A literature review in process harmonization : a

conceptual framework
Citation for published version (APA):
Romero, H. L., Dijkman, R. M., Grefen, P. W. P. J., & Weele, van, A. J. (2012). A literature review in process
harmonization : a conceptual framework. (BETA publicatie : working papers; Vol. 379). Eindhoven: Technische
Universiteit Eindhoven.

Document status and date:

Published: 01/01/2012

Document Version:
Publisher’s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers)

Please check the document version of this publication:

• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be
important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People
interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the
DOI to the publisher's website.
• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.
• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page
numbers.
Link to publication

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.

If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, please
follow below link for the End User Agreement:
www.tue.nl/taverne

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at:
openaccess@tue.nl
providing details and we will investigate your claim.

Download date: 30. Apr. 2019

A literature review in process harmonization:
a conceptual framework

Heidi Romero, Remco Dijkman, Paul Grefen,

Arjan van Weele

Beta Working Paper series 379

BETA publicatie WP 379 (working

paper)
ISBN
ISSN
NUR 982
Eindhoven April 2012
A literature review in process harmonization: a
conceptual framework

Prepared by: Heidi Romero

Supervised by:

Remco Dijkman
Paul Grefen
Arjan van Weele

Eindhoven University of Technology

IE&IS - 2012
Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3
2. Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 3
2.1. Level of harmonization........................................................................................................... 3
2.2. Contextual factors .................................................................................................................. 5
2.3. Research questions ................................................................................................................ 5
3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 5
3.1. Searching............................................................................................................................... 6
3.2. Selecting ................................................................................................................................ 7
3.3. Classifying ............................................................................................................................. 8
3.4. Analyzing ............................................................................................................................... 9
4. Results ...................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1. Operationalizing level of harmonization ................................................................................ 9
4.2. Relationship between Contextual Factors and Process Harmonization ................................. 12
4.3. Effect of process harmonization on business performance .................................................... 15
4.4. Conceptual framework ......................................................................................................... 16
5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 17
5.1. Contribution ........................................................................................................................ 18
5.2. Managerial implications ...................................................................................................... 18
5.3. Limitations of the paper ....................................................................................................... 18
5.4. Avenues for future research.................................................................................................. 19
References....................................................................................................................................... 20

2
1. Introduction
In the attempt to enhance competitiveness, organizations are turning to different business strategies
such as: outsourcing, mergers and acquisitions. This trend has been stimulated by changes in business
environment drivers and the introduction of management concepts like business process re-
engineering, benchmarking and alliance management [41]. But how does this trend affect the business
processes of the companies involved? When a company takes over or merge with another, they have
to face duplications in their business processes. Process standardization seems to be the best option to
avoid this situation. However, there is a trade-off between the cost-benefits of choosing for a global
standard process instead of a local relevant variation of it [36]. This brings the question of how many
variations of a process should be allowed to manage this trade-off. An approach that appears
promising to overcome this situation is the process harmonization [5].

With process harmonization we can integrate different organizational units and facilitate their
cooperation, which is the case after acquisitions or following a quick growth. A uniform
understanding of a process and a uniform vocabulary enable these units to work together effectively
[28]. The benefits of business processes harmonization (BPH) are well documented specially by
practitioners at consultancy firms. They range from improvements in efficiency, decreasing operating
costs, increasing of internal control, to facilitating the interoperability between different companies
and the uniform used of IT systems [5]. The reduction in the number of process variants decreases the
costs of process maintenance and increases the agility towards process changes [28]. Moreover, the
internal control increases because the harmonization offers clear criteria to compare the performance
between different process variants.

While process harmonization is increasingly mentioned and unanimously associated with several
benefits as those mentioned before, the concept has not been fully developed. There is no clear and
unambiguous understanding of how it precisely contributes to the business’ goals and which
contextual factors can explain it. Contextual factors refer to factors that are present in the business
context, including organizational factors and also from the business environment. The prominent role
of process harmonization amongst practitioners [32], [10] and researchers [19] makes it an interesting
research topic to be further studied.

The aim of this study is to develop a conceptual framework for explaining the relationship between
contextual factors and the level of harmonization of a set of business processes, and the subsequent
effect on business performance.

2. Definitions
To provide a better understanding of the concepts being studied: “level of harmonization” and
“contextual factors”, we provide a definition in this section.

2.1. Level of harmonization

Harmonization is defined as the adjustment of differences and inconsistencies among
different measurements, methods, procedures, schedules, specifications, or systems to make
them uniform or mutually compatible by the Business dictionary [44]. In the context of business
processes, is important then to understand what a business process is before we define the
harmonization of business processes. A business process has been defined as “a description of tasks
with clearly defined inputs and outputs that are associated with a business activity across time and
place” [38]. Each business process has a specific beginning and end, and is composed by several sub-
processes and by different tasks. Basically, the difference between a sub-process and a task is that a

3
task cannot be further decomposed. A task is considered as an atomic process that must be carried out
completely or not at all, in contrast to a sub-process. Each sub-process within a process has its own
goal, owner, inputs and outputs.

Combining both concepts, the harmonization of business processes can be defined as the
elimination of differences and inconsistencies in their activities, inputs, outputs or owners among
processes that share the same goal in order to make them uniform or mutually compatible.

This definition considers three characteristics that must be highlighted in the harmonization of
processes: (1) process harmonization does not only imply the identification of differences in the
different aspects of a process but also their adjustment; (2) It should be performed between
comparable processes, or business processes sharing a goal; and (3) the goal of process harmonization
does not always conduct to uniform process, in some cases it allows variations only if they are
comparable.

The concept of process harmonization is often used in the literature interchangeable with process
standardization. Therefore it is important to compare both terms. Davenport’s [5] definition: “business
process standardization as the unification of business processes and the underlying actions within a
company in order to facilitate communications about how the business operates, to enable handoffs
across process boundaries in terms of information, and to improve collaboration and develop
comparative measures of process performance”. Involves the unification of variants of a given
business process [42]. Also Tregear [36] highlights in his definition that the main goal of process
standardization is the development of one standard or best-practice process to be used as a template
for all instances of the process throughout the organization. Wuellenweber et al. [42] 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”.

Therefore, process harmonization differs from standardization mainly in their goal. “A standard
process always exhibits predetermined input, produces and specified output and is repeated
identically” [32], while process harmonization does not necessarily attempt to make the different
processes uniform, it allows local differentiation [8], [22]. “In contrast to standardization, the goal is
not to harmonize the same settings across all clients, but to align similar processes based on a single,
focused business objective” [11].

Even though the process harmonization does not attempt to impose one standard process, it involves a
selective decision in which managers can decide how much to standardize their processes. “It’s not a
question of force-fitting standards”, “…adopting a medium-term view ... where internal stakeholders
from all around the world commonly decided which processes would have to be local, regional, or
global” [11]. This approach proposes that one standard is not the right approach for all organizations
[5]. This implies that the number of process variants that can be defined as a result of the process
harmonization can vary between organizations. This range of values is what we call the level of
harmonization. Therefore, the level of harmonization of a set of business processes is the degree of
commonality that can be achieved between different process variants. Commonality is defined as the
degree of similarity between machines or systems that allows inter-changeability
of parts and components [44]. Therefore, if we translated it to processes it is the degree of similarity
between processes that allows interchangeability. The level of harmonization can assume that range
from one standard to all variants of an extreme customization (See Figure 1). Therefore, the

4
standardization is within the range of harmonization, when the degree of commonality that can be
achieved is only one global standard.
Level of Harmonization
Uniformity Total diversity

Figure 1 – Range of values of harmonization level

2.2. Contextual factors

Contextual factors refer to factors that are endogenous and exogenous to the unit of analysis. In this
case the unit of analysis is the organization; therefore, endogenous factors refer to factors related to
internal factors of the organization, i.e. characteristics of the business processes being harmonized and
the organizational governance. External factors are also called by some authors as environmental
factors [29],[36] or contingent factors [19]. Contingent factors influence the performance of the
organization but are beyond the influence and control of that unit, i.e. regulatory activities and
regulation, technology, infrastructure, etc.

2.3. Research questions

Based on the research goal and after defining the main concepts under study, the following research
questions are formulated:
Research question #1: What contextual factors (internal or external to the organization)
are described in the literature that influence or explains the level of harmonization of a set
of business processes?
Research question #2: Are there any factors moderating or mediating this relationship?
Research question #3: How do authors measure the level of harmonization of a set of
business processes?

A literature review is conducted to answer the research questions previously defined. This paper is
structured as follows: Section 3 presents the overall methodology followed to answer the research
questions defined in this study, including the protocol and the execution of each step of the literature
review. It includes: searching, selecting, classifying and analyzing. Section 4 presents the results,
which includes the operationalization of process harmonization, identification of contextual factors
and their link with the level of harmonization. Finally, the conclusions are described with the main
findings in Section 5.

3. Methodology
The research method selected to answer the questions stated in this study is a literature review. A
literature review is the best approach to identify the state of the research in a specific area, broaden the
knowledge base in a specific research area and help to contextualize the findings [13]. A literature
review can significantly contribute to the area of process harmonization providing a better
understanding on the state of the research concept of process harmonization and the variables that
define it strengthen this field of study [38].

The literature review was conducted following an iterative process, which includes four different
steps as shown in Figure 2. An iterative process was chosen because this is an explorative research in
which we do not know in advance how extensive the available literature is. Therefore, the iterative
process allows us to finish our search when some specific criteria are achieved.

5
 1.
Searching

4. 2.
Analyzing Selecting

3.
Classifying

Figure 2 - Steps followed to review the literature [13]

For each step we explain the details of the method followed by the results of their execution. A
research protocol was performed to illustrate the decisions made during the research process. This was
developed using as a reference the protocol proposed by Vanwersch et al. [39]. Furthermore, each
step is explained on detail.

3.1. Searching.
The aim of this step is to identify references that can contribute to the research study. As shown in
Figure 2, this process is iterative. Therefore two cycles are performed to reach as many articles as
possible in an efficiency manner. The first search is a systematic search in which a set of search
engines and keywords are predefined to explore a broad area, and reach a variety of articles related to
process harmonization. After completing the first cycle and selecting a set of articles using the
selection criteria specified in the following section, a secondary search is performed. The aim of this
secondary search is to provide more focus on the topic under study.

Pre-search
Google Scholar was selected as the search engine for a pre-search, to identify how extensive is the
literature on this topic and to define the keywords to be used for the search. This search engine was
chosen considering that the research done in this area is not mature and has been mostly tackled by
practitioners. Using the keyword “harmonization” only a limited number of articles arise in general,
and very few specially focused on process harmonization. It was observed during this pre-search that
the terms “process harmonization” and “process standardization” are often used as interchangeable.
Therefore, the keyword “process standardization” was also used for the pre-search. As a result, a high
number of articles are retrieved; therefore this keyword should be combined with business processes
to create more focus.

First search
As a result of this pre-search, three search engines were identified to perform the search: ABI/
INFORMS, EMERALD and SPRINGER. The keywords defined for the search are shown in

6
Table 1.

7
 Table 1 – Keywords for first search
Keywords
“harmonization of business processes”
“harmonization of processes”
“process harmonization”
"business processes standardization"
"process standardization" AND "business processes"
"standardization of business processes"
"standard process" AND "business processes"
"harmonize" AND "business processes"
"standardize" AND "business processes"
"process variants"
“harmonization” AND “business process”
franchising AND standardization
(mergers or acquisitions) AND standardization.

The keywords should be included in the title or abstracts for journal and conference papers, and the
introduction and conclusions for managerial and company reports. After searching, 608 documents
were retrieved in total. The type of documents chosen in this phase include: conference papers,
journal papers, managerial papers, thesis reports and company reports. The documents retrieved
include duplications that were eliminated during the selection process.

Second search
This second search is performed using a backward tracing technique. This technique involves that
after the first references found in the first search; we look at their references and check whether there
were some interesting articles to contribute to our study. The backward technique is promising in this
case considering that most of the relevant literature in business harmonization that we identified is
from the last five years at most. Therefore, it allows us to find articles that are still up to date.

3.2. Selecting
The selection process consisted on the evaluation of two criteria: relevance and quality. The relevance
criteria help us to evaluate if the article contributes to answer the research questions defined for this
study, while with the quality criteria we assess the quality of the sources. A set of questions are
presented in Table 2.

Table 2 – Outline of relevance and quality criteria

Relevance inclusion criteria Quality inclusion criteria
1. Does the study aim to analyze the concept of 1. Does the study include at least a definition of
process harmonization/standardization? process harmonization/standardization

2. Does the study present an empirical 2. Does the study follow a valid research method
application of process to answer the research questions stated?
harmonization/standardization?
3. Does the study present contextual factors 3. Does the study follow a valid research method
related to process harmonization/ to answer the research questions stated?
standardization? 4. Does the study describe the effect of each
factor?

8
4. Does the study aim to analyze the type of 5. Does the study follow a valid research method
relationship (direct effect, moderator, and to answer the research questions stated?
mediator) between contextual factors and 6. Does the study describe the effect of each
process harmonization/ standardization? factor?

A total amount of 144 documents were initially selected after eliminating the duplications. After the
evaluation using the relevance and quality criteria, 32 articles were selected, including a wide range of
journals such as: Business Process Management Journal, Information Technology and management,
Harvard Business Review, Organizational Studies, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Strategic management Journal and International Systems Frontier. In order to select an
article, it must satisfy both criteria. They are fulfilled only if at least one of the questions described in
the relevance inclusion criteria in Table 2 is answer as positive (“yes”) followed by a positive answer
for the question from the same row in the quality inclusion criteria.

3.3. Classifying
This step consists of reading all the articles and identifying common themes and issues that are
associated with the topic at hand and the type of research done in this area. The classification of the
articles found was performed using a model derived from Kumar [13], which attempts to investigate
the classification of variables and their association in a research design (Figure 3). The original model
of Kumar is included in Appendix 1. In our adaptation we made a distinction between the factors
affecting the level of harmonization and the effect on business performance, considering that they
provide a different focus for future research as shown in Figure 3.

This model is appropriated to be for our literature review considering that we intend to discover how
the concept of process harmonization has been operationalized by different authors (variables or
indicators used), and its link with other variables.

Figure 3 – Model to define the link between variables and process harmonization

The documents selected in the previous step are used to obtain the information described as follows:
A. Process harmonization: Variable used to define harmonization. For instance, from an
information technology (IT) perspective, the variable used can be the number of ERP
systems in operation. This indicates how they make the concept of BPH operational in
their study.
B. Factors: independent variables that are drivers for the harmonization or standardization,
i.e. the implementation of an IT system promotes process harmonization within the
organization.
C. Effect: dependent variables involved and their classification. For example, company
performance metrics that can be improved with process harmonization.

9
 D. Intervening variables: mediators between the drivers and level of harmonization.
Variables that can change the type of relationship (positive or negative) between these
two concepts.
E. Extraneous variables. Moderators between the factors and level of harmonization. Their
identification can help us identify characteristics of the context in which the relationship
between dependent and independent variables is analyzed. For instance, parties involved
in the process (inter or intra-organizational).
F. Intervening variables: mediators between the level of harmonization and the company
performance. Variables that can change the type of relationship (positive or negative)
between these two concepts.
G. Extraneous variables: moderator between the level of harmonization and the company
performance.

The documents selected are classified and summarized in Appendix 2.

3.4. Analyzing
The analysis consists of deriving knowledge to answer the research questions using the information
previously classified. The analysis contains two parts. The first part consists of the identification of
variables used by authors to operationalize the level of harmonization of a set of business processes. It
starts with a classification of the articles using a set of three different criteria such as the type of
indicators used and the number of levels defined.

The second part includes the identification and classification of factors related to process
harmonization. In this part the factors are classified with respect to their relationship with process
harmonization in: drivers, effect, moderator or mediator using the conceptual model depicted in
Figure 3. A frequency analysis of the appearance of factors is also performed.

4. Results
From the 32 articles collected, 51% were focused on the effect of process harmonization on business
performance, 40% presented factors that impact process harmonization, while 9% include both sides,
considering process harmonization as a mediator between some contextual factor and business
performance. This section is divided in three parts using as a reference the model depicted in
Figure 3. The first part consists of identifying how the concept of process harmonization has been
operationalized by different authors. The second part includes the identification of contextual factors
and their classification derived from their type of relationship to process harmonization (i.e. driver,
moderators, mediators, or effect). Finally, the performance metrics of the organizations involved with
process harmonization is presented.

4.1. Operationalizing level of harmonization

Concepts are mental images or perceptions and their meanings may differ among individuals [14].The
concept of process harmonization or standardization, therefore have different meanings causing
problems if we try to compare the contribution of different authors. Therefore, an operationalization
of this concept can create more clarity allowing a better comparison. The operationalization consists
on identifying a way to measure a concept. From the set of articles selected, only twenty percent
presented indicators for process standardization. The concept defined was level of standardization and
the indicators are a set of criteria reflective on the concept, summarized in Table 3.

10
The number and type of indicators vary per study. However, they always use multiple indicators, to
take into account several aspects of the concept. There is little commonality among authors with
respect to the type of indicators used as shown in Table 3. Each author defines their own set of
indicators.
Table 3 – Comparison matrix to present indicators of process harmonization
Beimborn Tregear Ross et Münster- Wüllen-
Indicators et al. [3] [36] al. [30] mann et al. weber
[21] and [22] [42]
Activities are mandatory X
Activities have mandatory content X
Activities are standardized X X X X
Process is efficient and organized with X X
transparent and comprehensible activities
Processes and activities are documented or can X X
easily be learned via documentation and
trainings
The process cycle tracking is well-regulated X
IT decisions are centralized X
Data is standardized across business units X
Similar business units operations X
Centralized business management X X
Globally integrated transitions often with X
support of enterprise systems
Process performance is reported globally X
Global quality assurance on process work X

The comparison matrix shown in Table 3 indicates the set of indicators collected. It can be observed
that the level of standardization is associated with how standardized the data content is, activities or
processes, the level of documentation of this processes, and the centralization in the process
management.

There are differences in the operationalization observed in quantitative and qualitative studies. In the
quantitative studies, authors defined the construct and used specific indicators to measure the level of
process standardization [3],[19],[22],[42]. While for qualitative studies the indicators were not
explicitly defined, but we derived them from the indicators that they used to classify the level of
standardization in different categories, For example, see model depicted in Figure 4. Quantitative
studies describe the methods followed to analyze the validity and reliability of the indicators, to
justify that they actually reflect the intended meaning of the construct.

11
Figure 4 – Classification of operating models based on the degree of standardization and integration
of business processes, taken from Ross[30]

The next step after defining an indicator is to “fix levels based upon available information, which acts
as the basis for classification” [14]. Different levels of standardization have been used by authors as
shown in Table 4. It varies from the extreme two levels presented by Ross et al. [30], low and high, to
a more detailed using a Likert scale with seven different points. The differences are not only in the
number of levels but also in the type of content that they compare. With the Likert scale companies
would indicate to what extend their processes are standardize in that extend in which they agree with
the indicator defined. While the levels defined by Ross et al. [30] contain more than one indicator
with different values to allow companies to situate them in one of the levels based on how much they
fit to most of their indicators.

Table 4 – Level of harmonization identified in the literature

Reference
Tregear [36]
Ross et al. [30]
Moffat, L. and Archer, N.[19];
Münstermann et al. [21];
Münstermann et al. [22]
Beimborn et al. [3];
Wüllenweber [42]
Levels
[1] Current State is the initial state to evaluate further improvements from
a standardized process perspective
[2] Target State, represents an improvement from the current state,
although the trajectory from both states would ultimately reach the
global standard
[3] Global Standard represents the ideal state for all business units.
[1] Low (coordination and diversification)
[2] High (unification and replication)
A seven point Likert scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”
A seven point Likert scale from “fully disagree” to “fully agree”

12
Tregear [36] in another extreme presents three levels of standardization to describe a trajectory for
development of processes towards a global standard. They consider that local variation can be
accepted as a necessary process, and therefore you may never move further toward the global
standard. Tregear approach [36] does not present a distinction between the three different levels of
standardization neither a specific criteria to indicate when a shift from one level to another occur.

Another model that provides a differentiation between levels of standardization is described in Ross et
al. [30]. They use the degree of process standardization as one of the dimensions used to classify
operating models as shown in Figure 4. Authors suggest that this approach is insightful because helps
managers to position their companies into one of the quadrants and therefore receive specific
guidance about their business processes and IT capabilities.

To conclude, the level of harmonization has been described in a qualitative and quantitative way. The
qualitative approach includes: (1) the definition of levels as a transition from the current state to an
optimal state with a global standard [36]; and (2) the definition of attributes that characterize each
level [30]. In the quantitative studies, indicators were used to define the level of harmonization using
a 7-point Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Differences in the evaluation of
validity and reliability were also identified throughout this section.

4.2. Relationship between Contextual Factors and Process Harmonization

A set of contextual factors that impact process harmonization were collected from the different studies
and summarize in Figure 4. The list of factors is not exhaustive; therefore it is not significant to try to
explain the level of harmonization in terms of individual factors but to identify a criterion to classify
them in order to infer hypotheses about their potential to explain the level of harmonization of a set of
business processes.

Table 5 – Factors that exert and influence on process harmonization

Factors Type References

(Figure 2)
1) Organizational structure B [8]
2) Environmental factors (market imperatives) B [29],[36]

3) IT driven B [5],[20],[29],[26],[36],[
43]
4) Legal requirements B [9],[29],[36]

5) Domain inherent (structural and content factors) B [2],[9]

6) Personal differences (individual interpretations of rules and B [1],[9],[36]

procedures; personal preferences, knowledge sharing;
cultural factors)
7) Corporate governance B [5],[33]

8) Process characteristics (input variety, output variety, B [5],[29],[32],[36],[34]

frequency of identical repetitions, degree of uncertainty,
sequential variety), (level of routine or structuredness),
(process type: primary or support), (unstructured)
9) Relationship characteristics (relative market power, strategic B [19]
importance, organizational compatibility, strategic
alignment, interdependence) – Contingent factors

13
 10) Environment risks (business and technological uncertainty) – B [19]
Contingent factors
11) Drift B [36]

12) Resource constraints B [36]

13) Different locations B [5],[36]

14) Product or service variations B [36]

15) Mergers & Acquisitions (implementation of a managerial B [36]

practice)
16) Relational governance (communication, coordination and F [42]
consensus)
17) Contractual governance F [42]

18) Organizational culture E [43]

19) Organizational learning F [33]

20) Knowledge management F [19]

21) Market volatility D [5]

Therefore, we decided to classify these factors along four groups: (1) firm related, (2) management-
related, (3) external factors, (4) process related and (5) IT related. The first three classes are derived
from the literature in the domain of marketing and procurement [15], which suggests them to classify
the antecedents of process and product standardization as part of a global purchasing strategy. In their
model they suggest four categories for classification, being the fourth one the product related factors.
However, because they treat both concepts (process and product standardization) together, we propose
that instead of product-related factors, use another class called process-related factors, which are
more aligned with process harmonization and can be confirmed by their high frequency of
appearances in the literature reviewed.

Finally, we also define a separate group for IT related factors, considering that they deserve special
treatment based on their number of appearances and significant impact to guide process
harmonization initiatives. The set of factors classified in the different categories is shown in Figure 5,

14
 Contextual factors grouped in categories

Product/service variation
Resources constraint
Domain inherent factors
Different locations
Corporate governance
Organizational structure
Managerial practice
Market imperatives
Relationship characteristics
Environ. Risks
Legal requirements
Process characteristics
Personal differences
IT implementation

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IT related Process related Firm related Managerial External

Figure 5 – Number of appearances of contextual factors

Now we provide a set of conjectures based on the literature reviewed that speculate based on their
findings about how contextual factors influence the level of harmonization of a set of business
processes.

Managerial factors:
The managerial practices mostly identified are mergers, acquisitions and outsourcing of particular
business processes within the organization. The implementation of one or several of these practices
definitely influences the level of harmonization of business processes. First, it increases the number of
process variants that coexists. These variants might differ with respect to their performance such as
efficiency, quality and cycle time. Harmonizing these variants will consolidate processing volumes
and allow the organization to exploit economies of scale. If the firm merges several variants of the
same process, it can identify the variant showing the highest performance and apply this as the new
process standard [3].

IT related factors:
IT plays a significant role in reaching business objectives. In heterogeneous IT landscapes
characterized by different systems in similar functional areas, decentralized IT departments, or
insufficient IT service levels, the decision to standardize definitely provides significant
improvements [4]. Particularly, considering that this heterogeneity and “legacy systems may force
variations in business process” [36]. Therefore, the centralization of IT infrastructure can lead to a
higher level of standardization. But in some cases the initial investment needed to centralize this
infrastructure is too high, and the savings that can be achieved through process standardization does
not balance this investments. This is the case especially in very dynamic environments with
continuous changes in the managerial practices.

15
Process related factors:
The nature of a process impacts on the standardization potential therefore, on the success of a process
standardization initiative.”Non-routine processes are less applicable to standardization than routine
processes… it became apparent that even those processes that are non-routine, or even creative, may
comprise sections that may in fact become subject to process standardization”. The reason underlying
is that different parts of a process needs to be open for creative decision making while others have to
meet legal requirements of different countries.

There are also some unstructured, unmeasured and unrepeatable processes [7] that can lead to a low
level of harmonization. For instance, “Knowledge work is often said to be impossible to document and
model as a process.”[36]. In some cases the main barrier to achieve a higher level of standardization
are not process characteristics but personal preferences. People are used to work in a specific way and
are not willing to change, while “some others see the sharing of knowledge about how a process
works as a loss of control and power” [36].

External factors:
“There are mandatory and unavoidable variations that come from differences in financial
regulations, taxation regimes, import/export regulations and employment practices” [36]. In order to
comply to these legal requirements the company needs to adapt their processes and end up with
several variations of the same process. Therefore, this situation definitely influences the level of
harmonization that can be achieved for global companies and must be considered when strategic
decisions are made such as acquiring subsidiaries in another country or region with different
legislations.

Firm related factors:

For global companies, having different locations do not only affect the level of harmonization due to
differences in their legal requirements as described before, but also because of the frequency of
interaction between individuals performing different tasks. Each one has their own way of working
(personal differences) and they are shaped by their cultural background. ”What works in one location
may not be possible in another if the necessary resources are not available or affordable” [36].
Additional, for mergers between companies with a different range of product or services demand also
adaptations in the supporting activities such as purchasing or marketing. “Differences in product and
services may require variation in the processes that create, deliver and maintain them.” [36].

4.3. Effect of process harmonization on business performance

The effect of process harmonization or standardization is very well acknowledged in the literature. It
is recognized as a driver of improvements in terms of cost, time, efficiency, effectiveness, quality, and
responsiveness as indicated in
Table 6.

The effect of harmonization initiatives on financial performance is the one that mostly attract the
attention of researchers, both at firm [1],[13],[20],[43] and at operational level [14],[19],[22],[26].
This is followed by the operational performance, including time, quality, efficiency and effectiveness,
as shown in
Table 6. Finally, fewer studies explore the impact of process harmonization on the strategic
performance such as growth rate or the success of a managerial strategy. The studies collected
presented a direct effect of process harmonization on performance.

16
 Table 6 –Effect of process harmonization on firm and operational performance
Effect Frequency References
Costs 9 IT system development, applications and
maintenance costs [1],[13],[20],[43]
process cost [14],[19],[22],[26],[42]
Efficiency 4 [1], [29],[20],[43]
Quality 3 [42], [19], [22]
Time 2 [19], [22],

Effectiveness 1 [1]
Global Integration 1 [8]
Responsiveness 1 [8]
Risk growth rate 1 [33]
Outsourcing success 1 [42]

However, this effect is not always direct. Wüllenweber et al. [42] describe the case in which this
effect is mediated by relational governance (specifically communication, coordination and consensus)
and contractual governance. They argue that:
“…Using process standards allow a better understanding about how the business operates
and can be improved. This facilitates communication and coordination between exchange partners
and allows realigning disparate goals and actions to solve day-to-day problems. These findings show
that process standardization increases the effectiveness of relational governance.” [42]

This applies in a context with a high business and technological uncertainty where contractual
provisions can hardly be designed. The second indirect effect is mediated by contractual governance.
Process standardization provides transparency with better documentation of processes. That leads to a
higher measurability of process output and control throughout the process. Under this situation, more
specific and complete contracts can be designed and negotiated between parties involved, positively
affecting the outsourcing success [42].

Another interesting finding was described by Beimborn et al. [3], in which the effect of process
standardization on performance is mediated by process control and moderated by IT intensity. The
mediation effect through process control is significant only on efficiency, while the effect of IT
intensity is direct and also moderates the effect of process standardization. These links are illustrated
in Figure 6.

4.4. Conceptual framework

From an information system point of view, a framework can be defined as a basic structure or
arrangement for a system. Frameworks present specific characteristics of the conceptual parts of a
system and the interrelationship between these parts. In this study the system is the concept of process
harmonization. In the literature, different authors identified a link between contextual factors and
process harmonization, and also the effect of process harmonization on performance. The interrelation
between these concepts was defined using the model depicted in Figure 3. The arrows indicate that
one of the concepts, i.e. a contextual factor, influence (positively or negatively) the level of
harmonization that a set of business processes can achieve.

17
Furthermore, the contextual factors found in the literature were classified in five groups: process-
related, firm-related, managerial, external and IT related factors, as explained in Section 4.2.
Literature in the domain of marketing and purchasing distinguishes between two levels of
performance [15]: performance of the company as a whole and the operational performance of a
particular organizational function. Firm performance is subsequently divided in strategic and financial
performance. Therefore, for the development of this framework these classifications are taken into
account (See Figure 6).

Figure 6 – A theoretical framework for explaining the level of harmonization of a set of business
processes

This conceptual framework has been derived by integrating existing components from different
approaches and areas of research and it can be used as a meta-model to classify the existing literature
in process harmonization. From a theoretical perspective, this conceptual framework is the first
building block for knowledge on business process harmonization.

5. Conclusions
The key finding of this study is that conceptuality shapes the way in which process harmonization
takes place in an organization. There are contextual factors that explain the level of harmonization of
a set of business processes. A conceptual framework was derived using the model based on Kumar
depicted in Figure 3. This meta-model summarizes all the factors identified in this literature review

18
and their link with process harmonization. It also presents the effect of process harmonization on
business performance.

5.1. Contribution
This framework can be used as a meta-model to classify the existing literature in process
harmonization, and to answer the research questions outlined in this study.

Research question #1: What contextual factors (internal or external to the organization)
are described in the literature that influence or explains the level of harmonization of a
set of business processes?

The contextual factors impacting the level of harmonization are classified in five groups: (1) Process-
related factors such as process type, level of routine and structuredness, and personal differences; (2)
Firm-related factors like organizational structure, corporate governance, different locations, resource
constraints and product/service variations; (3) Managerial factors, the implementation of a managerial
practice like mergers or acquisitions; (4) IT related factors such as the implementation of an IT
system; and (5) External factors like legal requirements, relationship characteristics, environmental
risks and market imperatives.

Research question #2: Are there any factors moderating or mediating this relationship?
The organizational culture was identified as a moderator in the effect of IT implementations on
process harmonization. Additionally, IT intensity moderates the effect of process harmonization on
efficiency, time and quality. The effect of process harmonization on these performance metrics is
direct and also mediated by process control. Finally, process harmonization plays a role in
outsourcing success, exerting an effect mediated by the relational and contractual governance.

Research question #3: How do authors measure the level of harmonization of a set of
business processes?
The operationalization of the level of harmonization differs significantly by authors. They
operationalize the concept using multiple indicators. The indicators collected are associated with how
standardized the data content is, activities or processes, the level of documentation of this processes
and the centralization in the process management. To measure the different levels of harmonization,
they define several levels. In the quantitative studies, this was measured using a 7-point Likert scale
from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. In the qualitative studies, each level was defined using
attributes. A variety of methods to evaluate the validity and reliability were also identified.

5.2. Managerial implications

Based on our results, we can draw the following managerial implications. The identification of factors
that defines the level of harmonization of business processes can help managers to decide how their
organizations should approach harmonization initiatives. They can recognize that there is a trade off
involved in the decisions for standardization and that there are different factors that play a role in this
decision. Managers can realize that in order to decide how much to homogenize, they need to
understand the characteristics of their context: environmental such as legal requirements;
organizational i.e. governance; and process related like the process type.

5.3. Limitations of the paper

It is acknowledged that the current paper has a number of shortcomings. First, literature regarding
process harmonization barely exists. Looking at level of harmonization was even more challenging as

19
there is no uniform understanding of this concept. Therefore, process harmonization was defined and
explained its link to process standardization. Process standardization is within the spectrum of process
harmonization only when process variants are reduced to one. Based on this assumption, documents
were collected, in which process harmonization and standardization are treated interchangeable.
Considering that most of the articles were focused on process standardization, it may be argued that
the framework is bias and include factors that could affect in the context of standardization initiatives
but not in all cases when the goal is to harmonize.

Secondly, the model is based on a relatively small sample size (32 articles), which needs to be
considered specially if we want to compare the effect of different groups of factors, such as IT-related
and process-related, on process harmonization. Our model only suggests a relationship but more
should be done to compare the type and strength of their relationship per group.

Finally, data about the effect of process harmonization on performance were aggregated, considering
different process types. It reduces the generalization of our findings in case that we want to
hypothesize about a specific type of relationship between them.

5.4. Avenues for future research

The development of this conceptual model is the first step towards a more profound insight in the
dynamic relationship between contextual factors, process harmonization and business performance.
The next step is to define hypotheses about the type of relationship between each category of factors
and process harmonization and to test the model. Empirical work will be needed to test these
hypotheses.

Given the increasing strategic and economic importance of process harmonization for globally
operating firms, it would be wise to increase academic efforts on this topic. For future research, the
analysis of this relationship between factors and the level of harmonization need to broaden and
deepen.

20
References

[1] Ang, Z. and Massingham, P. (2007) Natural culture and the standardization versus
adaptation of knowledge management. Journal of knowledge management 11 (2): 5-21
[2] Hofreiter, B.; Huemer, C. and Winiwarter, W. (2005) Business collaboration models and
their Business Context-dependent Web Choreography in BPSS. International Journal of
Web Information Systems 1 (1): 33-42
[3] Beimborn, D.; Gleisner, F; Joachim, N. and Hackethal, A. (2009) The Role of Process
Standardization in Achieveing IT Business Value. IEEE. Proceedings of the 42 nd Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences 2009
[4] Buchta, Dirk; Eul, Marcus and Schulte-Croonenberg, Helmut (2010) Reducing Costs –
Increasing the Efficiency and Effectiveness through IT. Strategic IT Management, 2010,
Pages 139-211
[5] Carmichael, D. (1997) IBM’s Journey Towards a Market-Driven Process-Managed
Business Model. Journal of Market Focused Management 2, p.99-103
[6] Dai, Q., Kauffman, R.J. and Wang, B. (2010) The Value of IT-Enabled Business Process
Standardization from the Real Options Perspective. Sharman, R. ; Raghu, T.S. and Rao,
H.R. (Eds.): WEB 2009, LNBIP 52, pp. 160-165
[7] Davenport, T. H. (2005) The Coming Commoditization of Processes, Harvard Business
Review, 83 (6), pp.100-108.
[8] Girod, Stéphane J.G.; Bellin, Joshua B. (2011) Revisiting the “Modern” Multinational
Enterprise An Emerging-market Multinational Perspective. Research in Global Strategic
Management, Volume: 15, 2011
[9] Helfert, Markus. (2009) Challenges of business processes management in healthcare;
Experience in the Irish healthcare sector. Business Process Management
Journal. Bradford: 2009. Vol. 15 (6), p. 937
[10] Hiquet, B.D. (1998) SAP R/3 Implementation guide: a manager’s guide to understand
SAP. Indianapolis: Macmillan Technical Publishing.
[11] Hufgard, A. and Gerhardt, E. (2011) Consolidating Business Processes as
Exemplified in SAP ERP Systems. W. Schmidt (Ed.): S-BPM ONE 2011, CCIS 213, pp.
155–171.
[12] Kubicek, Herbert; Cimander, Ralf and Scholl, Hans Jochen (2011) Wants and Needs
When Pursuing Interoperability. 2011, Organizational Interoperability in E-Government,
Pages 79-84
[13] Kobayashi,T.; Onoda, S. and Komoda, N. (2002) Workflow Business Template for
Application Processes in Administration Department. Information Technology and
Management 3, 43-66
[14] Kumar, Ranjit (2005) Research methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners.
Second edition. SAGE Publications Inc. ISBN 141291194X.
[15] Quintens, Lieven, P. Pauwels and P. Matthyssens (2005) A Globalizing Perspective
on Purchasing Strategies In: Wynstra, J.Y.F., Dittrich, K. and Jaspers, F.P.H.
(Eds.), Dealing with Dualities. Proceedings of the 21st IMP Conference, 1-3 September
2005, Rotterdam. Rotterdam: RSM Erasmus University. ISBN: 9090198369
[16] Leijen, Hans van (2005) The Role of Contextuality in Process Standardization.
Knowledge Management and Management Learning, Integrated Series in Information
Systems 9, p. 251-286

21
[17] Lillrank, P. (2003) The quality of Standard, Route and Nonroutine Processes.
Organizational Studies 24: 215-233.
[18] McLaren, Tim; Head, Milena and Yuan, Yufei (2002) Supply chain collaboration
alternatives: understanding the expected costs and benefits. Electronic Networking
Applications and Policy, Volume 12, Number 4, 2002, pp. 348-364
[19] Moffat, L. and Archer, N. (2004) Knowledge management in production alliances.
Information Systems and e-Business Management 2: 241-267
[20] Mortense, O. and Lemoine, O.W. (2008) Integration between manufacturers and
third party logistics providers? International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 28 (4):331-359
[21] Muenstermann, B.; Eckhardt, A. and Weitzel, T. (2009) Join the standard forces-
Examining the combined impact of process and data standards on business process
performance. Proceedings of the 42 nd Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences. IEEE
[22] Münstermann, Björn; Eckhardt, Andreas and Weitzel, Tim (2010) The performance
impact of business process standardization; An empirical evaluation of the recruitment
process. Business Process Management Journal, Bradford: 2010. Vol. 16 (1), p. 29
[23] Mustafa C. Ungan, (2006) Standardization through process documentation. Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 12 (2), pp.135 - 148
[24] Norta, Alex and Eshuis, Rick (2010) Specification and verification of harmonized
business-process collaborations. Inf Syst Front 12, p. 457–479
[25] Ould, A.M. (1995) Business Processes: Modeling and Analysis for Reengineering,
Wiley, ISBN 0-471-95352-0.
[26] Perego, A. and Salgaro, A. (2010) Assessing the benefits of B2B trade cycle
integration: a model in the home appliances industry. Benchmarking: An International
Journal 17 (4): 616-630
[27] Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage, New York: The Free Press.
[28] Richen, A. and Steinhorst, A. (2005) Standardization or harmonization? you need
both. European Health Informatics. BPTrends.
[29] Rohloff, Michael (2011) Advances in business process management implementation
based on a maturity assessment and best practice exchange. Information Systems E-
Business Management (2011) 9:383–403
[30] Ross J.W.; Weill, P. and Robertson, D.C. (2006) Enterprise Architecture as an
Strategy. Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.
[31] Rosenkranz, Christoph; Seidel, Stefan; Mendling, Jan; Schaefermeyer,
Markus and Recker, Jan (2010) Towards a Framework for Business Process
Standardization. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 2010, 1, Volume
43, Business Process Management Workshops, Part 1, Pages 53-63
[32] Schafermeyer, M.; Grgecic, D. and Rosenkranz, C. (2010) Factors Influencing
Business Process Standardization: A Multiple Case Study. Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, 2010.
[33] Scheer, A.W. (1999) ARIS – Business Process Modeling. Springer-Verlag.
[34] Schmidt, A.; Otto, B. and Österle, H. (2010) Integrating information systems: case
studies on current challenges. Electronic Markets 20 (2): 161-174

22
[35] Sorenson, O. and Sorenson, J.B. (2001) Finding the right mix: Franchising,
organizational learning, and chain performance. Strategic Management Journal 22: 713-
724
[36] Tregear, R. (2010) Business Process Standardization. Broche, J. vom and Rosemann,
M. (eds), Handbook on Business Process Management 2, International Handbooks on
Information Systems, p. 307-327.
[37] Tumay, K.(1996) Business process simulation. In: Proceedings of the 28th conference
on winter simulation, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 93-98.
[38] van der Aalst, W.M.P. and van Hee, K.M. (2002) Workflow Management: Models,
Methods and Systems. MIT press, Cambridge, MA
[39] Vanwersch, R.J.B.; Shahzad, K. ; Vanhaecht, K.; Grefen, P.W.P.J.; Pintelon, L.M.;
Mendling, J.; van Merode, G.G. and Reijers, H.A. (2011) International Journal of care
Pathways 15: 119-126
[40] Webster, S. and Watson, R. (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future:
writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly 26 (2) p. 13-23
[41] Weele, A.J. van (2010) Purchasing and Supply Chain Management. Cengage
Learning, 5th revised edition, London. ISBN: 978-1-4080-1896-5
[42] Wüllenweber, Kim; Beimborn, Daniel; Weitzel, Tim and König, Wolfgang (2008)
The impact of process standardization on business process outsourcing success.
Information Systems Frontiers, Volume 10 (2), p. 211-224
[43] Zhao, F. (2004) Management of information technology and business process re-
engineering: a case study. Industrial Management & Data Systems 104 (8): 674-680
[44] http://www.businessdictionary.com

23
Appendixes

Appendix 1- A model to define the types of variables in a causal relationship

[taken from Kumar [13], pp.60]

24
Appendix 2- Summary to analyze the literature in BPH using a modified model of Kumar[13]

References A. Process Harmonization B. Drivers C. Effect D. Intervening E. Extraneous

variables variables
Ang, Z. and * process standardization *cultural factors ---- ---- ----
Massingham, *organizational factors
P. (2007) ** strategy,
organizational structure,
autonomy * individual
factors *knowledge
resources factors and
knowledge process
factors **requisite
variety, job rotation
knowledge process
factors
Birgit H., * standard processes using reference *business context ---- ---- ----
C.H. and models for business processes
Winiwarter, collaborations
W. (2005)
Boersma, K. * Process standardization. Make a * IT driven: ---- ---- *
and Kingma, differentiation between: vertical integration implementing software Organizational
S. (2005) (within the production chain) and the package culture
horizontal integration of business units,
suppliers and customers.
Buchta et al. *Business process harmonization ** not ---- **IT application cost ---- ----
(2010) defined **Corporate efficiency
and effectiveness
Carmichael, d. *standard processes ** a consistent * Different locations (i.e. ---- ---- ----
(1997) customer interface and a global integration decentralized),
of the organization Organizational
governance (i.e.
autonomous), IT systems
variety
Dai, Q. et al. * business process standardization IT projects * Business value [F]* market * market
(2010) volatility volatility
*process type
(primary or
support)
Girod and *Process Harmonization ** * Business strategy * Global integration [D] *Company ----
Bellin (2011) “Harmonization was based on selective (EMNEs) ** **cross-country size (large)
standardization decisions taken … that organizational structure efficiency *Industry sector
created opportunities for headquarters, choices (network, etc.) **consistency of (telecommunica
business, regional and local units to share and configuration product and service tions and oil and
authority when deciding how much to delivery *Local gas)
standardize management processes.”([2], responsiveness: **
p.189) speed of innovations
and entrepreneurship
Helfert (2009) * Process Standardization (1) Domain inherent: ---- ---- ----
content and structural
factors (2)Management
factors (individual
interpretations of rules
and procedures) (3)
regulations

Hufgard, A. * Business process harmonization. "The * internal factors, such as * operation costs ---- ----
and Gerhardt harmonization analysis can also be used to cost pressures or reduction
(2011) compare difficult and complex business restructuring
processes between two consolidation requirements (for
clients, to align them with one another. In internal consolidation)
contrast to standardization, the goal is not and * complexity of
to harmonize the same settings across all comparing and
clients, but to align similar master data, combining activities (for
functions or processes with one another external consolidation)
based on a single, focused business
objective". They consider BPH as one step
in the consolidation process.

26
Kobayashi, T. * process standards, reference models, ---- *reduction in cost of ---- ----
et al. (2002) business process templates system development
Kubicek et al. * Process standardization (across areas, ---- * innovation, image ---- ----
(2011) (mejor vertical and horizontal) **open standards and autonomy, regional
buscar alignment and integration competitiveness, and
Lillrank) sustainable
development
Kumar, S. and process mapping ---- * Operational ---- ----
Harm, R. efficiency
(2004)
Lee, J.Y. et al. * Process synchronization, orchestration ---- ---- ---- ----
(2005) and choreography, using process templates.

Liere, D. W. * process standardization, modularization ---- * Performance of the ---- ----

van et and coordination network from customer
al.(2004) perspective
**transaction speed,
number of errors, range
of products and
network agility
López-Ortega, * Process harmonization described as ---- ---- ---- ----
O. and integration. Explains how to harmonize
Ramírez- developing a mediator application and a
Hernández, repository.
M. (2007)
McLaren,et *Process integration between suppliers, ---- *Performance ---- ----
al. (2002) customers, and other partners in the supply measures: **cost of
chain. ownership, opportunity
cost, responsiveness to
market, supply chain
reduction
Moffat, L. and * business processes integration * Contingent factors: * Venture performance [F] *Knowledge ----
Archer N. relationship management
(2004) characteristics and
environment risks.

27
Mortensen, O. * process integration, standardization and * IT * Efficiency and Costs Managerial and
and Lemoine, cooperation behavioral
O.W. (2007) components
Muensterman * process and data standards ----- * Process performance ---- ----
n et. Al (2009) **time, cost and quality
Muensterman * Process Standardization ** ---- *Process performance ---- ----
n et. al (2010) Homogenization of process variants against **costs, quality and
and enhanced archetype process. time
Norta, A. and * Business process harmonization ---- ---- ---- ----
Eshuis, R. (coordination and collaboration). Explain
(2010) how to verify processes in this context
before enactment.
Perego, A. * process integration * ICT driven * Costs ** Overall cost ---- ----
and Salgaro, (i.e. manpower) and
A. (2010) cost of non-
conformance issues
Rohloff, *Process standardization **Reference ----- *efficiency through the ---- ----
Michael process models described using a process adoption of best
(2011) framework practices
Rosenkranz, * Process Standardization * Process internal factors ---- ---- ----
et. al (2010) ** Process nature (level
of routine or
structuredness)
*environmental factors
** Existent IT
capabilities ** Market
situation **Legal
requirements
Schafermeyer, * Business process standardization. * Diversity of business ---- ---- ----
M. et al. processes ** input
(2010) variety, output variety,
frequency of identical
repetitions, degree of
uncertainty, sequential
variety.

28
Schmidt et al. * Process integration in relation to strategy, * Problems with respect ---- ---- ----
(2010) processes and systems. to roles, activities/tasks,
data models, business
segments, etc. i.e.
different roles, semantic
heterogeneity
Shang, S. and * Process integration through IT. Analysis ---- ---- ---- ----
Seddon, P.B. of deficiencies derived from this
(2007) integration.

Sorenson, O. * Standardization and centralization * Corporate governance * Chain performance *Organizational ----
and learning
Sorensonn
J.B. (2001)
Tregear, R. * Business process standardization * Legislative * Cost of variation [D]* BPM ----
(2010) (harmonization and customization) requirements, local ** customer maturity level of
market imperatives, satisfaction, the
personal preferences, inefficiency, organization,
knowledge is power, ineffectiveness, internal and
drift, resource training, external cultural
constraints, documentation, lack of variations,
product/service information, loss of current practices
variations, mergers & best process, increasing regarding
acquisitions, IT driven, complexity, re- standardization.
unstructured, inventing wheels, And the sense of
unmeasured and competitive advantage, urgency.
repeatable processes. IT development and
support, and staff
impacts.
Ventura * detecting misalignment between ---- *productivity *team ---- ----
Martins P. and processes, identifying the process elements members satisfaction
Rodriguez da to be changed and restoring the alignment.
Silva, A.

29
(2006)

Wüllenweber * Process Standardization. ** (1) The ----- * Business Process [D] * ----
et al. (2008) activities of the process are transparent and Outsourcing success Communication
comprehensible; (2) Process can easily be ** processing costs, *Coordination
learned via documentation and trainings; costs transparency, *Consensus
(3) The outsourced process is highly quality, external know-
standardized. how and focus on core
*Process harmonization: ** alignment competencies
toward one process target and application:
IT systems
Zhao, F. * process standardization * IT driven: ---- ---- *
(2004) implementing software Organizational
package culture

30
Working Papers Beta 2009 - 2012

nr. Year Title Author(s)

379 2012 A literature review in process harmonization: a Heidi Romero, Remco Dijkman,
conceptual framework Paul Grefen, Arjan van Weele

378 2012 A Generic Material Flow Control Model for S.W.A. Haneya, J.M.J. Schutten,
Two Different Industries P.C. Schuur, W.H.M. Zijm

377 2012 Dynamic demand fulfillment in spare parts H.G.H. Tiemessen, M. Fleischmann,
networks with multiple customer classes
G.J. van Houtum, J.A.E.E. van Nunen,
E. Pratsini
376 2012 Improving the performance of sorter systems by K. Fikse, S.W.A. Haneyah, J.M.J.
scheduling inbound containers
Schutten

Strategies for dynamic appointment making by

375 2012 container terminals Albert Douma, Martijn Mes

MyPHRMachines: Lifelong Personal Health Pieter van Gorp, Marco Comuzzi

374 2012 Records in the Cloud

Service differentiation in spare parts supply E.M. Alvarez, M.C. van der Heijden,
373 2012 through dedicated stocks W.H.M. Zijm

Spare parts inventory pooling: how to share

Frank Karsten, Rob Basten
372 2012 the benefits

X.Lin, R.J.I. Basten, A.A. Kranenburg,

371 2012 Condition based spare parts supply G.J. van Houtum

370 2012 Using Simulation to Assess the Opportunities of Martijn Mes

Dynamic Waste Collection

Aggregate overhaul and supply chain planning

369 2012 for rotables J. Arts, S.D. Flapper, K. Vernooij

Operating Room Rescheduling J.T. van Essen, J.L. Hurink, W. Hartholt,

368 2012 B.J. van den Akker

Switching Transport Modes to Meet Voluntary Kristel M.R. Hoen, Tarkan Tan, Jan C.
367 2011 Carbon Emission Targets Fransoo, Geert-Jan van Houtum

On two-echelon inventory systems with Poisson Elisa Alvarez, Matthieu van der Heijden
366 2011 demand and lost sales
 Minimizing the Waiting Time for Emergency J.T. van Essen, E.W. Hans, J.L. Hurink,
365 2011 Surgery A. Oversberg

364 2011 Vehicle Routing Problem with Stochastic Travel Duygu Tas, Nico Dellaert, Tom van
Times Including Soft Time Windows and Service Woensel, Ton de Kok
Costs

A New Approximate Evaluation Method for Two-

363 2011 Echelon Inventory Systems with Emergency Erhun Özkan, Geert-Jan van Houtum,
Shipments Yasemin Serin

362 2011 Approximating Multi-Objective Time-Dependent Said Dabia, El-Ghazali Talbi, Tom Van
Optimization Problems Woensel, Ton de Kok

Branch and Cut and Price for the Time Said Dabia, Stefan Röpke, Tom Van
361 2011 Dependent Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Woensel, Ton de Kok
Window

360 2011 Analysis of an Assemble-to-Order System with A.G. Karaarslan, G.P. Kiesmüller, A.G. de
Different Review Periods Kok

359 2011 Interval Availability Analysis of a Two-Echelon, Ahmad Al Hanbali, Matthieu van der
Multi-Item System Heijden

Carbon-Optimal and Carbon-Neutral Supply Felipe Caro, Charles J. Corbett, Tarkan

358 2011 Chains
Tan, Rob Zuidwijk

Generic Planning and Control of Automated Sameh Haneyah, Henk Zijm, Marco
357 2011 Material Handling Systems: Practical Schutten, Peter Schuur
Requirements Versus Existing Theory
356 2011
Last time buy decisions for products sold under
warranty M. van der Heijden, B. Iskandar

355 2011 Frank P. van den Heuvel, Peter W. de

Spatial concentration and location dynamics in
logistics: the case of a Dutch provence
354 2011 Identification of Employment Concentration
Areas
Langen, Karel H. van Donselaar, Jan C.
Fransoo
Frank P. van den Heuvel, Peter W. de
Langen, Karel H. van Donselaar, Jan C.
Fransoo

353 2011 BOMN 2.0 Execution Semantics Formalized as Pieter van Gorp, Remco Dijkman
Graph Rewrite Rules: extended version

352 2011 Resource pooling and cost allocation among Frank Karsten, Marco Slikker, Geert-Jan
 independent service providers van Houtum
351 2011
A Framework for Business Innovation Directions E. Lüftenegger, S. Angelov, P. Grefen
350 2011
The Road to a Business Process Architecture: Remco Dijkman, Irene Vanderfeesten,
An Overview of Approaches and their Use Hajo A. Reijers

349 2011
Effect of carbon emission regulations on K.M.R. Hoen, T. Tan, J.C. Fransoo
transport mode selection under stochastic G.J. van Houtum
demand
348 2011 An improved MIP-based combinatorial approach
for a multi-skill workforce scheduling problem Murat Firat, Cor Hurkens

347 2011 An approximate approach for the joint problem of

level of repair analysis and spare parts stocking R.J.I. Basten, M.C. van der Heijden,
J.M.J. Schutten
Joint optimization of level of repair analysis and
346 2011 spare parts stocks
R.J.I. Basten, M.C. van der Heijden,
J.M.J. Schutten

345 2011 Inventory control with manufacturing lead time

flexibility Ton G. de Kok

344 2011 Analysis of resource pooling games via a new Frank Karsten, Marco Slikker, Geert-Jan
extenstion of the Erlang loss function van Houtum

343 2011 Vehicle refueling with limited resources
Optimal Inventory Policies with Non-stationary
Supply Disruptions and Advance Supply
342 2011 Information
Murat Firat, C.A.J. Hurkens, Gerhard J.
Woeginger
Bilge Atasoy, Refik Güllü, TarkanTan

Redundancy Optimization for Critical

341 2011 Components in High-Availability Capital Goods
Analysis of a two-echelon inventory system with
339 2010 two supply modes
Kurtulus Baris Öner, Alan Scheller-Wolf
Geert-Jan van Houtum
Joachim Arts, Gudrun Kiesmüller

Analysis of the dial-a-ride problem of Hunsaker

and Savelsbergh Murat Firat, Gerhard J. Woeginger
338 2010

Attaining stability in multi-skill workforce

scheduling
335 2010 Murat Firat, Cor Hurkens

Flexible Heuristics Miner (FHM)

334 2010 A.J.M.M. Weijters, J.T.S. Ribeiro
 An exact approach for relating recovering
333 2010 surgical patient workload to the master surgical
schedule
Efficiency evaluation for pooling resources in
332 2010 health care
The Effect of Workload Constraints in
331 2010 Mathematical Programming Models for
Production Planning
P.T. Vanberkel, R.J. Boucherie, E.W.
Hans, J.L. Hurink, W.A.M. van Lent, W.H.
van Harten
Peter T. Vanberkel, Richard J. Boucherie,
Erwin W. Hans, Johann L. Hurink, Nelly
Litvak
M.M. Jansen, A.G. de Kok, I.J.B.F. Adan

330 2010 Using pipeline information in a multi-echelon

spare parts inventory system
Christian Howard, Ingrid Reijnen, Johan
Marklund, Tarkan Tan
Reducing costs of repairable spare parts supply
329 2010 systems via dynamic scheduling
H.G.H. Tiemessen, G.J. van Houtum

Identification of Employment Concentration and

328 2010 Specialization Areas: Theory and Application
F.P. van den Heuvel, P.W. de Langen,
K.H. van Donselaar, J.C. Fransoo

A combinatorial approach to multi-skill workforce

327 2010 scheduling
Murat Firat, Cor Hurkens

326 2010 Stability in multi-skill workforce scheduling

Murat Firat, Cor Hurkens, Alexandre

Laugier
Maintenance spare parts planning and control: A
framework for control and agenda for future
325 2010 research
M.A. Driessen, J.J. Arts, G.J. v. Houtum,
W.D. Rustenburg, B. Huisman
Near-optimal heuristics to set base stock levels
324 2010 in a two-echelon distribution network
R.J.I. Basten, G.J. van Houtum
Inventory reduction in spare part networks by
323 2010 selective throughput time reduction
M.C. van der Heijden, E.M. Alvarez,
J.M.J. Schutten
The selective use of emergency shipments for
service-contract differentiation
322 2010
E.M. Alvarez, M.C. van der Heijden, W.H.
Zijm
Heuristics for Multi-Item Two-Echelon Spare
Parts Inventory Control Problem with Batch
321 2010 Ordering in the Central Warehouse

B. Walrave, K. v. Oorschot, A.G.L.

 Preventing or escaping the suppression Romme
320 2010 mechanism: intervention conditions
Nico Dellaert, Jully Jeunet.
Hospital admission planning to optimize major
resources utilization under uncertainty
319 2010
R. Seguel, R. Eshuis, P. Grefen.
Minimal Protocol Adaptors for Interacting
Services
318 2010 Tom Van Woensel, Marshall L. Fisher,
Jan C. Fransoo.
Teaching Retail Operations in Business and
Engineering Schools
317 2010 Lydie P.M. Smets, Geert-Jan van
Houtum, Fred Langerak.
Design for Availability: Creating Value for
Manufacturers and Customers
316 2010
Pieter van Gorp, Rik Eshuis.
Transforming Process Models: executable
rewrite rules versus a formalized Java program
Bob Walrave, Kim E. van Oorschot, A.
315 2010 Georges L. Romme
Getting trapped in the suppression of
exploration: A simulation model
314 2010 S. Dabia, T. van Woensel, A.G. de Kok
A Dynamic Programming Approach to Multi-
Objective Time-Dependent Capacitated Single
313 2010 Vehicle Routing Problems with Time Windows

2010
Tales of a So(u)rcerer: Optimal Sourcing
312 2010 Decisions Under Alternative Capacitated Osman Alp, Tarkan Tan
Suppliers and General Cost Structures
In-store replenishment procedures for perishable
311 2010 inventory in a retail environment with handling R.A.C.M. Broekmeulen, C.H.M. Bakx
costs and storage constraints
The state of the art of innovation-driven business E. Lüftenegger, S. Angelov, E. van der
310 2010
models in the financial services industry Linden, P. Grefen
Design of Complex Architectures Using a Three
309 2010 R. Seguel, P. Grefen, R. Eshuis
Dimension Approach: the CrossWork Case
Effect of carbon emission regulations on K.M.R. Hoen, T. Tan, J.C. Fransoo, G.J.
308 2010
transport mode selection in supply chains van Houtum
Interaction between intelligent agent strategies Martijn Mes, Matthieu van der Heijden,
307 2010
for real-time transportation planning Peter Schuur
Marco Slikker, Peter Borm, René van den
306 2010 Internal Slackening Scoring Methods
Brink
Vehicle Routing with Traffic Congestion and A.L. Kok, E.W. Hans, J.M.J. Schutten,
305 2010
Drivers' Driving and Working Rules W.H.M. Zijm
Practical extensions to the level of repair R.J.I. Basten, M.C. van der Heijden,
304 2010
analysis J.M.J. Schutten
303 2010 Ocean Container Transport: An Underestimated Jan C. Fransoo, Chung-Yee Lee
 and Critical Link in Global Supply Chain
Performance
Capacity reservation and utilization for a
302 2010 manufacturer with uncertain capacity and Y. Boulaksil; J.C. Fransoo; T. Tan
demand
F.J.P. Karsten; M. Slikker; G.J. van
300 2009 Spare parts inventory pooling games
Houtum
Capacity flexibility allocation in an outsourced
299 2009 Y. Boulaksil, M. Grunow, J.C. Fransoo
supply chain with reservation

An optimal approach for the joint problem of R.J.I. Basten, M.C. van der Heijden,
298 2010
level of repair analysis and spare parts stocking J.M.J. Schutten
Responding to the Lehman Wave: Sales
Robert Peels, Maximiliano Udenio, Jan C.
297 2009 Forecasting and Supply Management during the
Fransoo, Marcel Wolfs, Tom Hendrikx
Credit Crisis
Peter T. Vanberkel, Richard J. Boucherie,
An exact approach for relating recovering
Erwin W. Hans, Johann L. Hurink,
296 2009 surgical patient workload to the master surgical
Wineke A.M. van Lent, Wim H. van
schedule
Harten

An iterative method for the simultaneous

R.J.I. Basten, M.C. van der Heijden,
295 2009 optimization of repair decisions and spare parts
J.M.J. Schutten
stocks
Pieter van Gorp, Ruben Jubeh, Bernhard
294 2009 Fujaba hits the Wall(-e)
Grusie, Anne Keller
Implementation of a Healthcare Process in Four R.S. Mans, W.M.P. van der Aalst, N.C.
293 2009
Different Workflow Systems Russell, P.J.M. Bakker
Business Process Model Repositories - Zhiqiang Yan, Remco Dijkman, Paul
292 2009
Framework and Survey Grefen
Efficient Optimization of the Dual-Index Policy Joachim Arts, Marcel van Vuuren,
291 2009
Using Markov Chains Gudrun Kiesmuller
Hierarchical Knowledge-Gradient for Sequential Martijn R.K. Mes; Warren B. Powell;
290 2009
Sampling Peter I. Frazier
Analyzing combined vehicle routing and break
C.M. Meyer; A.L. Kok; H. Kopfer; J.M.J.
289 2009 scheduling from a distributed decision making
Schutten
perspective
Anticipation of lead time performance in Supply Michiel Jansen; Ton G. de Kok; Jan C.
288 2009
Chain Operations Planning Fransoo
Inventory Models with Lateral Transshipments: A Colin Paterson; Gudrun Kiesmuller; Ruud
287 2009
Review Teunter; Kevin Glazebrook
Efficiency evaluation for pooling resources in P.T. Vanberkel; R.J. Boucherie; E.W.
286 2009
health care Hans; J.L. Hurink; N. Litvak
A Survey of Health Care Models that P.T. Vanberkel; R.J. Boucherie; E.W.
285 2009
Encompass Multiple Departments Hans; J.L. Hurink; N. Litvak
Supporting Process Control in Business S. Angelov; K. Vidyasankar; J. Vonk; P.
284 2009
Collaborations Grefen
283 2009 Inventory Control with Partial Batch Ordering O. Alp; W.T. Huh; T. Tan
282 2009 Translating Safe Petri Nets to Statecharts in a R. Eshuis
 Structure-Preserving Way
The link between product data model and
281 2009 J.J.C.L. Vogelaar; H.A. Reijers
process model
Inventory planning for spare parts networks with
280 2009 I.C. Reijnen; T. Tan; G.J. van Houtum
delivery time requirements
Co-Evolution of Demand and Supply under
279 2009 B. Vermeulen; A.G. de Kok
Competition

Toward Meso-level Product-Market Network B. Vermeulen, A.G. de Kok

278 2010 Indices for Strategic Product Selection and
(Re)Design Guidelines over the Product Life-
Cycle

An Efficient Method to Construct Minimal R. Seguel, R. Eshuis, P. Grefen

277 2009 Protocol Adaptors
Coordinating Supply Chains: a Bilevel
276 2009 Ton G. de Kok, Gabriella Muratore
Programming Approach
Inventory redistribution for fashion products
275 2009 G.P. Kiesmuller, S. Minner
under demand parameter update
Comparing Markov chains: Combining
274 2009 aggregation and precedence relations applied to A. Busic, I.M.H. Vliegen, A. Scheller-Wolf
sets of states
Separate tools or tool kits: an exploratory study I.M.H. Vliegen, P.A.M. Kleingeld, G.J. van
273 2009
of engineers' preferences Houtum

An Exact Solution Procedure for Multi-Item Two-

Engin Topan, Z. Pelin Bayindir, Tarkan
272 2009 Echelon Spare Parts Inventory Control Problem
Tan
with Batch Ordering
Distributed Decision Making in Combined C.M. Meyer, H. Kopfer, A.L. Kok, M.
271 2009
Vehicle Routing and Break Scheduling Schutten
Dynamic Programming Algorithm for the Vehicle
A.L. Kok, C.M. Meyer, H. Kopfer, J.M.J.
270 2009 Routing Problem with Time Windows and EC
Schutten
Social Legislation
Remco Dijkman, Marlon Dumas,
Similarity of Business Process Models: Metics
269 2009 Boudewijn van Dongen, Reina Kaarik,
and Evaluation
Jan Mendling
Vehicle routing under time-dependent travel
267 2009 A.L. Kok, E.W. Hans, J.M.J. Schutten
times: the impact of congestion avoidance
Restricted dynamic programming: a flexible J. Gromicho; J.J. van Hoorn; A.L. Kok;
266 2009
framework for solving realistic VRPs J.M.J. Schutten;

Working Papers published before 2009 see: http://beta.ieis.tue.nl