---
title: "On the Role of Context in Business Process Management"
type: source
tags: [bpm, context-aware, contingency-theory, framework, viewpoint]
authors: [vom Brocke, Jan; Zelt, Sabine; Schmiedel, Theresa]
year: 2016
venue: "International Journal of Information Management 36(3):486–495"
kind: paper
raw_path: "raw/Process Frameworks & BPM/OntheRoleofContextinBusinessProcessManagement.pdf"
sources: []
key_claims:
  - "BPM body of knowledge was developed for clear-cut, structured processes and does not sufficiently account for diverse business contexts; one-size-fits-all BPM is prone to fail."
  - "Context in BPM is BOTH external (environment, organization) AND internal (process characteristics, BPM goals) — not only external as prior literature assumed."
  - "Integrated framework = 4 context dimensions: Goal, Process, Organization, Environment — proposed as a morphological box (Table 1)."
  - "Goal dimension: Focus = Exploitation (improvement, compliance) vs. Exploration (innovation) (Benner & Tushman 2003)."
  - "Process dimension: value contribution (core/management/support), repetitiveness, knowledge-intensity, creativity, interdependence, variability."
  - "Organization dimension: scope (intra/inter-org), industry (product/service/product&service), size (start-up/SME/large), culture (supportive/medium/non-supportive of BPM), resources (low/medium/high)."
  - "Environment dimension: competitiveness (low/medium/high), uncertainty (low/medium/high)."
  - "Rooted in contingency theory (Donaldson 2001; Thompson 1967; Zeithaml et al. 1988): no single best way — optimal management is contingent on external and internal context."
  - "Proposed use: examine all four dimensions during the planning phase of a BPM project to classify the context and select appropriate methods; contexts change over time so BPM requires continuous adaptation."
  - "Three illustrative hypothetical cases (Table 2): (A) standardization of a support process in a large global corporation — exploitative, repetitive, non-supportive culture; (B) reengineering of a core process in a telecom start-up — exploratory, knowledge-intensive, creative, supportive culture; (C) technology implementation in HR support process of a large IT-industry corporation — exploratory, repetitive, low-creativity, supportive culture."
  - "Framework is a viewpoint article — not empirically validated; authors call for future research on validation, context-sensitive management practices, factor interdependencies, longitudinal studies of context-BPM interaction, and measurement tools."
created: 2026-04-15
updated: 2026-04-15
---

# On the Role of Context in Business Process Management

## Summary
Vom Brocke, Zelt & Schmiedel (2016) is a **viewpoint article** in *International Journal of Information Management* arguing that BPM project failures stem from applying a BPM body of knowledge originally built for structured, transactional, automation-focused processes to a growing diversity of business contexts (creative work, knowledge-intensive processes, innovation-driven initiatives, inter-organizational supply chains). The authors ground their argument in **contingency theory** (Donaldson 2001; Thompson 1967) and synthesise literature on context-aware process design, BPM success factors, process standardization, and knowledge-intensive process management to derive an **integrated morphological-box framework** of contextual factors for BPM.

The framework's novelty is twofold: (1) it treats context as **both external and internal** to BPM — prior work mostly examined only external/environmental factors — and (2) it covers BPM **in general** rather than any single BPM sub-area (e.g., modelling, monitoring). The resulting 4-dimension / 14-factor scheme (the **BPM Context Framework**, see [[frameworks/bpm-context-framework]]) is intended to be applied during the planning phase of a BPM project so that management practices can be tailored to the situation.

To illustrate, the paper walks through three hypothetical contexts (Table 2) and derives differentiated BPM recommendations:
- **Goal as trigger** — example A (exploit) calls for process analysis, redesign, standardized data structures, ERP harmonization; example C (explore) calls for creative methods like design thinking despite similar process characteristics.
- **Process characteristics as trigger** — example B (knowledge-intensive core process) needs stakeholder participation, flexibility, knowledge management systems, customer-adoption KPIs; example C (repetitive support process) tolerates low flexibility and efficiency-oriented KPIs.
- **Organizational characteristics as trigger** — example A must invest in culture change (non-supportive starting culture) whereas example C can skip this; examples A and C require heavy formalization due to size, example B tolerates less.
- **Environment as trigger** — example C's high uncertainty demands flexible roles and authorization; example B's high competitiveness demands customer co-design.

The paper is explicit about limitations: many factors are imported from adjacent fields (TQM, organizational design) and await BPM-specific empirical validation; factor **interdependencies** (e.g., size → resources; industry → process/org characteristics) are not modelled. A five-item future-research agenda calls for validation studies, context-sensitive management practices (including context-sensitive maturity models), factor-relationship studies, longitudinal case studies, and measurement tooling.

## Key distinctions from the 2021 CAMAS recap
- The 2016 paper presents the factors on a **three-level ordinal scale** (low/medium/high, or three process-type values) — the **morphological box**. The 2021 CAMAS paper collapses this to a binary scale (Christenfeld 1995) to reduce rater subjectivity — the ternary original is the richer form.
- The 2016 paper is a **viewpoint / conceptual** piece; the 14 factors were not empirically validated in this paper. Validation was explicitly deferred to future research.
- The paper emphasises that contexts **change over time** (resources, competitiveness, culture) so BPM requires **continuous context monitoring** — this dynamic view is less prominent in the CAMAS framing.
- The three illustrative examples (A, B, C) provide **decision-tree-style guidance** mapping concrete factor patterns to concrete BPM method choices (ERP harmonization vs. design thinking vs. flexible roles) — this practical grounding sits underneath CAMAS's later formalisation.
- **Davenport's (2015) knowledge-work typology** is cited for the process-characteristics dimension (collaborative/complex vs. routine work).

## Connections
- Operationalised and extended by [[sources/2021-vombrocke-context-aware-bpm-camas]] (CAMAS) — that paper uses this framework as the context meta-model.
- Framework page: [[frameworks/bpm-context-framework]].
- Concept page: [[concepts/context-aware-bpm]].
- Authors: [[entities/jan-vom-brocke]], [[entities/theresa-schmiedel]]. Sabine Zelt (co-author) — University of Liechtenstein researcher, not a broad BPM figure; no entity page.
- Related theoretical lineage: contingency theory (Donaldson 2001, Thompson 1967, Zeithaml et al. 1988), Benner & Tushman (2003) exploration/exploitation — *(referenced-not-ingested)*.
- Related BPM references cited: Rosemann & vom Brocke (2015) BPM Handbook, vom Brocke et al. (2014) Ten Principles of Good BPM, Schmiedel et al. (2013, 2014) BPM culture, Davenport (2015) knowledge-work processes.