Business process management as a continuous enabler for digital innovation – insights from top executives Open Access

Digital innovation is a core concern for organizations around the world (e.g. Kohli and Melville, 2019; Nambisan, 2017). But digital innovation is hard to realize because it is typically characterized by generativity and open-ended change (Yoo et al., 2012; Kohli and Melville, 2019; Nylén and Holmström, 2015). Since digital innovation implies the new combination and recombination of an evolving frontier of digital and physical components (Yoo et al., 2024), opportunities emerge over time and are hard to foresee in the long run (Mozaffar and Candi, 2024). Consequently, the central question to many researchers and practitioners is: How can organizations prepare for and manage digital innovation (Nambisan et al., 2017; Moreira and Dallavalle, 2024)?

This question is of great importance for business process management (BPM). BPM is concerned with the design and implementation of business processes to ensure effective and efficient work in organizations (Dumas et al., 2018; Vom Brocke and Mendling, 2018). BPM is widely established in organizations, typically with the goal of ensuring stable, effective and efficient work outcomes (Vom Brocke and Mendling, 2018). To this end, BPM seems to be opposed to the dynamics and open-endedness that characterize digital innovation: BPM has been built on the central logic that optimal business process designs can be determined in the present and will remain relevant and stable in the future (Recker and Mendling, 2016; Baiyere et al., 2020). Without a doubt, organizations need business processes to deliver services and products (Dumas et al., 2018). At the same time, as they strive to remain competitive, organizations need to be attentive toward new and emerging potentials that come from digital technologies (Mendling et al., 2020; van Looy, 2021; Beerepoot et al., 2023; Ahmad and van Looy, 2020). The picture that emerges is that organizations face a tension between two opposing management demands; one is concerned with efficiency and effectiveness, the other with novelty and unpredictability (Baiyere et al., 2020; Rosemann, 2020; Moreira and Dallavalle, 2024).

In light of these tensions, we ask: How can BPM be set up to enable digital innovation on a continuous basis? This specific question has been neglected, even though research on BPM has become increasingly attentive to the role of digital innovation (e.g. Baiyere et al., 2020; Kerpedzhiev et al., 2021; Mendling et al., 2020; Turetken and van Looy, 2020; Moreira and Dallavalle, 2024). Existing studies, however, typically focus on techniques and methods that are deployed in strategically initiated, one-off business process redesign projects with relatively clear start and end points (Gross et al., 2021; Grisold et al., 2021; Rosemann, 2020). And while arguments have been made that digital innovation can be generally supported by BPM, such as when business processes are designed in flexible and loosely specified ways (Mendling et al., 2020; Baiyere et al., 2020; Distel et al., 2023), we generally lack specification on how organizations can or should operationalize this in practice. Or, to put it briefly, how organizations can remain in a position where they can embrace digital innovation opportunities in their business processes.

We present the findings of an empirical study with top executives who have been concerned with the intersection of digital innovation and BPM. We utilized a three-step research approach combining a Delphi study and two rounds of follow-up interviews. Following the literature on BPM and digital innovation (Wiesböck and Hess, 2020; Kohli and Melville, 2019; Ciriello et al., 2018), we suggest that organizations can enable digital innovations through BPM along four central dimensions: organizational structures, organizational culture, IT application portfolio and organizational capabilities. Based on our findings, we present four conjectures specifying how organizations should design and manage their business processes as they seek to remain receptive to digital innovation (see, e.g. Mendling et al., 2020).

Our study makes two contributions to the literature. From a theoretical perspective, we build on the emerging stream around BPM and digital innovation (Mendling et al., 2020; Distel et al., 2023; Baiyere et al., 2020; Beerepoot et al., 2023; van Looy, 2021), elaborating how the opposing ambitions of both fields can be reconciled. From a practical perspective, we offer specific and actionable recommendations for organizations leveraging BPM as they pursue digital innovation initiatives (Vom Brocke and Mendling, 2018).

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we detail our background regarding BPM and digital innovation. We conceptualize the four enablers for digital innovation based on existing literature. Next, we present our three-step multi-method approach consisting of a Delphi study followed up with two rounds of expert interviews. Then, we present our findings. Last, we discuss the findings and present our conjectures, implications and limitations.

Business processes refer to coordinated sequences of activities, tasks and decisions to achieve goals that provide value for an organization (Dumas et al., 2018; Trkman, 2010; van der Aalst, 2013). Accordingly, BPM as a management approach can be defined as an organization's ability to design, model, analyze, improve and enact business processes. Traditionally, the core interest of BPM research has been to develop frameworks, methods and tools to design, implement and manage business processes as efficiently and effectively as possible (e.g. Recker, 2014; Gäckle et al., 2025). To this end, research has brought forth a variety of perspectives that provide prescriptive guidance. These include capability frameworks (Vom Brocke and Rosemann, 2015a; Türetken and van Looy, 2024; Kerpedzhiev et al., 2021; Niehaves et al., 2014), lifecycle models (Dumas et al., 2018), guidelines and recommendations (Mendling et al., 2010) and best practices (Vom Brocke and Mendling, 2018; Rosemann et al., 2023), among many others.

Recent works have been shifting their attention to the role of BPM in digital innovation (Mendling et al., 2020; Baiyere et al., 2020; Mikalef and Krogstie, 2020; Grisold et al., 2021; Kerpedzhiev et al., 2021; van Looy, 2021; Moreira and Dallavalle, 2024). Innovation has long played a role in BPM research, which largely concluded that BPM is likely to foster incremental innovation (Benner and Tushman, 2003; Tang et al., 2013). However, the advent of digital innovation has renewed the interest in this matter (Ahmad and van Looy, 2020). Since digital innovation refers to the realization of IT-related opportunities by combining and re-combining digital and physical components in ways that lead to new services, products and/or business models (Fichman et al., 2014; Yoo et al., 2010, 2024), this stream of research has been concerned with how organizations can design and redesign business processes in appropriate ways (e.g. Groß et al., 2024) ^[1].

Existing works emphasize that BPM and digital innovation are based on opposing ambitions. On the one hand, BPM foregrounds stability and predictability instead of dynamic change (Beverungen, 2014; Davenport and Spanyi, 2019; Kohlborn et al., 2014). It is assumed, for instance, that process models remain relatively stable once they have been implemented (Baiyere et al., 2020). On the other hand, digital innovation is characterized by emerging dynamics and disruptive changes that are driven by new digital technologies, data sources and services (Mousavi Baygi et al., 2021; Pentland et al., 2022; Benbya et al., 2020). Opportunities might not only emerge in response to perceived problems in a business process – a core assumption in process redesign (e.g. Grisold et al., 2022; Rosemann, 2020) – but they can also emerge as solutions that are perceived before problems actually occur (Baskerville et al., 2020; Hippel and Krogh, 2016). Consequently, a core concern in the contemporary literature examines how BPM can embrace, enable and facilitate digital innovation in organizations (Vom Brocke and Schmiedel, 2015; Mikalef and Krogstie, 2020; van Looy, 2021; Ahmad and van Looy, 2020).

A closer look at the existing literature suggests that there are two main angles. One stream of research explores how organizations can redesign their business processes to capitalize on emerging opportunities of digital technologies (Gross et al., 2021; Grisold et al., 2021; Rosemann, 2020; Lara Machado et al., 2024). Often pursued under the label of “explorative BPM” (Kohlborn et al., 2014), these studies shed light on how organizations can initiate and pursue redesign initiatives of business processes, for instance, to generate new value propositions (e.g. Groß et al., 2024). The resulting techniques and methods – referred to as “business process design patterns” (Rosemann et al., 2020) or the “five diamond method” (Grisold et al., 2021), among others – are intended to be used for well-defined and strategically initiated redesign projects. In such projects, organizations allocate resources (e.g. human resources) to explore, define and prototype novel business processes, services and products within strategic boundaries. In other words, this stream of work promotes the connection between BPM and digital innovation within one-off redesign projects.

The second stream of research suggests that BPM can enable digital innovation more generally when business processes and the surrounding organizational environment are designed in adequate ways (Baiyere et al., 2020; Mendling et al., 2020; Kirchmer, 2022). Along these lines, it has been suggested that business process designs and models should be able to balance predefined structure and feature innovation by integrating continuous feedback (Mendling et al., 2020) and that organizations should implement “light touch processes” which are easily configurable and adaptable to short-term changes (Baiyere et al., 2020). In other words, these studies assume that business processes and other capabilities can be designed such that digital innovation opportunities can be integrated on an ongoing basis, and new opportunities can be leveraged on the fly (Brocke et al., 2024). After all, digital innovation does not occur “in a vacuum,” and consequently, the existing organizational context is key in recognizing and realizing novel opportunities (Kohli and Melville, 2019). However, despite general claims and assertions (Baiyere et al., 2020; Mikalef and Krogstie, 2020; Grisold et al., 2021), these ideas have not been discussed systematically. There remains a gap in the existing research on how BPM can be set up so that it is continuously receptive to and enables digital innovation on an ongoing basis.

Digital innovation refers to the realization of IT-related opportunities that enable the creation of new services, products and/or business models, and thus potentially provide an organization with key competitive advantages (Yoo et al., 2024). Previous research has been concerned with identifying enablers to explain how and under what circumstances digital innovation is or can be promoted. For instance, digital innovation capabilities have been associated with IT architecture and how it enables the recombination of digital components (Yoo et al., 2024). In this vein, Ciriello et al. (2018) discuss the dual nature of digital innovation artifacts such as IT applications or blueprints for new products or services. Other authors stressed the importance of the organizational setup and capabilities regarding roles and skills (Nylén and Holmström, 2015). Here, authors also underline the importance of absorbing knowledge about technologies and digital innovation processes from both outside and inside the company (Hanelt et al., 2021; Kindermann et al., 2022; Wiesböck and Hess, 2020; Nylén and Holmström, 2015). Similarly, organizational culture has been identified as a core enabler of digital innovation (Müller et al., 2019; Distel et al., 2023).

To organize the variety of perspectives around enablers of digital innovation, Wiesböck and Hess (2020) have synthesized previous research and developed a comprehensive framework of four enablers that translate the potentials of digital technologies into digital solutions and business concepts ^[2]. Their framework suggests how decision-makers can “prepare their organizations for digital innovations” (p. 76). Accordingly, digital innovation can be enabled along four central dimensions (see Table 1). An organizational IT application portfolio can enable digital innovation if IT systems and infrastructures are capable of accommodating digital innovation-induced change. Organizational structures refer to inter- and intra-organizational relations and practices as well as the internal hierarchical logics, which need to balance speed and stability. Organizational culture describes the attitude of organizational actors toward digital innovation, such as their general receptiveness to new ideas. Organizational capabilities refer to established capabilities to recognize and realize digital innovation opportunities. In light of the comprehensiveness of these capability areas, we seek to identify how BPM can be set up to enable digital innovation on a continuous basis along these four categories. Table 1 summarizes the four enablers suggested by Wiesböck and Hess (2020), along with additional studies from the IS field that have studied the respective enablers in depth.

Importantly, existing perspectives in the literature explain how digital innovation can be enabled in generalized ways, regardless of the specific management approaches that may be in place. Established perspectives suggest how dimensions or conditions are generally beneficial for organizations to promote digital innovation, but they tell little about the implications that arise for organizations leveraging BPM.

To answer our research question “How can BPM be set up to enable digital innovation on a continuous basis?” (Figure 1), we relied on a three-step research approach.

In the first step, we conducted a Delphi study to gain an understanding of managers' perceptions and experiences. In the second step, we conducted a first round of follow-up interviews to better understand how organizations realize and operationalize BPM to continuously enable digital innovation. Thereby, we follow other works in information systems research (e.g. Keil et al., 2013) that substantiate their findings from Delphi studies through interview data (Engels and Powell Kennedy, 2007). In the third step, we evaluated and further substantiated these findings through a second round of expert interviews. Through this evaluation, we aimed to increase our findings' validity and generalizability. An overview of the experts involved in the Delphi study and the two rounds of follow-up interviews can be found in Table 2. We outline the procedure in the following:

A Delphi study enables researchers to obtain a list of aspects or features that are considered important in relation to a given phenomenon and/or problem context. To this end, experts are asked to discuss a complex problem through a structured communication process (Linstone and Turoff, 1975; Paré et al., 2013; Skinner et al., 2015). In our case, the problem we posed was how BPM facilitates (or hinders) digital innovation in organizations. The goal was to reach a consensus among all involved top executives by enlisting relevant aspects. The study included several rounds of input from individual experts, which were then consolidated and structured by the first author. In turn, the findings were provided to the experts at several stages of the study, who revised their ideas based on the input of other experts while being encouraged to comment on the consolidation and presentation of our findings (Paré et al., 2013; Linstone and Turoff, 1975).

We invited top managers to participate in the Delphi study and followed the suggestions by Okoli and Pawlowski (2004). First, we made sure that each expert has a relevant perspective in line with the purpose and scope of this study: experts should have considerable professional experience with BPM and digital innovation efforts. Second, following the recommendation that a Delphi panel should involve 10–18 participants (Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004), we contacted 23 experts from our professional network. Recruiting participants from personal networks is associated with a higher commitment to pursue the study, especially with regard to time investment (Kerpedzhiev et al., 2021). As the professional network was biased in terms of geography, we decided to restrict the focus of the Delphi study and the subsequent data collection to the region of Central Europe. All experts were executives who held senior leadership positions and had experience with regard to both digital innovation and BPM. In total, our Delphi study included three rounds to (1) brainstorm, (2) narrow down and (3) validate results. In the brainstorming stage, we collected 291 statements in response to the question of how BPM can facilitate or hinder digital innovation. We then condensed this list to a set of 50 non-overlapping statements and asked participants to give further comments. Based on their comments, we lastly derived a list of 20 statements on the connection between BPM and digital innovation. Satisfaction with the study and results grew over time (see Table 3). We calculated Kendall's W, a commonly used coefficient of concordance, which was statistically significant (p < 0.05) with a low value of 0.195.

Additionally, we conducted follow-up interviews with top executives to contextualize our findings. Our goal was to derive more specific insights into how organizations realize and operationalize BPM in the digital age.

In the first round of interviews, we spoke to eight top executives (Experts D to I, K, M; see Table 2). All of them were involved in the Delphi study. Six completed the study; two dropped out at earlier stages. Interviewing six participants of our study allowed us to contextualize our findings further. Interviewing two of the drop-outs minimized the risk of non-response bias. We asked all interviewees to reflect on the 20 statements we consolidated in the Delphi study by relating them to their professional experience and assessing their relevance. We further asked them to consider how the 20 statements interact with one another and how they would enable them to design BPM efforts to facilitate digital innovation. All interviews were conducted via videoconference between December 2021 and February 2022, and all authors were present during all interviews. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 min and was recorded. We applied both open and theory-based coding (Berg, 2004; Corbin and Strauss, 1990) using ATLAS.ti.

The single codes were based on the wording of the interviews (Corbin and Strauss, 1990) and referred to various factors in the literature specifying how BPM can enable digital innovation. Based on our open-coding results and discussions within the author team, we selected the digital innovation framework, as synthesized and conceptualized by Wiesböck and Hess (2020). We went through all codes and assigned them to the respective dimensions. As we iteratively revised the codes, we identified three main themes relating to each enabler.

We initiated a second wave of interviews to evaluate the established findings and increase their generalizability by conducting additional interviews with six top executives who were not part of the Delphi study or the first round of interviews. Again, we contacted C-level executives concerned with BPM and digital innovation (Experts N to S; see Table 2).

First, we asked each interviewee to give examples from their own professional work on how BPM can or should be set up to enable digital innovation. Subsequently, we presented the four enablers we had identified before. This allowed us to collect specific examples from the interviewees' respective organizational contexts. All interviews were conducted via videoconference in October and November 2024. Each interview lasted around 30 min and was recorded.

Again, we transcribed the interviews verbatim. We analyzed the memos and transcripts in light of our prior results. The second round of interviews validated the findings we gathered through the Delphi study and the first round of interviews. Moreover, results extended our insights as interviewees provided more examples and cases from their own professional experience.

In our Delphi study, we derived 20 statements regarding the relationship between BPM and digital innovation (see Table 4). These statements reflect various aspects of how BPM can enable digital innovation in organizations. We would like to emphasize three central findings from our responses.

The Delphi Study provided evidence that BPM can enable digital innovation initiatives. Participants indicated that BPM enables digital innovation by providing a common language between various stakeholders in an organization (Response #14). At the same time, participants also indicated that certain conditions must be fulfilled for BPM to enable digital innovation (e.g. a shift in prevailing mindsets to embrace a more entrepreneurial thinking, see Response #1).

Furthermore, responses covered a wide range of topics and themes, suggesting that various BPM-related aspects can enable digital innovation. For instance, some of the responses refer to strategic considerations (Responses #2, #17), culture-related aspects (e.g. Responses #1, #4), required capabilities (Responses #9, #20), methods (Responses #8, #16) or structures (Responses #3, #19). Hence, these findings show that the connection of BPM and digital innovation is multifaceted; if one seeks to understand how BPM can enable digital innovation, it is important to apply a comprehensive perspective.

However, in light of the Delphi method, the responses are limited in terms of how an organization can realize this. They did not specify how this can be achieved, such as through appropriate approaches or strategies. Thus, in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how organizations can enable digital innovation through BPM, we conducted follow-up interviews.

We present the findings of our interviews (round one and round two) along four dimensions to explain how BPM can enable digital innovation on a continuous basis: organizational IT application portfolios, organizational structures, organizational culture and organizational capabilities (see section 2). For each enabler, we identified three themes describing specific ways through which organizations can enable digital innovation with BPM. Figure 2 presents an overview along with exemplary quotes.

Organizational IT application portfolios refer to an organization's IT systems and how they can promote digital innovation-based change. Here, our respondents highlighted that it is important to balance reinforcing technologies and generative technologies. Reinforcing technologies refer to IT systems that embed and manifest existing business processes. Our findings indicate multiple instances of enterprise systems that reinforce process standards and thus restrict the integration of digital innovation-related opportunities. Our interviews indicated that enterprise systems are standardized across different locations or business units, subject to regular audits and highly integrated with other applications. As such, any change to these systems comes with high costs: “You have your big, stable core systems that define the basic process […]. Changing these systems is a six-figure ticket” (Interviewee #H). An important implication of this is that the behavior of process participants is standardized in relation to embedded workflows (e.g. Interviewee #E).

Generative technologies, in contrast, are connected to the core systems, but they are flexible and malleable and can be adjusted to incorporate new services, products or features. As such, generative technologies allow generativity in the sense of enabling innovative services, products or workflows. Examples of generative technologies that were mentioned in our interviews are low-code or no-code solutions, as well as large language models. Organizations can use these generative technologies to implement and experiment with ideas and potential solutions in an ad-hoc fashion. To this end, generative technologies continuously ensure flexibility and adaptability in complement to the stable, reinforcing technologies. One executive explained:

Building on this distinction, our findings suggest that organizations pursue specific strategies to leverage generative technologies. One strategy is to implement loosely coupled systems, whereby IT systems support business processes through various sub-systems that can be changed and reconfigured quickly. Interviewee #Q noted that they “try to modularize our applications when we redesign them. As such, we will be faster with digital innovations, too.” One executive responsible for BPM in a hospital further noted that their organization aspires to a (micro-) service-oriented architecture that allows rapid re-configuration of workflows:

Another strategy to leverage generative technologies is to foster and promote internal software development capabilities within the organization. Thereby, organizations are able to adjust and change business processes through new digital technologies in fast and iterative ways (Interviewee #E).

Moreover, organizations (re-)use open-ended IT application redesign so they can engage in experimentation and find improvement opportunities for services and products. The primary means to achieve this is through A-B tests. Interviewee #K, for example, explained how their organization has set up their IT applications in a way to be able to run these A-B tests with different process designs to implement process changes relatively easily, as well as identify improved processes through experimentation and piloting. To this end, it has been noted that one should identify areas where such experiments come with little risk, such as by using specific units as “labs” (Interviewee #Q)

Organizational structures refer to the setup and design of the organization and how it is relevant for digital innovation initiatives. One theme that emerged regarding organizational structures is that companies establish BPM-related roles with digital responsibilities and tasks. Interviewees stressed that this should be done in addition to traditional BPM-related roles, such as global process managers. These roles should entail dedicated tasks, such as realizing digital change or creating a corresponding empowering process and IT governance. One executive gave the example of a global process manager who was responsible for driving the digital innovation agenda:

Furthermore, organizations leverage knowledge of process participants to examine digital-related opportunities. They create structures to leverage in-depth insights and experiences of process participants to understand how digital innovations will or potentially can affect process designs. Process participants can be internal (e.g. employees) but also external customers. In any case, they should be seen as integral parts of the organization, such that new opportunities can be capitalized on in an ongoing way. Obtained insights, in turn, should be considered in redesigning existing processes or designing new ones. The CEO of a platform for hotel booking explained:

Our interview data also suggest how top managers promote an end-to-end process awareness for digital innovation opportunities. BPM, in that case, provides them with a helpful lens because it narrows down the boundaries of work sequences from source to sink. Strategies that were mentioned include building corresponding cross-functional teams holding knowledge about the process across various units (e.g. Interviewee D). One top manager explicitly created process-oriented focus groups to enable digital innovation. These groups had a dedicated focus on process-related matters, including various functional experts (e.g. product owners or operations managers). The goal of these groups is to discuss the corresponding end-to-end process, mainly from the perspective of process automation:

Our interviewees also emphasized that they foster transparency of end-to-end processes to pinpoint what happens and at which stages of the processes. This knowledge, in turn, helps them identify or estimate the implications of digital innovation-related opportunities (e.g. Interviewee #R). Transparency is also important to be aware of policies, laws, and rules in heavily regulated contexts such as the banking sector, where it is essential to “follow a base set of defined processes. Every digital innovation needs to still fulfill these processes” (Interviewee #O).

Culture refers to the collective values, norms, and mindsets of organizations. In this regard, our interviewees stressed the need to establish a focus on external customer needs. While BPM typically implies a customer orientation to a certain extent, our interviewees emphasized that this focus may get lost in everyday work as attention is directed to tools, methods and key performance indicators that circle around internal improvement initiatives. Organizations often put significant emphasis on process modeling or managing throughput times, which comes at the cost of considering external customer needs. As one executive pointed out, “we care about the main performance indicators we want to change” (Interviewee #M). Re-orienting the established focus is crucial “to setup our processes in a way that they bring the biggest benefit for our customers.” (Interviewee #I)

Furthermore, the culture should prioritize fast decision-making. Our interviewees repeatedly mentioned that their companies systematically employ a variety of experiments and pilot projects. These projects are based on ideas and assumptions regarding what can potentially work in terms of digital innovation projects; at the same time, there is shared awareness that these projects may not lead to success and have to be adjusted along the way. This approach yields turning away from a total quality-oriented culture in favor of novelty (Interview #K).

Fast decision-making, in turn, hinges on top management being very close to the implementation of digital innovation (Interviewee #N).

It was also noted that fast decision-making also pertains to hiring processes, which often take weeks or months; when it comes to top talents (e.g. AI engineers), however, this has to be much faster. One executive reported how their organization has a hiring process that allows them to “fast lane if a top executive wants a candidate, even if they do not really fulfill all requirements” (Interviewee #O).

Lastly, we found that executives promote idea multiplicity. To this end, they collect ideas from outside the organization to find new opportunities for their organization. For instance, one executive suggests to “work […] with different start-ups to gain ideas for process digitalization” (Interviewee #I). Promoting the development of a variety of ideas on an ongoing basis can be further facilitated when process participants at all levels feel involved and encouraged to share their ideas. As one executive mentioned:

However, as stated above, new ideas can fail. Hence, the organizational culture needs to allow people to “try things even if they are wrong ten times, because maybe the eleventh attempt brings the right solution” (Interviewee #O). This might be opposed to traditional BPM-related thinking, which is concerned with optimal design fits and thought-through process designs.

Organizations also need to adapt organizational BPM capabilities, that is, their know-how and competencies through which they promote digital innovation. First and foremost, our interviewees report that organizations move away from the creation of formal process models and emphasize enacted process performances. This means that executives’ pay attention to how process participants actually carry out the processes instead of how they should be carried out. To this end, our interviewees also raised the fear that parts of the organization will create process models for the sake of process modeling: “Process management should never become pure self-administration – that would be wrong” (Interviewee #D). Another executive argued that “process modeling is an important basis you do not need to practice – you need to think in terms of processes” (Interviewee #E). Process models are a means to an end – not the end itself. While a high-level overview might be needed, only an analysis of the enacted process performance allows organizations to identify areas where digital innovation is needed.

Second, organizations build capabilities to systematically capture and exploit knowledge about process-related demands. This includes capabilities for data analytics to identify opportunities provided through new technologies in the workflow (e.g. Interviewee #G). This perspective is echoed by other interviewees who argued that top managers need to have sufficient process and technology knowledge:

We also found that organizations promote the socio-technical competencies of their process managers. This includes skills both direct to people and technology. One interviewee explained that the ideal process manager is “well-versed in four disciplines. They need to have know-how in project management, digital innovation, process management, and information technology” (Interviewee #P). Interviewee #N agreed that a diverse skillset is needed for digital innovation. In their organization, they installed a dedicated transformation office responsible for driving digital innovation throughout the organization.

In terms of people-related skills, interviewees highlighted the need to be able to work with people, discuss with them and understand their individual position; “[p]rocess managers need a high level of empathy and be able to talk to people” (Interviewee #D)

In terms of technology-related skills, process managers need to be acquainted with the features and functions of specific digital technologies. Interviewees stressed that through traditional BPM tools and techniques, “process efficiency can be improved by 10–20%” (Interviewee #M). However, with digital innovation, much higher effects are possible. To fully embrace their potential, a strong technological understanding is needed:

However, our data also indicates that these socio-technical competencies are important for all leaders. With the increasing digitalization and the effect of digital innovations on processes, “leaders in [the] organization need to have some technological understanding” (Interviewee #S). Another interviewee added:

Despite the seemingly opposing ambitions of BPM and digital innovation, our findings suggest that BPM can be set up in ways that continuously enable digital innovation. Hence, our findings align with recent interest in the connection between these two concepts (Mendling et al., 2020; Grisold et al., 2021; van Looy, 2021; Distel et al., 2023), but they add a more nuanced understanding to clarify when, how, and under what conditions BPM can be set up to enable digital innovation in a continuous and ongoing fashion. This perspective is largely missing, given the strong interest in strategically defined, one-off business process redesign projects to capitalize on digital innovation opportunities (Grisold et al., 2021; Gross et al., 2021; Rosemann, 2020).

In what follows, we reflect on the broader implications of our study and derive four conjectures to give actionable guidance (Mendling et al., 2020) specifying how and when BPM can enable digital innovation based on the four dimensions introduced before (see Table 5 for a summary).

We conjecture that BPM can enable digital innovation through organizational IT application portfolios. Standardized and static information technology (e.g. ERP systems) are not necessarily detrimental to digital innovation initiatives. Rather, they can be seen to provide “guardrails” that narrow down what can or should not be changed over time (Pentland et al., 2020; Gasser and Mayer-Schönberger, 2024). In consequence, fixed process designs may be embedded through reinforcing technologies for various reasons, such as compliance. However, such systems need to be balanced and complemented with more flexible IT applications. Such systems, in turn, enable organizations to generate and experiment with changes and innovation opportunities. The use of generative technologies involves flexible and self-developed applications and can refer, for instance, to low-code/no-code software. In terms of setting up and managing BPM in ways that it can enable digital innovation, our findings thus add a nuanced perspective to the idea that digital innovation simply means that new technologies are integrated for the sake of innovating the processes, and their associated services or products (e.g. Aránega et al., 2025; Gross et al., 2021). Rather, our findings highlight the need for balancing between stability and flexibility. To this end, it is important that managers take stock of the existing IT landscape and reflect on it in light of the context and potential innovation opportunities in the form of new or existing process designs. Based on our findings, taken together, we conjecture in relation to organizational IT application portfolios that (C1) to continuously enable digital innovation, BPM-related technologies should be implemented to promote stability at certain elements of business processes while allowing for change and flexibility at other parts.

As for organizational structures, our findings extend traditional views that BPM should be mainly concerned with process stability and adherence to standards through guidelines and quality controls (Dumas et al., 2018; Vom Brocke and Rosemann, 2015b; Davenport and Spanyi, 2019; Beverungen, 2014). Our data suggests that organizational structures need to be created so that decisions on the design of business processes can be made quickly and in ways that capitalize on the in-depth knowledge of process participants. Since digital innovations can come from different, even unexpected sources, it is essential to create structures through which various ideas can be leveraged. Our findings also highlight the role, responsibilities and tasks of process owners, which should be adjusted in ways that allow them to establish end-to-end awareness and integrate the viewpoints of various process participants to identify digital innovation opportunities. In relation to this, one recurrent theme in the interviews was that one should make existing processes transparent (e.g. through understanding past and currently running process instances) and carefully reveal underlying designs, along with IT-related demands. While this might initially sound counterintuitive because these established processes will be subject to change (e.g. Gross et al., 2021), more transparency implies that the integration of digital innovation opportunities can be planned, assessed and monitored (Kirchmer, 2022; Aránega et al., 2025). In terms of organizational structures, we thus conjecture that (C2) to continuously enable digital innovation, BPM should be set up so that its structural design allows for fast decision-making about process changes, empowers process owners and fosters an end-to-end process awareness.

Regarding organizational culture, our findings indicate that traditional BPM-related values, such as commitment to existing process standards or formal structures, become less important (Schmiedel et al., 2014; Distel et al., 2023). When organizations using BPM seek to enable digital innovation, it is essential to establish a stronger orientation to customer needs. Being attentive to how customers interact with services or products in a given business process, and what they may desire, helps to find new opportunities for digital innovation. This might not mean that organizations develop one specific idea, which is then translated into process (re-)designs (e.g. Grisold et al., 2021; Rosemann, 2020); rather, it is important to introduce multiple ideas and see how they are being externally evaluated, and how they internally affect a business process. Although not explicitly mentioned in the interviews, these findings point to BPM-related cultural values that promote openness and entrepreneurial thinking (e.g. Efrat, 2014; Distel et al., 2023). What has been mentioned in the interviews is that the orientation toward a higher multiplicity of ideas comes with a need for fast decision-making. Along these lines, organizations should experiment with and evaluate individual ideas to quickly understand whether they should be or remain embedded in a business process. Hence, relating to organizational culture, we conjecture that (C3) to enable continuous digital innovation, BPM should be set up so that practitioners have customer orientation, support fast decision-making, and contribute to the generation of new ideas for business processes.

In terms of organizational capabilities, a strong focus of both BPM research and practice used to be on process modeling (Dumas et al., 2018; Mendling et al., 2020; Vom Brocke and Rosemann, 2015a). In line with previous conceptual arguments (Mendling et al., 2020), we observe that process modeling becomes less relevant, and more attention should be given to actual process performances. In a sense, modern technologies afford the analysis of “as-is” processes without the manual generation of to-be process models (e.g. van der Aalst, 2016; Davenport and Spanyi, 2019). Furthermore, our findings indicate that process managers should have socio-technical competencies, whereby they have a good understanding of organizational matters, such as organizational change, but also know technical foundations and features of IT to find digital innovation opportunities for business processes. Highlighting roles in terms of required skills adds a more fine-grained view on the established literature, where BPM-specific roles are typically discussed in terms of their responsibilities, such as when they operate in cross-functional organizational designs (e.g. Müller et al., 2016). Hence, we conjecture that (C4) to enable continuous digital innovation, BPM should be set up so that appropriate methods and tools focus on both actual business process performances and the needs of process participants.

Our study has various implications for BPM research, particularly in the context of digital innovation. First, our findings highlight the difference between reinforcing and generative IT applications (see, e.g. Bygstad, 2017). Typically, core systems are not considered particularly relevant for digital innovation – they are rigid and restricted in terms of their malleability and editability (Yoo et al., 2012), and their core purpose is to ensure standardization, quality and control (e.g. Berente et al., 2016). To this end, it has been suggested that such systems need to be coupled with generative applications to afford digital innovation (Bygstad, 2017). Interestingly, however, our results indicate that reinforcing systems can be helpful because they are rigid. They not only specify and stabilize specific business processes, but they also direct the attention of those who are concerned with digital innovation to aspects where they should look for innovation opportunities, and where they can look for them, respectively. An analogy can be drawn to creativity research (Rosso, 2014; Acar et al., 2019), which has established that constraints (e.g. in a task) can be enabling as they constrain the search space for new ideas. What we call generative technologies, then, enables organizations to develop and experiment with new ideas in relation to business processes. Future research can dive deeper into the relationship between reinforcing and generative technologies, especially focusing on how reinforcing systems are useful to digital innovation because of their rigidity.

Furthermore, our findings stress the importance of organizational structure for the connection of BPM and digital innovation (Kohli and Melville, 2019). In particular, we found that BPM-related organizations should emphasize fast decision-making by empowering process owners. This contrasts traditional views, which call for more top-down-oriented hierarchical decision-making (Dumas et al., 2018; Vom Brocke and Rosemann, 2015b; Davenport and Spanyi, 2019; Beverungen, 2014). Extending recent arguments which stressed that process participants should have more freedom in terms of how they carry out business processes (e.g. Baiyere et al., 2020; van Looy, 2018; Kerpedzhiev et al., 2021; Moreira and Dallavalle, 2024), we underline the importance of adequate decision-making structures that are not only fast but also account for the knowledge and needs of process participants. Such changes, however, go hand in hand with a BPM-related organizational culture (Schmiedel et al., 2014; Distel et al., 2023); process participants should not only be open to and appreciative of innovation opportunities, but they should also be empowered to develop and promote their own ideas. BPM practitioners need to empower process owners and then develop structures and mechanisms for decision-making that balance fast decision-making by the empowered process owners while ensuring a fit to the overall organizational (digital transformation) strategy. The effects of such a balance need to be studied in future research, especially as potential long-term side effects could not be extracted from our data.

Finally, our findings add to recent arguments that BPM methods and tools should be revised to account for digital innovation opportunities (Grisold et al., 2022; Mendling et al., 2020; Kerpedzhiev et al., 2021). The traditional assumption in BPM was that processes remain relatively stable once they are implemented (Baiyere et al., 2020), and organizations should primarily invest in the a priori development of to-be process models (Dumas et al., 2018). In line with research around process mining, our findings further question the need for meticulous designs of process models. In contrast, organizations should find means to detect and implement emerging dynamics and unpredictable change inside and outside the organization. Along these lines, processes should be designed to remain open to emerging opportunities that do not necessarily emerge in response to perceived problems in a business process (e.g. Grisold et al., 2022; Rosemann, 2020). Instead, opportunities can emerge as solutions before problems are actually perceived (Baskerville et al., 2020). This changing perspective on process modeling opens up several avenues for future research. On the one hand, process models have been used for documentation and compliance. If process modeling is deemphasized, how can corresponding requirements still be met? This is a question that warrants further attention. On the other hand, traditional BPM training focuses on the design and analysis of formal process models. Scholars can also develop methods on how to teach process thinking without deep diving into process modeling.

Our study also has implications for future research beyond the specific aspects listed above and a general call for replication (potentially in other geographies by a different set of researchers). The conjectures stated can be further developed into a set of hypotheses that can and need to be tested. Once tested, we can aim to develop more specific prescriptive guidance for practitioners on how to implement a BPM that enables digital innovation.

Our study comes with limitations. Since we focused on key decision-makers, our findings reflect experiences and insights as perceived by a number of top managers. While the homogeneity of our respondents allowed us to draw conclusions regarding more strategic matters, complementary research – e.g. focusing on middle-level managers – might surface more operational issues. With regards to regional focus, all our respondents came from central Europe and work there. As such, any generalization of the findings to other regions must be taken carefully. Next, we focused our Delphi study on the role of BPM in Digital Innovation. While our focus ensured a fit with our research question, a general limitation of this method is that it potentially restricted the creativity of the Delphi panel. Future research can conduct a Delphi study that is concerned with the general challenges and opportunities of Digital Innovation. This could inform an interview study to explore how BPM can help solve these challenges (or exploit the opportunities). Moreover, there might be disadvantages of a BPM that enables digital innovation that we did not encounter in our empirical study. These might include decision fatigue or innovation overload. Next, the impact of generative Artificial Intelligence and agentic information systems (Baird and Maruping, 2021) was not covered by our empirical material, as the majority of data collection happened before such Artificial Intelligence technologies were widely adopted by organizations. Here, future research is needed. Finally, since the results are based on interpretive approaches (both in relation to the Delphi study as well as the interview studies), slightly different conclusions might be reached by other researchers. By following existing guidelines on Delphi studies and qualitative data analysis, we tried to mitigate any potential biases, but we obviously could not rule them out completely.