Exploring process management: are there any widespread models and definitions?

Abstract

Purpose Process management has been around for a long time, but unlike that of many other management trends, the interest in process management has remained high. The starting point for the study was the idea that the lack of well‐established conceptual models and definitions of process management play a role in the challenge and difficulty facing organizations when trying to manage their processes on a strategic level. The purpose of the study was to explore whether there really are some existing widespread and common models and definitions for process management in the literature? The aim of this paper is to describe and explore the findings from the study. Design/methodology/approach A structured literature review is used to identify contemporary models and definitions for process management. Findings There are several descriptions and definitions of process management presented in the literature, but none that seems to be really widespread and well‐established. However, the analysis indicate two different movements: process management for single process improvement; and process management for system management. The results from the literature review are summarized in an aggregated model of existing descriptions of process management. The varying purposes of working with process management demonstrate a diverse need for both movements. Still, the focus of a majority of the identified tools and approaches for process management is to contribute to the more mechanistic movement, the first, of systematically improving single processes. Originality/value The paper provides a literature review, the identification of two different movements within process management and presents an aggregated model of existing descriptions of process management. Implications of the findings on process management in organizations are discussed and further research suggested.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 94 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.