---
title: "Context-Aware BPM: Method Assessment and Selection (CAMAS)"
type: source
tags: [bpm, context-aware, method-engineering, dsr, lifecycle, method-selection]
authors: [vom Brocke, Jan; Baier, Marie-Sophie; Schmiedel, Theresa; Stelzl, Katharina; Röglinger, Maximilian; Wehking, Charlotte]
year: 2021
venue: "Business & Information Systems Engineering 63(5):533–550"
kind: paper
raw_path: "raw/Process Frameworks & BPM/2021-vombrocke-context-aware-bpm-camas.pdf"
sources: []
key_claims:
  - "BPM methods are spread across the BPM lifecycle but no systematic guidance exists for assessing or selecting a method for a specific context."
  - "CAMAS Method = Classification Framework + Assessment Process + Selection Process, developed via DSR."
  - "Classification Framework is a 3-D meta-model: lifecycle dimension × goal dimension × context dimension."
  - "Lifecycle = design, implementation, monitoring, improvement & innovation, project management (Rosemann & vom Brocke 2015)."
  - "Goal = exploitation vs. exploration (Benner & Tushman 2003)."
  - "Context = process / organization / environment dimensions per vom Brocke 2016 BPM context framework."
  - "Assessment Process: 4 activities (A1 identify method, A2 lifecycle, A3 goal, A4 context); Cohen's Kappa for inter-rater reliability; DCS = Degree of Context Specificity."
  - "Selection Process: 4–5 steps (define lifecycle/goal/context with AHP weights → score by DA = Degree of Applicability)."
  - "Method Base populated with 103 BPM methods via SLR (Excel prototype provided as supplementary material)."
  - "Empirical finding: most existing BPM methods are general-purpose, few are explicitly context-specific; literature also under-serves explorative BPM."
created: 2026-04-15
updated: 2026-04-15
---

# Context-Aware BPM: Method Assessment and Selection (CAMAS)

## Summary
Vom Brocke et al. (2021) address a gap in context-aware BPM: while prior work has catalogued context factors (Rosemann & vom Brocke 2015; vom Brocke et al. 2016), there is no systematic guidance for **assessing** existing/new BPM methods or **selecting** an appropriate method for a given context. Following Design Science Research (Gregor & Hevner 2013; Peffers et al. 2008) and Situational Method Engineering (Brinkkemper 1996; Henderson-Sellers & Ralyté 2010), the authors develop the **CAMAS Method** as the central artefact and instantiate it as an Excel prototype with a Method Base of 103 BPM methods retrieved via SLR.

CAMAS comprises three components:

1. **Classification Framework** — a 3-D meta-model:
   - **Lifecycle dimension**: design · implementation · monitoring · improvement & innovation · project & program management.
   - **Goal dimension**: exploitation vs. exploration (Benner & Tushman 2003).
   - **Context dimension**: three sub-dimensions with binary characteristics (Christenfeld 1995):
     - **Process** — value contribution, repetitiveness, knowledge-intensity, creativity, interdependence, variability.
     - **Organization** — scope, industry, size, culture, resources.
     - **Environment** — competitiveness, uncertainty.

2. **Assessment Process** (4 activities) — performed by a BPM method engineer for a new method, or by a method user for an unclassified method:
   - A1 Identify method (literature review, definition check).
   - A2 Classify lifecycle dimension (multi-stage allowed).
   - A3 Classify goal dimension.
   - A4 Classify context dimension using {applicable (a), not applicable (na), cannot assess (–)} per characteristic.
   - Reliability via **Cohen's Kappa** with ≥2 independent judges.
   - Output: **DCS (Degree of Context Specificity)** indicator distinguishing special-purpose from general-purpose methods (Eq. 1).

3. **Selection Process** (4–5 steps) — performed by a BPM method user (e.g. process manager):
   - S1 Define target lifecycle stage(s).
   - S2 Define target goal characteristic(s).
   - S3 Define target context characteristics with **weights** via AHP (Saaty 1990).
   - S4 Select method(s) for a single context using **DA (Degree of Applicability)** (Eq. 2), with risk-averse vs. risk-taking calculation modes for unassessed (–) values.
   - S5 (optional) Iterate S1–S3 and select for multiple contexts.

### Method components (Table 1)
A BPM method has **attributes** (goal orientation, systematic approach, principles orientation, repeatability) and **elements** (meta-model, activity, technique, tool, role, defined output).

### Evaluation
Two evaluation studies (Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012):
- **Use Case 1 — Assessment**: 2 co-authors classified 103 methods; 12 BPM method engineers re-assessed a sample of 20. Hit ratio ≈ 97%; Cohen's κ ≈ 0.66 (moderate-substantial agreement, Landis & Koch 1977).
- **Use Case 2 — Selection**: 12 method engineers applied the Selection Process across 6 real-world processes (2 contexts each).

### Headline findings
- Most cataloged BPM methods are **general-purpose**; explicit context-specificity is rare.
- The literature is biased toward **exploitative** BPM (incremental improvement); **explorative** BPM (radical/innovation) is under-served by available methods.
- Calls for stronger context-awareness in future BPM method design.

## Connections
- Builds on the BPM lifecycle ([[concepts/bpm-lifecycle]]) of Rosemann & vom Brocke 2015 — see [[entities/michael-rosemann]].
- Builds on the BPM context framework (vom Brocke et al. 2016) — see [[frameworks/bpm-context-framework]] *(referenced-not-ingested for the 2016 paper itself)*.
- Introduces a new concept page: [[concepts/context-aware-bpm]].
- New entity: [[entities/jan-vom-brocke]].
- Complements [[methods/process-discovery-methods]] — gives a formal way to choose between Dumas's evidence/interview/workshop discovery methods given a context (e.g. start-up + low-knowledge-intensity vs. large-org + high-creativity). See also [[syntheses/interview-structuring-for-process-models]].
- DSR / SME methodological lineage *(referenced-not-ingested)*: Gregor & Hevner 2013; Peffers et al. 2008; Brinkkemper 1996.