Int. J.

Production Economics ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Int. J. Production Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

A grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process

management critical success factors
Chunguang Bai a, Joseph Sarkis b,n,1
a
School of Management Science and Engineering, Dongbei University of Finance & Economics, Jianshan Street 217, Dalian 116025, PR China
b
School of Business, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 100 Institute Road, Worcester, MA 01609, United States

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Although business process management (BPM) is an important organizational practice for improving
Received 17 October 2012 operational competitiveness of organizations, research has shown that as many as 60–80% of BPM
Accepted 11 July 2013 initiatives are unsuccessful. This study provides a methodology to evaluate BPM implementation critical
success factors (CSFs) that can aid project managers make proper BPM investment strategies. Through a
Keywords: review of the literature, eight CSFs for the successful implementation of BPM are identified. To help
Business process management advance research on the implementation of BPM, this paper uses multi-site field study data with a novel
Critical success factors grey-based DEMATEL (the decision making trial and evaluation laboratory) approach to visualize the
DEMATEL structure of complicated causal relationships between these CSFs and obtain the influence level of these
Grey analysis
factors. The field study data uses three Chinese manufacturers as the setting. The four most important
Evaluation
factors found in the field study, from amongst the identified CSFs, include Strategic alignment, Top
management support, Project management and a Collaborative environment. We also found a number of
direct and indirect relationships amongst the CSF factors. Insights into the application of the technique
and results from both a research and managerial perspective are presented. Aggregate analysis for the
methodology and future research directions are also introduced in the final section.
& 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction critical success factors (CSFs) for the successful implementation of

Since the 1990s organizations have focused on the develop-
ment of more flexible, coordinated, team- and communication-
based capabilities (Terziovski et al., 2003; Attaran, 2004). One of
the fields coping with these developments is business process
management (BPM) (Vergidis et al., 2008; Gartner, 2009). BPM can
speed up organizational processes, reduce needed resources,
improve productivity and efficiency, and improve competitiveness
for organizations. Although BPM has been a business concept for
decades, its strategic and operational roles within organizations is
still an important issue requiring investigation from various
perspectives such as operations and information technology man-
agement (Liu et al., 2009; Bititci et al., 2011).
BPM can be a risky proposition with potential for large
investments and uncertain outcomes. A number of studies have
shown that a large percentage of BPM projects, programs, or
initiatives have been unsuccessful (Karim et al., 2007; Abdolvand
et al., 2008). In order to reduce the failure rate of BPM imple-
mentation, and its resulting initiatives, identifying and evaluating
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 411 8690 4888; fax: +86 411 8740 3733.
E-mail addresses: chunguang.bai@gmail.com (C. Bai), jsarkis@wpi.edu (J. Sarkis).
1
Tel.: +1 508 831 4831.
BPM is necessary (Bandara et al., 2005; Ariyachandra and Frolick,
2008; Lee and Ahn, 2008). Several papers sought to identify CSFs
of BPM (e.g. Bandara et al., 2005; Ariyachandra and Frolick, 2008;
Trkman, 2010). However, most of those papers were conceptually
focused or utilize only qualitative analyses. These studies on BPM
CSFs provide limited, if any, formal rigorous quantitative analysis
from actual practicing managers.
Methods for successfully developing and executing a BPM
strategy have been proposed (Balzarova et al., 2004; Lu et al.,
2006; Bandara et al., 2009). Unfortunately, few of these studies
provide robust methods which can systematically evaluate and
model complex factors of BPM implementation. These limitations
in the research fail to help project managers make a proper BPM
investment strategy that may be facilitated through a robust
evaluation method. BPM projects can be effectively managed as
multiple criteria decision making problems, which requires con-
sidering a large number of complex and typically conflicting or
interacting factors.
There are many potential organizational, technological, strate-
gic and operational factors that can play a role in BPM project
failure and success. Narrowing down this set to those factors that
are most critical is necessary to reduce the complexities of
decision making and management. These complexities are why
organizations need to focus on CSFs, especially for BPM

0925-5273/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.011

Please cite this article as: Bai, C., Sarkis, J.. grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical
success factors. International Journal of Production Economics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.011i
2 C. Bai, J. Sarkis / Int. J. Production Economics ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
implementation. Through a better understanding of BPM imple-
mentation CSFs, an organization can easily determine the corre-
sponding solution to eliminate or avoid the most common causes
of failure in implementation.
In order to evaluate the relationships amongst the CSFs, a
structured methodological, quantitatively oriented cognitive map-
ping approach can provide valuable information for cause and
effect relationships. Having experts and managers evaluating these
cause/effect relationships without a structured approach becomes
a difficult task and the existing literature was unclear about which
CSFs played significant roles in BPM success. Thus, a structured
analysis tool such as the decision making trial and evaluation
laboratory (DEMATEL) method can help structure complicated
causal relationships through matrices or digraphs which portray
relationships between factors, a cognitive mapping of the factors.
This method is advantageous in revealing the relationships among
factors and prioritizing factors based on the type of relationships
and severity of their effects on other factors. However it is difficult
to describe the uncertain relationships.
Grey set theory is an approach that can integrate uncertainty
and ambiguity into the evaluation process. It is an effective
approach for theoretical analysis of systems with imprecise
information and incomplete samples. In addition, a grey-
DEMATEL methodology can effectively handle uncertainty and
indeterminate problems. Based on these advantages, grey-
DEMATEL is used to determine interrelationships among the
BPM implementation CSFs using linguistic (qualitative) terminol-
ogy to evaluate the relationships.
This paper seeks to evaluate BPM CSFs, with the aims of this
study being: (1) to identify CSFs for implementation of BPM
through a comprehensive and systematic literature review; (2) to
apply a unique methodology that evaluates CSFs of BPM and
obtain the structure of complicated causal relationships and the
influence level of these factors; and (3) to help BPM implementa-
tion project actors better control and investigate various areas of
BPM implementation practices.
To help meet these objectives, this paper is organized as
follows: Section 2 provides an overview of identified CSFs for
BPM implementation based on literature findings. We also briefly
identify some formal models in this area and provide an overview
comparison between these models and the methodology proposed
here in Section 3. In Section 4 we describe the DEMATEL metho-
dology in the general proposed evaluation method. A grey-based
DEMATEL approach is applied, using a multi-site field study
application, to evaluate CSFs of BPM in Section 5. In Section 6, a
discussion on the results completes the article. The final section
with summary and conclusion incorporates additional discussion
and identifies limitations and future research directions.
2. BPM implementation critical success factors
BPM falls within a multidisciplinary domain; with its key
process concepts integrated with organization, people, and tech-
nology organizational dimensions fitting well within the socio-
technical system model for organizational change (Leavitt, 1965).
BPM encompasses methodologies and practices from a number of
dimensions. Aspects include process definition, process modeling,
process analysis (e.g., Six Sigma, Lean Management), process
improvement (business process reengineering, process innova-
tion), process execution and process monitoring, audit and control
(Hammer and Champy, 1993; Spanyi, 2008). We provide this very
general description of BPM and its elements, which can be quite
encompassing. Organizational definitions of what constitutes BPM
may also vary, but will typically contain various elements listed
here (Armistead and Machin, 1997).
Please cite this article as: Bai, C., Sarkis, J.. grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical
success factors. International Journal of Production Economics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.011i
The literature mainly offers fairly similar and rather general
CSFs for BPM implementation. The following factors typically
appear: top management support, project management, commu-
nication, and inter-departmental cooperation (Bandara et al.,
2005; Karim et al., 2007; Ariyachandra and Frolick, 2008).
Two guiding models/frameworks are used to initially identify
the major CSFs. One is the maturity framework by Rosemann and
vom Brocke (2010), which consolidated and structured the six core
elements of BPM drawing on research in the field of maturity
models. The six general essential factors include: strategic align-
ment, governance, methods, information technology, people, and
culture. Items such as project management, collaborative working
environment, top management support were also introduced
based on the work of Bandara et al. (2007). Methods, in the
context of Rosemann and vom Brocke (2010), have been defined as
the tools and techniques that support and enable consistent
activities on all levels of BPM. The main one is a performance
measurement tool and technique to ensure the direct linkage of
process performance with strategic goals. Using the factors from
these two papers provides a brief overview of a CSF framework for
BPM comprising of eight critical factors for success implementing
BPM in practice2. No literature focused on inter-factor relation-
ships. Table 1 provides a list of BPM implementation CSFs based on
our two major sources and supported by the literature.
A much broader list could be provided, but in terms of
management cognitive abilities, the rule of thumb is that a focused
set of CSFs (and performance measures or key performance
indicators) is typically more effective than a very broad and
dispersed set (Bourne et al., 2003; Bai et al., 2012a). For a number
of decades cognitive psychologists have concluded that individual
limits on information processing are approximately equal to the
magical number seven plus or minus two items (Miller, 1956).
Organizations are more complex than individuals but decisions are
still made by individuals. Those CSFs represent processes capabil-
ities that are prerequisites to its summoning the resources, knowl-
edge, capital, and skills needed to succeed with processes
(Hammer, 2007). Comprehension and investment of larger num-
bers of CSFs is difficult to manage, and thus we felt that limiting
this study to eight, consensus, comprehensive (general), and
supported CSFs for BPM implementation would be effective initial
step3.
Each of the factors presented in Table 1 describes a unique
criterion or strategy that would help successfully implement BPM
projects. Table 1 shows that BPM is broader than a process
improvement aspect, but can include significant organizational
and cultural issues as well.
The list, as shown in Table 1, summarizes the 8 CSFs and
supporting references identifying them as BPM CSFs. Those 8 CSFs
are the most frequently appearing attributes in the BPM literature.
The factors are now explained in more detail to provide a
2
To supplement and support Rosemann and vom Brocke (2010) and Bandara
et al.'s (2007) identification of critical success factors, a literature review, although
not completely systematic was completed. The review did utilize keywords and
terms such as “Business Process Management”, “Business Process Reengineering”,
with an additional keyword including (separately), “implementation” “critical
success factors”, “barriers”, “enablers,” “performance measures” when completing
a keyword search on Google Scholar. The authors included peer reviewed articles,
conference proceedings and books. For each search the first four pages of results
were identified, and based on an initial abstract evaluation, the usefulness of the
article was determined. The literature did support many of the initial findings and
frameworks as identified by Rosemann and vom Brocke (2010) and Bandara et al.
(2007).
3
Practically, in the field study implementation stages later in this study, we
confirm and validate the selected CSFs with the managers in our study by asking
them if they feel these CSFs cover the major issues in their organizations. The
managers were accepting of this set and did not recommend any others for
consideration.
 C. Bai, J. Sarkis / Int. J. Production Economics ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 3

Table 1 IT includes hardware, information systems, and communication

A comprehensive listing and categorization of BPM implementation CSFs from the
literature.
CSFs of BPM
Strategic Alignment (C1)
Project management (C2)
Information technology (C3)
Performance measurement (C4)
Collaborative environment (C5)
Top management support (C6)
User Focus (C7)
Culture (C8)
technology, which provide individuals with the required informa-
tion (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 2000; Attaran, 2004). Overlooking the
Source role of IT can result in failure (Shin and Jemella, 2002). Appropriate
IT capabilities are particularly effective in realizing the other
Trkman (2010) critical success factors by integrating human, business, and orga-
Bandara et al. (2005) nization together (Grant, 2002; Motwani et al., 2005).
Rosemann and vom Brocke (2010)
Ngai et al. (2008)
2.3. Performance measurement
Žabjek et al. (2009)
Bandara et al. (2005)
Rosemann and vom Brocke (2010) Performance measurement is an important aspect for manage-
Ngai et al. (2008) ment in general. The adage typically portraying performance
Žabjek et al. (2009) measurement's importance is “You cannot manage what you
Trkman (2010) cannot measure” (Adams et al., 1995), and is especially true for
Bandara et al. (2005) BPM. Implementation progress must be measured regularly for
Rosemann and vom Brocke (2010) more efficient and effective control and ensure that the goals are
Ngai et al. (2008)
achieved (Jarrar et al., 2000). Each process must be measured for
Žabjek et al. (2009)
time, costs, productivity, quality and so on, and then ensure that
Trkman (2010)
the implementation progresses as planned. Such an approach
Ravesteyn and Batenburg (2010)
Bandara et al. (2005)
must be supported by the use of appropriate decision and auditing
tools (Jeston and Nelis, 2006). Process improvement should form a
Trkman (2010)
feedback loop in order to support continuous improvements.
Žabjek et al. (2009)
Bandara et al. (2005) Through monitoring and feedback from the users, BPM perfor-
Ngai et al. (2008) mance can be evaluated to see whether it is achieving strategic
Žabjek et al. (2009) goals and objectives, which themselves contribute to the perfor-
Ngai et al. (2008) mance measurement system.
Trkman(2010)
Further, to identify the CSFs of BPM in an organization, it is
Rosemann and vom Brocke (2010) necessary to understand the organization itself and its culture,
Ravesteyn and Batenburg (2010) since the factors may differ regarding the type of organization
Rosemann and vom Brocke (2010) (Bruin and Rosemann, 2006; Melenovsky and Sinur, 2006; Brocke
Ravesteyn and Batenburg (2010) and Sinnl, 2011).
Ngai et al. (2008)
Bandara et al. (2005) 2.4. Strategic alignment

Strategic alignment of BPM is defined as “the continual tight

definitional foundation used to evaluate their relationships by
managers in the field study firms as described later in the paper.
2.1. Project management
Effective project management plays a critical operational, and
sometimes strategic, role in BPM implementation and in handling
organizational change (Lee and Dale, 1998). Project management
consists of establishing and planning activities that make it
possible to ensure that the implementation processes are ration-
ally managed. Since BPM projects require numerous functional
groups' involvement and have high levels of uncertainty, solid
project management knowledge and planning is needed
(Akkermans and Helden, 2002). The presence of knowledge and
skills related to planning, organization, follow-up, and control over
the project phases are also necessary project management con-
siderations (Jeston and Nelis, 2006). The project manager must
have skills and knowledge that allows them to recognize and
overcome difficulties.
2.2. Information technology
Appropriate information technology (IT) is a necessary compo-
nent and a natural partner to BPM. IT plays a central and
important role in almost all BPM projects, arguably BPM's intel-
lectual foundation is within the information systems research field
(Houy et al., 2010). IT is usually both the enabler and facilitator of
changes (and sometimes an outcome) identified in BPM projects
(Attaran, 2004). The relationship between BPM and IT is mutually
beneficial, in that successful IT implementation also requires
effective BPM (Sarkis and Sundarraj, 2003; Žabjek et al., 2009).
linkage of organisational priorities and enterprise processes
enabling the achievement of business goals” (Bruin and
Rosemann, 2006). To achieve long-term success and improved
performance, BPM requires alignment with the overall strategy of
an organization. Typically within the purview of operations
management, processes have to be designed, executed, managed,
and measured according to strategic priorities and situations (Acur
and Bititci, 2003). For example, competitively, organizations may
require different process management capabilities depending on
the stage of a product lifecycle, position in a strategic portfolio,
and/or competitor capabilities (Burlton, 2010). The lack of con-
gruence and alignment between strategic orientation of an orga-
nization and BPM projects has been found as a major reason for
BPM project failure (Hung, 2006; Bandara et al., 2007).
2.5. Collaborative working environment
Employees working together horizontally across functional
departments within the organization, is an effective measure
which requires inter-functional communication and collaboration.
Facilitation of intraorganizational cross-functional communication
in organizations leads to a mutual understanding and congruence
of the organization's strategic direction and goals. In so doing,
clear and effective communication at all levels of an organization
is necessary before and during the implementation of BPM
projects (Crowe et al., 2002; Ariyachandra and Frolick, 2008).
In order to function in a cooperative environment, and colla-
boratively interact, top managers should drive the changes by
providing vision (shared vision) and employees with channels
facilitating communication (Crowe et al., 2002). These efforts help
employees to become more responsive, allowing the BPR team and

Please cite this article as: Bai, C., Sarkis, J.. grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical
success factors. International Journal of Production Economics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.011i
4 C. Bai, J. Sarkis / Int. J. Production Economics ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
others understand the implementation process. A cooperative
environment with friendly interaction by employee work teams
improves BPM performance (Green and Rosemann, 2000; Marir
and Mansar, 2004).
2.6. Top management support
Widespread support for the project from the upper management
team is essential for the life of a BPM project (Ariyachandra and
Frolick, 2008). Supporters of BPM contend that top managers must
be fully committed to and involved in BPM for it to succeed. Top
management should have clear knowledge about the current situa-
tion of the organization, and strategy development is their respon-
sibility. Top management must also approve and support all the
decisions that are made and take part in resolving any conflicts that
may arise, they are the major links across functions. In order to have
a successful BPM implementation, top management should commu-
nicate with employees in order to motivate the movement, control
the BPM team and users (Crowe et al., 2002). Very importantly, top
management controls the resources necessary to support any project.
2.7. User focus
Every process has a user (customer) that might be either internal
or external to the organization. By definition a business process is a
complete, dynamically coordinated set of activities or logically
related tasks that must be performed to deliver value to users
(Strnadl, 2006). Firms that are able to meet user requirements in
new products or services can gain a competitive advantage over
competitors. BPM affects external users given the many Web-based
and electronic commerce interactions that have been occurring over
the past couple decades (van der Aalst et al., 2007).
It is to be expected that BPM is seen as a major management
approach to improving user service by redesigning the workflows
improving both user service efficiency and effectiveness. On the
other hand, user involvement and training help in acceptance of
changes (Kumar et al., 2003).
2.8. Culture
Culture is composed of values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors
in peoples' mind that distinguish one group or category of people
from another (Hofstede, 1993; McSweeney, 2002). Organizational
culture incorporates the collective values and beliefs in regards to
the process-centered organization. Culture creates a facilitating
environment that complements the various BPM initiatives, and
can help BPM project progress by leading it to success (Brocke and
Sinnl, 2011). The impact of culture-related activities tends to have
a much longer time horizon than activities related to any of the
other factors (Grugulis and Wilkinson, 2002; Rosemann and vom
Brocke, 2010), therefore it is an important strategic antecedent to
BPM project success.
The list of 8 CSFs are generic enough to represent the breadth
of organizational contexts while making it possible to identify
practical actions that are close to the manager's own work
environment. However, although factors presented above are well
documented in the literature, their relationships, a causal or
conceptual mapping, have been investigated to a lesser extent.
Understanding the relationships can guide BPM project managers
in identifying areas where intervention is needed and resources
allocated. In this sense, a CSF approach remains incomplete if
it does not lead to specific practical guidelines for managers.
A technique to help in the conceptual mapping of the CSFs to aid
in planning and management is beneficial. Many potential con-
ceptual mapping techniques can be utilized; in the next section
support for selection of a grey-based DEMATEL approach is given.
Please cite this article as: Bai, C., Sarkis, J.. grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical
success factors. International Journal of Production Economics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.011i
3. Conceptual mapping models and BPM CSF evaluation
3.1. CSF evaluation and quantitative modeling tools
A variety of quantitative techniques have been used for identi-
fying organizational strategic and operational CSFs (or key perfor-
mance indicators). Tools and applications, especially at the
operational level, have included: identifying CSFs for projects
using regression and neural network approaches (Dvir et al.,
2006); formal models and frameworks that have utilized the
analytical hierarchy/network process AHP/ANP for manufacturing
strategies (Suwignjo et al., 2000; Sarkis, 2003), may also rely on
managerial perceptions to determine which measures should be
selected; and quality function deployment (QFD), which links
processes to specific critical performance measures (Adams et al.,
1995; Franceschini et al., 2009). Studies on key performance
indicators have also focused on the linkages to strategic and
operational dimensions using correlation and various multivariate
statistical techniques (Coskun and Bayyurt, 2008; Rodriguez et al.,
2009). Traditional multiple criteria and emergent techniques such
as rough set analysis have also been applied to performance
indicators and CSFs (e.g. Bai and Sarkis, 2012b; Yeh and Xu, 2013).
The determination of antecedents to success (CSFs) of programs
and practices, in traditional organizational research has utilized
statistically robust, multivariate regression analysis and structural
equation modeling (e.g. Stankovic et al., 2013). Yet, statistical
techniques typically require specific parametric assumptions for
their data and results to be considered valid. Rough set methodol-
ogy (e.g. Bai and Sarkis, 2012b) does not require these parametric
assumptions, but still requires a significantly large data set and
results in many possible CSF sets, identifying which are most
pertinent is not easy to do. Also, many of the techniques that use
large broad data sets are typically looking for general patterns,
some of which may not be applicable to specific organizational
settings. The use of DEMATEL can be helpful in not requiring too
large a data set and focusing on the CSFs of a particular enterprise.
Other quantitative modeling techniques usually are unable to
determine the strength and interactive cause–effect relationships.
But, causal modeling approaches can be utilized to address this
cause–effect relationship. We now review how other causal
modeling techniques, in which DEMATEL can be categorized, have
been applied to evaluating BPM.
3.2. Causal modeling approaches, CSFs and BPM
Previous studies have used various methods to demonstrate
the interrelationships between criteria that influence BPM.
Trkman (2010) conducted a case study in the banking sector to
identify critical success factors. Rosemann and vom Brocke (2010)
provide a framework that consolidates and structures the essential
factors that constitute BPM as a whole. Ahmad et al. (2009)
presents a holistic framework of success factors as well as the
associated means for achieving success in BPM. In these studies
relative and qualitative imprecision and poor descriptive relation-
ship evaluations remained.
The intangible characteristics of the CSFs identified in these,
and in our, studies, make them difficult to measure. Also, the CSFs
are not easily tied to each other. For the purpose of advancing the
quality of decision-making and thereby facilitating a process of
transforming strategic objectives into effective actions, causal
knowledge using causal analysis can be useful (Tan and Platts,
2003; Nadkarni and Shenoy, 2004; Lin and Wu, 2008; Wu, 2010).
Causal analysis can greatly influence the efficiency of decision-
making. But causal analysis typically requires conceptual mapping,
which can also be defined as causal mapping, cognitive mapping,
 C. Bai, J. Sarkis / Int. J. Production Economics ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
and structural modeling. It is within this realm of tools that
DEMATEL fits.
Conceptual and causal mapping not only helps with under-
standing of cause–effect relationships, but is a valuable tool for
learning in complex environments and relationships (Horton et al.,
1993). The set of tools for conceptual mapping can range from
simple affinity based diagraming using manual approaches (e.g.
grouping similar items and connecting by string or on board), to
more complex matrix oriented causal mapping approaches such as
interpretive structural modeling (ISM) (Govindan et al., 2012);
fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM) (Kosko, 1986); Causal maps
(Nadkarni and Shenoy, 2004); and even systems analysis and
design techniques such as IDEF0 (Sarkis and Lin, 1994).
Each mapping approach has its strengths and weaknesses.
DEMATEL is relatively versatile. It allows for variations in strength
of relationships amongst factors and two-way relationships, unlike
ISM and FCM and basic casual maps. Unlike systems and analysis
design techniques DEMATEL allows for many more interrelation-
ships and a quantification approach. DEMATEL's versatility is noted
with its potential integration with other post-application
approaches, after the DEMATEL causal mapping is applied. For
example, DEMATEL has been integrated with various multiple
criteria decision modeling approaches such as the analytical net-
work process and scoring approaches (Yang et al., 2008;
Falatoonitoosi et al., 2012). The tool is also useful as a precursor
to structural and causal analysis tools such as Structural Equation
Modeling (Wei et al., 2010), path modeling using partial least
squares (Temme et al., 2006) and Bayesian network analysis (Wu,
2010).
For our purposes, DEMATEL is conducted to create a causal
diagram of interdependent factors. This method is advantageous in
revealing the relationships among factors and prioritizing the
criteria based on the type of relationships and severity of their
effects on each other criteria.
However, DEMATEL is not without its weaknesses and limita-
tions. It is unable to deal with uncertain situations, lack of
information and conflict resolution among experts. It also cannot
express ambiguous values around a given discrete value. Although
some fuzzy methods, such as grey, would resolve the shortcom-
ings of the non-fuzzy methods, they suffer from limitations of
mapping a membership function. Therefore, this study proposes
the use of a grey-DEMATEL method in order to solve the problem
of integrating group decision-making in a fuzzy environment. The
proposed method successfully extends the DEMATEL method by
applying both linguistic variables and a fuzzy aggregation method;
hence it can effectively avoid vague and imprecise judgments and
flexibly deal with ambiguity. Particularly, this method can also
successfully divide a set of complex factors into cause and effect
groups through a causal diagram, thus the complexity of a
problem is easier to be captured and profound decisions can
be made.
The grey-DEMATEL method is comprehensive and applicable to
all companies facing problems that require group decision-making
in a fuzzy environment. The proposed method, grey-DEMATEL is
an effective approach for analyzing CSFs of BPM technologies.
The factors identified in the previous section are valuable
inputs necessary for applying a grey-based DEMATEL method to
complete a factor relational analysis for BPM implementation
factors. The steps of this formal methodology are now detailed.
4. A combined DEMATEL and grey system theory approach for
evaluation of causal and effective factor relationships
To analyze the identified BPM implementation CSFs and sup-
porting field study data (described in the next section), we apply a
Please cite this article as: Bai, C., Sarkis, J.. grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical
success factors. International Journal of Production Economics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.011i
5
grey-based DEMATEL methodology. In this section, some essen-
tials of grey system theory and DEMATEL are briefly introduced.
4.1. The basic DEMATEL method
The Battelle Memorial Institute introduced the DEMATEL
method through its Geneva Research Centre (Gabus and Fontela,
1973). DEMATEL is a comprehensive method for building and
analyzing a structural model involving causal relationships
through matrices or digraphs between a set of factors. The
matrices or digraphs portray relationships between system com-
ponents with strengths of relationships amongst these relation-
ships quantitatively portrayed.
The DEMATEL method assumes a system contains a set of
components c ¼ fci ji ¼ 1; 2; …; ng, with pairwise relations that can
be evaluated. In order to apply DEMATEL effectively, this paper
refines the version used by Fontela and Gabus (1976) and proposes
four main steps:
(1) Generate the direct-relation matrix.
(2) Normalize the direct-relation matrix.
(3) Attain the total-relation matrix.
(4) Produce a causal/effect diagram.
4.2. Grey system theory
Grey system theory can be used to solve uncertainty problems
in cases with discrete data and incomplete information (Deng,
1989). Its major advantage is the ability to generate satisfactory
outcomes using a relatively small amount of data or when there is
great variability in factors (Li et al., 1997). Grey system theory
provides an approach for analysis and modeling of systems with
limited and incomplete information, and which may exhibit
random uncertainty. Grey system theory has many successful
applications in areas such as economics, agriculture, medicine,
geography, disasters, industry, etc. In recent years, grey system
theory has been an effective methodology that deals with uncer-
tain and indeterminate problems.
We will now introduce some general notation and operations
for grey systems that will be applied further detailed in our field
study evaluation. Let x denote a closed and bounded set of real
numbers. A grey number ⊗x, is defined as an interval with known
upper and lower bounds but unknown distribution information
for x (Deng, 1989). That is, ⊗x ¼ ½⊗x; ⊗x ¼ ½x′∈xj⊗x ≤x′ ≤⊗x
where ⊗x and ⊗x are the lower and upper bounds of ⊗x,
respectively.
Generally, some basic grey number mathematical operations
are represented by the following relationships (expressions (1)–
(4)):
⊗x1 þ ⊗x2 ¼ ½x 1 þ x 2 ; x1 þ x2  ð1Þ
⊗x1 ⊗x2 ¼ ½x 1 x2 ; x1 x 2  ð2Þ
⊗x1  ⊗x2 ¼ ½minðx 1 x 2 ; x 1 x2 ; x1 x 2 ; x1 x2 Þ; maxðx 1 x 2 ; x 1 x2 ; x1 x 2 ; x1 x2 Þ
ð3Þ
" #
h i 1 1
⊗x1 C⊗x2 ¼ x 1 ; x1  ; ð4Þ
x 2 x2
As will be shown below, we make a methodological contribu-
tion to the DEMATEL approach. Although there have been meth-
odological developments of combinations of Grey and DEMATEL
decision models with applications to practice, these models
typically convert the grey number to a real number initially, and
then complete a DEMATEL analysis. A major issue with this type of
6 C. Bai, J. Sarkis / Int. J. Production Economics ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
approach is a loss of information due to the data conversion
process. This information loss may lead to the inaccurate or
misleading results in the decision. The previous methodological
approaches are not truly achieving integration between the two
methods, but simply two independent steps. In our integrated
structural model, we directly analyze CSFs by DEMATEL, and do
not convert the grey number until after calculating a degree of
prominence and net cause/effect. The proposed method success-
fully extends the DEMATEL method by applying both linguistic
variables and a grey aggregation method; hence it can effectively
avoid vague and imprecise judgments.
5. A multi-site field study evaluation of BPM implementation
CSF relationships
Based on the four generic stages of the basic DEMATEL
methodology, as well as the four grey system theory basic
mathematical operations, we develop an overall grey-based
DEMATEL methodology to evaluate CSFs of BPM implementation
from three field study companies (discussed later).
The grey-based DEMATEL method is used to build the relative
relationship of BPM implementation CSFs. The relationships can be
used as a multi-level viewpoint for BPM strategic planning. Before
we go into detail with the application results of the technique and
analysis, some information on the three field study organizations
and respondents are first presented.
5.1. Background of the field study companies
Our field study companies for the evaluation of BPM imple-
mentation CSF focuses on manufacturing companies in China. BPM
investigation in China has been quite limited, and this investiga-
tion provides insight into issues faced by Chinese manufacturers.
BPM implementation focused on China is important since China's
equipment manufacturing industry is the largest in the world.
Some specific enterprises have also appeared in the ranks of global
leaders. Based on interviews with the study participants, these
organizations reported returns (economic performance) for their
companies as higher than before the implementation of BPM.
In addition, companies may not only accrue financial rewards
through the BPM implementation, but they may also reduce
errors, improve service levels and increase business process
transparency. The importance of BPM amongst Chinese manufac-
turers has not gone unnoticed, it has been argued that poor
competitive performance due to business process inefficiencies
can seriously restrict the development of China's equipment
manufacturing industry (Extans, 2010).
Therefore, focusing on BPM implementation within Chinese
companies is important for both Chinese companies and their
international customers and along the supply chain, whose costs,
due to these inefficiencies, they will have to pay. In order to
comprehensively analyze BPM implementation we have purpo-
sively targeted and selected three large-scale equipment manu-
facturing companies in China. Specifically, we sought and found
three that have recently gone through BPM implementations.
These three field study organizations located in Northeast
China are used to help evaluate the BPM CSF relationships. These
companies are now briefly described.
Company A is the largest machine tool manufacturer in China,
it contains 100 divisional units spread throughout China. The
annual turnover, total industry production value and the output
as well as sales of computer numerical control (CNC) machines are
in the billions of dollars. The main leading products are divided
into CNC machines and conventional machines with a total of 300
product families and thousands of models. Company A's products
Please cite this article as: Bai, C., Sarkis, J.. grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical
success factors. International Journal of Production Economics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.011i
are marketed in over 30 provinces, cities and municipalities as
well as more than 80 countries and regions of the world. The
specific division that was interviewed was located in Shenyang
Province in Northeast China. The CNC products are used in a
number of high technology industries such as automobile, aviation
and aerospace, military, petroleum as well as electronics and
telecommunications industries. Over the past decade as the
company has evolved and grown, competition from private and
public enterprises has also continued to increase. Major efforts to
improve processing have been continuously introduced.
Company B was merged into a single company in September of
2004 from three former major state-owned enterprises in North-
east China. As of December 2010 the registered assets of the
company was RMB 3.64 billion with total assets of RMB 35.9
billion (approximately 6 billion dollars). Company B has been the
leading equipment provider within China's specialty steel market
producing high quality and high added-value customized pro-
ducts, it ranks in the middle of the “2010 China top 500
enterprises”. It has a dozen wholly owned subsidiaries and joint
venture companies.
Company C is an automotive company located in Liaoning
province since 2002. This young growing automobile manufac-
turer has became an industry leader with RMB 30 billion assets
(about 5 billion dollars) and 35,000 employees, which produce
complete vehicles, automotive parts, core automotive parts R&D,
design, sales and finance management. Company C is a wholly-
owned joint venture between European, Japanese and Chinese
automotive firms. Over a 10 year period this company has been
introducing the world's leading technology and management
practices requiring significant alteration its older processes and
practices. They have both a domestic and international market for
their vehicles.
Within each of these organizations the research team met with
a mix of the highest level managers of the division including
Operations, Financial, Purchasing, and Information Technology
Managers. In each circumstance the IT manager was in attendance,
other managers present varied slightly. Company A had 8 team
members, Company B had 8 team members and Company C had
9 team members.
The data was gathered by informing the management team for
each company on the purpose of the study. An overview of each of
the factors, clearly defining each factor, was provided and then a
discussion about filling in the influence matrices was completed.
In the overview of the factors, questions pertaining to their validity
(i.e. “Are these CSFs the ones that they encountered and are they
significant?”) were asked. The responses were that these were
clear, acceptable, and appropriate CSFs for their organizations and
comprehensively covered issues they faced. Consensus results on
the relative relationships were the goal in each circumstance for
the completion of the matrices.
We now provide an application example of the CSF evaluation
using the joint Grey-based DEMATEL methodology with inputs
from the managers with details of the results.
5.2. Methodology application
This grey-based DEMATEL methodology is composed of the
following major steps.
Step 1: Developing a fuzzy direct-relation matrix for each
company. The first step in the process has three sub-steps:
Sub-step 1: Defining the grey linguistic scale.
In this paper, we use a five level scale containing the following
scale items factor influence relationships: no influence, very low
influence, low influence, high influence, and very high influence. The
grey numbers for these linguistic terms are defined in Table 2.
Sub-step 2: Establishing the direct-relation matrix
 C. Bai, J. Sarkis / Int. J. Production Economics ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 7

Table 2 Finally, the normalized grey direct-relation matrix N (Table 7)

The respondents' assessments of linguistic terms by N ¼ ⊗s⋅Z ¼ ½z ij =22:667; zij =15:667 is determined.
and grey number.
Step 3: The total relation matrix (T) is determined by expres-
Linguistic terms Grey numbers sion (10) where I represents an n  n identity matrix. The field
study total relation matrix is shown in Table 8.
No influence (N) [0,0] 1
Very low influence (VL) [0,1] T ¼ N þ N 2 þ N3 þ ⋯ ¼ ∑ N i ¼ NðINÞ1 ð10Þ
Low influence (L) [1,2] i¼1
High influence (H) [2,3]
Very high influence (VH) [3,4] Step 4: Developing the causal influence and digraph diagram in
DEMATEL requires three steps.
 Sub-step 1: Determine row ð⊗Ri Þ and column ð⊗Dj Þ sums for

To measure the relationship between criteria c ¼ fci i ¼ 1; 2; …; ng, each row i and column j from the total relation matrix (T). That is
a decision group of k companies were asked to develop sets of n
pair-wise comparisons in linguistic terms. Hence, k grey matrices ⊗Ri ¼ ∑ ⊗t ij ∀i ð11Þ
j¼1
Z 1 ; Z 2 ; …; Z K each corresponding to a company and with grey
numbers as its elements, were obtained. Grey matrix is Z k called the n
initial direct-relation grey matrix. For simplicity, denote Z k as ⊗Dj ¼ ∑ ⊗t ij ∀j ð12Þ
2 3 i¼1
C 1 ½0; 0 ⊗zk12 ⋯ ⊗zk1n
6 7 The row values ⊗Ri represent the sum of direct and indirect
C 2 6 ⊗zk21 ½0; 0 ⋯ ⊗zk2n 7
Zk ¼ 6 7 ð5Þ influence by BPM implementation CSF i on the other CSFs for BPM
6
⋮ 4 ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ 75 implementation. Similarly the column values ⊗Dj shows the sum
C n ⊗zn1 ⊗zn2 ⋯ ½0; 0
k k
of direct and indirect influence that CSF j is receiving from the
other CSFs. The overall results for the three companies are then
where ⊗zkij are grey numbers for the influence of BPM implementa- determined.
tion CSF i on BPM implementation CSF j for a company k. An Sub-step 2: Determine the overall importance or prominence
example specific pairwise influence question would be “How much ð⊗P i Þ of CSF i and net effect ð⊗Ei Þ of CSF i using expressions
influence does top management support (CSF 6) have on culture
(CSF 8)”. ⊗P i ¼ f⊗Ri þ ⊗Dj ji ¼ jg ð13Þ
The grey direct-relation matrix Z k is established by having
⊗Ei ¼ f⊗Ri ⊗Dj ji ¼ jg ð14Þ
evaluators (managerial decision makers) evaluate the grey pair-
wise influence relationships ð⊗zkij Þ between the CSFs in an 8  8 The values ⊗P i show the index representing the total cause and
matrix4. All the principal diagonal elements grey direct-relation effect. The larger the value of ⊗ the greater the overall prominence
matrix Z k are initially set to a grey value of zero ([0,0]¼ no (visibility/importance/influence) of CSF i in terms of overall
influence). The three pairwise influence matrices for each of the relationships with other CSFs. The values ⊗Ei shows the net effect
three China manufacturing enterprises are shown in Tables 3–5. or cause of CSF i. If ⊗Ei 4 0 then CSF i is a net cause, or foundation,
Sub-step 3: Combine all grey direct-relation matrices grey for other CSFs. If ⊗Ei o0 then CSF i is net effect of other CSFs. The
Z k into an aggregate matrix Z using an averaging process (expres- results for three companies are shown in Table 9.
sion (6)): Sub-step 3: Develop the overall DEMATEL prominence-causal
K graphs from Table 9.
Z ¼ ð ∑ Z k Þ=K ð6Þ The aggregated results are shown in the final two columns of
i¼1
Table 9. These values may then be plotted onto a two-dimensional
The process will need to be completed for each of the axis for each CSF. Fig. 1 shows a graphic of the overall aggregated
companies’ direct-relation matrices. The aggregated grey direct- barriers prominence and net effect results.
relationship matrix is shown in Table 6. An overall prominence–causal relationship diagram is devel-
Step 2: On the basis of the overall grey direct-relation matrix Z, oped (see Fig. 2) to observe general patterns and relationships
the normalized grey direct-relation matrix N can be obtained amongst all the CSFs simultaneously and in pairs. The develop-
through expressions (7) and (8). The N matrix for the case study ment of the digraphs (arrows) in Fig. 2 shows the interrelation-
evaluations is shown in Table 7. ships amongst each of the individual CSFs of BPM. Since the
number of relationships can include all the possibilities, we only
  1
⊗s ¼ s; s ¼ ; i; j ¼ 1; 2; …; n ð7Þ mapped those relationships that are over a threshold value θ. Due
max ∑nj¼ 1 ⊗zij
1 ≤i ≤n to the relatively large number of CSFs, a high threshold value is
chosen. We calculated this value by taking the mean and standard
N ¼ ⊗s⋅Z ð8Þ deviation of the values ⊗t ij from the T matrix, and added one
standard deviation to the mean. Thus, θ¼[0.356, 0.510]. All the
⊗nij ¼ ½s⋅z ij ; s⋅zij  ð9Þ relationships that meet or exceed the threshold value are high-
lighted in the overall T matrix (Table 8). The dyadic relationships
As an example, first, we can calculate ∑nj¼ 1 ⊗zij for each i from are then plotted. Two-way significant relationships are repre-
Table 6 by simply summing the values in the i row. For sented by solid lines, while one-way relationships are represented
∑nj¼ 1 ⊗zij ; f or i ¼ 1; …; 8 ¼[11,18], [15.667,22.667], [10,17], [8.333,15], by dashed lines.
[7.667,14], [15.667,22.667], [8.334,15.001], [7.667,14.667].
Next, the max value ∑nj¼ 1 ⊗zij from across all i is selected, with
the following result: ⊗s ¼ ½1=22:667; 1=15:667. 6. Results and discussion

4
The size of the matrix is dependent on the number of CSFs to be evaluated. In
our study eight CSFs were identified through the literature review described earlier
in this paper.
Using the final outcomes, we can identify the most important
(prominent) factors and the most important relationships amongst
the BPM implementation CSFs. The four most important factors

Please cite this article as: Bai, C., Sarkis, J.. grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical
success factors. International Journal of Production Economics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.011i
8 C. Bai, J. Sarkis / Int. J. Production Economics ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

are Strategic Alignment (C1), Top management support (C6), most prominent factors is not surprising (as shown in Fig. 1). Other
Project management (C2) and a Collaborative environment (C5). studies have shown that top management support and project
Having strategic alignment and top management support as the management are not only important factors in BPM, but also are
the top critical success factors of BPR and ERP in China (Zhang
et al., 2003; He, 2005).
Table 3 For any type of strategic project, innovation, or product, having
The direct-relation matrix for CSFs by Company A. these strategic critical success factors in place serves as the
foundation for their success (Ariyachandra and Frolick, 2008).
Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
Upper level managers in the field study companies support this
C1 [0,0] [1,2] [1,2] [3,4] [3,4] [2,3] [1,2] [0,1] supposition that top management support is necessary, which only
C2 [3,4] [0,0] [2,3] [2,3] [2,3] [2,3] [1,2] [3,4] strengthens the perspective that BPM is not an operational issue but
C3 [3,4] [1,2] [0,0] [0,1] [2,3] [0,1] [0,1] [0,1]
a strategic concern for companies, even in these Chinese organiza-
C4 [3,4] [0,1] [0,1] [0,0] [2,3] [1,2] [0,1] [2,3]
C5 [3,4] [1,2] [0,1] [0,1] [0,0] [0,1] [0,1] [2,3] tions (Shao et al., 2012). Interestingly, the direction of significant
C6 [3,4] [3,4] [2,3] [2,3] [1,2] [0,0] [0,1] [3,4] influence between top management support and strategic align-
C7 [1,2] [3,4] [1,2] [1,2] [1,2] [1,2] [0,0] [1,2] ment is unidirectional. The evaluation from this observation is that
C8 [1,2] [2,3] [0,1] [2,3] [2,3] [0,1] [0,1] [0,0] (1) top management needs to make sure that strategic alignment
C1—Strategic Alignment; C2—Project management; C3—Information technology;
occurs and (2) will resource and support that BPM implementation
C4—Performance measurement; C5—Collaborative environment; C6—Top manage- when strategic alignment is in place. This result fits within the
ment support; C7—User Focus; C8—Culture. construct that strategic direction and fit is managed by effective
leadership and planning at the most senior levels (Shao et al., 2012).
Contingency theory, which believes that leadership and organiza-
Table 4 tional culture style needs to be flexible, supports the need to have
The direct-relation matrix for CSFs by Company B. top management develop the appropriate strategic fit of environ-
ment to processes for an organization (Škrinjar and Trkman, 2013).
Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
Additionally two more operational CSFs, information technology
C1 [0,0] [1,2] [3,4] [1,2] [1,2] [1,2] [1,2] [1,2] and project management relationships and capability also influence
C2 [3,4] [0,0] [1,2] [2,3] [2,3] [3,4] [1,2] [2,3] strategic alignment. These are more tool-based, operational factors
C3 [2,3] [1,2] [0,0] [0,1] [1,2] [2,3] [2,3] [0,1]
that are in place to further make sure that the goals for strategic
C4 [2,3] [0,1] [1,2] [0,0] [2,3] [1,2] [0,0] [1,2]
C5 [3,4] [0,0] [0,0] [1,2] [0,0] [1,2] [0,1] [2,3] alignment remains. An important observation for this finding is that
C6 [3,4] [3,4] [1,2] [2,3] [3,4] [0,0] [1,2] [2,3] strategic alignment is very important, and is influenced by both
C7 [2,3] [2,3] [0,1] [0,1] [0,1] [2,3] [0,0] [0,1] strategic and operational aspects of the organization, which is
C8 [1,2] [0,1] [0,1] [1,2] [2,3] [1,2] [0,1] [0,0] supported by findings from Škrinjar and Trkman (2013). Promi-
C1—Strategic Alignment; C2—Project management; C3—Information technology;
nence includes the integration of the factors from both a cause
C4—Performance measurement; C5—Collaborative environment; C6—Top manage- (influencing) and effect (resulting) perspective. This analysis will
ment support; C7—User Focus; C8—Culture. provide us with an ordinal (temporal) perspective on what factors
need to be in place initially (require immediate resource invest-
ment), and which ones will require attention at a future time. We
Table 5 now separate and evaluate each of these relationships.
The direct-relation matrix for CSFs by Company C. Influencing Factors: The most important influencing factors that
have an effect on BPM implementation, with the highest score of
Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
R D, are primarily internal capability-related. These capability
C1 [0,0] [2,3] [2,3] [0,1] [3,4] [2,3] [3,4] [1,2] related issues fit within dynamic capabilities theory, where man-
C2 [3,4] [0,0] [3,4] [3,4] [2,3] [3,4] [1,2] [3,4] agement seeks to build up internal resources and capabilities for
C3 [2,3] [2,3] [0,0] [3,4] [3,4] [2,3] [2,3] [2,3] successful competitive stance (Teece, 2007; Trkman, 2010). These
C4 [2,3] [0,1] [1,2] [0,0] [2,3] [2,3] [2,3] [1,2]
factors not only play a significant role, but also affect other critical
C5 [3,4] [0,1] [2,3] [0,1] [0,0] [1,2] [2,3] [2,3]
C6 [3,4] [3,4] [3,4] [3,4] [1,2] [0,0] [2,3] [3,4] success factors. Initially, assuring that these CSFs are acceptably
C7 [3,4] [1,2] [2,3] [0,0] [1,2] [2,3] [0,0] [1,2] addressed for successful business process management implemen-
C8 [1,2] [0,1] [1,2] [2,3] [3,4] [2,3] [2,3] [0,0] tation is required. From Fig. 1, we can identify four key net cause
CSFs with net effect scores over 0. There are two CSFs with highly
C1—Strategic Alignment; C2—Project management; C3—Information technology;
C4—Performance measurement; C5—Collaborative environment; C6—Top manage-
valued cause valuations, Project management (C2) and Top man-
ment support; C7—User Focus; C8-Culture. agement support (C6). The success of BPM will begin with these

Table 6
The overall fuzzy direct-relationship matrix Z.

Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

C1 [0,0] [1.333,2.333] [2.000,3.000] [1.333,2.333] [2.333,3.333] [1.667,2.667] [1.667,2.667] [0.667,1.667]

C2 [3.000,4.000] [0,0] [2.000,3.000] [2.333,3.333] [2.000,3.000] [2.667,3.667] [1.000,2.000] [2.667,3.667]
C3 [2.333,3.333] [1.333,2.333] [0,0] [1.000,2.000] [2.000,3.000] [1.333,2.333] [1.333,2.333] [0.667,1.667]
C4 [2.333,3.333] [0.000,1.000] [0.667,1.667] [0,0] [2.000,3.000] [1.333,2.333] [0.667,1.333] [1.333,2.333]
C5 [3.000,4.000] [0.333,1.000] [0.667,1.333] [0.333,1.333] [0,0] [0.667,1.667] [0.667,1.667] [2.000,3.000]
C6 [3.000,4.000] [3.000,4.000] [2.000,3.000] [2.333,3.333] [1.667,2.667] [0,0] [1.000,2.000] [2.667,3.667]
C7 [2.000,3.000] [2.000,3.000] [1.000,2.000] [0.333,1] [0.667,1.667] [1.667,2.667] [0,0] [0.667,1.667]
C8 [1.000,2.000] [0.667,1.667] [0.333,1.333] [1.667,2.667] [2.333,3.333] [1.000,2.000] [0.667,1.667] [0,0]

C1—Strategic Alignment; C2—Project management; C3—Information technology; C4—Performance measurement C5—Collaborative environment; C6—Top management
support; C7—User Focus; C8—Culture.

Please cite this article as: Bai, C., Sarkis, J.. grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical
success factors. International Journal of Production Economics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.011i
 C. Bai, J. Sarkis / Int. J. Production Economics ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 9

Table 7
The normalized direct-relation matrix (N)

Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

C1 [0,0] [0.085,0.103] [0.128,0.132] [0.085,0.103] [0.149,0.147] [0.106,0.118] [0.106,0.118] [0.043,0.074]

C2 [0.191,0.176] [0,0] [0.128,0.132] [0.149,0.147] [0.128,0.132] [0.170,0.162] [0.064,0.088] [0.17,0.162]
C3 [0.149,0.147] [0.085,0.103] [0,0] [0.064,0.088] [0.128,0.132] [0.085,0.103] [0.085,0.103] [0.043,0.074]
C4 [0.149,0.147] [0.000,0.044] [0.043,0.074] [0,0] [0.128,0.132] [0.085,0.103] [0.043,0.059] [0.085,0.103]
C5 [0.191,0.176] [0.021,0.044] [0.043,0.059] [0.021,0.059] [0,0] [0.043,0.074] [0.043,0.074] [0.128,0.132]
C6 [0.191,0.176] [0.191,0.176] [0.128,0.132] [0.149,0.147] [0.106,0.118] [0,0] [0.064,0.088] [0.170,0.162]
C7 [0.128,0.132] [0.128,0.132] [0.064,0.088] [0.021,0.044] [0.043,0.074] [0.106,0.118] [0,0] [0.043,0.074]
C8 [0.064,0.088] [0.043,0.074] [0.021,0.059] [0.106,0.118] [0.149,0.147] [0.064,0.088] [0.043,0.074] [0,0]

C1—Strategic Alignment; C2—Project management; C3—Information technology; C4—Performance measurement C5—Collaborative environment; C6—Top management
support; C7—User Focus; C8—Culture.

Table 8
The total-relation matrix (T).

Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

C1 [0.285,0.44] [0.231,0.387] [0.274,0.415] [0.239,0.4] [0.36,0.509] [0.273,0.435] [0.227,0.376] [0.229,0.407]

C2 [0.551,0.69] [0.208,0.362] [0.334,0.485] [0.364,0.513] [0.439,0.59] [0.394,0.547] [0.241,0.415] [0.408,0.558]
C3 [0.393,0.546] [0.219,0.373] [0.15,0.285] [0.21,0.374] [0.327,0.48] [0.244,0.407] [0.201,0.352] [0.213,0.39]
C4 [0.337,0.493] [0.114,0.287] [0.158,0.317] [0.118,0.257] [0.288,0.437] [0.204,0.365] [0.139,0.282] [0.213,0.374]
C5 [0.352,0.491] [0.126,0.273] [0.151,0.29] [0.135,0.298] [0.164,0.301] [0.163,0.326] [0.135,0.282] [0.237,0.378]
C6 [0.554,0.693] [0.373,0.514] [0.337,0.488] [0.368,0.516] [0.425,0.582] [0.252,0.41] [0.243,0.416] [0.411,0.56]
C7 [0.352,0.501] [0.251,0.38] [0.202,0.347] [0.168,0.318] [0.237,0.404] [0.253,0.398] [0.113,0.239] [0.202,0.367]
C8 [0.253,0.439] [0.137,0.304] [0.126,0.297] [0.205,0.356] [0.29,0.441] [0.176,0.347] [0.127,0.288] [0.13,0.276]

C1–Strategic Alignment; C2–Project management; C3–Information technology; C4–Performance measurement; C5–Collaborative environment; C6–Top management support;
C7–User Focus; C8–Culture.

Table 9
The degree of prominence and net cause/effect of barriers for experts.

Criteria D R Prominence D+R Net effect D  R

C1 Strategic alignment [2.118,3.369] [3.077,4.293] [5.195,7.662] [  2.175,0.292]

C2 Project management [2.939,4.16] [1.659,2.88] [4.598,7.04] [0.059,2.501]
C3 Information technology [1.957,3.207] [1.732,2.924] [3.689,6.131] [  0.967,1.475]
C4 Performance measurement [1.571,2.812] [1.807,3.032] [3.378,5.844] [  1.461,1.005]
C5 Collaborative environment [1.463,2.639] [2.53,3.744] [3.993,6.383] [  2.281,0.109]
C6 Top management support [2.963,4.179] [1.959,3.235] [4.922,7.414] [  0.272,2.22]
C7 User Focus [1.778,2.954] [1.426,2.65] [3.204,5.604] [  0.872,1.528]
C8 Culture [1.444,2.748] [2.043,3.31] [3.487,6.058] [  1.866,0.705]

Fig. 1. Overall DEMATEL prominence–causal graphs.

two aspects: The first one is through project management to
ensure that BPM is implemented in accordance with a well
structured and managed scheme (Jarrar et al., 2000); the second,
top management support and provides a solid guarantee that BPM
will be politically and financially supported, which is true in China
Fig. 2. Overall DEMATEL prominence–causal relationship diagram. *All the rela-
tionships that meet or exceed the threshold value θ ¼[0.356, 0.510].
(Qian et al., 2013). The remaining similar net cause CSFs are
Information technology (C3) and a user Focus (C7), but are not as
prevalent in terms of their relationships to other CSFs.

Please cite this article as: Bai, C., Sarkis, J.. grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical
success factors. International Journal of Production Economics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.011i
10 C. Bai, J. Sarkis / Int. J. Production Economics ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
Resulting Factors: The net effect CSFs denote the most influ-
enced, resulting, factors (Fontela and Gabus, 1976). The resulting
factors are the factors that may be the last ones an organization
needs to address such that the BPM implementation becomes
successful. They are not necessarily less important, since many of
the initial foundational CSFs can point to one resulting CSF. A
resulting CSF may serve as the ultimate gatekeeper for the success
of a BPM implementation. From Fig. 1, we can identify four key net
effect CSFs with net effect scores below 0.
Fig. 2 shows that three CSFs are net effects of CSFs while they
are not significant causes for any other CSFs. These CSFs are C4
(Performance measurement), C5 (Collaborative environment) and
C8 (Culture). The significant causes of these three CSFs are similar,
including C2 (Project management) and C6 (Top management
support). Such results indicate that C4 (Performance measure-
ment), C5 (Collaborative environment) and C8 (Culture) are gen-
erally serious issues at later stages, and can be addressed after the
initial foundational concerns are in place. This situation is true, at
least for the companies in this study. Having top management
support, project management and information technology cap-
abilities initially will set the stage for addressing these other
critical success factors.
A more in-depth check of Fig. 2 shows that project manage-
ment (C2), top management support (C6), and strategic alignment
(C1) are three key influences on a C5 (Collaborative environment).
This result indicates that the field study company managers would
need project management and upper management support and a
strategic fit for BPM projects before they can get better collabora-
tive support across functions (and maybe across organizations) for
BPM implementation. Alternatively, we can also evaluate this
relationship in the negative direction by stating that a poor
collaborative environment for BPM will exist when there is poor
strategic alignment or project management or lessened top
management support. This finding also points to the relative
importance of a collaborative environment situation for ultimate
success of BPM implementation, even though it is clearly a net
effect factor. Theoretically this finding is supported by Trkman
(2010) and Škrinjar and Trkman (2013), who view a multi-
theoretical approach is needed to understand the complexities of
BPM implementation success. In addition to contingency and
dynamic capabilities theories, they also introduce technology fit
as another theoretical perspective. The findings here are that three
major fit and capabilities CSFs can contribute to greater collabora-
tion and success.
Practically, if managers of BPM projects are seeing negative
results of lessened support, project management, and fit, taking a
step back and getting support and making sure that the strategic
fit of the project exist, will help to guarantee greater collaboration
and success of BPM. Fig. 2 also shows that Strategic Alignment (C1),
a key cause of Collaborative environment (C5), is also dependent
on effective Information technology (C3). This type of result
indicates that low collaborative environment, can be partly traced
to poor information technology.
In Fig. 2, User Focus (C7) is not a significant net causal or effect
factor. The managers in this study view a user focus as a less
integrated CSF for BPM implementation. The factor seems to lack
great importance in these Chinese organizations. The reason why
these Chinese managers have isolated this CSF is open to con-
jecture. Maybe the managers think that BPM is purely process
related with little input needed from users who may not be
knowledgeable in BPM implementation or outcomes.
6.1. Research and managerial implications
The results presented in this paper have several implications
for BPM practitioners and researchers alike. The results present
Please cite this article as: Bai, C., Sarkis, J.. grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical
success factors. International Journal of Production Economics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.011i
some initial guidance on the successful implementation of BPM.
The CSFs identified in this study can serve as a checklist that
comprehensively covers possible success factors associated with
BPM implementation, setting the stage for some additional gui-
dance for BPM implementation. It can also raise the awareness of
critical issues for those involved in implementing BPM systems.
Appropriate planning and solutions should then be carried out to
achieve a greater degree of success in implementation.
We find that some CSFs are more fundamental to the successful
implementation of BPM. For example, top management support
needs to be developed for the general BPM process, but an issue
that still remains is whether top management support is needed
for every BPM project? If the process is supported, it naturally
implies that all the projects that flow from this process will be
supported. This situation may not always be true. From a manage-
rial perspective having foundational CSFs in place will be neces-
sary to make sure that other CSFs are controlled at later stages. But
knowing which CSFs are fundamental and which ones are depen-
dent is an important aspect of BPM implementation that has rarely
been investigated. DEMATEL allows for this initial evaluation.
Developing research models that investigate these relation-
ships is one such outcome from this type of study and the
application of DEMATEL. From a research perspective, the relative
influence and strength of relationships needs to be further
evaluated. This methodology can be valuable for developing a
series of research propositions. For example, one straightforward
theoretical proposition is that in BPM implementation top man-
agement support is the most critical of all success factors. We can
also make a proposition that there are direct and indirect effects of
top management support on a collaborative environment. The
indirect relationship is that the relationship between top manage-
ment support and a collaborative environment is mediated by
strategic alignment perceptions. These examples are only some of
many potential theoretical relationships identified in this work
because of the influence relationships observed in our study.
7. Conclusions
To help reduce BPM failure rate, BPM implementation issues
are currently receiving significant practical and research attention.
One of the core issues is identifying critical success factors (CSFs)
for the successful implementation of BPM and evaluating them.
Initially we used to the literature to identify CSFs. Although this
paper cannot claim to be exhaustive in its review of CSFs, the
framework does provide a comprehensive set of the BPM imple-
mentation CSFs and highlights the relationships that are likely to
exist between the BPM CSFs.
We critically evaluated various BPM implementation CSFs
through a strategic evaluation methodology utilizing a structural
modeling tool based on grey set theory mathematics and DEMA-
TEL and managerial input from large manufacturing companies in
China. Methodologically we have also made a contribution to the
DEMATEL approach through a more complete integration of grey
system theory with the approach. The methodology proved quite
useful in integrating the perceptions and perspectives of various
companies and experts. We arrived at a series of results, and the
methodology provided some strategic scenarios of the relation-
ships of the CSFs for BPM. This method can also successfully divide
a set of complex factors into cause and effect groups through a
causal diagram.
The results of the evaluation of the field study companies
provided some initial insights into importance of factors and the
sequencing of these CSFs. For this small sample of Chinese
manufacturers strategic alignment was the most prominent CSF,
followed by top management support. Given the threshold values
 C. Bai, J. Sarkis / Int. J. Production Economics ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
for significance of relationships we also found that the under-
standing of BPM may be slightly different to these Chinese
manufacturing companies' managers. They felt that User Focus
(C7) has a standalone, less prominent presence when compared to
other CSFs. This result is interesting since the focus may less be on
the ‘customer’ in these situations, but more on the relative
importance of technicalities of project management and informa-
tion technology. This may or may not be a cultural difference that
should be investigated in future research.
Even though we believe that our introduction of this novel
decision support and structured systems evaluation approach is a
contribution to the literature on BPM implementation, limitations
and concerns that provide fodder for further research opportu-
nities do exist.
Clearly, data from additional companies and information will
allow for broader generalization of these exploratory results.
Although some initial interesting insights can be developed from
the field study companies in this research, whether the relation-
ships and importance of these factors hold for a broader set of
organizations (inside and outside China) needs investigation. Also,
additional real-world application data may provide additional
insights to help advance this methodology.
In this research the focus was on the integration of higher level
factors based on the literature. These factors can be decomposed
and evaluated at more detailed, atomistic levels of analysis. That is,
sub-factors and additional factors and their relationships may
influence the relationships used in this study. The lower level
analyses will allow for more specific issues that can target BPM
tactical and operational issues, whereas this model focuses on
what would be considered broader strategic concerns.
The structured analysis environment can prove quite helpful
for managers to identify problem areas and which factors need to
be focused upon for successful implementation of projects. Over
time, it may be expected that managers can uncover additional
barriers as project implementation progresses. That is, they may
feel that some factors have been addressed and are well practiced,
while other factors may be less well integrated into the organiza-
tion. What we have shown in our study is a static representation of
the relationships. Dynamically, over time, these relationships may
change. Thus, a dynamic capabilities perspective seems very likely.
Another basic limitation is the use of grey based scales that
may provide a more continuous result in outcomes. For example,
we provided ranges for normalized, average outcome measures.
These ranges may vary and the determination is relatively arbi-
trary. Finding more theoretical or practical reasoning for normal-
ization of outcomes is something that needs to be investigated.
Even though some limitations and disadvantages do exist,
there is ample opportunity to investigate how this tool can be
used to expand BPM implementation. Not only can DEMATEL be
used as a way to handle the interdependencies within a set of
criteria, but also can produce more valuable information for
making decisions. These formal models play an important role in
improving BPM strategy and operations especially when it is in a
situation where complex environments exist. Some directions for
future research and development with this approach have been
identified to further integrate formal and cognitive mapping to be
used in BPM implementation.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China Project (71102090) and Liaoning Province Educa-
tion Department Humanities and Social Science Fund of China
(W2011125).
Please cite this article as: Bai, C., Sarkis, J.. grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical
success factors. International Journal of Production Economics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.011i
11
References
Abdolvand, N., Albadvi, A., Ferdowsi, Z., 2008. Assessing readiness for business
process reengineering. Business Process Management Journal 14 (4), 497–511.
Acur, N., Bititci, U., 2003. Managing strategy through business processes. Produc-
tion Planning & Control 14 (4), 309–326.
Adams, S., Sarkis, J., Liles, D.H., 1995. The development of strategic performance
metrics. Engineering Management Journal 1, 24–32.
Ahmad, A., Wasana, B.. Aghdasi, M., 2009. Means of achieving business process
management success factors. In: MCIS 2009 Proceedings.
Akkermans, H, van Helden, K, 2002. Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implemen-
tation: a case study of interrelations between critical success factors. European
Journal of Information Systems 11 (3), 35–46.
Al-Mashari, M., Zairi, M., 2000. Revisiting BPR: a holistic review of practice and
development. Business Process Management Journal 6 (1), 10–42.
Ariyachandra, T.R., Frolick, M.N., 2008. Critical success factors in business perfor-
mance management-striving for success. Information Systems Management 25
(2), 113–120.
Attaran, M., 2004. Exploring the relationship between information technology and
business process reengineering. Information & Management 41 (5), 585–596.
Armistead, C., Machin, S., 1997. Implications of business process management for
operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 17 (9), 886–898.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., Wei, X., Koh, L., 2012a. Evaluating ecological sustainable
performance measures for supply chain management. Supply Chain Manage-
ment: An International Journal 17 (1), 78–92.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., 2012b. Supply-chain performance-measurement system manage-
ment using neighbourhood rough sets. International Journal of Production
Research 50 (9), 2484–2500.
Balzarova, M.A., Bamber, C.J., McCambridge, S., Sharp, J.M., 2004. Key success factors
in implementation of process-based management: a UK housing association
experience. Business Process Management Journal 10 (4), 387–399.
Bandara, W., Alibabaei, A., Aghdasi, M., 2009. Means of achieving Business Process
Management success factors . In: Proceedings of the 4th Mediterranean
Conference on Information Systems. Athens University of Economics and
Business, pp. 25–27.
Bandara, W., Gable, G.G., Rosemann, M., 2005. Factors and measures of business
process modelling: model building through a multiple case study. European
Journal of Information Systems 14 (4), 347–360.
Bandara, W., Indulska, M., Chong, S., Sadiq, S., 2007. Major issues in Business
Process Management: an expert perspective. 7–9 June 2007. In: Proceedings of
the ECIS 2007—The 15th European Conference on Information Systems. St
Gallen, Switzerland, pp. 1240–1251.
Bititci, U, Ackermann, F., Ates, A., Davies, John D., Gibb, Stephen, MacBryde, J., 2011.
Managerial processes: an operations management perspective towards
dynamic capabilities. Production Planning & Control 22 (2), 157–173.
Bourne, M., Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., 2003. Implementing performance
measurement systems: a literature review. International Journal of Business
Performance Management 5 (1), 1–24.
Brocke, J.v., Sinnl, T., 2011. Culture in business process management: a literature
review. Business Process Management Journal 17 (2), 357–378.
Bruin, T.D. , Rosemann, M., 2006. Towards understanding strategic alignment of
business process management. In: ACIS 2006 Proceedings.
Burlton, R., 2010. Delivering Business Strategy Through Process Management
Handbook on Business Process Management 2, vom Brocke J., Rosemann M.,
Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 5–37.
Coskun, A., Bayyurt, N., 2008. Measurement frequency of performance indicators and
satisfaction on corporate performance: a survey on manufacturing companies.
European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences 13, 79–87.
Crowe, T.J., Fong, P.M., Bauman, T.A., Zayas-Castro, J.L., 2002. Quantitative risk level
estimation of business process reengineering efforts. Business Process Manage-
ment Journal 8 (5), 490–511.
Deng, J.L., 1989. Introduction to grey system theory. The Journal of Grey System 1
(1), 1–24.
Dvir, D., Ben-David, A., Sadeh, A., Shenhar, A.J., 2006. Critical managerial factors affecting
defense projects success: a comparison between neural network and regression
analysis. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 19 (5), 535–543.
Extans, 2010. Chinese Equipment Manufacturing Process Management Summit:
Discussing how to Reach the Industrial Upgrading of the Equipment Manu-
facturing Industry through Business Process Management.
Falatoonitoosi, E., Leman, Z., Sorooshian, S., 2012. Casual strategy mapping using
integrated BSC and MCDM-DEMATEL. Journal of American Science 8 (5),
424–428.
Fontela, E., Gabus, A., 1976. The DEMATEL observer. Battelle Geneva Research
Centre, Geneva.
Franceschini, F., Galetto, M., Turina, E., 2009. Service quality monitoring by
performance indicators: a proposal for a structured methodology. International
Journal of Services and Operations Management 5 (2), 251–273.
Gabus, A., Fontela, E., 1973. Perceptions of the World Problematique: Communica-
tion Procedure, Communicating with those Bearing Collective Responsibility.
Battelle Geneva Research Centre, Geneva, Switzerland. (DEMATEL Report No. 1).
Gartner, 2009. Meeting the Challenge. The 2009 CIO Agenda.
Govindan, K., Palaniappan, M., Zhu, Q., Kannan, D., 2012. Analysis of third party
reverse logistics provider using interpretive structural modeling. International
Journal of Production Economics 140 (1), 204–211.
12 C. Bai, J. Sarkis / Int. J. Production Economics ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
Grant, D., 2002. A wider view of business process reengineering. Communications
of the ACM 45 (2), 85–90.
Green, P., Rosemann, M., 2000. Integrated process modeling: an ontological
evaluation. Information Systems 25 (2), 73–87.
Grugulis, I., Wilkinson, A., 2002. Managing culture at British airways: hype, hope
and reality. Long Range Planning 35 (2), 179–194.
Hammer, M., Champy, J., 1993. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for
Business Revolution. Nicholas Brealey, London.
Hammer, M., 2007. The process audit. Harvard Business Review 85, 111–123.
He, X.J., 2005. A comparative study of business process reengineering in China.
Communications of the IIMA 5 (1), 25–30.
Hofstede, G., 1993. Cultural constraints in management theories. The Executive 7
(1), 81–94.
Horton, P.B., McConney, A.A., Gallo, M., Woods, A.L., Senn, G.J., Hamelin, D., 1993. An
investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool.
Science Education 77 (1), 95–111.
Houy, C., Fettke, P., Loos, P., 2010. Empirical research in business process manage-
ment—analysis of an emerging field of research. Business Process Management
Journal 16 (4), 619–661.
Hung, R.Y.-Y., 2006. Business process management as competitive advantage: a
review and empirical study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence
17, 1.
Jarrar, Y.F., Al-Mudimigh, A., Zairi, M., 2000. ERP implementation critical success
factors-the role and impact of business process management. In: Proceedings of
the 2000 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and
Technology, 2000. ICMIT 2000.
Jeston, J., Nelis, J., 2006. Business Process Management: Practical Guidelines to
Successful Implementations. Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam.
Karim, J., Somers, T.M., Bhattacherjee, A., 2007. The impact of ERP implementation
on business process outcomes: a factor-based study. Journal of Management
Information Systems 24 (1), 101–134.
Kosko, 1986. Fuzzy cognitive maps. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies
24, 65–75.
Kumar, V., Maheshwari, B., Kumar, U., 2003. An investigation of critical manage-
ment issues in ERP implementation: emperical evidence from Canadian
organizations. Technovation 23 (10), 793–807.
Leavitt, H.J., 1965. Applying Organizational Change in Industry: Structural, Techno-
logical and Humanistic Approaches. Rand McNaily, Chicago, IL.
Lee, S., Ahn, H., 2008. Assessment of process improvement from organizational
change. Information & Management 45 (5), 270–280.
Lee, R.G., Dale, B.G., 1998. Business process management: a review and evaluation.
Business Process Management Journal 4 (3), 214. (214).
Li, P., Tan, T.C., Lee, J.Y., 1997. Grey relational analysis of amine inhibition of mild
steel corrosion in acids. Corrosion 53 (3), 186–194.
Lin, C.-J., Wu, W.-W., 2008. A causal analytical method for group decision-making
under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications 34 (1), 205–213.
Liu, C., Li, Q., Zhao, X., 2009. Challenges and opportunities in collaborative business
process management: overview of recent advances and introduction to the
special issue. Information Systems Frontiers 11 (3), 201–209.
Lu, X.-H., Huang, L.-H., Heng, M.S.H., 2006. Critical success factors of inter-
organizational information systems—a case study of Cisco and Xiao Tong in
China. Information & Management 43 (3), 395–408.
Marir, F., Mansar, S.L., 2004. An adapted framework and case-based reasoning for
business process redesign. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
on Information Technology: Research and Education, 2004. ITRE 2004.
McSweeney, B., 2002. Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their
consequences: a triumph of faith—a failure of analysis. Human Relations
January 55 (1), 89–118.
Melenovsky, M.J., Sinur, J., 2006. BPM Maturity Model Identifies Six Phases for
Successful BPM Adoption. Gartner Research, Stamford.
Miller, G.A., 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on
our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63 (2), 81–97.
Motwani, J., Subramanian, R., Gopalakrishna, P., 2005. Critical factors for successful
ERP implementation: exploratory findings from four case studies. Computers in
Industry 56 (6), 529–544.
Nadkarni, S., Shenoy, P.P., 2004. A causal mapping approach to constructing
Bayesian networks. Decision Support Systems 38 (2), 259–281.
Ngai, E.W.T., Law, C.C.H., Wat, F.K.T., 2008. Examining the critical success factors in
the adoption of enterprise resource planning. Computers in Industry 59 (6),
548–564.
Qian, C., Cao, Q., Takeuchi, R., 2013. Top management team functional diversity and
organizational innovation in China: the moderating effects of environment.
Strategic Management Journal 34 (1), 110–120.
Please cite this article as: Bai, C., Sarkis, J.. grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical
success factors. International Journal of Production Economics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.011i
Ravesteyn, P., Batenburg, R., 2010. Cultural differences in implementing business
process management systems. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Americas
Conference on Information Systems.
Rodriguez, R.R, Saiz, J.J.A., Bas, A.O., 2009. Quantitative relationships between key
performance indicators for supporting decision-making processes. Computers
in Industry 60 (2), 104–113.
Rosemann, M., vom Brocke, J., 2010. The Six Core Elements of Business Process
Management, Handbook on Business Process Management 1. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, pp. 107–122.
Sarkis, J., 2003. Quantitative models for performance measurement systems—
alternate considerations. International Journal of Production Economics 86
(1), 81–90.
Sarkis, J., Lin, L., 1994. An IDEF0 functional planning model for the strategic
implementation of CIM systems. International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing 7 (2), 100–115.
Sarkis, J., Sundarraj, R., 2003. Managing large-scale global enterprise resource
planning systems: a case study at Texas Instruments. International Journal of
Information Management 23, 431–442.
Shao, Z., Feng, Y., Liu, L., 2012. The mediating effect of organizational culture and
knowledge sharing on transformational leadership and Enterprise Resource
Planning systems success: an empirical study in China. Computers in Human
Behavior 28 (6), 2400–2413.
Shin, N., Jemella, D.F., 2002. Business process reengineering and performance
improvement: the case of Chase Manhattan Bank. Business Process Manage-
ment Journal 8 (4), 351–363.
Škrinjar, R., Trkman, P., 2013. Increasing process orientation with business process
management: critical practices. International Journal of Information Manage-
ment 33 (1), 48–60.
Spanyi, A., 2008. More for Less: The Power of Process Management. Meghan-Kiffer
Press, Tampa, FL.
Stankovic, D., Nikolic, V., Djordjevic, M., Cao, D.-B., 2013. A survey study of critical
success factors in agile software projects in former Yugoslavia IT companies.
Journal of Systems and Software.
Strnadl, C.F., 2006. Aligning business and it: the process-driven architecture model.
Information Systems Management 23 (4), 67–77.
Suwignjo, P., Bititci, U.S., Carrie, A.S., 2000. Quantitative models for performance
measurement system. International Journal of Production Economics 64 (1),
231–241.
Tan, K.H., Platts, K., 2003. Linking objectives to actions: a decision support approach
based on cause–effect linkages. Decision Sciences 34 (3), 569–593.
Teece, D., 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations
of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal 28 (12),
1319–1350.
Temme, D., Kreis, H., Hildebrandt, L. (Eds.), 2006. PLS path modeling: A software
Review. Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
Terziovski, M., Fitzpatrick, P., O'Neill, P., 2003. Successful predictors of business
process reengineering (BPR) in financial services. International Journal of
Production Economics 84 (1), 35–50.
Trkman, P., 2010. The critical success factors of business process management.
International Journal of Information Management 30 (2), 125–134.
van der Aalst, W., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F., Verberk, E., 2007. Business
process management: where business processes and web services meet.
International Journal on Data and Knowledge Engineering 161 (1), 1–5.
Vergidis, K., Tiwari, A., Majeed, B., 2008. Business process analysis and optimiza-
tion: beyond reengineering. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cyber-
netics, Part C: Applications and Reviews 38 (1), 69–82.
Wei, P.-L., Huang, J.-H., Tzeng, G.-H., Wu, S.-i, 2010. Causal modeling of web-
advertising effectis by improving SEM based on DEMATEL technique. Interna-
tional Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 09 (05), 799–829.
Wu, W.W., 2010. Linking Bayesian networks and PLS path modeling for causal
analysis. Expert Systems with Applications 37 (1), 134–139.
Yeh, C.-H., Xu, Y., 2013. Managing critical success strategies for an enterprise
resource planning project. European Journal of Operational Research.
Yang, Y.P.O., Shieh, H.M., Leu, J.,D, Tzeng, G., 2008. A novel hybrid MCDM model
combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. International Journal of
Operations Research 5 (3), 160–168.
Žabjek, D., Kovacic, A., Štemberger, M.I., 2009. The influence of business process
management and some other CSFs on successful ERP implementation. Business
Process Management Journal 15 (4), 588–608.
Zhang, L., Lee, M., Zhang, Z., 2003. Critical success factors of enterprise resource
planning systems implementation success in China. In: Proceedings of the 36th
Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003, p. 10.