must comply’ and ‘can comply’ sce-
narios. Laws, tax requirements, and import/export regulations fall under the
‘must comply’ scenario, as non-compliance will cause immediate penalties from
national or international actors. Accordingly, process standardization is influ-
enced as described by one of the interviewees:

“When we build a standardized process, legal directives have to be checked

[...]. If each country has different legal [directives] and rules, we will have
difficulties to have standardized processes.” (Interviewee 3)

Culture. Based on our literature analysis and interviews, we found that partic-
ularly two of the cultural dimensions derived by Hofstede [26] are relevant for
BPS. First, uncertainty avoidance relates to the attitude of members of a soci-
ety towards uncertain situations and their tolerance for ambiguity. In countries
with high uncertainty avoidance, novel and surprising situations are perceived
as a threat, while ease and the acceptance of uncertainty in life is a sign of low
uncertainty avoidance. In turn, societies with high levels of uncertainty avoid-
ance will try to minimize the exposure to uncertainty by establishing rules and
routines [26]. This indicates that in cultures shaped by high uncertainty avoid-
ance, employees will be more likely to follow a prescribed and standard process,
then in countries facing low uncertainty avoidance. [27] reported high levels of
uncertainty avoidance for German speaking countries and Japan, and lower val-
ues for English speaking areas and Chinese cultures. Second, individualism vs.
collectivism is another important contextual element with regards to BPS. These
societal opposites reflect whether people of a society are keen to emphasize inde-
pendence and self-reliance over belonging to groups. In collectivistic societies,
there are strong ties not only among the immediate family, but also beyond.
290 B. Wurm and J. Mendling

People seek for consensus not to endanger harmony, even if that means hiding
his or her opinion [26]. It is thus valid to assume, that in collectivistic cultures
employees do not question orders from superiors and execute processes as re-
quested. In most developed countries individualism prevails, while the opposite
is the case for less developed nations [26].
Interviewed experts primarily stressed corporate culture and different busi-
ness habits across countries as an influential factor when standardizing business
processes. Shared values among employees and subsidiaries can be seen as an
indirect means of control, which helps to enforce headquarters objectives [65].
[12] point out that the diversity of cultures can be a hindrance to knowledge
sharing. To overcome this barrier a culture of trust needs to be developed, which
serves as a common foundation. Having said this, multiple senior executives from
our case company also emphasized that often culture was used as an empty argu-
ment to push standardization incentives away from business units.

Process Standardization. As outlined in Sect. 2, process standardization and

process variation are two sides of the same coin. Generally speaking, the enact-
ment of a business process is standardized, if the process is executed the same
way in each and every part of the organization (Interviewee 1; Interviewee 7).
Process flow is composed of the activities executed in course of each process
instance, the sequence of those activities and the resources used or consumed for
each activity. The more variation and exceptions we find in activities, process
sequence, and process resources, the less standardized a process is [2]. In turn,
such a process can face high levels of uncertainty as every process instance might
differ and require different resources [52].

Fig. 3. Model

Proposition 1: A strategic focus that is oriented towards profitability (as

opposed to a growth strategy) will result in tighter and more central process
governance.
Proposition 2: The more tight governance mechanisms are the more formalized
will be process documentation and process training.
Proposition 2a: The effect of governance mechanisms on documentation and
training is mediated by the knowledge-intensity of the respective business pro-
cess. The higher the level of knowledge-intensity of the business process, the
 A Theoretical Model for Business Process Standardization 291

less strong will be the effect of governance mechanisms on documentation and

training.
Proposition 3: The more tight governance mechanisms are the more constrain-
ing will be employed information technology.
Proposition 3a: The effect of governance mechanisms on information technol-
ogy is mediated by the knowledge-intensity of the respective business process.
The higher the level of knowledge-intensity of the business process, the less strong
will be the effect of governance mechanisms on employed information technology.
Proposition 3b: Legal aspects mediate the effect of governance on informa-
tion technology. The more consistent (diverse) legal requirements for business
processes are, the more constraining (enabling) will be employed information
technology.
Proposition 4: The more formalized process documentation and process train-
ing the more standardized will the business process be.
Proposition 4a: The effect of process documentation and training on process
standardization is mediated by culture. The more the culture of process partic-
ipants is characterized by uncertainty avoidance and collectivism, the stronger
is the positive effect of formalization on process standardization.
Proposition 5: The more constraining information technology is the more stan-
dardized will the business process be.
Proposition 5a: The effect of information systems on process standardization
is mediated by culture. The more the culture of process participants is charac-
terized by uncertainty avoidance and collectivism, the stronger is the positive
effect of constraining information systems on process standardization.

5 Discussion
5.1 Implications
Our theoretical model has implications for research on BPS, which we discuss
in turn. First, we integrate scattered insights into an overarching nomological
network that explicates the antecedents of business process standardization. We
have reviewed more than 250 academic journal articles and conference papers
that relate to process standardization and our theoretical model integrates this
existing literature. Our interviews with process experts complement the litera-
ture analysis and provide further illustrative evidence. In particular, the model
integrates the different perspectives and shows how process standardization
relates to the larger picture in organizations by using the socio-technical sys-
tems theory. Thus, our model extends prior work by making the relationships
between different concepts explicit, e.g. the relationships between information
technology [44] and process variation or between documentation [53] and pro-
cess variation.
The model helps managers to understand antecedents of business process
standardization and how they are interrelated. In this way, the model can be
292 B. Wurm and J. Mendling

used to identify necessary conditions to achieve process standardization, on the

one hand. On the other hand, it helps to understand how certain contextual
factors, such as legal requirements, culture, and the knowledge-intensity of busi-
ness process, moderate the impact the effects that management can take to
standardize business processes. For researchers, the model provides an overview
of the literature that future research can build on. For example, the model can
be used as a point of reference to modify and extend existing procedure models
for business process standardization.

5.2 Limitations

There are several limitations of our research. First and most important, the
focus of this paper was the development of a theoretical model for business pro-
cess standardization. We derived the model from existing literature and carried
out expert interviews to gain additional insights from practice. However, we did
not empirically test our model, yet. For many of the constructs in our model
there are already measurement scales available (e.g. [67,68]). Future research
can make use of these scales to provide evidence for or falsify the propositions
we derived. With the increasing availability of digital trace data, not only tra-
ditional survey methods can be used to test our propositions, but also process
mining techniques become increasingly useful for theory development and theory
testing [15]. Second, all of our interview partners work for the same organization.
While we have purposefully interviewed process experts in different positions,
with varying levels of seniority, and located in different countries, our choice of
interview partners may have affected our findings. Third, business process stan-
dardization is not a means by itself, but is used to achieve a certain purpose.
Business process standardization is generally associated with an improvement of
cycle time, costs and quality [41]. However, we know very little about the mutual
strength of contextual factors [7] that mediate these effects. Last, we can observe
an emerging body of research that aims to broaden the design space of business
processes by means of explorative BPM [46]. The focus of these studies is the
design of processes for trust [47] or individual customer needs [66]. To sustain in
the long run, companies have to balance exploitation of existing processes with
the exploration of new processes.

6 Conclusion

In this paper, we developed a theoretical model for business process standard-

ization. The model summarizes and integrates the state of the art on process
standardization research; it shows how process standardization is influenced by
antecedents and which conditions mediate their impact. With this we provide an
overview of key drivers of process standardization that helps process managers
to consider the different factors that come into play when standardizing business
processes. Fellow researchers are invited to further build on and extend or test
our model.
 A Theoretical Model for Business Process Standardization 293

Acknowledgements. The work of Bastian Wurm has received funding from the EU
H2020 program under the MSCA-RISE agreement 645751 (RISE BPM).

References
1. Alter, S.: Work system theory: overview of core concepts, extensions, and challenges
for the future. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 14(2), 72 (2013)
2. Balint, B.: Standardization frameworks in services offshoring: the relationship
between process implementation thoroughness, task complexity, and performance
improvement. In: Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on Sys-
tem Sciences (HICSS 2012), pp. 4366–4375 (2012)
3. Bass, J.M., Allison, I.K., Banerjee, U.: Agile method tailoring in a CMMI level 5
organization. J. Int. Technol. Inf. Manage. 22(4), 77–98 (2013)
4. Bostrom, R.P., Heinen, J.S.: MIS problems and failures: a socio-technical perspec-
tive. Part I: the causes. MIS Q. 1(3), 17–32 (1977)
5. Bostrom, R.P., Heinen, J.S.: MIS problems and failures: a socio-technical perspec-
tive. Part II: the application of socio-technical theory. MIS Q. 1(4), 11–28 (1977)
6. vom Brocke, J.: In-memory value creation, or now that we found love, what are
we gonna do with it? BPTrends 10, 1–8 (2013)
7. vom Brocke, J., Zelt, S., Schmiedel, T.: On the role of context in business process
management. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 36(3), 486–495 (2016)
8. Curran, P., Undheim, T.A.: The java community process standardization, inter-
operability, transparency. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology (SIIT 2011) (2011)
9. Davenport, T.H.: The coming commoditization of processes. Harv. Bus. Rev. 83(6),
101–108 (2005)
10. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business
Process Management, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2018). [Link]
1007/978-3-662-56509-4
11. El Kharbili, M.: Business process regulatory compliance management solution
frameworks: a comparative evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 8th Asia-Pacific Con-
ference on Conceptual Modelling (APCCM 2012), pp. 23–32 (2012)
12. Finestone, N., Snyman, R.: Corporate South Africa: making multicultural knowl-
edge sharing work. J. Knowl. Manage. 9(3), 128–141 (2005)
13. Grant, M.J., Booth, A.: A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and
associated methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 26(2), 91–108 (2009)
14. Gregor, S.: The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q. 30(3), 611–642
(2006)
15. Grisold, T., Wurm, B., Mendling, J., Vom Brocke, J.: Using process mining to sup-
port theorizing about change in organizations. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (2020)
16. Hall, J.M., Johnson, E.M.: When should a process be art, not science? Harv. Bus.
Rev. 87(3), 58–65 (2009)
17. Hammer, M.: What is business process management? In: vom Brocke, J., Rose-
mann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 1, pp. 3–16. Springer,
Heidelberg (2010). [Link] 1
18. Hammer, M., Stanton, S.: How process enterprises really work. Harv. Bus. Rev.
77(6), 108–118 (1999)
19. Hammer, M.: The 7 deadly sins of performance measurement (and how to avoid
them). MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 48(3), 19–28 (2007)
294 B. Wurm and J. Mendling

20. Harmon, P.: Alternative approaches to process analysis and modeling. BP Trends
4(13) (2006)
21. Harmon, P.: Business Process Change: A Guide for Business Managers and BPM
and Six Sigma Professionals. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2007)
22. Harmon, P.: Artistic processes. BPTrends 7(9) (2009)
23. Harmon, P.: The scope and evolution of business process management. In: vom
Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 1,
pp. 37–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). [Link]
23
24. Henderson, J., Venkatraman, N.: Strategic alignment: leveraging information tech-
nology for transforming organizations. IBM Syst. J. 32(1), 472–484 (1993)
25. Hinterhuber, H.H.: Business process management: the European approach. Bus.
Change Re-engineering 2(4), 63–73 (1995)
26. Hofstede, G.: Dimensionalizing cultures : the Hofstede model in context. Online
Read. Psychol. Cult. 2(1), 1–26 (2011)
27. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M.: Cultures and Organizations: Software of
the Mind, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2010)
28. Işik, Ö., Mertens, W., Van den Bergh, J.: Practices of knowledge intensive process
management: quantitative insights. Bus. Process Manage. J. 19(3), 515–534 (2013)
29. Kampker, A., Maue, A., Deutskens, C., Foerstmann, R.: Standardization and inno-
vation: dissolving the contradiction with modular production architectures. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 4th International Electric Drives Production Conference (EDPC
2014) (2014)
30. Kettenbohrer, J., Beimborn, D.: What you can do to inhibit business process stan-
dardization. In: 20th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2014),
pp. 1–11 (2014)
31. Kettenbohrer, J., Beimborn, D., Kloppenburg, M.: Developing a procedure model
for business process standardization. In: Proceedings of the 34th International
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2013), pp. 1–11 (2013)
32. Kitchenham, B.: Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Ph.D. thesis, Joint
Technical report Keele University (TR/SE-0401) and National ICT Australia Ltd.
(0400011T.1) (2004). [Link]
33. Kummer, T.F., Schmiedel, T.: Reviewing the role of culture in strategic informa-
tion systems research: a call for prescriptive theorizing on culture management.
Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 38(1), 122–144 (2016)
34. Küng, P., Hagen, C.: The fruits of business process management: an experience
report from a Swiss bank. Bus. Process Manage. J. 13(4), 477–487 (2007)
35. Laumer, S., Maier, C., Eckhardt, A.: The impact of business process management
and applicant tracking systems on recruiting process performance: an empirical
study. J. Bus. Econ. 85(4), 421–453 (2015). [Link]
0758-9
36. Lillrank, P.: The quality of standard, routine and nonroutine processes. Organ.
Stud. 24(2), 215–233 (2003)
37. Lillrank, P., Liukko, M.: Standard, routine and non-routine processes in health
care. Int. J. Health Care Qual. Assur. 17(1), 39–46 (2004)
38. Manrodt, K.B., Vitasek, K.: Global process standardization: a case study. J. Bus.
Logist. 25(1), 1–23 (2004)
39. Markus, M.L., Jacobsen, D.D.: Business process governance. In: vom Brocke, J.,
Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 2, pp. 201–222.
Springer, Heidelberg (2010). [Link] 10
 A Theoretical Model for Business Process Standardization 295

40. Mocker, M., Weill, P., Woerner, S.L.: Revisiting complexity in the digital age. MIT
Sloan Manage. Rev. 55(4), 73–81 (2014)
41. Muenstermann, B., Eckhardt, A., Weitzel, T.: The performance impact of business
process standardization: an empirical evaluation of the recruitment process. Bus.
Process Manage. J. 16(1), 29–56 (2010)
42. Muenstermann, B., Weitzel, T.: What is process standardization? In: Proceedings
of the International Conference on Information Resources Management (CONF-
IRM 2008), pp. 1–17 (2008)
43. Rahimi, F., Møller, C., Hvam, L.: Business process management and IT manage-
ment: the missing integration. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 36(1), 142–154 (2016)
44. Romero, H.L., Dijkman, R.M., Grefen, P.W.P.J., van Weele, A.J.: Factors that
determine the extent of business process standardization and the subsequent effect
on business performance. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 57(4), 261–270 (2015). [Link]
org/10.1007/s12599-015-0386-0
45. Romero, H.L., Dijkman, R.M., Grefen, P.W.P.J., van Weele, A.J., de Jong, A.:
Measures of process harmonization. Inf. Softw. Technol. 63, 31–43 (2015)
46. Rosemann, M.: Proposals for future BPM research directions. In: Ouyang, C.,
Jung, J.-Y. (eds.) AP-BPM 2014. LNBIP, vol. 181, pp. 1–15. Springer, Cham
(2014). [Link] 1
47. Rosemann, M.: Trust-aware process design. In: Hildebrandt, T., van Dongen, B.F.,
Röglinger, M., Mendling, J. (eds.) BPM 2019. LNCS, vol. 11675, pp. 305–321.
Springer, Cham (2019). [Link] 20
48. Rosemann, M., vom Brocke, J.: The six core elements of business process man-
agement. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process
Management 1, pp. 107–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). [Link]
978-3-642-45100-3 5
49. Rosenkranz, C., Seidel, S., Mendling, J., Schaefermeyer, M., Recker, J.: Towards
a framework for business process standardization. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S.,
Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 53–63. Springer, Heidelberg
(2010). [Link] 6
50. Ross, J.W.: Creating a strategic IT architecture competency: learning in stages.
MIS Q. Exec. 2(5), 31–43 (2003)
51. Schaefermeyer, M., Grgecic, D., Rosenkranz, C.: Factors influencing business pro-
cess standardization: a multiple case study. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii
International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS 2010), pp. 1–10 (2010)
52. Schaefermeyer, M., Rosenkranz, C.: “To standardize or not to standardize?” -
Understanding the effect of business process complexity on business process stan-
dardization. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems
(ECIS 2011), p. 32 (2011)
53. Schaefermeyer, M., Rosenkranz, C., Holten, R.: The impact of business process
complexity on business process standardization: an empirical study. Bus. Inf. Syst.
Eng. 5, 261–270 (2012). [Link]
54. Seidel, S.: A theory of managing creativity-intensive processes. Dissertation, The
University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany (2009)
55. Seidel, S., Mueller-wienbergen, F., Becker, J.: The concept of creativity in the
information systems discipline: past, present, and prospects. Commun. Assoc. Inf.
Syst. 27(1), 217–242 (2010)
56. Spanyi, A.: Business process management governance. In: vom Brocke, J., Rose-
mann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 2, pp. 223–238.
Springer, Heidelberg (2010). [Link] 11
296 B. Wurm and J. Mendling

57. Steinfield, C., Markus, M.L., Wigand, R.T.: Through a glass clearly: standards,
architecture, and process transparency in global supply chains. J. Manage. Inf.
Syst. 28(2), 75–108 (2011)
58. Tregear, R.: Business process standardization. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M.
(eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 2, pp. 307–327. Springer, Hei-
delberg (2010). [Link] 15
59. Trkman, P.: The critical success factors of business process management. Int. J.
Inf. Manage. 30(2), 125–134 (2010)
60. Ungan, M.C.: Standardization through process documentation. Bus. Process Man-
age. J. 12(2), 135–148 (2006)
61. de Vries, M., van der Merwe, A., Kotzé, P., Gerber, A.: A method for identify-
ing process reuse opportunities to enhance the operating model. In: Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management (IEEM 2011), pp. 1005–1009 (2011)
62. Wagner, H.T., Weitzel, T.: How to achieve operational business-IT alignment:
insights from a global aerospace firm. MIS Q. Exec. 11(1), 25–36 (2012)
63. Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a
literature review. MIS Q. 26(2), xiii–xxiii (2002)
64. Weill, P., Ross, J.W.: A matrixed approach to designing IT governance. MIT Sloan
Manage. Rev. 46(2), 26–34 (2005)
65. Williams, C., van Triest, S.: The impact of corporate and national cultures on
decentralization in multinational corporations. Int. Bus. Rev. 18(2), 156–167
(2009)
66. Wurm, B., Goel, K., Bandara, W., Rosemann, M.: Design patterns for business
process individualization. In: Hildebrandt, T., van Dongen, B.F., Röglinger, M.,
Mendling, J. (eds.) BPM 2019. LNCS, vol. 11675, pp. 370–385. Springer, Cham
(2019). [Link] 24
67. Wurm, B., Schmiedel, T., Mendling, J., Fleig, C.: Development of a measurement
scale for business process standardization. In: 26th European Conference on Infor-
mation Systems (ECIS 2018) (2018)
68. Zelt, S., Recker, J., Schmiedel, T., vom Brocke, J.: Development and validation
of an instrument to measure and manage organizational process variety. PloS One
13(10), e0206198 (2018)