Making process ownership work: Evidence from a global Delphi study

• Author: Kjersti Berg Danilova
• Date: 01 July 2018
• Published date: 01 July 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1568

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Making process ownership work: Evidence from a global Delphi

study

Kjersti Berg Danilova

Norwegian School of Economics, Bergen,

Norway

Correspondence

Kjersti Berg Danilova, Department of Strategy

and Management, Norwegian School of

Economics, Helleveien 30, 5045 Bergen,

Norway.

Email: kjersti.danilova@nhh.no

Process owners are a central element of business process management and process

governance, but the role is highly demanding, and many organizations struggle with

establishing effective process ownership. However, empirical research focusing on

process owners remains scarce. The purpose of this study is to develop an under-

standing of how organizations can make process ownership work. Through a global

Delphi study with 2 expert panels consisting of academics and practitioners from

23 countries, this study generated a set of 20 capabilities required in order for process

owners to succeed. This is the first study to look at managerial aspects of business

process management through a global Delphi study. The findings extend the knowl-

edge base of academics regarding process ownership and matrix organizations and

inform the management of organizations. Implications for practice are important, for

helping leaders successfully establish process ownership and as guidance for process

owners.

1|INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to develop an understanding of how orga-

nizations can make process ownership work. Process owners have a

key role in organizations practicing business process management

(BPM; Hammer, 2007; Iden, 2012; Smart, Maddern, & Maull, 2009;

Trkman, 2010) and a central part of process governance (Markus &

Jacobson, 2010; Spanyi, 2010). As process owners (POs) have the

overall responsibility for the process, traditionally with end‐to‐end

authority, they are vital for process success (Balaji, Ranganathan, &

Coleman, 2011). Research indicates that process ownership in con-

junction with process performance measurement (Kohlbacher &

Gruenwald, 2011b) and continuous process improvement methods

(Weitlaner, Kohlbacher, & Kamagaew, 2012) lead to higher financial

performance and customer satisfaction. In particular, the role of POs

in ensuring the effectiveness of the process (Lockamy & McCormack,

2004) and in driving through change (Kohlbacher & Reijers, 2013;

Ongaro, 2004) has been emphasized.

The PO has been titled “a leader, an entrepreneur and a negotia-

tor”(Kueng, 2000, p. 81), a “change agent”(Siemieniuch & Sinclair,

2002), and an “evangelist”for customer interests (Hammer & Stanton,

1999). This is a tall order to fill, particularly because POs also face

severe organizational challenges, in particular stemming from

operating within an organizational matrix where the process is a

cross‐functional layer on top of functional units (Hammer & Stanton,

1999; Nesheim, 2011; Vanhaverbeke & Torremans, 1999).

A large percentage of process‐oriented organizations appoint

POs (Iden, 2012; Neubauer, 2009), and making process ownership

work is very important for organizations. However, the role is

highly demanding, many organizations struggle with establishing

process ownership according to the principles set out in the litera-

ture (Hammer, 2010; Spanyi, 2010), and some organizations appoint

POs without taking steps to make process ownership real and

effective (Iden, 2012), perhaps also because the knowledge

base this would require is insufficient. Reijers and Peeters

(2010) stated

The literature provides limited insight into process

ownership. (…) only little empirical research has been

conducted in this area. (…) most articles in which

process ownership is touched are prescriptive in nature,

but are in disagreement in many respects. This leads to

a situation in which little consensus exists on the

preferable fulfillment of process ownership and no

insight at all into how organizations actually implement

this role. (Reijers & Peeters, 2010, p. 3)

Received: 2 October 2017 Accepted: 20 April 2018

DOI: 10.1002/kpm.1568

Knowl Process Manag. 2018;25:153–167. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/kpm 153