Measuring the performance of business processes has become a central issue in both academia and business, since organizations are challenged to achieve effective and efficient results. Applying performance measurement models to this purpose ensures alignment with a business strategy, which implies that the choice of performance indicators is organization-dependent. Nonetheless, such measurement models generally suffer from a lack of guidance regarding the performance indicators that exist and how they can be concretized in practice. To fill this gap, we conducted a structured literature review to find patterns or trends in the research on business process performance measurement. The study also documents an extended list of 140 process-related performance indicators in a systematic manner by further categorizing them into 11 performance perspectives in order to gain a holistic view. Managers and scholars can consult the provided list to choose the indicators that are of interest to them, considering each perspective. The structured literature review concludes with avenues for further research.

Organisations are increasingly focusing on their business processes (BPs) to excel. Since the journey towards process excellence is challenging, various authors have proposed a business process maturity model (BPMM) to gradually improve maturity and capability. Nonetheless, a comprehensive definition for BPMM, maturity and capability is missing. Moreover, the differences between maturity and capability are frequently neglected. Therefore, this study elaborates on the lacking foundation. In particular, a thorough literature study is conducted to address three gaps regarding the BPMM scope, terminology and design. It reveals six basic BPMM components within a BP lifecycle (scope gap): (1) modelling, (2) deployment, (3) optimisation, (4) management, (5) culture and (6) structure. Their overall growth refers to maturity, whereas the growth of an individual component includes capability (terminology gap). To increase its usability, a BPMM gives guidance on both assessing and improving BPs (design gap). The findings allow clear communication about BPMMs, and new models based on the identified components. This unambiguous understanding helps to avoid confusion and inappropriate assumptions in the BP literature. Future research will further validate the definitions by comparing BPMMs.

Emerging technologies have capabilities to reshape business process management (BPM) from its traditional version to a more explorative variant. However, to exploit the full benefits of new IT, it is essential to reveal BPM’s research potential and to detect recent trends in practice. Therefore, this work presents a systematic literature review (SLR) with 231 recent academic articles (from 2014 until May 2019) that integrate BPM with digital innovations (DI). We position those articles against seven future BPM-DI trends that were inductively derived from an expert panel. By complementing the expected trends in practice with a state-of-the-art literature review, we are able to derive covered and uncovered themes in order to help bridge a rigor-relevance gap. The major technological impacts within the BPM field seem to focus on value creation, customer engagement and managing human-centric and knowledge-intensive business processes. Finally, our findings are categorized into specific calls for research and for action to let scholars and organizations better prepare for future digital needs.

The article elaborates on business process maturity, which indicates how well an organisation can perform based on its business processes, i.e. on its way of working. This topic is of paramount importance for managers who try to excel in today's competitive world. Hence, business process maturity is an emerging research field. However, no consensus exists on the capability areas (or skills) needed to excel. Moreover, their theoretical foundation and synergies with other fields are frequently neglected. To overcome this gap, our study presents a conceptual framework with six main capability areas and 17 sub areas. It draws on theories regarding the traditional business process lifecycle, which are supplemented by recognised organisation management theories. The comprehensiveness of this framework is validated by mapping 69 business process maturity models (BPMMs) to the identified capability areas, based on content analysis. Nonetheless, as a consensus neither exists among the collected BPMMs, a classification of different maturity types is proposed, based on cluster analysis and discriminant analysis. Consequently, the findings contribute to the grounding of business process literature. Possible future avenues are evaluating existing BPMMs, directing new BPMMs or investigating which combinations of capability areas (i.e. maturity types) contribute more to performance than others.