Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this article: Amy Van Looy , Manu De Backer & Geert Poels (2014) A conceptual framework
and classification of capability areas for business process maturity, Enterprise Information Systems,
8:2, 188-224, DOI: 10.1080/17517575.2012.688222
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
Enterprise Information Systems, 2014
Vol. 8, No. 2, 188224, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2012.688222
The article elaborates on business process maturity, which indicates how well
an organisation can perform based on its business processes, i.e. on its way of
working. This topic is of paramount importance for managers who try to excel
in todays competitive world. Hence, business process maturity is an emerging
research eld. However, no consensus exists on the capability areas (or skills)
needed to excel. Moreover, their theoretical foundation and synergies with
other elds are frequently neglected. To overcome this gap, our study presents
a conceptual framework with six main capability areas and 17 sub areas. It
draws on theories regarding the traditional business process lifecycle, which are
supplemented by recognised organisation management theories. The compre-
hensiveness of this framework is validated by mapping 69 business process
maturity models (BPMMs) to the identied capability areas, based on content
analysis. Nonetheless, as a consensus neither exists among the collected
BPMMs, a classication of dierent maturity types is proposed, based on
cluster analysis and discriminant analysis. Consequently, the ndings con-
tribute to the grounding of business process literature. Possible future avenues
are evaluating existing BPMMs, directing new BPMMs or investigating which
combinations of capability areas (i.e. maturity types) contribute more to
performance than others.
Keywords: business process management; maturity; conceptual framework;
capabilities; process improvement; excellence; business process reengineering;
business process transformation
1. Introduction
Business processes are at the heart of each organisation. They describe how
organisations operate and therefore impact how organisations perform. Their
business importance is already shared among many executives (Gartner 2009,
McKinsey 2010). Moreover, organisations are increasingly focussing on their
business processes to excel. This means that they strive for the highest level of
performance. This is mainly due to (1) higher customer expectations in the globalised
their journey towards excellence. BPMMs present a sequence of maturity levels and a
step-by-step roadmap with goals and best practices to reach each consecutive maturity
level (Van Looy et al. 2011). However, a BPMM proliferation exists (Sheard 2001,
Paulk 2004), which prompts us to evaluate the dierent BPMM designs. For instance,
models like OMG (2008) have labelled their levels by focussing on business process
optimisation, e.g. initial, managed, standardised, predictable and innovating.
Other BPMMs, like the one of the Rummler-Brache Group (2004), express maturity
levels as advancements in business process management, e.g. BPM initiation, BPM
evolution and BPM mastery. Thirdly, there are BPMMs which rather prefer
emphasising business process integration, e.g. McCormack and Johnsons levels of ad
hoc, dened, linked and integrated (McCormack and Johnson 2001). Although
their primary focus diers, BPMMs take into account similar capability areas. The
latter are collections of related capabilities that need to be assessed and improved in
order to reach business (process) excellence.
BPMMs are frequently criticised for oversimplifying complex issues (Maier et al.
2009). One of the reasons is that theories or comprehensive studies on business
process maturity are still lacking. This particularly counts for the theoretical
foundation of the capability areas and the relationship with performance. However,
many scholars have (mostly empirically) examined the capability areas as critical
success factors to realise business (process) excellence. And many of them have
translated these factors into a BPMM, e.g. Hammer (2007), Harrington (1991),
McCormack and Johnson (2001) and de Bruin and Rosemann (2007). Our study
consolidates their ndings in a conceptual framework.
Particularly, the latter BPMM was designed by means of a sound methodology
using Delphi studies with international BPM experts, validated by case studies. It
comprises six main capability areas (i.e. critical success factors): (1) strategic
alignment, (2) governance, (3) methods, (4) information technology, (5) people and
(6) culture. Each area has ve sub areas. Nowadays, these capability areas are
presented as a framework that consolidates and structures the essential factors that
constitute BPM as a whole (Rosemann and vom Brocke 2010, p. 107). For instance,
they structure the outline of a recent BPM Handbook (vom Brocke and Rosemann
2010). These capability areas rely on studies on critical success factors for BPM and
empirical research to build a maturity model, albeit without relying on underlying
theories. We will address this gap and also compare de Bruin and Rosemanns
framework with our conceptual framework and with other existing BPMMs.
Furthermore, Mathiesen et al. (2011) refer to eorts of professional communities
to standardise the capabilities (or skills) required per practitioners role in a body of
190 A. Van Looy et al.
knowledge. For instance, they dierentiate the activities of a business analyst from a
business process owner. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, no consensus
currently exists on the formal capability areas for mature business processes in the
literature (Smart et al. 2009, vom Brocke and Rosemann 2010) and among
practitioners (Reiter et al. 2010, Doebeli et al. 2011).
Consequently, this article elaborates on the following research questions.
The purpose is to theoretically identify and empirically validate the capability areas
which allow classifying and evaluating the coverage of existing BPMMs. As our
scope concerns business processes in general, we primarily make sense of and provide
a structure for the wide diversity of BPMMs out there. The resulting list of capability
areas could help improving existing BPMMs, i.e. in terms of developing the actually
uncovered areas, or help developing new BPMMs. We must, however, note that we
do not intend to assist organisations in choosing the BPMM that best ts their
specic organisational needs.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 explains the
methodology. As this research takes a topdown approach, the main capability areas
(Section 3) are separated from the sub areas (Section 4). Each section is structured
according to a theoretical and empirical part. Afterwards, the classication is
elaborated on (Section 5) and discussed (Section 6). Finally, Section 7 recalls the
most important ndings with avenues for future research.
2. Methodology
Figure 1 shows our research output in the grey box: (1) a list of main capability areas
and sub areas, with (2) a statistical classication.
We refer to a conceptual framework, as the list contains three layers (i.e. main
areas, sub areas and clusters). It is identied by literature and theories that
characterise the direct relationship (i.e. straight line) with business (process)
excellence. On the other hand, BPMMs claim the indirect relationship which starts
from capability areas for measuring maturity, or expected performance, and results
in actual performance (i.e. dotted line). This indirect relationship is inherently
assumed by BPMMs and has been investigated by some studies on particular
BPMMs (McCormack and Johnson 2001, Skrinjar et al. 2008). Hence, existing
BPMMs serve to validate the comprehensiveness of our theoretical capability areas.
If true, the framework provides a well-grounded foundation for BPMMs.
Furthermore, a statistical classication renes the theoretical capability areas by
Enterprise Information Systems 191
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
Figure 1. Our conceptual framework and classication of capability areas for business
process maturity.
(2) human resource management and (3) strategic management. This link is
appropriate, since most organisational changes also involve business processes
(Baumol 2010). Moreover, BPMMs aim to gradually increase business (process)
performance (Jeston and Nelis 2006).
Data were collected during the second quarter of 2010. We initially searched for
articles in academic databases (i.e. SCI-Expanded, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-
SSH and BPM Journal) and non-academic search engines (i.e. Google, Google
Scholar) by using the combined keywords of process and maturity. Then, we
traced the references in the identied articles to get access to other relevant sources.
Given the proliferation of BPMMs (Sheard 2001), the research scope was set to
generic business processes. Also supply chains and collaboration processes were
included to examine cross-organisational value chains.
In total, 69 BPMMs were collected, listed in Appendix 1: (1) 37 BPMMs for
generic business processes (13 academic and 24 non-academic), (2) 24 BPMMs for
supply chains (9 academic and 15 non-academic) and (3) 8 BPMMs for process
collaboration (6 academic and 2 non-academic). By including non-academic
BPMMs, our sample is larger than most comparative studies on BPMMs
(Rosemann and vom Brocke 2010). Furthermore, by including dierent process
types (i.e. generic, supply chains and collaboration), our sample suggests versatility
which facilitates transferability of our ndings to other process types, e.g. software
processes.
areas. Next, discriminant analysis uses the same capability areas, i.e. independent
variables, to predict cluster membership as obtained from the cluster analysis, i.e.
dependent variable. Discriminant functions are calculated to predict which BPMMs
belong to the previously found clusters. The resulting percentage of correct
predictions is used as a validity measure for the BPMM classication.
Additionally, validity is assured by (1) choosing a meaningful and statistically
correct cluster solution after considering all algorithmic clustering methods available
in SPSS (version 18) and (2) guaranteeing stable results on both the complete and
split dataset.
Finally, all assumptions regarding the underlying data distribution are satised
to properly conduct both cluster analysis and discriminant analysis (Klecka 1980).
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
Some authors go beyond these four BPM areas by also referring to organisation
management. Particularly, by adopting two additional foci: (5) a process-oriented
culture, e.g. with rewards linked to the performance of business processes instead of
departments and (6) a process-oriented structure, e.g. with a horizontal or matrix
chart instead of vertical departments. For instance, McCormack and Johnson (2001)
dene BPO as an organisation that emphasises process, a process oriented way of
thinking, customers, and outcomes as opposed to hierarchies (p. 185). Although the
distinction between BPM and BPO is not always explicitly made, e.g. in de Bruin and
Rosemann (2007), it allows separately examining the dierent nuances. Conse-
quently, culture and structure are adopted as BPO-specic main capability areas,
besides the four BPM areas.
In summary, all six main capability areas must be assessed and improved in order
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
to fully reach business process maturity (Van Looy et al. 2011). Section 4.1. further
elaborates on the sub areas within each main area. Meanwhile, we briey describe
the capability areas as follows.
(1) Modelling comprises methods and IT for the design and analysis of business
processes.
(2) Deployment comprises methods and IT for the implementation and
enactment of business processes, as well as their measurement and control
during enactment.
(3) Optimisation comprises methods and IT for the evaluation and improve-
ment of business processes after enactment. Improvements vary from
incremental (e.g. total quality management) to radical (e.g. reengineering).
(4) Management comprises the daily management of business processes,
including the required roles and responsibilities with corresponding skills
and training. It also involves linking process goals to the organisational
strategy and the relationships with customers, suppliers and other
stakeholders.
(5) Culture comprises values that favour business processes and their
translation in attitudes and behaviours. It requires appraisals and rewards
that consider process results and top management commitment.
(6) Structure comprises a shift in the organisation chart to visualise horizontal
business processes and specic governance bodies to coordinate the
management of all business processes within an organisation.
capability areas, whereas most models cover at least one BPO-specic capability
area, i.e. culture or structure. This proposes a dichotomy between BPM maturity
and BPO maturity.
Furthermore, we noticed that the assessment items in BPMMs (i.e. questions to
assess or measure capability areas) literally refer to one, more or all business
processes within the involved organisation(s) or value chain (Appendix 2). The
models for a single business process are less numerous (N 9). More often, BPMMs
are used in a business domain with multiple (sub) processes (N 36). For instance,
supply chains have business processes for buying, producing, selling and planning
products and services. This nding conrms the idea of a large cross-departmental or
cross-organisational business process, or horizontal value chain, with sub processes
in each department. Also frequent are BPMMs involving all business processes
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
Figure 2. An overview of the capability sub areas per main capability area.
(i.e. deployment) and inspection (i.e. optimisation) (Shewhart 1986). During the
1950s, Deming generalised Shewharts cycle to business processes in his PDCA circle
(Deming 1994): (1) plan (i.e. design and analysis), (2) do (i.e. enactment and
measurement), (3) check (i.e. evaluation) and (4) act (i.e. improvement).
Nowadays, many variants exist which do not fundamentally dier (Harrington
1991, Smith and Fingar 2002, zur Muehlen and Ho 2006, Netjes et al. 2006, Weske
2007, Kannengiesser 2008). Translated to our research, they all agree on the three
most basic capability areas: modelling, deployment and optimisation.
4.1.1.1. Main capability area 1: modelling. First, the modelling capability area
relates to methods and IT regarding the rst phase(s) of the business process
lifecycle.
executes the activities, (3) the allocation logic, i.e. how activities are assigned to
resources and (4) the interfaces between business processes and between
business processes and external partners.
. Business process analysis refers to the validation, simulation and verication of
a (re)designed business process model. Business stakeholders must validate
that these models conform the business reality. Simulations must test the
models in real-world settings. A third method veries whether graphical
models are compliant with the used notation language (Netjes et al. 2006,
Weske 2007).
area includes methods and IT regarding the intermediate phase(s) of the business
process lifecycle.
activity monitoring and process mining (zur Muehlen and Ho 2006, Weske
2007).
. Business process improvement implies both making business processes conform
to their models and optimising the models through redesign. Depending on the
evaluation, business process optimisation varies from larger, radical projects,
such as business process reengineering (BPR) (Hammer and Champy 2003), to
smaller, incremental changes (Harrington 1991). Many optimisation techniques
originate from the classical quality thinkers and Total Quality Management,
such as Shewharts Statistical Process Control (Shewhart 1986). Individual
techniques are frequently combined in a larger improvement methodology,
such as the theory of constraints, Lean and Six Sigma (Nave 2002).
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
Business process optimisation gives input for a new lifecycle to redesign business
processes, based on the diagnosed improvements and collected data for simulations
(Netjes et al. 2006, Kannengiesser 2008).
leadership (or style) and culture. In turn, they aect the organisational structure,
systems, management practices, individual tasks and skills, work unit climate and
individual values. A combination of these factors will result in motivation and
performance. With regard to the main capability areas, modelling, deployment
and optimisation are clearly included as systems. However, all other aspects of the
7-S model (Waterman et al. 1980) and the Burke-Litwin model (Burke and Litwin
1992) aect the capability areas of management, culture and structure.
The relationship between business processes and business (process) excellence is
further explained by theories on strategic management. Business processes are means
to achieve strategic, tactical and operational objectives (Jeston and Nelis 2006). For
instance, Kaplan and Norton (2001) present the strategy as a translation of the
vision, which in turn is a translation of the core values and mission. Their balanced
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
scorecard (BSC) systematically derives KPIs regarding four perspectives: (1) the
nancial situation, (2) the customers, (3) the internal business processes and (4)
learning and growth. Variants of the BSC exist, which add other stakeholders
(Atkinson et al. 1997, OMG 2010). For instance, the business motivation model of
OMG (2010) distinguishes (1) the ends (i.e. vision and KPIs), (2) the means (i.e.
mission, strategic and tactic activities, business rules and policies), (3) the inuencers
(i.e. internal, such as values, or external, such as stakeholders or regulation) and (4)
their assessment (e.g. a SWOT analysis). With regard to the main capability areas,
the translation of the organisational strategy into the strategy of a specic business
process is classied within the management capability area. It concerns an eort per
business process, instead of the whole organisation and its portfolio of business
processes.
Finally, Atkinson et al. (1997) dene the KPIs derived from the strategy as
primary objectives. Also secondary objectives exist to guide employee behaviours,
which are investigated by human resource management theories. Particularly,
employee alignment involves (1) action alignment, i.e. obtaining the skills and
knowledge to perform, and (2) interest alignment, i.e. obtaining the motivation to
perform (Colvin and Boswell 2007). Thorough research is conducted by Boswell on
this line of sight, or the employee understanding of the organizations objectives and
how to contribute to those objectives (Boswell and Boudreau 2001, p. 851). Her
research gave evidence to four secondary objectives (Boswell et al. 2006): (1) top
management communication, (2) employee involvement in decision-making, (3)
extrinsic motivation, e.g. rewards and promotions, and (4) intrinsic motivation, e.g.
personal values and attitudes. With regard to the main capability areas, action
alignment impacts the performance of a single business process and thus belongs to
the management capability area. Interest alignment depends on an organisations
way of doing business and is thus classied within the culture capability area.
Consequently, the organisation management theories discussed above clarify the
importance of the identied sub areas for the nal three main capability areas i.e.
management, culture and structure.
mission, vision and strategy. This is called strategic alignment, i.e. aligning
business processes with strategic objectives and customers needs (Lee and
Dale 1998) or systematically connecting business processes with the business
strategy and thinking in terms of customer goals (Neubauer 2009). Many
scholars agree that the organisational strategy must be translated into a
business process strategy, and the organisational performance targets (KPIs)
must be translated into business process performance targets (KPIs)
(Harrington 1991, Davenport 1993, Lee and Dale 1998, Gulledge Jr and
Sommer 2002, Smith and Fingar 2002, Jeston and Nelis 2006, Gillot 2008,
Palmberg 2009, Smart et al. 2009, Kohlbacher 2010, Trkman 2010).
. External relationships and SLAs. For strategy realisation, business processes
must take into account their external environment. Moreover, external parties
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
4.1.2.2. Main capability area 5: culture. As from the fth capability area, i.e.
culture, we cope with organisational characteristics, instead of a specic business
process. This capability area has four sub areas.
4.1.2.3. Main capability area 6: structure. Finally, the structure capability area is
also an organisational characteristic. It implies a permanent, structural
reconguration with two sub areas.
This sub area merely addresses the existence of the bodies, with associated
roles and responsibilities among business processes.
Most models actually cover both sub areas within deployment, both sub areas
within optimisation and the sub area of strategy-setting with KPIs within
management. Other sub areas are less frequently addressed. Particularly, the sub
areas of business process analysis, the organisation chart and the corresponding
bodies are only covered by 20 models or less. This implies that BPO maturity is
mostly determined by the BPO-specic culture capability area, particularly
represented by the more tangible sub areas of attitudes and behaviours and
appraisals and rewards, without structural recongurations. The latter are more
drastic than introducing a process-oriented culture and seem to be less obvious or
necessary for most BPMMs. Finally, the more technical BPMMs are supposed to
focus more on the BP lifecycle aspects, i.e. by also requiring detailed process
analyses.
5. Classication (RQ3)
5.1. Exploratory classication by cluster analysis
We applied trial-and-error to choose the algorithmic method and the number of
clusters that best t our data, by using SPSS (version 18). The independent variables
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
were the 17 capability areas. Since they are binary (i.e. present or not), no
standardisation was required.
. First, all methods available in SPSS (version 18) were tried on the full dataset
(N 69), resulting in four methods with clusters containing at least three
BPMMs. Other methods with clusters containing one or two BPMMs are
considered as less reliable and thus omitted.
. Next, to obtain stable results, these four methods were used on a split dataset,
comprising only BPMMs for generic business processes (N 37). It makes
abstraction of the specic process types included, i.e. supply chain or
collaboration processes, to be applicable to any process type. All four
methods, resulting from the previous step, showed similarity on the split
dataset for two clusters. Since two clusters merely conrm the previous
distinction between BPM maturity and BPO maturity, we opted for a
renement into more clusters to provide more information. This option
resulted in two methods, each with three clusters that stayed fairly similar on
the split dataset: Wards method and k-means.
The previous steps reduced our choice to two algorithmic methods (i.e. Ward and k-
means) with three clusters. Both clustering solutions were further examined to
evaluate which one best ts our data.
The representation of the capability areas in the nal cluster solution is detailed
in Appendix 3. It also visualises the great similarity between the clustering of the full
sample and the split sample, indicating reliability or secondary validity. In general,
the capability areas regarding business process analysis and the structural
reconguration of the chart and bodies are merely addressed in the BPO cluster
(C). Although the BPM cluster (A) assesses and improves BPM, the models included
cover more optimisation capability areas than management capability areas, except
for the strategic link. Particularly, the need for appropriate skills and training is
frequently underestimated. The intermediate BPO cluster (B) combines BPM with
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
the group membership obtained from cluster analysis, our proposed BPMM
classication is conrmed. Hence, the independent variables (i.e. discriminators or
predictors) were the 17 capability areas, measured as binary values. The dependent
variable is the categorical membership variable, resulting from the cluster analysis.
The two discriminant methods available in SPSS (version 18) were performed, i.e.
regular and stepwise. First, the regular method included all independent variables.
Second, in the stepwise method, subsequent steps included only the most
discriminating independents until an additional step did not signicantly increase
the proportion of total variability explained. Per method, the discriminant analysis
calculated two linear equations, i.e. two discriminant functions ( the total number
of clusters minus one), to predict group membership. In both methods, the
discriminant functions were highly signicant (p 5 0.001). The discriminant
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
functions in the regular method respectively explain 96.3% and 75.3% of the total
variability between the clusters (R2), whereas those in the stepwise method
respectively explain 93.4% and 66.4%. All discriminant functions and the associated
scatter plot with BPMMs are available in Figure 4. In future research, these
functions can also be used to classify new BPMMs that do not appear in our dataset.
Figure 4 shows the centroids of each cluster, based on the cluster means of the
independents. Although the centroids are the best representations of each cluster,
they merely serve a classication purpose, i.e. they are calculated to classify existing
BPMMs into groups, without indicating which BPMM is best to use. The points in
Figure 4 represent particular BPMMs per cluster of the cluster analysis. Since the
stepwise method is more accurate, one point represents multiple BPMMs. BPMMs
with discriminant scores near to a centroid are predicted as belonging to that group.
6. Discussion
Based on the theoretical capability areas to reach business (process) excellence, our
sample is classied into three maturity types: BPM maturity, intermediate BPO
maturity and BPO maturity. This formal classication renes the initial dichotomy
of BPM maturity and BPO maturity.
Cluster C in Figure 4 represents BPO maturity and is the most comprehensive
regarding the theoretical capability areas. Cluster B, with intermediate BPO
maturity, is a good alternative for organisations wishing to improve business
processes in a holistic way but without formal structural reforms. For instance,
initiatives by middle managers without input of top managers, or for less intense
collaborations between departments or organisations. BPM maturity in cluster A
does not cope with organisational aspects and is the least comprehensive. For
instance, it is more suited for teams wishing to improve their business processes
without input of higher management.
At present, the clusters are described based on their coverage of capability (sub)
areas. Some preliminary guidance is given to organisations on how to choose a
cluster, i.e. mainly based on top management support. However, organisations are
likely to select a BPMM based on other variables too. For instance, their choice may
depend on the organisation size (e.g. smaller organisations may not need BPO
maturity with structural recongurations and a centre of excellence) or on the initial
knowledge on process excellence (e.g. organisations new to process improvements
may just want to be introduced to the basics of BPM maturity), among others.
Interestingly, future research could investigate which maturity type is best suited for
which specic situation, for instance by case studies or surveys among organisations.
Nevertheless, this paper remains restricted to the theoretical identication and
empirical validation of the capability areas and their statistical classication.
The three BPMM examples regarding maturity levels in the introduction section
each belong to a dierent cluster. OMG (2008) belongs to the BPO cluster (C) by
assessing and improving all theoretical capability areas, except for BPO-oriented
values. In the intermediate BPO cluster (B), the Rummler-Brache Group (2004)
measures most BPM capability areas (except for BP analysis, external relationships
and skills), supplemented by BPO-oriented values, attitudes and rewards. Finally,
McCormack and Johnson (2001) illustrate the BPM cluster (A), by addressing BP
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
BPM for more (core) BPs (13) Intermediate BPO for BPO for more (core) BPs
more (core) BPs (8)
(15)
BP: AOU, ISO BP: ESI1 BP: FAA, LEE, OMG,
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
SEI
SC: ABE, AND, ARY, CGR, SC: BOH, CAM3, SC: CGF, EKN, LMI
IBM, JER, MAN, MCL, CHI, CSC, MCC2,
RIV, SCC MIC, NET, PMG,
SCH2, STE, TOK
Collaboration: SIM Collaboration: ESI2, Collaboration: TAP
VIC, WOG
BPM for one (core) BP (1) Intermediate BPO for BPO for one (core) BP
one (core) BP (4) (4)
BP: DET BP: SAP BP: CHA, GAR1,
HAM, HAR1
Collaboration: FRA,
MAG, RAM
models, which in turn are more complete than BPM models, and this for an equal or
lower number of business processes. As a result, BPMMs worthy of the label BPO
do exist and were found by the cluster analysis.
Table 3 shows a nal BPMM classication, resulting from Figure 5. We recall
from Section 3.2. that Champlin (2008) and Hammer (2007) provide a maturity type
for both a single business process and all business processes.
Finally, we conclude by emphasising that a critical view on BPMMs seems
necessary in order not to be misled by the real BPMM names, i.e. based on the
capability coverage and the number of processes addressed. For instance, Appendix
1 shows that the model of McCormack and Johnson (2001) is called a BPO maturity
model, whereas our study has ranked it as measuring BPM maturity, albeit for all
processes. Another example is given by de Bruin and Rosemann (2007), whose model
is called BPM maturity, whereas we have ranked it as BPO maturity for all
processes (which is better than the name suggests). On the other hand, Harringtons
process maturity grid (1991) was also classied in the BPO cluster, but further
analysis shows that it addresses a single business process, instead of all business
processes.
7. Conclusion
This research responds to the lack of consensus on the capability areas necessary for
business process maturity. Therefore, we have presented a conceptual framework
which underpins six main capability areas and 17 sub areas.
210 A. Van Looy et al.
The main capability areas are based on accepted denitions of three umbrella
terms in the business process literature, i.e. business process (BP), business process
management (BPM) and business process orientation (BPO): (1) modelling, (2)
deployment, (3) optimisation, (4) management, (5) culture and (6) structure. It
turned out that some collected BPMMs are limited to BPM maturity (by addressing
areas 1 to 4), whereas others cover BPO maturity (by addressing areas 1 to 6).
The sub areas within the rst three main capability areas are primarily founded
by the business process lifecycle theories, whereas the others are more supported by
established organisation management theories. On the other hand, the rst four
main capability areas represent the characteristics of specic business processes,
whereas the nal two main capability areas characterise the whole portfolio of
business processes within the involved organisations. All sub areas are represented
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
by the collected BPMMs, but especially those within deployment and optimisa-
tion. Not surprisingly, these are the two areas which are most directly related to
business process performance or excellence. The other areas are less frequently
addressed, which suggest dierent maturity types being measured by the collected
BPMMs.
Particularly, cluster and discriminant analysis have elicited three maturity types:
size? Another research avenue is to investigate which variables impact the cluster
choice of organisations. This article already suggested some variables, i.e. top
management support, organisation size and the initial knowledge on process
excellence. However, further investigation is required and the ndings might be
aggregated into a decision tool, which would be of practical use to managers wishing
to select a BPMM. As such, organisations can nd the BPMM that best ts their
organisational needs, based on rational considerations. Besides these dierent
options to further elaborate on the ndings, the paper contributes to improving
existing BPMMs, i.e. in terms of developing the uncovered areas, or developing new
BPMMs. As such, this framework can be used to evaluate the scope of existing
BPMMs or to direct the design of new BPMMs.
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
References
AberdeenGroup, 2006. Global supply chain benchmark report [online]. Available from: https://
www-935.ibm.com/services/us/igs/pdf/aberdeen-benchmark-report.pdf [Accessed 23 June
2010].
Anderson, D.L. and Lee, H.L., 2000. The internet-enabled supply chain. In: D.L. Anderson,
ed. Achieving supply chain excellence through technology. Vol. 2. San Francisco:
Montgomery Research, 1520.
Aouad, G., et al., 1998. A synchronised process/IT model to support the co-maturation of
processes and IT in the construction sector. Salford: Time Research Institute.
Aouad, G., et al., 1999. Technology management of IT in construction: a driver or an enabler?
Logistics Information Management, 12 (1/2), 130137.
APQC, 2007. Supply-chain council SCOR-mark survey [online]. Available from: http://www.
apqc.org/scc [Accessed 23 April 2010].
Armistead, C. and Machin, S., 1997. Implications of business process management for
operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
17 (9), 886898.
Aryee, G., Naim, M.M., and Lalwani, C., 2008. Supply chain integration using a maturity
scale. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 19 (5), 559575.
Atkinson, A.A., Waterhouse, J.H., and Wells, R.B., 1997. A stakeholder approach to strategic
performance measurement. Sloan Management Review, 38 (3), 2537.
Ayers, J.B., 2010a. Supply chain maturity self-assessment [online]. Available from: http://ayers-
consulting.com/ [Accessed 23 June 2010].
Ayers, J.B., 2010b. Supply chain project management. A structured collaborative and measurable
approach. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis Group.
Baumol, U., 2010. Cultural change in process management. In: J. vom Brocke and M.
Rosemann, eds. Handbook on business process management 2. Berlin: Springer, 487514.
Bisnez Management, 2010. Business process management onderzoek 20092010 [online].
Available from: http://www.bisnez.org/ [Accessed 20 June 2010].
Bohme, T., 2008. Supply chain integration: a case-based investigation of status, barriers, and
paths to enhancement. New Zealand, Waikator: The University of Waikato.
Boone, L.M., et al., 2009. The GAIA supply chain sustainability maturity model [online].
Available from: http://www.lmi.org/logistics/logistics.aspx [Accessed 23 June 2010].
Boswell, W.R. and Boudreau, J.W., 2001. How leading companies create, measure and
achieve strategic results through line of sight. Management Decision, 39 (10), 851859.
Boswell, W.R., Bingham, J.B., and Colvin, A.J., 2006. Aligning employees through line of
sight. Business Horizons, 49, 499509.
BPMInstitute, 2010. 2010 BPM market assessment survey [online]. Available from: http://2010
stateofbpm.surveyconsole.com/ [Accessed 20 June 2010].
BPT Group, 2008. Welcome to 8 Omega v2.0 [online]. Available from: http://bptg.seniordev.
co.uk/8omega.aspx [Accessed 20 June 2010].
Burke, W.W. and Litwin, G.H., 1992. A causal model of organizational performance and
change. Journal of Management, 18 (3), 523545.
Campbell, J. and Sankaran, J., 2005. An inductive framework for enhancing supply chain
integration. International Journal of Production Research, 43 (16), 33213351.
212 A. Van Looy et al.
job requirements and incentive compensation. Human Resource Management Review, 17,
3851.
Davenport, T.H., 1993. Process innovation. Reengineering work through information
technology. Boston: Harvard Business School.
de Bruin, T. and Rosemann, M., 2007. Using the Delphi technique to identify BPM capability
areas. ACIS Proceedings, 42, 642653.
Deloitte, 2010. Het business maturity model [online]. Available from: http://www.deloitte.com/
view/nl_NL/nl/diensten/consulting/ [Accessed 21 June 2010].
Deming, W.E., 1994. The new economics: for industry, government, education. 2nd ed.
Cambridge: Center for Advanced Educational Services.
de Soria, I.M., et al., 2009. Developing an enterprise collaboration maturity model: research
challenges and future directions. ICE Proceedings, 18.
DeToro, I. and McCabe, T., 1997. How to stay exible and elude fads. Quality Progress, 30
(3), 5560.
Doebeli, G., et al., 2011. Using BPM governance to align systems and practice. Business
Process Management Journal, 17 (2), 184202.
Dowdle, P. and Stevens, J., 2007. The process audit and PBM roadmap. A PBM program
perspective [online]. Available from: http://www.cam-i.org/ [Accessed 21 June 2010].
Dowdle, P., et al., 2005. The process-based management loop. The Journal of Corporate
Accounting & Finance, 16 (2), 5560.
Dwyer, T., 2006. BPMInstitutes state of business process management [online]. Available from:
http://www.bpminstitute.org/ [Accessed 20 June 2010].
eKNOWtion, 2009. Supply chain maturity monitor [online]. Available from: http://www.
eknowtion.com/ [Accessed 23 June 2010].
Enkawa, T., 2005. Logistics scorecard (LSC) in Japan. [online]. Available from: http://
transportal./Hankkeet/eglo/.383.pdf [Accessed 23 June 2010].
FAA, 2001. FAA-iCMM, version 2.0 [online]. Available from: http://www.faa.gov/ [Accessed
15 March 2010].
FAA, 2004. Safety and security extensions for integrated capability maturity models [online].
Available from: http://www.faa.gov/ [Accessed 15 March 2010].
FAA, 2006. FAA-iCMM appraisal method (FAM), version 2.0 [online]. Available from: http://
www.faa.gov/ [Accessed 15 March 2010].
Fisher, D.M., 2004. The business process maturity model. A practical approach for identifying
opportunities for optimization. BPTrends, September, 14.
Fraser, P., Farrukh, C., and Gregory, M., 2003. Managing product development colla-
borations a process maturity approach. IME Proceedings, Part B: Journal of Engineering
Manufacture, 217 (11), 14991519.
Gardner, R.A., 2004. The process-focused organization. A transition strategy for success.
Milwaukee: ASQ, Quality Press.
Gartner, 2009. Gartner EXP worldwide survey of more than 1,500 CIOs shows IT spending to be
at in 2009 [online]. Available from: http://www.gartner.com/ [Accessed 8 September
2011].
Gillot, J.-N., 2008. The complete guide to business process management. South Carolina:
Booksurge Publishing.
Enterprise Information Systems 213
Gulledge, Jr. T.R., and Sommer, R.A., 2002. Business process management: public sector
implications. Business Process Management Journal, 8 (4), 364376.
Hammer, M., 2007. The process audit. Harvard Business Review, 85 (4), 111123.
Hammer, M. and Champy, J., 2003. Reengineering the corporation. 2nd ed. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers.
Harmon, P., 2004. Evaluating an organizations business process maturity. BPTrends, March,
111.
Harrington, H.J., 1991. Business process improvement. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harrington, H.J., 2006. Process management excellence. California: Paton Press.
Holmes, J., 1997. Building supply chain communities [online]. Available from: http://critical
computing.com/ [Accessed 24 April 2010].
Huner, T., 2004. The BPM maturity model. Munich: GRIN.
IBM, 2007. The IBM global business services 2007 Mainland China value chain study [online].
Available from: http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/thoughtleadership/#Next [Ac-
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
Maull, R.S., Traneld, D.R., and Maull, W., 2003. Factors characterising the maturity of
BPR programmes. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23 (6),
596624.
McClaren, T., 2006. A measurement model for web-enabled supply chain integration. BLED
Proceedings, paper 18.
McCormack, K., 2007a. BPO and business process maturity. In: K. McCormack, ed.
Business process maturity: theory and application. South Carolina: Booksurge Publish-
ing, 6172.
McCormack, K., 2007b. Supply chain management maturity. In: K. McCormack, ed. Business
process maturity: theory and application. South Carolina: Booksurge Publishing, 73103.
McCormack, K. and Johnson, W.C., 2001. Business process orientation: gaining the e-business
competitive advantage. Florida: St. Lucie Press.
McGovern, J., et al., 2004. A practical guide to enterprise architecture. New Jersey: Pearson
Education.
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
McKinsey, 2010. How IT is managing new demands: McKinsey global survey results [online].
Available from: https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/ [Accessed 9 September 2011].
Melenovsky, M.J. and Sinur, J., 2006. BPM maturity model identies six phases for successful
BPM adoption. Stamford: Gartner Research.
Mollenkopf, D. and Dapiran, G.P., 2005. The importance of developing logistics com-
petencies: a study of Australian and New Zealand rms. International Journal of Logistics:
Research and Applications, 8 (1), 114.
Nave, D., 2002. How to compare six sigma, lean and the theory of constraints. A framework
for choosing whats best for your organization. Quality Progress, 7378.
Netjes, M., Reijers, H.A., and van der Aalst, W.M., 2006. Supporting the BPM life-cycle with
FileNet. In: CAiSE workshop proceedings, 56 June 2006, Luxembourg. Namur: Namur
University Press, 497508.
Netland, T. and Alfnes, E., 2008. A practical tool for supply chain improvement experiences
with the supply chain maturity assessment test (SCMAT). In: POM proceedings, 58
August 2008, Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo: Gakushuin University, 956969.
Netland, T.H., Alfnes, E., and Fauske, H., 2007. How mature is your supply chain? In:
EurOMA proceedings, 1720 June 2007, Ankara, Turkey. Ankara: Bilkent University, 10.
Neubauer, T., 2009. An empirical study about the status of business process management.
Business Process Management Journal, 15 (2), 166183.
O&i, 2010. Doe nu de online BPM-scan [online]. Available from: http://www.oi.nl/bpmscan/
[Accessed 23 June 2010].
OGC, 2010. Prince2 [online]. Available from: http://www.ogc.gov.uk/ [Accessed 11 May
2010].
OMG, 2008. Business process maturity model, version 1.0 [online]. Available from: http://
www.omg.org/ [Accessed 2 December 2009].
OMG, 2010. Business motivation model, version 1.1 [online]. Available from: http://www.
omg.org/ [Accessed 3 May 2011].
Oracle, 2008a. BPM lifecycle assessment [online]. Available from: http://bpmready.nvishweb.
com/ [Accessed 23 June 2010].
Oracle, 2008b. State of the business process management market 2008 [online]. Available from:
http://www.oracle.com/ [Accessed 4 May 2010].
Ostolaza, E. and Garcia, A.B., 1999. EFQM/SPICE integrated model. In: PROFES
proceedings, 2224 June 1999, Oulu, Finland. Oulu: University of Oulu, 437452.
Palmberg, K., 2009. Exploring process management: are there any widespread models and
denitions? The TQM Journal, 21 (2), 203215.
Paulk, M.C., 2004. Surviving the quagmire of process models, integrated models, and
standards. In: ASQ annual quality conference proceedings, 2427 May 2004, Toronto,
Canada. Toronto: AIS Electronic Library, ASQ, 18.
Poirier, C.C., Quinn, F.J., and Swink, M.L., 2010. Diagnosing greatness. Ten traits of the best
supply chains. Fort Lauderdale: J. Ross Publishing.
Pritchard, J.-P. and Armistead, C., 1999. Business process management lessons from
European business. Business Process Management Journal, 5 (1), 1032.
Punj, G. and Stewart, D.W., 1983. Cluster analysis in marketing research: review and
suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (2), 134148.
Enterprise Information Systems 215
Ramasubbu, N. and Krishnan, M.S., 2005. Leveraging global resources: a process maturity
framework for managing distributed software product development. In: AMCIS
proceedings, 1114 August 2005, Omaha, Nebraska, USA. Omaha: AIS Electronic
Library, University of Nebraska, 30853090.
Reiter, S., et al., 2010. The phenomenon of business process management: practitioners
emphasis. In: ECIS proceedings, 69 June 2010, Pretoria, South Africa. Pretoria: AIS
Electronic Library, University of Pretoria, 112.
Remoreras, G., 2009. Achieving the highest level of process culture maturity [online]. Available
from: http://mysimpleprocesses.com [Accessed 1 June 2010].
Riverola, J., 2001. A general approach to the case gathering phase [online]. Available from:
http://catalcatel.iese.edu/WEBSCM/Archivos/MaturityModel.pdf [Accessed 6 June 2010].
Rohlo, M., 2009a. Case study and maturity model for business process management
implementation. In: BPM proceedings, 810 September 2009, Ulm, Germany. Berlin-
Heidelberg: Springer, 128142.
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
Rohlo, M., 2009b. Process management maturity assessment. AMCIS Proceedings, paper 631.
Romesburg, C.H., 1984. Cluster analysis for researchers. North Carolina: Lulu Press.
Rosemann, M., 2010. The service portfolio of a BPM Center of Excellence. In: J. vom Brocke
and M. Rosemann, eds. Handbook on business process management 2. Berlin: Springer,
267284.
Rosemann, M. and de Bruin, T., 2005. Application of a holistic model for determining BPM
maturity. BPTrends, February, 121.
Rosemann, M. and vom Brocke, J., 2010. The six core elements of business process
management. In: J. vom Brocke and M. Rosemann, eds. Handbook on business process
management 1. Berlin: Springer, 107122.
Rummler-Brache Group, 2004. Business process management in U.S. rms today [online].
Available from: http://rummler-brache.com/ [Accessed 23 June 2010].
Scavillo, M., 2008. Business process transformation in the software industry [online]. Available
from: http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/ [Accessed 23 June 2010].
Scheer, A.-W., 2007. BPMbusiness process management business performance management
[online]. Available from: http://www.professor-scheer-bpm.com/ [Accessed 27 April 2010].
Scheer, A.-W. and Brabaender, E., 2009. BPM governance. The process of business process
management. Saarbruecken: IDS Scheer AG.
Scheer, A.-W. and Brabander, E., 2010. The process of business process management. In: J.
vom Brocke and M. Rosemann, eds. Handbook on business process management 2. Berlin:
Springer, 239265.
Schoenfeldt, T.I., 2008. A practical application of supply chain management principles.
Milwaukee: ASQ.
SEI, 2006a. CMMI for development, version 1.2 [online]. Available from: http://www.sei.c-
mu.edu/reports/06tr008.pdf [Accessed 3 December 2009].
SEI, 2006b. Standard CMMI appraisal method for process improvement (SCAMPI) A, version
1.2 [online]. Available from: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/06hb002.pdf [Accessed 16
February 2010].
SEI, 2007. CMMI for acquisition, version 1.2 [online]. Available from: http://www.sei.cmu.e-
du/reports/07tr017.pdf [Accessed 11 February 2010].
SEI, 2009. CMMI for services, version 1.2 [online]. Available from: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/
reports/09tr001.pdf [Accessed 11 February 2010].
Sheard, S.A., 2001. Evolution of the frameworks quagmire. IEEE Computer, 34 (7), 9698.
Shewhart, W.A., 1986. Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control. 2nd ed. New
York: Dover Publications.
Silvestro, R. and Westley, C., 2002. Challenging the paradigm of the process enterprise: a case-
study analysis of BPR implementation. Omega The International Journal of Management
Science, 30, 215225.
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R., 2005. The collaboration index: a measure for supply
chain collaboration. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Manage-
ment, 35 (1), 4462.
Skrinjar, R., Bosilj-Vuksic, V., Stemberger, M.I., 2008. The impact of business process
orientation on nancial and non-nancial performance. Business Process Management
Journal 14 (5), 738754.
216 A. Van Looy et al.
Smart, P.A., Maddern, H., and Maull, R.S., 2009. Understanding business process mana-
gement: implications for theory and practice. British Journal of Management, 20, 491507.
Smith, H. and Fingar, P., 2002. Business process management: the third wave. Tampa: Meghan-
Kier Press.
Smith, H. and Fingar, P., 2004. Process management maturity models. BPTrends, July, 15.
Spanyi, A., 2004a. Beyond process maturity to process competence. BPTrends, June, 15.
Spanyi, A., 2004b. Towards process competence [online]. Available from: http://www.spanyi.
com/images/BPM%20Towards.pdf [Accessed 6 April 2010].
Stemberger, M.I. and Jaklic, J., 2007. Towards e-Government by business process change a
methodology for public sector. International Journal of Information Management, 27 (4),
221232.
Stevens, G.C., 1989. Integrating the supply chain. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 19 (8), 38.
Supply-Chain Council, 2008. Supply-chain operations reference-model. SCOR overview
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
model (vPMM)
MAU Maull, Traneld and Maull BPR maturity model Maull et al. 2003
MCC1 McCormack and Johnson BPO maturity model McCormack and Johnson
2001, McCormack 2007a
ROH Rohlo Process management maturity Rohlo 2009a,b
assessment (PMMA)
ROS Rosemann, de Bruin and Power BPM maturity model de Bruin and Rosemann
2007, Huner 2004,
Rosemann and de Bruin
2005
SEI SEI, Software Engineering . Capability maturity model SEI 2006a,b, 2007, 2009
Institute (Carnegie Mellon integration (CMMI)
University) . Standard CMMI appraisal
method for process
improvement (SCAMPI)
SKR Skrinjar, Bosilj-Vuksic, BPO maturity model Skrinjar et al. 2008
Stemberger and Hernaus
WIL Willaert, Van den Bergh, Willems Holistic BPO maturity Willaert et al. 2007
and Deschoolmeester framework
(1.2) Non-academic
BIS Bisnez Management, Business BPM maturity model (in Dutch: Bisnez Management 2010
and IT Trends Institute, BPM volwassenheidsmodel)
students of Erasmus
University, BPM Magazine,
Information Magazine
BPM BPMInstitute State of BPM (as part of a larger BPMInstitute 2010, Dwyer
BPM survey) 2006
BPT BP Transformations Group and 8 Omega ORCA (Organisational BPT Group 2008, Towers
BPGroup (previously BPM readiness and capability 2009
Group) assessment)
CAM1 CAM-I, Consortium for Process-based management loop: Dowdle et al. 2005
Advanced Management- . discipline model
International (organisations current
philosophy, business model,
methods and tools)
. process-based management
assessment model
(components)
. process continuum model
(levels)
CAM2 CAM-I, Consortium for Process-based management Dowdle and Stevens 2007
Advanced Management- assessment and
International implementation road map
CHA Champlin (ABPMP) Process management maturity Champlin 2008
model
DEL Deloitte and Utrecht University Business maturity model and scan Deloitte 2010
ESI1 ESI, European Software Institute EFQM/SPICE integrated model Ostolaza and Garcia 1999
FAA FAA, Federal Aviation FAA 2001, 2004, 2006
Administration . FAA integrated capability
maturity model (FAA-iCMM)
(continued)
218 A. Van Looy et al.
Appendix 1. (Continued).
ID Author(s) BPMM name Reference(s)
Organisation for
Standardisation and
International Electrotechnical
Commission
O&I O&i BPM scan O&i 2010, Tolsma and de Wit
2009
OMG OMG, Object Management Business process maturity model OMG 2008
Group (BPMM)
ORA Oracle and BEA Systems BPM lifecycle assessment survey Oracle 2008a,b
REM Remoreras Process culture maturity model Remoreras 2009
RUM Rummler-Brache Group Process Performance Index Rummler-Brache Group 2004
SAP SAP Process maturity analysis and Scavillo 2008
plan
SCH1 Scheer BPM check-up Scheer 2007
SMI Smith and Fingar Process management maturity Smith and Fingar 2004
model (PMMM)
SPA Spanyi BP competence grid Spanyi 2004a,b
(2) Supply chain
(2.1) Academic
ARY Aryee, Naim and Lalwani SC integration maturity model Aryee et al. 2008
BOH Bohme and Childerhouse SC integration evaluation tool Bohme 2008
and maturity model
CAM3 Campbell and Sankaran SC integration enhancement Campbell and Sankaran 2005
framework (SCIEF)
MCC2 McCormack et al. SC management maturity model Lockamy III and
McCormack 2004,
McCormack 2007b
MCL McLaren Web-enabled SC integration McClaren 2006
measurement model
MIC Michigan State University 21st Century Logistics Closs and Mollenkopf 2004,
Framework Mollenkopf and Dapiran
2005
NET Netland, Alfnes and Fauske SC maturity assessment test Netland et al. 2007, Netland
(SCMAT) and Alfnes 2008
RIV Riverola SC management Technology Riverola 2001
maturity model
TOK Tokyo Institute of Technology Logistics scorecard (LSC) Enkawa 2005, Yaibuathet
et al. 2008
(2.2) Non-academic
ABE AberdeenGroup Global SC maturity framework AberdeenGroup 2006
AND Andersen Consulting (Accenture) SC continuum Anderson and Lee 2000
CGF CGF, Consumer Goods Forum Global scorecard for ecient CGF 2010
(former GCI, Global consumer response capability
Commerce Initiative)
CGR CGR Management Consulting SC management maturity model Ayers 2010a,b
CHI Chicago Consulting SC maturity model Chicago Consulting 2010
CSC CSC, SC Management Review Poirier et al. 2010
Magazine and Michigan State . SC maturity model (until 2006)
University . Ten SC competencies (as from
2007)
(continued)
Enterprise Information Systems 219
Appendix 1. (Continued).
ID Author(s) BPMM name Reference(s)
2
EKN eKNOWtion SC maturity monitor (SCM ) eKNOWtion 2009
IBM IBM SC maturity model IBM 2007
JER Jeroen van den Bergh Consulting SC maturity scan van den Bergh 2010
and VU University
Amsterdam
LMI LMI Research Institute GAIA SC sustainability maturity Boone et al. 2009
model
MAN Manugistics and JDA Software SC Compass Holmes 1997
PMG PMG and PRTM SC maturity model Cohen and Roussel 2005
SCC SCC, Supply Chain Council and SCORmark Survey (for APQC 2007, Supply-Chain
APQC benchmarking, resulting in an Council 2008
improvement road map)
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
(3) Collaboration
(3.1) Academic
FRA Fraser, Farrukh and Gregory Collaboration maturity grid (for Fraser et al. 2003
new product introduction and
development)
MAG Magdaleno, Cappelli, Baiao, Collaboration maturity model Magdaleno et al. 2008
Santoro and Araujo (ColabMM)
RAM Ramasubbu and Krishnan Process maturity framework for Ramasubbu and Krishnan
managing distributed software 2005
product development
SIM Simatupang and Sridharan SC Collaboration index Simatupang and Sridharan
2005
TAP Tapia, Daneva, vanEck and IT-enabled collaborative Tapia et al. 2008
Wieringa networked organisations
maturity model (ICoNOs
MM)
WOG Wognum and Faber Fast reactive extended enterprise Wognum and Faber 2002
capability assessment
framework (FREE-CAF)
(3.2) Non-academic
ESI2 ESI, European Software Institute Enterprise Collaboration de Soria et al. 2009
Maturity Model
VIC Voluntary Interindustry Collaborative planning, VICS 2004
Commerce Standards forecasting and replenishment
(CPFR) rollout readiness self-
assessment
220 A. Van Looy et al.
Mapping to the main capability areas and the number of business processes addressed
(i.e. one/more/all):
Number
BP BP BPM BPM BPO BPO of BPs
BPMM modelling deployment optimisation management culture structure addressed
AO 1 1 1 1 0 0 More
ARM 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
DET 0 0 1 0 0 0 One
HAM 1 1 1 1 1 1 One/All
HAR1 1 1 1 1 1 0 One
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
LEE 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
MAU 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
MCC1 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
ROH 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
ROS 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
SEI 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
SKR 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
WIL 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
BIS 1 1 1 1 0 1 All
BPM 1 1 1 1 0 1 All
BPT 0 1 1 1 1 0 All
CAM1 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
CAM2 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
CHA 1 1 1 1 1 1 One/All
DEL 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
ESI1 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
FAA 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
FIS 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
GAR1 1 1 1 1 1 1 One
GAR2 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
HAR2 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
IDS 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
ISO 1 1 1 1 0 0 More
O&I 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
OMG 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
ORA 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
REM 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
RUM 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
SAP 1 1 1 1 1 0 One
SCH1 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
SMI 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
SPA 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
ARY 0 1 0 1 1 1 More
BOH 0 1 1 1 1 1 More
CAM3 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
MCC2 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
MCL 0 1 1 1 0 0 More
MIC 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
NET 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
RIV 1 1 1 1 0 0 More
TOK 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
ABE 0 1 1 1 0 0 More
(continued)
Enterprise Information Systems 221
Appendix 2. (Continued).
Number
BP BP BPM BPM BPO BPO of BPs
BPMM modelling deployment optimisation management culture structure addressed
AND 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
CGF 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
CGR 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
CHI 0 1 1 1 1 0 More
CSC 0 1 1 1 1 0 More
EKN 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
IBM 1 1 1 1 0 0 More
JER 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
LMI 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
MAN 1 1 1 1 0 0 More
PMG 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
SCC 0 1 1 0 0 0 More
SCH2 0 1 1 1 1 0 More
STE 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
FRA 1 1 1 1 1 0 One
MAG 1 1 1 1 1 0 One
RAM 0 1 1 1 1 0 One
SIM 0 1 1 1 0 0 More
TAP 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
WOG 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
ESI2 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
VIC 0 1 1 1 1 0 More
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
222
AOU 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
ARM 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
DET 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HAM 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1
HAR1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
LEE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
MAU 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
MCC1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
ROH 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
ROS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
SEI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
SKR 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
WIL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
BIS 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
BPM 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
BPT 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
CAM1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
CAM2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1
A. Van Looy et al.
CHA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DEL 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
ESI1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
FAA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
FIS 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
GAR1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
GAR2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
HAR2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
IDS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
ISO 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
O&I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
OMG 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
ORA 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
REM 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
RUM 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
(continued)
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
SAP 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
SCH1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
SMI 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
SPA 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
ARY 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0
BOH 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
CAM3 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
MCC2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
MCL 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
MIC 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
NET 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
RIV 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOK 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
ABE 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
AND 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
CGF 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CGR 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
CHI 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
CSC 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
EKN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
IBM 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
JER 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
LMI 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
Enterprise Information Systems
MAN 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
PMG 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
SCC 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SCH2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
STE 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
FRA 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
MAG 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
RAM 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
SIM 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
TAP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
WOG 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
ESI2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
VIC 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
223
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014
224
A (BPM) N 8 Mean 0.88 0.13 0.63 0.75 1.00 0.50 0.75 0.25 0.50 0.000 0.13 0.50 0.25 0.000 0.13 0.13 0.000
SD 0.354 0.354 0.518 0.463 0.000 0.535 0.463 0.463 0.535 0.000 0.354 0.535 0.463 0.000 0.354 0.354 0.000
B (interm. BPO) Mean 1.00 0.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.78 0.56 0.11 0.44 0.67 0.000 0.000 0.33
N9 SD 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.441 0.527 0.333 0.527 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.50
C (BPO) N 20 Mean 0.95 0.60 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.70 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.40 0.65
SD 0.224 0.503 0.366 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.308 0.410 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.470 0.366 0.410 0.410 0.503 0.489
Total Mean 0.95 0.35 0.84 0.95 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.57 0.89 0.73 0.46 0.51 0.62 0.59 0.46 0.24 0.43
N 37 SD 0.229 0.484 0.374 0.229 0.000 0.315 0.315 0.502 0.315 0.450 0.505 0.507 0.492 0.498 0.505 0.435 0.502
Dark grey high representation (1 0.665); light grey medium representation (0.335 5 0.665).