Está en la página 1de 24

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008,

Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

Manage Processes - What are they?


Umit Bititci, Fran Ackermann, Aylin Ates, John Davies, Stephen Gibb, Jillian MacBryde, David MacKay, Catherine Maguire, Robert van der Meer, Farhad Shafti University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK Michael Bourne Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK

1. Introduction
Motivated by earlier works on business process management in general and manage processes in particular, this paper seeks to understand the current state of knowledge on manage-processes and propose a research agenda that would lead to a better understanding of manage-processes. Our curiosity is motivated by the belief that the capabilities and competencies of manage processes are critical to sustaining competitive advantage. A point further elaborated in our discussions and conclusions. The term manage-process was first introduced by the CIMOSA Standards Committee (1989) and was subsequently built upon by Childe et al (1994) in an attempt to define a classifications and generic architecture for business processes as depicted in Figure 1. It therefore has its roots in a business process arena.

Business Process Architecture

Operate Processes

Manage Processes

Support Processes

Get Order Develop Product Fulfil Order Support Product

Set Direction Make Strategy Direct Business

Support IS Support Finance Support HR etc

Figure 1 Business Process Architecture (based on CIMOSA Standard, 1989 and Childe et al, 1994) According to the CIMOSA Standard (1989) and Child et al (1994) business processes may be classified into Operate, Support and Manage Processes. This classification is not unique as evidenced by other authors, such as Davenport (1993), Armistead and Machin (1997) and Garvin (1998), who have developed similar classifications for business processes and will be detailed later in the paper. Although these authors use slightly varying terminologies and there appears to be a degree of confusion with regards to how business processes should be classified, these authors are in

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

general agreement concerning the existence and importance of manage, management or managerial processes. However, and perhaps not surprisingly, there is a degree of confusion with regards to what these manage processes are, and what are their boundaries, scope and contents. As a means for further exploring this arena and hoping to provide additional understanding on manage processes the objective of this paper is to review the extant literature and develop a research agenda towards better understanding of manage processes.

2. Research Method
A systematic approach to a literature review (Tranfield et al, 2003) was adopted throughout the research. The review has been undertaken by an academic team with varying backgrounds including; Business Process Management, Management Science, HRM, Operations Management, Strategic Management and Psychology all of whom were participating in the research that is being reported here. As such a wide coverage of the area was carried out. The focus of the literature search was based on the notion that the capabilities and competencies of the manage-processes are critical to sustaining competitive advantage. Thus the following areas were deemed to be of particular interest: Literature on business processes in general and manage processes in particular. Literature on strategy and strategic management, including the literature on the Resource Based View, covering capabilities and competencies and competitive advantage. Each of these to foci are now considered in turn. 2.1 Business Processes Literature Keyword searches were employed to identify articles published between 1990 and 2007 in specific management databases such as Business Source Premier, Web of Knowledge, Emerald Insight, Management and Organisation Studies and Science Direct. Also a number of journals were chosen as they attract a large number of papers in the field of business process management very often addressing a broad range of managerial problems from a business process perspective. These include; Business Process Management Journal, International Journal of Operations and Production Management; as well as other leading general management journals. Initial key word searches were performed using terms such as business process, manageprocess, managerial process and management process. These search strings identified over 20,000 articles. An initial study of this literature led us to the conclusion that, although a large number of articles do match the search strings as defined above, the contents of these articles were in very few instances specific to manage processes as defined above. More commonly the results returned articles that focused on specific processes such as maintenance management process or how to manage process performance. Consequently a further survey of the literature was conducted by narrowing down this search by including only those articles that took a managerial perspective rather then technology

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

perspective (e.g. ICT) and presented conceptual, literature review or case study papers on the subject.

Strategy and Strategic Management Literature As noted above, there was a particular interest in manage processes, such as the strategy process, but alongside that, a general understanding of the literature on the resource based view competencies was also sought particularly in relation to competencies and capabilities relating to competitive advantage. Thus the literature review commenced with an examination of the leading strategy journals, including: Strategic Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Journal, Long Range Planning, as well as closely related journals such as Journal of Management Studies and British Journal of Management. Following section examines these two bodies of literature.

3. Business Processes Literature


Initial analysis of the business process literature led us to categorise this literature into a number of areas, as illustrated in Table 1. This categorisation is used to help us to explore the literature and is not intended as a proposal as to how this literature should be categorised. Indeed there are several articles that are multifaceted and overlap/crossover these categories. The remainder of this section will explore the contribution of each one of these areas from a manage-process point of view. Table 1. Categorisation of the business process literature.
Category Business process definition Business process classification Business process modelling Main area of concern What business processes are and how they fit into an organisations structure. Classification of business processes How to model business processes Developing various tools, techniques and approaches for modelling. How best to improve organisational performance through radical or incremental change Developing generic but prescriptive models for specific business processes

Business process improvement/re-engineering Business process archetypes

3.1 Business Process Definition The notion of business processes that has been around since the early 1980s was first popularised by Hammer (1990) and since gained wide spread acceptance across the academic and practitioner communities alike. Today, it is a well accepted concept across all industrial, commercial and public sector communities. The most common ontological description of a process is that it begins with inputs which proceed through some form of transformation, and the result is an output. Although the literature provides numerous more complex definitions (Table 2) for business process, all of these reflect, more or less, the same ontology.

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

Table 2 Definitions of business process


What is a business process? A process is a set of logically related tasks performed to achieve a defined business outcome. A structured, measured set of activities designed to produce a specified output for a particular customer or market. It implies a strong emphasis on how work is done within an organization. A collection of activities that takes one or more kinds of input and creates an output that is of value to the customer. Meaningful business processes cuts across departmental functions and boundaries. An approach for converting inputs into outputs. It is the way in which all the resources of an organisation are used in a reliable, repeatable and consistent way to achieve its goal. Defined in terms of start-point, end-point, interfaces and organisational units involved. A series of activities, often involving several organisational units and operated by actors (humans or machines), that are aiming to create value for customers A sequence of activities which adds value by producing required outputs from a variety of inputs. Transformation of inputs into outputs. Processes take in a set of input resources, some of which are transformed into outputs and some of which do the transforming. References (Davenport & Short, 1990) (Davenport, 1993)

(Hammer & Champy, 1993) (Zairi, 1997)

(Malhotra, 1998) (Lin et al., 2002)

(Anon., 2006) (Slack et al., 2006)

Adding to the above definitions Two independent studies by MacIntosh (1997) and Bititci and Muir (1997) using inductive studies modelling work-flow through various activities arrived at some understanding of the key business processes in the case study organisations. Building up on these findings Bititci and Turner (1999) argue that business processes exist naturally in organisations because of what an organisation does. Ould (1995) brings an additional dimension to the above definitions of business processes by defining them in accordance with their life cycle. These are; processes that run continuously; and intermittent processes that start and finish when they are no longer required. Which ever definition we choose to adopt, all of the above definitions either explicitly or implicitly agree that a business process consists of a series of continuous or intermittent cross-functional activities that are naturally connected together with work-flowing through these activities for a particular outcome/purpose. What seems to make the business process approach so powerful is that it not only focuses on activities, i.e. what is done or how it is done, it also places great emphasis on how these activities are interconnected and how work flows through these activities to produce efficient and effective results. 3.2 Business process classification It seems that only a few authors from the business process literature have attempted to classify business processes, as illustrated in Table 3. Moreover, it seems that these classifications are inconsistent whilst also being overlapping. The authors provide varying

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

degrees of insight to the rationale behind their classification as well as to the inner workings of the processes they have defined. Childe et al (1994) whilst providing detailed models for operate processes, merely list the manage and support processes as examples. Garvin (1998) on the other hand explains what he means by these processes and gives examples from literature and practice to support his classification, which he calls a unifying framework. In contrast Armistead and Machin (1997) refer to the CIMOSA classification and suggest that Manage processes are split in to two distinct process categories: Managerial processes and Direction setting processes. They justify this by arguing that business excellence models such as EFQM (Eskilsen et al, 2001) separate leadership from policy and strategy process. According to Armistead and Machin (1997) managerial processes to some extent superordinate to the other categories and contain the decision making and communication activities. For example, entrepreneurial, competence building and renewal processes are managerial processes. Davenport (1993) also provides a comprehensive classification of business processes with a view to providing a greater degree of structure to managerial work. Whilst he recognises the importance of capabilities such as leadership and influence building he suggests that they may be outside the realm of business process orientation. Porter (1985) provides an classification of business activities, Primary Activities and Support Activities, which may also be interpreted as processes. Table 3. Classification of business processes
Child et al (1994) & CIMOSA Standards Committee (1989) Operate Processes
Get Order Develop Product Fulfil Order Support Product

Davenport (1993),

Armistead & Machin (1997)

Garvin (1998)

Porter (1985)

Operational Processes Product and service development processes


Research Engineering and design Manufacturing Logistics

Operational processes

Organisational
Work processes o Operational o Administrative Behavioural processes o Decision making o Communication o Learning Change processes o Creation o Growth o Transformation o Decline

Primary Activities
In bound logistics Operations Outbound logistics Marketing & Sales Service

Manage Processes
Set Direction Formulate strategies Direct Business

Managerial processes

Support Activities
Firm infrastructure Human resource management Technology development Procurement

Support Processes
Support IS Support HR Support Finance etc

Customer Facing processes


Marketing Order management and sales Service processes

Direction setting

Support processes

Managerial
Direction setting Negotiation and selling Monitoring and Control

Management processes
Strategy formulation Planning and budgeting Performance measurement and reporting Resource allocation Human resource management Infrastructure building

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

Stakeholder
communication

Therefore, it seems that, whilst all the authors agree on the fundamental content and context of different business processes there seems to be some confusion over how to classify these processes and what to call them. Furthermore, there seems to be consensus that business processes exist for different purposes. For example, some are customer facing operational processes, other are administrative support processes which are also operational but are not customer facing. Some others are managerial processes concerned with the future performance of the organisation, such as Setting New Directions, Formulating and Implementing Strategies, Managing Change and Transformations, Monitoring and Control to ensure that progress is made in the intended direction. 3.4 Business Processes Modelling The business process literature contains a plethora of research on business process modelling, including introducing a range of supporting tools such as Aris, IDEFine, Protos, Qask, Lombardi, BluePrizm, and so on. The majority of these tools include well established business process modelling techniques such as the Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method SSADM (Gane & Sarson, 1979; Yourdon, 1989), Integrated Definition Methodology IDEF (Mayer et al., 1994) and Strategic Options Development and Analysis SODA (Rosenhead & Mingers, 2001). Researchers and practitioners in this field take the view that to build a complete model of a business process, it needs to be studied and modelled from a number of perspectives (Mingers & Brocklesby, 1997). An overview of the different interpretations of what these perspectives should be is shown in Table 4 below. Table 4 Perspectives on process modelling
(Bal, 1998) CIMOSA Anon (1989) Function Information Resource Organisation (Roberts, 2004) (Scozzi et al., 2005) (Caldwell & Platts, 2005) Structured Soft

Functional Informational Resource Organisational Decisional Behavioural

Routines Architecture People Culture

Sequence of tasks Communication and information flow Decisions Strategic & Political process Creative process

It seems that the business process modelling is a mature field of research where majority of business process modelling approaches, tools and techniques use the above perspectives to describe a business process using visual techniques. These approaches, tools and techniques are commonly used in other areas of business process literature, as follows. [this seems a bit weak] 3.5 Business Process Improvement and Re-engineering

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

Also known as Business Process Management, the roots of this area of research lie in the quality management literature, and is primarily concerned with the improvement of business process performance where the words re-engineering and improvement are used to describe large scale radical change and incremental change respectively. This literature (Armistead et al, 1997; Zairi, 1997; Harrington, 1998; Lee and Dale 1998; ONeil and Sohal, 1999) almost unanimously agrees on the following steps to improve the performance of a business process: Identify and define key business processes. Understand these processes by documenting and modelling them. Here the business process modelling techniques discussed above are commonly used. Define metrics against these processes. Measure and track these metrics. Report on business fundamentals. Benchmark where appropriate and possible. Take corrective action, re-design, re-configure the process to improve performance. In fact, this approach is also consistent with modern process improvement techniques such as Lean Enterprise and Six Sigmas DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve, Control) approach (Antony, 2006). In addition to the more methodical and systematic aspects of business process improvement, this literature also recognises the importance of the social aspects of business process improvement projects. It identifies resistance to change as a major barrier to successful business improvement projects (Davenport, 1993; Elzinga et al, 1995; Corrigan, 1996; DeToro and McCabe, 1997;). Even though, this literature cites several business process improvement and re-engineering case studies almost all of these cases seems to focus on operate or support processes such as Order Fulfilment Process, Product Development Process, Sales Process, Load Approval Process, HR Recruitment Process, HR Appraisal Process and so on (Harrington, 1998; Lee and Dale 1998; ONeill and Sohal, 1999) with very little reference to how manage processes have been identified, modelled, measured, benchmarked and improved. 3.6 Business Process Archetypes Since Hammers (1990) seminal paper a large number of academics, consultants and organisations have used the modelling formalisms discussed above to develop generic models for various business processes. Childe et al (1995) built upon the CIMOSA Standard (1989) and developed generic models for Operate processes using IDEF techniques, which covers Get Order, Develop Product, Fulfil Order, Support Product processes. The Supply-Chain Council (2006) developed a generic business processes model (Supply Chain Operations Reference SCOR Model) for supply chains also using an IDEF like technique. The SCOR Model comprises Plan, Source, Make, Deliver, Return and Enable processes. It covers a similar ground to that of Childe et als (1995) Order Fulfilment Process with the exception of the Enable Process which seems to contain elements of Support Processes as defined earlier in this paper.

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

ODonnel and Duffy (2002) have also used IDEF formalisms to develop a generic model for the Product Development Process. Similarly (Cakar et al., 2003) used the IDEF technique to develop a model of the Human Resource Management business process. Within the practitioner community there seems to be a prolific number of proprietary generic models for business processes. For example, the SAP ERP system is supported by numerous business process models for different industries (Rickayzen et al, 2006). However, as these systems are primarily concerned with supporting the work flow through operational processes it is not surprising that the generic processes defined do not include manage or managerial processes. Building on the earlier conclusion regarding modelling of business processes, it seems that the operate and support processes have been extensively studied, defined and modelled by both the academic and practitioner communities. However, little progress seems to have been made by the academic community to define and understand the manage processes, with the exception of Munive-Hernandez et al. (2004) and few practitioners such as Nokia (Tuomi,1997). Munive-Hernandez et al. (2004) developed a model of the strategy management process based on a review of the strategy literature. Their justification for taking a business process based approach to strategy management is that it ensures consistent generation and communication of strategy throughout an organisation and that the performance of a business strategy can then be measured against a model of initial alignment and effective implementation. Their model is yet to be tested and validated.

3.7 Business Process Literature: Conclusions It is clear that business process approach is recognised as an important and powerful approach with a certain degree of consensus with regards to the definition and modelling of business processes in general. In the literature there is also general consensus that business processes exist for different purposes. Some are customer facing operational processes, some are administrative support processes, which are also operational but are not customer facing, and some are managerial processes concerned with the future performance of the organisation, such as Setting New Directions, Formulating and Implementing Strategies, Managing Change and Transformations, and Monitoring and Control to ensure that progress is made in the intended direction. Despite this level of consensus there seems to be confusion over how to classify business processes and what to call them. At this point it seems that there is need for a unified business process architecture that is grounded in theory. However, the literature concerning classification of business processes in general and definition of manage processes in particular offers fragmented and conflicting views where the discussion does not seem to have moved beyond conceptual models to provide practical guidelines and models. Thus, this review of the business process literature provides clear and compelling reasons for further research into business process classification and more grounded definition of manage processes. However, arriving at this conclusion without first

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

reviewing the strategy and strategic management literature would be in appropriate. Thus, the following section reviews literature in these fields.

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

4. Strategy and Strategic Management Literature


4.1 Evolution of the Strategic Management Literature As with the Business Process literature there is a wealth of writing around the area of strategy, strategic management and strategic planning. Starting with the word itself Strategy which originally was a Greek word strategos meaning a general set of manoeuvres carried out to overcome an enemy, the basic idea can be ascertained as having a clear direction supported by a number of plans in order to achieve a particular outcome. However, as with the Business Process field, the strategy field, is replete with diverse views and perspectives (see Mintzberg et al. 1998 for a discussion on the many interpretations). One particular description is given by Wright (1992) who defines strategy as top managements plans to attain outcomes consistent with the organizations mission and goals. Another similar definition is a strategy is a pattern or plan that integrates an organizations major goals, policies and action sequences into a cohesive whole (Quinn 1980). As can be seen from both, the ideas of planning towards a set of goals is a reoccurring theme. Probably one of the biggest distinctions that exists in the strategy world is the differences between those who advocate the deliberate (sometimes called planning or rational world) view on planning and those who adopt a more emergent viewpoint. Following the Second World War strategy came to represent a powerful way for organizations to increase their chance of success where goals were often viewed as focusing on profit and growth. Authors such as Ansoff (1965.), Chandler (1962) and later Andrews (1980 and 1987), Porter (1980 and 1996) produced powerful models and techniques focusing on this planning or positioning point of view. Furthermore, deliberate strategy builds on the premise that the firm through careful analysis can identify the external influences most likely to affect it, rehearse the conditions which it will encounter, and from this analysis, position itself such that it is able to exploit opportunities while effectively mitigating threats. Strategy thus is viewed as a fit between a firms internal strengths and weaknesses and external threats and opportunities with the starting premise being either the environment (Chandler, 1962; Porter 1980) or a unique market position thus gaining competitive advantage (Porter 1980 and 1996). Deliberate strategy therefore provides a structured means of thinking on complex strategic problems, and advocates various tools and techniques that facilitate managers to understand the nature of the environment, industry structure and forces, organisational strengths and weaknesses. Obvious tools include PESTLE, SWOT, Porters 5 Forces etc (Johnson et al, 2005). It provides frameworks for determining the bases of competitive advantage as well as direction and methods for developing and evaluating strategic options. The real challenge lies in synthesis and deriving deep insights and understanding from the situation at hand. Deliberate strategy provides means of coordination and communication of intended strategy, agreed objectives and to monitor strategic progress (Johnson et al. 2005). However, despite their utility and extensive adoption in organizations deliberate strategies have encountered a considerable amount of criticism. For a strategy to be perfectly delivered it must be clearly articulated and planned, exactly understood throughout the organisation and executed as intended. Given influences from external forces and environmental factors this is

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

not realistic in practice. Mintzberg (1994) a particular critic of this view of strategy noted that strategic planning was fallacy of prediction where its implied premise was that the environment can be suitably analysed and predicted, and he continued to note that another concern was that strategy making was carried out by planners and thus detached from the operational level raising questions about the overall comprehension and ownership. Both of these points suggest a separation from those implementing and managing the change. The alternative view being posited thus emanated from studies indicating that realised strategies in organizations are better accounted for as emergent, meaning that they emerge as a consequence of activities and processes within the organizations rather than deliberate top down plans and intentions (Johnson et al 2005). These could be as a result of opportunistic experiments and purposeful accidents (Collins and Porras 2000). Additionally strategy is shaped by operational level experience and learning over time rather than deliberate positioning suggesting that strategies need not be deliberate but can also emerge (Mintzberg 1987). This view of strategy making as an emergent phenomena can be traced back to Lindbolm (1959) who found that decision making in organisations, far from being a rational phenomenon, was made incrementally through successive limited comparisons which he labelled muddling through. This view was further developed by Quinn (1980) who argued that the focus of strategic management is in the process and that constantly integrating the simultaneous incremental processes of strategy formulation and implementation is the central art of strategic management (Quinn 1980 p 145). So emergent strategy implies learning through experimenting, taking actions one by one to search workable patterns which becomes the strategy. This recognition of an organizations capacity to experiment is significant as it opens the door for strategic learning and is what distinguishes emergent from deliberate. However, emergent strategy itself hasnt avoided criticism. Andrews (1981)) has criticised improvisation as a very limited strategy and refers to Lindbloms muddling through as the classic response to politically confused decisions about purpose. Another criticism of the emergent approach is irrational incrementalism (Hayes and Jaikumar 1988) where the argument is that piecemeal improvements do not always lead to the desirable end effects. Others writing on strategy began to widen the scope. Pettigrew (1997) called for there to be a recognition of the role of politics within strategy making (Pettigrew 1977) a view upheld by Allison (1971) and Perrow (1986). Likewise there was an interest in the culture of the organisation (Weick, 1985; Pettigrew, 1977; Johnson et al. 2005). As a result of these different views it increasingly became apparent that a mix of rational analysis (procedural rationality Simon, 1976) along with attending to the social process (procedural justice Kim & Mauborgne, 1995) was important. Two forms of managerial process. In this manner not only could a strategy be seen as being well founded, coherent and robust but it would also acknowledge and incorporate considerations around the need for the organisation as a whole to understand and own the strategy. Moreover through balancing the deliberate with the emergent, learning could take place and processes improved. Through seeing strategy as a process, one that enabled negotiation towards an agreed future, there was also greater chance of ownership and understanding. As such implementation, seen as separate in the deliberate view, could be considered part of the development of strategy. This is because a

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

key aspect of strategy is changing the way people think and therefore act. Incorporating multiple views also attends to the consideration that whilst strategy processes can be seen to be emergent, they will have less utility unless one can ensure that the emergent strategy analyses and exploits the external environment. Eden & Ackermann (1998) address this through emergent strategizing defining it as a process and a stream of actions that are not random but have a detectable pattern. In fact it was Schendel and Hofer (1979) who first defined strategic management as a process that deals with entrepreneurial work, organisational renewal and growth and guides organisational operations. Pettigrew (1977 and 1992) build upon this work and suggested that strategic outcomes are shaped by features of strategic processes and contexts. It appears that the strategy and strategic management literature has evolved through three schools of thought: Rational (Planned), Emergent and Processual. The processual school seems to encompass elements of other two schools, in that it accepts that the content of strategy emerges through social interaction within the organisation as well as between the organisation and its environment (i.e. its context) as a result of a rational pattern of activities (i.e. the process). Thus the body of literature within the strategic management field, whilst being influenced by Pettigrews (1992) work, seems to have focused on understanding and developing the strategy management process. Examples of some of these works are listed in Table 6, which, whist adopting a process approach, have chosen to express/describe the strategy processes in the form of checklists, guidelines, workbooks or frameworks rather then using process modelling techniques normally used in the business process field. These examples span the different schools of thought.

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

Table 6 - Examples of guidelines, workbooks and checklist for management processes.


Process Description A high level framework for formulating and implementing corporate strategy that takes a process based approach starting with identification of opportunities and risks and ending with implementation of strategy through organisation structure, processes and leadership A framework for strategy development and to a limited extent implementation. Starts with Company mission and end s with formulation of grand and functional strategies, long term and annual objectives. A framework for strategy formulation and implementation. Starts with vision, values and expectations, analyses situation (external and internal), formulates strategy, policies and procedures, plans and implements strategy and ends with strategic control A process based approach to strategic decision making starting from surveillance of the external and internal trends through to strategic decision making based on the degree of uncertainty A sequential framework that starts with defining mission, translates mission in to long and short range objectives, crafts strategy and performance objectives, implements and executes strategy, reviews performance and takes corrective action. A simple framework for corporate strategy management. Starts with environmental scanning, formulates strategy, implements strategy, evaluates and controls performance A continuous cyclic framework that monitors performance against predefined goals, identifies issues, identifies strategies, evaluates and selects strategies, implements strategies. STRATEGEM a process of auditing strategy and identifying improvements through Strategic Analysis, manufacturing analysis, formulating manufacturing strategy and action planning. An 8-Step model for managing change. The eight steps are not necessarily sequential but concurrent. JOURNEY JOintly Understanding, Reflecting, and NEgotiating strategY A method that encompass work by senior management teams through a process of strategy making. Uses cognitive & cause mapping as a technique to model qualitative data. Also, uses Decision Explorer as a tool to manage ideas. A workbook that guides the user through a series of tasks to define and implement a performance measurement system for the business. A workbook that guides the user through a seven tasks. It starts with examining the organisations products, and markets and concludes with a strategy and implementation plan for the strategy. It also places considerable emphasis on embedding the strategy process into the organisation. A process based approach to identifying the value proposition of the organisation. The pases include: Financial analysis, corporate planning, assess market/operations congruence, action planning A workbook that guides the user through a series of tasks that identifies business objectives, business units, the strategic history of each business unit and goes on to facilitate the development of strategies for each business unit. This is intended as a process that needs to be embedded in to the organisation. A process for generation and communication of strategy throughout the organisation developed using IDEF business process modelling technique A 7-step process for understanding and enhancing peripheral vision Reference Andrews, 1987

Strategy

Strategy

Pearson and Robinson, 1988 Digman, 1990

Strategy

Ansoff, 1990

Strategy

Strategy

Thomson and Strickland, 1990

Strategy

Wheelen and Hunger, 1992 Goodman and Lawless, 1994 Hughes, 1996

Performance management Strategy

Change . Strategy

(Kotter, 1996) (Eden and Ackermann, 1998)

Performance

(Neely et al., 1996) Mills et al., 1998

Strategy

Direction setting

Focus (2000)

(Acur, 2004)

Strategy

Strategy

Scanning

MuniveHernandez et al. (2004) (Day & Schoemaker,

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

2006)

The content of Table 6, above, suggest that strategy process research is a well-established field of study in strategy management literature. A number of authors have drawn attention to strategy formulation, implementation and review phases of the strategy process (Childe, 1977; Miller & Friesen, 1982; Chakravarthy & Doz, 1992; Mintzberg & Quinn, 1992; Pettigrew, 1992; Van de Ven, 1992; Camillus et al., 1998; Eden, 1998; Johnson & Scholes, 1999; Acur & Bititci, 2003; Munive-Hernandez et al., 2004; Ackermann et al., 2005; Kaplan & Norton, 2005). Despite the debate on emergent v intended there is general consensus that strategies arise (intentionally or unintentionally), they are implemented and they are monitored and reviewed again either intentionally or unintentionally. Consequently, Manage Strategy could be a manage process. Defining the business values, mission and vision is considered the first step of strategic management as noted in the early definitions, giving structure and direction to a business (Pearce & Robinson, 1991; Collins & Porras, 1995 and 1996; Harari, 1995). According to Nanus (1996) and Harari (1994) vision, mission and values sets the ideals, priorities and a picture of the future. Thus Set Direction could be a manage process that defines and disseminates the vision, mission and values of the organisation with input from the internal and external business environment. The literature also places significant emphasis on the importance of monitoring and controlling progress and effect of strategic decisions and actions. Performance measurement and management is seen as the primary monitoring and control mechanism that deploys strategic objectives and actions through the organisation as well as informing strategic decisions (Kaplan & Norton, 1992; Kaplan & Norton, 1993; Bititci et al., 1997; Bititci & Carrie, 1998; Neely et al., 2000; Neely & Adams, 2001; Campbell et al., 2002). Thus Manage Performance could be the manage process that provides a mechanism for monitoring and control. The literature also places emphasis on the need for monitoring and analysing the micro - and macro business environment i.e. Pettigrews (1992) context and one of the key foci of the deliberate schools of thought. In fact, Aguilar (1967) identified environmental scanning as a process separate from strategy management. According to literature (Aguilar, 1967; Aaker, 1983; Costa, 1995; Van Wyk, 1997; Choo, 1998; Liu, 1998; Beal, 2000; Ngamkroeckjoti & Johri, 2000; Abels, 2002; Albright, 2004 and Day and Schoemaker, 2006) this process comprises identifying the scope of environmental scanning; gathering the information; benchmarking; analysing; making sense of information; predicting the possible future scenarios and disseminating information and knowledge. Thus Scan Environment in itself could be a manage process. Through seeing strategy as a process that enables negotiation towards an agreed future, its implementation therefore stands a greater chance of success as organizational members have a greater sense of understanding and ownership. This is because a key aspect of strategy is to change the way people think and therefore act and touches on the earlier mentioned consideration of procedural justice. In fact, the classic theory of change (Unfreeze, Move, Freeze) as proposed by Lewin (1951) appears to be seen as a business process

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

(Sirkin et al., 2005; Burnes, 2004). Therefore the Manage Change process could also be a manage process. It appears that the strategic management literature provides strong guidance as to what these manage processes could be. However, it would be premature to come to a final conclusion at this stage without first understanding the competencies for sustainable competitive advantage and then comparing the results of the strategy literature to that of the business process literature. 4.2 Resource Based View: Competencies for Sustainable Competitive Advantage Competencies capabilities are tangible and intangible assets/resources that organisations created over time, if difficult to immidate, that could be leveraged to develop competitive advantage (Wernerfelt, 1984; Prahalad and Hamel, 2001; Amit and Schoemacher, 1993). Although, the literature in this area seems to contain a lot of debate on the definition of terms such as capabilities, competencies, core competencies, distinctive competencies and so on. In the context of this paper (i.e. what makes successful organisations different?) our objective is to understand those factors that enable organisations to develop and sustain competitive advantage. Thus the debate surrounding definitions of competencies, capabilities, etc is out side the scope of this paper. Review of this literature in this area led us to identify a number of capabilities and competencies that seems to be essential for an organisation to develop and sustain its competitive advantage. These include: Organisational learning; Knowledge management; Relationship management and Innovation. Organisational learning and knowledge management are seen as the primary mechanisms for development of competencies and capabilities that would lead to rapid innovative responses (Argyris and Schon, 1978). In fact it is argued that innovations, be it process, product, or business model, arises from the application of learning and knowledge from one context in to other contexts (McAdam, 2000; Keogh, 1999). Organisational learning is defined as the process of generating and /or acquiring, interpreting, storing, retrieving, transferring and disseminating cognitive and behavioural knowledge in order to add value to the organisation (Argyris and Schon, 1978; Nonka, 1991; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). The literature on organisational learning argues that organisations develop and sustain their competitive advantage through learning from their own and others (through relationships, networks and co development - Quinn, Anderson and Finkelstein, ????) experiences, that may be internal and external to the organisation, and internalising these experiences and associated knowledge, i.e. generative learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978; Davenport and Prusack, 1998). Thus the facilitation of organisational learning through effective management of knowledge throughout the organisation is seen as a critical competence that enables organisations to develop and sustain competitive advantage (Pettigrew and Whip, 1993; Grant 1996; Conner and Prahalad, 1996; Nahapiet and Goshal, 1998; Davenport and Prusack, 1998; Osterloh and Frey, 2000). 4.3 Strategy and Strategic Management Literature: Conclusions It appears that for an organisation to develop and sustain its competitive advantage some adherence to the manage processes identified earlier in this section should be in place and

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

that these manage processes should collectively enable the organisation to learn generatively, mange knowledge, manage relationships, develop and leverage distinctive competencies, identify threats opportunities in the external and internal environment and rapidly formulate innovative responses and act up on these.

5. Discussion
5.1 Manage Processes In this paper, so far, we have examined two streams of literature: Business Processes and Strategic Management. It appears that these two streams of literature have developed largely independently with some common points. On the one hand the business process community seem to have recognised the existence of management processes as described earlier, on the other hand the strategic management community has recognised that viewing strategy as a business process provides a platform for combining the strengths of the rational and emergent schools of thought. However, it appears as yet, no one from the two communities has sought to define a common definition as to what these management processes should be and how they should interact with each other. Table 7 below compares the manage processes defined in the business process literature against the manage processes emerging from the strategy and strategic management literature.
Strategy and Strategic Management Literature Set direction Scan environment Manage strategy (i.e. formulate and implement strategy) Manage change and transformation Manage performance Davenport (1993), Garvin (1998) Child et al (1994); CIMOSA Standards Committee (1989) and Armistead and Machin (1997)
Set Direction Formulate strategies

Strategy formulation Strategy formulation

Direction setting Monitoring and Control Decision making Communication Learning Negotiation and selling Change processes Monitoring and Control

Strategy formulation Planning and budgeting Resource allocation Resource allocation

Formulate strategies

Direct Business

Performance measurement and reporting

Direct Business

It appears that although different terminologies are used to describe these processes and that what is meant by and the scope of a particular term may vary (e.g. Davenports definition of Strategy Formulation includes direction setting and environmental scanning) there is a relatively high degree of congruence as to what these manage processes could be. Considering the table above and the literature we would propose Set Direction; Scan Environment; Manage Strategy, Manage Change and Manage Performance as potential manage processes.

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

We would go further and add that, based on the literature reviewed these processes are not mutually exclusive but they are highly interdependent, informing and governing each other. For example, the output of the Set Direction process would govern the activities and decisions of other processes, similarly the out put of processes such as Scan Environment and Manage Performance would inform the activities and decisions of other manage processes. This interdependence and governance suggest that this system of manage processes provides the basis of an architecture for manage processes. Furthermore, based on our earlier definition for business processes (see section 3.1) we would argue that these processes, whether intended or not, naturally exists in organisations and that they may be continuous or intermittent processes. For example, Set Direction and Managing Change are likely to be intermittent processes triggered by a need for reviewing current direction and change respectively. Whereas processes such as Scan Environment; Manage Strategy and Manage Performance are likely to be continuous processes as the literature in these areas suggest that the environment needs to be continuously scanned, strategic decisions and actions needs to be continuously managed as they emerge and performance of operational and support processes needs to be managed in according with these decisions and actions on a continuous basis. Thus, based on the above discussion we would propose the following definitions for the five manage processes we have identified in this paper: Set Direction the intermittent process by which the organisation defines and reviews its mission, vision, values, value propositions and policies leading to a set of long term goals for the organisation that provides direction and guidance to all other decisions and actions. Scan Environment the continuous process by which the organisation monitors the changes and developments in its immediate (micro) and wider (macro) environment and assesses the significance of these changes and developments with respect to its own direction, strategy and performance. Manage Strategy the continuous process by which the organisation formulates, disseminates, implements and reviews the means by which it intends to achieve the long term goals of the organisation. Manage Change the intermittent process by which the organisation manages any incremental or radical changes. Manage Performance - the continuous process by which the organisation measures, monitors and coordinates the performance of activities within the organisation to ensure that they individually and collectively meet the objectives set. Furthermore, the evolution of the strategic management literature points us towards exploring the key characteristics of manage processes with respect to operate processes, which have been well researched by the business process management community. In particular, evolution of the strategic management literature from a Rationalist School to Emergent School is fundamentally based on the fact that future is unpredictable and that planned (rationalistic) approach to strategy does not work in practice Mintzberg (1994). Thus we would argue that, manage processes, collectively, have to operate in an environment that is both complex and uncertain (Johnson & Scholes, 1999). Furthermore, according to Ashbys (1952) law of

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

requisite variety the greater the complexity and uncertainty the greater the amount of significant information that needs to be processed incorporating learning and knowledge management activities. This also means that manage processes need to deal with holistic issues by integrating different and potentially conflicting and emotional views (Johnson & Scholes, 1999) across the organisation whilst trying to create a workable balance between stability and constant change (Ackerman et al., 2005). Thus, Manage processes seem to be more concurrent than sequential. It is also a recognised fact that managerial decisions and actions relating to strategy, change, performance etc takes place as result of conversations between different players either formally in boardrooms or informally in offices and even in corridors (Mintzberg, 1994; Ackerman et al., 2005). Thus manage processes are more cognitive and interpretative. Table 8 summarises conclusions as to the key characteristics of manage processes v operate processes. Table 8 Characteristics of Operate v Manage processes
Manage Process operate in an environment that is More uncertainty More emergent More concurrent More cognitive and intangible More complex More influenced by emotions and behaviours More Learning, knowledge management focused Operate Process operate in an environment that is More certain More planned More sequential More task oriented and tangible Less complex More influenced by procedures and skills More operational and technical excellence focused

Therefore, we would infer, based on the resource based view, that, in order to perform in this complex, uncertain, emergent, concurrent and emotional environment, the five manage processes listed above must develop core competencies in: Organisational learning Knowledge management Relationship management Developing and leveraging distinctive competencies Identifying opportunities and threats in the environment Rapidly developing innovative and appropriate responses Rapid execution (i.e. action on the appropriate responses) Filtering or minimising uncertainly for operate and support processes to enable them to perform in a relatively stable and predictable environment Having review the business process literature and compared this with that in strategic management, including the resource based view, we have come to the conclusion that although there is a lot of synergy between the two fields (business process and strategic management) they remain distant from each other. We think the primary reason behind this may be the epistemological orientations of the researchers in the two fields. In this paper we have demonstrated the synergy and tensions between these two fields and went on to conclude that both fields readily recognise and accept the existence of manage processes and have more or less attempted to progress their understanding further. We have also developed an initial view on what these manage processes would be, how they differ from other support and operate processes and what their collective competencies and

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

capabilities should be. However, this review also led us to raise number further questions that requires further research. These are: Scope Structure and Content of Manage Processes Are the five manage processes we have identified here valid in practice? Are there other manage processes that our review failed to identify? How do the five manage processes interact with each other? Are the five manage processes we identified a set of sub-process within a large manage process? What is the structure and content of each manage process? I.e. what are the constituent management activities and practices of each process? Capabilities and Competencies of Manage Processes How can we measure or assess the performance or capability of these processes? If the competencies and capabilities of the manage processes are key to sustaining competitive advantage, is it possible to identify the manage processes and the constituent management activities and practices associated with companies that consistently perform above average? Is it possible and useful to develop outcome based on capability lifecycles or maturity models for these processes (Helfat and Peteraf, 2003)? What determines the capabilities of these processes?... individual management activities and practices?... or how a number of management activities and practices are bundled together and executed in relation to one another? Modelling the Manage Processes Considering the different characteristics of the manage processes fro the operate processes. Are the current process modelling methods, tools and techniques appropriate for modelling and understanding the uncertain, emergent, cognitive, concurrent and emotional nature of manage processes? How do these manage processes interact with other support and operate processes?

We believe that it would be necessary to seek answers to these questions through inductive studies using grounded theory techniques by examining management activities and practices of a variety of organisations. The research approach would need to balance between qualitative and quantitative analysis. Quantitative analysis, using generic taxonomies that emerge from the data set, would be essential for identifying patterns and interrelationships between processes, management activities and practices, qualitative analysis would serve to surface the finer details and identify the softer variables that may underpin the factors that differentiate a good process from a average process.

5.2 Generic Business Process Architecture As noted above, the business process community having differentiated between the operational, support and managerial processes do not concur strongly on the definitions boundaries and contents of these. These conflicting and overlapping opinions furthermore are proposed without reference to each others work hindering both theoretical development and practical usage. In fact Childe et als (1994) focus, when defining the model shown in Figure 1,

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

was to understand operate processes 1 . They did not intend their framework to define in detail other processes of support and manage. On the other hand the strategy and strategic management community clearly recognises the need and does indeed view strategy, change, performance management and so on as business processes. However, this is done in isolation and without the contextual framework or architecture that unifies how these managerial processes relate to one another, and how they relate and interact with other operate and support processes. In our opinion there is an opportunity to research and develop a generic business process architecture that unifies the works of the business process and strategic management communities. We believe that such a framework would open opportunities for further theoretical and practical insights in to both strategic management and business process management. In our opinion the original architecture defined in Figure 1 (CIMOSA Standard, 1989 and Childe et al, 1994) provides a good basis for proposing a generic architecture as it appears to accommodate all the business processes detailed in Table 3 under a single framework. Working on this basis and drawing from the literature we would propose therefore the following definitions for the three generic classifications of business processes as depicted in Figure 2 below: Operate Processes These are external customer facing operational processes that create value and define the current competitive position of the organisation. Support Processes They exist to support the operate and manage processes through the provision of appropriate resources (tangible and/or intangible). Manage Processes These are processes that direct and control the organisation to sustain performance and competitiveness.

Private communication, Manage Processes Research Advisory College Meetings on April 2006 and April 2007.

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

Manage Processes

Monitor Ext. Environment Environment Environment Environment

Manage Manage Manage Manage Performance


Personnel

Set Direction Direction Direction Direction

Manage Manage Manage Manage Strategy

Technology

Corporate

Learning

Manage

Manage

Finance

Support

Figure 2 Proposed business process architecture If we are to develop a unifying architecture that would encompass all business processes and their interrelationships, there is also a need to consider the support processes and one of the messages from this paper is that there is a need for a research initiative specifically to identify the scope and content of support process in the context of the Generic Business Process Architecture proposed.

Manage Change

Operate Processes

Develop Product Get Order Fulfil Order Support Product

Support Processes

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

6. Conclusions
Having examined, compared and reflected on the two bodies of literature it has become clear that manage processes, also known as Managerial processes or management processes, is a valid construct. Although, in the strategic management literature there is clear trend toward process based approaches to management the two fields remain distant from each other mainly we think due to epistemological reasons. In this paper we have identified the need for better understanding what these manage processes are, how they relate to one another and how their capabilities evolve (Van de Ven, 1992), through inductive studies that examine management activities and practices using capability lifecycle approaches (Helfat and Peteraf, 2003). Such research conducted collaboratively between the two fields will indeed make a significant contribution to management research and practice by producing grounded insights as to the patterns of activities and practices associated with different levels of performance outcome. Furthermore, although not discussed in depth we also identified the need to work towards a unifying business process architecture that could provide the framework to guide further research in to support, operate and manage processes. We believe that a unifying architecture will also have significant implications for both researchers and practitioners alike by providing an integrated business process based framework in to the study, analysis, design and improvement of organisational structures, processes and performance outcomes.

References
Allen R S, and Helms M M, 2006, Linking Strategic Practices and organisational performance to Porters generic strategies, Business Process Management Journal, vol. 12 , no. 4, 2006, pp 433-454. Allison, G.T. 1971. Essence of Decision: explaining the Cuban missile crisis, Boston: Little Brown. Amit R and Schoemacher P, 1993, Strategic Assets and Organisational Rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 33-46. Andrews, K.R. 1980. The Concept of Corporate Strategy, McGraw-Hill: New York. Andrews, K.R. 1981. Replaying the Board's Role in Formulating Strategy. Harvard Business Review, May-June(18-26. Andrews, K.R. 1987. The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Homewood IL: Irwin Edition. Ansoff, I. 1965. Corporate Strategy, New York: McGraw-Hill. Antony, J, 2006, Six Sigma for Service Processes, Business Process Management Journal, Vol.12, No.2, pp. 234-248. Argyris C and Schon D, 1978, Organisational Learning; a Theory and Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA. Armistead C, Machin S, Pritchard JP, 1997, Implications of business process management on operations management, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, vol.17 no.9, pp 886-898. Bititci U S and Turner T J, 1999,"The Viable Business Structure", International Journal of Agile Manufacturing Systems, vol.1 no.3, 1999.

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

Bititci, U.S. and Muir D, Business Process Definition: A Bottom-Up Approach, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol.17 Nos. 4, 1997, MCB University Press, ISSN 0144-3577, pp. 365-374. Chandler, A. 1962. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise, Cambridge, US: MIT Press. Chiles T H, 2003, Process theorising: Too important to ignore in a kaleidic world, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2003, vol. 2, no. 3, 288-291. Collins, C.C. & Porras, J.I. 2000. Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, London: Random House. Corrigan, S, 1996, Human and Organizational Aspects of Business Process Reengineering, Warwick Manufacturing Group Davenport T H, (1993), Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, USA.) DeToro I and MacCabe T, 1997, How to stay flexible and elude fads, Quality Progress, vol 30, no. 3, pp 55-60. Eden, C. & Ackermann, F. 1998. Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management, London: Sage. Elzinga DJ, Horak T, Chung Yee L and Bruner C, 1995, Business Process Management Survey and Methodology, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 24, no. 2, pp119-128.
Eskildsen J K, Kristensen K, Juhl H J, 2001, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management; Volume: 18, Issue: 8, pp 783 795

Garvin, D A, 1998, The Process of Organization and Management, Sloan Management Review, Summer 1998, 39, 4. Hammer M, 1990, Reengineering work: Dont automate, obliterate, Harvard Business Review, July/August 1990. Harrington, 1998, Performance improvement: The raise and fall of re-engineering, TQM Magazine, vol.10, No 2. pp 69-71. Hayes, R.H. & Jaikumar, R. 1988. Manufacturing's Crisis: New Technologies, Obsolete Organizations. Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct(77-85. Helefat C E and Peteraft M A, 2003, The dynamic resource based view: Capability lifecycles, Strategic Management Journal, 24, 997-1010. Johnson, G., Scholes, K., and Whittington, R. 2005. Exploring Corporate Strategy, Essex: Pearson Education Ltd. Kim, W. C. and Mauborgne, R. A. A Procedural Justice Model of Strategic Decision Making. 95;6:44-61. Lee R G and Dale B G, 1998, Business process management: a review and evaluation, Business Process Management Journal, vol. 4, no. 3, MCB University Press. pp 214-225 Lindblom, C. E., 1959, The Science of Muddling Through. Publick Adiministration Review, vol. 19, no 2, pp 79-88. MacIntosh R, 1997, Business process re-engineering: New applications for the techniques of production engineering, International Journal of Production Economics, 50, pp 43-49. Mintzberg, H. 1987. Crafting Strategy. Harvard Business Review, July-August(66-75. Mintzberg, H. 1994. The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning. Harvard Business Review , JanFeb(107-114. Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. A. Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent. 85;6: 3:257-272. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., and Lampel, J. 1998. Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of Strategic Management, New York, NY: The Free Press.

Bititci, Ackermann, Ates, Davis, Gibb, MacBryde, MacKay, Maguire, van der Meer, Shafti and Bourne, 2008, Manage Processes what are they?, SIOM Research Paper Series, 001, 17Jun 2008, www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/papers

ONeill P and Sohal, A S, 1999, Business process re-engineering:A review of recent literature, Technovation, vol. 19, pp 517-581. Ould M A, 1995, Business processes: Modeling and analysis for re-engineering and improvement, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Perrow C. 1986. Complex Organizations (3rd Edition), New York: Random House. Pettigrew A. M. , 1992, The Character and Significance of Strategy Process Research, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13, Special Issue: Fundamental Themes in Strategy Process Research (Winter, 1992), pp. 5-16 Pettigrew, A. 1977. Strategy formulation as a political process. International Studies in Management and Organization, 7(78-87. Porter, M.E. 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for analysing industries and competitors, New York: Free Press. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: The Free Press. Porter, M.E. 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6): 61-78. Prahalad C K and Hamel G, 2001, The core competence of the organisation, Harvard Business review, April 2001. Quinn, J.B. 1980. Strategies for Change: logical incrementalism, Homewood, Illinois : Irwin. Rickayzen A, Dart J, Brennecke C, Schneider M, 2006, Practical Workflow for SAP, Gallieleo Press. Schendel D E and Hofer C W, 1979, Strategic management: A new view of business policy and planning, Little, Brown, Boston, MA. Simon, H.A. 1976. From substantive to procedural rationality. In S. J. Latsis (Eds), Method and Appraisal in Economics: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P, 2003, Towards a Methodology for Developing EvidenceInformed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, 207222 Tuomi I, 1997, Developing Knowledge Management infrastructure for Nokia strategy process", Conference on Organizational Learning, April 17 - 18, 1997, Chicago, IL. Weick, K.E. 1985. The significance of corporate culture. Organizational Culture, 381-389. Wernerfelt B, 1984, A resource-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 171-180. Zairi, M (1997), Business process management: A boundaryless approach to modern competitiveness, Business Process Management Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp 64-80.

También podría gustarte