The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ten principles of good business process management
Open accessAbstract
Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to foster a common understanding of business process management (BPM) by proposing a set of ten principles that characterize BPM as a research domain and guide its successful use in organizational practice. Design/methodology/approach - The identification and discussion of the principles reflects our viewpoint, which was informed by extant literature and focus groups, including 20 BPM experts from academia and practice. Findings - We identify ten principles which represent a set of capabilities essential for mastering contemporary and future challenges in BPM. Their antonyms signify potential roadblocks and bad practices in BPM. We also identify a set of open research questions that can guide future BPM research. Research limitation/implication - Our findings suggest several areas of research regarding each of the identified principles of good BPM. Also, the principles themselves should be systematically and empirically examined in future studies. Practical implications - Our findings allow practitioners to comprehensively scope their BPM initiatives and provide a general guidance for BPM implementation. Moreover, the principles may also serve to tackle contemporary issues in other management areas. Originality/value - This is the first paper that distills principles of BPM in the sense of both good and bad practice recommendations. The value of the principles lies in providing normative advice to practitioners as well as in identifying open research areas for academia, thereby extending the reach and richness of BPM beyond its traditional frontiers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Design Science in Information Systems Research1
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148625 · Cited by 10,707 · cited 2×
“Following Klein and Myers (1999) and Hevner et al. (2004), we advise against compulsory or mere routine use of the principles.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDesign science in information systems research
(2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.5555/2017212.2017217 · Cited by 8,254
A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems1
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249410 · Cited by 5,263
Cited by
Big data analytics and firm performance: Findings from a mixed-method approach
Mikalef, P., Boura, M., Lekakos, G., & Krogstie, J. (2019) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.044 · Cited by 722
The Six Core Elements of Business Process Management
Rosemann, M., & vom Brocke, J. (2015) · Handbook on Business Process Management 1 · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-45100-3_5 · Cited by 394
Self-citationMikalef, P., & Krogstie, J. (2020) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2020.1740618 · Cited by 331
Metadata
- Authors
- vom Brocke, J., Schmiedel, T., Recker, J., Trkman, P., Mertens, W., & Viaene, S.
- Venue
- Business Process Management Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2014-07
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 530-548
- ISSN
- 1463-7154 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2068018960
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 43.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ten principles of good business process management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/bpmj-06-2013-0074
- The paper
- vom Brocke, J., Schmiedel, T., Recker, J., Trkman, P., Mertens, W., & Viaene, S. (2014). Ten principles of good business process management. Business Process Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/bpmj-06-2013-0074
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.