You are presented with multiple paper abstracts, alongside the associated literature review and chapter titles. Given the provided information, you are going to do a literature review. Please generate a coherent literature review that synthesizes the content, draws connections between different works, highlights major findings, and identifies any gaps in the existing research.

Literature Review Title: Surveys in business process management – a literature review 
Chapter Title:  Research approach 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  Abstract This research is the first to empirically test the causal relationships in the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) Health Care Pilot Criteria. The Baldrige model of quality management for the health care industry is tested here using data from 220 US hospitals. Results of confirmatory structural equation modeling show that many of the hypothesized causal relationships in the Baldrige model are statistically significant. For example, Leadership (Baldrige Category 1.0) is identified as a driver of all components in the Baldrige System, including Information and Analysis, Strategic Planning, Human Resource Development and Management, and Process Management. This study also clarifies and improves understanding of within-System performance relationships. Baldrige components of Leadership and Information and Analysis are significantly linked with Organizational Performance Results while Human Resource Development and Management and Process Management significantly link with Customer Satisfaction. In addition, a comprehensive “measurement model” grounded in the Baldrige Health Care Criteria for the 28 dimensions of measurement is developed, tested, and found to be valid and reliable. This valid and reliable measurement model allows a fair test of the “structural model”, which tests the relationships among the Baldrige model constructs. Ten major findings and future research ideas are discussed. 
2. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB002):  Preface to the Fourth Edition Acknowledgments About the Author Chapter 1. Introduction Chapter 2. Step 1: Formulating the Problem Chapter 3. Step 2: Searching the Literature Chapter 4. Step 3: Gathering Information From Studies Chapter 5. Step 4: Evaluating the Quality of Studies Chapter 6. Step 5: Analyzing and Integrating the Outcomes of Studies Chapter 7. Step 6: Interpreting the Evidence Chapter 8. Step 7: Presenting the Results Chapter 9. Conclusion: Threats to the Validity of Research Synthesis Conclusions References Author Index Subject Index 
3. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB003):  Purpose – The paper aims at providing a survey of the development of empirical research in business process management (BPM). It seeks to study trends in empirical BPM research and applied methodologies by means of a developed framework in order to identify the status quo and to assess the probable future development of the research field.Design/methodology/approach – In order to analyse the development of the research field a systematic literature review of empirical journal articles in the BPM context is conducted. The retrieved literature is analyzed by means of scientometric methods and a developed reference framework.Findings – The steadily growing number of published articles in empirical BPM research shows an increase in interest in the research field. Research interests, applied methodologies, the underlying research paradigm and the level of maturity of empirical BPM research differ depending on regional aspects. BPM gains importance in the industry as well as in the public administration context... 
4. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB004):  Jesson, J.K., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M., Doing Your Literature Review. Traditional and Systematic Techniques, London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2011, 192 p.Doing Your Literature Review. Traditional and Systematic Techniques, as suggested by the authors, is intended to be "a practical study guide" for anyone who wants to learn or to improve their way of reviewing mainly scientific literature. The main contribution of this book is that it presents different models of literature review used to this day; however, its emphasis falls on describing the latest methods and techniques. In the last 20 to 25 years, the advancement of technology and the extensive use of the Internet have changed the way literature review is done. The book also explains the difference between traditional literature review and the more exact, more scientific systematic model. In order to come to the aid of the readers, the authors present and explain methods that should be used for producing a good literature review, from reading, note-taking and writing, to the methodology of making a meta-analysis.The authors of the book come from different academic fields, and their experience is used for creating a methodology for literature review that may be used in all sciences. Jill K. Jesson has worked with multi-disciplinary research teams, and her publications cover community pharmacy practice, public health and social care. Her main contribution in the present paper covers issues about traditional and systematic literature review. Lydia Matheson is an information specialist working for Library and Information Services at Aston University. Her professional expertise was used in the chapters that focus on searching for information and the use of traditional printed sources of relevant contents, as well as the use of modern electronic databases. Fiona M. Lacey is an academic pharmacist, who teaches research methods as Associate Dean in the School of Life and Health Sciences at Aston and her contribution relate to the topics of multidisciplinary research, systematic review and meta-analysis.The introduction focuses on presenting the authors as well as the objectives and the overall features of the volume. The book is divided in two parts, with chapters focusing on specific issues. The volume starts with the conceptualization of the terms to be used; it gradually presents techniques of searching for information, reading skills, taking notes and writing; it then proceeds to describe the traditional and systematic types of review. The volume ends with the analysis of the meta-analysis model, as well as issues related to referencing and plagiarism. By taking the topics gradually, the authors make it easy for readers to understand, and maintain their interest.The book is structured in two parts. The first part - "Getting information" - has 4 chapters - "Preliminaries", "Searching for information", "Reading skills" and "From making notes to writing" - which provides a general introduction to literature review, finding and evaluating information.The second part - "Using information" - provides detailed methods about how traditional, systematic and meta-analysis review should be done in the 5 chapters it contains, namely "The traditional review", "Writing up your review", "The systematic review", "Meta-analysis" and "Referencing and plagiarism".In the "Preliminaries" chapter, the authors focus on explaining the concepts and the terminology used throughout the book. Recognizing and distinguishing between traditional and systematic review is also described briefly in this chapter, as well as different review designs such as the conceptual, the state-of-the-art and the expert type. In the project management section, the reader can find useful methods of planning for a literature review.In the second chapter "Searching for information", the methodology for identifying the relevant sources of information is presented. All the steps that must be taken in order to create a bibliographic database are described in this section, from finding the available information sources to identifying the keywords to elaborate further complex search, to methods of organizing and record-keeping of the results. …

Literature Review:
A literature review BIB005 ) is a possible mean to shed light on surveys in BPM. It is a mean to summarize past research BIB003 and to "uncover areas where research is needed" (Webster and Watson, 2002, p. xiii) . Research synthesists doing a literature review have to follow a process that must meet "the same rigorous methodological standards that are applied to primary researchers" (Cooper, 2010, p. 3) . Therefore, this section describes in detail the steps required to reach maximum transparency  . This paper follows the key phases proposed by BIB005 Each of the proposed steps is briefly described in the next sections, except the step "write up." 2.2.1 Describing the literature retrieval process. We conducted a search using the scientific databases EBSCO, Emerald, ProQuest, AISeL and WISO and the following search term as well as its German translation. ("Process Management" OR "Process Orientation" OR "Business Process*") AND (Study OR Questionnaire OR Survey OR Empirical OR "Status Quo" OR Sample OR Interview). Through the first part of the search term we intended to find papers focussing on BPM, BPO or on BPM-related topics while through the second one we intended to remove non-empirical work. As far as possible, the fields title, abstract and keywords were searched but since not all databases allow searching these fields, modifications in the search fields were necessary (see the Appendix). The search was conducted in October 2013. As suggested by BIB005 we read the abstract of all hits to decide whether they should be kept or dropped by using a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria BIB005 . When we were unsure whether the article should be kept or dropped after reading the abstract, we read the whole article. Papers have been included (inclusion criteria) if standardized questionnaires have been used disregarding whether the data are collected by phone or via a postal survey or by an online survey. Moreover, papers have been selected if BPM or BPM-related topics (e.g. BP modeling, BP outsourcing) are of primary research interest. Some contributions have been built on already existing data but investigate another aspect compared with the former publications, which rely on the same data. These papers have been included, too. In order to assure a certain quality standard BIB005 , papers must have appeared in a ranked journal. Thereto, we utilized the latest version 2.1 of the journal ranking published by the German Academic Association for Business Research (VHB) which is available online in English  . On the other side, papers have been excluded (exclusion criteria) if an experiment or a case study has been used as research method. Studies using a multi-method approach (e.g. case studies or detailed expert interviews before conducting a survey) have not been taken into consideration as well. Some contributions solely summarize the results of other surveys or integrate BPM as one dimension among others in their research model (e.g. BIB001 BIB002 ). Both kinds of research papers have been dropped. Surveys focussing on related concepts like BPR or concepts focussing on quality management (e.g. TQM) have been also out of scope of this literature review. Finally, after applying these inclusion and exclusion criteria 51 publications have built the basis for our further analysis. Next, we extract and code relevant data of the surveys (e.g. authors, title, overall goal, journal, journal ranking, year of publication, sample country, sample industry, covered BPMMM factors) for our analysis BIB005 . 2.2.2 Analyzing the surveys. After completing the coding process, we analyze the meta-perspective as well as the content-based perspective of the surveys. We use the same labels for both perspectives as those proposed by BIB004 .