This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The performance impact of business process standardization
An empirical evaluation of the recruitment process
¨ ¨ Bjorn Munstermann
Department of Information Systems and Services, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany
Performance impact of BPS
Institute of Information Systems, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and
Department of Information Systems and Services, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show if business process standardization (BPS) has an impact on business process performance and should be considered as both a valid business process management (BPM) measure and a regular driver of process success. Design/methodology/approach – An empirical analysis based on data from 156 ﬁrms is used to evaluate the hypothesis that process standardization positively impacts business process time, cost, and quality. Findings – First, the paper proposes a model and empirical operationalization to analyze the impact of process standardization on process performance. Second, empirical analysis shows that BPS has a decisive impact on process performance (R 2 ¼ 61.9 percent). Precisely, there is a signiﬁcant impact on process time, cost, and most notably on quality. The results indicate that the impact is strongest in services ﬁrms and varies subject to a ﬁrm’s strategy type. Practical implications – The results suggest that BPS should regularly be considered a prime action item and major tool in a ﬁrm’s BPM toolbox. Originality/value – The paper is among the ﬁrst to empirically show the vital impact of process standardization on performance. For academics and practitioners interested in BPM and the value impact of processes, the results suggest adding process standardization as a regular argument into research on and management of business processes. Keywords Business process re-engineering, Standardization, Process management, Recruitment Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction An important management question is how to enhance the performance of a company’s business processes. Over the past few decades, ﬁrms have increasingly structured their activities along end-to-end business processes and the “process-centric” perspective of a company’s activities became prevalent (Tallon et al., 2000; Barua et al., 1995; Kettinger et al., 1997; Skrinjar et al., 2008; Goldkuhl and Lind, 2008). One possible level to increase the performance of a given business process is “process standardization.”
Business Process Management Journal Vol. 16 No. 1, 2010 pp. 29-56 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1463-7154 DOI 10.1108/14637151011017930
Accordingly, process standardization is receiving increased academic and practitioner attention. Venkatesh (2006), for example, identiﬁes “process standardization” as one of three “broad future research directions.” An impressive number of recently published papers on process standardization shows the associated relevance ´ ´ (Sanchez-Rodrıguez et al., 2006; Bala and Venkatesh, 2007; Wuellenweber and Weitzel, 2007; von Stetten et al., 2008; Muenstermann and Weitzel, 2008). From a practitioner perspective, attention is largely aimed at huge cost-saving opportunities through process standardization – as a recent Computer Weekly headline (Hadﬁeld, 2007) impressively illustrates:
BP Retail expects to save up to £600 m over the next few years by standardizing business processes and IT systems at all of its petrol stations around the world.
But besides cost savings, process standardization as a tool of business process management (BPM) can offer further value. Swaminathan (2001) demonstrates “better operative process performance through business process standardization” and argues further that “process standardization provides immense beneﬁts.” Ramakumar and Cooper (2004) declare that “process standardization proves proﬁtable” while Wuellenweber et al. (2008) suggest that process standardization also increases transparency and controllability. Unfortunately to date and to our best knowledge, no stringent empirical exploration of the impact of process standardization on process performance exists. Therefore, in this paper, we aim at answering the research question: RQ. What is the impact of process standardization on process performance? We suggest that a better understanding of the impact of process standardization on process performance might beneﬁt business process research, standardization research, and BPM practice alike by providing a new perspective on how and why particular process standards are developed and used (de Vries, 1999) with the eventual goal to theoretically link research on business process optimization to business value research (Melville et al., 2004; Balasubramanian and Gupta, 2005). To explore the relationship between process standardization and process performance and to evaluate if this research area warrants more extensive research, we develop (Section 2) and empirically evaluate (Section 3) a model of the impact of process standardization on process performance using data from 156 ﬁrms. The paper closes with a discussion of the results, potential limitations and possible areas of further research (Section 4). 2. Research model 2.1 Process standardization Starting with a deﬁnition of “business process” as the object to be standardized, we follow one of the most common deﬁnitions given by Davenport and Short (1990). They deﬁne “business process” as a “set of logically related tasks performed to achieve a deﬁned business outcome.” It is, to a considerable degree, more difﬁcult to approach “standard,”, respectively, “standardization.” The probably most common deﬁnition has been given by ISO (1996):
Standards are documents. [. we restrict our research to a purely inner-organizational understanding of process standardization and aim at investigating the effect of inner-organizational process standardization on process performance. . 31 Combining the deﬁnitions of “business process” and “standard” and trying to approach “process standardization” now – again as before – several authors diagnose a lack of ﬁtting literature: von Stetten et al. we see several reasons why this is a worthwhile topic. Swaminathan. rules. Ramakumar and Cooper. 2001).] there is not much relevant literature to be found.] Notably absent are studies of standardization concepts. or as Ross (2003) puts it to “gain a platform ..” The work of Muenstermann and Weitzel (2008) in contrast provides a ﬁrst proposal of how to deﬁne a measurement construct for “process standardization. 2006. or the economics of ICT standards. 2.2 Basic model: impact of process standardization on process performance Our main research goal is to determine whether process performance is positively affected by process standardization. established by consensus and approved by a recognized body that provides. aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context. 2000. (2008) point out. . For this purpose. there is the frequently uttered proposition particularly in practitioner communities that standardized processes will show better process performance (Fomin and Lyytinen. Ungan (2006) points out that “despite its great attractiveness. 2004. academics’ and practitioners’ work on process standardization is conspicuously absent. (2007) further deﬁne “process standardization as a means to change business processes from where they are to a standard business process” and “focus on a meta process: the process of changing a process. Although some ideas can be borrowed from the rich business process improvement literature from the nineties. the IS ﬁeld has not pursued research on it vigorously. for common and repeated use. Second.” Lyytinen and King (2006) highlight the importance of standardization but complain about an alarming lack of research on it: Despite the importance of standardization. Performance impact of BPS Other authors like de Vries (2006) go in even more detail when deﬁning “standard” and “standardization. and strong contributions are lacking. Muenstermann and Weitzel. Scholarly discussions are rare. The archetype process against which the process variants are aligned can either be created or selected within the focal ﬁrm or be based on/adopted from an existing external reference/best in class process. guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results. . processes. First. process standardization has a high potential to increase process ﬂexibility and thereby allows companies to react more ﬂexibly and innovatively to changes (van Wessel et al. 2008). only a very limited number of papers exist treating “business process standardization” solely. the impact of ICT standards on industrial coordination and strategy. that: [. As indicated. we deﬁne “process standardization” as the uniﬁcation of variants of a given business process by aligning the variants against an archetype process.” Shaw et al.” Wuellenweber et al.” For this paper. (2008) deﬁne “the objective of [process] standardization” as “to make process activities transparent and achieve uniformity of process activities across the value chain and across ﬁrm boundaries. .
2008). Phelps.1 32 positioned for innovation. Drawing mainly on production and supply-chain literature (de Toni and Panizzolo. 1998. 2004. (2006). (2006) assert – based on Jayaram and Vickery (1998) – that standardization of purchasing procedures “has a signiﬁcant positive effect on both purchasing and business performance.” Balasubramanian and Gupta (2005) develop an approach that allows “estimating business process performance ex ante using ‘structural metrics’. Wuellenweber et al. 1993. the overall quality and thereby customer conﬁdence improves To outsource business processes To merge with or buy other companies To react to regulatory changes To react to changing compliance needs To react to market and external change and trends by increased process ﬂexibility Make process activities transparent Allow for benchmarking due to common key performance indicators Employees can move more easily from one location to another or one product to another due to standardized processes Simpliﬁed communication among departments and locations within organizations Enhanced readiness Simpliﬁed and increased communication/ transparency/measurability Table I. facilitating communication. Beneﬁt Improved process performance Improved customer conﬁdence Description Reduced end-to-end time (cycle-time) Reduced process costs Improved process quality Standardized processes reduce probability for process-driven mistakes Standardized processes allow to cope with continuously increasing process complexity Consequently. only little is empirically known about the impact of process standardization on process performance and speaking more generally on its business value contribution.” And third. Therefore.BPMJ 16. Aiming at identifying the value of process standardization. ´ ´ Sanchez-Rodrıguez et al. there is some empirical indication that standardized processes can signiﬁcantly increase a company’s readiness to outsource business processes (Wuellenweber et al. Manrodt and Vitasek.. Hesser et al. reducing costs. and proﬁting from expert knowledge). Exemplary beneﬁt of process standardization Source: Based on Muenstermann and Weitzel (2008) . give an impressively substantial list of advantages to companies and their customers. Jayaram and Vickery.. 2006. one ﬁnds that standardization of business processes pursues diverse objectives (improving operational performance. the goal of this paper is to ﬁll this research gap by ﬁrst developing a relevant and measurable research model around process standardization and to then empirically evaluate the model. Yet.” Muenstermann and Weitzel (2008) summarize the potential beneﬁt of process standardization in their literature review of process standards as shown in Table I. 2008) or to merge with or buy other companies.
i. Encouraged by the referred research results and the preceding arguments.3 Extended model: impact of process standardization on process time.2 2.1 Positive effect of process standardization on business process time. reduces process time H2.1 2. i. i. which can easily be measured quantitatively. cost. cost. Figure 2 shows the research model resulting corresponding to H1-H3 which are elaborated in the following. Hypotheses in extended research model . along the process (sub)-activities from the beginning to the end of the process. Process standardization is positively associated with business process time.3. This perspective leads us to three hypotheses (H1-H3) in Table II. (1996)..3. Process standardization is positively associated with business process quality. respectively. 2006. 2. Process standardization is positively associated with business process cost.Within this paper.3. and quality To reﬁne the consideration of the impact of process standardization on process performance. 2. Lillrank and Liukko.e. standardization makes it simpler to perform a given business process by reducing the overall process diversity/variance (Hesser et al. increases process quality Section 2. Process standardization is positively associated with process performance. Earlier research allowed us to develop and evolutionarily reﬁne a measurement model to now have a tested and therefore mature process performance construct at our disposal. In a ﬁrst step process.3. reduces process cost H3. Hypothesis H1. Among the beneﬁts of process standardization (as shown in Table I). The ﬁrst argument to theoretically derive the positive effect of process standardization on business process time is that a standardized business process is simpler to perform or operate than a non-standardized business process and consequently can be operated with less cycle time. we propose to focus on analyzing the impact of process standardization on process performance. We expect a positive effect of process standardization on business process time where business process time indicates the total time elapsed to produce a product or to deliver a service.e.3 Table II. 2004) Performance impact of BPS 33 Process standardization H1′ (+) Process performance Note: Basic research model for the impact of process standardization on process performance Figure 1. we expand the dependent variable process performance along the more detailed process performance success dimensions process time. and quality following authors like Wagner (2006) or Mooney et al.e. we posit (Figure 1): H1 0 . “process performance” is the beneﬁt dimension.
2004) and the overall process transparency (Wuellenweber et al.” Drawing on this. respectively.BPMJ 16.” Ungan (2006) points out that “process documents must be created to standardize a process. employees disposing of more process knowledge and performing more uniform process-(sub)-activities than before process standardization activities are able to afterwards reduce cycle time. according to Jayaram and Vickery (1998). and quality H3 (+) Process quality and – as a consequence of the standardization activities – increasing both the availability of implicit and explicit process knowledge (Bandow et al. Jayaram et al. Further.. A third argument combines ﬁndings of Ungan and Siha and Saad. In his article.”. . cost. Hence. 2008. documenting processes – as an essential part of process standardization – leads to signiﬁcant cycle time reductions and thus supports the hypothesis of a positive effect of process standardization on business process time. that they “are important tools to standardize a process. A second argument. (2000) examined the direct and complementary effects of information system infrastructure and process improvements on time-based performance. “Standardization through process documentation. In a second step. Siha and Saad (2008) provide six case studies in which extensive process documentation led to signiﬁcant cycle time reductions. They found that among several process improvement variables process standardization is “the most inﬂuential enabler affecting delivery-speed.1 H1 (+) Process time 34 Process standardization H2 (+) Process cost Figure 2. is that “standardization can also create focused expertise with materials and processes to a point where it is much easier to identify sources of delay. Extended research model for the impact of process standardization on process time. in a supply-chain context using an empirical study of 57 top-tier suppliers to the North American automotive industry. we conclude that the more sources of delay are found. In short.” This again supports our hypothesis of a positive effect of process standardization on business process time. 2008). and thereby engenders “cycle time reduction” directly. unnecessary steps and opportunities for parallelism. the more unnecessary process steps are eliminated and the more opportunities for parallelism are used within a given business process.. Engelhardt et al.” In their overview of empirical assessments of process improvement activities. the more process standardization contributes to reduce business process time.. Jayaram and Vickery (1998) elementarily argue that process standardization simpliﬁes the activities and sub-activities of a given business process.
These arguments (summarized in Table III) lead to H1: H1. Standardization being the most inﬂuential enabler affecting delivery speed and responsiveness to customer’s performance” “Speciﬁcally. 2. we again hypothesize that process standardization directly leads to a reduction of business process time. (2000) Manrodt and Vitasek (2004) Table III. reduces process time.” Manrodt and Vitasek (2004) focus on “internal global process management and standardization.e.” Within this project. The ﬁrst and probably most generic argument to derive the positive effect of process standardization on business process cost is that process standardization leads Reference Jayaram and Vickery (1998) Key ﬁnding “Clearly. [. . i.” They provide an in-depth case-study tackling the “process management of a global third party provider” which conducted a “supply chain conditioning and execution project. When it comes to quantifying the results of the mentioned project Manrodt and Vitasek observe an impressive “61% reduction in order turnaround time. unnecessary steps and opportunities for parallelism” Process documentation is an essential part of process standardization since “process documents must be created to standardize a process” and therefore are “important tools to standardize a process” Providing six case studies Siha and Saad deduce signiﬁcant process cycle time reductions from extensive process documentation Consequently. . Results of this effort were identiﬁed in several areas. a “common methodology that fosters an environment for collaboration and process standardization” was created.2 Positive effect of process standardization on business process cost. investigating different possibilities to improve “a company’s operational competitive advantage.] For instance [. process standardization via its part process documentation leads to signiﬁcant cycle time reductions “Process improvement also directly inﬂuenced supply-chain time performance” “Each of the three process improvement variables also inﬂuenced some aspect of supply-chain time-based performance. the IT factor along with process improvement variables (standardization and concurrent engineering) had a complementary and signiﬁcant positive inﬂuence on time-based performance” “Employees consistently echoed the belief that the business had created a common methodology that fosters an environment for collaboration and process standardization. We expect a positive effect of process standardization on business process cost.] 61% reduction in order turnaround time” Performance impact of BPS 35 Ungan (2006) and Siha and Saad (2008) Jayaram et al.” Inferring from their ﬁndings.3. . standardization simpliﬁes. Process standardization is positively associated with business process time. . where business process cost indicates the cost assigned to a business process based on the sum of the cost of the (sub)-activities that compose the process. Overview of literature supporting H1 .Finally. thus engendering cycle time reduction” “Standardization can also create focused expertise with materials and processes to a point where it is much easier to identify sources of delay.
For example.” Sanchez-Rodrıguez et al. van Wessel et al. (2006) cite Bennett (1982). They ﬁnd signiﬁcantly reduced process cost due to the possibility to decrease the number of employees after having standardized the HR process. Similarly but focusing on cost-reduction potential on the information technology (IT) side of business processes. The easier. Beimborn et al. Ramakumar and Cooper. We thus expect process standardization to reduce business process cost due to the fact that it ﬁrst leads to a profound understanding of the business process. 2004).” Looking into the drivers that lead to reduce business process cost when performing process standardization in more detail. by achieving economies of scale. one ﬁnds another argument contributory .BPMJ 16. Following the argumentation of Manrodt and Vitasek (2004). we hypothesize that process standardization leads to reduced business process cost by the possibility to reduce the number of employees necessary to operate the standardized process. Another argument that contributes to H1 is that process standardization can enable headcount reductions. Drawing on the statistical theory of variation (STV) developed by Shewhart (1931) and expanded by Deming (1986). (2006) reason that process standardization gives rise to the “decommissioning of legacy HR systems” which in most cases goes along with signiﬁcant cost reductions.1 36 to operational efﬁciency or improved operational performance. Within the same in-depth case study as cited in the previous section (Section 2. it was clear already that “standardization of purchasing procedures ´ ´ could also be a potential point of cost savings for companies. Considering the three previous arguments in unison. by the possibility to decommission legacy IT systems that the standardized process does not require anymore as well as by reducing working capital and inventory cost made possible by having standardized the business process. or just proﬁting from expert knowledge” as contributing drivers. (2008) add “decreasing process errors. empirically substantiate Bennett’s supposition and ﬁnd a positive effect of standardization in purchasing over purchasing performance on production cost. the easier it is for the working employees to acquire a profound understanding of the business process at hand. (2009) summarize the underlying reasons saying that “process standardization within a ﬁrm can improve operational performance and reduce processing costs by eliminating errors. facilitating communication.3. and by facilitating communication. ´ ´ With regard to a company’s procurement process as Sanchez-Rodrıguez et al. Process standardization facilitates communication about how the business as a whole and subdivided into its business processes operates (Davenport. (2006) investigate the “effects of IS standardization on business process performance” using a human resource (HR) information systems (IS) case study in which HR processes are standardized. Wuellenweber et al.1) Manrodt and Vitasek (2004) provide evidence for signiﬁcant business process cost reductions caused by a 64 percent reduction in working capital and 35 percent reduction in inventory cost. van Wessel et al. 2005. “a greater understanding of how beneﬁts were delivered to the customer” leads “to overall corporate savings by reducing waste and redundancy”. it is to communicate about the ways in which a business as a whole and subdivided into its processes works. which then implies cost reductions. which then leads to reduced process cost.
a greater understanding of how beneﬁts were delivered to the (2004) customer was identiﬁed. Summing up all the preceding arguments. Overview of literature supporting H2 . understanding process standardization as a means to reduce variation or to at least reduce the degree of variation emerging. or just proﬁting from expert knowledge” ´ ´ Sanchez-Rodrıguez et al. facilitating communication. developed by Shewhart [(Shewhart. i. We propose a positive effect of process standardization on business process quality.3. 1986)]. Following the STV. we hypothesize H2 (as summarized in Table IV): H2. (2008) “Standardization of business processes aims at improving operational performance and reducing costs by decreasing process errors. (2004) In the IT-driven process standardization situation where indeed the initial implementation of a new enterprise system requires a signiﬁcant investment. In this regard. optimized and standardized processes (enabled by the enterprise systems implementation) Lillrank and Liukko “The statistical theory of variation.to long-term business case still promises to be positive due to continuously reﬁned. the mid. The more intensive the variation observed the higher the costs to reduce it. (2006) Investigating the “effects of IS standardization on business process performance” using a HR IS case study in which HR processes are standardized van Wessel et al. each business process exhibits variation. Process standardization is positively associated with business process cost. is based on the insights that all processes exhibit variation.to the generation of this section’s hypothesis.e. . . which quantiﬁes the costs necessary to reduce the variation. where business process quality indicates the quality of the products (in manufacturing Performance impact of BPS 37 Reference Beimborn et al.] 64% reduction in working capital 35% reduction in inventory costs” van Wessel et al. costs in terms of rejection or trouble later in the process are incurred. which leads to deviation from targets and thereby can be associated with a loss function. ﬁnd “reduced costs” because of a “reduction in HR staff” and “decommissioning of legacy HR systems” Davenport et al. variation is associated with a loss function: when an actual manufacturing step produces a value that deviates from the target. (2004) 1931)] and expanded and popularized by Deming [(Deming.3 Positive effect of process standardization on business process quality. by achieving economies of scale.” Consequently. we hypothesize that process standardization has a positive effect on business process cost. (2009) Key ﬁnding “Process standardization within a ﬁrm can improve operational performance and reduce processing costs by eliminating errors. and by facilitating communication” Wuellenweber et al. 2. standardization seen as reducing variation reduces process cost Table IV. reduces process cost. Empirical substantiation of the positive effect of standardization in (2006) purchasing over purchasing performance on production cost Manrodt and Vitasek “First. This led to overall corporate savings by reducing waste and redundancy” “For instance [. variation leads to deviation from targets and is the primary cause of poor quality.
the more it is able to take the right actions at the right time and thereby improving business process quality. process standardization is an essential measure to enhance both process and product quality. In their eyes. the ﬁrst and probably most generic argument to derive the positive effect of process standardization on business process quality is that process standardization leads to operational excellence or improved operational performance.] of work itself [. we hypothesize H3 (as summarized in Table V): H3.e. . Lillrank and Liukko (2004) formulate that “variation leads to deviation from targets and is the primary cause of poor quality. be measured as the value of percentage defective or of defects per 100 products. . where companies “may have more than 100 operating plants and design locations. Process standardization is positively associated with business process quality. .] in order to ensure the product and service quality by documenting the work ﬂow. we hypothesize that process standardization leads to higher business process quality.” Hence. implementing consistent corporate-wide visible key quality metrics. which then directly leads to higher business process quality. Further.2). Ramakumar and Cooper (2004) investigate how to ensure “near defect-free products” and high-overall process quality in times of globalization and increasingly complex value chains. . and thereby supports the reasonableness of our hypothesis. Kondo (2000) emphasizes: [. The following section introduces the particular process observed and outlines its adequacy to analyze the impact of business process standardization (BPS) on process performance determinants. the quality of services (in service delivering industries) that are produced by the business process at hand. .] the necessity and importance of standardization [.2). Business process quality can. for example. Finally.1 38 industries). respectively.” Hence. standardizing the respective processes.BPMJ 16. respectively.” They recommend the implementation of a centralized quality management.3. increases process quality. services produced by the business process at hand. i. the better the management of an organization is informed about a business process using improved data about the business process’ characteristics. According to them.3. van Wessel et al. referring to the theory of statistical variation again (Section 2. . understanding process standardization as in the previous section as a means to reduce process variation.] in a global value chain process standardization is critical. issuing the work standards as to the means and methods and working in accordance with the standards. and . Synthesizing the preceding arguments. . Therefore. we expect process standardization to positively affect business process quality. which according to their ﬁndings can be established by: . “to achieve operational excellence [. again list “consistent and timely management reporting” and “improved HR data” as contributing drivers. Looking into the drivers that lead to higher business process quality when performing process standardization in more detail. . . Similar to the ﬁrst argument in the previous section (Section 2. (2006) in the same HR IS case study.
4 The recruiting process We chose the corporate recruiting process as research object to examine the inﬂuence of process standardization on process performance. variation leads to deviation from targets and is the primary cause of poor quality.. standardization seen as reducing variation increases process quality Performance impact of BPS 39 van Wessel et al. According to Kim and Won. . career objectives and expectations who contact the hiring companies via different media and apply for jobs . is based on the insights that all processes exhibit variation. Overview of literature supporting H3 2. This process was chosen for a number of reasons. The rising importance of the recruiting process is also recognized in practice. 2008). the recruiting process is known to be the most time and costs consuming process among all HR processes.References Ramakumar and Cooper (2004) Key ﬁnding Implementation of centralized quality management of which process standardization is one out of two key ingredients to enhance process and product quality “To achieve operational excellence [. .] of work itself have been emphasized in order to ensure the product and service quality by documenting the work ﬂow. 1986)]. 1931)] and expanded and popularized by Deming [(Deming. 2007).] in a global value chain process standardization is critical” “enforce process standardization with the ultimate goal of producing near defect-free products” Investigating the “effects of IS standardization on business process performance” using a HR IS case study in which HR processes are standardized van Wessel et al.. but global in its scope and implications (Riemenschneider et al. Moreover. Prior research – as explained in the following paragraphs – also showed that the recruiting process is anything but a straightforward process due to the fact that both parties in the recruiting process corporate recruiters and applying candidates are highly complex individuals who act in numerous different patterns. costs in terms of rejection or trouble later in the process are incurred” Consequently. variation is associated with a loss function: when an actual manufacturing step produces a value that deviates from the target. ﬁnd “improved quality” because of “consistent and timely management reporting” and “improved HR data” “The coming twenty-ﬁrst century is foreseen as the century of quality” “The necessity and importance of standardization [. Also. . developed by Shewhart [(Shewhart. (2006) who named recruiting as a top issue for executives. the renewed increasing demand for (IT) workers turns out not to be a local phenomenon. . Keim and Weitzel (2006) showed that applicants – particularly in the IT industry – form highly diversiﬁed groups with varying individual values. 2008). The general importance of recruiting is pointed out by Luftman et al. (2006) Kondo (2000) Lillrank and Liukko (2004) Table V. issuing the work standards as to the means and methods and working in accordance with the standards” “The statistical theory of variation. since more and more global operating companies started to standardize their worldwide stafﬁng processes recently (Eckhardt et al. companies increasingly recognize the importance of coordination among the numerous different tasks in staff recruitment (Kim and Won.
qualitative research approaches already observed a positive impact of process standardization on business process performance in the recruiting process (von Stetten et al. Equal or standardized behavioural patterns in this ﬁeld are almost non-existent (Eckhardt et al. in secondary or support processes (like staff recruitment) within the corporate value chain (Porter. While mainly in the late 1990s. We chose the recruiting process description of Faerber et al. e. . 2008) while others did not (Eckhardt et al..g.g. Cost-per-hire. how to search for adequate candidates – differs a lot. The overall time-to-hire measures the process time between the identiﬁcation of a vacancy and the ﬁnal hire of an employee. Some ﬁrms have already recognized the importance of secondary processes as basis and foundation to foster primary processes (Porter.BPMJ 16. Within companies.. Especially. the recruiting process is one of the most complex processes. Equivalent to process time the overall cost-per-hire can be quantiﬁed as average cost per each hire. 2008). Recent research points out that recruiters’ behaviour to adopt speciﬁc IS – and consequently at least partly standardize their recruiting activities. (2003) for our research as shown in Figure 3. There can be performance measures related to the time it takes to achieve speciﬁc steps as candidate attraction or applicant tracking (e.. 2009a). This impact could be achieved in all steps of the recruiting process. To analyze and differentiate the inﬂuence of process standardization on business process performance in the recruiting process.. 2008. Recommendations and prior experiences of their workplace referents as well as their individual attitude were identiﬁed as signiﬁcant determinants for their particular behaviour. As a consequence.. The dimensions can be described as follows: . see Breaugh and Starke (2000) or Lee (2007). Laumer et al. They also include the cost for candidate attraction such as expenses for job postings in online job boards or newspapers. therefore.1 40 using different forms of application. the recruiting process is highly unstandardized in a lot of companies and. secondary processes have been rather neglected. Hence. interesting and particularly suitable for our research purpose.. the complete time-to-hire or selected parts of it as. e. To respond to the needs of these different groups of applicants. recruiters do not act in standardized patterns. the time period between vacancy identiﬁcation and job hosting) as shown in Figure 3. the current degree of uniﬁcation differs a lot across corporations and industries. 1985). A higher number of variants leads to higher overall process complexity. First. For further descriptions of recruiting process design.g. 2007). a great deal of attention has been concentrated on standardizing primary processes. among the secondary processes. Eckhardt et al. Especially.. the diverse preferences for particular application forms split the applicants in different groups (Eckhardt et al. 2008. most companies established signiﬁcantly differing recruiting process variants within their recruiting process. we expect to ﬁnd a more signiﬁcant difference in the degree of standardization of secondary processes than of primary processes and therefore chose the recruiting process as an example of a secondary process as our research object. Hence. Time-to-hire. Additional costs in applicant tracking appear for the internal handling of . 2009b). we take the common performance dimensions used in HR research (von Stetten et al. 2008).
The operationalization of our constructs is presented in Table AVI in the Appendix. 2003. 3. Recruiting process quality. 2008. 1971). A researcher needs to corroborate that the results measured represent the content of the related construct and not an unreasonable view (Vinzi et al. The use of integrated IS for staff recruitment changes the regular communication with applicants and offers a potential for cost reduction.1. So far. Laumer et al. 1994. 2009b) integrate measures as applicants’ quality or the quality of applicants’ data in their evaluations. A major requirement to ensure content validity is a very precise deﬁnition of the content represented by the constructs. incoming applications. Relational quality measures like the degree of information for the operating departments and candidates’ satisfaction with the provided information are also included within the evaluation of recruiting process quality. Content validity refers to the extent to which measures reﬂect the intended meaning of a construct (Zhu and Kraemer. current approaches on recruiting process performance (von Stetten et al. 3...HR Recruiting process Employer branding Candidate attraction Applicant tracking Preselection Selection Hire Performance impact of BPS Procurement Operations Sales marketing 41 Logistics Service IT Administration Finance Source: We adopted Porter's (1985) value chain model for our design Figure 3. Nunnally and Bernstein. The Appendix offers additional detailed data. Cronbach. . 2008. All latent variables in our research models are represented by a set of at least four reﬂective indicators.. In the following.. the measurement and structural models are evaluated.1 Constructs and data The theoretical framework (Figure 1 for the basic research model and Figure 2 for the extended research model) has been operationalized and transferred into structural equation models. Methodology 3. We measured all constructs on a seven-point Likert scale using scales from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree. Eckhardt et al.” All but one constructs are modelled as ﬁrst order constructs – only the process performance construct in the basic research model has been modelled as a second order construct. there is no deﬁnite measure for process quality in staff recruitment. 2002). The recruiting process . Therefore.1 Construct operationalization.
2000). 3. In January 2006.1 42 We ensured content validity by deriving the indicators used from existing constructs where possible and discussing them in detail with several experts in the HR departments of German companies (Churchill. .6 percent). (2000) to measure a structural equation model. and . None of the data sets had more than 50 percent of missing values for the analyses in this section. 1981). 1988). In our case. 3. 3.1 Measurement model (of the extended research model). we sent out our questionnaire to executives responsible for the recruiting process in Germany’s Fortune 1000 companies that all had individually been contacted by phone before.001 level and above the recommended 0. Another test-option that most notably has formerly been used is Cronbach’s alpha (CA). 1999). 156 usable questionnaires were returned (response rate 15.. so we operationalized our constructs in this version using the back-translation method (Brislin. individual indicator reliabilities. 2005) in the version SmartPLS 2. 1999) and as cross-loadings in Table AV (in the Appendix) show all indicators have the highest correlation with their respective construct. 2000) and all our values fulﬁll this criterion.7 parameter value (Carmines and Zeller. Convergent validity refers to the internal consistency of a set of indicators and is analyzed by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE) and the composite reliability (CR).6 (Bagozzi and Yi. we evaluated the content of the constructs used with senior executives and consultants of one of the world’s largest job board.1. Signiﬁcance tests were conducted using the bootstrap routine with 200 samples (Chin. We chose the beginning of a year for our data collection to ensure an equal context and measurable relation for the respondents regarding the current state of process standardization and process performance within their corporation. the convergent validity.. All indicator loadings under 0. Values close to 1. Individual indicator reliabilities deal with the statistical ﬁt between an indicator and its corresponding latent variable. We have used SmartPLS (Ringle et al. According to Hulland (1999).2 Data collection procedure. Bagozzi and Yi (1988) and Gefen et al.2. All indicator loadings are signiﬁcant at the 0. 1979. the adequacy of a measurement model can be assessed by looking at: .0 M3 for analysis. The original constructs in our survey were questioned in German.0 indicate great reliability (Gefen et al. Fornell and Larcker (1981) demand that the AVE should be . Fornell and Larcker.2 Analyses Based on the standard procedure of Chin (1998.5 parameter value were excluded beforehand (Hulland.BPMJ 16. Discriminant validity is concerned with whether a construct shares more variance with its indicators than it shares with other constructs in a model (Hulland. 2000). 1979). Overall. Furthermore. discriminant validity. so all 156 data sets could be used for model validation. To test discriminant validity. 1970).5 and all CRs are above the recommended threshold of 0. all AVEs are over the recommended threshold of 0. we ﬁrst perform a partial least squares (PLS) analysis and then a t-test for signiﬁcance of the path coefﬁcients.
greater than the variance shared between the construct and other constructs in the model.979986 0.001 Figure 4.2 Structural model.948332 0.] this can be demonstrated in a correlation matrix which includes the correlations between different constructs in the lower left off-diagonal [. Looking at the extended model of Figure 2. Quality criteria for the extended research model for the impact of process standardization on process time.787 (compare Figure 4).9 percent (R 2 ¼ 0.619) of the overall variance for process performance could be explained by process standardization. The t-test for signiﬁcance of the path coefﬁcient by conducting the bootstrapping routine with 200 samples (Chin. H1 0 is supported and encourages to look at the positive effect of process standardization on process performance in more detail. Evalution of the basic research model for the impact of process standardization on process performance . .010.957872 0.2. In addition. Performance impact of BPS In our case. ***p < 0. The evaluation of the structural model shows a signiﬁcant impact of process standardization on process performance. We ﬁrst evaluate the basic model of Figure 1. Overall. The path coefﬁcient for the impact of process standardization on process performance amounts to 0.643*** Process performance 2 R =0. . 3.925235 0. According to Hulland (1999): [. Table VI provides an overview of the statistics of CA. . and quality Process standardization 0. The squared multiple correlations (R 2) express the proportion of the variance of the endogenous variable process performance that is explained by the exogenous variable process standardization.5 percent (R 2 ¼ 0.879277 CR 0.940058 0.305) of the proportional variance for business process cost and almost two-thirds (R 2 ¼ 0.765775 0. all values are over the recommended thresholds.9 percent (R 2 ¼ 0. and CR for the extended measurement model.005. the squared multiple correlations (R 2) show that 38. .975400 0. so discriminant validity is high. 2000) yields a highly signiﬁcant result. For adequate discriminant validity. cost.619 Notes: *p < 0.389) of the proportional variance for business process time. 30. The quality of the structural model is determined by the two values R 2 and the related path coefﬁcients.951224 AVE 0. **p < 0.966459 Table VI. Hence. this criterion holds as shown in Table AIV in the Appendix. The results indicate that 61.692387 0.787 t = 4.890907 0. the diagonal elements should be signiﬁcantly greater than the off-diagonal elements in the corresponding rows and columns. the loadings of the reﬂective indicators in our research model are higher for the corresponding constructs than for any other.626) of the proportional variance for business process 43 CA Process Process Process Process time cost quality standardization 0. AVE.] and the square roots of the [AVEs] along the diagonal.
managers can use this study as evidence that standardization of.001 .2) that standardization is no silver 0. this paper proposes a theoretical research model and empirical operationalization to analyze the impact of process standardization on process performance – illustrated using the corporate staff recruiting process. Evaluation of the extended research model for the impact of process standardization on process time. all H1-H3 are supported. Signiﬁcance tests were conducted using the bootstrap routine with 200 samples (Chin.1 quality are represented by the antecedent process standardization (compare Figure 5).623 t = 3. and in line with most management and IS research. 2000).1 Key ﬁndings and contribution First. . we evaluated the t-values.] in an economic environment where businesses are constantly attempting to identify means to obtain incremental improvements and enhance the company’s bottom line. Following the line of reasoning of Sanchez-Rodrıguez et al. (2006). As the empirical analysis shows (Figure 5).897*** Process time R2 = 0.010. justify its implementation.305 Figure 5. and quality Process quality R2 = 0.211*** Process cost R2 = 0.940*** 0. ***p < 0. The possible impacts of process standardization make it a relevant measure for business process reengineering and controlling. **p < 0. Conclusions 4. a ﬁrst glimpse of the role of strategy type and industry sector show (Section 4. cost. 4.791 t = 5. In order to analyze the signiﬁcance of path coefﬁcients in our research model. 44 Also. The following ﬁgure now shows the evaluation of our structural model including the signiﬁcance level of the path coefﬁcients.BPMJ 16. . Managers can also use the results as supporting rationale demonstrating the standardization impact expected before deciding to undergo ´ ´ a standardization project.626 Notes: *p < 0. [processes has a positive effect on process performance] and.005.389 Process standardization 0.552 t = 3. What are the managerial implications? An important ﬁnding is the empirical conﬁrmation of the positive effect of standardization on process performance and thereby its potential as part of a BPM approach that strives for continuous improvement. the results are among the ﬁrst to systematically and empirically show that there is a signiﬁcant positive impact of process standardization on process performance. thereby. we can say that: [. Second.
one might look at differences in the value compositions amongst the three performance dimensions time. other authors stress that different types of business strategy are associated with different kinds of IS (Sabherwal and Chan. Therefore. 2005). and processes (prospectors). Third. cost. industry sectors. Unlike the overall sample. For prospectors.2. it could be shown that there is a signiﬁcant impact of process standardization on process performance in general and on process time. analyzers are fast followers that tend to prefer a “second-but-better” strategy while defenders are conservative late followers (DeSarbo et al. We created two sub-samples based on the demographic data the ﬁrms provided within the survey. Prospectors follow a ﬁrst-mover strategy. and processes. or ﬁrm size (large-scale versus small and medium enterprises).. Data analysis reveals substantial differences among the three groups. we clustered our sample in three different groups. Sub-samples . we divide our overall data sample and evaluate it for companies of a speciﬁc strategy type (prospector versus analyzer versus defender) and also industrial vs services ﬁrms. only the impact of process standardization on business process quality is Performance impact of BPS 45 Sub-sample Strategy Industry Description Prospector Analyzer Defender Industrial sector Services sector Sample size (n) 75 45 23 59 94 Table VII. if they have shown a permanent added value at their competitors. as so often. products. it depends on factors including ﬁrm strategy and industry. In this context. 4.2 A ﬁrst glimpse of the role of strategy type and industry sector As a main contribution of this paper.bullet for process improvements but that. 4. analyzer. who regard themselves to be always among the ﬁrst to implement new technologies. these contained a number of data sets with missing values so these data sets are excluded from the respective sample as seen in Table VII. We draw on Miles and Snow (1978) and use three types of business strategy: prospector. cost. We examined this by looking at companies’ behaviors to introduce and implement a new technology. The second group (n ¼ 45) represents the analyzers who track the behavior of competitors ﬁrst and follow them rapidly if deemed advantageous. the defenders are the smallest group with just 23 answers. 1997). To do a ﬁrst step in this direction.1 The role of strategy type. and defender. This group only implements new technologies. products. The largest group (n ¼ 75) contains the enterprises. Miles and Snow (1978) showed the profound impact of business strategy for ﬁrm performance. and quality in particular. and quality subject to ﬁrm strategy.. 2001) and explain differences in information management sophistication (Gupta et al. The strategy type of a corporation seems to inﬂuence the overall impact of process standardization.
For analyzers.454 Figure 6. It is important to note that we have only discussed one process to examine the inﬂuence of process standardization. 4.999*** (3) 0. **p < 0. As researchers increasingly emphasize the role of industry (Chiasson and Davidson. 2005). 2008).810** (2) 0.001 .010. 59 industrial corporations and 94 corporations of the service industry could be observed.206 Notes: *p < 0.684 (2) 0.381 (1) 0. industrial corporations and corporations of the service industry. the operationalization of “business process standard” used in this paper could consequently not build on earlier work too much.082 (1) 0. .” Unfortunately.005.469 (3) R2 = 0. The path coefﬁcients and the R 2-values for both groups are shown in Figure 7.998 (3) R2 = 0. which is likely due to the small sample size (Figure 6). future research should improve the operationalization. Although the process observed has carefully been chosen (1) Prospector (n = 75) (2) Analyzer (n = 45) (3) Defender (n = 23) (1) 0. The results reveal a major difference between the two groups.2.469 (3) R2 = 0.2 The role of industry sector.656 (2) R2 = 0. . ***p < 0.1 46 signiﬁcant. As this study provides support for a signiﬁcant inﬂuence of process standardization on process performance.175 (2) R2 = 0. 2000).685*** (3) 0. things seem to be even worse.145 Process standardization Process cost (1) R2 = 0.468 (2) R2 = 0.975*** (3) –0. While the relationship between process standardization and the performance determinants is weak or nonexistent for industry corporations. our second sub-sample extracted from the overall data sample compares two different industry sectors.BPMJ 16. all three paths are signiﬁcant. Altogether. it is highly signiﬁcant for all three dimensions in services industry ﬁrms while both samples are large enough for meaningful calculation (Chin.] determining the value of a standard has remained an open issue for decades. Following Wuellenweber et al. it might represent a single example for staff recruitment. we accentuate that “in standardization research [.419 (2) 0.286 Process time (1) R2 = 0. relevant literature to build on is scarce. in contrast to no signiﬁcant relations among laggards. While this paper could draw on an earlier process standardization construct (Muenstermann and Weitzel. Looking at process standards.3 Limitations As with any work in a new ﬁeld of research. (2008). Structural models – strategy type Process quality (1) R2 = 0. 4.
our results might not be directly transferrable to any other country or ﬁrm size. Kondo (2000) elaborates on this aspect and ﬁnds that “innovation and work standardization are [. .090 (2) R2 = 0. therefore. Compared to covariance-based approaches. cost.804 Notes: *p < 0. 2003). . There is an opinion that process standardization prevents the display of creative and innovative activities and that process standardization and innovation/creativity are mutually exclusive. loops and time-dependencies). Future research should discuss this issue in more detail..010.005. and quality might be interrelated (e.(1) Industrial (n = 59) (2) Services (n = 94) (1) 0.g. So.008 (2) R2 = 0. should also focus on processes requiring plenty of creative and innovative ideas of the employees performing them and compare the results with this paper’s ﬁndings.897*** Process quality (1) R2 = 0.4) there might be differences for other processes (other secondary/support processes or primary processes) with different settings. ***p < 0.369 Process standardization (1) 0.] not mutually exclusive but mutually complementary.198 (2) 0. Since the goal of this paper was to quantitatively disclose that and to what extent BPS inﬂuences the three of the dimensions.” Future research. **p < 0. Structural models – industry sector (Section 2. this paper’s ﬁndings might potentially not be transferable to processes requiring a lot of creative and innovative ideas of the employees performing them. Our questionnaire was just answered by large-scale corporations in Germany.300 (2) 0.039 (2) R2 = 0. As a consequence.608*** Process time (1) R2 = 0.” Lampel and Mintzberg (1996) investigate a continuum of strategies from “pure standardization” to “pure customization” and ﬁnd that “one secret of successful management today” is “to customize standard concepts to ﬁt speciﬁc applications. the PLS approach does not allow to test for potential correlations between constructs – in our context to test if and to what extent the process performance success dimensions time.001 Figure 7.088 (2) 0.579 Performance impact of BPS 47 Process cost (1) R2 = 0.762*** (1) 0. . this does not compromise our ﬁndings. Our results may also be affected by common method variance because we collected the data from participants at the same time using the same survey (Podsakoff et al.
latent variable correlations and cross-loadings) is presented in Tables AI-AIII in the Appendix. e. Notes 1.BPMJ 16. A complementary step might be the consolidation of process and data level arguments (Muenstermann et al. Besides. the involvement of all departments affected as well as the particular role of organizational topology (Muenstermann and Eckhardt. Kindler and Nuettgens (2005) for an overview of reference processes or Malone et al. Rather. For a discussion of the dimensions’ interplay compare. 3. We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for this comment. 2. Examples of reference processes are.” the “enhanced Telecom Operations Map (eTOM). cost. . in order to elucidate the interplay of data (e. In addition. an already planned quantitative survey will explicitly control for the impact of industry type and ﬁrm size. Since we are convinced that analyzing such sub-samples can provide signiﬁcant insights but cannot yet provide the complete theory explaining our initial ﬁndings. future research should do both investigate other secondary processes and select appropriate primary processes for examination. the MIT process handbook or industry-speciﬁc reference standards such as.g. cost. it focuses on quantitatively disclosing that and to what extent business process standardization inﬂuences the three of the dimensions. and quality. 2009). these measures will allow for broader generalizability. the “Supply chain operation reference-model (SCOR). we place these analyses as starting point for future research within this section. See. the use of latent curve modeling might offer some help to future research approaches. For example.g. an additional longitudinal perspective could offer exciting results about size and duration of process standardization’s impact on process time.” or “IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL)” for software-development processes. electronic data interchange and Extensible Markup Language) and process standards and to examine if there is a combined effect of process standards and data standards on process performance. and quality. Together. We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for this comment. As in many other quantitative research approaches. business process performance future research might also take into account further beneﬁt dimensions of process standardization (as shown in Table I). 4. an improvement in quality can both increase cost (e. e. 5. because of additional quality controls) or decrease cost (e.1 48 4. (2009). because of rendered unnecessary error treatments). First. ﬁndings of qualitative research approaches emphasize the importance of continuous top management support. Future research should examine antecedents and drivers of process standardization in more detail and different scenarios to deepen the present understanding of the process standardization construct. 2009).. The process performance success dimensions time. The measurement model of the basic research model for the impact of process standardization on process performance (including quality criteria.4).g. we have chosen the recruiting process as research object (Section 2. cost. This paper does not aim at explaining and measuring the interplay and interdependencies between the process performance dimensions time. for example.g. and quality are probably interrelated.4 Future research As for this paper. Especially.g. (1999) for how to design reference processes. Beimborn et al.
American Council on Education. 23 No. (2008). Performance impact of BPS 49 . 29 No. 405-34. 10. N. S. “The partial least square approach to structural equation modeling”. M. 41-2. 3. W. Mr General Manager”. T. E. Vol. 26 No. Journal of Marketing Research. 16-26. “Research on employee recruitment: so many studies.edu/chin/plsfaq. Sage. W.htm (accessed September 16. S. 26 No. Mahwah. 680-94. (2009). and ﬁrm performance”. Davenport.. di Benedetto.W. (2004). J.E.A. L. and Davidson. Bala. (2005). and Wischniewski. R. “Structural metrics for goal based business process design and evaluation”. “The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign”. 31 No..). (1970).G. “Frequently asked questions – partial least squares & PLS-graph”.A. and Gupta. E. Modern Methods for Business Research. 74-94.H. Information Systems Research. (1979).J. (1979). “Revisiting the Miles and Snow strategic framework: uncovering interrelationships between strategic types. Chin.W. Vol. “Hey.. pp. Vol. A. (Ed. Business Process Management Journal. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Churchill.. S. D. 6. Vol. Vol. (2005). NJ.P. Carmines. Chin. and Starke. Davenport. 295-336. 340-62. and Yi. “The coming commoditization of processes”. (2007). 3. I.H.A. 185-216. “Information technologies and business value: an analytic and empirical investigation”. 11-27. V. MA. pp. Proceedings of 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2009). and Short. (2005). 4. Gleisner. Business Process Management Journal. 1. Vol.de (accessed January 28. (2000). “Assimilation of interorganizational business process standards”. 64-73. CA. DC. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vol. Vol. Song. “On the evaluation of structural equation models”.. Vol. Brislin. pp. in Marcoulides. 1. Y. T. Kriebel. pp. Strategic Management Journal. Chiasson.References Bagozzi. S. Vol. Center for Advanced Engineering Study. 11 No. pp.cba. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology. pp. pp. Out of the Crisis. so many remaining questions”. and Sinha. Joachim. pp. environmental uncertainty. and Zeller. (1986). Management Quarterly. “Enterprise systems and ongoing process change”. (1995).uh. “Test Validation” in Educational Measurement. pp. M. M. R. Journal of Management. Cambridge. HI. 591-605. Beverly Hills. W. C. S. Information Systems Research.H. pp. G.G. 6 No.A. 16 No. T. available at: www. J. 100-8. F. (2005). G.. available at: http://disc-nt.A. Vol. Beimborn. and Mukhopadhyay. pp. Bennett. 83 No. pp.W. Breaugh. (1971). Harris. (1988).S.W. Deming. J. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. (1982). 3. Sloan Management Review.ipih. M. pp. T. R.H. Wenzel. 1 No. Washington. 47-74. 3-23. Bandow. (2000). 18 No. 2008). 1. pp. “The role of process standardization in achieving IT business value”. Vol. A. and Venkatesh. 6. Davenport.A. capabilities. and Hackethal. 16 No. (1998). 2009). Balasubramanian. G. “Prozessstandardisierung auf Basis von Erfahrungswissen”. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1. Big Island. Harvard Business Review. Cronbach. W. DeSarbo. Vol. (1990). 4. H.. “Back-translation for cross-cultural research”. and Cantrell. “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”. Barua. 4. C. MIS Quarterly. “Taking industry seriously in information systems research”.
Weisbaden. pp. pp. and Vickery. Journal of Information Technology.. de Vries. May. Gefen. 1. Keystone. “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies”. 12-24. 18 No. “Who inﬂuences whom? Analyzing workplace referents’ social inﬂuence on IT adoption and non-adoption”. (1981). W. Laumer. Eckhardt. Koenig.F. Jayaram. Vol. Weitzel. (2000). Laumer. 20 No. Prozesswissen als Erfolgsfaktor. A. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials. S. T. . Journal of Marketing Research. K. (2006). (2004). “How to convince people who don’t like IT to use IT – a case study on eRecruiting”. V. Keim. “Value contribution of IT in recruiting – a multi-national causal analysis”. pp. (1997). esp. (2009b). Straub. “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors”. Karimi. Recruiting Trends 2008. Vol. D... CO. 1st ed. and Boudreau. 34 No. IGI. (2006). procurement leadtime.M. 39-50.. S. Tampa. von Stetten. (2009a). Geneva. (1998). “Alignment of a ﬁrm’s competitive strategy and information technology management sophistication: the missing link”. Hulland. and Buschbacher. 761-77. W. Goldkuhl. Weitzel. Faerber. 195-204. 14 No. Eckhardt.. A.P. International Journal of Production Research. human resource initiatives. “Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice”.. Vol. “Coordination and transformation in business processes: towards an integrated view”. Computer Weekly. R. pp. H. “Supply-based strategies. 1. F. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 7th ed. M. pp. and Weitzel. Strategic Management Journal. (2008). ISO/IEC Guide 2 “Standardization and Related Activities – General Vocabulary”. PA. de Vries. 4.. Hall.. 1. 11-24. C. D. Y. and Laumer.K. Eckhardt. A. J. Vol. 1-77.1 50 de Toni. Vol. and Larcker. (2008). T. D. J. W. G.. Hesser. Erasmus University of Rotterdam. Fomin.. Gabler. Proceedings of the 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2007). pp. (2003). 2. and Lind. Fornell. de Vries. Standardization in Companies and Markets. Vol. Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGMIS CPR Conference (SIGMIS 2009). Hershey. ISO (1996). Standardization. Limerick. 6. J. Chair of Business Administration. Vol. C. and Ortner. pp.S. 1. 7. International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research.BPMJ 16. 62-85. Proceedings of the 9th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2003).. p. J. Vol. J. W. M. Eckhardt. and Panizzolo. (1999). Communications of the Association for Information Systems. Information Management. Business Process Management Journal. H. 4 No. A. 4 No. and Somers. 399-413. 24 No. “Best practice in company standardization”. T. A. (1993). and Koenig. (2000). (2007). 12-32. 44 No. 31 No. pp. “Product and process standardization in intermittent and repetitive production”. 6. T. “BP to save 600 million pounds in global IT process standardisation”. (1999). Frankfurt am Main. pp... S. and Lyytinen. University of Frankfurt. A. International Organisation for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission. Engelhardt. “An automated recommendation approach to personnel selection”. FL. K. S. (2007). How to Distribute a Cake before Cutting It into Pieces: Alice in Wonderland or Radio Engineers’ Gang in the Nordic Countries?. MA. Rotterdam. Kluwer Academic. Boston. Gupta. Hadﬁeld. H. and Weitzel.-C.W. T. 5. and Feilzer. and ﬁrm performance”. T. Vol. A.
.B. J. Vol. (2008). 5. NY. K. “Strategies for hiring IT professionals: an empirical analysis of employer and job seeker behavior on the IT labor market”. and Weitzel. Lampel. (1997). (2006). Lee. 2. I. pp. (2006). R. Gurbaxani. “Standard making: a critical research frontier for information systems research”. (2009). 25 No. 5 No. 30. pp. pp. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems. J.T. Journal of Business Logistics. and Weitzel. P. 6-10. 1-23. B. Mooney. Vol. and King. and Kraemer. W. The TQM Magazine. 38 No. Vol. Organizational Strategy. K... Vol. (2005). 27 No. “What is process standardization?”.. S. T. and Process. “Business process reference models”. J. Teng. N. and Eckhardt. 1. Proceedings of the 2006 Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2006). Kindler.. Lyytinen. Kondo. Malone. (1996). Kempaiah. “Innovation versus standardization”. and Pentland. B. MIS Quarterly.G.. C. “Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes”. pp. K. “Business process change: a study of methodologies. Vickery. (2000). G. and Guha. and Mintzberg. and Nuettgens. “An architecture for a next-generation holistic e-recruiting system”. and Droge. Miles. V. A. (2006). 1. K. Vol. 1. 17 No. New York. Nancy. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. Kim. J. Vol. T. 314-30. “What drives business process standardization? A case study approach”. “The effects of information system infrastructure and process improvements on supply-chain time performance”. J. (2007). “A process oriented framework for assessing the business value of information technology”. (1996). Eckhardt. 1. 694-706. (2004). “Customizing customization”. pp. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance. S. 28 No. (2008). K.C. 2.-M. MIS Quarterly. and Nash. and tools”. pp. 21-30. Vol. Manrodt. S.W. Management Science. J.L. H. J. E. Proceedings of the 12th Paciﬁc Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2008). (2000). M. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Resources Management (Conf-IRM 2009).E. 81-5. Sloan Management Review. and Snow. 30 Nos 3/4. 21 No. “Standard. “Recruiting IT professionals in a virtual world”. (2004). Lillrank. (1999).. Vol.J. “HR BPO service models for small and medium enterprises”. Vol. 39-46. “Review: information technology and organizational performance: an integrative model of IT business value”. (2004). Y. 12 No. 405-11. MIS Quarterly Executive. pp. Communications of the ACM. routine and non-routine processes in health care”. Lee. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Resources Management (Conf-IRM 2008). T. (1978). pp. Keim. Vol. M. Melville. Kraemer. pp. Business Process Management Journal. H. Performance impact of BPS 51 .K. Vol. 81-99. 425-43. Proceedings of the Workshop on Business Process Reference Models (BPRM 2005).. Kettinger. Vol. Crowston. pp. 7. MIS Quarterly. R. and Liukko. and Vitasek. Laumer.L. A. Luftman. C. and Gurbaxani. K. Vol. Structure. 2. T. 13 No. 50 No. 283-322.J. 1. McGraw-Hill. V. B. “Key issues for IT executives 2005”. 68-81. “Global process standardization: a case study”.Jayaram. (2007). Muenstermann. and Won. pp. techniques. 55-98. and Weitzel. 45. pp. T. Muenstermann. pp. E.
738-54. Vol. pp. “Process standardization proves proﬁtable”. S. 5. 43 No. and Chan. Shaw. Van Nostrand Company.R. (2008). D. 778-802.P. . and Cooper. pp. Bosilj-Vuksic. 1. European Journal of Information Systems. A. Kraemer. and Bernstein. NY. pp. Y. 14 No. 53. Hemsworth. Ramakumar.. “Call for papers – special issue on meeting the renewed demand for IT workers”. D. Moore. (1994). ´ ´ ´ Sanchez-Rodrıguez. Vol.. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. 2008). Porter. 2008). Business Process Management Journal. Siha. C. Controlling Engineering. P. Vol. 4. “Join the standard forces – examining the combined impact of process and data standards on business process performance”. “Creating a strategic IT architecture competency: learning in stages”.. “Process standards: pursuing best practices”. A. Riemenschneider. Sabherwal.E. “The impact of business process orientation on ﬁnancial and non-ﬁnancial performance”. Snowdon..W. (2000). Proceedings of the 42th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2009). McGraw-Hill. S. 88 No. M. 6. Quality.com/ejis/CFP-EJIS-ITWorkers. A. 91-107. Vol.H.. Competitive Advantage: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. 125-35. MacKenzie.. and Indihar-Stemberger..Y. 11 No.K. 1. Swaminathan. Information Systems Research.E. 11-33.A. Ross.de (accessed September 16. C. Nunnally. 31-43. Podsakoff. B. Wende. B. New York. pp. “The ﬁve competitive forces that shape strategy”. I. Eckhardt. Skrinjar. Kawalek. Vol.palgrave-journals. pp. “Business process improvement: empirical assessment and extensions”. A. and Saad. (2006).E. Tallon. 1.smartpls. Vol. and Clavel. R.1 52 Muenstermann. pp. Journal of Management Information Systems. (2008). and Armstrong. 145-73.M. (2004). Vol. “Elements of a business process management system: theory and practice”. (2008).BPMJ 16. P. available at: www. J. and Warboys. T. 42-5. California Management Review. 2. Lee. “An empirical study on the impact of standardization of materials and purchasing procedures on purchasing and business performance”. (2007). MIS Quarterly Executive.. “Executives’ perceptions of the business value of information technology: a process-oriented approach”. Vol. Journal of Applied Psychology.E.. and Weitzel. (2008).P. “Alignment between business and IS strategies: a study of prospectors.H. G.0 M3 (beta)”. New York.P. pp. (2009). 14 No. D.M. M.. pp. pp. J. and Will. “Enabling customization using standardized operations”. B. available at: www. D. (2003). Harvard Business Review.G. W. (2003).L. pp.B. (2001). Holland. New York. 78-93. J. analyzers. 69-74.. Business Process Management Journal. Vol. S. 1. K. 43 No. Phelps. NY. and Gurbaxani. C. B. C. Porter.M. 56-64. V. 3. 12 No. (2001). (1931). and Podsakoff. Shewhart. V. 5. J. The Free Press. 13 No. 16 No. Vol. Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product. R.. Vol. N.R. J. R. Ringle.pdf (accessed June 5. 1. (1985). P. M. Business Process Management Journal. NY. pp. pp. 879-903. and defenders”. J. (2005). “SmartPLS 2. 86 No.M. (2006). “Common method bias in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”. Psychometric Theory. Martınez-Lorente. 2 No. Vol.
3.9665 Table AI.. (2006). Zhu. Vol. H. 497-518. B. “An empirical exploration of how process standardization reduces outsourcing risks”. pp.9512 AVE 0. Quality criteria for the impact of process standardization on process performance Latent variable correlations Process performance Process performance Process standardization 1. T. Wuellenweber. (2007).000000 0. R.L. pp. Vol. Naples. pp. Frankfurt am Main. 135-48. Weitzel. “A resource-based perspective on IT business alignment and ﬁrm performance”. Information Systems Research.. Appendix Tables for basic model Performance impact of BPS 53 CA Process performance Process standardization 0. DMS. 275-95. 10 No.. “Where to go from here? Thoughts on future directions for research on individual-level technology adoption with a focus on decision making”. Information Systems Frontiers. A. Discriminant validity for the impact of process standardization on process performance . and Kraemer. Eckhardt. 2. Decision Sciences. and Koenig. “PLS path modelling”. M. Vol. P. Muenstermann. S. University of Naples. Beimborn. 13 No. PhD thesis. Ribbers.9558 0. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2007).E..000000 Table AII. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2006). K. Vinzi. M. H. W. 12 No. V. 2. pp.C. (2006). PhD thesis. “Effects of IS standardization on business process performance: a case in HR IS company standardization”. (2003).5477 0. and Tenenhaus. and Weitzel.-T.Ungan. 37 No. Institute for Information Systems. D.8793 CR 0. Business Process Management Journal. “Towards an understanding of the business value of business process standardization – a case study approach”. (2006). K. “Standardization through process documentation”. Vol. Wagner. V. K. (2002). and Laumer. van Wessel. A. Venkatesh.. K. (2006). (2008). 211-24.9599 0. (2008). T.. and deVries.7867 Process standardization 1. Lauro. von Stetten. Wuellenweber. C. Goethe-University. Proceedings of the 14th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2008). “E-commerce metrics for net-enhanced organizations: assessing the value of e-commerce to ﬁrm performance in the manufacturing sector”. 22. “The impact of process standardization on business process outsourcing success”.
cost.7922 0.7876 0.6914 0.BPMJ 16.776 0.593563 0.6383 0.9892 0.7652 0.4781 0.6359 0.7922 0.6918 0.5276 0.000000 .2936 0.5375 Process standardization 0. Discriminant validity for the impact of process standardization on process time.7055 0.595 0.5589 0.5585 0.8535 0.5013 0.7534 0.7361 0.1 Process-performance (1) Process-performance (2) Process-performance (3) Process-performance (4) Process-performance (5) Process-performance (6) Process-performance (7) Process-performance (8) Process-performance (9) Process-performance (10) Process-performance (11) Process-performance (12) Process-performance (13) Process-performance (14) Process-performance (15) Process-performance (16) Process-performance (17) Process-performance (18) Process-performance (19) Process-performance (20) Process-standardization (1) Process-standardization (2) Process-standardization (3) Process-standardization (4) Latent variable cross-loadings Process performance 0.646488 Process time 1.8231 0.552140 0.6324 0.623302 1.790962 0.803 0.595 0.000000 0.6615 0.423 0.9893 0.7085 0.4645 0.8199 0.000000 0.5587 0.7924 0.7485 0.7675 0.734 0.5285 0.7469 0.000000 0.450318 1.7625 54 Table AIII.822 0. and quality Latent variable correlations Process cost Process quality Process standardization Process Process Process Process cost quality standardization time 1.5284 0.9892 0.595 0.5279 0.5584 0.7763 0. Cross-loadings for the impact of process standardization on process performance Tables for extended model Table AIV.6811 0.
638297 0.800808 0.888661 0.555284 0.989294 0. Cross-loadings for the impact of process standardization on process time.535028 0.594982 0.900113 0.849946 0.401530 0.426039 0.623802 0.436011 0.800748 0.380613 0.290294 0.530991 0.635847 0.851773 0.426649 0.989243 0.576883 0.408492 0.423055 0.521949 0.562003 0.389862 Performance impact of BPS 55 (1) (2) (3) (4) Table AV.409194 0.533951 0.558467 0.482760 0.488079 0.554443 0.597760 0.558593 0.527889 0.528506 0.639766 0.920518 0.558557 0.488224 0.558531 0. cost.762337 0.426843 0.528467 0.691790 0.982535 0.293485 0.623536 0.822204 0.782074 0.478135 0.959508 0.942505 0.743813 0.595072 0.501281 0.691447 0.464487 0.558704 0.555072 0.623652 0.454913 0.595008 0.527657 0.800732 0.922225 0.923335 0.380032 0.640123 0.555690 0.569487 0.527188 0.468557 0.408893 0. and quality Overview of indicators Indicator Process-time (1) Process-time (2) Process-time (3) Process-time (4) Process-time (5) Process-time (6) Process-cost (1) Process-cost (2) Process-cost (3) Process-cost (4) Process-cost (5) Process-cost (6) Description We have reduced the time between the identiﬁcation of a vacancy and the posting of the job ad We have reduced the time between the posting of the job ad and the ﬁrst incoming applications We have reduced the time between the incoming applications and the transmitted notice of arrival for the respective applicant We have reduced the time between the incoming applications and the ﬁnal hiring decision We have reduced the time between the identiﬁcation of a vacancy and its ﬁll We have reduced the time between the posting of the job ad and the ﬁnal hiring decision We were able to reduce the costs for candidate attraction We were able to reduce the average costs per each posted job ad We were able to reduce the costs for the response management with the recruiting process We were able to reduce the costs for the internal applicant tracking We were able to reduce the costs per tracked application We were able to keep the internal set budgets for staff recruitment (continued) Table AVI.989266 0.380450 0.500764 0.573846 0.853580 0.389829 0.803936 0.942370 0.697151 0.444087 0.896299 0. Construct indicators .964957 0.721738 0.593097 0.220030 0.623692 0.442023 0.558936 0.594511 0.Latent variable cross-loadings Process cost Process quality Process standardization Process time Process-time (1) Process-time (2) Process-time (3) Process-time (4) Process-time (5) Process-time (6) Process-quality (1) Process-quality (2) Process-quality (3) Process-quality (4) Process-quality (5) Process-quality (6) Process-quality (7) Process-standardization Process-standardization Process-standardization Process-standardization Process-cost (1) Process-cost (2) Process-cost (3) Process-cost (4) Process-cost (5) Process-cost (6) Process-cost (7) 0.905539 0.853988 0.
Decision Support Systems. impact and interplay of data. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research. To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: email@example.com. Germany. Information Systems Frontiers. Electronic Markets.com/reprints . International Journal of Electronic Services and Mobile Applications. and Wirtschaftsinformatik.BPMJ 16. Bjorn Munstermann is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: mail@BjoernMuenstermann. IT management. and Conf-IRM. He has published numerous articles in scientiﬁc journals such as Journal of Information Technology.de Andreas Eckhardt is a doctoral student at the Institute of Information Systems of Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main and a member of the research project Centre of Human Resources Information Systems. His research interests include BPS and BPM as well as the interplay of BPS/BPM with service-oriented architectures. e-ﬁnance. Information Systems and E-Business Management. He received his PhD from Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main. His research interests include technology adoption especially the role and measurement of social inﬂuence. International Journal of Standards and Standardization Research. Germany. Information Systems Frontiers. His research on standards. Germany. PACIS. ECIS. AMCIS. and Wirtschaftsinformatik plus in the proceedings of conferences such as ECIS. Journal of Information Technology. Journal of Enterprise Information Systems. HICSS and WI. He has published numerous articles in the ¨ ¨ proceedings of conferences such as HICSS. outsourcing. and business process standards as well as the design of HR IS and architectures. Human Resource and IS has been published in eight books and in journals including MIS Quarterly. About the authors ¨ ¨ Bjorn Munstermann is a doctoral student at the Information Systems and Services Department at the University of Bamberg. Before starting his current doctoral research. he worked for the Business Technology Ofﬁce of McKinsey & Company for several years. He gained broad practical experience during his time as technology consultant focused on the tourism industry and the ﬁnancial industries. AMCIS.1 Indicator Process-cost (7) Process-quality (1) Process-quality (2) Process-quality (3) Process-quality (4) Process-quality (5) Process-quality (6) Process-quality (7) Processstandardization (1) Processstandardization (2) Processstandardization (3) Processstandardization (4) Description We were able to reduce the average costs per each hire We were able to enhance the overall applicant quality We were able to sustain the overall applicant quality We were able to enhance the quality of applicants’ data We are satisﬁed with the matching between the hired candidates and the open vacancy We were able to enhance the proportion of top candidates We were able to enhance the degree of information for our operating departments Our applicants are very satisﬁed with our offer of information We have a well-regulated process cycle for applicant tracking in our staff recruitment We have established an efﬁcient organized process in our staff recruitment We have established highly standardized procedures in our staff recruitment We have documented our actions to a great extent 56 Table AVI.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. Tim Weitzel is a Professor and a Chair in the Information Systems and Services Department at the University of Bamberg.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.