Improving internal collaboration a Business Process Management ...

13th International Conference on Enterprise Systems, Accounting and Logistics (13 th ICESAL 2016) 30-31 May 2016, Greece

Improving internal collaboration a Business Process Management Maturity approach Arjen Maris1, Marja Exalto-Sijbrands2 and Pascal Ravesteyn3 1HU

University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands 3HU University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands 2HU

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract A leading company in the global sporting goods industry, suffered a sharp decline over the recent years in terms of competitiveness. Over the last five years the company has been underperforming financially. Based on first observations it is found that each department is focusing on its own tasks and function instead of focusing on the entire organizational process. Although knowledge of Business Process Management (BPM) is present, the IT department was not aware of the company’s maturity level in regards to BPM. Therefore the research question for this study is: How does a BPM maturity scan help, a leading company in the global sports goods industry, to identify options for improving internal collaboration between the IT department and its users? For this research a case study is performed in which a BPM maturity scan of the organization was done. The most important finding is that the BPM maturity scan reveals that internal collaboration has a strong emphasis on the departments, how they function together and support the domestic activities. Internal communication is essential to improve internal relations with links to positive organizational and employee outcomes such as employee engagement. Therefore these results helped the company to better understand that factors such as internal communication and employee engagement are important to consider and control.

Keywords: Business Process Management, Internal collaboration, communication, Global sporting goods industry.

1 Introduction & background This research is conducted at one of the leading companies in global sporting goods industry. It employs more than 53.000 people worldwide in over 1.700 retail stores. The competitiveness of the organization has been gradually declining over the last five years (Financial Times, 2015). In the key U.S. market, the company’s share in the major basketball retail-shoe market is 3%, whereas a mayor competitor has a strong dominance with 96% (Fortune, 2015). Furthermore, the company registered a 30% drop in shoe sales and 20% drop in apparel sales (Wall Street Journal, 2015).

12th International Conference on Enterprise Systems, Accounting and Logistics (12 th ICESAL 2015) 29-30 June 2015, Greece

Even in football, where the company was dominant for more than a decade, the major players and club teams are currently being represented by competitive firms (Reuters, 2014). As a result, the company has been unable to secure endorsement contracts with several well-known athletes and its sales have been declining significantly. Additionally, its shares has lost more than a third of its value in the period 20142015, reaching $64.30 in August 2015 (Marketwatch, 2015). One of the causes is that the departments within the headquarters of the organization are mostly focusing on their own tasks instead of focusing on internal collaboration to improve the value adding business processes (Georgiev, 2016). There is internal knowledge of Business Process Management (BPM), but BPM maturity levels have never been assessed before. Several researchers have confirmed, within their studies, that internal collaboration / communication is an important concept and essential to internal relations with links to positive organizational and employee outcomes such as employee engagement (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014, Cahill, et al., 2015, Karanges, et al., 2015). However based on the internal User Satisfaction Survey, conducted in 2014, the average employee satisfaction levels in Europe reach only 67% (Georgiev, 2016). With the company underperforming both internally and externally a detailed reevaluation of the company’s strategy, operating plan and employee efficiency was announced. In order to stay a global leader in the sports industry, the company needs to study how to improve the internal collaboration to stimulate its’ employees talents and engagements. Also the alignment of BPM and IT management is essential for the performance of an organization (Rahimi, et al., 2016). Most available BPM maturity scans are used to evaluate how well BPM is implemented within the organizations. Some BPM maturity scans also focus on the relation with performance indicators, but the majority of scans are descriptive, not prescriptive (Tarhan, et al., 2016). Therefore the research question for this study is: How does a BPM maturity scan help, a leading company in the global sports goods industry, to identify options for improving internal collaboration between the IT department and its users? This research is based on a design science research approach (Hevner, et al., 2004) and will focus mainly on the Global IT department, that is expected to serve the entire company and is aligned with all business processes (Aversano, et al., 2016). The IT department of the global sports company comprises of approximately 400 people, which is 1/10 of the employees, employed by headquarters. In the next section of this paper the research approach, that was followed is described. In section 3 the concepts of this research: internal collaboration and BPM maturity are discussed. Section 4 describes the results of this study. Conclusions and recommendations for further research are provided in section 5 and the limitations are listed in section 6.


2 Research Approach

Hevner et al. (2004)

The aim of this research is to find out how a BPM maturity scan can help to identify and understand options for improving internal collaboration between the IT department and its users. The result of this research is a list of relevant KSFs to improve internal collaboration. Since such an enumeration is essentially an artefact that requires designing, a design research approach is chosen (Hevner, et al., 2004). Environment

IS research

Result

Subquestions

4. What is the BPM maturity according to the IT department compared with the benchmark?

Knowledge base

1. What is BPM maturity?

5. What are the related CSFs according to the IT department?

7. How are the relevant CSFs related to the elements of internal collaboration?

2. Which BPM maturity scan is best suitable?

6. What are the most relevant CSFs for the organisation?

8. How has the BPM maturity scan helped to define the relevant Key Succes Factors of internal collaboration?

3. What are the elements of internal collaboration?

Enumaration of relevant Key Succes Factors

Figure 1 - Research approach based on Hevner, et al. (2004) The research is founded in the current knowledge base. In order to have a deeper understanding of the two main elements (BPM maturity and internal collaboration), desk research is used. Both scientific and professional literature is explored using different digital libraries available via the university and Internet. The outcome of the desk research is both a BPM maturity method that can be used in this study and an initial list of elements related to internal collaboration. For the environmental phase (Hevner, et al., 2004), the IT department was first analysed with the chosen BPM maturity scan. With the results of this analysis it is possible to compare the current BPM maturity organization with benchmark figures for 2015 (Exalto-Sijbrands, et al., 2016). These results serve as a starting point when discussing BPM maturity within the organization. Besides the BPM maturity, the scan also measures ten Critical Success Factors (CSFs) related to implementation of BPM initiatives. The CSFs are compared with the elements of internal collaboration


we found in the literature study in order to derive Key Success Factors (KSFs). To make clear the success factors of the BPMM scan (CSFs) and the success factors for internal collaboration (KSFs) are different and to keep them separately during this study, the factors have been named differently. The factors in the BPMM scan already were called ‘critical’ (Ravesteyn, et al., 2012). The factors which are the result of this study will be ‘key’ factors for improving internal collaboration. To validate the defined KSFs, the results of the BPM maturity scan, semi structured interviews and observations are used. The results of the BPM maturity scan indicate how the IT department perceive the CSFs in comparison to the benchmark of 2015. Interviews have been conducted in order to develop a better understanding of the current drawbacks that employees face at their workplace. The interviews were conducted with five high-profile staff members with no IT background. Each respondent led a different department (not the Global IT department) and had indepth awareness of the current state of the company. Hereby any partiality and broadening of the scope of the research was avoided. The interviews were done in order to receive a first-hand experience from the managerial perspective. The structure of the interviews contained semi-open questions to justify the genuineness of the collected data (Seidman, 2006). The method of observation served as a leading tool to measure workforce effectiveness developments per every department. The observation investigated the current workplace environment and the dynamics of the current operating environment. Furthermore, a detailed overview of each employee`s work schedule has been formed. The main objective was to recognize patterns that might result in underperforming of employees. The observations illustrate the internal environment within the organization and by making daily interactions with various professionals it was possible to collect evidence to support the results of the interviews. The next step was based on the IS research phase (Hevner, et al., 2004). In order to justify KSFs related to internal collaboration an additional survey was taken within a specific group of IT key users from several different departments. The surveys have been distributed by e-mail to each staff member involved in this study. This particular type of communication presents a convenient way to reach a significant target group and to receive relevant opinions of the internal workforce in a quick, reliable way (Zikmund et al., 2012). The employees who did not respond have been contacted by telephone or invited for a short meeting. In the end 50 key IT users responded. The survey included both open and closed questions. This part of the research was done within the period of March till August 2015.

3 Theoretical Foundations Business Process Management As organizations continuously strive to gain and retain competitive advantage, it has become vital to look for new ways of quality improvement, cost reductions and lowering time to market (Bruin & Freeze, 2005). In order to keep up with the rapid changes brought by technology innovation and globalization, organizations often change their business models as a necessity (Bogers, et al, 2016; Rayna & Striukova, 2016; Jia et al, 2016). For organizations outsourcing of processes, has become a method to focus more on core competences (Boguslauskas &


Kvedaraviciene, 2009). To be as flexible and adaptable as possible, organizations should take control of their processes in order to be able to continuously improve themselves. As a result, attention for BPM has increased (Ravesteyn, et al, 2012). According to Rosemann, et al. (2004), BPM is defined as “a holistic organizational management practice, which is focused on the identification, definition, analysis, continuous improvement, execution, measurement, monitoring and analysis of intraand inter-organizational business processes.” The alignment of BPM and IT management has become essential for the performance of an organization (Rahimi, et al., 2016). To govern the alignment of Business and IT, maturity models have been developed as an assisting tool (Ravesteyn, et al., 2012; Luftman & Kempaiah, 2007; Aversano, et al., 2016). Research clearly states that there is a positive correlation between the alignment of BPM and IT management with the performance of an organization (Ravesteyn, et al., 2012, Rahimi, et al., 2016). The challenge is that the majority of available BPM Maturity models are descriptive (Tarhan, et al., 2016). Besides that, most of the BPM models Tarhan, et al. (2016) selected (61 out of 2899 research papers) only measure the BPM maturity. Only three of the selected models also measure the (organizational) performance. To find critical success factors (CSFs) of BPM, a BPM maturity scan is needed to measure the BPM maturity and the performance. While the BPM maturity scan of Ravesteyn, et al. (2012) is not included in the study by Tarhan, et al. (2016), it does measure the BPM maturity and process performance. The scan was first used in 2010 to determine the BPM maturity of organizations within the Netherlands. Subsequently every two years a benchmark study is performed (Ravesteyn, et al., 2012; Janssen, et al., 2015; Exalto-Sijbrands, et al., 2016). Furthermore the maturity scan also includes questions to find out possible bottlenecks and CSFs according to BPM. Therefore this scan is used in this research. In the scan of Ravesteyn, et al. (2012) BPM within an organization is operationalised in 37 questions (items) that measure 7 dimensions of process maturity (Process awareness, Process description, Measurement of processes, Management of processes, Process improvement, Process resources and knowledge and Information Technology). Each of the questions can be answered on a 1 to 5 Likert scale where 1 is ‘totally disagree’ and 5 is ‘totally agree’. The maturity dimensions are based on the Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) and research by Rosemann, et al., (2004) and Rosemann and de Bruin (2005). Internal collaboration Most organizational goals are not achievable for an individual, therefore people / organizations frequently join forces through a cooperation or collaboration (Hansen & Nohria 2004). Cooperation means working together within the boundaries of a mutual agreement (Hord, 1986). Collaboration is a joint effort toward a common goal (Kolfschoten, et al., 2006). With collaboration organizational value can be created (Hlupic & Qureshi, 2002; Hlupic & Qureshi, 2003). Joint forces can be productive and successful, but group work can also lead to unproductive processes and failed efforts (Nunamaker, et al., 1991; Hansen, 2009). External collaboration is about the


joint forces between organizations. Internal collaboration is about the collaboration within the boundaries of the organization, between employees and / or departments (Sabath and Whipple, 2004). To measure collaboration Brinkman, et al. (2015) used two elements; - Hard collaboration; the defined aspects, such as organizational success. - Soft collaboration; the human aspects, such as trust, honestly, openness, and integrity. Kolfschoten (2007) found and validated five indicators for the quality of collaboration (internal and external): - Productivity; “whether the results are in balance with the expense of resources” (Kolfschoten, 2007). - A commitment of resources to the group goal; “a force that binds an individual to spend resources(time, effort, knowledge and physical resources) to achieve the group goal” (Kolfschoten, 2007). - Group efficiency; “the difference in the net amount of resources used (real resource expense) compared to the planned amount of resources (intended resource expense)” (Kolfschoten, 2007). - Group effectiveness; “the real result compared to the intended result, specified in the design” (Kolfschoten, 2007). - Satisfaction; This indicator can be separated in an emotional response and satisfaction as a judgment. Whether the satisfaction judgment matches the satisfaction emotion depends on the goal congruence between individual goals and the group goal. Satisfaction as a judgement can be expressed in perceptions of effectiveness, efficiency and productivity. So satisfaction indicates in this study the emotional response (Kolfschoten, 2007). The indicators of Kofschoten (2007) can be structured according to the elements of Brinkman, et al (2015). And by comparing the definitions of the indicators and the CSFs of the BPM maturity scan (Ravesteyn, et al., 2012) a classification is made (figure 2). Brinkman, et al. (2015) Kolfschoten (2007) Hard collaboration Productivity

Group efficiency Group effectiveness Soft collaboration

A commitment of resources to the group goal Satisfaction

BPM maturity CSFs (Ravesteijn, et al., 2012) - Strategic alignment - Performance measurement - Process management - IT - Methods & techniques - Level of knowledge and competences - Involvement of employees - Culture - Communication - Leadership

Figure 2 - classification of internal collaboration elements

Internal collaboration factors internal productivity

employee performance

employee engagement internal communication


For this research only internal collaboration is needed and therefore operationalised in terms of internal productivity, employee performance, employee engagement and internal communication. Internal productivity is about focusing on and achieving organizational goals. Also processes are efficient and participants are satisfied with the process (Kolfschoten, 2007). It is a hard collaboration factor (Brinkman, et al., 2015), because most of these elements are about hard evidence (numbers), which can be measured and analysed. In other words internal productivity is about organizational performance management, process management and strategic alignment between processes, IT and performance. Whereby IT facilitates (Ravesteyn, et al., 2012). Employee performance is about human oriented performance management. This ensures that the objectives and strategy of an organization are anchored in the minds and hearts of people. The basic principle of human oriented performance management is that performance improvement only becomes significant within the direct and personal work relationships (Waal & Hedde, 2014). In terms of Kolfschoten (2007) employee performance is about “personal” efficiency and effectiveness. According to Taylor & Tyler (2012) employee performance management is a Human Resource Management (HRM) process that stimulates the employee. Employee performance-management systems are specific HRM systems used in creating a shared vision of the purpose and aims of the organization, helping each individual employee to understand and recognize their part in contributing to them, and in so doing to manage and enhance the employee performance of both individuals and the organization (Boselie, et al., 2006). Therefore in terms of CSFs employee performance management is about methods & techniques, and level of knowledge and competences (Ravesteyn, et al., 2012). Employee engagement is “a multidimensional motivational concept reflecting the simultaneous investment of an individual’s physical, cognitive, and emotional energy in active, full work performance” (Rich, et al., 2010). Engaged employees work vigorously (mental resilience and high level of energy), feeling dedicated (enthusiastic and inspired) and mentally absorbed (fully concentrated) in their work (Breevaart, et al., 2012; Schaufeli, et al., 2006). In terms of Kolfschoten (2007) engagement is about a commitment of resources to the group goal. Engaged employees tackle their workload by fully investing their heads, hearts, and hands in performing their role (Rich, et al., 2010). So employee engagement is a culture aspect and about being completely involved (Ravesteijn et al. 2012). Employee engagement is today seen as a powerful source of competitive advantage (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014). Internal communication is “a social, meaning-building process that gives sense and meaning to social reality, organizational actions, events and organizational roles and processes” (Mazzei, 2014). It is a dynamic, versatile approach to fostering strong employee organization relationships in an effort to satisfy employee needs and define the employee experience (Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2014). Therefore the indicator “satisfaction” (Kolfschoten, 2007) is linked to internal communication.


Internal communication is highly important to achieve a common awareness, understanding and commitment as well as to generate an atmosphere of belonging (Kühn & Weber, 2015). It facilitates interactions between an organization, supervisors, and employees, which create workplace relationships based on meaning and worth (Karanges, et al., 2015). Because of the above internal communication is about communication and leadership (Ravesteyn, et al., 2012).

4 Results Above the research approach and theoretical foundations are described. In this section the outcomes of the BPM maturity scan at the organization are discussed and an analysis is done in relation to the CSFs of the BPM initiative and the KSFs in relation to the internal collaboration. BPM maturity The BPM maturity of the Global IT department was measured with the BPM maturity scan developed by Ravesteyn, et al. (2012). As described above this scan consists of 7 dimensions (S2 – S8 as shown in figure 3). Furthermore the survey instrument measures in which domains BPM initiatives are being executed (S1) and what CSFs respondents see in their organization (P3, also see appendix 3). For the BPM maturity scan a survey was sent out to twelve key IT employees. All of them responded. Because of the small number of respondents the results cannot be statistically analysed, therefore the results are qualitatively analysed. For the benchmark figures a BPMM survey was performed in 2015, which had 129 respondents from 49 organizations in different sectors in the Netherlands (ExaltoSijbrands, et al., 2016). Figure 3 shows the BPM maturity of the global IT department compared with the benchmark figures for 2015.

Figure 3 - BPM maturity global IT department versus the benchmark figures for 2015


The results show that the IT employees have an average score on BPM awareness [S2] and process improvement [S6]. On the dimensions [S3], [S4], [S5], [S7] and [S8] the IT department finds itself to be better than the benchmark. The deviation of the responses is between 1 and 3 (see appendix 1 for the deviation figures). Looking at the questions in detail than the score on question [S1] “In which of the following areas are BPM initiatives being executed?” perhaps gives an explanation on the higher scores (see appendix 2 for the results). Ten out of 12 respondents answered there are BPM initiatives in the IT support area. Compared with the other areas it looks like most of the respondent’s only experience the BPM initiatives within their own area. With this assumption the answers on the S2-S8 questions are more explicable. The individual questions of S2 are formulated in terms of “the organizational processes”. The other questions [S3] - [S8] can be interpreted as if they are about the processes within their own area (being the IT domain). So in this case only [S6] has to be pointed out. This dimension scores almost the same as the benchmark. This might be because the respondents agree (deviation in the given answers is 1) that the organization does not use process improvement methods and techniques such as Lean, Six Sigma or the Theory of Constraints [S6d]. CSFs according to the IT department Looking at the CSFs of the BPM maturity scan (See appendix 3). It is clear that the respondents find ‘communication’, ‘the level of knowledge and competences’ and ‘the involvement of employees’ the most important factors. The CSFs that are linked to factor internal productivity did get some points, but on average internal productivity scored the least. It is salient that culture and leadership scored the least (1 and 0 points). CSFs according to the organization Within the period of April 2015 till July 2015 observations have been done and five interviews have been taken (Georgiev, 2016). These actions have provided an extensive amount of data. This is transformed for viable interpretation. First the interviews have been written out whereby personal statements and viewpoints have been noted (Georgiev, 2016). Secondly during the observations a logbook has been kept by the researcher (Georgiev, 2016). Thirdly the notes have been segmented in parts related to the internal collaboration factors (Appendix 4). The results of the interviews and observations are available upon request to the authors. In case of internal productivity most of the experienced problems are related to a tight schedule. The problems related to employee performance have to do with the facilities and own responsibilities. Only HRM methods and techniques are used to optimize the performance. In case of employee engagement most of the results come from the observations. Out of the interviews only culture aspects could be derived. The observations tell that the employees are engaged, but perhaps too much. They work more hours than formally needed, experience a lot of stress and the culture is “bounded to cooperate”. Out of the interviews only culture aspects were derived, such as “competitiveness means everything” and “we do need and have created an innovative creative environment”. Internal communication within the own department is not an issue. But a “gap” is experienced between the different departments in terms of information flow and right


on time communication. Observations showed that managers sometimes communicate to late, while in the interviews it was found that the information from other departments is too late, and not to the point. The results of the BPM maturity scan showed that the awareness of BPM initiatives within other departments then their own is weak. Furthermore the scores on the CSFs showed that communication is the linking pin. Followed by level of knowledge and involvement of employees. The observations and interviews confirm internal communication and employee involvement are key elements for internal collaboration. However the level of knowledge is not mentioned in the observations/interviews. Besides that the internal productivity factors have been mentioned as a means to improve internal communication / employee engagement. This confirms the statement of Brinkman, et al. (2015) that the “hard collaboration” factors need the “soft collaboration” factors and vice versa. Based on the results we find that the hard collaboration factors help to improve the soft collaboration factors, but they are not the “key” success factors of internal collaboration. Based on these findings we can state that the factors of internal collaboration are well chosen and therefore validated. Justify KSFs internal collaboration To measure the wellbeing of the employees and to justify the key elements of internal collaboration (employee engagement and internal communication) a short questionnaire has been sent out. 50 key IT users responded. The survey contained 10 questions (see Appendix 5). Inspired by Rich, et al. (2010), the first 4 statements are related to employee engagement (5 points Likert scale). To validate internal communication two questions are formulated. A 5 points Likert scale is used for the question about the communication between departments and a 3 points Likert scale is used for measuring “the linking pin”. This is to force the respondents to make a statement. The other questions are for measuring the wellbeing of the employees (5, 6 and 7) and the awareness regarding services of the IT department (10). The survey results confirm the high employee engagement within the company and the point of attention in case of internal communication between departments. Also 38 of the 50 respondents find internal communication extremely important to achieve success at the workplace.

5 Conclusion For this study the following research question was formulated: ‘How does a BPM maturity scan help, a leading company in the global sports goods industry, to identify options for improving internal collaboration between the IT department and its users?’ The BPM maturity scan (Ravesteyn, et al., 2012) helped the researchers to focus on the relevant issues. Based on the findings of the BPM maturity scan and the CSFs the observations and interviews have been focussed. With help of the literature the CSFs are allocated to four internal collaboration factors. These collaboration factors have been validated with help of the observations and interviews. It became clear that the KSFs to internal collaboration are employee engagement and internal


communication. To justify the finding that internal communication was probably the main issue, a survey was sent out. This confirmed that the employees are extremely engaged and internal communication needs to be improved especially between departments. Beside the above the BPM maturity scan also revealed some “bycatch”. The BPM maturity scan showed that the IT department is not aware of BPM initiatives in other departments and the department does not use process improvement methods and techniques such as Lean, Six Sigma or the Theory of Constraints. These findings are part of the “hard collaboration factors” (Brinkman, et al., 2015) and can therefore be used to improve the “soft collaboration factors”. This however is just an assumption and therefore we recommend future research on this matter. Based on this research we would advise other organizations that want to improve internal collaboration that they need to understand that factors such as internal communication and employee engagement are important to maintain and control. To improve those key success factors, improvement of “hard collaboration” factors is needed. In case of this particular organization we suggest to start with the implementation of a process improvement method such as the Theory of Constraints. This method compared with Lean or Six Sigma is easy to implement, without the need of total commitment of all collaboration parties. The goal is to improve the internal communication between the departments and therefore internal collaboration.

6 Limitations The study explores the conditions and relevant factors only at the headquarters of the organization, thus potentially limiting the generalizability to other companies / company branches. Although the research makes an effort to enhance the importance of internal collaboration, the results cannot necessarily be applied to the rest of the business divisions of the organization or to a broader perspective. Another limitation of the research is the time span. Internal collaboration as a subject covers a lot of aspects within the organization. We only measured internal productivity, employee performance, engagement and internal communication. Although this was done based on a solid foundation, there still could be relevant aspects that we have missed. Acknowledgement We would like to acknowledge the graduation student B. Georgiev. He delivered a great contribution to this research.

References Aversano, L., Grasso, C. and Tortorella, M. (2016). Managing the alignment between business processes and software systems. Informationand Software Technology 72 (2016) pp. 171–188.

Bedarkar, M. and Pandita, D. (2014). A Study on the Drivers of Employee Engagement Impacting Employee Performance. Proceedings ICTMS-2013 - Social and Behavioral Sciences, pp. 106-115. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.174.


Bogers, M., Hadar, R. and Bilberg, A. (2016). Additive manufacturing for consumer-centric business models: Implications for supply chains in consumer goods manufacturing. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 102 (2016) pp. 225–239. Boguslauskas, V. and Kvedaraviciene, G. (2009). Difficulties in identifying Company‘s Core Competencies and Core Processes. ISSN 1392-2785 Inzinerine EkonomikaEngineering Economics(2). 2009 pp. 75-81. Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2006). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research. Human Resource Management Journal, pp. 67–94. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2005.tb00154.x. Breevaart, K., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Hetland, J. (2012). The measurement of state work engagement, a multilevel factor analytic study. European journal of psychological assessment 2012, 28, pp. 305–312. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000111. Brinkman, J., Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Hertogh, M. and Rook, L. (2015). Collaboration between subsidiaries with different disciplines in the construction industry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 194 (2015) pp. 44-54. Bruin, T.d. and Freeze, R. (2005) Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model. In Campbell, B, Underwood, J, & Bunker, D (Eds.) Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), November 30 – December 2 2005, Australia, New South Wales, Sydney. Cahill, K.E., McNamara, T.K., Pitt-Catsouphes, M. and Valcour, M. (2015). Linking shifts in the national economy with changes in job satisfaction, employee engagement and work–life balance. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, pp. 40–54. doi:doi:10.1016/j.socec.2015.03.002. Exalto-Sijbrands, M., Maris,A. and Ravesteyn, J.P.P (2016). The Influence of Business Process Maturity on Managerial Behaviour: A Web Shop Supply Chain Case Study. ICMLG 2016 conference proceedings, pp. 93-100. Financial Times (2015). The global sports company struggles to catch up with Nike’s runaway success. Retrieved from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bf86344a-3c9a-11e5bbd1-b37bc06f590c.html#axzz3tAIiZASc. Fortune (2015). Can K.W. save the organisation? Retrieved from http://fortune.com Georgiev, B. (2016). Graduation assignment. HU university of applied sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Hansen, M.T. and Nohria, N. (2004). How to Build Collaborative Advantage. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1), pp. 23-31. Hansen, M.T. (2009). When internal collaboration is bad for your company. Harvard Business Review, April 2009, pp. 83-88. Hevner, A.R., Park, J., March, S.T. and Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research MIS Quarterly Vol.28 no.1/March 2004, pp.75-105.


Hlupic, V. and Qureshi, S. (2002). What causes value to be created when it did not exist before? A research model for value creation. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos: IEEE computer society press. Hlupic, V. and Qureshi, S. (2003). A Research Model for Collaborative Value Creation from Intellectual Capital. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference of Information Technology Interfaces, Cavtat, Croatia. Hord, S.M. (1986). A synthesis of research on organizational collaboration. Educational Leadership, 43(5), pp. 22-26. Janssen, K.J., Nendels, C.W., Smit, S.L. and Ravesteyn, J.P.P. (2015). Business Processes Management in the Netherlands and Portugal: The Effect of BPM Maturity on BPM Performance. Journal of International Technology and Information Management. Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 33 – 52. Jia, F., Wang, X., Mustafee, N. and Hao, L. (2016). Investigating the feasibility of supply chain centric business models in 3D chocolate printing; A simulation study. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 102 (2016) 202–213. Karanges, E., Johnston, K., Beatson, A. and Lings, I. (2015). The influence of internal communication on employee engagement: A pilot study. Public Relations Review, pp. 129–131. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.12.003. Kolfschoten, G.L., Briggs, R.O., Vreede, G.J.d., Jacobs, P.H.M. and Appelman, J.H. (2006) A conceptual foundation of the TinkLet Concept for Collaboration Engineering. Kolfschoten, G.L. (2007). Theoretical Foundations for Collaboration Engineering. (doctor), Delft University of Technology, Delft. Kühn, D. and Weber, L. (2015). The challenges of internal communication about environmental sustainability. Uppsala Universitet, Master Thesis BA. Luftman, J. and Kempaiah, R.M. (2007). An update on business-IT alignment: “a line” has been drawn, MISQ.Exec.6(3)(2007). Marketwatch. (2015). Stock charts international sports company. Retrieved from http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ADS/charts?symb=DE%3AADS&country code=DE&time=12&startdate=1%2F4%2F1999&enddate=4%2F29%2F2016&freq=3& compidx=none&compind=none&comptemptext=Enter+Symbol%28s%29&comp=none &uf=7168&ma=1&maval=50&lf=1&lf2=4&lf3=0&type=2&size=2&style=1013. Mazzei, A. (2014). Internal Communication for Employee Enablement: Strategies in American and Italian Companies. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 82 – 95. Nunamaker, J.F., Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Vogel, D.R. and George, J.F. (1991). Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work. Communications Of The ACM, 34, 7, pp. 40-61. Omilion-Hodges, L.M. and Baker, C.R. (2014). Everyday talk and convincing conversations, Utilizing strategic internal communication. Business Horizons (2014) 57, 435-445.


Ravesteyn, J.P.P., Zoet, M., Spekschoor, J. and Loggen, R. (2012). Is There Dependence Between Process Maturity and Process Performance? Communication of the IIMA 12(2), pp. 65-79. Rahimi, F., Moller, C. and Hvam, L. (2016). Business Process Management and IT management, The missing integration. International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) pp. 142-154. Rayna, T. and Striukova, L. (2016). From rapid prototyping to home fabrication, How 3D printing is changing business model innovation. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 102 (2016) pp. 214-224. Reuters (2014). X has most Europe soccer deals. US soccer marketing. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/ Rich, B., Lepine, J., and Crawford, E. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, pp. 617-635. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988. Rosemann, M., Bruin, T.d. and Hueffner, T. (2004) A model for Business Process Management Maturity. ACIS Proceedings paper 6. http://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2004/6. Rosemann, M. and Bruin, T.d. (2005) Towards a Business Process Management Maturity Model. In Bartmann, D, Rajola, F, Kallinikos, J, Avison, D, Winter, R, Ein-Dor, P, et al. (Eds.) ECIS 2005 Proceedings of the Thirteenth European Conference on Information Systems, 26-28 May 2005, Germany, Regensburg. Sabath, R. and Whipple, J.M. (2004). Using the custiomer,product action matrix to enhance internal collaboration. Journal of business logistics, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2004, pp. 1-19. Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. doi:10.1177/0013164405282471. Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press. Tarhan, A., Turetken, O. and Reijers, H.A. (2016). Business process maturity models: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology 75 (2016) pp. 122134. Taylor, S. and Tyler, J.H. (2012). The Effect of Evaluation on Teacher Performance. American Economic Review 2012, 102(7): pp. 3628–3651. Waal, B.d. and Hedde, R.t. (2014). Is Human Oriented Performance Management the Key to High Performance Organizations. ICMLG 2014 conference proceedings, pp. 78-86. Wall Street Journal (2015). Under armour overtakes in US sportswear market. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/. Zikmund, W., Babin, B., Carr, J. and Griffin, M. (2012) Business Research Methods.


Appendix 1: Deviation figures S2-S8 BPM maturity Global IT department

Customer Services

Finance

Human Resources

Purchase

IT support

Legal affairs

Logistics and transport

Marketing

Production

Service delivery

(Part of) Processes at your customers

(Part of) Processes at your suppliers

Product development

Sales

Appendix 2: Answers S1 BPM maturity Global IT department

S1_A 1

S1_B 4

S1_C 2

S1_D 0

S1_E 10

S1_F 0

S1_G 4

S1_H 0

S1_I 6

S1_J 5

S1_K 0

S1_L 2

S1_M 2

S1_N 4

Appendix 3: CSFs of BPM maturity


Appendix 4: Segmentation of observations and interviews Internal collaboration Internal productivity IT (2) I) Information is not delivered in the most effective way I) Several direct or indirect channels are present Performance measurement (2) O) Losing grip on the market Process managment (3) O) Tight schedules O) The overflow of projects being held by a single project manager I) Ensure that the project is being developed in the same tempo Strategic alignment (3) O) Significant dependence between project teams I) Deliver to all recipience O) There is a solid basis for success as in facilities Employee performance Methods & techniques (3) O) Present the information in an interactive way HRM methods Level of knowledge and competences (5) O) Lack of talent and creative workforce I) Lot of stress O) Lack of knowledge about new technologies I) Empower managers / employees I) Increase their responsibilities Employee engagement Involvement of employees (4) O) Aware of the technologies O) Uncomplete spreading of information O) Decrease of the employee engagement O) Work on different projects O) Satisfied with job involvement O) Able to thrive under the pressure Culture (1) O) Bound to cooperate I) Competitiveness means everything I) Innovative creative environment Internal communication Communication (8) O) Gap between the IT department and the rest of the company Information and requirements about a pilot project are insufficient and O) unclear O) The flow of information is often poor Communication between departments might be stronger, better and I) more impactful O) Lack of sufficient employee satisfaction levels Interactions and straightforward communication are vital for the O) success rate of such activities Current workspace environment in the Global IT department O) encourages interactions among people and constant communication I) No significant communication problems within own department Leadership (0) O) Managers didn`t manage to communicate on time I) Not every time the information is able to reach its destination on time O = observation I = interview

amount 2

BPMM CSFs score 2

1

2

3

3

3

3

2

3

5

5

6

4

3

1

8

8

2

0


Appendix 5: Survey results

Respons Average

1 (Strongly disagree) 5 (Strongly agree)

1 (Not at all hardworking) 5 (Extremely hardworking)

1 (Not at all open effective) question 5 (Extremely effective)

10. Are you aware of the latest services and technologies that are offered by the IT department?

6. Overall, how effective do you consider yourself to be on your workplace?


9. How important do you consider internal communication towards success on the workplace?

5. How hardworking do you consider yourself to be?


Extra

8. How would you rate the current internal communication between each department?

4. I am determined to give my best effort at work each day.


7. What do you need to do to improve further your performance?

3. I am often so involved in my work that the day goes by very quickly.

Internal communication

2. I feel completely involved in my work.

Options

Wellbeing

1. I am inspired to meet my goals at work.

Employee engagement

1 (Not at all effective) 5 (Extremely effective)

1 (Not important at 3 (Extremely important)

1 (yes) 2 (no)

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

3

31

2

0

0

4

0

0

1

10

9

19

3

0

0

9

1

4

6

18

38

4

13

9

21

5

25

19

11

5

37

41

16

44

21

24

7

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

4,74

4,82

3,98

4,86

4,34

4,32

3,14

2,7

1,38