Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Business Process Management (BPM) has been transformed by Process Intelligence, encompassing process mining, business process analytics, and Artificial Intelligence (AI). While the technological dimensions of Process Intelligence are well studied, the organizational implications, particularly the evolving roles, responsibilities, and competencies of process owners, remain fragmented and underexplored. Prior systematic reviews have addressed either process ownership in conventional BPM or the technical aspects of Process Intelligence in isolation, leaving a gap in understanding how Process Intelligence capabilities reshape process ownership as an accountability structure. To address this gap, this study conducts a Systematic Literature Review following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, guided by four research questions covering publication characteristics, role evolution, conceptual themes, and research gaps. From an initial pool of 1,408 publications across two databases, 40 studies met the selection and quality criteria and were included in the final synthesis. A three-stage thematic coding process identified four overarching themes: data-driven process governance, human–AI collaboration, continuous process improvement, and organizational capability. Findings indicate a shift from technology-oriented discussions toward governance-oriented perspectives, with process owners evolving from administrative coordinators into data-driven decision makers operating within a Human-in-the-Loop framework. Three research gaps were identified: the absence of integrated conceptual frameworks, limited longitudinal and cross-sector empirical evidence, and underdeveloped governance mechanisms for AI-assisted decision-making. This study contributes a theoretically grounded synthesis of the process ownership–Process Intelligence nexus, offering conceptual insights for researchers and practical guidance for organizations implementing data-driven BPM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rahman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: